Tag Archives : Build House

Russian defense minister possibly sidelined: UK intel

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu may have been “side-lined within the Russian leadership” more than six months into Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine, according to the U.K. Ministry of Defence. 

“Russian officers and soldiers with first-hand experience of the war probably routinely ridicule Shoigu for his ineffectual and out-of-touch leadership as Russian progress has stalled,” the ministry said in an update.

The move is likely “due to the problems Russia is facing” in the war with Ukraine, British officials noted. 

Shoigu, who has a background in construction and at the Ministry of Emergency Situations, “has likely long struggled to overcome his reputation as lacking substantive military experience.”

He went missing from public eye for nearly two weeks at the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and some speculated that Russian President Vladimir Putin had punished him for his start-of-war strategy.

The U.K. Ministry of Defence cited “recent independent Russian media reports” as its source for the new intelligence.

The update comes after Putin ordered a 13-percent troop increase to address losses, and as tensions rise at Europe’s largest nuclear power plant.

Russia has controlled the area where the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant is located since early in the war, though Ukrainians still operate it, and the two countries have blamed each other for recent nearby strikes.

A mission of experts from the International Atomic Energy Agency “is now on its way” to Zaporizhzhya amid growing fears of a potential nuclear accident.

Source: TEST FEED1

The US must close the gap between ends and means in Ukraine

Success in war is measured not by level of effort but by the degree to which a country achieves the policy goals set by its senior political leaders. Regarding Russia’s war in Ukraine, the United States has four policy goals — two grand strategic and two theater strategic. Achieving these goals is not guaranteed. And without changes, the U.S. could yet achieve little.

Using public statements and speeches of senior U.S. leaders, America’s primary grand strategic policy goals appear to reinforce the rules-based international order’s sanction against aggression.  By making sure that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s illegal, unjustified aggression does not pay, the U.S. seeks to deter others from using force in similar ways. Its second grand strategic goal is to return America to a trusted position of global leadership. Coupled with these are two theater strategic policy goals: strengthen NATO and assist Ukraine in defending its right to self-determination.

All four of these policy goals are important and achievable, but without succeeding in both theater strategic goals, the U.S. is unlikely to achieve its grand strategic aims. 

The U.S. seems to be measuring success in Ukraine by level of effort: tonnage of ammunition supplied, number and type of arms and equipment delivered, amount of money spent. But the proper metric is progress toward achieving stated aims. And with respect to Ukraine specifically, it means delivering military goods that facilitate successful Ukraine military operations — defensive and offensive. Against this metric, the effect of allied logistical assistance is mixed.     

Part of the problem has been how the U.S. and allies are operating: an ebb and flow logistics pipeline, rather than a continuous flow. This approach was enough to defeat the initial Russian attempt to quickly defeat Ukrainian forces and replace the Zelensky government. And it has been enough to stall Russian advances. But it has not been, and will not be, sufficient to allow the Ukraine military to conduct major counter-offensive operations — which are necessary for both Ukraine to beat back the Russians and the U.S. to achieve its goals. Ebb and flow logistics is not how the U.S. would supply its own forces. 

Without a continuous, reliable flow of logistics, Ukraine cannot defend, which includes carrying out local counter-attacks while setting conditions for and conducting counter-offensives against created or existing Russian vulnerabilities. Both are necessary to push back Russian forces and put Ukraine in the strongest possible negotiating position when that time comes. Without the confidence that the supplies are present and available — not “trust me, they’re coming” — Ukraine’s political and military leaders are likely less to risk any major counter-offensive. It would be imprudent for them to do otherwise. The U.S. must lead the allies in fixing this logistical-operational disconnect or risk losing the opportunities that Russian weakness presents and lowering the probability of achieving Ukraine and American goals.

So far, strengthening NATO — America’s second theater strategic policy goal — has gone relatively well. NATO members are increasing their military spending, the eastern flank is reinforced, and two new allies are coming aboard. These actions can prevent Putin from widening the war, and they demonstrate united resolve against Putin’s illegal aggression and his use of war crimes as a method of war. Part of strengthening NATO included improving its nuclear deterrence posture, which has told Putin that escalation is a risk that he should not take.   

Taken in concert, NATO’s actions, as well as those of other allies, contribute to the grand strategic goal of reinforcing the rules-based international order, but there is a risk of global fatigue as the war drags on. Putin likely will test Europe’s unity and resolve this winter, even as the U.S. and NATO have begun taking steps to mitigate Putin’s use of fuel as a weapon. And China, North Korea and Iran may take actions to test the strength of rules-based order, as well as American leadership, in their geographic areas. One could argue that these actions already have begun. So what the immediate future may hold remains part of “the fog of war.”

As it has been since at least the beginning of World War II, American resolve and leadership is on display. The stakes are high, and they’re not limited to Ukraine. Once again, like it or not, the world is depending upon U.S. leadership. America cannot succeed by taking counsel of its fears; it must decide and act to achieve its policy goals, mitigating the risks inherent in such leadership as best it can.    

