Politics

Nov. 29 (UPI) — Rep. Troy Hehls, R-Texas, on Saturday announced he will not seek re-election in 2026 and will retire from Congress and focus on his family.

Nehls, 57, since 2021 has represented Texas’ 22nd Congressional District, which is situated southwest of Houston and includes parts of Sugar Land, Richmond and Rosenberg, among other Texas communities.

“I have made the decision, after conversations with my beautiful bride and my girls over the Thanksgiving holiday, to focus on my family and return home after this Congress,” he said Saturday in a post on X.

“Before making this decision, I called President Trump personally to let him know of my plans,” he continued.

“President Trump has always been a strong ally for our district and a true friend, and I wanted him to hear it from me first,” Nehls added.

“Serving this country in the military, serving our community in law enforcement and serving this district in Congress has been the honor of my life.”

Nehls enlisted in the Army Reserve in 1988 and earned two Bronze Stars while serving in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

He joined the Richmond (Texas) Police Department in 1994 and was elected sheriff of Fort Bend County in 2012, before winning the 2020 House election.

His announced retirement is among several made recently by Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb. and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

Nehls’ twin brother, Trever Nehls, already announced his candidacy for the seat and has been endorsed by Troy.

Reviving an idea they floated last year with an op-ed urging President Obama not to seek a second term, pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen are out Monday with a new op-ed drafting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to be the Democrats’ 2012 nominee.

Obama should “abandon his candidacy for reelection in favor of a clear alternative,” Caddell and Schoen wrote in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, because “the kind of campaign required for the president’s political survival would make it almost impossible for him to govern — not only during the campaign, but throughout a second term.”

“Never before has there been such an obvious potential successor — one who has been a loyal and effective member of the president’s administration, who has the stature to take on the office, and who is the only leader capable of uniting the country around a bipartisan economic and foreign policy,” they wrote of Clinton.

The two pollsters have worked for a number of high-profile Democrats — Caddell for George McGovern, Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden, and Schoen for President Bill Clinton and for Hillary Clinton in 2008. But they are also known for taking positions that are at odds with the Democratic Party.

Most recently, Schoen has worked with a group called Americans Elect to put a third candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.

The group plans to hold a nominating convention next summer to select a candidate to challenge Obama and the Republican nominee. Participants will draft candidates by putting their names to a Web-based vote. Hillary Clinton and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — another former client of Schoen’s — are often mentioned as potential nominees.

Like they did last year in an op-ed for the Washington Post, Caddell and Schoen argue that running for reelection will prevent Obama from governing.

“By going down the reelection road and into partisan mode, the president has effectively guaranteed that the remainder of his term will be marred by the resentment and division that have eroded our national identity, common purpose, and most of all, our economic strength,” they wrote.

The pollster duo believes that: “If President Obama were to withdraw he would put great pressure on the Republicans to come to the table and negotiate — especially if the president singularly focused in the way we have suggested on the economy, job creation, and debt and deficit reduction. “

They argue that Clinton would stand a better chance at winning in 2012 because she enjoys her best-ever approval rating and is favored over Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rick Perry in a Time magazine poll. And they call on Sen. Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to urge Obama to step aside “for the good of the party and most of all for the good of the country.”

Hillary Clinton has repeatedly said that she has no ambitions to run again for president. She has brushed aside talk of replacing Joe Biden as the vice presidential nominee on the Democrats’ ticket.

“I’m out of politics, happy to be out of politics,” she said last week when asked by NBC’s Chuck Todd to weigh in on the field of Republican hopefuls.

[email protected]

WASHINGTON — A Florida janitor and his wife identified themselves Monday as the source of a clandestine tape recording of House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his aides and said that they had turned it over to the ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee not knowing that it might be illegal.

John Martin, a school custodian in the small town of Fort White, Fla., and his wife, Alice, a teacher’s aide, insisted that they were not motivated by partisan politics when they hand-delivered the tape recording to Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.).

Republicans deny that the speaker said or did anything improper by participating in the call. Moreover, they suggest that McDermott has tainted the ethics process and possibly violated federal law by providing the tape recording to the news media. McDermott has declined to discuss the accusations.

“This case is so open and shut that even Barney Fife could solve it,” said GOP Conference Chairman John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who was vacationing in northern Florida when the call occurred and used his wife’s cellular phone to participate. The Martins’ police scanner apparently picked up the transmission from the Boehner phone.

Boehner criticized the Justice Department for not quickly launching an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the tape recording, as requested Friday by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Henry J. Hyde (R-Ill.).

McDermott declined to comment on the Martins’ account of events. He issued a brief statement late Monday noting that he had discussed the matter with Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-Conn.), who chairs the Ethics Committee.

“I have not made comments about the substance before the committee in the past,” McDermott said. “I have no comment now.”

*

“These are very serious allegations,” Johnson said. “I would need more information before commenting further.”

Rich Galen, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, asked: “How can the Democrats allow James McDermott to participate any further in this case knowing he is implicated in a potential felony?

“Secondly, what do the leaders of the Democrats in Congress intend to do with their colleague or is this the beginning of a cover-up?”

Appearing at a news conference with their lawyer in Gainesville, Fla., the Martins said that they were listening to a police scanner in their car during a Christmas shopping trip on Dec. 21 when the scanner picked up a telephone conference call between the speaker and other top Republicans.

The couple said they began taping the call, using a hand-held tape recorder that they had with them in the car, after hearing the Georgia Republican’s ethics case mentioned in the conversation and deducing that the participants were prominent congressional Republicans. Public disclosure of the conference call has sparked a political firestorm.

The conference call occurred on the same day that Gingrich admitted wrongdoing to the Ethics Committee and pledged not to organize a campaign to counter the effects of his admissions. Democrats say that the recording shows Gingrich was orchestrating the Republican response to the Ethics Committee’s initial findings.

Gingrich has admitted violating House rules in connection with a college course he once taught and is awaiting a decision on the punishment he will receive.

While the interception of cellular telephone calls is a violation of federal law, there was disagreement among attorneys on whether a case against the Martins or McDermott would stand up in court.

Former House Counsel Stanley Brand cited an exemption in the federal wiretap law for transmissions of “private land mobile communications, including police or fire or information readily accessible to the general public.”

“It seems like nobody in the chain of the transaction is without some serious defenses to any charge,” Brand said.

The Martins’ attorney, Larry Turner, acknowledged that the couple had unknowingly risked state and federal prosecution when they taped the conversation. Still, he said, the facts ought to discourage officials from pursuing charges against them.

“Once it’s understood that these folks are Mr. and Mrs. John Q. Citizen, who happened to discover something they thought was pertinent to the Ethics [Committee] and did what I think we want citizens to do. . . . my hope is that those who are responsible for making prosecuting decisions will decide [that] it shouldn’t be prosecuted,” Turner said. “If they determine to prosecute it, we’ll defend it.”

Although disclosure of the Dec. 21 conference call has raised questions about Gingrich’s compliance with the agreement he struck with the ethics panel, it appears to have created significant political problems for Democrats as well.

“I think you’re going to see Republicans jump on [the tape controversy] and say, ‘Look at what the Democrats are willing to stoop to in order to politicize the ethics process,’ ” said David M. McIntosh (R-Ind.). “I bet McDermott will hear from his own people: ‘What did you do? You just blew it for us.’ ”

Asked what should happen to McDermott if it were proved that he leaked the tape, McIntosh said: “I think he should certainly step down from the ethics panel and consider resigning his seat in Congress.”

McDermott sent the tape to the Ethics Committee Monday afternoon. The committee’s chief counsel, Theodore J. Van Der Meid, wrote McDermott that “the material you sent to the committee at 4:33 p.m. this afternoon was not accepted.

“By direction of the chair and after consultation with the chief of the criminal division of the Department of Justice, the contents of the envelope including the audio cassette tape and the cover letter were hand delivered to the Department of Justice early this evening,” Van Der Meid’s letter said.

The cover letter was from McDermott to the committee, Van Der Meid said. He did not release it.

The Martins said that, first, they delivered the tape in a sealed envelope to the Gainesville office of their local congresswoman, Rep. Karen L. Thurman (D-Fla.). Staff members there sent it by overnight mail to Thurman’s Washington office but the congresswoman returned it to the Martins unopened when the couple visited Washington several days later.

Thurman suggested that the Martins give the tape to the Ethics Committee, aides said. The Martins proposed to deliver the tape to the highest-ranking Democrat on the panel and Thurman aides said that they provided the name of McDermott.

The Martins are both active Democrats in northern Florida. John Martin served as treasurer of the Columbia County Democratic Party, while Alice Martin served as secretary. The couple recently attended a campaign event for freshman Rep. Allen Boyd Jr., who invited them to Washington for last week’s congressional swearing-in ceremony.

