Tag Archives : Build House

What is the Espionage Act?

The unsealing of the search warrant that the FBI executed at former President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property revealed that the agency believes Trump may have violated the Espionage Act of 1917, among other potential crimes. 

The warrant was made public on Friday after the Justice Department filed a motion to request that it be unsealed. Attorney General Merrick Garland said he made the decision given the intense public interest in the situation and because Trump chose to publicly reveal that the search occurred. 

The warrant revealed that FBI agents recovered 11 sets of classified items during the search, including one labeled “various classified/TS/SCI documents,” meaning top secret/sensitive compartmentalized information. 

Officials took three items labeled “confidential,” three labeled “secret” and four labeled “top secret.” 

The Espionage Act makes it illegal for anyone who has information related to national defense to use it “to the injury of the United States” or “to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 

Under the Espionage Act, it is also illegal for anyone who lawfully has possession of information related to national security to provide it or attempt to provide it to those not permitted to obtain it. These individuals also cannot “willfully” retain and fail to deliver documents or other materials on demand to an officer of the United States who is allowed to receive them. 

Anyone convicted of violating the law could face a fine or up to 10 years in prison. 

Derek Bambauer, a law professor at the University of Arizona, said the act is a “core” part of national security law and was designed to allow the government to prosecute people with sensitive information that could put the country’s national security at risk. He said it can apply to people who deliberately transfer the information to someone not authorized to have it or store it in a place it should not be. 

Former President Wilson signed the act into law a few months after the United States entered World War I. The law was passed to prevent interference with the war effort or recruiting soldiers and to prevent Americans from supporting the country’s enemies during wartime. 

Bambauer said the law tends to be invoked at times of “perceived crisis,” but courts typically give deference to the government in enforcing these types of laws and determining when a national security issue is considered a threat. 

For the FBI’s search warrant of Mar-a-Lago to be approved, the agency needed to show probable cause that a crime had been committed and that evidence was located in a specific place. A federal judge signed off that the FBI demonstrated probable cause before the search happened. 

Bambauer said a noteworthy feature of the law in this situation is that whether the information or documents are classified is “wholly irrelevant” to potential violations. The information only needs to be sensitive and a threat to the security of the country. 

Trump and his allies have claimed that he declassified the documents found at Mar-a-Lago while he was still serving as president, so there is no legal issue. 

Bambauer said Trump may have declassified certain information while president, but classification status is not mentioned in the law. 

“The language of the law, the Espionage Act, doesn’t talk about classification at all, which is not surprising because classification, at least as a structural concept, didn’t exist at the time this was passed,” he said. 

Gerry Gleeson, a lecturer at Michigan State University and former state prosecutor, said any criminal investigation into violations of this law would look at national defense, not classification status. 

He said probable cause, needed to obtain a search warrant, is a different standard than beyond a reasonable doubt, needed for someone to be found guilty of a crime. He said grand juries usually issue indictments for who a U.S. attorney wants to indict in most cases, but the government needs to consider if it can prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 

“Career federal prosecutors are serious people, and that’s a serious inquiry that they would take before they decide whether they want to pursue charges against anyone, whether it’s a politician or an individual citizen,” Gleeson said. 

The Espionage Act consists of more than half a dozen provisions, each laying out different circumstances where a violation may occur. Experts said the varying levels of intent required to meet the standard of breaking the law could have implications for Trump. 

Bambauer said a “state of mind” provision is common in criminal law in that some level of knowledge or intent is required. He said many of the provisions in the Espionage Act are similar, but one way they differ is in terms of state of mind. 

The first provision of the law states that someone must have intent or reason to believe that the information would be used to harm the U.S. A defense could argue that someone accused of violating the law did not know the information could threaten national security, if plausible, Bambauer said. 

But the sixth section states that someone who lawfully possesses a document could violate the law if they permit it to be taken from its proper place through “gross negligence.” 

Bambauer said that section could be relevant in leading to charges, based on what the public knows. 

