“Not everybody loves you every day, but when you sit and work with both sides, you tend to take body blows from both sides,” Gottheimer said in an interview about his tactics. “If it’s for the good of the country, making progress and doing what’s right for the people we represent, that’s my job.”
Yet the durability of the centrists’ victory remains up for debate. The two-day budget showdown revealed the struggles of such a disparate bloc of Democrats — a mix of fiscal and social conservatives, vulnerable “frontliners” and some who hold deep blue seats — as they seek to maximize their influence.
While Gottheimer and his group celebrate the concession they got on infrastructure, they face a bigger question: whether they expended too much political capital over a calendar fight, when a much bigger debate over the size and scope of the party’s social spending package is yet to come this fall.
Just 24 hours before the vote, no one on the Hill knew how it would end.
Pelosi, not one to respond well to demands from her rank and file, was not in a rush. The Californian was hosting a who’s who of Democratic luminaries at her annual Napa fundraiser over the weekend as members of her leadership team were dispatched to try to reason with the moderates.
But in a private leadership call Sunday afternoon with just Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, it became apparent that the longtime Democratic leadership trio had a problem on their hands.
While Pelosi had been in touch with other centrists in Gottheimer’s group, it had been more than a week since she andthe New Jersey Democrat had had a conversation. During the Sunday leadership call, Hoyer — who had been in close contact with the rebels for many days — suggested it was time for the speaker to directly engage Gottheimer, despite his rabble-rousing reputation that had long alienated many in the caucus.
By Monday night, Pelosi, Hoyer and the rest of her leadership team were engaged in a flurry of negotiations with Gottheimer and the other moderates. Such attention, in many ways, was precisely what the moderates had wanted in the first place.
Those efforts, however, took far longer than everyone expected, with Gottheimer and another senior centrist, Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), running into some disagreements within their own ad hoc group about how to end the standoff. While the group had a singular public demand — an immediate vote on the Senate infrastructure bill — several of its members were individually approaching leadership in private with their own wants and requests, complicating the negotiations.
Moderates walked away from the standoff Tuesday declaring victory, with a promise to be included in the drafting of the $3.5 trillion social spending package as well as a date certain for an infrastructure vote. Pelosi and her allies, meanwhile, argue that she has not wavered from her previous strategy.
“A win?” Pelosi responded Tuesday when asked whether Gottheimer had scored a significant victory. “We’re not talking about a win. We’re talking about passing a rule.”
Progressives, who were largely silent amid the moderates’ maneuver in the moment, said afterward that Pelosi had simply reiterated her earlier plans to attempt to pass both massive bills by the end of September. And they said their nearly 100-member caucus would only back the Senate infrastructure deal after passing the broader party-line spending bill.
“I don’t consider them concessions,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said of the demands granted to the centrists.
“The fact that they’re gonna end up supporting what they said they wouldn’t without actually getting what they wanted, I think sets them up for failure in negotiations in the future,” she added.
Unlike House liberals, most of whom align with the Congressional Progressive Caucus, moderates are more scattered across the caucus. Their various wings — the Blue Dogs, the New Democrats and the Problem Solvers — usually spend more time arguing over the semantic differences between the groups than they do joining together to force leadership’s hand.
For instance, the larger New Democrat Coalition fully backed the speaker’s approach while key members of the other two held out.
“I think a lot of this was probably unnecessary. We could have kept the process moving forward, but that’s called legislating,” said Rep. Ami Bera (D-Calif.), a senior member of the New Democrats.
Gottheimer’s allies included mostly members of the Problem Solvers Caucus, though they came together loosely and organized in general by word of mouth amid their frustrations with Pelosi’s dual-track strategy.
Another key moderate, Blue Dog co-leader Rep. Stephanie Murphy (D-Fla.), agreed with them and had been working with leadership behind the scenes. But Murphy didn’t go public until a Monday night op-ed, adding another complication to the already strained negotiations.
Murphy had sent a set of proposals to Democratic leadership and the White House a week earlier. Those included a late-September timeline for the infrastructure bill and certain reassurances for the$3.5 trillionspending package, which the centrists ultimately received.
