President Trump addresses the nation from the White House on the missile strike that Iran launched against air bases in Iraq last week.
Alex Brandon/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Alex Brandon/AP
President Trump addresses the nation from the White House on the missile strike that Iran launched against air bases in Iraq last week.
Alex Brandon/AP
More Americans disapprove than approve of President Trump’s handling of the situation with Iran, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll. But they are split along party lines, and the results largely reflect the president’s approval rating.
By a 49%-42% margin, Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of Iran. Usual splits emerge, with roughly 9 in 10 Republicans approving, more than 8 in 10 Democrats disapproving and about half of independents disapproving.
Trump’s job approval is steady at 41%, with a majority of Americans (53%) continuing to disapprove of the job he’s doing. Similar to the party split seen in the Iran question, 9 in 10 Democrats disapprove, while 9 in 10 Republicans approve. But 55% of independents disapprove.
There was a 47%-47% split on whether Americans are in favor of the Senate removing Trump from office, a finding largely unchanged from last month. And here, as well, 85% of Democrats think he should be removed, 92% of Republicans don’t and independents are split.
As locked in as Americans are on their views of Trump, it’s notable that the survey found some variance among independents on these three questions.
“There’s obviously a group of independents who do move one way or another,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of the Marist Poll at Marist College, adding, “Voters, who although may not have the most positive impression of him [Trump] overall, do assess the president based on the specific issue.”
The pollsters noted that about 3 in 10 independents (29%) shifted in their support or opposition to the president in response to the three questions.
That reflects about 8% of the 1,259 adults in the poll and about 10% of the 1,064 registered voters surveyed.
That’s essentially the small universe of persuadable voters in America who could determine whether Trump is reelected.
The survey, conducted by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percentage points when adults are referenced and +/- 3.8 percentage points when registered voters are referenced.
The most basic principles of constitutional law require relevant information, including documents and executive branch witnesses, to be turned over to Congress in an impeachment proceeding. Particularly because sitting presidents cannot be indicted, impeachment is the only immediate remedy we the people have against a lawless president. For that remedy to have any teeth, relevant information has to be provided. That’s why President James Polk said that, during impeachment, Congress could “penetrate into the most secret recesses of the Executive Departments … command the attendance of any and every agent of the Government, and compel them to produce all papers, public or private, official or unofficial.” No president, not even Richard Nixon, thought he could just say “no” to impeachment. That’s why the House added Article II to Trump’s impeachment: “Obstruction of Congress.” It was a response to an unprecedented attempt by Trump to hide the truth.
Those phones, released in 2012 and 2016, lack Apple’s most sophisticated encryption. The iPhone 5 is even older than the device in the San Bernardino case, which was an iPhone 5C.
Security researchers and a former senior Apple executive who spoke on the condition of anonymity said tools from at least two companies, Cellebrite and Grayshift, have long been able to bypass the encryption on those iPhone models.
Cellebrite said in an email that it helps “thousands of organizations globally to lawfully access and analyze” digital information; it declined to comment on an active investigation. Grayshift declined to comment.
Cellebrite’s and Grayshift’s tools exploit flaws in iPhone software that let them remove limits on how many passwords can be tried before the device erases its data, the researchers said. Typically, iPhones allow 10 password attempts. The tools then use a so-called brute-force attack, or repeated automated attempts of thousands of passcodes, until one works.
“The iPhone 5 is so old, you are guaranteed that Grayshift and Cellebrite can break into those every bit as easily as Apple could,” said Nicholas Weaver, a lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley, who has taught iPhone security.
Chuck Cohen, who recently retired as head of the Indiana State Police’s efforts to break into encrypted devices, said his team used a $15,000 device from Grayshift that enabled it to regularly get into iPhones, particularly older ones, though the tool didn’t always work.
In the San Bernardino case, the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General later found the F.B.I. had not tried all possible solutions before trying to force Apple to unlock the phone. In the current case, Mr. Barr and other Justice Department officials have said they have exhausted all options, though they declined to detail exactly why third-party tools have failed on these phones as the authorities seek to learn if the gunman acted alone or coordinated with others.
An airplane returning to Los Angeles International Airport on Tuesday morning dropped jet fuel onto a school playground, dousing several students at Park Avenue Elementary School in Cudahy, officials said.
Delta Flight 89 — a Boeing 777 — had taken off from LAX with more than 140 passengers on board and was en route to Shanghai when it turned around and headed back to the L.A. airport.
“Shortly after takeoff, Flight 89 from LAX to Shanghai experienced an engine issue requiring the aircraft to return quickly to LAX,” Delta said in a statement released Tuesday night. “The aircraft landed safely after a release of fuel, which was required as part of normal procedure to reach a safe landing weight. Delta is in touch with Los Angeles World Airports and the L.A. County Fire Department as well as community leaders, and shares concerns regarding reports of minor injuries to adults and children at schools in the area.”
The plane is 20 years old and makes daily flights from Los Angeles to Shanghai. In recent weeks, the plane had also made trips out of L.A. to Paris and Tokyo.
The flight is typically a 13-hour nonstop. This one lasted about 25 minutes.
At 11:47 a.m., an LAFD firefighter radioed that they were responding to a call at LAX.
“We have a Boeing triple 7, call sign Delta 89, reporting a compressor stall, 181 souls on board, 12 hours of fuel, ETA less than five minutes,” an LAFD firefighter said.
When the compressor of a plane’s engine stalls, it can cause the loss of airflow through an engine, which can cause the engine to fail.
Passenger Tim Lefebvre, a bass guitarist headed to China for gigs, was sitting at the front of the plane when he heard loud popping sounds.
“It was kind of right next to me,” Lefebvre said. “I knew that wasn’t good. The pilot came on a couple minutes later and said we were going back to LAX, and that was that.”
The pilot told passengers that there had been an engine problem and that they shouldn’t be alarmed if, when the plane landed, they saw firetrucks on the runway, Lefebvre said.
Everyone on board remained calm, although the flight attendant seated near Lefebvre looked concerned, he said.
“Just imagine if we had been over the Pacific a good distance,” Lefebvre said. “That would not have been good.”
A total of 60 patients were treated, at least 20 of them children. The Los Angeles County Fire Department said more than 70 firefighters and paramedics headed to Park School Elementary, where 20 children and 11 adults were treated for minor injuries. No one was taken to the hospital. Additionally, six people at Tweedy Elementary School and six at San Gabriel Elementary in South Gate were affected, as was one adult at Graham Elementary School. L.A. City Fire treated 16 patients at Jordan High School in Long Beach and 93rd Street Elementary in Green Meadows.
LAFD spokesperson Nicholas Prange said two classes were outside Park Avenue Elementary when the liquid rained down shortly before noon. Students and staff were instructed to go indoors and remain there for the time being.
Park Avenue Elementary School sixth grader Josue Burgos was participating in physical education outside when he was surprised to feel the sensation of rain. The 11-year-old in Mariana de la Torre’s class looked up to see a plane barreling down on his campus.