Speaking outside their lawyer’s office with their grown children nearby, the Martins downplayed any political motives and said that they are simply interested citizens who suddenly found themselves at the center of a political maelstrom.

“This fell into their laps,” said Robert Griscti, one of their attorneys. “They follow the news and knew it was significant. These are common, everyday, ordinary American people but they’re not stupid people. While they’re Democrats and somewhat politically active, they felt it was their responsibility as Americans to do what they did.”

*

John Martin, 50, said that he purchased a 200-channel police scanner from Radio Shack in the fall and had picked up some cellular telephone conversations before. Alice Martin, 48, said she began taping the conversation because she was excited about passing along a piece of history to her grandson, who is due to be born at the end of the month.

“I was so excited to think that I actually heard a real politician’s voice,” said Alice Martin, who appeared to be fighting back tears at one point during the news conference. “We were thrilled.”

After their recent trip to Washington, the couple gushed about the magnificence of the Capitol, how they had become lost while trying to find the Ethics Committee’s basement offices, and how they had relied on a Capitol Hill police officer to point out McDermott.

“We told [McDermott] we had something to turn over to the Ethics Committee,” Alice Martin said. “He took the envelope in his hand and said he would listen to it.”

Umaro Sissoco Embalo arrives in the Republic of Congo after first seeking refuge in Senegal following this week’s coup.

Guinea-Bissau’s former president, Umaro Sissoco Embalo, has travelled to the Republic of Congo, the AFP and Associated Press news agencies are reporting, days after he was deposed in a military coup.

Califa Soares Cassama, Embalo’s chief of staff, confirmed to AP that the former president was in the Congolese capital, Brazzaville.

Unnamed Congolese government sources also told AFP that Embalo was in Brazzaville.

Embalo had initially sought refuge in neighbouring Senegal after a group of military officers on Wednesday announced that they had taken “full control” of Guinea-Bissau ahead of the release of provisional presidential election results.

The true motives for the coup remain unclear, with speculation and conspiracy theories circulating, including that it was carried out with Embalo’s blessing.

The coup has sparked a wave of international condemnation, with regional leaders and the United Nations calling on Guinea-Bissau’s new military leaders to restore constitutional order and allow the electoral process to complete its work.

Senegalese Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko condemned the events as a “sham” in remarks to lawmakers on Friday.

“We want the electoral process to continue,” Sonko said. “The [electoral] commission must be able to declare the winner.”

Many of Guinea-Bissau’s new military leaders are close to Embalo, including General Horta Inta-A, who was named as the transitional president earlier this week, and Ilidio Vieira Te, who was appointed prime minister.

Te had previously served as finance minister in Embalo’s government.

On Saturday, Inta-a appointed a 28-member government, most of whom are allies of the deposed president.

Separately, the country’s main opposition party, PAIGC, said in a statement that its headquarters had been “illegally invaded by heavily armed militia groups” in the capital, Bissau.

The party denounced the raid on Saturday as “an attack on stability, democracy and the rule of law” in Guinea-Bissau.

PAIGC had been barred from presenting a presidential candidate in last Sunday’s election, a move that drew criticism from civil rights groups who denounced an apparent crackdown on the opposition.

Both Embalo and his main challenger, Fernando Dias, had declared victory ahead of the release of the provisional vote results, which had been set for Thursday.

No results have been announced since the coup.

SACRAMENTO — It was a dark chapter in American history. For more than half a century, California and other states forcibly sterilized 60,000 mentally ill people as part of a misguided national campaign to eliminate crime, “feeblemindedness,” alcoholism, poverty and other problems blamed for dragging society down.

On Tuesday, Gov. Gray Davis apologized, placing California in a small group of states that have issued formal regrets.

“To the victims and their families of this past injustice,” Davis said in a statement, “the people of California are deeply sorry for the suffering you endured over the years. Our hearts are heavy for the pain caused by eugenics. It was a sad and regrettable chapter … one that must never be repeated.”

As eugenics was practiced in California and 31 other states at various times between 1909 and 1964, when it stopped, individuals considered defective included alcoholics, petty criminals, the poor, disabled and mentally ill.

About 20,000 people were involuntarily sterilized in an attempt to prevent their genes from being passed on to another generation.

Eugenics was intended to “clean up the gene pool,” Paul Lombardo, an expert on the subject, said during a presentation at the Capitol only hours before Davis acted.

The policy was horribly misguided and resulted in the human rights of thousands being routinely violated by a coercive government with the support of the Supreme Court, said Lombardo, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.

He spoke at a special California Senate hearing on eugenics and the history of mandatory sterilization of supposedly defective people.

Sen. Dede Alpert (D-San Diego) said she intends to introduce a resolution that will express the Legislature’s apology.

Davis issued the official regrets shortly after state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer apologized for one of his predecessors, Atty. Gen. Ulysses S. Webb, who enthusiastically supported forced sterilization as “enlightened” law free of legal “inhibitions.” Webb served from 1903 until 1939.

Lockyer said it is never too late to apologize for the bigotry practiced against the disabled and others who were “seen as misfits of the time.” He said the lessons of eugenics should not be lost in this era of cloning and genetic engineering advancements.

Lombardo said later that he was stunned that a gubernatorial apology from Davis would occur so quickly.

“I never expected that I’d finish a lecture at noon and the governor would make an apology by 3:30 p.m.,” Lombardo said.

He and George Cunningham, a genetic disease expert in the state Department of Health Services, said it was unknown how many forced-sterilization victims are living in California, but suggested that the number is probably small because most sterilizations occurred before World War II.

“There is no registry of these cases,” Lombardo said.

Davis’ apology did not propose reparations or other compensation to the victims or their families.

Lombardo said it would be difficult for survivors to collect damages in a lawsuit against the government because the Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of forced sterilization in 1927.

He told the hearing of the Select Committee on Genetics, Genetic Technologies and Public Policy that Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich borrowed generously from U.S. laws when it imposed forced sterilization on “undesirables.”

Lombardo, a lawyer and historian, said eugenics started with the goal of encouraging development of a world of healthy individuals who would pass along their best traits to the next generation.

He said many leading minds of the late 1800s and early 1900s enthusiastically supported eugenics.

Contests were held to determine “perfect children,” movies publicized the movement, and major foundations financed eugenics research, Lombardo said.

He said supporters were successful in persuading the Los Angeles Times to run a series of favorable articles about eugenics in its Sunday magazine.

Lombardo said eugenics was an “incredibly popular movement” and a household word in America because Americans “all wanted to help the children.” Eugenics was defined as “to be well born” and to have a “happy heritage.”

At the time, the mantra was, “Let’s get rid of crime and poverty. Let’s have healthy children. Who could argue against it?”

In 1929, California became the second state to adopt forced sterilization as law and accounted for a third of the total cases nationally during the 35 years that eugenics was state policy, he said.

Many early supporters of eugenics became disillusioned with the movement, Lombardo said, when it got sidetracked into a policy for selective breeding.

California Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown once again refused to defend Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage Friday, telling a federal judge that it violated the U.S. Constitution and should be struck down.

Brown made his arguments in response to a federal lawsuit against the state by two gay couples who contend the initiative violates federal due process and equal protection guarantees.

Over Brown’s opposition, the California Supreme Court upheld the proposition last month on state, not federal, constitutional grounds, a few days after the federal suit was filed in San Francisco.

Brown’s willingness to fight a state law that has been upheld by the state’s highest court contrasted sharply with President Obama’s decision this week to oppose a federal challenge to the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act brought in Orange County.

In that case, a married gay couple, Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, has challenged the constitutionality of both Proposition 8 and the 1996 federal law that prohibits extension of federal benefits to same-sex couples.

The U.S. Justice Department has argued that the Orange County challenge should be dismissed, a position that was quickly denounced by gay rights lawyers.

In a statement, Obama’s lawyers noted that the president considers the gay marriage ban discriminatory and wants it rescinded, but that his government is legally obliged to defend the law on the books.

“The president has said he wants to see a legislative repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act because it prevents [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] couples from being granted equal rights and benefits. However, until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it is challenged in the justice system,” the statement said.

Brown, however, said that even though California is required to enforce Proposition 8, he is free to agree with the challengers that it violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Brown’s position, laid out in a brief filed late Friday, puts the state’s highest-ranking law enforcement officer on the record declaring that the ballot measure violates federal constitutional protections. The San Francisco case may eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court.

At the same time, Brown argued that U.S. District Judge Vaughan Walker should not suspend Proposition 8 immediately because a higher court could reinstate it later and put same-sex couples in “legal limbo.”

“Staying operation of Proposition 8, without the certainty of a final judgment as to its constitutionality, would leave same-sex couples, as well as their families, friends, and the wider community, in legal limbo,” Brown argued.

Andy Pugno, the lawyer for the campaign that won passage of the measure, accused Brown of being “intent on undercutting Prop. 8 at every opportunity” when told of the filing.

