Archive by Author

North Carolina Senate hopeful Beasley calls out Democrats, Republicans in new ad

Cheri Beasley, the Democratic Senate nominee in North Carolina, is calling out both parties in a new ad.

“It’s time for something different – for someone who calls it like they see it,” Beasley, a former North Carolina Supreme Court chief justice, says in the 30-second spot. 

“That’s what I did as a judge when I held dangerous offenders accountable. And in the Senate, I’ll hold Washington accountable too, because the special interests have too much power and neither political party is getting it right.”

The ad, which was shared first with The Hill, is set to begin airing statewide on Thursday. It’s the latest instance of a Democratic Senate candidate seeking to draw distance with Washington at a time when the party is facing strong national headwinds. 

Beasley clinched the Democratic Senate nomination in May with little primary opposition. She’s set to face Rep. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) in the November general election in one of a handful of Senate races that could help determine control of the upper chamber next year.

Flipping the seat currently held by retiring Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) is likely to be an uphill battle.

President Biden’s approval ratings are deep underwater and Democrats are facing a largely unfriendly political environment this year, given rising inflation and fears of a looming economic recession. 

But Beasley and her allies have sought to overcome those headwinds by casting her as a relative outsider; she’s never served in federal office before, though she still boasts a track record of winning statewide in North Carolina. 

Her latest ad puts her among a growing list of Democratic candidates looking to create distance between the party establishment in Washington. 

Two vulnerable Democratic Senate incumbents, Sens. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), have criticized the Biden administration’s plan to end pandemic-related restrictions that allow border authorities to quickly expel migrants, going as far as to introduce a bill earlier this year that would block the White House from doing so.

At the same time, Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio), the Democratic Senate nominee in Ohio, was notably absent on Wednesday when Biden made a stop in the Buckeye State. While Ryan’s campaign cited a scheduling conflict, his absence stirred speculation that he was trying to avoid appearing alongside the president.

Source: TEST FEED1

Democrats seek to boost media literacy for students, veterans with two new bills

A trio of Democrats introduced two bicameral bills aimed at boosting media literacy skills for students and veterans by providing funding for nationwide educational programs. 

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), a lead sponsor of the bills in the Senate, said Thursday the effort will “help combat disinformation and misinformation campaigns that seek to manipulate perceptions and sow division.” 

“These bills will provide students and veterans with the skills they need to make informed decisions about online content and protect themselves from exploitation,” Klobuchar said in a statement. 

The bills, introduced with Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and by Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) in the House, would together provide $40 million to federal agencies to fund education programs to improve media literacy for American students and veterans. 

The Digital Citizenship and Media Literacy Act would provide $20 million over the course of four years for the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to create a grant program that supports digital citizenship and media literacy for students in grades K-12. 

The grants would be available to local and state educational agencies, nonprofit organizations and public libraries to develop programs aimed at improving media literacy skills for students. 

The proposal is cosponsored by Sens. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). 

The Veterans Online Information and Cybersecurity Empowerment (VOICE) Act would provide $20 million over three years for the Department of Veteran Affairs to administer a grant program to teach veterans media literacy skills. The program would also teach veterans cybersecurity best practices to identify disinformation and help them avoid online scams and hacking. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Secret Service denial of Hutchinson story fuels attacks from both sides

The Secret Service is doubling down on its denial of an alleged altercation between former President Trump and his security detail on Jan. 6 of last year, providing a rare defense of Trump’s actions that day amid mounting evidence that he tried to orchestrate a coup from the White House.

The extraordinary anecdote of a clash in the presidential SUV — recounted last week in public testimony from former White House aide Cassidy Hutchinson — has received outsized attention in the days since then.

The narrative has sparked a quick denial from the agents involved; prompted Trump loyalists to attack Hutchinson’s broader credibility; and frustrated Trump critics who want to focus on the bigger picture, not least of all Trump’s desire to join hundreds of supporters in marching on the Capitol to contest his election defeat.

