Archive by Author

Administration weighs options for Alaska drilling project that would produce 629M barrels of oil

The Biden administration is weighing several options for the future of a major proposed drilling project in Alaska that could produce massive quantities of oil and significantly contribute to climate change. 

The administration released an environmental review that said that at its peak, the project could produce more than 180,000 barrels of oil per day and produce a total of 629 million barrels overall over the course of a 30-year duration.

It found that the project could contribute between 278 million and nearly 287 million metric tons of carbon dioxide to climate change over the same time period.

That’s the equivalent of the carbon dioxide contribution of between about 59.9 million and 61.8 million cars that are driven for a year. 

The review contains several “alternatives” for the ultimate decision that the administration may make on the project including blocking it, allowing it to proceed as sponsor ConocoPhillips proposed and shrinking the project. 

The document doesn’t list a “preferred” option, and a spokesperson for the department confirmed that all of them would be given equal consideration.

The document’s release comes after a court tossed the Trump-era approval of the project, known as the Willow Project, last year. 

A judge argued that the analysis behind that approval was flawed for environmental reasons, including a lack of consideration of climate impacts. The judge ordered the Biden administration to redo it. 

The Biden administration had initially backed the Trump-era approval, but did not appeal the court’s decision. 

The latest analysis comes as the Biden administration is in a tight political spot. The president is seeking to both energize the environmentalist base ahead of the midterms, and deal with the optics surrounding high gasoline prices. 

It has similarly punted in terms of the future of offshore drilling, recently proposing between zero and 11 offshore lease sales between 2023 and 2028.

Source: TEST FEED1

Blinken asks China to stand up against Russia’s war in Ukraine

Secretary of State Antony Blinken said he pressed his counterpart, Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi, to oppose Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine when they met at the G-20 summit in Bali on Friday. 

Blinken told reporters after meeting with Wang for five hours that remaining neutral in the conflict, as China has declared itself, is a difficult position to have because there is a “clear” aggressor and victim. 

“There is a clear challenge not only to the lives and livelihoods of people in Ukraine, but there is a challenge to the international order that China and the United States as permanent members of the Security Council are supposed to uphold,” he said. 

But Blinken also cast doubt on the claim that the Chinese government remained neutral on the conflict, arguing that it is amplifying Russian propaganda and has continued to support Russia in the United Nations. 

“But even if you accept that as a premise, I don’t think that China is, in fact, engaging in way that suggests neutrality,” he said.

China was one of 24 countries to vote against a United Nations resolution in April that suspended Russia from the Human Rights Council following the start of the invasion. 

Blinken said Chinese President Xi Jinping told President Biden in a phone call last month that he stands by a partnership he made with Russian President Vladimir Putin in February. The two leaders affirmed a cordial relationship between their countries in announcing the agreement. 

Blinken said he urged Wang that all countries need to stand up against Russia’s invasion, to demand that Russia allow other countries access to food supply from Ukraine and end the war. 

He would not share how Wang responded. 

Blinken also said they discussed the status of the relationship between China and the United States, North Korea’s nuclear program and possible areas for increased cooperation, including on the climate, global health and food security. 

He said he mentioned the country’s concerns around Chinese activity toward Taiwan, which has increased since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and issues in Hong Kong. He also voiced concerns about the treatment of the Uyghurs, a mostly Muslim minority, in the Xinjiang province. 

“Now, none of these are easy topics, but the United States seeks always to be a consistent voice on human rights and fundamental freedoms, not to stand against China or any other country but to help advance peace, security, and human dignity,” Blinken said.

Source: TEST FEED1

What if we did as the Brits do, and expected our presidents to resign?

Boris Johnson didn’t want to go. And why would he? He had what he called “the greatest job in the world.” That’s a debatable point, of course; I always thought another Brit, Paul McCartney, had the greatest job in the world, but this is not a time to quibble.

Johnson, as we all know by now, ​announced on Thursday that he would resign as prime minister of the United Kingdom after a whole bunch of his ​cabinet ministers and top aides ​said publicly that they had lost confidence in him and quit. More than 50 of them packed up and walked out in just the past few days, fed up with the many scandals that plagued Johnson and his conservative party. As the New York Times put it, “There were too many jobs vacant and too few loyalists to fill them.”

