POLITICS

Stay informed about the latest developments in politics with our comprehensive political news coverage. Get updates on elections, government policies, international relations, and the voices shaping the political landscape.

A list of countries joining Trump’s Board of Peace, those not joining and those not committed

Several countries have said they will join President Trump’s Board of Peace, while a few European nations have declined their invitations. Many have not yet responded to Trump’s invites.

Chaired by Trump, the board was originally envisioned as a small group of world leaders overseeing the Gaza ceasefire plan. But the Trump administration’s ambitions have since expanded, with Trump extending invitations to dozens of nations and hinting at the board’s future role as conflict mediator.

A White House official has said about 30 countries were expected to join the board, without providing details, while about 50 had been invited.

Here is a tally by the Associated Press on what countries are joining, which are not and which are undecided.

Countries that have accepted to join the board

— Argentina

— Armenia

— Azerbaijan

— Bahrain

— Belarus

— Egypt

— Hungary

— Indonesia

— Jordan

— Kazakhstan

— Kosovo

— Morocco

— Pakistan

— Qatar

— Saudi Arabia

— Turkey

— United Arab Emirates

— Uzbekistan

— Vietnam

Countries that will not join the board, at least for now

— France

— Norway

— Slovenia

— Sweden

Countries that have been invited but remain noncommittal:

— Britain

— China

— Croatia

— Germany

— Italy

— European Union’s executive arm

— Paraguay

— Russia

— Singapore

— Ukraine

Source link

Supreme Court wary of Trump’s bid to fire Fed governor Lisa Cook

The Supreme Court gave a skeptical hearing Wednesday to President Trump’s claim that he has the power, acting alone, to fire Federal Reserve Board governor Lisa Cook for a past mistake on a mortgage application.

Most of the justices said they were not convinced that what Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. described as Cook’s “inadvertent mistake” was grounds for removing her from the central bank board.

They also questioned Trump’s failure to give her a hearing.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh told Trump’s lawyer he had overplayed his hand.

“Your position is that there’s no judicial review, no process required, no remedy available and a very low bar for cause that the president alone determines,” he told Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer. “That would weaken, if not shatter, the independence of the Federal Reserve.”

“Why are you afraid of a hearing?” asked Justice Amy Coney Barrett. “If you have the evidence … give her a chance to defend herself. That just wouldn’t be that big of a deal.”

Trump has sought to take control of the independent bank board because it has not lowered interest rates as far and as fast as he prefers.

He has clashed with Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome H. Powell and threatened to fire him. More recently, Trump’s prosecutors said they were investigating Powell for possible criminal false statements in a congressional hearing.

In August, Trump posted on social media that he had “cause” to fire Cook after he was told she may have committed mortgage fraud.

In 2021, the year before President Biden appointed her, she bought homes in Michigan and Georgia and said each would be her “principal residence.”

In response to the allegation, Cook’s attorney said she had told the mortgage lender that the Georgia property was a “vacation home,” not her primary residence.

Cook sued to retain her seat. A federal judge blocked her removal on the grounds that her alleged wrongdoing came before her appointment. The D.C. Circuit Court agreed in a 2-1 decision.

In September, Trump’s lawyers sent an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court and said this was “yet another case of improper judicial interference with the president’s removal authority.” They said the court should set aside the lower court ruling and uphold Cook’s firing.

For much of the past year, the court’s conservatives have granted appeals from Trump’s lawyers and allowed the president to fire agency officials who had fixed terms in office.

Last month, they were ready to overturn a 90-year-old precedent and to rule that Trump has the “executive power” to remove and replace these officials.

But Roberts and the conservatives were also ready to make an exception for the Federal Reserve Board. They suggested the central bank is not an executive agency subject to the president’s direct control.

In October, they opted to keep Cook’s firing on hold, and they scheduled arguments on how to proceed.

But Roberts agreed with Kavanaugh that Trump’s lawyers had gone too far.

“You began by talking about deceit,” he told Sauer. “Does what you said apply in the case of an inadvertent mistake contradicted by other documents in the record? Under your position, it doesn’t make a difference, right?”

Sauer had argued the courts could not review Trump’s decision to fire a Federal Reserve Board governor.

Kavanaugh, a former White House lawyer, said Trump’s position would destroy the independence of the Federal Reserve, which had been supported by both parties.

“What goes around comes around,” he said. “All of the current president’s appointees would likely be removed for cause on Jan. 20, 2029, if there’s a Democratic president. … Then we’re really at at-will removal. So what are we doing here?”

While the justices were skeptical of Trump’s arguments on Wednesday, it was not clear how they will rule.

They could rule that Trump has to give Cook a hearing and an opportunity to defend herself. Or they could rule more directly and say that an alleged misstatement on a past mortgage application did not rise to the level of “cause” for firing a Federal Reserve Board governor.

Representing Cook, Washington attorney Paul Clement, a former U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush, said the court should preserve the Federal Reserve as a unique and independent agency.

“There is an unbroken history going back to its founding in 1913 in which no president, from Woodrow Wilson to Joseph Biden, has ever even tried to remove a governor for cause, despite the ever-present temptation for lower rates and easier money,” he said.

He argued that the independence of the Federal Reserve is more important than resolving the allegations against Cook.

“It’s less important that the president have full faith in every single governor, and it’s more important that the markets and the public have faith in the independence of the Fed from the president and from Congress,” he said.

Source link

‘I won’t use force’ and other key quotes from Trump’s Davos speech

President Trump delivered a sharp critique of U.S. allies and rivals alike during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland on Wednesday, questioning Europe’s political direction, casting down on NATO’s reliability and reiterating his intent to push to acquire Greenland.

Speaking before an audience of global political and business leaders, Trump said European countries are “not headed in the right direction” in part because of what he described as bad immigration policies while asserting that the United States is a “great power” that needs to have outright ownership of Greenland in order to properly defend itself.

The remarks echoed his long-standing complaints that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has taken advantage of the United States, and questioned whether the allied countries would support the U.S. if the country needed them.

Here are some of Trump’s most notable remarks:

Renewing demands for Greenland: “It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it and make it so that it’s good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us. And that’s the reason I’m seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States. Just as we have acquired many other territories throughout our history.”

Military invasion ruled out: “We never asked for anything, and we never got anything, we probably won’t get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable, but I won’t do that, OK? That’s probably the biggest statement I make because people thought I would use force. I don’t want to use force. I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force.”

Outright ownership sought: “All we are asking for is to get Greenland, including right, title and ownership because you need the ownership to defend it. You can’t defend it on a lease. No. 1, legally it is not defensible that way, totally. And No. 2, psychologically.”

On European immigration: “Certain places in Europe are unrecognizable. Frankly, they are not recognizable. We could argue, but there’s no argument. Friends come back from different places — I don’t want to insult anybody — and they say, ‘I don’t recognize it.’ And that is not in a positive way. That’s in a very negative way. And I want to see Europe go good, but it’s not heading in the right direction.”

U.S. power: “The United States is keeping the whole world afloat. Without us, most of the countries don’t even work. And then you have the protection factor. Without our military — which is the greatest in the world by far — without our military, you’d have threats that you wouldn’t believe. You don’t have threats because of us and that’s because of NATO.”

On World War II impact: “After the war, which we won — we won it big. Without us, right now you’d all be speaking German and a little Japanese, perhaps.”

On NATO reliance: “The problem with NATO is that we’ll be there for them 100%. But I’m not sure that they’d be there for us if we gave them the call. … I’m not sure that they’d be there. I know we’d be there for them. I don’t know that they’d be there for us. With all the money we expend, with all of the blood, sweat and tears, I don’t know that they’d be there for us.”

Confusing Greenland for Iceland: “They are not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. I mean, our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland has already cost us a lot of money.”

A nod to California Gov. Gavin Newsom (who was at the forum): “We’re going to help the people in California. We want to have no crime. I know Gavin was here. I used to get along so great with Gavin when I was president. Gavin is a good guy. And if you needed it, I would do it in a heartbeat. We did help them a lot in Los Angeles, a lot early in my term when they had some problems. But we would love to do it. I would say this, if I was a Democrat governor, I would call up Trump. I would say come on in, make us look good, because we are cutting crime down to nothing and we are taking people out — career criminals — who are only going to do bad things and we are bringing them back to their countries.”

Source link

Trump-appointed prosecutor who pursued president’s foes is leaving post

Lindsey Halligan, who, as a hastily appointed Justice Department prosecutor, pursued indictments against a pair of President Trump’s adversaries, is leaving her position as her months-long tenure has now concluded, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said Tuesday night.

Halligan’s departure from the role of interim United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia came as multiple judges were casting doubt on her ability to legally remain in the job after a court ruling two months ago that declared her appointment illegal. She was appointed in September to a 120-day stint, which concluded Tuesday.

“The circumstances that led to this outcome are deeply misguided,” Bondi said in a social media post on X announcing Halligan’s exit. “We are living in a time when a democratically elected President’s ability to staff key law enforcement positions faces serious obstacles. The Department of Justice will continue to seek review of decisions like this that hinder our ability to keep the American people safe.”

The move brings an end to a brief but tumultuous tenure. Trump tapped Halligan, a White House aide who had served as his personal lawyer but had no prior experience as a federal prosecutor, to lead one of the Justice Department’s most important and prestigious offices. She quickly secured indictments at Trump’s urging against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Atty. Gen. Letitia James. But a judge later concluded that her appointment was unlawful and that the two indictments must therefore be dismissed.

The Trump administration had kept Halligan in place despite that ruling, but on Tuesday, two judges made clear that they believed it was time for her tenure to end. Hours later, Halligan became the latest Trump ally to give up her title amid scrutiny from judges about the administration’s maneuvering to install the president’s loyalists in key posts. Last month, for instance, another of Trump’s former personal attorneys, Alina Habba, resigned after an appeals court said she, too, had been serving in her position unlawfully.

It was not immediately clear who would now lead the U.S. attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Virginia, which has been buffeted by resignations and leadership turnover since last September when the Trump administration effectively forced out the veteran prosecutor who had been leading the office, Erik Siebert, and replaced him with Halligan.

Halligan’s departure followed orders Tuesday from separate judges that marked a dramatic new front in an ongoing clash between the Trump administration and the federal court over the legitimacy of her appointment.

In one order, M. Hannah Lauck, the chief judge of the Eastern District of Virginia and a nominee of President Obama, directed a clerk to publish a vacancy announcement on the court’s website and said she was “soliciting expressions of interest in serving in that position.”

In a separate order, U.S. District Judge David Novak said he was striking the words “United States Attorney” from the signature block of an indictment in a case that was before him as well as barring Halligan from continuing to present herself with that title. He said he would initiate disciplinary proceedings against Halligan if she violated his order and persisted in identifying herself in court filings as a U.S. attorney, and said other signatories could be subject to discipline as well.

“No matter all of her machinations, Ms. Halligan has no legal basis to represent to this Court that she holds the position. And any such representation going forward can only be described as a false statement made in direct defiance of valid court orders,” Novak wrote. “In short, this charade of Ms. Halligan masquerading as the United States Attorney for this District in direct defiance of binding court orders must come to an end.”

Novak, who was appointed to the bench by Trump during the Republican president’s first term in office, chided Justice Department leadership for what he suggested was an improperly antagonistic defense of Halligan by Bondi and Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche in an earlier court filing.

“Ms. Halligan’s response, in which she was joined by both the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, contains a level of vitriol more appropriate for a cable news talk show and falls far beneath the level of advocacy expected from litigants in this Court, particularly the Department of Justice,” Novak wrote.

“The Court will not engage in a similar tit-for-tat and will instead analyze the few points that Ms. Halligan offers to justify her continued identification of her position as United States Attorney before the Court,” he added.

Halligan was thrust into the position amid pressure by Trump to charge Comey and James, two of his longtime perceived adversaries. Trump made his desire for indictments clear in a Truth Social post in which he implored Bondi to act swiftly.

Halligan secured the indictments, but the win was short-lived. In November, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled that Halligan had been illegally appointed and dismissed both cases. The Justice Department has appealed that ruling.

In her own statement, Halligan acknowledged that her 120-day tenure had come to an end on Tuesday. She also lamented the legal limbo she said she had been left in by Currie’s opinion, noting that judges in the district over the last two months had “repeatedly treated my appointment as disqualifying” without actually removing her from the role.

“The court’s remedy did not match its rhetoric. It treated me as though I had been removed from office — declaring my appointment unlawful and striking my name from filings — while never taking the single step Judge Currie identified as the consequence of that conclusion: appointing a replacement U.S. attorney,” she said.

Tucker writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.

Source link

Council approves boost in LAPD hiring, despite budget concerns

For eight months, the Los Angeles City Council and Mayor Karen Bass have butted heads over police hiring amid a budget crisis.

The conflict began last spring when the council voted to reduce LAPD hiring to 240 new police officers this budget year — just half the officers Bass had requested — in order to close the city’s $1 billion budget gap and stave off layoffs of other city employees, including civilian workers in the LAPD.

Last month, the council bumped the number of hires up to 280 after the LAPD said it had already hired its 240 allotted officers just halfway through the fiscal year. But the council still declined to fully fund up to 410 positions, which the mayor had called for in a letter.

On Wednesday, the council finally approved the hiring of up to 410 officers this year after hearing back from the city administrative officer that the money used to fund the positions this year will come from the LAPD’s budget, and not from the city’s general fund.

The hiring of the officers delivers a modest victory to Bass, who promised she would find the money for additional police hires when she signed the budget in June. Bass said the additional hires — which would bring the police force to around 8,555 officers by the end of the fiscal year — still would not match the number of officers lost through attrition this year.

“The second largest city in the United States cannot have an effective police department when it is operating with the lowest staffing levels in years,” she said. “And with only five months until Los Angeles welcomes tens of thousands of fans from around the world for the FIFA World Cup, investing in more police officers is critical to public safety.”

Still, the mayor’s victory comes after months of tension, with some council members questioning the fiscal wisdom of hiring more officers than the city budgeted for during a time of fiscal crisis.

“An overwhelming majority of us support additional… hiring,” said Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky, who chairs the council’s powerful Budget and Finance Committee. “My concern has been and continues to be the fiscal impact to next year.”

While Yaroslavsky said she would have preferred to stick to the original council plan of 240 hires this year, she thanked the city administrative officer and the police department for finding funds to hire the additional 130 officers for the rest of the fiscal year.

The motion to continue hiring up to 410 officers passed in a nine to three vote.