“The people of California really deserve better than to have their vote just continually questioned and second-guessed by the attorney general,” Pugno said.

The campaign has asked Judge Walker to allow it to defend the measure as a full participant in the case, just as it did before the California Supreme Court.

Nationally renowned attorneys Theodore Olson and David Boies filed the San Francisco suit on behalf of a lesbian couple from Berkeley and two gay men from Burbank who had been denied marriage licenses after Proposition 8’s passage.

The lawyers are scheduled to ask Walker on July 2 to put Proposition 8 on hold pending a trial. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a separate filing, also said the measure should not be temporarily blocked because of the uncertainty over what higher courts will rule.

The federal challenge brought by Olson and Boies has worried gay rights advocates who fear the federal courts, currently dominated by judges named by Republican presidents, could rule against those claiming a constitutional right for gays to marry and set back their cause by as much as decades.

The American Civil Liberties Union, speaking for an alliance of gay rights groups, lamented the Justice Department’s move to dismiss the Orange County couple’s suit.

“The administration is using many of the same flawed legal arguments that the Bush administration used,” Paul Cates, the ACLU gay rights project director, said of the brief filed by the government late Thursday. “These arguments rightly have been rejected by several state supreme courts as legally unsound and obviously discriminatory.”

The federal ban on recognizing same-sex marriages is also being challenged by 12 gay couples from Massachusetts who have identified specific damages suffered because of the law, such as denial of joint tax-filing benefits, spousal benefits for federal employees and inheritance rights.

Smelt and Hammer also sued the state over Proposition 8. In response to that challenge, Brown filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the men lack standing to sue because their marriage has been recognized as legal and is unaffected by the voter initiative.

In upholding Proposition 8, the state high court refused to apply it retroactively, leaving an estimated 18,000 same-sex marriages intact.

Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment, reinstated a same-sex marriage ban following the California Supreme Court’s historic, May 15, 2008, ruling that the ban violated the state Constitution.

The state high court rejected challenges that the measure was an impermissible, sweeping revision rather than a more limited constitutional amendment.

—

[email protected]

[email protected]

Reporting from Fresno

Republican U.S. Senate nominee Carly Fiorina locked down the potentially key endorsement Monday of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as she and her opponent, U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer, clashed long-distance over their competing plans to create jobs in the state.

Wasting no time at the start of a month-long congressional recess when both Boxer and Fiorina will be campaigning full-time, Fiorina touched off a two-day tour covering ground from San Diego to Fresno to highlight the endorsement as well as her economic agenda, including her support for making all of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 permanent.

Echoing an argument that Republican candidates intend to hammer across the country as they head into the midterm elections, Fiorina accused her rival of supporting “job-killing” tax and regulation policies and said allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire next year would amount to the largest tax increase in history.

Boxer’s aides said that she favors maintaining the Bush tax cuts for at least 98% of earners and that she is working with colleagues on legislation to address the issue.

Flanked by officials from U.S. and California chambers and other business groups, Fiorina also criticized recent small business legislation co-sponsored by Boxer and charged that her rival “has done nothing to make it easier for small businesses or family owned businesses.”

“She fights plenty for her own job, but she is not fighting for the jobs of the people of California,” Fiorina said during a stop at a plant nursery in Fresno where unemployment in the surrounding county is 16%.

After touring a summer enrichment program at Leo Politi Elementary School Monday afternoon in Los Angeles, Boxer described herself as a champion of the middle class and the working poor, and said Fiorina’s economic proposals, particularly on the Bush tax cuts, would be a boon to the wealthy.

The California Democrat brushed off the chamber endorsement, arguing that “naturally they’re not for me because I believe in a fair, very fair, tax system where the middle class and workers and the people in the middle get the breaks.”

“The Chamber of Commerce wants to go back to the Bush policies, to the tax cuts for people who earn over a million dollars a year,” Boxer told reporters. Those policies, she said, “drove us into this economic ditch: deregulation, tax cuts to the wealthy, two wars on a credit card, terrible deficits.” The chamber’s endorsement of her rival, she added, “only energizes me all the more because this race is about who’s on the side of the people of California.”

In the wake of a Supreme Court decision that corporations have a free-speech right to spend money to elect or defeat candidates, the U.S. Chamber has signaled that it intends to play a major role in this year’s midterm elections and that it has been rapidly expanding its grass-roots network.

The group is expected to more than double its spending on congressional elections from $35 million in 2008 to $75 million this year. The Fiorina-Boxer race is one of at least 10 Senate races that the group is focused on, along with about 40 House races.

Jennifer Duffy, a senior editor for the Cook Political Report who analyzes U.S. Senate and governor races, said the chamber could serve as a counterweight to Boxer’s labor allies and groups like EMILY’s List, which helps raise money for female candidates who favor abortion rights. Fiorina, who lent $5.5 million to her campaign during the primary, is racing to catch up with Boxer in fundraising after the Democratic senator reported almost 12 times more cash on hand than Fiorina at the end of June.

“For Fiorina this is a net plus, she needs as many allies as she can get,” Duffy said. “It could be very important depending how much money it comes with it, and how much advertising they are going to do for her.”

William C. Miller, the U.S. Chamber’s national political director who was traveling with Fiorina Monday, would not say how much the group plans to spend in Fiorina’s race. But he praised Fiorina as a “rock star candidate” and said Boxer had been “consistently pro-tax, pro-lawyer, pro-unions and anti-growth and anti-small businesses.”

For several weeks before the summer recess, Boxer joined Democratic colleagues in pressing for legislation intended to boost lending to small businesses, but the bill was blocked by a Republican filibuster.

The measure co-sponsored by Boxer would have provided money allowing the U.S. Small Business Administration to guarantee up to 90% of loans to small businesses. Currently most SBA loans have guarantees of 50% to 75%, which is less appealing to lenders. The bill also sets up a $30 billion fund to encourage lending to small businesses by community banks.

But Fiorina said Monday that she opposed the legislation because the $30 billion fund amounted to a smaller scale version of a taxpayer-funded bailout, and that she did not believe it would help get credit flowing again to small businesses.

[email protected]

Staff Writer Seema Mehta contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has halted all asylum decisions and paused issuing visas for people traveling on Afghan passports, days after a shooting in the nation’s capital that left one National Guard member dead and another in critical condition.

Investigators continued Saturday to seek a motive in the shooting, in which the suspect, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, faces charges including first-degree murder.

Lakanwal is a 29-year-old Afghan national who worked with the CIA during the Afghanistan war. He applied for asylum during the Biden administration, which was granted this year under President Trump, according to #AfghanEvac, a group that assists with resettlement of Afghans who helped U.S. forces in their country.

The Trump administration has seized on the shooting Wednesday several blocks from the White House to intensify efforts to rein in legal immigration, promising to pause entry from some poor countries and review Afghans and other legal migrants already in the country. That is in addition to other measures, some of which were previously set in motion.

Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, died after Wednesday’s shooting, and Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains hospitalized in critical condition. They were deployed with the West Virginia National Guard as part of Trump’s mission in Washington, D.C., which he says aims to combat crime. The president also has deployed or tried to deploy National Guard members to other Democratic-run cities to assist with his mass deportation efforts but has faced court challenges.

U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro’s office said the charges against Lakanwal also include two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed. In an interview on Fox News, she said there were “many charges to come.”

Asylum decisions halted

Trump called the shooting a “terrorist attack” and criticized the Biden administration for enabling entry by Afghans who worked with U.S. forces.

The director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Joseph Edlow, said Friday in a post on the social platform X that asylum decisions would be paused “until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.”

Experts say the U.S. has rigorous vetting systems for asylum seekers. Asylum claims made from inside the country through USCIS have long faced backlogs. Critics say the slowdown has been exacerbated during the Trump administration.

Also Friday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said his department was pausing “visa issuance for ALL individuals traveling on Afghan passports.”

Shawn VanDiver, president of San Diego-based #AfghanEvac, which has coordinated with the U.S. government on its Afghan resettlement efforts, said in response: “They are using a single violent individual as cover for a policy they have long planned, turning their own intelligence failures into an excuse to punish an entire community and the veterans who served alongside them.”

The suspect

Lakanwal lived in Bellingham, Wash., about 80 miles north of Seattle, with his wife and five children, former landlord Kristina Widman said.

Neighbor Mohammad Sherzad said Lakanwal was polite and quiet and spoke little English.

Sherzad said he attended the same mosque as Lakanwal and heard from other members that he was struggling to find work. He said Lakanwal “disappeared” about two weeks ago.

Lakanwal worked briefly this summer as an independent contractor for Amazon Flex, which lets people use their own cars to deliver packages, according to a company spokesperson.

Investigators are executing warrants in Washington state and other parts of the country.

