Archive by Author

The questions Congress should — but didn’t — ask about UFOs

The willingness of House Intelligence Committee members to consider unidentified aerial phenomenon (UAP) — what we once called UFOs — in a public forum demonstrates how far the stigma surrounding the topic has receded and the degree to which UAP are now considered a legitimate national security issue. 

Among other things the House UAP hearing offered a promising opportunity to:

• Determine if the government’s new UAP classification guide strikes a proper balance between public transparency and national security;
• Assess the progress being made in establishing the new, congressionally mandated Department of Defense-Director of National Intelligence (DOD-DNI) organization to investigate UAPs;
• Determine whether America’s massive space surveillance apparatus is detecting anomalies in space comparable to those being detected in the atmosphere and in the ocean;
• Determine whether progress has been made in overcoming Air Force resistance to sharing information with the UAP task force and its successor, a problem acknowledged in the unclassified UAP report provided to Congress last June.
• Validate or eliminate a number of prolific, sensational rumors involving UAP and the U.S. government.

Regrettably, members of the House subcommittee failed to make headway on any of these important issues. Even when administration witnesses offered tantalizing leads, there was little effort by committee members to seize the opportunity to shed fresh light on the vexing UAP mystery. 

For example, we learned that drones were responsible for a much-publicized video of what appeared to be small triangular objects surveilling a U.S. Navy warship at sea. But were these Russian or Chinese drones? Do they represent an advance in technology, given their range, loiter time and distance from land? Were these drones weaponized like many of the drones in use today in Ukraine? Unfortunately, committee members made no effort to learn the identity and capability of the drones or the intentions of those operating them.

Similarly, we learned that leaders of the Pentagon’s new UAP office are in dialogue with the U.S. Space Command and Space Force. However, no committee member thought to ask about the views of the Space Command or whether our massive space surveillance system has identified UAPs in space.

On several occasions, administration witnesses indicated the new UAP organization had no information regarding prominent, long-standing allegations pertaining to UAP and the U.S. government. For example, when asked about claims by Air Force veterans alleging UAP interference with U.S. intercontinental ballistic missiles, the witnesses simply indicated there was no pertinent information in the possession of the new UAP office. Committee members might easily have asked the witnesses to seek an answer from the Air Force and report back, but they failed to do so. Surely the Air Force can provide answers to such straightforward questions if only someone would ask.

This and other acknowledged gaps in the knowledge base of the UAP task force raise a crucial question: Are U.S. intelligence agencies and military departments fully and properly sharing UAP information with DOD’s new UAP office? After all, one of Congress’s foremost objectives regarding UAPs has been to ensure there is a location where all UAP information comes together for purposes of analysis and oversight.

Solving the UAP information-sharing issue, sometimes referred to as the “stove-piping” problem, has from the outset been a top priority for Congress. The issue is particularly acute with regard to alleged foot-dragging on information sharing by the Air Force. In fact, last year’s unclassified report to Congress acknowledged the problem, stating that the UAP task force “is currently working to acquire additional reporting, including from the U.S. Air Force.”

Has that task force succeeded in acquiring all pertinent information from the Air Force? Is the new UAP organization satisfied with the Air Force’s information-sharing? Again, unfortunately, no committee member thought to ask.

The most interesting new information from the hearing was the dramatic increase in the number of recorded Defense Department UAP reports, from 144 last June to 400 today. Unfortunately, no effort was made to clarify the significance of this sudden, dramatic increase. Does it reflect a dramatic surge in new incidents? Or was it primarily the result of old reports coming to light now that DOD personnel feel more comfortable discussing UAP incidents? How many of the reports involved multiple sensor systems, and how many involved objects demonstrating radical capabilities (as opposed to drone-like behavior)? Were these incidents concentrated in specific regions at home or abroad? Did any of the new reports involve objects in space or underwater? 

Hopefully, there will be an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the significance of this dramatic increase in UAP incidents in the next unclassified UAP report to Congress or the next congressional hearing.