The funding for the hires, which is about $2.6 million in total for this fiscal year, will come from pots of money within the police department, including a tranche from the “accumulated overtime,” bucket, which is used to pay out overtime to officers who are retiring. The city found the $12 million allotted for that was not being fully drawn down this year.

Some on the council took issue with the additional hiring, saying the city did not know how it would pay for the ongoing cost of the hired officers, which will grow to about $25 million in the next fiscal year.

“How are we going to pay for the ongoing cost?” asked Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, who voted against the new plan. “We are sort of back to where we were in December where we are committing ourselves to a $25 million price tag with no plan for where that’s going to come from.”

In a report, the city administrative officer said the $25 million should be found in “ongoing reductions with the Police Department” that would not result in layoffs to civilian staff at the department or take from the city’s general fund.

“This is robbing Peter to pay Paul,” said Councilmember Monica Rodriguez about the funding decision.

Police Chief Jim McDonnell, who attended the city council meeting, took issue with councilmembers criticizing the increased hiring.

“We’re working on a skeleton crew,” he said. “This department is doing amazing things for the residents of this city, but it doesn’t seem to be appreciated.”

Source link

Court lifts restrictions on immigration officers’ tactics in Minnesota

An appeals court on Wednesday suspended a decision that restricts immigration officers’ aggressive tactics in Minnesota, while Maine declined a request for more undercover license plates for U.S. Customs and Border Protection vehicles, citing “abuses of power” during the Trump administration’s crackdown.

The U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals was persuaded to freeze a judge’s ruling that bars officers from using tear gas and other means of control against peaceful protesters while the administration pursues an appeal. Operation Metro Surge, an immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota’s Twin Cities, began in early December.

An injunction ordered last week by U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez harms “officers’ ability to protect themselves and the public in very dangerous circumstances,” lawyers for the government argued.

Minnesota remains a major focus of immigration sweeps by agencies under the Department of Homeland Security. State and local officials who oppose the effort were served with federal grand jury subpoenas Tuesday for records that might suggest they were trying to stifle enforcement.

A political action committee founded by former Vice President Kamala Harris is urging donors to come to the aid of Gov. Tim Walz, her 2024 running mate, and contribute to a defense fund.

“The Justice Department is going after Trump’s enemies list,” Harris’ email said, referring to President Trump.

In Maine, meanwhile, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, said she won’t grant a request for confidential license plates sought by Customs and Border Protection, a decision that reflects her disgust over the tactics of immigration officers elsewhere. Renee Good was fatally shot by an immigration officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 7. A message seeking comment from CBP was not immediately returned.

“We have not revoked existing plates but have paused issuance of new plates. We want to be assured that Maine plates will not be used for lawless purposes,” Bellows said.

Portland Public Schools, the largest and most diverse district in Maine, said it kept the doors locked at two schools for a few minutes Tuesday because of concerns about activity by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

“This is an understandably tense time in our community, as reports and rumors of immigration enforcement actions grow,” the district said.

Greg Bovino of the U.S. Border Patrol, who has commanded the Trump administration’s big-city immigration crackdown, said more than 10,000 people in the U.S. illegally have been arrested in Minnesota in the last year, including 3,000 “of some of the most dangerous offenders” in the last six weeks during Operation Metro Surge.

Bovino defended his “troops” and said their actions are “legal, ethical and moral.”

Julia Decker, policy director at the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, said advocates have no way of knowing whether the government’s arrest numbers and descriptions of the people in custody are accurate.

Separately, a federal judge said he’s prepared to grant bond and release two men after hearing conflicting testimony about an alleged assault on an immigration officer. Prosecutors are appealing. One of the men was shot in the thigh last week.

Vice President JD Vance is expected to travel to Minneapolis on Thursday for a roundtable with local leaders and community members, according to sources familiar with his plans who spoke on condition on anonymity because the trip had not yet been officially announced.

Brook and Whittle write for the Associated Press. Whittle reported from Portland, Maine. AP reporters Ed White in Detroit and Ali Swenson in Washington contributed to this report.

Source link

How’s Newsom doing at Davos? Just ask Trump

What’s the absolute best way to give Gov. Gavin Newsom free publicity and a worldwide audience?

Freeze him out at Davos, where the rich and powerful are meeting in the snow-capped mountains of Switzerland. The Trump administration is learning the hard way, in real time, that petty comes with a price — in this case, being laughed at by, well, the world.

And while Congress, Europe and law may hold no terrors for our president, we all know ridicule hits him in his soft, white underbelly.

In case you missed it, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, the California governor has been banned from a scheduled media talk (allegedly under pressure from the White House) that was going to be a rebuttal to Trump’s ramble at the event, according to Newsom’s office.

On Wednesday, Newsom’s team announced that he had been turned away from USA House, the privately run but official gathering spot of the United States. Newsom was scheduled to do a fireside chat with Forbes magazine, but apparently when he arrived at the church-turned-conference hall, he was politely told to beat it.

“How weak and pathetic do you have to be to be this scared of a fireside chat?” Newsom posted on X.

Cue the outrage. Cue the coverage.

Forbes didn’t know the snub was coming, according to screen shots of private text messages reviewed by The Times, but within minutes it was world news. Except maybe on CBS.

That’s a lot of focus on a guy who isn’t even a billionaire and doesn’t run a country, and supposedly isn’t even in the presidential race yet. In case you’re not personally familiar with the gathering at Davos, it’s pretty much the kings (and occasional queen) of the world coming together to think big thoughts. Getting cold-shouldered in that crowd is a big deal.

But it’s the kind of big deal that makes Newsom look good. Blackballing him from USA House was akin to screaming in his face that he’s a big meanie and the president wasn’t going to take it any more. So there!

It’s funny. It’s powerful. It gets him the kind of news coverage that other not-yet-candidates dream about.

It makes it clear that far from the useful foil that the Newsom-Trump rivalry is often explained as, Newsom is hitting on points that are hitting home. With Trump, and with voters. And now, maybe with world leaders — which just makes him that much more viable as a candidate. Without a doubt, this is Trump quashing dissent.

Earlier in the day, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent went after Newsom, calling Newsom “Patrick Bateman meets Sparkle Beach Ken.”

That’s a reference to the overly suave serial killer in the film “American Psycho” crossed with a popular 1990s version of a male Barbie known for its pretty eyes and good hair. To be fair, Newsom does resemble both of them.

That remark came in response to Newsom calling Bessent’s speech “smug” for suggesting that the average American couple was buying up homes as rentals for their retirements. Personally, like most of us, I can’t even afford an extra Barbie doll house, so to be fair, Newsom is right on that one.

Newsom also scored points off Trump’s speech. He called it “boring,” the most vicious insult you can hurl at Trump. But it was.

For more than an hour, Trump repeatedly called Greenland Iceland by mistake, while demanding it be turned over to him.

Yawn.

He went after windmills because “they kill the birds, they ruin your landscapes.”

Wut?

He went after Minnesota with a particularly rabid if overused bit of racism, because it “reminds us that the West cannot mass import foreign cultures, which have failed to ever build a successful society of their own.”

Yuck.

As Newsom pointed out in a press gaggle not too long afterward — right before being banned from his formal talk — for an American audience, it’s the same ugly drivel we’ve been subjected to for nearly a year. Absolutely none of it is fresh, though it remains awful and dangerous.

“My God, there wasn’t anything new about that speech,” Newsom said. “It was remarkably insignificant.”

It was certainly not a speech that won Trump credibility or support from those kings and queens. It certainly did not contain diplomacy or leadership, or frankly, even sense. Despite the laughter and applause from the audience, I doubt there are few if any outside of Trump’s team who would call it a success.

But for Newsom, Davos is a win.

Source link

Trump backs away from military force, says U.S. has ‘framework’ for Greenland’s future

President Trump retreated Wednesday from his most serious threats toward Denmark, easing transatlantic tensions and lifting Wall Street after rejecting the prospect he would use military force to annex Greenland, a Danish territory and the world’s largest island.

Instead, the United States struck a “framework” agreement in talks with NATO’s secretary general regarding the future of Greenland, “and in fact, the whole Arctic region,” Trump wrote on social media. He did not immediately provide details on the contents of the plan.

The whiplash of developments followed weeks of escalating threats from the president to control Greenland by any means necessary — including by force, if left with no other choice.

Now, “the military’s not on the table,” Trump told reporters at the economic forum in Switzerland, acknowledging sighs of relief throughout the room.

“I don’t think it will be necessary,” he said. “I really don’t. I think people are going to use better judgment.”

It was a turn of events that came as welcome news in Nuuk, where signs hang in storefronts and kitchen windows rejecting American imperialism.

“It’s difficult to say what are negotiating tactics, and what the foundation is for him saying all of this,” said Finn Meinel, an attorney born and raised in the Greenlandic capital. “It could be that joint pressure from the EU and NATO countries has made an impact, as well as the economic numbers in the states. Maybe that has had an influence.”

President Trump speaks during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday.

President Trump speaks during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on Wednesday.

(Evan Vucci / Associated Press)

In his speech at Davos, Trump took note of the market turmoil his threats against Greenland had caused entering the conference. Announcing the agreement framework on social media Wednesday, he said he would pause punitive tariffs planned against longstanding European allies that had refused to support his demands.

Prominent world leaders — including from Canada, France and the United Kingdom, among Washington’s closest allies — had warned earlier this week that Trump’s militant threats against a fellow NATO member were ushering in a new era of global order accommodating a less reliable United States.

For years, Trump has called for U.S. ownership over Greenland due to its strategic position in the Arctic Circle, where ice melting due to climate change is making way for a new era of competition with Russia and China. An Arctic conflict, the president says, will require a robust U.S. presence there.

While the president rejects climate change and its perils as a hoax, he has embraced the opportunities that may come with the melting of Greenland’s ice sheet, the world’s largest after Antarctica, including the opening of new shipping lanes and defense positions.

The United States already enjoys broad freedom to deploy any defense assets it sees fit across the island, raising questions in Europe over Trump’s fixation on outright sovereignty over the land.

“We want a piece of ice for world protection, and they won’t give it. We’ve never asked for anything else,” Trump said, addressing members of the NATO alliance.

“I don’t want to use force. I won’t use force,” Trump said. But Europe still has a choice. “You can say yes, and we will be very appreciative,” he continued, “or you can say no, and we will remember.”

  • Share via

The day before Trump’s speech, allies warned about a “rupture” in a global order in which the United States could be relied upon as a force of good. Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, in a speech Tuesday characterized Trump’s push to acquire Greenland as an example of why “the old order is not coming back.”

Trump apparently took note of Carney’s remarks, and told the crowd on Wednesday that Canada “should be grateful.”

“But they are not,” Trump said. “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark, the next time you make your statements.”

The president struck a similar tone with his demands for Greenland, repeatedly characterizing the United States as a “great power” compared with Denmark in its ability to protect the Arctic territory. At one point, he cited the American military’s role in World War II to justify his demands, telling the eastern Swiss audience that, “without us, you’d all be speaking German, or a little Japanese perhaps.”

It was a slight carried forward by the president’s treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, who derided Copenhagen for its decision to divest from U.S. treasuries. “Denmark’s investment in U.S. treasury bonds like Denmark itself is irrelevant,” the secretary said.

In several instances, Trump framed the transatlantic alliance as one that benefits other countries more than the United States.

“We will be with NATO 100%, but I’m not sure they will be there for us,” Trump said. But NATO Secretary Gen. Mark Rutte responded to the concern in their meeting, noting that the alliance’s Article 5 commitment to joint defense has only been invoked once — by the United States, after the September 11th attacks. “Let me tell you: they will,” Rutte said.

But Trump expanded on his thinking over Greenland in his speech to the summit, describing his fixation on Greenland as “psychological,” and questioning why the United States would come to the island’s defense if its only investment was a licensing agreement.

“There’s no sign of Denmark there. And I say that with great respect for Denmark, whose people I love, whose leaders are very good,” Trump said. “It’s the United States alone that can protect this giant, massive land – this giant piece of ice – develop it, and improve it, and make it so that it’s good for Europe, and safe for Europe, and good for us.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom was among the people in the audience reacting to Trump’s remarks in real time. The president’s speech, he told CNN afterward, was “remarkably boring” and “remarkably insignificant.”

“He was never going invade Greenland. It was never real,” Newsom said. “That was always a fake.”

Wilner reported from Nuuk, Ceballos from Washington, D.C.

Source link

FCC says shows like “The View,” and “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” may have to provide equal time

The Federal Communications Commission is taking aim at broadcast networks’ late-night and daytime talk shows, including ABC’s “The View,” which often feature politicians as guests.

On Wednesday, the FCC’s Media Bureau issued a public notice saying broadcast TV stations would be obligated to provide equal time to an opposing political candidate if an appearance by a politician falls short of a “bona fide” news event.

For years, hosts of “The View,” ABC’s “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” and CBS’ “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” have freely parried with high-profile politicians without worrying about being subjected to the so-called “equal time” rule, which requires broadcasters to bring on a politician’s rival to provide balanced coverage and multiple viewpoints.

With the new guidance, FCC appears to take a dim view of whether late-night and daytime talk shows deserve an exemption from the “equal time” rules for stations that transmit programming over the public airwaves.

There’s a difference between a “bona fide” news interview and partisan politics, the FCC said.

“A program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption under longstanding FCC precedent,” the Media Bureau said in its unsigned four-page document.

The bureau encouraged broadcasters to seek an opinion from the FCC to make sure their shows were in compliance — an advisory that will likely raise anxiety and potentially prompt some TV station groups to scrutinize shows that delve deeply into politics.

Since President Trump returned to the White House a year ago, the FCC has stepped up its involvement in overseeing content — a departure from past practice. The move comes five months after Trump-appointed FCC Chairman Brendan Carr suggested television stations pull Kimmel’s late-night show over controversial remarks the comedian made in the aftermath of the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Trump has made no secret of his disdain for Kimmel, Colbert, NBC comedian Seth Meyers and various hosts of “The View.”

In a statement, Daniel Suhr, president of the conservative Center for American Rights, said “This important action puts Hollywood hosts and network executives on notice — they can no longer shower Democrats with free airtime while shutting out Republicans.” The organization has lodged several complaints with the FCC about alleged media bias.

Recently, “The View” featured former U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, once a Trump acolyte, who has become a fierce critic of the president.

