Politics Desk

Wesson Doles Out Contracts to Allies

Assembly Speaker Herb J. Wesson Jr. has awarded nearly $350,000 in consulting contracts to half a dozen political allies, including Los Angeles City Council candidate Martin Ludlow and Councilman-elect Tony Cardenas.

The contracts, several of them for more than $8,000 a month, call for contractors to give Wesson advice on such issues as education, the state budget, the agricultural industry and outreach to local elected officials in Southern California.

Wesson issued the contracts unilaterally, without legislative review, and is the only overseer of their performance. The money comes from the Assembly’s overall $114-million budget.

Other contractors include Pasadena City Councilman Chris Holden and former Assemblyman Mike Briggs, a Republican from Fresno who broke with his party to cast a critical vote on the budget last year.

Wesson (D-Culver City) defended the contracts. They were obtained through a public records request.

“The speaker is empowered to bring people on to do the things he thinks need to be done,” Wesson said. “I’m big on people that can help me connect with other people.”

All told, Wesson extended several contracts begun by his predecessor, entered into at least two very small contracts and made six new consulting deals of more than $2,300 each.

In addition to Ludlow, Cardenas, Holden and Briggs, Alice Huffman, a former lobbyist for the California Teachers Assn., and Virginia Strom-Martin, a former assemblywoman, made agreements with Wesson to perform consulting work for him and the Assembly. Each of their deals is different, of varying lengths and amounts, ranging from $5,000 a month for Holden and Huffman to $8,470 a month for Ludlow.

‘Budget Dust’

The contracts were issued as the state wrestles to bring its multibillion-dollar budget shortfall under control.

Tim Hodson, executive director of the Center for California Studies at Cal State Sacramento, called the money involved in Wesson’s contracts “budget dust” compared to the state’s overall shortfall, which has been estimated at $35 billion between now and June 30, 2004. Still, Hodson said the contracts would fuel public skepticism about government leaders and decisions.

“People look at it as a symbol and say, ‘That’s why we don’t like government, that’s why we’re not sure there’s a budget deficit, that’s why the Republicans are right and you shouldn’t raise taxes because the money all goes to people like Mike Briggs,’ ” he said.

Assemblyman Tony Strickland (R-Moorpark) said giving out the contracts was within Wesson’s prerogative as speaker. But Strickland added: “It’s not the Legislature’s money. It’s the people’s money.”

The speaker described several of the contractors as friends. Most of them are Democrats and all but two have held political office. Many also stand to help him after his Assembly career ends due to term limits next year. Associates of Wesson have said he has expressed interest in replacing Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, his former boss, on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, in the event that Burke does not seek reelection.

Wesson refused to describe the work contractors have done for him in great detail, saying: “A lot of what I get from them I would not and should not share.”

But generally, Wesson said, the contractors have arranged symposiums, appeared at functions for him and offered advice.

Chris Holden, for instance, organized a budget briefing with city managers and is arranging a round table on affordable housing and a symposium on youth activism, Wesson said. Holden is the son of Los Angeles Councilman Nate Holden, for whom Wesson once worked as chief deputy. Wesson hired Chris Holden in March 2002, shortly after he became speaker of the 80-member Assembly, for a contract that is to expire at the end of June and not exceed $77,500. The pay is $5,000 per month.

Wesson said he and Chris Holden are “very close because of the relationship I have with his father.”

“I wanted to take advantage of Chris’ relationships with cities throughout the state and in some respects throughout the nation,” Wesson added.

Holden could not be reached for comment.

Ludlow, who was on contract until early March, said he was consulting for the speaker’s Los Angeles office, performing many of the same functions he did as Wesson’s deputy chief of staff. He left that post in August.

“I spent numerous hours working on briefings, working with the district director and legislative people,” said Ludlow, who is running for the 10th Council District seat. “Whether it’s day or night, his staff engaged with me on a daily basis.”

Wesson added: “You couldn’t find a better, more energetic person than Martin. He’s one of the best organizers in the state.”

Former Legislators

Wesson hired three ex-lawmakers as consultants, including Briggs, who cast a key vote on last year’s budget.

Wesson employed Briggs as a consultant on agricultural and horse racing issues at $8,250 a month. Briggs’ contract expired April 1 but will be extended indefinitely, said Wesson spokeswoman Patricia Soto. Briggs was not available for comment

When he represented Fresno in the Assembly, Briggs was one of four Republicans to join Democrats in voting for a budget in 2001 and 2002. He left the Assembly to run for Congress but lost in the March 2002 primary.

Wesson said Briggs’ contract has no connection to his budget votes. He called Briggs a friend with useful contacts in the farm and racing industries.

“And he has four children,” Wesson said. Asked what that has to do with Briggs’ consulting work, Wesson said, “I do the best I can to be fair and help people.”

In December, Wesson also hired Cardenas, a former San Fernando Valley Democratic assemblyman, as a consultant at $7,850 a month. Wesson said Cardenas, a former budget committee head, has been advising him on budget and Los Angeles issues. Cardenas was recently elected to the Los Angeles City Council.

Asked what he does to earn the consulting fees, Cardenas said, “I’ve spoken to [Wesson], I’ve spoken to his staff, I’ve met with people in the building…. I’ve been available to him morning, noon and night.

“I don’t necessarily keep track of hours,” Cardenas said. On Tuesday, Wesson extended his contract for another month. Cardenas takes his council seat July 1.

In December, Wesson also hired Strom-Martin, a Democrat who termed out of her North Coast Assembly district last year, for $8,250 a month. Soto said she advised on “matters of education and fisheries.”

Strom-Martin’s contract ended Feb. 5 when Wesson promoted her to a $114,000-a-year job on the state Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.

Huffman, president of the California National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, runs her own public relations firm and has received $5,000 a month from her Assembly contract since March 2002. She “would be a coup on anybody’s … staff,” Wesson said. Her contract is due to expire in June.

In addition to those people who now work as contractors, Wesson put another former legislator on the Assembly’s permanent, regular payroll. Sally Havice, a Cerritos Democrat ousted from the Assembly by term limits last year, now earns $99,000 a year as a permanent consultant to the Education Committee. Havice’s vote in favor of a bill to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases was key to its passage last year.

*

Times staff writers Peter Y. Hong and Jeffrey L. Rabin contributed to this report.

Source link

Robin Morgan, poet and feminist allied with Gloria Steinem, dies at 85

Robin Morgan, a wholesome child star of the 1940s and ‘50s who grew up to become an all-American radical as a poet, essayist, editor and second-wave feminist, has died. She was 85.

Morgan, who was still working on new books and poems, died Saturday in New York after suffering a series of health problems in recent weeks, said her son, Blake Morgan. Her death came just days after that of her close friend and fellow activist Gloria Steinem.

During the 1960s and ’70s, Morgan embodied and inspired historic changes in how women lived and thought. As she was happy to point out, the onetime “Ideal American Girl” and adored “Little Robin Morgan” was a rule breaker and justice seeker with a notable list of achievements, along with a prison record and an FBI file.

Morgan was at the center of the some of the defining moments of what came to be called second-wave feminism, expanding upon the achievements of the suffragists a half-century earlier. In 1968, she was among the organizers of the first protest against the Miss America pageant, joining fellow activists in tossing their bras (soon mythologized as burning) into a “Freedom Trash Can.” The 1970 essay anthology she edited, “Sisterhood is Powerful,” is considered one of the essential texts of the modern women’s movement.

Yet she considered herself primarily a poet and artist, and that work fed into her activism, her son said.

“She was someone who was able to take very big ideas and distill them succinctly, like a poet, into a few words,” said Blake Morgan, pointing to such quotes of hers as “hate generalizes, love specifies.”

Morgan was credited for coining ‘herstory’

Her legacy was one of deeds, words and images. Morgan is widely credited with coining the term “herstory,” the feminist reworking of “history,” and popularizing the clenched fist/female symbol icon of the liberation movement. Her poem “Monster,” with such lines as “I want a women’s revolution like a lover/I lust for it,” was quoted at feminist rallies and beyond. Her poem “Arraignment” helped capture the movement’s embrace of the late Sylvia Plath and condemnation of her husband, poet Ted Hughes, whom Morgan and others blamed for Plath’s suicide in 1963. Morgan’s rhyming couplet “I accuse/Ted Hughes” inspired the title for Sonic Youth’s song “J’Accuse Ted Hughes.”

Labeled an “anarchist housewife” in one government report, Morgan confronted the establishment, left and right. In 1970, she and fellow protesters were arrested and jailed after occupying the offices of the counterculture Grove Press, whose owner, Barney Rosset, was fighting employees’ efforts to unionize. In the widely reprinted 1970 essay “Goodbye to All That,” she called out activists and libertines from Abbie Hoffman and Hugh Hefner to Dave Dellinger and the music group the Fugs.

“Goodbye to the male-dominated peace movement, where sweet old Uncle Dave can say with impunity to a woman on the staff of Liberation magazine, The trouble with you is you’re an aggressive woman,” she wrote.

“Goodbye to the idea that Hugh Hefner is groovy ’cause he lets Conspirators come to parties at the Playboy Mansion — goodbye to Hefner’s dream of a ripe old age. Goodbye to Tuli and the Fugs and all the boys in the front room — who always knew they hated the women they loved. Goodbye to the notion that good ol’ Abbie is any different from any other up-and-coming movie star who ditches the first wife and kids, good enough for the old days but awkward once you’re Making It.”

She led an unconventional personal life

In her personal life, Morgan had male and female lovers and was married for more than 20 years to the gay poet Kenneth Pitchford, with whom she had her son, a musician, producer and record company founder. She once described her marriage as a “two member commune” and was so resistant to labels that she remembered being “straight-baited” by feminists who thought she should be a lesbian and chastised by conservatives who assumed she was a lesbian.

In her 2001 memoir “Saturday’s Child,” she expressed joy and amazement at how her life turned out and how she was able to retain “a threadbare, somewhat surreal sense of humor.”

“Put that in your apple pie and smoke it,” she wrote.

She wrote more than 20 books, including a memoir

Besides “Saturday’s Child,” she completed more than 20 books, including “The Word of a Woman: Feminists Dispatches,” and the poetry collections “Monster” and “Dark Matter.” She followed “Sisterhood is Powerful” with “Sisterhood is Global” (in 1984), and “Sisterhood is Forever” (2002), featuring such contributors as Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir and Eve Ensler. For several years, she was editor in chief of Ms. Magazine, which Steinem co-founded.

Steinem would call her an ideal “utility player,” gifted in almost every way a protest movement might require. As an organizer, she helped found such 1960s feminist groups as New York Radical Women and Women’s International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (W.I.T.C.H.). She was part of the Youth International Party, the left-wing Yippies led by Hoffman and Jerry Rubin among others, but soon became disgusted with how the group treated women and left.

In 1984, she was a founder of an early feminist think tank, the Sisterhood Is Global Institute. In 2005, she, Steinem and Jane Fonda launched the Women’s Media Center, which has a mission to support “the visibility, viability and decision-making power of women and girls in media.”

More recently, she hosted a syndicated radio show and remained active despite being diagnosed 16 years ago with Parkinson’s disease, which inspired several poems and a TEDWomen talk in 2015.

A child star in the ‘40s

In a different era, Morgan might have been just another forgotten child star. Born in 1941 in Lake Worth, Fla., and raised in New York, she never saw her father while growing up and was told — falsely — by her mother that he was dead. Her mother also shaved a year off her age, claiming she was born in 1942, to make her early public career seem even more impressive.

The blond, talented Robin was modeling by age 3, hosted her own “Little Robin Morgan” radio show at age 5 and around the same time was featured on the radio (later television) game show, “Juvenile Jury.” From 1949-57, she appeared on the hit TV domestic comedy series “Mama” and made appearances on “Robert Montgomery Presents,” “Kraft Television Theatre” and other shows.

She would meet some of the era’s biggest stars, from Abbott and Costello to Sal Mineo, and was popular enough to inspire such commercial tie-ins as Robin Morgan dolls. Magazines described her as “unspoiled” and “courteous” and “the ideal girl-next-door,” immune from “violent outbursts of antagonism against established society.”

But off camera, and sometimes on, she was so apart from her image that her first “serious” childhood poem began: “Go, rage, winter the world with despair.” During one broadcast of “Juvenile Jury,” the question was whether a boy deserved to be spanked. Morgan was supposed to joke that he should wear padding under his pants, but instead declared that all physical punishment was wrong.

As she recalled in “Saturday’s Child,” producer Dan Ehrenreich squeezed her shoulder so hard that Morgan could feel his fingernails. He turned her microphone away and eventually placed his hand over her mouth.

“I realized that I loved and respected that child who fought back in what was the first political act I recall ever daring to make,” Morgan wrote.

Her political activity began in her late teens

Once in her late teens, she began taking classes at Columbia University, attended poetry workshops and became politically active. She marched for civil rights and against the Vietnam War and met protesters, artists and such poets as W.H. Auden and Anthony Hecht, who she said gave her a man’s-eye view of the creative process: “But, my dear, women should be poems, not write them.”

In 1962, she met Pitchford at a Manhattan party. Once the other guests (“boozy bikers” and “stoned, hallucinating Joffrey dancers”) had left and the host urged others to go with them, Pitchford lighted candles, put Dvorak’s “New World” symphony on the record player and became her “first.” They later walked for hours and ended up on a downtown park bench.

“You have such an air of possibility about you, Robin,” he told her. “It makes me believe anything can happen.”

Italie writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report.

Source link

Public defenders target Trump federal prosecutor Bill Essayli in SoCal

The Los Angeles federal public defender’s office on Friday joined a renewed effort to oust Bill Essayli, the top federal prosecutor in Southern California, accusing the government of “playing shadow games with the most consequential powers a government can wield against its population.”

Citing a recent order from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Jackson, the public defender’s office renewed a motion seeking to disqualify Essayli from participating in or supervising the prosecution of their client, Jaime Ramirez.

The federal appellate court ruled last month that the Department of Justice cannot keep an official who has not been confirmed by the Senate in charge of a U.S. attorney’s office simply by giving that person a different title and the full powers of the job.

In their motion filed Friday, James Anglin Flynn and Ayah A. Sarsour, deputy federal public defenders, accused the government of asking them “to trust that there are some undisclosed limits on Essayli’s authority that render it valid.”

“The buck should stop here, and it should stop now,” they wrote.

The U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

H. Dean Steward, a defense attorney, first kicked off the renewed effort last week, filing a motion asking Senior U.S. District Judge J. Michael Seabright to reconsider his prior ruling. Steward argued that Essayli should not be allowed to continue leading the office.

Seabright previously disqualified Essayli as acting U.S. attorney in October, finding he was “not lawfully serving” in the top role. But Seabright — who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush — said the court had “no basis to preclude Essayli from performing the lawful duties” of first assistant U.S. attorney, which left the door open for him to remain in charge.

Seabright scheduled a hearing for Oct. 13 on the latest motion. At a Zoom hearing on Aug. 28, Seabright appeared to signal which way he is leaning.

“I’m not sure if the government is just saying my decision was different from Jackson and therefore it stands. I’m not sure that passes muster given how the 9th Circuit ruled in Jackson,” Seabright said. “I think there’s going to have to be more in-depth briefing than the government has given me to date.”

The federal appellate court ruling stemmed from a challenge to the authority of Nevada’s top federal prosecutor, Sigal Chattah, whom the Justice Department had designated “first assistant” U.S. attorney. With no one above her in the office, Chattah has seemingly been calling the shots on federal prosecutions in the state, handling cases referred by the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration and other law enforcement agencies.

The Justice Department previously said it disagreed with the 9th Circuit’s decision and plans to appeal it to the Supreme Court. The agency did not respond to questions about what effect the ruling could have on Essayli.

The Trump administration has used a similar workaround to keep Essayli running the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A. without going through the Senate confirmation process, where he likely would have faced strong opposition from California’s elected representatives.

Essayli, 40, has continued leading the federal prosecutor’s office in the Central District of California as “first assistant” despite a federal judge’s ruling last year that said he was unlawfully serving as the acting U.S. attorney. The Justice Department did not appeal that ruling.

Instead, Essayli’s office has maintained that he can prosecute and supervise cases as first assistant. He also was appointed as a “special attorney” by the Trump administration, a title similarly held by Chattah in Nevada.

“To be sure, First Assistant Essayli may be the highest-ranking DOJ lawyer in the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and (like many in the office) he supervises others,” Assistant U.S. Atty. Alexander P. Robbins said in a filing last month. “But that cannot make him a “de facto” U.S. Attorney, and he does not purport to exercise “all of the functions of [that] office.”

Flynn and Sarsour pushed back on that claim in their motion, arguing that the government “is asking this Court to accept a theory that the Ninth Circuit rejected, nearly verbatim less than three weeks ago.” The government, they wrote, “appears to be asking this Court to consider and approve a hypothetical delegation to Essayli of some subset of the U.S. Attorney powers.”

“For over a year, this illegal exercise of prosecutorial powers has violated Mr. Ramirez’s constitutional rights and undermined the legitimacy of the criminal justice system in this district,” Flynn and Sarsour wrote. “In line with Jackson, two other Courts of Appeals have now affirmed the common-sense remedy that this illegality should be stopped.”

The deputy federal public defenders said a defense analysis identified invalid service as acting or de facto U.S. Attorneys in at least 16 districts across the country.