Lakanwal entered the U.S. in 2021 through Operation Allies Welcome, a Biden administration program that resettled Afghans after the U.S. withdrawal, officials said. Lakanwal applied for asylum during that administration, but his asylum was approved this year under the Trump administration, #AfghanEvac said in a statement.

Lakanwal served in a CIA-backed Afghan army unit, known as one of the specialized Zero Units, in the southern province of Kandahar, according to a resident of the eastern province of Khost who identified himself as Lakanwal’s cousin and spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

The man said Lakanwal started out working for the unit as a security guard in 2012 and was later promoted to a team leader and a GPS specialist.

Binkley and Finley write for the Associated Press. AP journalists Sarah Brumfield, Siddiqullah Alizai, Elena Becatoros, Randy Herschaft, Cedar Attanasio and Hallie Golden contributed to this report.

It began as a typical political foray: Prominent defense attorney Jack McMahon, the Republican candidate for district attorney in Philadelphia, called the incumbent Lynn Abraham “racially insensitive.” A familiar campaign claim, yet it uncommonly irked those in the D.A.’s office who knew McMahon from his eight-year tenure as an assistant D.A. After reading his comments in the local newspapers, two prosecutors stepped forward to say they recalled seeing a not-terribly-sensitive training videotape McMahon made back in 1987 for the D.A.’s office. One prosecutor, in fact, had the tape in hand. He had found it in his desk drawer.

Abraham, surrounded by her top deputies, settled before a VCR. The donnybrook that erupted soon after has yet to subside. Politics, legalisms, morals, ethics and barefaced hypocrisy all share center stage; which truly define this melee remains an open question.

First, the genesis. Here are excerpts from McMahon’s one-hour videotaped lesson on jury selection:

“You do not want smart people. I wish we could ask everyone’s IQ. If you could know their IQ, you could pick a great jury all the time. You don’t want smart people because smart people will analyze the hell out of your case. . . . They take those words ‘reasonable doubt’ and they actually try to think about them.

“You don’t want social workers. That’s obvious. They got intelligence, sensitivity, all this stuff. You don’t want them. . . . Teachers, you don’t like. Teachers are bad, especially young teachers. Like teachers who teach in the grade-school level.

“In selecting blacks, you don’t want the real educated ones. This goes across the board. All races. You don’t want smart people. If you’re going to take blacks, you want older black men and women, particularly men. Older black men are very good.

“Blacks from the South, excellent. . . . If they are from South Carolina and places like that, I tell you, I don’t think you can ever lose a jury with blacks from South Carolina. They are dynamite. They are on the cops’ side.

“My experience, young black women are very bad. There’s an antagonism. I guess maybe they’re downtrodden in two respects. They are women and they’re black . . . so they somehow want to take it out on somebody, and you don’t want it to be you.

“Let’s face it, the blacks from the low-income areas are less likely to convict. I understand it. There’s a resentment for law enforcement. There’s a resentment for authority. And as a result, you don’t want those people on your jury.

“It may appear as if you’re being racist, but you’re just being realistic. You’re just trying to win the case. The other side is doing the same thing. . . . The only way you’re going to do your best is to get jurors that are unfair, and more likely to convict than anybody else in that room.

“The case law says the object of getting a jury . . . is to get a competent, fair and impartial jury. Well, that’s ridiculous. You’re not trying to get that. Both sides are trying to get the jury most likely to do whatever they want them to do. . . . . You are there to win. . . . If you think that it’s some noble thing, some esoteric game, you’re wrong and you’ll lose.”

Advice to novices indeed. When McMahon’s videotape reached its end, Abraham and her deputies huddled. They had just seen something obviously repugnant and arguably illegal; the U.S. Supreme Court in 1986 ruled you can’t take race into consideration in selecting jurors. They had also, of course, just seen something that appeared to put a political opponent in an awfully bad light. “All of us,” Abraham would later say, “to a man and to a woman, concluded that it was absolutely necessary, essential and right that this tape be revealed.”

With a cover letter saying “We have determined that disclosure to you is the ethically appropriate course,” Abraham’s office sent the videotape to defense attorneys who represented the 36 people McMahon had successfully prosecuted for murder between 1982 and 1990. Eyes widened with delight in a lot of Philadelphia lawyers’ offices that day. Here were grounds for seeking new trials for convicted clients, and not just in cases McMahon himself had prosecuted. Any young prosecutor who had seen McMahon’s tape was fair game. A cop killer, a barroom shooter, a mobster goon–all had second chances now.

Declared one defense attorney: “That tape is the most disgraceful thing I’ve ever seen. . . . My client deserves a new trial. My client’s been sitting in jail for a decade and a half and never got a fair trial.”

Opined another: “This may have opened a Pandora’s box of hundreds, maybe thousands of tainted convictions. . . . There’s no telling how many attorneys in that office saw that tape.”

The impact even reached into a murder trial then underway, where McMahon was toiling as defense attorney. His client worried what the jurors were thinking about that week’s headlines. McMahon didn’t know. The judge declared a mistrial.

Then came the unexpected turn in this tale. Despite some clucking from law professors–”inappropriate . . . crosses the line . . .troubling”– McMahon didn’t really draw much heat. Local politicos, even black leaders, held their tongues. So did state Supreme Court Justice Ronald D. Castille, who had been D.A. when McMahon made the tape. Suddenly, it was Abraham on the defensive. A backlash had set in.

All sorts of people declared themselves stunned by her release of the videotape. A crass move, they suggested, a new low in politics. For political gain, she had let 36 convicted murderers walk. What’s more, she had trafficked in hypocrisy, not being known herself for much racial sensitivity. Low-down dirty stuff, declared one black city councilman.

Soon McMahon was happily doing the television talk-show route, showing up on everything from “Geraldo” to “Good Morning America.” People were approaching him on Philadelphia streets, shaking his hand, saying: “We’re with you.” Regret and retreat were the furthest thing from his mind.

“It’s done today, it’s going to be done tomorrow, and I don’t apologize for it,” McMahon declared about his jury-selection advice. “I only said what any good jury consultant would charge hundreds of thousands of dollars to tell you: Some people, black or white, help your case, other people hurt it. That’s not being racist–that’s being realistic. Every lawyer in the world uses these techniques.”

For awhile, Abraham tried to counter.

“The sentiments and practices discussed on that videotape are repugnant to me, and they are in direct contradiction to my beliefs and to the policies of this office,” she offered. She was “ethically, morally and legally compelled to make it public” once she learned of its existence. McMahon was a “rogue assistant district attorney.” At a press conference Abraham flatly declared: “I am morally right. I am legally right. I am ethically right.”

Despite the election-year context, some truly believed that this former judge was speaking in earnest. Yet in the end it didn’t much matter. One likely reason: People sensed truth in McMahon’s claims. Whatever Abraham’s motives, the D.A. basically had declared herself shocked–shocked!–at repugnant but fairly common practices.

Three Philadelphia judges, speaking on condition of anonymity in recent days, have told local reporters that McMahon’s techniques are routinely employed by both the D.A.’s office and defense attorneys. One defense lawyer and former prosecutor, on the record, has advised: “I’m not saying everyone does it, but it’s part of real life in the real courthouse.” Philadelphia’s mayor, Edward G. Rendell, a former two-term D.A., has been quoted as saying: “If you look at the totality of what he’s talking about, I think it is a veteran prosecutor lecturing young prosecutors about jury selection.”

Thus, this particular extravaganza rolls on, heading toward a November election, perceived and described in multiple ways. This much, at least, can be fairly said: What finally is extraordinary about McMahon’s remarks is not their content, but their wide and unabashed public circulation.

“It’s flabbergasting,” pointed out jury consultant Paul Tieger, “that this guy put this on a videotape.”

Northwestern University has agreed to pay $75 million to the U.S. government in a deal with the Trump administration to end a series of investigations and restore hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding.

President Trump’s administration had cut off $790 million in grants in a standoff that contributed to university layoffs and the resignation in September of Northwestern President Michael Schill. The administration said the school had not done enough to fight antisemitism.

Under the agreement announced Friday night, Northwestern will make the payment to the U.S. Treasury over the next three years. Among other commitments it also requires the university to revoke the so-called Deering Meadow agreement, which it signed in April 2024 in exchange for pro-Palestinian protesters ending their tent encampment on campus.

During negotiations with the Trump administration, interim university President Henry Bienen said Northwestern refused to cede control over hiring, admissions or its curriculum. “I would not have signed this agreement without provisions ensuring that is the case,” he said.

The agreement also calls for Northwestern to continue compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, develop training materials to “socialize international students” with the norms of a campus dedicated to open debate, and uphold a commitment to Title IX by “providing safe and fair opportunities for women, including single-sex housing for any woman, defined on the basis of sex, who requests such accommodations and all-female sports, locker rooms, and showering facilities.”

