In a brief address Monday evening, Foreign Minister Carlos Holmes said Colombia does not know the “importance and reason” for Bolton’s note. He added that Colombia will continue “acting politically and diplomatically” so that democratic order is restored in Venezuela and new elections are held.
WASHINGTON, DC – JANUARY 28: With handwritten notes on a legal pad, National Security Advisor John Bolton listens to questions from reporters during a press briefing at the White House January 28, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Win McNamee / Getty Images
Colombia shares a 1,370-mile border with Venezuela and has joined President Donald Trump in backing Venezuelan congress leader Juan Guaido, who has proclaimed himself interim president in the opposition’s confrontation with President Nicolas Maduro. Bolton’s note appeared to refer to the situation in Venezuela and were spotted while he and other officials were announcing the imposition of sanctions against a state-owned Venezuelan oil company.
When asked to explain the words in Bolton’s notepad, the White House said in an email that “as the President has said, all options are on the table.”
CBS News’ Kathryn Watson contributed to this report.
Russia and other actors will attempt to interfere in the 2020 elections, U.S. intelligence agencies told Congress on Tuesday, saying such actors will use the tactics they deployed in the 2016 and 2018 campaigns.
Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats told the Senate Intelligence Committee that foreign actors see the upcoming elections as a chance for them to push for their interests by disrupting the process and dividing the electorate.
From left, FBI Director Christopher Wray, CIA Director Gina Haspel and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats arrive to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington Tuesday, Jan. 29. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
“We assess that foreign actors will view the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests,” he said. “We expect them to refine their capabilities and add new tactics as they learn from each other’s experiences and efforts.”
Coats said Russia and perhaps other countries such as China – which is increasingly aligned with Moscow – are likely to use social media other means to influence the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
“Our adversaries and strategic competitors probably already are looking to the 2020 U.S. elections as an opportunity to advance their interests,” read the Worldwide Threat Assessment released by Coats on Tuesday.
“Russia’s social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities, and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians,” it continued. “Moscow may employ additional influence toolkits — such as spreading disinformation, conducting hack-and-leak operations, or manipulating data — in a more targeted fashion to influence U.S. policy, actions, and elections.”
Coats’s testimony went on to cast doubt on President Trump’s goal of a nuclear-free North Korea, saying it’s unlikely the regime will entirely dismantle its nuclear arsenal.
While admitting that Kim Jong Un has expressed support for a nuclear-free Korean peninsula and has not recently tested a nuclear-capable missile, Coats said the intelligence assessment indicates will continue to seek to retain its nuclear capabilities and “is unlikely to completely give up its nuclear weapons and production capability because its leaders ultimately view nuclear weapons as critical to regime survival.”
“Our assessment is bolstered by our observations of some activity that is inconsistent with full denuclearization,” he added, without providing more details.
The assessment deals a blow to the Trump administration’s view that North Korea, thanks to the historic summit last year where the North agreed to denuclearization of the peninsula, no longer seeks to develop their nuclear arsenal or poses the threat of nuclear weapons to its neighbors and American allies.
The threat assessment report also contradicts the Trump administration’s insistence that ISIS has been defeated, with the report claiming the terror group “very likely will continue to pursue external attacks from Iraq and Syria against regional and Western adversaries, including the United States.”
Coats told the committee that the terror group, which since has been decimated territory-wise in the Middle East, has “returned to its guerrilla warfare roots while continuing to plot attacks and direct its supporters worldwide.”
Cutting off cash to illegitimate president Nicolas Maduro through an oil embargo was a good move by the Trump administration, and it brings us one step closer to ending the disastrous socialist regime of Maduro and his predecessor Hugo Chavez.
Maduro’s power is almost entirely sustained by his oil sales. Without that revenue, Chavez’s ludicrous successor will struggle to pay off senior military officers he relies upon for protection. But this isn’t a sanctions action in the conventional sense. Because by granting interim president Juan Guaido access to the newly restricted oil revenue accounts, the U.S. is showing deference to the legitimate executive political authority in Caracas. Guaido was rightly recognized by the U.S. last week following mass street protests against Maduro’s illegitimate rule.
This sanctions decision, then, represents a calibrated step towards increasing pressure on Maduro in a way that attempts to peacefully drive him out of power. Importantly, the U.S. refused last week to recognize Maduro’s demand that we withdraw U.S. diplomats from Venezuela.
Keeping those diplomats there is treating Guiado with the respect the position deserves. Guaido wants those U.S. diplomats to remain in Caracas.
At present, there is no good justification for U.S. military action in Venezuela. But short of that, it is in U.S. and regional political interests, and Venezuelan moral interests to see Maduro leave power as soon as possible.
On Monday, Chinese state media published a new editorial of great importance to U.S. interests. The Global Times declared that “referring to 5G competition as an arms race and attaching so much importance to the dominance of the technology is typical American thinking.”
It isn’t that hard to understand why President Xi Jinping is so mad about 5G. To achieve that which drives his global hegemonic ambition, Xi must usurp U.S. trading relationships, undercut U.S. alliances, and, most relevant here, steal U.S. intellectual property.
But that task is a lot harder if the U.S. limits China’s appropriation of technology and hacking of global information flows. And that’s exactly what the Trump administration is now doing. The U.S. issued new sanctions against Huawei on Monday. That adds to the motivation for the Global Times editorial.
And what prompted the Global Times’ editorial was a New York Times report from Saturday, describing U.S. efforts to lobby foreign governments to stop Huawei and other Chinese technology firms from building 5G data networks. This shows, the Global Times says, that the U.S. is “completely ignoring business rules and savagely suppressing Huawei … But Washington has no evidence of Huawei espionage, only imaginary accusations. Washington wants to deprive Chinese companies of their right to lead 5G technology. The U.S. is using geopolitics rather than market rules in 5G construction.”
Coming from a government that treats business rules as a joke, that capriciously uses its technology firms as intelligence service cutouts, and that denies foreign companies any fair competition in China, this lament is the very summit of hypocrisy. Still, it targets a specific audience. Aware that its best strategy here is to manipulate global anti-American sentiments, the Global Times presents its argument as a moral narrative for global political equality: “Globalization greatly promoted the integration of all countries’ interests and brought about a great evolution in distribution of profits. In the future, the power of a few select countries can no longer dominate the whole world.”
No one should take China at its word. Instead, we should unequivocally endorse Trump administration and congressional action to restrain China’s 5G activity. The simple point is that when it comes to international order, China is a master at saying the right thing and doing the opposite. In the New York Times report, for example, we see a reference to Huawei founder Ren Zhengfei’s recent declaration that “I support the Communist Party of China. But I will never do anything to harm any other nation.”
It sounds good, and alongside vast Chinese investments, these words are very tempting for many nations. But like those party elites he serves, Ren is a liar. This is an increasingly understood truth among U.S. and allied governments. The New York Times hints at it, but the U.S. and British intelligence communities have excelled in identifying the truly vast scale of Chinese cyber-espionage. It must be said here that Prime Minister Theresa May’s support for the U.S. on China is far greater than that of her predecessor, David Cameron.
So where does all this leave Xi? With an understandable sense of fear. The Global Times shows Xi’s fear that America that is slowly waking up to his game. If so, its editorial ends with a rather pathetic rejoinder. “The U.S. strategic vision for 5G,” it says, “is lame and runs counter to the spirit of the times.”