Gleeson said the act makes a distinction between information and documents, with the latter requiring less intent than the former. 

He said the fourth section of the act only states that a person must have reason to believe that documents or other materials could be used to harm the U.S. Part of the section also states that anyone who “willfully retains” the materials and refuses to provide them on demand from an officer or employee of the United States could face charges. 

Gleeson said this part could play a role in Trump’s case based on reporting that Trump received a subpoena for national security documents months before the search took place. 

“It doesn’t have to be top secret,” he said. “It just has to be information related to the national defense that could be possibly used to injure the United States.”

Source: TEST FEED1

NYT publishes Nadler, Maloney interviews showing conflicting responses on Biden reelection

Interviews with Reps. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) and Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) by the New York Times Editorial Board showed the candidates offering conflicting responses on whether President Biden should run again.

Both Democrats are facing off against each other in the 12th Congressional District primary in New York, scheduled for Aug. 23, after the state’s new maps implemented earlier this year placed them in an awkward member-on-member primary.

In an interview with Nadler on July 26 that was published Saturday, the New York congressman dodged a question regarding whether he felt the president should run again.

“That I can’t give a yes or no answer. I’ll simply say to that, I think the interests of the Democratic Party and the country are best served by waiting till after the midterms before we begin discussing that,” he said.

In an interview with Maloney on Aug. 1 that was also published Saturday, Maloney first tried to assert her comments would be off the record and that Biden was not running again. 

A member of the editorial board told Maloney that the discussion was on the record.

“On the record? No, he should not run again,” she said afterward.

The publication of the interviews comes on the same day that the editorial board announced it would be endorsing Nadler over Maloney. Attorney Suraj Patel is also running in the Democratic primary.

The two made headlines earlier this month during a primary debate on Aug. 2 in which Nadler declined to say whether he believed Biden should run in the next presidential cycle while Maloney said “I don’t believe he’s running for reelection.”

Following the debate, Nadler issued a statement saying he was supportive of the president while Maloney said she would support a Biden 2024 bid. 

But Maloney later made headlines again during an interview on CNN when she issued an on-air apology to the president for her remarks during the debate. 

“Mr. President, I apologize. I want you to run. I happen to think you won’t be running, but when you run or if you run, I will be there 100 percent,” she said.

During another debate earlier this week, both said they would back a 2024 election bid by the president. 

The Hill has reached out to Maloney’s campaign, Nadler’s campaign and the White House for comment. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Rushdie attack reveals — again — true nature of Iranian regime

On Feb. 14, 1989, Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, or edict, condemning author Salman Rushdie to death for blasphemy. Rushdie had recently penned the book “The Satanic Verses,” which depicted Rushdie’s interpretation of the life of the prophet Mohammed, including an episode in which the prophet was unable to distinguish between revelation and the influence of Satan.

More than three decades later, on Aug. 12, 2022, Rushdie was stabbed in the neck by New Jersey resident Hadi Matar, who reportedly was “sympathetic to Shia extremism.” The attack came amidst a flurry of other thwarted plots by the Islamic Republic against former U.S. officials and Iranian dissidents. While some may have seen it as ancient history, the Khomeini fatwa clearly still reverberates today.

In 1989, Khomeini sentenced Rushdie to death. On Tehran radio, the Supreme leader stated: “I would like to inform all intrepid Muslims in the world that the author of the book Satanic Verses, which has been compiled, printed, and published in opposition to Islam, the Prophet, and the Qur’an, and those publishers who were aware of its contents, are sentenced to death. I call on all zealous Muslims to execute them quickly, where they find them.”

In essence, Khomeini pitted Islam against the West. The following day was a national day of mourning in Iran. Crowds poured into the streets, stoned the British Embassy, and chanted “Death to Britain” repeatedly. A $2.8 million bounty was put on Rushdie’s head. 

Three days later, American booksellers B. Dalton, Waldenbooks and Barnes & Noble decided not to stock Rushdie’s book, while the book’s publisher, Viking/Penguin, closed its offices amidst bomb threats to install a new security system.

