Archive by Author

If the FEC won’t protect voters, the courts should — but it might be up to Congress

I was a Republican commissioner on the Federal Election Commission (FEC) from 1991 to 1995. During that time, for the most part, at least, the FEC functioned as designed: the commission of three Democrats and three Republicans worked collaboratively to ensure agency operation and even-handed enforcement of campaign laws. My bipartisan team led what was then, and still is, the only government agency whose sole responsibility is overseeing the integrity of political campaigns. We administered and enforced the law to prevent corruption and fulfill voters’ right to know who is spending to influence their vote — to ensure that the voices of everyday Americans were not drowned out by those of the wealthy.

But recent years have brought about a dramatic deterioration of the FEC, and the agency no longer functions as intended.

The FEC’s structure requires four of the six commissioners to agree before an investigation of an alleged campaign finance violation can be opened. This means that three commissioners can paralyze the agency if they so choose. Unfortunately, that has happened consistently in recent years.

Congress foresaw the risk of gridlock — though probably not at this scale — when it created the FEC, addressing it by including a provision in the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) that allows private parties to challenge in court FEC dismissals of alleged campaign finance violations. As the agency’s deadlock has become endemic, several private parties have sued under this provision to force the FEC to do its job as Congress intended. But a series of recent judicial decisions has threatened to nullify this core statutory protection.

The wrinkle is that when the commission deadlocks on a vote and closes a case, some commissioners have sought to avoid scrutiny from the courts by simply claiming they were “exercising prosecutorial discretion.” (The term here refers to the ability of a prosecutor or other law enforcement authority to decide not to pursue allegations that someone broke the law.)

Federal courts repeatedly have deferred to purported exercises of “prosecutorial discretion” by a minority of the commissioners, treating almost any utterance of the phrase as a barrier to judicial review — as if it is a talisman that wards off judicial oversight. This undermines Congress’s decision to allow such judicial review in FECA and enables the FEC to get away with shirking its duties.

Let me give you an example. In 2019, the Campaign Legal Center, where I am founding president, and End Citizens United (ECU) filed a complaint with the FEC alleging that then-President Donald Trump’s campaign violated federal law by endorsing a super PAC. He issued a White House statement saying it was “run by allies of the President.” The complaint argued that by endorsing the super PAC, Trump was urging support of the group — in effect, unlawfully soliciting unlimited soft money (money not subject to FECA’s limitations and thus illegal for a candidate to solicit).

But despite a recommendation by the FEC’s general counsel that the agency should investigate the complaint, the commissioners deadlocked on proceeding and closed the case without action.

ECU, with Campaign Legal Center Action as counsel, sued the FEC to challenge the dismissal, but the court ruled against ECU on the reasoning that the FEC’s dismissal was non-reviewable because three commissioners had invoked the agency’s “prosecutorial discretion” in written explanations of their votes. This ruling — which ECU is appealing — frustrates Congress’s decision to guarantee judicial review of FEC dismissals.

Most, if not all, of the FEC’s recent 3-3 deadlocks have stemmed from the ideological considerations of three commissioners who oppose regulation of money in politics. These deadlocks, which prevent enforcement of the law, for too long have allowed laws to be broken without consequence. That a minority of the commissioners dresses up their reasoning with the phrase “prosecutorial discretion” should not shield the FEC’s failures from judicial review.

To emphasize, the courts’ deference to the words, to block review of FEC dismissals, is contrary to law. When Congress provided for judicial review of the agency, it did not include a “prosecutorial discretion” exception — and with good reason, because that would block the very substantive review that Congress authorized. The courts’ acceptance of “prosecutorial discretion” as a “get-out-of-jail-free card” subverts the structure of review of FEC dismissals that Congress designed and enables the practice to continue uncorrected.

Even if “prosecutorial discretion” is to be written into the law by the courts as a loophole to the right to judicial review, it would be appropriate only when that was invoked by vote of four commissioners, which is required by law for any agency “action.” When a minority of FEC commissioners creates a deadlock and prevents the FEC from taking action, that invocation of “prosecutorial discretion” does not constitute an agency “decision” worthy of judicial deference.