“We came out and we were playing, and the airplane was outside and we thought it was rain, but then we knew it was throwing gas on us, and everybody started to run,” Josue said. “We went to the auditorium and we knew what happened. We went back to class. We stayed for one hour and then we went home.”
Josue said fuel landed on his sweater, shirt and shorts, and the odor was immediately noticeable.
“Yeah, it smelled bad,” he said. “It wasn’t water.”
Parent Freddie Contreras, who lives about a block away from campus, thought he saw glass crashing down outside his apartment.
Contreras raced out of the complex to find an overwhelming odor emanating not just from the roof and surrounding pavement, but from his white 2016 Honda Civic, which had been doused in fuel.
“I didn’t know what I was supposed to do, and I didn’t know what was going on, but I knew it was gas or something toxic,” Contreras said.
While Contreras’ son Mateo, a Park Avenue first-grader, was unharmed, sister-in-law Yesenia Pantaja, who also lives in the complex, complained of a headache.
“It’s the fuel,” Contreras said. “I want to leave, but I don’t know if I can drive my car. I don’t know if it’s safe.”
While Park Avenue parent Francisco Javier was relieved that his first-grade son was inside his classroom and unaffected by the fuel dump, he was careful not to inhale too deeply.
“You should have been here when it first happened,” Javier said. “You couldn’t breathe it was so bad. It’s still strong, but not as bad as it was.”
Javier, who lives across the street from the school’s main entrance, walked outside to assess the situation and observe the crowd of media, fire and police. He then headed back into his apartment to close and lock all the windows.
Sixth-grader Miguel Cervantes was one of several students taking part in physical education classes outside when he was confused by what was happening.
“I saw an airplane and I thought smoke was coming out,” Miguel said. “Then when it got closer, I knew it was gas because a little bit fell on me.”
Miguel said that fuel hit parts of his shirt and pants and that within an hour he had been sent home.
Miguel’s mother, Ana, received a call about the events and rushed over to Park Avenue.
“Just a small amount landed on my son’s clothes and on his arms, but we washed him with soap and changed his clothes and he seems fine,” Ana Cervantes said.
When asked if she would destroy her son’s clothes out of caution, Cervantes said the measure was too drastic.
“Those are expensive clothes, we’ll just wash them with soap and water,” she said.
Ross Aimer, the chief executive officer of Aero Consulting Experts, said fuel dumping is very rare and is used only in case of emergencies or if pilots have to reach a safe landing weight, as was the case in Tuesday’s incident.
“Most pilots choose not to dump fuel unless the emergency really dictates it,” Aimer said.
A possible emergency would be non-functioning landing gear that would otherwise make it difficult to control the plane.
When pilots dump fuel, they typically try to do it at above 10,000 feet and over water, but ideally it should be done at higher elevation because then the fuel turns into mist and it’s away from populated areas.
Aimer said that without knowing what Flight 89’s emergency was, the pilot may have been in the final stage of dumping fuel as the plane was heading toward LAX. He said there is also a good chance the pilot made an error.
“I don’t remember anyone dumping fuel over population,” he said.
The Federal Aviation Administration is investigating the matter.
“There are special fuel-dumping procedures for aircraft operating into and out of any major U.S. airport. These procedures call for fuel to be dumped over designated unpopulated areas, typically at higher altitudes so the fuel atomizes and disperses before it reaches the ground,” officials said in a statement.
An example of an unpopulated area would be an ocean, said Douglas Moss, aviation consultant and a retired United Airlines pilot.
To make an emergency landing, a pilot will try to get the airplane down to its landing weight so there are more options in case of an aborted landing attempt. How and where that fuel dump happens depends on the type of emergency, said Tom Haueter, former director of the National Transportation Safety Board’s Office of Aviation Safety.
Pilots will typically alert air traffic controllers of the emergency fuel release and the air traffic controllers will try to direct the plane, said Haueter, who now serves as a consultant on aviation safety and accident investigations.
The drop will typically happen at an altitude of 5,000 feet so the fuel vaporizes before hitting the ground. But if there is a severe emergency, plans may change.
“The real key is to know what’s the nature of the emergency,” Haueter said.
In an emergency, the captain is “authorized to break any rule in the book,” Moss said. “He still tries to adhere to as many of the rules as he can, but the bottom line is his actions must be in the best interest of safety.”
Cudahy officials expressed disappointment over the incident and were demanding answers about why the fuel was dropped over the school.
Newly appointed Mayor Elizabeth Alcantar said the school was next door to Cudahy City Hall.
“I’m very upset,” she said in a phone interview. “This is an elementary school, these are small children.”
The incident hit a nerve in the community. Environmental injustices have long taken place in southeast Los Angeles County. For years, activists and residents fought for the closure of a battery recycling plant in the industrial city of Vernon because it emitted cancer-causing arsenic and lead, a potent neurotoxin, into nearby cities.
It was only five years ago that the plant was closed.
In the 1990s, Park Avenue Elementary School was closed for eight months because tar-like petroleum sludge began to seep up from the ground. The school was built on an old city dump site that contained petroleum-contaminated soil and several pockets of tar-like petroleum sludge.
“Why is it always our communities having to deal with the brunt of these issues?” Alcantar said.
The jet-fuel dump incident has raised questions about environmental safety and the flight path over Cudahy and other cities.
“Sadly, our entire community has been adversely impacted by this incident, including dozens of children. I am calling for a full federal investigation into the matter, and expect full accountability from responsible parties,” Cudahy City Council member Jack Guerrero said.
Emergency incidents of jet fuel being dumped over populated areas have been reported across the United States in previous years.
In 2007, a 744 Dutch Royal Airlines flight to Amsterdam returned to San Francisco Airport after the pilot realized the plane’s nose gear would not retract. The pilot released fuel 15,000 feet above Stanislaus County.
In 2001, jet fuel rained down on residents in Flower Mound, Texas, as an American Airlines plane flew back to Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. The pilot said at the time that a warning light came on, leading to a fuel release.
Three years prior, in 1998, another American Airlines flight was involved in a similar incident in New York when 3,200 gallons of fuel were dumped over homes in Queens. The pilot said a large bird had flown into an engine under the right wing.
The Delta jet landed safely at LAX soon after dumping the fuel. Police could be seen driving behind the plane with sirens wailing as it arrived.
Times staff writer Matt Stiles, Samantha Masunaga, Jaclyn Cosgrove and Kiera Feldman contributed to this report.
As the 2020 candidates took the stage in Des Moines, Iowa for the seventh Democratic debate on Tuesday evening, the hashtag #AmericaNeedsYang began trending on Twitter, with tens of thousands of Andrew Yang supporters voicing their disappointment that the former tech entrepreneur didn’t qualify to take part in the event.
Yang did not appear on Tuesday’s debate stage at Drake University. The candidate only met the threshold in just two of the four required polls as of Friday night, when the window ended. To qualify, candidates were required to have raised money from at least 225,000 donors and reach 5 percent in at least four national polls or hit 7 percent in two polls from early voting states. Three days later, on Monday, Yang reached 5 percent in another poll, which could have brought him closer to the finish line. Despite this, Yang’s 2020 campaign has continued to thrive in fundraising, after having raised $16.5 million in the fourth quarter of 2019.
