Two former employees of Twitter are charged with spying for Saudi Arabia by accessing information in private accounts.
Mike Blake/Reuters
hide caption
toggle caption
Mike Blake/Reuters
Two former employees of Twitter are charged with spying for Saudi Arabia by accessing information in private accounts.
Mike Blake/Reuters
Two former employees of Twitter were charged with spying for Saudi Arabia by snooping into thousands of private accounts seeking personal information about critics of the Riyadh government, according to court documents filed Wednesday in San Francisco.
The case represents the first time that federal prosecutor have charged Saudis with deploying agents inside the United States, reportsThe New York Times.
Ahmad Abouammo, a U.S. citizen, was a media partnerships manager at Twitter who was not authorized to access Twitter users’ private information. He allegedly did exactly that for which he received payments of up to $300,000 from a Saudi source identified in the complaint only as “Foreign Official-1.” Abouammo also received a Hublot watch with a value of about $20,000.
Last year, Abouammo was interviewed in his home by the FBI about the watch and the payments he had received. According to the complaint, during the interview he created a false invoice on his home computer to try to justify the payments as compensation for media consulting he said totaled no more than $100,000.
Abouammo is charged with acting as a foreign agent and falsifying records to obstruct a federal investigation.
Ali Alzabarah, a Saudi citizen worked at Twitter beginning in August 2013 as a “site reliability engineer.”
Between May 21, 2015, and November 18, 2015, Alzabarah, without authorization, accessed “the Twitter data of over 6,000 Twitter users, including at least 33 usernames for which Saudi Arabian law enforcement had submitted emergency disclosure requests to Twitter,” the complaint said. Among the accounts he accessed were those belonging to well-known critics of the Saudi government.
“One of those accounts belonged to a prominent dissident, Omar Abdulaziz, who later became close to Jamal Khashoggi, a Washington Post columnist who advocated for free expression in the Arab world,” according to The Washington Post.
After being confronted by his superiors at Twitter, Alzabarah claimed that he had looked at the data out of curiosity. He left the Twitter building in San Francisco on December 2, 2015. The following day he submitted his resignation in an email while in flight enroute back to Saudi Arabia, according to the complaint.
A third man, Ahmed Almutairi, aka Ahmed Aljbreen, was also charged with spying. He is a Saudi citizen described in the complaint as a principal in a social media marketing company that works for the Saudi royal family. As an alleged intermediary between Saudi officials and the former Twitter employees, he is believed to be in Saudi Arabia working with Alzabarah on social media projects “for the benefit of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia,” according to the complaint.
Twitter, in a statement, said it is aware that “bad actors” will try to undermine its service and that the company “limits access to sensitive account information to a limited group of trained and vetted employees.”
“We understand the incredible risks faced by many who use Twitter to share their perspectives with the world and to hold those in power accountable,” the company added. “We have tools in place to protect their privacy and their ability to do their vital work.”
In an interview with Politico published Wednesday, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham compared President Donald Trump’s administration to Christmas morning.
“It’s like every day is Christmas,” the senator said, explaining that each day is like opening a wrapped gift in that no one knows what it holds. He said, “You don’t know what’s under the tree. It can be that shotgun you’ve been hoping to get, or it can be a sweater you don’t want.”
On Twitter, many people were quick to point out the quirks in the South Carolina senator’s analogy comparing Washington governance to Yuletide celebrations. Many found the juxtaposition of childlike excitement about presents with the image of a shotgun to be disturbing.
One user offered, “Or it can be that shotgun you DON’T want…” Another wrote, “That morally difficult sweater vs. shotgun kinda Xmas.” One of Graham’s critics said that the Senator is definitely on Santa’s naughty list.
Politico’s reporting highlights the complicated relationship that Democratic officials have with Graham. Delaware Senator Chris Coons told the outlet, “It’s the same Senator Graham who is simultaneously doing things on Judiciary with which I strongly disagree and doing things on Foreign Relations and foreign aid matters that I appreciate.”
Many senators spoke about Graham’s focus on addressing many different issues. He spoke about the importance of maintaining relationships across the aisle, telling Politico, “I tell every new member of the Senate-you just got to understand that your enemy today can be your ally tomorrow.”
Graham also spoke about his relationship with Trump and encouraged other officials to not “get sucked into the drama of the moment.” He told Politico, “The one thing about the president that I hope senators understand is he listens, he wants to be successful and he is not an ideologue.”
In the interview, Graham stood by his efforts against the House impeachment inquiry into the president’s dealings with Ukraine. He said, “This whole Ukrainian BS is just sour grapes [from] sore losers.” The senator previously referred to the impeachment as “BS” during an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday.
Last month, Graham presented his colleagues with a resolution on the impeachment inquiry. He accused Democrats of lacking transparency and due process in their approach to the investigation. Despite his attempts to thwart the impeachment inquiry, a constitutional scholar said that his accusations have “absolutely no substance.”
Brandy Lloyd, 50, a tech worker, said that she, too, voted a Democratic ticket although she usually supports Republicans. “But seeing what’s happening in Washington, I think it’s time for a change,” she said.
A fevered push by President Trump and Republican loyalists to unmask the whistleblower who launched the impeachment inquiry has churned up fundamental questions about the complainant’s legal protections, motives and safety.
In the past week, Trump has stepped up his assault on the anonymous federal employee, who disclosed a phone call in which Trump asked the Ukrainian president for a “favor” – to investigate political rival and former Vice President Joe Biden.
Thursday, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted about a person whom conservative websites have named as the whistleblower, a claim that has not been verified.
“It’s a kill-the-messenger approach,” said Jackie Garrick, founder of Whistleblowers of America, a volunteer support organization. “That’s what retaliation is all about – character assassination.”
Federal laws protect whistleblowers from retaliation, which could include identifying the person in question. But it’s not clear that those laws would prohibit the president from doing so.
People outside the Trump administration, including members of Congress and the public, would likely be covered by the First Amendment if they named the person, though civil law guards against libel and slander.
Legal protections may work for a while, but experts say federal employees who speak out about abuse or misconduct usually pay the price, professionally and personally. Most whistleblowers end up shunned and alone.