Through back-channels, the Secret Service has confirmed Trump’s eagerness to join the protestors at the Capitol, a number of whom would go on to storm the building in a violent effort to block Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s victory.

“There’s a lot of what Ms. Hutchinson said that is true. Certainly [Trump] wanted to go to the Capitol, that much we know. He said that publicly, he reiterated that inside the car,” a source close to the Secret Service told The Hill on Tuesday. 

But the agency has also pushed back on Hutchinson’s account that Trump had lunged for the SUV’s steering wheel, and then towards the neck of Secret Service agent Robert Engel, after being told he was going back to the Oval Office — and not to the Capitol — following his defiant speech on the Ellipse. 

Those acts of aggression, Hutchinson said, were relayed to her at the White House shortly after the rally by Tony Ornato, who upset Secret Service tradition by temporarily serving as Trump’s deputy chief of staff for operations. Engel was in the room during that conversation, she added, and did not dispute the details. 

Both Ornato and Engel, who remain active Secret Service agents, have said they are willing to testify under oath to dispute Hutchinson’s narrative, even as they have refused to speak publicly about it. The unnamed driver, the agency has signaled, is also denying her account. 

“Ornato is a red herring,” the source said, noting that he was in his office at the time and not at the rally.

“There are three people in that vehicle: Bobby Engel, President Trump and the limo driver,” the source said, and both agents are “saying that did not happen.”

In denying Hutchinson’s second-hand account, the traditionally taciturn Secret Service has stepped into a firestorm of political controversy, lending ammunition to Trump’s allies, who are playing up the dispute in an effort to discredit all of Hutchinson’s testimony. 

“The sham Committee’s star witness is already discredited less than 24 hours after her testimony,” said Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.). “It was all hearsay.” 

Yet in the context of the broader charges accumulating against Trump — including the explosive allegation that he sent an armed crowd to the Capitol to block the peaceful transfer of power — the Secret Service dispute is largely a diversion. 

“It’s really important to remember for people to focus on what is legally significant, and not get distracted by the drama of stories about things like throwing plates of ketchup or whether the former president actually tried to grab the steering wheel and assault the head of the Secret Service crew,” said Catherine Ross, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University Law School.

“None of that is material to the question of whether he should be indicted and whether he could be convicted.” 

Hutchinson is not the only one under scrutiny. In the days since her testimony, a number of Republicans have also emerged to question the credibility of Ornato.

One Pence official pointed to Ornato refuting a Washington Post account of a conversation in which Pence National Security Advisor Keith Kellogg warned against Ornato acting to remove the vice president from the Capitol on Jan. 6.

“Those of us who worked w/ Tony know where his loyalties lie,” Olivia Troye, a former Pence advisor and high-profile critic of Trump, wrote in sharing the article. “He should testify under oath.”

Alyssa Farah, a former White House director of strategic communications, also complained that Ornato denied a conversation in which she said she urged him to warn the press before chemical irritants were used to clear a park near the White House in 2020. 

“There seems to be a major thread here… Tony Ornato likes to lie,” Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) one of two Republican members of the committee, said, pointing to Farah’s tweet.

Members of the select committee are also downplaying the disagreement over the SUV episode, racing to Hutchinson’s defense and pointing to the numerous, damning first-hand accounts she also delivered during last week’s hearing.

“The Committee is not going to stand by and watch her character be assassinated by anonymous sources and by men who are claiming executive privilege,” Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), the vice chair of the select committee, told ABC News’s Jonathan Karl over the weekend. “And so we look forward very much to additional testimony under oath on a whole range of issues.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), another member of the investigative panel, delivered a similar message. 

“She has nothing to gain by stepping forward and telling the truth. And Trump World has everything to lose by the truth,” Lofren told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. 

Lofgren said Ornato has already talked to the committee behind closed doors under oath. And “if he wants to come back and clarify his prior information, he will also be under oath.” 

