CLOSE

Tough, new abortion laws in Alabama and several other states face legal battles in court… and that’s the point. We explain how they take aim at Roe v. Wade.
Just the FAQs, USA TODAY

U.S. District Judge Carlton Reeves on Tuesday asked pointed questions about Mississippi’s law that bans abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, at approximately six weeks of pregnancy. 

In 2018, Reeves was the judge who struck down a 15-week abortion ban.

“Doesn’t it boil down to six is less than 15?” Reeves asked, adding that the new law “smacks of defiance to this court.”

In his prior decision, Reeves wrote that “Mississippi’s law violates Supreme Court precedent, and in doing so it disregards the 14th Amendment guarantee of autonomy for women desiring to control their own reproductive health.”

Gov. Phil Bryant signed the bill into law in March and it’s set to take effect July 1 if it’s not blocked. The bill makes no exceptions for women who are victims of rape or incest. 

“So a child who is raped at 10 or 11 years old, that child does not open their mouth, doesn’t tell their parents, the rapist may be in their home, nobody discovers until it’s too late — that is a fetal heartbeat has been detected — that child must bring the fetus to term under this statute, if the fetal heartbeat can be detected,” Reeves said.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the legal challenge on behalf of Jackson Women’s Health Organization (JWHO), the state’s last remaining abortion clinic, which does not perform abortions after 16 weeks.

Hillary Schneller, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said Mississippi’s heartbeat law is “blatantly unconstitutional” and likely won’t survive a federal court challenge.

“It’s critical to remind people that none of these bans have taken effect and we don’t expect any of them to take effect,” Schneller told USA TODAY. “Every person deserves access to abortion no matter what state they live in.”

Opponents say the six-week bans, or heartbeat bills, are similar to total abortion bans because many women don’t know they are pregnant at six weeks.

Three other states — Georgia, Ohio and Kentucky — have enacted heartbeat bills this year. A Kentucky judge temporarily blocked the state’s bill in March saying the American Civil Liberties Union’s claim that it was unconstitutional would likely succeed in court. 

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit last week challenging Ohio’s law, seeking an order to stop it from taking effect July 10. The ACLU has said it plans to challenge Georgia’s heartbeat bill before it takes effect in January. 

Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said Georgia’s law is likely to also get struck down. 

“While there is some question whether the Supreme Court would overturn (Roe v. Wade),” Dalven said. “The federal district courts have no power to disregard the (unconstitutionality of abortion bans) even if they don’t like it.”

At least 17 states nationwide are considering or have passed laws this year that restrict abortion rights. 

MAP: Where is abortion legal? Everywhere. But …

Last week, Alabama enacted the most extreme abortion ban the country has seen since the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. The law only allows abortion if the mother or fetus’ lives are in danger and mandates prison time for doctors who perform the procedure. 

Emboldened by a new conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, Republican lawmakers say they are passing anti-abortion bills in an attempt to get Roe v. Wade overturned.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has 26 active lawsuits challenging anti-abortion bills across the country. Schneller said the Center and partnering organizations vow to challenge any law that strips women of their rights to an abortion. 

Contributing: Sarah Fowler, Mississippi Clarion-Ledger

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2019/05/21/mississippi-abortion-law-fetal-heartbeat-bill-six-weeks-district-judge-roe-v-wade/3740436002/

The top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee vowed Tuesday to go to court if necessary to seek former White House Counsel Don McGahn’s testimony, after he defied a subpoena and skipped a committee hearing at President Trump’s direction.

The move infuriated Democrats and touched off what could be another high-profile battle over holding a Trump official in contempt of Congress.

“Let me be clear, this committee will hear Mr. McGahn’s testimony, even if we have to go to court to secure it,” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y, said at the beginning of the hearing which McGahn did not attend.

MCGAHN CONFIRMS HE WILL SKIP HOUSE HEARING, AS DOJ ASSERTS ‘IMMUNITY’ 

Accusing Trump of witness intimidation, Nadler added, “When this committee issues a subpoena, even to a senior presidential adviser, the witness must show up. Our subpoenas are not optional.”

