Archive by Author

DOJ orders its officers to intervene to prevent excessive use of force

The Justice Department is ordering its federal officers to take on a greater role in fighting police brutality, ordering them to intervene if they see colleagues using excessive force.

The order comes in the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) first update to its use-of-force policy in 18 years. 

The memo, signed Friday but not publicly released until Monday, comes just days before the second anniversary of the killing of George Floyd, whose death as he was pinned down by a Minneapolis police officer sparked nationwide protests.

The memo outlines the duty of officers both to prevent excessive force and to administer medical aid to those injured by police.

“Officers will be trained in, and must recognize and act upon, the affirmative duty to intervene to prevent or stop, as appropriate, any officer from engaging in excessive force or any other use of force that violates the Constitution, other federal laws, or Department policies on the reasonable use of force,” Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in the memo.

The policy applies to officers of the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the U.S. Marshal Service, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, and the Drug Enforcement Agency.

The new policy bars use of deadly force on a subject who is fleeing and also prohibits shooting into a moving vehicle solely to disable it. It also bars deadly force on those seen as a threat only to themselves.

“It is the policy of the Department of Justice to value and preserve human life,” Garland wrote.

“Officers may use force only when no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist and may use only the level of force that a reasonable officer on the scene would use under the same or similar circumstances.”

The memo outlines a number of subjects on which officers must now be trained, from de-escalation techniques, “alternative methods and tactics for handling resisting subjects,” and intervention techniques to use with colleagues.

The new policy takes effect in 60 days.  

The memo only applies to federal officers, and not municipal police officers who often have more substantial interactions with the public.

The Justice Department has, however, kicked off several use-of-force investigations into local police departments under the Biden administration, including the Minneapolis Police Department.

DOJ likewise has announced similar reviews in Louisville, Ky., following the death of Breonna Taylor, as well as in Phoenix.

In each case the department determined there was a pattern or practice of widespread excessive use of force. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden’s Taiwan remarks reject the Constitution and his own promise

In Tokyo on Monday, President Joe Biden extra-constitutionally pledged a United States military response to China to defend Taiwan.  

Congress should demand that Biden retract his claim of extra-constitutional war powers or be reminded of a promise he made as a senator to impeach a past president for similar actions. 

As George Mason explained at the constitutional convention, “attempts to subvert the Constitution” were paradigm impeachable offenses. There was no ambiguity in Biden’s exchanges with a reporter: 

REPORTER: You didn’t want to get involved in the Ukraine conflict militarily for obvious reasons. Are you willing to get involved militarily to defend Taiwan if it comes to that?

BIDEN: Yes. 

REPORTER: You are?  

BIDEN: That’s the commitment we made. 

Tokyo was not the first occasion in which Biden asserted extra-constitutional authority to take the United States to war in defense of allies. 

In August, after withdrawing United States troops from Afghanistan, Biden volunteered that the United States would resort to military force to defend a NATO member from aggression and added, “same with Japan, same with South Korea, same with Taiwan.”  

On Feb. 24, President Biden maintained with feistiness: “[T]he United States will defend every inch of NATO territory with the full force of American power.” 

As a United States senator, Biden voted in favor of the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides: 

“The President is directed to inform the Congress promptly of any threat to the security or the social or economic system of the people on Taiwan and any danger to the interests of the United States arising therefrom. The President and the Congress shall determine, in accordance with constitutional processes, appropriate action by the United States in response to any such danger.” 

The identical reference to constitutional processes is used in Article 11 of the NATO treaty to determine the United States’ response to aggression against a NATO member. Constitutional processes entrust to Congress, not the president, decisions to engage in war. 

James Madison, the father of the Constitution, underscored, “In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department.” Alexander Hamilton elaborated in “Federalist Papers No. 75” that presidents would subordinate national interests to personal ambitions in international relations. 

Indeed, every participant in the drafting and ratification of the Constitution understood that war power was assigned exclusively to Congress. That understanding was echoed by Secretary of State Dean Acheson in supporting NATO before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

Before entering the White House as a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2007, Biden agreed. He promised to lead the charge to impeach President George W. Bush if he attacked Iran over its nuclear program without a prior congressional declaration of war in an interview with Chris Matthews on NBC:

MATTHEWS: You said that if the president of the United States had launched an attack on Iran without congressional approval, that would have been an impeachable offense.

BIDEN:  Absolutely.

MATTHEWS: Do you want to review that comment you made? Well, how do you stand on that now?

BIDEN: Yes I do. I want to stand by that comment I made…I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years, or its ranking member.  I teach separation of powers and constitutional law. This is something I know. So I got together and brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate, pointing out the president has no constitutional authority to take this nation to war against a country of 70 million people, unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked.  And if he does, I would move to impeach him.

