Gaza City – Palestinians reacted with shock and dismay after US President Donald Trump unveiled an agreement between the United Arab Emirates and Israel to normalise ties.

The deal pledges full normalisation of relationships between the two countries in the areas of security, tourism, technology and trade in return for suspending Israel’s annexation plans in the West Bank.

Both the Palestinian leadership and public were caught by surprise when the announcement came on Thursday.

“We absolutely had no prior knowledge of this agreement,” Ahmed Majdalani, the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) minister of social affairs, told Al Jazeera. “The timing and speed of reaching this agreement were surprising, especially that it came at a critical moment in the Palestinian struggle.”

Former PA minister Munib al-Masri noted Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, who ruled Abu Dhabi for more than 30 years before his death in 2004, had always been a strong supporter of the Palestinians.

“The late Sheikh Zayed was a dear brother to me, I knew how much he was proud of his support for Palestine… I never imagined that in my lifetime I would see the day in which the UAE would simply sell the Palestinians out for the sake of normalisation,” al-Masri said. “It’s very shameful. I can’t believe it until now.”

Other Palestinian officials said though the news came abruptly, it was not much of a surprise.

“We were not surprised that much because the Emirati army was never on the borders ready to fight Israel,” said Mustafa al-Barghouti, leader of the Palestinian National Initiative and member of the PA parliament.


“We’ve been seeing recent strange moves by the UAE such as sending direct flights to Israel, and there were leaks of secret accords between the two in terms of scientific and economic cooperation. It is clear that these were preliminary steps to absorb yesterday’s shock.”

Rejecting the agreement

The PA and all Palestinian factions, including Hamas and the Islamic Jihad, issued official statements denouncing the UAE-Israel agreement. Palestinian leaders who spoke to Al Jazeera called it a “stab in the back”.

“We already knew that there has been normalisation going under the table, but to formalise and legalise it that way at this critical moment is shocking. It’s a stab in our back and the back of all Arab nations,” said Majida al-Masri, former PA minister of social affairs.

Al-Barghouti emphasised the deal “doesn’t introduce any change or progress, it’s far from being genuine peace”. 

“This is an attempt to enforce the ‘deal of the century’ that aims to liquidate Palestinian national rights, it represents a denial of Palestinian, Arab and Islamic rights,” he said.

Palestinian leaders said the deal was “a free gift to Israel” and was made to help the re-election of Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“The UAE’s position, in terms of its timing and essence, can only be understood as giving Israel leverage for free,” said Wasel Abu Yousef, member of the PLO’s Executive Committee and leader of the Palestine Liberation Front. “There’s no reasonable justification for it except that it gives more power to the occupation and increases its crimes against the Palestinians.”

Normalising de facto annexation


Although, Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed said the agreement “was reached to stop further Israeli annexation”, Palestinians saw little credibility to this claim.

“The UAE is trying to deceive and mislead the public by repackaging this shameful agreement as a service to the Palestinians and claiming that it halts annexation, but that’s merely throwing dust in the eyes,” Majdalani said.

Al-Masri said annexation was “already going nowhere because the entire world was standing against it”.

“So using annexation as a pretext is an exploitation of Palestinians to cover up what’s been done here,” al-Masri said. “But neither the UAE nor other countries are entitled to speak in the name of Palestinians.

“The format of the agreement implicitly approves of Israel’s annexation of Jerusalem. It only opposes ‘further annexation’ while approving what’s been annexed already.”

Palestinian leaders argued the agreement will not stop Israel from extending sovereignty to the West Bank.

“Instead of de jure annexation, Israel is furthering its creeping annexation. It’s accelerating and increasing its aggression on the ground in terms of settlement construction, home demolitions and what’s happening in the Ibrahimi and Al-Aqsa mosques, and in lands that fall in area C,” said al-Masri.

Palestinians noted that Netanyahu had kept the door open to annexation and merely said it was temporarily delayed.

“Netanyahu responded directly to this point and said that annexation is still on the agenda,” al-Masri said. “This is a slap in the face of the UAE – to prove them wrong and embarrass them.”

Breaching Arab positions

Al-Barghouti called the agreement “a divergence from the Arab peace initiative” and “a stab in the back of Arab positions”.

“It even contradicts the interests of the Emirati people themselves and goes against the historic position of the UAE’s previous rulers such as Sheikh Zaid,” he said.


Majdalani said the deal aims to reshape the Arab approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. “It allows Netanyahu to say that he can achieve peace in return for peace with the Arabs without withdrawing from any territories.”

Al-Barghouti said he fears the agreement will give a pretext to countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom – which welcomed the deal – to look away from the situation.

“But we’re surprised that Arab governments like Bahrain and others would openly express support for this deal. Did they forget the Palestinian people and their rights? Did they forget Jerusalem and Islam?” he said.

Added Abu Yousef: “The world should see Israel’s accelerated and increased crimes on the ground in the occupied territories, not just the threat of annexation.”

‘Struggle will continue’

Despite the disappointment, Palestinians emphasised Thursday’s announcement will not affect their determination to end the occupation.

“Our sacrifices that we gave in confronting this occupation will not go to waste, we will strongly hold on to our rights and principles, supported by all the free people of the world,” said Abu Yousef.

Majdalani the Palestinian leadership was looking a ways to respond. “We took an immediate decision to recall our ambassador to Abu Dhabi and we’re currently having all options on the table to consider.”

Palestinian officials urged the Arab world and international community to act. “The best response to the deal can only come from fellow Arab nations,” al-Masri noted.


Abu Yousef said the PLO “calls on Arab states to issue a unified position against the UAE’s decision, so that there wouldn’t be space for other Arab countries to follow its lead in weakening Arab positions and support to the Palestinians”.

He said the UN’s International Criminal Court (ICC), which may soon announce an investigation into Israeli actions in occupied Palestine, must now act.

“The international community, particularly international organisations like the UN, are now urged more than ever to take responsibility in stopping these crimes and empowering our people. Hence, we call on the ICC to expedite its ruling on holding the occupation accountable,” Abu Yousef said.

Al-Masri concluded: “We still have hope on the Arab people, including the Emirati people who unfortunately cannot express their mind due to terrible state repression. The Arab public still rejects such normalisation.”

Source Article from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/08/palestinians-unanimously-reject-uae-israel-deal-200814115311669.html

GAO has referred the matter to the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security for further review and potential action. The office also urged the inspector general to consider the consequences of actions taken by invalidly appointed officials.

A DHS spokesman said the department plans to issue a formal response shortly.

“We wholeheartedly disagree with the GAO’s baseless report,” the spokesman said.

