Archive by Author

FBI director: Texas shooting highlights concern over lone actors

FBI Director Christopher Wray said that Tuesday’s shooting in Uvalde, Texas, is the latest example highlighting the bureau’s concerns surrounding the risks posed by lone-wolf actors.

“Unfortunately, this tragedy, as well as the recent tragedy in Buffalo and way too many before, reinforced what we in the FBI have been so concerned about for so long, and that is the threat of lone actors,” Wray told lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday during a review of the agency’s budget.

“It’s that threat that we continue to be most concerned about here in the homeland.”

The FBI and the Department of Homeland Security last year deemed lone-wolf actors as posing the greatest terror threat as incidents of domestic extremism steadily rise.

Wray went on to suggest some support for state-level laws that allow a judge to approve the temporary seizure of firearms from those believed to present a danger to themselves or others.

The FBI chief said whether it’s so-called red or yellow flag laws — or simply tips to law enforcement — “most of the time you see that there was someone who knew the person or came into contact with the person who saw some change in behavior that alarmed them.”

The director also encouraged the public to take a broader view of the directive “if you see something, say something.”

“Most people when they hear that, they picture the unattended backpack, you know, in the Greyhound bus terminal or something. But what we really need right now in this country is if you see something about somebody, [for] people to say something,” Wray said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Air pollution linked to increase risk of death from stroke: study

Living in areas with higher levels of air pollution is linked to a heightened risk of in-hospital death from stroke, a new study has found.

That threat also varies based on the size of the air pollution particles — with those patients who are exposed to the smallest particles and whose stroke was caused by a blood clot incurring the greatest risk of death, according to the study, published in the journal Neurology on Wednesday.

“Air pollution has been previously linked to a greater risk of stroke,” which is a leading cause of death worldwide, study author Hualiang Lin of China’s Sun Yat-sen University noted in a statement.

“What is lesser known is how the different sizes of particulate matter affect that risk,” he added. “Our research found that the size of air pollution particles may affect a person’s risk of dying from stroke.”

The researchers explored three different sizes of air pollution particulate matter: PM1, particles less than one micron in diameter found in soot and smog; PM2.5, particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter that make up fly ash from coal combust; and PM10, particles less than 10 microns in diameters found in cement dust.

To draw their conclusion, the scientists examined electronic medical records in China to identify more than 3.1 million hospitalizations for stroke — both ischemic stroke, which is caused by a blood clot, and hemorrhagic stroke, which is caused by a brain bleed.

They found that of this group, 32,140 people, or 1 percent of the total, died of stroke while hospitalized.

The risks were stronger in those people who experienced ischemic stroke than in those who experienced hemorrhagic stroke, according to the study.

The greatest risk of death occurred in people who experienced ischemic stroke and were exposed to the smallest air pollution particles, PM1, the scientists observed.

But the researchers also found that a reduction in PM10 would have the greatest overall impact in reducing deaths from stroke — decreasing the number of hospital deaths by 10 percent for short-term exposure and by 21 percent for long-term exposure.

“Our study includes measurements of PM1, which may be small enough to be inhaled deeply into lungs, pass through lung tissue, and circulate in the bloodstream,” Lin said.

“Obtaining a deeper understanding of the risk factors of all particulate matter sizes and the magnitude of their possible effects may help reduce the number of deaths and improve the outcomes for people with stroke,” he added.

Source: TEST FEED1

The folly of humiliating Russia

Calls that nothing short of a “true defeat” be visited on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s are growing in both frequency and intensity. And nowhere is this on more prominent display than in Anne Applebaum’s recent Atlantic piece calling for a victory over Russia that is rapid, comprehensive (involving military defeat, economic pain and even some type of NATO membership for Ukraine) and, above all, humiliating.

According to Applebaum, only such a profound and profoundly humiliating defeat will permanently chasten Russia. Only such a true defeat will “force the reckoning that should have happened in the 1990s…. the moment when Russians should have realized the folly of Moscow’s imperial overreach, when they should have figured out why so many of their neighbors hate and fear them.” Only such a true defeat, she avers, will end the historical pattern of Russian aggression and bring about permanent peace on its periphery.

But while it might be emotionally gratifying to issue such calls, and even to fantasize about inflicting terrible pain on such obvious malefactors, the goal of inflicting such a defeat on Russia must not become allowed to become policy. For if history teaches us anything relevant to the current conflict, it is that inflicting such a defeat would most definitely not have the salutary effect on international security that its advocates assume.