“Many regret what they did,” said C. Fred Alford, a professor emeritus of government and politics at the University of Maryland who has studied whistleblowers.
“But they say, ‘I couldn’t have done otherwise,'” he said. “And they never recover from what they’ve learned about the world.”
“We also now know the name of the whistleblower,” Paul declared during a political rally, though he didn’t name anyone. “The whistleblower needs to come forward as a material witness because he worked for Joe Biden.”
Paul apparently was referring to conservative websites and social media accounts that claim to have identified an intelligence employee as the whistleblower. USA TODAY has not independently verified those allegations.
Paul and Trump Jr. have faced criticism from people who say they’re endangering the whistleblower.
That’s what worries Andrew Bakaj, co-counsel for the whistleblower. He said he’s increasingly fearful for his client and upset by the rhetoric used by Trump, his supporters and public officials.
He said death threats have been directed at the whistleblower and attorneys, prompting them to take security measures that he would not describe.
“I’m certainly concerned about the safety of our client,” Bakaj said. “People need to be accountable – God forbid something should happen. This is serious: Somebody’s life and family” are at stake.
Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, considered having the whistleblower testify before Congress, perhaps in a way that concealed his or her identity, but said he decided against it because of Trump’s attacks.
Bakaj said the whistleblower is irrelevant now that others have corroborated the account of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.However, Bakaj and his co-counsel have agreed to allow their client to answer written questions from Republican lawmakers.
Trump said that’s not good enough. Earlier this week, the president alleged the whistleblower provided false information and “must be brought forward to testify.”
Most Republicans have been silent on the issue or have called for the whistleblower to come forward. One exception is Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who rebuked Trump and said the whistleblower should be protected.
Nick Schwellenbach, director of investigations for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan government watchdog, said there is “huge irony” in congressional calls to identify the whistleblower.
“They’re violating the spirit of these laws. And the laws are there to help Congress do its job,” he said. “They’re hurting themselves.”
Federal laws protect whistleblowers from reprisal in order to encourage employees to report corruption, lawbreaking and unethical conduct. Government officials who violate protective statutes may be disciplined or fired.
National security whistleblowers, who have access to top-secret information, are protected under a special law that covers 17 intelligence agencies and imposes requirements for filing a complaint with the Office of Inspector General for the intelligence community.
An executive or other employee in an intelligence agency would break that law by identifying an anonymous whistleblower.
The person who outed Trump’s conversation appears to be hyperaware of America’s protective statutes. The whistleblower’s seven-page letter to the inspector general goes into detail in explaining that the complaint followed federal procedures.
Bakaj made it clear he believes outing his client would be a form of retaliation that’s generally prohibited. But he doesn’t believe the law applies to Trump or members of Congress.
Still, Bakaj said, “I would expect members of the U.S. Senate, as well as the president of the United States, would respect the protections our client is afforded by statute.”
The Privacy Act also precludes government officials from identifying federal employees in many circumstances. Schwellenbach said that law bans White House and other executive-branch officials from identifying the whistleblower.
But again, it’s unclear whether that law would apply to Trump. “The system is not set up to discipline the president,” Schwellenbach said.
He said a push by the president or lawmakers to expose or “slime” the whistleblower may be retaliatory even if it’s not illegal. He also suggested it could be dangerous given Trump’s ability to stir emotions in a political climate with “a lot of very unhinged people out there.”
“This is such a passionate issue,” Schwellenbach said. “I think the person might need witness protection more than whistleblower protection.”
Experienced whistleblowers offered overlapping advice to the Trump informer: Tell the truth. Hire good lawyers. Take care of family and finances. Expect character assassination. Stay cool under fire.
“There is a whole cottage industry out there trying to destroy this person’s life,” Schwellenbach said.
“It’s a dangerous situation, and I don’t use that word lightly,” said John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who went to prison after exposing U.S. waterboarding of al-Qaida suspects overseas. “There’s a lot of crazy people out there.”
Kiriakou initially didn’t face repercussions, but several years later he was convicted of disclosing classified information after he gave the name of a CIA agent to a reporter.
A ticket to ‘professional Siberia’
The term “whistleblower” emerged in the 1970s instead of pejoratives such as “snitch” and “rat fink.”
Protections are not built into the Constitution. The first legal provisions were adopted in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, part of a wave of legislation that followed Watergate.
Eleven years later, the Whistleblower Protection Act spelled out the rights of federal employees to disclose government “illegality, waste, and corruption” without adverse consequences.
Since then, more laws have been adopted. Executive orders and court rulings have been issued. Oversight agencies have been created.
But those who have blown the whistle — and experts who study them — say shields against reprisal are easily circumvented, and oversight agencies often are backlogged and politicized.
The number of whistleblower complaints submitted to the Office of Special Counsel increased by 62 percent between 2011 and 2016, according to a report last year by the Government Accountability Office. The average time to process cases approached two years.
Even employees at the Office of Special Counsel, which is supposed to defend whistleblowers, were fearful of filing complaints because they did not believe they would be protected, according to the report.
The inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs found that, instead of assisting employees, the VA Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection conducted shoddy investigations, disrespected whistleblowers and sometimes turned on them.
Often, complainants become victims of retaliation – fired, harassed or disciplined without cause. Those who file appeals encounter another roadblock: The Merit Systems Protection Board is unable to hear their cases because it has lacked a quorum since January 2017.
As a result, Schwellenbach said, government employees who report misconduct “will probably be in professional Siberia at some point.”
Protective agencies are “worse than ineffective,” said Jesselyn Radack, director of the Whistleblower and Source Protection Program at the journalistic nonprofit ExposeFacts.
“The offices tasked with protecting whistleblowers are often used to retaliate against them,” she wrote in a column published by the Society of Professional Journalists. “Beyond administrative retaliation, whistleblowers increasingly face harsh criminal prosecution.”
‘Almost all have suffered’
The public perception of whistleblowers is often framed by Hollywood movies, from the Watergate classic “All the Presidents Men” to “The Post,” a 2017 film about the Pentagon Papers.
In real life, experts say, a few prominent figures may be lionized while average informers are trampled by history.
Alford, author of “Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power,” said most whistleblowers receive little public attention and, within a couple years, wind up shunned and fired, with broken homes and substance-abuse issues.