Wrong. This U.S. strategic vision is critical toward protecting free markets and preserving liberal democratic order in the 21st century. Accepting China’s lie would be to kneel to a dragon that is determined to burn our better future.
Talking about “the wall” is now like banging your head against one. President Trump did a fantastic job selling the idea to the public, but the debate on controlling our jungle-like immigration system has shifted and now he needs to adjust. Otherwise, the border will be no more secure when he leaves the White House than when he arrived.
That means he needs to stop yelling about “the wall,” where Democrats are completely uncompromising and screaming “racism” for entirely political reasons. He needs to start talking about “more wall,” which all the border patrol agents I spoke to in Texas (mostly Latinos, by the way) are asking for.
There is no “the wall” that will ever get built — not least because Trump has never explained what it would look like or where it would go. But more importantly, there is already “wall” in place. We just need more of it, and depending on where it goes, it’s going to look different.
In the Rio Grande Valley sector at the southern border of Texas, more people are illegally crossing into the U.S. than anywhere else. There are sections of wall there — 25 feet of concrete and steel — that work to slow down or stop aliens, aiding in their apprehension by agents.
A portion of the border barrier in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the Texas southern border.
When I went there two weeks ago, they said they want more of that wall to fill in gaps where it hasn’t been built. They also want more money for cameras and additional agents.
This has nothing to do with Trump. The pieces of wall that are there now were recommended by the border patrol in the 1990s and were built in 2008.
But Trump on Saturday, after caving on the government shutdown, tweeted again about a “a powerful Wall” necessary to keep illegals at bay.
Okay, maybe? But if Democrats are simply going to call that “racist” and never say yes to building it, force them instead to say no to what the border patrol wants.
If they do, then we can once and for all drop the lie that Democrats are “for border security.”
Border agents aren’t asking for “a powerful Wall.” They’re asking for more of what they already have, which Democrats said yes to in the past. Some in the conservative media aren’t helping by making dumb demands about “the wall,” insisting we replicate the barrier Israel has up around Gaza. Yes, Israel has a “wall” there, but guess what: It’s 40 miles long on mostly flat desert. You can’t build that over the 1,000 miles of canyons, mountains, and forest that make up our border with Mexico.
Trump moved the country in the right direction on immigration. His repeated “We either have a country, or we don’t” argument in favor of border control was essential to his victory and should go down as one of the great political lines of all time.
But he dragged his feet on fixing the problem when he had Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. Now he has to deal with Democrats who, if unwilling to build “the wall,” should at least be forced on the record to opposing what the Border Patrol wants: “more wall.”
Talking about “the wall” is now like banging your head against one. President Trump did a fantastic job selling the idea to the public, but the debate on controlling our jungle-like immigration system has shifted and now he needs to adjust. Otherwise, the border will be no more secure when he leaves the White House than when he arrived.
That means he needs to stop yelling about “the wall,” where Democrats are completely uncompromising and screaming “racism” for entirely political reasons. He needs to start talking about “more wall,” which all the border patrol agents I spoke to in Texas (mostly Latinos, by the way) are asking for.
There is no “the wall” that will ever get built — not least because Trump has never explained what it would look like or where it would go. But more importantly, there is already “wall” in place. We just need more of it, and depending on where it goes, it’s going to look different.
In the Rio Grande Valley sector at the southern border of Texas, more people are illegally crossing into the U.S. than anywhere else. There are sections of wall there — 25 feet of concrete and steel — that work to slow down or stop aliens, aiding in their apprehension by agents.
A portion of the border barrier in the Rio Grande Valley sector of the Texas southern border.
When I went there two weeks ago, they said they want more of that wall to fill in gaps where it hasn’t been built. They also want more money for cameras and additional agents.
This has nothing to do with Trump. The pieces of wall that are there now were recommended by the border patrol in the 1990s and were built in 2008.
But Trump on Saturday, after caving on the government shutdown, tweeted again about a “a powerful Wall” necessary to keep illegals at bay.
Okay, maybe? But if Democrats are simply going to call that “racist” and never say yes to building it, force them instead to say no to what the border patrol wants.
If they do, then we can once and for all drop the lie that Democrats are “for border security.”
Border agents aren’t asking for “a powerful Wall.” They’re asking for more of what they already have, which Democrats said yes to in the past. Some in the conservative media aren’t helping by making dumb demands about “the wall,” insisting we replicate the barrier Israel has up around Gaza. Yes, Israel has a “wall” there, but guess what: It’s 40 miles long on mostly flat desert. You can’t build that over the 1,000 miles of canyons, mountains, and forest that make up our border with Mexico.
Trump moved the country in the right direction on immigration. His repeated “We either have a country, or we don’t” argument in favor of border control was essential to his victory and should go down as one of the great political lines of all time.
But he dragged his feet on fixing the problem when he had Republicans controlling both houses of Congress. Now he has to deal with Democrats who, if unwilling to build “the wall,” should at least be forced on the record to opposing what the Border Patrol wants: “more wall.”
Former Trump adviser Roger Stone says his indictment has nothing to do with Russian collusion; analysis from Robert Ray, former Whitewater independent counsel.
In his first question-and-answer session with reporters since becoming Acting Attorney General last November, Matthew Whitaker on Monday announced that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation is “close to being completed.”
Whitaker’s remarks came just days after Mueller ordered the dramatic predawn arrest of former Trump adviser Roger Stone on charges he allegedly lied to Congress and directed another witness to do the same.
“I’ve been fully briefed, and I look forward to Mueller delivering the final report,” Whitaker said. “Right now, the investigation is, I think, close to being completed.”
In response, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., tweeted that Whitaker’s remark was inappropriate.
“While the probe is ongoing, Mueller can speak for himself,” Schiff wrote, after asserting that Whitaker should have recused himself from overseeing the Russia probe in part because of his past comments favoring limits on Mueller’s authority. Whitaker has also attracted scrutiny for earning nearly $1 million from a secretive right-leaning nonprofit prior to joining the Justice Department.
Earlier this month, Trump’s legal team pushed back on the suggestion the White House could seek to keep parts of Mueller’s final report under wraps.
“We prefer that as much of the report as possible is public,” Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani told Fox News. “We believe a selective release would be problematic.”
In his remarks to reporters Monday, Whitaker added, “Fundamentally, the Mueller investigation has a very defined scope.”
Mueller was appointed in May 2017, shortly after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, to conduct an investigation into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government” and individuals associated with then-candidate Trump’s presidential campaign, as well as any matters arising “directly” from the probe.
Asked by Fox News if the Justice Department would investigate witnesses who Republicans have accused of misleading Congress — including Comey and fired FBI agent Peter Strzok — Whitaker responded, “We take very seriously lying to Congress. If referrals are made by committees, we would investigate.”
In the course of the investigation, Mueller has secured criminal convictions of numerous former Trump advisers — including his onetime campaign manager Paul Manafort and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — but none of the charges directly pertained to a criminal conspiracy with Russian officials related to efforts to meddle in the 2016 elections.
For example, the special counsel’s 24-page indictment unsealed on Friday alleged that Stone worked to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference by making false statements to the committee, denying he had records sought by the committee and persuading a witness to provide false testimony.