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the deal cements policy changes that will protect people on campus from harassment and discrimination.

“The reforms reflect bold leadership at Northwestern and they are a road map for institutional leaders around the country that will help rebuild public trust in our colleges and universities,” McMahon said.

Trump has leveraged government control of federal research money to push for ideological changes at elite colleges he claims are overrun by “woke” ideology.

The fine agreed to by Northwestern is the second-largest behind Columbia, which agreed in July to pay the government $200 million to resolve a series of investigations and restore its funding. Brown and Cornell also reached agreements with the government to restore funding after antisemitism investigations.

Harvard, the administration’s primary target, remains in negotiations with the federal government over its demands for changes to campus policies and governance. The Ivy League school sued over the administration’s cuts to its grant money and won a court victory in September when a federal judge ordered the government to restore federal funding, saying the Trump administration “used antisemitism as a smokescreen.”

This fall, the White House tried a different approach on higher education, offering preferential treatment for federal funds to several institutions in exchange for adopting policies in line with Trump’s agenda. The administration received a wave of initial rejections from some universities’ leadership, including USC’s, citing concerns that Trump’s higher education compact would suffocate academic freedom.

Reporting from Sacramento — Gov. Jerry Brown is still haunted by one thing he did as a young governor 40 years ago. And he hopes to finally undo it on election day.

In 1976, pressured from the left, he signed a bill that made California prison time more fixed and less dependent on the discretion of parole boards.

Flexible sentencing, based on a board’s assessment of a felon’s likelihood of going straight once released, “was criticized because it treated people differently,” Brown told me last week.

“Nobody thought, ‘Well, wait a minute! People are different.’”

The rap by liberals on parole boards was that black and Latino prisoners were being kept behind bars longer than white people who had committed the same crimes.

So the boards lost much of their power to release prisoners based on good behavior or to keep them locked up if they still seemed dangerous. Release times were pretty much set in stone by sentencing judges.

“What I didn’t think of,” Brown says, is that with fixed sentences “there would be no incentive. You’d be released no matter what you did. Some people need a powerful incentive.”

Incentives, he says, “to buck gangs — they can slit your throat — to avoid narcotics, to not break the rules and take programs that will help you turn your dysfunctional life around.

“The idea of just putting someone in a box and waiting for time to elapse is not smart.”

Brown has been talking this way for years. He finally got around to doing something last winter. He latched onto someone else’s juvenile justice ballot initiative and inserted his criminal sentencing overhaul. The state Supreme Court ruled that was OK.

Brown’s idea became Proposition 57.

The proposal is laden with the wonky words such as “determinate” and “indeterminate.” In everyday language, they mean fixed and flexible.

Proposition 57 would return sentencing part-way back to the old days.

“It worked a hell of a lot better then,” the governor says. “Better than what the Legislature created. It’s not a place of deep reflection.”

His proposal would affect only prisoners convicted of “nonviolent” crimes, Brown says.

Nonsense, say opponents, largely prosecutors. They argue that many felons who would be eligible for early release actually committed violent offenses.

Under the measure, a prisoner could apply for parole after he had served the full sentence for his nonviolent primary offense. But he wouldn’t need to have served time for any add-on sentencing “enhancements,” such as for using a gun or being a “three-strikes” repeater.

Opponents argue that prisoners would be eligible for early parole even if they had been convicted, for example, of raping an unconscious woman, participating in a drive-by shooting or taking a hostage.

“It literally unwinds three strikes,” says San Luis Obispo County Dist. Atty. Dan Dow, Central Coast chairman of the opposition campaign.

“It’s the worst thing to happen to public safety in California in 40 years.”

Updates from Sacramento »

The prosecutor adds: “There aren’t any nonviolent inmates in prison today. You can only go to prison if you’ve committed a very serious crime.”

Brown’s earlier “realignment” program required counties to jail lower-level felons rather than send them to state prison.

Because of a federal court order to reduce overcrowding in lockups, there are roughly 50,000 fewer inmates in state institutions today than when Brown returned as governor in 2011. Prosecutors say prisons are holding only the worst of the worst.

“This is the governor at his worst,” says Merced County Dist. Atty. Larry Morse, state co-chairman of the opposition campaign. “I’m a Democrat. I’ve supported him more than I’ve disagreed. But this is the hubris of being a second-term governor.”

Actually, it’s Brown’s fourth term.

Morse says he and other prosecutors are particularly incensed that the governor didn’t invite them into the planning for Proposition 57.

“He conceived this in the governor’s office without any collaboration with district attorneys, sheriffs or police chiefs,” Morse says. “It’s a seriously flawed product.”

Brown counters that the measure “allows flexibility. The case for it is irrefutable to anyone with an open mind.”

Under Proposition 57, prisoners would get credit for good behavior, rehabilitation and education achievements.

Much less controversial is a provision that would require judges, rather than prosecutors, to decide whether a juvenile should be tried as a minor or an adult.

Practically all the campaign money is on Brown’s side. He has a political kitty stashed with millions. The opposition has practically zilch.

This is not the kind of ballot measure that excites moneyed interests. It doesn’t affect the bottom lines of corporations or labor, so there’s no motivation to bankroll the opposition campaign. In fact, the opposite is true. No outfit involved politically in Sacramento wants to cross the governor.

Polls show Proposition 57 heavily favored by voters. And Brown retains a high job approval rating.

The proposition’s central question is: Should a felon’s sentence only reflect the evil he committed on a particular day? Or should he be given an opportunity for partial redemption by trying to turn his life around over several years of incarceration?

People usually act better when there are rewards for being good and punishment for misbehaving — that’s the concept of heaven and hell.

Opponents have good points. Brown should have conferred with more experts in planning. And he should have better defined “nonviolent.”

But the broad goal of motivating bad guys to become good guys is worth a “yes” vote.

[email protected]

Follow @LATimesSkelton on Twitter

ALSO

Why Gov. Jerry Brown is staking so much on overhauling prison parole

Sanchez redoubles her critique of Gov. Brown’s Proposition 57 — and Harris

Two-thirds of Californians favor Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to revamp prison parole rules

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, with an assist from Noah Goldberg, giving you the latest on city and county government.

L.A. City Hall is not known for making things simple for real estate developers — especially those seeking approval of large, complicated projects.

Yet earlier this year, Westwood resident Zach Sokoloff navigated the city’s bureaucratic obstacle course, winning City Council approval of a $1-billion plan to redevelop Television City, the historic studio property on Beverly Boulevard.

Now, Sokoloff is hoping to make what some might view as a baffling career change, jumping from Hackman Capital Partners, where he is senior vice president for asset management, to a job as L.A.’s next elected city controller.

For that to happen, Sokoloff would need to defeat City Controller Kenneth Mejia, who is running for another four-year term in June. That’s a tall order, given Mejia’s social media savvy, his status as an incumbent and his deft use of graphics highlighting the minutiae of city government — sometimes featuring hat-wearing corgis.

In 2022, Mejia secured more votes than any other candidate in city history, as he and his team like to point out. Former state Sen. Isadore Hall, who is also running against Mejia, has his own track record of winning elections.

Sokoloff, by contrast, has never run for public office. He’s spent the past seven years at Hackman, which proposed the 25-acre Television City project and owns other studio properties.

A onetime grade school algebra teacher, Sokoloff promised to emphasize “leadership through listening” if he is elected, shining a light on areas where the city is struggling and working collaboratively to find solutions.

Sokoloff gave some credit to Mejia for seeking to make city government more transparent and understandable. But he argued that such efforts are only a starting point.

Mejia’s audits, he said, “just aren’t moving the needle.”

“He’s shown a preference for lobbing criticism after the fact, rather than getting involved early on to shape the outcome,” Sokoloff said in an interview.

Mejia spokesperson Jane Nguyen pushed back, saying Mejia has championed an array of policy changes, including the creation of a chief financial officer position and a move to “multi-year budgeting.”

In an email, Nguyen said public officials have been responding to Mejia’s audits by working to improve oversight of rents for affordable housing, purchases of military equipment by the Los Angeles Police Department and housing placements by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority.

“Despite our small audit staff, this work is ‘moving the needle’ and making a difference in city policies and departments while improving the quality of life of Angelenos,” she said.

Nguyen said her boss has listened to thousands of constituents at community events and at his town hall meetings.

“All politicians ‘listen,’” she said. “The difference between Kenneth Mejia and our opponents is who we listen to. Our Office listens to the people of Los Angeles.”

If Mejia secures a majority of the vote in June, he will avoid a November 2026 runoff. Forcing Mejia into a round two will be a tough task for Hall and Sokoloff, said political science professor Fernando Guerra, who runs the Center for the Study of Los Angeles at Loyola Marymount University.

Because city controller is a relatively low-profile position and Mejia is an incumbent, voters will likely stick with him unless there’s serious “negative publicity,” Guerra said.

