Categories Uncategorized

Why Ukraine's battlefield wins are raising fresh questions for Biden

Ukraine’s success on the battlefield in recent weeks has led to a ripple of fresh decisions facing the Biden administration around how to best support the country as its war against Russia shifts, escalates and threatens to drag into a harsh winter.

The White House has been steadfastly supportive of Ukraine since Russia invaded in February, sending billions of dollars in military aid. But as the Ukrainian army mounts successful counteroffensives, administration officials are faced with new questions about whether to provide longer-range weaponry, how to address pleas from Ukraine to join the NATO alliance and how to nudge the war toward its end.

“We have some real difficult decisions to make, relative to what’s going on in Ukraine, and we’re going to continue to support them. But first time since the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have a direct threat of the use of the nuclear weapon if, in fact, things continue down the path they’ve been going,” President Biden said at a fundraiser on Thursday.

The situation in Ukraine has dramatically changed over the past month. Ukrainian forces made significant gains to retake territory captured by Russia after it launched its invasion in February.

In response, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of men to help the military effort, raised the specter of using nuclear weapons if Russia came under attack and annexed four Ukrainian territories through what international officials condemned as “sham referendums.”

Ukraine, meanwhile, has continued to push for longer-range weapons systems in the fight against Russia, and President Volodymyr Zelensky has urged NATO members to admit his country into the alliance to provide greater protection.

Each of those factors has prompted new decisions for the Biden administration, which has been clear from the beginning that Russia must be defeated to avoid an escalation of war in Europe.

“I wouldn’t say business as usual because anytime Putin threatens use of nuclear weapons, that’s not business as usual,” said David Kramer, a former deputy assistant secretary of State for European and Eurasian affairs during the George W. Bush administration.

“The Ukrainians are on the march and that should be in our interest, to see Ukraine win this war,” added Kramer, who is an advisory board member to the Vandenberg Coalition.

On the question of NATO membership, U.S. officials have been clear that they are not interested in admitting Ukraine at this time. With Russian forces invading Ukraine, NATO admission at this point would trigger the mutual defense clause within the treaty.

The issue of annexation also creates potential dilemmas for the Biden administration. Putin now views the Luhansk, Kherson, Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions of Ukraine as Russian territory, and the Russian leader has warned he could escalate the fighting with a tactical nuclear weapon if Russian territory is attacked.

“It’s an interesting standpoint that Washington will say, ‘We don’t recognize that as Russian territory.’ But for Putin and many of his compatriots … these are all now effectively considered just the same as St. Petersburg and Moscow,” said Brett Bruen, a former State Department official during the Obama administration.

“So the notion that our weapons shouldn’t be used to attack Russian territory because that could provoke Russia, I think is drawn further into question,” Bruen added. “We are really only convincing ourselves of the logic that is being deployed here.”

Bruen noted Biden also faces questions about how the U.S. can help facilitate an end to the conflict.

U.S. officials have been adamant that Russia could end the war anytime it wants to by withdrawing its forces from Ukrainian territory. But Biden himself on Thursday acknowledged Putin’s rhetoric has complicated the matter.

“We’re trying to figure out: What is Putin’s off-ramp? Where does he get off? Where does he find a way out?  Where does he find himself in a position that he does not not only lose face, but lose significant power within Russia?” Biden said at a New York City fundraiser.

In the meantime, some experts argue there’s little reason for the Biden administration to deviate from its plans.

“I don’t think it really complicates their thinking, because they’ve always been committed to, essentially, Ukrainian victory,” said Mark Cancian, a former Pentagon official who serves now as a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

The U.S. has committed more than $17.5 billion in aid to Ukraine since the beginning of the Biden administration, including $16.8 billion since Russia invaded Ukraine on Feb. 24. Congress set aside roughly $12 billion in additional economic and military aid last month, meaning the support will continue at least through the first quarter of the 2023 fiscal year.

Biden has been consistent on a few topics, most notably that he will not send U.S. troops to fight on the ground in Ukraine. He has also been consistent about avoiding a strike inside Russia’s borders and about ensuring no decisions are made about Ukraine without consulting the country’s leaders.

“So given the goal, given the parameters, they’re going to keep doing what they’re doing,” Cancian said.

Source: TEST FEED1

Critics sound alarm over 'Twitter troll' Elon Musk's company takeover

Elon Musk’s looming Twitter takeover has triggered warnings on the left that under his leadership the platform will be flooded with hate speech and misinformation, especially ahead of coming election cycles. 

Musk hasn’t provided a detailed picture of the version of Twitter he plans to run, but he’s foreshadowed creating a platform focused on what he deems “free speech,” meaning there would be less content moderation and a strong likelihood of former President Trump regaining access to his once favored account.

