Archive by Author

Judge throws out Trump's suit to block NY AG probe

A federal judge on Friday threw out a lawsuit filed by former President Trump seeking to block the New York attorney general from investigating his business practices.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Brenda Sannes, who sits on the federal district court for upstate New York, comes just a day after a state appeals court ruled that Trump and his two eldest children must comply with the attorney general’s subpoena for their testimony.

Sannes granted New York Attorney General Letitia James’s (D) motion to dismiss the case, rejecting Trump’s arguments that the investigation is being conducted in bad faith and motivated by politics.

“While the New York proceeding has been ongoing since August 2020, Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that the subpoena enforcement proceeding has been conducted in such a way as to constitute harassment,” Sannes, an Obama appointee, wrote in a 43-page decision.

Trump attorney Alina Habba did not immediately respond when asked for comment on the decision.

The former president sued James in federal court in December, alleging that her public criticisms of Trump demonstrated a political bias pervading her civil investigation into his company.

The lawsuit came as the two parties were fighting over the attorney general’s subpoenas in state court and shortly after James signaled that she intended to subpoena Trump for testimony in the probe.

Source: TEST FEED1

New Hampshire court proposes minimal change to US House map

A special master appointed by the New Hampshire Supreme Court has proposed small changes to the state’s existing U.S. House district lines, a potential solution to a months-long stalemate between Gov. Chris Sununu (R) and his fellow Republicans who control the state legislature.

In an opinion published Friday, Stanford Law professor Nathaniel Persily proposed moving just five small towns from New Hampshire’s First District into its Second District, creating two districts with almost identical populations.

Persily’s proposal would shift 8,973 people from one district to the other, he said in the filing, a shift that is nearly identical to maps proposed by two sets of state legislators and one that is far less disruptive than a plan by the state legislature that would have shifted about a quarter of the state’s population.

The new district lines leave largely in place districts held by both Reps. Chris Pappas (D), who will lose the five towns, and Annie Kuster (D), who will gain the new constituents.

Both districts are seen as competitive, though Democrats have held both since 2016.

Pappas’s old district favored President Biden by a six-point margin in 2020, backed former President Donald Trump by almost 1.6 percentage points in 2016, and favored then-President Barack Obama by a virtually identical margin over Mitt Romney in 2012.

Kuster’s seat tilts more toward Democrats, favoring Biden by nearly nine points in 2020, Hillary Clinton by two points in 2016 and Obama by almost 10 points in 2012.

New Hampshire’s existing district lines have existed largely in their present form — plus or minus a few border towns that flip between districts based on population shifts — for a century and a half. In recent decades, both parties have been able to win both seats.

But last year, the Republican-controlled legislature proposed a substantial change that would have created one largely safe Democratic seat in Kuster’s district, and one that favored Republicans in Pappas’s district.

Sununu vetoed that map, and squashed several subsequent revisions, because he said they were unnecessarily disruptive. Later, he wondered why Republicans would surrender the chance to win both seats for the security of knowing they would win one.

The delay meant that New Hampshire has become the last state in which the decennial redistricting process is still ongoing, though several other states are still litigating their new maps in court.

Both Pappas and Kuster face challenges from Republican rivals this year. GOP voters will pick between state Rep. Tim Baxter (R), realtor Gale Huff Brown — the wife of former Sen. Scott Brown (R) — and Trump White House ages Karoline Leavitt and Matt Mowers in the race against Pappas. In the other district, Kuster will face the winner of a primary between former Hillsborough County Treasurer Robert Burns (R), state Sen. Harold French (R) and state Rep. Jeffrey Greeson (R).

The state Supreme Court must now approve the map lines and order their implementation, though that is likely a formality.

Source: TEST FEED1

The White House’s Taiwan faux pas

The White House’s bigger faux pas last weekend wasn’t when President Biden said the U.S. would “defend Taiwan” if China were to invade, it was excluding Taiwan from his new Indo-Pacific Economic Framework.