To be sure, the UAP issue is nowhere near the top of a long list of concerns confronting members of Congress or their constituents. Moreover, members frequently and understandably are overwhelmed by office duties, including the daily firehose of social media and email correspondence; the need to help solve all manner of sticky problems that constituents are having with the federal government; the need to stay abreast of issues ranging from agriculture to Ukraine, as well as the tiresome, never-ending chore of soliciting millions of dollars in campaign donations to maintain a grip on their seats in Congress. 

I recommend that, in the future, committees hoping to have a productive hearing on the UAP issue begin with testimony from an outside panel of experts. This approach provides a chance to better understand and frame UAP issues before engaging administration officials.

Although it proved disappointing, the recent congressional UAP hearing was an historic event, an important breakthrough after more than 50 years of neglect. Hopefully, there will be more UAP hearings soon. Congress should continue to carefully consider the next steps our government needs to take to reveal the elusive nature of the phenomenon and its implications for science and national security.

Although government oversight of the UAP issue remains messy and often unsatisfying, the U.S. government is now seriously engaged and seeking answers. This represents enormous progress since 2017, when fellow UAP researcher Lue Elizondo and I reached out to the New York Times and Congress to alert the nation to the reality of the UAP phenomenon. At this point, with Congress and the executive branch seeking answers, I’m confident that progress toward greater openness and understanding of the phenomenon will continue.

Christopher Mellon served 20 years in the federal government. He’s a registered independent who served presidents and senators of both parties. He served as deputy assistant Defense secretary for intelligence, 1999-2002, and for security and information operations, 1998-99. From 2002 to 2004 he was minority staff director of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. He was a consultant and contributor to the HISTORY Channel’s nonfiction series, “Unidentified: Inside America’s UFO Investigation.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Key Senate antitrust bill hangs in the balance

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) is pushing for a summer vote on a key antitrust bill targeting tech giants, but updates to the language released last week may do little to quell concerns from Democrats teetering on support. 

Klobuchar and Sen. Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) American Innovation and Choice Online Act advanced with bipartisan support out of the Judiciary Committee earlier this year, but the chances of it passing hinge on supporters gaining a large enough coalition. Even some Democrats who voted to advance the bill in January have expressed hesitation in supporting it on a floor vote, and more may back off amid a dwindling deadline ahead of competitive midterm races. 

Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate antitrust subcommittee, released revisions to the text late Wednesday night, before the Senate recessed for Memorial Day. She said she is excited about the “very bipartisan” bill’s chance of proceeding.  

“We’ve worked with a number of members and we are making progress,” Klobuchar told The Hill Thursday. 

The bill, like antitrust reform efforts in the House, is creating strange bedfellows, bringing together senators across the aisle who are split on most other issues.

The unlikely allies could give the bill a fair chance of passing in the evenly split 50-50 Senate if called for a vote. But hesitancy among some Democrats may dissuade leadership from putting it forward. 

“It’s really a Democrat question, because the question is will [Senate Majority Leader Chuck] Schumer put it on the floor, which he hasn’t,” said Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), a co-sponsor of the bill. 

Klobuchar told Punchbowl News last week, before releasing the updated text, that Schumer said there will be a vote on the bill, which she is hoping to happen “in the next month.” 

But the lack of a set timeline signals “they don’t think they have the votes,” Hawley said. 

The bill aims to limit tech giants from giving preferential treatment to their own products. It defines such dominant online companies by user base and revenue, in a way that would likely apply to Amazon, Apple, Meta and Google. 

For example, if successful the legislation could bar Amazon from placing its own products at the top of results or keep Google from highlighting its own services in search. 

At least a handful of lawmakers who voted on the bill during the January markup, and even some co-sponsors, told The Hill on Thursday they had yet to review the revisions Klobuchar released late the night before. Among them were California Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D) and Alex Padilla (D), both of whom voted to advance the bill at the time but said they had reservations that could keep them from voting for it in a floor vote. 

During the committee markup in January, Feinstein and Padilla said they were concerned the bill targets specific companies that are mostly headquartered on their home turf. Other than Amazon, which is based in Washington state, the three dominant tech companies likely covered by the bill are based in California. 