The precedent was established in 2006, when the FCC determined that then NBC late-night host Jay Leno’s “Tonight Show” interview with actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who announced his bid for California governor, was “bona fide” news event, and thus, not subject to the FCC rule.

The FCC’s guidance does not apply to cable news programs — only shows that run on broadcast television, which is subject to FCC enforcement actions.

Carr previously opened investigations into ABC-parent Walt Disney Co. and Comcast Corp., which owns NBCUniversal.

This is a developing story.

Source link

L.A. mayoral candidate Austin Beutner’s daughter dies at 22; no cause released

The daughter of Los Angeles mayoral candidate Austin Beutner died earlier this month and authorities have not yet released the cause.

Emily Beutner, 22, died at a hospital on Jan. 6, according to information posted on the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner’s website.

“My family has experienced the unimaginable loss of our beloved daughter. We ask for privacy and your prayers at this time,” Beutner said Wednesday in a statement to The Times.

Emily Beutner was a student at Loyola Marymount University and was the youngest, and only daughter, of Beutner’s four children.

Beutner, a former Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent, is the best known of the challengers seeking to unseat Mayor Karen Bass in the June 2 election. In recent weeks, he has sharply criticized the incumbent’s handling of last year’s Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left 12 people dead.

Beutner spokesperson Jeff Millman declined to say how the death would affect Beutner’s campaign.

Beutner’s last public event as a candidate was on Jan. 5, a day before his daughter died, when he held a news conference in Pacific Palisades. During that event, he called on the mayor to form a citizens commission to examine what went wrong before, during and after the disaster.

The Palisades fire destroyed the Pacific Palisades home of Beutner’s mother-in-law. The blaze also seriously damaged Beutner’s own home, forcing him to live elsewhere for the past year.

In recent days, Beutner’s campaign has continued to post on social media, weighing in on real estate developer Rick Caruso’s decision not to run for mayor or governor.

Beutner belongs to a larger field of candidates, many of them unknown, seeking to unseat Bass after a single four-year term. Among them are reality TV star Spencer Pratt, who lost his home in the Palisades fire, and Rae Huang, a community organizer and housing advocate.

Source link

Newsom says White House blocked him from speaking at global forum

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said the California governor was denied entry into a venue at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday under pressure from the Trump administration.

Newsom had been asked to speak at an event at USA House, an American pavilion at the annual gathering of world leaders. Newsom’s office said they were told that a “venue-level decision” was made to “not include an elected U.S. official” in tonight’s programming. The fireside chat was scheduled for Wednesday evening in Davos, which is nine hours ahead of Pacific Standard Time, with media outlet Fortune.

Newsom spokesman Izzy Gardon said after Newsom was uninvited to the event by USA House, they offered to allow him to have a “VIP nightcap” to have a drink off the record instead.

The White House could not immediately be reached for comment.

The World Economic Forum’s stated mission is engaging in “forward-looking discussions to address global issues and set priorities.”

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

Source link

House Republicans begin push to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress over the Epstein probe

House Republicans started a push Wednesday to hold former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in contempt of Congress over the Jeffrey Epstein investigation, opening the prospect of the House using one of its most powerful punishments against a former president for the first time.

The contempt proceedings are an initial step toward a criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice that, if successful, could send the Clintons to prison in a dispute over compelling them to testify before the House Oversight Committee.

Rep. James Comer, the chairman, said at the start of the committee’s hearing that Clintons had responded not with “cooperation but defiance.”

“Subpoenas are not mere suggestions, they carry the force of law and require compliance,” said Comer, R-Ky.

The Clintons argue that the subpoenas are invalid. Bill Clinton, President Trump and many others connected to Epstein have not been accused of wrongdoing. Yet lawmakers are wrestling over who receives the most scrutiny.

Nonetheless, there were signs of a potential thaw as the Clintons, both Democrats, appeared to be searching for an off-ramp to testify. In addition, passage of contempt charges through the full House was far from guaranteed, requiring a majority vote — something Republicans increasingly struggle to achieve.

The repercussions of contempt charges loomed large, given the possibility of a substantial fine and even incarceration.

While the charges have historically been used only as a last resort, lawmakers in recent years have been more willing to reach for the option. Comer initiated the contempt proceedings after the Clintons refused for months to fulfill a committee subpoena for their testimony in its Epstein investigation.

The clash was the latest turn in the Epstein saga as Congress investigates how he was able to sexually abuse dozens of teenage girls for years. Epstein killed himself in 2019 in a New York jail cell while awaiting trial. The public release of case files has shown details of the connections between Epstein and both Bill Clinton and Trump, among many other high-powered men.

Comer rejected an offer Tuesday from a lawyer for the Clintons to have Comer and the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. Robert Garcia of California, interview Bill Clinton in New York, along with staff.

How the Clintons have responded

The Clintons released a letter last week criticizing Comer for seeking their testimony at a time when the Justice Department is running a month behind a congressionally mandated deadline to release its complete case files on Epstein.

Behind the scenes, however, longtime Clinton lawyer David Kendall has tried to negotiate an agreement. Kendall raised the prospect of having the Clintons testify on Christmas and Christmas Eve, according to the committee’s account of the negotiations.

The Clintons, who contend the subpoenas are invalid because they do not serve any legislative purpose, also say they did not know about Epstein’s abuse. They have offered the committee written declarations about their interactions with Epstein.

“We have tried to give you the little information we have. We’ve done so because Mr. Epstein’s crimes were horrific,” the Clintons wrote Comer last week.

How contempt proceedings have been used

Contempt of Congress proceedings are rare, used when lawmakers are trying to force testimony for high-profile investigations, such as the infamous inquiry during the 1940s into alleged Communist sympathizers in Hollywood or the impeachment proceedings of President Richard Nixon.

Most recently, Trump’s advisers Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon were convicted of contempt charges for defying subpoenas from a House panel investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, riot by a mob of the Republican president’s supporters at the Capitol. Both Navarro and Bannon spent months in prison.

The Jan. 6 committee also subpoenaed Trump in its inquiry. Trump’s lawyers resisted the subpoena, citing decades of legal precedent they said shielded ex-presidents from being ordered to appear before Congress. The committee ultimately withdrew its subpoena.

No former president has ever been successfully forced to appear before Congress, although some have voluntarily appeared.

The Democrats’ response

Democrats have largely been focused on advancing the investigation into Epstein rather than mounting an all-out defense of the Clintons, who led their party for decades. They have said Bill Clinton should inform the committee if he has any pertinent information about Epstein’s abuses.

A wealthy financier, Epstein donated to Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign and Hillary Clinton’s joint fundraising committee ahead of her 2000 Senate campaign in New York.

“No president or former president is above the law,” Garcia said at the committee hearing.

Democrats spent the hearing criticizing Comer for focusing on the Clintons when the Justice Department is behind schedule on releasing the Epstein files. Comer has also allowed several former attorneys general to provide the committee with written statements attesting to their limited knowledge of the case.

The committee had also subpoenaed Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s longtime confidant who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for a conviction on sex trafficking charges.

“It’s interesting that it’s this subpoena only that Republicans and the chairman have been obsessed about putting all their energy behind,” Garcia said.

Comer said the committee will interview Maxwell next month. Attorney General Pam Bondi will also appear before the House Judiciary Committee in February.

Democrats embraced the call for full transparency on Epstein after Trump’s return to the White House, particularly after Bondi stumbled on her promise to release the entirety of the unredacted Epstein files to the public. The backlash scrambled traditional ideological lines, leading Republicans to side with Democrats demanding further investigation.

The pressure eventually resulted in a bipartisan subpoena from the committee that ordered the Justice Department and Epstein estate to release files related to Epstein. Republicans quickly moved to include the Clintons in the subpoena.

Comer has indicated that he will insist that the subpoena be fulfilled by nothing less than a transcribed deposition of Bill Clinton.

“You have to have a transcript in an investigation,” he said. “So no transcript, no deal.”

Groves and Brown write for the Associated Press.

Source link

Doctors in Minnesota decry fear and chaos amid Trump administration’s immigration crackdown

There was the pregnant woman who missed her medical checkup, afraid to visit a clinic during the Trump administration’s sweeping Minnesotaimmigration crackdown. A nurse found her at home, already in labor and just about to give birth.

There was the patient with kidney cancer who vanished without his medicine in immigration detention facilities. It took legal intervention for his medicine to be sent to him, though doctors are unsure if he’s been able to take it.

There was the diabetic afraid to pick up insulin, the patient with a treatable wound that festered and required a trip to the intensive care unit, and the hospital staffers — from Latin America, Somalia, Myanmar and elsewhere — too scared to come to work.

“Our places of healing are under siege,” Dr. Roli Dwivedi, past president of the Minnesota Academy of Family Physicians, said Tuesday at a state Capitol news conference in St. Paul, where doctor after doctor told of patients suffering amid the clampdown.

For years, hospitals, schools and churches had been off-limits for immigration enforcement.

But a year ago, the Trump administration announced that federal immigration agencies could now make arrests in those facilities, ending a policy that had been in effect since 2011.

“I have been a practicing physician for more than 19 years here in Minnesota, and I have never seen this level of chaos and fear,” including at the height of the COVID-19 crisis, Dwivedi said.

The crackdown, which began late last year, surged to unprecedented levels in January when the Department of Homeland Security said it would send 2,000 federal agents and officers to the Minneapolis area in what it called the largest-ever immigration enforcement operation.

More than 3,000 people in the country illegally had been arrested during what it dubbed Operation Metro Surge, the government said in a Monday court filing.

“Our patients are missing,” with pregnant women missing out on key prenatal care, said Dr. Erin Stevens, legislative chair for the Minnesota section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Requests for home births have also increased significantly, “even among patients who have never previously considered this or for whom, it is not a safe option,” Stevens said.

The surge in the deeply liberal Twin Cities has set off clashes between activists and immigration officers, pitted city and state officials against the federal government, and left a mother of three dead, shot by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer in what federal officials said was an act of self-defense but that local officials described as reckless and unnecessary.

The Trump administration and Minnesota officials have traded blame for the heightened tensions.

The latest flare-up came Sunday, when protesters disrupted a service at a St. Paul church because one of its pastors leads the local ICE field office. Some walked right up to the pulpit at the Cities Church, with others loudly chanting “ICE out.”

The U.S. Department of Justice said it has opened a civil rights investigation into the church protest.

Sullivan writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

An effort to save local journalism in California is foundering

California has a problem. It’s not homelessness, a lack of housing or the state’s increasing unaffordability, all of which have been documented at length.

It’s truth decay.

If you believe that information is the taproot of knowledge and expanding personal vistas is key to learning, there’s a case to be made that the great Golden State — quietly, with scant notice — is growing more impoverished by the day.

In the last quarter of a century, a third of California newsrooms have closed.

Nearly 7 in 10 journalists have lost their jobs.

The relentlessly cruel economics of the news business, driven in good part by the voracious profiteering of monoliths such as Google and Facebook, has devastated the industry — including the newsroom that employs your friendly columnist — drastically shrinking its output and leaving California, like the rest of the country, vastly worse off.

There’s an information vacuum and that space is filling up with garbage.

Increasingly, the daily diet of “news” that the media serves up is being sourced from partisans, propagandists and self-interested promoters who falsely style themselves as prophets of the unvarnished truth.

(If you genuinely can’t differentiate between news and commentary, such as this, or between those making an honest attempt to present a fair, all-things-considered account of events versus someone shaving, eliding and shoehorning facts to fit a predetermined narrative, here’s a suggestion: Save time, skip the rest of this column and turn to the sports or comics pages.)

Not long ago, California took a baby step toward addressing this rampant decay.

Now, even that tiny effort is tottering.

In August 2024, the state and Google reached a deal to invest $175 million over five years in local journalism. It was a compromise of sorts, and a lopsided one at that. Lawmakers were pushing a measure, similar to those enacted in Australia and Canada, that would have forced tech giants to pay online publishers for the ransacking, er, use, of their journalistic content.

They can well afford it.

In just one year — 2018 — Google made $4.7 billion from the work of news outlets, according to the News Media Alliance, a trade organization. The company’s share of its agreement with California — $55 million — is barely a speck on its balance sheet; revenue for Alphabet, Google’s parent company, topped $102 billion in its most recent quarterly earnings report.

Google spent $11 million lobbying to kill the journalism-support legislation, but eventually agreed to kick in at least something. Facebook took an oppositional stance — greed and amorality apparently being endemic to its corporate culture — and threatened to remove news posts from its social media platforms if California forced the company to cough up for the news it used.

Gov. Gavin Newsom hailed the deal with Google, modest though it was, with characteristic grandiosity.

“This agreement represents a major breakthrough in ensuring the survival of newsrooms and bolstering local journalism across California,” he said. “The deal not only provides funding to support hundreds of new journalists but helps rebuild a robust and dynamic California press corps for years to come, reinforcing the vital role of journalism in our democracy.”

The reality, however, has turned out quite differently.

In May 2025, Newsom slashed the state’s first-year commitment to the newsroom-subsidy program from $30 million to $10 million, citing budget constraints. (In the same budget year, California vastly expanded its film and TV tax credit, showing where the governor’s priorities lay.) Google then said it would match the state’s $10-million investment and no more.

But even that $20 million has yet to reach newsrooms. And going forward, the prospects for boosting California’s stretched-thin newsrooms look exceedingly dim.

In his most recent budget proposal, released this month, Newsom proposed precisely zero dollars for the so-called Newsroom Transformation Fund. Which means Google is on the hook for precisely zero dollars — though any contribution at all is subject to the company’s goodwill.

“The deal was never etched in paper and signed by any party — it was a handshake agreement in principle,” Erin Ivie, a spokesperson for Assemblymember Buffy Wicks, told CalMatters. (The Oakland Democrat was a key participant in negotiations with Google.)

“There was never any penalty or consequence built into the agreement,” Ivie said, “as the arrangement is voluntary, not coercive.”

Steve Glazer, a former Democratic state senator from Orinda, authored legislation that would have imposed an “extraction” fee on the major tech platforms, raising about $500 million a year that California news outlets could have used to hire local journalists. It passed the Senate in June 2024 on a two-thirds vote but was torpedoed as part of the compromise that resulted in the deal with Google.

Glazer, who left the Legislature in December 2024, has continued his fight to sustain local journalism, serving as a senior advisor to the group Rebuild Local News, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that seeks to do what its name suggests.

