The House Judiciary Committee voted on Thursday in favor of a new resolution formalizing the impeachment inquiry and further intensifying its investigation into President Trump amid a growing chorus of Democrats to hold the president accountable for his actions. The vote fell along party lines 24-17.
While mostly technical, the committee’s vote also moves to install new procedures for its inquiry, allowing committee chairman Jerry Nadler to designate which committee and subcommittee hearings are related to the probe, give committee counsel extra time to question witnesses and receive evidence in closed executive session.
“The resolution before us represents the necessary next step in our investigation of corruption, obstruction, and abuse of power,” Nadler said in a statement before Thursday’s meeting.
Nadler, on Monday, referred to his committee’s actions as an “impeachment inquiry,” but he did not refer to the inquiry as “formal.”
“It has been an impeachment inquiry and it continues to be…We are examining the various malfeasances of the president with the view toward possibly, the possibility, of introducing, of recommending articles of impeachment to the House. That is what an impeachment inquiry is,” Nadler told reporters in the Capitol Monday.
House Judiciary Republican aides reiterated that they do not believe the new procedures the majority is slated to formalize expands in any way the power of the panel, they said in a conference call with reporters Wednesday. “There is nothing novel,” one aide said. The new procedures would have “zero impact” on House decorum rules regarding accusations against the president that members can discuss openly, another aide added.
The aides sought to downplay the move by the majority, saying the main reason the new procedures are being authorized is that Democrats don’t have enough support to initiate a “formal” impeachment inquiry through a resolution approved by a full vote on the House floor.
At this point, a majority of House Democrats now support opening an impeachment inquiry. There has been some confusion over whether the Judiciary Committee’s investigation is a formal one. Nadler in his statement addressed ongoing confusion over the semantics of just what his committee intends to do.
“This Committee is engaged in an investigation that will allow us to determine whether to recommend articles of impeachment with respect to President Trump. Some call this process an impeachment inquiry. Some call it an impeachment investigation. There is no legal difference between these terms, and I no longer care to argue about the nomenclature,” he said.
“But let me clear up any remaining doubt: The conduct under investigation poses a threat to our democracy. We have an obligation to respond to this threat. And we are doing so.”
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has continued to urge her colleagues to pursue other means to holding the president and administration accountable, rather than impeachment. Pelosi has been adamant in her talks with the Democratic caucus that the public still isn’t supportive of taking such a serious step. Nadler argues that his committee is bound to continue its probe.
“As Members of Congress-and, in particular, as members of the House Judiciary Committee-we have a responsibility to investigate each of these allegations and to determine the appropriate remedy. That responsibility includes making a judgment about whether to recommend articles of impeachment,” Nadler said. “That judgment cannot be based on our feelings about President Trump. It should not be a personal reaction to misguided policies or personal behavior. It must be a decision based on the evidence before us, and the evidence that keeps coming in.”
Grace Segers, Kimberly Brown and Camilo Montoya-Galvez contributed reporting.
With U.S. growth slowing by some measures, fears have begun to spread among investors and market-watchers that an economic correction, or even a recession, could be on the horizon.
Biden, for instance, recently slammed Trump’s “erratic” handling of “an economy that’s teetering on a recession,” Fox News reported.
On the debate stage, the candidates might first have to fend off questions about their own economic plans.
The candidates should be prepared to answer questions about how they would solve a potential economic downturn, said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.
“If you were president, faced with a slowing economy,” Galston asked as an example, “what would you do?”
Yang’s campaign told CNBC that the threats of automation and big tech are top economic issues, but they are bound to be ignored in the debate.
“Andrew strongly believes that the automation of jobs is one of the biggest issues of our time, but he highly doubts the topic will make it to the debate stage since it doesn’t receive the attention it deserves,” his campaign said. “Bringing attention to this issue is one of the primary reason’s he’s running for President.”
The rest of the field has put forward a wide array of economic ideas, many of which involve raising taxes on the nation’s top earners, boosting low-income Americans, regulating big banks and supporting green energy.
“There’s a debate within the Democratic Party about the place of the private sector vis-a-vis government. That’s perhaps the dominant economic question” within the party, Galston said.
“The rule that was developed in 2015 was a significant overreach,” said Don Parrish, director of regulatory relations with the American Farm Bureau Federation, which has lobbied for the repeal and replacement of the rule. “It overstepped the limit of protecting clean water and tried to regulate land use. It created liabilities that can end up putting farmers in jail.” He was referring to actions like using pesticides, he said.
The Obama rule, developed under the authority of the 1972 Clean Water Act, was designed to limit pollution in about 60 percent of the nation’s bodies of water, protecting sources of drinking water for about one-third of the United States. It extended existing federal authority to limit pollution in large bodies of water, like the Chesapeake Bay and Puget Sound, to smaller bodies that drain into them, such as tributaries, streams and wetlands.
Under the rule, farmers using land near streams and wetlands were restricted from doing certain kinds of plowing and from planting certain crops, and would have been required to obtain E.P.A. permits in order to use chemical pesticides and fertilizers that could have run off into those bodies of water. Those restrictions will now be lifted.
It is expected that the new rule, still being developed, will retain federal protections for larger bodies of water, the rivers that drain into them and wetlands that are directly adjacent to those bodies of water.
But it will quite likely strip away protections of so-called ephemeral streams, in which water runs only during or after rainfalls, and of wetlands that are not adjacent to major bodies of water, or connected to such bodies of water by a surface channel of water. Those changes would represent a victory for farmers and rural landowners, who lobbied the Trump administration aggressively to make them.
Lawyers said the interim period between the completion of the legal repeal of the Obama rule and the implementation of the new Trump rule this year could be one of regulatory chaos for farmers and landowners, however.
“The Obama clean water rule had very clear lines defining which waters are protected by the Clean Water Act, versus which waters are not, while repealing the rule means replacing those lines with case-by-case calls,” said Blan Holman, an expert on water regulations with the Southern Environmental Law Center.