While he did not specifically mention contempt, Nadler told CNN on Monday night that lawmakers would pursue that route.

A day earlier, the president directed McGahn to not appear for the committee hearing, citing a Justice Department opinion that he cannot be compelled to testify about his official duties.

“In short, the president took it upon himself to intimidate a witness who has a legal obligation to be here today,” Nadler said. “This conduct is not remotely acceptable.”

But Georgia Rep. Doug Collins, the ranking member on the committee, responded to Nadler’s remarks by accusing Democrats of political theatrics, saying they are “trying desperately to make something out of nothing.”

“I cannot emphasize this enough — the chairman’s track record demonstrates he does not actually want information,” Collins said. “He wants the fight, but not the truth.”

Earlier this month, House Democrats opted to question an empty chair — alongside a prop chicken — when Attorney General Bill Barr failed to appear citing Democrats’ unusual demands.

In a statement released Monday afternoon, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders blasted Democrats for continuing to pursue Trump investigations, saying they want a “wasteful and unnecessary do-over” in the wake of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s probe — and describing the subpoena for McGahn as part of that.

The related DOJ memo said McGahn, like other senior advisers to a president, has “immunity” from being compelled to testify about his official duties.

“This immunity applies to the former White House Counsel. Accordingly, Mr. McGahn is not legally required to appear and testify about matters related to his official duties as Counsel to the President,” the memo said.

The committee announced the hearing last week, but it was initially unclear whether McGahn would appear due to the ongoing battle between congressional Democrats and the White House over his testimony.

The committee, led by Nadler, subpoenaed McGahn on April 22, days after the release of Mueller’s report, which featured McGahn prominently in its section related to the obstruction of justice inquiry. This included a claim that McGahn disobeyed Trump’s call to have him seek Mueller’s removal.

The report also revealed that when the media reported on the president’s request, the president directed White House officials “to tell McGahn to dispute the story and create a record stating he had not been ordered to have the special counsel removed.” He did not.

The House committee’s subpoena, coming amid a fight over access to the unredacted Mueller report, called for McGahn to appear before the panel to testify and provide documents related to the Mueller investigation.

The battle over McGahn’s testimony is just one front in the clash between the White House and congressional Democrats.

Earlier this month, the committee voted to hold Barr in contempt for defying a subpoena for Mueller’s full and unredacted report, as well as underlying evidence and documents used in the investigation.

Trump, prior to the vote, asserted executive privilege over the materials in a bid to protect them from being turned over to the committee. The full House has yet to take a final vote on whether to hold Barr in contempt of Congress.

Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/democrats-fume-after-mcgahn-skips-house-hearing-our-subpoenas-are-not-optional

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi could soon be left with no choice but to embrace calls from some within her party to impeach President Trump, one senior Democrat told Fox News.

The Senior House Democrat — speaking on the condition of anonymity — said, despite Pelosi’s repeated attempt to quell talk of impeaching the president, “isn’t going to be able to hold off on impeachment much longer.”

“It is coming to a head,” the Democrat told Fox News, before predicting the mounting pressure from inside her own ranks could force Pelosi to change her position “within the next two weeks.”

The Democrat argued that “the vast majority of us are for impeachment.” Fox News was told there was a hearty debate in the Democratic Steering Committee today about impeachment.

CALL FOR TRUMP IMPEACHMENT DRAWS EQUAL PARTS PRAISE AND DISDAIN

Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., who runs the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee, an arm of the Democratic leadership, is now calling for impeachment.

Cicilline told Fox News there is a “tremendous level of frustration” behind the growing impeachment efforts, adding that he believes Trump is “behaving as though he is above the law and he is not.”

However, he would not be drawn on criticizing Pelosi’s effort to avoid impeachment, saying instead: “Our Speaker is our Speaker, elected by our colleagues and we have a Caucus where we share our views… I think the Speaker is very responsive to the caucus and she’ll make judgments based on where the caucus is .”