Six candidates qualified in the narrowing Democratic primary field: Senators Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar, as well as former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden and billionaire Tom Steyer.
As the six qualifying candidates appeared on stage, tens of thousands Yang supporters, also known as the Yang Gang, took to Twitter to make the case for why he should be up there debating. Others noted that without Yang, the stage contained only white candidates. The movement elevated #AmericaNeedsYang to the second-most trending topic on the social media platform in the United States.
“#AmericaNeedsYang because he is *by the numbers* the strongest candidate against @realDonaldTrump,” Twitter user @gang4610 wrote.
“Dear @TheDemocrats, An all-white stage of boring Career Politicians and a billionaire is not going to motivate a high young voter turn out. You know what would inspire a large young voter turn out? A fresh, charismatic, energizing candidate like @AndrewYang #AmericaNeedsYang,” Twitter user @yanggangrising wrote.
“#AmericaNeedsYang because a 15 year old boy stood up at Andrew’s townhall today and told him he was put in a group home because his mom was addicted to meth, and all they had to eat was donated food that wasn’t healthy – as if any kid should ever be in that position at all,” Twitter user @YangVets wrote.
“Definitely missing @AndrewYang on the #DemDebate stage tonight! #DemocraticDebate #AmericaNeedsYang,” singer Jann Klose tweeted.
Yang also used the hashtag in numerous posts throughout the first half of the debate.
See more tweets below:
Speaks the least on debate stage. Raises millions.
Doesnât even get invited to debate because of lack of âapprovedâ polls. Trends anyways.#AmericaNeedsYang
Temperatures cool going into the weekend, which will bring us another winter storm. This one will have more snow, but it still doesn’t look like a typical January storm.
Midweek Showers & Flakes
Even though temperatures will be cooler starting Wednesday, it will still be warm enough for most of us to get rain and not snow. We’ll see a few afternoon and evening showers. North of I-69, that will be snow, possibly enough for accumulations up to an inch. That wraps up before midnight.
Early Thursday we’ll see a few snow showers, mainly in our North Zone. This will be lake-effect snow and may linger in those locations through the afternoon.
Weekend Snow & Rain
Another wet system pulls in for the weekend, giving us good snow chances. But because nothing this winter has been normal, this storm won’t be either, apparently.
Most of us could see some solid accumulations beginning Friday night.
But Saturday morning will warm us up enough to change that to rain for much of the day. So that will reduce a lot of the snow to slush. Just to keep everyone on their toes, the system goes back to snow late Saturday into Sunday.
So we’ll likely see the slush freeze, and get frosted with more snow.
Saturday storm snapshot.
This is obviously subject to change (and probably will). But what we don’t see this weekend is any appreciable mixed precipitation.
So if we get freezing rain or sleet, it will be very brief as precipitation stays mainly rain or snow.
Real Winter Chill
Once we clean up whatever mess the weekend serves us, temperatures will be the big story next week. Highs for the next work week will reach only the 20s until next Friday. That will easily snap our streak of above normal highs, unless the near-freezing highs Thursday and Friday this week do it first.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, has introduced a resolution forcing President Trump to seek congressional consent before taking new military action against Iran.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee, has introduced a resolution forcing President Trump to seek congressional consent before taking new military action against Iran.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
A Democratic-led Senate resolution to limit the president’s war powers in the wake of escalated tensions with Iran has won support from several key GOP members to potentially gain passage in the Republican-controlled chamber.
Republican Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky, Mike Lee of Utah, Todd Young of Indiana and Susan Collins of Maine have all signed on as co-sponsors to the measure led by Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine.
That would bring the total number of supporters for the measure to 51, a simple majority of the Senate needed for passage. The resolution would require the president to seek congressional approval before another military-led strike against Iran.
“The good news is this: We now have a majority of colleagues — Democratic and Republican — who will stand strong with the principle that we shouldn’t be at war without a vote of Congress, and that’s a very positive thing,” Kaine said.
The move comes after after President Trump greenlighted a U.S. drone strike that killed a top Iranian general earlier this month, which led to increased tensions with Tehran. Iran responded days later by launching more than a dozen ballistic missiles at two U.S. military bases in Iraq, which resulted in no casualties.
Last week, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives approved a similar resolution mostly along a party-line vote directing President Trump to seek consent from Congress before taking new military action against Iran. However, that resolution was nonbinding. If the House approved the new Senate version, it would carry with it the force of law.
Still, this Senate version faces its own, new obstacles. It could eventually fail with a veto from the president without support of a supermajority of either chamber. However, Kaine said even with a veto, the measure could still send a strong message to the president to seek lawmaker approval on such actions and potentially influence future decisions.
Kaine filed an initial version of his war powers resolution on Jan. 3. However, he revised it to gain new Republican support and filed an updated version days later. That second version incorporated suggestions from the new Republican co-sponsors.
Kaine said he is still working to gain additional Republican support.
“I do have a number of others that are thinking about it,” Kaine said.
Republican Todd Young, a Marine Corps veteran, says his military background led him to support the revised war powers measure. He said it affirms a provision of the Constitution’s Article I, which gives Congress the power to declare war.
“Making sure that our men and women in uniform know that me and Congress have their backs, it’s really important to me as someone who served in the U.S. Marine Corps,” Young said. He later added, “I think it’s essential that Congress, from time to time, reaffirms our Article I responsibilities and affirms our support for our men and women in uniform as we contemplate potentially putting them in harm’s way.”
The war powers concern is also tied to a long-running debate on whether the president should be relying on war powers issued in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
Congress approved wide-ranging Authorization for Use of Military Force efforts in 2001 and 2002. And Trump administration officials have maintained the president already has the authority to take action against Iran under the 2002 authorization.
Kaine said at minimum, service members deserve a debate on whether the U.S. should enter into new wars.
“What they don’t deserve is blundering, inching towards accidentally escalating into another war in the Middle East. So we are doing what we ought to do by our troops and their families by taking this more seriously than we have in the past,” Kaine said. “We’ve been in autopilot in wars for 18 years.”
Sen. Collins said she has previously supported war powers measures and moved to support Kaine’s newest effort after additional talks with the Virginia senator to adjust the resolution’s language.
“Over the past decade, Congress has too often abdicated its constitutional responsibilities on authorizing the sustained use of military force,” Collins said in a statement. “Although the President as Commander in Chief has the power to lead and defend our armed forces and to respond to imminent attacks, no President has the authority to commit our military to a war.”
Collins was also among the Republicans who in June supported an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to require congressional approval for action against Iran. Lee, Paul and Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas also broke ranks to support it, but the effort ultimately failed by a vote of 50 to 40.
On Tuesday, Collins reiterated that Congress should be involved in such critical military actions, but the resolution still allows the president to respond in cases of self-defense.
“Congress cannot be sidelined on these important decisions,” Collins said. “The Kaine resolution would continue to allow the President to respond to emergencies created by aggression from any hostile nation, including Iran, and to repel an imminent attack by Iran or its proxy forces.”