With the deal barreling ahead after Musk agreed to follow through on his purchase of the company and a judge halted the trial in Twitter’s lawsuit against the billionaire, those changes could be fast approaching — and they have critics worried. 

“Even if you don’t use Twitter, this is going to affect you,” Angelo Carusone, president of the left-leaning watchdog group Media Matters, told The Hill. 

He likened the potential Musk acquisition of Twitter to when Fox News launched more than two decades ago, offering an alternative to balance what its founders viewed as a media landscape that catered to liberals. 

“That’s what Fox became — and it had a profound distorting effect on the news media, on our society. And if you look at what Musk says about social media, we are in the same moment, just updated 30 years later,” Carusone said. 

“[Musk] sees Twitter, and the policies that he wants to put in place and the way that he wants to use the platform, as a way to balance out those other social networks,” he added. 

The changes Musk could make at Twitter are “going to start to reshape and influence” how other platforms interact with disinformation, extremism, harassment and abuse, he said. 

The billionaire Tesla and SpaceX CEO came to an agreement with Twitter to buy the company for $44 billion in April, but over the summer he backed out of the deal and accused Twitter of not being forthcoming with information about spam bots on the platform. Twitter denied the allegations and sued Musk to hold him accountable for his agreement. 

This week Musk said he would, again, agree to his offer and tried to get the case dismissed. Twitter is still pushing for its trial against Musk, but a judge halted the case and gave Musk until Oct. 28 to close the deal or face a November trial date. 

One constant throughout the five-month process has been Musk’s pledge to embrace his vision of free speech, one that appears to be in line with the lax content moderation measures Republicans have been advocating for.

“I’m not doing Twitter for the money. It’s not like I’m trying to buy some yacht and I can’t afford it. I don’t own any boats. But I think it’s important that people have a maximally trusted and inclusive means of exchanging ideas and that it should be as trusted and transparent as possible,” Musk, who has previously dubbed himself a “free speech absolutist,” said in an interview with the Financial Times published Friday.

At the same time, he seems to be trying to separate his view from that governing the fringe sites that have popped up to cater to right-wing users — including Trump’s Truth Social. He called the former president’s app “essentially a rightwing echo chamber.” 

“It might as well be called Trumpet,” Musk said. 

Musk’s own style of using Twitter may guide how he leads the company. Throughout the on-and-off-again deal, he used his account on the platform to call out top executives. At one point in May, for instance, he tweeted a lone poop emoji in response to a lengthy explanation from Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal about bots. 

“He’s a premier Twitter troll himself,” said Paul Barrett, a deputy director of New York University Stern’s Center for Business and Human Rights.

“He loves to insult people on Twitter and I think the fact that that’s his motivation as opposed to a clear business plan for Twitter, or even a clear ideological plan … makes the situation very volatile and difficult to forecast. Because I think a lot of it has to do with his whims and what he’s feeling like when he wakes up on any given day,” Barrett added.

That troll-like approach could lead Twitter to “slide back toward” the “real cesspool” it was five to 10 years ago, Barrett said. As Twitter grew in those years, it implemented more moderation measures to rein in harassment and other forms of hate speech. 

Feminist group UltraViolet warned Musk’s changes could especially harm marginalized communities online. 

“If this deal goes through, Twitter will become an even more dangerous place for women, threats of violence online against Black women and women of color will skyrocket, and anti-trans content will take hold of user feeds,” UltraViolet communications director Bridget Todd said in a statement. 

Musk has offered the most concrete glimpse into his plans for Twitter changes when it comes to the fate of Trump’s account. 

Twitter took among the most stringent steps of any tech company regarding Trump’s social media accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol attack last year, putting in place a permanent ban after deeming the former president’s tweets about the riot that day violated Twitter’s glorification of violence policy. Company executives doubled down repeatedly that the ban would be permanent, even if Trump runs for office again. 

But Musk has other plans. In May he said he would reverse the ban, calling it a “morally bad decision” and “foolish in the extreme.”  

If Trump is allowed back onto Twitter, it would give him access to the account he used most to post online when he was running for president and while in office. 

It could also influence other platforms to lift their bans on Trump. 

“Twitter easing up and allowing the former president to return to the platform would put pressure on the other platforms to do the same,” Barrett said. 

Meta, the new parent company name for Facebook, has already teased potentially letting Trump back on in January. The platform said its temporary suspension of Trump would be reevaluated in 2023, two years after it was put in place.

“It is likely that Meta is going to restore Donald Trump’s Facebook account, but it’s not certain, there’s clearly a window of engagement there. It’s a guarantee that they will restore his Facebook account if Twitter does, it’s a fact,” Carusone said. 

