Sen. Lankford says a ‘popular commentator’ threatened to ‘do whatever I can to destroy you’ if he negotiated a border deal during a presidential election year
Bryan Metzger – February 7, 2024
Sen. James Lankford was the top GOP negotiator on the failed border security deal.
He claims a “popular commentator” warned him not to solve the crisis during an election year.
“I will do whatever I can to destroy you,” Lankford said.
Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma spoke on Wednesday about the political challenges he’s encountered while serving as the top GOP negotiator on a bipartisan border security deal.
In a speech shortly before the expected failure of the deal, Lankford bemoaned the fact that some fellow Republicans were objecting to the bill for purely political reasons.
“Some of them have been very clear with me,” Lankford said of his GOP colleagues, “they have political differences with the bill. They say it’s the wrong time to solve the problem. We’ll let the presidential election solve this problem.”
Lankford went on to say that a “popular commentator” — without naming any names — threatened to “destroy” him if he negotiated the deal during a presidential election year, regardless of what was in it.
“I will do whatever I can to destroy you, because I do not want you to solve this during the presidential election,” Lankford recounted the commentator saying.
“By the way, they have been faithful to their promise, and have done everything they can to destroy me,” he added.
Ahead of the release of the text of the deal — which was negotiated following GOP demands to attach border security provisions to a bill to provide billions in aid to Ukraine and Israel — right-wing media outlets like Fox News promoted false claims about the deal, claiming it would amount to “amnesty.”
And some Republicans admitted that politics was a key factor for them.
“I cannot vote for this bill,” said Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, the third-highest ranking GOP senator, in his statement on the deal. “Americans will turn to the upcoming election to end the border crisis.”
Following the expected failed vote, the Senate is expected to take up a bill to send billions in aid to Ukraine and Israel, but without any border security provisions.
Putin tells Tucker Carlson the US ‘needs to stop supplying weapons’ to Ukraine
Adam Gabbatt and Andrew Roth – February 8, 2024
Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin were in the spotlight on Thursday night, as the divisive, Trump-supporting rightwing commentator interviewed the reclusive Russian autocrat.
The rambling, two-hour interview, filmed in Moscow, was Putin’s first with a western media outlet since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.
It marked a new level of infamy for Carlson, who has frequently criticized US support for Ukraine, has referred to Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the president of Ukraine, as a “Ukrainian pimp” and “rat-like”.
Carlson’s tone was less pugnacious in the interview with Putin, who he referred to as “Mr President” throughout.
The decision to interview Putin had been widely criticised ahead of the interview. But the opening of the conversation between the former Fox News host and Putin was a let down.
Putin spent more than 30 minutes giving a history of Russia, Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine, in a monologue that took viewers from the ninth century rule of Oleg the Wise, to the struggles of the 1300s, through to a critique of Lenin’s foreign policy.
When a baffled-looking Carlson finally coaxed Putin into the 21st century, the Russian president accused the US and other western countries of prolonging the war in Ukraine.
There were peace talks with Ukraine that were “almost finalized”, Putin said, but then Ukraine “threw away all these agreements and obeyed the instructions of western countries, European countries and the United States to fight Russia to the bitter end”.
Putin laid the blame at the feet of Boris Johnson, the former British prime minister, in particular. Johnson was forced out of UK parliament in June 2023, but Putin claimed that as prime minister he had dissuaded Zelenskiy from signing a peace deal in the early stages of the conflict.
“The fact that they [Ukraine] obey the demand or persuasion of Mr Johnson, the former prime minister of Great Britain, seems ridiculous,” Putin said.
In a video released ahead of the interview, Carlson said he was driven to speak to Putin, in part, because the American public has “no idea why Putin invaded Ukraine or what his goals are now”.
It’s unclear whether viewers will come away with a clearer sense of either.
In December, the Kremlin said engaging in peace talks with Ukraine is “unrealistic” – Ukraine has said peace can only be based on a full withdrawal from the territory Russia has seized since it invaded in 2022.
But in the interview, Putin told Carlson that Russia and the US still speak “through various agencies” about ending the conflict.
Russia’s message to the US, Putin said, is: “If you really want to stop fighting, you need to stop supplying weapons. It will be over within a few weeks.”
Putin said the last time he spoke to Joe Biden was before Russia invaded Ukraine.
“I said to him, then, I believe that you are making a huge mistake of historic proportions by supporting everything that is happening there, in Ukraine, by pushing Russia away,” Putin said.
Carlson did, at least, press Putin on Evan Gershkovich, the Wall Street Journal reporter who has been detained in Russia since 23 March having been accused of espionage – which Gershkovich and the Journal deny.
Putin claimed Gershkovich, 32, was “caught red-handed when he was secretly getting confidential information”, and alleged he was “working for the US special services”.
Russia is “ready to talk” about releasing Gershkovich, Putin said, but added: “We want the US special services to think about how they can contribute to achieving the goals our special services are pursuing.”
The claim seemed to contradict the White House, which said in December that Russia had rejected a substantial proposal for the release of Gershkovich and Paul Whelan, a former US Marine serving a 16-year sentence in Russia on espionage charges.