“I think it’s a mistake to focus on whether or not he was lying to Ms. Hutchinson when he relayed that story,” she quickly added. “The fact is the president knew his crowd was armed.”

The attacks on Hutchinson, some coming from lawmakers who are themselves implicated in the investigation, have energized Trump loyalists amid gripes from the former president that the Republicans’ decision to boycott the probe has left Trump with no defenders on the select committee. 

Banks had been tapped by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to serve as the ranking member of the investigative panel. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) refused to seat him — along with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) — after Banks vowed to use the position to investigate Biden’s response to the Capitol attack. Biden was not president at the time.

In response to Pelosi, McCarthy pulled all five of his GOP picks from the panel, allowing the Democrats’ nine selections — all of them fierce Trump critics — to run the show unimpeded. 

“This is the Russia hoax playbook,” said Banks. “Democrats’ media allies are simply repeating their outrageous and evidence-free accusations.” 

Hutchinson’s legal team has said she stands by her account, emphasizing that she provided testimony under oath – four times behind closed doors, and then again publicly last week. 

“Ms. Hutchinson testified, under oath, and recounted what she was told,” her lawyer, Jody Hunt, wrote on Twitter last week. “Those with knowledge of the episode also should testify under oath.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Graham’s relationship with Trump comes back to bite him

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) achieved new heights of political celebrity during the Trump years, but now finds himself in the middle of a criminal investigation linked to the battle for Georgia in the 2020 presidential race.

A special grand jury in Fulton County has subpoenaed Graham along with other Trump insiders as part of an investigation into potential criminal interference in the 2020 election in Georgia, which Joe Biden narrowly won by 12,670 votes.    

Graham’s lawyers issued a statement Wednesday asserting that the senior South Carolina senator is not a subject or target of the investigation, which they denounced as a “fishing expedition.” 

His attorneys, Bart Daniel and Matt Austin, said they would fight the subpoena in court, raising the prospect of a protracted legal battle.  

“As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Graham was well within his rights to discuss with state officials the processes and procedures around administering elections. Should it stand, the subpoena issued today would erode the constitutional balance of power and the ability of a member of Congress to do their job,” they said in a statement Wednesday. “Sen. Graham plans to go to court, challenge the subpoena, and expects to prevail.” 

The Fulton County district attorney’s office said Wednesday it would respond in the appropriate court to compel Graham’s appearance if necessary.  

Democrats say Graham’s actions after Trump narrowly lost Georgia were highly unusual and appear to have departed from regular Senate oversight procedure.  

Graham called Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger shortly after Biden barely carried the state to query him about the validity of thousands of ballots.  

What surprised Senate insiders is that Graham reached out directly to Raffensperger instead of letting staff handle what the senator described as an information gathering mission.  

“It’s certainly alarming that a United States senator is being questioned about the events surrounding Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Georgia officials to overturn the election results,” said Ray Zaccaro, a Democratic strategist and a former Senate aide who worked on voting rights legislation.  

“Lindsey Graham does not represent the state of Georgia. Lindsey Graham has an official legislative role but he’s not an investigator, he’s not an elections official, he’s not one of the president’s attorneys, he’s not a representative of the president,” he said.  

Zaccaro said that while Graham at the time was the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, “that was not the way the committee would conduct any kind of oversight.” 

“It was certainly unusual and unorthodox,” he said. “Nothing about his role as far as I’m aware as chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time would merit that engagement.”  

While Graham’s legal team says he is not the target or subject of the investigation into criminal election interference, his involvement in the probe raises questions about whether he may face criminal liability at some point.  

Stanley Brand, a former general counsel to the House and specialist in congressional ethics, said Graham could seek protection under the Constitution’s “Speech and Debate” clause, which protects lawmakers from arrest during their official duties.  