High-profile figures may gain some security with notoriety. But, for the man or woman who set off the impeachment furor, Alford said, fame almost certainly will be overwhelmed by a smear campaign or worse.
People who report government abuses, Alford said, are unusual people – highly principled, idealistic and naïve – who feel compelled to expose wrongdoing. They are often shocked not just by the misconduct they have revealed, but by the dishonesty and vindictiveness of those who retaliate.
“I would say almost all have suffered. There are very few success stories,” Alford said. “They think they’re doing their duty and they’ll get a pat on the back. … But organizations seem to find it impossible to live with someone who is willing to commit the truth.”
Tom Mueller, a journalist and author of “Crisis of Conscience: Whistleblowing in an Age of Fraud,” said employees in the national security realm have the fewest protections because they are required to report wrongdoings to the agency they are accusing.
Mueller said the impeachment complaint was supposed to go directly to Congress, but instead was carried to the White House by the director of National Security. That’s “the exact opposite of what’s supposed to happen,” he said.
“Quite often, politics trumps — no pun intended — the legal process,” Mueller said. “When you have broken whistleblower laws like we have, with no protections, you have people going outside the system.”
Bradley Birkenfeld was sentenced to prison after exposing tax evasion in banking. He later collected a $104 million settlement from the IRS.
“Whistleblowers are generally mistreated, maligned and attacked,” he said.
Proving his own point, Birkenfeld expressed skepticism about the complainant who divulged Trump’s phone call. He criticized the person’s decision to remain anonymous and disparaged the individual’s motives.
“It’s quite clear there’s a political agenda,” Birkenfeld said. “They’re trying to undermine a sitting president.”
South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham on the whistleblower’s identity and the impeachment investigation.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., blasted House Democrats Wednesday for their continued push for impeachment as the House Intelligence Committee prepares to hold public hearings next week.
“The whole thing is being driven by partisans in the House. Adam Schiff is not looking for the truth. And the testimony is incoherent. It depends on who you talk to,” Graham said Wednesday on “The Story with Martha MacCallum.” “But there is one common theme here, the president of the Ukraine and the president of the United States — both said there was no quid pro quo.”
Democrats on Wednesday released a transcript of testimony from U.S. diplomat Bill Taylor in which he claimed to have a “clear understanding” that President Trump wanted to leverage military aid to Ukraine in return for investigations that could benefit him politically. Taylor did acknowledge he didn’t have firsthand knowledge of “what was in the president’s mind.”
The House Intelligence Committee will hold its first open hearings next week as part of the formal impeachment inquiry into Trump, featuring current and former officials with knowledge of the Ukraine controversy.
“The most important facts are largely not contested,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Schiff told reporters Wednesday. “The president enlisted whole departments of government in the illicit aim of trying to get Ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent, as well as further a conspiracy theory about the 2016 election that he believed would be beneficial to his reelection campaign.”
“You know, that statement’s full of crap,” Graham said in reaction to Schiff’s statement. So Bill Taylor … what does he base his belief that there is a quid pro quo on? What is the factual basis?”
Graham also questioned why E.U. Ambassador Gordon Sondland revised his testimony to describe a quid pro quo, calling it “suspicious.”
“Why did Sondland change his testimony? Was there a connection between Sondland and Democratic operatives on the committee? Did he talk to Schiff? Did he tell it to Schiff’s staffers?” Graham asked. “I’ve been a lawyer for a very long time. When somebody changes their testimony, they suddenly recall something they didn’t know before. It makes me incredibly, incredibly suspicious.”
Tuesday’s transcripts revealed Sondland revised his prior testimony to say that he told a top Ukrainian official that U.S. aid would likely not resume until the country issues a corruption statement — a revelation that was quickly hailed by Democrats of proof of the quid pro quo they have been alleging took place.
Graham also went after the whistleblower, saying the statute protecting his or her identity was being abused.
“The whistleblower statute is being abused here. It does not give a person anonymity when it comes to making a claim of wrongdoing. It protects them from being fired,” Graham said. “The Constitution trumps the statute. No American, including Donald Trump, should be accused of something based on an anonymous source.”
Fox News’ Brooke Singman contributed to this report.
Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general and U.S. senator from Alabama, is set to announce Thursday his candidacy for the U.S. Senate race in his home state.
Andrew Harnik/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Andrew Harnik/AP
Jeff Sessions, the former attorney general and U.S. senator from Alabama, is set to announce Thursday his candidacy for the U.S. Senate race in his home state.
Andrew Harnik/AP
Jeff Sessions wants back in.
President Trump’s former attorney general and long-time Alabama Republican senator is expected to announce he is once again running for the seat he held for 20 years, according to two GOP sources. Sessions is facing a Friday filing deadline to declare his candidacy.
One source said Sessions was running without the coordination or support of the GOP establishment, including the White House, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, or the Senate GOP campaign operation. “He is definitely acting alone,” the source said.
There is already a crowded GOP primary field vying to take on incumbent Democratic Sen. Doug Jones, and the winner of the primary will be heavily favored to win next November in a deep-red state with Trump at the top of the ticket.
Some of the GOP primary candidates include former Auburn University football coach Tommy Tuberville, Alabama Secretary of State John Merrill, state Rep. Arnold Mooney and Roy Moore, the controversial Republican accused of sexual misconduct who lost the special election to replace Sessions to Jones in 2017. At least one of Sessions’s potential primary rivals, Rep. Bradley Byrne, made clear in a statement that he will not get out if Sessions gets in. “Alabama deserves a senator who will stand with the president and won’t run away and hide from the fight,” Byrne said.
If Sessions enters the race, he faces a bitter battle if Trump, his former boss, decides to campaign against him. His entry in the race will test Alabamans long-time support of Sessions with their real-time adoration of Trump, who enjoys some of his highest approval ratings in the nation in the state.
While Sessions was an early champion of Trump’s 2016 candidacy–long before anyone thought the New York businessman could win–the two fell out over Sessions’ handling of Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Their relationship never recovered after Sessions’ decision to recuse himself from the investigation.
Sessions resigned at Trump’s request in November 2018. The president regularly attacked Sessions in public and on Twitter. Sessions has largely avoided the public spotlight since stepping down. He is scheduled to appear Thursday evening on Fox News to discuss the race.