In the Ukraine war, the U.S., NATO and other allies must provide Ukraine what it needs to succeed via a consistent, reliable logistics flow. Continuing ebb and flow will drag out the war.  There remains the risk of widening or escalating the war, but Putin’s capacities have been so diminished that the probability of his acting on that desire is low. 

To tip the balance even more favorably, U.S. industrial capacity must expand. Further, the U.S. must work with NATO allies to improve energy preparedness, preventing Putin from gaining a winter advantage. Globally, America must work to reduce tensions in the Far East and Middle East while it focuses on Europe. Finally, internal to the U.S., senior political and military leaders must shake off the hubris of the post-Cold War and post 9/11 periods and see the global security environment for what it is: an environment from which a war no one wants could emerge. 

James M. Dubik, Ph.D., a retired lieutenant general of the U.S. Army, is a senior fellow at the Institute for the Study of War. He served in military command and operational roles in Bosnia, Haiti and Iraq, and helped train forces in Afghanistan, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Honduras, and many NATO countries.

Source: TEST FEED1

How do you really hurt Putin?

The United States and elements of NATO are engaged in an undeclared war with Russia. This war — described as World War III by Fiona Hill, former deputy assistant to the president of the United States, and others — truthfully began in 2007, when Russian President Vladimir Putin delivered his now-famous speech at the Munich Security Conference. It accelerated when Russia invaded Ukraine a second time in February 2022.

After six months of renewed conflict, a simple question has emerged: How do the U.S. and its allies in this war really hurt Putin? Underlying this question is another: Despite significant international sanctions against Russians collectively and Putin, his allies, and some Russian oligarchs individually, why has Putin remained so popular with the average Russian?

The efforts to hurt Putin so far have been substantial. Outside of Russia, Ukraine has resisted the Russian invasion, assisted by the US and its allies. Ukraine’s war efforts have undermined Putin’s narrative as an effective war leader. Sanctions by the EU, UK, and U.S. have led to the seizure of some assets, restricted international and some domestic travel for Russian elites, and limited some imports to, exports from and capital flows related to Russia.

Internally, some new opposition to Putin has begun to emerge. Possible successors are signaling their availability. Occasional public anti-war protests continue to occur. Grumbling about higher prices, shortages and travel headaches can be heard. Leaks of sensitive information appear to have increased as well.

Still, Putin appears to remain very popular. Initiatives to hurt him appear to have had little effect. Why?

Some reasons relate to the individual initiatives. For example, international sanctions are historically poor instruments to compel states to change their behavior and the same seems to be happening with Russia. The natural patriotism of the “second Russia” (those who live outside the big cities) has been strengthened by the Ukraine war, limiting a broad domestic uprising against Putin. The revolution does not appear to be near.

However, something more fundamental is at work. We now have a vast literature on Putin, including some excellent scholarly and journalistic work. But, to put it bluntly, this literature misses an important part of who Putin really is. The most rigorous studies conceptualize him variously as a KGB man, a new tsar, a kleptocrat, a macho man, a totalitarian and a judoist. One scholar, who has studied Putin longer and more intensively than many others, is honest enough to admit what this list betrays: Putin is contradictory and paradoxical.

But all these “Putinists” miss an essential point. Putin is an oligarch. Therein may lie the key to his downfall.

Oligarchs live on uncertainty. They thrive in emergent, unstructured environments where the rules of the game are unclear. Oligarchs like Putin gain and maintain wealth and power by keeping things up in the air. Keeping opponents off balance and guessing. They’re opportunists.

The U.S. and its allies are not going to win this war by better planning, executing better against that plan, banging away at Putin with more and better equipment, or more and better sanctions. They are only going to hurt Putin by depriving him of his oxygen: uncertainty.

How can they do that?

To soften him up, they can start by focusing on how to hurt Putin directly, not Russia or the Russian people. Aside from individual sanctions, very little has been done so far in this area. Initiatives should identify who Putin fears most, then incentivizing those actors to take punitive actions against Putin.  For example, he is clearly fearful of and deferential to China’s President Xi Jinping, so actions that drive some distance between these two leaders are likely to be more effective. Exploiting differences in their personal interests could pay handsomely.

Relatedly, driving a wedge between Putin and the majority of Russians who continue to support him would hurt his political prospects significantly. The best way to do this is by ending the war with Ukraine. Doing so removes a significant incentive for Putin’s supporters to look to him for future leadership. It would shorten the legs on which he stands. And that would open up space for potential successors to emerge.

Having softened Putin up, the goal should then be to hurt him by reducing the uncertainty he faces, to make things more predictable and shrink his opportunity set so that he can’t take advantage of the situation as he has before. Uncertainty has enabled him to become one of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world since World War II. Uncertainty creates opportunities for an oligarch like Putin. The goal should be to take away these openings, not keep creating new ones.