Letting Trump, or other figures that have been banned, back on could play a key role in the lead up to the 2024 election, and in earlier contests. 

Carusone said Twitter changing hands may impact the midterm races, and the narratives about their results, pending the completion of the deal on its new October deadline. 

“I don’t think he’s going to allow Twitter to enforce those policies early on, even in the immediacy. So I think the effects will be smaller, certainly, into the midterms than they will be for 2024, but they will feel them. Especially in the races that are very tight and contested,” he said. 

While figures on the left lament the potential changes, Musk’s vision for Twitter has been embraced on the right. Republicans, including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), poised to take control of the House Judiciary Committee if the GOP wins the House in November, cheered Musk’s push to buy the company. 

“Two things the Left hates: Elon Musk and the First Amendment,” Jordan tweeted Wednesday. 

Musk’s renewed takeover effort comes as online content moderation faces an inflection point. 

Motivated by accusations that tech companies are censoring content with an anti-conservative bias, Republican-led states are trying to put in place laws that would tie the hands of those companies when they seek to remove posts or accounts that violate their policies. Florida and Texas are entrenched in legal challenges with tech industry groups over the laws, and one of the cases is expected to wind up before the Supreme Court. 

At the same time, another case involving tech companies’ controversial liability shield, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, is already slated to be heard by the nation’s high court this session. 

“The social media industry is now subject to kind of a legal pincer maneuver with people coming at it from very different orientations, but all of those approaches, those assaults are threatening to how the social media industry does business —and I think Elon Musk is a third threat,” Barrett said. “He’s not legislation, and he’s not litigation, but he’s a threat via a volatile personality coming to own a major platform and possibly disrupting the general direction toward more self regulation on the part of that platform in particular.

Source: TEST FEED1

GOP shows signs of coming home for Oz as Fetterman lead shrinks

It took a while, but Republicans are finally coming home for Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania, putting him squarely in striking distance of Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) in the state’s Senate contest.  

Over the last month, national and Pennsylvania Republicans alike have grown increasingly bullish over Oz’s chances as attacks on Fetterman’s campaign strategy amid his stroke recovery and stance on crime have helped vault Oz back into contention.  

Recent polls show just as much. In less than two months, Oz has chopped Fetterman’s lead nearly in half, with the lieutenant governor now leading by roughly 4 percentage points. Additionally, Republican operatives and strategists across the board are convinced Oz will get the job done, a far cry from only weeks ago.  

“I feel a lot better about Pennsylvania than I did four or five weeks ago. That’s for sure,” one Pennsylvania-based GOP operative told The Hill, adding that there was a “panic” that set in amongst Pennsylvania and national Republicans and extended into the world of former President Trump.  

According to a recent Fox News poll, 83 percent of Republicans are now behind Oz, up from 73 percent from the previous poll taken in July. Not coincidentally, Fetterman only leads by 4 percentage points in the recent survey compared to 11 points in the summer, and the pundits have taken notice.  

The Cook Political Report on Tuesday shifted the race from “lean Republican” to one of the four toss-up contests left on the map.  

However, some top Republicans still worry about Oz’s ability to fully bring Republican voters completely into the tent.  

“His biggest problem is to get conservatives to vote for him. They don’t like Fetterman, but they’re not sure about Oz either,” former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) told The Hill in an interview. “He’s not really running as a conservative. He’s running as someone who will make things work in Washington,” he continued, likening Oz’s pitch to Keystone State voters to those made by the state’s former Republican Sens. Arlen Specter and John Heinz.  

Perhaps the biggest part of Oz’s independent outreach, however, remains his attacks against Fetterman on crime, an issue that has galvanized the GOP base not just in Pennsylvania, but across the country.  

Oz’s latest ad, released on Friday, charges that Fetterman’s plan would “release murderers into our community,” pointing to his work as head of the Board of Pardons during his tenure as lieutenant governor. 

“That’s a prescription for pain,” Oz says in the 30-second spot.  

Keystone State Democrats are well aware of the damage the attacks are inflicting the former Braddock, Pa., mayor. One senior Pennsylvania Democrat told The Hill that the ads are “working” and conceded that the issue is a “big liability” for Democratic chances to win back the seat. Other state Democrats are concerned that there wasn’t enough pushback early to combat the aerial assault.  

“I thought [Fetterman] was a little late responding to the ads,” former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) told The Hill. “It was a decent response, but it was a little late.”  

Looking ahead, the planned debate between the two candidates is slated for Oct. 25 in what is shaping up to be one of the most anticipated moments of the midterm cycle. For months, Republicans heaped pressure on Fetterman to take the stage alongside Oz in the aftermath of the stroke he suffered shortly before the May primary, and did so with a significant amount of success. According to GOP operatives, part of that is due to Oz’s background as a cardiologist and his ability to speak on the subject with a level of authority. 