Yet Murphy said those early ideas were ignored, and she began drafting her op-ed — which called her own party’s strategy “misguided” — shortly after a tense call from President Joe Biden himself on Sunday night, according to people familiar with the discussions.
“I can’t explain why the serious negotiations didn’t happen until the eleventh hour,” Murphy said in an interview Tuesday, after backing the budget on the floor. “I always find that people who wait until the very last minute to do their homework, let’s just say they end up staying up very late.”
Murphy is among several Democrats who hope to see a more involved White House during the next, and likely more intense, round of negotiations on the $3.5 trillion bill.
Biden’s call to Murphy was one of several ways that senior Democrats had discussed to pressure their members to support the budget vote. Another idea was having Gottheimer’s onetime boss former President Bill Clinton make calls, although sources close to the 46-year-old centrist insist that never happened.
One way top Democrats did try to turn the screw was through fundraising, with House Democratic Campaign Chair Sean Patrick Maloney (D-N.Y.) and his staff issuing veiled warnings about the campaign arm’s financial support if moderates followed through on their threats.
But while Gottheimer had always wanted a deal, he at times found it difficult to lock down all eight other members of his motley group.
Late Monday, Pelosi and Gottheimer had finally come to an agreement on a timeline, setting the date of Sept. 28 to vote on the Senate bill, when another one of the moderates balked. Rep. Carolyn Bourdeaux (D-Ga.) insisted the deadline for a vote be moved up a full week, providing distance from when the House would likely vote on the massive social spending deal, according to people familiar with the talks.
As the clock ticked past midnight, the group of negotiators decided to hit pause as it became clear they wouldn’t reach an agreement. But just hours later, Pelosi and Gottheimer resumed talks with an early morning call Tuesday.
Later that morning, Gottheimer’s group was again on the cusp of announcing a deal, only to be held up again at the last minute by members of their own group who demanded stronger language on the timeline. That final change ended up securing all nine votes.
In the end, Gottheimer and Cuellar locked down the votes of every Democrat who signed their letter.
Asked how he and Gottheimer convinced the rest of the moderates, Cuellar — who worked closely with his long-time ally Clyburn — replied: “With a lot of work.”
“We got a date to vote on this, on the 27th. We agreed that we’re going to be voting, same with the Senate Democrats. So I think we got everything,” Cuellar said.
Nicholas Wu and Anthony Adragna contributed to this report.
“If the Texas congressional maps that have been proposed are adopted, a large portion of my constituency will be in District 34,” Gonzalez said in a statement provided first to POLITICO. “I have received many calls from across South Texas encouraging me to run in this district. If in fact these are the final maps I will very seriously consider running in 34 and continuing my representation of South Texas and the Rio Grande Valley.”
House Republicans, who have identified Gonzalez’s current McAllen-based district astheir top pickup opportunity in Texas, will welcome the news that Democrats are losing the power of incumbency in a tough battleground.
Gonzalez, who was first elected in 2016, said that he has over $2 million in his campaign account to use in a primary for the Vela’s seat. He also said if he changed districts he would “make certain that we have another candidate” that could keep his 15th District in Democratic hands.
Even before the GOP-controlled redistricting began, Gonzalez was likely to have a tough reelection. His current district, which includes McAllen and stretches north toward San Antonio, took a hard swing to the right last year.
Hillary Clinton won the seat by 17 points in 2016; but Joe Biden won it by just 2 points four years later. Meanwhile, Gonzalez saw his victory margin shrink to 3 points in 2020 against a opponent who spent less than $300,000. That candidate, Monica De La Cruz-Hernandez, is running again this cycle.
All three districts in the Rio Grande Valleysaw a similar rightward shift in 2020 — something the incumbents attributed both to Trump’s surge among Latino men and some progressive Democratic policy proposals and slogans that did not play well along the border.
That made all three a target for GOP mapmakers in redistricting. Thus far, the state Legislature has acted somewhat conservatively, proposingturning Gonzalez’s district into a battleground and giving his neighbor to the west, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, a seat that Biden would have carried by 7 points.