The legal opinion has no binding force but is likely to raise extraordinary legal questions and invite lawsuits about the legitimacy of actions taken by Wolf and Cuccinelli, a conservative immigration hard-liner. GAO says it did not review the validity, leaving the question to the inspector general for consideration.

The GAO opinion was issued at the request of House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and House Oversight Committee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), who urged the inspector general to “immediately and swiftly review the legality of actions – which span 16 months – taken by these officials.” They also called for Wolf to resign his position and revert to his previously Senate-confirmed role as undersecretary for strategy. And they demanded that Cuccinelli resign entirely.

It’s not the first time that Cuccinelli has faced questions about the lawfulness of his appointment. A federal judge ruled in March that he was invalidly appointed to his role as acting director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, a ruling that blocked two policies he had implemented at the time. Trump hasn’t nominated Cuccinelli for either of the two top DHS jobs he has held, a prospect likely to meet resistance among Senate Republicans who have clashed with Cuccinelli in the past.

The decision appears to boil down to a procedural error by DHS. The day before she resigned on April 10, 2019, Nielsen sought to amend the order of succession to provide for McAleenan to succeed her. However, GAO found that the department only changed the succession order for vacancies that result when the secretary is unavailable to serve due to a disaster or catastrophe. The order of succession resulting from a resignation remained unchanged, GAO found, and that order did not provide for McAleenan to take over.

Therefore, after Nielsen’s resignation, the law required that the director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency succeed her, GAO found. But instead, President Donald Trump elevated McAleenan, the head of Customs and Border Protection, to the position. McAleenan then altered the order of succession, providing for Wolf and Cuccinelli’s path to the top jobs.

DHS attempted to argue that Nielsen had intended to nominate McAleenan as her successor upon resignation and, in a letter to GAO, argued that this intention was clear and legally valid. But GAO said the letter failed to address the “plain language” of the changes that Nielsen made.

“When Secretary Nielsen issued the April Delegation, she only amended Annex A, placing the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the next position in the order of succession in cases of the Secretary’s unavailability to act during a disaster or catastrophic emergency,” GAO found.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/14/gao-chad-wolf-ken-cuccinelli-ineligible-dhs-395222

The U.S. Postal Service says it’s unlikely there will be enough time to request, complete and return mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania to be counted for the Nov. 3 presidential election.

Thomas J. Marshall, general counsel and executive vice president of the agency warned in a July 29 letter to State Secretary Kathy Boockvar of “a risk that ballots requested near the deadline under state law will not be returned by mail in time to be counted under your laws as we understand them.”

The letter was revealed Thursday in a filing that’s part of an ongoing lawsuit by a group of Pennsylvania voters who want state officials to extend the counting deadline beyond Election Day as a result of anticipated U.S. Postal Service delays for mail-in ballots.

The USPS did not immediately respond to request for comment Thursday night.

State officials, including Boockvar, said in the filing Thursday that the plaintiffs were correct in claiming that there will be mail delays; state officials now say the deadline to receive mail-in ballots should be extended three days beyond Nov. 3 so long as there’s not evidence a ballot was mailed after Election Day.

The Postal Service sent a similar letter and warning to Washington’s secretary of state, Kim Wyman, the Spokane Spokesman-Review reported Monday.

The concerns about mail delays and whether votes sent via the Postal Service will be counted come amid a political battle over providing funding for the agency so it can gear up to handle the extra volume.

Pennsylvania last year passed a law that allows all its voters to vote by mail. Social distancing because of the pandemic has inspired officials coast-to-coast to limit polling places and encourage citizens to use the mailbox.

But President Donald Trump believes the American mail-in voting tradition, with roots as far back as the Civil War, invites fraud. There’s no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the United States, according to numerous investigations and studies.

He’s vowed to block extra funding — $3.6 billion has been proposed by congressional Democrats — for the Postal Service.

“Now, they need that money in order to have the post office work, so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,” Trump said on Fox Business Network on Thursday. “But if they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting, because they’re not equipped to have it.”

Trump’s presidential campaign is suing to block Nevada’s expansive mail-in voting plans.

Carts of small packages wait to be scanned and moved through the mail system at the U.S. Post Office’s West Valley Logistics Distribution Center in Phoenix, Arizona on Dec. 16, 2004.Jeff Topping / Getty Images file

In June, a major Trump donor, Louis DeJoy, was installed as postmaster general, and over the weekend, he announced a major shakeup of the service’s top leadership.

Pennsylvania has stated voters can request a ballot as late as Oct. 27.

Marshall’s letter casts doubt over the time frame, saying the Postal Service’s “delivery standards” are “incompatible” with those deadlines.

He recommended that completed ballots be mailed no later than Oct. 27 so they can make the Election Day deadline and be counted.

The filing by state officials calls that a new development that would suggest the judge in the case needs to approve a three-day deadline extension for completed ballots to be returned so they may be counted.

“Respondents do not expect that such an extension would create any significant delay in the reporting of Pennsylvania’s election results,” it states.

One of the Trump administration’s objections to voting by mail is the fear that it will delay the election and cast doubts on the results.

“Are all these stories right about the fact that these elections will be fraudulent, they’ll be fixed, they’ll be rigged?” Trump said July 30. “And everyone is looking at it, and a lot of people are saying, ‘You know, that probably will happen.'”

Source Article from https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-postal-service-warns-pennsylvania-mail-ballots-may-be-n1236713

The Palestinian government has recalled its ambassador to the United Arab Emirates after the Arab nation formally made peace with Israel in a deal met with mixed reactions across the Middle East.

Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki announced Thursday that he had “immediately summoned” the Palestinian ambassador to the UAE in response to a trilateral statement in which the United States, the UAE and Israel announced that the latter two were normalizing relations, making Abu Dhabi only the third Arab government to do so since the 1948 war that displaced scores of Palestinians.

Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan said the “agreement was reached to stop further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories,” but Palestinian leadership rejected this premise.

Nabil Abu Rudeinah, spokesperson for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, called the agreement a “blow to the Arab Peace Initiative and the decisions of the Arab and Islamic summits, as well as an aggression against the Palestinian people” in a statement broadcast by Palestine TV.

Get your unlimited Newsweek trial >

“The Palestinian leadership rejects what the United Arab Emirates has done and considers it a betrayal of Jerusalem, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Palestinian cause,” he said, calling it “a de facto recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel” and demanding the UAE withdraw from this “disgraceful” agreement.

“Neither the Emirates nor any other party has the right to speak on behalf of the Palestinian people. The Palestinian leadership shall allow nobody to interfere in the Palestinian affairs or decide on their behalf regarding their legitimate rights in their homeland,” Rudeinah added on behalf of the Abbas administration.