However, Democrats sense opportunity as expectations for Fetterman heading into the showdown have been lowered significantly. Rendell argued the messaging surrounding the debate could turn out to be a “double-edged sword” for the GOP if the lieutenant governor puts on a “solid performance.” 

While the debate stands as Fetterman’s mountain to climb in the final month, Oz has little control over his as state Sen. Doug Mastriano’s (R) gubernatorial campaign continues to struggle and has shown little life against state Attorney General Josh Shapiro (D). In survey after survey, Shapiro leads by double digits and is outspending the GOP nominee by a 60 to 1 margin on the airwaves, potentially creating a significant drag on Oz’s chances.  

Some Republicans don’t think Mastriano’s sagging campaign will cause much of an impact, and are quick to note that the Senate contest is the race that is on top of the physical ballot instead of governor and that straight-ticket voting is no longer a practice in the state. However, others remain alarmed.  

“The big issue is Doug Mastriano isn’t introducing Doug Mastriano to the voters. Josh Shapiro is,” a second Pennsylvania-based Republican strategist said, pointing to the $31 million in ad reservations Shapiro has made as of late last week.  

“If Doug can get his race into single digits, then Oz has a good fighting shot,” the strategist continued, taking aim at Mastriano’s unconventional strategy of campaigning outside the 12 to 15 most populous counties that will likely make or break his chances. “You don’t want to be campaigning in places where there are more deer than voters.”  

Notably, outside of the nearly universal belief that Mastriano will lose, the expectations for him are all over the map on the GOP side. Some strategists speculated that he could win as little as 40 percent, opening the door to a complete blowout, while others believe Shapiro’s margin could be as small as 5 percent. When asked how much of a drag Mastriano could be on Oz, Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) demurred, sidestepping the gubernatorial contest. 

“People are going to evaluate each race separately and Dr. Oz is in a good position to win,” Toomey recently told The Hill. The incumbent senator has endorsed Oz but has not done so for Mastriano. 

Other Republicans were less charitable.  

“Establishment Republicans don’t want Mastriano out there doing stuff. They don’t want him out there making the news,” a third Pennsylvania-based GOP strategist said. “They want him to stick with this 40 days of fast and prayer because it means he’s not out there doing stuff. They want him to bury his head in the sand.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Sunday shows preview: Nuclear threats from Russia prompt 'Armageddon' fears; Midterm races enter final month

This week’s Sunday shows cycle will likely focus on the international response to nuclear threats from Russia and midterm election races as they enter their final month.

Ukraine is openly preparing itself for the possibility of its larger neighbor deploying a nuclear weapon and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has urged other countries to tighten their sanctions on Russia before its President Vladimir Putin has a chance to flex his country’s nuclear muscles.

Officials in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv arranged evacuation centers for use earlier this week in response to Putin’s threats that his troops will make drastic moves to win their war against Ukraine.

Zelensky, in an address to Australian think tank the Lowy Institute, called for “preventive strikes” and “preventive action” to be taken internationally rather than “waiting for the nuclear strikes first.”

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov and other Russian figures accused Zelensky of calling for violence against Russia in his address, characterizing his remark as “an appeal to start another world war.”

However, Zelensky clarified in an interview with the BBC on Saturday that the “preventive kicks” to which he referred include nonviolent measures such as strict sanctions rather than “attacks.”

President Joe Biden expressed similar concerns about a nuclear threat on Thursday at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser, implying that Putin’s intentions could be the most dangerous since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

“We have not faced the prospect of armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Biden said, emphasizing that Putin was “not joking” when he opened himself up to the use of nuclear weapons in his onslaught against Ukraine.

“He’s not joking when he talks about potential use of tactical nuclear weapons or biological or chemical weapons because his military is, you might say, significantly underperforming,” said Biden.

American defense experts including National Security Council spokesman John Kirby and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullin will likely discuss the U.S. response to nuclear threats when they appear on ABC’s “This Week.”

Two former ambassadors to the UN will appear on Sunday shows this week, Bill Richardson on CNN’s “State of the Union” and Nikki Haley on Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures,” where they will also likely share expertise on international interaction over Russia’s nuclear warnings.

Multiple politicians running for office this November will appear in the Sunday show cycle this week leading up to elections that are now a month away.

This week has seen a massive firestorm following claims that Georgia Senate candidate Herschel Walker (R), who supports anti-abortion legislation, previously convinced a woman carrying his child to procure an abortion.