Right now, the U.S. and its allies are playing Putin’s game, trying to out-Putin him by introducing new sources of uncertainty in the Ukraine war such as advanced weapons systems and Western special forces operators. The Ukrainian approach from 2014 to 2022 was a better approach. Reduce uncertainty. Return to a normal life. Reestablish prewar patterns of behavior. Have the trains, the buses, even the airlines run on time again. Internationally, stop talking up the war. Talk it down. Ignore Putin. Don’t respond to either his words or his actions. Just carry on.

When these and other actions reduce uncertainty, then Putin will no longer be able to breathe — and then his power and wealth will fade away.        

David Lingelbach is a professor of entrepreneurship at The University of Baltimore and author. He lived and worked in Russia from 1994 to 1999, where he served as president of Bank of America — Russia and worked with Vladimir Putin.

Valentina Rodríguez Guerra is an author and oligarch researcher.

Together they are writing a book about oligarchs, whom they’ve studied for more than a quarter century.

Source: TEST FEED1

IAEA inspection team to visit Ukraine nuclear plant

A team of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “is now on its way” to the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant in Ukraine, where fighting has stoked concerns about a potential accident. 

“The day has come, @IAEAorg‘s Support and Assistance Mission to #Zaporizhzhya (ISAMZ) is now on its way. We must protect the safety and security of #Ukraine’s and Europe’s biggest nuclear facility,” the United Nations nuclear watchdog’s director general, Rafael Grossi, wrote on Twitter Monday.

Grossi shared the announcement alongside a photo of over a dozen people in IAEA garb, standing at attention. 

The inspectors are set to be in Zaporizhzhya later this week, with plans to assess physical damage to the plant, staff conditions and safety and security systems, and “perform urgent safeguards activities,” the agency said.

Russia has controlled the area where the nuclear power plant is located since early in the war — though Ukrainian workers still manage its operations — and the two countries have blamed each other for recent nearby strikes.

Even amid rising international concern about a possible radiation leak, power failure and nuclear accident at the plant, Russia and Ukraine have continued reporting attacks near Zaporizhzhya and swapping claims that the other side is behind the strikes.

Ukraine said shelling hit buildings near the reactor and damaged water pipelines late last week, according to the IAEA, though it noted radioactivity was “within normal range.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called the shelling “Russian nuclear terror” and pushed the international community to sanction Russia’s nuclear industry and fuel exports. 

The plant lost connection to its power grid briefly last week, and Zelensky warned of a “radiation disaster.”

Source: TEST FEED1

NASA Artemis rocket launch delayed, next attempt could be Friday

NASA on Monday delayed the launch of the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket from the Kennedy Space Center in Cape Canaveral, Fla., because of a fuel leak in one of the rocket’s engines.

The next available time for the launch is on Friday.

The highly anticipated launch will serve as a key test for the SLS and the Orion exploration spacecraft, which NASA plans to send more than 40,000 miles past the moon. It’s the first in a series of integrated tests to eventually send astronauts back to the moon in 2025 or 2026.

NASA officials said the SLS rocket’s engine bleed could not be remedied in time for a launch today, but the rocket will remain in its current configuration.

Engineers are currently assessing a plan and gathering data to repair the engine.

Developing

Source: TEST FEED1

Two people fatally shot at Oregon grocery store

Two people were fatally shot on Sunday night by a gunman who opened fire at an Oregon grocery store before he was found dead, authorities said.

Police responded around 7 p.m. to reports of a shooting at the Forum Shopping Center in the city of Bend, which is about three hours outside of Portland, according to the Bend Police Department.

Officials said the gunman, armed with an A-15-style rifle, began firing in the parking lot before entering a Safeway and fatally shooting a person at the entrance, adding that the gunman kept firing and killed a second person.

Bend officers arrived and heard more gunshots before finding the apparent gunman dead inside the grocery store, authorities said, noting that the rifle and other weapons were scattered nearby.

Police said the investigation is ongoing. The identity of the gunman was not released.

A witness told the Bend Bulletin the shooter walked down every aisle, spaying bullets at shoppers. She said she grabbed her handgun but ended up retreating through the back door, where employees were getting shoppers out of the building.

Source: TEST FEED1

How will the war in Ukraine end?

Can or how will the war in Ukraine end? Kyiv understandably views the survival of Ukraine as a free, independent, sovereign state existential. That has led President Volodymyr Zelensky to set maximum goals such as retrieving much or all of the nearly 20 percent of his country occupied by Russia along with reparations from Moscow as non-negotiable.

Zelensky’s objectives, barring a regime change in Russia or wholesale mutiny of Russian forces, are unobtainable. U.S. and Western support has often been self-deterred not to provoke Russian escalation. That has led to a military stalemate that could risk becoming permanent or evolving into a frozen conflict. And it is unlikely that Ukraine will receive the wherewithal for mounting an effective, combined arms, offensive capability to retake all its lost land.