Republicans’ map would turn the Brownsville-based seat held by Vela, who announced his retirement earlier this year, into one that backed Biden by nearly 16 points in 2020.
In a statement to POLITICO, Vela said: “I will endorse Congressman Gonzalez no matter which district he runs in.”
Gonzalez said he chose to run in Vela’s seat because the incumbent is retiring and because Vela absorbed some of his Democratic voters from Hidalgo County.
But Gonzalez has not yet cleared the Democratic primaryfield. He could still face carpetbagging attacks because his hometown of McAllen is in his old district, and he is also more moderate and a member of the Blue Dog Coalition.
FourDemocrats have filed to run for the seat. The most prominent one is Rochelle Garza, a civil rights attorney from Brownsville. But most will probably struggle to match Gonzalez’s war chest.
A trial lawyer by trade, Gonzalez also the ability to self-fund.
Un día bastante agitado en el mundo deportivo y en DIEZ.HN no ha sido la excepción, por ello te presentamos un resumen con las seis noticias más leídas de este viernes.
6. La actualidad de los extranjeros que brillaron en Honduras
5. La lista de jugadores con la que negocia el Barcelona
El técnico español Luis Enrique puso en marcha la maquinaria culé para fichar de cara a la temporada 2016-17 y ya han salido varios nombres a la luz. Uno de ellos es Marquinhos, quien juega para el PSG, pero lleva mucho tiempo en el ojo azulgrana.La nota completa aquí.
4. Reservista del Zaragoza no superó las pruebas en Olimpia
El hondureño Nelman Castellanos decidió dejar las reservas del club español para retornar a Honduras con la ilusión de cumplir su sueño de vestir de blanco, pero este viernes el asistente técnico Nerlin Membreño confirmó que no logró convencer. La explicación completa que dio Membreño.
3. Los estadios más temidos de Centroamérica
El fútbol centroamericano sigue luchando por crecer y destacar, pese a ello hay canchas donde a los visitantes les cuesta mucho salir con un resultado positivo. Acá el listado.
2. Jugadores del Real Madrid en lista de salida
Real Madrid cerró la temporada ganando la Champions League de la mano de Zidane, pero ahora el técnico francés busca armar una plantilla que le permita este año competir además por Liga y Copa del Rey, para ello busca fortalecerse y ya hay una nómina de los que podrían marcharse. Acá la podés revisar completa.
1. El islandés Aaron Gunnarsson sale en defensa de Cristiano
El diario alemán Bild publicó este viernes que el delantero luso no quiso intercambiar camisa con el seleccionado de Islandia y que le habría dicho: “¿Mi camiseta? ¿Y quién eres tú?”, pero el mismo defensor lo desmintió. Acá su aclaración y lo que ocurrió verdaderamente.
(CNN) – Investigadores estadounidenses creen que hackers rusos ingresaron al sistema la agencia de noticias estatal de Qatar y plantaron una noticia falsa que contribuyó a una crisis entre los aliados más cercanos en el Golfo Pérsico de Estados Unidos, según funcionarios estadounidenses informados sobre la investigación.
El FBI envió recientemente a un equipo de investigadores a Doha para ayudar al gobierno de Qatar a investigar el presunto incidente de piratería, informaron funcionarios de los gobiernos estadounidense y qatarí.
La inteligencia recopilada por las agencias de seguridad estadounidenses indica que los hackers rusos estaban detrás de la intrusión reportada por el gobierno de Qatar hace dos semanas, dijeron funcionarios estadounidenses. Qatar alberga una de las bases militares estadounidenses más grandes de la región.
La supuesta participación de piratas informáticos rusos intensifica las preocupaciones por parte de las agencias de inteligencia y agencias de la ley de Estados Unidos sobre que Rusia sigue intentando contra aliados estadounidenses algunas de las mismas medidas cibernéticas que —según las agencias de inteligencia — se usaron para inmiscuirse en las elecciones de 2016.
Funcionarios estadounidenses dicen que el objetivo de los rusos parece ser causar divisiones entre EE.UU. y sus aliados. En los últimos meses, presuntas actividades cibernéticas rusas, incluido el uso de noticias falsas, han aparecido en medio de elecciones en Francia, Alemania y otros países.