Last week, Paul and Lee jointly said they were on board with the new Kaine war powers measure after a contentious closed-door briefing on Iran with Trump administration officials. Lee said he found the briefing, which included Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, “insulting and demeaning,” forcing him to support the new Kaine measure.
In a joint opinion piece in the Washington Post Tuesday evening, Kaine and Lee said Congress can no longer shirk its responsibility to debate war, and in this case, a potential war with Iran.
“If the United States is to order our troops into harm’s way again, we should at least have an open debate about whether a war with Iran, or indeed any war, is truly in our national interest,” they said. “Our resolution puts a simple statement before the Senate. We should not be at war with Iran unless Congress authorizes it. If senators are unwilling to have this debate — because a war vote is hard or opinion polls suggest that their vote might be unpopular — how dare we order our troops to courageously serve and risk all?”
Senators on Tuesday were unclear on when the measure could receive a vote. Kaine suggested that if the measure cleared a major procedural hurdle, it could receive a vote as early as Wednesday, but the effort seemed unlikely.
But under other procedural rules, the measure could be brought up for a vote as early as next Tuesday, Jan. 21. However, with the Senate weighing the start of a potential impeachment trial of President Trump that day, it has put that timing also in question. As a result, it’s possible the vote could be shifted to after the Senate trial, which could last several weeks.
Meanwhile, as members continue to raise questions about recent military actions with Iran, several State Department officials on Wednesday morning are slated to meet with members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
BERNIE SANDERS: Well, as a matter of fact, I didn’t say it. And I don’t want to waste a whole lot of time on this, because this is what Donald Trump and maybe some of the media want. Anybody knows me knows that it’s incomprehensible that I would think that a woman cannot be president of the United States. Go to YouTube today. There’s a video of me 30 years ago talking about how a woman could become president of the United States. In 2015, I deferred, in fact, to Senator Warren. There was a movement to draft Senator Warren to run for president. And you know what, I stayed back. Senator Warren decided not to run, and I then did run afterward. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by three million votes. How could anybody in a million years not believe that a woman could become president of the United States? And let me be very clear: If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination — I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me — but if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.
PHILLIP: So Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here, you’re saying that you never told Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election?
SANDERS: That is correct.
PHILLIP: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you a woman could not win the election?
ELIZABETH WARREN: I disagreed. Bernie is my friend, and I am not here to try to fight with Bernie. But look, this question about whether or not a woman can be president has been raised and it’s time for us to attack it head-on. And I think the best way to talk about who can win is by looking at people’s winning record. So, can a woman beat Donald Trump? Look at the men on this stage. Collectively, they have lost 10 elections. The only people on this stage who have won every single election that they’ve been in are the women. Amy and me.
And the only person on this stage who has beaten an incumbent Republican anytime in the past 30 years is me. And here’s what I know. The real danger that we face as Democrats is picking a candidate who can’t pull our party together or someone who takes for granted big parts of the Democratic constituency. We need a candidate who will excite all parts of the Democratic Party, bring everyone in, and give everyone a Democrat to believe in. That’s my plan, and that is why I’m going to win.
PHILLIP: Senator Klobuchar —
AMY KLOBUCHAR: Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth.
PHILLIP: Senator Klobuchar, what do you say —
KLOBUCHAR: Yes, I would like to —
PHILLIP: Senator Klobuchar, let me finish my question.
KLOBUCHAR: Oh, O.K. I thought it was such an open end — I wasn’t at the meeting, so I can’t comment, but I was going to say —
Six candidates will take the stage on Tuesday night for the first Democratic presidential primary debate of 2020 — and the last one before the Iowa caucuses.
The debate, which will take place at Drake University in Des Moines, will be one of the last chances for the primary field’s top contenders to stand out.
Here are five things to watch as the candidates take the stage in Des Moines:
1. Will Sanders take heat?
Sanders has proven himself to be one of the most durable candidates in the Democratic primary field. But after a Des Moines Register–CNN poll released on Friday showed him taking the lead in Iowa, with 20 percent support among likely Democratic caucusgoers, Tuesday’s debate will be the first in which Sanders is the front-runner.
So far, his top rivals have largely avoided direct confrontations with the progressive firebrand, aware of his deep support among the Democratic Party’s activist factions. Now that he’s polling at the top of the pack, however, he could see an onslaught of criticism when he takes the stage in Des Moines.
He may also face questions about a CNN report detailing allegations that Sanders told Warren during a private meeting in 2018 that he did not believe a woman could win the White House. Sanders denied that allegation in a lengthy statement to the news network. But it could provide fodder for his rivals.
2. Will the Sanders-Warren feud come to a head?
Sanders and Warren played nice over the course of 2019, seeing one another as a key ally in the Senate and on the campaign trail, where they both occupy the progressive lane.
But that nonaggression pact fractured this week after Politico reported that Sanders’s campaign had begun quietly directing volunteers to attack Warren as a candidate of the elite. In response to the news, Warren told reporters on Sunday that she was “disappointed to hear that Bernie is sending his volunteers out to trash me.” Sanders denied any responsibility in the matter.
Tensions escalated further on Monday after CNN reported that, during a private meeting in December 2018, Sanders told Warren that he did not believe a woman could win the presidency. He denied that allegation, but Warren confirmed the report in a statement, recalling how she told Sanders that she “thought a woman could win.”
“He disagreed,” Warren said.
All that sets the stage for a potentially explosive confrontation on Tuesday night.
3. Can the moderates make their case?
With the release of the Des Moines Register poll on Friday, the Democratic primary field’s moderate contenders appear to be in an uneasy position. Buttigieg, who led the pack in Iowa in a Register poll from November, fell 9 points into third place, while Biden and Klobuchar remained stagnant at 15 percent and 6 percent support, respectively.
Meanwhile, Sanders ticked up 5 points into first place, while Warren gained 1 point, maintaining her No. 2 standing in Iowa.
The three moderates on the debate stage will be under pressure to stand out on Tuesday night and leave a mark on voters before the caucuses on Feb. 3. They could also use the forum to more aggressively attack the leading progressives as too divisive or unrealistic in their sweeping policy proposals.
4. Does Biden’s Iraq War vote come under scrutiny?
The soaring tensions between Washington and Tehran that emerged following the death of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani earlier this month in an American drone strike has thrust the issues of foreign policy and U.S. military involvement in the Middle East back into the spotlight.
Biden is the only presidential candidate who voted in favor of a 2002 measure authorizing the use of military force in Iraq — a vote that is now seen in as a liability among key elements of the Democratic Party.
Sanders, in particular, has hammered Biden over the 2002 vote, accusing him of helping lead the U.S. into a protracted, aimless and expensive military campaign. And it remains possible, if not likely, that Biden will face a barrage of criticism when he takes the stage on Tuesday.
Biden has since called that vote a “mistake.” But his rivals for the Democratic nomination — Sanders, in particular — see his record as an easy target that could weaken the longtime front-runner.