I have discussed previously how Congress can solve this issue and many others stemming from the FEC. For example, Congress could make it harder for the agency to gridlock by requiring a majority — rather than half — of the commissioners to agree before blocking the opening of an investigation. This reform last appeared as part of the large-scale legislation that failed to pass the Senate in January. Such legislation shows that some on Capitol Hill want to protect voters, even if the FEC doesn’t.

As concerns of potential election corruption abound and more secret spending pours into U.S. elections, strong enforcement of campaign finance laws is more important than ever. If the FEC doesn’t protect voters, the judicial system must step up and enforce the law — but Congress must pass legislation that will compel the FEC to do its job.

Trevor Potter is the president of the nonprofit, nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, who has served as chairman of the Federal Election Commission. Follow him on Twitter @TheTrevorPotter.

Source: TEST FEED1

NASCAR's Clint Bowyer involved in deadly crash in Missouri

LAKE OZARK, Mo. (WDAF) — An investigation is underway following a crash involving former NASCAR Cup Series driver Clint Bowyer. A 47-year-old woman died in the crash.

The crash was reported just before 9 p.m. June 5, near U.S. 54 and Missouri Highway 242 near Osage Beach, Missouri. According to a crash report from the Lake Ozark Police Department, Bowyer was driving westbound on U.S. 54 and was approaching Missouri 242 when he struck a woman walking on the ramp.

The crash report states once Bowyer realized the crash occurred, he immediately hit his brakes. He called 911 and helped point first responders to the female victim who was pronounced dead at the scene. The woman has been identified as Mary Jane Simmons, of Camdenton, Missouri.

Bowyer’s vehicle was reported to have sustained heavy front driver side damage and major damage to the windshield directly in front of the driver seat.

The crash report states Bowyer showed zero signs of impairment and provided a roadside sample of .000 blood alcohol content.

A crystalline substance was found where the female victim’s belongings were located and is believed to be methamphetamine, according to the report. She was believed to be under the influence of drugs, according to the crash report.

Clint Bowyer Racing released the following statement to FOX4 Thursday night from Bowyer: “Anyone that knows me, knows that family is everything to me. My thoughts and prayers are with the family and loved ones of Ms. Simmons. This is a very difficult time for my family and I, please respect our privacy as we move forward.”

Bowyer is now an analyst in the FOX Sports booth for NASCAR for the first half of the season. The crash occurred just hours after Bowyer finished broadcasting for the NASCAR Cup Series race at World Wide Technology Raceway outside St. Louis.

He was noticeably absent from last Sunday’s broadcast at Sonoma Raceway in California. Fox Sports reportedly said that Bowyer was handling an unspecified “personal matter.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Inside the contentious Trump-Biden appointee fight on the chemical safety board 

The Trump-appointed head of the government’s chemical safety board is making her way to the exits amid high tensions with her colleagues, who were appointed by President Biden.  

The U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, commonly known as the Chemical Safety Board (CSB), has been battling over a rule governing board operations that was approved by the exiting Chair Katherine Lemos, the Trump appointee.  

Lemos announced her resignation a week ago Friday, but she’s not actually leaving office for weeks and the fight with her colleagues is growing increasingly contentious.  

The two sides are fighting over a rule known as Board Order 28. It was approved by Lemos when she served as the only member of the board in April 2021 — just a couple months after President Biden took office.  

The two Biden nominees that now sit with her on the board, Steve Owens and Sylvia Johnson, say the rule gives way too much power to the chair. They have voted to get rid of some of her changes to it, but Lemos is challenging that vote on procedural grounds, her colleagues said.

One of their issues with the order is that it took issues that used to be subject to board approval, like the agency’s budget and expenditures over $50,000, and made them solely the chair’s responsibility. 

“The extent to which the revisions that were made in April 2021 in Board Order 28 gave the chair…total authority over everything was unprecedented in the history of the board’s operations,” Owens said in a joint interview with The Hill alongside Johnson. 

He also raised the fact that the changes came shortly before they were nominated later that same month, saying, “I think that there was an expectation that President Biden would be appointing members of the board.”

‘Punitive’ rules

Another particular area of contention has been on a “misconduct” section of rules governing the board.  

The language includes provisions that would allow one board member to report another to authorities including the FBI, the White House or Congress for such offenses as an unauthorized disclosure of nonpublic information.  