Aún no está claro si EE.UU. ha rastreado a los hackers en el incidente de Qatar para determinar si tienen vínculos con organizaciones criminales rusas o con los servicios de seguridad rusos culpados por los ciberataques de las elecciones estadounidenses. Un funcionario señaló que basándose en la inteligencia pasada, “no ocurre mucho en ese país sin la bendición del gobierno”.
El FBI y la CIA se negaron a comentar. Una portavoz de la embajada de Qatar en Washington dijo que la investigación está en curso y que sus resultados se publicarán pronto.
El gobierno de Qatar señaló el 23 de mayo que un noticiero de su agencia de noticias de Qatar atribuyó falsas declaraciones al gobernante de la nación que parecían amables con Irán e Israel y en que cuestionaba si el presidente Donald Trump duraría en el cargo.
El ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Qatar, el jeque Mohammed Bin Abdulrahman al-Thani, dijo a CNN que el FBI ha confirmado del ciberataque y la plantación de noticias falsas.
Fumaça e chamas são vistas no palco do Tomorrowland Unite, em Barcelona, na noite de sábado (29), em imagem retirada de vídeo (Foto: Alex Prim Lopez via Reuters)
Llegó a su fin el asalto en un hotel de Burkina Faso por supuestos atacantes islamismas que dejó al menos 20 muertos, según informó el gobierno este sábado.
Sin embargo algunos informes aseguran que en un hotel cercano continúan los enfrentamientos.
El ministro del Interior señaló que en total 126 personas fueron liberadas del Hotel Splendid en Uagadugú, la capital de la nación en el occidente de África.
Indicó que tres atacantes murieron durante la operación de las fuerzas de seguridad del país apoyadas por fuerzas especiales francesas.
El presidente de Francia, Francois Hollande, condenó el “detestable” ataque en la antigua colonia francesa.
La organización extremista Al Qaeda en el Maghreb Islámico (AQMI) declaró que llevó a cabo el ataque, según analistas.
Este mismo grupo realizó un ataque en noviembre pasado en un hotel en la capital de Mali, Bamako, que dejó 19 muertos.
Lea: Buscan a tres sospechosos del ataque en hotel en Mali
Los hombres armados y enmascarados entraron al conocido hotel el viernes tomando rehenes y haciendo explotar al menos un vehículo.
En respuesta, fuerzas de seguridad iniciaron un asalto para capturar a los atacantes y rescatar a los rehenes.
El grupo atacante respondió con disparos a las fuerzas de seguridad al ingresar al hotel, una parte del cual estalló en llamas.
Según testigos citados por medios locales, los atacantes hicieron explotar uno o dos coches antes de ingresar al edificio.
Al Qaeda
La organización SITE, que analiza las actividades de grupos yihadistas, indicó que AQMI está detrás del ataque.
pero afirma que los responsables son miembros del grupo Al Murabitoun, que está basado en el desierto del Sahara en el norte de Mali y está integrado por combatientes leales al veterano militante argelino Mokhtar Belmokhtar.
El mes pasado el grupo extremista anunció que se uniría a AQMI.
Belmokhtar, un comandante que tiene un solo ojo que combatió contra las fuerzas soviéticas en Afganistán en los 1980, perteneció a AQMI pero se separó de la organización tras divisiones con los líderes.
El yihadista ha sido declarado muerto en numerosas ocasiones. La última vez fue tras un ataque aéreo de EE.UU. el 14 de junio en Libia. Pero su muerte no fue formalmente confirmada.
El hotel
El hotel Splendid es popular entre turistas y diplomáticos que viajan desde occidente y también es usado por el personal de Naciones Unidas.
Un trabajador de un café cercano afirmó a la agencia France Presse que “varias personas” fueron asesinadas en el establecimiento hotelero.
Se sabe que un restaurante cercano también fue atacado.
“Todavía estamos en un contexto de fragilidad política, así que creo que el momento de este ataque es significativo”, le dijo a la BBC desde Uagadugú Cynthia Ohayon, analista de la organización International Crisis Group.