Indeed, quite the opposite. Inflicting a comprehensive and humiliating defeat on Russia would be far more likely to set the stage for further discord, conflict and war on Europe’s eastern marches than to usher in an era of regional peace and tranquility. To put it bluntly, indulging fantasies of inflicting near-total defeat on Russia would be a terrible mistake — one that we can, and must, avoid making.

To understand why inflicting a devastating defeat on Russia would be such a terrible mistake, it is necessary to pay attention to a motivating factor that is often overlooked or minimized in conventional accounts of foreign policy and grand strategy: humiliation. Most theories of international relations, of course, tend to assume rational actors, either anthropomorphized states or actual state officials seeking to rationally advance or defend the state’s national interest. While not entirely blind to “non-rational” factors in individual or collective decisionmaking, these approaches tend to systematically downplay or ignore the role of emotion in shaping the foreign policies of states.

But, as Clausewitz cautioned us long ago, emotions in general (or the passions, as he called them) can and do play an important role in foreign policy, especially when it comes to war. And as Joslyn Barnhart argues in her recent book “The Consequences of Humiliation: Anger and Status in World Politics,” historically, the specific emotion of “humiliation” has proven to be a major driver of foreign policy – especially the kind of revanchist and revisionist foreign policy that all too often leads to war.

Barnhart’s compelling argument begins with a definition: Humiliation “is a complex and negative self-conscious emotion, which combines the sense that one has been mistreated with a painful sense of self-doubt and helplessness in the face of this injustice.” It is the substrate for “national humiliation,” which “arises when individuals who identify as members of the state experience humiliation as the overwhelming emotional response to an international event.”

National humiliation occurs, Barnhart further argues, either when a state suffers “rapid defeat to a state with lesser military capability” or when it has “been unfairly undermined by ill-intended others.” Either way, such humiliation involves a “loss of status or prestige which they [policy makers] believe has undeservedly threatened the state’s image on the world stage.”

Finally, Barnhart shows how humiliated states have historically attempted to overcome their humiliation and restore their status and prestige by engaging in “the use of force against the state responsible for one’s humiliation or against third-party states that were not involved in the original humiliating event.”

Although Barnhart’s book was published before Russia reinvaded Ukraine earlier this year, its implications for today’s Russo-Ukraine war are perhaps obvious. Indeed, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how inflicting a devastating defeat on Russia of the kind Applebaum advocates would both humiliate the country’s leaders and incentivize them to take whatever steps they deem necessary – up to and including starting another war – to overcome this humiliation.

The strategic implications of this are perhaps obvious. As Barnhart notes in her conclusion, prudent policy that seeks to minimize both the humiliation of defeated states and all of the undesirable consequences of such humiliation should “avoid the codification of inferiority within formal and informal treaties and negotiations.”

They should avoid, in other words, imposing punitive treaties and settlements that formalize inferiority or that seek to diminish the defeated nation’s status or standing beyond some unavoidable minimum. In the absence of a 1945-scale total victory by one side or the other (which is obviously not in the cards), this suggests that the goal now should be a negotiated settlement that leaves both Russia and Ukraine (a) exhausted, (b) relatively satisfied and (c) as little humiliated as possible.

This doesn’t imply letting Russia off lightly, of course. But then, at this point, there is simply no way that Russia could be let off the hook lightly. It has already been chastened by its devastating battlefield defeats and the biting economic sanctions it incurred following its invasion. It has already been broken as a conventional military power and seen its soft and sharp power capacities sharply diminished. In short, it has already been made to pay a significant price for its war of aggression. Indeed, it has probably already suffered a significant national humiliation, though nothing compared to what it would suffer if near-total defeat on the battlefield were to be amplified by near-total defeat at the negotiating table.

One way of thinking about the current war in light of Barnhart’s argument is to conclude that perhaps a Russian battlefield defeat – which I will define as a failure to win consequential battlefield victories or to make significant post-Feb. 23 territorial gains, while incurring significant human and material losses – is enough to chasten Moscow without raising the level of national humiliation to the point where a future war is guaranteed.

Perhaps history teaches us, in other words, that now is not the time to follow Applebaum’s advice and dial Russia’s national humiliation up to eleven. Perhaps, instead, it is the time to strike a deal — to offer Putin a “golden bridge” that allows him to bring the war to an end without amplifying Russia’s humiliation to the point where, following a protracted period of seething and rebuilding, Moscow unleashes another war on its western neighbor.