Padilla also raised concerns about the legislation’s potential negative impacts on privacy and cybersecurity.

A Democratic aide told The Hill the revision process has been opaque, without a lot of engagement to address concerns raised by senators during the hearing. 

The aide said when Klobuchar released the revisions Wednesday night, it was the first time the aide had seen revisions since the January hearing. 

Adam Kovacevich, founder and CEO of the tech group Chamber of Progress, said the revisions seem to “primarily address complaints of Republicans and corporate lobbyists rather than the Democrats who Klobuchar needs to move this bill.” 

Kovacevich said the revisions create carve outs for banking and telecommunications companies, but failed to address concerns from Democrats on a provision that some are arguing would lead to content moderation issues for tech companies. 

Amazon, Apple, Meta and Google are all corporate partners of Chamber of Progress. 

The content moderation concerns stem from a provision in the bill that would make it illegal for a covered platform to “discriminate” in the enforcement of terms of services among “similarly situated business users in a matter that would materially harm competition.” 

Kovacevich, and others opposed to the language, argue it could lead to legal challenges over a company such as Apple or Google removing an app that violates its policies from their own app stores, potentially undermining their ability to moderate content.

But Evan Greer, a spokesperson with Fight for the Future, pushed back on these concerns, which she called an industry-led attack on the measure.

“Tech monopolies like Facebook and YouTube have a terrible track record on content moderation. These bills would make that situation better, not worse, by creating an environment where alternative platforms with better, more transparent, and more human rights centered moderation practices can meaningfully compete,” Greer said. 

Greer said tech groups are “grasping at straws” to find arguments to push back on the legislation. 

Beyond industry groups, though, some Democratic lawmakers have raised similar content moderation concerns, as has advocacy group Free Press.

Matt Wood, vice president of policy and general counsel at Free Press, said the issue remains in the revised legislation. 

Even though there is no private right of action, meaning a company would not be able to use the law to bring a case against a dominant platform, it could lead to attorneys general or a future Federal Trade Commission taking such a stance, Wood said.

Broadly, tech industry groups have also slammed the legislation over concerns it would raise national security issues or lead to the disbanding of services consumers enjoy, such as Amazon’s prime program. 

Klobuchar and other supporters have denied the attacks that the bill would lead to those outcomes.

Sascha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, said the revisions “definitely addressed” concerns raised by senators around security issues. 

“It was a good bill before and [it’s a] better bill today,” Haworth said. 

“There aren’t that many issues out there, especially not in this Congress, where you have high ranking Democrats [and] high ranking Republicans as sponsors of the bill. There aren’t that many issues out there that are like this, let alone drafted legislation ready to be voted on,” she said. “[I] wouldn’t think anyone would want to stake out a position in opposition to this issue.”

A poll conducted by Hart Research between May 18 and 22 found voters in the battleground states of Arizona, Georgia, New Hampshire and Nevada support Senate efforts to rein in the power of tech companies. 

The poll found 76 percent of voters in those states said they favor the American Innovation and Choice Online Act. 

Eighty percent said they support the Open App Markets Act, another bill that advanced out of committee with a focus on regulating dominant app stores, according to the poll of 1,200 voters.

Source: TEST FEED1

The Memo: Guns and abortion threaten to become midterm issues

Two huge cultural issues — guns and abortion — are suddenly dominating the national conversation just five months out from midterm elections that were expected to be defined by the economy.

A month ago, it seemed that a combination of rising gas prices, high inflation and general public discontent after more than two years of being battered by the COVID-19 pandemic would be the only things that really mattered. 

Those topics were also expected to provide Republican with a strong tailwind heading into November’s midterms.

But that has changed — for now. 

The political headlines for the past month have been dominated by, firstly, a leaked draft ruling from the Supreme Court that would strike down Roe v. Wade, and more recently by two horrific mass shootings in a 10-day span.

Those developments have shaken up the national mood. But whether they will fundamentally change the electoral calculus is a tougher question.