Moscow’s aims are less apparent. Some argue that Russian President Vladimir Putin seeks a negotiated agreement, probably with Russia retaining full control of Crimea and occupied Donbas. Last week’s ukase increasing the size of the Russian army by 137,000 is meant to strengthen Moscow’s hand. Signaling an indefinite commitment to fighting may make negotiation a more acceptable option for Kyiv. However, raising and training a larger army takes time, and an increased draft will not be well received by many Russians.

Further, Russian military doctrine asserts that to defend against a perceived existential threat to the state (i.e., the regime), nuclear weapons would be used. Would a “defeat” in Ukraine (meaning the substantial loss of currently occupied territories) trigger that use to “shock and awe” Kyiv into surrender or an imposed peace? That remains one of many potentially existential questions that cannot be discounted or answered with certainty.

For the U.S. and West, while it is broadly true that all wars must end, what is the strategy for ending this war on terms favorable or acceptable to Ukraine? There does not seem to be one. Killing enough Russian soldiers to impose sufficient costs to force Russia to negotiate or at least accept a ceasefire and leaving the terms to Zelensky to decide is both reckless and foolish. Of course, one unstated aim may be to continue to bleed Russia, much as the aim in Afghanistan was to weaken the USSR, ultimately forcing its withdrawal.

As the war enters its seventh month (or eighth year if one believes the 2014 annexation of Crimea was the start) and winter approaches, energy supplies will exert greater political impact on European and NATO relations with Russia. Putin will exploit the energy weapon to weaken the coalition. Aiding Putin in this is high inflation and political instability in the West.

Politics in the U.S. and Italy are fractious. The United Kingdom is on its fourth prime minister after the prior three were thrown out. How long Western consensus and coherence over supporting Ukraine persist, especially if the war were to escalate or show signs of permanent stalemate, is a pressing question.

While China and Russia have moved closer in a strategic partnership, China is clearly the senior partner. It is unlikely Beijing would oppose a negotiation or ceasefire. And Beijing would certainly oppose any escalation that would be disruptive to its already ailing economy.

The only sensible outcome, therefore, is for some form of negotiation, perhaps beginning with an enforceable ceasefire.  But in war sensibility and rationality are often early casualties. That aside, it would seem the best course is to convince or coerce Putin and Zelensky that it is in their self-interest to seek a settlement. Putin may or may not be open to that. Zelensky is not. Hence, if any settlement is to be reached, that decision cannot rest only with Zelensky. Zelensky must understand that an end to the war is essential if Ukraine is to survive as an independent state.

In the past, the U.S. and NATO have imposed their wills on leaders to end wars: The U.S. in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq — and each ended badly. NATO had some success in the Balkans. Hence, there is risk.  

How to achieve ending this war is the Sisyphean issue. Because President Biden has labeled Putin a war criminal, perhaps Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan may be the best intermediary with Moscow. For Ukraine, it must be the U.S. And the West must guarantee enough long-term support and aid for Ukraine  to secure its independence. Starting this process now does not ensure success. But what is the alternative?

Harlan Ullman is senior adviser at the Atlantic Council and the prime author of “shock and awe.” His latest  book is “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and the World at Large.” Follow him on Twitter @harlankullman.

Source: TEST FEED1

Billy Eichner rips Clarence Thomas, 'homophobes on the Supreme Court' at MTV VMAs

Comedian Billy Eichner slammed the U.S. Supreme Court and Justice Clarence Thomas at the MTV Video Music Awards (VMAs) Sunday night, calling them “homophobes” who are stuck in the past.

Eichner teased an upcoming film he co-wrote and stars in called “Bros,” about a romantic relationship between two men, before he took a jab at the court.

“I need you all there on September 30 because we need to show all the homophobes like Clarence Thomas and all the homophobes on the Supreme Court that we want gay love stories,” said Eichner, who is gay. “And we support LGBTQ people, and we are not letting them drag us into the last century, because they are in the past and ‘Bros’ is in the future.”

After the Supreme Court voted to overturned Roe V. Wade and the nearly 50-year constitutional right to abortion, Thomas wrote a concurring opinion that backed the idea of revisiting other case precedents including Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 landmark ruling that created a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

The request to reconsider those cases has not been picked up by any other justices on the conservative-leaning court. But some Republicans, including Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas), have said states should have the right to decide their laws on same-sex marriage.

Over the summer, the House passed a bill that would enshrine same-sex marriage into law, with 157 Republicans voting against it.

After the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision to overturn Roe V. Wade, Eichner tweeted: “GET YOUR FICTIONAL HATEFUL BIBLE STORIES AND YOUR FAKE FICTIONAL RELIGIOUS Bull—” out of our lives.