Cicilline said Monday it is time for impeachment inquiries to be opened if former White House Counsel Don McGahn is a no-show to Tuesday’s scheduled congressional hearing.

LIBERAL BILLIONAIRE TOM STEYER SCOLDS DEMS FOR NOT IMPEACHING TRUMP IN SCATHING AD

The Rhode Island Democrat appeared on MSNBC and offered his reaction that the White House is instructing McGahn to refuse to comply with a subpoena to appear on Capitol Hill and the assurance from the Department of Justice that McGahn has “immunity” which does not legally require him to testify before Congress, something Cicilline believed was “legally incorrect.”

“Let me be clear; if Don McGahn doesn’t testify, it is time to open an impeachment inquiry,” Cicilline said. “The president has engaged in an ongoing effort to impede our ability to find the truth, to collect evidence, to do our work, and this is preventing us really from ultimately finding the facts and doing our work in terms of oversight.

McGahn has confirmed he will skip the House hearing after President Trump directed him to do so earlier on Monday.

This declaration from Cicilline was welcomed by his freshman colleague, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich, who has been vocal with her calls to impeach President Trump.

PELOSI: TRUMP ‘IS GOADING US TO IMPEACH HIM’

Liberal billionaire activist Tom Steyer also ramped up pressure on House Democrats to impeach President Trump, releasing a scathing ad slamming the party for balking at the idea.

Steyer has been a leading advocate for beginning the impeachment proceedings against Trump, spending tens of millions on TV ads and other measures to rally the support for the drastic course of action.

But the latest ad, titled “Nothing Happened,” appears to be the most unambiguous attack on Democratic lawmakers for failing to impeach the president, assailing the party for being passive.

Democratic leadership has balked at the idea of impeaching Trump, with Pelosi dismissing the efforts by certain Democrats.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“I’m not for impeachment,” Pelosi told the Washington Post last month. “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

A number of 2020 presidential hopefuls are also in support of such proceedings, including Sens. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nancy-pelosi-impeachment-trump-democrats

Oprah Winfrey responded Monday to an Instagram user who called out the billionaire mogul for not paying off student loans after her commencement speech at Colorado College, in an apparent comparison to investor Robert Smith’s now-famous gesture at Morehouse College.

The Queen of Talk was told that she “should have paid off their student debt,” and swiftly responded, pointing out her multimillion-dollar donations through the years to help university students.

Following her commencement address at Colorado College Sunday, Winfrey posted a photo of herself and a graduate on Instagram, writing “I don’t know who this guy is but he sure is happy to graduate! I shook hands with all 571 members of @coloradocollege’s Class of 2019 and gave them a copy of The Path Made Clear.”

OPRAH WINFREY SURPRISES NEW JERSEY HIGH SCHOOL WITH $500,000 GIFT

One Instagram user said that instead of giving graduates her latest book, she “should have paid off their student debt.” The comment came after billionaire Robert Smith surprised the Morehouse College graduating class during his commencement address the same day by vowing to pay off the student loans for all 396 graduates.

Smith, the Vista Equity Partners founder who became the wealthiest black man in the U.S., announced that his family will establish a grant estimated to be worth $40 million to benefit students.

Winfrey responded to the comment by explaining that she “already paid 13 m in scholarships. Have put over 400 men thru @morehouse1867.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Her contribution created a fund that has grown to $12 million and has awarded scholarships to more than 400 men. Winfrey is one of Morehouse College’s top donors in the intuition’s history.

During the final episode of the “Oprah Winfrey Show,” some of the men who received scholarships from Winfrey’s fund surprised her by making a $300,000 contribution to Morehouse College, something they could afford after developing successful careers in finance, medicine and law.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/oprah-winfrey-college-donations-instagram-paid-off-students-debt-robert-smith

The House Intelligence Committee voted Monday evening to release transcripts of Michael Cohen’s closed-door testimony before the panel in February and March.

“The public should judge for themselves both the evidence released today in conjunction with Cohen’s testimony related to Trump, his troubling relationship with Russia, and the efforts by Trump and those close to him to hide the relationship and potential business deals,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., said in a statement. “The public also deserves the chance to judge Cohen’s credibility for themselves, including by examining some of the evidence he provided.”