On the fourth day, Rushdie made the following statement: “As author of The Satanic Verses, I recognize that Muslims in many parts of the world are genuinely distressed by the publication of my novel. I profoundly regret the distress that publication has occasioned to sincere followers of Islam. Living as we do in a world of many faiths, this experience has served to remind us that we must all be conscious of the sensibilities of others.”

Ignoring the apology, Khomeini repeated his death edict the next day. On Feb. 20, the International Rushdie Defense Committee was founded in London by writers, booksellers, journalists and human rights groups who decried Iranian “armed censorship.” The day after that, the European Community withdrew their heads of mission from Tehran. Iran responded in kind. The Iranian parliament soon voted to sever all relations with the UK, where law had recently been passed condemning Khomeini for incitement, and another calling for Rushdie’s safety. 

Elsewhere around the world, hell broke loose. Violent demonstrations, bomb threats, and clashes were reported in India, Germany, Thailand, Pakistan, Turkey, Australia, France, and beyond. Here in the United States, firebombs caused damage in two California bookstores. The U.S. Senate passed a resolution condemning the threats against Rushdie and his publishers, affirming its commitment to “protect the right of any person to write, publish, sell, buy and read books without fear of intimidation or violence.”

Violence continued through the spring of 1989. Muslims in Belgium were gunned down after speaking out against the fatwa on television. London bookstores were firebombed for carrying The Satanic Verses, amidst a spate of other clashes and demonstrations. Norwegian bookstores were set afire after releasing a translation of Rushdie’s book. A bookshop in Sydney was also firebombed.

That August, an adherent to Khomeini’s ideology accidentally blew himself up in his London hotel room. The Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon deemed him “the first martyr… who died while preparing to attack the apostate, Salman Rushdie.”

While Khomeini died on June 3 that year, his fatwa forced Rushdie into hiding for many years to follow. In fact, the continuity of enforcement of Khomeini’s edict cast a bright light on the Islamic Republic’s violent and intolerant ideology. It was one thing for this repressive regime to clamp down on the free speech of its own citizens. It was quite another to try and curtail the free expression of intellectuals beyond its borders.

The Iranian regime’s radical ideology has not changed in the intervening years.

If anything, it has hardened.

Intermittent attempts by Western governments to probe for signs of moderation have failed. This is the case even today. The attack on Rushdie comes amidst desperate diplomatic efforts in Vienna to encourage the regime to curb its dangerous nuclear ambitions. The regime has responded not only with this attack, but also several other plots targeting former U.S. government officials, such as former National Security Advisor John Bolton and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Iranian dissidents, such as journalist Masih Alinejad.

Doctors say that Rushdie will likely lose an eye. The nerves in his arm were severed. And his liver was damaged. Authorities are now working to determine whether the Islamic Republic ordered this attack, or whether it was merely inspired by the Khomeini edict.

In truth, this is a distinction without much difference. The illiberal and repressive regime in Iran unleashed chaos back in 1989. It continues to do so today. Whether ordered directly or inspired, these attacks on American soil must be met with resolve by our elected leaders.

This is not the time to yield billions of dollars in sanctions relief to the regime. This is the time for policies that isolate the Islamic Republic, along with warnings that violence against former officials, intellectuals and dissidents will not stand.

Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is senior vice president at Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Source: TEST FEED1

State Department alerts US citizens in Tijuana to shelter in place

The State Department alerted U.S. citizens near Tijuana, Mexico, early Saturday to shelter in place due to fires, roadblocks and police activity.

“The U.S. Consulate General Tijuana is aware of reports of multiple vehicle fires, roadblocks, and heavy police activity in Tijuana, Mexicali, Rosarito, Ensenada, and Tecate,” wrote the U.S. Consulate in Tijuana in a statement.

“U.S. government employees have been instructed to shelter in place until further notice,” it continued.