“A functioning democracy has independent news as [a foundation] for oversight and accountability,” Glazer said, noting the erasure of two-thirds of professional journalists in California in the last 25 years. “The ability of the public to get information, discern the facts and have reasoned opinions about who’s in charge and doing what is in serious jeopardy without a robust local news community.”

Forcing social media platforms to pay for the news and information they pilfer and monetize seems a quite modest and reasonable step. Not just to provide news publishers the equivalent of a fair and honest wage, but also to bolster our wobbling democracy by fostering an engaged and knowledgeable electorate.

It’s not too much to ask of lawmakers: Make California robustly informed again.

Source link

Celebrity PR firm helped LAFD shape messaging after Palisades fire

In the months after the Palisades fire, the Los Angeles Fire Department Foundation raked in millions of dollars in charitable donations to pay for training and equipment for firefighters, as LAFD leaders publicly complained about not having enough money to keep the city safe.

But some of the funds were quietly spent on something that had little to do with firefighting: a celebrity public relations firm to help LAFD leaders shape their messaging after a disaster in which their missteps figured prominently, The Times has learned.

Neither the LAFD nor the foundation would say how much the charity paid the Lede Company, whose clients include Reese Witherspoon and Charlize Theron, and what exactly the firm did for the department. A Lede representative declined to comment, saying the company does not discuss client matters.

“The LAFD Foundation provided communications support by hiring the Lede Company as part of its mission to provide resources to the LAFD,” Liz Lin, president of the foundation, said in an email. “The Foundation was not involved in the services provided by the Lede Company. Specific details regarding the Department’s use of the Lede Company should be addressed by the LAFD.”

The revelation comes as the LAFD is under heightened scrutiny for altering its after-action report to downplay the city’s failures in preparing for and responding to the fire, which killed 12 people and destroyed thousands of homes. The LAFD declined to answer questions about the work of the PR firm, including whether any changes to the report were made at its direction, vaguely citing federal court proceedings.

Federal prosecutors have charged a former Palisades resident with starting a Jan. 1 fire that reignited into the Palisades fire six days later.

“Any further responses will be evaluated following the conclusion of the federal case and in accordance with legal guidance at that time. Thank you for your understanding that no additional responses will be provided until all related court proceedings have been fully resolved,” the LAFD said in an unsigned email.

The after-action report was meant to spell out mistakes, which included not fully pre-deploying engines to the Palisades amid forecasts of dangerously high winds, and to suggest measures to avoid repeating them. But before the report was even completed, LAFD officials worried about how it would be received, privately forming a “crisis management workgroup” to “create our own narrative” about the fire and its aftermath.

Fire Chief Jaime Moore said he met with Lede in mid-November, on his first or second day at the helm, and thanked them for their work, but that he does not know what precisely they did for the department, which was led by interim Fire Chief Ronnie Villanueva when the report came out on Oct. 8.

“I’m assuming they had something to do with the after-action report, because they’re a PR firm,” Moore said in an interview last week. “I would think a PR firm was going to give advice to the fire chief, because at the time, they didn’t have a director of public information. So my assumption would be they were using a PR firm as the PR director.”

The author of the report, LAFD Battalion Chief Kenneth Cook, declined to endorse the public version because of changes that altered his findings and made the report “highly unprofessional and inconsistent with our established standards.”

While Moore admitted that the report was watered down and said he would not allow similar edits to future after-action reports, he said he did not see a benefit in determining who made the changes to the Palisades report.

“I gotta wonder, what is it gonna matter to me? Because I can see what the original report says. I can see what we put out to the public. I can see where the original report and the public report aim to fix the same thing,” he said. “They aim to correct where we could have been better. And it identifies … the steps that are going to be necessary to make those corrective actions.”

Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not respond to questions about whether she met with Lede, what direction its publicists gave city officials and what role the company had in preparing or editing the after-action report.

On its website, Lede boasts of representing “some of the biggest names and brands in entertainment, fashion, beauty & wellness, … advocacy, media, nonprofit and related industries.” In addition to Witherspoon and Theron, its client page includes photos of actors Kerry Washington and Rami Malek and singers Rihanna and Pharrell Williams. The firm represents brands such as Isabel Marant, Clinique and Hennessy Cognac and includes a strategic corporate communications division.

In the wake of the fire, Rick Caruso, the businessman and one-time L.A. mayoral candidate, committed $5 million to the Fire Department Foundation, in annual increments of $1 million.

One of Caruso’s executives sits on the board of the foundation, which bills itself as “the official nonprofit arm of the LAFD” and lists net assets of $12.3 million on its tax return for fiscal 2023-24, the most recent available. According to its website, it “provides vital equipment and funds programs that help the LAFD save lives and build resilient communities.“

Caruso told The Times on Tuesday that the foundation should disclose the amount and specific purpose of its spending on Lede, and that he will ask for an audit to ensure that none of his initial $1-million donation went to the company.

“The donation that our family made to the foundation is specifically intended for and limited to the protection and service of the city of Los Angeles,” said Caruso, who built popular malls like the Grove and the Americana at Brand. “I don’t want the money we donated going to a PR firm.”

Caruso, who has been fiercely critical of Bass and the city during the fire and its aftermath, added that he will withhold future payments to the foundation if an audit is not performed.

“Transparency is critical,” he said. “It’s part of the fiduciary responsibility of the foundation to the taxpayers and the city of Los Angeles to be completely transparent.”

Austin Beutner, a former Los Angeles Unified school superintendent who is running for mayor, said the failure by Bass, the LAFD and the foundation to explain the Lede Company’s role is “an unconscionable lack of transparency.”

“People died. Tens of thousands of people lost their homes, along with tens of thousands of people who lost their jobs. We owe them the truth,” said Beutner, whose home was severely damaged in the fire and who has called for an independent investigation into the city’s preparations for and response to the fire.

Laurie Styron, executive director and chief executive of CharityWatch, a Chicago-based watchdog of nonprofit organizations, said the foundation “should be excited about” disclosing specifically how it is spending donor money, including on the PR company.

“The fact that they’re being cagey about it is eyebrow-raising,” she said.

In a brief interview this month, Bass told The Times that she did not work with the Fire Department on changes to the after-action report, nor did the agency consult her about any changes.

“That’s a technical report. I’m not a firefighter,” she said.

A spokesperson previously said that Bass’ office did not demand changes to the drafts and only asked the LAFD to confirm the accuracy of items such as how the weather and the department’s budget factored into the disaster.

“The report was written and edited by the Fire Department,” the spokesperson, Clara Karger, said in an email in December. “We did not red-line, review every page or review every draft of the report.”

LAFD Assistant Chief Kairi Brown wrote in a July email to eight others, including Villanueva, that the goal of the internal crisis management team “is to collaboratively manage communications for any critical public relations issue that may arise. The immediate and most pressing crisis is the Palisades After Action Report.”

“With significant interest from media, politicians, and the community, it is crucial that we present a unified response to anticipated questions and concerns,” Brown wrote. “By doing so, we can ensure our messaging is clear and consistent, allowing us to create our own narrative rather than reactive responses.”

Cook emailed his final draft to Villanueva a few weeks later. Over the next two months, the report went through a series of edits — behind closed doors and without Cook’s involvement.

Cook’s version highlighted the failure to require firefighters to stay for an additional shift and to fully pre-deploy in the Palisades as a major mistake, noting that it was an attempt to be “fiscally responsible” that went against the department’s policy and procedures.

The department’s final report stated that the pre-deployment measures for the Palisades and other fire-prone locations went “above and beyond” the LAFD’s standard practice. The Times analyzed seven drafts of the report obtained through a records request and disclosed the significant deletions and revisions.

The report only briefly mentioned the Jan. 1 Lachman fire, which the LAFD failed to fully extinguish. The Times found that a battalion chief ordered firefighters to roll up their hoses and leave the burn area despite complaints by crews that the ground was still smoldering.

After the Times report, Bass directed Moore to commission an independent investigation into the LAFD’s handling of the earlier fire.

Moore said he has opened an internal investigation into the Lachman fire through the LAFD’s Professional Standards Division, which probes complaints against department members. He said he requested the Fire Safety Research Institute, which is reviewing last January’s wildfires at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom, to include the Lachman fire as part of its analysis, and the institute agreed.

Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

Source link

Hiltzik: Trump’s tax on American consumers

On Tuesday morning, all eyes on Wall Street seemed glued to the nearest screens in expectation that the Supreme Court would finally disgorge its opinion on the legality of President Trump’s tariffs.

It had been a long wait: The Court heard oral arguments on the issue Nov. 5, when questions from the justices suggested that a majority was prepared to strike the tariffs down.

But the wait isn’t over. No tariff decision came down Tuesday. With the Court about to start a four-week recess, that means that a ruling on the tariffs won’t come before late February, leaving Trump’s most impactful economic policy in limbo for at least another month.

Tariffs do not transfer wealth from foreigners to Americans. They transfer wealth from American consumers to the US Treasury.

— Kiel Institute for the World Economy

But verdicts on the tariffs are flowing in from elsewhere, and from the standpoint of American consumers, they’re ugly in the extreme.

One finding comes from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, a respected German economic think tank. Contrary to Trump’s insistence that the tariffs are paid by foreign countries — more precisely by their exporters — Kiel’s study finds that the tariffs are almost entirely paid by American importers and their domestic customers.

Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik

In 2025, Kiel wrote, the $200 billion that the U.S. treasury collected from Trump’s tariffs was tantamount to a $200-billion consumption tax on Americans.

“The tariffs are, in the most literal sense, an own goal,” Kiel’s researchers wrote. “Americans are footing the bill.”

A second opinion may be even more frightening. It’s that inflation is likely to take off in 2026, driven by tariffs and other ill-considered economic policies emanating from the Trump White House. That’s the view of economists Peter Orzsag, chief executive of the investment firm Lazard; and Adam Posen, president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

“Inflation rising above 4 percent by the end of 2026 is not only plausible,” they write, “but arguably the most likely scenario.” That would be a big jump from the most recent government estimate of a 2.7% annual rate in December.

The gist of the forecast by Orszag and Posen is that Americans were living in a dream world throughout 2025, when a muted inflation increase led even many experts to conclude that the Federal Reserve Board had “largely won its inflation battle,” notwithstanding higher tariffs.

U.S. importers had absorbed most of the cost of tariffs through 2025, Orszag and Posen concluded. “That will change in the first half of 2026,” they write. “Historical evidence shows that tariff pass‑through tends to be gradual, with consumer prices rising only as firms revise pricing with a lag.”

American importers were able to absorb tariff costs in part because they had stockpiled inventories in anticipation of the higher duties. Wary of imposing one-time price increases, businesses chose to raise prices in smaller steps and over a longer period, Orszag and Posen observe. But that relief is likely to be exhausted by the middle of this year.

None of these findings has had any effect on the White House position on tariffs.

“The average tariff imposed by America has increased by almost tenfold under President Trump, and inflation has continued to cool from Biden-era highs,” White House spokesman Kush Desai told me by email. “The Administration has consistently maintained that foreign exporters who depend on access to the American economy, the world’s biggest and best consumer market, will ultimately pay the cost of tariffs, and that’s exactly what’s playing out.”

Yet red lights are flashing as Trump intensifies his use of tariffs as an instrument of a personal foreign policy, almost entirely divorced from their traditional economic role in trade relations.

Over the last week, Trump has threatened European countries with higher tariffs because of their efforts to thwart his determination to take over Greenland. On Monday, he threatened to impose 200% tariffs on French wines because French President Emmanuel Macron balked at joining Trump’s “Board of Peace,” a body he proposes to address global conflicts.

Let’s take a closer look at the latest tariff analyses.

The Kiel study was based on shipment records covering more than 25 million transactions valued at nearly $4 trillion, as well as on case studies of how Indian and Brazilian exporters responded to sharp tariff increases Trump imposed on those countries last year.

The broader statistics, Kiel reported, indicated that 96% of all tariffs were passed through to Americans. As Kiel observed, by claiming that foreign countries pay tariffs, Trump was able to frame them as “a tool to extract concessions from trading partners while generating revenue for the US government — at no cost to American households.”

The truth is that American consumers and importers bore 96% of all the costs, Kiel calculated. That’s not a novel phenomenon. As the Kiel study noted, during the 2018-19 US-China trade war — also instigated by Trump — “US import prices rose nearly one-for-one with the tariffs, while Chinese export prices remained largely unchanged.”

With the latest round of tariff increases, Kiel found, exporters have not cut prices to maintain sales,” which would be tantamount to their paying the tariff costs. Instead, foreign exporters “are accepting reduced market share in the United States while maintaining their profit margins.”

That was notably the case with India, where the value and quantity of exports to the U.S. fell by as much as 24% relative to other export destinations after Trump hit India with a 25% tariff Aug. 7 and raised it to 50% later in the month. “Indian exporters responded to US tariffs by shipping less, not by cutting prices.”

The Kiel researchers conjectured that exporters didn’t absorb the tariff costs for three main reasons. First, they had recourse to alternative markets such as Europe and Asia: “The United States is a large market, but it is not the only market.”

Second, the tariffs were so large that cutting prices to absorb them would make many exports unprofitable. “Given the choice between maintaining margins on reduced sales or slashing margins to maintain volume,” the Kiel researchers wrote, “most exporters apparently prefer the former.”

Finally, many U.S. importers did not have a choice in sourcing goods. That gave existing exporters the upper hand: Exporters know that U.S. importers can’t easily find alternative suppliers, “so they face less competitive pressure to cut prices.”

Tariff costs percolate through to American consumers in numerous ways — through higher prices on imported goods, higher prices on domestic goods produced with imported parts and a narrowed variety of goods on the shelves. Meanwhile, importers have to shoulder the cost adjusting to tariffs by seeking out untariffed suppliers.

“These ‘deadweight’ losses are pure economic waste,” the Kiel researchers concluded — “costs borne by Americans with no offsetting benefits.”

In sum, “tariffs do not transfer wealth from foreigners to Americans. They transfer wealth from American consumers to the US Treasury.” Think about that when Trump or Cabinet members such as Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick or Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent crow about how much money is flowing into the Treasury due to higher tariffs.

Tariffs won’t be the only drivers of inflation through this year, Orszag and Posen acknowledge. But the other drivers are also Trump policies.

These include mass deportations of foreign-born workers. “When deportation effects fully materialize,” they write, “labor shortages in migrant-dependent sectors will intensify, forcing wage increases that feed into services inflation — home health care costs are already rising at a 10 percent annual rate, near decade highs.”