In a video published ahead of the interview, Carlson claimed he was conducting the interview because English-language “media outlets are corrupt – they lie to their readers and viewers”.
“There are risks to conducting an interview like this obviously, so we’ve thought about it for many months,” Carlson said.
“Most Americans have no real idea what is happening in this region. Here in Russia or 600 miles away in Ukraine. But they should know. They’re paying for much of it.”
Followers of Carlson over the past two years will be less surprised than others that Putin accepted the interview request.
Carlson was an early, notable defender of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. As Putin amassed up to 190,000 troops on Ukraine’s border in mid-February 2022, Carlson appeared to echo Putin’s talking points by claiming the brewing conflict was a mere “border dispute”.
In the week following the attack, Russian state media played clips of Carlson’s rants about Ukraine and against the US providing military aid to the country.
The interview was aired on Tucker Carlson Tonight, a streaming service which Carlson launched in December 2023. Notably, Carlson was fired by Fox News in April 2023 – for getting “too big for his boots”, a book later claimed.
The rightwing commentator faced criticism for the interview before it aired. On Wednesday, Hillary Clinton said Carlson was a “useful idiot” for Putin.
“He says things that are not true,” the former US secretary of state said of Carlson.
“He parrots Vladimir Putin’s pack of lies about Ukraine, so I don’t see why Putin wouldn’t give him an interview because through him, he can continue to lie about what his objectives are in Ukraine and what he expects to see happen,” Clinton said on MSNBC Wednesday.
In his video announcing the interview, Carlson claimed that “not a single Western journalist has bothered” to attempt to interview Putin.
Abby Phillip, an anchor for CNN, said that was untrue.
“Serious outlets, including CNN, have requested Putin to interview over and over again,” she said in her show on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, the Kremlin also debunked Carlson’s claim.
“Mr Carlson is wrong,” Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesperson, said in a briefing. “We receive many requests for interviews with the president.”
Putin last gave an interview to a western outlet in 2021, when he spoke with a reporter for CNBC. He has largely ceased speaking with independent media, both Russian and international, since launching his full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Since 2021, he has only given interviews to Russian, Kazakh and Chinese media.
Press freedoms have largely disappeared in Russia over the past two decades, as pressure has grown on independent media and the danger of arrest has increased for local and foreign journalists working in the country.
The arrest of Gershkovich last year was a watershed attack on a foreign reporter in the post-cold war era.
But Russian journalists had already faced long prison sentences for their work and for angering Putin’s allies and friends.
In a particularly egregious verdict in 2022, Russian journalist Ivan Safronov was sentenced to 22 years in prison on treason charges widely seen as politically motivated. Safronov, who had previously worked at Kommersant, was thought to have angered the military by reporting on secret negotiations with Egypt, but all the information in his trial was secret. According to a lawyer, Safronov had been offered just a 12-year sentence if he incriminated others, but refused to cooperate.
Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has also sped up the crackdown on independent media. More than 1,000 journalists have fled the country, a number of high-profile criminal cases have been opened against reporters for discrediting the Russian army or spreading “fake news”, and legacy broadcast media like Ekho Moskvy have been forced to close down, despite having powerful backers in the government.
Russia was one of the world’s top five jailers of journalists in 2023, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, with 22 reporters in prison.
At a protest of military wives near the Kremlin this week, police arrested more than 20 journalists in order to prevent them from reporting on the demonstration in an “unprecedented” move, according to Reporters without Borders.
• This article was amended on 9 February 2024 to correct some misspellings of Evan Gershkovich’s surname.
Until a few days ago, I was feeling fairly sanguine about America’s prospects. Economically, we’ve had a year of strong growth and plunging inflation — and aside from committed Republicans, who see no good, hear no good and speak no good when a Democrat is president, Americans appear to be recognizing this progress. It has seemed increasingly likely that the nation’s good sense would prevail and democracy would survive.
But watching the frenzy over President Biden’s age, I am, for the first time, profoundly concerned about the nation’s future. It now seems entirely possible that within the next year, American democracy could be irretrievably altered.
And the final blow won’t be the rise of political extremism — that rise certainly created the preconditions for disaster, but it has been part of the landscape for some time now. No, what may turn this menace into catastrophe is the way the hand-wringing over Biden’s age has overshadowed the real stakes in the 2024 election. It reminds me, as it reminds everyone I know, of the 2016 furor over Hillary Clinton’s email server, which was a minor issue that may well have wound up swinging the election to Donald Trump.
As most people know by now, Robert Hur, a special counsel appointed to look into allegations of wrongdoing on Biden’s part, concluded that the president shouldn’t be charged. But his report included an uncalled-for and completely unprofessional swipe at Biden’s mental acuity, apparently based on the president’s difficulty in remembering specific dates — difficulty that, as I wrote on Friday, everyone confronts at whatever age. Hur’s gratuitous treatment of Biden echoed James Comey’s gratuitous treatment of Clinton — Hur and Comey both seemed to want to take political stands when that was not their duty.