“While he’s quirky, there’s nothing there that’s in any way scandalous,” Guerra added.

Sokoloff is launching his campaign at an opportune time. Television City is the subject of several lawsuits, which have been filed not just by neighborhood groups but also The Grove, the shopping mall developed by businessman and former mayoral candidate Rick Caruso. Those plaintiffs have asked a judge to overturn the council’s approval of the project, saying the city failed to comply with CEQA, the state’s environmental law.

Shelley Wagers, who lives nearby and has been fighting the project, said she was surprised by Sokoloff’s decision to run for citywide office. Asked whether he is in fact good at listening, she replied: “Not in my experience, no.”

Sokoloff defended his company’s handling of the TVC project, pointing to the unanimous votes cast by the planning commission and the council.

“We built a broad and diverse coalition of supporters,” he said. “Ultimately, the results of the [city’s] entitlement process speak for themselves.”

Sokoloff has already picked up one key endorsement: Laura Chick, who was perhaps the most confrontational city controller in recent history. Chick, who served in citywide office from 2001 to 2009, took on officials at the city’s harbor, its airport agency, the city attorney’s office and many others.

Chick, who now lives in the San Francisco Bay Area, said L.A. needs a controller who will find strategies to make the city more efficient and effective.

“[Sokoloff] understands that L.A. needs an active problem solver as its chief auditor,” she said.

State of play

— CREATING A RECORD: Mayor Karen Bass, Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez and an assortment of elected officials, clergy and community activists went to a four-hour hearing this week that focused on the impact — and alleged abuses — of Trump’s immigration crackdown. “We want to establish a record, because when the political winds change, we want to hold those accountable,” Bass said.

— THANKSGIVING TEXTS: Caruso, the real estate developer now weighing a second run for mayor, offered his own message on the immigration raids this week, sending a text message blast asking for donations to help families whose lives have been upended by crackdown.

“As we get ready to sit down with family tomorrow, I’m thinking about the families across our city whose Thanksgiving will look a little different,” Caruso wrote on Wednesday. “Many are afraid to return to work after the recent workplace raids, leaving families short on food, rent, and basic necessities.”

— CONCEPT OF A PLAN: Mayoral candidate Austin Beutner said he supports “the concept” of hiking L.A.’s sales tax by a half-cent to pay for additional firefighters and fire stations. Beutner offered his take a few days after the firefighters union confirmed it is preparing ballot language for the tax, which would raise $9.8 billion by 2050. The union wants voters to take up the measure in November 2026.

— FIRE FUNDING: Even without the tax, Fire Chief Jaime Moore is asking for more than $1 billion for his department’s next annual budget, a 15% hike over the current year. Moore said the additional funds are needed to ensure the city is prepared for emergencies like the Palisades fire.

— DIALING 9-1-1: Sticking with the firefighting theme, Beutner posted an interactive graphic on his website showing how much paramedic response times have increased in most zip codes in the city. Beutner said firefighters are being asked to respond to too many non-emergency calls.

— DELAYED RESPONSE: Residents in neighborhoods near the Port of Los Angeles were not told to shelter in place until nearly six hours after a massive hazardous materials fire broke out aboard a cargo ship in the harbor. The handling of the alert, which urged residents to go inside immediately and shut their doors and windows, follows deep concerns about the region’s alert system and how it worked during the Eaton fire in January.

— KATZ OUT THE BAG: The five-member board that oversees the Department of Water and Power has lost its third commissioner in as many months. Richard Katz, a former state lawmaker and a Bass appointee, had his final meeting on Nov. 18. In his resignation letter, he said he’s stepping aside to focus on two upcoming surgeries.

— LACKING A QUORUM: Because the DWP board needs three members to hold a meeting, it won’t be able to conduct any business until the council confirms the mayor’s newest appointee: Benny Tran, who is slated to replace Mia Lehrer. Tran is a principal with Baobab Global Consulting, according to his nomination paperwork.

— IN HOT WATER: A high-ranking DWP employee has been accused of making staffers run personal errands for her on city time, including purchasing tickets to a Snoop Dogg concert, according to a filing lodged by the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission’s director of enforcement. The employee’s lawyer said the claims were the product of a disgruntled subordinate.

— MONEY TROUBLES: L.A. County’s Department of Homeless Services and Housing faces a $230-million financial gap in the upcoming budget year, setting the stage for cuts to key services. Officials are looking at scaling back an array of programs, including services to help homeless residents find apartments.

— BOLSTERING THE BUDGET: The council’s new Budget and Finance Advisory Committee, a five-member citizen panel looking at ways to strengthen the city’s finances, held its first meeting this week, selecting former City Controller Ron Galperin as its chairman. The committee plans to look at the city’s investment strategies, real estate portfolio, legal obligations and overall approach to annual budgets.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to combat homelessness did not launch new operations this week.
• On the docket next week: The Charter Reform Commission is set to hold an outdoor town hall Saturday at Echo Park Lake. The event, which runs from 10 a.m. to 1:30 p.m., will take place on the northeast lawn at Echo Park and Park avenues.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Reporting from Washington — A Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee says it is “unacceptable” that the Obama administration is refusing to provide Congress with the secret legal opinions cited to justify killing American citizens during counterterrorism operations.

Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat who has pushed against the notion of classified legal opinions, expressed his concerns in a letter to Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. on Wednesday.

Previously, Wyden has complained about the refusal of the Justice Department to make public secret interpretations of domestic-surveillance law. On Wednesday, the senator said he wanted to know just how much authority President Obama claims when it comes to the matter of killing American terrorism suspects, but that his request, made last April, to see the classified legal opinions exploring that topic has been rebuffed.

“How much evidence does the president need to decide that a particular American is part of a terrorist group?” Wyden wrote. “Does the president have to provide individual Americans with an opportunity to surrender before using lethal force against them? Is the president’s authority to kill Americans based on authorization from Congress or his own authority as commander-in-chief? Can the president order intelligence agencies to kill an American who is inside the United States?”

Sen. Patrick J. Leahy, (D-Vt.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, also has asked for copies of any classified legal opinions dealing with killing American citizens — but has not been provided any, his office said. At a Nov. 8, 2011, congressional hearing, Holder told Leahy that he could not “address whether or not there is an opinion in this area.”

For the executive branch to claim that intelligence agencies have the authority to knowingly kill American citizens while refusing to provide Congress with the legal opinions explaining its reasoning “represents an indefensible assertion of executive prerogative, and I expected better from the Obama Administration,” Wyden wrote to Holder.

A Justice Department official said the department is reviewing Wyden’s letter and will respond later.

“It would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the Taliban and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” the official said.

Last month, officials said Holder would be making a speech in the coming weeks laying out the legal justification for lethal strikes against Americans, such as the September CIA drone strike in Yemen that killed Anwar Awlaki, a U.S.-born citizen accused by U.S. officials of helping plan terrorist attacks against American targets. Wyden said he welcomed that.

U.S. officials have said that the CIA goes through extra legal steps when targeting a U.S. citizen as part of its drone strike program.

In early 2010, then-Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair told the House Intelligence Committee that the intelligence community “take[s] direct action against terrorists” and added that “if we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.”

Wyden said he is not suggesting “that the president has no authority to act in this area. If American citizens choose to take up arms against the United States during times of war, there can undoubtedly be some circumstances under which the president has the authority to use lethal force against those Americans. For example, there is no question that President Lincoln had the authority to order Union troops to take military action against Confederate forces during the Civil War.”

However, he said, the question becomes thornier when the U.S. is at war around the world with terrorists who don’t wear uniforms. “And it is critically important for the public’s elected representatives to ensure that these questions are asked and answered in a manner consistent with American laws and American values,” Wyden wrote.

Members of Congress need to understand how or whether the executive branch has attempted to answer these questions so that they can decide for themselves whether this authority has been properly defined, Wyden wrote.

“Americans have a particular right to understand how the U.S. government interprets the statement in the Bill of Rights that no American shall ‘be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,’” Wyden wrote. “The federal government’s official views about the president’s authority to kill specific Americans who have not necessarily been convicted of a crime are not a matter to be settled in secret by a small number of government lawyers.”

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Wednesday found that 83% of respondents said they approve of the use of drone strikes against terrorist suspects overseas. Sixty-five percent in the poll, conducted by telephone Feb. 1-4, said that American citizens suspected of terrorism are legitimate targets. Democrats approved of the drone strikes on American citizens by a 58%-33% margin, and liberals approved of them, 55%-35%, according to the Post’s blog, the Plum Line.

[email protected]

[For the record, 9:41 a.m., Feb. 10: An earlier version of this post incorrectly reported that Anwar Awlaki, a U.S. citizen killed by a CIA drone strike last year in Yemen, was born in Yemen. He was born in New Mexico.]