5. Can Buttigieg mount a comeback?
A couple of months ago, Buttigieg appeared to be the candidate to beat in Iowa. Now, with the caucuses just three weeks away, his chances appear somewhat less certain, and the debate will be a chance for him to climb back to the top.
But he still faces some risks. His fundraising practices have been a target of criticism at past debates, including in last month’s forum in Los Angeles, when Warren excoriated him for holding a high-dollar fundraising event in a “wine cave” in California.
And issues surrounding race relations with the African American community in his hometown of South Bend, where he was mayor for eight years, has proven to be a sore spot for Buttigieg on the campaign trail.
Still, Buttigieg has shown himself to be resilient in the race — he worked his way into the top-tier of candidates after entering the primary contest last year as a virtual unknown outside Democratic political circles — and whether he can kick off a new surge on Tuesday is a central question heading into the debate.
In a statement, Joseph A. Bondy, a lawyer for Parnas, said, “There is no evidence that Mr. Parnas participated, agreed, paid money or took any other steps in furtherance of Mr. Hyde’s proposals.”
Students and staff at several elementary schools in Los Angeles County were hit by jet fuel dumped by a plane flying overhead.
At least 20 children and dozens of adults were treated at multiple elementary schools by paramedics, the Los Angeles County Fire Department said in a tweet. None of the patients needed to be transported to the hospital.
The fuel appeared to be dumped by a plane that was returning to Los Angeles International Airport shortly after taking off.
Los Angeles County firefighters and paramedics treated at least 20 children and dozens of adults after they came in contact with jet fuel dumped by a plane flying overhead.
The Los Angeles County Fire Department said in a tweet that 44 people were treated at the scene with minor injuries related to the accident and were released.
The fire department said that 20 children and 11 adults were treated at Park Avenue Elementary School in Cudahy, California, while 13 other patients from elementary schools in nearby South Gate and Florence Graham were also evaluated.
The department’s Health HazMat units responded and confirmed the substance was jet fuel.
ABC 7 Los Angeles reported that the victims were complaining of skin irritation.
Two classes were outside in the school’s playground when the liquid “rained down” just before noon, the Los Angeles Times reported.
It was not immediately clear which flight dumped the fuel or why the liquid was discharged. Jettisoning fuel to reduce weight is a common practice when a jet is forced to return to the airport after takeoff, often because of a technical issue or passenger medical emergency.
Typically, jet fuel dissipates when it’s jettisoned from a plane. It was not immediately clear why the fuel ended up reaching the ground in this instance. The Federal Aviation Administration has procedures for dumping fuel for planes heading into or out of major airports, including climbing to higher altitudes when possible and avoiding populated areas.
Delta Flight 89 from LAX to Shanghai returned to the airport shortly after taking off at around the same time, according to data from FlightRadar24. The plane, a Boeing 777-200, passed 2,375 feet over the Cudahy area at 11:53 a.m.
A Twitter user posted video of a plane and said it was the Shanghai flight dumping fuel on approach, but the footage could not be independently verified by Business Insider.
Delta confirmed in a statement to Business Insider that the flight experienced a problem with one of its engines after taking off and had to return to the airport after reducing its landing weight:
“Shortly after takeoff, Flight 89 from LAX to Shanghai experienced an engine issue requiring the aircraft to return quickly to LAX. The aircraft landed safely after a release of fuel, which was required as part of normal procedure to reach a safe landing weight. We are in touch with Los Angeles World Airports and the LA County Fire Department and share concerns regarding reported minor injuries to adults and children at a school in the area.”
The FAA told Business Insider that it was investigating the incident.
In fact, it will be the first debate without a single person of color onstage. The implications of this change are significant: It could mean that both the debate stage, and the 2020 field writ large, won’t be able to offer the diversity of perspectives on policy issues of past months. And if past debates are any indication, it could also lead to some candidates skirting questions about race altogether.
Last year, the range of representation onstage played a noticeable role in how candidates spoke about issues and personal experiences. In June, Sen. Kamala Harris confronted former Vice President Joe Biden about his work alongside segregationists in the Senate and his opposition to busing, citing her own experience in the process. In November, Sen. Cory Booker spoke directly about how black voters have felt neglected by the party in the past.
The success of white candidates in a field once hailed as the most diverse ever raises some complicated questions about everything from the Democratic National Committee’s debate rules to the range of support candidates have garnered this cycle.
In part due to name recognition, Biden and Sanders have maintained strong standing among both white voters and voters of color. Biden thus far has held onto a massive lead on the other candidates when it comes to support from black voters, though this backing is lower among younger voters. According to a recent Washington Post-Ipsos poll, he currently has 48 percent support from Democratic-leaning black voters and beats Sanders, the next closest candidate, by 28 points.
Harris and Booker both sought to win over black voters to buoy their campaigns, but they continued to trail Biden in support when they decided to drop out. When Harris left the race in December, she was at 9 percent support from black voters nationally, while Booker was at 4 percent in that same poll, according to Morning Consult.
Still, it’s striking that in a party in which 40 percent of voters are people of color, the debate stage won’t be nearly as representative.It echoes the same issue that advocates are trying to change in Hollywood, where white faces dominate big and small screens. It’s a push that isn’t just driven by a sense of fairness: Diversity has repeatedly been found to have concrete benefits for society, making people more open-minded, while spurring innovation and creativity.
“Among the candidates who remain, many are very good on minority outreach and standing up for people of color, but there is absolutely no replacement for actual candidate diversity … on the most important stage,” says UCLA political science professor Matt Barreto, a co-founder of the polling group Latino Decisions.
Howard University political science professor Keneshia Grant agrees. “Plans are great, but having plans is not enough,” she told Vox. “There’s some space between words and lived experience.”
Tuesday will test white candidates
The remaining candidates on Thursday’s debate stage have varied relationships with voters of color. Some including Biden and Sanders have built up support from a wider coalition including African American, Latino, and Asian American voters, while others like South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg have struggled to do so.
The debate on Thursday will be an opportunity for candidates to further demonstrate that they can represent a Democratic electorate that’s far more diverse than the debate stage itself.
To do so, Grant says that the candidates should be straightforward in the ways that they talk about race, and address how it intersects with different policies including Medicare-for-all and plans to erase student loan debt.
“The moderators asked a question about race and Bernie Sanders started talking about climate change,” Grant notes, pointing to a misstep by Sanders in the December debate. In that moment, even though he was asked point blank about how white the field of candidates is, Sanders initially redirected the question.
“I will answer that question, but I wanted to get back to the question of climate change,” he said. “With all due respect, this question is about race, can you answer the question as it was asked?” PBS journalist Amna Nawaz replied. Sanders went on to emphasize that people of color would be among those most affected by climate change and noted that candidates had an “obligation” to talk about racial disparities.
“The first thing that people need to do is address issues that are specific to race and to be honest about them directly,” Grant says.
At Tuesday’s debate, voters will be looking for candidates to show they’re thinking about how these issues affect different groups of people. On the subject of the wage gap, for example, while women across the board experience disparities, those inequities are much more severe for women of color.