A former Republican member of the California state Assembly from Riverside, Essayli has used his position to act as one of Trump’s fiercest legal foot soldiers. He has pursued criminal charges against protesters, activists and immigrants while dropping cases involving administration allies and supporting lawsuits challenging transgender and environmental policies in California.

Essayli was sworn in as interim U.S. attorney in April 2025. Around the time he hit that role’s 120-day limit, he resigned from his interim role and was allowed to continue under his current titles by then-Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi.

Challenges to Essayli’s position were brought in several criminal cases, with defense lawyers arguing that charges filed under his watch are invalid and should be dismissed. The federal public defender’s office in L.A. had asked the judge to disqualify Essayli from participating in and supervising criminal prosecutions.

Source link

Trumpism’s shadow looms over German election as far right eyes historic power

Leaders of an extremist, far-right party in Germany have quietly borrowed pages from President Trump’s playbook to cast doubt on the integrity of absentee voting — alleging without evidence that residents of nursing homes have had their ballots manipulated and calling for an end to postal voting.

The attack on mail ballots comes as Germany approaches a potentially historic state election that could shatter one of the taboos of its postwar political order by opening the door to a far-right government.

Politicians across the ideological spectrum, mindful that polls show Trump to be widely unpopular, don’t invoke his name.

But the specter of the American president nevertheless hangs over the election that could have reverberations across Europe if the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, party — tacitly echoing Trump’s attacks on migrants, the media and the integrity of elections — pulls off an unprecedented political shock in postwar Germany.

In a country where the guilt of its Nazi past is never far from the surface, the AfD has unapologetically campaigned against what it portrays as the shackles of Germany’s history and won over many new supporters, in part by adopting Trump’s hard-line stance on migrants and his drumbeat of attacks on mainstream news outlets.

Trumpism and the MAGA movement have undoubtedly been an inspiration and model for many European radical right parties

— Lars Rensmann, political scientist

The AfD leader, Tino Chrupalla, surprised Germans recently with warnings of voter fraud in the Sunday election in Saxony-Anhalt state, telling a national television audience that some senior citizens in nursing homes had had their absentee ballots cast and signed for them without their knowledge.

This week, in neighboring Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state, the AfD candidate for governor, Leif-Erik Holm, declared, “Postal voting is more vulnerable to potential attempts of manipulation.”

Election officials and organizations representing nursing home caregivers have rejected the allegations and say there is no evidence of voter fraud.

The AfD, considered one of the most extreme far-right parties in Europe, has surged so far ahead in opinion polls that it could emerge as the dominant political force in Saxony-Anhalt and potentially lead a German state government for the first time, either with an absolute majority or with a junior coalition partner.

Trump has spent years attacking mail-in voting as vulnerable to fraud, despite scant evidence of widespread abuse. Trump himself has voted by mail in recent elections. His administration continues to fight court battles to limit voting by mail.

“Sowing distrust in political institutions is part of the strategy of right-wing populist parties,” said Marcel Lewandowsky, a political scientist at Martin Luther University in Halle, Germany.

“The ‘rigged election’ lie is a powerful narrative within the MAGA movement,” he added, “and serves as a crucial element that fosters a shared identity” with far-right parties in Europe. (Such messaging has also been employed by many rightist politicians in Latin America.)

An AfD victory in one of Germany’s 16 federal states would in one fell swoop obliterate a central tenet of the postwar order: that the far right must never return to power in the country responsible for the Holocaust and the devastation of Europe in World War II.

Many fear that taking power there could serve as a springboard for the ostracized party at the national level, where it is leading opinion polls with about 29% support, putting it far ahead of the other four parties with seats in the federal Parliament.

“Trumpism and the MAGA movement have undoubtedly been an inspiration and model for many European radical right parties,” said Lars Rensmann, a political scientist at the University of Passau who has studied the far right. “In many ways, Trump has been the successful model many European radical right parties try to follow while adopting it to European conditions.”

The AfD’s ascent has parallels across Europe, from Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni and her Brothers of Italy party to Britain’s Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands and Herbert Kickl in Austria. In France, the far-right Rassemblement National is looking to the 2027 presidential race with its candidate, Marine Le Pen, having perhaps her strongest chance yet of winning after reaching the runoff in 2017 and 2022.

Meloni`s relationship with Trump has cooled during her nearly four years in power, due in part to the war in Iran, tariffs and security policies that have strained U.S. relations with Italy and all of Europe.

President Trump and Italy's Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni

President Trump greets Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni at a summit Egypt in 2025. Their once warm relationship has since cooled.

(Evan Vucci / Pool via Associated Press)

Yet there is no pan-European alliance of the far right, in part because these parties champion their own national interests.

“Some components of Trumpism can be shared and exported, such as hostility towards migration and ‘wokeism,’ but it is very clear that national interests that the far-right champion cannot be defended the same way as the American national interests,” said Giovanni Orsina, head of the political science department at LUISS University in Rome.

“If you put your nation first and do so aggressively, you have diverging national interests and so it’s not possible to have an international network of nationalists,” Orsina added.

But many far-right leaders are united in one sense. They admire not just Trump’s tactics, but the “boldness of his transgressions, dismantling liberal and civil norms by repeating things that were once deemed unacceptable for someone seeking public office,” said Rensmann.

“Trump is unpopular in Germany, even across the political right,” Lewandowsky said. “It would be risky for the AfD to embrace him openly, especially because he failed to keep his promise not to start any further wars and large segments of the public feel threatened by the United States under Trump.”

The AfD was created in 2013 as a small anti-euro party before morphing into an anti-migrant force that tapped into voter frustration over immigration and the strains many Germans perceive on housing, jobs and public services.

Despite being ostracized by mainstream parties and kept out of coalition cooperation, it has survived and thrived as a disruptive force.

In the last decade Germany has sheltered millions of refugees, mainly from Syria and other troubled countries in the Middle East. It provides housing, medical care and generous financial support to refugees that AfD politicians say serve as a magnet. Trump once accused former German Chancellor Angela Merkel of “ruining” her country by allowing in so many refugees.

“I think this could be a watershed moment for Europe,” Orsina said of the upcoming election.

An election poster touts the far-right Alternative for Germany party, AfD, right, in Berlin in 2025. It reads "Now AfD."

An election poster touts the far-right Alternative for Germany party, AfD, right, in Berlin in 2025. It reads “Now AfD.”

(Michael Sohn / Associated Press)

He said the election in 2022 of Meloni and her Brothers of Italy party, which traces its origins to Italy’s postwar neo-fascist movement, sparked fears across Europe that, in hindsight, may have been exaggerated. But Germany is a different story when it comes to the far right.

“Some said she is a neo-fascist and a danger to democracy, but most people in Italy didn’t believe that,” he said. “Italy isn’t a better democracy after four years of Meloni but it isn’t any worse either. But Germany isn’t Italy. And Germany’s relationship with its past is a lot different.”

David Bebnowski, an author who has written books on far-right populism and who is a history instructor at the Free University in Berlin, said there is another important connection among far-right voters across Europe that the AfD is tapping into — a yearning for change in countries where establishment parties have struggled to respond to voter frustration.

Trump’s success as a force for disruption, he said, has provided a powerful example.

“You can’t really trace a grand MAGA strategy adopted by the far right, but you can see that they are, in part, very much in line with the ‘spirit of Trumpism,’” Bebnowski said. “What aligns them is a sense of disruption and optimism that they will be able to change the way politics are done in a way the other parties can’t.”

Kirschbaum is a special correspondent.

Source link

Low-income patients at UCLA Health scramble to find new doctors as contract ends

Thousands of low-income patients, some seriously ill, are scrambling to find new doctors as they lose access to UCLA Health physicians after a longtime Medi-Cal contract was not renewed.

Under the contract that expired June 30, UCLA had been providing specialty care to 9,000 medically frail patients from Health Care LA, an association of nonprofit clinics that serve patients covered by Medi-Cal, the state program for the poor.

“Many of these patients have been waiting for months to be seen by UCLA specialty medicine providers and are now being told they cannot receive the care they desperately need,” Health Care LA said in a Thursday news release.

The patients had gone to UCLA for cancer and infectious-disease treatments, high-risk women’s services, major organ transplants and other specialty medicine care, the association said.

A Friday news conference that Health Care LA had scheduled to detail the problems patients faced in getting care was abruptly canceled when the two sides said they had reached a tentative agreement on how to transition the patients to other doctors over the next year.

“To help ensure a smooth transition for patients, both organizations have agreed that established UCLA Health patients, individuals with existing appointments, and patients requiring other agreed-upon services will continue to be cared for at UCLA Health facilities,” Phil Hampton, a university spokesman, said in a statement.

Although some patients will continue to be seen by UCLA doctors, he said, “accepting an unlimited number of new referrals presents challenges given existing capacity constraints and the need to preserve timely access for existing patients.”

Sabra Matovsky, chief executive of Health Care LA, said in an interview on Thursday that UCLA had declined to renegotiate the contract.

“They never even asked us for a raise,” she said, “They just want us out.”

She said that university officials had pointed to “capacity issues” at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center in Westwood, including in the emergency room and dozens of specialty clinics.

“To solve this by pushing out Medi-Cal patients while you continue to expand and market and take on other patients is not a solution,” Matovsky said.

Hampton said UCLA had offered to extend the contract, but Health Care LA rejected the offer.

The end of the Medi-Cal contract disappointed some UCLA medical professionals who have been urging the public university to provide care to more of L.A. County’s low-income residents.

“It feels like this is profits over patients,” said Dr. Patrick Samones, a fellow at UCLA Health, who trained at the university in family medicine.

“UCLA is one of L.A.’s most important healthcare institutions,” said Samones, who represents members of the Committee of Interns and Residents, which is part of Service Employees International Union. “We feel it has a duty to serve all Californians.”

In recent years, UCLA Health has been expanding fast and now has almost 300 locations throughout Southern California, including in wealthier places such as Montecito, Malibu and Westlake Village.

At the same time, it provides less care to Medi-Cal patients than its sister university health systems: UC Irvine, UC San Diego, UC San Francisco and UC Davis, according to university statistics.

Last year, about 15% of UCLA Health’s net patient service revenue came from Medi-Cal, according to the university health systems’ annual report. The four other UC health systems each received about 22% of that revenue from Medi-Cal.

About 40% of L.A. County residents are insured by Medi-Cal, according to a recent report by the California Health Care Foundation.

Hampton said the net patient service revenue data from the annual report doesn’t capture UCLA’s “extensive contributions to caring for Medi-Cal patients” and isn’t “a fair basis for comparing academic health systems.”

He added that with the university’s expansion of clinics, “we are providing substantial specialty care to Medi-Cal and Medicare patients” throughout L.A. County.

“Unlike county-owned hospitals, UCLA Health relies almost exclusively on patient care revenue to fund operations, expand access, recruit clinicians and invest in facilities and technology,” he said.

Hampton said UCLA has other contracts to serve Medi-Cal patients, which will continue. The health system also provides more than $270 million in unreimbursed care for low-income patients each year, he said, as well as primary and urgent care for people experiencing homelessness.

In addition, UCLA is spending $500 million to create a new neuropsychiatric hospital in Los Angeles’ Mid-Wilshire neighborhood, he said.

“We continue to fortify our region’s safety net despite growing access demands and challenges,” Hampton said.

In the most recent fiscal year, he said, Medi-Cal patients comprised 26% of 336,600 inpatient days and 34% of 156,000 emergency department visits.

“UCLA Health’s long-standing commitment to serving vulnerable populations in Southern California is well-established,” he said.

Hampton said the net patient service revenue data doesn’t reflect the complexity of care delivered by UCLA and is affected by Medi-Cal reimbursement rates and payment policies, which vary by region and health plan.

“Over time, Medi-Cal reimbursement has not kept pace with the cost of providing care, and UCLA Health has experienced increasing payment denials and delays,” he said.

UCLA specialists had been caring for Health Care LA’s seriously ill patients under the contract since 2009.

“They were the provider that did all the complicated care,” Matovsky said. “UCLA was our go-to.”

Source link

Widow of airman killed in Mideast is upset she was told Iran wasn’t a war while sorting out benefits

The widow of an airman killed on a combat mission in the Middle East said it took a viral social media post to get resolution from the Pentagon on issues related to her husband’s benefits and basic pay months after his death.

Maj. Alex Klinner, 33, was one of six crew members of a KC-135 refueling aircraft that crashed in western Iraq in March while supporting operations against Iran. He’s one of 18 U.S. service members killed, along with 790 wounded, since the war began more than six months ago.

The Air Force reached out to his widow, Libby Klinner, this week to clarify that his final paycheck would include hazard pay and combat-related tax breaks. This occurred after she voiced frustration on social media at being told by a military officer assigned to support her after her husband’s death that he was ineligible for those benefits because “we were not at war.”

“My husband lost his life because we’re in a war, and then I was told that because it’s not technically a war, we lose out on something,” Klinner told the Associated Press. “It all comes down to principle.”

Trump administration is rejecting the ‘war’ label for current Iran operations

Her post, made over the weekend, gained national attention. Vice President JD Vance promised to look into her case after being asked about it during a White House briefing on Thursday.

“We want to be as helpful as we can and ensure she gets everything that she is entitled to,” Vance said. “My message to her would be, ‘We love ya, we’re grateful for the sacrifice and we very much take very seriously our commitment to get you what you need to get.’”

In response to a separate question, Vance rejected the use of the word “war” to characterize U.S. fighting in Iran, saying that “there is no active shooting.” The military has launched strikes against targets in Iran twice this week, and Iran has retaliated by firing on U.S. allies in the Gulf.

On Friday, President Trump called U.S. strikes “intermittent” and defended Vance’s comments.

“I call it a military conflict because it’s small potatoes for us,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office.

In late July, the Trump administration created a new, separate category in the Pentagon’s casualty count system for those killed and wounded in renewed U.S.-Iran fighting. Pentagon officials said the change was necessary because “Operation Epic Fury,” the original name for combat operations against Tehran, had ended. Since July 7, all U.S. casualties in the Middle East have been tallied under “Overseas Operations.”

Widow says the Air Force has clarified the issues about her husband’s pay

Libby Klinner said Air Force officials contacted her this week to say they were initiating a review of her husband’s pay. The Air Force acknowledged to her Thursday that it had initially provided inaccurate information and clarified that she was receiving the full pay and benefits her husband was owed, she said.

She said she was told that her husband’s paycheck had already included but incorrectly itemized the combat-related hazard pay and tax breaks.

The pay incentives commonly known as “combat pay” are $225 per month and are conditioned not on a formal war declaration, but on the service member being in an area where there is “grave danger of physical injury” or of being “killed, injured, or wounded by a hostile fire event,” according to a military website.

Alex Klinner’s final paycheck would have included half that amount since troops are paid twice per month. It is difficult to calculate how much in federal tax breaks Klinner would have been receiving without more information.

Klinner declined to specify the amount of money she was initially told her husband, an eight-year Air Force veteran from Birmingham, Ala., would be ineligible to receive.

The Air Force says it’s committed to offering information and support

The Air Force said officials spoke with Klinner this week to “ensure all her questions are fully addressed” and confirmed that “all eligible combat theater benefits were included” in her husband’s pay.

“We remain committed to providing clear information and continued support to Mrs. Klinner, as well as all the families of the Airmen who died in the KC-135 crash,” the Air Force added.

Broadly, errors in pay in the military are very common because service members can often gain or lose eligibility for a variety of payments depending on their deployment status, duty location or even family factors. As a result, unlike their civilian counterparts, some troops can see their paychecks change many times a year, depending on many factors — something that also increases the likelihood of errors.

A GoFundMe for Libby Klinner and her three young children, launched in the days after her husband’s death, has raised more than $1.5 million.

Klinner said she hoped that by speaking out, she could ensure other grieving families receive clear information from the outset.

“I am very fortunate to have a significant support system around us and a platform to advocate for myself and for my kids. Other families may not have those resources,” she said. “If I can do anything to make this awful situation a little bit easier for someone else to navigate, then I am more than willing to do so.”

Brook and Toropin write for the Associated Press. Brook reported from New Orleans.

Source link

Judge again halts USPS mail ballot plan

A federal judge again Friday blocked the U.S. Postal Service from enacting President Trump’s sweeping new mail ballot rules for the November election, finding that the Postal Service lacks such authority over elections and that neither it nor states such as California are capable of implementing the changes without causing chaos and disenfranchising voters.

U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani noted that election officials from across the country told the court that it is “likely impossible” to comply with the rules, which “makes disenfranchisement more than likely, if not probable” if the Postal Service were to proceed with them.

Talwani’s order — her latest of several halting the plan since this summer — came after a Postal Service whistleblower alleged the agency’s new computer systems for the project are fundamentally flawed; a top Postal Service official acknowledged a key online portal was unfinished; and the Trump administration filed an emergency petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the plans to proceed anyway.

All this unfolded this week as some of the first mail ballots of the election cycle started going out.

The new rules — which Trump required in a March executive order — would require states to submit complete voter lists to the Postal Service and to adopt new ballot envelopes with individualized voter bar codes designed by the Postal Service, and empower the Postal Service to reject any mail ballots that don’t match those lists.

Trump’s executive order also required the Department of Homeland Security to develop its own lists of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to be compared against the state lists.