SACRAMENTO — Bill Simon Jr., a wealthy banker and political newcomer, formally launched his bid for governor Friday with repeated attacks on incumbent Gray Davis and a promise to infuse Sacramento with the sensibilities of the business world.

Simon conceded that he was attempting a “big jump” in his first try for office. “I don’t believe that career politicians have a monopoly on leadership,” he said.

“Nor,” he went on, “do I believe the government has a monopoly on the answers.”

Simon, the son and namesake of a former U.S. Treasury secretary, said that if elected governor, he would seek to bring “private solutions” to problems such as traffic congestion, failing schools and management of the state’s water and energy supplies.

“I’m going to offer a different path, a path of smaller government,” Simon said. “Of individual and private sector solutions, rather than big bureaucratic plans. And local government whenever possible.”

But he was vague when pressed for details, sticking to generalities and sweeping criticisms of Democrat Davis. He also took a rare shot at his two rivals for the Republican nomination, California Secretary of State Bill Jones and former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan.

Simon described Jones as “an insider, someone who’s been in politics his whole life.” He questioned whether Riordan had sufficient “fire in the belly” and suggested that Republicans were “looking for a candidate that can make them feel proud of their party, not someone who will try to muddle the differences between the parties.”

Riordan has antagonized some conservative Republicans with his support for abortion rights and gun control and his 20-year history of contributions to Democratic candidates and causes.

Simon, 50, announced his candidacy in the ballroom of a downtown Sacramento hotel, accompanied by his wife, Cindy, and surrounded on a packed dais by more than two dozen friends, supporters and family members.

In launching his candidacy, Simon became the latest in a long line of wealthy newcomers who have tried to make the leap into elective political office in California.

Most have failed: In just the past few campaigns, Al Checchi spent $40 million in a failed bid for governor, Darrell Issa spent more than $12 million in an unsuccessful run for the U.S. Senate (he now serves in the House) and Mike Huffington spent $30 million in a losing campaign for the Senate.

Simon has refused to say how much of his personal fortune he plans to invest in his candidacy, though he has insisted that he will not be “Mr. Megabucks” trying to buy the governor’s office.

Simon, born in New Jersey, moved to California in 1990 to open a Los Angeles office of the family firm, William E. Simon & Sons. The private investment company controls assets of more than $3 billion, including the family-oriented cable network Pax TV.

Citing his business background, Simon said, “I’ve learned to see opportunities and anticipate problems–qualities that I believe that our current governor clearly lacks.

”. . . In the early ‘90s, when many people were writing the obituary for California, we began to invest in California . . . [creating] literally thousands of jobs,” he said.

A resident of Pacific Palisades, Simon has also been active on the board of several local charities, including Covenant House, Catholic Charities and Childrens Hospital. He cited his charitable works as a model he would pursue as governor, “embodying the philosophy that it’s better to teach a person to fish than to give them a fish.”

Simon’s only government experience was a stint from 1985 to 1988 as a federal prosecutor in New York City. On Friday, he repeatedly invoked the name of his former boss: then-U.S. Atty. Rudolph Giuliani, who has given his high-profile endorsement to the campaign.

Ironically, Simon was urged into the governor’s race by Riordan, a friend and fellow parishioner at St. Monica’s Catholic Church in Santa Monica. Later, Riordan decided to run himself.

Twice in recent weeks, the Riordan campaign sent emissaries in hopes of persuading Simon to run for some other office. The freshly declared candidate laughed off a reporter’s suggestion that he had been “double-crossed” by Riordan, in effect disavowing the sentiment.

But Simon pointedly refused, when asked, to rule out attack advertising against the former mayor and GOP front-runner.

“We haven’t gotten to that point,” Simon said. “We’re early in the campaign. Right now I want to wage a campaign based on ideas.”

Jones has formally announced his candidacy; Riordan plans to do so Tuesday in Los Angeles. Davis, for his part, quietly filed papers Friday in Sacramento announcing his intention to seek a second term.

The governor’s plans have been no secret: Even before taking office, he started collecting money for his reelection, setting a four-year fund-raising goal of $50 million. As of Sept. 30, Davis had nearly $31 million in the bank.

WASHINGTON — In the waning days of his presidency, Bill Clinton promised to use his clemency powers to help low-level drug offenders languishing in prison. When Carlos Vignali walked out of prison on Jan. 20 and returned home to his family in Los Angeles, he appeared to fit the broad outlines of that profile.

But the 30-year-old Vignali, who had served six years of a 15-year sentence for federal narcotics violations, fit another profile entirely. No small-time offender, he was the central player in a cocaine ring that stretched from California to Minnesota. Far from disadvantaged, he owned a $240,000 condominium in Encino and made his way as the son of affluent Los Angeles entrepreneur Horacio Vignali. The doting father became a large-scale political donor in the years after his son’s arrest, donating more than $160,000 to state and federal officeholders–including Govs. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis–as he pressed for his son’s freedom.

The grateful father called the sudden commutation of his son’s sentence by Clinton “a Hail Mary and a miracle.”

The improbability that such a criminal would be granted presidential clemency, as well as the younger Vignali’s claim that he alone steered a pardon application that caught the president’s attention and won his approval, has sparked disbelief and outrage from nearly everyone involved in his case.

“It’s not plausible; it makes no sense at all,” said Margaret Love, the pardon attorney who oversaw all Justice Department reviews of presidential clemency applications from 1990 to 1997. “Somebody had to help him. There is no way that case could have possibly succeeded in the Department of Justice.”

Because it is a hard-edged criminal case, Vignali’s commutation adds another dimension to the wave of eleventh-hour Clinton clemencies and raises new questions about the influence of political donors and officials on different stages of the process.

As criminal justice authorities in Minnesota learned of Vignali’s sudden freedom, they reacted with the same indignation that has greeted several other beneficiaries of the 140 pardons and 36 commutations Clinton granted in his last hours as president.

The Vignali case also illustrates the secrecy that enshrouds the clemency process.

A federal prosecutor who had urged Justice Department superiors to reject clemency for Vignali demanded an official explanation–only to be denied information from his own department. The judge who sentenced Vignali is openly aghast at the decision, which was made without his knowledge. And they all–from defense attorneys to street detectives to former pardon attorney Love–scoffed that Vignali could have walked free without the intervention of politically connected helpers.

Key details of the case remain a mystery. Did political officials and other authoritative figures appeal for Vignali’s freedom to the president or high-ranking Justice Department officials? What action, if any, did the Justice Department recommend to the White House?

Vignali could not be reached for comment. But his father strongly denied that he or anyone else in the family asked politicians to press their case with Clinton.

“I didn’t write him a letter, I didn’t do anything,” Horacio Vignali said. “But I thank God, and I thank the president every day.”

For now, the Vignali case is a curious tale of how an inmate buried deep in the federal penal system won presidential help while others in more desperate straits remained behind.

“Go figure,” said an exasperated Craig Cascarano, the lawyer for one of Vignali’s 30 co-defendants, many of them poor and black. “How is it that Carlos Vignali is out eating a nice dinner while my client is still in prison eating bologna sandwiches?”

Clinton Concerned About Drug Sentences

Clinton and his White House staff have not fully explained why he granted certain clemencies, including the highly controversial pardon of fugitive commodities broker Marc Rich.

But in recent months, the president had expressed concern about mandatory federal sentences imposed on some small-time drug offenders.

“The sentences in many cases are too long for nonviolent offenders,” Clinton said in a November interview with Rolling Stone magazine. “. . . I think this whole thing needs to be reexamined.”

His comments prompted a flurry of last-minute clemency requests to the White House, said the former president’s spokesman, Jake Siewert, particularly since Clinton believed that Justice was not moving fast enough in making clemency recommendations to the White House.

“Most of the drug cases involved people with a sentence that the prosecutor or the sentencing judge felt was excessive,” Siewert said, “but were necessitated by mandatory-minimum guidelines.

“So in most of the drug cases, either a prosecutor or a sentencing judge or some advocate identified people who were relatively minor players or who had gotten a disproportionate sentence.”

Siewert, asked about cases such as Vignali’s, said he did not remember any specific cases but added: “We tried to make a judgment on the merits.”

Although Vignali family members themselves may not have tried to influence the process directly, others weighed in early on. After Carlos was convicted, and during the legal appeals process, Minnesota authorities were deluged with phone calls and letters from California political figures inquiring about the case and urging leniency, they said.

“There was a lot of influence, oh yes,” said Andrew Dunne, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted Vignali in Minnesota. “We would receive periodic calls from state representatives in California calling on behalf of Carlos after the sentencing.

Dunne, who said he interpreted some of the more persistent calls as “perhaps improper influence,” said he could not remember whether the California politicians were based in Sacramento or Washington. But “they wanted to know: Is there anything that could be done to help reduce the sentence?”