Andrew Latham is a professor of international relations at Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minn., and a non-resident fellow at Defense Priorities in Washington, D.C. Follow him on Twitter @aalatham.

Source: TEST FEED1

Fed officials saw strong economy facing inflation risks ahead of May rate hike

Federal Reserve officials saw the economy holding strong despite high inflation and rising threats to the global economic outlook before hiking interest rates earlier this month, according to minutes released by the central bank Wednesday.

During the May 3-4 meeting of the Fed’s Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC), the Fed panel responsible for setting interest rates and other monetary policy tools, officials voiced confidence in the resilience of the U.S. economy as the central bank ramps up its battle against inflation. Even so, Fed officials also saw several risks to the U.S. economy and the bank’s bid to bring inflation down without causing a recession looming on the horizon, according to minutes from the meeting.

“Members agreed that, although overall economic activity had edged down in the first quarter, household spending and business fixed investment had remained strong. Job gains had been robust in recent months, and the unemployment rate had declined substantially,” the minutes read.

“Members also agreed that inflation remained elevated, reflecting continued supply and demand imbalances, higher energy prices, and broader price pressures.”

The FOMC capped off the May meeting with a 0.5 percentage point interest rate hike, twice the size of a typical increase, after raising its baseline interest rate range by 0.25 percentage points in March. The FOMC and Fed Chair Jerome Powell, who spoke to reporters after the meeting, also said the Fed was likely to consider further 0.5 percentage point hikes at upcoming summits in June and July.

The minutes from the May meeting align largely with Powell’s message of cautious optimism in the strong but overheated economy and the bank’s ability to tame it. While Powell has warned the U.S economy could experience “pain” as borrowing costs rise, he and Fed officials believe a strong labor market and consumer spending can hold sturdy.

Fed officials “expected robust growth in consumption spending. They pointed to several elements supporting this outlook, including strong household balance sheets, wide availability of jobs, and the U.S. economy’s resilience in the face of new waves of the virus,” the minutes read.

“With respect to the business sector, participants cited robust consumer demand, healthy household balance sheets, and inventory rebuilding as factors supportive of business activity and investment.”

Consumer and business spending both remained strong in the first quarter of 2022 despite a technical decline in gross domestic product (GDP) driven largely by a surge of exports. Even as interest rates rose and investors braced for high rate hikes, household and business spending remained sturdy, if slightly slower than the torrid pace set in 2021.

Fed officials also took comfort in the gain of roughly 1.7 million jobs in the first three months of the year and the presence of roughly two open jobs for every unemployed American as the bank moves to slow the pace of job growth.

Even so, Fed officials acknowledged several obstacles in the way of a smooth interest rate hiking campaign that could boost pressure on prices and hinder the economy. 

While Fed officials said their business contacts saw price pressures easing in April, it was still too soon to know if inflation had peaked. Officials cited supply chain disruptions driven by lockdowns in China, energy and food price spikes caused by the war in Ukraine, and quickly rising wages as the primary risks for higher inflation.

Fed officials acknowledged the bank may need to raise interest rates to levels meant to restrict the economy if inflation continued to rise, which a growing number of economists fear could cause a recession.

Source: TEST FEED1

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz receives sharp backlash for comments in wake of Uvalde school shooting

Messages of condolences have been rolling in after a gunmen shot and kill over a dozen children at a Texas elementary school on Tuesday. That includes Sen. Ted Cruz (R), who represents the state where the shooting occurred, and he’s receiving sharp backlash for his comments that critics thought seemed to prioritize gun rights over human life. 

At least 19 children and two adults died after 18-year-old Salvador Ramos conducted a mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas Tuesday.  

Shortly after news of the shooting began circulating, Cruz released a statement which said in part, “Heidi and I are lifting up in prayer the entire Uvalde community during this devastating time and we mourn the lives that were taken by this act of evil.” 

That comment, which Cruz also published to his Twitter account, immediately drew criticism. 

House Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) replied with, “aren’t you slated to headline a speaking gig for the NRA in three days—in Houston, no less? You can do more than pray. Faith without works is dead.” 

Cruz is in fact scheduled to speak at the National Rife Assocation’s (NRA) leadership summit in Houston over Memorial Day weekend. 

He’s also received $176,274 in campaign contributions from the NRA, according to Brady United, a nonprofit advocating for gun control. 

America is changing faster than ever! Add Changing America to your Facebook or Twitter feed to stay on top of the news. 

In Washington, Cruz spoke with reporters and said Democrats and the media pose solutions that, “try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. That doesn’t work, it’s not effective, it doesn’t prevent crime.” 