Diplomacy is at the center of the Biden administration’s foreign policy. One of the few goals of this administration is to declare that “diplomacy is back,” whether it’s from mending trade relations with Europe or gathering partners for a new economic club in Asia.

These efforts are being led by the White House’s desire to rebuild and expand its diplomatic relations, and less about the economic reasons, such as expanding trade opportunities. The more countries the White House can add to its list of “friends,” the louder it can tell voters that Biden is delivering on his campaign promise.

So, when Biden announced that the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework would have 13 countries as its initial participants, including seven from southeast Asia, many in Washington immediately declared it a diplomatic success. Apparently, this was a higher number than some expected.

Unfortunately, at least one important country didn’t make the list: Taiwan.

Even though Taiwan officials were some of the first and few to publicly express interest in joining the framework, White House officials instead have decided to keep Taiwan out for the time being. The argument was that by keeping Taiwan out, the White House was able to secure more southeast Asia participants who otherwise would be uneasy about angering China by getting too close to Taiwan. Some in Washington might call this move by the White House a “strategic tradeoff.”

As a form of diplomatic consolation, national security adviser Jake Sullivan said they are “looking to deepen our economic partnership with Taiwan.” And while the U.S. has multiple high-level dialogues with Taiwan, it’s questionable what the White House really can offer Taiwan to make amends.    

Taiwan remains an international outcast in many ways. Despite being a global trading powerhouse and a member of the World Trade Organization and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Taiwan has only a few official trade partners around the world. For years, Taipei has tried to initiate trade negotiations with the U.S. Now, in an effort to expand its trading partners, Taiwan is in a race against China to get into the Trans-Pacific Partnership. If China gets into that trade agreement first, it likely will block Taiwan’s entry.

China continues to assert its global influence and to block Taiwan from participating in important international agreements and organizations — such as its continued blocking of Taiwan’s entry to the World Health Assembly. And while Beijing might not be happy about the new Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, it’s at least happy that Taiwan isn’t in that, either.

With or without Taiwan, the jury is out on whether the framework will be an economic success. It’s great that the Biden team will deepen its relationship with countries such as India and Vietnam. But framework negotiations haven’t even started and several issues already stand out. For one, the framework lacks incentives like market access that make current and future participants excited about joining. Many in Asia want meaningful trade and economic engagement, not just more diplomatic forums. But Taiwan needs America’s support to get into even mediocre economic agreements. 

Not bringing Taiwan into the framework keeps Taiwan’s economy isolated in many ways. But it’s not too late for Biden to offer his administration’s support.

First and foremost, the White House should move ahead with a U.S.-Taiwan free trade deal. A recent study shows that such a deal is good for the U.S. and Taiwan economies and bad for China. It would serve as an example to other countries that have been hesitant to expand trade and economic partnerships with Taiwan.

Second, Taiwan is an important part of the global supply chain. Taiwan is one of the few countries with the capability to manufacture some of the most advanced semiconductors, so the U.S. should strengthen its partnership with Taiwan and, working with other partners in Asia, make sure these technologies don’t fall into the wrong hands.

Riley Walters is deputy director of the Japan Chair at the Hudson Institute.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden rebukes Putin in Naval Academy commencement address

President Biden on Friday urged this year’s graduating class of midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy to be stewards of strong American leadership abroad as the world faces major challenges including Russia’s war in Ukraine.  

“You are graduating at an inflection point, not only in American history but in world history,” Biden said in the commencement address at the Naval Academy graduation in Annapolis, Md. “The challenges we face, the choices we make are more consequential than ever. Things are changing so rapidly that the next 10 years will be the decisive decade of this century.”  

He accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of “literally trying to wipe out the culture and identity of the Ukrainian people” by attacking schools, hospitals and other sites in the war that began more than three months ago.  

“A direct assault on the fundamental tenets of rules-based international order. That’s what you’re graduating into,” Biden said.  

The president called for “strong, principled, engaged American leadership” on the world stage and underscored the importance of alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which he argued has been strengthened by the war in Ukraine.   

“He NATO-ized all of Europe,” Biden said of Putin.  