Eichner’s film, “Bros,” which is slated for a Sept. 30 theatrical release, is the first rom-com movie from a major studio with a cast that is entirely LGBTQ.

–-Updated at 7:45 a.m.

Source: TEST FEED1

How government encourages property theft in Massachusetts — and homeowners are fighting back

The first time Mark Mucciaccio of South Easton, Mass., remembers hearing of Tallage Lincoln LLC was when he learned the real estate investment company had taken his longtime family home out from under him.  

Mucciaccio isn’t alone. Numerous Bay State homeowners have ended up in the crosshairs of real estate players working with government agencies to seize and sell off tax-delinquent properties. They keep any profit, leaving the original owners with nothing.  

This predatory practice is legal in Massachusetts — at least for now. But that could soon change, thanks to leadership from state lawmakers seeking to end questionable tax-forfeiture sales.  

In most states, tax foreclosures are reasonably straightforward. If you fail to pay your property taxes, state or local officials can seize and sell the property at auction to satisfy the tax debt (plus associated interest and fees). Once that debt is satisfied, the remaining proceeds are returned to the original owner to compensate them for their equity in the property.  

But in Massachusetts, officials skip this crucial last step. Instead, they take the whole house as payment for the tax debt — no matter how valuable the house or how small the debt. Some municipalities keep the windfall. Others give the power to take the house to a private investor who then can pocket the profit. Regardless of how much equity the homeowner may have built up in their property, they’re left with nothing. Massachusetts is one of a dozen states where this sketchy practice remains legal.  

The Mucciaccio family’s case is a textbook illustration of how the scheme works. When their mother died in 2006, Mark and his brother inherited her home, which had been in the family for 57 years. But in November 2020, a real estate agent showed up unannounced, thinking the house would be vacant, to change the locks. (Mark Mucciaccio shares his story here.)

They learned the house no longer belonged to them. In fact, they hadn’t owned the home since July 2019, when the Massachusetts Land Court handed the title to Tallage Lincoln. Tallage sent foreclosure notices, but the Mucciaccios don’t recall receiving them, perhaps because they were full of dense legal language difficult for a layman to comprehend.  

The Mucciaccios owed $3,982 in back taxes and it wasn’t the first time they’d fallen behind, resulting from financial hardship because of family members struggling with health issues. But even though they sometimes paid late, they always managed to pay what they owed. Had they realized they would lose the home, Mucciaccio says, they’d have found a way to pay the debt more quickly.  

In June 2017, town officials sold the tax lien to Tallage, which gave the company the right to collect the debt with interest and permission to take the home if the Mucciaccios didn’t pay on time. A month later, Tallage started foreclosure proceedings on the home, a property valued at $287,000. Consistent with Massachusetts law, the court awarded the title to Tallage — over a lien of less than $4,000. The Mucciaccio family got nothing back, despite having built up equity in the property for decades.  

This is a common outcome in such cases. A Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) study found that homeowners subjected to tax foreclosures lose more than 87 percent of their home equity. And unsurprisingly, the people most affected by these foreclosures are society’s most vulnerable — seniors on fixed incomes and people with health issues — who have fewer resources to defend themselves. And as in the Mucciaccios’ situation, most of these property owners fail to realize their homes are in jeopardy until it’s too late.  

Compared to others who have fallen victim to such tax foreclosures, the Mucciaccios were fortunate in the end. PLF helped them fight back in court and Tallage relented, allowing the family to pay their debt and redeem the title to the home. But vulnerable homeowners need greater protection from predatory tax foreclosure laws.  

The good news is that Massachusetts lawmakers have introduced a bill to reform these seizures and ensure that homeowners are appropriately compensated for their equity value. Investment companies and local governments soon may find they no longer can profit off vulnerable property owners.  

Property owners must pay their taxes, and those who fail to do so ultimately may face foreclosure proceedings. But the Constitution and justice require the government — or private companies deputized by the government to collect taxes — to compensate them for the equity in their homes. Here’s hoping that Massachusetts is the next state where home equity theft becomes a thing of the past.   

Christina Martin is a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans’ liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse. She leads PLF’s initiative to end home equity theft.  

Source: TEST FEED1

The Hill's Morning Report — NASA heads back to the moon

At Cape Canaveral, Fla., this morning, weekend lightning strikes, weather worries and a hydrogen leak appeared to be surmounted with a slight delay as NASA began its countdown to send the most powerful rocket it has ever built, the Artemis I,into space without a crew between 8:33 a.m. and 10:33 a.m. ET

“We’re in really great shape. … And now we’re moving forward,” Jeremy Graeber, assistant launch director for the Artemis I launch team, explained at 5:37 a.m. ET. Both liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks were filled before 6 a.m. ET.

Vice President Harris is on hand in Florida to witness the liftoff of a mission aimed at helping the United States send astronauts back to the lunar surface by 2025 for the first time since the historic 1969 “giant leap for mankind.”