Yes, it’s true that Biden is old, and will be even older if he wins re-election and serves out a second term. I wish that Democrats had been able to settle on a consensus successor a year or two ago and that Biden had been able to step aside in that successor’s favor without setting off an intraparty free-for-all. But speculating about whether that could have happened is beside the point now. It didn’t happen, and Biden is going to be the Democratic nominee.
It’s also true that many voters think the president’s age is an issue. But there’s perception and there’s reality: As anyone who has recently spent time with Biden (and I have) can tell you, he is in full possession of his faculties — completely lucid and with excellent grasp of detail. Of course, most voters don’t get to see him up close, and it’s on Biden’s team to address that. And yes, he speaks quietly and a bit slowly, although this is in part because of his lifetime struggle with stuttering. He also, by the way, has a sense of humor, which I think is important.
Most important is that Biden has been a remarkably effective president. Trump spent four years claiming that a major infrastructure initiative was just around the corner, to the point that “It’s infrastructure week!” became a running joke; Biden actually got legislation passed. Trump promised to revive American manufacturing, but didn’t. Biden’s technology and climate policies — the latter passed against heavy odds — have produced a surge in manufacturing investment. His enhancement of Obamacare has brought health insurance coverage to millions.
If you ask me, these achievements say a lot more about Biden’s capacity than his occasional verbal slips.
And what about his opponent, who is only four years younger? Maybe some people are impressed by the fact that Trump talks loud and mean. But what about what he’s actually saying in his speeches? They’re frequently rambling word salads, full of bizarre claims like his assertion on Friday that if he loses in November, “they’re going to change the name of Pennsylvania.”
Not to mention confusing Nikki Haley with Nancy Pelosi and mistaking E. Jean Carroll for one of his ex-wives.
As I also wrote last week, Trump’s speeches make me remember my father’s awful last year, when he suffered from sundowning — bouts of incoherence and belligerence after dark. And we’re supposed to be worried about Biden’s mental state?
Over the past few days, while the national discussion has been dominated by talk about Biden’s age, Trump declared that he wouldn’t intervene to help “delinquent” NATO members if Russia were to attack them, even suggesting that he might encourage such an attack. He seems to regard NATO as nothing more than a protection racket and after all this time still has no idea how the alliance works. By the way, Lithuania, the NATO member that Trump singled out, has spent a larger percentage of its G.D.P. on aid to Ukraine than any other nation.
Again, I wish this election weren’t a contest between two elderly men and worry in general about American gerontocracy. But like it or not, this is going to be a race between Biden and Trump — and somehow the lucid, well-informed candidate is getting more heat over his age than his ranting, factually challenged opponent.
As I said, until just the other day I was feeling somewhat optimistic. But now I’m deeply troubled about our nation’s future.
Paul Krugman has been an Opinion columnist since 2000 and is also a distinguished professor at the City University of New York Graduate Center. He won the 2008 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his work on international trade and economic geography.
U.S. mends fences with El Salvador’s Bukele as China lurks
Diego Oré, Sarah Kinosian and Nelson Renteria – February 6, 2024
U.S. papers over differences with El Salvador’s Bukele with China waiting in the wings
SAN SALVADOR (Reuters) – When El Salvador President Nayib Bukele published a private WhatsApp conversation with the top U.S. diplomat in the Central American country two years ago, he was sending a message of his own: I will not take orders from the United States.
U.S. officials had for months been protesting Bukele’s support for moves like dismissing judges and bucking constitutional term limits – measures they said endangered the country’s young democracy.
Jean Manes, the chargé d’affaires whose messages intervening on behalf of a detained former mayor were unmasked, left the country. She said the bilateral relationship between the erstwhile allies was “on pause,” citing attacks on the U.S. by Bukele’s “paid media machine.”
Two years later, the United States is publicly cozying up to Bukele, a populist anti-establishment renegade who on Sunday romped to re-election in a landslide – even as it continues to emphasize concerns over the erosion of human rights and democracy.
Now, more than ever, the U.S. needs Central American nations like El Salvador to curb migration to the southern border. It is also striving to offset growing Chinese influence in Latin America.
In October, the State Department’s top Latin America diplomat, Brian Nichols, visited El Salvador and posed for photos with Bukele. He sought to “give a message that democracy is the most important form of government,” the U.S. embassy said at the time.
And on Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken congratulated Bukele on his win, saying the United States would prioritize “good governance” and “fair trials and human rights in El Salvador” as part of its plan to tackle the causes of migration.
Three U.S. State Department officials Reuters spoke to said they have moved more critical diplomacy behind closed doors, a tactic they have found effective given Bukele’s rebellious style and rebukes of perceived foreign meddling.
Bukele has since toned down the kind of inflammatory comments that marked his spat with Manes.
He has also grown savvy at milking the regional tug-of-war for influence between the United States and China.
“(Bukele) has used the approach to China as a negotiating card,” said Ana Maria Mendez, of the Washington Office on Latin America. “(He) threatens or challenges U.S. foreign policy by engaging with China.”