Biden delivered the commencement address during a time of intense domestic and international problems. In recent days, the president has been largely focused on the tragic mass shooting at a Texas elementary school that killed 19 children and two teachers, though he did not speak about the shooting during his speech. 

He largely used the address to prepare the roughly 1,200 graduating midshipmen for the challenges ahead, repeating his belief that the world is in the midst of a “global struggle between autocracies and democracies.”  

The graduates, he said, will be “representatives and defenders of our democracy” on the world stage.  

Biden also reflected on the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a former Navy officer buried on the academy’s grounds, saying he hoped McCain’s legacy would help guide the midshipmen in their service. He called the former GOP presidential nominee a “man of great principle” and an American hero.  

“I cannot promise you the way will be straight or the sailing will be easy, but I can promise you that you all have the tools needed to navigate any waters you encounter,” Biden said as he closed the speech. “You are ready.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

The left should abandon ‘gun control’ and return to its radical roots

Americans famously have a problem with nuance and context — with any problem whose solution doesn’t present itself readily and without serious mental effort. Faced with tragedies like the one that stole the lives of 19 children and two teachers this week in Uvalde, Texas, the natural human response is to call for action. Politicians need to do something – anything – nuance and context be damned.

Vital historical and empirical considerations also tend to go by the wayside when we’re in the grip of grief. But in a world where it is surprisingly and increasingly easy to kill large numbers of people, mass shootings will never be a problem with the kind of easy solution Americans and our media demand.

In recent years, people have killed or injured large numbers by, for example, using homemade pressure cooker bombs and driving their cars into crowds of people. The use of improvised explosive devices like these pressure cooker bombs appears to be on the rise in the United States.

Perhaps more concerning still is the rise in extremely inexpensive, 3D-printed guns, “ghost guns” that can be assembled at home and almost always lack serial numbers. The frightening reality is that we are not in and cannot ever go back to a world in which words on paper can meaningfully inhibit a madman bent on killing large numbers of people.

Laws limiting one’s ability to acquire guns are blunt instruments that are ill-suited to addressing a mass shooting epidemic. The Uvalde shooter bought his guns legally and had neither a criminal record nor a diagnosed mental health condition. The Buffalo shooter likewise purchased his guns legally, and in New York, a state that already has some of the most stringent requirements in the country. Any new statute that would attempt to stop these purchases would have to be extremely overbroad, unjustifiably curtailing the rights of peaceful, law-abiding people with legitimate self-defense interests.

The political left is awakening to the inherently reactionary, socially retrograde nature of so-called gun control laws, which in practice control the guns of marginalized minority groups, Black Americans in particular. In a country that infamously has more than one firearm for every person, laws limiting gun ownership can only put late-comers (who will overwhelmingly be on the left) and already at-risk groups in an unfairly vulnerable position. Many leftists responded to the palpable fear of the Trump years – and the increasingly clear reality that they couldn’t safely rely on the police – by embracing their right to defend themselves and, with it, their right to take up arms.

As I’ve argued in greater detail elsewhere, it ought to worry all principled egalitarians that more restrictive gun laws strike at the rights of ordinary citizens but leave the prerogatives of state actors, far and away the most dangerous and heavily-armed members of society, totally untouched. We have serious and well-documented problems with police violence in this country. If we take addressing those problems seriously, and we accept that incentive structures shape human behavior, then we should look askance at policy proposals that create this kind of inequality of rights. Indeed, such inequality is fundamentally incompatible with anything resembling a free society.

Ordinary municipal police forces in America regularly have – and use, in all kinds of indiscriminate and excessive ways – military equipment and weapons, including armored vehicles, grenades and military-grade guns and body armor. The people they brutalize and murder at such extraordinary rates are the same people who lose when restrictions on gun ownership are tightened. A free and democratic society cannot expect its citizens to give up their right to self-defense in a context such as the one created by the ongoing American policing and criminal justice crisis.