Advocates for abortion rights claim the imminent danger to Roe could energize liberals who might not otherwise vote, as well as suburban women, who are sometimes seen as the archetypal swing voters.

President Biden has characterized the draft ruling as a statement of conservative militancy which contains within it the rationale to endanger other rights, such as the right to same-sex marriage or contraception.

There have been some signs of abortion climbing in importance in polls. 

The polling and data site FiveThirtyEight recently noted that the proportion of Biden 2020 voters who say abortion is a “very important” issue for them shot up by 15 points in the immediate wake of the draft ruling’s publication by Politico in early May.

Polling on abortion overall is complicated and nuanced, but there are consistent majorities in favor of keeping Roe in place — a dynamic that could expose the GOP to backlash if it were overturned.

Republicans, however, argue that such a ruling could energize anti-abortion activists just as much as their counterparts who favor abortion rights.

Even some Democrats are skeptical that the issue will be a political panacea for their party — in part because they suspect people who feel strongly about abortion, on either side, vote in a reliable and predictable way.

“The people who are motivated by choice as an animating issue are very committed voters to begin with, and they are voters who have the luxury to consider cultural issues,” said Democratic strategist Julie Roginsky. “When you wake up every day worrying about how to fill up the gas tank or how to pay for basic necessities, abortion is just not something you have time to worry about.”

Comments like that reflect the grim economic realities that assert themselves in millions of Americans’ daily lives right now.

Inflation remains close to its highest point since the early 1980s. Gas prices have soared. The war in Ukraine is having knock-on effects on food prices.

Those factors have sapped Biden’s approval ratings. Last week, the president hit a new low in a NewsNation/Decision DeskHQ poll, with 43 percent of votes saying they approved of his performance and 57 percent disapproving. 

The GOP is already set to benefit from the historical pattern by which the president’s party usually loses seats in the first midterms of his White House tenure. 

Given that House Democrats are defending a tiny House majority and that the Senate is split 50-50, a GOP sweep still looks like a very real possibility.

Could the grim politics of the gun debate shake up that pattern?

The issue has new sharpness, On May 14, ten people were killed in Buffalo, N.Y., in an apparent racist attack. Last week, twenty-one people, including 19 children, were killed in Uvalde, Texas.

Republicans came under criticism, especially after the Texas killing, for their staunch opposition to virtually any gun control measures. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky,) had publicly encouraged colleagues to take part in bipartisan talks, though he has been hazy on what exactly he might be open to.

On the other hand, when the NRA held a conference in Houston just three days after the massacre, former President Trump and other leading GOP lights such as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) spoke — hardly the stance of politicians who fear the gun issue is about to turn against them.

There is also the underlying political reality — proponents of gun reform have typically struggled to sustain public outrage and engagement.

Matt Mackowiak, chair of the Travis County GOP in Texas, expressed his horror at what had occurred in his state. But he added that, in political terms, “in the moment it feels as if this will resonate beyond the moment, for a longer period of time. But I think the truth is that history shows that hasn’t been the case.”

Independent experts tend to agree.

“It’s the problem of policy fatigue, or something we sometimes call the policy attention cycle,” said Todd Belt, the director of the political management program at the George Washington University. “Over time, people’s attention sort of wanes, and it is hard to keep the public focused on something that is no longer in the news.”

For all the intensity and trauma of the last month, those issues might well have receded by the time November rolls around. 

If that happens, the story of the election will, in the end, be about the economy. And, right now, that is an ominous sign for Democrats.

The Memo is a reported column by Niall Stanage.

Source: TEST FEED1

As Jan. 6 subpoena deadline looms, Jordan, McCarthy mull options

Letters from House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) demanding documents from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol is a surprising signal that some GOP members subpoenaed by the panel may actually be thinking about some level of cooperation with its investigation. 

The letters largely berate the committee before asking it to turn over most of its information on the two lawmakers. Still, it cracks open the door for negotiations over whether they may actually appear – a strategy that could likewise be effective in draining committee time. 