Roger Stone was arrested Friday in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and was charged with lying to Congress and obstructing the probe. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)
According to the indictment, Stone told an associate, Randy Credico, to do a “Frank Pentangeli’” when testifying before Congress — a reference to a character in “The Godfather: Part II.” Stone also told Credico, “I guarantee you you are the one who gets indicted for perjury if you’re stupid enough to testify.”
Stone has insisted he was joking, and the indictment does not charge Stone with conspiring with WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website that published emails of Democrats during the 2016 campaign, or with the Russian officers Mueller says hacked them.
Flynn, like former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, was charged only with lying to investigators after the Russia probe began. (Prosecutors maintained that they could have also secured convictions for procedural violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act violations against Flynn as well)
Manafort’s convictions related largely to bank and tax fraud.
Meanwhile, William Barr, Trump’s nominee to replace Whitaker as attorney general on a full-time basis, sent written responses to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier Monday.
In his responses, Barr stressed he would not interfere with Mueller’s investigation and that his previous memorandum critical of Mueller’s authority did not necessarily reflect his current views.
Barr also acknowleged he previously had spoken with Vice President Mike Pence about the Mueller investigation in 2017, but said he had provided no legal advice to the White House and denied that Pence had provided any classified information.
Barr, who served previously as attorney general in President George H.W. Bush’s administration, appeared headed for confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Fox News’ Jake Gibson and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Sen. Kamala Harris kicked off her presidential bid in Oakland, Calif., on Sunday. In front of throngs of people and a beautiful backdrop, the California Democrat launched her campaign in a speech that was a blend of inspiration and criticism. She delivered a scathing review of the Trump administration and conservatism — and she smiled while doing it.
Unlike Hillary Clinton, Harris came across as hard-hitting but with a soft, honey-coated edge. Harris laced her speech with a touch of religious lingo, telling the crowd she was going to only “speak truth” to those listening.
But she left out the whole truth.
1. “Let’s speak truth about our economy. Our economy today is not working for working people. The cost of living is going up, but paychecks aren’t keeping up … The truth, is our people are drowning in debt. Record student loan debt. Car loan debt. Credit card debt. Resorting to payday lenders because you can’t keep up with the bills.”
This is a large generalization. While no economy is perfect, the economy under President Trump has done quite well. In December, the U.S. added 312,000 jobs up from 176,000, doubling the previous prediction. The unemployment rate has gone from 10 percent in 2009 to less than 4 percent now. As one Forbes contributor said, it’s “about as low as it can go.”
While student loan, car loan, and credit card debts are high, Harris’ insinuation is that this is somehow Trump’s fault. It’s not. It’s a personal responsibility issue known as “keeping up with the Joneses” and no politician can curb personal greed, poor money habits, or good-old-fashioned jealousy of what your neighbor has.
2. “Let’s speak another truth about our economy. Women are paid on average 80 cents on the dollar. Black women, 63 cents. Latinas, 53 cents. And here’s the thing. When we lift up the women of our country, we lift up the children of our country. We lift up the families of our country. And the whole of society benefits.”
Technically, this is right. But Harris failed to emphasize the important part: “on average.” The gender wage gap isn’t caused by sexist discrimination. That’s a myth Democrats have wrapped in shiny rhetoric and taken for a stroll in economic speeches for decades. Multiplestudies have shown that when women have the same education, work the same job, for the same hours, and perform it just as well, there’s basically no wage gap.
What actually exists is a “choice gap.” Women tend to earn an education, get a great job, marry, and take a break to raise children, then re-enter the workforce. Sometimes that break is short, sometimes it’s decades. Of course that woman doesn’t make as much as her male counterpart does, who has been working the entire time and now has more experience. Take that example and expand it across all women, and you get the average wage gap.
While it was nice, as a woman, to see positive comments about “lifting up” the women and children of our country, the insinuation here was directly related to the workforce. That’s not the only way to help women — many women choose to remain home and raise their children.
It’s also hard not to read this and wonder how advocating for abortion lifts up women and children, but I digress.
3. “And let’s speak an uncomfortable but honest truth with one another: racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, transphobia are real in this country. They are age-old forms of hate with new fuel. And we need to speak that truth so we can deal with it.”
Harris has a point, that America is a flawed nation full of flawed people. There is no doubt those forms of hatred all exist somewhere. However, as a whole, particularly compared to other countries, the U.S. is an example of tolerance and respect, particularly toward the people targeted by the discriminatory groups she listed.
While the country is increasingly tolerant of some groups, however, they are now attacking others. Harris conveniently left out the discrimination against some conservatives, Christians, and even white, Christian men.
In December, Harris used her position on the Senate Judiciary Committee to apply a religious test to a nominee. She balked at the nomination of Brian Buescher for the federal bench because he was a member of the Knights of Columbus. In the fall, Harris, along with Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., spearheaded the onslaught of attacks on then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court nomination process — despite scant evidence he had been a sexual perpetrator at any point in his life.
The majority of Harris’ speech was like this: A blend of half-truths packaged in a mini-Obama “hope and change” style. While I expect Republicans and Democrats to differ in their worldview, it’s always unfortunate to see any politician start a campaign with a trove full of misrepresentations — especially when their campaign motto is “Speak truth.”
Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.
Former Indiana governor and OMB Director Mitch Daniels merits a U.S. House floor standing ovation from both parties for writing last weekend that presidents should no longer deliver State of the Union addresses to joint sessions of Congress.
Daniels said that the SOTU has devolved into a “tasteless, classless spectacle” and “a tired, farcical theatrical experience more likely to promote cynicism than citizenship in its viewers.” He’s right, but a few examples would have helped make his point.
First, there is the by-now familiar scene in which, dozens of times per speech (and as well described in an online column), “Half the House chamber is boisterous and bouncing up and down for standing ovations during President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address. The other half is somber and still, amid a sea of black clothes.” The last thing America needs is yet another, stark visual reminder that the partisan and ideological divides in Washington are growing ever-wider.
Within the past ten years we’ve seen a president verbally denigrate Supreme Court justices who sat in the front row staring up at him, nearly half of Congress applauds the rude rebuke, and one of the justices respond by mouthing the words “simply not true” about what the president said. We’ve also had a congressman yell out “ you lie” in response to a presidential SOTU claim. This is hardly a recipe for improving Americans’ faith in their government.
When the president himself is moved to pronounce the other side “un-American” and “treasonous” for failing to applaud him, we clearly have reached a point at which what was meant to be a unifying, enlightening ceremony, elevating the level of civic discourse, has instead become an occasion for discord and vitriol.
And of course the pundits all immediately leap in after with vitriol of their own. The president’s speech was “ designed to troll” the other side, or “ jingoistic,” or “ attacker-in-chief,” whatever other calumny they can hurl. This “poisonously partisan” atmosphere (as another columnist described it) shows we’ve come a long way from when liberal Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill could sit behind conservative Republican Ronald Reagan and laugh genially, and without artifice, at Reagan’s humor.
The speech also gets in the way of congressional business. Most Capitol Hill staffers dread it. Just when Congress is finally hitting its stride after a start-of-the-year legislative lull, members and staff effectively lose a full day and a half preparing for and responding to the SOTU, with Hill security especially tight and intrusive and all other legislative business put on hold.