A “clear understanding” of a quid pro quo. The belief that a meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky wasn’t “worth it” if Kyiv had to interfere in US politics. And a growing suspicion of Rudy Giuliani’s role in the administration’s Ukraine policy.
Those are the three biggest takeaways from over 300 pages of testimony by William Taylor, the top US diplomat in Ukraine, released on Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee — and much of it further damages the president’s defense against impeachment.
Taylor spoke to three House committees last month as part of the Democratic-led impeachment inquiry. He’s one of a parade of current and former US officials testifying about the Trump administration’s policy toward Ukraine, including whether Trump withheld around $400 million in military aid to Ukraine for the president’s own political and personal gain.
Per Taylor last month, that’s exactly what the president did. In just his opening statement, he said that Trump made the aid contingent on the new Ukrainian government publicly announcing it would reopen an anti-corruption probe into Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company that Hunter Biden, Joe’s son, once sat on the board of.
Taylor said Trump also wanted Kyiv to investigate a long-debunked 2016 election conspiracy theory: that a Democratic National Committee server was whisked away to Ukraine to hide the fact that that country interfered in the vote, not Russia.
But thanks to 324 new pages of official testimony, we now know a whole lot more about what Taylor told lawmakers. It’s not only extra clear that there was a quid pro quo, but also that there is new ammunition for Democrats to use as they decide whether or not to impeach Trump.
Public hearings next week — which will feature Taylor — will surely only add more fuel to the fire.
For now, let’s dig into the three main takeaways.
Taylor said his “clear understanding” was that there was a quid pro quo
At the heart of the entire impeachment drama is this question: Did the Trump administration withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for that country opening an investigation into the Bidens? In his testimony, Taylor says yes.
“That was my clear understanding, security assistance money would not come until the President [of Ukraine] committed to pursue the investigation.” Asked by House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) if he’s “aware that a quid pro quo literally means this for that?” Taylor simply replies, “I am.”
Keep in mind that Taylor isn’t just some guy off the street. He’s the top US diplomat in Ukraine, the person who interacts with top Ukrainian leaders — including Zelensky — regularly and is the most senior official directly responsible for communicating Washington’s position to Ukraine’s government.
If he says he understood there to be a quid pro quo, then there likely was one. Period.
Having Ukraine interfere in US politics wasn’t “worth” a Trump-Zelensky meeting
Taylor took the job of top diplomat in Ukraine this year specifically to oversee a policy of strong US support for the Eastern European country. He and other administration officials initially pushed for a Trump-Zelensky meeting to reinforce close US-Ukraine ties.
But as Taylor started to piece the puzzle together, he realized that a presidential meeting and military aid were solely contingent on a probe into the Bidens and Democrats. That made Taylor uncomfortable, so much so that he began to question whether a meeting was “worth it” if it meant having Ukraine interfere in US politics.
Let’s be clear about this: Taylor believed having Kyiv look into Burisma amounted to helping Trump with his reelection prospects, and seeing a foreign nation potentially meddle in a presidential election at the request of the US government bothered him.
It’s worth remembering that the one of the main things former special counsel Robert Mueller looked into was whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton. Mueller didn’t find concrete evidence of that, but in this case there is a clear effort by Trump to get Ukraine to damage Joe Biden, a potential 2020 rival.
It may not be collusion, but it’s certainly corruption — and it was just corroborated by a highly respected top US diplomat.
Giuliani’s involvement with Ukraine was fine — until it wasn’t
One of the criticisms levied against Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani is that he should’ve stayed far away from America’s Ukraine policy. His ties to Trump aside, he’s a private citizen and not a US official, which some say disqualifies him from having any role in US foreign policy.
But Taylor, a decades-long American diplomat, says having a close confidant outside the official channels work on an important foreign policy matter isn’t such a big deal. “I wasn’t disturbed by that,” he told investigators. “It’s not unusual to ask people outside the government to play a role.
“We all have seen that, and that’s okay, as long as it’s consistent with and supports the main thrust of US foreign policy,” he continued. “And so at the time I didn’t think that that was a problem.”
The issue, though, is that Giuliani’s pressure campaign against Kyiv ended up changing Taylor’s mind. “Over time, did your view of that change?” an investigator asks. “It did,” Taylor responded.
This is an important point. Taylor had no problem with Giuliani’s involvement per se, as long as the lawyer worked to faithfully execute the official stated aims of US foreign policy. But he didn’t. He instead helped Trump and the administration try to get Ukraine’s assistance in making Joe Biden look bad.
Taylor makes this point specifically when referencing what he calls the “irregular channel” of communication with Ukrainian officials, led by Giuliani, during a question-and-answer session with Schiff.
“[T]hose two cases you mentioned, the Burisma and the Bidens and the 2016 election, those were both individual investigations that were sought by Mr. Giuliani because he believed it would help his client, the President of the United States, right?” Schiff asked. Taylor replied: “That’s my understanding.”
This section is worth underscoring. One of Trump’s core defenses for why the military aid was withheld was that they wanted Zelensky to do more to crack down on corruption in Ukraine.
But Taylor says Giuliani didn’t care about eradicating corruption in Ukraine. Instead, Taylor says Giuliani only cared about “one or two specific cases” that would help Trump politically — “irrespective of whether it helped solve the corruption problem.”
That worried Taylor, and so over time he soured on the role Giuliani played in Ukraine policy. When a by-the-book US diplomat thinks you may have overstepped, you probably overstepped.
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, with his wife, Glenna, speaks to supporters gathered at the Republican Party celebration event in Louisville, Ky., on Tuesday. Bevin has requested a recanvassing of the gubernatorial election’s results.
Timothy D. Easley/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Timothy D. Easley/AP
Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin, with his wife, Glenna, speaks to supporters gathered at the Republican Party celebration event in Louisville, Ky., on Tuesday. Bevin has requested a recanvassing of the gubernatorial election’s results.
Timothy D. Easley/AP
Kentucky Republican Gov. Matt Bevin is formally asking for a recanvass of Tuesday’s gubernatorial election, in which vote totals show Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear ahead by just over 5,000 votes. A recanvass is a double-checking of the vote totals and rarely produces different results.