If they’re no longer overtly racist and discriminatory in their stated intent, America’s gun laws are nonetheless certainly racist and discriminatory in their real-world impact. In Illinois, for example, “[a] shocking 83% of the people prosecuted and convicted of Class 2 felonies” for gun possession are Black. Similarly, in New York, although less than one in five state residents is Black, Black New Yorkers represented nearly four out of five “of the state’s felony gun possession cases” in 2020. (White New Yorkers, by contrast, were 70 percent of the population, but only 7 percent of these cases.)

This is probably not surprising to Americans who know a little bit about the racist history of gun control in our country, yet this context seems to be totally absent from the well-worn mainstream debate about gun control, whose easy-to-remember steps are repeated every time there’s a tragic shooting (and there’s been more than one per week so far in 2022).

Abolitionist legal scholars such as Lysander Spooner saw the clear connection between the right to defend oneself and all other rights enjoyed by free people — that is, between firearms and the abolition of slavery. They knew what many on the left today have forgotten: Words on paper, even if they’re those of the Constitution, are unfortunately no match for weapons in a world of real (read: physical) power.

Throughout American history, Black leaders from Frederick Douglass to Martin Luther King and Malcolm X understood the effective nullity of other legal guarantees without the right to bear arms; for his part, Douglass observed that “the work of the Abolitionists is not finished” until Black Americans could exercise that right.

Today’s left wants to forget the centrality of gun rights to Black Americans’ struggle for freedom merely because the cultural flavor and political alignment of the gun rights movement has changed over the past several decades. Were Americans more sensitive to context and to the empirical data on both police misconduct and gun-related convictions, liberals and progressives would likely have a very different perspective on so-called gun control legislation.

On the gun question, the left has been sold a bill of goods, taken in by centrist elites who will never be at serious risk of gun violence regardless of the laws. Ultimately, privileged groups will find ways to acquire the kinds of firearms they want, and they have guarantees of safety of a kind that the poor and marginalized in this country cannot hope to expect.

Whether we like it or not, people of color, the poor and working classes, the LGBTQA+ community and other vulnerable groups need gun rights much more than members of more privileged groups. They stand to lose the most if we react to tragedy with irrational and illiberal policies that don’t address the problem.

David S. D’Amato is an attorney, businessman and independent researcher. He is a policy adviser to the Heartland Institute and the Future of Freedom Foundation.

Source: TEST FEED1

Rays of a much-needed, principled GOP shine through

In 1824, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his friend, Henry Lee, “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties.’’ For most of its history, America’s political life has consistently affirmed that judgment, with two parties intent on competing but not on destroying each other or the republic.

That is why it is so important that there are signs of some Republicans standing up for principle in important states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia.

Even before we get to the states, let’s note that on May 26, 20 former Republican Congressman urged Republican Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and four other Republican members to comply with the Jan. 6 Committee’s subpoenas: “A full and honest accounting of the attack and its causes,” the former officials wrote, “is critical to preventing future assaults on the rule of law and American institutions — and ensuring that we all can move forward.”

Even if the message falls on deaf ears, it matters that there are Republicans of principle willing to speak the truth. From vital kernels of integrity in the party, cornfields could grow.

They are not alone. On May 25, Dean Knudson, a Wisconsin former state legislator resigned from the state’s election board — which he had helped design — saying “Two of my core values are to practice service above self and to display personal integrity.”

“To me,” Knudsen told the Milwaukee Sentinel, “integrity demands acknowledging the truth even when the truth is painful. [T]he painful truth is that President Trump lost …  the election in Wisconsin in 2020. And the loss was not due to election fraud.”

Debate can be endless about whether principled resisters should “stay and work from the inside” or head for the exits when the candle is no longer worth the flame — but there’s little question that if one chooses to leave, taking a public stand for principle advances the common good.

Something very similar happened on April 26 in Michigan. Republican Tony Daunt sent a scalding letter of resignation to the party’s governing committee. He excoriated the committee for its subservience to Trump, whom Daunt referred to as “a deranged narcissist.” He wrote of “cowardly party ‘leaders’” who were “cravenly loyal” Trump. 