The five cities referenced in the statement are located in the Mexican state of Baja California, where gang violence erupted late Friday night and early Saturday morning, according to Tijuana Mayor Montserrat Caballero.

“Today we are saying to the organized crime groups that are committing these crimes that Tijuana is going to remain open and take care of its citizens, and we also ask them to settle their debts with those who didn’t pay what they owe, not with families and hard-working citizens,” Caballero said during a press conference.

The consulate in Tijuana asked U.S. citizens to take multiple steps to protect themselves from violence in Baja California, telling them to avoid the area, seek secure shelter, monitor local media for updates, be aware of their surroundings, and discuss their level of safety with friends and family.

San Diego County, Calif., Vice Chair Nora Vargas spoke to the situation shortly after the consulate warned of violence in northern Mexico, writing on Twitter, “I encourage our binational residents to be cautious and follow the recommendations from government officials and avoid unnecessary travel to allow authorities to do their work and maintain safety. My thoughts are with those impacted by the incidents.”

Source: TEST FEED1

NYT editorial board endorses Nadler, Maloney and Goldman in contentious primaries

The New York Times editorial board made three endorsements in New York’s contentious House primaries Saturday.

The editorial board said it would back Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) in the 12th Congressional District, Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) in the 17th Congressional District and former federal prosecutor Dan Goldman for the 10th Congressional District seat.

The editorial board endorsed Nadler over Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who is also vying for the 12th Congressional District seat after the state implemented new congressional maps this year that created several member-on-member primaries.

The newspaper cited Nadler’s vote against the Patriot Act and the Iraq War in addition to his support for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal among the reasons it supports him. They noted that Maloney did not support the 2015 deal but supported the Patriot Act and Iraq War.

“Ms. Maloney was also first elected to Congress in 1992, and she has also served her district well. Her efforts to curb predatory credit card practices resulted in important protections for consumers, and perhaps her most significant contribution is tireless work on behalf of survivors of Sept. 11 who became ill with conditions related to the attacks. Ms. Maloney, however, has a troubling history of promoting false information linking vaccines to autism,” the editorial boar said.

Nadler touted the Times editorial board endorsement on Twitter.

“I’m deeply proud to have earned the @nytimes endorsement (my hometown paper!) in the race for #NY12. I’ve been a lifelong fighter for New Yorkers—and you better believe I’m just getting started,” he said.

The Times also backed Maloney over state Sen. Alessandra Biaggi (D), both of whom are vying for the Democratic nomination in the 10th Congressional District. 

Maloney, the chair of the House Democrats’ campaign arm, notched another win earlier this week when former President Clinton announced his endorsement.

Meanwhile, Biaggi has received the endorsement of several prominent progressive Democrats and groups, including the Working Families Party and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.).

Still, the editorial board noted that it gave them “pause” to see the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) involved in efforts to boost a Trump-backed candidate in a Michigan primary who was running against Rep. Peter Meijer (R-Mich.), one of the 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach the former president. 

The DCCC’s involvement in the primary has been considered a strategy to help boost the Democratic candidate on the assumption that the Trump-backed candidate would be considered less desirable among voters, but some Republicans have criticized the move.

Meanwhile, the editorial board also endorsed Goldman over Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) in the 10th Congressional District. Jones, who serves in the 17th Congressional District, opted to run in the 10th in an effort to avoid a messy incumbent-on-incumbent primary against Maloney.

“Those who have worked with Mr. Goldman behind the scenes describe him as diligent and prepared and a person of integrity. Thanks to his work on the impeachment trial, he already has close working relationships in Washington — an advantage that should help him deliver on the issues most important to New Yorkers, even as a new member of Congress. That includes abortion rights, which he has made clear he will passionately defend,” the editorial board wrote.

The Times editorial board announcement was also touted by Goldman’s campaign on Twitter.

“This is a five alarm fire and the NYT know Dan Goldman is the clear choice in NY10. 10 days,” the campaign tweeted.