A written speech, as Daniels suggests, or even one given from the Oval Office or the East Room of the White House, would satisfy the constitutional requirement for periodic reports on the union’s health without the disruption and tawdry spectacle. And, if some national crisis provides reason, and sentiment, for a unifying address, then on such a special occasion the president and speaker could agree for a future SOTU to come back to the House chamber – not as an expected, annual occasion, but specifically because the crisis makes it a valuable way to rally the country in a bipartisan way.
Either way, Daniels is right that the SOTU, however it is delivered, needs to re-establish itself as an occasion for “dignity and sobriety.” Right now, it’s a nasty farce.
The Windy City and other areas in the upper Midwest are preparing for historic cold later this week, with some weather projections predicting around -45 to -60 wind chills.
When the polar vortex plunges into the U.S., it will be warmer in parts of the Arctic — Greenland, northern Canada and Alaska — than in Chicago and Minneapolis, meteorologists said. Cities such as Fargo, Minneapolis, Green Bay, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Detroit will all see the brunt of the brutally cold temperatures by Wednesday and Thursday.
The National Weather Service’s Storm Prediction Center said Monday that a storm system is bringing heavy snow over the Great Lakes on Monday before ushering in bitter cold air into the region.
“Some of the coldest air in decades will pour in across the Northern Plains, Midwest and Great Lakes with windchills in the -40 to -50 degree range and air temperatures below zero for several days,” Fox News Senior Meterologist Janice Dean said Monday. “This will be dangerous and potentially deadly for these regions, and people need to stay inside.”
In Chicago, where temperatures dipped below zero over the weekend, city officials are encouraging residents to check on their neighbors during the bitter snap.
“Run faucets overnight,” plumber Mark Mitsdarffer told FOX32.
Mitsdarffer, who said the number of calls he’s been handling this month have doubled compared to last year, said that simple tips can prevent homeowners from avoiding these problems.
“Try to run them during the day if you can. Do be aware that you are running water all night, so if you have a slow running drain, it’s gonna back up on you. Secondly, open up all the cabinets underneath your sinks and faucets. Get as much warm air into all the areas that you can.”
The cold weather has claimed 18 people in Cook County so far this winter, according to FOX32.
The polar vortex could sweep across the east coast this winter, bringing with it harsh conditions, climate scientists have warned.
“We already did our grocery shopping, so I think we’re kind of prepared for it to be really cold and for us to hibernate inside,” Erin Antonik told the television station
“We might not come back out for like four days from this,” said Aaron White.
The cold is coming from what is known as the polar vortex, which is a “large area of low pressure and cold air surrounding both of the Earth’s poles,” according to the NWS.
A man is bundled up against the cold in downtown Chicago, Sunday, Jan. 27, 2019. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)
“Record-breaking and potentially historic outbreak of cold still appears to be in the offing for the middle of next week,” according to the Chicago National Weather Service. “Greater than normal degree of forecast uncertainty in temperatures, due in large part to models showing all-time records being broken and in some cases shattered.”
Fox News’ Edmund DeMarche and The Associated Press contributed to this report
The newest entry into the 2020 presidential brawl isn’t a Democrat, but an independent candidate: billionaire and former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.
“I am seriously thinking of running for president,” Schultz told Scott Pelley of “60 Minutes” on CBS. “I will run as a centrist independent, outside of the two-party system we’re living at a most-fragile time not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people and are engaged, every single day, in revenge politics.”
Schultz’s interview has already stirred the pot on both sides of the aisle.
President Trump posted on Twitter that Schultz doesn’t have the guts to run.
Meanwhile, Neera Tanden, president of the liberal think tank Center for American Progress, said Schultz’s run would all but assure that Trump would get a second term in office.
Schultz isn’t the first person to try a big, bold independent run.
Billionaire Ross Perot famously ran two independent presidential campaigns during the 1992 and 1996 elections. In 1992, while not winning a single state, he got more than 19 million votes, nearly 19 percent. In 1996, Perot’s numbers were modest at best while running as the Reform Party candidate. He only got over 8 million votes or just over 8 percent.
Perot ran as a populist, campaigning against a broken political system. In the end, Democratic nominee Bill Clinton won both elections without a majority of the vote.
Some argue Perot tipped the scales in Clinton’s favor, but in 2000, the “spoiler effect” would work the other way. In that particular election, Al Gore won the popular vote by over half a million votes, but lost in the electoral college, 271 to 266. Famously, George W. Bush won Florida by only 537 votes. Notably, more than 97,000 Floridians voted for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader and 17,000 for Reform Party candidate Pat Buchanan. Democrats blamed Nader for Bush’s win.
Schultz, presuming he runs as an independent, could resonate with disenchanted Perot-type independent voters who went for Barack Obama in 2008 and then Trump in 2016. But there’s also a chance he nabs centrist Democrats should a socialist nab the Democratic nomination. There’s really no way to gauge how much of an impact Schultz will have, and that’s one reason political operatives are freaking out.
America’s nearly two-decade war in Afghanistan may finally be drawing to a close.
After six days of negotiations in Qatar last week, the United States and the Taliban, the country’s Islamic insurgent group, have reportedly agreed on the outline of a long-sought deal which would allow US and foreign troops to leave the country, perhaps within 18 months.
If true, this would officially kickstart the end to Washington’s involvement in Afghanistan, and likely hand much of the country back to the Taliban — a group which has outlasted the efforts of three US presidents to destroy it.
On Monday, the Trump administration’s envoy for the peace talks, Zalmay Khalilzad, told the New York Times that “[w]e have a draft of the framework that has to be fleshed out before it becomes an agreement.”
That framework as it stands now looks like this: The Taliban, which controlled Afghanistan and harbored al-Qaeda prior to the September 11 attacks, would promise never to allow a terrorist organization to operate in the country again. In return, at least some US troops would leave the country after the Taliban agrees to a ceasefire and engages in talks with the Afghan government.
That’s a potential problem: The Taliban has for years refused to engage with Kabul, but also hinted that it might do so only after foreign troops leave the country.
Asked about Khalilzad’s comments to the Times and other similar reports, a State Department spokesperson told me that “[w]hile discussions were positive, the talks concluded without an agreement.”
“Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” the spokesperson added.
Still, some experts I spoke with called the tentative outline a “breakthrough” and “tremendously good news” — and it is, to a certain extent. It’s the first, and possibly best, chance for the US to establish a semblance of peace between the US-backed government in Kabul and the Taliban so American troops can come home.
Zalmay Khalilzad, America’s envoy in the Afghanistan peace talks, pictured here on August 11, 2008.Spencer Platt/Getty Images
But major concerns remain, experts tell me. Namely, it’s unclear that the Taliban would actually adhere to such an agreement. Most signs indicate the insurgents are winning the war; the Taliban has taken much of the country’s territory back from Afghan control, andhasrecently pulled off attacks thatkill hundreds of Afghans and even American service members. That’s led some to say the diplomatic effort is really a cover so the US can withdraw its forces — a priority for President Donald Trump — while avoiding embarrassment.
What both champions and critics of the US-Taliban talks told me, though, is that there’s still a long way to go before a final deal is within reach. “There’s at least five or six moving pieces here,” Jason Campbell, who led the Pentagon’s Afghanistan peace talk efforts from June 2016 to September 2018 and now at the RAND Corporation, told me. “If one goes wrong, you’re back to square one.”