In a statement, Bevin’s campaign manager said: “The people of Kentucky deserve a fair and honest election. With reports of irregularities, we are exercising the right to ensure that every lawful vote was counted.”
Bevin and his campaign have provided no details about election irregularities that they say took place during the race.
As of Wednesday, the number of election law complaints reported to the attorney general’s office was on par with those made in 2015.
University of Kentucky election law professor Joshua Douglas said that other than a recanvass, Bevin’s option is contesting the election, which would be settled by the Republican-led legislature. Kentucky law has no provision for a recount in gubernatorial races. But Douglas was skeptical a recanvass would make much difference for Bevin.
“Well, I think the 5,000-vote differential out of 1.4 million cast — yeah, although it sounds small — is actually a pretty large amount when it comes to the likelihood of the vote totals changing in any of these post-election disputes,” Douglas said.
Recanvasses are commonly requested in close races in Kentucky, but they have never produced a different election outcome and rarely produce a different vote total.
In 2015, Bevin’s opponent in the Republican primary, James Comer, requested a recanvass of the contest that Bevin won by 83 votes, producing no change in vote totals.
In 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders requested a recanvass in Kentucky’s Democratic primary. The process yielded 13 more votes for Sanders.
In a statement, Beshear campaign manager Sam Newton expressed hope that the recanvass would be the last step in the process.
“Last night, the people of Kentucky elected Andy Beshear as their next governor. Today, Governor-Elect Beshear is already working on his transition so that he can best serve the people of Kentucky on day one,” Newton said.
The recanvass is scheduled to take place on Nov. 14 at 9 a.m.
A fevered push by President Trump and Republican loyalists to unmask the whistleblower who launched the impeachment inquiry has churned up fundamental questions about the complainant’s legal protections, motives and safety.
In the past week, Trump has stepped up his assault on the anonymous federal employee, who disclosed a phone call in which Trump asked the Ukrainian president for a “favor” – to investigate political rival and former Vice President Joe Biden.
Thursday, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted about a person whom conservative websites have named as the whistleblower, a claim that has not been verified.
“It’s a kill-the-messenger approach,” said Jackie Garrick, founder of Whistleblowers of America, a volunteer support organization. “That’s what retaliation is all about – character assassination.”
Federal laws protect whistleblowers from retaliation, which could include identifying the person in question. But it’s not clear that those laws would prohibit the president from doing so.
People outside the Trump administration, including members of Congress and the public, would likely be covered by the First Amendment if they named the person, though civil law guards against libel and slander.
Legal protections may work for a while, but experts say federal employees who speak out about abuse or misconduct usually pay the price, professionally and personally. Most whistleblowers end up shunned and alone.
“Many regret what they did,” said C. Fred Alford, a professor emeritus of government and politics at the University of Maryland who has studied whistleblowers.
“But they say, ‘I couldn’t have done otherwise,'” he said. “And they never recover from what they’ve learned about the world.”
“We also now know the name of the whistleblower,” Paul declared during a political rally, though he didn’t name anyone. “The whistleblower needs to come forward as a material witness because he worked for Joe Biden.”
Paul apparently was referring to conservative websites and social media accounts that claim to have identified an intelligence employee as the whistleblower. USA TODAY has not independently verified those allegations.
Paul and Trump Jr. have faced criticism from people who say they’re endangering the whistleblower.
That’s what worries Andrew Bakaj, co-counsel for the whistleblower. He said he’s increasingly fearful for his client and upset by the rhetoric used by Trump, his supporters and public officials.
He said death threats have been directed at the whistleblower and attorneys, prompting them to take security measures that he would not describe.
“I’m certainly concerned about the safety of our client,” Bakaj said. “People need to be accountable – God forbid something should happen. This is serious: Somebody’s life and family” are at stake.
Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, considered having the whistleblower testify before Congress, perhaps in a way that concealed his or her identity, but said he decided against it because of Trump’s attacks.
Bakaj said the whistleblower is irrelevant now that others have corroborated the account of Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.However, Bakaj and his co-counsel have agreed to allow their client to answer written questions from Republican lawmakers.
Trump said that’s not good enough. Earlier this week, the president alleged the whistleblower provided false information and “must be brought forward to testify.”
Most Republicans have been silent on the issue or have called for the whistleblower to come forward. One exception is Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who rebuked Trump and said the whistleblower should be protected.
Nick Schwellenbach, director of investigations for the Project on Government Oversight, a nonpartisan government watchdog, said there is “huge irony” in congressional calls to identify the whistleblower.
“They’re violating the spirit of these laws. And the laws are there to help Congress do its job,” he said. “They’re hurting themselves.”
Federal laws protect whistleblowers from reprisal in order to encourage employees to report corruption, lawbreaking and unethical conduct. Government officials who violate protective statutes may be disciplined or fired.
National security whistleblowers, who have access to top-secret information, are protected under a special law that covers 17 intelligence agencies and imposes requirements for filing a complaint with the Office of Inspector General for the intelligence community.
An executive or other employee in an intelligence agency would break that law by identifying an anonymous whistleblower.
The person who outed Trump’s conversation appears to be hyperaware of America’s protective statutes. The whistleblower’s seven-page letter to the inspector general goes into detail in explaining that the complaint followed federal procedures.
Bakaj made it clear he believes outing his client would be a form of retaliation that’s generally prohibited. But he doesn’t believe the law applies to Trump or members of Congress.
Still, Bakaj said, “I would expect members of the U.S. Senate, as well as the president of the United States, would respect the protections our client is afforded by statute.”
The Privacy Act also precludes government officials from identifying federal employees in many circumstances. Schwellenbach said that law bans White House and other executive-branch officials from identifying the whistleblower.
But again, it’s unclear whether that law would apply to Trump. “The system is not set up to discipline the president,” Schwellenbach said.
He said a push by the president or lawmakers to expose or “slime” the whistleblower may be retaliatory even if it’s not illegal. He also suggested it could be dangerous given Trump’s ability to stir emotions in a political climate with “a lot of very unhinged people out there.”
“This is such a passionate issue,” Schwellenbach said. “I think the person might need witness protection more than whistleblower protection.”