Orszag and Posen also warn that the price shocks sustained by American consumers through 2025 and into this year could have lasting effects on consumer behavior, and therefore on the broader economy, even if statistics show inflation declining.

“Lived experience with inflation has lasting effects on expectations,” they observe. “Households remember salient price increases — eggs, meat, child care, home repairs — far more vividly than aggregate statistics. These memory effects persist for years or even generations.”

As Trump marks the first anniversary of his second term, the U.S. economy is showing its strain. As long as tariffs remain in Supreme Court limbo, there aren’t any signals that things will get better.

Source link

Iraq War Questions Gain Momentum

Mounting questions about the White House’s rationale for invading Iraq are giving Democratic presidential candidates fresh ammunition for attacking President Bush’s credibility and challenging a foreign policy record that has been the cornerstone of Bush’s 2004 reelection campaign.

Bush administration officials have been thrown on the defensive by reports from former chief weapons inspector David Kay that Iraq had no stockpiled weapons of mass destruction at the start of the war last March, as U.S. intelligence had indicated.

But the administration has not acknowledged an intelligence failure, insisting that more time is needed to continue inspections.

Some analysts see a potential political risk if Bush refuses to accept Kay’s conclusion that prewar intelligence was faulty, because it could keep the issue alive deep into the election season.

Even some Republicans are urging the White House to respond more forthrightly to questions about how U.S. intelligence could be so flawed.

“Politically the president really needs to explain this to the American people,” said Rep. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.), a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee who supported the Iraq war. “It undermines his ability to continue to talk to the American people about the war on terrorism.”

There is probably a limit to how much political benefit Democrats can wring from the controversy. Support for the Iraq war remains broad: 65% of those surveyed this month by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press thought going to war was the right decision.

Even among Democrats who voted in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, polls indicated that the weapons issue did not rank high among voters’ concerns, taking a back seat to the pocketbook issues of healthcare and the economy.

Still, some Democratic candidates have seized the controversy not to question the value of the war but to build a broader critique of Bush’s credibility as a leader.

“When the president of the United States looks at you and tells you something, there should be some trust,” said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

And partisan lines are hardening over the question of whether an independent investigation is needed to analyze the apparent discrepancy between the intelligence available before the war and the facts on the ground in Iraq.

Picking up on that idea are Democratic presidential candidates including Sens. John Edwards of North Carolina and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, one of the strongest Democratic supporters of going to war.

“We ought to ask for a full-scale investigation of exactly why our intelligence community” said stockpiles of illegal weapons existed, Lieberman said.

The White House has opposed such a probe, saying the CIA is studying the question. The Senate Intelligence Committee staff also has reviewed the matter and is expected to release a draft report to its members next week.

Condoleezza Rice, Bush’s national security advisor, went on two television talk shows Thursday morning to defend the administration’s view that it was too early to conclude that there had been an intelligence failure.

And she insisted that regardless of whether former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had weapons stockpiles, the administration remained convinced that he posed a threat to the U.S.

“The American people, I think, understand that this president saw a grave and gathering threat in Saddam Hussein, a threat that had been gathering for more than 12 years,” Rice said on NBC’s “Today” show.

A senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity said the White House planned to review the intelligence after receiving the final report by Kay’s staff.

The official said the purpose would be not so much to detect failure as to draw lessons on “how to deal with highly secretive regimes.”

“We all have a strong interest in knowing and comparing … what we thought before and what happened after,” the official said.

On another front, House Republican leaders have mobilized to defend Bush against the impression that he took the U.S. to war under false pretenses. They circulated an analysis arguing that, in other, less-publicized comments, Kay “makes the case for action in Iraq.”

The analysis cites Kay saying it was “unfair” to say Bush misled the American people, and noting that his understanding of Iraq’s weapons capabilities was shared by intelligence agencies in France, Britain and Germany.

Kay also said he did not believe the administration pressured intelligence analysts to hype their findings to help justify war — an assertion that makes it harder for Democrats to support their claim that Bush had essentially fabricated the case for war.

While Republicans stand publicly firm in their support of the war, the Bush administration has begun backing away from its past insistence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction — or that postwar inspectors would eventually find them.

In his State of the Union address last week, Bush referred only to Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities.”

Kay’s successor as chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, says he plans to change the focus from a hunt for illegal weapons to an investigation into how the weapons programs were dismantled.

This is not the first time that questions have been raised about the administration’s claims about Iraq’s threat. The administration last summer was battered by revelations that there was no evidence to support claims Bush made in his 2003 State of the Union address that Hussein had shopped in Africa for enriched uranium for nuclear weapons.

The key political question now is whether the controversy falls flat or ignites new doubts about the war. It has erupted just as the war has seemed to fade as a political issue on the Democratic presidential campaign trail.

While opposition to the Iraq war was central to the rise of former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean to the front of the Democratic pack in polls last year, his losses in Iowa and New Hampshire to Kerry — who voted for the invasion — suggested that the war was not the most important issue to Democratic voters.

A Times exit poll in New Hampshire on the day of the primary found that 14% of those surveyed cited Iraq as one of the top two issues on their minds as they chose how to cast their ballots. Far more cited jobs (45%) and healthcare (36%).

But some analysts say the issue could become more problematic for Bush if the euphoria of capturing Hussein wears off and events in Iraq turn sour.

“Bush is not bulletproof,” said Andy Kohut of the Pew center. “If the cost continues to rise, and one of the reasons we went to war has been taken off the table, that may increase discontent with the decision.”

To guard against that, some Republicans say, Bush should move now to acknowledge intelligence problems and make a conspicuous effort to get to the bottom of them.

“The White House has to say more than ‘we did the right thing,’ and then stand by the intelligence agencies,” said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), a member of the House International Relations Committee.

“They need to say, ‘We did the right thing, but we will over the next several months look into what we need to do to improve the intelligence agencies.’ ”

*

Times staff writer Maura Reynolds contributed to this report.

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Views on Iraq’s banned weapons, then and now

‘We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons…. Many of us are convinced that Saddam Hussein will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon.’ Vice President Dick Cheney, in a speech to veterans in Nashville, Aug. 26, 2002

‘We have tried sanctions. We have tried the carrot of “oil for food” and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one.’ President Bush, in an address to the United Nations, Sept. 12, 2002

‘The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities.’ Bush, in his State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003.

‘The facts and Iraqis’ behavior, Iraq’s behavior, demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort, no effort, to disarm, as required by the international community. Indeed, the facts and Iraq’s behavior show that Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.’ Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, in an address to the United Nations, Feb. 5, 2003

‘The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light — through the prism of our experience on 9/11.’ Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, July 9, 2003

‘The president believes that he had very good intelligence going into the war…. There was enrichment of the intelligence from 1998 over the period leading up to the war. And nothing pointed to a reversal of Saddam Hussein’s very active efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.’ National security advisor Condoleezza Rice, in a Fox News Sunday interview, Sept. 28, 2003

‘We’ve found a couple of semitrailers at this point which we believe were in fact part of [a banned weapons] program. I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that [Hussein] did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction.’ Cheney, in an interview on National Public Radio, Jan. 22, 2004

‘It turns out we were all wrong, in my judgment. And that is most disturbing.’ David Kay, former chief American arms inspector in Iraq, testifying about the unsuccessful search for weapons of mass destruction before Senate Armed Services Committee, Jan. 28, 2004

Source link

He was a billionaire who donated to the Clinton Foundation. Last year, he was denied entry into the U.S.

Nigerian billionaire Gilbert Chagoury, one of Africa’s richest men, has built a reputation as a giant of global philanthropy.

His name is on a gallery at the Louvre and a medical school in Lebanon, and he has received awards for his generosity to the Catholic Church and St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital. He owns a seven-bedroom hilltop mansion in Beverly Hills, and he has a high-level network of friends from Washington to Lebanon to the Vatican, where he serves as an ambassador for the tiny island nation of St. Lucia. His website shows him shaking hands and laughing with Pope Francis.

“I never imagined what the future would hold for me,” Chagoury once said of his boyhood in Nigeria. “But I knew there was a vision for my life that was greater than I could imagine.… I consider it a duty to give back.”

Since the 1990s, Chagoury has also cultivated a friendship with the Clinton family — in part by writing large checks, including a contribution of at least $1 million to the Clinton Foundation.

By the time Hillary Clinton became secretary of State, the relationship was strong enough for Bill Clinton’s closest aide to push for Chagoury to get access to top diplomats, and the agency began exploring a deal, still under consideration, to build a consulate on Chagoury family land in Lagos, Nigeria.

But even as those talks were underway, bureaucrats in other arms of the State Department were examining accusations that Chagoury had unsavory affiliations, stemming from his activities and friendships in Lebanon. After a review, Chagoury was refused a visa to enter the U.S. last year.

Chagoury is a prominent example of the nexus between Hillary Clinton’s State Department and the family’s Clinton Foundation, which has come under renewed scrutiny during her presidential run. The organization, founded as a way for the Clintons to tap their vast network for charitable works, has tackled some of the steepest challenges in the developing world, including rebuilding Haiti and fighting AIDS in Africa. It has also come under fire for its willingness to accept money from foreign governments with interest in swaying U.S. policy during Clinton’s time as secretary of State, and the controversial histories of some donors.

Part of a dictator’s inner circle

Chagoury was born in 1946 in Lagos to Lebanese parents, and as a child attended school in Lebanon. He sold shoes and cars in Nigeria, according to a biography on his website, before marrying the daughter of a prominent Nigerian businessman.

During the rule of Gen. Sani Abacha, who seized power in Nigeria in 1993, Chagoury prospered, receiving development deals and oil franchises.

Election 2016 | Live coverage on Trail Guide | Sign up for the newsletter

In the 1990s, Chagoury portrayed himself as an Abacha insider as he tried to influence American policy to be more friendly to the regime. Soon after President Clinton named Donald E. McHenry a special envoy to Nigeria in 1995, Gilbert and brother Ronald Chagoury visited McHenry in his office at Georgetown University in Washington. The U.S. was pushing for the return of democratic rule in Nigeria; Abacha, meanwhile, was eager to have his country taken off a U.S. list of nations that enabled drug trafficking, McHenry said.

“Their effort was to try and influence anyone who they thought could influence the U.S. government,” McHenry said, adding that the approach was heavy-handed. “They tried every key on the piano.”

Abacha turned out to be “one of the most notorious kleptocrats in memory,” stealing billions in public funds, acting Assistant Atty. Gen. Mythili Raman later said.

After Abacha’s death in 1998, the Nigerian government hired lawyers to track down the money. The trail led to bank accounts all over the world — some under Gilbert Chagoury’s control. Chagoury, who denied knowing the funds were stolen, paid a fine of 1 million Swiss francs, then about $600,000, and gave back $65 million to Nigeria; a Swiss conviction was expunged, a spokesman for Chagoury said.

Ties to the Clintons

In the years afterward, Chagoury’s wealth grew. His family conglomerate now controls a host of businesses, including construction companies, flour mills, manufacturing plants and real estate.

He has used some of that money to build political connections. As a noncitizen, he is barred from giving to U.S. political campaigns, but in 1996, he gave $460,000 to a voter registration group steered by Bill Clinton’s allies and was rewarded with an invitation to a White House dinner. Over the years, Chagoury attended Clinton’s 60th birthday fundraiser and helped arrange a visit to St. Lucia, where the former president was paid $100,000 for a speech. Clinton’s aide, Doug Band, even invited Chagoury to his wedding.

Chagoury also contributed $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to its list of donors. At a 2009 Clinton Global Initiative conference, where business and charity leaders pledge to complete projects, the Chagoury Group’s Eko Atlantic development — nine square kilometers of Lagos coastal land reclaimed by a seawall — was singled out for praise. During a 2013 dedication ceremony in Lagos, just after Hillary Clinton left her post as secretary of State, Bill Clinton lauded the $1-billion Eko Atlantic as an example to the world of how to fight climate change.

“I especially thank my friends Gilbert and Ron Chagoury for making it happen,” he said.

By last summer, U.S. diplomats had selected a 9.9-acre property at Eko Atlantic as the preferred site for a new Lagos consulate, State Department documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times show. Two months ago, James Entwistle, then the U.S. ambassador to Nigeria, wrote to Washington, asking permission to sign a 99-year lease.

No deal has been signed, State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau said. She did not answer questions about whether the Clintons recommended Eko Atlantic. She said at a recent briefing that she was unaware of whether Hillary Clinton knew the site was under consideration; it was on a list of possibilities submitted by a real estate firm in 2012, Trudeau said in response to questions from The Times. A spokesman for Clinton’s campaign noted that the State Department has said the process has been managed by “career real estate professionals.”

Chagoury declined requests for an interview. A friend and spokesman, Mark Corallo, said Chagoury was a generous and “peace-loving” man unfairly scrutinized because of his association with the Clintons. He said Chagoury last saw Hillary Clinton at a 2006 dinner. The Clinton Foundation and a spokesman for Bill Clinton did not respond to requests for comment.

Chagoury also has given to Republicans: He and his brother, along with Eko Atlantic, are listed as sponsors for a 2014 art exhibit at the George W. Bush Presidential Center.

Suspicions emerge in the U.S.

In spite of his network of powerful friends, Chagoury has aroused the suspicions of U.S. security officials. In 2010, he was pulled off a private jet in Teterboro, N.J., and questioned for four hours because he was on the Department of Homeland Security’s no-fly list. He was subsequently removed from the list and categorized as a “selectee,” meaning he can fly but receives extra scrutiny, Homeland Security documents show. The agency later wrote to Chagoury to apologize “for any inconvenience or unpleasantness.”

That letter did not explain why Chagoury was on the no-fly list, but another Homeland Security document shows agents citing unspecified suspicions of links to terrorism, which can include financing extremist organizations; Chagoury later told reporters that agents asked him what bank he used in Nigeria.

Chagoury believes it was unfair for government officials to disclose the episode and to “suggest that he was a potential threat,” Corallo said. He said that Chagoury’s lawyers resolved the issue and that he never asked anyone else for help.

Chagoury told ABC News and the Center for Public Integrity at the time that he was miffed because his travel problems made him miss seeing the Lakers in the playoffs. “I just love the Lakers,” he said.

His visa troubles stem at least in part from his involvement in the tangled politics of Lebanon. Chagoury has contributed to charitable projects there, advocated on behalf of the country’s Christians and formed political alliances, including with Michel Aoun, a Lebanese Christian politician who served as army commander and prime minister during the country’s civil war.