President Biden’s persistent and false claims to war powers create a clear and present danger to our constitutional order. The latest risk is a disastrous war with China that might escalate to nuclear weapons. Biden’s remarks infuriated the Chinese government. Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin warned, “On issues concerning China’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and other core issues, China has no room to compromise.” 

History may not repeat itself, but it rhymes, according to a quote attributed to Mark Twain. China intervened in the Korean War against the United States with 3 million civilians and military personnel after General Douglas MacArthur threatened its territorial integrity by racing troops towards the Yalu River. President Biden’s gratuitous bellicosity with China over Taiwan heights the risk of a Chinese attack to defend its great power standing after centuries of humiliation by the West and Japan.  

If the latter happens, it will be for Congress to decide how to respond and whether to risk nuclear armageddon, not one man or woman in the White House tempted to overreact to win fame and remembrance.  

President Biden needs to walk back his serial claims to presidential war powers without tarry. Otherwise, he will have demonstrated his unfitness as a steward of the Constitution as his constitutionally prescribed oath of office mandates. 

Bruce Fein was associate deputy attorney general under President Reagan and author of “American Empire Before The Fall.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

America can support families better through a ‘Working Family Credit’

When President Biden’s Build Back Better plan failed, the Democrats’ chance to turn the Child Tax Credit (CTC) into a permanent child allowance also faltered. A sticking point in their plan was transferring income to non-working parents — which might have decreased poverty on paper, but likely would have made it harder for families to prosper in the long run because it also discouraged employment. Combine that dynamic with marriage penalties in other safety net programs, such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Democrats’ vision for poverty reduction quickly resembles the failed welfare policies of the past.

A more effective approach is to focus on work and marriage as a path out of poverty, rather than policies that undermine these crucial components. In a new report, I propose a Working Family Credit to replace the EITC and CTC as a way to achieve this goal. Decades ago, the EITC and CTC started for distinct purposes, but after numerous changes, they have become largely redundant for low-income families. Combining the EITC and CTC into one child-related credit could better support families with children, while simplifying their administration.

Congress originally passed the EITC in 1975 — initially called the earned income credit — as a temporary payroll tax offset for low-income working families, providing it to parents even when they did not earn enough to owe federal income taxes. With support from Republican and Democratic presidents, Congress increased the EITC numerous times since its adoption, making it the federal government’s largest direct cash transfer to low-income families in recent years. Separately, Congress created the Child Tax Credit in 1997, initially as tax relief for parents with federal income tax liability, but eventually as a “refundable” tax credit for working parents without income tax liability who also received the EITC.   

In light of recent attempts by the Democrats to expand the CTC to non-working families, it is important to remember the original purpose of these credits — tax relief for working families — as well as the importance of employment and marriage for reducing poverty. Now that most low-income working families can receive both the EITC and the CTC, Congress should consider consolidating them and using a combined credit to reinforce the importance of work and marriage in fighting poverty. This is especially important as the lessons of welfare reform fade from memory. Twenty-five years after President Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress reinforced the importance of work and marriage in welfare reforms, the largest safety net programs still discourage work, such as with the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or penalize marriage, such as with the EITC.

A consolidated credit also could address administration problems with the current system of child-related tax credits. The EITC is notorious for high improper payment rates, and the refundable portion of the CTC suffers from similar problems. By aligning rules across the current EITC and CTC, a consolidated credit could make it easier to enact policies that increase the integrity of these payments.

The Working Family Credit I propose is as generous — and in many cases, more generous — than the current combined EITC and CTC, providing a maximum of $6,000, $9,000 and $12,000 for low-income families with one, two and three children, respectively. Its structure encourages employment by phasing-in and -out to minimize work disincentives and supports marriage by increasing payments to more working-class married families.

Still, the costs of any new program are crucial. The Working Family Credit would cost $231 billion (2022 dollars) — $25 billion more than current. However, it would increase after-tax income for the vast majority of households with incomes below the 60th percentile, especially working-class married families. To control costs it would eliminate the head of household tax filing status, which primarily benefits high-income single parents, and reduce the amount of child-related tax credits for high-income households to between $1,000 and $3,000.

Consolidating child-related tax credits in a way that supports employment and marriage would send a strong message about the best way to reduce poverty and increase upward mobility for U.S. families — striking a sharp contrast with policies that view them as inconsequential.

Angela Rachidi is a senior fellow and the Rowe Scholar in poverty studies at the American Enterprise Institute, where she studies poverty and the effects of federal safety-net programs on low-income people in America. She served as a deputy commissioner for policy research in the New York City Department of Social Services from 2007-2015. Follow her on Twitter @AngelaRachidi.