Experienced whistleblowers offered overlapping advice to the Trump informer: Tell the truth. Hire good lawyers. Take care of family and finances. Expect character assassination. Stay cool under fire.
“There is a whole cottage industry out there trying to destroy this person’s life,” Schwellenbach said.
“It’s a dangerous situation, and I don’t use that word lightly,” said John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who went to prison after exposing U.S. waterboarding of al-Qaida suspects overseas. “There’s a lot of crazy people out there.”
Kiriakou initially didn’t face repercussions, but several years later he was convicted of disclosing classified information after he gave the name of a CIA agent to a reporter.
A ticket to ‘professional Siberia’
The term “whistleblower” emerged in the 1970s instead of pejoratives such as “snitch” and “rat fink.”
Protections are not built into the Constitution. The first legal provisions were adopted in the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, part of a wave of legislation that followed Watergate.
Eleven years later, the Whistleblower Protection Act spelled out the rights of federal employees to disclose government “illegality, waste, and corruption” without adverse consequences.
Since then, more laws have been adopted. Executive orders and court rulings have been issued. Oversight agencies have been created.
But those who have blown the whistle — and experts who study them — say shields against reprisal are easily circumvented, and oversight agencies often are backlogged and politicized.
The number of whistleblower complaints submitted to the Office of Special Counsel increased by 62 percent between 2011 and 2016, according to a report last year by the Government Accountability Office. The average time to process cases approached two years.
Even employees at the Office of Special Counsel, which is supposed to defend whistleblowers, were fearful of filing complaints because they did not believe they would be protected, according to the report.
The inspector general of the Department of Veterans Affairs found that, instead of assisting employees, the VA Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection conducted shoddy investigations, disrespected whistleblowers and sometimes turned on them.
Often, complainants become victims of retaliation – fired, harassed or disciplined without cause. Those who file appeals encounter another roadblock: The Merit Systems Protection Board is unable to hear their cases because it has lacked a quorum since January 2017.
As a result, Schwellenbach said, government employees who report misconduct “will probably be in professional Siberia at some point.”
Protective agencies are “worse than ineffective,” said Jesselyn Radack, director of the Whistleblower and Source Protection Program at the journalistic nonprofit ExposeFacts.
“The offices tasked with protecting whistleblowers are often used to retaliate against them,” she wrote in a column published by the Society of Professional Journalists. “Beyond administrative retaliation, whistleblowers increasingly face harsh criminal prosecution.”
‘Almost all have suffered’
The public perception of whistleblowers is often framed by Hollywood movies, from the Watergate classic “All the Presidents Men” to “The Post,” a 2017 film about the Pentagon Papers.
In real life, experts say, a few prominent figures may be lionized while average informers are trampled by history.
Alford, author of “Whistleblowers: Broken Lives and Organizational Power,” said most whistleblowers receive little public attention and, within a couple years, wind up shunned and fired, with broken homes and substance-abuse issues.
High-profile figures may gain some security with notoriety. But, for the man or woman who set off the impeachment furor, Alford said, fame almost certainly will be overwhelmed by a smear campaign or worse.
People who report government abuses, Alford said, are unusual people – highly principled, idealistic and naïve – who feel compelled to expose wrongdoing. They are often shocked not just by the misconduct they have revealed, but by the dishonesty and vindictiveness of those who retaliate.
“I would say almost all have suffered. There are very few success stories,” Alford said. “They think they’re doing their duty and they’ll get a pat on the back. … But organizations seem to find it impossible to live with someone who is willing to commit the truth.”
Tom Mueller, a journalist and author of “Crisis of Conscience: Whistleblowing in an Age of Fraud,” said employees in the national security realm have the fewest protections because they are required to report wrongdoings to the agency they are accusing.
Mueller said the impeachment complaint was supposed to go directly to Congress, but instead was carried to the White House by the director of National Security. That’s “the exact opposite of what’s supposed to happen,” he said.
“Quite often, politics trumps — no pun intended — the legal process,” Mueller said. “When you have broken whistleblower laws like we have, with no protections, you have people going outside the system.”
Bradley Birkenfeld was sentenced to prison after exposing tax evasion in banking. He later collected a $104 million settlement from the IRS.
“Whistleblowers are generally mistreated, maligned and attacked,” he said.
Proving his own point, Birkenfeld expressed skepticism about the complainant who divulged Trump’s phone call. He criticized the person’s decision to remain anonymous and disparaged the individual’s motives.
“It’s quite clear there’s a political agenda,” Birkenfeld said. “They’re trying to undermine a sitting president.”
Attackers besieged the three vehicles with gunfire Monday, authorities said, killing nine and wounding several children. One of the cars, carrying Rhonita Maria Miller, 30, and four children, including 8-month-old twins, caught fire. By the time the charred remains of the vehicle were found by rescuers, only bones and ash remained. Farther up the road, Christina Johnson, 31, was in another vehicle, along with her baby. Johnson was shot to death, but her 7-month-old infant survived and was found strapped to her car seat.
Bullet holes are seen in a Suburban that was driven by a member of the LeBaron family, as foam puzzle-pieces sit on the driver’s seat. The family was attacked Monday morning on a dirt road near Bavispe, along the Sonora-Chihuahua border.
Christian Chavez/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Christian Chavez/AP
Bullet holes are seen in a Suburban that was driven by a member of the LeBaron family, as foam puzzle-pieces sit on the driver’s seat. The family was attacked Monday morning on a dirt road near Bavispe, along the Sonora-Chihuahua border.
Christian Chavez/AP
Several members of the extended family of Mormons whose relatives were attacked in northern Mexico Monday are speaking out, saying it’s time to reject gang violence. As family members prepare to bury the nine victims killed in that attack, they also say both the U.S. and Mexico should be part of the solution.
President Trump has extended his condolences to relatives of victims — three mothers and six children, all U.S. citizens — on Tuesday. But it was Trump’s offer to help by sending the U.S. military into Mexico that drew a response from both the family and Mexico’s government.
President Andrés Manuel López Obrador quickly rebuffed Trump’s offer, saying his government will seek justice in the case. And on Wednesday, López Obrador’s top security official went further, saying the U.S. could help — by stopping the flow of high-powered weapons into Mexico.