RAPPROCHEMENT
The more reserved public U.S. stance may be a tacit acknowledgement that Bukele’s success in smashing gang violence has led to a decline in migration, officials from both countries said.
Salvadorans fleeing violence and poverty have migrated to the U.S. for decades, hitting record levels in 2021. Following the gang crackdown that began in March 2022, the number of Salvadorans reaching the U.S. southern border fell, dipping 36% from 2022 to 2023, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Bukele has also implemented measures such as hefty taxes on flights from 57 largely African countries to dampen onward U.S. migration.
Bukele will be conscious of the need to stay on good terms with El Salvador’s largest trading partner and benefactor. The U.S. disbursed $629 million in aid between when Bukele took office in 2019 and 2022 – more than went to Honduras, a country with almost double the population, according to USAID.
The U.S. officials said they recognize Salvadorans support the gang crackdown, but that they are pushing Bukele to wind it down.
Under a “state of exception” stretching nearly two years, Bukele’s government has detained over 75,000 Salvadorans – 1.1% of the country’s population. Rights groups have documented 150 deaths in prison, while Salvadorans have lost their rights to due process.
“We recognize the profound challenge El Salvador faced curbing gang violence,” a U.S. State Department spokesperson said in an email. “(But) the state of exception must be an exception.”
WAITING IN THE WINGS
At the same time, there are growing ties between China and El Salvador.
In recent years, China has spent $500 million in infrastructure projects that include a state-of-the-art sports stadium, a tourist pier and water purification plants.
A futuristic library near the capital’s main square flies a giant Chinese flag and was inaugurated with a drone display of Bukele’s face.
“El Salvador will look to work as closely with China as possible in the coming years. China is an economic partner that is willing to look the other way on human rights and other issues,” said Margaret Myers, from Washington-based think tank Inter-American Dialogue.
China’s embassy in San Salvador was quick to congratulate Bukele and his party “for the historic victory in these elections” this week.
Although of limited commercial importance in itself, El Salvador offers China a foothold in Central America, and in 2018 broke relations with Taiwan in favor of China.
Bukele’s government must walk a careful line, though. In mid-2023 it stopped negotiating a 5G deal with Chinese telecoms provider Huawei, which has been the subject of U.S. sanctions, and now is working with Washington in “to achieve a secure nationwide 5G service using trusted vendors,” said a U.S. State Department spokesperson .
“El Salvador wants to do trade with everyone,” Bukele said during his victory speech on Sunday night. “What we are not going to be is your lackeys.”
(This story has been corrected to rectify the year that El Salvador broke relations with Taiwan in paragraph 24)
(Reporting by Diego Ore in Mexico City and Nelson Renteria and Sarah Kinosian in San Salvador; Editing by Christian Plumb and Rosalba O’Brien)
Democracy is losing support in the world and in the US. Just look at El Salvador | Opinion
Andres Oppenheimer – February 6, 2024
The landslide re-election of popular authoritarian President Nayib Bukele in El Salvador’s Feb. 4 elections seems to confirm a global trend toward the loss of support for democracy. It seems to be happening everywhere, including in the United States.
Bukele announced on election night that he won by more than 85% of the vote, and 58 of 60 seats in the Salvadoran congress. That will give him near-absolute power during a second, five-year term.
The Salvadoran Constitution prohibits two consecutive terms, but Bukele packed the Supreme Court with loyalists and changed the rule to be able to run for re-election. Pre-election polls showed that he has a 90% popularity rate, more than any other president in the region, thanks to his effective campaign against the violent drug gangs that used to terrorize his country.
“This will be the first time where one party rules a country in a completely democratic system,” Bukele said on election night. “The entire opposition has been pulverized.”
But the big question is whether there can be democracy without an opposition. In a growing number of countries, voters don’t seem to be losing sleep over this issue.
Elected authoritarian leaders have won or are poised to win elections in India, Turkey and several other countries, despite concerns about their abuses of power. In Mexico, President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador on Monday presented a bill to change the Constitution in ways that would weaken controls on the government.
In the United States, former President Donald Trump is likely to be nominated as the Republican candidate and could win the November elections, despite his support for the Jan. 6, 2021, failed insurrection that tried to overturn the 2020 election results. He recently stated that “I’d be a dictator on day one.”
An alarming new Gallup poll shows that only 28% of U.S. adults are satisfied with the way democracy is working in the country, down from 60% in the mid-1980s.
In Latin America, a poll in 17 countries conducted by Latinobarómetro found that only 48% of Latin Americans agree with the idea that, “Democracy is preferable to any other form of government,” down from 63% in 2010. High crime rates, corruption and stagnant economies have driven up support for messianic leaders, the study says.
Salvadorans truly appreciate Bukele’s decision to build mega-prisons, and to put more than 75,000 presumed gang members behind bars. Although violent crime rates had begun to fall since 2015, they have plummeted since he took office in 2019, turning El Salvador from one of the most violent to one of the most peaceful countries in Latin America.
Problem is, many of those in prison were arrested without fair trials under a state of emergency imposed by Bukele’s government in early 2022. Many young Salvadorans were arrested by police just for having tattoos, without evidence that they belong to any drug gang.