Source: TEST FEED1

Rep. Delgado to resign Wednesday, become NY lieutenant governor

Rep. Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.) will officially resign from Congress on Wednesday, the same day he is set to be sworn in as lieutenant governor of New York.

Delgado’s resignation was announced on the House floor Tuesday morning. It takes effect at 4 p.m. eastern time on Wednesday.

“I hereby submit my resignation effective May 25, 2022 at 4 p.m. EST as United States Representative of the 19th District of the State of New York,” the House clerk said, reading a letter Delgado sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Delgado is departing the lower chamber to assume the No. 2 role in the Empire State after former New York Lt. Gov. Brian Benjamin (D) resigned from the post in April.

Benjamin was arrested in April and charged with federal program bribery, honest services wire fraud, conspiracy to commit those offenses and falsification of records. He is accused of trying to direct a state-funded grant worth $50,000 to an organization in exchange for campaign contributions.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul (D-N.Y.) earlier this month tapped Delgado to be her new lieutenant governor, and on Monday she said he would be sworn in on Wednesday.

“Antonio Delgado is a phenomenal leader and public servant with a record of getting things done for New Yorkers, and he will serve as a trusted partner as New York’s Lieutenant Governor,” Hochul said in a statement on Monday.

“I look forward to working together on critical issues including education, affordable housing, economic development and infrastructure, and his experience in Washington will make him a key liaison to our Congressional Delegation,” she added.

New York will hold a special election to fill Delgado’s seat in the House on Aug. 23. Dutchess County Executive Marcus Molinaro, a Republican, and Ulster County Executive Pat Ryan, a Democrat, are both vying to finish out Delgado’s term.

Delgado in a statement on Monday said he is ready to bring his experience of serving in Congress to New York.

“It has been an honor to serve in Congress, delivering results and fighting for the constituents of the 19th District. Now, I am ready to put my years of experience and ability to connect people to work for the entire State of New York,” Delgado said.

“New York needs an experienced leader with a history of getting things done. I am more than ready to step into this role as Lieutenant Governor and work tirelessly, every day, to improve the lives of New Yorkers,” he added.

Source: TEST FEED1

Pelosi: Why doesn't Catholic Church punish death penalty supporters?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Tuesday went after the Catholic Church for what she characterized as its hypocritical position when it comes to the politics of life and death.

Pelosi, a practicing Catholic, was recently barred by the archbishop of San Francisco from taking communion for her support of abortion rights, which the church considers to be homicide at all stages from conception to birth.

Appearing on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” program on Tuesday morning, Pelosi wondered why the archbishop, Salvatore Cordileone, hasn’t applied the same ban to Catholics who support capital punishment. 

“I wonder about the death penalty, which I am opposed to,” she said. “So is the church, but they take no action against people who may not share their view.”

The Speaker is no stranger to clashes with Cordileone, a staunch conservative who has long denounced Pelosi’s support for abortion rights, same sex marriage and other liberties favored by liberals. His political views stirred some controversy during the coronavirus pandemic, after he revealed in December that he was not vaccinated for COVID-19 and falsely claimed that the inoculation shots “are not really vaccines.”

Cordileone’s feud with Pelosi escalated last week, when he barred her from receiving communion, a central sacrament of the Catholic faith, within his archdiocese. The decision runs counter to the advice of the Pope Francis and the Vatican, which have warned against denying communion to abortion rights supporters — an idea that’s gained prominence since President Biden, another Catholic, took over the White House. 

In explaining the decision to ignore the Vatican, Cordileone characterized Pelosi’s support for abortion rights as a “grave evil,” a church “scandal” and a “danger to her own soul.”

“I have determined that the point has come in which I must make a public declaration that she is not to be admitted to Holy Communion unless and until she publicly repudiate her support for abortion ‘rights’ and confess and receive absolution for her cooperation in this evil in the sacrament of Penance,” Cordileone wrote. 

“I assure you,” he added, “that my action here is purely pastoral, not political.”

Undeterred, Pelosi over the weekend took communion in Washington, Politico reported. 

Pelosi, the nation’s first female Speaker, has a long history of supporting the reproductive freedoms of women, and her advocacy has grown only louder with the recent revelation that conservatives on the Supreme Court appear poised to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that made the right to abortion constitutional. 

A leaked draft of the court’s decision, published earlier this month by Politico, argues that the Constitution does not contain the privacy rights on which Roe was based. 