Then, in the rarest of actions, the Michigan House of Representatives’ Republican Caucus removed Trump firebrand Matt Maddock from membership. He has attacked other Republicans for not being sufficiently loyal to the former president.

Of Maddock’s removal, Bill Ballenger, a former Republican state legislator in Michigan, told the Washington Post, “I think the Republicans just decided we’ve just got a cancer eating us from within and we’ve got to get rid of it.”

We don’t yet know where the fight over Trumpism in Michigan will end, but we do know the Greeks’ “golden mean” — nature abhors excess. We saw it in politics on May 25 in Georgia’s primary where Trump lost the trifecta: Three Republican candidates whom Trump had endorsed were defeated by those he loved to hate for certifying the 2020 election of Joe Biden – incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, and Attorney General Chris Carr.

With Republicans trying to leapfrog each other in extremist positions to gain favor with Trump and his followers, the trend toward abandoning the moderation of traditional Republican icons like Dwight Eisenhower or John McCain may come back to haunt the GOP in places like Pennsylvania. There, Republican primary voters nominated extremist Doug Mastriano for governor. He is running against the extremely capable Democratic state Attorney General Josh Shapiro. One election predictor, Race to the Whitehouse, which correctly called the narrow 2020 victories of Joe Biden in Arizona and Michigan as well as of Democratic Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock in Georgia, projects Shapiro to win by 9 points.

All in all — without denying the brutal facts of Trumpism’s current dominance in the GOP — there are reasons to keep faith that at least some Republicans will continue the fight for a return to common sense and conventional belief in the nation’s founding principles.

To understand the importance of having principled Republicans, one need only think back to Jan. 6 and Vice President Mike Pence, who resisted almost unbearable pressure from Trump to reject or delay the Electoral College vote. Or to Georgia’s Raffensperger, who did the same in Trump’s Jan. 2, 2021 call in which Trump sought 11,780 votes, one more than needed to overturn the Georgia election.

Aaron Van Langervelde also comes to mind. He was the Michigan Republican who in a “Profiles in Courage” moment in late November 2020, broke a 1-1 tie on the state’s electoral Board of State Canvassers, voting to certify Biden’s election. That vote quickly cost him his seat on the board. (The good news is that Tony Daunt remains there as his replacement.)

History has affirmed what Thomas Jefferson understood — our politics have always operated with two major parties. We need them to differ on policy but to remain resolute in their commitment to a constitutional system in which the people’s will rules and no person is above the law.

Dennis Aftergut is a former federal prosecutor, currently of counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Source: TEST FEED1

Delta Airlines to cut 100 flights a day this summer

Delta Airlines on Thursday announced that it will cut 100 flights from its daily schedule, primarily in the U.S. and Latin America, as the airline business continues to reel from high petroleum prices and supply chain disruptions.

Delta said the cuts would take effect from July 1 to Aug. 7, during the peak of the summer vacation season. 

The company didn’t specify which domestic and international routes were going under the chopping block, but said they were in markets that “Delta frequently serves.”

Demand in the tourism and travel sectors has been outpacing supply, as it has in many parts of the economy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The company pointed to issues with its vendors and labor shortages as part of its decision to drop routes.

“Weather and air traffic control, vendor staffing, increased COVID case rates contributing to higher-than-planned unscheduled absences in some work groups – are resulting in an operation that isn’t consistently up to the standards Delta has set for the industry in recent years,” the airline said in a statement.

Delta follows JetBlue and a number of other U.S. carriers in knocking back its peak travel season flight schedules. Like Delta, JetBlue cited staffing issues and air traffic control problems as key reasons for its service decrease.

Economists point to high employment levels now as a key driver of inflation and one of the main pressures now on firms across the economy. 

Currently, 96.4 percent of people who could be working have jobs, according to the latest numbers from the Department of Labor.

Some Congressional Republicans have warned that the economy is now in a “wage-price spiral,” whereby labor-hungry businesses are compelled to increase wages for workers, which then prompts higher retail prices, further fueling inflation.