“I think there are, arguably, speech and debate implications here, not the least of which would be his internal deliberations with his colleagues given that this was something that was going to be voted on,” he said, noting that Graham contacted Raffensperger before he and other senators were going to vote on objections to the certification of Biden’s victory on Jan. 6.  

But Brand said the legal case is made murkier by Graham’s interaction with state officials outside of Congress itself.  

“The harder question is how much his conversations with Raffensperger would be covered,” he said. 

While Brand said the Judiciary panel has an oversight responsibility, he noted “dicta” in the Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in Gravel v. United States indicating that “errands” lawmakers carry out with agencies that are not part of their legislative function are not protected by the speech and debate clause.  

“That’s almost a question-by-question determination,” he said, explaining that the protections of the speech and debate clause are largely determined by how a court may rule.   

Some Democratic lawmakers think Attorney General Merrick Garland will act on the findings of the House select Jan. 6 committee to investigate and charge members of Trump’s inner circle in connection to their efforts to block Biden’s 2020 victory.  

Federal investigators last month searched the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former Justice Department lawyer who, according to recent testimony before Congress, tried to persuade Trump to put him in charge of Justice so that he could send a letter to Georgia election officials falsely claiming the department had “identified significant concerns” with the state’s election results.  

Other Trump allies subpoenaed by the Fulton County D.A. actively participated in a strategy to stop the certification of Biden’s victory, according to testimony made public by the House select panel. Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal attorney, as well as other Trump-allied attorneys  — John Eastman, Cleta Mitchell, Jenna Ellis, and Kenneth Chesebro — also received subpoenas.  

Raffensperger, Georgia’s top election official, told The Washington Post shortly after Graham called him that he was stunned that Graham appeared to suggest finding a way to throw out legally cast ballots.  

Graham at the time disputed Raffensperger’s claim as “ridiculous” and insisted he was merely trying to understand how Georgia election law worked. 

“The main issue for me is: How do you protect the integrity of mail-in voting, and how does signature verification work?” he said.  

More than a year and a half later, that claim is coming under intense scrutiny, by Fulton County D.A. Fani Willis, colleagues in Congress and the media.  

Since news broke that Graham contacted Raffensperger and his staff twice about reviewing Georgia’s absentee ballots for potential fraud, more evidence has become public through the House select Jan. 6 committee’s investigation indicating there was an organized and concerted effort by Trump allies to overturn Biden’s 2020 victory.  

Graham’s close relationship with Trump and his regular access to the president has raised doubts about the senators claims that he was participating in a fact-finding mission without any intention of pressuring election officials one way or the other.  

Issac J. Bailey, a professor of public policy and communications studies at Davidson College in North Carolina, noted that Graham initially kept Trump at arm’s length during the 2016 election but later gravitated to his power.  

He said Graham’s close relationship with Trump drove him to call Georgia’s election officials. 

“The old Lindsey Graham would have never gotten himself into this position, would have never jumped on the phone to pressure legislators in another state to affect the outcome of an election,” Bailey told The Hill.  

“After initially rightly holding Trump at arm’s length and rightly calling out the danger many of us saw back in 2016, he just relinquished all of that to get into the good graces of Trump,” he said.  

Either way, Republican strategists don’t see Graham suffering any political damage at home, given Trump’s huge popularity in South Carolina.  

“I’m not sure that the simple act of getting caught up in this hurts Graham because of the nature of the South Carolina electorate and in particular the Republican Party and the typical Republican voter in the state of South Carolina. It’s not like he’s going to get punished at the polls for that,” said James Wallner, a former Senate Republican aide who now teaches about Congress and American constitutional law at Clemson University.  

Wallner said the legal ramifications are tougher to predict.  

“What comes of this is a different story and we can’t write that chapter until we get there,” he said.  

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: Democrats size up Biden with eye on 2024

Democrats are sizing up President Biden’s chances of winning reelection in 2024 — and prominent figures are weighing their own prospects too.