The duo are among five members subpoenaed by the panel earlier this month after being previously asked to voluntarily meet with the committee.

None did so.

But with staggered deadlines to comply with subpoenas by the end of the month, some seem to be rethinking that calculus in the face of possible prosecution and jail time. 

“The strategy is obvious: cooperate, take the contempt, or file a lawsuit. There seems to be room for negotiation if the January 6th Committee will engage. But we really are in uncharted territory in many ways,” a Republican official with knowledge of the situation told The Hill. 

All three might be equally unappealing.

Straight cooperation would give leverage to a committee the GOP has otherwise lambasted as purely political and improperly constructed.

It’s something the two alluded to in an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Thursday.

“For House Republican leaders to agree to participate in this political stunt would change the House forever. Every representative in the minority would be subject to compelled interrogations by the majority, under oath, without any foundation of fairness,” the two wrote.

But bucking them entirely and risking contempt – the panel and full House have already referred charges for four others who defied their subpoenas – carries up to two years of jail time and $200,000 in fines.

And a suit to challenge the committee’s authority to issue the subpoenas would be a lengthy and expensive proposition. There’s no guarantee for success, and it could solidify the rights of a panel to subpoena their lawmakers.

Jordan, one of the House’s most combative members, appears to walk the line between offering cooperation and risking contempt. 

“I ask that you provide all documents, videos, or other material in the possession of the Select Committee that you potentially anticipate using, introducing, or relying on during questioning,” Jordan wrote to the committee on Wednesday, adding “so that I may adequately further respond to your subpoena.” 

McCarthy’s letter, written by his attorney, makes similar requests, while also delving into issues around how the committee was composed.

“The refusal of these members to cooperate is a continued assault on the rule of law and sets a dangerous new precedent that could hamper the House’s ability to conduct oversight in the futurem,” Tim Mulvey, the Jan. 6 committee’s spokesman, said in a late Friday statement, adding that the two were “hiding behind debunked arguments and baseless requests for special treatment.”

The committee wants to speak with both McCarthy and Jordan about their communications with former President Trump on Jan. 6.  

Jordan himself was scheduled for a Friday deposition, though those subpoenaed are often granted an extension as they seek an attorney or otherwise engage with the committee. It’s not clear whether his letter would be considered such a request.  

The hint of cooperation has been used by several already subpoenaed by the committee, though such a move can effectively function as a “beat the clock” strategy that eats up time.

“I think beat the clock is the game,” said Jeff Robbins, an attorney now in private practice who has served as both a federal prosecutor and a Senate investigative counsel. “It’s a transparent effort by someone who does not have a valid basis to fail to comply with a subpoena to delay compliance.”

“The GOP expects to take control of the House in November, which will mean that this committee will be disbanded before you can say ‘insurrection,’” he added. “And therefore the subpoena will be withdrawn and deemed a nullity within a nanosecond of the new Congress being sworn in. That really, to me, seems to be the strategy of those being subpoenaed.”

Dan Scavino, former President Trump’s deputy chief of staff for communications, was among the first four people to be subpoenaed by the panel in August of last year, but after a lengthy back and forth between lawyers, he didn’t ultimately face a contempt referral to the Department of Justice until April.

Others have chosen to take a path of some cooperation.

Mark Meadows, Trump’s chief of staff, turned over thousands of his text messages to the committee alongside other documents but never came in for an interview.

That degree of cooperation, along with his status as a close advisor to the president, could be factors in why the Department of Justice has yet to take the House’s referral for criminal prosecution of Meadows. 

Meadows is, however, in the midst of a suit with the committee over whether his executive privilege claims are a valid reason for withholding other documents as well as his testimony. 

It’s unclear whether McCarthy or Jordan would be able to take a similar tack. Meadows had reams of documents the committee wanted early in its investigation and is able to legally shield some information about his conversations with the president due to his role – a status lawmakers do not have. A degree of cooperation may not be enough to keep the Justice Department at bay for either congressman.

Other witnesses have shown up for depositions only to largely plead the fifth and have successfully avoided contempt charges, though both have contended they did nothing wrong and may not wish to rely on a privilege that involves any reference to self-incrimination. 