Trump has said the changes are necessary to combat widespread voter fraud, including by non-citizens, though independent election experts say there is no evidence that such fraud exists in large numbers.

Leading Democrats and elections officials in California and other states say the new rules constitute an unlawful federal overreach into state-run elections and a thinly veiled effort by the Trump administration to suppress the vote in a midterm election the GOP is poised to lose.

Talwani, an appointee of President Obama, agreed, finding that the states and voting rights groups are likely to succeed in their claims that the U.S. Constitution reserves the right to regulate elections to the states and Congress — not the executive branch.

Talwani issued her order after holding a contentious hearing in federal court in Boston on Thursday, where she questioned the Postal Service and the dozen conservative-led states supporting it on their ability to implement the changes in time for the Nov. 3 elections. She also heard from California, other liberal-led states and voting rights groups that it would be impossible.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, whose office is helping lead the states’ challenge, hailed Talwani’s order as a crucial reprieve.

“We’ve now secured longer-term relief that will keep the USPS changes blocked while our case moves forward,” Bonta said in a statement to The Times. “We will continue to take all steps to stop the Trump Administration from trampling on voting rights and restricting mail voting.”

Bonta’s office also criticized Department of Justice attorneys for rushing to the Supreme Court before Talwani could issue her order or the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals could weigh in on an appeal the department had already filed on the matter.

Walter Garcia, a Bonta spokesman, said the Justice Department had “flouted standard procedural rules” by approaching the high court before the lower courts had weighed in, despite the fact that the Postal Service acknowledged Thursday that it was not ready to launch its new portal.

“It defies common sense that they would seek emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court when USPS is unprepared to implement the rule now,” Garcia said.

State law requires that all registered voters be sent a ballot in the mail, and more than 80% of California voters have used those ballots to vote in recent elections.

In its emergency petition to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argued that an earlier temporary restraining order by Talwani to halt the new rules from taking effect was “baseless” and would cause “serious irreparable harm” to the federal government, states and voting public.

“To forestall those harms and protect the public interest, this Court should grant an immediate stay, making clear to States that they should begin efforts to comply if they have not done so already,” wrote Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

The swirl of litigation has created uncertainty around the Nov. 3 election. It also reflects the Trump administration’s desperate race to get the lower court orders lifted and the new rules implemented in time for that election — the rushed nature of which was a prime focus of the whistleblower.

The unidentified Postal Service employee alleged in a statement released Tuesday by congressional Democrats and submitted in court by Bonta’s office that the agency has been rushing to implement the changes — in defiance of an earlier court order — using “an entirely new and untested set of IT systems” that could cause “catastrophic problems” and disenfranchise millions of voters nationwide.

The Postal Service in a statement Friday said that while its system was developed on an “accelerated schedule,” quality and security standards “were not compromised,” and the agency stands behind “both the rigor of our process and the resulting system.”

At Thursday’s hearing, Talwani appeared frustrated when a Justice Department attorney was unable to tell her the status of the portal.

In a subsequent declaration hours later, Steven W. Monteith, the Postal Service’s chief customer and marketing officer, said officials were still making “refinements” to the portal, but anticipated being able to make it available “for voluntary use by sometime next week.”

Talwani previously issued an order blocking the Postal Service changes from being implemented in California and more than 20 other suing states in June. The Trump administration appealed that decision to the 1st Circuit, which declined to lift it, and then on an emergency basis to the U.S. Supreme Court. In early August, Talwani issued a second ruling for the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, blocking the changes nationwide.

On Aug. 24, the Supreme Court set aside Talwani’s order in the states’ case, finding that the states’ challenge was essentially premature because the Postal Service had yet to formally initiate the changes or require state compliance. However, the court explicitly noted that it was not reaching any conclusions as to the legality of the pending rules themselves. “On that score, time will tell,” it said.

The states and voting rights groups promptly filed new lawsuits challenging the legality of the rules, which the Postal Service formally issued Aug. 21. And it is in those cases that Talwani issued her ruling Friday.

She wrote that the voting rights groups had standing to challenge the Postal Service rules nationwide in part because the “chaos” created by the rules’ stiff deadlines significantly interfered with their mission to provide voters with accurate and reliable information about how to vote — and whether to use mail ballots to do so.

David Becker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, said in remarks prior to Talwani’s Friday order that he was “very, very confident” that the Postal Service changes will be blocked for the upcoming elections, and that “mail voting is going to go forward as conveniently and securely as it always has.”

That’s in part because election officials nationwide are “telling the courts that even if they wanted to, they could not implement it,” he said — including in a legal filing Becker helped nearly 100 local elections officials from red and blue states file in separate litigation challenging the rules.

Source link

Lawrence F. O’Brien, 73; He Was Target of 1972 Watergate Break-In

Lawrence F. O’Brien, who while serving as Democratic National Committee chairman was the target of the Watergate break-in that spelled the downfall of then-President Richard M. Nixon, has died in New York City. He was 73.

O’Brien, who also was a key strategist for four presidential election campaigns, a former U.S. postmaster general and a commissioner of the National Basketball Assn., died Thursday night of cancer in New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center.

His office was the scene of the June 17, 1972, bungled break-in that eventually led to Nixon’s resignation and the imprisonment of several of his aides. O’Brien believed that the Republican Party, seeking Nixon’s reelection against Democratic contender George McGovern, authorized the burglary in search of information to discredit him and the Democrats.

Nixon’s White House papers released by the National Archives in 1987 revealed that in 1974, Nixon had asked the Internal Revenue Service to search for embarrassing information in the income tax files of McGovern and O’Brien. The IRS refused.

O’Brien called the break-in “an incredible act of political espionage” and urged citizens to reject the claim that the incident and other “tricks” ordered by Nixon were “politics as usual.”

O’Brien also expressed concerns that the Watergate scandal would turn the public against the political process. In 1974, he discussed the implications of Watergate in his critically acclaimed memoir, “No Final Victories: A Life in Politics from John F. Kennedy to Watergate.”

“I’ve been a politician for most of my life and I’ve never dreamed of bugging an opponent’s telephone or breaking into his office,” O’Brien wrote. “If a generation of Americans becomes convinced that burglary and wiretapping are ‘politics as usual,’ then there’s not much hope for our political system.”

Born July 7, 1917, in Springfield, Mass., O’Brien was brought up on politics by his Irish immigrant father. After Army service in World War II and completing night law school at Boston’s Northeastern University, O’Brien worked for Massachusetts Rep. Foster Furcolo, and then, in 1952, took over John F. Kennedy’s campaign for the U.S. Senate.

Lauded for his pragmatic ability to organize and compromise, O’Brien was put in charge of Kennedy’s successful 1960 presidential campaign and later headed the ill-fated campaign by the President’s younger brother, Robert F. Kennedy. O’Brien was with both Kennedys when they were slain.

“I remember standing in the hospital with Ken O’Donnell (another member of President Kennedy’s so-called ‘Kennedy Mafia’) for a half-hour, refusing to tell the world he was dead–because we couldn’t accept it,” O’Brien told the Los Angeles Times 20 years after the Dallas assassination of John F. Kennedy.

“But then, years later, I was with Bobby in Los Angeles when he, too, was shot,” O’Brien added. “My reaction was: ‘That’s it.’ At that moment, I became a fatalist.”

After President Kennedy was assassinated, O’Brien worked for Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, and ran Johnson’s successful 1964 presidential campaign against Barry Goldwater.

Johnson named him postmaster general and, in that position, O’Brien prepared a report that moved the postal department from Cabinet status to a semi-public corporation.

After Robert Kennedy was assassinated in 1968, O’Brien headed the presidential campaign of Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, who lost to Nixon.

O’Brien served as chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 1970 to 1972, when the party was in shambles because of anti-Vietnam debates. He left politics after McGovern was defeated by Nixon.

O’Brien became commissioner of the NBA in 1975 and served until 1984. He was credited with settling the so-called “Oscar Robertson suit” in 1976, providing free agency in the league, and with supervising a smooth merger between the NBA and the rival American Basketball Assn.

He also avoided a 1983 players’ strike by negotiating a landmark collective bargaining agreement for professional sports. The agreement, which stabilized the troubled league, provided an innovative cap on how much money teams could spend on salaries and benefits in return for giving players 53% of the league’s gross revenues.

Larry Fleisher, head of the Players Assn. and one of O’Brien’s chief adversaries, said O’Brien left the sport of basketball “better off by far” than he had found it.

O’Brien is survived by his wife, Elva Brassard O’Brien; a son, Lawrence F. O’Brien III; a sister, and two grandsons.

Funeral services are planned for Tuesday in Springfield, Mass.

RELATED STORY, C5

Source link

FCC asks court to reject ABC’s 1st Amendment claims

The Federal Communications Commission has asked a judge to toss out ABC’s 1st Amendment lawsuit, arguing that parent company Walt Disney Co. is wrongly attempting to short-circuit the agency’s review into whether the broadcaster has violated the law.

The commission, in court documents, maintains ABC’s lawsuit was premature because regulators simply were in the process of reviewing whether ABC has served the public interest in operating its eight television stations. No final determination has been reached, the FCC argued.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr made the rare move last spring to call for an early review of ABC’s licenses as part of his yearlong look at whether Disney’s diversity and inclusion programs violate anti-discrimination laws.

The Disney-owned station licenses were not set to expire for several years. For example, the license for KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles extends to 2030.

But the FCC launched the probe a day after President Trump complained about ABC late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel over a joke that upset First Lady Melania Trump.

ABC has taken an aggressive stance, arguing the FCC is wielding its enforcement powers to punish the network after Trump repeatedly agitated to have ABC’s licenses revoked. ABC maintains the FCC’s enforcement action is an attempt to quell the network’s free speech, in violation of the 1st Amendment. It asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order and injunction to halt the FCC’s early station review.

ABC also is fighting an FCC review into whether its daytime talk show, “The View,” should be entitled to an exemption from the so-called equal-time rule for political candidates who appear as guests.

Disney’s lawsuit has enormous 1st Amendment implications.

ABC is the first major broadcaster to challenge the FCC’s enforcement actions since Trump returned to power, joining a small handful of news organizations, including the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal, that have pushed back against the president’s efforts to bully outlets he dislikes.

In late December, Trump wrote on social media: “If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows are almost 100% negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party, shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say YES!”

ABC, which did not comment Friday, argued the FCC’s review is “extraordinarily early” and “that timing underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.”

The FCC has scoffed at the broadcaster’s arguments.

“Disney filed a meritless lawsuit in an effort to stop the FCC’s ongoing investigation into allegations that Disney violated the law,” an FCC spokesperson said in a statement. “The FCC has developed a voluminous record, and it will continue to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”

The government filed its motion Thursday in Washington. The 46-page document was filed by U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro and signed by Assistant U.S. Atty. Dimitar P. Georgiev on behalf of the FCC.

Disney was “not content to let the Commission’s ordinary investigative processes (and, if needed, ordinary processes of judicial review) run their course. They instead ask this Court to halt the license renewal proceeding in its tracks by issuing a preliminary injunction,” the FCC said.

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan has scheduled an Oct. 6 hearing.

Disney has argued the FCC has gone well beyond an examination of its internal hiring practices — the original purpose of the agency’s review.

But, in its motion, the FCC faulted Disney’s handling of the matter, saying “Disney’s responses to Commission information requests were deficient and nonresponsive,” prompting the agency to escalate the dispute.

In late April, Carr directed the FCC Media Bureau to force ABC to apply for renewal of their licenses early.

“The Commission’s Chairman has repeatedly emphasized that, although the allegations against Disney are serious, he and the agency remain ‘open-minded,’ have ‘not made a decision,’ and are ‘going to follow the facts and the law wherever they [lead],’ ” according to the motion.

The FCC also argued Disney picked the wrong court because Congress stipulated that any review of commission orders should be heard by an appeals court.

If ABC lost its licenses, it would hobble the network by forcing its largest stations off the air. Other ABC stations at risk include those in San Francisco, Fresno, Houston, Philadelphia and New York.

KABC-TV Channel 7 is owned by Disney in Glendale.

KABC-TV Channel 7 is owned by Disney in Glendale.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Trump on Sunday called for the FCC to “rebuke or punish” NBC’s “Meet the Press” anchor Kristen Welker after she pointed out that the president has had mixed success in endorsing political candidates in this election season.

The FCC also has an open investigation against NBC owner Comcast, also looking at the Philadelphia company’s diversity and hiring practices. The FCC has not ruled out calling NBC-owned station licenses in for an early review as well.

Source link

Trump names Adam Telle as acting Army secretary following the departure of Driscoll

Jonathan J. Cooper and Ben Finley

President Trump on Thursday named Adam Telle, a civilian leader in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as the acting Army secretary following the departure of Dan Driscoll amid widespread reports of tensions with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Telle is currently the assistant secretary of the Army for civil works. But he spent more than 20 years working for Republican senators as well as in the White House during Trump’s first term, serving as the president’s chief liaison to the Senate, according to an Army bio.

“He is a Great Patriot, who is respected by all,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post.

Hegseth echoed that in his own post on X.

“Huge congrats to Adam. Strong and whip smart,” Hegseth wrote. “He is indeed a great Patriot — and will be an immediate asset to the @USArmy.”

Driscoll gave no explanation for his decision to quit this week as the Army’s top civilian official. His clashes with Hegseth have been widely reported, and some of Driscoll’s allies in the Army were ousted this year by Trump’s Pentagon chief.

Telle has been at the Army Office of Civil Works since August 2025, according to Legistorm, a website that tracks lawmakers and Capitol Hill staffers. Before that, Telle worked as chief of staff for Republican Sen. Bill Hagerty of Tennessee from 2021-25.

Telle spent 18 months working in the White House during Trump’s first term and 10 years working for the late Republican Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, according to Legistorm.

Telle also worked as the chief staff member on the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Homeland Security Subcommittee, according to Hagerty’s remarks when Telle was nominated for the civil works job in May 2025.

In his most recent job, Telle focused on matters involving commercial navigation, flood damage reduction and permitting under the Clean Water Act. Telle issued a statement in August about the approval of a company’s plans to reroute an aging oil pipeline around a Wisconsin tribal reservation. In May, he was quoted in a story in the Forum, a newspaper in Fargo, N.D., about a $3.2-billion flood control project that will protect more than 200,000 people.

Telle will now be overseeing the nation’s largest fighting force at a time when the U.S. is still engaged in conflict with Iran and significant Army forces are stationed in the Middle East.

The war has significantly contributed to the U.S. military’s shortfall in critical weapons like the Patriot and THAAD defense missile interceptors systems, which are operated by the Army.

Driscoll, an Army veteran who served in Iraq, is a friend of Vice President JD Vance and had good relationships with both Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

His allies in the Army who were ousted by Hegseth included its top uniformed leader, Gen. Randy George. Gen. Christopher LaNeve took over as the Army’s acting chief of staff and recently pulled the plug on a drone modernization program that Driscoll had championed.

Driscoll spoke with Trump on the current state of the Army before he submitted his resignation, the Associated Press has reported.

Driscoll did not allude to any problems in the only public statement on his departure, saying Tuesday that it has been “the honor of a lifetime” to serve as Army secretary under Trump and Hegseth.

Democrats and Republicans lamented Driscoll’s departure, with some blaming Hegseth directly.

Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who is retiring and sometimes has clashed with Trump, said on social media that Hegseth “is creating a leadership void at the top of our military ranks.”

Cooper and Finley write for the Associated Press.

Source link

Vance says Iran fight isn’t a ‘war’ as Trump tries to navigate unpopular conflict as election nears

Vice President JD Vance rejected the use of the word “war” to describe the U.S. fighting with Iran as he steered clear of predicting that the six-month-old conflict would be over by November’s midterm elections, in which Republicans are trying to hang on to their narrow majorities in Congress.

“I wouldn’t call it a war,” Vance said Thursday after being asked during a White House press briefing about whether the fighting could end before voters cast their ballots in the Nov. 3 congressional elections. “Right now, there is no active shooting.”

Vance’s assertion came even as Iran fired at U.S. Gulf ally Kuwait on Thursday as it continued to retaliate for rounds of U.S. strikes on Iran earlier in the week.

The vice president said the U.S. had a “responsibility” to carry out this week’s strikes because Iran continued to target commercial vessels passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

Vance’s attempt to minimize the intensity of the fighting illuminates the difficult task at hand for Trump and his administration as he tries to persuade American voters to keep Republicans in control of Congress, even as the unpopular conflict — one the White House said at its outset would last a matter of weeks — has driven up gas prices and left consumers grappling with higher inflation.

Vance said he didn’t want to set “artificial timelines.”

“But when you ask, ‘When will this end?’ You’re asking me a question like, ‘When will the Iranians stop shooting at ships?’” Vance said. “I think the reality is, I don’t know the answer to that question. You would have to ask the Iranians.”

The administration in July faced scrutiny after it reclassified four fallen soldiers as well as dozens of wounded troops in its Defense Casualty Analysis System, which Pentagon officials have repeatedly pointed to as the definitive source on the numbers of dead and wounded from the conflict. Those killed or wounded in fighting after a brief ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran fell apart were classified in a new category called “Overseas Operations” after initially being tallied in the totals from the war.

White House insists more oil is getting out of Gulf, but prices remain high

Brent crude prices hovered above $95 per barrel Thursday. The international benchmark was around $72 per barrel the day before the conflict began.