Critics of that ruling, including Pelosi, have warned that it could ultimately lead to the toppling of similar court-established rights based on the same legal argument, including rights to gay marriage and access to certain forms of contraception — a warning the Speaker amplified on Tuesday. 

“What is important for women to know, and families to know, [is] that this is not just about terminating a pregnancy,” she said on MSNBC. “Some of these same people are against contraception, family planning, in-vitro fertilization. It’s a blanket thing, and they use abortion as the front-man for it while they try to undo so much.”

With the Supreme Court expected to unveil its final decision at the end of June, Pelosi predicted the hot button issue will energize voters on both sides of the debate. But because most Americans support at least some of the protections provided under Roe, she added, Democrats will likely benefit at the polls — if they can get their message out to voters. 

“For public sentiment to weigh in, people have to know,” Pelosi said. “Women have to know how pervasive this is.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Perdue accuses Abrams of 'demeaning her own race'

Georgia gubernatorial candidate former Sen. David Perdue (R) on Monday accused Democratic challenger Stacey Abrams of “demeaning her own race” suggesting in a racist mark that she should “go back where she came from” during a campaign stop in Dunwoody, Ga.

“Did y’all see what Stacey said this weekend?” Perdue asked while speaking to a crowd. “Said Georgia’s the worst place in the country to live. Hey, she ain’t from here. Let her go back where she came from. She doesn’t like it here.”

During his remarks, he also claimed that Abrams only wanted to be the president of the United States and “doesn’t care about the people in Georgia.”

“You know, when we saw in ‘18 what she did and what she said, ‘oh We’re gonna have a blue wave, we’re going to do it with documented and undocumented workers,’” Perdue continued.

“You know, I don’t think a lot of people in Georgia understood that when she told Black farmers, ‘You don’t need to be on the farm,’ and she told Black workers in hospitality and all this, ‘You don’t need to be,’ she is demeaning her own race when it comes to that. I am really over this. She should never be considered for material for a governor of any state, much less our state where she hates to live,” he added.

Perdue appeared to be targeting remarks Abrams, who is Black, made during a speech over the weekend in which she criticized Georgia’s performance on maternal mortality and incarceration rates.

“I am tired of hearing about being the best state in the country to do business when we are the worst state in the country to live,” Abrams said, according to footage shared by NBC News correspondent Blayne Alexander. 

“Now, somebody’s gonna try to Politifact me on this, so let me contextualize. When you’re No. 48 for mental health, when you’re No. 1 for maternal mortality. When you have an incarceration rate that’s on the rise, and wages that are on the decline, then you are not the No. 1 place to live in the United States, but we can get there,” she continued. 

Perdue also appeared to be referring to comments she made in 2018 in which she said she wanted to create a variety of different jobs within the state.

“I want to create a lot of different jobs. Because people shouldn’t have to go into agriculture or hospitality in Georgia to make a living in Georgia. Why not create renewable energy jobs? Because, I’m going to tell y’all a secret: Climate change is real,” she said, according to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Abrams was asked about Perdue’s comments on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” on Monday. 

“I think that, regardless of which Republican it is, I have yet to hear them articulate a plan for the future of Georgia,” she replied. 

“I can apologize all day for my phrasing, but I will never apologize for my meaning. And that is that we mean to serve the people of Georgia and we mean to make Georgia better for everyone. And I want to lift everyone up,” she added.  

Georgia’s gubernatorial primary is Tuesday.

The Hill has reached out to Perdue’s campaign for comment. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Carbon monoxide killed Sandals tourists in Bahamas: reports

MIAMI (NewsNation) — According to autopsy and toxicology reports, the three U.S. tourists who were found dead earlier this month at a Sandals Resort in the Bahamas died from carbon monoxide poisoning.

Officers were called to the Sandals Resort on the island of Exuma on May 6 after one of the tourists, a man, was found unresponsive in a villa, the Royal Bahamas Police Force said.

Michael Phillips, 68, and Robbie Phillips, 65, both of Tennessee, and Vincent Chiarella, 64, of Florida, were all found dead inside neighboring villas at the resort on Great Exuma Island.

Chiarella was traveling with his wife, but the two couples were not traveling together. They all went to a local clinic in the Bahamas after they told hotel staff they were feeling nausea. Then the next day, three of them were found unresponsive in their villas.

Investigators said no foul play was ever suspected.

Chiarella’s wife, Donnis, was flown to a south Florida hospital and is now in stable condition.

Investigators are still working to determine how the victims got carbon monoxide poisoning. Hotel guests allegedly reported smelling a strong odor, and investigators looked into a possible air conditioning or water heater leak. Still, at this point, they have no comment and are only confirming the cause of death. 

Meanwhile, the investigation is ongoing.

