How Ukraine's advances are cornering Putin, making the war more dangerous

Ukraine is racking up wins in its battle against Russia, pushing Kremlin forces out of occupied towns in the northeast and breaking through enemy lines in the south.  

Russian President Vladimir Putin is losing his war, and his frantic efforts to regain momentum through conventional means are destined to fail, according to defense experts and Western officials.  

However, pushing Putin into a corner could be far more dangerous than the grinding fighting playing out now, if he turns to nuclear weapons or other extreme measures.  

“It’s highly likely that he will try risky things in order to pull a miracle out of his hat and get a victory big enough” to sell to the Russian public, said Hein Goemans, a political science professor at the University of Rochester who studies how wars start and end.  

What those actions might be — and what a “big enough” victory would look like — are fodder for high-stakes speculation. But Putin needs more than what he has now to have a chance of staying in power, Goemans said.  

“If he comes home with what he has now, he probably will be removed and killed. … There’s no happy ending for him out of office,” he said.  

After Russian forces were routed in a Ukrainian counteroffensive last month, Putin responded with a nationally televised speech announcing the mobilization of up to 300,000 military reservists and setting in motion the annexation of four occupied regions in Ukraine.  

He framed those annexations as a victory in a grand ceremony last week, but has since lost occupied territory in Donetsk province in the east and Kherson province in the south, both of which are among the regions newly claimed by Moscow.  

“The Kremlin’s armed forces are disintegrating before our eyes, demoralized (literally) by their bad leadership, botched planning, and poor logistics,” Edward Lucas, a security specialist at the Center for European Policy Analysis, wrote this week.  

Military experts say Putin’s latest push to send reinforcements to Ukraine is unlikely to turn the tide against Ukraine’s well-organized, well-equipped and determined forces.  

“What Russia is doing won’t give you a military formation. It’ll give you just a bunch of men with weapons, if they work on the battlefield, trying to respond to that level of military superiority,” John Spencer, an urban warfare expert at West Point, told Forces News.  

However, Russia still controls large swathes of Ukraine — including Crimea, which it seized in 2014 and remains a key staging ground for its invasion — and Putin has proven willing to tolerate staggering casualties.  

“There’s probably a lot of fighting that still remains,” former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta told CNN on Wednesday. “My intelligence friends all make clear that Putin will continue to double down. And ultimately what that means is that we are still going to have a prolonged war in the Ukraine.” 

Panetta argued that the longer Putin remains in Ukraine, the harder it will be for him to find an off-ramp that allows him to save face.  

“If he is totally defeated, then I don’t see any way that Putin can survive in Russia. So the real question is whether Putin wants to survive, or whether he wants to ultimately end his regime,” Panetta said.  

However, for Putin to claim a credible victory he would likely need to extract some territorial concessions from Ukraine, and that is unlikely as long as Kyiv continues to feel optimistic about its chances of eventually ousting Russia. 

Tech billionaire Elon Musk tweeted a peace proposal this week suggesting Ukraine should agree to elections to decide the future of the annexed territories, officially cede the occupied Crimean Peninsula to Russia and agree not to join NATO.  

“This is highly likely to be the outcome in the end — just a question of how many die before then,” he wrote. A Ukrainian diplomat promptly told Musk to “f— off,” and Kyiv accused him of parroting Kremlin talking points.  

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s own political credibility depends on his refusal to make the concessions that Putin would need to claim victory and retreat.  

“Even if Zelensky were to [accept] some concessions, and there’s no evidence that he’s willing to, but even if he were to try, it’s very likely that the people will actually get rid of him. They will not tolerate it,” said Branislav Slantchev, a political science professor at University of California, San Diego, who studies military coercion and intra-war negotiations.  

He noted that recent polls show more than 90 percent of Ukrainians said they would refuse to consider the swap of any land for peace. 

On the battlefield, Ukraine appears to be trying to liberate the city of Kherson before winter and then advance to Russia’s only land bridge across the Dnieper River, Slantchev said. Should it take that bridge, Ukraine would cut off some 25,000 Russian forces from their only supply route.  

“So every day I celebrate the Ukrainian advances I get more and more nervous, because that pushes Putin further and further into the corner that he created himself,” he said. “If the front on the right bank of the Dnieper River collapses for the Russians, he might actually use nuclear weapons to kind of scare everybody to force them to stop at least to prevent the full collapse.” 