Johnson described the order as “punitive.”  

“There is a laundry list of offenses that we could potentially be disciplined for — and that discipline includes, but [is] not limited to being shut out of your email, being reported to the FBI, Congress, the White House — you name it,” Johnson said.  

“It was punitive, and certainly didn’t lend itself to any kind of collegial work environment among board members who are highly professional people and pretty responsible,” she added.  

CSB spokesperson Shauna Lawhorne said via email that Lemos did not author the order. She said it was “primarily based” on work from the board’s general counsel’s office. Lawhorne also said the changes are “narrowly tailored to our enabling legislation and track the original intent of Congress.” 

Procedural fight

Johnson and Owens wanted to make their own changes, they said, and held a vote to do so, but got into a procedural dispute with Lemos about whether their vote was valid. 

The fight is still playing out, even as Lemos submitted her resignation on Friday — about halfway into her appointed five-year term. She’s expected to remain on the board for several more weeks.  

In a resignation letter obtained by Bloomberg, Lemos cited “eroded confidence” in the board’s ability to focus on its mission based on its “recent priorities.” 

Johnson and Owen said the resignation, to them at least, was abrupt.  

“It was very much a surprise, certainly to me,” Owens said. “We had no advance knowledge about it and didn’t actually learn about it until we had gotten a call from…a senior adviser to the chair on Friday.” 

The board is an independent agency charged with investigating industrial chemical accidents. Board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.  

In their procedural dispute with Lemos, Owens and Johnson said they utilized an expedited procedure in which a majority vote could approve their changes to Board Order 28. But, since Lemos has insisted on tabling the issue for a public meeting, Owens said the board members have been trying to get one such meeting scheduled. 

Now that the chair is leaving, Owens said, it’s not clear whether or when a meeting would take place — though if it doesn’t occur while Lemos is there, the two are expected to alter the order after she departs.

Other controversies

The fight with the two board members is not the only controversy swirling around Lemos, who has come under criticism from outside groups for her spending on travel and other expenses.  

The organization Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) reported last year that between joining the board in 2020 and May 2021, Lemos spent $33,000 on travel, mainly from her home in California to Washington based on documents the group received from a Freedom of Information Act request.  PEER also reported that she spent nearly $20,000 in office renovations despite a $5,000 cap for government officials.  

A source who viewed a budget document separately told The Hill this week that for fiscal year 2022, the CSB had budgeted $50,000 for Lemos’s “intercity travel” between her home in San Diego, which the agency recently designated as Lemos’s official base, and Washington.

When asked for more specifics about the use of this $50,000, including whether it was for travel overall or just between Washington and San Diego and why it was necessary, Lawhorne said said: “The travel budgets for Board Members follow all Federal Travel Regulations and are accounted for in the normal course of business.  This amount is for all travel.”

“Similar budgets are available to other Board Members as well and are in line with or lower than historic norms,” she added. 

In response to follow up questions, Lawhorne disputed the $50,000 figure, saying, “the $50,000 number proffered in your question is not substantiated by our budget submissions or expenditures.”

She declined, however, to say how much the agency spent on Lemos’s travel and refused to provide budget documents. 

A second source familiar with the situation confirmed that the agency is funding Lemos’s travel to and from San Diego, including airfare and hotels, but said they did not know how much was being spent.

Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel for the Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said that the alleged travel budget “probably raises issues.” 

“If she’s just flying back and forth to DC then maybe it doesn’t make sense. Maybe her duty station has to be in D.C.. The taxpayers shouldn’t be paying any more than necessary for official travel,” she said.  

Meanwhile, on Thursday, the EPA’s Inspector General’s Office, which also oversees the Chemical Safety Board, announced that it was launching a probe into the agency’s operations. 

Specifically, it said it will “​​review of the CSB’s capabilities to effectively administer its programs and operations” and will particularly look at “staffing levels, attrition, and leadership.”

Lawhorne said that the agency fully supports the inquiry. 

Amid the controversies, PEER is calling for Lemos’s immediate removal in a new letter to President Biden that the group shared with The Hill.