“I think all voters are hoping … that [candidates] get what it means to be a person of color in America today. That may have actually thought about every one of their policy platforms from the perspective of minority voters, as well as white voters,” Barreto says.
Voters of color will be central in 2020
Voters of color are set to play a crucial role in the 2020 election, and it’s vital that a candidate is able to demonstrate their ability to effectively energize and represent them.
Currently, 84 percent of black voters identify as Democrats or lean Democratic, 63 percent of Hispanic voters do and 65 percent of Asian American voters do, according to Pew Research Center. Of the overall 2020 electorate, 12.5 percent are projected to be made up of black voters, 13.3 percent will be Hispanic voters and 4.7 percent will be Asian American voters, per Pew.
Turning out voters in all of these groups will be central to Democrats’ ability to win in 2020, particularly if the election winds up being as close as it was in 2016. In battleground states such as Michigan and Florida, Hillary Clinton lost to President Donald Trump, by 0.3 percent and 1.2 percent of the vote, respectively.
“In 2020 the Democratic Party cannot win a state or national election without the strong support of black, Latino, and Asian voters,” Barreto says.
This dynamic is evident based on the shifting demographics across the country, not to mention the results of past cycles. In several close elections, including the 2017 Senate race for Doug Jones in Alabama, black voters made the difference in the outcome. In battleground states like Florida and Arizona, Latino voters make up a growing proportion of the electorate. And as things stand, Asian Americans are the quickest growing racial or ethnic group in the country.
Turning out more voters of color has been a major piece of the strategies of Democratic campaigns in battleground states including Georgia, Texas, and Arizona. While Stacey Abrams did not win her election for the Georgia gubernatorial seat in 2018, she was the Democrat to come closest to doing so in years after she increased the turnout of black, Latino, and Asian American voters in the state.
The way that candidates handle their performances at Tuesday’s date could further illustrate their ability to address a wide-ranging Democratic electorate — or highlight the limitations they still have in doing so.
“You’re not losing white voters by having a diverse debate stage, you might lose minority voters by not having a diverse debate stage,” UC Riverside political science professor Karthick Ramakrishnan previously told Vox.
Iran initially denied that the aircraft was hit by a missile, but later conceded that the passenger jet was hit by its air defence systems.
When the video was shared on social media, it led analysts to say it showed the plane was hit by a missile.
Who has been arrested?
Iranian media reported that Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards had taken a person who posted a video last week of the missile striking the plane into custody.
But an Iranian journalist based in London who initially posted the footage has insisted that his source is safe, and that the Iranian authorities have arrested the wrong person.
The paper said this would explain why the plane’s transponder seemed to have stopped working before the missile strike – it had been disabled by the first missile.
Image copyright Alamy
What are other countries saying?
UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson told the BBC on Tuesday that he was “glad” Iran had acknowledged making a “terrible mistake” in shooting down the plane.
Media captionPM on US-Iran tensions: “Let’s dial this thing down”
“It’s good that they’ve apologised. The most important thing now is that tensions in the region calm down,” he added.
Mr Johnson said the next step for Iran was to “repatriate in a dignified way” the bodies of the passengers and crew of flight PS752, who included three Britons.
Ukraine’s Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Monday that five of the countries that had citizens on board the airliner – Canada, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Sweden and an unnamed country – would meet in London on Thursday to discuss possible legal action.
He said the “grieving nations” would work out what steps to take individually and collectively to “bring the perpetrators to justice and how we can repay those families who have suffered”.
Canada, which lost 57 citizens, will meanwhile play a more active role than international rules require in the investigation into the shooting down of the airliner, according to Kathy Fox, the head of its Transportation Safety Board (TSB).
“The House is likely to finally send the articles over to us tomorrow and we’ll be able to — we believe if that happens — in all likelihood, go through some preliminary steps here this week which could well include the chief justice coming over and swearing in members of the Senate and some other kind of housekeeping measures,” McConnell said after a closed-door luncheon with members of the Senate Republican Conference, referring to Chief Justice John Roberts, who will have the job of presiding over the trial.
McConnell reiterated that he still has the support of 53 Republican senators on an initial resolution that outlines how to move forward with the trial. That first measure, he said, would set up the arguments from both parties — the prosecution and defense — and then provide for a period in which senators could submit written questions.
“Then after that,” he said, “The more contentious issue of witnesses would be addressed by the Senate.”
When asked, the majority leader appeared open to the idea of calling Hunter Biden, the former vice president’s son, as a witness should Democrats call former White House national security adviser John Bolton.
“I can’t imagine that only the witnesses that our Democratic colleagues would want to call will be called,” he said.
A simple majority of the Senate is required for determining which witnesses are called for the trial. When asked whether the White House might block witnesses from appearing, McConnell said, “Who knows who will employ what kind of legal devices — I have no idea.”
When asked in a Fox News interview why he would not let Bolton testify, Trump said, “I have no problem, other than one thing: You can’t be in the White House as president — future, I’m talking about future, many future presidents — and have a security adviser, anybody having to do with security, and legal and other things.”
Asked if he would invoke executive privilege, Trump said, “Well, I think you have to, for the sake of the office.”
Regarding Trump’s calls for the Senate to dismiss outright the House’s case against him, McConnell made clear that he doesn’t have the votes to make that happen.
“There’s little or no sentiment in the Republican conference for a motion to dismiss. Our members feel that we have an obligation to listen to the arguments,” he said.
Trump tweeted over the weekend, “Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, ‘no pressure’ Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!”
Many believe that by the Senate giving credence to a trial based on the no evidence, no crime, read the transcripts, “no pressure” Impeachment Hoax, rather than an outright dismissal, it gives the partisan Democrat Witch Hunt credibility that it otherwise does not have. I agree!
Asked if there can be a trial without witnesses, McConnell deflected and blamed House Democrats.
“If you look at the House product, you’ve really got to wonder what the definition of a fair trial is,” he said. “They did almost nothing of what you would expect the House to do in order to set up this case to be considered by the Senate.”
Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he was “pleased” that some Republicans are coming around to the Democrats’ position of wanting witnesses and documents in the trial.
“If you want the truth, you have to have witnesses, you have to have documents. Who has ever heard of a trial without witnesses and documents?” Schumer said.
“Let’s remember what this trial is for — for a president, any president, to threaten a foreign country with the cutoff of aid unless they interfere in our elections, is what the Founding Fathers felt is one of the worst abuses a president can have,” he said. “These charges are deep and serious and all we can say is we join the American people in wanting the truth.”
Schumer said that he has not yet seen the initial resolution that the Senate will vote on to set up the trial.
Precinct leaders across Iowa will use their own smartphones to transmit the results of next month’s Iowa caucuses.
JGI/Tom Grill/Tetra images RF/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
JGI/Tom Grill/Tetra images RF/Getty Images
Precinct leaders across Iowa will use their own smartphones to transmit the results of next month’s Iowa caucuses.
JGI/Tom Grill/Tetra images RF/Getty Images
Iowa’s Democratic Party plans to use a new Internet-connected smartphone app to help calculate and transmit results during the state’s caucuses next month, Iowa Public Radio and NPR have confirmed.