There’s a good chance you didn’t know this, but Boris Johnson is the third consecutive British prime minister to resign before the end of their term in recent years. Theresa May and David Cameron also quit before their terms had expired — and, believe it or not, the empire survived.

There are many things about the British that we can admire — their style, their grace, their accents, which make them sound smarter than a lot of them are. And there are some things British that we don’t really need to emulate — their food is one that immediately comes to mind.  

But what if we, over on this side of the pond, had a political system sort of like theirs? A system whereby our presidents — our version of ​their prime ministers — would throw in the towel when they lose the confidence of their team and, more importantly, of the people they were elected to serve.

I’m not going to play coy here, so let’s get right to it: I have in mind our current president and the one who came right before him.

Republicans never had confidence in Joe Biden but now, if you believe the leaks to the press, even a lot of Democrats have had enough. It’s not sex scandals they’re concerned about, ​as it was finally in Johnson’s case; it’s Biden’s ability to lead the country, his competence and, yes, questions about his mental state.

What if a whole bunch of his “cabinet ministers” showed the same spunk as Boris Johnson’s top aides showed — and resigned? Would Joe say, as Boris said: “I know that there will be many people who are relieved and​, perhaps, quite a few will also be disappointed. And I want you to know how sad I am to be getting out of the greatest job in the world​, but them’s the breaks.”

Actually, he might say exactly that — if whoever’s pulling the strings from behind the curtain wrote it down in big type on a cue card that read: “Mr. President, ​YOU go out in front of those cameras and ​YOU read ​THIS.”

And how about his predecessor, Donald Trump? Is there the proverbial snowball’s chance in hell that he would resign over … well, ​over anything? No, there is not. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if, when he heard that his ​old pal Boris resigned, Trump said, “What a loser!”  

I mean, Donald didn’t seem fazed by being impeached — twice! You think he’d resign over a trivial matter like trying to overturn the election of a president who beat him? As Joe Biden might say, “Come on, man!”

But, if we had had something like the British system, Trump might not have had a choice. A simple no-confidence vote — no drawn-out impeachment trial — and they’d have dragged him kicking and screaming through the front doors of the White House and out the front gates. Just seeing that happen would have been enough for many Americans.  

They may drive on the wrong side of the road over there, but they do have some good ideas. And ​being expected to resign from the top political job in the country, when your own team and much of the country you represent has lost confidence in your ability to lead, just may be one of those good ideas.  

Of course, there’s a downside. Given how hyper-partisan we’ve become, given how we no longer have a “loyal opposition” but rather a “resistance,” there’s a good chance that every time a bunch of angry pols don’t like something our president has done, they’ll expect him to resign. As if we don’t have enough turmoil and chaos in government as is.  

So, generally speaking, forcing our presidents out of office before their term is up would not be a good thing — although in the cases of Biden and Trump, I’m not so sure​ about that.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel” for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Substack page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Source: TEST FEED1

Five things to know about the Georgia probe into Trump and his allies

The criminal probe into former President Trump and his allies in Georgia took a striking turn this week, with subpoenas being issued to several high-profile figures.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, and conservative lawyers John Eastman, Jenna Ellis and Cleta Mitchell are among those subpoenaed.

The headline-making move puts new focus on a criminal investigation that has got less attention than the work of the House Select Committee on Jan. 6. 

But some experts believe it could end up being just as important.

Here are some of the most salient points about the Georgia probe.

What’s it all about?

The probe, at its core, is about whether laws were broken by Trump and his team in their efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.

Georgia was among the closest of the battleground states in the election, with President Biden eking out a victory by roughly two-tenths of a percentage point.

The post-election efforts by Team Trump to change that result have been particularly vivid — mostly thanks to a phone call the then-president made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger on Jan. 2, 2021. 

In the call, which was taped, Trump pressed Raffensperger to “find” the number of votes required to overturn Biden’s margin of victory. 