“Allowing Ms. Lemos to remain as CSB chair for another six weeks will only prolong this utterly unproductive state of affairs and prevent the CSB from moving forward under new leadership,” wrote Tim Whitehouse, PEER’s executive director.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Five ways the Fed's interest rate hikes will impact Americans

The Federal Reserve Bank announced a 75-basis point interest rate hike on Wednesday, a 50 percent greater increase than the central bank had initially signaled it was going to make for June.  

The move comes after inflation hit a new, 40-year high last week, with consumer prices reaching an 8.6 percent mantel over where they were a year ago.  

Fed watchers predict that the bank’s benchmark Federal Funds rate will continue to rise throughout the year, perhaps at a quicker pace than originally expected if higher prices don’t go down. 

Even with the rate hike, interest rates will still only be around 1.6 percent, close to all-time lows. 

Here are five ways that an environment of increasing interest rates will affect Americans’ wallets and the economy:  

Mortgage, car and credit card payments are going to increase  

The Federal Funds rate sets the rate at which banks and credit unions can lend money to each other as they determine their need for capital to make investments across the economy.

Banks that borrow money at the Federal Funds rate then need to charge a comparable rate to the people and institutions that borrow money from them. So an increase in the Funds rate translates down to higher rates in credit markets, mortgage markets and any industry that relies on financing plans to make payments.

This means higher monthly house and car payments and a bigger price tag on outstanding credit card debt.

Mortgage rates are already seeing sharp increases. Interest payments for the U.S. benchmark 30-year-fixed rate mortgage made the largest one-week jump in 35 years, hitting 5.78 percent as of Thursday, up more than half a percentage point since only the week before.

That means a mortgage payment on a median-valued $400,000 home, after a 20-percent down payment, would now be about $1,875 dollars. Last year, the monthly payment on the same home would have been $1,335. That’s more than a $500 dollar-a-month difference.

Stock markets are falling and seeing dramatic swings in prices  

Those increased prices that consumers are paying mean that people tend to rein in their spending, which brings down the demand for goods and services. The consequence for companies is diminished earnings, which means investors become less willing to pay for ownership shares, and this causes stock prices to fall.  

Since January, most major indices of U.S. stocks have fallen around 20 percent, entering what’s known as a bear market, or an extended period of shrinking share prices.  

The Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 18.6 percent this year, dipping below 30,000 on Thursday off a January high of 36,800. The S&P 500 index has dropped beneath 3,700 off a high of 4,800, a decline of more than 22 percent, over the same period.  

The technology-heavy Nasdaq, whose companies tend to hold extra debt making them particularly sensitive to interest rate increases, has fallen more than 30 percent.  

Since March, when the Fed first started raising interest rates with a modest 25 to 50-basis point target range, the Dow has fallen 12 percent, the S&P has fallen 16 percent, and the Nasdaq has fallen 20 percent.  
 

It’s going to be harder to find a job  

Price increases that shrink demand also have the effect of forcing companies to cut costs, and one of the first places they look to do that is in the labor force.  

The housing market provides a clear example of this process, according to Desmond Lachman, an economist with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a right-leaning Washington think tank.  

Mortgage rates that “used to be a little bit over 3 percent at the start of the year are now around about 6 percent. That means people who could afford a $100 house at the start of the year can only afford a house now around $70. That means there’s a whole lot less demand for houses, so house prices begin leveling and coming down, and so builders don’t want to build so many houses, and then people aren’t employed,” Lachman said in an interview with The Hill.  

While this may sound like a bad thing, it has positive longer term effects for the economy, which has been experiencing some of the highest employment levels in decades, with around 96.4 percent of job seekers currently employed and 11.4 million jobs currently open, according to the Department of Labor.  

Having a looser labor market means companies don’t have to keep charging higher prices in order to turn a profit for their investors, and this can drive down inflation and stretch the value of a dollar.   

So even though higher rates will mean an end to the nominal wage gains that have benefited workers during a period of labor scarcity, the increased purchasing power of the dollar should add real value to paychecks.  

The likelihood of a recession is growing  

While the Fed has been pursuing a “soft landing” for the economy –lowering inflation toward 2 percent without triggering a recession – many market commentators are viewing recession in the next year or two as increasingly likely.  