“Prices are growing three times faster than Americans’ paychecks, and are hammering small businesses struggling to find workers,” Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas), ranking member of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement.

Petroleum prices are also a perennial issue for the airline industry, which counts the price of fuel as a main component of its overhead.

West Texas Intermediate crude oil prices have spiked more than 70 percent over the last year, with the price of a barrel of oil still well over $100. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Texas Democrat asks FBI to investigate police response to school massacre

A Texas Democrat has asked the FBI to launch a comprehensive investigation into the police response to Tuesday’s shooting massacre at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), who represents San Antonio, roughly 80 miles east of Uvalde, said the conflicting accounts from state officials, including inconsistent depictions of law enforcement actions, are adding insult to injury for the victims’ families. 

In a letter sent Thursday to FBI Director Christopher Wray, Castro asked the agency to clear up the discrepancies with an independent probe of its own. 

“I urge the FBI to use its maximum authority to thoroughly examine the timeline of events and the law enforcement response and to produce a full, timely, and transparent report on your findings,” Castro wrote. “Your agency must ensure that the American people have a complete and comprehensive account of how this tragedy occurred.”

Law enforcement officials have come under growing scrutiny for their actions during the massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, where a lone gunman barricaded himself on Tuesday, killing 19 fourth graders and two teachers with an AR-style rifle. After a standoff of more than an hour, a special unit of Border Patrol officers confronted the 18-year-old gunman inside the school, shooting him dead.

Video has emerged showing a crowd gathered outside the school while the gunman was still alive, urging heavily armed police officers to rush into the building to confront him. With their calls ignored, some offered to go in themselves. As the days have passed, a growing number of the victims’ family members are irate that the officers did not engage the gunman more quickly. 

State officials have added to the confusion surrounding Tuesday’s events, delivering information that’s conflicted with eyewitness accounts or turned out to be simply wrong. 

On Wednesday, for instance, state officials said a school law enforcement officer had confronted the gunman outside the building but could not prevent him from going in. A day later, another official said there was no such encounter.

“He walked unobstructed initially,” Victor Escalon, a regional director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, told reporters on Thursday. “He was not confronted by anybody.”

In his letter to Wray, Castro pointed specifically to those missteps, while expressing frustration with the long passage of time before the gunman was confronted inside the school. 

“[A] block of time between 11:30 a.m. and 1 p.m. local time has yet to be fully accounted for,” he wrote. “Onlookers allege that parents unsuccessfully urged law enforcement to enter the building during this time and confront the shooter.”

State officials have already launched a formal investigation into the police response, which is being led by the Texas Rangers. The FBI is helping the Rangers analyze surveillance footage surrounding the shooting, The New York Times reported. But Castro wants the federal agency to take the reins of the probe. 

“The people of Uvalde, of Texas, and of the nation deserve an accurate account of what transpired,” Castro wrote to Wray.

Source: TEST FEED1

ESPN's Stephen A. Smith says Trump ran for president to 'get them all back' after failed Bills bid

ESPN’s Stephen A. Smith said Thursday on the network that former President Trump called him during his bid to buy the NFL’s Buffalo Bills in 2014 and threatened to run for president if he didn’t become a team owner.

“If they screw me over, I am going to show them,” Trump said, according to Smith. “I’m going to get them all back. I’m going to run for President of the United States.”

Trump, whose bid to buy the Bills failed, launched his first presidential campaign in 2015 before winning the Republican nomination and the general election in 2016.

“It was him politicizing the situation for his own benefit to cause havoc for NFL owners who had screwed him over from becoming, from becoming an NFL owner and being a part of their club,” Smith said of Trump’s 2016 run.

Smith brought up the story about Trump during a segment discussing former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick’s potential return to the NFL after six years.

Kaepernick, who famously took a knee during the national anthem to protest racial injustice starting in 2016, was “politicized” and “hijacked” by Trump, Smith said.

“The narrative was hijacked by the former president of the United States for his own benefit,” Smith told his fellow commentators.

Source: TEST FEED1