It’s in no-one’s interest to scorn Biden’s chances of reelection just yet. Open disloyalty to an incumbent president is almost sure to backfire. 

But the smoke signals are being sent coast to coast.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) ran TV commercials over July 4th in Florida — roughly 2,500 miles from Sacramento — hitting the Sunshine State’s Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis.

DeSantis is widely seen as a possible GOP presidential contender and Newsom’s unusual move made sure his name would be in the 2024 frame as Democrats mull Biden’s strengths and weaknesses.

Newsom had previously criticized his own party — and Biden, by implication — for being too timid in defense of abortion rights.

Last month, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) journeyed to New Hampshire — traditionally the second state to vote in the primary process. There, Pritzker excoriated the Republican Party as “seeking to shame and criminalize” women’s autonomy. He also characterized the GOP as “naked and afraid.”

Pritzker’s (D) fiery response to the mass shooting in Highland Park, Ill., on Monday also seemed much more in step with liberal America’s sentiments that Biden’s milder reaction.

“I’m here to tell you to be angry,” Pritzker said. “I’m furious.”

Other figures have sent their own messages, too.

Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D), who was reportedly considered by Biden as his running mate in 2020, told NBC News last month that she was “not going to weigh in on whether he should run” for a second term. 

She did say she would support Biden if he ran, however.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), asked by CNN early last month whether she would endorse Biden for reelection responded, “We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.” 

The New York congresswoman made the lukewarm remark before the Supreme Court handed down its seismic ruling on abortion. 

Last week, Ocasio-Cortez tweeted to her 13 million followers screenshots of two stories — one saying Biden was unlikely to take “bold steps” to protect abortion rights, the other noting that White House aides were “irked” by questions from Democrats about his plans to seek reelection — accompanied by a quizzical emoji.

Ocasio-Cortez, now 32, is old enough to be eligible for the White House in 2024, which was not the case in 2020.

Meanwhile, a key aide to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) emphasized in a memo back in April that the Vermonter had “not ruled out another run for president” — but would only be interested if Biden decided not to go forward.

There are, to be sure, formidable obstacles facing anyone within the Democratic Party who entertains serious hopes of ousting Biden.

Primary challenges to a sitting president are almost never successful. In living memory, they have almost always resulted in losses for the party involved. 

Right-wing populist Pat Buchanan challenged President George H.W. Bush for the GOP nomination in 1992. Buchanan lost but a damaged Bush was defeated in the fall by Democrat Bill Clinton.

In 1980, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) challenged President Carter for the Democratic nomination. Kennedy got less traction than expected in a bitter contest, but Carter lost to Republican Ronald Reagan that November.

Above all, there is no sign at all that Biden is willing to step aside. 

The president is a proud man who often displays irritation if he feels he is not being accorded sufficient respect. His experience in 2016, when he was the sitting vice president but President Obama preferred Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, still rankles.

Just last week, Biden was asked at a news conference in Madrid if he was “the best messenger” for his party on abortion.

“Yeah, I am,” came the prickly response. “I’m the president of the United States of America. That makes me the best messenger.”

White House officials feel a predictable exasperation at the continued speculation over Biden’s plans.

“To be clear, as the president has said repeatedly, he plans to run in 2024,” White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre tweeted last month.

Even if Biden were to surprise by stepping aside, there is an additional complication for outside Democrats who have their eyes on the top job: Vice President Harris.

Harris’s approval ratings are not much better than Biden’s. But she would still be the heir apparent if he dropped out, and anyone running against her would have to navigate the complicated currents of her position as a “double first” — the first woman and the first Black person to serve as vice president.

Still, some stark realities remain:

The president’s approval ratings are below 40 percent in the main polling averages.

Inflation is at its highest point in more than 40 years.

A GOP takeover of the House, at least, in November’s midterm elections is seen in Washington as a near-certainty.

And Biden will turn 80 a few weeks later.