Walker, who denies the claims first published by The Daily Beast, has fallen behind opponent incumbent Raphael Warnock (D) by three points, according to a poll from Insider Advantage and Fox 5.

Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D) will join “Fox News Sunday” to discuss her race against incumbent Gov. Brian Kemp (R). Abrams’s campaign released figures this week showing that it had outraised Kemp’s campaign by almost $8 million.

Abrams narrowly lost to Kemp in the 2018 gubernatorial election in Georgia, after which the Democratic candidate implied that her opponent’s victory was due to voter suppression.

Both Arizona nominees for governor, Kari Lake (R) and Katie Hobbs (D), will join CBS’s “Face the Nation” to discuss their close race.

A poll released on Wednesday by CBS News found Lake and Hobbs in a deadlock, while a CNN poll released the following day found the Democrat with a slight advantage.

Lake and Hobbs will appear alongside Allianz Chief Economic Adviser Mohamed El-Erian.

Two Republican Senate nominees will join Haley on “Sunday Morning Futures” alongside two current representatives from their party.

Arizona nominee Blake Masters and Alaska nominee Kelly Tshibaka both face tight races next month, which they will likely discuss with the other Republicans on the panel.

ABC’s “This Week” — Kirby, Mullin

NBC’s “Meet the Press” — Reps. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.)

CBS’s “Face the Nation” — Lake and Hobbs, El-Erian

CNN’s “State of the Union” — Richardson, Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-Va.), Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.)

“Fox News Sunday” — Abrams (D), former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

Fox News’s Sunday Morning Futures — Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Haley, Arizona Senate nominee Blake Masters (R), Alaska Senate nominee Kelly Tshibaka (R), Rep. August Pfluger (R-Texas)

Source: TEST FEED1

North Korea launches two more ballistic missiles

North Korea launched two more ballistic missiles on Saturday, according to South Korean authorities, marking the country’s seventh round of weapons tests in the last two weeks.

The two short-range ballistic missiles were fired in the direction of North Korea’s eastern waters just before 2 a.m. local time on Sunday, according to a statement from South Korea’s Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The latest launch came just hours after the United States and South Korea completed another round of joint military drills.

The U.S. and South Korea had initially conducted joint missile drills on Tuesday, after North Korea fired an intermediate-range ballistic missile over Japan on Monday. The launch prompted Japanese officials to tell citizens to seek shelter.

The USS Ronald Reagan aircraft carrier was also sent to the Sea of Japan following Monday’s launch. The aircraft carrier participated in the latest wargames with South Korea on Friday and Saturday.

The Biden administration additionally announced new sanctions on Friday that took aim at North Korea’s weapons supply network, sanctioning two individuals and three entities for exporting petroleum to North Korea.

Following Saturday’s launch, the Japanese prime minister’s office instructed officials to gather and analyze information about the launch and quickly and accurately inform the public about it, as well as to ensure the safety of assets including aircraft and ships and “take all possible measures for precaution.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Source: TEST FEED1

Amazon-backed EV maker Rivian recalls almost all its vehicles over loose fasteners

An electric vehicle maker backed by Amazon has issued a voluntary recall for almost all its vehicles over an issue with loose fasteners. 

The electric vehicle company Rivian notified the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) of the safety recall on Thursday after it learned that the fastener connecting the front upper control arm and steering knuckle might have been improperly tightened. 

A loose steering knuckle fastener could cause a driver to lose control of their vehicle and increase the chances of a crash, according to a letter that Alex Ansley, the chief of the NHTSA’s Recall Management Division, sent Friday to acknowledge Rivian’s notification of the recall. 

The recall is for certain 2022 R1T, R1S and EDV models, totaling about 12,000 overall. 

Owners of the recalled vehicles will be notified by letter on Nov. 24, and dealers will inspect and tighten the fastener as needed. 

Amazon partnered with Rivian in October 2020 as part of its climate plan, launching a fleet of electric delivery vehicles. The company plans to have 100,000 electric delivery vans on the road by 2030. 

Amazon is seeking to achieve a net-zero carbon footprint by 2040. 

CNBC reported in July that Rivian said it was on track to build 25,000 electric vehicles by the end of the year. 

A Rivian spokesperson told The Hill that the company became aware of reports potentially related to the issue on Sept. 28, and that it will immediately begin contacting impacted customers to schedule appointments for inspections and any needed repairs.

“The safety of our customers will always be our top priority, and we are committed to fixing this issue on any affected vehicles as quickly as possible,” they said.

The spokesperson said all adjustments will be made free of charge at one of Rivian’s service centers. They said the repair only takes a few minutes to complete, and they have the capacity to complete all needed repairs within 30 days with customer collaboration.

The spokesperson said the company is not aware of any injuries that have resulted from the issue.