Slantchev said the initial nuclear strike would likely be relatively limited and targeted at military positions, rather than an attack on a population center, which would be more likely to elicit a stronger NATO response.  

“So I believe he’s going to use something that is some sort of demonstration and bank that the West will not actually be able to respond to this. I still think he’s trying to scare us,” he said.  

The U.S. has promised “catastrophic consequences” if Russia deploys nuclear weapons, and officials say more concrete warnings have been delivered discreetly to the Kremlin, in an attempt at deterrence. 

However, defense experts say it is highly unlikely that the U.S. and NATO respond to nuclear aggression with a nuclear counterattack. Instead, they expect the West to double down on its support of Ukraine’s military, possibly deliver symbolic strikes to Moscow’s Black Sea fleet and pressure key Moscow allies like China and India to isolate Russia economically.  

The U.S. will almost certainly avoid moves that could escalate the war further, said Dan Goure, a security expert and vice president of the public policy think tank Lexington Institute.  

Apart from an attack on a NATO country, Goure said the Biden administration has not drawn a clear red line regarding Russian actions in Ukraine, which is not a member of the alliance.  

Goure argued in National Interest this week that the long-feared “possibility” that Moscow would resort to using nuclear weapons “has now become a virtual certainty,” in part because Putin believes he can get away with it. 

“I think he’s got a weak hand and this may, in his mind, at least, strengthen it across the board,” Goure said Thursday. “At least domestically, it becomes a victory in itself. ‘Look what I was willing to do to protect the Russian people, the Rus writ large. You know, I told you I was serious about this. I’m really serious about this, and getting away with it.’” 

Between conceding defeat and using weapons of mass destruction, there is a third option: continuing the pounding conventional war and hoping that Moscow’s larger military can outlast Ukraine and its Western allies.  

The Washington Post reported Thursday that Russia’s recent retreat in the crucial southern region of Kherson appeared far more strategic than its frantic flight from Kharkiv in the northeast, suggesting that Moscow is digging in for a long fight.  

Goemans said Putin may try to maintain the bloody status quo for months or years, pushing a narrative that Russia is winning, delivering occasional setbacks to Ukrainian forces, hoping that political conditions change in Europe or the U.S. — and sending many more Russian troops to die.  

“I want Putin to, quote-unquote, lose, but my heart also goes out for these Russian soldiers. Just getting slaughtered for nothing — boots without guns. It’s like World War I. People walk after each other in the hope that if the guy gets shot, they can pick up their gun,” he said. “I mean, it’s just so awful.” 

Source: TEST FEED1

Five takeaways from the Kelly-Masters debate in Arizona

Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) and Republican candidate Blake Masters offered viewers on Thursday night perhaps the only opportunity this fall to see both candidates side-by-side as they squared off in a televised debate hosted by Arizona PBS.

Kelly emphasized his ability to work across the aisle with Republicans while also standing up to members of his own party. Meanwhile, Masters tried to position himself as a pragmatist on issues like border security while also invoking the culture wars and suggesting news outlets and Big Tech could have impacted how people voted in the last election.

The debate comes roughly a month out from the November midterms, and while recent polling shows Masters trailing Kelly, a recent CBS News-YouGov poll suggests that gap could be closing.

Here are five key takeaways from the Arizona Senate debate.

Masters goes on the offensive

A pugnacious Masters largely stayed disciplined during the debate, avoiding any major gaffes and often successfully putting Kelly on the defensive, at times going so far as to ask the senator questions himself before the moderator stepped in.

Among the issues the Republican seized on was the border, asking why Kelly voted against an amendment introduced for the Inflation Reduction Act that would have required another 18,000 Border Patrol agents to be hired before additional International Revenue Service agents got hired. 

The attacks sometimes appeared to put Kelly on the back foot.

“There are votes that happen in D.C. that have nothing to do with Border Patrol agents — that have might have the title on it and nothing happens,” Kelly argued at one point before listing how he’s worked to achieve more staffing for Border Patrol. 

Masters also hit Kelly repeatedly on the issue of abortion, claiming the senator supported no limits to the procedure and was an “abortion radical.” The Democrat, for his part, pushed back against the attacks and accused Masters of supporting a total abortion ban, which the Republican denied.