It’s no surprise that other big names in his party are casting a wistful eye toward Pennsylvania Avenue.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Source: TEST FEED1

Georgia prosecutor says more Trump associates could be subpoenaed in election probe

The Georgia district attorney who is probing whether former President Trump and his allies attempted to unlawfully influence the 2020 presidential election, told NBC News on Wednesday that additional subpoenas are likely coming for those in Trump’s inner circle and associates.

When asked by NBC’s Blayne Alexander if the additional subpoenas would include Trump family members or former White House officials, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis declined to say but left open the possibility of subpoenaing the former president himself.

“We’ll just have to see where the investigation leads us,” Willis told the outlet. 

“I think that people thought that we came into this as some kind of game,” she continued. “This is not a game at all. What I am doing is very serious. It’s very important work. And we’re going to do our due diligence and making sure that we look at all aspects of the case.”

A grand jury issued a slew of subpoenas on Tuesday to seven people connected with Trump as part of the probe. 

The subpoenas included Rudy Giuliani and legal advisers connected with the Trump campaign — Kenneth Chesebro, John Eastman, Jenna Ellis, Cleta Mitchell and Jacki Deason. Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) also received a subpoena.

Graham’s legal team earlier on Wednesday said he would challenge his subpoena, calling the investigation “all politics” and a “fishing expedition.”

Willis rejected those allegations to NBC News, also promising to pause activity between the start of early voting and election day if her work is still ongoing this fall, in order to avoid perceptions of partisan aims.

“What do I have to gain from these politics?” she said of Graham’s challenge. “It’s someone who doesn’t understand the seriousness of what we’re doing. I hope he’ll come and testify truthfully before the grand jury.”

The subpoena to Graham references two phone calls with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger following the 2020 election.

Raffensperger also appeared before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol in a public hearing last month.

He testified about a call with Trump in January 2021 when the former president pressured Raffensperger to audit the election results in Fulton County and “find” 11,780 votes, the margin the former president needed to flip the state in 2020.

Source: TEST FEED1

Elon Musk had eight and ninth children with top executive last year: report

Tesla CEO Elon Musk reportedly had twins with a top executive at one of his companies last year, his eighth and ninth known children.

Court documents obtained by Business Insider on Wednesday showed that Musk and the children’s mother, Shivon Zilis, filed a petition to change the twins’ names in order to “have their father’s last name and contain their mother’s last name as part of their middle name.” 

The order was then approved by a federal judge in May. Zilis purchased a home in the Austin, Texas, area in August, nearly three months before the twins were born, according to Business Insider. Musk also has a waterfront estate in the city.

The twins were born weeks before Musk and his then-girlfriend, the musician known as Grimes, gave birth to their second child via surrogate in December. 

Zilis, 36, is director of operations and special projects for Neuralink, which is developing computer chips to implant in brains and where Musk is a co-CEO. A Yale University graduate, she began her career at companies including as IBM and Bloomberg Beta before joining Tesla in 2017 as a project director. 

The Ontario, Canada, native, who was named to the Forbes 30 Under 30 list in 2015, reportedly first met Musk that year through her work for his nonprofit OpenAI.

The 51-year-old CEO has been an outspoken advocate for more childbirth, expressing fear of a possible fertility crisis in the U.S. and touting his own success with childbirth.

“Contrary to what many think, the richer someone is, the fewer kids they have,” Musk said in a Twitter thread. “I am a rare exception. Most people I know have zero or one kid.” 

“I mean, I’m doing my part haha,” Musk said in a follow-up tweet in the thread last month. 

Musk has yet to close on his big to acquire social media platform Twitter, however Insider noted that Musk had Zilis on the short-list of individuals to run the company should the deal go through.

Source: TEST FEED1

Mississippi's only abortion clinic shuts down, moves to New Mexico

The last abortion clinic in Mississippi officially shut down Wednesday, a day before a trigger ban against almost all abortion procedures is poised to take effect in the state, following the Supreme Court’s decision last month to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Shannon Brewer, who led the clinic involved in the controversial Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, told The Washington Post in May about plans to relocate to New Mexico, where abortion procedures are still legal.