Still, Trump and his aides have sought to push that the U.S. Navy is in control of the Strait of Hormuz, where about 20% of the world’s traded oil passed before the war. They insist a near prewar level of Gulf oil is now making its way out of the critical waterway.

Vance at Thursday’s press briefing said the U.S. escorted about 15 million barrels of oil on Wednesday. This was after Energy Secretary Chris Wright told CNBC on Wednesday that 17 million barrels were carried through the strait on Monday with assistance from the U.S. Navy. About 20 million barrels of Gulf oil flowed through the strait prior to the start of the war.

But ship traffic through the strait remains well below prewar levels, according to independent firms that track marine traffic.

There were 102 transits last week and 126 the week before, according to shipping data company Lloyd’s List Intelligence, compared with 130 or more per day before the war.

Over the past 28 days, 5 million barrels a day have exited the strait on average, according to TankerTrackers.com. Other recent estimates have varied from 2 million barrels per day to 6 million barrels per day.

Trump has tried to soothe volatile markets

Over the course of the war, Trump has repeatedly reported progress in negotiations or called off threats of military action at the last moment when global markets have become jittery. And markets have reacted swiftly to his public signals of peace or hints of progress.

“The administration is still jawboning oil markets,” said Rosemary Kelanic, Middle East director at Defense Priorities, of the administration’s claims of dramatically increased flows of oil. “And they appear to be doing it again to keep prices from going too high, so that they can extend the timeline before there’s a worse price spike.”

With Iran’s refusal to back down in the face of the U.S. military campaign, Trump has settled on a dual-prong approach that combines economic pressure with threats of an escalation in force, if necessary.

Trump has consistently emphasized that the campaign launched by the U.S. and Israel has been devastating for Iran’s navy and air force. Iranian officials have said the country has suffered $270 billion in direct and indirect damage. Israeli military strikes in the first weeks of the war wiped out much of the theocratic government’s leadership structure, including its Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Still, Iran has found leverage through its own strikes on the strait and Gulf allies of the United States. But the administration has sought to make the case that the waterway will become less important by the day, even as it asserts that more oil is getting through.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said in a Fox Business interview this week that the Strait of Hormuz will become a “worthless piece of water” within two years as new land pipelines planned for the region bypass the energy chokepoint. Trump himself took to social media on Thursday to highlight a news report about Syria’s effort to transform the port of Baniyas on the Mediterranean coast into a westward route to international markets for Gulf exporters.

Meanwhile, Iran and Oman have recently discussed a phased approach to jointly managing ship traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Trump settles into holding pattern before midterms, analysts say

The administration maintains it’s making progress economically choking off Iranian hard-liners, including the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. At the moment, it would be a leap for Trump to agree to any plan that puts Iran in position to claim control of the strait, analysts say.

“I find it hard to believe the president would agree to anything that hands back any modicum of IRGC control over the strait that has been wrested away,” said Richard Goldberg, who served as a senior adviser on Iran policy in Trump’s first administration.

Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said Iran does not appear ready to “let Trump out of the box” despite the massive pain being inflicted on its economy.

At the same time, Miller said, Trump seems to have settled into a holding pattern ahead of the midterms — one in which he avoids both a return to the full-throttle bombardment of Iran and making any accommodations to Tehran on the Strait of Hormuz.

“The White House doesn’t want a massive war, and they don’t want to be seen as offering massive concessions,” Miller said. “The tack they are taking avoids both of those things.”

Madhani writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Jonathan J. Cooper and Josh Boak in Washington and David McHugh in Frankfurt, Germany, contributed to this report.

Source link

Dole Ties White House to ‘$23-Million Lie’ : Presidency: Clinton is forced to retreat over joke about the GOP leader’s action on boathouse project after lawmaker issues angry accusation.

President Clinton was forced to retreat Monday in the face of Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole’s angry accusation that the White House had told “a $23-million lie” about a project in his state.

The White House said that Clinton “regrets” any misunderstandings caused by “hyperbole” in a barbed joke the President told that brought the house down Saturday at an annual black-tie dinner hosted by White House correspondents.

Clinton had said that the Republican lawmaker from Kansas was seeking $23 million from the federal government to convert a senior citizens’ center into a boathouse, at the same time that he was assailing Clinton for wasteful “pork barrel” spending.

Dole, who led the Republican battle that scuttled Clinton’s economic stimulus package, first challenged the accuracy of the statement in a television interview show Sunday but he seemed confused about the details. Monday, he flatly denied the claim and issued a belated blast.

“The White House lied,” Dole said, carefully avoiding a direct attack on the President himself. “There’s no $23-million boathouse, no deficit spending, no new money, no connection with the President’s deadbeat ‘stimulus’ bill and no truth coming from a White House staff that is ill-serving the President with these sophomoric attacks.”

Dole said that he had sought a federal waiver to clear the way for privately funded construction of a public boathouse in Wichita.

“If the White House wants to play hardball, I’m ready to suit up,” Dole concluded, sending an ominous signal that the issue could spill over into future relations with Senate Republicans.

George Stephanopoulos, the White House communications director, issued a statement late Monday afternoon.

“The President regrets the misunderstanding that may have been caused by any hyperbole in his jokes at Saturday’s White House dinner,” he said.

“While Sen. Dole did make the case that the Wichita boathouse is a legitimate Community Development Block Grant project, the potential cost to the taxpayer is not as high as stated in the President’s joke,” the statement concluded.

While the war of words may be forgotten, the harshly worded statement by Dole signaled that the lack of harmony between the Senate GOP leader and the Clinton White House could affect the future of the President’s programs in Congress.

Dole is in a key position as commander of 43 Republicans and as a member of the Senate Finance Committee, where the defection from party ranks of a single Democratic senator could block Clinton’s proposed tax increases.

As Dole described the situation, Wichita received $500,000 from the federal government’s Community Development Block Grant program in 1980 to help the city buy a building for use as a senior citizen center.

The center, however, moved to a larger facility in 1992, and the building along the Arkansas River has been standing vacant since then.

Wichita officials, Dole continued, wanted to lease the building to a charitable foundation that intends to use private funds to transform it into a boathouse. To change the use of the building, however, the city was required to seek a waiver from the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Dole and Rep. Dan Glickman (D-Kan.), who represents the area in the House, supported the city’s request for a waiver in letters to a HUD regional official. HUD had planned to tear the building down.

The Wichita Eagle Monday quoted an official of the charity, the Arkansas River Foundation, as saying that the boathouse project would cost $850,000 and the funds would come from donations and not the federal government.

“The White House really missed the boat on this one,” Dole said.

Source link

Which California megaprojects get breaks from complying with environmental law? Sometimes, it depends on the project

Year after year, owners of professional sports teams and developers of proposed skyscrapers have pleaded with California lawmakers to grant relief for their projects from the state’s environmental regulations. They’ve found a largely receptive audience.

“It’s a job creator,” Assemblyman Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) told his colleagues while successfully pressing earlier this month for approval of his bill that could speed up an expansion of Facebook’s headquarters and the construction of twin skyscrapers in Hollywood.

The passage of Santiago’s bill highlighted a continually messy debate at the state Capitol concerning which projects deserve breaks from strictly complying with the California Environmental Quality Act, the primary environmental law governing development. The law, known as CEQA, requires developers to disclose and reduce projects’ effects on the environment, often a time-consuming and costly process made longer by lawsuits that can last years.

Legislators have long talked about overhauling CEQA — Gov. Jerry Brown has called doing so “the Lord’s work” — but the rare measures that advance often only provide relief for deep-pocketed developers or have the backing of Sacramento’s most powerful interests.

Earlier this month, GOP Assemblyman Dante Acosta pushed to ease burdens under CEQA for all housing projects amid the state’s affordability crisis. But his effort was rebuffed in a legislative committee.

“A good project is a good project, whether it’s housing for middle-class Californians or a stadium for millionaire athletes and billionaire owners,” said Acosta, who represents Santa Clarita.

Since its enactment in 1970, CEQA has become a touchstone for environmentalists who credit it for preserving California’s coastline and natural beauty. Its rules are written so broadly that the law also has become a tool for neighborhood preservationists, business competitors, unions and others to oppose a wide-range of projects including some, like bike lanes, that might otherwise seem environmentally friendly.

Housing has become a particular flashpoint. In Acosta’s district, developers have proposed the 21,500-home Newhall Ranch project, which has been stymied by environmental lawsuits during the more than two decades it’s been under consideration. On Monday, some environmental groups reached an agreement to end their lawsuits against the project in exchange for $25 million for conservation efforts and other concessions from the developer.

Developers of low-income homes also struggle with litigation filed by neighborhood groups and others that use the law simply to oppose their projects, but not on environmental grounds, said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, which represents such developers.

“CEQA is used as a weapon and the environment is lost in the shuffle,” Pearl said.

This year, bills that passed the Legislature had a common theme: the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, which represents 400,000 construction workers, supported them.

Santiago’s bill updates an existing law allowing any project that costs more than $100 million to build and meets union-level wage and greenhouse gas reduction standards to aim for a final court decision in any CEQA lawsuit within nine months. The Golden State Warriors used this law for the team’s arena now under construction in San Francisco. Facebook has said it plans to use the law to speed up the expansion of its Menlo Park headquarters. So has Millennium Partners, a New York developer that wants to spend $1 billion to build 500 homes and a 200-room hotel and provide office and retail space around the Capitol Records building in Hollywood.

The housing legislation approved at the end of the legislative session also allows some developers to sidestep the environmental law in limited situations. One bill says cities must approve projects that comply with existing zoning rules without forcing developers through additional CEQA reviews. Two other bills provide cities financial incentives to complete environmental reviews of entire neighborhoods so developers won’t have to do them later for their projects. In all three cases, developers will only qualify if they reserve parts of their projects for low-income residents and abide by union-level pay and hiring rules.

Another bill, authored by Assemblyman Jose Medina (D-Riverside), would block developers from pursuing local ballot initiatives to get their projects approved, a process that allows them to avoid CEQA entirely. That method allowed the Rams to secure approval for their Inglewood football stadium in just six weeks, something unheard of in California development politics.

Cesar Diaz, the building trades’ legislative director, said labor’s involvement in CEQA policy ensures that the profits from growth are shared more widely.

“When you look at environmental standards and look at creating benefits for the economy, the people who benefit shouldn’t just be the developer,” Diaz said. “It should be those building the project.”

How much the environmental law affects housing production is disputed. A recent report from a law firm that promotes overhauling CEQA contended that litigation from 2013 to 2015 challenged more 10,000 homes in Southern California neighborhoods planned for the most growth. A counter report from environmentalists found few projects were sued when compared with the rate of development.

Still, it’s clear the environmental law matters. Backers of a proposed Inglewood arena for the Clippers put forward a last-minute bill that would have given them CEQA relief beyond what many prior professional sports stadium and arena developers have received from the Legislature. The Clippers legislation would have shortened court-decision timelines and limited a judge’s ability to halt construction during any environmental lawsuit against the project, while offering a full CEQA exemption for a transit link between a light-rail stop and the arena.

The Clippers and opponents of the bill — chiefly the owners of the rival Forum arena in Inglewood — each hired an army of lobbyists. The team argued that if the bill didn’t pass, its competitors could drown the proposed arena in CEQA litigation.

The measure stalled in a legislative committee, leaving its author, state Sen. Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), deeply frustrated. In a speech on the final night of the legislative session, Bradford argued that his colleagues have decided to prioritize CEQA relief for projects proposed in wealthier communities, not lower-income neighborhoods with predominantly black and Latino residents.

“There is clearly a double standard and this situation is not just wrong, it’s racist,” Bradford said. “The well-to-do areas of this state are given much more help, and economically disadvantaged areas around the state, such as the areas that I represent, do not receive the same support.”

Brown has pledged to sign the three CEQA-related housing bills as part of a larger package of legislation aimed at addressing the state’s housing problems. He has not commented on the Santiago or Medina bills, but has supported prior versions of the Santiago effort. The governor has until Oct. 15 to approve or veto the legislation.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

Twitter: @dillonliam

ALSO

Facebook and real estate developer pitch state lawmakers on speedier environmental review cases

The housing package passed by California lawmakers is the biggest thing they’ve done in years. But it won’t lower your rent

California bill aims to make it harder for megaprojects to sidestep state environmental law

Updates on California politics



Source link

ICE officer lied about shovel and broom attack before Minnesota shooting, Justice Department alleges

Valerie Gonzalez and Alanna Durkin Richer

A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer falsely told investigators he was being attacked with a broom and shovel before he shot and wounded a Venezuelan man during the Minnesota immigration crackdown last winter, according to a federal indictment unsealed Friday.

Christian Castro is charged with six counts of making false statements to investigators in the first Justice Department prosecution of a federal officer for actions taken during this year’s massive Operation Metro Surge. The operation brought thousands of agents to the Twin Cities and led to sweeping protests, arrests and the fatal shootings of two U.S. citizens by federal officers.

The allegations in the federal indictment mirror those brought by Minnesota officials, who have separately charged Castro with assault and false reporting of a crime related to the nonfatal shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in January.

Castro turned himself into federal authorities Thursday evening following his release from jail last week because Texas’ governor refused to immediately sign an extradition warrant to hand him over to Minnesota authorities.

According to the federal indictment, Castro told an FBI agent that a man grabbed a red broom off the front porch and began hitting him with it. Castro also claimed that another man hit him with a snow shovel. Castro said he opened fire while on the ground as the men ran away.

The indictment alleges that Castro had a short “physical interaction” with Sosa-Celis and another man, before the two ran into a home with a 1-year-old child inside. Castro then fired a shot through the front door while standing as the men began to close it, hitting Sosa-Celis in the leg, the indictment says.

“No person struck” Castro “with a broom as he described, and no persons wielded the broom and snow shovel as he described,” the indictment says.

No attorney is listed for Castro in the case brought by Minnesota and it was not immediately clear if he had a lawyer to speak on his behalf.

Federal prosecutors had initially charged Sosa-Celis and the other man, Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, with assault but dropped the charges after video evidence showed the officer may have lied about the encounter. Castro was suspended from ICE in February while authorities pursued an investigation.

The federal investigation into Castro created turmoil inside the Justice Department, with a prosecutor on the case accusing higher ups of blocking efforts to bring more serious civil rights charges.

In an email obtained by ProPublica, the prosecutor told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and others that Castro would be charged only with making false statements over his “strongest objections,” adding the decision was “being directed by the Main Justice and the US Attorney.”

A person familiar with the investigation, however, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the civil rights probe is ongoing and that additional charges could still be brought.

The prosecutor, Matthew Evans, has since been fired and the Justice Department is now investigating whether he broke any laws during his handling of the case, said the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not publicly authorized to discuss ongoing investigations.

An automatic email response from Evans’ Justice Department account said he was on leave, and other attempts to reach him were not immediately successful.

Sosa-Celis’ lawyer is pressing for Castro to face stiffer charges, saying in a statement on Thursday that Castro’s statements were made to “cover up the fact that he shot my client through the door of an occupied house without a self-defense justification.”

“Mr. Sosa Celis wants Mr. Castro to be held fully accountable for his crimes,” said the attorney, Robin Wolpert. The American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota said Thursday that Sosa-Celis also plans to seek damages from the federal government.

Gonzalez and Richer write for the Associated Press. Richer reported from Washington.

Source link

Arizona group home provider at center of pay-to-play scandal escapes penalties for boy’s death

The staff caring for Jakob Blodgett said he already had been sneaking candy and refused to take his insulin. An employee at the Arizona group home where the 9-year-old boy was being cared for texted a supervisor about the boy’s elevated blood-glucose reading.

The response? Give him water.

After two missed doses of the long-lasting insulin he needed, he was taken to the hospital. He was diagnosed with brain swelling, put on a ventilator and died in 2022 of complications from Type 1 diabetes.

There were no penalties imposed for Blodgett’s death, and Arizona’s largest group home provider now stands at the center of a political controversy swirling as Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs seeks reelection. Records show Sunshine Residential Homes made political donations beneficial to Hobbs and months later received a rate increase from the state for providing beds for children.

The Arizona attorney general, a fellow Democrat, found no evidence of bribery. But Republican legislators are pushing back with their own questions, and the state auditor general’s office is conducting a separate investigation.

The boy’s death and the pay-to-play allegations highlight questions about Arizona’s congregate-care capacity for children, training for workers who care for them and oversight of providers and other contractors who hold leverage over the state simply due to their size and influence.

Alleged political favors become campaign fodder

Hobbs maintains she wasn’t involved in the decision to increase rates for Sunshine Residential Homes. But Republican challenger, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, has made the scandal a centerpiece of his campaign to unseat her.

“That was all handled by the department,” Hobbs said, “and they made the decision based on what was in the best interest of the department and the kids in their care.”

The allegations were first reported by The Arizona Republic and prompted an investigation by Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes. However, Mayes’ office said it couldn’t find evidence to support bribery charges against Hobbs and concluded that Sunshine’s rate increases were the result of its “outsized leverage” as the state’s largest group home provider, not because of politics.

The company had threatened to reduce its bed capacity if it didn’t get an increase, saying it would instead use beds to house unaccompanied immigrant children for the federal government, officials said. Child welfare officials have said a reduction in Sunshine’s beds would significantly affect the state’s ability to place children in homes and would likely lead to siblings in foster care being split up and sent to different homes.