— Updated at 4:19 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

3 injured in shooting outside high school football game in Ohio

Three people were injured in a shooting outside a high school football game in Toledo, Ohio, on Friday night, police said.

Two adults and one student were transported to local hospitals after they were shot at Whitmer High School during the final quarter of its game against Central Catholic High School, Toledo police said in a press release. 

“Last night was a terrible and traumatic event,” Toledo Police Chief George Kral, Toledo Mayor Wade Kapszukiewicz and Washington Local School Superintendent Kadee Anstadt said in a statement. “Thankfully what can be said about what happened at the Whitmer / Central Catholic football game is this: all 3 victims sustained only minor injuries, and they will all be OK.”

There are no suspects in custody yet, but surveillance video has helped identify a potential target, according to the press release.

“There is still a lot we don’t know about the events of last night, but we do know this — what happened in our City was unacceptable,” Kral, Kapszukiewicz and Anstadt said. “Everyone should be able to enjoy a Friday night football game without having to fear for their safety.”

Source: TEST FEED1

Zelensky: Russian officials starting to 'prepare their society' for use of nuclear weapons

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Friday that Russia has begun to prepare its people for the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine.

“They begin to prepare their society. That’s very dangerous,” Zelensky said.

“They are not ready to do it, to use it. But they begin to communicate. They don’t know whether they’ll use or not use it. I think it’s dangerous to even speak about it,” he said.

The Ukrainian leader denied claims that he had called for preemptive nuclear strikes against Russia earlier this week, saying that a remark he made was mistranslated to imply that he would support such action.

Zelensky had called for “preventive strikes, preventive action” in an address to the Australian Lowy Institute on Thursday, adding that “waiting for the nuclear strikes first” was an unwise move.

However, he clarified to the BBC that the preventive measures to which he was referring included nonviolent moves such as additional sanctions against Russia.

“You must use preventive kicks, not attacks,” Zelensky said.

After the Ukrainian president’s remarks to the Lowy Institute, Russian figures condemned what they saw as Zelensky’s call for violence.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov called the comment “an appeal to start another world war.”

Zelensky said that this characterization was an example of Russian attempts to “retranslate” his words into “other directions.”

He continued to urge Western allies of Ukraine to implement stricter sanctions that might play a part in driving Russia back.

“The world can stop urgently the actions of Russian occupiers,” Zelensky said.

“The world can implement the sanction package in such cases and do everything to make them leave the nuclear power plant,” he said.

Russian troops are currently stationed in Zaporizhzhia, the home of a large nuclear power plant where frequent shelling has garnered international concern for disaster.

“What we see is that Russia’s people in power like life and thus I think the risk of using nuclear weapons is not that definite as some experts say, because they understand that there is no turning back after using it, not only the history of their country, but themselves as personalities,” Zelensky said.

When asked if Russian President Vladimir Putin could survive the war if Ukraine was victorious, Zelensky responded, “I don’t care.”

“He’s afraid of his people,” Zelensky said of Putin.

“Because only those people are capable of replacing him nowadays. Take away his power. Give it to someone else,” he said.

Source: TEST FEED1

As Mar-a-Lago case advances, Trump's initial success could fade

Former President Trump’s battle against the Justice Department investigation into the mishandling of government records at Mar-a-Lago has now reached the highest court, but legal experts say he may not fare as well as his case is pushed before new judges. 

Trump scored an initial victory before a federal district court judge in Florida, who granted his request to appoint a special master to review the more than 10,000 government documents seized at his home to determine whether any might be protected by executive or attorney-client privileges. 

But as the case works its way through the court system, other judges seem more hesitant to grant Trump’s requests. 

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals served the Department of Justice (DOJ) an initial victory in the case, siphoning off the more than 100 classified records from special master review and later agreeing to an expedited schedule to review DOJ’s challenge to Judge Aileen Cannon’s decision to approve the special master process. 

But Trump’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court wasn’t treated like an urgent matter — Justice Clarence Thomas gave DOJ a week to respond.  

“All indications are that the appellate litigation continues to move in the government’s direction,” Brad Moss, a national security law expert, told The Hill. 

“The 11th Circuit is expediting the appeal of the special master appointment, and the Supreme Court is conversely taking its sweet time considering Mr. Trump’s appeal of the lifting of Judge Cannon’s injunction. If nothing else, the appellate judges are making clear how serious they take the government’s national security concerns and how little credence they place in Mr. Trump’s legal theories.” 

Trump’s appeal to the Supreme Court to intervene in the case was the latest step from a legal team that’s taken an aggressive posture in its battle with the Justice Department. 

But the filing itself was actually quite narrow. 