El Salvador’s security forces have committed “widespread human rights violations, including arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances and torture, “ the Human Rights Watch advocacy group says.
And the current peace may not last long. Bukele has made deals with drug lords to stop the violence, but the drug gangs are still alive, critics say. Bukele’s mega-prisons, rather than eliminating violent crime, may become training grounds for new and more powerful drug gangs, security experts say. The best-known Salvadoran gangs were born in the jails of Los Angeles, they say.
Bukele has now become a hero to many people in Latin America’s crime-ridden countries. But the fact that he governs at his whim should raise alarm bells everywhere. Latin America has given plenty of examples that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Virtually all Latin American dictatorships have ended badly. If Bukele keeps holding absolute power and bragging about having “pulverized” the opposition, I don’t think that his government will be an exception to the rule.
Don’t miss the “Oppenheimer Presenta” TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog: andresoppenheimer.com
Trump calls border bill ‘a Death Wish’ for Republican Party: ‘Don’t be STUPID!!!’
Brett Samuels February 5, 2024
Trump calls border bill ‘a Death Wish’ for Republican Party: ‘Don’t be STUPID!!!’
Former President Trump excoriated a bipartisan border security bill put forward by senators, calling it a “Death Wish” for the GOP on Monday, hours after it was released.
“Only a fool, or a Radical Left Democrat, would vote for this horrendous Border Bill, which only gives Shutdown Authority after 5000 Encounters a day, when we already have the right to CLOSE THE BORDER NOW, which must be done,” Trump wrote on Truth Social of the legislation, which was crafted in part by conservative Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.).
“This Bill is a great gift to the Democrats, and a Death Wish for The Republican Party. It takes the HORRIBLE JOB the Democrats have done on Immigration and the Border, absolves them, and puts it all squarely on the shoulders of Republicans,” Trump continued. “Don’t be STUPID!!! We need a separate Border and Immigration bill. It should not be tied to foreign aid in any way, shape or form!”
Trump’s opposition further complicates the path forward for the legislation, which was already facing pushback from Republicans in the House.
The legislation unveiled Sunday night included $20 billion for border security. It would give the federal government temporary authority to expel migrants when the average number of daily crossings exceeds a set threshold, end “catch and release,” raise standards for asylum screenings and seek to process claims quicker, among other provisions.
The bill also includes national security funding in the form of $60 billion for Ukraine, $14.1 billion for Israel, aid for Indo-Pacific allies.
Republicans had insisted that any aid for Ukraine be paired with legislation to address the southern border, but Trump’s post Monday indicated any Ukraine funding may be a non-starter.
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) slammed the border deal Sunday, writing that it is “even worse than we expected” and declaring it “dead on arrival” in the House.
Democrats have for weeks argued Trump has pushed back against the prospect of any compromise on the border because the former president believes it would be a political win for President Biden. Trump has repeatedly hammered Biden over the flow of migrants at the southern border, and polling has shown voters trust Trump more on immigration and the border.
How two sentences in the Constitution rose from obscurity to ensnare Donald Trump
Nicholas Riccardi – February 4, 2024
Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)Then-President Donald Trump speaks during a rally protesting the Elector College certification of Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 presidential race, in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments for a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, prohibiting those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File) Attorney Scott Gessler speaks during a hearing before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot, on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot.(AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)Attorney Eric Olson, far right, argues before the Colorado Supreme Court for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the state ballot on Dec. 6, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, Pool, File)Attorney Martha Tierney smiles during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in court Oct. 30, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File) Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)Trump supporters participate in a rally in Washington, Jan. 6, 2021, that some blame for fueling the attack on the U.S. Capitol. On Thursday, Feb. 8, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case involving Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office. The case arises from a decision in Colorado, where that state’s Supreme Court ruled that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)Sean Grimsley, attorney for the petitioners, delivers closing arguments during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot in district court, Nov. 15, 2023, in Denver. On Thursday, Feb. 8, 2024, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments in a case that arises from the state Supreme Court’s decision that Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and should be banned from ballot. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)Gerard Magliocca, a professor at Indiana University’s Robert H. McKinney School of Law, testifies during a hearing for a lawsuit to keep former President Donald Trump off the Colorado ballot, Nov. 1, 2023, in Denver. During the coronavirus pandemic, Magliocca began to research the history of two rarely noticed sentences tucked in the middle of the 14th Amendment. (AP Photo/Jack Dempsey, Pool, File)
DENVER (AP) — In the summer of 2020, Gerard Magliocca, like many during the coronavirus pandemic, found himself stuck inside with time on his hands.
A law professor at Indiana University, Magliocca figured he would research the history of two long-neglected sentences in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment. Dating to the period just after the Civil War, they prohibit those who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” from holding office.
On Jan. 6, 2021, after then-President Donald Trump‘s supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol to try to block certification of his loss to Joe Biden, Magliocca watched as Republicans such as Sens. Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney described the attack as an “insurrection.”
That night, Magliocca composed a quick post on a legal blog: “Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” he wrote, “might apply to President Trump.”