In all, Sunshine made $550,000 in contributions, including $100,000 to Hobbs’ inaugural fund in December 2022 and $150,000 to a legal defense fund for Hobbs between November 2023 and May 2024, according to records.

A separate investigation by the state auditor general’s office and Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell, a Republican, is continuing.

The Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office also has interviewed several Sunshine employees as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into Blodgett’s death. No one has been charged.

Blodgett isn’t the only diabetic child to die after a stay at an Arizona group home. In July 2024, a 15-year-old boy staying at a group home in Mesa operated by another company died of diabetic ketoacidosis after staff said the boy refused to take insulin, according to records.

Text messages outline concerns over a diabetic coma

Blodgett was staying at a foster home in metro Phoenix where only the house manager was trained in managing his diabetes.

Staff members said the boy was refusing to take his medicine. The manager advised an employee via text to tell the boy that the manager would be called if he refused to take his medicine.

“We don’t want him to go into a diabetic coma,” the manager texted.

The employee texted back about whether the child should get insulin. The manager didn’t respond.

The next day, the employee texted the boy’s blood glucose reading to the manager and asked what to do. The manager said to give Blodgett water but didn’t give any instructions about insulin, according to lawyers for the state and Blodgett’s family. The day after missing his second dose, Blodgett was taken to a hospital.

Violation nets no penalties

Two weeks before approving a 30% rate increase in May 2023, the Arizona Department of Child Safety issued a licensing violation against Sunshine over Blodgett’s case. The agency declined to specify to The Associated Press which policy was violated.

Robert Pastor, an attorney representing the family in a wrongful death lawsuit, said the violation was for not giving Blodgett the insulin as prescribed. The lawyer said Sunshine’s staff missed the signs of ketoacidosis, a serious complication caused by a lack of insulin, and waited too long to take Blodgett to the hospital. He also disputed claims that the boy had refused medication.

The state didn’t fine Sunshine or suspend or revoke its license as a result of the violation, according to court records. The agency said it detailed the steps Sunshine had to take to come into compliance, but declined to reveal to the AP what those steps were.

Pastor agreed with the attorney general’s conclusion that Sunshine has a lot of leverage over the state due to reliance on the company’s beds.

“That leverage gave Sunshine an increased rate increase,” Pastor said. “We also know that that leverage that Sunshine has over DCS means that when they kill a child, there will be no consequences. There will be no accountability.”

In a statement, Sunshine spokesperson Tommy McKone said the wrongful death lawsuit remains active, but declined to comment on the licensing violation and the company’s policy on responding to children who refuse medications.

“Sunshine Residential followed all policies and procedures for the required care, throughout his stay at our homes, under state law,” McKone said.

In court records, lawyers for Sunshine said the state indicated Blodgett’s medical needs were minimal and didn’t inform the group home provider that Blodgett’s diabetes management was complex.

Boy was hospitalized before heading to group home

Blodgett went into foster care in December 2022 after his father was jailed on a drug charge. His blood glucose levels were high when he was brought to a welcome center operated by the Department of Child Safety, which sought medical help for Blodgett from a children’s hospital where he was treated over several days.

Once discharged, Blodgett went to a Sunshine home.

While he went two days without getting the long-lasting insulin he needed before going to bed, the staff did give him another type of insulin — fast-acting insulin after eating meals — over both days. After the boy missed a long-lasting dose, the house manager contacted the same hospital to talk about how to improve his blood glucose levels.

In a deposition, the house manager testified there was nothing the staff could do if the child refused his medication. Pastor said the claim that the boy refused insulin is a false narrative aimed at blaming the child.

More workers should have been trained

Myriam Villarreal, an official in the Department of Child Safety’s operation that licenses group homes, testified in an April 2025 deposition that Blodgett’s condition wasn’t caught in time because group home workers weren’t trained in spotting the signs of ketoacidosis.

Pressed on why the company didn’t face any penalties, Villarreal testified that the state asked for policy modifications from the company. And she said training should have been provided to the staff members who directly cared for the boy, not just the house manager.

“We didn’t look that every single staff (member) had the appropriate training,” Villarreal testified.

Billeaud writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Trump intensifies his push for arming teachers amid bipartisan criticism

President Trump on Thursday pressed his case for arming teachers to fight school shooters, despite widespread criticism, and for the first time suggested bonus payments for those who carry concealed firearms.

The president also called for making 21 the minimum age for buying long guns. Gun rights groups oppose raising age limits beyond 18 years, but Trump insisted he can sell the restriction to the “patriots” at the National Rifle Assn.

”I told them, we’re going to have to toughen” gun laws, Trump said, adding, “I really think the NRA wants to do what’s right.”

Trump elaborated on his ideas and other responses to last week’s Florida school massacre, starting with a series of morning tweets and continuing later at a White House roundtable on school safety with state and local officials. The televised session was much like one on Wednesday that Trump hosted with people touched by school shootings. Both offered a rare window into the president’s seemingly off-the-cuff thinking on gun policy, one of the nation’s most contentious issues.

Trump reserved most of his enthusiasm for bringing concealed-carry permits to American schools, to allow teachers, coaches and other officials to be armed against potential killers.

He repeatedly berated the practice of declaring campuses as “gun-free zones,” calling that an invitation to armed attackers.

“We have to harden our schools, not soften them,” Trump said. “A gun-free zone to a killer or somebody who wants to be a killer, that’s like going in for the ice cream. That’s like ‘Here I am, take me.’ ”

His exuberance for the idea has seemed to build since a 19-year-old gunman killed 17 students and adults at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. The administration had not previously floated the proposal. Since his campaign, Trump mainly has limited his talk of gun policy simply to a staunch defense of an absolute 2nd Amendment right to bear arms, but the pressure for action since the latest shooting has been intense.

Trump raised the proposal publicly when he met at the White House on Wednesday with the group that included survivors of the Parkland shooting. When he asked what students, parents and teachers thought of the idea of arming school personnel, a few raised their hands in support and a few against. Since then, however, several have spoken out in opposition.

By Thursday, nonetheless, Trump had turned into a hearty supporter of arming teachers. In four tweets, he advocated for guns in schools, and then espoused several other ideas in other posts, including raising the minimum age for certain gun purchases, bolstering the process of checking backgrounds of potential buyers and banning the so-called bump stocks that turn legal firearms into illegal rapid-fire ones.

In his midday meeting with state and local officials, Trump grew expansive on his ideas, and occasionally heated.

He said he didn’t want “everybody standing there with a rifle” in America’s schools, but rather select, trained personnel with concealed weapons. Then he pointed to White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly, a retired Marine general, as an example of the sort of people schools could turn to for armed protection. “If he’s a teacher … I want him to have a gun,” Trump said.

“Frankly, you have teachers that are Marines for 20 years, they retire and become a teacher,” he said. “They’re Army, Navy, Air Force, they’re Coast Guard, they’re people who have won shooting contests for whatever, this is what they do. They know guns, they understand guns.”

Trump suggested without evidence that up to 40% of teachers could be armed. He then recommended that “we give them a little bit of a bonus” for bearing arms.

Trump did not address how to pay for the bonuses, school weapons or other proposals he is considering, except to say that the debate “isn’t so much about funding, it’s about common sense.”

By his focus on such ideas, Trump in recent days has steered the national gun policy debate away from more ambitious proposals, notably one to revive a long-lapsed ban on assault rifles like the Parkland shooter used. The newly minted gun control advocates among Parkland’s teenage survivors have called for a ban. He opposes one.

Instead, the president has raised some ideas, like new regulations against bump stocks, that the NRA has expressed willingness to consider, and a few — like the age limit for buyers — that, he says, his gun rights allies at the NRA can be persuaded to support.

“They’re ready to do things,” he said. “They want to do things. They’re good people.”

Asked later if Trump had spoken to the NRA about the higher age minimum, Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah did not have an answer.

On the NRA’s website, a spokeswoman is quoted in opposition: “Passing a law that makes it illegal for a 20-year-old to purchase a shotgun for hunting or an adult single mother from purchasing the most effective self-defense rifle on the market punishes law-abiding citizens for the evil acts of criminals.”

The NRA’s longtime leader, Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, in a speech to the Conservative Political Action on Thursday, did not suggest any inclination toward compromise. Instead, he complained that liberals are trying to exploit the Florida shooting to advance their agenda.

“It’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue,” LaPierre said. “Their solution is to make you, all of you, less free…. They want to sweep right under the carpet the failure of school security, the failure of family, the failure of America’s mental health system and even the unbelievable failure of the FBI.”

For Trump, the group likely would be a powerful ally for any expansion of concealed-carry laws to school employees, though the idea has met with concern from Republicans and Democrats, as well as school and law enforcement groups.

Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a Republican, agreed with a Parkland teacher who expressed opposition to the idea during a televised CNN forum on Wednesday night. “I don’t support that,” he told her, citing his concerns as a father of school-age children and “practical problems.”

Rubio explained: “Imagine in the middle of this crisis, and the SWAT team comes into the building, and there’s an adult with a weapon in their hands. And the SWAT team doesn’t know who’s who and we have another tragedy that was unnecessary.”

The Senate’s Democratic minority leader, Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, expressed doubt that Trump would really push for the proposals that the NRA opposes.

“The president is pushing for action on things — including comprehensive background checks — that the NRA opposes,” Schumer said. When Trump has talked about gun restrictions in the past, Schumer noted, he “quickly dropped his support once the NRA opposed it. I hope this time will be different.”

As tough as Trump talked about “hardening” schools, he bristled at the idea of practicing for a gun-related crisis. He had had little reaction on Wednesday, when a Parkland student and a parent advocated for more schools holding crisis drills. But on Thursday, when Florida’s education commissioner pressed the importance of holding regular “active shooter drills” so that students know how to behave when there is a threat, Trump snapped at her.

“I think that’s a very negative thing to be talking about. I don’t like it. I’d much rather have a hardened target,” he said, adding, “I think it’s very bad for children.”

Shah later clarified that the president considers the common term for the drills — “active shooter drills” — frightening to young students, suggesting that Trump doesn’t object to the practices themselves but only to the “brand.”

Advisors say the president isn’t zeroing in on specifics just yet. “Right now we’re in a listening phase,” said Shah, “but he is going to come forward later on with something a little bit more concrete.”

christi.parsons@latimes.com

Twitter: @cparsons



Source link

A Bay Area developer wants to build 4,400 sorely needed homes. Here’s why it won’t happen

Just beyond San Francisco’s city limits lies 640 acres of land that could help solve some of California’s biggest problems.

A developer wants to build 4,400 new homes there — one of the largest projects recently proposed in one of the country’s most unaffordable regions. The development would overlook a railway that drops riders into the heart of San Francisco in 15 minutes, reducing the need for cars and cutting the greenhouse gas emissions that come from them.

State and regional leaders have endorsed the project. But its fate rests with Brisbane, a city of 4,700 people that annexed the property 55 years ago. And no one, not even the developer, thinks Brisbane’s residents will approve all 4,400 homes.

“Unfortunately, we believe that their ceiling is going to be below that,” said Jonathan Scharfman, the general manager for the developer, Universal Paragon Corp.

The project, Brisbane Baylands, reveals how few incentives local governments have to accept large developments — even as the state is pushing to lower housing costs and funnel growth toward existing cities and nearby mass transit to combat climate change. Brisbane residents are wary of a project that could triple the city’s population. Under California’s tax system, Brisbane also earns more money if it rejects the current plan in favor of potential alternatives with more hotel rooms and space for businesses — but no homes.

The Bay Area’s dire need for housing makes the debate over the Baylands project “particularly painful,” said Ben Metcalf, director of the state Department of Housing and Community Development.

“It is frustrating that as a state and as a constellation of local jurisdictions we are constantly making decisions that aren’t the best for alleviating poverty, housing affordability, furthering our state’s economy or meeting our climate change goals,” Metcalf said.

For their part, some Brisbane residents feel besieged by pressure from housing activists, business groups, state lawmakers, San Francisco politicians, newspaper editorials and others beyond the city’s boundaries. An old rail yard and garbage dump contaminated the land, and opponents contend they want to protect anyone who might decide to live there even after regulators approve a cleanup. More than that, Brisbane residents say, outsiders don’t understand how much the Baylands project would upend their community.

“We’re a small town,” City Councilman W. Clarke Conway said at a meeting on the project last fall, “and we’re a small town by choice.”

Bill Dettmer, left, speaks with a group of men who regularly meet and discuss local politics and civic issues at Madhouse Coffee in Brisbane, Calif. Dettmer thinks a developer should be allowed to build housing on an old rail yard in the city.

Bill Dettmer, left, speaks with a group of men who regularly meet and discuss local politics and civic issues at Madhouse Coffee in Brisbane, Calif. Dettmer thinks a developer should be allowed to build housing on an old rail yard in the city.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Brisbane’s main drag is Visitacion Avenue. It slopes upward for five blocks, starting at a city park and continuing through mom-and-pop shops, cafes and restaurants. The rest of Brisbane comprises office parks, a strip mall and mostly single-family homes built throughout the town’s hills.

“This is the land that time forgot,” said Greg Lee, 55, an electrical engineer who has lived in the city for more than two decades.

San Bruno Mountain, which rises a quarter-mile into the sky, is Brisbane’s landmark, and residents have fought to preserve it. In the 1960s, they blocked a developer from leveling the mountaintop and building enough new homes for 70,000 people. In 1980, after years of battling another massive project on the mountain, residents received a last-minute reprieve from the federal government, which declared San Bruno a critical habitat for the endangered callippe silverspot butterfly.

Anti-development fervor has continued. About a decade ago, a city councilman suggested sidestepping a state housing law that requires cities to plan for growth by zoning for homes where nothing would ever get built — the bottom of Brisbane’s lagoon.

Residents’ efforts to protect Brisbane’s small-town feel make large changes hard to accept, said Paul Bouscal, 58, a San Francisco water department employee who has lived in the area since 1982.

The Baylands, he said, plays on fears of Brisbane getting big.

“For our town to grow like that, it would be too much, too fast,” Bouscal said.

It might be easier for residents and elected officials to welcome growth if the city received more tax dollars for doing so. But the opposite is true.

Because of tax limits established in 1978 by Proposition 13, local governments generally receive more revenue from sales and hotel room taxes than property taxes. Proposition 13 limited property tax rates to 1% of a home’s taxable value and restricted how quickly that taxable value could increase after a purchase.

Last year, Brisbane hired a consultant who found that the city would net $1 million a year in tax revenue by approving the Baylands. But if the city instead approved a project with lots more commercial space, a larger hotel and no housing, Brisbane would gain $9 million annually — an amount equivalent to more than half the city’s current day-to-day operating budget.

Developers are always going to face opposition because of residents’ concerns about their communities changing, said Mark Stivers, a longtime state housing policy staffer. But the tax system is another big reason the state has a housing shortage, he said.

“I’d like to think if just the fiscal incentives were reversed, if a city could make as much money off housing as they could retail, we’d be having a very different conversation in California,” Stivers said.

Jonathan Scharfman, general manager of Universal Paragon Corp., describes the area where his company hopes to build a 4,400-unit housing development.

Jonathan Scharfman, general manager of Universal Paragon Corp., describes the area where his company hopes to build a 4,400-unit housing development.

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

Debate over the Baylands has divided the town and dominated Brisbane politics for at least a decade. More than half of Brisbane residents said in a 2015 city-sponsored poll that they were OK with some housing on the Baylands site. But just 3% backed a project of more than 4,000 homes such as the developer is proposing.

Bill Dettmer, 63, spent a recent morning at Madhouse Coffee, one of the city’s main gathering spots, trying to convince skeptical neighbors that the city should support the housing. Dettmer moved to Brisbane 50 years ago and does maintenance work in the city.

“I see a lot of stuff,” Dettmer said. “I see beds in garages. You have to increase the [housing] supply. If you really want to help out people, let them live in dignity. It just seems like a no-brainer.”

Many local opponents cite the land’s history — not hostility to growth — for why they’re against the project. San Francisco used to dump its garbage on the site, and a railroad company repaired its trains there. Longtime residents remember watching tires burn.

Scharfman, the developer’s general manager, said Universal Paragon Corp. will clean up the land and won’t begin building until all environmental agencies responsible say it’s safe. He likened the process to how an old rail yard at San Francisco’s Mission Bay was cleaned up and now has thousands of homes.

Still, some Brisbane residents say they don’t trust regulators will get it right, because what’s known about the toxicity of chemicals can change over time. Even though they won’t live in the Baylands, opponents believe they have a responsibility to shield those who might.

“Why do we have a seat belt law? Why do we have a helmet law? They’re anti-stupidity laws to protect the general population,” said Michele Salmon, 63, who was born and raised in Brisbane.

Salmon said she understood housing problems were real and lamented the lack of space to accommodate a growing population.

“I do feel sorry that the younger generation is not going to get to live the life that we did,” she said. “But it’s a different time.”

State and regional officials have few tools to push Brisbane. Every eight years, the state tells every city and county to plan for the construction of a certain number of new homes to accommodate planned population growth. Between 2007 and 2014, Brisbane’s goal was 401 houses. Developers built a little more than a third of that target, but the city faces no consequences for the lack of home building.