Abbas’ rival, the Sunni Islamist Hamas movement ruling the Gaza Strip, also spoke out against the decision, with the group’s spokesperson Ismail Haniyeh phoning the leader later Thursday.

Get your unlimited Newsweek trial >

“They clearly affirmed the rejection of this declared agreement, considering that it is a non-binding agreement for the Palestinian people, and will not be respected, and stressed that all components of our people stand together in rejecting normalization or recognizing the occupation at the expense of our people’s rights,” according to a readout shared by Hamas.

“They also stressed during the call that no one is allowed to make Palestine, its sanctuary, its most remote places, its martyrs and the suffering of its people a bridge for normalization with the enemy,” it added. “They agreed to continue constant communication and to strengthen joint coordination within the Palestinian national arena to face the developments of this situation.”

The U.S., the UAE and Israel hailed the deal in a joint statement published Thursday by the White House.

“This historic diplomatic breakthrough will advance peace in the Middle East region and is a testament to the bold diplomacy and vision of the three leaders and the courage of the United Arab Emirates and Israel to chart a new path that will unlock the great potential in the region,” the statement said. “All three countries face many common challenges and will mutually benefit from today’s historic achievement.”

Bahrain too welcomed the deal, saying “this historic step will contribute to the consolidation of stability and peace in the region.” Bahrain and the UAE, along with Oman, expressed support for the U.S. and Israel’s Middle East plan that was also controversial among regional partners and outright rejected by Palestinians.

Jordan expressed reservations toward the UAE-Israel rapprochement. The kingdom is a close U.S. regional partner that borders the West Bank, land internationally recognized as Palestinian but subject to gradual annexation by Israel, and was the most recent country to make peace with Israel in 1994. Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said the impact of the UAE-Israel deal “will be linked to what Israel will do: either ending the occupation and achieving a just and comprehensive peace or deepening the conflict that will explode as a threat to the security of the entire region.”

Turkey, a member of the U.S.-led NATO alliance and a regional foe of the UAE, condemned the agreement, however. “History will definitely record the defeat of those who betrayed the Palestinian people,” Ibrahim Kalin, spokesperson for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, tweeted Thursday.

Both sides of Yemen’s civil war, which pits a Saudi Arabia and UAE-backed government against a militia largely aligned with Iran, also appeared to disagree with the decision. Iran too, said it “strongly condemned” the move in a statement.

The Trump administration has closely aligned itself with Israel, going against an international in consensuses by recognizing the disputed holy city of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and Israel’s recognition of Syria’s occupied Golan Heights. Palestinians have severed ties both countries, viewing their approach to peace as unfair.

The UAE has also drifted toward Israel in recent years, especially as Iran’s growing influence became a priority for both Israel and the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf.

Despite the U.S.-led maximum pressure campaign launched to isolate the Islamic Republic diplomatically and economically in the wake of the 2018 White House exit from a multilateral nuclear deal involving major powers, the top diplomats of UAE and Iran held a call earlier this month seen as a measure to calm tensions between the two.

p:last-of-type::after, .node-type-slideshow .article-body > p:last-of-type::after {
content: none
}]]>

Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/palestinians-recall-uae-ambassador-deal-israel-betrayal-1525000

Another round of stimulus checks for Americans and renewal of expired unemployment benefits for the millions left jobless by the coronavirus-induced recession aren’t likely to be approved until at least after Labor Day as lawmakers leave Washington for a summer break without agreement on a relief package.

And even after that, prospects for a deal look grim as each side blamed the other for the breakdown in negotiations. There haven’t been talks between congressional Democratic leaders and the White House since last week, when Trump administration officials walked away and then released four presidential orders that they said would provide enhanced unemployment, defer payroll taxes and halt evictions. The legality and effectiveness of those actions remained in doubt, however.

The Senate officially recessed Thursday until after Labor Day and the House left last week. There is little hope that leaders can hatch a deal in the coming days, but even if that happened, it would require lawmakers to return to Washington to hold votes.

And with the presidential political conventions beginning next week, leaders are unlikely to hold serious negotiations or call lawmakers back until early September.

Many in Washington are now eyeing the expiration of government funding as the next, best possibility to force action by attaching a coronavirus relief package to the must-pass spending bill. Funding for the government is set to run out Sept. 30 and neither party is likely to want to risk a government shutdown just weeks before the election.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) has resisted the idea of tying government funding to coronavirus relief, arguing that it is too long to wait. Enhanced unemployment benefits and other economic protections passed by Congress in March expired at the end of July.

“We can’t wait until September 30th…. People will die,” she said, noting that 77,000 have died since the Democratic-led House passed its $3.4-trillion coronavirus relief response bill in May.

The White House and Senate Republicans have countered with a $1.1-trillion plan, and rejected Democrats’ offer to compromise at around $2 trillion.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday that he hopes a compromise would be found soon.

“I’m still hoping we’ll have some kind of bipartisan agreement here sometime in the coming weeks,” he told reporters.

Republicans accused Democrats of politicizing the stalemate to portray it as President Trump’s fault.

White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow said Democrats want to include too many items on their “liberal, left wish lists,” such as measures to provide money for mail-in voting this fall.

“So far, it’s a stalemate,” Kudlow said on CNBC. “They’re asking [for] too much money.”

But the issue became a major sticking point in the talks when Trump said he wouldn’t approve more money for the Postal Service because of Democrats’ hopes that more people vote by mail.

Democrats counter that the money for the U.S. Postal Service is not only vital to ensure Americans can safely vote during the pandemic, but also for delivery of prescriptions and Social Security checks.

Other major disputes include Democrats’ demands for $1 trillion in funding for state and local governments.

While Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin has had a productive working relationship with Pelosi, their dynamic earned him the distrust of some House Republicans, who generally oppose adding to the deficit for more pandemic relief to Americans.

White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, a former chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, has been fully participating in the negotiations for the first time since the start of the coronavirus crisis. Since then, the White House has taken a firmer hand, including leaving the talks last week when they concluded Democrats weren’t willing to compromise.

McConnell has largely sat on the sidelines, content to have the White House negotiate the GOP position. Estimates are that half of Senate Republicans would oppose any deal in part because they oppose additional spending, a dynamic that has undercut his leverage and negotiating position.

For instance, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said his hope is that the talks remain at a stalemate, citing concern about adding to the deficit.
“From my standpoint, the breakdown in the talks is very good news,” he told Breitbart News. “It’s very good news for future generations.”