“I’m not as worried about a return to the inflation levels of the 1970s as I am about a deep recession that is going to bring inflation way down soon,” AEI’s Lachman said.  

The fears of a serious recession, or the combination of slowed growth and weakly valued money known as “stagflation,” are compounded now by geopolitical issues that extend beyond the reach of the monetary policy levers held by the Fed.   

These include the war in Ukraine, which has had an effect on global food prices, as well as lockdowns in China, which have affected production pipelines. Broader issues with supply chains, which have been stymied by sky-high energy prices and congestion at ports, are also powerful forces dragging on the global economy.  

A recession for Americans following interest rate hikes will be a double-edged sword. While it will bring down prices in the medium-term, it will also mean a period of reduced economic activity. This will translate into lesser returns on investments in the stock market and other securities markets, worse performance in retirement plans like 401Ks and lower nominal wages. 
 

The national deficit is going to cost (taxpayers) more  

With interest rates at or near zero, economists tend not to worry about the federal deficit, the value of which stands now at about a year and a quarter’s worth of productive output, or gross domestic product (GDP).  

The resounding economic recovery experienced by the U.S. economy after the near-total shutdown of the private sector due to the pandemic took a bite out of the U.S. national debt. The latest projection of the deficit from the Congressional Budget Office was $1.7 trillion lower than expected.  

But with interest rates on the rise, pleasant surprises like this one will be fewer and farther between, as paying off the national debt will require more taxpayer money.  

“The government is going to have to pay out more in interest payments,” Lachman said. “On top of that, what’s going to happen in the progress that we’ve been making in reducing the deficit is also going to go, because as the economy tanks and goes into recession, it means the government’s going to collect fewer taxes.”  

Lachman added: “The wrong thing for the Fed to do was – especially after the Biden package of $1.9 trillion, 8 percent of GDP, the kind of fiscal stimulus that we’ve never had before during peacetime – the Fed just sat with interest rates at zero and then kept convincing itself that inflation was transitory and had nothing to do with the fact that the money supply had increased by 40 percent over two years. That was insane.”  

Source: TEST FEED1

Gun-safety bill bogs down on details

Senate negotiators on Thursday failed to reach a final deal on the legislative text of a gun-safety proposal, which means the bill will probably be delayed at least a week.  

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters that negotiators hadn’t reached agreement on the final draft of the bill after several rounds of meetings Thursday.  

“This is the hardest part because at some point you just to make a decision and when people don’t want to make a decision, you can’t accomplish a result. And that’s kind of where we are right now,” Cornyn, the lead Republican negotiator, said as he left the Capitol basement Thursday afternoon.  

“You don’t want to give politicians an unlimited amount of time to talk because they will fill the available space,” he said. “It’s fish or cut bait. 

“I told them I’m leaving but I’ll be available or by text messages,” he said as he walked out of the basement hideaway office of Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), the lead Democratic negotiator.  

Murphy said the “goal” was to get a final agreement on legislative text by Thursday, which would have given Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) a chance to schedule it for a vote next week.  

But he downplayed the significance of failing to get a deal after several days of in-person negotiations in the Senate.  

“I don’t think we have to get it done by today but that should be our goal,” he said Thursday morning.  

Negotiators say they’re stuck on two provisions in the bipartisan framework, a proposal to send hundreds of millions of dollars states to set up red flag laws or other intervention procedures for taking guns away from people deemed dangerous to the community and another to close the so-called “boyfriend loophole.” 

Closing the boyfriend loophole would bar intimate or romantic partners convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse claims from possessing firearms. But Republican and Democratic negotiators haven’t yet agreed on a restitution process for current and former dating partners to regain their rights to own guns after a period of time.  

The question of restoring the gun-ownership rights of romantic partners has opened a debate about whether spouses, ex-spouses and current or former co-habitants should also have a pathway to regaining gun-ownership rights after being convicted of misdemeanor abuse charges.  

“We’re still continuing to work on it, there are still some fine points when you get to the drafting,” said Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.).  

Tillis said negotiators are “pretty close” on settling on the definition of intimate or romantic partner. 

“Then there’s the question of restoration” of gun rights of a dating partner who has been stripped of his or her gun rights, he said. 