Similarly, regional agencies such as the Assn. of Bay Area Governments have to plan for urban growth as part of the the state’s climate change efforts. California won’t meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets, regulators have said, without a significant reduction in driving fueled by more people walking, biking and using mass transit. The Baylands project and its 4,400 homes next to a Caltrain station are written into the region’s climate change proposal, but that means nothing for the project’s actual approval.

“This is a plan, an expectation of how we could grow,” said Leah Zippert, an Assn. of Bay Area Governments spokeswoman. “It is not a mandate to build. It’s not a mandate to do anything.”

The Brisbane City Council plans to make a key decision on the Baylands this summer, including whether it supports any housing on the site. But the council expects to put that proposal on the ballot next year. Brisbane’s residents will be the ones with the last word.

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

ALSO

Gov. Jerry Brown says the state’s housing crisis is his next priority, but reaching a deal won’t be easy

California lawmakers have tried for 50 years to fix the state’s housing crisis. Here’s why they’ve failed

California won’t meet its climate change goals without a lot more housing density in its cities

Updates on California politics



Source link

Biden supports the COVID hate crime bill: What would it do?

Less than a week before eight people — including six Asian women — were killed in the Atlanta-area shootings congressional Democrats introduced legislation that would bolster the Department of Justice’s ability to address COVID-19 hate crimes.

The bill, introduced by U.S. Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), has been co-sponsored by more than 60 lawmakers and on Friday was endorsed by President Biden, who condemned the “ongoing crisis of gender-based and anti-Asian violence” and urged Congress to “swiftly pass the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act.”

“It’s time for Congress to codify and expand upon these actions — because every person in our nation deserves to live their lives with safety, dignity and respect,” Biden said.

The bill would require at least one Department of Justice employee to facilitate fast reviews of federal, state and local COVID-19 hate crimes for at least a year, according to a draft provided by a Hirono spokeswoman.

It would also require the department to issue guidance to state and local law enforcement agencies on how to establish an online hate crime reporting system in multiple languages.

The system would “allow more victims to come forward,” A.B. Cruz III, president of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Assn., said in a statement.

The bill would also require Atty. Gen. Merrick Garland and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to work with the COVID–19 Health Equity Task Force and advocates to give guidance on how to discuss the pandemic without using incendiary language.

The bill would not drastically change the legal landscape as it relates to hate crimes but would spotlight how it intersects with COVID-19, said Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State University College of Law.

Since virus-fueled lockdowns went into effect last March, thousands of Asian Americans have reported having faced racist verbal and physical attacks or have been shunned by others, according to a report by Stop AAPI Hate. The group, whose acronym stands for Asian American and Pacific Islander, received reports of 3,795 incidents over the last year, with 68.1% involving verbal harassment and 11.1% involving physical assaults.

Among the incidents, Asian Americans reported being punched while riding the subway in Washington, taunted with racial slurs in New York and coughed on while being blamed for the novel coronavirus in Dallas.

Then-President Trump last year said little to discourage the attacks but often used racist language to describe the deadly virus, calling it “kung flu” and the “China virus,” even after being warned that his rhetoric was incendiary. Meng said many Republican lawmakers “trafficked racist, bigoted terms to describe COVID-19.”

“In doing so, their language stoked people’s fears and created an atmosphere of intolerance and violence, which persists even today,” Meng said.

The bill would define COVID-19 hate crimes as violent offenses motivated by the real or perceived relationship to the spread of the coronavirus and the real or perceived background of a person, including their ethnicity and national origin.

Kreis said it’s unclear how adding a COVID-19 distinction to a federal hate crime would benefit existing law. The law, in practice, draws connections between current events and discrimination. For example, the law can already be used to prosecute crimes against LGBTQ people whose attackers express anti-HIV/AIDS sentiments, he said.

Kreis said that though anti-Asian slurs are seen as an expression of hate by the American public and, by extension, juries, anti-Asian imagery is not as noticeable in American society. This often requires prosecutors to handhold juries to connect the dots to understand what hate crimes against Asian Americans look like, he said.

“We need a lot more cultural competency in the ways in which anti-Asian stereotypes can manifest,” Kreis said. “That’s a hard endeavor we as a society need to tackle.”

Times staff writer Chris Megerian contributed to this report.



Source link

Nithya Raman is the comeback kid of L.A. politics

On the night of the June primary, standing before cheering supporters at a downtown brewery, Nithya Raman was in a familiar position:

Outspent by rivals. Mocked by online haters. Her political career left for dead.

In early returns for Los Angeles mayor, Raman was in third place behind incumbent Karen Bass and reality TV villain Spencer Pratt. The City Council member thanked everyone for helping her “little campaign” but seemed resigned to defeat.

“We may not get an answer we like,” Raman said. “But regardless of what happens next, nobody — nobody — can take away what all of us have built together.”

She ended her short speech by going on the dance floor to greet well-wishers and boogie for a bit. The move came off to me as someone losing herself in happiness so she didn’t have to think about the sad reality.

But when I think about that moment now, it seems clear that she was embracing another familiar position:

Confident in what was ahead. Content with being underestimated. Ready to upend City Hall yet again.

As more votes were counted, Raman overtook Pratt to face Bass in the November runoff. Raman’s last-minute decision to enter the race had shocked L.A.’s political class and drawn accusations of betrayal for challenging Bass, a longtime ally whom she had endorsed. Yet Raman managed to pull off a hard-fought campaign, with Pratt as an unexpectedly strong insurgent from the right — a winning streak that continued this week when she scored two key endorsements.

The L.A. chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America and Unite Here Local 11, the powerful hospitality workers union, will now bring their renowned get-out-the-vote operations to L.A. doorsteps, street corners and smartphone screens on Raman’s behalf. Unite Here gives Raman’s campaign a working class cred it has sorely lacked. The DSA will unleash the democratic socialist trade winds that have swept across elections nationwide and helped five of its six endorsed candidates in L.A. County either win outright in the June primary or move on to the general election.

Neither endorsement was guaranteed. Even though Raman is a member and the L.A. chapter had endorsed her two City Council campaigns, the group didn’t officially support her in the mayoral primary. Some members openly questioned whether having a democratic socialist run a city seemingly destined for the dumpster was the best look for their movement. Raman’s positions on police funding, the mansion tax and the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks also ran counter to the party orthodoxy.

Unite Here had regularly endorsed Bass throughout her 22-year political career and seemed likely to join the dozens of other unions backing the mayor.

But with the one-two punch, Raman has shown yet again that she’s the comeback kid of L.A. politics. Every time critics throw her a curveball, she smacks it to the opposite field and gets on base, ready to grind her way to a win.

People line up to attend The Democratic Socialists of America fundraiser

People line up to attend a Democratic Socialists of America fundraiser May 17 in Los Angeles.

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

In 2020, the city’s establishment initially dismissed Raman, then a political novice, as a wokosa fluke, until she beat David Ryu, who became the first L.A. council incumbent to lose in 17 years.

A year later, Raman was seen as such a threat that the powers that be sought to torpedo her for good. In the infamous City Hall leaked audio, then-Councilmember Kevin de León suggested to then-Councilmember Gil Cedillo, then-council President Nury Martinez and labor leader Ron Herrera that Raman’s district could be “put in the blender and [chopped] up, left and right” during redistricting to dampen her reelection chances.

On the recording, Martinez enthusiastically endorsed the plan, telling the other three that Raman had complained about her redrawn district.

“Go f— do the work,” Martinez said she told Raman, “and see if you can” win again.

Raman did win, scoring an outright victory in the 2024 primary (Martinez, of course, resigned in disgrace). A censure from DSA-LA because Raman accepted the endorsement of a pro-Israel group proved no more debilitating than a stray eyelash.

In this year’s mayoral primary, Raman raised less money than Bass and Pratt and flopped during their one debate against each other. Her fellow democratic socialist council members — Eunisses Hernandez, Ysabel Jurado and Hugo Soto-Martínez — all endorsed the mayor.

None of it mattered. Raman is now easily scoring off of Bass mishaps, like the mayor’s response to the Lineage warehouse fire and her random broadside against street vendors during a debate in Sherman Oaks last month. The Dodgers should sit Raman in their dugout come playoff time, because her knack for rallying from behind is almost preternatural.

The road to victory remains hard, of course. Bass has never lost an election and won’t easily fold, even as her first term has careened from one crisis to another. Raman’s fiercest critics on the council — Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Traci Park and Monica Rodriguez — lord over South L.A., the Westside and the eastern San Fernando Valley, respectively, regions where Raman needs strong showings. The DSA endorsement will make it easier for critics to paint Raman as left of Lenin, even though her record is more pragmatist than pinko puppet.

She’s even drawing the ire of Pratt, who spent most of his campaign deriding the mayor as “basura” — trash — but is now blasting Raman, while the 26% of Angelenos who voted for him and are a key swing constituency are waiting to see who, if anyone, he’ll favor.

Raman anticipated all of this when she jumped into the race, she told supporters on primary night.

“These powerful interests spent millions of dollars against this little campaign, spent millions trying to preserve this city’s broken and unjust status quo,” she said. “And we said no.”

But the words I recall the most from that party at Boomtown Brewery came from Raman’s father, Venkit. After joking that his daughter didn’t go into a profession that most Indian immigrant parents wish for their children, he explained that her full name — Nithya Varsha — means “forever monsoon” in Sanskrit.

“If you think about it more, that’s exactly what she is,” Venkit said to cheers. “A constant, unstoppable force that brings life to the land.”

Let’s see how far the Raman storm goes.

Source link

LAPD internal affairs file spills details on racist recordings scandal

After LAPD recruitment officers were accused of making racist, sexist and homophobic comments — some of which were caught on tape — department leaders promised to look into whether they improperly disqualified any police applicants.

More than a year and a half later, the city is still waiting on the report.

But the contents of a separate LAPD internal affairs file reviewed by The Times has shed new light on the unit at the center of the scandal and how its officers responded to investigators who were looking into the matter.

No clear explanation has been given for the delay in publicly addressing the scandal’s effect on recruitment efforts.

In response to a records request from The Times, the city’s personnel department, which is conducting the inquiry, said it had not yet finished its review and had no timeline for doing so.

Last month, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman charged Daniel Flores, the LAPD whistleblower who secretly recorded his colleagues, with 16 felonies, alleging he violated a state eavesdropping law. But, after criticism from Mayor Karen Bass and others, the district attorney downgraded the counts to misdemeanors with a diversion agreement that will probably allow Flores to avoid any time behind bars.

Flores’ recordings captured Los Angeles Police Department recruitment officers referring to Black people as “monkeys,” describing a female job applicant as “rapeable,” and saying “F—ing deport them, call ICE” during a conversation about Latinos, among a long list of other offensive remarks.

Asked about the pending LAPD report into the fallout from the tapes, Bass said in a statement that the review “has gone on too long.” The mayor said she had directed the personnel department to “complete the report and release it without further delay.”

Flores alleged in a complaint he filed with the LAPD in January 2025 that some recruits had been improperly rejected, adding to ongoing concerns about the department’s struggle to replenish its ranks.

As of last week, the LAPD had 8,507 sworn personnel — its lowest total since October 1995.

Even after efforts under Bass to streamline hiring and boost recruitment, Chief Jim McDonnell has warned that the department may not be adequately staffed in time for the 2028 Olympics.

McDonnell said after Flores’ allegations were made public in early 2025 that the personnel department would conduct a “biopsy” to examine “any adverse impacts” of the scandal on recruitment.

In a brief statement, the department said that it wouldn’t comment on what discipline, if any, had been meted out to the officers involved, citing state privacy law.

“The Department takes allegations of discriminatory or biased conduct seriously,” the statement read. “We are committed to ensuring the workplace is professional, respectful and free from misconduct.”

The Police Commission said in a statement that it is still waiting on the report, adding that “fair and equitable hiring of sworn and civilian employees remains a priority.”

The LAPD internal affairs investigative file reviewed by The Times described a frat-like office atmosphere in the Hiring and Evaluation Section in which Flores worked.

According to the internal affairs report, Flores claimed that at least one colleague, Shirley Burgos, had inappropriately disqualified candidates based on their appearance.

The report said that Burgos was captured in several recordings making fun of overweight candidates who were “ugly, creepy” people.

Another officer, Ayron McKay, told internal affairs investigators about an instance in which the unit’s officers were discussing a candidate who they believed was overweight.

Burgos then looked up the woman’s driver’s license picture on the DMV database, which several officers told internal affairs probably violated department policy, according to the report.

Burgos and McKay did not respond to inquiries to their work email accounts.

The internal affairs file said Flores recorded another officer saying he wanted to go to Big Bear, a popular winter sports destination in the San Bernardino National Forest, and roll the candidate down the ski slope. Meanwhile, according to the report, McKay asked the others how much they would pay to sleep with the woman, and referred to her as “Jabba the Hut.”

When asked about the conversation by internal affairs, the report said, McKay told investigators that the conversation started with Burgos venting about an applicant, but acknowledged that it should not have been allowed to continue.

In one recording made on Nov. 13, 2024, the report said, Burgos told her colleagues that she had released information about disqualified candidates to a friend of hers at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, which is against LAPD policy.

The officers were all required to sign a confidentiality agreement that barred them from discussing candidates’ personal information with anyone outside the office.

During her internal affairs interviews, Burgos denied providing information to other agencies, saying it was clear from her laughter on the recording that she was joking.

Burgos told investigators that the only time she’d ever discussed a candidate with someone outside the department was during a conversation with an unnamed background investigator with the Sheriff’s Department or Santa Monica police — and said that was only to confirm that the candidate had in fact applied to the LAPD, according to the report.

The LAPD investigation noted that she and the other involved officers all denied that their office conversations had ever caused them to inappropriately disqualify a candidate.

The internal affairs report quoted the unit’s supervisor, Sgt. Denny Jong, a 20-year-department veteran, as describing his relationship with the officers under his command as friendly and professional; none of them had ever expressed discomfort about their work environment, he reportedly said.

Jong did not respond to emailed questions from The Times.

Several officers told investigators that they used gallows humor as a way to deal with the stress of working long hours in a small, windowless basement office.

According to the report, some officers, including Jong and McKay, acknowledged that the office banter sometimes crossed the line, but they denied that there was anything malicious about their comments. They also contended that the unit had little authority about which applicants advanced in the recruitment process — decisions, they said, that had to go through several layers of review.

During his internal affairs interviews, Jong often told investigators that he didn’t recall making certain inappropriate comments. The report said he also denied ever making any of the inappropriate comments that were contained in Flores’ complaint.

When he was confronted with audio of comments in which he referred to a candidate of Chinese descent as a terrorist, Jong said he was joking.

“He explained that this was based on current news stories at the time, which involved concerns over Chinese nationals attempting to infiltrate the country,” the internal affairs report said. “Jong was not serious and did not believe the candidate was a terrorist, but admitted the remark was an off-color joke and inappropriate for the workplace.”

Source link

Venezuela’s Democratic Transition Has 7% Progress

One of the most complex concepts in political science is democracy. While we all have a feel for what it is, whether it is elections, civil liberties, freedom of speech, or a combination of all of the above, it’s rather complicated to measure how democratic a country is. In a context like Venezuela’s rapidly evolving political environment, it’s essential to have a benchmark to evaluate whether the transition the country is experiencing is toward democracy or toward something entirely different. 

Now, a group of political scientists is proposing one way to measure it: comparing it to the installation of an operating system.

“Installing Democracy” is a project led by political scientists Beatriz Fernández and Pablo Hernández Borges to operationalize democracy in Venezuela. It’s part of Umbral, an initiative created by Hernández Borges after January 3rd to evaluate the possible outcomes of Venezuela’s political crisis, drawing from experts and the public. 

Hernández Borges said the initiative emerged partly as a way to combat misinformation, “with the goal of showing citizens that a transition is a very complex process and that it will not happen quickly. This platform sheds light on the path toward transition at a moment when people feel that democracy is at the threshold of possibility.”

A group of experts then independently evaluates each action on a scale from 0 to 100% based on the available evidence. Their assessments are aggregated into a common estimate.

The new branch of the project, rather than presenting potential outcomes, shows a progress bar from 0 to 100%. The project’s creators envision democracy holistically, rather than as an “on and off switch.” Their methodology divides the transition into 11 pillars, ranging from human rights, security, and institutions to political competition, elections, justice, and the economy. 

To calculate the percentage shown on the dashboard, the project identifies 60 key variables consisting of tangible events, timeframes, and verifiable indicators. These include the release of political prisoners, the opening of the electoral registry, press freedom, the renewal of electoral authorities and, eventually, the holding of free elections. Drawing from existing proposals for Venezuela’s democratic transition, the project organizes these actions along an 18-month timeline starting in August 2026, with each one assigned a deadline, an indicator, and a source of verification. A group of experts then independently evaluates each action on a scale from 0 to 100% based on the available evidence, and their assessments are aggregated into a common estimate.

The resulting score places each action into one of four categories: completed, in progress, pending or unfulfilled, or not yet evaluable. This structure allows the dashboard to capture an uneven transition. Currently, it lists the installation of democracy at 7%.  

The identities of the 13 expert evaluators are kept anonymous. “They are a highly qualified group. They are Venezuelan academics, both inside and outside the country. There’s also a group of Spanish academics with expertise in transitions and knowledge of the Venezuelan context,” said Beatriz Fernández.