Kelly positions himself as no-nonsense moderate

The senator sought to show he could work across the aisle with Republicans in addition to members of his own party, while also arguing that he was willing to stick up to Democrats too.

“Families are struggling and often can’t afford gas or prescription medication, so I worked with Republicans to bring manufacturing back to America to cut costs. And when Democrats are wrong, like on the border, I call them out on it because I’m always going to stick up for Arizona,” Kelly said.

The Democrat even went as far to say that he wasn’t afraid to be at odds with President Biden.

“I’ve been strong on border security, and I’ve stood up to Democrats when they’re wrong on this issue, including, by the way, including the president. You know when the President decided he was going to do something dumb on this and change the rules that would create a bigger crisis, I told him he was wrong,” Kelly said.

Biden becomes central point of attack

Masters frequently sought to tie Kelly to Biden, including on issues like immigration, spending and inflation, as the president suffers lagging approval numbers.

“The greatest threat to seniors’ retirement today is the massive, crushing inflation that Joe Biden and Mark Kelly caused, and it’s their fault. They caused it,” Masters said during the debate at one point.

“Joe Biden’s policies caused this and those are policies that Mark Kelly in Washington has supported every single time,” he added. 

Meanwhile, Masters gave a nod of approval to Sens. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) for voting as moderates, suggesting they were two Democrats he’d be willing to work with in the Senate.  

Masters painted as extreme

Kelly took multiple opportunities to portray his Republican opponent as an extremist, digging into his past controversial statements on abortion, Social Security, his views about the 2020 election and the military. 

“I find it interesting that my opponent Blake Masters is standing up for veterans here for a second because, you know, what I’ve heard during the last year or so is just insulting to veterans,” the senator said, before referencing Masters’s comments on calling the military “totally incompetent” and saying there was “rot.”

He also slammed Masters for his previous support of privatizing Social Security. 

“He wants to privatize our water. He wants to send our water rights to Wall Street. He wants to send your Social Security savings to Wall Street,” Kelly claimed. 

Specter of 2020 hangs over debate 

The 2020 election became another flashpoint of the debate, as Masters was pressed on his stance about whether it was rigged or stolen and if Biden was the legitimately elected president. 

After some initial prodding, Masters acknowledged that Biden was the legitimate president and had been duly sworn in and certified — despite having echoed in the past former President Trump’s claims that the last election was stolen. However, he also suggested that the media and Big Tech had censored information ahead of the election that could have affected how people voted. 

The discussion came as Arizona continues to play a central role in the ongoing scrutiny over the 2020 election.  The state witnessed multiple election audits after Trump claimed he had won there instead of Biden, though officials and even a third-party firm have upheld the results of the last election, failing to find any major voter fraud. 

Meanwhile, candidates in other races there — including GOP gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake and GOP secretary of state candidate Mark Finchem — have come under fire for casting doubt on the 2020 election results. Their past remarks have prompted Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) to urge voters in Arizona to reject both candidates in November.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden: Putin 'not joking' about possible use of nuclear weapons

President Biden on Thursday said Russian President Vladimir Putin was “not joking” in his references to using nuclear weapons, warning that the world was facing its greatest nuclear threat since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

“We have not faced the prospect of armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis,” Biden said at a fundraiser in New York City, citing the 1962 standoff with the Soviet Union.

“We’ve got a guy I know fairly well,” Biden continued, referencing Putin. “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.” 

Biden, who was speaking at a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee fundraiser at the home of James Murdoch, expressed skepticism that there was any way for Putin and Russia to use a smaller, tactical nuclear weapon without it leading to “armageddon.”

“I’m trying to figure out what is Putin’s off ramp?… Where does he find a way out?” Biden said. “Where does he find himself in a position that he does not not only lose face, but lose significant power within Russia?”

Biden’s comments are some of the starkest yet from U.S. officials about the threat of Russia using a nuclear weapon and dramatically escalating its war in Ukraine.

In a speech last month announcing the mobilization of hundreds of thousands of troops to fight in Ukraine, Putin said Moscow was prepared to use nuclear weapons to defend any of its territory, accusing the U.S. and its allies of “nuclear blackmail” and moving to “destroy” his country.

“I want to remind you that our country also has various means of destruction, and some components are more modern than those of the NATO countries,” Putin claimed in a nationally televised address. 