Raffensperger resisted Trump’s efforts and has rebutted his false claims of election fraud.

At a public hearing of the Jan. 6 committee on June 21, Raffensperger insisted, “The numbers are the numbers, and numbers don’t lie.” 

There were other efforts by Trump’s team in Georgia as well, including a state Senate hearing at which Giuliani made claims of fraud that have been debunked; and a letter that a Trump ally in the Department of Justice wanted to send to Georgia lawmakers.

The proposed letter was so aberrational that even then-White House Counsel Pat Cipollone reportedly described it as “a murder-suicide pact.”

Authorities in Georgia, led by Fulton County district attorney Fani Willis, have been investigating these actions, among others.

Willis’s office, as The New York Times has noted, has previously said it is investigating whether any of these acts rise to the level of “solicitation of election fraud, the making of false statements to state and local governmental bodies, conspiracy, racketeering, violation of oath of office and any involvement in violence or threats related to the election’s administration.”

A grand jury began sitting in May.

Those proceedings are continuing, hence this week’s subpoenas.

Some experts believe the Georgia probe poses the greatest threat to Trump

The Georgia probe could in the end be the most dangerous legal arrow aimed at Trump.

One reason is the recorded phone call with Raffensperger. 

In addition to the ominous request to “find” votes, the then-president also implied, in vague terms, that Raffensperger was complicit in election fraud or was willfully ignoring it. This, Trump warned Raffensperger, was “a criminal offense.”

Raffensperger has said he viewed Trump’s words as a threat.

Last month, former Watergate prosecutor Nick Akerman told MSNBC’s Katie Phang, “Donald Trump has zero defense in Georgia. If I had to put my money on one prosecution that’s going to go forward here that will send Donald Trump to jail — it’s Georgia.” 

Of course, Trump and his supporters see things completely differently.

“I did NOTHING wrong in Georgia, but others did,” the former president wrote on Truth Social on Thursday, apparently responding to news of the subpoenas. “They CHEATED in the 2020 election and those are the ones that should be investigated (and prosecuted).” 

The DA seems to like her chances

Willis, the district attorney leading the probe, is exuding confidence so far.

In an interview with Yahoo News last month, she spoke about her willingness to enforce subpoenas even on recalcitrant, high-profile witnesses. 

“I’ve had a witness arrested before because they ignore my subpoena. And you do not expect to have to do it. But I will,” she said.

In the same interview, Willis said she feels “great” about the make-up of the grand jury and underlined the importance of maintaining the integrity of elections — something she traced back to lessons learned from her father, a one-time Black Panther who became a lawyer.

She recalled being “dragged to the polls” as a young girl and added: “So you understand very, very early on, voting is such an intrinsic right…And so I understand how important the infraction on someone’s right to vote is. So I do get the significance.” 

In a separate interview with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Willis promised that she will be guided only by whether the facts would support criminal prosecution.

“If we can do that, I’m going to bring an indictment — I don’t care who it is,” she said. 

But if it’s Trump, any trial will be a sensation.

Some key figures have already testified

The Georgia grand jury has already heard testimony from other key witnesses.

Raffensperger appeared before it in private in early June— before he testified to the House Select Committee in public.

According to the Associated Press, Raffensperger told one reporter on his way into the Georgia proceedings that his testimony would be “hopefully short” — but ended up staying for more than five hours. 

Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R) has been subpoenaed and is expected to testify before the grand jury later this month. 

Kemp, like Raffensperger, resisted Trump’s pressure to overturn the elections. Trump then backed challengers to both men in Republican primaries this year. In the end, Raffensperger and Kemp both survived, dealing Trump his most notable defeats of this year’s election season to date.

CNN reported in May that “several individuals” who were willing to serve, on specious grounds, as pro-Trump electors in Georgia have also been interviewed. The CNN report said these people had been told they were “considered witnesses, rather than subjects or targets” — suggesting that Willis might be more interested in what they can reveal than in charging them.

A decision on charges could come soon — or not

Willis, despite her expressions of confidence, has shifted around when it comes to predicting a timetable for when the grand jury might finish its work.