The New York House primaries are scheduled for Aug. 23. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Suspect charged with second-degree attempted murder in connection to Rushdie attack

A New York district attorney announced on Saturday that a suspect has been charged in connection with the stabbing attack on author Salman Rushdie at an event in western New York.

Chautauqua County District Attorney Jason Schmidt said in a statement that 24-year-old Hadi Matar from Fairview, N.J., was charged with second-degree assault and second-degree attempted murder for allegedly attacking the author, according to The Buffalo News.

He is currently being held in jail without bail, according to The Guardian. Schmidt also noted that authorities were executing a search warrant regarding the matter.

Schmidt’s announcement comes one day after Rushdie and a moderator were attacked during a lecture event. The moderator suffered a facial injury, but Rushdie’s injuries are more serious, according to The Associated Press.

Rushdie’s agent said that the author was placed on a ventilator and was at risk of losing an eye while also sustaining major injuries to his arm and liver.

It is unclear at this time what motivated the attack.

Rushdie, born in Mumbai, India, caused global controversy with his work “The Satanic Verses” published in the late 1980s. The work is considered blasphemous by many Muslims.

Specifically, the book drew ire from former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who in 1989 issued a fatwa ordering Muslims to kill Rushdie.

The recent attack against Rushdie was condemned by top officials around the world.

“Today, the country and the world witnessed a reprehensible attack against the writer Salman Rushdie. This act of violence is appalling. All of us in the Biden-Harris Administration are praying for his speedy recovery,” White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan said in a statement late Friday.

“For 33 years, Salman Rushdie has embodied freedom and the fight against obscurantism. He has just been the victim of a cowardly attack by the forces of hatred and barbarism. His fight is our fight; it is universal. Now more than ever, we stand by his side,” French President Emmanuel Macron tweeted.

The Hill has reached out to Schmidt’s office and the Chautauqua County Public Defender’s Office for comment. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Literacy is an economic growth engine – will we seize it?

Everywhere in our economy, there are shortages – in skills, workers and opportunities. Employers say they can’t find the workers they need. And yet, tens of millions of workers are stuck in low-wage, low-growth jobs, with limited economic potential and little opportunity to pursue the American dream.

Some say the only answer is more robots, self-serve kiosks and other technology to replace the workers employers say they can’t find.

There is a better option — and one that we should all get behind: helping roughly 130 million Americans develop the literacy skills they need to apply for and fill those available jobs.  

These are the overlooked and often underserved American adults who struggle with low literacy. While they can read basic words and sentences, anything complex — this opinion piece, for example — is too challenging for them.

Even basic forms and job applications are a challenge for them. COVID-related health advisories and hospital forms leave them confused about what to do and how to stay safe. They have a hard time reading an election ballot, reviewing teachers’ notices from their kids’ school, or writing a basic email.

These Americans are not hopeless. They are often hard-working, holding down multiple jobs — just not well-paying ones. The average annual income of an adult with what’s called Level 0 or Level 1 proficiency is just over $34,000 — equivalent to earning the minimum wage. If they move up to Level 2 proficiency — still below basic literacy — their average income rises to $48,000. At Level 3 proficiency — which is the minimum level required in our society — their average income rises to $63,000.

And it’s not just what they could earn that matters. When someone can read better, they have more options in life. Someone stocking shelves in a warehouse today could be reviewing and inputting inventory — a bigger responsibility. A hospital staffer who lifts patients out of their beds today could be part of their clinical team, working with doctors and nurses. A mom who can’t help her kids with their homework today could be reviewing college applications and scholarship requirements. There is dignity in all work, but there is something special about reaching our potential and gaining new responsibilities — and that’s only possible with literacy.

What’s more, increased literacy will boost our economy and global competitiveness. A Gallup study commissioned by the Barbara Bush Foundation showed that getting all adults to Level 3 literacy would generate an additional $2.2 trillion in annual economic activity — a 10 percent boost that is equivalent to Italy’s entire economy.