The announcement came after significant gains by Ukrainian forces in a counteroffensive to retake areas held by Russia after its initial invasion in February.

Putin has since sought to annex Ukrainian territory, claiming it as part of Russia after a series of referenda that the U.S. and allies have condemned as manipulated and a “sham.”

The White House has in recent days said it has not seen a reason to adjust its nuclear posture in response to Putin’s comments. U.S. officials have instead tried to balance forceful calls for Russia not to escalate the conflict while communicating with Moscow privately.

Source: TEST FEED1

California offers to cut back Lake Mead water use amid drought

window.loadAnvato({“mcp”:”LIN”,”width”:”100%”,”height”:”100%”,”video”:”8052718″,”autoplay”:false,”expect_preroll”:true,”pInstance”:”p1″,”plugins”:{“comscore”:{“clientId”:”6036439″,”c3″:”thehill.com”,”version”:”5.2.0″,”useDerivedMetadata”:true,”mapping”:{“c3″:”thehill.com”,”ns_st_st”:”hill”,”ns_st_pu”:”Nexstar”,”ns_st_ge”:”TheHill.com”,”cs_ucfr”:””}},”dfp”:{“adTagUrl”:”https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?sz=1×1000&iu=/5678/nx.thehill&ciu_szs=300×250&impl=s&gdfp_req=1&env=vp&output=vmap&unviewed_position_start=1&ad_rule=1&description_url=https://thehill.com/feed/&cust_params=vid%3D8052718%26pers_cid%3Dunknown%26bob_ck%3D[bob_ck_val]%26d_code%3D1%26pagetype%3Dnone%26hlmeta%3D%2Ffeed%2F”},”segmentCustom”:{“script”:”https://segment.psg.nexstardigital.net/anvato.js”,”writeKey”:”7pQqdpSKE8rc12w83fBiAoQVD4llInQJ”,”pluginsLoadingTimeout”:12}},”expectPrerollTimeout”:8,”accessKey”:”q261XAmOMdqqRf1p7eCo7IYmO1kyPmMB”,”token”:”eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJ2aWQiOiI4MDUyNzE4IiwiaXNzIjoicTI2MVhBbU9NZHFxUmYxcDdlQ283SVltTzFreVBtTUIiLCJleHAiOjE2NjUxMDE2ODZ9.oZMX5H0K_xlaXF6xayOCXVkaz4SeZREV4FDiLYFMZPo”,”nxs”:{“mp4Url”:”https://tkx.mp.lura.live/rest/v2/mcp/video/8052718?anvack=q261XAmOMdqqRf1p7eCo7IYmO1kyPmMB&token=%7E5ii8c5QGZUS%2BNy5WZ1umVbloGseZvo70MQ%3D%3D”,”enableFloatingPlayer”:true},”disableMutedAutoplay”:false,”recommendations”:true,”expectPreroll”:true,”titleVisible”:true,”pauseOnClick”:true,”trackTimePeriod”:60,”isPermutiveEnabled”:true});

California is, for the first time in a series of negotiations, offering to cut back its use of water from Lake Mead next year. 

California on Wednesday offered to conserve 400,000 acre-feet, or 130 billion gallons, of water from Lake Mead annually from 2023 through 2026. 

“This water, which would otherwise be used by California’s communities and farms, will meaningfully contribute to stabilizing the Colorado River reservoir system,” state water agencies said in a letter to the federal government.

Both water usage and drought, which has been accelerated by climate change, in the West are contributing to shortages in Lake Mead — a Colorado Reservoir in the southwestern U.S. — leaving the region with a need to conserve water.

Lake Mead provides water from the Colorado River to about 25 million people. The water is used for municipal, industrial and farming purposes. 

The head of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, a federal agency that’s in charge of the country’s water resources, recently said that the region needs to conserve between 2 and 4 million acre-feet, or at least 651.7 billion gallons, of water in 2023 to protect Lake Mead and Lake Powell.

Experts have described California’s proposal as both an important step, but also not nearly enough to solve the problem. 

“It’s a really good first step and it’s a good sign that things could be moving, but we’re going to need 4, 5, 6, 7 times that amount of water here in the very near future,” said Chris Kuzdas, a senior water program manager with the Environmental Defense Fund. 

Kuzdas said that the additional cuts won’t just need to come from California, though, saying that several parties need to bring down their water use. 