In January, she told the Associated Press she expected a decision on whether to bring charges “in the first half of the year.” 

But in an NBC News interview this week, Willis said she was “not in a rush” to finish. She also said that, if a decision had not been reached before early voting in the midterm elections begins, she would halt activities until after the election.

The grand jury, empaneled in May, can sit for up to a year. But a decision on whether to charge, or not, can come at any time.

Source: TEST FEED1

We must disengage Russia from the International Space Station partnership

The International Space Station (ISS) partnership has survived trying times over the years. During my last spaceflight in 2014 to 2015, Russia annexed Crimea, started a civil war in Ukraine, shot down a civilian airliner, and the West imposed sanctions. The ISS was the sole bright spot while relations between the West and Russia sank to their lowest levels since the Cold War — until now.

The invasion of Ukraine is in its fifth month, yet the ISS partnership continues to function as it has for more than two decades. Crews are training. Flight controllers are monitoring vehicle systems. Managers are planning, allocating and negotiating. Engineers are designing. Rockets are launching. Government money is being spent. We have kept our heads down (some may say buried them in the sand) and pressed on with the work at hand.

But the picture is not all rosy. Dmitry Rogozin, head of the Russian Space Agency (Roscosmos), has become unhinged. He has tweeted not-so-veiled threats against NASA and the West, bragging that Roscosmos is making nuclear weapons that could be used against us. He has threatened to leave American astronauts stranded in space. He has threatened to de-orbit the ISS so that it falls onto our territory.

Much worse than these juvenile ramblings (if threats of nuclear war are juvenile) is the actual war that Russia is waging in Europe. They have killed tens of thousands of Ukrainians. They have intentionally targeted civilians (also known as war crimes). They have senselessly destroyed hundreds of billions of dollars of property.

This is Russian President Vladimir Putin’s country in 2022 — a terrorist state, and our partner on the International Space Station.

It’s important to understand the very real support for this war that’s come from the Russian space program, beyond Rogozin’s tweets. Several cosmonauts, including three that I flew with in space, are in the Duma (Russia’s Congress) and they’ve actively supported Putin and the war. The same cosmonauts who arrived at the ISS in March wearing bright yellow and blue flight suits (their alma mater colors, not in support of Ukraine) recently released a photo of them holding the flag of the Luhansk People’s Republic onboard the ISS. A blatant symbol of the occupation of eastern Ukraine — and an apparent declaration of support for the war.

These issues bring up a very relevant question: What benefit is there in having Russia in the ISS partnership, if they are going to use it to support Putin’s war and threaten Europe and the U.S. with nuclear attacks? The ISS is supposed to be a symbol of peace and unity, but Russia has chosen to use it as a propaganda tool for aggression. We haven’t allowed China to join the ISS partnership because of their egregious authoritarian record on human rights and intellectual property theft. It’s clear that if we were starting from scratch, Putin’s Russia would not be invited to be a partner in any new space initiative, but the ISS partnership was begun 30 years ago, and we need to play the hand we’ve been dealt.

So, what to do? I believe that we should have two guiding principles going forward. First, we should begin the process of disengaging Russia from the ISS partnership. Second, we should minimize the impact this disengagement will cause to the U.S. and other partner nations, who have invested a tremendous amount of time and money into the space station.

How do we thread that needle? It’s not as simple as merely kicking Russia off of the ISS. Because of a decision made 20 years ago, the Russian segment has the only significant thrusters on the station, and those are required for control of the vehicle. If the ISS is going to continue to fly, and I believe it should, it will need these small rockets to maintain its attitude control as well as keep it in the proper orbit. Therefore, NASA should prioritize building its own new control module within a year, eliminating our dependence on Russian thrusters.

We should also immediately limit cooperation on the ISS to the absolute minimum required for the safe operation of the ISS. Our crews should limit training in Russia to basic emergency procedure familiarization, and their crews should be similarly limited in Houston. We should stop launching astronauts on their Soyuz spacecraft and cosmonauts should not fly on SpaceX or Boeing capsules. Crews in space should stop performing science experiments or helping with maintenance on the other segment, limiting interaction between astronauts and Russian cosmonauts on the ISS to operational necessity.