Now, after a judge refused Jackson Women’s Health Organization’s request for a temporary block on the Mississippi trigger ban, Brewer told The Texas Tribune that her team is relocating services to Las Cruces, N.M.

As of the June 24 Supreme Court opinion, the power to regulate abortion now falls to individual states, creating a patchwork of laws that will require many women seeking abortions to cross state borders.

Many companies have promised to pay for such travel for employees, while Democratic states have sought to enact protections for those crossing state lines to access the procedure.

In late June, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed an executive order protecting medical providers in the state from “discipline due to an out-of-state resident receiving abortion services in New Mexico,” according to a release from the governor’s office.

Grisham’s order also established that “New Mexico will not entertain extradition attempts from other states relating to receiving or performing reproductive services.”

Abortions are restricted in Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and Utah, which border New Mexico. Texas made headlines last fall with a law that banned abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. This spring, Oklahoma banned abortions from the point of fertilization. 

In neighboring Colorado, the procedure is legal at all stages of pregnancy.

Source: TEST FEED1

US, UK law enforcement chiefs unite to warn of Chinese spying threat

The heads of the FBI and the U.K.’s MI5 warned against what they described as a sweeping Chinese espionage threat during a rare joint appearance in London on Wednesday.

FBI Director Christopher Wray and MI5 Director General Ken McCallum detailed the potential calamities before an audience of business and academic leaders, arguing China’s efforts to steal technology, maintain hidden investments, and control business operations in China extends to companies of all sizes and industries.

“The Chinese government poses an even more serious threat to Western businesses than even many sophisticated businesspeople realize,” Wray said.

Wednesday’s appearance marked the first time the leaders of the FBI and MI5 shared a public platform, according to McCallum.

Wray said he was not advising companies to avoid doing business in or with China altogether, but he implored businesses to “take the long view” and work with U.S. and U.K. intelligence agencies to better understand the threat and mitigate cyberattacks.

“The Chinese government is set on stealing your technology — whatever it is that makes your industry tick — and using it to undercut your business and dominate your market,” Wray said. “And they’re set on using every tool at their disposal to do it.”

Law enforcement has even caught people affiliated with Chinese companies sneaking into U.S. fields to dig up genetically modified seeds, Wray added.

“Consider that it may be a lot cheaper to preserve your intellectual property now than to lose your competitive advantage and have to build a new one down the road,” he said.

Wray also pointed to concerns that China may attempt to invade Taiwan militarily. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February has further sparked concerns that Beijing might be learning lessons for its own regional expansion plans.

Wray argued an invasion of Taiwan would represent “one of the most horrific business disruptions the world has ever seen,” warning that the FBI has picked up on efforts by China to insulate their economy against potential sanctions.

“In our world, we call that kind of behavior a clue,” he said.

The comments echo a warning from Taiwan’s top trade negotiator, who last month said a Chinese military attack on the island would harm the global economy more than Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

A bulletin issued by the National Counterintelligence and Security Center (NCSC) on Wednesday offered a similar warning about the Chinese espionage threat, saying the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under President Xi Jinping has sought to “exploit” relationships between China and government and business leaders at the state and local levels.

“PRC influence operations can be deceptive and coercive, with seemingly benign business opportunities or people-to-people exchanges sometimes masking PRC political agendas,” it said.

McCallum, the head of MI5, on Wednesday described the threat as a “strategic contest across decades,” rather than something that could be dealt with quickly.

“No set of guidance can cater with precision for each and every situation: I’m afraid I can’t make this simple for you,” he told the business and academic leaders gathered in London. “The answers have to lie in combining our unique knowledge of the threats, with your unique knowledge of your business.”

Source: TEST FEED1