But with so many Americans struggling to pay their bills and unable to find work as COVID-19 cases continue to rise in parts of the country, the sputtering economy is worrisome to Republican senators on the ballot this fall in an election season that is already tilting toward Democrats and is likely to hinge on the response to the coronavirus.

Perhaps for that reason, there are signs that even McConnell wants the negotiators to get back in the room.

“It doesn’t make any difference who says let’s get together again, but we ought to get together again, because there hasn’t been a meeting of any consequence between the two parties since last Friday,” he said Tuesday on Fox. “That is too long.”

Mnuchin called Pelosi on Wednesday, but that conversation only resulted in dueling statements.

“We are miles apart in our values,” Pelosi said Thursday.

Source Article from https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-08-13/stimulus-checks-jobless-aid-unlikely-for-several-more-weeks-as-democrats-white-house-dig-in

On Wednesday, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued an unemployment insurance program letter to state agencies providing guidance on how to administer the extension of federal unemployment benefits, technically known as Lost Wages Assistance (LWA), that President Trump announced over the weekend. The most important paragraph in the letter confirms that eligible Americans may only receive an LWA payment of $300 per week, not the $400 that Trump had promised when he issued the executive memorandum.

Forbes AdvisorCalculate Your Payroll Tax Savings Under Trump’s Executive Order

Federal Unemployment Benefit and Lost Wages Assistance Recap

Millions of unemployed Americans were kept afloat during the coronavirus pandemic thanks to the creation of a $600 weekly federal unemployment benefit included in the CARES Act. The benefit expired at the end of July and has been one of the main sources of friction as Democrats and Republicans negotiate the next coronavirus stimulus package. With negotiations stalled, Trump turned to executive directives, issuing four actions last Saturday aimed at payroll taxes, student loans, evictions, and unemployment benefits.

MORE FROM FORBESSecond Stimulus Check Passage Delayed Again By $600 Unemployment Extension Clash

On unemployment benefits, Trump announced the creation of the LWA program, claiming it would offer $400 in extra weekly funds; the federal government would cover $300 and states would need to supplement an extra $100. “I’m taking action to provide an additional or an extra $400 per week in expanded benefits: $400. Okay?” he said. “States will be asked to cover 25 percent of the cost using existing funding, such as the tens of billions of dollars available to them through the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Under this plan, states will be able to offer greater benefits if they so choose, and the federal government will cover 75 percent of the cost. So we’re all set up. It’s $400 per week,” he added.

White House Offers Multiple, Varying Interpretations

Almost immediately, there was bipartisan blowback from state leaders about their required incremental contributions. State budget shortfalls are projected to reach $555 billion, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and many claimed that funding an additional $100 was impossible. As a result, White House officials began to tweak the LWA proposal.

On Tuesday, White House National Economic Council Director Larry Kudlow suggested that states would not have to put up incremental funds in order for unemployed Americans to qualify for the $300 federal benefit. “We modified slightly the mechanics of the deal,” Kudlow said. “By Tuesday evening, at least five contradictory versions of this parallel benefit system had been communicated by various Trump officials, according to a running tally from Georgetown law professor David Super,” noted Catherine Rampbell of The Washington Post. For individuals who have not received any federal unemployment benefits for roughly 20 days, as well as states who needed to stand up and administer the benefits quickly, the lack of consistency was frustrating.

Department Of Labor Guidance Provides Clarity

With so much confusion, the Department of Labor’s letter provides much needed clarity on how the Lost Wages Assistance program will work. It will help states with technical assistance to administer the program and provide some line of sight for the millions of unemployed Americans about how much they can expect to receive in supplemental funds.

While the clarity is welcome, some may be disappointed by the guidance the DOL letter provides. It includes a paragraph that relieves states of the obligation to provide an incremental $100 in unemployment benefits in order to receive the $300 federal contribution. “States may count funds that are already used to provide regular state UI payments toward the state match, if they choose to do so, eligible claimants will receive a LWA payment of $300 from the Federal Government in addition to their weekly benefit amount,” the letter states.

The letter continues to note that states may meet the $100 per claimant per week state match with the regular payments they make for state unemployment insurance benefits. It acknowledges that if states go this route, “eligible claimants will only receive a LWA payment of $300 in addition to their weekly benefit amount.”

In short the DOL makes it clear that states could provide the $100 in incremental funds, but that it is not mandatory. In reality, this means that Americans should only expect to receive $300 per week for the duration of the Lost Wages Assistance program and not count on the extra $100 from states given soaring state budget deficits. “No state has yet said it will foot the extra $100,” Forbes’ Jack Brewster noted.

The Upshot

The DOL letter is a Rorschach blob that could be interpreted differently by a politically polarized electorate. Some Americans may view the $300 as better than the zero dollars in federal unemployment aid they are currently receiving given the logjam in stimulus relief negotiations and 50 percent more than the $200 Senate Republicans had initially proposed in the HEALS Act. Other may view it as a 50 percent reduction from the $600 federal benefits they were receiving until the end of January, a 50 percent reduction in the $600 proposed by House Democrats in the HEROES Act, and a 25 percent reduction from the $400 Trump had promised less than a week ago.

Further Related Reading:

White House Modification May Cut Another $100 Before $400 Unemployment Benefit Extension Even Starts

Will $400 Unemployment Extension Start Soon? Don’t Count On It, Despite Trump’s Executive Order

Only Road To Second Stimulus Check, Real Unemployment Benefit Extension Runs Thru Congress

Trump Signs Executive Orders: Extends Federal Unemployment Benefits At $300 Per Week, Protects Against Evictions, Defers Student Loan Payments, Suspends Payroll Tax

McConnell: Stimulus Package Could Take ‘Weeks’ To Pass

Source Article from https://www.forbes.com/sites/shaharziv/2020/08/13/confirmed-extra-400-unemployment-benefit-extension-next-stimulus-package-slashed-to-300/

Two years after opening an investigation into Yale University’s use of race in admissions, the Justice Department is demanding that the school agree not to use race or national origin in its upcoming 2020-2021 admissions cycle.

Beth J. Harpaz/AP


hide caption

toggle caption

Beth J. Harpaz/AP

Two years after opening an investigation into Yale University’s use of race in admissions, the Justice Department is demanding that the school agree not to use race or national origin in its upcoming 2020-2021 admissions cycle.

Beth J. Harpaz/AP

The Department of Justice accused Yale University of violating federal civil rights law by illegally discriminating against Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions process.

Those are the findings of a two-year investigation conducted in response to a complaint by a coalition of Asian American groups. The Justice Department notified university officials in a letter on Thursday.