“These are not variables like measuring a kilo of sugar, whether it’s 800 or 783 grams. We don’t have the precision of the hard sciences. This is an informed approximation…”

Fernández joined Umbral with “Installing Democracy” after previously working with Varieties of Democracy, or V-Dem, a leading global research project that measures different dimensions of democracy across countries using hundreds of indicators and assessments from country experts. Her experience with V-Dem helped inform the project’s approach, alongside elements drawn from presidential performance trackers.

Still, Fernández acknowledged that measuring democracy is particularly complicated. “These are not variables like measuring a kilo of sugar, whether it’s 800 or 783 grams. We don’t have the precision of the hard sciences. This is an informed approximation, which is what experts do and which is valid.”

When users log into “Installing Democracy”, they can see the individual variables, the entity responsible for each aspect of the transition, the verifiable indicators, and the overall progress bar for each of the “milestones” of Venezuela’s potential democratic transition. In addition, it’s possible to see the progress, stagnation or backsliding of each milestone. Moreover, the dashboard includes countdowns for the scheduled end of the negotiation table between the interim authorities and the 2015 National Assembly, the US Midterm elections, and the end of the proposed 18-month roadmap.

Ultimately, the purpose of the project is to show audiences that the discussion of democracy goes deeper than whether elections are held or not. Fernández and Hernández Borges emphasize that the conditions under which those elections take place, and whether their results are respected, are just as important. In fact, they argue that projects like this one invite citizens to think beyond elections as the “be-all and end-all” of a democratic transition and, as their press release puts it, to evaluate “the forest rather than the latest event.” At 7%, the forest is still very much taking shape.

Source link

Nixon Dies; Ex-President Was Major Figure on World Stage

Richard Nixon, who strode the world stage for decades and was the only American President to resign his office to avoid impeachment, died Friday night, four days after suffering a stroke. He was 81 years old.

A spokesman said Nixon, the nation’s 37th President, was pronounced dead at 9:08 p.m. at New York Hospital-Cornell Medical Center, where he had been taken by ambulance from his home in Park Ridge, N.J. His daughters, Julie Nixon Eisenhower and Patricia Nixon Cox, were at his bedside. His wife, Pat, died last June of lung cancer.

President Clinton said the Nixon family “know that the best wishes of all Americans are with them during their moment of sorrow.” He praised Nixon as “a statesman who sought to build a lasting structure of peace.”

“He gave of himself with devotion,” Clinton said. “His country owes him a debt.”

Clinton said he would attend the funeral at the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace in Yorba Linda, Calif. The library said the funeral will be held Wednesday at 4 p.m., followed by a private burial at the library near the grave of Pat Nixon.

At Nixon’s request, there will be no ceremonies in Washington, D.C., where former presidents often lie in state at the Capitol.

The former President had made out a living will stating he did not want heroic measures in the face of devastating illness. Respecting his wishes, his breathing was not assisted in his final days by a respirator. He had been in a coma since Tuesday night.

Even in the decade before his death, the former President demonstrated the uncommon resiliency that characterized his long and turbulent public life.

Many never forgave him for the activities that forced him from office as an unindicted co-conspirator of the Watergate scandal. Yet after a decade of shadowy, self-imposed exile, he had reclaimed a place on the national stage as a wise man of foreign policy. Through his writings, his visits to Moscow and Asia and his private conversations with world leaders, he had succeeded in raising himself from the political depths to the pantheon of elder statesmen.

Of all the men who have occupied the White House before and since, Nixon’s place in history is perhaps the most ambiguous and stirs the most divergent of sentiments. For nearly half a century, in office and out, he commanded the nation’s fascinated attention, inspiring both unshakable admiration and relentless loathing.

“I have never seen one individual as targeted in terms of hatred as Richard Nixon. There is no question that Nixon brought out this passion,” said Herbert S. Parmet, a history professor at City University of New York and author of “Richard Nixon and His America.”

His name will forever be linked to what his White House dismissed as the third-rate burglary at Democratic Party headquarters in Washington’s Watergate office complex–a brief episode on the night of June 17, 1972, that ultimately led to his downfall.

But even with that ghost, he remained a figure to be reckoned with: His pronouncements on issues of war and peace carried complex echoes of a political career born in a successful campaign for Congress in 1946, when the nation was in the throes of anti-communist fervor. He was still heeded nearly 50 years later, long after his political clout had vanished.

Lasting Achievement

Before scandal ended his presidency on Aug. 9, 1974, in the midst of his second term, Nixon claimed a lasting achievement in the historic opening to China: His decision to end the Cold War isolation of the Asian giant won him acclaim even from liberal critics, who acknowledged that only a leader with ironclad anti-communist credentials could have accomplished the task.

Although he shared responsibility for escalation of the Vietnam War, and his Administration was the target of the most bitter and vehement anti-war protests, he also began the drawdown that led to the ultimate departure of U.S. troops from the Southeast Asian nation.

On domestic policy, he took unique positions for a Republican leader of his era, presenting the first proposal for a negative income tax, which would have distributed federal funds to the poorest citizens; imposing controls on wages and prices to stabilize the economy, and proposing overhauls of welfare and health care–measures that have only now returned to the top of the agenda, in the White House of a Democratic President.

“He was less of a partisan Republican than many believe, too independent for many, a man who used rhetoric as a stiletto. The rhetoric, more than anything else apart from Watergate, got him in trouble. It was what made people associate him with the right wing,” Parmet said.

He was an extraordinarily deft politician and perhaps the most resilient political figure of the modern era, displaying an almost uncanny ability to rebound from near-disaster. Yet he never fit neatly into either the Republican Party’s moderate wing of Nelson A. Rockefeller or the conservative camp of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.

Comeback, Comedown

With an emotional speech less than two months before Election Day, 1952, he regained his hold on the Republican vice presidential nomination after being accused of paying personal expenses with an $18,235 “slush fund” created by wealthy Californians. As vice president for eight years, he survived a sour relationship with President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

And from his cliffhanger loss of the presidency in 1960 to John F. Kennedy, and his loss of the California governorship in 1962 to Edmund G. (Pat) Brown Sr., he staged a remarkable comeback. In 1968, the most turbulent political year in the past half-century–when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated, when national political conventions were disrupted by riots–he emerged from the smoke and tear gas and generational anger to defeat Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey and claim his prize: the presidency of the United States.

Four years later, he scored a record-setting landslide victory against Democratic Sen. George S. McGovern of South Dakota.

But despite his successes, his career was dogged by the shadows of a darker side. He was awkward in public. He never demonstrated the ease of a successful politician, nor seemed to take any comfort from the adulation of the crowds.

On a deeper level, he was by nature suspicious and mistrustful.

It was those qualities that allowed–indeed enabled–the burglary at the Watergate to escalate into the most stunning presidential debacle in history.

Before it ended with his resignation, it had ensnared not only the President, but the most senior members of his White House staff, Cabinet members and the FBI, which he was accused of misusing.

Perhaps even more important, and certainly more lasting, it spread across the body politic a cynicism that infects the political process to this day.

The Early Years

Richard Milhous Nixon was born Jan. 9, 1913, to a Quaker mother and a Methodist father in Yorba Linda, where he spent the early years of his life before his family moved to Whittier. As a young boy, he did well in school and worked in his father’s grocery store, which provided the family with a modest income.

He graduated from Whittier College in 1934, ranking second in his class and earning plaudits and respect for his debating skills. He enrolled at Duke Law School, where he was known as a bookish young man who often studied while classmates played. He graduated third in his class and returned to Whittier, where he practiced trial law.

It was at a Whittier community theater, where they were auditioning for parts in a play, that Nixon met Thelma Catherine (Pat) Ryan, a tall, lithesome strawberry-blonde who was a shorthand and typing teacher at the high school. They were married in 1940.

Two years later, with World War II raging, Nixon began a four-year stint in the Navy. After the war, he returned to California and immediately sought and won a seat in Congress in 1946.

In Washington, the young Republican quickly gained a reputation for his zealous pursuit of communists working in the federal government. His platform was the House Un-American Activities Committee, and his most famous case involved Whittaker Chambers, a confessed Communist Party courier, and former State Department official Alger Hiss, who was accused by Chambers of passing secrets to Soviet agents.

Senate Campaign

The reputation boosted his popularity at home, and he rode the wave into his 1950 campaign for U.S. Senate. In that storied contest, Nixon branded his Democratic opponent, Helen Mary Gahagan Douglas, “the Pink Lady” and accused the New Deal Democrat of supporting American Labor Party leader Vito Marcantonio, a representative from New York known in Congress as a communist sympathizer.

Nixon’s supporters blanketed California with bright pink leaflets that linked Douglas and Marcantonio in House votes. With America in the throes of anti-communist fears, Nixon’s tactic was devastating. He won by nearly 700,000 votes.

The Senate contest brought Nixon national recognition, and the ambitious young politician, who had a scant half-decade of elected public service, trained his sights next on national office. He assailed President Harry S. Truman as soft on communism and correctly surmised that Eisenhower was a rising star in the Republican Party.

Nixon worked for the revered general’s 1952 presidential candidacy and was selected as Eisenhower’s vice presidential running mate. He was 39 years old.

Buoyed by a rousing reception at the Republican convention, Nixon hit the campaign trail with vigor–only to run into charges that he had personally benefited from the “slush fund” established by millionaires.

In what became known as the Checkers speech, Nixon defended himself against the charges in a nationwide radio and television address. He detailed modest personal items belonging to him and his family, including Checkers, a spaniel given to his children by an admirer.

“Pat and I have the satisfaction that every dime that we’ve got is honestly ours. I should say this, that Pat doesn’t have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her that she would look good in anything,” the struggling candidate said.

“I don’t believe that I ought to quit, because I am not a quitter,” Nixon said. “But the decision, my friends, is not mine.” He went on to urge those in the audience to express their views to the Republican National Committee about whether he should be taken off the GOP ticket. The public responded with more than 2 million letters and telegrams, urging him to stay by a margin of 350 to 1.

“You’re my boy,” Eisenhower told Nixon after the broadcast.

Road to Presidency

In the wake of a landslide victory that fall, Nixon began serving the first of his two terms as vice president–during which he enjoyed extraordinary symbolic powers, even if his actual influence on policy was less substantive.

He was called upon to take an extensive goodwill tour of Asia in 1953, and he visited Central America in 1955 and South America in 1958. During his visit to Caracas, Venezuela, leftist mobs smashed Nixon’s automobile windows and perhaps would have killed him had Venezuelan troops not arrived. For his part, Nixon earned praise for maintaining calm during the attack.

Nominated as his party’s presidential candidate in 1960, Nixon became a victim of the same medium that had served him so well in the Checkers speech. His narrow loss to Kennedy was attributed largely to the striking difference between the two candidates in televised debates. Nixon’s heavy jowls, shadowed by stubble, and his nervous manner played poorly alongside Kennedy’s relaxed confidence, wit and youthful good looks.

Nixon’s political fortunes continued to sink as he lost the tough gubernatorial fight to Brown in 1962.

This time the anti-communist tactic failed Nixon, and in defeat he accused the media of sustained bias in covering his political career. His parting shot during his concession speech: “I leave you gentlemen now, and you will now write it. You will interpret it. That’s your right. But as I leave you I want you to know–just think how much you’re going to be missing. You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentlemen, this is my last press conference.”

But he came back. After joining a New York law firm in 1963, Nixon, showing party loyalty, campaigned for Barry Goldwater in the conservative Arizonan’s humiliating 1964 presidential race. Nixon became an effective fund-raiser and set his sights once more on the White House, winning the Republican presidential nomination in 1968 and going on to narrowly defeat Humphrey.

Nixon’s victory that year was attributed to shrewd planning that exploited deep divisions among the Democrats who controlled the government. The diligent young men who ran the Nixon campaign became the core of the new White House staff, where they were extraordinarily adept at synthesizing problems for the President’s action and at shielding him from unwanted intrusion, protecting the privacy he cherished.

New Ideas Flourish

In the afterglow of his election on Nov. 5, 1968, Nixon told supporters that his goal was to “bring the American people together” under “an open Administration, open to new ideas, open to men and women of both parties, open to the critics as well as those who support us.”

New ideas indeed flourished in his Administration’s dealings with the communist world and in its concerted effort to reduce the federal role in routine government functions. The number of women in high posts increased, and even Democrats occasionally were appointed to the Nixon Administration.

At the same time, the Nixon White House always reflected the reclusive temperament and industrious work habits of its resident–habits shaped by his early years of work in his father’s grocery store. Access to this Administration was never open. Information was tightly controlled and unauthorized news leaks brought reprisals.

In 1972, Nixon appealed for a “new majority” that crossed the middle-class spectrum, but he left most campaigning to a platoon of “surrogate candidates” headed by Vice President Spiro T. Agnew.

Members of the White House staff were deeply involved in oversight of the lavishly financed operation. With the nation deeply divided over the Vietnam War and weary of radical and occasionally violent confrontations on college campuses, Nixon’s campaign called for law and order in the United States and a strong American role overseas, and it portrayed his Democratic opponent, McGovern, as a liberal who sympathized with college demonstrators and who would surrender America’s interests abroad.

Nixon won by an overwhelming margin, with 61% of the popular vote and 521 electoral votes to McGovern’s 17.

During his 5 1/2 years as President, Nixon was confronted by a series of domestic and foreign crises, including inflation and the cancerous Vietnam War.

Nixon’s escalation of U.S. involvement in the war ignited a firestorm of domestic protests. At the same time, he tried to mute the criticism by ending the draft in 1973.

Law and order was one of Nixon’s prime domestic concerns: It was foreshadowed in 1968 campaign speeches, in which he saddled the Democrats with blame for mounting crime statistics. After the election, the theme was apparent in his choice of hard-line conservative John N. Mitchell, his former law partner and campaign director, to be his attorney general. It also was manifest in the Administration’s requests for measures to strengthen the prosecution’s hand in criminal cases, in the conservative trend of Nixon’s judicial appointments and in his Administration’s response to anti-war demonstrations.

The demonstrations began during the Lyndon B. Johnson Administration and they continued despite Nixon’s warning at a 1969 news conference that “under no circumstances will I be affected by them.” Nor were the demonstrators appeased by Nixon’s decision in June, 1969, to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Vietnam.

The protests spread from U.S. campuses, and about half a million Americans took part nationwide in a solemn, orderly “moratorium day” on Oct. 15, 1969.

Vietnam War Protests

Nixon’s stated plan for Vietnam was to “Vietnamize” the war by training and equipping South Vietnamese troops for an ever-larger role in the conflict. But it also entailed bold military strokes to protect the Americans who remained in Southeast Asia.

Late in April, 1970, an attack was secretly mounted on the communist bases in the jungles of neutral Cambodia, and anti-war protests revived.

The nation was horrified on May 4, 1970, when a confrontation between demonstrating students and Ohio National Guard troops at Kent State University ended in a volley from Guard rifles that left four young people dead.

Nixon issued a stiff statement that deplored the affair and observed that, “when dissent turns to violence, it invites tragedy.” Within a week, upward of 50,000 students converged on Washington in an unplanned protest that was bitter but nonviolent.

Amid signs of White House concern, student groups were invited to talk with presidential aides, and Nixon met with a group from Kent State to say he recognized the right of peaceful protest.

At dawn the next morning, the President appeared unannounced among demonstrators bivouacked at the Lincoln Memorial. He later said he advised the students: “Keep it peaceful–remember, I feel as deeply as you do about this.”

But the demonstrations flared again after U.S. planes provided massive support to South Vietnamese troops that crossed the border into Laos in February, 1971, in another attempt to destroy communist sanctuaries.

Nixon viewed street disorders as an outward symbol of a trend to “permissiveness,” which he deplored as a candidate and as President. He sought to reverse it by appointment of judges committed to rigid interpretations of the Constitution, and he began at the top with the Supreme Court.

No actions of the Nixon presidency may have cast a longer shadow into the future than the lifetime appointments he made to fill the four vacancies on the nine-seat court that occurred during his first term. Collectively, the changes spelled the end of the liberal activism that had characterized high court decisions for nearly two decades.

2 Nominees Rejected

The process was not easy for the President, for two of his nominees were rejected by the Senate after tempestuous confirmation hearings.

Nixon had no difficulty in winning clearance in May, 1969, for Warren E. Burger, a conservative appeals court judge from Minnesota, to replace the retiring Earl Warren as chief justice.

A second vacancy cleared the way in August, 1969, for nomination of Clement F. Haynsworth, a South Carolina appeals judge, but the Senate balked. It also rejected G. Harrold Carswell, the Florida district judge Nixon nominated after Haynsworth.

Nixon protested that he could not achieve confirmation for a strict constructionist who “happens to come from the South,” and nominated Harry A. Blackmun, a Minnesota appeals court judge. Blackmun, who became the court’s leading liberal, is retiring in September.

Throughout much of his tenure, Nixon was plagued by a troubled national economy, resulting largely from a combination of Vietnam War expenditures and Johnson’s spending on Great Society programs.

The Republican President tried a series of economic remedies, including a 90-day freeze on all wages and prices in 1971, with any increases subject to approval by a cost of living council. Nixon also persuaded Congress to change the Post Office Department into the quasi-private agency it is today.

And, with the help of Congress, he embarked on a course of “new federalism,” providing state and local jurisdictions with $30 billion over five years as revenue-sharing funds.

The initiatives were part of a period of experimentation with domestic policy, producing a precursor to some of the programs being advanced now by Clinton.