Why a US-Taliban deal in Afghanistan is so hard to strike
To understand why US-Taliban talks aren’t easy, you need to understand the recent history.
The Taliban took control of Afghanistan in the early 1990s, and by 1998 controlled around 90 percent of the country. The group imposed its strict interpretation of Islamic law on the country: men had to grow long beards, women were forced to cover themselves completely, and people were prohibited from watching movies or listening to music. Punishments for various crimes sometimes included public executions or amputations.
After September 11, 2001, the US started paying closer attention to the group. US officials suspected the Taliban of harboring Osama bin Laden, who orchestrated the 9/11 attack, and his terrorist group, al-Qaeda. Less than a month after the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the US invaded Afghanistan to defeat al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban from power.
The Taliban quickly lost control of Afghanistan and retreated into neighboring Pakistan, where it has since regrouped. Now, over 17 years later, the Taliban is the most formidable insurgency fighting the United States and the Afghan government — and it doesn’t look like its more than 60,000 fighters are going anywhere any time soon.
That’s because the Taliban is actually winning the war against the Afghan military, which is backed by roughly 14,000 American troops in the country. Two charts from the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction, the US military’s Afghanistan war watchdog, make this clear.
The first chart shows that the Taliban and other insurgent groups now control more populated areas than they did in August 2016. The second shows that insurgent groups control even more districts in Afghanistan than they did in January 2016, and their influence is growing.
This has made it hard for the US to reach some kind of peace deal with the Taliban despite nine years of trying (the Trump administration tried again in earnest as recently as last August.) Basically, the Taliban doesn’t seem to want to make concessions because it currently has the upper hand in the war.
That’s given the US less power to compel the insurgents to speak with the Afghan government, which the Taliban derides as an American puppet with little control outside the capital. The Trump administration says the only way for the war truly to end requires the Taliban and the government in Kabul to negotiate a peace deal.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, for his part, has repeatedly expressed a desire for Taliban talks. He reiterated that stance in a Monday address after receiving a briefing from Khalilzad on last week’s negotiations. But Ghani doesn’t want to rush discussions, he noted, saying that a bad deal could lead to bloodshed in the future and make life worse for the people of Afghanistan — particularly the women and minorities who suffered greatly under Taliban rule.
It would still be a major sign of progress if the Taliban ultimately agreed to meet with the Afghan government. The problem is that the most difficult part — ironing out the specifics of an Afghanistan-Taliban deal — would come next.
Why a deal between the Taliban and the Afghan government is so hard to strike
Experts I spoke to noted a variety of potential problems that could impede an Afghanistan-Taliban deal, and all of them said such a deal could take months to years to make. The issues break down into roughly two categories: how much power the Taliban gets to have, and what America’s future role will be.
Let’s look at each one.
Ashraf Ghani, president of Afghanistan, addresses the United Nations General Assembly at UN headquarters, September 19, 2017 in New York City.Drew Angerer/Getty Images
1) How much power does the Taliban get?
In the short term, this is likely the biggest sticking point.
The Taliban wants to govern the country again like it did prior to the US-led invasion in 2001. It therefore aims to obtain as much power as it possibly can in any potential deal.
Some ways it could do that might include taking control of certain government ministries, or even rewriting parts of the country’s Constitution to align more favorably with its conservative Islamist ideology. The Taliban may also push for a deal whereby the government controls the capital and other populous areas while the Taliban takes over parts of the country’s east and south — areas it controlled even at the height of the war.
Finally, and controversially, Taliban fighters could even integrate into the Afghan military. That’d be hard to swallow for many, as the group has killed thousands of Afghans and Americans. It’s unclear if the US would continue to fund or support Afghan forces if Taliban militants join their ranks.
Either of those possibilities would give the Taliban way more authority over the state than it has now.
One idea Ghani, the Afghan president, and the Taliban have already rejected is to form an interim government, where the insurgent group’s leaders would temporarily join the administration and allow talks to continue. The Trump administration and Ghani, though, say elections are the only way to have a democratic and representative government in Kabul.
Ironically, a vote could complicate the talks. Afghanistan will hold a presidential election in July, and as of now there’s no clear front-runner. No candidate, especially Ghani, will want to look like they will make any concessions to the Taliban. That means it’s less likely the government and the militants can find a mutually agreeable arrangement before then.
The insurgents don’t have a candidate in the election, in part because they know they can’t win. “The Taliban represent a small fraction of the Afghan population,” Frances Brown, an Afghanistan expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told me. “Afghan society in 2019 looks very different from Afghanistan in the 1990s.”
But all of the talks assume one thing: that the security situation in the country remains about where it is — and that depends heavily on US involvement.
2) What is America’s future role in Afghanistan?
Trump has made no secret of his desire to remove US troops from Afghanistan. After months of pushing back against his advisers, the president reluctantly sent 3,000 more service members into the country in September 2017, upping the total to 14,000. He’s now considering cutting that number in half this year, although there’s no indication of an imminent announcement.
Still, the open talk of withdrawal has led to some to speculate the Trump administration would back even a minimal agreement so the military can rush out the door. “Kabuki theater is what this is,” Bill Roggio, an expert on Afghanistan at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies think tank, told me.
Surrendering Taliban militants stand with their weapons as they are presented to the media on November 4, 2010 in Herat, Afghanistan.Majid Saeedi/Getty Images
Roggio added that a withdrawal now, or at least talk of it, would harm any negotiations the Afghan government has with the Taliban. The insurgents could simply wait for Trump to tire of diplomacy and recall US troops home without completing the negotiations. There’s precedent for this: Despite ISIS’s continued presence in Syria, in December Trump shockingly ordered the return of America’s 2,000 troops stationed there. (However, that drawdown has not yet started in earnest.)
What’s more, it’s highly likely the Taliban will renege on any commitment it makes to the Afghan government if US forces aren’t around to back Kabul. Put together, Roggio said, “the US is debasing itself to the Taliban to get a peace deal that won’t result in peace.”
He’s not alone in that thinking. Vanda Felbab-Brown, an insurgency expert at the Brookings Institution think tank, told me there’s a “high likelihood we’re seeing a repeat of the Vietnam War negotiations.” In that instance, the US left the fight in 1973 after striking a deal with the North Vietnamese in hopes they would negotiate with their enemy, the South Vietnamese, and end the war. That didn’t happen. Instead, the North took over most of the nation, in violation of the US-brokered peace agreement.
Felbab-Brown noted a big difference between that moment and this one, though: The Taliban doesn’t have enough military might and power to control the entire country. But it can definitely control parts of Afghanistan’s more rural communities and engage in fighting multiple areas. Surely the Taliban would try to take control of Kabul, at some point, and that battle “would be a bloodbath,” she said.
Ultimately, few if any experts fully trust the Taliban to keep its word — leading some to wonder why we’re negotiating at all.
“Talking to the Taliban is a waste of time,” a retired Army three-star general who served in Afghanistan and has previously said he believes the US already lost the war there, told me. “Anything we offer remains negotiable. Once we’re gone, they intend to take over Afghanistan.”
National security adviser John Bolton listens during a media briefing at the White House; a detail of his notes, right, on Monday. (AP Photo/ Evan Vucci)
National security adviser John Bolton appeared to disclose confidential notes written on a yellow pad Monday that included a plan to send troops to Colombia amid escalating tensions with Venezuela.