The vote to make the transcripts public had a 12-7 margin.

The ranking member, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., reportedly walked out of the meeting and said to reporters: “You guys are sad, sad, sad.”

Cohen, President Trump’s former personal attorney, told the committee that Trump attorney Jay Sekulow instructed him to lie to lawmakers in 2017 about when negotiations to erect a Trump Tower in Moscow had ended. Cohen said Sekulow ordered him to tell lawmakers in 2017 that discussions about the project ended by Jan. 31, 2016, ahead of the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses. Cohen later admitted negotiations lasted until June 2016.

Sekulow’s legal team attacked Cohen’s credibility, arguing he has a long history of deception. “That this or any Committee would rely on the word of Michael Cohen for any purpose — much less to try and pierce the attorney-client privilege and discover confidential communications of four respected lawyers — defies logic, well-established law, and common sense,” they said.

Cohen pleaded guilty in November to “knowingly and willfully” making “a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement and representation” to the House and Senate Intelligence panels about a Trump Tower in Moscow. He is serving is serving three years in prison for lying to Congress, campaign finance violations, and tax and bank fraud.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house-intelligence-panel-releases-michael-cohen-transcripts

Last week, we saw a spate of articles, tweets, and opinion pieces making the case that national security adviser John Bolton was manipulating President Trump into a war with Iran.

The arguments were basically that Bolton was eager for war, which Trump opposed, but Bolton is pushing him into making decisions that are escalating tensions and that could then lead to war.

The narrative of a split between Trump and Bolton — and all the stories about “President Bolton” wielding the real power — portrayed a president unwittingly being pushed into policy decisions that cut against what he actually wants.

But it’s hard to reconcile that view with Trump’s latest tweet on Iran:

Trump certainly hasn’t gone far enough in dismantling the Iran deal as many hawks, such as Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would like. But he did exit the deal, reimpose many sanctions, and designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. The groundwork for many of these decisions was laid before Bolton joined the administration. Bolton’s views toward Iran were not exactly a secret when he was tapped by Trump, and he isn’t exactly the person you’d pick in a key national security role if your goal is detente with Iran.

This isn’t to say there is no daylight between the two, but it isn’t as if Bolton is running some sort of rogue foreign policy operation.

All of this said, there are many stages between where we are now and war, which is still more unlikely than likely.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/so-maybe-trump-and-john-bolton-arent-so-far-apart-on-iran-after-all

(Reuters) – A U.S. judge on Monday ruled in favor of a U.S. House of Representatives committee seeking President Donald Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm, dealing an early setback to the Trump administration in its legal battle with Congress.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington also denied a request by Trump to stay his decision pending an appeal.

Last Tuesday Mehta heard oral arguments on whether Mazars LLP must comply with a House of Representatives Oversight Committee subpoena.

Mehta said in Monday’s ruling that the committee “has shown that it is not engaged in a pure fishing expedition for the President’s financial records” and that the Mazars documents might assist Congress in passing laws and performing other core functions.

It was the first time a federal court had waded into the tussle about how far Congress can go in probing Trump and his business affairs.

Trump is refusing to cooperate with a series of investigations on issues ranging from his tax returns and policy decisions to his Washington hotel and his children’s security clearances.

Trump’s lawyers argued that Congress is on a quest to “turn up something that Democrats can use as a political tool against the president now and in the 2020 election.”

Mehta’s ruling will almost certainly be appealed to a higher court.

The House Oversight Committee claims sweeping investigative power and says it needs Trump’s financial records to examine whether he has conflicts of interest or broke the law by not disentangling himself from his business holdings, as previous presidents did.

Lawyers for Trump and the Trump Organization, his company, last month filed a lawsuit to block the committee’s subpoena, saying it exceeded Congress’ constitutional limits.

Mehta was appointed in 2014 by Democratic former President Barack Obama, who was often investigated by Republicans in Congress during his two terms in office.