“This will be very unpredictable,” Mr. Holman said. “They are imposing a chaotic case-by-case program to replace clear, bright-line rules.”
With tragic mass shootings in El Paso, Dayton, and Odessa all happening in August, Congress is returning to session with renewed calls for action on guns. Of course, this isn’t the first time Congress has tried to take action after mass shootings.
In 2013, after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Congress voted down the Manchin-Toomey bipartisan proposal to expand background check requirements to certain types of private sales. Since that time there have been multiple major mass shootings, but there has not been any significant movement on Capitol Hill to advance legislation.
So what are the prospects for Congress to advance legislation on guns in the wake of August’s attacks? Is anything different this time around?
Polling in the last decade has seen a slight increase in the percent of people who support making gun laws “more strict,” with six in ten Americans now holding that position according to Gallup. When people are asked which they prioritize more, “protecting gun rights” versus “controlling gun violence,” what used to be an even split in 2013 is now a 16-point margin in favor of “controlling gun violence” according to the latest NBC/NPR/Marist polling.
At a very high level, the winds have shifted toward greater overall support for gun control.
But the details matter, and not all gun control proposals garner similar numbers of support. If polls tend to show around 60% of Americans supporting “more strict” gun laws or “controlling gun violence,” what should we make of the dramatic differences between support for various policies that purport to advance that cause?
Essentially, policies around guns break down into two groups: laws that aim to restrict who can have guns, and laws that restrict what guns people can have. In poll after poll, there is less opposition to restricting who than what, making it much more politically viable for President Trump and his allies to get behind new restrictions about red flags and background checks, yet far less likely they will touch restrictions on types of weapons or ammunition that can be purchased by law-abiding citizens.
Universal background checks have long been a popular policy, and the recent NBC/NPR/Marist polling confirms that the policy continues to earn overwhelming support, with 83% saying background checks should be required for gun shows or private sales. Also receiving strong support, with a quarter or fewer Americans opposing the policy, are increased funding for mental health screenings, national red flag laws, and requiring individuals to obtain a license before being able to purchase a gun.
But there is a drop-off in support for policies such as banning purchases of high-capacity ammunition magazines (61% support, 34% oppose) and banning the sale of semi-automatic assault-style weapons like the AR-15 (57% support, 39% oppose). They still garner majority support, but the opposition numbers rise above a third. For Republican lawmakers in red states, that kind of opposition is likely to be vocal and influential in their decision making.
It’s not hard to guess why you would see a gap in support for those two categories of reform. Law abiding gun owners who like their guns and would like the ability to procure them in the future are going to be more reluctant to get behind any reform that might hinder their own ability to purchase a firearm or ammunition. However, if they don’t have a criminal background issue or concern about getting red-flagged, policies that restrict who can buy guns may seem much less likely to affect them negatively.
Republicans considering the various gun reforms that may find less resistance from gun-owners if they are pursuing changes that are supposed to only truly affect people who ought not have guns at all, versus changes to law that will keep gun owners from being able to continue purchasing a weapon or ammunition they prefer. If you’re wondering if and how Republicans will ever budge on guns, expect it to come down to the who versus the what of gun buying.
(NASSAU, Bahamas) — Desperation mounted in the Bahamas on Tuesday as hurricane survivors arriving in the capital by boat and plane were turned away from overflowing shelters.
As government officials gave assurances at a news conference that more shelters would be opened as needed, Julie Green and her family gathered outside the headquarters of the island’s emergency management agency, seeking help.
“We need a shelter desperately,” the 35-year-old former waitress from Great Abaco said as she cradled one of her 7-month-old twins on her hip, his little face furrowed. Nearby, her husband held the other twin boy as their four other children wandered listlessly nearby. One kept crying despite receiving comforting hugs.
Hurricane Dorian devastated the Abaco and Grand Bahama islands in the northern part of the archipelago a week ago, leaving at least 50 dead, with the toll certain to rise as the search for bodies goes on.
Nearly 5,000 people have arrived in Nassau by plane and by boat, and many were struggling to start new lives, unclear of how or where to begin. More than 2,000 of them were staying in shelters, according to government figures.
Green said that shelter officials told her they couldn’t accept such young children, and that the family has slept in the home of a different person every night since arriving Friday in New Providence, the island where Nassau is situated.
“We’re just exhausted,” she said. “We’re just walking up and down, asking people if they know where we can stay.”
Erick Noel, a 37-year-old landscaper from Abaco with a wife and four children, found himself in the same situation. They will have to leave a friend’s house by Wednesday and had not yet found a shelter where they could stay.
“They are full, full, full,” he said. “I keep looking for a place to go.”
He said he found one small home for his family in Nassau but could not afford the $900 monthly rent. Undeterred, Noel said he would keep searching.
Meanwhile, government officials said they were helping all evacuees and considering building temporary housing, perhaps tent or container cities.
“We are dealing with a disaster,” said Carl Smith, spokesman for the Bahamas’ National Emergency Management Agency. “It takes time to move through the chaos. We are responding to the needs.”
The government has estimated that up to 10,000 people from the Abacos alone will need food, water and temporary housing.
Getting back to Abaco is the dream of Betty Edmond, a 43-year-old cook who picked at some fries with her son and husband in a restaurant at a Nassau hotel, where her nephew is paying for their stay.
They arrived in Nassau on Saturday night after a six-hour boat trip from Abaco and plan to fly to Florida on Wednesday, thanks to plane tickets bought by friends who will provide them a temporary home until they can find jobs. But the goal is to return, Edmond said.
“Home will always be home,” she said. “Every day you wish you could go back.”
“You try to keep your hopes up, but …,” she added, her voice trailing off as she shook her head.
The upheaval, however, was exciting to her 8-year-old son, Kayden Monestime, who said he was looking forward to going to a mall, McDonald’s and Foot Locker.
Also flying to Florida was 41-year-old Shaneka Russell, who owned Smacky’s Takeaway, a takeout restaurant known for its cracked conch. The restaurant, named after the noises her son made as a baby, was destroyed by Dorian.