The request from Trump asks that the classified records in question are returned to the pool of documents included under the special master review, opting not to ask the court to exclude those documents from being used by the Justice Department as they continue their investigation — something Cannon had included in her original order. 

“This is a very specific and narrow request by Trump, the merits of which turn on a technical jurisdictional question, but which runs into fatal procedural obstacles long before that. It’s not laughable, but only because it’s small,” Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law specializing in federal courts and national security law, wrote on Twitter.  

“This is what good lawyers who are stuck do to appease bad clients….It’s a way of filing *something* in the Supreme Court without going all the way to crazytown and/or acting unethically,” Vladeck added. 

Trump’s lawyers argued that the federal appeals court erred by allowing the Department of Justice to appeal a move that was procedural in nature. 

They argued the appeal “impairs substantially the ongoing, time-sensitive work of the special master” and said the 11th Circuit’s intervention “effectively compromis[es] the integrity of the well-established policy against piecemeal appellate review.” 

Trump’s team also recycled legal arguments from earlier briefs insinuating that he could have declassified the records in his home but stopped short of doing so. It’s a statement that generated skepticism from the special master, who initially asked the legal team to back the claim before Cannon stepped in and said Trump did not need to comply with the request. 

Even if Trump convinced the court, the DOJ would still be able to use the documents in its investigation even as the special master reviewed them. 

Moss, likewise, suspected the filing is likely to accomplish little for Trump. 

“The appeal to the Supreme Court by the Trump legal team was done for one reason: Mr. Trump no doubt demanded something be filed. The narrowness of the appeal reflects the efforts by his lawyers to craft something — anything — they could justify as non-frivolous. Even if it succeeds, it would likely come too late in the special master process anyway to matter,” he said. 

Brian Greer, a former attorney for the CIA, sees one potential upside for Trump — but only if the Department of Justice decides to prosecute him. 

“Even if Trump is granted the relief they’re seeking, it’s not clear how helpful it’s going to be to them other than getting early access to those classified records,” he told The Hill.  

“To me, the only real end game with the Supreme Court litigation, other than delay, is getting access to those records prior to an indictment so that they can start building their defense.” 

The 11th Circuit agreement to an expedited review for the Justice Department’s case could also prove helpful for the government. 

In its initial ruling, a three-judge panel for the court suggested Cannon erred by appointing the special master, a sign it may be convinced Trump has little claim as a former executive to any of the documents. 

But as a practical matter it also aids their investigation. 

“The Justice Department is correct in asserting that being unable to use the unclassified documents currently before the special master could hinder its ongoing investigation into the classified records,” Greer said. 

“That’s because, as the Justice Department asserted, they may want to explore how those unclassified documents were commingled with the classified records, whether there are fingerprints on those documents, and to ask witnesses about those documents, all of which might be relevant to investigating the classified records,” he continued. 

But the victories for the Department of Justice still delay the ultimate determination on the records. 

The process before the 11th Circuit and Supreme Court could take months, and a ruling from the appeals court would likely come in December at the earliest. 

“The timing is still not great for DOJ as they would likely want to complete any investigation involving the relevance of the unclassified records prior to bringing charges on the classified records,” Greer said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

These Florida Republicans requested Hurricane Ian funding after opposing disaster relief 

A handful of Florida lawmakers requested emergency funding in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian, but opposed legislation last month that included billions of dollars in disaster relief. 

Twelve House lawmakers from Florida penned a letter to Reps. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Kay Granger (R-Texas), the chair and ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, on Tuesday asking for their support in prioritizing an emergency supplemental package for the destruction caused by Hurricane Ian, which tore through the Sunshine State last week. 

But in late September, the group of 12 voted against a stopgap that included millions of dollars in disaster relief. 

Florida GOP Reps. Greg Steube, Carlos Gimenez, María Elvira Salazar, Bill Posey, Gus Bilirakis, Vern Buchanan, Kat Cammack, Brian Mast, Michael Waltz, Neal Dunn and Daniel Webster all signed the letter. 

A spokesperson for Donalds told The Hill in a statement that “The Congressman stands by his vote and commends his fellow GOP House members in the Florida Delegation for taking the same action,” calling the measure “a continued blank check for Biden and Congressional Democrats.”

“The Continuing Resolution (CR), where Pelosi cunningly placed the disaster relief aid, was full of reckless spending that generally had nothing to do with funding to the Congressman’s district and other disaster areas of need,” the spokesperson added.

The continuing resolution, which Congress passed and President Biden signed into law, included $2 billion in disaster relief and $18.8 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Disaster Relief Fund for its response to current and future disasters.

The FEMA provision is language that allows the agency’s Disaster Relief Fund to use its full year of allotted funds up front. According to a fact sheet from the Appropriations Committee, those funds could be used to respond to declared disasters, including Hurricane Ian.