“It’s going to need to come from everyone, certainly more from California, Arizona, Nevada, Upper Basin, Mexico, municipal water users, agricultural water users,” he added. 

Sarah Porter, director of Arizona State University’s Kyl Center for Water Policy, likewise described California’s offer as “momentum” in the right direction, but also not enough. 

Porter also noted that California’s proposal is based on voluntary conservation, meaning that the cuts it calls for may or may not be met in practice. 

“It’s hard to say just from this letter how real that 400,000 acre-feet is,” Porter said. 

But, she said that it is just a starting point in negotiations, and said the state — and other parties — could bring more significant offers to the table in the near future. 

“You don’t open with your final offer,” she said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

OPEC+ cuts prompt calls to reevaluate US-Saudi ties

The decision by OPEC+ nations to reduce oil production is a foreign policy black eye for President Biden after his July visit to Saudi Arabia. It’s also prompting calls from congressional Democrats to rethink the Washington-Riyadh alliance, particularly on the subject of weapons and defense technology sales.  

Human rights advocates have long criticized what is sometimes a rocky relationship between the U.S. and Saudi royals, particularly after the 2018 murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. 

When Biden met with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in July, it was viewed by many as a necessary evil that could potentially lead to increased OPEC output and lower gas prices. Since Wednesday’s announcement, however, a number of Democratic lawmakers have called for the U.S. to respond by ending arms sales and military assistance to the kingdom.

“From unanswered questions about 9/11 & the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, to conspiring w/ [Russian President Vladimir] Putin to punish the US w/ higher oil prices, the royal Saudi family has never been a trustworthy ally of our nation. It’s time for our foreign policy to imagine a world without their alliance,”  Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the number two Democrat in the Senate, tweeted Thursday.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, called the cutback “a blatant attempt to increase gas prices at the pump” and called for an end to military assistance to Saudi Arabia. 

On the House side, Reps. Tom Malinowski (D-N.J.), Sean Casten (D-Ill.) and Susan Wild (D-Pa.) have introduced legislation to withdraw U.S. troops from the kingdom, calling the cutback “a turning point in our relationship with our Gulf partners.” 

Another vocal House critic of the Saudis, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif,), has also called for the nation to be dealt with “harshly” and for an end to weapons sales. 

“The Saudis need us more for weapons than we need them. President Biden should make it clear that we will cut off weapons if OPEC+ doesn’t reverse the decision to make drastic cuts in production,” Khanna said in a statement to The Hill. “In Congress, we should also explore ways to rein in OPEC+’s control over energy prices worldwide.” 

So far, the calls seem unlikely to win bipartisan support. 

Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), a vocal critic of Biden’s energy policies, told The Hill that critics of the Saudi government are “upset because having consciously made ourselves dependent upon them, they’re not bending to our will” despite Biden taking office “promising an adversarial relationship.”  

Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the nonprofit Democracy for the Arab World Now, was skeptical that the cuts would lead to a lasting schism in the relationship. In an interview with The Hill, Whitson said much of the public anger at Saudi Arabia was likely “performative,” but added that “some of it is real, because publicly, this is so humiliating to Biden.”  

Ahead of Biden’s Saudi trip over the summer, the White House was careful to portray the president as not meeting directly with bin Salman, who the intelligence community determined approved Khashoggi’s killing in Istanbul in 2018. But upon arrival in Jeddah in July, Biden was met by bin Salman outside the royal palace where the two men fist-bumped, a casual gesture critics viewed as elevating Salman on the world stage despite Biden’s campaign pledge to make the kingdom a pariah.

American military support for Saudi Arabia dates back to World War II, when President Franklin Roosevelt and King Abdul Aziz reached an agreement under which the U.S. would provide security backing in exchange for access to Saudi oil. In 2015, the Saudis led a coalition to intervene in Yemen’s civil war against Iran-backed Houthi rebels. Over the next four years, U.S. arms sales to the Saudis increased 130 percent, according to data from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.  

Biden was a vocal critic of Saudi Arabia on the campaign trail and early in his presidency, pledging to end U.S. backing for the Saudis and the United Arab Emirates in Yemen. However, in August his administration allowed the sale of more than $5 billion in arms to the two OPEC nations. The administration also caught the ire of Saudi critics by failing to call for an end to its blockade of Yemen. 