Russell said good Samaritans had taken her and a group of people into their home over the weekend and found them a hotel room in Nassau for a couple of days.
“To know that we were going to a hotel, with electricity and air conditioning and a proper shower, I cried,” she said.
The nearby island of Eleuthera also was taking in evacuees as unmet needs keep growing, said Sadye Francis, director of a nonprofit organization.
“There are still others that have nowhere to go,” she said. “The true depth of the devastation in Abaco and Grand Bahama is still unfolding.”
Dimple Lightbourne, a 30-year-old Abaco resident now in Nassau, said she couldn’t wait to escape the disaster Dorian left behind.
“I don’t want to see the Bahamas for a while. It’s stressful,” she said. “I want to go to America. … This is a new chapter. I’ve ripped all the pages out. Just give me a new book to fill out.”
The Coast Guard released helicopter footage of the California boat fire that killed dozens of people. USA TODAY
The Coast Guard has issued a safety bulletin following the California boat fire that killed 34 people, recommending commercial boat operators limit unsupervised charging of cellphones and other electronic devices.
A preliminary report on the Labor Day fire that destroyed the dive ship Conception near Santa Cruz Island could be issued as soon as Thursday, the National Transportation Safety Board said. The cause of the fire likely won’t be addressed, but NTSB members have said how batteries and electronics were stored and charged is being scrutinized.
The Coast Guard said it has convened a Marine Board of Investigation to determine the cause of the blaze. But the bulletin noted that it does not have to await the board’s findings before taking “immediate and positive” action.
“In some instances, our marine casualty boards identify pressing safety issues related to vessel stability, the engine room or lifesaving and firefighting equipment,” said Capt. Jason Neubauer, chair of the Marine Board of Investigation. “In those instances, we issue safety alerts or bulletins.”
The recommendations included ensuring that all required firefighting and safety equipment is on the boat and operational, that emergency escapes are clearly recognizable and functional and that crew members understand their roles.
Boat operators also should “reduce potential fire hazards and consider limiting the unsupervised charging of lithium-ion batteries and extensive use of power strips and extension cords,” the bulletin said.
The batteries, found in millions of electronic devices around the world, charge and discharge by moving lithium particles between a negative and positive electrode. The particles are suspended in pressurized cells inside the batteries – filled with volatile, flammable chemicals. Incidents of rechargeable battery fires, however, are extremely rare.
“The intensity of the fire surprised people,” Peter Goelz, former managing director of the National Transportation Safety Board, told USA TODAY. “If it was being fed by lithium batteries, that might explain it.”
Goelz says he’s never heard of charging stations being linked to a boat fire – but he was not surprised by the bulletin. On commercial airplanes, crew members have gloves, tongs and flame-smothering bags at the ready, he noted.
More than 30 divers spending a long weekend packed on a boat could have a lot of phones, cameras and laptops to charge, he said. One survivor even suggested the fire may have started in an area where electronics were charging.
“I’ve heard that a lot of attention is going there,” Goelz told USA TODAY. “Did they have a charging station of epic proportions? Were electronics stacked up? We don’t know yet.”
The Coast Guard Investigative Service, FBI and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms are supporting a Department of Justice criminal investigation into the tragedy, the Coast Guard said.
Dan Salas, the CEO and owner of Harbor Breeze Cruises in Long Beach, California, told the Los Angeles Times the Coast Guard closely scrutinized firefighting equipment and emergency access on his seven ships during annual safety inspections this week. He said he fully supports the Coast Guard efforts.
A total of 39 people were aboard the boat for a holiday weekend expedition when the fire started at about 3 a.m. local time. Five crew members who were on the deck fled and were rescued. The victims, ranging in age from 16 to 62, apparently died from smoke inhalation, authorities have said.
Divers found the body of the last victim Wednesday. DNA testing was being conducted to confirm identities of seven of the 34 victims, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office said.
Sheriff Bill Brown said the sleeping compartment was on the bottom deck of the ship and that the passengers likely were asleep when the fire started.
“This is probably the worst-case scenario you could possibly have,” Brown said that day. “You have a vessel that’s on the open sea in the middle of the night. Fire is the scourge of any ship. … You couldn’t ask for a worse situation.”
Anyone confused about the demented psychology of liberals who believe American taxpayers should support all of Central America’s poor can gain instant clarity by reading one of Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissents this week.
The court on Wednesday offered temporary relief to the Trump administration by allowing it to go forward with a new rule that will allow immigration authorities to quickly deny asylum requests for Central Americans who didn’t first try to seek refuge in other countries they passed through while making their way to the United States.
Sotomayor’s dissent reads like the script from one of those starving children commercials: For just 10 cents a day, you can save a life. Joined by Justice Ruther Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayor wrote, “the stakes for asylum seekers could not be higher,” and that, “some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere” will be affected without having given the American public “a chance to weigh in” on the rule change.
Setting aside the fact that this argument would abolish all executive rule-making if taken to its logical conclusion, it’s unclear why the public would need “a chance to weigh in” on a policy that doesn’t affect a single person in the country. The only way the rule might affect a person already here is if they were hoping some relative or friend would illegally cross the border and then claim asylum. Well, that’s the very problem the administration is trying to solve — hundreds of thousands of people with no meritorious asylum claim are simply hopping onto American soil and securing indefinite legal protection to remain in the country by exploiting the legal loophole that our asylum system has become.
Nobody is denying that the asylum seekers are “vulnerable.” They’re poor and often they’ve left their homes because their broken countries have been overrun by gang violence. But the asylum process wasn’t meant to function as a welfare net for the “vulnerable.” Asylum is for the persecuted. If a person feels persecuted in their own country, why would they need to travel 2,000-plus miles, passing through at least one other country, to get to the U.S. before finally claiming asylum?
They don’t need to. A story in the Washington Post on Saturday proved it, quoting several migrants who decided that because the administration has made it more difficult to get into the U.S., they would simply try elsewhere first (which is the whole point of the rule change). From the story:
Sotomayor can relax. The court’s decision is only effective while related legal questions sort themselves out in lower courts. It could very well be reversed. But at least her dissent offers a wide window into the twisted thought process of open-border advocates.