If the subpoenaed lawmakers later decide to file a suit, it would follow a string of challenges that have resulted in the judiciary largely upholding the committee’s authority to conduct its investigation. And things like the speech and debate clause don’t protect members for action taken off the floor.

“They have a poor prospect and likely would ultimately lose. The obvious has already been adjudicated in Congress’s favor, which is that of course Congress has the ability to fully investigate the circumstances,” Robbins said.

“Members of Congress seeking a judicial finding that the committee doesn’t have the right to subpoena them have a very, very steep uphill battle, and it’s not even clear to me what their arguments would be.”

The varying deadline for appearances from the quintet of lawmakers only stretch as far as May 31 without any extensions from the committee.

Others subpoenaed alongside Jordan, like Rep. Scott Perry (R-Penn.), called the investigation “a charade,” while Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) said although he wasn’t sure how he would respond, “we don’t want to dignify what they are doing.” 

Robbins said if they flout the committee’s authority, the panel should consider taking the dramatic step of seeking a contempt of congress referral against their colleagues, something he acknowledges would be “a very, very tight and difficult battle.”

“It’s a difficult bullet [to bite] for reasons of comity, difficult because you know that the threats are going to be that ‘Wait till we take control of Congress and we start subpoenaing Adam Schiff on some cockamamie theory or another,’” he said, referring to the chair of the House Intelligence Committee who also serves on the Jan. 6 panel.

“Ultimately it seems to me that that’s what the committee – if it wants any hope at all of getting partial compliance from some of these congressmen – will have to do, which is vote to hold them in contempt.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Peter Navarro says FBI agents served him subpoena over Jan. 6

Former Trump adviser Peter Navarro says in a draft lawsuit that FBI agents served him a subpoena last week asking him to testify before a grand jury on Thursday over the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.  

“On May 26, 2022, two FBI special agents banged loudly on my door in the early morning hours to present me with a fruit of the poisonous tree Grand Jury Subpoena commanding me to comply with the original…illegal and unenforceable subpoena issued to me by the Committee dated February 9, 10 2022,” Navarro writes, according to a copy of the lawsuit posted online.

Navarro has thus far refused to comply with the subpoena issued by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack, despite a vote in the House last month to hold him in contempt of Congress.

Navarro said the latest subpoena was signed by U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C. Matthew Graves, seeking all documents requested by the Jan. 6 committee, as well as “any communications” with Trump or his lawyers and representatives. 

His lawsuit opposing the subpoena, which Politico reports he plans to file on Tuesday, lists Graves, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and members of the Jan. 6 committee as defendants. 

The New York Times also reported on the draft lawsuit Monday night, noting that Navarro plans to represent himself in the case. Asked if he would testify on Thursday, he told the Times “T.B.D.”

Navarro has asserted executive privilege in ignoring the initial subpoena from the House committee. He argues in the draft lawsuit that the U.S. attorney’s subpoena is “derivative of the fruit of the poison tree,” referring to the House subpoena. 

The Hill has reached out to Graves’ office and the Department of Justice for comment. Navarro couldn’t be reached on Monday.  

Courts have largely supported the Jan. 6 committee’s authority to obtain records and testimony, with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding a subpoena from the panel for Trump administration records, as President Biden had waived executive privilege.

Navarro told USA Today that he was representing himself to avoid the cost of hiring lawyers, and because he had some experience writing for law journals. 

“The Trump case, reasoned poorly and decided by an Obama judge, addresses only a small subset of the issues I raise in my lawsuit,” Navarro reportedly told the outlet. 

The subpoena would represent the latest sign that the Department of Justice’s own investigation into the Jan. 6 attack has moved well beyond the pro-Trump rioters who stormed the Capitol to include figures in Trump’s orbit who allegedly helped plan related rallies and efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election. 

The Times reported that it was the first such subpoena known to have been issued to a former White House official. 