If today’s liftoff has to be delayed, Friday is the earliest fallback date for a rescheduled launch.

China has similar manned lunar landing ambitions by 2030 and has announced plans with Russia to build an international research base on the moon.

NASA boasts it will land “the first woman and the first person of color on the Moon, explore more of the lunar surface than ever before — and prepare to travel on to Mars.” 

The space agency’s new rocket, as tall as a skyscraper and called the Space Launch System, or SLS, is to carry the uncrewed Orion capsule for a trip around the moon during a four- to six-week journey (The Associated Press and CNN). Splashdown of the capsule is currently expected to occur Oct. 10.

In lieu of astronauts, three test dummies will be strapped into the Orion capsule to measure vibration, acceleration and radiation, one of the biggest hazards to humans in deep space (Orlando.com).

Check out NASA’s figure-eight space map of the Earth-to-moon mission HERE.

“We test it. We stress it. We make this rocket and the spacecraft do things that we would never do with a human crew,” NASA Administrator Bill Nelson told NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday. “The main purpose of the flight is to test the heat shield because you can’t test that in a lab. So if the heat shield survives and does what it is expected to do, it’s a successful test. So then we’re ready in two years.”

Related Articles

▪ The New York Times: Why NASA is going back to the moon.

▪ Space.com: “Zero hour” for Artemis I.

▪ WFLA News: Artemis launch a “go” for Florida’s aerospace enterprises.

LEADING THE DAY

➤ POLITICS

For much of the past year, Republicans have been on the offensive and the heavy favorites to make big gains in both congressional chambers, keeping Democrats on their heels ahead of the November midterms.

That script, however, has flipped. Democrats last week were given a B12 shot of optimism in the form of a special election victory in New York’s Hudson Valley, prompting the GOP to sound the alarms and pump the brakes on talk about a “red wave.”

“Republicans have to start paying attention. … The problem is where Republicans have to pick up in order to win the Congress is in districts like that,” former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) said late last week, referring to Democrat Pat Ryan’s win in the Empire State. “If you look at the national polls, if you look at a lot of these races like in my home state of Pennsylvania — if this is a red wave year, the polls are not showing it right now.”

Rep. Tom Emmer (Minn.), chairman of the House GOP’s campaign arm, and other party operatives are still more bullish on the fall and argue that the special election was just that — special.

“I would not red flag it yet. We’re going to wait to see and do some more polling, but I think things are fine,” said Sarah Chamberlain, president and CEO of Republican Main Street Partnership.

One issue that led to Ryan’s defeat of Republican Marc Molinaro was abortion rights. Following the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade in late June, Ryan campaigned heavily on the topic, and Democrats in tough districts could turn to it more as it has proved to get voters to the polls over the past month.

Adding to the push behind the abortion rights messaging is the position many GOP candidates for Senate and House have taken, allowing them to talk about something other than the economy in a positive light from their point of view (The Hill).

▪ The Hill: GOP edge in race for House control slips: poll.

▪ The Associated Press: Democrats: Abortion rulings may be “a blessing in disguise.”

▪ Julia Manchester, The Hill: Five midterm lessons from this year’s special elections.

▪ The Hill: Nebraska Democrats hope abortion fury delivers rare House win.

Meanwhile, President Biden has come under heavy criticism from the Republican Party in recent days after he compared the “MAGA” wing of the GOP to “semi-fascism” at a Democratic National Committee (DNC) fundraiser last week.

New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) called on Biden to issue an apology to GOP voters, adding that the comments were “horribly insulting.”

“The fact that the president would go out and just insult half of America [and] effectively call half of America semi-fascist,” Sununu told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “He’s trying to stir up controversy. He’s trying to stir up this anti-Republican sentiment right before the election. It’s horribly inappropriate” (The Hill).

▪ CBS News: DNC Chairman Jaime Harrison says Biden describing GOP as “semi-facism” is “calling what is what it is.”

▪ The Hill: Democrats peg inflation to corporate greed on campaign trail.

▪ Cheyanne M. Daniels, The Hill: “I deserve to know the truth”: Capitol Police officer Harry Dunn is ever-present at Jan. 6 hearings.

Is former President Trump, or anyone else, in criminal legal jeopardy for the handling of sensitive national security documents and materials allegedly squirreled away at Mar-a-Lago for more than a year while the government struggled to get it all back?

▪ The Associated Press: Trump search: What may come next in inquiry with legal peril?

▪ Heidi Kitrosser, Lawfare: Trump and the Espionage Act.

▪ USA Today: Trump aides unlikely to face charges alone over secret records.

Do Department of Justice (DOJ) and intelligence agency investigators believe no serious harm befell national security because of the loose docs? Did Trump know or direct that materials remain in his possession when the National Archives appealed to the ex-president and his representatives, and then the DOJ subpoenaed them, to relinquish what had been taken from the White House?