Mazars has avoided taking sides in the dispute and said it will “comply with all legal obligations.”

Scott Walker, former governor of Wisconsin, center, waves during a rally with U.S. President Donald Trump in Green Bay, Wisconsin, U.S., on Saturday, April 27, 2019. Trump on Saturday night revved up his campaign pitch to voters in key Rust Belt states by touting the U.S. economy, saying he’s working to stop jobs from moving to neighboring countries, and mocking his Democratic opponents. Photographer: Lauren Justice/Bloomberg via Getty Images




Source Article from https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/05/20/trump-loses-lawsuit-challenging-call-for-financial-records/23731229/

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, accused the White House of “intimidating” former White House Counselor Don McGahn from testifying on Capitol Hill and said it was becoming “more and more difficult” to not consider President Trump‘s impeachment on Monday night.

Nadler told CNN anchor Chris Cuomo that his committee will hold McGahn “in contempt” for not complying with the subpoena and will take the battle to court.

“You are dealing with a lawless president who is willing to go to any lengths to prevent testimony that might implicate him, that does implicate him,” Nadler said.

Nadler expressed that Trump’s “lawless behavior” in his administration’s continuous blocking of requested documents and testimonies is making it “more and more difficult” not to consider impeachment.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“The recalcitrance of the President and his lawless behavior is making it more and more difficult to ignore all alternatives including impeachment,” Nadler told Cuomo. “The president cannot be above the law, no more than anyone else can.”

Earlier on Monday, House Judiciary Committee member Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., vowed to push for an impeachment inquiry if McGahn did not testify on Tuesday.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/house-judiciary-chairman-nadler-trump-is-making-it-more-difficult-not-to-consider-impeachment

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s accounting firm must turn over his financial records to Congress, a Federal District Court judge ruled on Monday, rejecting his legal team’s argument that lawmakers had no legitimate power to subpoena the files.

But Mr. Trump vowed that his legal team would appeal rather than permit the firm, Mazars USA, to comply with the subpoena and the ruling, so the legal fight is far from over.

The ruling by the judge, Amit P. Mehta of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, was an early judicial test of the president’s vow to systematically stonewall “all” subpoenas by House Democrats, stymieing their ability to perform oversight of Mr. Trump and the executive branch after winning control of the chamber in last year’s midterm elections.

[Read the ruling.]

Mr. Trump’s legal team, led by William S. Consovoy, had argued that the House Committee on Oversight and Reform had no legitimate legislative purpose in seeking Mr. Trump’s financial records and was just trying to dig up dirt — like finding out whether the president broke any laws — for political reasons, so the subpoena exceeded its constitutional authority.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/us/politics/trump-financial-records.html

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/congress-can-t-compel-don-mcgahn-testify-about-mueller-report-n1007851

New York Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez weighed in on billionaire Robert F. Smith’s offer to pay off the student loan debt of the entire graduating class at Morehouse College, saying that while she applauded the gesture, college students shouldn’t be forced to rely on the generosity of others.

“It’s important to note that people shouldn’t be in a situation where they depend on a stranger’s enormous act of charity for this kind of liberation to begin with (aka college should be affordable), but it is an incredible act of community investment in this system as it is,” she tweeted Sunday.

Smith, a billionaire investor who founded Vista Equity Partners, made the surprise announcement during the historically black college’s 135th commencement service.

“We’re going to put a little fuel in your bus,” Smith told the graduates. “This is my class, 2019. And my family is making a grant to eliminate their student loans.”

CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP

The extraordinary move comes as calls grow about the mounting burden of student loan debt across the country.

“Every Morehouse Class of 2019 student is getting their student debt load paid off by their commencement speaker,” the freshman lawmaker said. “This could be the start of what’s known in Econ as a ‘natural experiment.’ Follow these students & compare their life choices w their peers over the next 10-15 years.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ocasio-cortez-applauds-morehouse-college-billionaire

Pete Buttigieg is articulate, intelligent, and, at least on the surface, looking to reach across the aisle.