Democratic presidential hopefuls (from left): Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., on stage for the July debate.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
Democratic presidential hopefuls (from left): Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., former Vice President Joe Biden, and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., on stage for the July debate.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
There are now less than five months to go before the first votes are cast in the Democratic presidential nominating contest. So the spotlight is going to be even hotter on the 10 candidates who made the cut for Thursday’s debate.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is ascendant with more Democrats saying they like her than any other candidate, but former Vice President Joe Biden continues to lead in the polls. So what might set them apart, what could be the flashpoints Thursday night, and can any of the other candidates break through?
Here are some key logistical questions, followed by political ones:
When is the debate? Thursday from 8-11 p.m. ET
What channel is it on? ABC and Univision (with Spanish translation)
Who are the moderators? ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, David Muir, Linsey Davis and Univision’s Jorge Ramos
Who’s on the stage? Biden, Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kamala Harris of California, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Warren, as well as South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Obama Housing Secretary Julián Castro, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas and tech investor Andrew Yang.
What were the qualifications to get into this debate? 2% in at least four Democratic polls, either nationally or in early states, as well as 130,000 donors from at least 20 states and at least 400 in each state.
Here are five political questions:
1. What will the Biden-Warren dynamic be like?
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren shakes hands with supporters after speaking at the New Hampshire Democratic Party Convention in Manchester, N.H., last week.
Scott Eisen/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Scott Eisen/Getty Images
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren shakes hands with supporters after speaking at the New Hampshire Democratic Party Convention in Manchester, N.H., last week.
Scott Eisen/Getty Images
There’s lots being made of the fact that this is the first time during this presidential campaign that Biden and Warren will share the debate stage. The question is whether they engage — and on what?
They signaled that they might mix it up. Warren has gotten attention for her myriad plans, but a Biden adviser told CNN that the former vice president will likely argue in the debate that “we need more than plans.” One area ripe for debate is on bankruptcy law, an issue where they have a history.
2. Can Biden take the heat — again?
Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as seen on televisions in the press room during the Democratic primary debate in Detroit, Mich.
Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images
Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., as seen on televisions in the press room during the Democratic primary debate in Detroit, Mich.
Jeff Kowalsky/AFP/Getty Images
In each of the first two rounds of debates, varying candidates have picked fights with Biden — Harris on busing, Booker on criminal justice. And he’ll likely be the focus of criticism from other candidates because of his continued lead in the polls.
But despite some missteps on the campaign trail and a lackluster first debate, his brand has shown resiliency. He not only leads the race nationally and in many state polls, but he’s also extremely well liked among the Democratic base, something you’d likely never know if you only read Twitter, a point his campaign makes repeatedly.
That makes him a target for the other candidates, who have to be wondering what it will take to dislodge him. Still, Democratic strategists see Biden as a fragile front-runner, and he has to have solid outings in these coming debates that will likely get more attention than the first couple of rounds.
3. Will the candidates double down on positions unpopular with general-election voters?
A lot of the moderate Democratic candidates are not on the stage for this round — Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet and former Maryland Rep. John Delaney did not qualify, and former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper dropped out to run for the Senate.
That means the progressives are likely to again target Biden and focus on issues unpopular outside of Democrats, like “Medicare for All” as a replacement to private insurance, health care for immigrants in the country illegally and decriminalizing border crossings.
4. Do Sanders and Warren maintain their nonaggression pact?
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks in front of the Colorado State Capitol earlier this week.
Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders speaks in front of the Colorado State Capitol earlier this week.
Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images
Warren is getting lots of attention and was not only the most popular candidate among Democrats in the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll, she’s now caught up with — and even passed in some instances — fellow progressive Sanders in an average of the polls.
That has to grate on Sanders, even if people close to him continue to say that he sees Warren as an ally for the kind of change he wants to see in the country. They have maintained that Sanders will not go after Warren unless they are the last two standing, but they also privately point out differences, such as on foreign policy and party politics. It’s probably not the time yet for Sanders to need to go after Warren, but could some prickliness begin to emerge?
5. What kind of chances do candidates needing a breakout take?
If a candidate hasn’t had a moment yet, they now have a chance to do something to gain attention and create a spark for their campaign before a large audience.
Yang, for one, is promising to do something no one’s done. What exactly? No one knows, but Yang is hoping you tune in.
Andrew Yang’s campaign manager just called to tell me that at tomorrow night’s debate, Yang will be doing “something no presidential candidate has ever done before in history.” He declined to go further than that.
At the same time, it’s not clear how many people will tune in. The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found that more people said they weren’t going to watch (42%) than said they would (38%).
The Yellowhammer document – published on Wednesday after MPs forced its release – warned of food and fuel shortages in a no-deal scenario.
But Mr Johnson insisted the UK “will be ready” to leave the EU by the current 31 October deadline without an agreement “if we have to”.
“What you’re looking at here is just the sensible preparations – the worst-case scenario – that you’d expect any government to do,” he said.
“In reality we will certainly be ready for a no-deal Brexit if we have to do it and I stress again that’s not where we intend to end up.”
The current five-week suspension of Parliament started in the early hours of Tuesday, and MPs are not scheduled to return until 14 October, for the Queen’s Speech when the government lays out its agenda.
Media captionThe court ruled the prorogation was unlawful due to the PM’s advice
In a unanimous ruling, the Court of Session in Edinburgh said Mr Johnson’s decision to order the suspension was motivated by the “improper purpose of stymieing Parliament”.
It came after a legal challenge launched by more than 70 largely pro-Remain MPs and peers, headed by SNP MP Joanna Cherry.
But a ruling last week from the High Court in London had dismissed a similar challenge brought by businesswoman and campaigner Gina Miller.
In their rejection of her claim, the judges argued the suspension of Parliament was a “purely political” move and was therefore “not a matter for the courts”.