Although Nixon generally ignored minorities and the poor, developing few programs targeting them, he did attempt in 1969 to overhaul the welfare system through a guaranteed annual income, thereby departing dramatically from Republican tenets.

But the plan, created by Nixon aide Daniel Patrick Moynihan, now a U.S. senator from New York, was scrapped the next year as congressional liberals and Southern Democrats opposed it. In addition, blacks were skeptical of the proposal, noting Nixon’s persistent criticism of busing as a remedy for school desegregation and his efforts to appoint conservative Supreme Court justices.

Domestic Vs. Foreign

For Nixon, the salvation of blacks was in “black capitalism,” a theme he explored in a speech in October, 1965, to black Republicans at a $300-a-plate dinner in New York. Nixon, whose 1969 executive order established the Office of Minority Business Enterprise, likened the group of blacks to sports heroes, saying they should shun quotas and instead seek progress by “being the best.”

Citing the success of Jackie Robinson in baseball and Arthur Ashe in tennis, Nixon said: “These people are not champions because they are part of a quota, but because they are the best. The same has to happen in private enterprise.”

Although many believe that his record on domestic issues was mixed, Nixon’s foreign policy achievements were more apparent.

In May, 1972, the onetime redbaiter visited Moscow–just two weeks after the Soviet Union had vehemently criticized a new round of U.S. air attacks launched on North Vietnam in a double-edged effort to blunt a communist offensive in the South and to jolt the Hanoi regime into serious peace negotiations.

Despite continuing differences on Vietnam, Nixon and Soviet leaders signed agreements to limit offensive and defensive strategic weapons. A spate of lesser accords also flowed from the meetings. One byproduct was a $1-billion deal to sell U.S. grain to Russia that brought election-year joy to American wheat farmers as a supply squeeze boosted domestic prices to record highs.

The former President’s pragmatic views toward the Soviet Union showed up years later, in March, 1986, when he addressed the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, calling for “a new realism” in dealing with the Soviets. Nixon said the two superpowers “can never be friends, but we cannot afford to be enemies,” and he urged leaders of both countries to avoid an “insane” continuation of the nuclear arms race.

Nixon cited the “Nixon Doctrine” as one of his more significant contributions to foreign policy. Initiated partly to quell domestic criticism of the Vietnam War, the doctrine acknowledged the limitations of U.S. military power and promised to restrict its use in international crises that might arise in the future.

China Triumph

But clearly, Nixon’s greatest triumph was with China, especially his trip there in February, 1972. It was a political image maker’s dream: the hard-line anti-communist visiting the world’s largest communist country and pronouncing it fit for relations with the United States.

In an interview with The Times in June, 1984, Nixon cited a 1968 article he had written advocating improved relations with China and said, “I had made up my mind before coming to office” to do so.

He saw the long-term importance the Pacific Basin held for the United States, said Parmet, the historian, “and he felt very concerned about pursuing our interests in that area without China.”

In the short term, Nixon’s trip led to limited resumption of U.S.-Chinese relations, which had been frozen since the Korean War, and to modest trade, travel and cultural agreements. Ultimately, it led in 1978 to resumption of full diplomatic relations and steadily expanding relationships in many non-military fields under the Jimmy Carter Administration.

By 1986, Nixon had paid four return visits to China as an ex-President and was received on each occasion as an elder statesman. In February, 1976, for example, he and Mrs. Nixon went to what was then Peking as guests of the government at ceremonies that officially commemorated the fourth anniversary of his initial visit and unofficially provided desired exposure for Acting Premier Hua Guofend, who praised Nixon’s “farsightedness” in building ties between Peking and Washington. Mao Tse-tung, China’s venerable Communist Party chairman, gave Nixon an audience that lasted an hour and 40 minutes.

Hua had succeeded Mao as party chairman when the Nixons paid their second visit in September, 1979, again as a guest of the government, and Deng Xiaoping was in Hua’s powerful former post. When Nixon visited China in September, 1985, a college vice president glowingly described Nixon as “an old friend of China,” and the Chinese mobbed him after a speech as he headed for a Red Flag limousine, seeking his autograph or just a touch of his hand.

Trouble at Home

Nixon also was received like a hero in Egypt in June, 1974–even as the curtain was rising on the last act of the Watergate drama. He made the trip as part of a Middle East tour that also took him to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Syria and Jordan.

But by then, Nixon was a President disgraced.

The Watergate scandal was named for the June, 1972, break-in at Democratic headquarters at the Watergate, a sleek, sprawling office and apartment complex that overlooks the Potomac River near Georgetown.

Tenuous links to the White House were made soon after the break-in, when some of the burglars–who were caught by a security guard–were found to be carrying White House telephone numbers.

The episode was initially dismissed by the White House as a “third-rate burglary” unauthorized by anyone of rank.

But during the next two years, inquiries pressed first by a judge and the press, then by Congress and special prosecutors, unraveled a web of political crimes: “hush money” paid to the burglars, other efforts to block investigators, wiretaps of “White House enemies,” establishment of the White House “plumbers” to plug information leaks, campaign “dirty tricks” and more.

The developing scandal diminished public confidence in the President. In late 1973, it limited his efforts to cope with an energy crisis that threw the economy into a tailspin. The immediate effects were a quick jump in unemployment and a surge in an inflation rate that already was causing concern.

Nixon had proposed a long-range program to make the nation self-sufficient in energy resources before the crisis struck. But his Administration was ill-prepared when a new flare-up of hostilities between Israel and its Arab neighbors led in October, 1973, to an Arab embargo on export of oil to nations friendly to Israel–particularly the United States.

While thermostats were lowered and lines at gasoline stations grew longer, Nixon dispatched Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger to half a dozen capitals in an attempt to loosen the embargo and bring peace to the area. Kissinger’s prodding helped produce an uneasy truce between Israel and Egypt, and Arab oil began flowing again after a five-month shut-off.

All the while, Watergate continued to unravel. As public revelations brought responsibility for the cover-up closer and closer to the White House, Nixon’s top lieutenants toppled like dominoes. First Mitchell resigned as his campaign director. Then H. R. Haldeman and John D. Ehrlichman, his closest White House aides, resigned.

A Senate committee chaired by the late Sam J. Ervin Jr. (D-N.C.) investigated Watergate on national television in the spring and summer of 1973 and learned that a secret taping system had recorded all of Nixon’s White House conversations. The evidence from those tapes, which are still played daily for tourists at the National Archives, proved to be some of the most damning against the President.

Six days after the break-in, Nixon, on tape, agreed with a suggestion by his chief of staff, Haldeman, that orders should be given to the Central Intelligence Agency to impede the FBI’s investigation of the Watergate money trail.

But what was not on the tapes was equally damning: On one of the seemingly most crucial tapes, a gap of about 18 minutes and 15 seconds gave rise to suspicion that even more damaging statements had been erased.

And, with the raw presidential language demonstrated on the tapes, their publication introduced to the American vocabulary the phrase “expletive deleted.”

Nixon initially refused to turn over the tapes to Archibald Cox, the special Watergate prosecutor in the Justice Department. When Cox pressed his demand, Nixon ordered Atty. Gen. Elliot L. Richardson to fire him. In what became known as the “Saturday night massacre,” Nixon fired first Richardson and then his deputy, William D. Ruckelshaus, for refusing to fire Cox, before Solicitor General Robert H. Bork became acting attorney general and carried out Nixon’s order.

‘I’m Not a Crook’

The President of the United States persevered. “I’m not a crook,” he told a November, 1973, meeting of journalists at Disney World in Florida.

The same could not be said of other top figures in the Administration. After Houston attorney Leon Jaworski replaced Cox as Watergate special prosecutor, a grand jury indicted Mitchell, Haldeman, Ehrlichman and four others on charges of covering up the Watergate break-in. Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator.

In July, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment, charging Nixon with obstructing justice, misusing his presidential power and defying committee subpoenas. But before the full House could consider the impeachment articles, Nixon resigned on Aug. 9.

“If some of my judgments were wrong–and some were wrong–they were made in what I believed at the time to be the best interest of the nation,” Nixon said as he announced his resignation. But he admitted no guilt.

“While I was not involved in the decision to conduct the break-in, I should have set a higher standard for the conduct of the people who participated in my campaign and Administration. I should have established a moral tone that would have made such actions unthinkable. I did not,” Nixon wrote in 1990 in his ninth book, “In the Arena.”

Emerging From Exile

A month after his resignation, many in the country were outraged when Nixon’s successor, Gerald R. Ford, issued a pardon for all crimes that Nixon “committed or may have committed or taken part in” during his presidency.

Retreating to Casa Pacifica, his beachfront home in San Clemente, Calif., Nixon made few forays outside. For a time, an occasional 18 holes of golf with close friends at the Shorecliff Club near San Clemente was his most public activity.

But he emerged three years later for five televised conversations with interviewer David Frost. In the interviews, excerpted from 20 hours of tapes and for which Nixon was paid upward of $600,000, the former President displayed the full range of his moods, from self-pitying gloom to expansive confidence.

“I let down my friends. I let down the country. I let down our system of government,” Nixon said. He conceded that he had come so close to the “edge of the law” in advising White House associates on “how to present their cases” that a “reasonable person could call that a cover-up.”

But he declared that he “didn’t think of it as a cover-up” and said: “If I intended to cover up, believe me, I’d have done it.”

Nixon’s revealing interviews were televised as he and a rear guard of loyalists finished work on the former President’s memoirs.

Tale of Two Books

As a personalized footnote, the work was dubious history. Nixon’s foes campaigned against it under the slogan, “Don’t buy books from crooks.” But the 1,090-page book, “RN: The Memoirs of Richard Nixon,” yielded close to $2 million in syndication rights and royalties for its author.

Nixon told Frost that his wife, Pat, had suffered a stroke in 1976, three days after reading “The Final Days,” a book about Nixon’s last days in office by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, the Washington Post reporters whose aggressive pursuit of the Watergate story had won the newspaper a Pulitzer Prize. Calling the book trash, Nixon said the media had achieved a “license to lie,” and suggested that public figures under media attack should “come right back and crack ‘em in the puss.”

In the years since, however, Nixon mellowed and began emerging more frequently into the public eye. Most recently, in mid-March, he made his 10th visit to Russia and met with the ultranationalist leader Vladimir V. Zhirinovsky, whom he described as “a brilliant political tactician” who “pushes hot-button issues that are totally irresponsible.”

Later, the former President wrote in the New York Times that “Russia’s political scene can only be described as chaotic.”

Playing up to the final days of his life the role he carved out for himself–that of the interpreter for the United States of the mysterious ways of the Kremlin–he wrote: “President Yeltsin has lost much of the mystique from his historic role in the destruction of Soviet Communism. He may be finding that history is against him. Over the centuries, revolutionary leaders have not been good nation-builders.”

It was through such writings–his 10th book is expected to be published in June–that Nixon worked assiduously to repair his public image, and he did so with some success.

When he left office, his popularity stood at 26%. But another measure of popularity in 1986 demonstrated a rebound: 54% said Ford was correct to have pardoned him and nearly 40% said they would like to see him in a public role, as an ambassador or presidential adviser. Still, a poll last November found that only 37% approved of the job he had done as President–trailing Kennedy and each subsequent President, with the exception of Johnson.

Although out of the Watergate shadow, he kept a relatively low profile. He offered advice to Republican candidates, and political handicapping. In June, 1992, he predicted a close presidential race between George Bush and Ross Perot; in September of that year, he told Bush–correctly, it turned out–to give up on California.

On occasion, he expressed himself on the domestic issues of the day, taking what his onetime speech writer, William Safire, pegged a progressive position in a column last December in the New York Times:

Abortion? “The state should stay out; don’t subsidize and don’t prohibit.”

Gun control? “I’d go further than the Brady bill. Guns are an abomination.”

TV violence? “Hollywood thinks America is sick . . . ! They’re the sick ones.”

He quietly tried to head off the lifting of the trade embargo on Vietnam, more than a year before Clinton eventually took such action, and he spoke by telephone with Clinton–eventually meeting with him privately–to tutor him on the need for the United States to take the lead in delivering aid to Russia.

The Nixons sold Casa Pacifica in mid-1979 to three Orange County businessmen and moved without ceremony to a Manhattan townhouse for which they paid $750,000 in February, 1980. They sold it, too, in September, 1981, to the Syrian government for $2.6 million as a residence for its U.N. ambassador. Leaving Manhattan, they bought a modern dwelling in suburban Saddle River, N.J., for a reported $1 million, and, later, moved to the nearby community of Park Ridge.

Although most of the books the former President wrote after leaving office dealt with foreign policy and his view of the world, “In the Arena” was more personal.

“Two thousand years ago, the poet Sophocles wrote, ‘One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day has been.’ There is still some time before the sun goes down, but even now, I can look back and say that the day has indeed been splendid,” Nixon wrote.

He concluded:

“In the end, what matters is that you have always lived life to the hilt. I have been on the highest mountains and in the deepest valleys, but I have never lost sight of my destination–a world in which peace and freedom can live together. I have won some great victories and suffered some devastating defeats. But win or lose, I feel fortunate to have come to that time in life when I can finally enjoy what my Quaker grandmother would have called ‘peace at the center.’ ”

Times staff writer John J. Goldman in New York contributed to this story. Times researchers Pat Welch and Linda Malone also contributed.

* A LIFE IN POLITICS: A glance at Nixon’s career, in words and pictures. A20-A22

Key Dates in Richard Nixon’s Life

Richard Nixon

Age: 81

Education: Whittier College, Whittier, Calif., 1934; Duke University Law School, 1937.

Experience: Served in Navy in World War II. Congressman from California, 1946-50; U.S. Senator, 1951-52; Vice President, 1953-61; President, 1969-74.

Family: Wife, Pay Ryan, died in 1993. Two children, Julie and Tricia.

Jan. 9, 1913: Born in Yorba Linda, Calif., son of Francis and Hannah Nixon.

June 21, 1940: Marries Thelma (Pat) Ryan.

1946: Elected to first of two terms in U.S. House.

1950: Elected to U.S. Senate. In the course of his victory, brands his opponent, Helen Mary Gahagan Douglas, “The Pink Lady,” accusing her of supporting Vito Marcantonio, a representative from New York known in Congress as a communist sympathizer.

1952: Elected vice president as running mate to Dwight D. Eisenhower. Ran into charges that he benefited from a “slush fund.” He successfully defends himself on national television. “You’re my boy,” Eisenhower told Nixon later.

1956: Re-elected as vice president.

1960: Narrowly loses presidency to John F. Kennedy.

1962: Loses California governor’s race; bitterly tells reporters, “You won’t have Nixon to kick around any more.”

1968: Elected President over Democrat Hubert H. Humphrey and independent George C. Wallace.

Jan. 20, 1969: Sworn in as 37th President of the United States.

June, 1969: Nixon announces the beginning of troop withdrawal from Vietnam. This hardly appeased anti-war demonstrators, who stepped up their protests.

July 15, 1971: Makes surprise announcement of plans to visit China.

February, 1972: Makes historic first trip to Communist China.

June 17, 1972: Break-in at Democratic headquarters at the Watergate complex.

November, 1972: Re-elected in landslide over George McGovern.

Aug. 9, 1974: Resigns as President in culmination of Watergate scandal.

Sept. 8, 1974: Receives unconditional pardon from successor Gerald R. Ford.

June 22, 1993: Pat Nixon dies of lung cancer.

Notable Quotes from Nixon’s Career

On His Trip to China: “There can be no stable and enduring peace without the participation of the People’s Republic of China. . .I have taken this action because of my profound conviction that all nations will gain from a reduction of tensions and a better relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.”

In announcing his acceptance of an invitation to visit China July 15, 1971.

On U.S.-Russian Relations: “There has been too much of a tendency to assume that everything is going smoothly between our two countries. That is not true. Because if you look at the situation in Russia and in America, there are some profoundly disturbing developments.”

From his address to Russian lawmakers during a recent visit, March 14, 1994.

Notable Quotes From Nixon’s Career

On Watergate: “People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook. I earned everything I’ve got.”

From speech to the Associated Press Managing Editors Assn., Disney World, Nov. 17, 1973

“I want you all to stonewall it, let them plead the Fifth Amendment, cover-up or anything else, if it’ll save it–save the plan. That’s the whole point.”

Instructions to John Dean, John Ehrlichman, Robert Haldeman and John Mitchell, March 22, 1973).

On Charges He Benefited From a “Slush Fund”: “Pat and I have the satisfaction that every dime that we’ve got is honestly ours. I should say this, that Pat doesn’t have a mink coat. But she does have a respectable Republican cloth coat, and I always tell her that she would look good in anything.”

From his Checkers speech to the nation, Sept. 23, 1952.

Notable Quotes From Nixon’s Career

On The Vietnam War: “If, when the chips are down, the world’s most powerful nation, the United States of America, acts like a pitiful, helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world.”

From speech to the nation on the invasion of Cambodia, April 30, 1970.

On The Presidency: “Let us begin by committing ourselves to the truth–to see it as it is, and tell it like it is–to find the truth, to speak the truth, and to live the truth.”

From speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination, Aug. 8, 1968.

“I believe in the battle–whether it’s the battle of a campaign or the battle of this office, which is a continuing battle.”

In an interview after his second inauguration, Jan. 20, 1973.

Source link