“There are some people, not in the negotiations, but other members that feel like if you’re establishing a restoration process in connection with the boyfriend loophole, why would you [not] consider it for others?” Tillis said.   

“That’s created a lot of discussion,” he added.  

Cornyn on Thursday expressed growing impatience with the pace of the talks, which are at risk of stalling.

“It’s now or never,” Cornyn told reporters after giving Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) an update in his office.  

Cornyn also told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt in an interview that the negotiators have “run out of rope” and need to make some tough decisions on unresolved issues. 

Murphy said the precise language of the proposals to provide money to states to administer red flag laws and to close the boyfriend loophole needs to be worked out.  

“We’re at a critical moment. We always knew that landing the final agreement would be critical but I have confidence we’ll get there,” he said.  

“I understand Sen. Cornyn’s concerns. I have a belief as with all the remaining open issues that we can figure them out,” he added.  

The failure to hammer out the final legislative text of the gun-safety bill by the end of the Senate’s work week means that it probably won’t be ready for floor consideration next week.  

Next week’s Senate schedule will be compressed by the Juneteenth federal holiday on Monday.  

The chamber is scheduled to resume session at 3 p.m. Tuesday. 

If the bill text is finished over the weekend, Schumer would have to wait until Tuesday afternoon to file a cloture motion to proceed to the bill, which means the first procedural vote wouldn’t happen until Thursday.  

Schumer told colleagues that he will bring a bill to the floor as soon as it is finalized.  

“We want to move quickly and decisively to make sure we don’t let this opportunity slip away,” he said.   

Now Schumer will likely have to find something else to fill the Senate schedule next week.  

The Senate is scheduled to leave town for a week-long recess on July 1 to commemorate Independence Day.  

Aris Foley contributed.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Partner of fallen Capitol officer Sicknick criticizes inaction from Ivanka Trump, Jared Kushner

The partner of an officer who died following the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection placed blame on those around former President Trump, specifically Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, for not speaking up publicly before the Capitol attack happened. 

Sandra Garza, the former partner of fallen U.S. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick, criticized Kushner for comments he made during a recorded deposition he gave to the House select committee investigating the attack, saying that he viewed White House lawyers’ threats to resign in the days leading up to the riot as “whining.” The panel played the recording during its first public hearing last week. 

Garza told CNN’s Jake Tapper Kushner’s comment was “absolutely despicable” and said he and Ivanka Trump “could have done something” to avoid the “bloodshed” that took place on the day of the riot. 

Sicknick died one day after the insurrection occurred. The D.C. chief medical examiner determined that Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes after he collapsed at the Capitol. He was sprayed with chemical irritants during the insurrection, but the examiner did not find evidence that he suffered an allergic reaction to them. 

More than 150 officers were injured in the riot and four of those who responded on Jan. 6 committed suicide in the following months. 

Video that the House committee played during the hearing showed that Ivanka Trump said she believed then-Attorney General William Barr when he said there was no legitimacy to her father’s claims that voter fraud cost him the 2020 presidential election. 

“Families were decimated because of what happened on the 6th,” Garza said. “People died because of what happened on the 6th.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Delta pilots say they’ve been flying ‘record amount of overtime’ amid flight cancellations

Pilots for Delta Air Lines wrote an open letter to customers, published on Thursday, saying the large number of recent flight delays, cancellations and cuts were “unacceptable” and they were “flying a record amount of overtime to help you get to your destination.”

“At the current rate, by this fall, our pilots will have flown more overtime in 2022 than in the entirety of 2018 and 2019 combined, our busiest years to date,” the pilots wrote in the letter. “We empathize and share in your frustration over the delays, cancellations, and disrupted travel plans you’ve experienced. We agree; it is unacceptable.”

In a May 26 release, Delta announced it would reduce its services by about 100 daily flights from July 1 to Aug. 7.

The airline company updated the release on Thursday, saying its weekend cancelations were down 35 percent from May while it was hiring more pilots and staff and starting the boarding process earlier.

Delta also said it would continue to adjust flights as part of a plan of “strategically decreasing our flight schedule this summer” in order to “build additional resilience in our system and improve operational reliability.”

Delta joins other airlines in a wave of mass flight cancelations this summer, which the companies say is a result of staffing shortages caused by the pandemic.