Mr Johnson has suggested it was “nonsense” to suggest the move was an attempt to undermine democracy, insisting it is normal practice for a new PM.
Suspension criticised
Prorogation normally takes place every year, but the length and timing of the current suspension – in the run-up to Brexit – has attracted controversy.
Opposition parties have accused the prime minister of ordering it to prevent criticism of its Brexit strategy and contingency plans for a no-deal exit.
They backed a move to order the release of communications between No 10 aides about the decision to order the suspension.
But the government has blocked their release, saying the request to see e-mails, texts and WhatsApp messages from Dominic Cummings, Boris Johnson’s chief aide, and eight other advisers in Downing Street was “unreasonable and disproportionate”.
Until now, the ride-share drivers have fallen into a labor netherworld, classified as independent contractors by the National Labor Relations Board and thus not entitled to protected union activity. Organizing efforts have bogged down in a welter of court rulings and confusion over federal laws and pre-emptions. A Seattle law to allow ride-share drivers to organize a labor union was struck down by a federal-court decision that only states could confer such a right on independent contractors.
That appears to create an opportunity for California to establish a mechanism for drivers to unionize under the auspices of a state labor board, which could be extended to oversee union activity for other gig workers excluded from federal jurisdiction. Organizations of ride-share drivers, encouraged by their success in helping lobby for the California bill, will take on that goal next.
Ride-share companies will continue to fight the California measure, which they maintain would cripple their business model. Barclays has estimated that to comply next year would cost Uber $507 million and Lyft $290 million. Uber, which insists that its drivers don’t qualify as employees, has said it will force them to make claims for employment status individually. Uber, Lyft and the food delivery service DoorDash have together committed $90 million to financing a 2020 ballot initiative to overturn the law, a quest that would face dubious prospects.
The companies’ offers to give drivers greater benefits and some input have all been rejected as insufficient, but Governor Newsom has said that, even after signing the bill, he will continue to attempt to forge some compromise that might create a third category of worker — not an employee, but an independent worker with certain enforceable rights and benefits.
All of the scenarios suggest rethinking the role of the state in protecting workers’ rights and economic security, accelerating a shift that has been going on for years. As union membership declined, states — in particular California — have been the mechanism to insure benefits including higher minimum wages, access to affordable health care and portable retirement plans.
Uber, which has reported huge losses and laid off hundreds of workers in recent weeks, has warned that the California measure will have broad ramifications. A coalition of labor groups in New York has already proposed legislation modeled on the bill, and Gov. Andrew Cuomo has indicated support, saying he “does not like to lag California in anything.”
In the end, in whatever form Uber survives the changed landscape, it may have served as a vehicle to usher in new models of labor laws for the 21st century.
The Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on Wednesday evening that effectively closes the United States’ southern border to nearly all Central American asylum seekers.
The decision stays a lower court decision blocking a Trump administration policy that seeks to halt nearly all asylum applications from these migrants and allow the US government to require them to seek asylum in countries they travel through. The government will now be allowed to enforce the policy while legal challenges move ahead.
The administration’s rule, issued on July 16,says that almost any foreign national who arrives at the southern border may not seek asylum if they crossed through another nation to get here. There are a few limits — a migrant can seek asylum in the United States if they complete a potentially onerous legal process in another country, for example, or if they were “severe” trafficking victims — but the practical effect of the rule is to ban most migrants from seeking asylum.
Federal law allows any foreign national “who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States” to seek asylum, a form of mercy that allows people who fear persecution in their home nation to remain in the United States. Though the asylum statute does contain some limited exceptions, no explicit provision provides for the sweeping asylum restrictions implemented by the Trump administration.
Ordinarily, when the executive branch pushes out a new regulation, it must first submit that regulation to a process that allows the public to comment on the proposed rule. The Trump administration did not follow that ordinary process when it pushed out its asylum ban.
Because the Supreme Court’s order is not signed, it is not clear why the Court decided to stay the lower court’s order or which justices voted for this outcome. Only two members of the Court, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, registered public dissents.
“It is especially concerning,” Sotomayor writes in a dissenting opinion, which Ginsburg joined, “that the rule the Government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere—without affording the public a chance to weigh in.”
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday welcomed China’s decision to exempt some U.S. anti-cancer drugs and other goods from its tariffs and announced a delay to scheduled tariff hikes on billions worth of Chinese goods.
Beijing’s exemptions and Washington’s delay came days ahead of a planned meeting aimed at defusing a trade war between the world’s two largest economies.
China’s decision to exempt some U.S. goods was a “big move” by Beijing and a positive gesture before trade negotiators from both countries meet in Washington, Trump told reporters at the White House.
China on Wednesday announced its first batch of tariff exemptions for 16 types of U.S. products, including some anti-cancer drugs and lubricants, as well as animal feed ingredients whey and fish meal, according to a Ministry of Finance statement on its website.
Beijing said in May that it would start a waiver program, amid growing worries over the cost of the protracted trade war on its already slowing economy.
….on October 1st, we have agreed, as a gesture of good will, to move the increased Tariffs on 250 Billion Dollars worth of goods (25% to 30%), from October 1st to October 15th.
“They made a couple of moves … that were pretty good,” Trump said at an unrelated event on vaping. “I think it was a gesture, okay? But it was a big move.”
On Wednesday, Trump wrote in a post on Twitter that the United States had agreed to delay increasing tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese imports from Oct. 1 to Oct. 15 “as a gesture of good will.” The tariffs were set to increase to 30% from 25% on the goods.
Trump said he hoped to reach a trade agreement with China following more than a year of tit-for-tat exchanges of tariffs that have roiled global markets.
“I deal with them and I know them and I like them,” he said. “I hope we can do something.”
Deputy trade negotiators are due to meet in Washington in mid-September, with minister-level talks to follow in October. Exact dates for the meetings have not been released.
The gestures may ease tensions ahead of the negotiations, but some analysts don’t see it as a signal that both sides are readying a deal.