Party leaders say they decided to opt for that strategy fully aware of three years’ worth of warnings about Russia’s attack on the 2016 presidential election, in which cyberattacks played a central role.
Iowa’s complicated caucus process is set to take place Feb. 3 in gymnasiums, churches, recreation centers and other meeting places across the state.
As opposed to a primary in which voters cast ballots in the same way they would for a general election, Iowa’s caucuses are social affairs; caucusgoers gather in person and pledge their support for a candidate by physically “standing in their corner” in designated parts of a room.
Iowa’s Democrats hope the new app lets the party get results out to the public quicker, says Troy Price, the chairman of the state party.
In an interview, Price declined to provide more details about which company or companies designed the app, or about what specific measures have been put in place to guarantee the system’s security.
But security is a priority, he says.
The state party worked with the national party’s cybersecurity team, and with Harvard University’s Defending Digital Democracy project, but Price declined to answer directly whether any third party has investigated the app for vulnerabilities, as many cybersecurity experts recommend.
“We as the party have taken this very seriously, and we know how important it is for us to make sure that our process is secure and that we protect the integrity of the process,” Price says. “We want to make sure we are not relaying information that could be used against us.”
Unlike many states in which local and state officials oversee the presidential primary election, in Iowa the state party is responsible for administering, staffing and funding the caucuses, relying primarily on trained but unpaid volunteers.
Cybersecurity experts interviewed by NPR said that the party’s decision to withhold the technical details of its app doesn’t do much to protect the system — and instead makes it hard to have complete confidence in it.
“The idea of security through obscurity is almost always a mistake,” says Doug Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Iowa and a former caucus precinct leader. “Drawing the blinds on the process leaves us, in the public, in a position where we can’t even assess the competence of the people doing something on our behalf.”
Cyber concerns
The Iowa Democrats’ plan is for caucus leaders to compile the results from participants and submit them to the central party via their smartphone apps. In the past, the leaders might have called in the results over the phone.
Because caucusing is an in-person process, verified by witnesses, there is virtually no risk that a cyberattack on the app could change the results of the caucus and go undetected.
If the wrong results were reported because of a hack, there would be people from each precinct who could correct it, and paper records.
But the damage to public confidence would be catastrophic, Jones says, if a hack caused the wrong winner to be called on caucus night and then that announcement had to be retracted.
“Once you report something, it’s really hard to undo it, no matter how many retractions you print, no matter how many apologies you say, it’s too late,” Jones says. “From that point of view, someone hacking the reporting process, even though its purpose is entirely informal, not intended to have any permanent importance, is something that could be very disruptive.”
A number of other potential vulnerabilities could also be introduced by using the technology, experts say.
If the app doesn’t work, either because a denial of service attack clogs the system or for any other reason, then there could be confusion at precincts across the state, and a potential delay on a winner being announced.
State Dems promise contingency plan
Price, the state chairman, says Iowa Democrats have “redundancies built into the system,” including a hotline to accept results, but declined to further detail those as well.
Should the app go down for any length of time, the party would need to receive hundreds, if not thousands, of phone calls from the state’s 1,679 precincts.
Still, Price says he’s confident in their contingency planning.
“If there’s a challenge, we’ll be ready with a backup and a backup to that backup and a backup to the backup to the backup,” Price says. “We are fully prepared to make sure that we can get these results in and get those results in accurately.”
It’s unclear how similar this year’s app is to one developed by Microsoft and a private contractor that was used by both parties in 2016.
Price did confirm that the app again would be downloaded onto the personal smartphones of the caucus precinct and party leaders, and not onto party-provided hardware.
That could make the system a more appealing attack target, according to Betsy Cooper, director of the Aspen Tech Policy Hub at the Aspen Institute, because peoples’ phones also may contain sensitive messages, emails and passwords.
“I sure hope the engineers building it are among the best on the planet,” Cooper says.
Price said when designing the app, the developer considered the close proximity to potentially sensitive information, but he again didn’t detail exactly how that information would be protected.
Four years ago, Russian attackers hacked into the email accounts of prominent Democrats and weaponized the information they stole throughout the election year.
Cooper said that the party could, if it wished, disclose who developed the app or the types of testing that had been done on it without “giving away the keys to the kingdom and making it easier for hackers to get in.”
“Basic transparency about how it was built, how up to date the security of the app is and how it’s been tested all could be made publicly available with little cost to the DNC,” she says.
Price said that some details would be unveiled about the app to reporters and the public in the days leading up to the caucuses, but he did not commit to revealing the identity of the developer. Less than three weeks before the caucuses, precinct chairs have not yet gotten access to the app.
Questions beyond security
Internet connectivity and tech literacy in Iowa have improved over the past four years. Local party leaders say they expect that more precinct chairs will own smartphones and be more comfortable using an app this cycle than during the previous one.
Still, in more rural parts of the state, some Iowans have been slow to adopt to technology, according to Gary Gelner, who chairs the Hancock County Democratic Party in north central Iowa. There may be some lingering skepticism.
“At least everybody with smartphones is gonna do it, I know that,” Gelner says. “You’d be surprised how many people up here got the old flip cellphones.”
Gelner was skeptical of the party moving to a caucus night reporting app in 2016. Though he’s more optimistic this year, he’s still wary of a process that he says could delay the release of the closely watched results.
Gelner said one of his precinct chairs in 2016 resorted to phoning in his results, only to find he couldn’t connect.
“He called in and he tried for half an hour and he couldn’t get through,” Gelner said.
An insecure ecosystem
The Iowa Democrats’ app will theoretically allow the state party to report the results much quicker than a phone-based system, and it may also help local party leaders with what’s referred to as “caucus math.”
A party manual says the app will “automatically calculate the number of delegates” presidential contenders are awarded, based on a formula involving the number of supporters for each candidate, the total number of delegates awarded and overall turnout.
But as is the case with much in the world of voting technology, things that make voting easier or more efficient can also introduce new unforeseen issues.
Travis Weipert is the top elections official in Iowa’s most Democratic County, Johnson County, and this cycle he’ll also be volunteering to oversee a caucus site as a precinct chair.
He says his experiences as an elections administrator make him skeptical of any system that mixes democracy and the Web.
“As long as you’re staying off the Internet, then there’s no connectivity, your chances of an issue are almost zero,” Weipert said. “It’s when you get on the Internet and security patches haven’t been made that you open yourself up [to hacking].”
Weipert says there is a tendency for some local officials to underestimate the interest that foreign powers or bad actors may have in their elections. While he says he’s doubtful “rogue states” would target the caucuses, he says it’s something party leaders have to consider.
This is the second time in the past few months that the Iowa Democratic Party has had cyber experts questioning its commitment to security.
Last year, under pressure from the Democratic National Committee to increase accessibility at its famously arcane caucuses, the state party proposed a plan to allow Iowans to caucus remotely.
Internet and phone-based voting systems are considered notoriously insecure however, and the national party said there wasn’t a system available secure enough to support such an idea.