During a briefing at the White House to announce sanction against Venezuela’s oil industry, Bolton held the notepad against his jacket with its pages facing outward.
Scrawled in tight print at the top of the cover page were two items: “Afghanistan -> Welcome the Talks,” an apparent reference to ongoing peace negotiations with the Taliban, and “5,000 troops to Colombia.”
Pentagon officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation, said that the Defense Department hadn’t received any orders to this effect.
Asked about the briefing pad, the White House pointed to statements made by President Trump and Bolton in recent days that “all options are on the table” regarding Venezuela.
The plan raised more questions about the potential for military action in Venezuela. If enacted, the troop movement would mark a major escalation of U.S. involvement in South America, though it is unclear what exactly the service members’ roles would be.
The hospital ship USNS Comfort deployed to the Colombian port of Riohacha to treat Venezuelan migrants in the fall, but it has since returned home. The U.S. military has collaborated with its Colombian counterpart for years, providing training on everything from counterinsurgency to securing aircraft crash scenes.
Tensions between the United States and Venezuela — a constant for more than a dozen years — have surged to crisis levels in the past week, after the United States recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the country’s president. Guaidó, the head of the country’s National Assembly, had invoked the constitution to declare himself Venezuela’s president last week.
The diplomatic crisis has continued as the United States defied an order by President Nicolás Maduro to evacuate its embassy staff from the country.
It is not clear whether the disclosure of Bolton’s notes was the result of a mishap or an intentional decision.
“We continue to pursue all paths to disconnect the illegitimate Maduro regime from its sources of revenue and ensure that interim President Guaido and the Venezuelan people have the resources and support they need to bring democracy back to Venezuela,” he tweeted Monday evening as images of the notes circulated on social media.
It would not be the first time that notes or a briefing had been inadvertently released to the public after being captured on camera in the Trump White House. Kris Kobach, the former secretary of state of Kansas and a Trump ally, was photographed holding a document for a “strategic plan,” for the Department of Homeland Security during the transition in 2016, with the text visible above his hand. The plan included hard-line anti-immigration proposals such as reducing the intake of Syrian refugees to zero.
Trump’s speeches have been marked up with notes in handwriting — including, at times, the president’s. In July, the margins of a speech he gave after a widely criticized appearance with Russian President Vladimir Putin drew a flurry of coverage after observers spotted the phrase “THERE WAS NO COLUSION,” written in all caps, with the word “Collusion” misspelled, on the document.
Anne Gearan and Paul Sonne contributed to this report.
Five Houston police officers have been shot in southeast Houston. The officers were reportedly serving a narcotics warrant.
Life Flight was called to the scene. All the officers have been taken to Memorial Hermann Hospital. Two of the officers are in critical condition. The other three officers are listed as stable.
3 of our officers are currently stable, 2 are still critical please keep them and their families in your thoughts and prayers.
Houston police have confirmed one suspect is dead at the scene. SWAT officers are working to determine if anyone else is in the home.
We can confirm 1 suspect is DOA at the scene. SWAT is actively working to make sure there is no one else inside the location at 7800 Harding. Continue to avoid area.
Streets in the neighborhood are blocked off and neighbors are being held at a safe distance. Media is being pushed back as police say the scene is still an active investigation.
We have several officers that have been struck by gunfire, the situation at the shooting scene is still fluid. Please pray for our officers and their families. More to follow.
The incident happened late Monday afternoon in the 7800 block of Harding in southeast Houston. Harris County Sheriff’s deputies and ATF agents are assisting at the scene.
A perimeter has been set up for a possible additional suspects.
Just been notified that three (3) of HPD officers have been shot. I am waiting to get a status report. I am asking for your prayers for them. st
Former Trump adviser Roger Stone says his indictment has nothing to do with Russian collusion; analysis from Robert Ray, former Whitewater independent counsel.
In his first question-and-answer session with reporters since becoming Acting Attorney General last November, Matthew Whitaker on Monday announced that Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation is “close to being completed.”
Whitaker’s remarks came just days after Mueller ordered the dramatic predawn arrest of former Trump adviser Roger Stone on charges he allegedly lied to Congress and directed another witness to do the same.
“I’ve been fully briefed, and I look forward to Mueller delivering the final report,” Whitaker said. “Right now, the investigation is close to being completed.”
In response, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., tweeted that Whitaker’s remark was inappropriate.
“While the probe is ongoing, Mueller can speak for himself,” Schiff wrote, after asserting that Whitaker should have recused himself from overseeing the Russia probe in part because of his past comments favoring limits on Mueller’s authority. Whitaker has also attracted scrutiny for earning nearly $1 million from a secretive right-leaning nonprofit prior to joining the Justice Department.
Earlier this month, Trump’s legal team pushed back on the suggestion the White House could seek to keep parts of Mueller’s final report under wraps.
“We prefer that as much of the report as possible is public,” Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani told Fox News. “We believe a selective release would be problematic.”
In his remarks to reporters Monday, Whitaker added, “Fundamentally, the Mueller investigation has a very defined scope.”
Mueller was appointed in May 2017, shortly after President Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, to conduct an investigation into “any links and/or coordination between the Russian government” and individuals associated with then-candidate Trump’s presidential campaign, as well as any matters arising “directly” from the probe.
Asked by Fox News if the Justice Department would investigate witnesses who Republicans have accused of misleading Congress — including Comey and fired FBI agent Peter Strzok — Whitaker responded, “We take very seriously lying to Congress. If referrals are made by committees, we would investigate.”
In the course of the investigation, Mueller has secured criminal convictions of numerous former Trump advisers — including his onetime campaign manager Paul Manafort and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn — but none of the charges directly pertained to a criminal conspiracy with Russian officials related to efforts to meddle in the 2016 elections.
For example, the special counsel’s 24-page indictment unsealed on Friday alleged that Stone worked to obstruct the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference by making false statements to the committee, denying he had records sought by the committee and persuading a witness to provide false testimony.
Roger Stone was arrested Friday in the special counsel’s Russia investigation and was charged with lying to Congress and obstructing the probe. (AP Photo/Lynne Sladky)
According to the indictment, Stone told an associate, Randy Credico, to do a “Frank Pentangeli’” when testifying before Congress — a reference to a character in “The Godfather: Part II.” Stone also told Credico, “I guarantee you you are the one who gets indicted for perjury if you’re stupid enough to testify.”
Stone has insisted he was joking, and the indictment does not charge Stone with conspiring with WikiLeaks, the anti-secrecy website that published emails of Democrats during the 2016 campaign, or with the Russian officers Mueller says hacked them.
Flynn, like former Trump foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos, was charged only with lying to investigators after the Russia probe began. (Prosecutors maintained that they could have also secured convictions for procedural violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act violations against Flynn as well)
Manafort’s convictions related largely to bank and tax fraud.
Meanwhile, William Barr, Trump’s nominee to replace Whitaker as attorney general on a full-time basis, sent written responses to questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier Monday.
In his responses, Barr stressed he would not interfere with Mueller’s investigation and that his previous memorandum critical of Mueller’s authority did not necessarily reflect his current views.
Barr also acknowleged he previously had spoken with Vice President Mike Pence about the Mueller investigation in 2017, but said he had provided no legal advice to the White House and denied that Pence had provided any classified information.