“The Department of Justice found Yale discriminates based on race and national origin in its undergraduate admissions process, and that race is the determinative factor in hundreds of admissions decisions each year,” the department said in a release.

It went on to say that “for the great majority of applicants,” Asian American and white prospective students have 1/10 to one-fourth of the likelihood of admission as African American applicants with comparable academic credentials.

In a statement provided to NPR, a Yale spokesperson said that the university “categorically denies this allegation.”

“At Yale, we look at the whole person when selecting whom to admit among the many thousands of highly qualified applicants,” the statement said. “We take into consideration a multitude of factors, including their academic achievement, interests, demonstrated leadership, background, success in taking maximum advantage of their secondary school and community resources, and the likelihood that they will contribute to the Yale community and the world.”

The spokesperson also suggested that the Justice Department had not fully taken into account the information and data that university officials were providing.

“We are dismayed that the DOJ has made its determination before allowing Yale to provide all the information the Department has requested thus far,” she said. “Had the Department fully received and fairly weighed this information, it would have concluded that Yale’s practices absolutely comply with decades of Supreme Court precedent.”

The Justice Department acknowledged that the Supreme Court has held that colleges receiving federal funds can consider applicants’ race in certain circumstances, as one of many factors. But it described Yale’s use of race as “anything but limited.”

The Justice Department is alleging that Yale uses race at multiple steps of its admissions process, which multiplies the effect of race on an applicant’s chances of getting in. It also said the school racially balances its classes.

The department argued that such practices violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin in programs that receive federal financial assistance.

Yale “expressly agrees” to comply with that law as a condition of receiving millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, the department said.

The Justice Department is demanding that Yale agree not to use race or national origin in its upcoming 2020-2021 admissions cycle. It also gives Yale an opportunity to propose a “narrowly tailored” plan for using race in future admissions cycles, pending Justice Department approval.

Yale is not planning to modify its policies, according to its statement Thursday.

“We are proud of Yale’s admissions practices, and we will not change them on the basis of such a meritless, hasty accusation,” the university said.

Art Coleman, an attorney and former deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights under the Clinton administration, raised questions about the strength of the Justice Department’s case in an interview with NPR.

“The case here is thin at best,” he said. “Thin in terms of underlying evidence.”

He compared Thursday’s four-page Justice Department findings to the more than 100 pages a judge issued in a similar case regarding Harvard University, and noted “that difference says a lot.”

The Supreme Court has long upheld the use of race-based admissions in colleges, ruling on the subject as recently as 2016.

Still, the Trump administration has repeatedly challenged the ability of higher education institutions to consider race in admissions decisions. Notably, in 2018, it withdrew Obama-era guidance that encouraged affirmative action in schools and universities.

Mitchell Chang, an education professor at UCLA, said it is “hard to imagine” this latest move is not political, given its proximity to the general election in November.

He also characterized it as at odds with the current social and political moment in which protesters across the country are calling for racial justice and equity.

“This move fails to respond to the calls being made nationally to consider race in a way that would help us address racism,” Chang said. “That’s what affirmative action policies were meant to do. To increase access to elite higher education. This very much runs counter to that.”

Disclaimer: Rachel Treisman is a graduate of Yale University.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/902335422/doj-yale-discriminates-against-asian-american-and-white-applicants-in-admissions

Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp dropped his lawsuit against Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and the City Council on Thursday after suing the mayor over mask mandates and other coronavirus protections re-instated in July.

“In light of Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms’ concession regarding the city’s Phase One roll-back plan and following her refusal in mediation to further negotiate a compromise, the Attorney General’s Office has filed to withdraw our pending lawsuit,” a statement from the governor’s office said Thursday.

Kemp said he was trying to protect businesses.

“I sued the City of Atlanta to immediately stop the shuttering of local businesses and protect local workers from economic instability,” Kemp said. “For weeks, we have worked in good faith with Mayor Bottoms, and she agreed to abandon the city’s Phase One roll-back plan, which included business closures and a shelter in place order.”

GEORGIA SCHOOLS REPORT CASES OF CORONAVIRUS AMONG STUDENTS, STAFF AMID REOPENINGS

Kemp filed a lawsuit against Bottoms and the City Council after the Atlanta mayor issued an order on July 10, pushing the city back into Phase One as coronavirus cases started to increase, requiring people to stay home and wear a mask in public. Restaurants and businesses were allowed to be open for curbside pick-up only.

Bottoms, a Democrat, told CNN in an interview last month that she believed the lawsuit was a “personal retaliation” because he “did not sue the city of Atlanta. He filed suit against myself and our City Council personally.”

In a brief filed by Bottoms responding to the lawsuit, she defended Atlanta’s mask mandate and said the governor’s suit was antithetical and did not serve the public interest because rescinding her order could increase the spread of COVID-19 and the number of lives damaged and lost to it.

Bottoms’ office could not be immediately reached for comment.

“Unfortunately, the Mayor has made it clear that she will not agree to a settlement that safeguards the rights of private property owners in Georgia,” Kemp said Thursday.

GEORGIA GOVERNOR CLAIMS ATLANTA MAYOR USING MASK MANDATE CONTROVERSY FOR ‘POLITICAL GAIN’

Kemp is expected to sign an executive order Saturday that will allow cities to enforce mask mandates but only on government property – meaning Bottoms would not be able to require businesses to adhere to mask regulations, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Bottoms reportedly called Kemp’s statement “woefully inaccurate” but noted that she was “grateful that this lawsuit has been withdrawn and the time and resources of our city and state can be better used to combat COVID-19.”

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Georgia has reported over 228,000 confirmed cases of the coronavirus and more than 4,500 deaths.

Atlanta, the capital of Georgia, is located in Fulton County and has reported the highest number of coronavirus cases in the state, with more than 21,000 confirmed cases – 3,400 of which have occurred in the last two weeks.

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-governor-drops-lawsuit-against-atlanta-mayor-over-mask-mandate

Washington — A legal adviser to President Trump’s reelection campaign is amplifying a false theory from a conservative law professor that Kamala Harris may not be eligible for the vice presidency due to questions surrounding the immigration status of her parents at the time she was born.

Harris was born in Oakland, California, on October, 20, 1964. Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court precedent have long held that anyone born in the U.S. is an American citizen, which makes them eligible for the presidency.

Jenna Ellis, the Trump campaign adviser, reposted a tweet Thursday from Tom Fitton, the president of the conservative group Judicial Watch, in which he asked whether Harris is “ineligible to be Vice President under the U.S. Constitution’s ‘Citizenship Clause'” and shared an op-ed from John Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University, published in Newsweek.