The stopgap bill did not, however, include direct funding for Hurricane Ian. 

Ten Republican House members supported the continuing resolution, none of whom represent districts in Florida. 

Hurricane Ian made landfall in Florida as a Category 4 storm last week, leaving death and destruction in its path. More than 100 fatalities have been reported in the state. 

“We ask the House Committee on Appropriations to urgently work with the Florida delegation in drafting an emergency supplemental appropriations package as we accumulate damage assessments,” the group wrote in Tuesday’s letter. “We ask that you exclusively focus on recent hurricane disasters in this package, and free from any language that is not directly related to the hurricane relief and recovery efforts.” 

The Hill reached out to the 12 lawmakers for comment on why they opposed the continuing resolution despite it containing disaster relief. 

Those 12 Floridians are not alone in requesting emergency funding for their state despite voting against the continuing resolution. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) last weekend asked Congress for assistance following the Hurricane. 

“Dear Congress: On behalf of my fellow Florida Man in grave need of assistance…. Just send us like half of what you sent Ukraine. Signed, Your Fellow Americans,” Gaetz, who voted against the continuing resolution, wrote on Twitter. 

Gaetz commented on the continuing resolution on his podcast last week, pointing to the timing of the measure — it lasts through mid-December — and other provisions, including financial assistance for Ukraine.

“Everyone expects the Democrats are going to lose the House in November. And so after losing the House, Nancy Pelosi still wants the opportunity to dictate budget terms into potential Republican control, and some Republicans were so dumb they went along with this,” Gaetz said on his podcast.

Across the Capitol, Florida Sen. Rick Scott (R), who previously served as governor of the Sunshine State, is also pushing for a relief package in the aftermath of Hurricane Ian. He went as far as to call for the Senate to reconvene to take up the measure. 

Senators are not scheduled to be back in Washington until next month. Scott was among the 25 Republicans who opposed the continuing resolution in the upper chamber. 

“Once we have the information we need from FEMA and our state and local officials, we cannot delay action on a clean aid package. If that means reconvening the Senate, then that is what we must do,” Scott wrote in a statement on Wednesday. 

Last week, he and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) wrote a letter to Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) — the top lawmakers on the Appropriations Committee — asking for support in crafting a disaster supplemental “to provide much needed assistance to Florida.” 

“A robust and timely federal response, including through supplemental programs and funding, will be required to ensure that sufficient resources are provided to rebuild critical infrastructure and public services capacity, and to assist our fellow Floridians in rebuilding their lives,” the duo wrote in the letter, dated Sept. 30. “These provisions must be made a priority and considered at the earliest opportunity.” 

Rubio was not present for the vote on the continuing resolution last month. According to The Washington Post, he was in Florida to review damage caused by the hurricane. 

Reached for comment, Scott’s office referred The Hill to a statement the senator put out last week responding to a report from The Washington Post that pointed out his opposition to the continuing resolution. 

Scott called the report “misleading,” and argued that the stopgap bill did not include any funding for Hurricane Ian. He also noted his support of the disaster relief provision. 

“Prior to Ian’s development, l made clear that I fully supported the proposed disaster funding for other states and urged Senator Schumer to put that up for a stand-alone vote. He refused, and delayed this relief so he could use it as a political weapon to stick in a CR that will end up fueling billions for Democrats’ radical agenda right before they lose power,” Scott wrote in a statement. 

“This CR failed to fund the federal government until the new Congress begins in 2023, and that is why I could not support it,” he added. 

But despite those defenses, some Democrats are pouncing on the Florida Republicans who are asking for emergency assistance despite opposing the continuing resolution last month. 

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) said Republicans in her state failed to “put the interests of those suffering from tragedy above their political fortunes.” 

“Today, Florida’s U.S. House Republicans failed every family still reeling in our state who will soon need the federal government’s full strength and resources to rebuild and recover from the devastating effects of Hurricane Ian,” she wrote in a statement last week. 

Rep. Val Demings (R-Fla.), who is embroiled in a contentious Senate race against Rubio, knocked her opponent for the missed vote. 

“In the United States Senate, I’ll never put partisan politics over delivering disaster relief for Floridians,” she wrote on Twitter. 

On Friday, the Florida senator knocked his opponent for not voting for relief following Hurricanes Irma and Maria — as reported by The Miami Herald — accusing her of hypocrisy.

“The hypocrisy here runs deep, right? She voted against bills that had hurricane relief in the past including relief for Puerto Rico and Florida because she didn’t like other things in the bill as well,” Rubio said during an interview on the “Guy Benson Show.”

Updated 11:04 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1