“This is a grave problem we have in the country, the smuggling of arms, particularly from the U.S.,” Security Minister Alfonso Durazo said in an update on the case Wednesday morning. Of the flow of weapons from the U.S., he added, “it’s what has allowed the criminal groups to increase their firepower.”
Alex LeBaron, one of the slain family members’ relatives, used Twitter to relay a more direct response to Trump.
“Want to help?” LeBaron asked in a tweet addressed to the president. “Focus on lowering Drug Consumption in U.S. Want to help some more? Stop the ATF and Gun Law loopholes from systematically injecting high powered assault weapons to Mexico. ” He added, “Please help.”
Last year, Mexico reported a record 33,341 intentional homicides — a 15% increase over the previous year. In 2019, criminal organizations have continued to operate with seeming impunity — including an incident last month when security forces retreated from a massive gun battle that broke out when authorities tried to arrest a son of the imprisoned kingpin Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán.
For years, many Mexican politicians have believed, as NPR’s Jason Beaubien reported in 2010, that Mexico’s incredibly violent drug war is “fueled by U.S. demand for narcotics, fought with weapons from U.S. gun shops, and funded by U.S. cash that flows freely across the border.”
When the U.S. performed its own tally of illegal guns that were seized in Mexico, the Government Accountability Office reported that more than 73,000 weapons seized in Mexico from 2009 to 2014 were traced back to the U.S. About half of those were long guns. But officials on both sides of the border also said they were seeing unfinished gun parts — which aren’t covered by the U.S. Gun Control Act — leaving the U.S. for Mexico, where they can easily be assembled into finished weapons.
“We’re joined by a hip on this. This is a problem for both countries,” another family member, Daniel LeBaron, says in an interview with KJZZ’s Fronteras Desk. Acknowledging the cartel violence that claims thousands of lives each year, LeBaron adds, “Maybe now with the face of Americans being murdered it brings it closer to home that this is a serious problem.”
Relatives of slain members of Mexican-American families belonging to Mormon communities visit the burnt wreckage of a Chevrolet Tahoe where five of their relatives died in Bavispe, in the northern Mexican state of Sonora.
Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters
hide caption
toggle caption
Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters
Relatives of slain members of Mexican-American families belonging to Mormon communities visit the burnt wreckage of a Chevrolet Tahoe where five of their relatives died in Bavispe, in the northern Mexican state of Sonora.
Jose Luis Gonzalez/Reuters
Mexican officials say they’re still trying to determine whether the group was targeted or if they were the victims of mistaken identity. The large Mormon community lives in an area just south of Arizona where rival cartels are currently at war, fighting to secure smuggling routes close to the U.S. border. But citing the intensity of the attack, relatives say the criminals intentionally killed carloads of women and children.
Lenzo Widmar, whose cousin Rhonita Maria Miller was killed along with four of her children, tells Mexican media outlet Milenio, “We are a family of more than 5,000 members in our communities and our roots are already very planted here in Mexico.”
“We have no plans to leave,” he adds.
Another relative, anti-violence activist Julián LeBarón, tells Milenio that he doesn’t care whether the U.S. or Mexico lead the inquiry into the killings, as long as justice is served.
The shocking attack is putting new pressure on the non-confrontational policies of López Obrador, who has often insisted that social changes, not violence, will win the drug war. He’s now defending that strategy, which he has often summed up in short phrases, from “Hugs, not bullets,” to “We can’t fight fire with fire.”
However the official response to the killings turns out, relatives say they’re not leaving the community they call home.
“We are coming together as a community to deal with it. We’ve been here for five generations. Most of us have blood from both places. And we’re no we’re going anywhere,” Daniel LeBaron tells Fronteras. “We’re going to fight this. We’re going to stand up to whatever we have to stand up to.”
Discussing the thousands of innocent people who are affected by cartel violence annually in Mexico, Daniel LeBaron says the killings are fueled by “fundamentally flawed policies” in both the U.S. and Mexico.
The women and children were attacked Monday morning as they drove three SUVs between the states of Sonora and Chihuahua. In one spot, authorities found a burned-out Chevrolet Tahoe with five bodies and multiple bullet holes. Further down the road, they found two Chevy Suburbans with more bodies — and in what the family calls a small miracle, several children survived the assault, including a seven-month-old girl.
Several details about the attack have changed as the authorities continue to investigate. After initial reports that the three women had been driving in a small convoy when they were attacked, for instance, federal officials said Wednesday that the first vehicle was fired upon more than an hour before the other two.
A map handed out by Mexico’s federal government Wednesday shows the locations of three vehicles driven by women who died in a brutal attack this week. Six of their children also died, and others were wounded.
Mexican government handout
hide caption
toggle caption
Mexican government handout
A map handed out by Mexico’s federal government Wednesday shows the locations of three vehicles driven by women who died in a brutal attack this week. Six of their children also died, and others were wounded.
Mexican government handout
News of the attack has been steadily relayed on Facebook by Jhon LeBaron, whose aunt, Dawna Ray Langford, died along with two of her children. His postings and updates have included heartbreaking photos of the children who died, and scenes from the sites on the road where the attacks took place.
“The response I got from this posting was truly quite overwhelming,” Jhon LeBaron said Wednesday, thanking those who helped get the word out about his family’s horrible loss.
“My brain is in a fog. And as a family we’re working thru this,” he said. “Justice must be served for this horrendous crime. My family is in the process of planning funerals for these beautiful souls.”
The victims are part of the extended LeBaron family, members of which have lived in northern Mexico for decades since splitting off from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints following its move away from polygamy. That rift began in 1890; this week, the Utah-based church said that while it mourns those who were killed or hurt in Sonora, it doesn’t consider the victims to be members of the church.
In religious terms, the best way to refer to the victims and their relatives is as independent Mormons, says Cristina Rosetti, a scholar of Mormon fundamentalism, in an interview with member station KUER in Utah.
The attack unfolded near the town of Bavispe, close to the family’s La Mora ranch. In a visit to that area late Tuesday, Mexico Foreign Relations Secretary Marcelo Ebrard called the brutal attack “an atrocity that cannot be allowed.”
Of the Mormons who live in that area, Ebrard said they are a binational community that is “very respectable and beloved in Mexico.”