Ellis told CBS News that whether Harris, a California senator, can be vice president is an “open question, and one I think Harris should answer so the American people know for sure she is eligible.”

But Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of Berkeley Law School and a constitutional law expert, told CBS News in an email that the issue “is a truly silly argument.” 

“Under section 1 of the 14th Amendment, anyone born in the United States is a United States citizen. The Supreme Court has held this since the 1890s. Kamala Harris was born in the United States,” he said. The relevant portion of the 14th Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

“Some conservatives, such as John Eastman, think that is wrong and being born in the country is not enough,” Chemerinsky added. “[They’re] clearly wrong under the language of the 14th Amendment and under Supreme Court precedent.”

The controversial op-ed written by Eastman was published after Joe Biden announced Harris as his running mate Tuesday. Eastman ran unsuccessfully in the Republican primary for California attorney general in 2010 and lost to Steve Cooley. In the general election, Cooley was defeated by Harris, a Democrat.

Mr. Trump waded into the false claim on Thursday in his press conference. 

“I heard it today that she doesn’t meet the requirements,” Mr. Trump said, adding he wasn’t sure what the case was.

Claims about Harris’s eligibility also emerged when she launched her presidential bid in early 2019, but were dismissed. 

In his op-ed, Eastman said there are “some” questioning whether Harris can be vice president, because neither of her parents were naturalized U.S. citizens when she was born.

“That, according to these commentators, makes her not a ‘natural born citizen’ — and therefore ineligible for the office of the president and, hence, ineligible for the office of the vice president,” Eastman wrote, without naming the “commentators.”

Eastman goes on to write that before voters “so cavalierly accept Senator Harris’ eligibility” to serve as vice president, questions should be posed “about the status of her parents at the time of her birth.”

Harris’s mother, Shyamala Gopalan, was a breast-cancer scientist who emigrated from India; her father, Donald Harris, was a professor from Jamaica. Harris is the first Black woman and first person of South Asian descent to be selected as a major party’s vice presidential candidate.

The theory put forth by Eastman and shared by Ellis is reminiscent of Mr. Trump’s own yearslong promotion of the so-called birther conspiracy, in which he falsely claimed President Barack Obama wasn’t born in the U.S.

Mr. Trump first suggested in 2011 that Mr. Obama, the first Black president, didn’t have a birth certificate, and it wasn’t until 2016 that he backed away from the disproven claim, saying “President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Period.”

Nicole Sganga contributed to this report.

Source Article from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-vice-president-eligibility-birther-conspiracy-trump-campaign/

Progressive Jewish groups in the U.S. and Palestinians called out the decision by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel to normalize diplomatic relations, arguing that the move does not contribute to a peaceful solution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

On Thursday, President Donald Trump first announced the historic decision, with the UAE becoming only the third Arab state to officially normalize ties with Israel. Arab nations have largely backed Palestinians since the founding of Israel in their homeland in 1948. In 1980, Egypt became the first Arab state to normalize relations with Israel, followed by Jordan in 1994.

“During a call with President Trump and [Israeli] Prime Minister Netanyahu, an agreement was reached to stop further Israeli annexation of Palestinian territories,” Deputy Supreme Commander of the UAE Mohammed bin Zayed tweeted on Thursday. “The UAE and Israel also agreed to cooperation and setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship.”

Get your unlimited Newsweek trial >

But Palestinians and progressive Jewish groups dismissed the reasoning put forward by the UAE, arguing that Israel had long been annexing land recognized as belonging to Palestinians under United Nations agreements. They said this agreement would simply end the formal annexation process launched by Netanyahu.

“The Palestinian leadership rejects and denounces the UAE, Israeli and U.S. trilateral, surprising announcement,” Nabil Abu Rudeineh, a senior adviser to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said in a statement, Reuters reported.

“After months of mounting pressure against Prime Minister Netanyahu’s annexation plans from around the world, this treaty—recognizing the informal ties that have existed between Israel and the UAE for years—gives Netanyahu diplomatic cover to say that he stopped formal annexation of the West Bank,” Jewish-American group IfNotNow’s political director, Emily Mayer, said in a statement emailed to Newsweek.

Get your unlimited Newsweek trial >

“Meanwhile, the Israeli government can continue doing exactly what it has already been doing for decades—removing Palestinians from their land and stripping them of their rights,” she said.

Hanan Ashrawi, a member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s executive committee, tweeted that Israel was being “rewarded for not declaring openly what it’s been doing to Palestine illegally & persistently since the beginning of the occupation.” Ashrawi said the decision by the UAE and Israel was just making “secret dealings” formal.

Retweeting bin Zayed’s post about the decision, Ashrawi wrote: “May you never experience the agony of having your country stolen; may you never feel the pain of living in captivity under occupation; may you never witness the demolition of your home or murder of your loved ones. May you never be sold out by your ‘friends.'”

Representative Rashida Tlaib, a Michigan Democrat who is the first Palestinian-American woman to serve in Congress, criticized the decision on Twitter, calling it “another Trump/Netanyahu deal.”

“The focus needs to be on promoting solidarity between Palestinians & Israelis who are joining together in struggle to end an apartheid system. We must stand with the people,” she wrote.

“Annexation off the table in exchange for $$$ and nothing more for Palestinians. Nothing to do at all with peace,” Rabbi Alissa Wise, the deputy director of Jewish Voice for Peace, tweeted.

“Despite how unsurprising it is that the #UAE normalized relations with #Israel, it is as disappointing as ever to witness the failure of Arab nationalism and the endorsement/surrender to a colonial future,” Noura Erakat, a Palestinian-American human rights attorney and professor at Rutgers University, tweeted.

But some progressive groups welcomed the decision.

“J Street welcomes today’s announcement that Israel is suspending plans to annex parts of the West Bank and that the United Arab Emirates and Israel are taking steps to establish more normalized ties,” J Street, a nonprofit liberal advocacy group that works for a peaceful resolution to Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab tensions, told Newsweek.

“This decision by Prime Minister Netanyahu signals a major retreat from repeated threats to carry out de jure annexation and indicates that efforts to oppose annexation—in Israel, the U.S. and around the world—have achieved significant success,” the organization said in a statement.

Newsweek reached out to the Palestinian National Authority government for further comment on the announcement from the UAE and Israel, but it did not respond in time for publication.

p:last-of-type::after, .node-type-slideshow .article-body > p:last-of-type::after {
content: none
}]]>

Source Article from https://www.newsweek.com/progressive-jewish-groups-palestinians-call-out-uae-normalizing-ties-israel-nothing-do-peace-1524997

Trump railed against voting-by-mail on Thursday, saying he opposes crucial funding for the U.S. Postal Service as part of an effort to discourage Americans from voting by mail in November.