Other major airline companies slashing flights include Southwest Airlines, which cut 20,000 of them for this summer, The Dallas Morning News reported.

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the world’s largest pilot union, disagreed that there was a staffing shortage, arguing in a June 7 release the companies were making a “fictitious claim that there is a lack of available pilots” in an effort to weaken safety regulations for profits.

“The United States is producing a record number of pilots, yet some are still trying to claim we need to weaken aviation safety rules to fix a problem that doesn’t exist,” said ALPA president Capt. Joe DePete in a statement.

ALPA said data from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) showed 8,000 new pilots were certified in the past 12 months.

In a statement on Thursday, Delta Chief of Operations John Laughter said recovering from the pandemic has been challenging and in particular, “this phase of our recovery has been the most difficult.”

“We’ve never had to bring the airline back at this speed before,” Laughter said. “Through this challenge, we continue to make decisions that allow us to run a good, safe operation while restoring our network, and to take care of our people and customers.”

In Thursday’s letter, however, Delta pilots criticized the company’s management. The employees told customers they were “disheartened when we witness the impact of your disrupted travel plans.”

“As we welcome you aboard, we will continue to go above and beyond to ensure the integrity of the operation. Delta’s management needs to do the same before you lose confidence in the Delta brand,” they wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

Dominion Voting Systems' lawsuit against Newsmax can proceed, judge rules

A judge in Delaware on Thursday ruled that a defamation lawsuit against Newsmax filed by Dominion Voting Systems can proceed, with the firm accusing the conservative media company of purposely spreading lies about its voting technology in the 2020 election.

Judge Eric Davis in the Superior Court of Delaware denied a motion from Newsmax to dismiss the case, saying the company “knew the allegations were probably false” about the voting technology and “there were enough signs indicating the statements were not true to infer Newsmax’s intent to avoid the truth.”

“Given that Newsmax apparently refused to report contrary evidence, including evidence from the Department of Justice, the allegations support the reasonable inference that Newsmax intended to keep Dominion’s side of the story out of the mainstream,” Davis wrote in his opinion.

The Hill has reached out to Newsmax for comment.

Dominion Voting Systems, a federally certified company selling voting machines and tabulators across the country, filed lawsuits in August against Newsmax and One America News, as well as Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock.com, alleging defamation.

The lawsuits followed debunked claims spread by former President Trump that the 2020 election was rife with fraud. Trump’s legal team, including Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, took aim at Dominion Voting Systems, accusing the company’s voting tech of manipulating votes in favor of President Biden.

After the election, Powell was a frequent guest on Newsmax, telling the “Greg Kelly Reports” show in one interview that there was a “systematic problem with the Dominion machines,” according to the complaint filed by Dominion Voting Systems.

“We know Dominion has a long history of rigging elections. That’s what it was created to do to begin with,” she said in another appearance in late 2020, according to the complaint.

The voting systems company said other guests on Newsmax also spread false election claims and individuals affiliated with the outlet tweeted that Dominion technology had helped to steal the election, according to Dominion’s complaint.

In a statement to The Hill after the lawsuit was filed in August, Newsmax said Dominion’s defamation suit was a “clear attempt to squelch such reporting and undermine a free press.”

Dominion Voting Systems said that while Newsmax ratings spiked 145 percent in December 2020 compared to 2019, Dominion was negatively impacted. The company said it had to spend $600,000 on private security because of threats and another $700,000 combating the disinformation claims.

Defamation suits have to prove “actual malice,” meaning someone intentionally spread claims they knew were false or spread them “with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.”

In its motion, Newsmax argued the standard of actual malice had not been set and that they were defended by a legal doctrine that allows journalists to report on newsworthy allegations by individuals.

However, Dominion accuses Newsmax of avoiding evidence put out by the Department of Justice in December 2020 that debunked the false election claims, asserting that “Newsmax’s broadcasts went beyond the neutral reportage privilege.”

On Thursday, Davis agreed Dominion’s suit had enough basis to move forward.

“The Complaint supports the reasonable inference that Newsmax either knew its statements about Dominion’s role in the election fraud were false or had a high degree of awareness that they were false,” the judge wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1