Cruz continued to say that targeting felons and fugitives, those with mental illness, is a more effective strategy in preventing crime. 

House Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) also had choice words for Cruz, tweeting at the Texas senator, “f*** you @tedcruz you care about a fetus but will let our children get slaughtered. Just get your a** to Cancun. You are useless.” 

That’s in reference to Cruz flying to Cancun, Mexico while his home state of Texas experienced a severe power outage that left millions of Texans without heat or electricity in February 2021.  

The backlash didn’t end there, Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, a grassroots movement advocating for gun control, also singled out Cruz’s actions on gun rights. 

“After 16 people were killed in a hot air balloon in Lockhart, Texas, Ted Cruz authored and passed federal legislation improving safety rules. But after the shootings in El Paso and Santa Fe, he blamed mental illness for gun violence.” 

“Thank God there’s no hot air balloon lobby.” 

Giffords, another gun reform advocacy group, also noted on Twitter that, “Texas has seen tragedy after tragedy, but Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn have done the unforgivable: block even the most commonsense gun reform at every turn.” 

As recently as April, Cruz introduced a Congressional Review Act Joint Resolution of Disapproval (CRA) in response to President Biden directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to issue a series of proposed rules limiting gun access. 

It included a rule that would stop the proliferation of “ghost guns,” make clear when a device marked as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle and publish model “red flag” legislation for states that would allow family members or law enforcement to petition a court order temporarily barring people in crisis from accessing firearms. 

“Democrats would love nothing more than to shift the blame and stoke anti-gun sentiment, and create a national gun registry in the process,” said Cruz in a statement. 

Though the federal government has implemented age restrictions on when Americans can buy a gun, laws vary across the country.  

In Texas, you must be 18-years-old in order to buy a handgun or long gun, according to Giffords. However, there is no age restriction on who can be in possession of a handgun or long gun. 

Changing America has reached out to Cruz’s office for comment.  

READ MORE STORIES FROM CHANGING AMERICA 

THE LEGAL AGES FOR BUYING A GUN IN THE US 

MAYE MUSK FEATURED ON SI SWIMSUIT COVER AT 74 

GOP STATE SENATOR IN NEW JERSEY INTRODUCES ‘DON’T SAY GAY’ BILL 

MARVEL INTRODUCES NEW TRANSGENDER SUPERHEROES 

KENTUCKY MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENTS ASKED TO WRITE LETTERS TO IMAGINARY FRIEND ‘STRUGGLING WITH HOMOSEXUALITY’ 

Source: TEST FEED1

All eyes on NRA meeting featuring Cruz, Trump following Texas tragedy

Tuesday’s devastating mass shooting is thrusting the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) annual meeting in Houston, Texas this weekend into the spotlight.  

The pro-gun lobbying group’s convention, located roughly 300 miles from the Uvalde, Texas, elementary school where at least 19 children were shot and killed, is set to feature remarks from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and former President Trump on Friday. 

The NRA has successfully pushed GOP members of Congress to reject any bills that restrict access to guns, including a ban on assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines and a bill to apply background checks to all gun sales. The influential group also took credit for a Texas law signed last year that allows individuals to carry handguns without a permit or training.  

The timing and location of the NRA’s convention has sparked outrage among critics who blame the pro-gun group for enabling a large number of mass shootings that that only occur regularly in the U.S. 

“Governor Abbott, if you have any decency, you will immediately withdraw from this weekend’s NRA convention and urge them to hold it anywhere but Texas,” Democratic Texas gubernatorial candidate Beto O’Rourke tweeted Wednesday morning.  

Trump on Wednesday confirmed that he will still speak at the event through a post on his Truth Social platform. 

“America needs real solutions and real leadership in this moment, not politicians and partisanship,” he wrote. “That’s why I will keep my longtime commitment to speak in Texas at the NRA Convention and deliver an important address to America.” 

One of the NRA’s planned speakers, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), will not attend the convention, but his office said that the change was due to “an unexpected change in his schedule” that occurred prior to the Uvalde shooting.  

As of Wednesday afternoon, Cruz and Abbott had not announced changes to their plans to speak at the NRA event Friday.  

The Hill has reached out to the NRA for information on the event’s scheduling.

“Aren’t you slated to headline a speaking gig for the NRA in three days – in Houston, no less? You can do more than pray,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tweeted at Cruz in response to his tweet praying for the elementary school victims. 