These steps may sound draconian. This is certainly not the best way to run a space partnership. But Putin has crossed the line down here on Earth, and his cosmonauts have crossed the line in space. We cannot continue business as usual on the ISS while Russia uses it as a propaganda tool to support killing thousands of innocent Ukrainians and causing global economic devastation. To keep things in perspective, Putin has essentially brought Europe back to 1941. Would the Allies have tolerated a joint project of Arctic exploration with (even well-intentioned) German scientists supportive of Germany’s war footing in 1941?

The costs of our partnership with Russia on the ISS are now unfortunately much higher than the few remaining benefits. I truly hope that we will someday return to cooperation in a post-Putin Russia, but for now, NASA and other partner nations must make the tough decision to begin the process of disengagement. The world is watching.

Cmdr. Terry Virts is a former NASA astronaut and U.S. Air Force test pilot, having spent over seven months in space as pilot of the space shuttle Endeavour and commander of the ISS. He is only one of four astronauts ever to pilot a shuttle, fly on a Russian Soyuz rocket, conduct spacewalks and be commander of the International Space Station. He is currently an entrepreneur, and he is the author of “How to Astronaut” and “View from Above.” Follow him on Twitter: @AstroTerry

Source: TEST FEED1

Police searching for teen suspects who allegedly beat 73-year-old to death

The Philadelphia Police Department announced Friday they are searching for multiple teenagers who allegedly beat a 73-year-old man to death last month. 

The police say four male and three female teenagers allegedly attacked the man late at night on June 24 using various objects. 

Footage released by the department of the incident shows one male teenager hitting the man with a traffic cone. Another female teenager takes the cone and throws it at the old man’s back. 

The police say the teenagers are in their early-to-mid teens. 

The man was taken to the hospital for his injuries, particularly the ones he suffered to the head, but died the next day. 

Homicide Capt. Jason Smith said the medical examiner found the cause of death to be blunt force trauma, WPVI reported. 

The department reminded the public it offers a $20,000 reward for any information that could lead to the arrest or conviction of a homicide case.  

Smith is imploring the parents of the teenagers in the attack to turn in their children. 

“The message I would put out there to the parents of these juveniles, if they are aware that their son or daughter is involved in this incident, contact an attorney and contact the homicide unit,” Smith said, according to the local outlet.

Philadelphia has implemented a curfew in the city for minors aged 14 to 17, according to ABC. Children in that age group are required to return home by 10:30 p.m. for their own safety.

The Hill has reached out to the Philadelphia Police Department for more information.

Source: TEST FEED1

Ensuring electric vehicle jobs are good jobs

Over the next decades, sales of electric vehicles (EVs) will likely surpass those of gas-powered cars and trucks, transforming America’s automotive industry and automotive jobs. Without effective policies in place, however, the transition to electric vehicles could reduce the quality of jobs in the auto sector.

Largely because of efforts of unionized autoworkers, many existing auto-sector jobs pay decent wages and provide a route to the middle class, especially for Americans without college degrees. In contrast, many domestic electric vehicle producers offer lower wages, fewer benefits and less opportunity for pay advancement — with worse working conditions for their employees.

As the auto industry evolves it can continue to provide middle-class sustaining jobs — if Congress takes sufficient actions. What Congress does now will determine whether these are good jobs for the next generation of American autoworkers.

One key step Congress needs to take is to create a new prevailing wage policy for electric vehicles to help high labor standards of the existing automotive industry to continue in the transition to new EV jobs. For example, any budget reconciliation bill should ensure that firms receiving tax incentives to support EV manufacturing are required to pay the prevailing wage.

Prevailing wage laws require that government-subsidized firms pay at least the basic hourly rate of wages and benefits paid to similarly employed workers. These laws ensure that government spending supports a well-qualified workforce and does not drive down standards. They are common on government construction projects and for contracted government services, although they have not been frequently used in manufacturing.

As Ray Curry, president of the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, explains, “while a prevailing wage does not replace having a union, what it will do is stop new electric vehicle ventures from driving down the wages built up by union workers.” 