Will Attorney General Merrick Garland, who says no person “is above the law,” move on without pursuing fines or criminal charges (Espionage Act, obstruction of a federal investigation)? Did the FBI retrieve every presidential document and record, and in all forms, that belongs at the National Archives?

The New York Times analysis: For Garland, the Trump inquiry is a unique test.

The answers to those and other questions are unclear, but it’s a sure bet that Trump’s troubles over what went with him to Mar-a-Lago will not end soon. He has conceded he retained documents the government sought and has not explicitly denied that the boxes removed from Mar-a-Lago contained restricted national security information.

It is evident from the timeline that while Trump claimed cooperation when 15 boxes of documents went back to Washington, the Justice Department feared that sensitive materials with national security restrictions remained hidden from the government’s view in Florida. The former president, now a civilian, appears interested in leaning on executive privilege and his former authority while in office to declassify documents, which, according to legal analysts, would not eliminate the law’s repercussions for possession of certain sensitive and restricted materials.

“He is making a mistake in believing that it matters whether it’s top secret or not,” Julie O’Sullivan, a Georgetown University law professor who specializes in white-collar crime, told The New York Times in reference to Trump. “He is essentially conceding that he knew he had them.” If so, she added, then not giving them back was “obstructing the return of these documents.”

Here’s what’s ahead this week: A federal judge on Saturday signaled her intent to agree to an independent “special master” sought by Trump to review documents removed by the FBI on Aug. 8 from his estate. The government has until Tuesday to present its arguments, and the judge scheduled a Thursday court hearing in West Palm Beach, Fla. (The Washington Post). Under a judge’s order, the Justice Department on Friday released a heavily redacted copy of a 38-page affidavit that formed the justification for the search warrant executed early this month.

The circle of government involvement has expanded beyond the executive and judicial branches to include Congress. As requested by House and Senate Intelligence committee members (with expectations they will get details), intelligence analysts and Justice Department officials confirmed they are assessing classified information found by the FBI at Mar-a-Lago and reviewing the specific classifications on materials retrieved from Trump’s residence to gauge potential risks to U.S. security, Politico and The Washington Post reported.

Thus, the range of individuals scrutinizing retrieved documents, potentially missing materials, motivations, national security and legal ramifications ballooned beyond the National Archives and Trump’s legal team and aides to include the attorney general, DOJ counterintelligence experts, tipsters who helped the DOJ, the U.S. intelligence community, federal judges, potentially a court-ordered independent special master, and House and Senate lawmakers.

The president has tried to steer clear of the mess. On Friday, when asked by reporters about the DOJ’s release of a redacted affidavit, Biden said, “I’m not going to comment because I don’t know the details. I don’t even want to know. I’ll let the Justice Department take that.”

But when asked, he mocked Trump’s suggestion he’d declassified everything the FBI found. “I just want you to know I’ve declassified everything in the world. I’m president, I can do — c’mon,” Biden said (CNN).

IN FOCUS/SHARP TAKES

➤ ADMINISTRATION

The White House’s plan to forgive $10,000 in federal student loan debt for most borrowers was greeted mostly with cheers on the left. But on the right, it’s not only met with derision, but it’s set to be greeted with legal challenges galore.

Biden’s plans are likely to be challenged in court, throwing fresh uncertainty onto borrowers, including many young adults who stand to benefit from the administration’s policy. However, as The Hill’s Morgan Chalfant and Brett Samuels write, the problem for those attempting filing suit against the debt plan is the ability to demonstrate standing in the case, leading some experts to doubt the success of future challenges.

The Biden administration relied on the 2003 HEROES Act, passed following the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and claims that the COVID-19 emergency opens the door and allows the Department of Education to both suspend loan repayments and cancel loan debt for many individuals.

The criticism from Republicans kept up over the weekend. Sen. Roy Blunt (Mo.), a member of GOP leadership who is retiring at the end of the year, on Sunday labeled the plan “monumentally unfair” (The Hill). However, criticism also came from some corners of the Democrat Party.

“It’s bad policy as well as bad politics. For that amount of money, you could fund free pre-K for every 3- and 4-year-old for the next 10 years. … You could free all medical debt,”Paul Begala, a Democratic strategist and a former top aide to former President Clinton, told CNN’s “State of the Union.” “This is terrible policy.”

“What is my party doing with this?” Begala continued. “I think they’re not helping the people we’re here to help, which is poor people and underprivileged communities. And they’re not helping their politicians who are running.”

▪ The Hill: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.): Cost of college should be tackled after student loan debt cancellation.

▪ The Hill: Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) says he prefers tax cuts over student loan debt forgiveness.

The Hill’s special report: It has been more than a year since the war in Afghanistan ended for the U.S. But the problems have not ended for many Afghan refugees who have found shelter in the U.S. but not the security they had hoped for.