In the meantime, Whitson said, despite the calls to sever the business relationship with the Saudis, the American defense industry is likely to stiffly resist any attempts to unwind it. In the meantime, she said, the Saudis would likely find alternate sellers to replace much of the lost arms sales to the U.S. 

An end to arms sales “is not just a punishment for Saudi Arabia. It’s a punishment for a very powerful defense industry that has extremely close ties to Biden administration,” she said. “So I think there will be countervailing pressures on taking the actions that are being threatened.” 

“The painful reality that we see over and over and over again, is that our policymakers … are not actually in a position to make the decisions that are in the best interests of the American people because they are beholden to so many interests,” she said.  

Source: TEST FEED1

Sasse to retire from Senate, become University of Florida president

window.loadAnvato({“mcp”:”LIN”,”width”:”100%”,”height”:”100%”,”video”:”8052718″,”autoplay”:false,”expect_preroll”:true,”pInstance”:”p5″,”plugins”:{“comscore”:{“clientId”:”6036439″,”c3″:”thehill.com”,”version”:”5.2.0″,”useDerivedMetadata”:true,”mapping”:{“c3″:”thehill.com”,”ns_st_st”:”hill”,”ns_st_pu”:”Nexstar”,”ns_st_ge”:”TheHill.com”,”cs_ucfr”:””}},”dfp”:{“adTagUrl”:”https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?sz=1×1000&iu=/5678/nx.thehill&ciu_szs=300×250&impl=s&gdfp_req=1&env=vp&output=vmap&unviewed_position_start=1&ad_rule=1&description_url=https://thehill.com/feed/&cust_params=vid%3D8052718%26pers_cid%3Dunknown%26bob_ck%3D[bob_ck_val]%26d_code%3D1%26pagetype%3Dnone%26hlmeta%3D%2Ffeed%2F”},”segmentCustom”:{“script”:”https://segment.psg.nexstardigital.net/anvato.js”,”writeKey”:”7pQqdpSKE8rc12w83fBiAoQVD4llInQJ”,”pluginsLoadingTimeout”:12}},”expectPrerollTimeout”:8,”accessKey”:”q261XAmOMdqqRf1p7eCo7IYmO1kyPmMB”,”token”:”eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJ2aWQiOiI4MDUyNzE4IiwiaXNzIjoicTI2MVhBbU9NZHFxUmYxcDdlQ283SVltTzFreVBtTUIiLCJleHAiOjE2NjUwOTQ1MTl9.KP98jlt-OnPl3nYOZ8iUVcL-I2qQspd-8MuMIWhh_yo”,”nxs”:{“mp4Url”:”https://tkx.mp.lura.live/rest/v2/mcp/video/8052718?anvack=q261XAmOMdqqRf1p7eCo7IYmO1kyPmMB&token=%7E5ii8c5QGZUS%2BNy5WZ1umVbloGseZvo70MQ%3D%3D”,”enableFloatingPlayer”:true},”disableMutedAutoplay”:false,”recommendations”:true,”expectPreroll”:true,”titleVisible”:true,”pauseOnClick”:true,”trackTimePeriod”:60,”isPermutiveEnabled”:true});

Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) is expected to retire from his seat in the Senate by the end of the year in order to become the president of the University of Florida.

In a statement posted to Twitter, Sasse said he had been courted by “wonderful institutions” previously, but felt that the University of Florida was unique.

“UF is the most important institution in the nation’s most economically dynamic state. Washington partisanship isn’t going to solve these workforce challenges — new institutions and entrepreneurial communities are going to have to spearhead this work. If UF wants to go big, I’m excited about the wide range of opportunities.”

A source familiar with the situation told The Hill that the Nebraska Republican will likely step down from the upper chamber between mid-November and mid-December, with Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) set to tap his successor. 

The governor can fill the seat through 2024. Sasse’s term would’ve lasted through 2026.

News of Sasse’s impending retirement came as the University of Florida’s presidential search committee announced that it is recommending him to replace the outgoing Kent Fuchs. 

“This is right for the University of Florida, right for the state of Florida and right for the Sasse family,” Rahul Patel, chair of the search committee, said in the announcement. “Ben brings intellectual curiosity, a belief in the power and potential of American universities, and an unmatched track record of leadership spanning higher education, government and the private sector.”

According to the university, Sasse will visit campus on Monday to meet with students and faculty, with the university’s board of trustees set to interview him on Nov. 1. 