The prevailing wage concept holds great promise for maintaining high standards in the auto industry as it electrifies, but the policy must be properly adapted to the new jobs. A new report by the Center for American Progress explains how to effectively develop a prevailing wage policy for electric vehicle jobs. The report highlights the need to ensure that existing internal combustion automobile jobs provide reference points for new the prevailing wage for EV jobs and the importance of clear standards and good data for making sure prevailing wage calculations accurately reflect market conditions.

As important as it is, a prevailing wage is not the only policy necessary to ensure high standards in the EV transition. Other needed policies include those that prevent discrimination, promote domestic production, ensure compliance with existing workplace laws, as well as respect workers’ right to join a union and bargain collectively. Indeed, unionized workers enjoy many advantages compared with nonunion workers — such as safer workplaces, grievances procedures, protections from retaliation and a strong voice — that are not addressed by a prevailing wage policy. Still, a properly designed prevailing wage would be a particularly important policy for ensuring high standards in EV jobs.

This isn’t the first time Congress has faced a choice on whether modernization of key transportation industries would continue to support good jobs. During a few major transitions in important industries such as railroads and transit, policymakers passed legislation to protect the high standards that workers have achieved through collective bargaining. By establishing high standards now, while U.S. electric vehicle production is still in its infancy, policymakers will support good jobs for autoworkers for years to come.

David Madland is the author of “Re-Union: How Bold Labor Reforms Can Repair, Revitalize, and Reunite the United States” and is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

Source: TEST FEED1

Mulvaney: White House 'friend' said Meadows was incompetent, had ‘nervous breakdown’ on Jan. 6

Former acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said that a “friend” who was in the White House during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot told him that Trump chief of staff Mark Meadows was experiencing “a little bit of both” incompetence and a “nervous breakdown” as the event unfolded.  

During an interview with CBS Friday, Mulvaney said that he trusts testimony that Meadows’s former top aide Cassidy Hutchinson gave to the House committee investigating the attack. Hutchinson described Meadows to lawmakers as disengaged.

He said he was texting with a friend who was in the West Wing on Jan. 6 as Hutchinson was testifying. 

“I said, if I listen to Cassidy closely, it sounds like Mark was either completely incompetent at the job or having a nervous breakdown, and the person texted back it was a little bit of both,” Mulvaney said. 

He said the position of chief of staff was “critical” in a moment like the insurrection, but Meadows seems to have “checked out entirely.” 

Mulvaney said he defended Trump for more than a year, arguing that his actions on that day were not criminal, but Hutchinson’s testimony changed his view of the situation.

Hutchinson testified at a last-minute hearing late last month that was scheduled after the committee had announced a planned break from public hearings until July.  

During the hearing, she told the committee that Trump was aware that some rally attendees at the Ellipse before the insurrection were armed and that Trump insisted on going to the Capitol along with his supporters.

She claimed that the former president tried to grab the steering wheel of the presidential vehicle to change course.

Mulvaney said Friday he knows Hutchinson and she has “no reason to lie.” 

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the committee, also showed text messages toward the end of the hearing that indicated Trump may have engaged in witness intimidation.

Former White House counsel Pat Cipollone received a subpoena from the committee in the aftermath of Hutchinson’s testimony and spoke to the committee Friday.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer after the meeting that Cipollone did not contradict anything that other witnesses said but added that “not contradicting is not the same as confirming.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Punishment of Border Patrol agents is about protecting a president, not migrants

President Eisenhower once said that “The search for a scapegoat is the easiest of all hunting expeditions.” When it comes to subordinates, that can become a virtual canned hunt for a president. Worse yet, presidents often use other subordinates to pull the trigger. 

That is what happened this week when President Biden bagged four Border Patrol agents in one of the most cowardly canned hunts in political history.

After almost a year of investigation, the Biden administration announced the agents would be punished even though investigators found no evidence that they whipped migrants, as Biden and many other politicians and pundits insisted. Since the president declared — before an investigation had begun — that the agents would have to be punished, the agents had to be found guilty of something. So, they were reprimanded for “unprofessional conduct,” “working in an unsafe manner” and “derogatory language.” 