Just over four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court will have to determine whether it does. On Thursday, the nation’s highest court is scheduled to hear arguments over whether Trump can remain on the ballot in Colorado, where the state’s Supreme Court ruled that he violated Section 3.
It’s the first time the Supreme Court has heard a case on Section 3, which was used to keep former Confederates from holding government offices after the amendment’s 1868 adoption. It fell into disuse after Congress granted an amnesty to most ex-rebels in 1872.
Before the attack on the Capitol, even many constitutional lawyers rarely thought about Section 3. It hadn’t been used in court for more than 100 years. Its revival is due to an unlikely combination of Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, all rediscovering 111 words in the nation’s foundational legal document that have now become a threat to the former president’s attempt to return to office.
In the days after Jan. 6, thanks to scholars such as Magliocca, Section 3 started its slow emergence from obscurity.
Free Speech For People, a Massachusetts-based liberal nonprofit, sent letters to top election officials in all 50 states in June 2021, warning them not to place Trump on the ballot should he run again in 2024.
The group didn’t hear back from any of them.
“People were just treating it as something that was not serious,” recalled John Bonifaz, the group’s co-founder.
In January 2022, Free Speech For People filed a complaint in North Carolina to disqualify Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn under Section 3. Cawthorn lost his primary, mooting the case.
That same month, the group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, also known as CREW, decided to test Section 3 in court.
“It wasn’t just Trump we were focused on,” chief counsel Donald Sherman said in an interview. “One thing we’ve been very careful about is we don’t think it’s appropriate to pursue outside or longshot cases.”
On Sept. 6, 2022, a New Mexico judge ordered Couy Griffin, a rural New Mexico county commissioner convicted of illegally entering the Capitol on Jan. 6, removed from his position after CREW filed against him. It was the first time in more than 100 years an official had been removed under Section 3. Griffin has appealed to the Supreme Court.
Trump announced his campaign for president two months later.
Both Free Speech For People and CREW began scouring state ballot laws, looking for places that allowed the rapid contesting of a candidacy. CREW settled on Colorado.
Sherman and another CREW attorney, Nikhel Sus, contacted Martha Tierney, a veteran election lawyer who also served as general counsel of the state Democratic Party.
Tierney wasn’t acting as the Democratic Party’s lawyer, but CREW wanted to balance its team. Sherman contacted Mario Nicolais, a former Republican election lawyer who had left the party over Trump.
Nicolais’ first interaction with Sherman was a direct message about the case on X, the social media platform previously known as Twitter. Nicolais thought it could be from a crank.
“Is this for real or is this from somebody just angry at the president?” Nicolais recalled wondering.
On Sept. 6, 2023 — one year from the disqualification of Griffin — their 105-page complaint was filed in district court in Denver.
Trump hired former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler to represent him. The Denver judge who got CREW’s complaint, Sarah Block Wallace, said she was obligated to hold a hearing under state election law.
During the five-day hearing, two officers who defended the Capitol testified, along with a University of California professor who was an expert in right-wing extremism, two Trump aides and several other witnesses. One was Magliocca, who laid out the history of Section 3.
Trump’s attorneys were pessimistic, expecting Wallace, who had a history of donating to Democrats, to rule against them. Trump spokesman Jason Miller addressed reporters outside court, complaining that the plaintiffs had intentionally filed in a liberal jurisdiction in a blue state.
Wallace issued her decision on Nov. 17. She found that Trump had “engaged in insurrection” but ruled that — contrary to Magliocca’s testimony — it wasn’t certain that the authors of the 14th Amendment meant it to apply to the president. Section 3 refers to “elector of President and Vice President,” but not the office itself.
Wallace was hesitant to become the first judge in history to bar a top presidential contender unless the law was crystal clear.
“It was a loss that only a lawyer could love,” Sus recalled.
CREW was just a legal sliver away from victory. It just needed the Colorado Supreme Court to uphold all of Wallace’s ruling besides the technicality of whether the president was covered.
The seven justices of the state’s high court — all appointed by Democrats from a pool chosen by a nonpartisan panel — peppered both sides with pointed questions at oral argument three weeks later.
Neither side left feeling certain of victory.
On Dec. 19, the court announced it would issue its decision that afternoon — ruling 4-3 that Trump was disqualified. The decision was put on hold, pending the outcome of the case that will be argued Thursday.