Literacy isn’t just about words and sentences: It’s about opportunity. It’s about closing economic and social gaps. And it’s about the communities so often left behind. The states and regions hardest hit by low literacy are Southern states, metro areas and notably, communities with significant or majority African American and Hispanic American neighborhoods.

Addressing this national challenge can’t be the work of one foundation and a few committed individuals. We need a broader coalition of willing employers, corporations, philanthropists and others to step up and promote literacy programs that work.

We start by recognizing that for many Americans, literacy is not a given. If you grow up in a home where reading is rare and books even rarer, the path to literacy is difficult. The good news is that today’s digital platforms have the power to erase the barriers of yesterday, helping families learn anytime, anywhere.

Mobile apps can deliver learning in short, convenient lessons. Even a subway or bus can become a classroom when someone takes 10 minutes of their commute to learn on their mobile phone. Artificial intelligence tools that turn learning into a game can make reading lessons more personalized, fun and engaging — encouraging parents and kids alike to learn together. The possibilities are endless if we all commit to investing in adult literacy — both a preventative and a responsive accelerant for our economic recovery.

What matters is commitment, and that often starts by recognizing the nature of the challenge. This is bigger than the challenge of finding workers for a few companies. This is a national emergency: roughly 54 percent of Americans earn and do less than they could and should because they simply can’t read at a basic level.

Just as great is the opportunity. Unleashing the full potential of those 130 million citizens and empowering them to pursue their American dream would be an economic bonanza unlike anything we have seen in our lifetimes. We would go from a skills shortage to a talent surplus, and a boom in the earnings and productivity of our country’s most untapped resource: the American people.  

British A. Robinson is the president and CEO of the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. Mike Rogers is the founder of Leadership to Ensure the American Dream (LEAD), and a former U.S. representative from Michigan. Along with his wife, Kristi Rogers, Mike is also co-chair of the Barbara Bush Foundation’s 2023 National Celebration of Reading.

Source: TEST FEED1

Orbán dazzles US conservatives — what do they see in him?

The Conservative Political Action Conference, known commonly as CPAC, recently met in Dallas with former President Donald Trump as the headliner. Speaking alongside Trump on the program is the U.S. conservative movement’s favorite foreign leader, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán of Hungary.

What do American conservatives see in Orbán? Why would the leader of a country the size of Indiana with a population less than New York City have such an outsized effect on the Trump-wing of the Republican Party?

Orbán is proof of concept that a proudly un-woke leader can repeatedly win elections by leading with illiberalism.  Over the 12 years, Orbán has been in power — extended for four years with his reelection in April 2022 — Orbán has set off culture wars. From demonizing Hungarian-American George Soros with dog-whistled anti-Semitism to fighting immigration as a global plot to mix races to campaigning against gender fluidity and LGBTIQ equality, Orbán has been the bad boy of Europe, seemingly enjoying the discomfort of European leaders whose values he attacks. Most recently, he generated controversy by using Nazi terminology to refer to those who are not Christian Europeans as belonging to completely different species.

Behind the culture wars façade, however, lies another threat to democracy, one that CPAC’s leaders may value even more than Orbán’s anti-wokeness. Orbán has demonstrated how to translate roughly one-third support in the polls into overwhelming election triumphs by designing election rules to guarantee victory. Orbán provides proof of concept that elections are won or lost by rigging the rules at least as much as they are won or lost on actual voter support.

One of Orbán’s first acts as prime minister in 2010 was to cut the size of the Parliament in half. Halving the Parliament allowed Orbán to redraw all of the districts and create a “wild gerrymander” that ensured that his party would win the vast majority of the districts for years to come. Of course, gerrymandering was invented in the U.S., but Orbán has exploited it to extremes. 

When it looked like his power was slipping, Orbán changed the rules again so that splintered opposition parties could only win by combining forces into a single coalition against him — a strange-bedfellows assemblage that couldn’t agree on a message but that weakened each of the parties individually. When the opposition persisted anyhow, Orbán changed the rules again so that he could move his voters anywhere in the country to shore up close districts with an influx of support.