For a decade, Aoun’s party has been part of a political coalition with Hezbollah, the Shiite Muslim group backed by Iran that has seats in Lebanon’s parliament. Hezbollah is classified as a terrorist organization by the U.S., which holds the group responsible for the 1983 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut and a Marine barracks blast that year that killed 241 American servicemen. Drug Enforcement Administration investigations have also found that Hezbollah is in league with Latin American cartels to launder hundreds of millions of dollars in drug profits.

Chagoury was “known to have funded” Aoun, a Lebanese government minister told then-Ambassador Jeffrey D. Feltman in 2007, according to a cable published by WikiLeaks that didn’t go in detail about Chagoury’s relationship with Aoun. The minister suggested that the U.S. “deliver to Chagoury a strong message about the possibility of financial sanctions and travel bans against those who undermine Lebanon’s legitimate institutions.”

Chagoury never got a scolding, though. Instead, Band, Bill Clinton’s aide, pushed for new access for Chagoury after Hillary Clinton took over at the State Department. In 2009, Band wrote his friends in the department. “We need Gilbert Chagoury to speak to the substance guy re Lebanon. As you know he’s key guy there and to us and is loved in Lebanon. Very imp.” Huma Abedin, a longtime aide and confidante to Clinton and now vice chairwoman of her presidential campaign, suggested Feltman.

When Band’s email was made public this month, Donald Trump pounced, calling the Chagoury episode “illegal” and a “pay-to-play” scheme.

But no meeting ever happened, according to both Feltman and Chagoury’s spokesman. Chagoury wanted only to pass along insights on Lebanese politics, Corallo said, adding that “nothing ever came of it” and that Chagoury never talked to anyone at the State Department. Band declined to comment for this story.

A Clinton campaign spokesman said Judicial Watch, the conservative organization that sued to make the emails public, “has been attacking the Clintons since the 1990s.”

“No matter how this group tries to mischaracterize these documents, the fact remains that Hillary Clinton never took action as secretary of State because of donations to the Clinton Foundation,” spokesman Josh Schwerin said.

This month, the foundation announced that it would stop accepting donations from foreigners and corporations should Clinton win the presidency.

Denied a visa

After Clinton left the State Department, Chagoury again found himself under suspicion by U.S. security officials. A 2013 FBI intelligence report, citing unverified raw information from a source, claimed Chagoury had sent funds to Aoun, who transferred money to Hezbollah. The source said Aoun was “facilitating fundraising for Hezbollah.” The U.S. put Chagoury in its database used to screen travelers for possible links to terrorism, interagency memos show.

The ties between Chagoury and Aoun ended years ago in a dispute over oil franchises, said Michel de Chadarev, an official with Aoun’s party. Chagoury now backs an Aoun rival for the presidency. De Chadarev said Aoun “categorically denied” any arrangement where he shared money with Hezbollah or passed funds from Chagoury: “No, no, no. Of course not. It is not in his principles to act as transporter to anyone.”

Last summer, when Chagoury planned a trip to Los Angeles, he applied at the U.S. embassy in Paris for a visitor’s visa and was refused, according to interviews and government documents. Based on the FBI report and other allegations from intelligence and law enforcement sources, the State Department denied the application. It cited terrorism-related grounds, a broad category that can apply to anyone believed to have assisted a terrorist group in any way, including providing money.

Chagoury has denied ties to Hezbollah. Two years ago, he helped pay for a conference in Washington on the persecution of Christians in the Middle East; some attendees supported Hezbollah, but the director of the group that organized the conference said that didn’t mean Chagoury or other conference organizers were among them. “Hezbollah is part of the political reality of the country,” Andrew Doran told the National Review.

Corallo did not answer questions about the visa denial, but said Chagoury “has been a friend and supporter of America all his life” and that “any allegation that Mr. Chagoury is involved in any way with providing material support to any terrorist organization, of any stripe, is false, outrageous and defamatory.” He said Chagoury has no business interests in Lebanon.

The visa decision process is opaque and provides little recourse for those who are denied entry. Typically, the person is told of the grounds for refusal, but not the details. The secretary of State can grant a waiver, but that is often difficult when the evidence used to block entry is terrorism-related.

For the last three decades, Corallo said, Chagoury spent at least a few months each year in Beverly Hills, where he owns an 18,000-square-foot estate, once the home of actor Danny Thomas, with commanding views of West Los Angeles and the ocean.

A year ago, after his visa application was denied, Chagoury’s mansion was put on the market, with an asking price of $135 million. It’s still for sale.

joseph.tanfani@latimes.com

Twitter: @jtanfani

Why the USC/L.A. Times tracking poll differs from other surveys

Trump’s immigration pivot: Will he be the latest Republican to alienate the base?

Trump is encouraging and amplifying the message of a ‘radical fringe’ of conservatives, Clinton says



Source link

Lieberman ‘Clears Air’ With Blacks

Hoping to patch up an emerging fissure in the Democratic base, soon-to-be vice presidential nominee Joseph I. Lieberman arrived in Los Angeles on Tuesday and quickly moved to mend fences with black Democrats concerned about his positions on affirmative action, school vouchers and other issues.

In a well-received speech to the party’s black caucus, Lieberman said he had been misrepresented as a supporter of Proposition 209, the 1996 California initiative that banned state-funded affirmative action programs.

“I have supported affirmative action, I do support affirmative action and I will support affirmative action,” Lieberman said to thunderous applause from the crowd at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel. “Why? Because history and current reality make it necessary.”

In his speech and at a private meeting beforehand, Lieberman won over the African American politician who had been most outspoken in questioning his record: Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles). She gave Lieberman the endorsement she had been threatening to withhold.

“It clears the air,” said Waters after his speech. “He has said enough. He has done enough. I feel comfortable in campaigning for him.”

Lieberman acknowledged that he shared concerns raised in the mid-1990s that some affirmative action programs had turned into quota systems. But he denied he had supported Proposition 209 and explained how his view had come to be misrepresented.

He said that during a news conference in March 1995, a reporter read him the text of the initiative. He responded that the initiative sounded like “a basic statement of human rights policy” and added that he supported affirmative action but not quotas. But he later declined requests to endorse the initiative, saying he worried about the effects it would have if implemented.

Later that summer, he added, he gave a speech on the Senate floor in support of President Clinton’s “mend it, don’t end it” approach.

Still, Lieberman’s efforts Tuesday may be just the first steps in a long journey the senator from Connecticut may have to travel to build bridges to the Democratic Party’s core constituencies. Many of them know little about Lieberman, and some don’t like what they had heard so far.

Lieberman on Tuesday also made a conciliatory gesture to Hollywood activists rankled by his crusade against sex and violence in youth entertainment. He attended a reception at the Beverly Hills home of television and movie producer David Salzman.

Lieberman also may have work to do with members of teacher groups, who are edgy about his willingness to experiment with school vouchers, and labor unions, who are at odds with his views on trade.

“There are a lot of different groups that are going to have disagreements with some of Lieberman’s positions,” said Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Los Angeles). “Some are going to ask tough questions about his views.”

The tough questions began most publicly among black Democrats, a vast and crucial voting bloc that is among the most loyal constituencies in the Democratic Party; typically, 90% of the African American vote goes to the Democratic ticket.

It remains unclear how far black voters’ doubts about Lieberman extend beyond the convention hall. The latest poll found 44% of blacks surveyed had a favorable impression of him and only 2% had an unfavorable view–but 46% did not know enough about him to have an impression.

Waters said she is not alone in wanting assurances about Lieberman’s views. “Many delegates are just unclear” about his stand on key social issues, she said.

In a political contest in which Al Gore and his Republican rival, George W. Bush, are competing for swing voters, it may actually help the Democratic ticket among centrists to be portrayed as “too conservative.” But Gore needs this convention to solidify his hold on the Democratic base.

Cracks began to appear in that base in recent days, as Waters and other blacks voiced concern about reports Lieberman had supported Proposition 209 and about his support for school voucher experiments.

As soon as Lieberman arrived in Los Angeles on Tuesday, his first order of business was to huddle with Gore campaign officials and black party leaders, including Labor Secretary Alexis M. Herman, to discuss how to handle these concerns.

Before Lieberman spoke to the black caucus, Herman arranged for him to meet privately with Waters, who urged him to directly confront the questions about his record.

He did so in his speech to the black caucus. But first, as he greeted the group, Lieberman singled out Waters for recognition, leading a rendition of “Happy Birthday” for the congresswoman, who turned 62 Tuesday.

In his speech, Lieberman said he has long felt “rapport” with the African American community, detailing his efforts to register black voters in the South during the 1960s as a college student and his work fighting for civil rights in Connecticut and Congress.

Lieberman also addressed his support for some experimental school voucher programs, saying he only backed those that did not take money from the general education budget. But, he added, his top goal is improving the public school system.

And he said he would always defer to Gore, who opposes vouchers.

“When we get to the White House, when the president decides, the vice president will enthusiastically support,” said Lieberman.

Source link

Kerry’s Lionizing Shift From Officer to Activist

The week he became an American household name, John F. Kerry carried his credentials pinned to his shirt pocket.

For five days in late April 1971, Kerry wore his battle ribbons on old combat fatigues as he led 1,000 disillusioned Vietnam veterans massed in Washington for a protest against the war they fought.

“Mr. Kerry, please move your microphone,” Sen. Stuart Symington (D-Mo.) prodded the 27-year-old former Navy lieutenant during a climactic appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “You have a Silver Star, have you not?”

Solemn, gangling, hunched over a witness table, Kerry obliged, showing the cloth bars that stood for his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Kerry’s pained plea — “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” — stiffened congressional opposition to the war and made him a peace movement icon for giving voice to veterans weary of death without victory.

The embittered grunts called themselves “Winter Soldiers,” conjuring up Thomas Paine’s vision of a Colonial army of patriots. They dubbed their protest “Dewey Canyon III,” a play on the Nixon administration’s code for secret incursions into Laos. They flashed their decorations everywhere they went that week. Then, in a bitter farewell that still shadows Kerry’s career, he and his peace platoons tossed away honors.

Antiwar Turning Point

A signal moment in the slow fade of American support for the war, the 1971 protest by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War was Kerry’s entry point into public life. No other presidential aspirant of his generation won such early prominence or endured such microscopic scrutiny.

“I did what I thought was the right thing to save the lives of American soldiers,” Kerry said in a recent interview. “It wasn’t easy. I mean, I knew people would be critical, that there would be people who wouldn’t like it.”

Kerry’s two-year transformation — from disaffected patrol boat skipper home from Vietnam to an antiwar leader coming into his own at the Washington protest — sheds insight into the nuances of his character. His determined entry into the upper echelon of the peace movement was a daring high-wire act for a Yale graduate with no constituency beyond his own conscience and ambition.

Poised beyond his years, Kerry spoke out with wounded eloquence as the nation roiled over widening war and mounting American deaths. He faced risks in coming forward, singled out as a threat by no less than President Nixon and targeted by government and military spies in a covert surveillance campaign still coming to light today.

“The powers that be wanted to know what these guys were up to,” recalled John J. O’Connor, a D.C. policeman assigned to infiltrate the VVAW leadership. “They had their hotheads. Not Kerry. He was cool as 12-year-old Scotch.”

Kerry pressed his antiwar troops to work within the system, a moderate course he says is a lifelong inclination. But critics and admirers say his centrism reflected a striver’s calculation. Fellow protesters mocked his prudence and pressed khakis. Even then, they say, Kerry kept one eye cocked on his future, hedging his bets in careful maneuvering that became the hallmark of his political rise.

On the campaign trail, Kerry plays up his exploits as a patrol boat skipper to show his resolve. Yet he revisits his antiwar days warily, aware his old words and actions remain poisoned symbols. Vietnam veterans still rage over Kerry’s Senate speech, reviling him for his incendiary antiwar criticism and for citing unproven atrocities allegedly committed by U.S. troops.

“Going up to testify without confirmation was a slander on the Vietnam veteran,” said W. Hays Parks, a former Marine colonel who served as an infantry officer and military prosecutor in Vietnam.

Even as Dewey Canyon III ended with an admiring burst of media coverage, Kerry’s success was fissured with doubts. Fearing public recriminations, he urged the antiwar veterans to return their decorations in a muted ceremony. But they ignored him, instead flinging their honors away in an angry symbolic rejection of the war.

Massing in parade formation, 700 veterans wept, cheered and swore as they lobbed their decorations like grenades. When Kerry’s turn came, he muttered sorrowfully into a brace of microphones, then lofted his own ribbons.

“I knew I was going to throw them back, but I didn’t know how,” Kerry recalls. After the crowd dispersed, Kerry says, he discreetly tossed away two medals given to him by veterans who could not attend the event. The flinched denouement fed suspicions that Kerry had pretended the medals were his own — even as the renounced honors lay unclaimed for years, hidden away in a police storeroom.

Dewey Canyon III ended for Kerry as catharsis, “like throwing the war over the fence.” But his path to antiwar activism remains an exposed fault line for his generation, a progression Kerry has always insisted was seamless and unavoidable.

“I had to speak out,” he says. “I was compelled.”

Kerry had it relatively easy when he came home from the war in April 1969. He was an admiral’s aide in Brooklyn and had an apartment with his fiancee on Manhattan’s elegant upper East Side.

But Vietnam still gouged his world, erasing old friends. Two weeks after his return, Kerry learned of the ambush death of Don Droz, a fellow patrol boat commander who shared his doubts about the war. Droz’s death left him numb.

“That’s when I decided I really needed to kick into gear,” Kerry recalls.

He vented on paper, intent on composing “a letter to America.” At a Greenwich Village pub, Kerry raised the idea with columnist Pete Hamill, a friend of his sister’s. The letter sat unsent. “He felt he had something to give. It’s the sort of noblesse oblige that doesn’t resonate too much these days,” said close friend George Butler.

Kerry found an outlet piloting Adam Walinsky, a former speechwriter for Robert F. Kennedy, to upstate New York colleges for a lecture series against the war. Aloft in a bucking prop plane, the two men talked about Vietnam, politics and the Kennedys. For Kerry, the talk “crystallized in me that this was something we all needed to do.”

By January 1970, Kerry had left the Navy to run as an antiwar congressional candidate in Boston. Outflanked by the sudden entry of peace activist the Rev. Robert Drinan, Kerry pulled out, canny enough to know his aspirations for office needed a base.