The president has repeatedly demonized mail-in voting as governors across the country have sought to expand it amid the coronavirus pandemic, but has previously stated that some instances, including his, are permissible.

“If you’re president of the United States and if you vote in Florida, and you can’t be there, you should be able to send in a ballot,” Trump said in May.

The Sun Sentinel reported last week that Floridians were on track to break records for mail-in voting during the state’s Democratic and Republican primaries. As of Aug 5., more than 1.2 million of the state’s residents had voted by mail, a number that is expected to surpass the 1.35 million who voted by mail in 2018.

Despite falsely claiming that voting by mail leads to increased voter fraud, Trump has previously praised voting by mail in Florida, calling the state’s election system “safe and secure” in a tweet earlier this month.

“Florida’s Voting system has been cleaned up (we defeated Democrats attempts at change), so in Florida I encourage all to request a Ballot & Vote by Mail!” Trump said.

Trump became a registered voter in Florida after switching his residency to the state from New York in Oct. 2019.

Source Article from https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/13/trump-requests-mail-in-ballot-395164

There will be “a development” Friday in Connecticut U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origins of the Russia investigation, Attorney General William Barr told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in an exclusive interview Thursday.

Barr said that the development would not be “earth-shattering,” but would be “an indication that things are moving along at the proper pace as dictated by the facts in this investigation.”

“There are two different things going on, Sean,” Barr said. “I said the American people need to know what actually happened, we need to get the story of what happened in 2016 and ’17 out. That will be done.

TRUMP LAYS DOWN GAUNTLET FOR BARR ON DURHAM PROBE 

“The second aspect of this is, if people crossed the line, if people involved in that activity violated criminal law, they will be charged. And John Durham is an independent man, highly experienced, and his investigation is pursuing apace. There was some delay because of COVID, but I’m satisfied with the progress and I’ve said there are going to be developments, significant developments, before the election.

“But we’re not doing this on the election schedule,” Barr added. “We’re aware of the election. We’re not going to do anything inappropriate before the election. But we’re not being dictated to by this schedule.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“What’s dictating the timing of this are developments in the case.”

Source Article from https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barr-durham-report-development-friday-election-timing

ATLANTA —
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp on Thursday said he’s dropping a lawsuit against the city of Atlanta in a dispute over the city’s requirement to wear masks in public and other restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Kemp had sued Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms and the City Council. The Republican governor argued local leaders cannot impose measures that are more or less restrictive than those in his executive orders.

The decision to drop the lawsuit comes as negotiations ordered by a judge between Kemp and Bottoms broke down, according to a statement from Kemp.

In a series of executive orders, Kemp has strongly urged people to wear masks but declined to require them. And he has sought to block local governments from issuing orders requiring that masks be worn.

Bottoms, a Democrat, had said those statements are recommendations, not legal orders, and that Kemp did not understand what she was doing.

The lawsuit filed July 16 asked a judge to overturn Bottoms’ orders that are more restrictive than Kemp’s, block her from issuing any more such orders, instruct the City Council not to ratify Bottoms’ actions or adopt any ordinances inconsistent with Kemp’s orders. He also sought to prohibit Bottoms from making public statements asserting she has authority that exceeds Kemp’s, and to require city officials to enforce “all provisions” of Kemp’s existing orders.

In a court filing last month, lawyers for the city argued that the lawsuit is barred by sovereign immunity, which says state and local governments can’t be sued without their consent. The city has the right to take action to protect the public, and its mask mandate is not inconsistent with or preempted by the governor’s order, the city’s filing argued.

“In the absence of state leadership on this issue, local governments have stepped in to protect their citizens,” the city’s filing said.

The Georgia Municipal Association, which represents municipal governments throughout the state, as well as Democratic state lawmakers and several labor unions had filed briefs saying the governor has overstepped his authority by trying to limit additional measures taken by local governments to fight the spread of the coronavirus.

Source Article from https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/georgia-governor-drop-lawsuit-atlanta-mask-mandate-72354926

A teaser for Michael Cohen’s book about his time as Donald Trump’s lawyer and fixer and his fall from grace was released on Thursday, after the US justice department had issued a gag order to stop the book’s publication that was later dropped.

The book, entitled Disloyal: The True Story of the Former Personal Attorney to President Donald J Trump, is slated to be released sometime in September, ahead of the presidential election in November.

Cohen ginned up pre-sales and tweeted about it on Thursday.

Michael Cohen
(@MichaelCohen212)

The day has finally arrived. I have waited a long time to share my truth. To read the foreword and pre-order my book DISLOYAL, visit https://t.co/Va4Rt0Zear


August 13, 2020

In the book’s foreword Cohen, 53, mentions writing in his federal prison cell in upstate New York in his green inmate uniform.

He details his feelings of bewilderment at falling foul of the president of the United States after years of being “Trump’s first call every morning and his last call every night”.

“In some ways, I knew him better than even his family did because I bore witness to the real man,” he writes, calling Trump a con man, a predator, a racist, a bully and a liar.

In his cell, Cohen was about a year in to serving a three-year sentence on federal charges of tax evasion, making false statements, lying to Congress and facilitating illegal payments to silence women about their alleged affairs with Trump in the past, which the president denies. But Cohen was released in May after fears of Covid-19 spreading in federal prisons.

After tweeting that he was nearly finished with his book in July, Cohen was sent back to prison. The ACLU ended up joining a lawuit on his behalf to get him out, saying he was being retaliated against by the authorities, which was ultimately successful. A gag order from the justice department to halt the book’s publication was also dropped.

In the forward to the book, Cohen writes: “My insatiable desire to please Trump to gain power for myself, the fatal flaw that led to my ruination, was a Faustian bargain: I would do anything to accumulate, wield, maintain, exert, exploit power. In this way, Donald Trump and I were the most alike … soulmates.”

Cohen describes driving to Washington DC, from his home in New York ready to testify to Congress during the Trump-Russia investigation, and being terrified that someone would try to kill him, which was why he didn’t go by plane or train, after receiving hundreds of death threats for turning against the president.

“I was wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses and I kept the speedometer at 80, avoiding the glances of other drivers,” he writes.

He also says that he had a panic attack and sobbed before testifying. Addressing Congress in February 2019, he accused Trump of criminal conspiracy and said Trump, when he was the Republican candidate in 2016, was aware of the infamous Trump Tower office meeting in New York between members of his presidential campaign, including son Donald Trump Jr, and a Russian lawyer with ties to the Kremlin, in order to receive damaging information about Hillary Clinton.