Has the planet warmed more than we thought? Ocean sponges might be telling us something
By Seth Borenstein – February 5, 2024
This undated image provided by Amos Winter shows a sponge from the Caribbean. This sponge, a simple animal that filters water, and a handful of other centuries-old sponges are causing some scientists to think human-caused climate change began sooner and has heated the world more than they thought. Many sponge species live long, and as they grow they record the conditions of the environment around them in their skeletons. (Courtesy of Amos Winter via AP)
This undated image provided by Amos Winter shows a sponge from the Caribbean that has been cut. This sponge, a simple animal that filters water, and a handful of other centuries-old sponges are causing some scientists to think human-caused climate change began sooner and has heated the world more than they thought. Many sponge species live long, and as they grow they record the conditions of the environment around them in their skeletons. (Courtesy of Amos Winter via AP)
A man walks past an abandoned canoe at the Sau reservoir amid a drought in Vilanova de Sau, north of Barcelona, Spain, Jan. 26, 2024. (AP Photo/Emilio Morenatti File)
A pedestrian uses an umbrella to shield against the sun while passing through Times Square as temperatures rise, July 27, 2023, in New York. (AP Photo/John Minchillo, File)
A boy rests under a tree while watching the sun set as triple-digit heat indexes continue in the Midwest, Aug. 20, 2023, in Kansas City, Mo. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel, File)
Beachgoers flock to Ipanema beach to beat the extreme heat in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Sept. 24, 2023. (AP Photo/Bruna Prado, File)
A handful of centuries-old sponges from deep in the Caribbean are causing some scientists to think human-caused climate change began sooner and has heated the world more than they thought.
They calculate that the world has already gone past the internationally approved target of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, hitting 1.7 degrees (3.1 degrees Fahrenheit) as of 2020. They analyzed six of the long-lived sponges — simple animals that filter water — for growth records that document changes in water temperature, acidity and carbon dioxide levels in the air, according to a study in Monday’s journal Nature Climate Change.
Other scientists were skeptical of the study’s claim that the world has warmed that much more than thought. But if the sponge calculations are right, there are big repercussions, the study authors said.
“The big picture is that the global warming clock for emissions reductions to minimize the risk of dangerous climate changes is being brought forward by at least a decade,” study lead author Malcolm McCulloch, a marine geochemist at the University of Western Australia. “Basically, time’s running out.”
“We have a decade less than we thought,” McCulloch told The Associated Press. “It’s really a diary of — what’s the word? — impending disaster.”
In the past several years, scientists have noted more extreme and harmful weather — floods, storms, droughts and heat waves — than they had expected for the current level of warming. One explanation for that would be if there was more warming than scientists had initially calculated, said study co-author Amos Winter, a paleo oceanographer at Indiana State University. He said this study also supports the theory that climate change is accelerating, proposed last year by former NASA top scientist James Hansen.
“This is not good news for global climate change as it implies more warming,” said Cornell University climate scientist Natalie Mahowald, who was not part of the study.
Many sponge species live long, and as they grow they record the conditions of the environment around them in their skeletons. Scientists have long used sponges along with other proxies — tree rings, ice cores and coral — that naturally show the record of changes in the environment over centuries. Doing so helps fill in data from before the 20th century.
Sponges — unlike coral, tree rings and ice cores — get water flowing from all over through them so they can record a larger area of ecological change, Winter and McCulloch said.
They used measurements from a rare species of small and hard-shelled sponges to create a temperature record for the 1800s that differs greatly from the scientifically accepted versions used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study finds that the mid-1800s were about half a degree Celsius cooler than previously thought, with warming from heat-trapping gases kicking in about 80 years earlier than the measurements the IPCC uses. IPCC figures show warming kicking in just after 1900.
It makes sense that the warming started earlier than the IPCC says because by the mid-1800s the Industrial Revolution had begun and carbon dioxide was being spewed into the air, said McCulloch and Winter. Carbon dioxide and other gases from the burning of fossil fuels are what causes climate change, scientists have established.
Winter and McCulloch said these rusty orange long-lived sponges — one of them was more than 320 years old when it was collected — are special in a way that makes them an ideal measuring tool, better than what scientists used in the mid- to late 1800s.
“They are cathedrals of history, of human history, recording carbon dioxide in the the atmosphere, temperature of the water and pH of the water,” Winter said.
“They’re beautiful,” he said. “They’re not easy to find. You need a special team of divers to find them.”
That’s because they live 100 to 300 feet deep (33 meters to 98 meters) in the dark, Winter said.
The IPCC and most scientists use temperature data for the mid-1800s that came from ships whose crews would take temperature readings by lowering wooden buckets to dip up water. Some of those measurements could be skewed depending on how the collection was done — for example, if the water was collected near a warm steamship engine. But the sponges are more accurate because scientists can track regular tiny deposits of calcium and strontium on the critters’ skeleton. Warmer water would lead to more strontium compared to calcium, and and cooler water would lead to higher proportions of calcium compared to strontium, Winter said.
University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann, who wasn’t part of the study, has long disagreed with the IPCC’s baseline and thinks warming started earlier. But he was still skeptical of the study’s findings.
“In my view it begs credulity to claim that the instrumental record is wrong based on paleo-sponges from one region of the world. It honestly doesn’t make any sense to me,” Mann said.
In a news briefing, Winter and McCulloch repeatedly defended the use of sponges as an accurate proxy for world temperature changes. They said except for the 1800s, their temperature reconstruction based on sponges matches global records from instruments and other proxies like coral, ice cores and tree rings.
And even though these sponges are only in the Caribbean, McCulloch and Winter said they are a good representation for the rest of the world because they’re at a depth that doesn’t get too affected by warm and cold cycles of El Nino and La Nina, and the water matches well with global ocean temperatures, McCulloch and Winter said.