He has traveled the country during his campaign, saying things such as “freedom does not belong to one political party,” and “security is not a Left or Right issue.” So it’s not exactly surprising that the media narrative surrounding Buttigieg’s insurgent presidential campaign has painted him as a moderate Democrat, a fresh but relatively safe alternative to the radicalism offered by candidates such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.

It’s too bad this narrative is a sham. On Thursday, Buttigieg finally updated his campaign website with a policy platform, and his issues page reads like a socialist’s Christmas list, betraying his image as a supposed moderate.

On healthcare, for example, Buttigieg is hardly any less radical than the other Democratic candidates. He all but endorses Sanders’ “Medicare for All” plan, which would require more than doubling federal income and corporate tax revenues to be affordable and abolish all private health insurance. Yet in his usual veneer of moderation, Buttigieg masks his support for socialized healthcare by calling for a Medicare buy-in, a public option that would, in his words, just be “a pathway to Medicare for All.”

Buttigieg also goes all in on a federal $15 minimum wage, even dubbing it a “security” issue. This means that just like many of the other Democratic candidates, he wants the federal government to nearly double the minimum wage, with little concern for how this would hurt small businesses, lead to layoffs, and usher in automation. That’s not exactly economic moderation.

Still, one area where Buttigieg’s supporters cling to his supposed moderation is that, unlike many other 2020 candidates, he has rejected the idea of “free college for all.” Yet when you look at the actual higher education plan the South Bend, Ind., mayor rolls out on his website, it isn’t so moderate after all.

He calls for “massive government investment in higher education to make public tuition affordable for all and completely free at lower incomes” — saying that even middle-income families should pay zero in tuition. Are we supposed to believe that asking most people to pay nothing for a degree that increases their lifetime earnings by $1 million is a moderate position?

Buttigieg’s radicalism extends to the realm of social issues. Most people would agree with him that the wealth gap between whites and African Americans is concerning. Yet only one in four Americans is on board with the idea of race-based reparations, and his platform calls for a “commission to propose reparations policies.”

Buttigieg flirts with an all-out endorsement of the outlandish idea that modern-day Americans should pay for crimes committed centuries ago. Based on his embrace of this radical, race-based policy, it’s fair to say that Buttigieg is just as addicted to identity politics as the rest of the Democratic Party’s far-left members.

In fact, Buttigieg has a lot in common with Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., the far-left freshman who has become the millennial Left’s new hero. Ocasio-Cortez’s signature proposal is the so-called Green New Deal, which would cost up to $93 trillion and involve the biggest expansion of government spending in nearly 100 years. Yet for all his supposed moderation, Buttigieg is on board with this far-left fantasy, at least in concept. He promises in his platform to “implement a Green New Deal” and “build a 100% clean energy society.”

As if his policy radicalism weren’t enough, Buttigieg also wants to radically reshape the American political system. He’s called for packing the Supreme Court with more justices, and even a constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College.

Add in his support for third-term abortion, and Buttigieg’s radicalism is laid bare. Let’s just hope that, come 2020, voters can look past the media narrative and see Buttigieg as the far-left candidate he really is.

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is an editor at Young Voices.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/pete-buttigieg-outs-himself-as-a-fake-moderate

We’ve detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you’re not a robot.

Source Article from https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-05-20/trump-plan-to-lower-imports-risks-lowering-consumption-instead

“It could be an enormously significant impact,” Mr. Revesz said.

The Obama administration had sought to reduce planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Power Plan by pushing utilities to switch away from coal and instead use natural gas or renewable energy to generate electricity. The Obama plan would also have what’s known as a co-benefit: levels of fine particulate matter would fall.

The Trump administration has moved to repeal the Obama-era plan and replace it with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which would slightly improve the efficiency of coal plants. It would also allow older coal plants to remain in operation longer and result in an increase of particulate matter.

Particulate matter comes in various sizes. The greatest health risk comes from what is known as PM 2.5, the range of fine particles that are less than 2.5 microns in diameter. That is about one-thirtieth the width of a human hair.