Updated at 4:36 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

Biden to pardon all federal offenses of simple marijuana possession

President Biden will pardon everyone who has been convicted of simple possession of marijuana under federal law, the White House announced Thursday.

“There are thousands of people who have prior federal convictions for marijuana possession, who may be denied employment, housing, or educational opportunities as a result.  My action will help relieve the collateral consequences arising from these convictions,” Biden said in a statement.

The White House is urging governors to take similar action. Administration officials told reporters the move could benefit about 6,500 people, though they noted there are far more people who have been convicted under state law.

Nobody is currently in federal prison on a simple possession charge, officials said. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Federal judge halts key parts of New York gun law

window.loadAnvato({“mcp”:”LIN”,”width”:”100%”,”height”:”100%”,”video”:”8052718″,”autoplay”:false,”expect_preroll”:true,”pInstance”:”p3″,”plugins”:{“comscore”:{“clientId”:”6036439″,”c3″:”thehill.com”,”version”:”5.2.0″,”useDerivedMetadata”:true,”mapping”:{“c3″:”thehill.com”,”ns_st_st”:”hill”,”ns_st_pu”:”Nexstar”,”ns_st_ge”:”TheHill.com”,”cs_ucfr”:””}},”dfp”:{“adTagUrl”:”https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?sz=1×1000&iu=/5678/nx.thehill&ciu_szs=300×250&impl=s&gdfp_req=1&env=vp&output=vmap&unviewed_position_start=1&ad_rule=1&description_url=https://thehill.com/feed/&cust_params=vid%3D8052718%26pers_cid%3Dunknown%26bob_ck%3D[bob_ck_val]%26d_code%3D1%26pagetype%3Dnone%26hlmeta%3D%2Ffeed%2F”},”segmentCustom”:{“script”:”https://segment.psg.nexstardigital.net/anvato.js”,”writeKey”:”7pQqdpSKE8rc12w83fBiAoQVD4llInQJ”,”pluginsLoadingTimeout”:12}},”expectPrerollTimeout”:8,”accessKey”:”q261XAmOMdqqRf1p7eCo7IYmO1kyPmMB”,”token”:”eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJ2aWQiOiI4MDUyNzE4IiwiaXNzIjoicTI2MVhBbU9NZHFxUmYxcDdlQ283SVltTzFreVBtTUIiLCJleHAiOjE2NjUwODM3MTl9.znAu8EWGJ9yurFYu27U7IZ1e05QxwI5JesXxD9T9ROg”,”nxs”:{“mp4Url”:”https://tkx.mp.lura.live/rest/v2/mcp/video/8052718?anvack=q261XAmOMdqqRf1p7eCo7IYmO1kyPmMB&token=%7E5ii8c5QGZUS%2BNy5WZ1umVbloGseZvo70MQ%3D%3D”,”enableFloatingPlayer”:true},”disableMutedAutoplay”:false,”recommendations”:true,”expectPreroll”:true,”titleVisible”:true,”pauseOnClick”:true,”trackTimePeriod”:60,”isPermutiveEnabled”:true});

A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked key parts of a New York law that aimed to restrict the carrying of firearms, ruling that some of the limits put in place under the new state statute ran afoul of the Second Amendment.

In a 53-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Glenn Suddaby said some of the law’s heightened licensing requirements and location-specific bans — including a prohibition of guns in Times Square — went too far.

He ordered New York officials to halt enforcement of the provisions at issue, but delayed his decision from taking effect for three business days to give the defendants an opportunity to seek emergency relief from a federal appeals court.

Developing

Source: TEST FEED1

Jan. 6 panel to hold rescheduled hearing next Thursday

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol will hold what could be its final hearing next week.

The hearing, scheduled for Oct. 13 at 1 p.m., comes after the panel delayed one slated for last week as Hurricane Ian prepared to make landfall.

Lawmakers have remained tight-lipped over what is likely to be the panel’s final hearing before the November midterms and have acknowledged the committee is struggling with how to condense what Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) described as an “avalanche” of new information.

In a departure from prior hearings where one or two members were primarily responsible for walking through evidence and witness questions, each member of the panel is expected to have a role next Thursday.

The panel again bypassed the opportunity to seek another prime-time slot in favor of holding an event that would be broadcast on Fox News, which has refused to suspend its evening programming for the committee’s work.