The House voted last month to hold Navarro and Dan Scavino, another Trump adviser, in contempt of Congress for defying subpoenas from the Jan. 6, voting almost entirely along party lines. Reps. Liz Cheney (Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), the two Republicans serving on the committee, were the only members of their party to back the resolution.

Navarro was subpoenaed by the committee in February after passages from his own book appeared to show he was involved in plans to delay certification of the presidential election.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the Jan. 6 committee, said at the time that Navarro and Scavino “have blown us off completely.”

“If 90 percent of success in life is just showing up, then 90 percent of acting in contempt of congress is not showing up by failing to respond to multiple subpoenas you’ve been lawfully served,” he said.

“The rest of contempt is not turning over documents you’ve been ordered to produce and acting with open disregard and scorn for the rule of law, Congress and representatives of the American people.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

What we know about the Uvalde victims who were hospitalized

The casualties from last week’s mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas extended beyond two dozen deaths to 17 survivors who were injured.

Of those 17, six remained hospitalized as of Monday, including one in serious condition, one in fair condition and three in good condition. The sixth patient’s condition is unclear.

Here’s what else we know about the Uvalde victims who were hospitalized:

The Uvalde Memorial Hospital said it treated 15 patients in the aftermath of the shooting — 11 children and four adults — while two additional children that arrived at the hospital were declared dead on arrival.

The hospital said by the next morning, it had transferred four of its pediatric patients and one adult to hospitals in San Antonio for additional care. The 10 other patients were treated in Uvalde before being discharged home, and did not return for further treatment, the hospital said in a statement.

Three hospitals in San Antonio reported receiving patients from Tuesday’s shooting: Brooke Army Medical Center, University Hospital and Methodist Children’s Hospital.

Brooke Army Medical Center, located at Fort Sam Houston, has been treating two adult patients with injuries from the shooting. The hospital initially considered the patients in critical condition but upgraded their status for each of the next two days.

On Monday, the facility announced both patients had been upgraded to “good condition.”

“We continue to pray for comfort and strength for all affected by this terrible tragedy in the weeks and months ahead,” the hospital said in a tweet on Monday.

Four patients arrived at University Hospital, which is run in partnership with University of Texas San Antonio, on the day of the shooting.

A 66-year-old woman and a 10-year-old girl were first deemed to be in critical condition, while another 10-year-old girl was in good condition and a 9-year-old girl was in fair condition. The facility said each of its pediatric patients had their families with them at the hospital.

On Friday, the hospital announced it had discharged one of the 10-year-old girls while the other three patients remained at the facility.

In University Hospital’s most recent update on Sunday afternoon, the center said the 9-year-old had been upgraded to good condition, the adult patient was in fair condition and the other 10-year-old girl was in serious condition.

A 10-year-old boy, Noah Orona, was recovering at Methodist Children’s Hospital as of Friday, ABC’s affiliate in San Antonio reported. His parents told ABC News that he had played dead after he was shot by the gunman.

Source: TEST FEED1

Duckworth pays three-day visit to Taiwan amid China tension

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) landed in Taipei on Monday for a three-day visit to meet top officials about issues affecting the U.S.-Taiwan relationship.

The Taiwan Foreign Ministry revealed the previously unannounced visit in a tweet on Monday.

“We thank our country’s good friend for the rock-solid support & wish her a productive 3-day visit aimed at deepening understanding on various issues at the heart of [Taiwan-US] ties,” the ministry wrote.

The delegation will meet with Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen on Tuesday, as well as Premier Su Tseng-chang and Economic Affairs Minister Wang Mei-hua before departing on Wednesday, CNN reported.

The Hill has reached out to Duckworth’s office for comment.

Duckworth most recently visited Taiwan with Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) last June to announce that the U.S. was sending Taiwan 750,000 coronavirus vaccine doses. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) led a two-day visit to Taiwan alongside five other U.S. lawmakers in April.

During her trip last year, Duckworth told Nikkei in an interview that “America will not abandon Taiwan” and “we will show up, and not let them face trials and tribulations alone.”