The E.P.A. has set the safety threshold for PM 2.5 at a yearly average of 12 micrograms per cubic meter. While individual days vary, with some higher, an annual average at or below that level, known as the particulate matter standard, is considered safe. However, the agency still weighs health hazards that occur in the safe range when it analyzes new regulations.

Industry has long questioned that system. After all, fossil fuel advocates ask, why should the E.P.A. search for health dangers, and, ultimately, impose costs on industry, in situations where air is officially considered safe?

Mr. Wehrum, who worked as a lawyer and lobbyist for chemical manufacturers and fossil fuel businesses before moving to the E.P.A., echoed that position in two interviews. He noted that, in some regulations, the benefits of reduced particulate matter have been estimated to total in the range of $40 billion.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/climate/epa-air-pollution-deaths.html

“This longstanding principle is firmly rooted in the Constitution’s separation of powers and protects the core functions of the presidency, and we are adhering to this well-established precedent in order to ensure that future Presidents can effectively execute the responsibilities of the Office of the presidency,” Mr. Cipollone wrote, referencing the Justice Department opinion.

But there are outstanding legal questions.

A Federal District Court judge, John Bates, rejected that theory in a 2008 dispute over a congressional subpoena to Harriet Miers, a former White House Counsel to then-President George W. Bush. He ruled that Ms. Miers had to show up, although she might still refuse to answer specific questions based on a claim of executive privilege.

The executive branch did not appeal that ruling, and because no appeals court weighed in, Judge Bates’ opinion does not count as a controlling precedent for other disputes raising the same issue. That left the Obama administration, in a 2014 memo, free to take the position that Judge Bates was wrong.

Even if Mr. McGahn, like Ms. Miers before him, ultimately does have to appear before Congress, the separate issue would remain of whether he could rely on a claim of executive privilege by Mr. Trump to avoid answering questions about his communications with the president — even though the Trump administration already disclosed the substance of those talks by making the Mueller report public.

In a 2016 case involved a congressional subpoena for internal executive branch documents that had been described in a Justice Department inspector general report, another Federal District Court judge ruled that because the executive branch had already made public their “sum and substance,” Mr. Obama could not use the privilege to keep Congress from seeing the underlying files. But that case, too, was resolved without any appeals court ruling.

Source Article from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/20/us/politics/mcgahn-trump-congress.html

Billionaire Robert F. Smith became a hero to hundreds of Morehouse College graduates on Sunday when he announced he was going to pay off all of their student loan debt. He could also become a hero to future social science researchers studying the effects of student loans.

As student loan debt has accumulated due to soaring tuition, there have been a lot of studies indicating how the enormous obligations from those entering the workforce are dramatically altering younger Americans’ lives and finances. Existing studies have indicated that the presence of student debt have made millennials delay major life decisions like getting married and buying houses, which in turn has contributed to their lower wealth relative to prior generations at the same age, and their difficulty in preparing for retirement.

Such studies obviously have a lot of variables, however, especially because those with lower or higher student debt may have certain characteristics (in terms of race, wealth, or family background) that may also be influencing their behavior.

However, the Morehouse gift will provide researchers with a much more controlled experiment. Years down the road, researchers could survey Morehouse students who graduated without student debt in the few years leading up to the gift, and then see how they compare to those who graduated in 2019. In this case, there will be a group of graduates who would have had a similar income and racial makeup prior to entrance into college and who would have the same educational backgrounds when exiting.

Do the 2019 graduates get married, have kids, and purchase houses earlier than prior classes? Do they have more retirement savings 10 years down the road? Are they more likely to pursue “fun” careers in which they follow their hearts as opposed to practical office jobs that pay more? These questions and many more could be perused in the coming years.

So, in addition to the euphoria Smith brought to the students who now will be graduating debt free, he could also provide a rare opportunity to have a pretty controlled look at the impact of student loans on the generations that have been graduating in the era of massive debt.

Source Article from https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/billionaires-plan-to-pay-off-morehouse-college-student-debt-just-created-opening-for-fascinating-social-science-study