“In the past, Fox News does play our hearings if the hearing is in the daytime,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) said during an appearance on CNN shortly before the hearing was rescheduled. “That’s a factor in reaching an audience that is not watching CNN.”

The committee’s investigative team recently sat with several former Trump Cabinet officials, including former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. But Chair Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) said he does not expect discussions surrounding use of the 25th Amendment to bar Trump from office to feature heavily in the hearing. 

The event comes as the panel is preparing to release an interim report designed to cover the bulk of what it has learned through its investigation. It still plans to issue a final report before the panel sunsets at the end of the year. 

Updated at 1:12 p.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

DeSantis says 'national regime media' wanted Tampa to be hit by Hurricane Ian

window.loadAnvato({“mcp”:”LIN”,”width”:”100%”,”height”:”100%”,”video”:”8043115″,”autoplay”:false,”expect_preroll”:true,”pInstance”:”p5″,”plugins”:{“comscore”:{“clientId”:”6036439″,”c3″:”thehill.com”,”version”:”5.2.0″,”useDerivedMetadata”:true,”mapping”:{“c3″:”thehill.com”,”ns_st_st”:”hill”,”ns_st_pu”:”Nexstar”,”ns_st_ge”:”TheHill.com”,”cs_ucfr”:””}},”dfp”:{“adTagUrl”:”https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/ads?sz=1×1000&iu=/5678/nx.thehill&ciu_szs=300×250&impl=s&gdfp_req=1&env=vp&output=vmap&unviewed_position_start=1&ad_rule=1&description_url=https://thehill.com/feed/&cust_params=vid%3D8043115%26pers_cid%3Dunknown%26bob_ck%3D[bob_ck_val]%26d_code%3D308%2C302%2C304%2C289%2C273%2C242%2C296%2C294%2C282%2C292%2C910%2C290%2C286%26pagetype%3Dnone%26hlmeta%3D%2Ffeed%2F”},”segmentCustom”:{“script”:”https://segment.psg.nexstardigital.net/anvato.js”,”writeKey”:”7pQqdpSKE8rc12w83fBiAoQVD4llInQJ”,”pluginsLoadingTimeout”:12}},”expectPrerollTimeout”:8,”accessKey”:”q261XAmOMdqqRf1p7eCo7IYmO1kyPmMB”,”token”:”eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJ2aWQiOiI4MDQzMTE1IiwiaXNzIjoicTI2MVhBbU9NZHFxUmYxcDdlQ283SVltTzFreVBtTUIiLCJleHAiOjE2NjUwODAxMTl9.GCKDQYZk8ywB_6vlAs0axmu4mxE2skOhIwPfzyWuk9g”,”nxs”:{“mp4Url”:”https://tkx.mp.lura.live/rest/v2/mcp/video/8043115?anvack=q261XAmOMdqqRf1p7eCo7IYmO1kyPmMB&token=%7E5ii9cpIGaES%2BNidUZl6qWrloGseZvo70MQ%3D%3D”,”enableFloatingPlayer”:true},”disableMutedAutoplay”:false,”recommendations”:true,”expectPreroll”:true,”titleVisible”:true,”pauseOnClick”:true,”trackTimePeriod”:60,”isPermutiveEnabled”:true});

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) suggested this week that the national media was rooting for Hurricane Ian to make a direct hit on Tampa, one of the state’s largest population centers, in order to hurt him politically.

“Quite frankly, you have national regime media that they wanted to see Tampa, because they thought that that’d be worse for Florida. That’s how these people think,” DeSantis said during an interview with local media outlet Florida’s Voice.

“They don’t care about the people of this state. They don’t care about this community. They want to use storms and destruction from storms as a way to advance their agenda. … They don’t care about the lives here. If they can use it to pursue their political agenda, they will do it,” he said.

DeSantis, who is widely seen as a potential GOP presidential contender in 2024, has made attacking major media outlets a staple of his public statements and political rhetoric in recent years.

He famously sparred with a “60 Minutes” correspondent last year over the show’s coverage of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and has long alleged bias in the mainstream media against himself, former President Trump and conservatives more generally.

DeSantis took part in a rare display of unity with President Biden on Wednesday during a joint press conference where the governor thanked the federal government for its help getting aid to areas of the state ravished by the hurricane.

Source: TEST FEED1