“El país tiene fronteras largas con Malí y Níger, y sabemos que hay grupos armados presentes en la frontera, por lo que esto se veía venir”, concluyó.
Asherey Ryan, her 11-month-old son Alonzo, and her fiancé, Reynold Lester were on their way to a pregnancy checkup when, in what seemed like a fraction of a second, they were gone.
“My worst fears came true,” Asherey’s sister, Cotie Davis, said at a gathering of grieving family members Friday. “I used to pray for my sisters all of the time. I had always seen (crashes) on TV. You never expect it to happen to you.”
Asherey was six months pregnant. Her unborn child, whom she planned to name Armani, also died.
“It’s hard to believe I’m never going to see them again. I can’t even imagine staring over her casket. This has definitely taken a huge chunk of me.” Davis told reporters, struggling to contain her emotions.
Authorities believe Nicole Linton, 37, a traveling nurse from Texas, was going at least 80 miles an hour when she plowed her Mercedes into crossing traffic at the intersection of La Brea and Slauson avenues in Windsor Hills Thursday afternoon.
Several vehicles then careened into a gas station in a ball of fire.
Six people were killed and eight others were injured.
On Friday, California Highway Patrol arrested Linton on suspicion of vehicular manslaughter even though she remained hospitalized with undisclosed injuries.
CHP told KTLA that Linton is cooperating with investigators.
Formal charges are expected next week – possibly as early as Monday.
“Why is she still alive?” asked one family member at Friday’s gathering. “Of all these lives that were lost, why is she still alive?”
Por ese expediente, la ex mandataria denunció en julio del año pasado a Bonadio, a Stolbizer y a la abogada de la diputada, Silvina Martínez, por una supuesta connivencia entre ellos. Cristina Kirchner sostuvo que Bonadio le dio a la legisladora una planilla de movimientos bancarios, dólares, cajas de seguridad e integración de sociedades de su familia que había sido secuestrada en un procedimiento ordenado por el mismo juez en el estudio de Víctor Manzanares, histórico contador de los Kirchner, y que era reservada. Stolbizer dijo que obtuvo esa información en fuentes anónimas.
Incredible GoPro footage takes you inside the gunfire-heavy raid that ended drug lord Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman’s six months on the run.
The video, obtained from Mexican authorities, looks as if it’s from an action movie. The camera follows the armed men as they storm the house, unleash grenades and bullets, and search room to room.
The Friday raid was called “Operation Black Swan,” according to the Mexican show “Primero Noticias.” Authorities decided to launch the raid Thursday after they got a tip about where Guzman was sleeping, the show reported.
Seventeen elite unit Mexican Marines launched their assault on the house in the city of Los Mochis at 4:40 a.m., “Primero Noticias” said.
They were met by about one dozen well-armed guards inside who were prepared for a fight, the show said.
The Marines moved from room to room, clearing the house. Upstairs they found two men in one room and found two women on the floor of a bathroom. All were captured, “Primero Noticias” said.
After 15 minutes, the Marines controlled the entire house, according to “Primero Noticias.”
In the end, five guards were killed and two men and two women were detained. One of the women was the same cook Guzman had with him when he was detained a couple years ago, according to “Primero Noticias.”
Eventually the marines determined that the only bedroom on the first floor was Guzman’s and they began pounding on the walls and moving furniture, finding hidden doors, the show said.
His room had a king-sized bed, bags from fashionable clothing stores, bread and cookie wrappers, and medicine including injectable testosterone, syringes, antibiotics and cough syrups, the show said. The two-story house had four bedrooms and five bathrooms. There were flat-screen TVs and Internet connection throughout the house, according to “Primero Noticias.”
The Marines eventually found a hidden passageway behind a mirror, with a handle hidden in the light fixture. The handle opened a secret door, leading down into the escape tunnel, the show explained.
The escape tunnel was fully lit and led to an access door for the city sewage system, “Primero Noticias” said, adding that Guzman had at least a 20-minute head start on the Marines.
The address where Guzman was captured had been monitored for a month, Mexican Attorney General Arely Gomez has said. According to Gomez, Guzman and his lieutenant escaped through that drainage system.