During this time, Orbán controlled the media environment so that the opposition found it nearly impossible to get its message out. In addition, Orbán understood that packing the courts blocks challenges. As the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) election observers diplomatically noted about Hungary’s April election, legal challenges to election infractions “fell short of providing effective legal remedy.”

Like Orbán, Trump can claim a little over one-third of the voters as a solid base while a party-controlled media empire blasts out his messages. Getting to a victorious plurality on election day relies on a combination of anti-majoritarian sleights of hand and training the party media on the opposition like a weapon.

The election system is very different in the U.S. than it is in Hungary, so Orbán’s innovations must be tweaked to travel. But the principle that elections can be won by clever lawyering has clearly caught on among Republicans and some of Orbán’s innovations have migrated. Republicans are already racing to rewrite the rules.

The U.S. Constitution establishes an Electoral College, which provides many opportunities for mischief as we saw in the last election when Trump’s lawyers tried to generate confusion over the choice of electors that handed President Jos Biden his victory. This confusion was manufactured by their edgy readings of the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act to favor Trump’s cause. It almost worked. 

Now, Republicans are advocating a once-fringe interpretation of the Constitution that gives to “state legislatures” the power to design federal election rules. According to the “independent state legislature theory,” neither governors nor state courts can intervene in this process.

Republicans have for years wildly gerrymandered state legislative districts to produce overwhelming Republican majorities in close-call swing states but they are less likely to control governors and courts. The new theory cuts these wild cards out of the Republican rules-writing loop. The now conservative-packed federal Supreme Court’s acceptance of this theory in a case they have agreed to decide next term will allow federal election rules to be written reliably by the party faithful, just as Orbán’s pliant parliament and packed courts allowed Orbán to design an election system that guaranteed he would never lose.

Orbán provides a formula for the permanent power of a minority party. Lead with culture wars to fire up the base. Discredit opponents through party-controlled media. Engineer the election rules by controlling their design.  Orbán has demonstrated that this playbook works — and the Republicans are paying attention.     

Kim Lane Scheppele is Laurance S. Rockefeller professor of sociology and international affairs in the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs and the University Center for Human Values.

Source: TEST FEED1

Dick Cheney diminishes himself to attack Trump

If his daughter Liz were not in the middle of a rhetorical steel-cage death match against Donald Trump, would the Dick Cheney of old — say, the one who watched in dismay as the alleged politicization of charges and sentencing played out against his former chief of staff, Irve Lewis “Scooter” Libby, who Trump pardoned in 2018 — have joined with former Vice President Mike Pence, a growing list of Republicans, some Democrats, and constitutional law experts in condemning or questioning the FBI search on Trump’s Florida home? 

Maybe, but now we will never know. Dick Cheney has gone all in against Trump. 

As a clearly loving and protective father of both of his daughters, Cheney has every right to ride to their rescue in time of need. That said, his over-the-top defense of Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) should be questioned. 

Liz Cheney is the clear underdog in this coming Tuesday’s primary against Republican Harriet Hagerman in Wyoming. Hagerman has the full — and still powerful — backing of Trump. That’s because Liz Cheney voted to impeach the former president over the Jan. 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol and sits on the House select committee investigating the events of that day.

To say there is no love lost between her and Trump would be an understatement. But aside from Trump’s personal animosity against her, there are a number of Republican voters in Wyoming — and a great many more around the nation — who have lost faith in Ms. Cheney and believe she has become a card-carrying member of the greater D.C. swamp.

Now that she is trailing her Republican opponent by more than 20 points, Liz Cheney has reached out to her father for help in what may be a lost cause. Again, Dick Cheney should try to speak out on behalf of his daughter — what parent would not? Yet, instead of talking about the positives of her service in the U.S. House, the former vice president and former Defense secretary chose to travel down the same low road that many other Trump critics have taken.