Make no mistake: This is not about protecting migrants. It is about protecting a president.

The verdict on these agents was decided ten months ago, after the media went into a frenzy over a false story accusing mounted officers of whipping undocumented migrants near Del Rio, Texas, on Sept. 19.

A photographer captured the scene, which showed agents using bridle reins to guide their skittish horses. The entire videotape clearly shows the agents using the reins on their mounts, not on the migrants. Not only did the photographer quickly deny seeing any officers whip migrants, the videotape clearly refuted that allegation. However, for many in politics and the media it did not matter because it played into a racial-justice claim of the “whipping (of) Haitian asylum seekers.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) condemned “the inappropriate use of what appear to be whips by Border Patrol officers on horseback to intimidate migrants.” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) decried “images of inhumane treatment of Haitian migrants by Border Patrol — including the use of whips.” Vice President Kamala Harris emoted on “The View” about how the brutality “invoked images of some of the worst moments of our history, where that kind of behavior has been used against the Indigenous people of our country, it has been used against African Americans during times of slavery.” Reps. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) described the incident as “worse than what we witnessed in slavery” and “white supremacist behavior.”

President Biden rushed to express his own revulsion and rage, too: “It was horrible what — to see, as you saw — to see people treated like they did: horses nearly running them over and people being strapped. It’s outrageous. I promise you, those people will pay.”

At the time, some of us objected that the president had, once again, declared the guilt of accused persons without evidence or investigation. The possible innocence of these officers simply did not matter to the president or to many in the press. 

Despite being tasked with an investigation, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas joined the condemnations of the agents, saying that their conduct “defies all of the values that we seek to instill in our people.” He then promised swift justice with an investigation that would take “days, not weeks” — yet the investigation dragged on for months. 

The reason was obvious. Within hours, the issue was no longer whether the agents whipped migrants. The issue was that the president wrongly claimed they whipped the migrants and would be punished. 

Even some in the media admitted that the story was false, but President Biden never apologized for his false accusation. The innocence of the agents simply did not matter.

In a column last year, I explained what was likely to happen. First, the administration would bury the investigation “to wait for public attention to wane.” Then it would issue a long-delayed report and protect the president “by changing the question. For example, what began as an investigation into whether agents used reins to whip migrants might be converted into a long investigation into the use of horses in crowd control operations.”

And that is precisely what has happened. After almost a year, the agents will face relatively light punishment — two weeks without pay — for such transgressions as speaking in a threatening matter or managing a horse too close to a child.

This small detachment of mounted border officers was ordered to the river’s edge to prevent a huge body of migrants from crossing. In previous legal cases, I have deposed mounted officers involved in crowd-control operations. Since horses are commonly used to control crowds, such moments are routine. That does not excuse threatening language or careless maneuvers — but such instances generally result in verbal reprimands at the scene or, occasionally, formal discipline within weeks of the operation. They do not involve multi-agency efforts and almost a year of investigation.

Moreover, these circumstances were known within days of the Del Rio incident. Yet the Biden administration waited until a Friday afternoon ten months later to release its findings. Notably, at no point did it clear the agents of allegations of being racists who whipped black migrants, despite that fact that Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Chris Magnus said there was “no evidence Border Patrol agents involved in this incident struck anyone with their reins intentionally or otherwise.”

From beginning to end, these agents have been treated as props for the president and his administration. They were first used as embodiments of alleged systemic racism in law enforcement; they were then used as scapegoats to fulfill the president’s promise that “those people will pay.” 

Most Americans would be appalled by this treatment, but few have seen the full story. It is doubtful they will, either, because much of the media was complicit with the president in the original false story and may be reluctant to fully correct the record now.

At the start of his administration, President Biden proclaimed that “the most difficult but important step [for a free nation] is burying the legacy of tyranny” and ensuring “a government and institutions that abide by the rule of law. Every country faces challenges to the rule of law, including my own.” What few of us expected was that Biden himself would become one of those most persistent challenges. 

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

Source: TEST FEED1