The 18-year-old suspect in the Texas shooting, who is now deceased, allegedly stormed into the school wielding a handgun and an AR-15-style rifle with high-capacity magazines.  

Local law enforcement officers said that the suspect legally purchased two AR-15-style rifles just a few days before the shooting and after turning 18.  

Roughly 77 percent of mass shooters obtained at least some of their guns legally, according to a February analysis from the Justice Department’s National Institute of Justice. The report’s researchers recommended that Congress pass a law requiring safe storage of guns and a “red flag” law allowing for officers to take guns away from individuals who pose a threat.  

Tuesday’s massacre is the 27th school shooting this year, according to Education Week. This year alone, the U.S. has seen over 200 mass shootings, defined as incidents in which four or more victims are shot, according to the Gun Violence Archive, including a recent shooting in a predominantly Black neighborhood in Buffalo, N.Y., that left 10 dead.  

The Uvalde incident was the deadliest school shooting since the 2012 Newtown, Conn., shooting that killed 20 children and six adults. That shooting sparked calls for stricter gun laws, but Senate Republicans blocked a widely popular bill from Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) to expand background checks on gun sales amid NRA opposition. 

Advocates of stricter gun laws expressed concern that this time won’t be any different, citing the influence of the NRA and other gun rights groups.  

Texas Republicans showed no indications that they would be open to tightening gun laws after the shooting. Cruz told MSNBC that efforts to restrict gun access would not be effective in preventing future massacres, instead pushing for more armed officers at schools. 

“As a nation, we have to ask: When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby? President Biden said in a televised speech Tuesday night. “When in God’s name will we do what we all know in our gut needs to be done?”  

The NRA has successfully blocked gun control legislation after each mass shooting that captures the nation’s attention and renews calls for congressional action, arguing that such legislation deprives Americans of their Second Amendment rights.  

Following back-to-back mass shootings in Texas and Ohio in 2019, then-President Trump expressed support for expanding background checks on gun sales, but he distanced himself from the idea after meeting with NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre, effectively killing the effort. 

The NRA said it “worked tirelessly” to back a bill allowing Texans to carry a handgun without the need for a license or training, overcoming opposition from some Texas law enforcement groups that said the law would make their jobs harder and more dangerous.  

“A right requiring you to pay a tax or obtain a government permission slip is not a right at all, that’s why the NRA is proud to have worked closely with state leaders and legislators to pass the most significant pro-Second Amendment measure in Texas history,” Jason Ouimet, executive director of the NRA’s lobbying arm, said in a statement at the time. 

The NRA’s finances have taken a hit in recent years amid various lawsuits and allegations that LaPierre illegally spent NRA funds on trips to the Bahamas, luxury hotel suites and other non-charitable uses. The group brought in $282 million in 2020, according to tax filings, its lowest haul since 2012.   

Still, the NRA from spent big on the 2020 election. The pro-gun group shelled out over $29 million on ads backing Trump and GOP congressional candidates and donated more than $786,000 to Republican candidates, according to research group OpenSecrets. 

The House passed two Democratic-backed bills last year to strengthen background checks on gun sales, but Senate Republicans blocked the measures.  

The lack of GOP cooperation has prompted advocates to push Democrats to end the 60-vote filibuster to pass gun control legislation. But Manchin on Wednesday told reporters that he wouldn’t support ending the filibuster for a gun bill. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Fox News host chokes up while discussing Texas school shooting

“Fox and Friends” host Ainsley Earhardt fought back tears as she described a feeling of bewilderment following a mass shooting at an elementary school in Texas this week which left at least 19 children dead.

“I’m just sitting here thinking — you hear the phrase in church, Lawrence, we all are involved in our churches that we all put Jesus on the cross. It wasn’t just one group. We were all guilty in that because he had to die on the cross for our sins,” Earhardt, a devout Christian who often speaks openly about her faith said on the network’s morning show on Wednesday.

“Is this all of our faults?,” she asked. “I mean, as a country, we’re so divided. We are — you hate someone else because they vote a different way than you do? You know, what makes these individuals do this to pick up a gun and go in and kill our children? Why do we now have to worry about that?”

Earhardt’s voice broke and she paused to gather her composure as she continued.

“And you think about what these parents are going through and they’ll never see their kids again, you know, and even if they have three kids, it doesn’t replace the one that they lost,” she said, her voice quivering.

“But what about the mom who has one child and she will never be a grandmother because this man went into these schools and did this. What do we need to do to heal as a country and make sure these gunmen like this do not — are stopped before they get to this point?”