“Primero Noticias” said it obtained surveillance footage showing Guzman and his lieutenant emerging from the manhole cover, where they then stole two cars to flee, the show said.
Guzman was finally caught when he and the lieutenant were stopped on a highway by Mexican Federal Police, the show said.
Authorities took them to a motel to wait for reinforcement. The men were then taken to Los Mochis airport and transfered to Mexico City.
Guzman is now back in prison as his lawyers fight his extradition to the U.S.
The drug kingpin escaped from the Altiplano prison near Mexico City on July 11, launching an active manhunt. When guards realized that he was missing from his cell, they found a ventilated tunnel and exit had been constructed in the bathtub inside Guzman’s cell. The tunnel extended for about a mile underground and featured an adapted motorcycle on rails that officials believe was used to transport the tools used to create the tunnel, Monte Alejandro Rubido, the head of the Mexican national security commission, said in July.
Guzman had been sent there after he was arrested in February 2014. He spent more than 10 years on the run after escaping from a different prison in 2001. It’s unclear exactly how he had escaped, but he did receive help from prison guards who were prosecuted and convicted.
Guzman, the leader of the Sinaloa cartel, was once described by the U.S. Treasury as “the most powerful drug trafficker in the world.” The Sinaloa cartel allegedly uses elaborate tunnels for drug trafficking and has been estimated to be responsible for 25 percent of all illegal drugs that enter the U.S. through Mexico.
President Trump announced on Twitter yesterday that Kevin McAleenan will be taking over as acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security following the resignation of Kirstjen Nielsen on Sunday.
There’s one problem with this: It’s illegal.
Federal law explicitly excludes the application of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to this situation. University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck points out that under the law, the acting secretary of DHS should be Claire Grandy, the current undersecretary for management. If Trump is bent on having McAleenan serve, he’d first have to first fire Grandy.
Trump seems to be taking the law as less binding requirement to be followed than pesky regulation to be ignored.
Even setting the legal succession issues aside, there’s no reason to think that Trump will be appointing a new DHS secretary any time soon. After all, more than three months after Jim Mattis resigned, Patrick Shanahan is still the acting defense secretary. And he’s just one of the many acting secretaries with whom Trump has avoided the constitutional requirement for confirmation. That includes his new leads at Interior, the Office of Management and Budget, and the new U.N. ambassador.
In the case of the Justice Department, Trump pulled a similar stunt, making unqualified scam artist Matthew Whitaker his acting attorney general. When Trump finally got around to nominating William Barr, the nominee looked so good by comparison that lawmakers had little choice but to hurry and confirm him, lest a sleazy hot tub salesmen remain in that key post.
Trump is far from the first president to stretch the limits of his powers, but (as the Examiner often said of former President Barack Obama) he stands on the shoulders of giants and is therefore taller than any of them. These questionable successions in his administration show further contempt for Congress, which has already weakened itself by wrongly abdicating its rightful powers on trade, border security, and the continuing war in Yemen, among other things.
Republicans need to wake up, because this is all wrong. If they can’t act out of principle, then they should at least realize that the next president to abuse power in these ways way may not be on their team.
Los comentarios publicados son de exclusiva responsabilidad de sus autores y las consecuencias derivadas de ellos pueden ser pasibles de sanciones legales. Aquel usuario que incluya en sus mensajes algún comentario violatorio del reglamento será eliminado e inhabilitado para volver a comentar. Enviar un comentario implica la aceptación del Reglamento.
The grilling amounted to a confirmation-style hearing for an acting official who may only have a few more days left on the job — President Trump’s nominee to lead the Department of Justice, William Barr, is poised for Senate confirmation in the near future.
The questions from Democrats were aggressive, particularly on the question of Whitaker’s oversight of the Mueller probe. But the acting AG repeatedly punched back.
“Can you say right now, ‘Mr. President, Bob Mueller is honest and not conflicted’?” asked Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.
“Congressman, I’m not a puppet to repeat what you’re saying,” Whitaker shot back.