“The exemption could be seen as a gesture of sincerity towards the U.S. ahead of negotiations in October but is probably more a means of supporting the economy,” ING’s Greater China economist Iris Pang wrote in a note.
“There are still many uncertainties in the coming trade talks. An exemption list of just 16 items will not change China’s stance,” she said.
Indeed, the exempted list pales in comparison to over 5,000 types of U.S. products that are already subject to China’s additional tariffs. Moreover, major U.S. imports, such as soybeans and pork, are still subject to hefty additional duties, as China has ramped up imports from Brazil and other supplying countries.
Beijing has said it would work on exempting some U.S. products from tariffs if they are not easily substituted from elsewhere. The United States is by far China’s largest supplier of whey, which is an important ingredient in piglet feed and difficult to source in large volumes from elsewhere.
Analysts say that with its duties on soybeans and U.S.-made cars, China is taking aim at a key political support base of Trump, mainly the factories and farms across the Midwest and South at a time of receding momentum in the world’s top economy.
China has imposed several rounds of duties on U.S. goods in retaliation against U.S. Section 301 tariffs, beginning last year in July and August with a 25% levy on about $50 billion of U.S. imports.
President Donald Trump speaks at the Oval Office announcement on Wednesday.Alex Wong / Getty Images
In all, the United States and China have slapped tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods in a bitter trade war that has raised the specter of a global recession, with further tariffs slated to take effect in coming months.
The items on the two tariff exemption lists – posted on the ministry’s website – will not be subject to additional duties imposed by China on U.S. goods “as countermeasures to U.S. Section 301 measures,” the ministry said in its statement.
The exemption will take effect on Sept. 17 and be valid for a year through to Sept. 16, 2020, it said.
ING’s Pang noted the United States had also exempted imports of 110 Chinese products from tariffs in July, including high-value items such as medical equipment and parts.
TALKS
Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin are expected to meet in early October in the U.S. capital, but key officials are tamping down expectations for a major accord.
For two years, the Trump administration has sought to pressure China to make sweeping changes to its policies on intellectual property protection, forced transfers of technology to Chinese firms, industrial subsidies and market access.
Beijing and Washington were close to a deal last spring but U.S. officials said China backed away from an agreed text over a reluctance to change laws to address U.S. complaints.
The South China Morning Post reported, citing an unidentified source, that China was expected to buy more agricultural products in hopes of a better trade deal with the United States.
Senior White House adviser Peter Navarro this week urged investors, businesses and the public to be patient about the trade dispute.
Earlier on Wednesday, a survey by a prominent American business association showed the trade dispute was souring the profit and investment outlook for U.S. companies operating in the world’s second-biggest economy.
Some names Trump has floated. Others are quietly fanning the speculation themselves. Some, predictably, often go on Fox News.
The dozen-plus names being floated to replace John Bolton as national security adviser run the gamut — from ambassadors to military officers to business leaders.
Some are quietly fanning the speculation themselves while others are names that people close to President Donald Trump say he has mentioned. Several are hard to distinguish on an ideological basis, although all are thought to be generally conservative and some make their views well-known on Fox News. A few have links to Bolton, a hawk whose approach often clashed with the president, and several previously served in the George W. Bush administration. Nearly all are men.
Story Continued Below
The leading assumption is that Trump will seek a National Security Council chief who is lower-profile, less ideologically strident and more willing to be a team player than the ousted Bolton, who irked numerous aides across the national security apparatus. Trump also is expected to go with a pick favored by his powerful secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, who remains in Trump’s good graces.
The choice — which Trump said he’ll reveal next week — may signal the direction he hopes to take his foreign policy in the coming election year, including whether he’ll keep up his push for deals with Iran, North Korea and the Taliban.
But in the end, Trump, as he has long done, will likely make a decision based on gut instinct and an inscrutable set of criteria that is not necessarily tied to ideological compatibility.
“He definitely wants a ‘yes person,’” said Thomas Wright, a foreign policy analyst with the Brookings Institution who has closely watched Trump’s national security moves. “He doesn’t want someone who’s going to tell him he can’t do what he wants to do.”
To start, there are the names that one person close to the White House said Trump has brought up this week.
Two are top aides to Pompeo: Brian Hook, who deals with Iran, and Stephen Biegun, who deals with North Korea. The other two are Fred Fleitz, a former intelligence official and Bolton aide whom Trump likes; and Paula Dobriansky, who has years of experience at both the NSC and the upper echelons of the State Department during past Republican administrations.
Trump himself on Wednesday indicated that he had “five people that I consider very highly qualified, good people I’ve gotten to know over the last three years.”
The person close to the White House said Trump is not showing a sense of urgency in picking anyone just yet, despite his stated plan to reveal his choice next week. But Trump is making it clear he wants his pick to be someone with whom he is already comfortable.
“He’s looking for somebody who’s loyal, that he already knows, someone who’s experienced and doesn’t need the training,” the person said, adding that Trump also prefers someone who either has or can easily get a security clearance.
Biegun in particular is highly regarded in Washington, even though he’s struggled to make progress in persuading the North Koreans to sit down for serious talks on their nuclear program. Biegun has extensive government and private sector experience, and he served as executive secretary of the NSC during the George W. Bush administration.
Hook has become a visible figure because of his role driving the administration’s harsh policies toward Iran, although for a long time Trump reportedly had no idea who he was. Hook is also a favorite of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser.
However, Hook is a subject of an inspector general’s investigation into allegations that he engaged in political retaliation against career government staffers at the State Department. The inspector general’s report is due out soon and could find fault with Hook’s actions. If so, his elevation to national security adviser will infuriate career staffers who want to see him disciplined.
Dobriansky isn’t in the Trump administration but has discussed various roles in the past. She’s well-regarded in Washington, and would likely carry a lower profile than Bolton if she got the role.
Fleitz would bring an intelligence background to the job — but also a close link to Bolton. A former CIA analyst, Fleitz briefly served as Bolton’s chief of staff until fall 2018, when he left to serve as president and CEO of the Center for Security Policy, a right-wing think tank that has been sharply critical of “radical Islam.”