In his book foreword, he warns: “In these dangerous days, I see the Republican party and Trump’s followers threatening the constitution – which is in far greater peril than is commonly understood – and following one of the worst impulses of humankind: the desire for power at all costs.”

The Trump administration has tried and failed to stop some high-profile tell-alls. A damning book by the former national security adviser John Bolton, The Room Where It Happened, was published in June, while the excoriating and personal book Too Much and Never Enough, by Trump’s niece Mary L Trump, was published in July.

Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/13/michael-cohen-book-donald-trump-disloyal

Donald Trump admitted on Thursday he opposed additional funding for the United States Postal Service (USPS) in order to make it more difficult to deliver mail-in ballots.

Trump’s comments lend evidence for critics who say the president is deliberately trying to hamstring the USPS in advance of the November elections to help his re-election bid.

Trump said on Thursday that congressional negotiations over stimulus aid were held up in part because of Democratic proposals to provide $3.6bn to states to run elections and $25bn in aid to the postal service. The president, who has falsely claimed that widespread mail-in voting will lead to fraud, suggested that without the funding it would be harder to vote by mail.

“They need that money in order to have the post office work so it can take all of these millions and millions of ballots,” Trump said in an interview with Fox Business’s Maria Bartiromo. “If they don’t get those two items, that means you can’t have universal mail-in voting because they’re not equipped to have it.”

Congress has allocated just $400m to help states run elections, a small fraction of the $4bn the Brennan Center for Justice estimates is needed this year. Many election officials are scrambling to figure out how they will run an election where there is expected to be an unprecedented level of mail-in and in-person voting. The lack of funding may already be having an effect; in Kentucky, the state’s top election official said this week he did not support expanding mail-in voting for the fall because the state did not have the capacity to do so.

The president’s comments also come amid accusations that Louis DeJoy, the new postmaster general and a major Republican donor, is making cuts at the agency to intentionally slow down the mail. There are reports of severe mail delays in places across the country and the Washington Post and other news organizations published internal USPS documents last month saying there was a blanket ban on overtime and that workers were being told to leave mail behind if it will delay them on their routes. A USPS spokesman denied there was a blanket ban on overtime, but did not address questions about whether employees were being told to leave the mail behind.

A slower mail service could have a big impact this fall because an unprecedented number of Americans are expected to vote by mail and many states require a ballot to arrive at an election office by election day, regardless of when it was put in the mail, in order to be counted. At least 65,000 ballots were rejected during the 2020 primaries because they arrived too late.

“If we don’t make a deal that means they don’t get the money. That means they can’t have universal mail-in voting. They just can’t have it. Sort of a crazy thing,” Trump said on Thursday.

Andrew Bates, a spokesman for Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said in a statement Trump was attacking the US economy and democracy.

“The president of the United States is sabotaging a basic service that hundreds of millions of people rely upon, cutting a critical lifeline for rural economies and for delivery of medicines, because he wants to deprive Americans of their fundamental right to vote safely during the most catastrophic public health crisis in over 100 years,” he said.

USPS officials have not said they need additional funding to deliver mail-in ballots this fall. “The Postal Service has ample capacity to deliver all election mail securely and on-time in accordance with our delivery standards, and we will do so,” DeJoy said at a meeting of the USPS board of governors on Friday.

In a separate interview on Thursday, Larry Kudlow, the president’s top economic adviser, dismissed efforts to make it easier to vote in negotiations over stimulus money.

“So much of the Democratic asks are really liberal left wishlists,” he said. “Voting rights, aid to aliens and so forth. That’s not our game.”

Source Article from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/13/donald-trump-usps-post-office-election-funding

President Trump speaks during a Oval Office meeting Thursday with representatives of Israel and the United Arab Emirates, announcing an agreement to establish diplomatic ties between the two countries.

Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images


hide caption

toggle caption

Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images

President Trump speaks during a Oval Office meeting Thursday with representatives of Israel and the United Arab Emirates, announcing an agreement to establish diplomatic ties between the two countries.

Doug Mills/Pool/Getty Images

Updated at 3:20 p.m. ET

Israel and the United Arab Emirates have agreed to forge a path toward normal diplomatic relations, and Israel said as part of the agreement it will suspend its controversial plans to annex more territory in the West Bank.

The historic deal was brokered during a call between leaders of the two nations and President Trump.

The UAE’s leader, Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed, announced on Twitter that the deal calls for “setting a roadmap towards establishing a bilateral relationship.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the deal a historic breakthrough toward peace in the Middle East and the launch of a “new era” in Israeli relations with the Arab world.

Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab nations that currently have normal diplomatic relations with Israel. The UAE has had informal contact with Israel for some time, and relations have been improving.

The White House released a joint statement from the three countries, saying Israel and the UAE “will meet in the coming weeks to sign bilateral agreements regarding investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, the establishment of reciprocal embassies and other areas of mutual benefit.”

The statement noted the central role Trump played in the talks, saying he asked Israel to suspend its annexation plans as part of the negotiations.

Netanyahu had vowed to annex portions of the occupied West Bank this summer, with support from the Trump administration. But Israelis were divided on the plan, and a spike in coronavirus infections there pulled the focus away from a debate over annexation.

Palestinians and Arab leaders had expressed outrage over the annexation proposal, and there was strong opposition from countries outside the region. Even British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, a self-described “passionate defender of Israel,” expressed opposition to the plan.

For decades, the international community has sought to resolve the status of the West Bank through negotiations, not unilateral moves by either side.

Johnson welcomed the news of the deal brokered by the United States.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden has endorsed the deal, too.

So have key Israeli lawmakers and even some Israeli settlers, including vocal supporters of annexation. But The Associated Press notes that “harder-line settlers” have spoken out against the deal, with settler leader David Alhayani saying of Netanyahu, “The faith in you has expired.”

Meanwhile, Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi denounced the deal on Twitter, saying Israel was “rewarded for not openly declaring what it’s been doing to Palestine illegally and persistently.”

Ashrawi wrote: “May you never be sold out by your ‘friends,’ ” an evident reference to the UAE.

The new deal is a significant shift in relations between the UAE and Israel.

Earlier this summer, while still committed to its plans for annexation, Israel announced a groundbreaking partnership with the UAE on the fight against the coronavirus. The UAE promptly distanced itself from the announcement and said it was just private companies, not the two governments, collaborating.

Source Article from https://www.npr.org/2020/08/13/902186439/uae-israel-move-to-normalize-relations-as-israel-halts-planned-west-bank-annexat

Source Article from https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2020/08/13/georgia-coronavirus-pandemic-school-highest-daily-deaths/3347071001/