Barr, who served previously as attorney general in President George H.W. Bush’s administration, appeared headed for confirmation in the Republican-controlled Senate.
Fox News’ Jake Gibson and Catherine Herridge contributed to this report.
Obama administration alum Roger Fisk and Republican strategist Chris Turner weigh in on what the 2020 presidential election field would look like if Howard Schultz ran as an independent
President Trump on Monday fired back at Howard Schultz, saying the former Starbucks CEO doesn’t have the “guts” to run for president after he announced he was mulling a 2020 White House bid as an independent — and took a few shots at Trump himself.
“Howard Schultz doesn’t have the ‘guts’ to run for President! Watched him on @60Minutes last night and I agree with him that he is not the ‘smartest person.’ Besides, America already has that! I only hope that Starbucks is still paying me their rent in Trump Tower!” Trump tweeted Monday morning.
The president’s tweet comes after Schultz’s interview on CBS News’ “60 Minutes,” where he revealed he was “seriously thinking” about running for president in 2020 as a “centrist independent,” and challenged Trump’s fitness for office.
“We’re living at a most fragile time, not only the fact that this president is not qualified to be the president, but the fact that both parties are consistently not doing what’s necessary on behalf of the American people,” Schultz said, specifically citing the national debt as “a reckless example, not only of Republicans but of Democrats, as well, as a reckless failure of their constitutional responsibility.”
A fiery response from Trump was expected. When told during the interview that Trump would be tweeting about him in response, Schultz said, “I’ve become bored with President Trump and his tweets.”
Schultz, though, is taking heat from both sides amid fears from Democrats he could play the role of spoiler, especially considering Schultz described himself as a “lifelong Democrat” yet is now contemplating a run as an independent.
“Howard Shultz running as an independent isn’t about bringing people together,” Tina Podlodowski, the Democratic Party chair in Schultz’s home state of Washington, said in a statement Sunday. “It’s about one person: Howard Schultz.”
Neera Tanden, the president for the liberal Center for American Progress, also blasted Schultz, saying she would boycott Starbucks if he ran.
“Vanity projects that help destroy democracy are disgusting,” she tweeted. “I’m not giving a penny that will end up in the election coffers of a guy who will help Trump win.”
However, some of his views might also clash with a Democratic Party gearing up to unseat Trump. Some potential nominees, including Massachusetts 2020 candidates Sen. Elizabeth Warren and California Sen. Kamala Harris, have endorsed single-payer health care, heavily taxing the rich or free tuition at public colleges. Schultz has criticized such proposals as unrealistic and instead emphasized expanding the economy and curbing entitlements.
“It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left,” Schultz told CNBC last June. “I ask myself, ‘How are we going to pay for all these things?’ in terms of things like single-payer or people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don’t think that’s realistic.”
During his “60 Minutes” interview, Schultz dodged a question about whether his potential independent run would make him a spoiler for the Democratic nominee.
“I wanna see the American people win,” he said. “I wanna see America win. I don’t care if you’re a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Republican. Bring me your ideas. And I will be an independent person, who will embrace those ideas. Because I’m not, in any way, in bed with a party.”
No third-party or independent candidate has won over 5 percent of the popular vote since Ross Perot in 1996. But Schultz argued that a majority of the electorate is “exhausted” with politics.
“What we know, factually, is that over 40 percent of the electorate is either a registered Independent or currently affiliates themselves as an Independent,” he said. “Their trust has been broken. And they are looking for a better choice.”
Fox News’ Samuel Chamberlain contributed to this report.
“A frigid arctic air mass is expected to spread across much of the north central and northeastern US this week. These are the coldest wind chill values expected over the next several days. Check forecasts from your local NWS office for details specific to your area,” the NWS warned Monday, referring to the polar vortex: cold air high up in the atmosphere that usually lies over the North Pole, but which is moving down from the Arctic Circle over parts of the US this week.
The upper Midwest could be hit by —60 degrees Farenheit wind chills, and the upper Mississippi Valley could see chills as brutally cold as —55 degrees Fahrenheit.
On Monday, the NWS Weather Prediction Center issued warnings stating that temperatures in the upper Great Lakes and upper Mississippi Valley will be 10 to 20 degrees below average this week, marking the “coldest air mass in years,” according to the weather service.
The majority of New England is under a winter storm watch, while most of the Great Lakes region is under a winter storm warning. Areas of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio are under a wind chill watch, while parts of Louisiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Kentucky and West Virginia have been placed under winter weather advisories. The western parts of Minnesota and Illinois, as well as North and South Dakota, are under wind chill warnings, the NWS also reported.
“A couple inches of snow can fall in Jackson, Mississippi; Birmingham, Alabama; and Chattanooga, Tennessee,” AccuWeather meteorologist Kristina Pydynowski said. “Travel can become slippery and treacherous as roads rapidly turn from wet to slushy and icy.”
It will start snowing in the Chicago area on Sunday night (January 27); the extreme cold marked by record low temperatures is expected to last until Friday.
“I cannot stress how dangerously cold it will be,” said Mike Doll, a senior meteorologist at AccuWeather. “An entire generation has gone by without experiencing this type of cold in the Chicago area.”
On Sunday, temperatures dropped to negative 44 degrees Fahrenheit in Minnesota, breaking the previous record for the most frigid weather ever experienced there by 8 degrees, according to the NWS, while “dangerous, life-threatening cold air” will envelop Iowa from Tuesday through Friday. The Des Moines, Iowa, branch of the NWS warned residents that “this is the coldest air many of us will have ever experienced,” cautioning people to “avoid taking deep breaths, and minimize talking” if outdoors.
Eleven major airlines, including American, Delta, United and Southwest, have issued travel warnings for multiple airports throughout the US affected by the polar vortex, allowing travelers to change their trips with no fee if their flight plans are affected “by severe weather or other uncontrollable events.”
The government will run a $902 billion deficit this year and will cross the trillion-dollar-per-year mark in 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated Monday, delivering a slightly better forecast than last year.
Still, the overall trend remains grim, with deficits expected to remain above a trillion dollars per year for the rest of the next decade, topping $1.3 trillion by 2029.
This marks the first year that Social Security, including interest costs is no longer boosting the budget and by 2020 the program will begin to be a net drag on the rest of the budget, as regular revenue has to be pumped in to cover the costs.
Overall, Social Security and Medicare continue to be the biggest drivers of spending growth, which the CBO said will outstrip revenues and feed the annual shortfall.
Debt, the accumulation of those deficits, will continue to soar. Debt held by the public will reach 80 percent of gross domestic product next year, and will nearly double to 152 percent — by far the highest on record, even topping World War II — by the middle of this century.
“Debt is on an unsustainable course in CBO’s projections,” CBO Director Keith Hall said. “To put it on a sustainable one, lawmakers will have to make significant changes to tax policy and spending policies — making revenues larger than they would be under current law, making spending for large benefit programs smaller than it would be under current law, or adopting some combination of those approaches.”
Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz’s announcement that he was ” seriously considering” running for president has set off a storm of speculation over how his entrance could affect the 2020 race. But ultimately, the speculation all boils down to three basic scenarios.