Then there’s a group of names that Washington insiders have been circulating since Bolton’s ousting on Tuesday.
Those include Richard Grenell, the U.S. ambassador to Germany;Robert O’Brien, a Pompeo aide who deals with hostage issues; Keith Kellogg, national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence; and Ricky Waddell, a former deputy national security adviser under Trump. Jack Keane and Douglas Macgregor, both retired military officers who frequently appear on Fox News, are also part of the discussion.
Then there’s some wilder cards.
Pete Hoekstra, a former Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and now the U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands is in the mix, as is Robert Kimmitt, a former senior Treasury Department official.
Two other administration officials also are in the conversation, including one top national security staffer to acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Rob Blair, and another senior NSC official, Matt Pottinger, who deals with Asia.
A former State Department official who knows several of the people being mentioned as potential Bolton successors noted that many have served in uniform, but stressed that didn’t mean they would simply agree with Trump on every issue.
Trump is known for being mercurial when it comes to policy and personnel. But throughout his presidency, he’s repeatedly indicated he prefers negotiations to military conflict and that he wants to reduce the U.S. troop presence in countries like Afghanistan.
With the 2020 election looming, Trump has little success to show on the foreign policy front, and he appears eager to change that narrative. He wants to launch or keep up negotiations with Iran and North Korea — both of which Bolton opposed. And although Trump has said the peace talks with the Taliban are “dead” for now, he could try to revive them.
Trump is fine if his aides present opposing views, say people who know the president. But after nearly three years in the White House, he’s come to value the importance of having a team that is unified behind him once he’s made a decision.
Trump’s frustration with Bolton stemmed largely from his belief that the national security adviser was using the media and other means to undermine the president if he didn’t agree with his choices, the person close to the White House said. Pompeo offers a contrasting model that has earned Trump’s esteem; he may disagree with the president in private, but never in public.
There are some rumors that Trump might consider naming Pompeo as national security adviser while also keeping him as secretary of State. It’s not unprecedented: Henry Kissinger once held both roles concurrently.
But national security veterans said a more likely route is that Trump will select someone who already works well with Pompeo, such as Biegun or another State Department player.
Either way, Trump will want someone with strong political instincts at the helm of the NSC going into his reelection campaign.
“All of this has a political dynamic to it, so I think he will be sensitive to that,” Wright said.
The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to fully enforce a new policy aimed at curbing Central American migrants’ ability to claim asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border, handing a victory to President Trump in his efforts to crack down on illegal immigration.
The Supreme Court’s decision came down Wednesday evening, with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. The high courtlifted a lower court order that blocked the Trump administration from broadly enforcing the new rule for asylum-seekers, under which migrants arriving at the southern border are ineligible for asylum unless they have sought refugee status in one of the countries they traveled through first.
The ruling allows the Trump administration to require immigrants seeking asylum at the U.S.-Mexico border to apply for asylum first in countries they are traveling through to get to the United States, with a few exceptions, while litigation continues.
A federal district judge in San Francisco issued a nationwide injunction in July that stopped the restrictions from taking effect, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed the injunction last month to apply only within states covered by the 9th Circuit, including the border states of California and Arizona.
The 9th Circuit’s ruling gave the Trump administration a partial victory, as federal immigration authorities appeared to be given the green light to enforce the restrictions in New Mexico and Texas. But U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar again blocked the policy nationwide in September, and on Tuesday night, the 9th Circuit again halted Tigar’s nationwide injunction.
Unveiled July 15, the rule from the departments of Homeland Security and Justice places sharp restrictions on migrants from Central America who seek asylum protections at the U.S.-Mexico border.
The rule brought a challenge from a coalition of immigrant rights groups, which are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union.
The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court last month to green light enforcement of the rules nationwide while litigation continues and said the lower court’s injunction “frustrates the government’s strong interest in a well-functioning asylum system” and hinders the Trump administration’s ability to address the crisis at the southern border.
The rule, Solicitor General Noel Francisco told the high court, “alleviates a crushing burden on the U.S. asylum system by prioritizing asylum seekers who most need asylum in the United States.”
In an opinion dissenting from the grant of stay, Sotomayor said the rule from the Trump administration may be “in significant tension with the asylum statute.”
“It may also be arbitrary and capricious for failing to engage with the record evidence contradicting its conclusions. It is especially concerning, moreover, that the rule the Government promulgated topples decades of settled asylum practices and affects some of the most vulnerable people in the Western Hemisphere—without affording the public a chance to weigh in,” Sotomayor, who was joined by Ginsburg, wrote.
The president, however, cheered the order from the high court, calling it a “win for the border on asylum.”
Trump has made stemming the flow of migrants crossing the southern border a central focus of his administration, though he has seen mixed results in the courts.
In December, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s liberal justices in rejecting a request from the Trump administration to enforce a policy that deemed migrants who did not present themselves at a port of entry along the southern border ineligible for asylum.
But in July, the Supreme Court said the Trump administration could begin using $2.5 billion in funds from the Defense Department for construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The president vowed to build a wall along the southern border during his 2016 presidential campaign and circumvented Congress this year to divert billions for construction of the barrier.
Pence’s Doonbeg detour cost nearly $600K in ground transportation…
Ground transportation for Vice President Mike Pence’s stay at President Donald Trump’s Doonbeg, Ireland, resort cost taxpayers nearly $600,000, according to State Department…
Purdue Pharma, owned by members of the Sackler family, has tentatively struck a deal that would settle thousands of lawsuit brought by municipal and state governments alleging that the drug maker helped fuel the country’s deadly opioid crisis.
Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Purdue Pharma, owned by members of the Sackler family, has tentatively struck a deal that would settle thousands of lawsuit brought by municipal and state governments alleging that the drug maker helped fuel the country’s deadly opioid crisis.
Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Purdue Pharma, the maker of the opioid drug OxyContin, has reached a tentative deal worth billions of dollars that would resolve thousands of lawsuits brought by municipal and state governments who sued the company for allegedly helping to fuel the opioid crisis.