During a rally Monday evening in Lexington, Kentucky, President Donald Trump urged his fans to go out and vote for incumbent Gov. Matt Bevin (R), warning them that a high-profile loss in a state he won by 30 points in 2016 “sends a really bad message” and pleading, “you can’t let that happen to me!”
Well, that “bad message” was sent. Though Bevin has not conceded the race as of Wednesday morning, with all of the precincts reporting, he appears to have lost to Democratic Attorney General Andy Beshear by just over 5,000 votes.
As it became clear that Bevin was headed for defeat on Tuesday evening, footage of Trump’s comments from the night before went viral.
Here’s Trump saying at his rally in Kentucky last night that Matt Bevin losing “sends a really bad message” and pleading with his fans, “you can’t let that happen to me!”
Trump, as he is in the habit of doing, responded to Bevin’s loss with brazen gaslighting. Though the most recent Kentucky poll showed Bevin leading by five points, Trump tweeted without evidence that Bevin “picked up at least 15 points in last days, but perhaps not enough (Fake News will blame Trump!).” He touted Republican victories in down-ballot races and the fact that a Republican won the gubernatorial race in deep-red Mississippi (while ignoring Democrats flipping both the state House and Senate in Virginia).
Later, Trump went even further and claimed, again without evidence, that Bevin may have picked up as many as 20 points in the polls thanks to his Lexington rally.
(To be generous to Trump, one relatively unreliable pollster did have Beshear leading Bevin by a considerable margin in the weeks heading into the election. But reputable pollsters had the race at basically a dead heat.)
Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel echoed Trump’s talking point in a tweet where she claimed Bevin “was down 17 points” and that “[n]o one energizes our base like” Trump. An RNC spokesperson told Aaron Blake of the Washington Post that the number McDaniel cited is based on “internal data from earlier in the year.” (McDaniel posted a similarly dubious tweet about Trump’s purported impact on the Mississippi gubernatorial race.)
The Trump campaign, meanwhile, released a statement claiming that Trump “just about dragged Gov. Matt Bevin across the finish line.” It’s true that Bevin worked hard to nationalize the race, tying himself to the president’s policies and rhetoric in an attempt to overcome his own unpopularity in the state, as my colleague Tara Golshan explained. That may have helped him make gains over the last six months. But Trump’s election-eve appearance in Kentucky — one in which he appeared on stage with Kentucky GOP superstars Senate Majority Leader Mitch Connell and Sen. Rand Paul — was not enough to carry him on Election Day.
Trump is in the habit of making outrageous claims about his impact on races in red districts in states. In September, for instance, he responded to Republican Dan Bishop’s win by about 2 percentage points in a special election for a congressional seat in a deep red North Carolina district (that Republicans have held since 1963) by tweeting that Bishop “was down 17 points 3 weeks ago” before he appealed to Trump for help.
But, similar to Bevin’s race, pre-election polling showed that Bishop’s race was basically a dead heat. His victory was not the comeback story that Trump wanted to take credit for. And the Bevin and Bishop cases are far from isolated instances. As I’ve detailed, Trump has a long history of using election results — even when Republicans lose — to glorify himself.
In speech to Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, Trump takes credit for Saccone not losing by more votes than he did last week in Pennsylvania.
“We went in there, they were down – good man, Rick Saccone, didn’t quite make it, but think of it — lost by about 300 votes” pic.twitter.com/yP16JdIwSb
Bevin’s defeat isn’t good news for Trump, but it’s perhaps even worse news for Senate Majority Leader McConnell, who, like the president, is on the ballot next year. While Bevin’s 34 percent approval rating made him one of the most unpopular governors in the country heading into Tuesday night, McConnell’s approval rating in Kentucky is even lower (24.3 percent, according to RealClearPolitics’s polling average). It will be more difficult for Democrats to win in Kentucky in a year when both McConnell and Trump are on the ballot, but Bevin’s defeat indicates McConnell is at least in for a competitive reelection contest.
Trump on Wednesday morning tweeted that the Kentucky results were actually somehow good news for McConnell.
But, assuming he’s inclined to interpret the results more rationally than the president, that claim must be cold comfort for the Senate majority leader.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Republicans may add a leading ally of President Donald Trump to the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Jim Jordan, to strengthen their defenses as the impeachment investigation against the president goes public.
An aide to House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy confirmed a report by CBS News that McCarthy was eyeing making temporary adjustments to the Republican membership of the Democratic-led intelligence panel, which will begin holding public impeachment hearings next week.
Jordan, an argumentative former assistant college wrestling coach and former leader of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, has proven himself adept at the public defense of Trump throughout the first part of the inquiry.
He has been a near constant attendee at closed-door depositions of witnesses being conducted by the House intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs committees, talking frequently to reporters afterward and defending the president on television as well.
Democrats, who have the majority in the House, are planning for the public hearings stage of the inquiry to be conducted only by the intelligence committee, which Jordan does not currently belong to. He is the top Republican on the oversight committee.
Jordan told reporters on Wednesday that it’s “up to Leader McCarthy” whether he is added to the intelligence panel. “I’m going to help no matter what,” he said.
On “Fox & Friends” on Tuesday, Jordan said: “I want to help the country see the truth here, that President Trump didn’t do anything wrong. And what the Democrats are doing is partisan, it’s unfair and frankly, it’s ridiculous.”
Democrats in the House launched an impeachment investigation after an intelligence official made a whistleblower complaint about a July 25 telephone call in which Trump pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate political rival Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.
Republican Trump has denied wrongdoing and accused Democrats of unfairly targeting him in hope of reversing his surprise victory in the 2016 presidential election.
Jordan’s presence on the intelligence committee could greatly increase the drama at public hearings.
Jordan says the Democratic chairman of the intelligence panel, Representative Adam Schiff, should have to answer questions about his staff’s early contacts with the whistleblower.
additional reporting by Richard Cowan Editing by Ross Colvin and Bill Berkrot
Proposed by HHS’ Office of Civil Rights more than a year ago, the rule was designed to protect “conscience rights” of health care providers by boosting enforcement of at least two dozen laws already on the books that allow doctors, nurses, technicians and other providers to opt out of procedures such as abortions or gender-change procedures to which they object.
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"