Democrats became increasingly agitated at what they saw as Whitaker’s efforts to run out the clock and control the hearing process. Whitaker stunned onlookers when he told House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., that his time slot had expired as Nadler asked Whitaker if he’d been “asked to approve any requests or action” for the special counsel.
“Mr. Chairman, I see that your five minutes is up, so…” Whitaker replied as gasps ricocheted around the hearing room. “I am here voluntarily. We have agreed to five-minute rounds.”
At one point, he tussled with Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, when she pressed on whether he’s appeared before for an oversight hearing. While the answer, eventually, was that he had not, the congresswoman objected when Whitaker would not answer with a requested “yes or no.” When she asked the chairman if her time had been restored, Whitaker replied with a degree of snark, “I don’t know whether your time’s been restored or not.”
“Mr. Attorney General, we’re not joking here, and your humor is not acceptable,” the congresswoman responded.
“I control this time, Mr. Whitaker,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., when Whitaker accused him of challenging his character.
“This is my time. Mr. Whitaker, you don’t run this committee. You don’t run the Congress of the United States, and you don’t run the Judiciary Committee.”
Republicans on Friday backed Whitaker, with ranking member Doug Collins, R-Ga., calling on the committee to adjourn — although a vote to do so did not pass.
For his part, Collins called the daylong hearing a “dog and pony show.”
The hearing had been teased a day earlier when Nadler threatened to subpoena Whitaker, while the DOJ threatened to boycott the hearing.
Nadler made clear early Thursday that he did not want to have to subpoena Whitaker, but said a “series of troubling events” suggested it would be better for him to be prepared with that authority, just in case he decided not to show up for the hearing.
But Whitaker then warned he would not show up unless lawmakers dropped the threat.
“Consistent with longstanding practice, I remain willing to appear to testify tomorrow, provided that the Chairman assures me that the Committee will not issue a subpoena today or tomorrow and that the Committee will engage in good faith negotiations before taking such a step down the road,” Whitaker wrote to Nadler.
Hours later, Nadler responded that if Whitaker appeared before the panel “prepared to respond to questions from our members, then I assure you there will be no need for the committee to issue a subpoena on or before February 8.”
Whitaker accepted the assurances, as evidenced by his Friday appearance. But Nadler told reporters after the hearing that he was not happy with Whitaker’s answers and said he intends to bring him back for an additional deposition..
“He will come back, because we will use a subpoena if we have to,” he said.
The hearing Friday comes as the Senate is close to confirming Trump’s nominee for attorney general. The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted, along party lines, to advance Barr’s nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.
The land area burned by fire has declined 25% from 2003-2019 thanks to economic growth.
NASA
The whole world is burning, The New York Times, CNN, and mainstream media outlets around the world have declared in recent days.
The Amazon could soon “self-destruct” reportsThe Times. It would be “a nightmare scenario that could see much of the world’s largest rainforest erased from the earth,” writes Max Fisher who notes, “some scientists who study the Amazon ecosystem call it imminent.”
“If enough [Amazon] rain forest is lost and can’t be restored, the area will become savanna, which doesn’t store as much carbon, meaning a reduction in the planet’s ‘lung capacity,’” reportsThe New York Times.
It’s not just the Amazon, though. Africa, Siberia, and Indonesia are also apparently going up in smoke. ClaimsThe New York Times, “in central Africa, vast stretches of savanna are going up in flame. Arctic regions in Siberia are burning at a historic pace.”
Any reader of the New York Times and other mainstream media outlet would be forgiven for believing that fires globally are on the rise, but they aren’t.
In reality, there was a whopping 25 percent decrease in the area burned from 2003 to 2019, according to NASA.
Between 2003 and 2015, the area burned in Africa declined by an area the size of Texas (700,000 square kilometers or 270,000 square miles.
And against the picture painted by celebrities and the mainstream media that fires around the world are caused by economic growth, the truth is the opposite: the amount of land being burned is declining thanks to development, including urbanization.
That’s because the amount of land being converted into ranches and farms has been going down, not up, and because more of it is being done with machines than with fire.
For the last 35 years, the world has been re-foresting, meaning new tree growth has exceeded deforestation. The area of the Earth covered with forest has increased by an area the size of Texas and Alaska combined.