Jones, the University of Iowa cybersecurity specialist, says transmitting results from precincts to the state party through a smartphone app isn’t as insecure as the virtual caucus plan — but that it’s still insecure for the same reasons.
“The entire ecosystem of smartphones is extraordinarily poorly secured,” Jones said. “And resting security functions on that ecosystem is something I don’t trust at all.”
WASHINGTON – After asserting for more than a week that Gen. Qasem Soleimani posed an imminent threat to Americans when he was killed in a drone strike, President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr said that whether the threat was immediate or not, the president had the right to act.
When Trump announced Jan. 3 that he had ordered the drone strike that killed Soleimani, who ran the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds Force, he said the general was “plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel.”
Top administration officials stood by the assertion that the threat was immediate and defended the intelligence that led them to that conclusion. But Trump said in a tweet Monday that the question of whether or not the strike was imminent “really didn’t matter,” and the nation’s top law enforcement official said the issue was “something of a red herring.”
Critics on Capitol Hill, who questioned the strategy behind the drone strike and the decision not to notify Congress, said whether or not Soleimani posed an imminent threat is crucial.
“Why is that important?” House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., asked at a hearing on the strike Tuesday. “Because in the case of an imminent threat, the president has authority under Article 2 of the Constitution to protect Americans.”
Though the president said the reasoning was “totally consistent,” Engel mocked the administration’s shifting justifications for the attack in his opening statement at the hearing, which Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who is in California, declined to attend.
“We heard the strike went forward because Soleimani did so many bad things in the past and was plotting for the future. Then, when that didn’t work, they went back to an imminent threat, but we didn’t know when or where it would take place,” Engel said. “Next, it was going to be an embassy attack. Then four embassies were going to be attacked. Then maybe it wasn’t four embassies.”
Engel said he wanted Pompeo to testify “because I think the administration is not being straight with the country or the Congress.” He said he would send a letter to Pompeo and Defense Secretary Mark Esper “demanding that they produce information on the legal basis for the strike that took out Soleimani.”
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., introduced a resolution that would limit Trump’s ability to take further military action against Iran without congressional approval. The House passed a similar resolution last week, but it did not carry the force of law.
Iran retaliated for Soleimani’s killing by firing a barrage of ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops. The attacks did not result in any casualties, and Iran indicated there would not be further military retaliation, but some fear the regime could take action through proxy attacks or cyberwarfare.
Amid the heightened tensions, Iran said it mistook a Ukrainian passenger plane for an incoming missile and shot the plane down. The regime has faced a wave of protests since it took responsibility for downing the flight, which included 83 Iranians among the 176 people on board, after denying any role in the tragedy for days. Tuesday, Iran announced it arrested “some individuals” in connection with the incident.
The Trump administration has painted the protests as proof that the regime does not have popular support and that its “maximum pressure” campaign on the government is working.
Here’s a look at how Trump, Barr, Pompeo and Secretary of Defense Mark Esper have tried to justify the strike:
Trump: Imminent threat ‘doesn’t matter’
After criticism for a lack of specifics on the threat posed by Soleimani, Trump said Friday that Iran’s top general plotted attacks on four U.S. embassies.
Some lawmakers who were briefed on the intelligence said they had not been informed of such a plot. Esper said Sunday that the president was not referring to a “tangible” threat but rather a probable attack.
Monday, Trump argued the debate over the immediacy of the threat was irrelevant because Soleimani’s record provided all the justification he needed.
“The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was ‘imminent’ or not, & was my team in agreement,” Trump tweeted. “The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!”
As the head of the Quds Force, Soleimani directed Iran’s support for militias loyal to Tehran throughout the Middle East. Such militias have played roles in bloody conflicts in Syria and Yemen. In Iraq, Soleimani helped trained militants to attack U.S. troops after the invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003. The State Department blames Iran for the deaths of more than 600 U.S. service members during the ensuing occupation.
U.S. officials blamed Soleimani for the death of an American contractor, who was killed in Iraq on Dec. 27 by a rocket from an Iran-backed militia, and the storming of the U.S. Embassy on Dec. 31 in Baghdad.
The attorney general was asked during a news conference Monday whether he was concerned the president may have exceeded his authority by not consulting Congress about what could be considered an act of war.
“The Department of Justice was consulted, and frankly, I don’t think it was a close call,” Barr replied. “The president clearly had the authority to act as he did” because “ongoing attacks were being planned and orchestrated by Soleimani” with the “avowed purpose of driving us out of the Middle East.”
In addition to being a “legitimate act of self-defense,” Barr said, killing Soleimani “reestablished deterrence.” He said the attack was not meant to start a war but to dissuade Iran from aggression. He stressed that there was only “a very brief window of time to carry out the attack.”
“Our ability to deter attacks had obviously broken down,” Barr said. “The Iranians had been given a number of red lines and were crossing those lines. They obviously felt that they could attack us, and continue these escalating attacks, with impunity.
“I believe there was intelligence of imminent attack, but I do believe that this concept of imminence is something of a red herring,” Barr said. “I think when you’re dealing with a situation where you already have attacks underway, you know there is a campaign that involves repeated attacks on American targets, I don’t think there’s a requirement frankly for knowing the exact time and place of the next attack. And that certainly was the position of the Obama administration when it droned leaders of terrorist organizations.”
Since Soleimani’s death, the secretary of state has stressed that the Iranian general posed an imminent threat to Americans and U.S. interests, and he repeated that assertion Monday.
Like Trump, he said the attack on Soleimani was justified by the general’s crimes, and like Barr, he argued it was a necessary response to Iran’s attacks to deter more aggression by the regime.
“We can dance around the maypole on the word ‘imminent,’ ” Pompeo said in an interview with Fox News. “What we could see was that there was an increasing threat from the activities of Qasem Soleimani,” who he said has “been on the American radar screen for an awfully long time.”
Earlier Monday, Pompeo delivered a speech at Stanford University titled “The Restoration of Deterrence: The Iranian Example.”
“There is a bigger strategy to this,” Pompeo said. “President Trump and those of us in his national security team are reestablishing deterrence – real deterrence ‒ against the Islamic Republic.”
After Soleimani’s death, a Pentagon statement said the “strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”
Sunday, Esper told CNN that the world is safer without Soleimani because he was the “world’s foremost terrorist” who had “the blood of hundreds of American service members on his hands.”
“Secondly, we restored deterrence with Iran. And we did so without American casualties,” he said. “And third, we reassured our friends and allies in the region that the United States will stand up and defend our interests.”
On ABC News’ “This Week,” Esper said intelligence showed Soleimani posed an immediate threat, though the defense secretary did not offer specifics.
“We had information that there was going to be an attack within a matter of days that would be broad in scale,” he said.
In regard to Trump’s claim that four U.S. embassies were targeted, Esper said, “There was a reference in this exquisite intelligence to an attack on the United States Embassy in Baghdad.
“What the president said was he believed that it probably, and could have been, attacks against additional embassies. I shared that view,” he said, though he admitted he had not seen concrete evidence “with regard to four embassies.”
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"