The war kept drawing him back. Newly married and on honeymoon in France, Kerry detoured from his vacation to meet with South and North Vietnamese delegates to the Paris peace talks. How a 26-year-old private citizen without a political track record connected with the negotiators is unclear.

Through an aide, Kerry said he does not recall the details of the session — though he told the Senate in 1971 that negotiators for the communist North assured him that if the U.S. “set a date for withdrawal” from Vietnam, its “prisoners of war would be returned.”

A Veteran Voice

Speaking out against the war at college campuses and fundraisers, Kerry found his voice as an activist. His reputation reached leaders of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group of dissident ex-GIs in New York. “He was just what we needed, the kind of guy who could stand in a room of angry vets and convince them to do something,” said Jan Barry, who founded the group in 1967.

Kerry found his chance in late January 1971. As VVAW members massed in a Detroit motel, Kerry asked to organize a march on Washington. By lobbying Congress and marching in front of cameras, Kerry felt, veterans might turn the tide against the war.

His reception was stormy. Many VVAW leaders, working-class grunts from the heartland, teed off on Kerry, suspicious of his officer’s rank and patrician aloofness. Radicals resented his blunt push for leadership. They finally gave their assent, but added a symbolic tweak of guerrilla theater — a mass return of their combat honors.

“We used each other,” explains Jack Mallory, a former Army captain from Virginia. “He was our front man. We were his stepping-stone to publicity.”

The veterans also were there to amass proof of U.S. war crimes in Vietnam. The “Winter Soldier” hearings were sparked by the 1968 My Lai massacre of 347 Vietnamese civilians.

Prodded by Kerry and other moderators, more than 150 vets filed into the dimly lighted motel hall, spilling horror tales. Bill Crandell, an Ohio infantry officer who led the hearings, described civilians gunned down in “free fire zones” — combat areas where soldiers killed at will. Former Marine Scott Camil detailed a torrent of murders and disembowelings — a grisly account he later gave under oath to the Navy.

Government’s Scrutiny

Media interest was fitful. But hidden among observers were undercover military agents. In 1973, Army investigators detailed the clandestine intelligence operation to Hays Parks, who taught war crimes law at the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s School.

The Army’s Criminal Investigation Division agents told Parks they confirmed some atrocity allegations, but also found that several VVAW members were impostors. The Army never released its findings, Parks said, but “there were enough questions to put the hearings in doubt.”

Unaware of the discrepancies, Kerry cited the “Winter Soldier” findings as fact to the Senate in 1971, comparing the alleged U.S. atrocities with the “ravage” of Mongol conqueror Genghis Khan.

Kerry’s testimony infuriated military lawyers, chief among them William Eckhardt, an Army colonel coordinating the My Lai prosecutions. Eckhardt, now a University of Missouri law professor, says Kerry’s reliance on unproven “show trial” allegations “besmirched those of us who did it right.”

Kerry concedes he “wouldn’t be surprised” if some “Winter Soldier” accounts were phony. But he stands by the bulk of the claims. “Free-fire zones, women getting blown away, children getting blown away, ears being cut off, rapes — people know this,” Kerry said. “These are a matter of record in our history.”

After Detroit, Kerry plunged into protest logistics. He hit the antiwar fundraising circuit, toting chocolate milk and entertaining VVAW members with broken-French imitations of Inspector Clouseau from “Pink Panther” films. In Washington, he laid plans with dissident congressmen and negotiated with federal officials for rally permits.

At battle stations after two years of war protests, Nixon and his aides were uncertain how to respond to angry soldiers. “Kerry was considered a threat,” said John Dean, White House counsel until he turned against Nixon during Watergate.

Nixon wanted the protest scuttled until Dean and speechwriter Patrick Buchanan warned that police violence against the veterans could backfire. Nixon relented, but pressed Charles Colson, his acerbic Special Counselor, for dirt on Kerry and other VVAW leaders. In an undated memo, “Plan to Counteract Vietnam Veterans,” Colson demanded their records scoured.

The FBI was already compiling dossiers. An FBI memo dated Feb. 22, 1971, later obtained by Camil, cited intelligence gathering on “Winter Soldier” participants from New York to Florida. And an FBI memo dated Jan. 25, 1971, found by Gerald Nicosia, a historian of the VVAW movement, reveals the bureau was sharing copies of surveillance reports with Army, Navy and Air Force intelligence before the Detroit meeting.

Kerry was under scrutiny even earlier. His name was forwarded to FBI headquarters in September 1970, Nicosia said. The FBI kept watch until August 1972, when the bureau concluded Kerry had no ties to “any violent-prone group” and closed his file.

Complaining recently that FBI spying was “an offense to the Constitution,” Kerry grimaced when he learned he was also monitored by Washington, D.C. police. O’Connor, the undercover agent who fit in so well with VVAW members that he rose to office manager, told his superiors that Kerry “was one of the top guys, a little elitist, but knows what he’s doing.”

Chartered buses filled with VVAW protesters rumbled toward Washington on Sunday, April 18, 1971. Massing in ragged ranks, more than 1,000 Vietnam veterans filed out the next morning to march across the Lincoln Memorial Bridge toward Arlington National Cemetery.

Fresh from an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Kerry stood out among the rumpled, bearded veterans, marked by his shaggy hair and neatly pressed fatigues. At the cemetery, officials barred the gate. As the troops turned back, sullenly waving toy guns, someone raised a U.S. flag inverted in the “distress” position.

They pitched camp on the National Mall near the Capitol. Grimy from the bus trip, veterans grabbed showers at the YMCA and slept in bedrolls. Some grumbled that Kerry was not around at night. Settled in at the Georgetown townhouse of Butler’s mother-in-law, he told doubters he needed a place to field phone calls from congressmen and lawyers.

It was there that Kerry heard from an aide to Arkansas Sen. J. William Fulbright. Impressed by a talk he heard Kerry give at a cocktail party, Fulbright wanted him to appear before the Foreign Relations Committee.

‘Letter to America’

After a long day butting heads with VVAW radicals, Kerry bent over his old “letter to America.” Refined over months of fundraisers, it needed final touches. He phoned Walinsky for Kennedyesque pointers, then “sat up all night in the most uncomfortable chair in the house,” recalled Butler. When dawn broke, Kerry was still scribbling away in longhand.

Hurrying to the hearing room on the morning of April 22, Kerry passed scores of veterans pressing from the back of the hall and peeping from doorways. He launched into a grim catalog of the “winter soldier” atrocities, describing a deathscape of decapitations, torture and razed villages.

The U.S. had “created a monster,” Kerry warned — soldiers “given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history.” He told of their anger, sense of betrayal and their hope that the nation might look back on Vietnam as a turning point “where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.”

“He had the guts to say wrong is wrong,” said Chris Gregory, a former Army medic who watched, mesmerized, wedged against a far wall. “It was brave. There was a price to be paid for talking like that.”

Kerry is still paying. For three decades, Vietnam veterans who supported the war have recoiled at his words. Robert Turner, an Army officer interrogating Vietcong defectors at the time in the war zone, recalls pulsing with rage as he read accounts of the speech. “He made us all look like monsters,” Turner says.

Kerry admits he “can wince sometimes” at “the language of an angry young man.” But he stands by his indictment of the war policy and its architects: “It was honest at the time and it’s honest today.” Conceding he is “sensitive” to the fury his old words evoke, Kerry says he tried even then to “distinguish the war from the warrior.”

But that day, Kerry left the Senate chamber an instant celebrity. Film clips played on the nightly news. They were impressed, too, at the White House. An Oval Office tape machine caught Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman admitting that Kerry “did a hell of a great job.” Nixon seconded: “He was extremely effective.”

But Kerry still faced trouble over how to handle the protest’s parting gesture. Nervous about how the nation might perceive a mass turn-in of decorations, he urged VVAW leaders to lay their honors down with dignity on a table shrouded in white cloth. He was outvoted. The vets chose to heave their medals in protest, then turning them over to the sergeant-at-arms at the Capitol.

Kerry’s objections left VVAW officers convinced “he was out,” said Jack Smith, a former Marine who ran the event. At the White House, Colson dashed off a memo to Haldeman: “John Kerry is not participating — would be a total loss of all he has accomplished this week.”

He was swaying “between patriotism and protest,” recalls Kerry’s brother-in-law, David Thorne. But when protesters mustered for their last day of protest on the morning of April 23 — 33 years ago today — Kerry was still with them.

Overnight, police had erected a high wire fence around the Capitol, preventing the veterans from turning in their combat honors. Enraged, they decided to leave them behind.

For nearly two hours, the antiwar troops heaved medals, ribbons, berets, dog tags, and snapshots of dead comrades at a sign marked, “Trash.” Maimed vets threw their canes. One discarded an artificial leg. Some let loose with the medals of veterans who could not attend. And several now admit tossing medals offered by strangers.

As former Marine aviator Rusty Sachs prepared to throw his own decorations, someone handed him a Silver Star and a Distinguished Flying Cross. “What do I do with these things?” he recalls wondering. He thought of dead comrades, then pitched the medals away after a tear-strewn speech that many VVAW members describe as the event’s emotional highlight.

At the end of the long line, Kerry unfastened the ribbons he wore for a week. Nearing “dozens of cameras, countless people watching,” Kerry “took out the ribbon plate, pulled them off, said something — I do this sadly, or I do this with regret — and threw them over the fence.”

He waited until “after everybody and all the cameras dispersed.” Then, he took out two medals from his fatigue pocket and “threw the other things away.” Emotionally spent, weeping, he embraced his wife.

“He looked fractured,” recalls Chris Gregory.

The medals Kerry threw were not his own. One, he says, was offered from a patient in a Brooklyn VA hospital. The other was a Bronze Star handed over by a World War II veteran at a Massachusetts fundraiser — an incident also recalled by Gregory. Kerry never asked their names.

Myths of the Medals

Kerry says he never claimed to have thrown the medals as his own. But as his reputation grew as a shrewd political operator after his 1984 senate election, Kerry was dogged by a troubling political myth.

He was accused of discarding his ribbons and the medals of others in 1971 to appear as an antiwar hero, while keeping his own medals for use as political props years later — a charge echoing this election year.

“It’s so damn hypocritical to get these awards, throw them in the dirt and then suddenly value them again,” said B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran and author who critiques Kerry’s antiwar stance.

“I never ever implied that I did it,” Kerry says wearily, adding: “You know what? Medals and ribbons, there’s almost no difference in distinction, fundamentally. They’re symbols of the same thing. They are what they are.”

The war honors abandoned by the “Winter Soldiers” sat for years in boxes shelved in the Capitol Police Department’s property room. The honors lay ignored for two decades, long after Kerry’s exit from the VVAW in late 1971 and his immersion into politics.

They remained hidden as the years passed, unclaimed by the protesters who bitterly flung them away, forgotten, too, by the war supporters who cherish them as symbols of valor.

Finally, police ran out of space. “Last thing I wanted to do was throw them away again,” said former Deputy Chief James Trollinger. But when aides approached him “sometime in the early 1990s,” asking for permission to remove the decorations, Trollinger reluctantly agreed.

Three boxes bulging with medals and ribbons were hauled away to a local forge, destined to be melted down as scrap.

Times Researcher John Beckham contributed to this report.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

From military officer to antiwar activist

1966-1969: John F. Kerry enlists in the Navy in 1966, undergoes officer training and volunteers for duty in Vietnam. He serves there from November 1968 to April 1969, including 4 1/2 months as a swift-boat commander in the rivers of the Mekong Delta. After being wounded for third time, he is sent stateside.

April 11, 1969: Returning from the Vietnam War, Lt. j.g. Kerry is assigned as an admiral’s aide in Brooklyn.

Jan. 3, 1970: Kerry takes an honorable discharge from the Navy to run as a Democrat for a Massachusetts congressional seat, then withdraws from the race in February after the entry of the eventual winner, the Rev. Robert Drinan.

May 1970: On his honeymoon in France after marriage to Julia Thorne, Kerry meets as a private citizen with South and North Vietnamese delegates to the Paris Peace Talks.

September 1970: Kerry’s name is forwarded to FBI headquarters after speaking to Vietnam Veterans Against the War rally near Philadelphia. Agents covertly monitor Kerry’s activities until August 1972.

Jan. 31, 1971: Kerry attends VVAW’s “Winter Solider” meeting in Detroit, winning approval to organize an antiwar rally in Washington and participating as a moderator in hearings that raise claims of widespread American war crimes in Vietnam.

April 18, 1971: Kerry arrives in Washington to lead VVAW members in the “Dewey Canyon III” antiwar demonstration.

April 22, 1971: Kerry testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, criticizing the Nixon administration’s war policy and citing “Winter Soldier” war crimes claims.

April 23, 1971: As 700 VVAW protesters angrily throw away their war honors to condemn the war, Kerry joins in by discarding his combat ribbons and the medals given to him by others, but retains his Silver Star, Bronze Star and other medals awarded for Vietnam service.

Source: Times research

Los Angeles Times

Source link

The unknown enemy – Los Angeles Times

JONATHAN D. TEPPERMAN is deputy managing editor of Foreign Affairs magazine.

DESPITE THE recent elections in Iraq, which brought that country one step closer to full sovereignty and independence, attention in the United States remains firmly fixed on an issue closer to home: if and when Washington should pull out its troops.

Since Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) broached what had been a taboo subject, the domestic debate over withdrawal has bogged down in partisan squabbling. The deadlock involves more than just politics. Part of the reason it’s so hard to decide whether U.S. troops should leave Iraq is that no one can accurately predict what will happen if they do. And that’s because no one knows who, exactly, they are fighting.

Almost three years into the war, Washington still has very little sense of the size or power of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. Whether the Sunnis would keep fighting if the Americans left, or, in a nightmare scenario, march on Baghdad, depends in large part on whether they have enough manpower or firepower for the job.

Yet nobody seems to know the answer. Since Vice President Dick Cheney famously predicted in May that the insurgency was “in its last throes,” both the White House and the Pentagon have scrupulously avoided providing any hard numbers for the fighters who remain. Last January, Gen. Mohammed Shahwani, Iraq’s intelligence director, estimated that there were as many as 40,000 hard-core Sunni fighters. In October, Gen. John Abizaid, the head of Central Command (which includes Iraq), set the figure at “no more than 20,000.”

As for U.S. policy analysts, the only thing they can agree on is that, in the words of Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution (who tracks developments in Iraq’s security and reconstruction), “nobody knows, and our estimates could easily be off by 50 to 100%.”