Less land is being converted into agriculture globally in part because farmers are growing more food on less land.
Much of the re-forestation is occurring in deserts and tundra that had been barren, thanks to human-led reforestation initiatives, such as in China and Africa, and because of global warming. Warmer temperatures are what have allowed forests to grow in tundra.
Mainstream journalists botched this story. They should have known about the decline in burning since scientists published a major study in Science in 2015.
And yet mainstream journalists have continued to push the apocalyptic framing in their coverage of fires in Amazon and Africa and attempted to link them to climate change.
Consider how The New York Times misrepresented global fires earlier this week. “Their increase in severity and spread to places where fires were rarely previously seen is raising fears that climate change is exacerbating the danger,” wrote Kendra Pierre-Louis.
But this is wrong. In truth, the climate-fire nexus brings good news: the decline in area burned has offset much of the risk of increased fire from global warming, according to Doug Morton, co-author of the 2015 Science study and a forest scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute.
“When land use intensifies on savannas, fire is used less and less as a tool,” saidNiels Andela of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “As soon as people invest in houses, crops, and livestock, they don’t want these fires close by anymore. The way of doing agriculture changes, the practices change, and fire disappears from the grassland landscape.”
“Climate change has increased fire risk in many regions, but satellite burned area data show that human activity has effectively counterbalanced that climate risk, especially across the global tropics,” Morton said. “We’ve seen a substantial global decline over the satellite record, and the loss of fire has some really important implications for the Earth system.”
“Regions with less fire saw a decrease in carbon monoxide emissions and an improvement in air quality during fire season,” notes NASA. “With less fire, savanna vegetation is increasing—taking up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
But you wouldn’t know it from the apocalyptic pronouncements of the New York Times, CNN, Leonardo DiCaprio, Rep., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Madonna, Senator Bernie Sanders, French President Emmanuel Macron, Senator Kamala Harris who still spread and have not deleted their wrong photos and information they have spread about the Amazon.
The New York Times‘ Kendra Pierre-Louis even repeats the “lungs of the world” myth in her August 28 story.
Celebrities and the mainstream news media have advanced an apocalyptic narrative of fires in places like the Amazon as violent intrusions on nature. This picture is false.
“Fire had been instrumental for millennia in maintaining healthy savannas, keeping shrubs and trees at bay and eliminating dead vegetation,” says the senior author of a major Science paper about the decline of fires, Jim Randerson of the University of California, Irvine.
In truth, the decline in burning raises new challenges. “For fire-dependent ecosystems like savannas,” Morton said, “the challenge is to balance the need for frequent burning to maintain habitat for large mammals and to maintain biodiversity while protecting people’s property, air quality, and agriculture.”
As for the myth that the Amazon is the “lungs of the Earth” providing “20% of the world’s oxygen,” it appears to have been invented by a Malthusian Cornell University scientist in 1966, according to the George Mason University environmental philosopher, Mark Sagoff.
“In the 1960s, when ‘lungs of the earth’ was the big reason to save the rain forest,” Sagoff told me yesterday, “I got interested in it as a scientific question. I found no evidence that any tropical rainforest contributes to the net oxygen budget of the world.”
Sagoff sent me a 1966 an article by Cornell University scientist LaMont C. Cole in the journal BioScience. In it, Cole claimed that, as a result of burning fossil fuels, “the oxygen content of the atmosphere must start to decrease.”
That claim was incorrect and debunked as early as 1970 by climatologist Wallace S. Broecker writing for Science in June 1970.
“In almost all grocery lists of man’s environmental problems is found an item regarding oxygen supply,” wrote Broeker. “Fortunately for mankind, the supply is not vanishing as some have predicted.”
Broeker wrote his article because the mainstream media had been spreading Cole’s myth. “Hopefully the popular press will bury the bogeyman it created,” Broecker said.
The good news for the news media is that 69% of the public say that trust can be restored. A good start would be for CNN, The New York Times, and other media outlets to correct their inaccurate coverage, and start covering the Amazon and fires issue fairly and accurately.
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"