Princeton University climate scientist Michael Oppenheimer, who also wasn’t part of the sponge study, said even if the McCulloch team is right about a cooler baseline in the 1800s that shouldn’t really change the danger levels that scientists set in their reports. That’s because the danger levels “were not tied to the absolute value of preindustrial temperatures” but more about how much temperatures changed from that time, he said.
Although the study stopped at 2020 with 1.7 degrees Celsius (3.1 degrees Fahrenheit) in warming since pre-industrial times, a record hot 2023 pushes that up to 1.8 degrees (3.2 degrees Fahrenheit), McCulloch said.
“The rate of change is much faster than we thought,” McCulloch said. “We’re heading into very dangerous high-risk scenarios for the future. And the only way to stop this is to reduce emissions. Urgently. Most urgently.”
Teresa de Miguel contributed to this report from Mexico City.
House Speaker Mike Johnson criticizes new bill on US border security
The New Voice of Ukraine – February 5, 2024
Mike Johnson
The bill on funding changes in immigration policy, as well as aid to Ukraine and Israel proposed by the Senate, is “even worse than we expected” and “won’t put an end to the border catastrophe,” House speaker Mike Johnson said on X (Twitter) on Feb. 5.
“This bill is even worse than we expected, and won’t come close to ending the border catastrophe the President has created.” the House Speaker said.
“As the lead Democrat negotiator proclaimed: Under this legislation, “the border never closes,” he added, saying if this bill reaches the House of Representatives, it will be dead on arrival.
On Jan. 19, Johnson revealed that he often discusses border reinforcement with former US President Donald Trump, including conversations on the eve of Biden’s meeting dedicated to the border and aid to Ukraine.
On Jan. 25, the Financial Times reported that Republicans, influenced by Trump, who demands the party reject a compromise on immigration, are succumbing.
On Jan. 31, in his first official address as Speaker, Johnson stated that the Senate agreement under discussion is not sufficient to prevent migrants from Mexico entering the US. He had previously hinted that he would not unblock aid to Ukraine, calling the Senate agreement “absolutely dead.”
On Feb. 5, the US Senate unveiled a $118 billion package, including $60 billion for Ukraine, $14 billion in aid to Israel, nearly $5 billion to allies in the Asia-Pacific region, $20 billion for strengthening immigration policy, and humanitarian aid to civilians in the Gaza Strip.
US President Joe Biden urged the House to promptly pass the bill.
“We have now reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal, which includes the toughest and fairest package of border reforms in the last decade. I strongly support it,” said Biden.
New US Senate bill to help Ukraine: Biden calls for it to be passed as soon as possible
Ukrainska Pravda – February 4, 2024
US Flag. Photo: Getty Images
US President Joe Biden has urged senators to vote for a bipartisan national security agreement presented by the Senate, which provides US$60 billion in aid to Ukraine, as soon as possible.
Details: The US$118 billion package comprises a policy of protecting US borders and providing assistance to Ukraine and Israel.
In particular, US$60.1 billion is earmarked to help Ukraine and more than US$14 billion to support Israel.
The bill also includes funding for humanitarian aid for operations in the Red Sea and Taiwan.
Biden said he “strongly” supports the bipartisan agreement unveiled on Sunday (4 February).
Quote from Biden: “Now we’ve reached an agreement on a bipartisan national security deal that includes the toughest and fairest set of border reforms in decades. I strongly support it…
The bipartisan national security agreement would also address two other important priorities. It allows the United States to continue our vital work, together with partners all around the world, to stand up for Ukraine’s freedom and support its ability to defend itself against Russia’s aggression.
As I have said before, if we don’t stop Putin’s appetite for power and control in Ukraine, he won’t limit himself to just Ukraine and the costs for America will rise.
This agreement also provides Israel what they need to protect their people and defend itself against Hamas terrorists. And it will provide life-saving humanitarian assistance for the Palestinian people…
I urge Congress to come together and swiftly pass this bipartisan agreement. Get it to my desk so I can sign it into law immediately.”
Previously: Mike Johnson, Speaker of the US House of Representatives, said on Saturday, 3 February, that the following week, the House will vote on a bill that will ensure Israel obtains US$17.6 billion of aid faster, without, however, making it conditional on also passing aid for Ukraine.
The US President Joe Biden’s administration has stressed that it does not support the bill to help Israel without aid to Ukraine, calling it a “cynical political manoeuvre” by Republicans.
Background:
During a press conference on 30 January, Mike Johnson denied that his position on the border security agreement with Mexico, which Republicans have linked to additional funding for Ukraine, was intended to help Donald Trump win the upcoming US presidential election.
Johnson previously said in a letter that the Senate bill on the border and aid to Ukraine, as well as other countries, will not be approved in the House of Representatives if reports of its terms are true.
Republican Representatives are demanding that the White House take decisive action to curb illegal immigration at the US-Mexico border.
Disagreement over what measures should be taken has meant that a supplemental funding package that includes US$61 billion for Ukraine has been stalled in Congress.