President Biden made his first trip to Asia as president earlier this month, unveiling a new economic framework aiming to boost U.S. leadership in the region while countering China’s rise.

Taiwan was not among the group in the framework, despite bipartisan calls from lawmakers that the island nation be included. White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said the U.S. would pursue deeper economic ties with Taiwan on a “bilateral basis.”

Under the “One China” policy, the U.S. does not recognize Taiwan as a separate state from China. But Washington has committed to providing Taiwan with arms for its defense as part of its policy of “strategic ambiguity” on its involvement if China were to invade the island.

Biden stoked U.S.-China tensions during the trip, when he said the U.S. would defend Taiwan militarily if China invaded. The White House quickly walked back Biden’s comments, saying that he wasn’t announcing a policy change.

Two days later, China announced that it conducted military drills near Taiwan, the latest Chinese provocation toward the island nation. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has further sparked concerns that Beijing might be learning lessons for its own incursion into Taiwan.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pacific season's 1st hurricane makes landfall in Mexico

PUERTO ESCONDIDO, Mexico (AP) — The strongest hurricane on record to make landfall in May in the eastern Pacific swept ashore on a stretch of tourist beaches and fishing towns in southern Mexico on Monday.

Torrential rains and howling winds from Hurricane Agatha whipped palm trees and drove tourists and residents into shelters in a region that is sparsely populated except for a handful of small communities along the shore.

Oaxaca state’s civil defense agency showed families hustling into a shelter in Pochutla and a rock and mud slide that blocked the highway between that town and the state capital.

Agatha made landfall about 5 miles (10 kilometers) west of Puerto Angel as a strong Category 2 storm, with maximum sustained winds of 105 mph (165 kph). But it quickly began losing strength as it moved inland.

By evening, maximum sustained winds fell to 80 mph (130 kph). It was moving northeast at 8 mph (13 kph), heading toward the Gulf of Mexico, where its remnants might re-emerge.

Near Puerto Angel, gusts of wind, heavy rain and big waves began lashing the beach town of Zipolite, long known for its clothing-optional beach and bohemian vibe.

“There is a lot of rain and sudden gusts of strong wind,” said Silvia Ranfagni, manager of Zipolite’s Casa Kalmar hotel. “The ocean is really stirred up, and it’s raining a lot,” said Ranfagni, who has decided to ride out Agatha at the property. “You can hear the wind howling.”

National emergency officials said they had assembled a task force of more than 9,300 people for the area and more than 200 shelters were opened as forecasters warned of dangerous storm surge and flooding from heavy rains.

In the surfing town of Puerto Escondido, to the west, people took shelter and finished putting up plywood to prevent windows from breaking in the strong winds.

After forming on Sunday, Agatha quickly gained power, and it made landfall as a strong Category 2 hurricane Monday afternoon, the U.S. National Hurricane Center said.

Agatha is the strongest hurricane on record to make landfall in May in the eastern Pacific, said Jeff Masters, meteorologist with Yale Climate Connections and the founder of Weather Underground.

He said the region’s hurricanes typically get their start from tropical waves coming off the coast of Africa.

“Since the African monsoon typically does not start producing tropical waves until early- or mid-May, there simply aren’t enough initial disturbances to get many eastern Pacific hurricanes in May,” Masters wrote in an email. “In addition, May water temperatures are cooler than they are at the peak of the season, and wind shear is typically higher.”

Masters was not sure if Agatha was kicked off by a tropical wave — areas of low pressure that move across the tropics — but the storm benefitted from warm waters and low wind shear.

The U.S. National Hurricane Center said the storm was expected to drop 10 to 16 inches (250 to 400 millimeters) of rain on parts of Oaxaca, with isolated maximums of 20 inches (500 millimeters), posing the threat of flash floods and mudslides.

In Huatulco, municipal authorities had cancelled schools and ordered “the absolute closure” of all beaches and its seven bays, many of which are reachable only by boat.

The government’s Mexican Turtle Center — a former slaughterhouse turned conservation center in Mazunte — announced it was closed to visitors until further notice because of the hurricane.

Source: TEST FEED1