Scenario 1: He hurts Democrats and helps President Trump get re-elected
In this scenario, Schultz splits the anti-Trump vote and helps him squeak into re-election. Should Democrats choose a nominee who embraces a sweeping liberal agenda that more moderate voters view with trepidation, Schultz’s presence would give them another place to register their discontent with Trump, without having to suck it up and vote for the extremely liberal Democrat. While liberals would argue that their agenda items poll well in the abstract, that doesn’t take into account two factors: One, polls also show that support for sweeping proposals such as ” Medicare for all” sink once voters are exposed to the tradeoffs; and two, even if such proposals were broadly popular, what matters is if there are a critical mass of anti-Trump voters who oppose the ideas. All that we’re talking about in this scenario is whether Schultz can siphon off enough votes for Democrats, not whether he could actually win. Trump’s core base of support is pretty loyal: with all the drama of the past two years, his approval rating has been pretty stable in the high 30s to low 40s. If Trump could turn out his base and Schultz’s presence narrows the gap in suburban areas that helped elect Democrats to the House last fall, this could help tip swing states to Trump. This scenario, no doubt, is what is making some Democrats nervous about the Schultz prospect.
Scenario 2: He helps Democrats beat Trump
At its essence, independent “outsider” presidential bids such as the one Schultz is considering tend to be about how the status quo is broken. By its nature, that message ends up being more harmful to the incumbent, who is trying to make the case that things are on the right track. If Schultz runs, and spends tens of millions — even hundreds of millions — of his own money carpet bombing the nation with ads arguing that the country needs a major change, that could effectively validate the message of Democrats. Especially given that his status will allow him to attract earned media, as showcased by having been able to tease a presidential run on “60 Minutes” Sunday night. At the same time, it means that Trump has to fend off not just one, but two challengers. This morning, Trump popped off on Schultz on Twitter — but any time spent attacking Schultz is time not spent attacking his opponent. One could also imagine a scenario in which a Democrat running as a liberal populist could lump Schultz and Trump together and make the election about the people vs. the billionaires.
Scenario 3: Schultz fizzles, or hurts each candidate equally
This is perhaps the most likely scenario. There are two reasons why the Schultz effect could be wildly overrated by political journalists. One is that the political media are still battle-scarred from writing off the chances of a certain political novice billionaire in 2016, and so they’re reluctant to be overly dismissive this time around. The other is that there is a long-held fantasy among political reporters about a “moderate” and “reasonable” independent breaking through the polarized political climate and appealing to the middle. The problem with the first argument is that though Trump was under estimated, in hindsight, it’s also true that he was somebody who had been a celebrity for decades, who had been a master of manipulating the media, and who had experience of being on a top-rated reality show for years that portrayed him as the ultimate executive. Furthermore, Trump had an element of surprise that Schultz would not benefit from and is likely to run a significantly more orthodox campaign. On the second point, though many Americans identify as “independent” in polls, or may even say they support the idea of a third party in theory, the reality is that even most independents tend to vote with one party or the other. The flip side of an independent candidate supporting a set of policies that a Democratic-leaning independent may agree with is that they may also embrace policies with which they strongly disagree. Also, as Election Day approaches, voters tend to prefer to vote for one of the major party candidates who actually have a chance to win. Alternatively, there’s a possibility that Schultz ends up doing well, but that the effects of Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 end up balancing each other out, and ultimately not changing any outcomes.
It’s worth noting that should Schultz run and make waves, we may never actually know for sure which of these scenarios turned out to be true. People are still debating the effect of Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election. What’s more or less conventional wisdom at this point that Perot did not get Bill Clinton elected, because exit polls showed Perot taking equally from both candidates. Some have argued that were it not for Perot absorbing anti-Bush votes, that Clinton’s margin of victory would have been even bigger. But those who insist Perot cost Bush the presidency argue that what these polling analyses don’t take into account is the extent to which Perot spent more of his time attacking Bush and validating Clinton’s message that the economy was doing poorly.
A major winter storm has dumped several inches of snow across the Chicago area Monday and made a mess of the morning commute.
Higher snow totals were recorded in the northern suburbs close to the Wisconsin border. As of 7:15 a.m., 7 inches of snow fell in Gurne, 6 inches of snow fell in Algonquin, and 5 inches of snow fell in Arlington Heights and Fox Lake. In the western suburbs, Romeoville received 4.9 inches of snow and Aurora received 5 inches of snow. In the city, O’Hare had received 3.1 inches of snow and Midway received 2.9 inches of snow. In the southern suburbs, Oak Lawn received 4 inches of snow and Homewood received 3 inches of snow.
A Winter Weather Advisory is in effect for the Chicago area, including Boone, Cook, DuPage, Grundy, Kane, Kendall Lake, McHenry, Ogle and Will counties in Illinois and Lake and Porter counties in Indiana. The advisory will expire at 6 p.m. Monday.
The snow began falling Sunday night and moderate snow persisting until about 9 a.m. with light snow continuing in the afternoon. Winds are also creating blowing and drifting snow, reducing visibility.
The snow is making for a messy commute across the area Monday. The ABC7 Stormtracker checked out conditions on Lake Shore Drive, where the roadway was covered in snow, as was the outbound Eisenhower Expressway.
The Chicago Department of Streets and Sanitation is deploying 287 snow vehicles to clear the city’s streets, focusing on the city’s arterial streets and Lake Shore Drive before transitioning to side streets when the snow stops.
According to CTA, during conditions like this, track switch heaters are turned on to keep them from freezing and to keep trains moving at a consistent pace.
MEASURING SNOW: How to make an accurate snowfall measurement
The city’s buses are equipped with engine pre-heaters so that they can be started up quickly and to keep commuters warm.
The Illinois Tollway is reminding drivers who need help that they can call star-9-9-9 motorist assistance.
Stranded motorists should turn on their emergency lights and remain in their vehicles until help arrives.
When there is snow and extreme cold the Tollway recommends that you have your cell phone fully charged before heading out, be sure tires are properly inflated, keep your gas tank at least half full to avoid gas line freeze-up and keep a cold weather safety kit in your car with items such as a flare, a blanket and flashlight.
The snowstorm has created significant problems at Chicago’s airports. As of 9:17 a.m., O’Hare reports average delays of 49 minutes and 637 flight cancellations and Midway reports average delays of under 15 minutes and 198 flight cancellations.
Sunday, Chicago Public Schools said it was closely monitoring conditions, but that school would be in session Monday. Meanwhile, a number of schools across the area have cancelled. For a complete list, click here. The snowstorm comes ahead of another week of brutal cold as the polar vortex continues to bear down on the area – bringing historically low temps mid-week.
Wednesday’s expected high is sitting well below zero, and wind chills will make it feel like as much as 50 degrees below. It has the potential to be the second-coldest day in the history of Chicago.
The record for the coldest day in Chicago was December 24, 1983, with an average temperature of -18 degrees recorded at O’Hare. Wednesday could be as cold as -15.5 or -16, which could make it the second or third coldest day in Chicago’s recorded history.
A Wind Chill Watch will go into effect at 6 p.m. Tuesday through noon on Thursday.
Dozens of warming shelters in the city and throughout Cook County have been opened as an additional safety precaution. Officials say everyone should limit their outdoor exposure over the next few days.
(CNN)Officials from the United States and the Taliban have agreed in principle to a peace framework that could eventually bring Afghanistan’s long-running war to an end, the US Special Representative for Afghanistan said Monday.
CNN’s Kara Fox and Lauren Said-Moorhouse contributed to this report.
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"