In the first of a three-part series, The Hill’s Rebecca Beitsch details the troubles refugees have faced since the rapid fall of Kabul and the Afghan government last year, dating back to their escapes from the country now controlled by the Taliban. One refugee named Hoja (a pseudonym) discussed how he was working as a law enforcement official on a national security project funded by the U.S. that gave him and his family of seven a healthy bank account and a summer home on 12 acres. He was forced to give it up instantly once the country fell to Taliban forces.

“I ran away. I left everything behind. That’s what I did,” he said. “And then in September, when I was in Germany — in Ramstein [Air Base] — I was just waiting on some volunteer organizations to get a pair of shoes. That was when I recognized how fragile life really is — that it takes only one shock for you to start all over again.”

▪ Ellen Mitchell, The Hill: Fears over Afghanistan threat simmer, despite White House assurances.

▪ The Hill: Broken promises: Afghan women abandoned but defiant a year after US withdrawal.

OPINION

■ College tuition is too high, but it isn’t actually rising, by Matthew Yglesias, columnist, Bloomberg Opinion. https://bloom.bg/3TnGWLZ

■ Fox News fired me after I said Biden won. That wasn’t the worst of it, by Chris Stirewalt, opinion contributor, Politico Magazine. https://politi.co/3CxPutQ

WHERE AND WHEN

The House will meet at noon Tuesday for a pro forma session and return to work in the Capitol on Sept. 13.

The Senate convenes on Tuesday at 10 a.m. for a pro forma session during its summer recess, which ends Sept. 6.

The president arrives at the White House at 9:55 a.m. from Delaware.

The vice president is in Florida for the NASA Artemis liftoff this morning at Cape Canaveral (Space.com).

The White House daily press briefing is scheduled at 1:30 p.m.

🖥  Hill.TV’s “Rising” program features news and interviews at http://thehill.com/hilltv, on YouTube and on Facebook at 10:30 a.m. ET. Also, check out the “Rising” podcast here.

ELSEWHERE

➤ INTERNATIONAL

The International Atomic Energy Agency later this week will visit Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, which is under Russian control but operated by Ukrainians. The plans follow prolonged negotiations to gain access to assess damage to the plant, determine whether the safety and security systems were functional and evaluate the staff’s working conditions. Both Russia and Ukraine welcomed the announcement by IAEA director general Rafael Grossi, who did not specify how the team would reach the facility, which is in a region of southern Ukraine that has seen intense artillery strikes in recent weeks (The New York Times).

Two U.S. Navy warships traversed the Taiwan Strait on Sunday, marking the first U.S. maritime operation in the region since Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) visit to Taiwan earlier this month sparked anger with Beijing. According to the U.S. Navy, a pair of cruisers — Chancellorsville and Antietam — carried out the operation (Reuters).

➤ PANDEMIC & HEALTH

The White House is staring down a tough but key stretch in the fall to vaccinate the masses with the next generation of COVID-19 booster shots to guard against the BA.4 and BA.5 omicron variants. As The Hill’s Nathaniel Weixel writes, the Biden administration is striking an optimistic tone, but the campaign has a number of pitfalls lying in wait, including that demand is expected to be low and that some scientists had said there isn’t enough evidence that they work well enough.

The Wall Street Journal: Latest COVID-19 boosters are set to roll out before human testing is completed.

Total U.S. coronavirus deaths reported as of this morning, according to Johns Hopkins University (trackers all vary slightly): 1,043,840. Current average U.S. COVID-19 daily deaths are 392, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

As of today, 78.1 percent of the U.S. population has received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and 66.7 percent is “fully vaccinated,” according to the Bloomberg News global vaccine tracker and the government’s definition. The percentage of Americans who have received third or booster doses is 33.2 percent.

THE CLOSER

And finally … Time for some sports news!  🎾 The U.S. Open at Flushing Meadows, N.Y., could mark tennis star Serena Williams’s good-bye to tennis. Tonight the 41-year-old plays the first round of the championship at 7 p.m. (CNN). As a teenager at the Open in 1999, she achieved the first of her 23 Grand Slam victories. … Williams by the numbers: Her 319 opponents tell the stories of entire eras (The Wall Street Journal).

⚾ There’s a new leader in the sports card clubhouse. A 1952 Topps card of New York Yankees legend Mickey Mantle sold for $12.6 million over the weekend, a new record in the industry, dwarfing the previous record of $7.25 million for a rare T206 Honus Wagner card. It is the highest price paid for any sports item, card or memorabilia. The card, which initially sold in 1991 for $50,000, was ungraded for 31 years by a then-anonymous buyer. The card was graded 9.5 out of 10, meaning it is in near-mint condition (ESPN).

Stay Engaged

We want to hear from you! Email: Alexis Simendinger and Al Weaver. Follow us on Twitter (@alweaver22 & @asimendinger) and suggest this newsletter to friends!

Source: TEST FEED1