Family members have called for independent autopsies and are waiting for private toxicology reports to come back.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden underwater on almost all issues except handling of COVID: poll

President Biden’s approval rating continues to be underwater on virtually every issue, with the exception being on his handling of the coronavirus pandemic, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll.

Biden’s overall approval rating sits at 41 percent in the survey, and the numbers are not much better when broken down by each issue.

Only 35 percent of registered voters approve of Biden’s handling of the economy, 44 percent approve of his efforts to stimulate job growth, and just 33 percent approve of his handling of inflation. Just 38 percent of respondents say they support his handling of immigration, and his approval rating on foreign affairs sits at 40 percent.

However, 52 percent of registered voters said they approve of his handling of COVID-19, the lone bright spot in the survey for the White House.

Yet overall, his sagging approval ratings portend a political atmosphere this midterm cycle that will heavily favor Republicans — and warn that a 2024 reelection bid could be a slog.

“Biden continues to struggle with the job and is particularly being slammed by the voters over inflation and immigration. No president has been re-elected with numbers like these on job performance,” said pollster Mark Penn.

The survey results come as several polls underscore rising concern over inflation, which hit a four-decade high earlier this year. Republicans also continue to lambast him over what they say is a “crisis” at the southern border, last year’s military withdrawal from Afghanistan and more.

Biden has made tackling the coronavirus a priority since the start of his administration, but Democrats are currently laboring to get another pandemic funding bill across the finish line in Congress.

Negotiations with Republicans have already whittled the legislation down from a $30 billion request to just $10 billion, and efforts to hold a vote on it in the Senate are stuck amid GOP requests over a vote on an immigration-related amendment. Officials, meanwhile, continue to warn that the U.S. risks running low on critical supplies like vaccines and therapeutics if the legislation is not passed.

The Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey of 1,963 registered voters was conducted from May 18-19. It is a collaboration between the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University and the Harris Poll.

The survey is an online sample drawn from the Harris Panel and weighted to reflect known demographics. As a representative online sample, it does not report a probability confidence interval.

Source: TEST FEED1

Majority of Americans say they are 'getting worse' financially: poll

A majority of U.S. voters say that their financial situation is worsening amid rising inflation and mounting fears of a looming economic recession, according to a new Harvard CAPS/Harris poll shared exclusively with The Hill.

Fifty-six percent of those surveyed said that, financially, things are “getting worse,” the highest percentage on record for the poll. That’s up sharply from last month when 48 percent reported that their financial situations were weakening.

Meanwhile, the percentage of voters who say their financial situation is improving is near its all-time low in the poll, with just 20 percent of respondents saying so.

“This is a devastating finding that has been climbing month after month – no matter how they are actually doing, a solid majority believes now they are becoming worse off economically and that is America’s most critical read on the mood of the voters,” Mark Penn, the co-director of the Harvard CAPS/Harris poll, said. 

The pessimistic view of Americans’ personal finances comes as the country continues to face the highest rate of inflation in decades. Consumer prices climbed 8.3 percent in April compared with a year earlier, marking the fastest increase in roughly 40 years.

At the same time, gas prices have climbed significantly in recent months. As of Tuesday, the national average price for a gallon of gas has hit $4.598, according to AAA, marking the highest recorded average to date.

The Harvard CAPS/Harris poll also found rising concerns about a coming recession. Nearly half of those surveyed – 49 percent – say they expect the U.S. to enter a recession in the next year, while another 36 percent believe that the country is already in the midst of an economic downturn.

Only 16 percent say that they believe the U.S. will avoid a recession.

The fears of a looming economic downturn combined with growing financial anxiety among voters could portend a bleak midterm election outlook for Democrats, who are fighting to save their ultra-narrow majorities in the House and Senate this year.

While the Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed little change in President Biden’s approval rating since last month, it still remains well underwater, with 41 percent approving and 55 percent disapproving.

And when it comes to specific issues, Biden gets his worst marks for his handling of the economy and inflation. Only 35 percent say they approve of his handling of the economy as a whole, while 33 percent give him positive reviews for his handling of inflation.

On top of that, price increases and inflation are the top issues on voters’ minds, according to the poll, with 40 percent listing it as the most important issue facing the country right now. Just below that, at 30 percent, is the economy and jobs.

The Harvard CAPS/Harris Poll survey of 1,963 registered voters was conducted from May 18-19. It is a collaboration of the Center for American Political Studies at Harvard University and the Harris Poll.

The survey is an online sample drawn from the Harris Panel and weighted to reflect known demographics. As a representative online sample, it does not report a probability confidence interval.

Source: TEST FEED1