In a political ad in support of his daughter’s reelection campaign, Cheney said: “In our nation’s 246-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump. He tried to steal the last election using lies and violence to keep himself in power after the voters had rejected him. He is a coward. A real man wouldn’t lie to his supporters. He lost his election, and he lost big. I know it, he knows it, and deep down I think most Republicans know it.”

Really? There is hyperbole, and then there is just desperate nonsense.

Cheney is fully within his rights to despise Trump. But as he fires off his superheated rhetoric to defend his daughter, he may want to reexamine that line, “In our nation’s 246-year history, there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic,” and review the actions of, say, Benedict Arnold, John Walker Jr., Robert Hanssen, the Rosenbergs, Aldrich Ames — or even, more recently, George Soros and the woke prosecutors he funds.    

Next, let’s examine Cheney’s line that Trump “lost his election, and he lost it big.” Surely Cheney knows better than that. First, it is not factually accurate. And second, he himself was in a highly contested recount as the running mate in 2000 with George W. Bush.

As Cheney knows, Trump lost Georgia, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada by a total of about 60,000 votes — states with a combined electoral vote count of 43. Obviously, had Trump won those states, he would have been reelected president. And, nearly three years after Joe Biden’s election, many still contend there were voting irregularities in a number of contested states.   

When he was Bush’s running mate, Cheney demanded that every vote in Florida be lawful and accurate. It’s the same standard that Trump invoked in 2020, when he actually grew his national vote total by almost 12 million over his 2016 numbers.

Finally, we have Cheney labeling Trump “a coward” who is not “a real man.” Some may recall that Cheney was often called “a coward” by many on the left — and some on the right — for his artful dodging of military service during the Vietnam War, so one would think he might want to avoid that particular insult. 

But, no. As we have seen with some of Trump’s Republican primary opponents, as well as a legion of Democratic politicians, members of the media and Hollywood celebrities, Trump’s very existence seems to bring out the absolute worst in folks.

Ever since Trump announced his candidacy for president in 2015, a number of seemingly intelligent and accomplished Americans have become unhinged in ways that ultimately have reflected poorly upon them.

Dick Cheney is right to defend his daughter but, in doing so, he added his name to the long list of people who choose to attack Trump with sophomoric, playground insults rather than to take the high road and argue merits.  

Douglas MacKinnon, a political and communications consultant, was a writer in the White House for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, and former special assistant for policy and communications at the Pentagon during the last three years of the Bush administration.

Source: TEST FEED1

Parents tased outside of Arizona school that went into lockdown: police

Several parents were tased outside of a school in Arizona on Friday while it was under lockdown, police said.

The El Mirage Police Department said in a statement on Facebook that Thompson Ranch Elementary School was placed on lockdown following a report that a male had tried to enter the school around 10:30 a.m. with a firearm.

“School staff contacted law enforcement and immediately implemented lockdown protocol,” the post read.

Police said that as law enforcement arrived, the suspect with the gun fled the premises. During the lockdown, officers began clearing the campus of any threats. A package had arrived on the scene, but it was deemed safe by explosives technicians.

“As officers continued to work on clearing the campus, parents began to arrive on [site] at the school.  Several attempted to force entry into the buildings past officers. It was at this time that a male began an altercation with officers. Two other individuals joined in the altercation,” police wrote.

“Officers deployed Tasers, taking the three into custody.  One person taken into custody was in possession of a handgun.”

Police said that the male subject who had initially tried to enter the school with the firearm was eventually found by law enforcement and detained. 

“He is currently being evaluated by mental health professionals, and criminal charges are pending,” police said.

The identities of the parents who were tased were not immediately clear. NBC News reported two of three parents, which included two men and one woman, were tased and all three were arrested. 

El Mirage police Lt. Jimmy Chavez said one of parents who was tased was brought to the hospital to be treated for injuries, according to the network.

The Hill has reached out to El Mirage police and Dysart Unified School District for further information. 

Source: TEST FEED1