The pending settlement likely means Purdue will avoid going to trial in the sprawling and complicated case involving some 2,300 local governments across 23 states.
Lawyer Paul Farrell, one of the lead attorneys representing more than 2,000 local governments that have filed suit against Purdue, said the Sackler family, which owns the privately-held drug company, will pay roughly $3 billion dollars in cash over several years and relinquish control of the company.
Details of the deal — like how the money will be divvied up — are still being worked out. The settlement, if enacted, would mean Purdue will file for bankruptcy and divest from pharmaceutical holdings worldwide.
“Which means the people who were front and center in causing this epidemic, in my view, won’t be able to go out and repeat their playbook in Asia, South America or Africa,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost, who is part of the pending deal, told NPR.
Under the terms of the proposal, future revenue from the sale of OxyContin would go into a trust designed to help communities struggling with the opioid epidemic.
The tentative deal would relaunch the Purdue company under non-Sackler ownership. The newly formed company will be managed by a group of trustees.
“That company and whether it continues in business to sell non-opioid drugs, or continues for a period of time to sell OxyContin under appropriate standards with appropriate marketing for appropriate uses is still being decided,” said Joe Rice, another lead lawyer representing the municipalities. “It’s a big open question.”
More than a dozen other drug makers, distributors and pharmacy chains still face a federal opioid trial next month in Ohio that’s considered a test case for establishing the pharmaceutical industry’s liability.
Late Wednesday, in a separate ruling, the judge presiding over that case approved a dramatic expansion of the number of communities that could benefit from future class action suit leveled against drug makers.
Under U.S. District Judge Dan Polster’s ruling, tens of thousands of cities, counties and other local governments across the U.S. will now automatically be included in opioid-related settlements with the pharmaceutical industry going forward, unless they opt out.
But Polster’s decision does not apply to Purdue Pharma’s pending settlement, where details are expected to be hammered out in the coming months in a consolidated bankruptcy proceeding.
While Purdue Pharma’s tentative settlement would bring some relief to communities, a growing number of state attorneys general are lining up against the deal. They want the Sackler family to pay far more out of their personal fortune, valued by Forbes magazine at roughly $13 billion.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said the settlement shows the Sacklers’ “attempting to evade responsibility and lowball millions of victims of the opioids crisis.”
Others attorneys general from such states as Connecticut and North Carolina echoed this criticism. Some have promised separate lawsuits against the Sacklers in an attempt to hold them accountable and win payouts for the families of victims of the opioid crisis.
“Our position remains firm and unchanged and nothing for us has changed today,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement.
“The scope and scale of the pain, death and destruction that Purdue and the Sacklers have caused far exceeds anything that has been offered thus far,” Tong said. “Connecticut’s focus is on the victims and their families, and holding Purdue and the Sacklers accountable for the crisis they have caused.”
Yost of Ohio acknowledge that there is a camp of discontented attorneys general who may never be satisfied with the settlement.
“There’s a proposal that a lot of folks have signed on to. I don’t think we have critical mass,” Yost said. “But we’re working on it.”
Yet Farrell, representing the more than 2,000 other entities, said the first comprehensive settlement, which is a step closer to being approved by a bankruptcy judge, is a major development in the fight to curb opioid-related deaths in America.
“To be able to take down this Goliath and to have some type of justice of putting them out of business is an indication of the consequences a lot of these companies have moving forward with this litigation,” Farrell said.
Purdue has pointed out that its products were approved by the Federal Drug Administration and that doctors were prescribing them to address patient pain. But the plaintiffs in the suit say company officials aggressively marketed opioids and downplayed the addictive risks, creating what they said was the prelude of the opioid crisis.
In March, Purdue and members of the Sackler family agreed to pay $270 million settlement and to pay legal fees to Oklahoma to avoid a trial over the company’s role in the opioid crisis in that state.
In a statement, Purdue Pharma said it “continues to work with all plaintiffs on reaching a comprehensive resolution to its opioid litigation that will deliver billions of dollars and vital opioid overdose rescue medicines to communities across the country impacted by the opioid crisis.”
The body of the final victim missing since a diving boat fire killed 34 people off the California coast this month has been found, the Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Office said Wednesday.
“Search and recovery efforts today were successful in locating the last missing victim,” the sheriff’s office said in a tweet Wednesday afternoon.
The bodies of 33 other victims had previously been found since the Sept. 2 fire engulfed the 75-foot commercial vessel the Conception in the waters off the coast of Santa Cruz Island, which is west of Ventura.
The cause of the fire, which broke out at 3:30 a.m. as the passengers slept below deck, is under investigation. Five crew members, including the captain, were on the third deck and got off the boat and survived.
The Conception, operated by Truth Aquatics out of Santa Barbara, was on a Labor Day weekend diving excursion when the fire occurred.
DNA testing was being conducted to confirm the identities of seven victims, the sheriff’s office said Wednesday.
Coast Guard assistant commandant for prevention policy, Rear Admiral Richard Timme, announced Wednesday that he has convened a formal Marine Board of Investigation to look into the deadly blaze.
Search warrants were served this week at Truth Aquatics’ offices and the company’s two remaining boats, the Associated Press reported. They were described as routine in the ongoing probe to see if any crimes were committed.
The Coast Guard marine board investigation announced Wednesday is expected to take a year or longer to complete, but urgent safety actions could be implemented before then, the Coast Guard said in a statement.
The four members of the marine board will look at all aspects of the incident, including “re-accident historical events, the regulatory compliance of the Conception, crewmember duties and qualifications, weather conditions and reporting, safety and firefighting equipment, and Coast Guard oversight,” the Coast Guard said.
The fire is also being investigated by other agencies, including the National Transportation Safety Board. The Coast Guard, FBI and federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are also supporting a Justice Department investigation, the Coast Guard said.
This is a widget area - If you go to "Appearance" in your WP-Admin you can change the content of this box in "Widgets", or you can remove this box completely under "Theme Options"