Nor is there much agreement on how powerful the insurgents are, or whether Sunnis fighters could stage a violent grab for power if U.S. troops went home. Writing in the current issue of the Atlantic, Nir Rosen, a journalist who spent 16 months in Iraq following the invasion and who now favors a U.S. withdrawal, argues that “Sunni forces could not mount” a major assault after a U.S. pullout because they “wield only small arms and explosives, not Saddam’s tanks and helicopters, and are very weak compared with the cohesive, better armed and numerically superior Shiite and Kurdish militias.”

However, other Iraq experts disagree. Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, who opposes withdrawal, points out that although the Sunni Arabs may be numerically weak (they make up only about 20% of Iraq’s population), they have powerful advantages. “Sunni Arabs were the officer corps and military intelligence [in Saddam Hussein’s army], and the more experienced NCOs, and they know how to do things that the Shiites and Kurds don’t.” Before the invasion, Cole said, they “were also the country’s elite and have enormous cultural capital and managerial know-how” — know-how now that may be sufficient to take on the much larger Kurdish and Shiite militias, not to mention the newly elected Iraqi government, should the Americans leave.

At least, that’s the argument. Who is right — and why is it so hard to reach consensus? Part of the problem is inherent in any type of armed struggle. Military strategists since Karl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu have written about the “fog of war” and the near impossibility of obtaining accurate information on the battlefield. Even during conventional conflicts such as the Cold War or the Persian Gulf War, the Pentagon has never been good at accurately estimating the size of its enemy.

The difficulty multiplies exponentially when the war is unconventional — that is, a counterinsurgency. Part of the problem is that in Iraq, the insurgents have split into small, ill-defined factions — up to 100 by some reports. And unlike regular soldiers, they don’t stand up to be counted. Even if they did, determining who is a full-fledged “insurgent” (as opposed to a supporter) is difficult. And Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago and the author of “Dying to Win,” a survey of suicide bombing going back to 1980, warns that estimating the size of terrorist factions in Iraq is especially hard because “most suicide bombers are walk-in volunteers, not longtime members of the terrorist organizations” — which means that their numbers constantly fluctuate.

Much of the difficulty in estimating the size of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, then, is structural, and would exist in any such conflict. This war, however, is not just any conflict. If it is distinguished by anything, it is this: Since before the fighting even began, so many critical, supposedly well-established “facts” — from the presence of weapons of mass destruction, to Hussein’s ties to Al Qaeda, to the number of capable Iraqi troops trained by the U.S. government — have turned out to be false, or at least unverifiable. U.S. forces, meanwhile, continue to suffer from a shortfall of reliable intelligence, a problem that has dogged them from the start.

This leaves Washington policymakers with an unappealing choice: Stick with an increasingly unpopular and bloody counterinsurgency that it still does not fully understand, or leave the fight as they entered it, running essentially blind.

Source link

Controversial Judge Dodges Not Only Critics, but Bullet : Courts: Assassination try follows Visalia jurist’s order that child abuser use birth control. He also is being sued by ex-client over property he gained by foreclosure.

Just when it seemed things couldn’t get any more tumultuous for Judge Howard R. Broadman, things did.

The Tulare County Superior Court judge already was the center of a national furor over his order that a child abuser submit to surgical implantation of a birth control device as a condition of probation. Broadman also had been named in a lawsuit claiming that he bilked a former legal client out of her home and land. And he had been the subject of both ridicule and praise for “creative” sentencing techniques, such as ordering a thief to wear a T-shirt proclaiming his guilt.

Indeed, controversies involving Broadman seemed to be on overload here in Visalia, a conservative farming town of 75,000 in the heart of the San Joaquin Valley. But last month, an ex-mental patient turned up the heat even further.

Ray Bodine was sitting in the spectator section of Broadman’s courtroom during a divorce case when he spotted a woman wearing red shoes. Bodine recognized the shoes as a signal from the Mother of God that he should go ahead with his plan to kill Broadman as part of his war on contraception. Bodine slipped a revolver from his briefcase, aimed at the middle of the judge’s forehead and fired. . . .

Howard Richard Broadman is a trim, dapper man who stands about 5 feet, 7 inches tall. His carefully groomed black beard is tipped with white at the chin and his dark eyes glance sharply about his courtroom from beneath bushy brows.

He was known as an energetic and aggressive divorce lawyer in Visalia when then-Gov. George Deukmejian appointed him to the Municipal Court in 1986. He was elevated to the Tulare County Superior Court in 1988.

His rulings have been the focus of almost constant controversy, and some critics question his fitness for the bench. The continuing furor over his birth control order and the related near-miss by an assassin’s bullet led Broadman to disqualify himself from further involvement in that case this month.

Broadman is viewed as both impetuous and likable, sometimes by the same person. He is called a “wild card” and a “loose cannon” as well as “innovative” and “courageous.”

His words from the bench are sometimes brusque and impatient.

“He doesn’t suffer fools well,” observed Joseph Altschule, who practices law in Visalia.

Altschule says he likes Broadman and considers him intelligent and sincere, but he routinely asks that the judge be disqualified from hearing his cases.

“He is tremendously stubborn and he has an ego as big as all outdoors,” Altschule said of Broadman. “And when you bring that mix to the bench you have some problems. . . . Howard’s attempt to be creative gets him in trouble, and in some ways he’s his own worst enemy.”

A prosecutor who asked not to be identified said of Broadman:

“He’s viewed as an unpredictable wild card. . . . You can go into court and you can’t know whether the defendant is going to walk out the door five minutes later or whether he’s going to get the absolute maximum (sentence).”

But Broadman has supporters in the legal profession.

Richard Cochran, president of the Tulare County Bar Assn., said that most of the directors of that organization agreed with Broadman’s controversial birth control order.

“I think the majority felt that he did something that was creative and innovative,” said Cochran. “A lot of the judges in the courthouse (give) the usual and conventional sentences. My feeling about his (sentences) is that he is courageous.”

Letters to the local newspaper, the Visalia Times-Delta, indicate that there is widespread community support for Broadman’s birth control decision.

Broadman first gained national attention as the result of a December, 1989, case in which he offered probation to a thief on the condition that the man agree to wear a T-shirt proclaiming his guilt. Russell Hackler, 30, had stolen two six packs of beer, but was on parole for robbery and faced the possibility of four years in prison as a repeat offender.

The front of the T-shirt read, “MY RECORD AND TWO SIX PACKS EQUAL FOUR YEARS.” The back said, “I AM ON FELONY PROBATION FOR THEFT.”

“I was kind of dumbfounded,” recalled Deputy Public Defender Berry Robinson, who represented Hackler. “I turned to my client and said, ‘You’d be real stupid to turn this down.’ ”

Some praised the sentence as creative, but eight months later Hackler was again before Broadman, charged with violating probation due to an arrest for burglary. A witness said Hackler bought beer with coins stolen in the burglary–he remembered him because the defendant was wearing his infamous T-shirt at the time.

Broadman sentenced Hackler to four years in prison.

In some other “creative” judicial actions, Broadman:

* Allowed a child molester to serve time at home on the condition that he post a sign outside his house reading, “Do not enter, I am under house arrest.”

* Required an alcoholic to stand in court and swallow Antabuse, a medication that causes violent nausea if alcohol is ingested.

* Ordered a husband and wife in a divorce case to take turns living in the family home so that the children would not have to shuttle back and forth.

* Ordered a young female drug addict convicted of narcotics possession not to get pregnant as a condition of probation. But when she was a half hour late to a subsequent hearing because she had taken her children to school, Broadman sent her to prison.

Such rulings have generated publicity, but last December the judge received media attention of another kind when a former divorce-case client sued him for allegedly bilking her out of her house and land.

Darleen Woods charged in a $1.5-million lawsuit filed Dec. 10 that Broadman–who represented her in a long and complicated divorce action in the early to mid 1980s–had improperly foreclosed on her property to satisfy a $58,000 legal bill. Woods maintains that she was left penniless when Broadman sold the real estate for $330,000 last summer and kept all the proceeds for himself.

Woods’ suit charges that Broadman pressured her into putting her property up for collateral against the legal bill and that he “laundered” the foreclosure proceedings by signing the lien over to his mother so his own name would not be involved.

Woods, 58, says she is broke, unskilled and living with a daughter and son-in-law. Broadman declined to be interviewed by The Times for this article, but he disputed Woods’ claims last December in the Visalia Times-Delta.

“I’m an ethical man,” he was quoted as saying in the Dec. 20 article. “I don’t swindle people.”

Oliver Wanger, a Fresno attorney representing Broadman, says the judge received the lien on Woods’ property through a normal business transaction and legally sold the lien to his mother, Margaret Drew of Gore, Okla.

“It wasn’t done to hide anything,” said Wanger. “It was a private transfer that is in no way against the law.”

Broadman’s mother reportedly paid her son $40,000 for the property in 1987. Drew foreclosed on the real estate in 1988 for the price of the debt which had by then reached about $58,000, with interest.

But Drew could not sell the property because the title was clouded and Broadman bought it back from his mother last year for $58,000, according to the Times-Delta. Broadman told the newspaper that he spent several months and $100,000 clearing the title. Records show that he sold the real estate for $330,000 last August.

If it did indeed cost Broadman $100,000 to clear the title, simple arithmetic indicates he collected his debt and made $200,000 or so on the foreclosure of Woods’ former home and land.

Even so, says Broadman’s attorney, the transaction was perfectly legal and Woods’ suit is without merit.

Less than a month after Woods’ suit was filed, the Broadman spotlight shifted away from that controversy to one which caused a national uproar.

On Jan. 2, Darlene Johnson, 27-year-old mother of four and nearly eight months pregnant, stood before Broadman to be sentenced for severely beating two of her daughters, ages 5 and 6.

Broadman asked the woman if she would be willing, as a condition of probation, to use a new long-term birth control device called Norplant, which is implanted under the arm. Other conditions of probation included a year in the county jail with credit for time served, and mandatory counseling and parenting classes. The prosecution was seeking a state prison sentence.

Johnson agreed to the terms of probation, but changed her mind about the birth control device after leaving the courtroom, maintaining that she agreed to it only because she was afraid of being sent to prison. A hearing to reconsider the Norplant order was set for Jan. 10.

By that time Broadman’s order was the subject of a national controversy over the morality and constitutionality of a judge requiring a woman to use a birth control device. Critics–pointing out that Johnson is a poor black woman and Broadman a well-to-do white man–also saw elements of class, race and sex discrimination.

In his argument on behalf of Johnson, attorney Charles Rothbaum compared Broadman’s Norplant order to an old science fiction film “in which these aliens came down to Earth and implanted these devices in the back of persons’ necks and used that to control their activity.”

But Broadman upheld his order in a prepared decision.

Johnson “has been convicted of brutally beating her children,” he said. “It is in the defendant’s best interest and certainly in any unconceived child’s interest that she not have any more children until she is mentally and emotionally prepared to do so.”

Rothbaum, joined by the American Civil Liberties Union, is appealing the decision. In the meantime, Johnson is serving the county jail portion of her probation. Her fifth child was born in February.

A short, friendly woman, Johnson is afraid she will have to choose between prison and Norplant when she gets out of jail in June.

She has never been married, but says she plans to do so and says she does not believe in using birth control.

“If God blesses me to have more (children),” she said, “I’ll have more.”

Harry Raymond Bodine agrees with that point of view. Vehemently.

Bodine is in Tulare County Jail facing 15 years to life in prison on a charge of attempting to murder a public official. A hearing to determine his mental competency to stand trial is scheduled for May 17, according to his attorney, Michael Cross. Bodine, 45, is a muscular 5-feet, 11-inches tall and weighs 200 pounds. A small blue cross dangles over his red county jail T-shirt as he smiles pleasantly and talks about his life and beliefs.

Bodine is a second generation orchard grower in Tulare County. He was president of his high school class, attended Catholic seminaries, received a degree in philosophy, decided against the priesthood, married, was convicted of misdemeanor sexual molestation of his 10-year-old stepdaughter, divorced and was sent to the state mental hospital in Napa for seven months in 1987 after threatening to kill his wife’s new husband.

Bodine has been arrested at demonstrations protesting abortion clinics, but his goals were broader than other abortion opponents.

“I was helping,” he said, “with the idea that sooner or later I would convert them to a more dramatic civil war.”

Bodine believes he is on a holy mission to stamp out contraception and is guided by the Mother of God.

After hearing about Broadman’s ruling in the Johnson case, Bodine says he decided to kill the judge and began target practice with a revolver down by the river.

He was so nervous on the day that the Mother of God gave him the go-ahead sign to kill Broadman that he drank some Pepto-Bismol to quiet his stomach. The woman with red shoes was, for some reason, the signal that Our Lady chose.

When Bodine’s revolver went off in the courtroom, attorney Philip Bianco was representing a woman in a divorce case.

“My client went under the desk, holding onto her husband for the first time in three months,” said Bianco.

Bodine says he looked at the bench, saw that it was empty and thought he had killed the judge. There was no bailiff in the room, so Bodine placed his gun on a table and sat down to wait for someone to come arrest him for murder.

But Broadman was not dead. He was crouching behind the bench, wondering if he had been shot and checking himself for blood. There was none. The bullet missed Broadman’s head by inches and tore through the wall behind him.

In the meantime, bailiffs arrived, shoved the compliant Bodine to the floor and began handcuffing him.

Broadman, when he realized how close to death he had come, flew into a rage and–still wearing his black judicial robe–rushed at Bodine.

Bianco and two other men tried to hold Broadman back, but the judge lunged forward, sprawling across the bodies of the bailiffs and Bodine on the courtroom floor.

“All three of us couldn’t hold the guy,” said Bianco. “He was completely white. His heart was going as fast as it could go. He was like a bird dog that had just run a quarter of a mile.”

Prevented from getting at Bodine physically, Broadman subsequently filed a civil suit against his assailant, seeking to take away the man’s 29 acres of orchards as punishment for the shooting. That action caused still another controversy, this time over the propriety of a Superior Court judge suing a mentally ill person.

Bodine says he will not defend himself against Broadman’s suit.

“The Scriptures say if a man sues you for your jacket,” he explained, “give him your shirt, as well.”

Bodine says he might, however, be willing to punch it out with Broadman over the property if he were to meet him on the street.

Times staff writer Mark Stein contributed to this story

Source link