On Tuesday, an 18-year-old attacker shot and killed at least 19 school children and two adults during a shooting in Uvaulde, Texas. Authorities say the suspect, who was killed by police during a shootout, also allegedly shot his grandmother before beginning his rampage at the school.

The incident has sparked growing calls for stricter gun control measures from Democrats, activists and families of school shooting victims. Republican politicians and conservative pundits have largely responded by saying the incident should be viewed as proof of a need for more school safety measures.

Earhardt said that parents should help children who are struggling.

“Parents, take your children to church. I don’t know what’s going on in these individuals hearts, but they have a void. They have a hole in their heart and they are evil and they are unhappy. Help them to get help. And I know it’s not always the parents’ fault because the parents are trying in many cases and when there’s mental illness involved, sometimes you’re at your wit’s end and there’s not much more you can do,” she said.

“But I don’t know what the solution is. I don’t know how to fix this. But I do know love your neighbor as yourself. That’s what the bible instructs us to do. It doesn’t say love your neighbor if he or she is a Democrat or a Republican. And our country has gotten so divided and I just am tired of all of this evil and I don’t know what the solution is but we definitely need to love each other and come back to where we were after 9/11 when we were one country.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Trump made approving remark about chants calling for hanging Pence: NYT

Former President Trump made an approving remark about his own vice president being hung following chants at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 to hang then-Vice President Pence, according to a report in The New York Times.

The report is based on an account of an incident at the White House that was reported to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.

It’s no secret that Trump was unhappy with Pence, who had made it clear that on Jan. 6 he would not be questioning the results of the election. Pence’s role in the process as vice president was to preside over the count by the House and Senate and consider objections made by state delegations.

But the new report suggests just how unpleased Trump was with Pence, who has since criticized the former president’s behavior on Jan. 6.

According to the report, at least one witness initially provided the House select committee an account of comments that former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows made to colleagues on Jan. 6.

Meadows said Trump made a remark signaling his openness to having Pence hung following the chants at the Capitol, two people briefed on the panel’s work told the Times.

People familiar with the committee’s work told the Times that the account was confirmed to the panel by former Meadows aide Cassidy Hutchinson after she was asked about it.

A committee spokesperson declined to comment to the newspaper about the matter while an aide and a lawyer for Meadows in addition to a lawyer for Hutchinson did not respond to the Times’ requests for comment. 

Trump spokesman Taylor Budowich claimed that the Times story was a part of a larger “Democrat smear campaign” in response to the Times. 

In one of Pence’s most forceful breaks with the former president, he said at a Federalist Society event in Florida in February that “I had no right to overturn the election.”

“There are those in our party who believe that as the presiding officer over the joint session of Congress, I possessed unilateral authority to reject Electoral College votes. And I heard this week that President Trump said I had the right to ‘overturn the election,’” Pence said at the time.

“President Trump is wrong. I had no right to overturn the election,” he added. “The presidency belongs to the American people, and the American people alone. Frankly, there is almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president.”

“This partisan committee’s vague ‘leaks,’ anonymous testimony and willingness to alter evidence proves it’s just an extension of the Democrat smear campaign that has been exposed time and time again for being fabricated and dishonest,” Budowich told the newspaper. “Americans are tired of the Democrat lies and the charades, but, sadly, it’s the only thing they have to offer.”

The Hill has reached out to the committee, a Trump spokesperson and an attorney for Meadows for comment. 

Source: TEST FEED1

'Those are our children:' CNN's John King shows map of US dotted with school shootings

CNN anchor John King, displaying a graphic showing the proliferation of school shootings in America since 2008, told his audience on Tuesday to “demand the conversation” about gun violence.

“I’m going to be quiet. Just watch the map fill in,” King said during his daily political and news program on Wednesday. “These are just school shootings in the United States of America since 2008.”

King was silent as dozens of red dots popped up on the screen, usually used to show vote totals and electoral results on election night. After 22 seconds, the map was covered from coast to coast with some 500 school shootings in the U.S. since 2008.

“Those are our children. Those are our children,” King said. “It is everywhere in America. Everybody has to be a part of these conversations. Whatever your views, demand the conversation.”

The segment came as part of CNN’s continuing coverage of a mass shooting on Tuesday in Uvalde, Texas, where an 18-year-old gunman opened fire in an elementary school, killing 19 children and two adults.

The incident has thrust the epidemic of gun violence back into the national spotlight and sparked calls from outraged citizens for U.S. leaders to do more to prevent mass shootings.

Source: TEST FEED1