Horacio Vignali said he did not know who made such calls and had “no idea why they did that.”

In a two-year investigation, state and federal law enforcement authorities used wiretaps and raids to break a drug ring that transported more than 800 pounds of cocaine from California to Minnesota, where it was converted to crack for sale on the street.

Detectives learned that Vignali, a rapper wannabe who called himself “C-Low,” played a central role in the enterprise. He provided the money to buy the cocaine in Los Angeles, where it was then shipped to Minnesota by mail.

Tony Adams, one of the police detectives who worked on the case, said Vignali “was making big money” from the ring. “Let me put it like this,” he said, citing wiretaps: “This kid went to Las Vegas and would lose $200,000 at Caesar’s Palace and it was no big deal.

“He had a condo in Encino worth over $240,000. And yet his tax records showed he was only making $30,000 at his dad’s auto body shop.”

Most of the defendants pleaded guilty and received prison sentences, but Vignali and two Minneapolis men went on trial.

The senior Vignali sat through the entire trial and at one point, according to Cascarano, testified as a character witness on his son’s behalf. In his statement, the lawyer said, Vignali alluded to his wealth by saying that he had spent $9 million on a palatial Southern California home that once belonged to actor Sylvester Stallone.

A jury convicted Carlos Vignali in 1994 on three counts: conspiring to manufacture, possess and distribute cocaine; aiding and abetting the use of a facility in interstate commerce with the intent to distribute cocaine; and aiding and abetting the use of communication facilities for the commission of felonies.

He drew a 15-year prison sentence and wound up as an inmate in the Federal Correctional Institution in Safford, Ariz.

Todd Hopson, one of the men tried with Vignali, was sentenced to more than 23 years, said his lawyer, Cascarano. The lawyer described Hopson as “an uneducated black kid with a noticeable stutter” and a middle-level figure whose role in the Minneapolis drug ring “was nothing compared to Vignali.”

But under mandatory federal guidelines, Hopson’s conviction required a stiffer sentence because he had been involved in converting the cocaine into rocks of crack, Cascarano said.

A Big Jump in Contributions

Political contribution records indicate that Horacio Vignali also apparently owned interests in used car lots and auto body shops in Los Angeles and Malibu. And, according to Cascarano and to media reports dating from the mid-1990s, Vignali also grew wealthy on commercial real estate interests that included a prime tract across from the Los Angeles Convention Center.

But when contacted by The Times, the father said only, “I run a taco stand and a parking lot.”

Through 1994, the year his son was convicted, Horacio Vignali made a few small federal and state campaign contributions, usually less than $1,000, according to a Times analysis of campaign finance records. But in October 1994, just before the start of his son’s seven-week trial, Vignali stepped up his contributions, donating $53,000 to state officeholders.

By last year, he had become a large-scale contributor. Vignali has given at least $47,000 to Gov. Gray Davis. He gave $32,000 to former Gov. Pete Wilson during his last term. He made two $5,000 donations to a political action committee operated by Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Los Angeles). And last August, while the Democrats were holding their national convention in Los Angeles, he contributed $10,000 to the Democratic National Committee.

Asked about his donations, the senior Vignali said only, “I’m a Democrat.”

As he was becoming a major contributor, the senior Vignali also hired more attorneys to appeal his son’s conviction. But by 1996, he had exhausted the appeals process.

He then turned to Danny Davis, the Los Angeles lawyer who had helped represent the young man at trial, with another request: to pursue a presidential commutation for his son.

Davis declined, telling the father his chances were “like a snowball in Hades.” Davis criticized the political nature of the clemency process but suggested that the family was smart enough to realize that Clinton could be contacted through political channels.

Still, Davis said Carlos Vignali deserves credit for successfully handling his own application for clemency.

It is unclear when Carlos Vignali filed his application, but by February 1999, it would have seemed quite dead.

That was when Dunne received an inquiry from the Justice Department asking for a recommendation on the Vignali pardon application. Dunne and his boss, then-U.S. Atty. Todd Jones, wrote a scathing letter sharply opposing any break for Vignali.

They pointed out how deeply Vignali was involved in the drug ring and how he had never acknowledged responsibility or shown any remorse.

After sending the letter, Dunne said, “I never thought this had a chance of happening. As far as we were concerned, this was a dead issue.”

Jones also remembered being vehemently against a commutation. “I can’t tell you how strongly we registered our objection,” he said.

Love, the former pardon attorney, said that, without approval from prosecutors, any such clemency request usually is denied.

Told of Vignali’s freedom, she said: “What you’re telling me is absolutely mind-boggling.”

Vignali’s trial judge, U.S. District Judge David Doty, said he was not contacted by the Justice Department. Had he been, he said, he would have joined the prosecution in arguing against special treatment for Vignali.

Doty said Vignali never acknowledged his crime after his conviction nor showed any remorse.

“He was non-repentant,” the judge said. “Even after I sentenced him, he claimed he had been railroaded.”

However, Doty did write Clinton on behalf of drug defendants in two other cases, both involving disadvantaged individuals who had been subjected to harsh sentences for minor drug offenses.

Clinton commuted the sentences on his last day in office.

Doty said that those were worthwhile commutations–noting that both defendants were sorrowful and had completed most of their prison time.

The pardon attorney’s office refused to release any information about Vignali’s commutation to The Times.

Horacio Vignali said he learned that his son was out on Jan. 20, the day Clinton left the White House and George W. Bush became president. “My son called the house and he said, ‘They’re turning me loose! They’re turning me loose! I’m a free man! I’m a free man!’ ”

The father insisted that his son put together the pardon request with minimal help from Los Angeles attorney Don Re. (Re did not return phone calls for comment.)

Ron Meshbesher, a Minneapolis defense attorney who also represented the son during his trial, said that several days after the commutation the Vignalis called him at his office.

The son came on the line “all excited,” Meshbesher recalled. The stunned lawyer asked: “How’d you get out?” Vignali told him that the “word around prison was that it was the right time to approach the president.” The son insisted he had written the application himself.

In an interview with The Times, Horacio Vignali insisted that Clinton’s commutation was not payback for his Democratic Party contributions. He said that he met Clinton only once, in 1994, around the time of his son’s conviction. Vignali said he shook the president’s hand in a rope line at a fund-raiser.

Although he insisted that he had not orchestrated his son’s freedom, the senior Vignali conceded that others may have helped.

“I guess some people wrote on his behalf,” he said. “I have no idea who they are. I just don’t know.”

*

Times researcher John Beckham in Chicago contributed to this report.

For tens of millions of Americans on Saturday, a great tension broke.

A tension that had tightened in the chest and temples through four years of watching their nation, in their view, become meaner and more hateful, unable to see plain truths and human decency. A nation spinning down rabbit holes of conspiracy theories, praising white supremacists as “fine people,” putting children in cages.

President-elect Joe Biden’s victory brought tears of not just joy, but relief — a hissing purge of all that anxiety that had not relented, through so many tweets and outrages and, ultimately, to the possibility that for the first time in American history, a president might refuse to step down.

That prospect still hung in the air Saturday but felt vastly deflated — like many saw President Trump himself — as his attorneys made their unsubstantiated allegations of voter fraud, inexplicably, in front of a landscaping shop on the industrial edge of Philadelphia.

People raise bottles of champagne as they celebrate near the White House in Washington, DC on Saturday.

(Kent Nishimura/Los Angeles Times)

Spontaneous celebration erupted around the nation, even amid its worst pandemic in a century. Revelers, for the most part wearing masks, danced and chanted “You’re fired!” Horns honked, flags flew, pots banged, champagne flowed with abandon, from the Bronx to Puerto Rico, Atlanta to Minneapolis, Seattle to South Pasadena.

In Manhattan, thousands poured into the streets, the noise of jubilation thundering through skyscraper canyons.

“We finally have a country back where it’s safe for the children again!” Greg Shlotthauer shouted in Times Square. “A country where we are not ashamed of the man in the White House!”

In Brooklyn, a rabbi’s son blew a shofar ram’s horn from his window. On Los Feliz Boulevard in Los Angeles, a bagpiper played on a street corner as someone else rang a cowbell, and a cardboard sign that read “It’s Over” was pinned to a tree.

In Washington, where protestors were tear-gassed just months ago so Trump could pose with a Bible in front of a church, the mood was festive. Crowds danced. A man sang “Sweet Caroline” in front of the boarded-up Department of Veterans Affairs.

People gathered on the grass at McPherson Square, a few blocks from the White House, to wait for Biden’s acceptance speech. They brought signs that read “Stop tweeting and start packing” and “Grab him by the BALLOTS.”

In Philadelphia, outside the convention center where election workers were finishing the ballot count, celebrants danced to Led Zeppelin’s “Black Dog” and the Village People’s “YMCA,” — which had been a favorite Trump campaign song.

People react to the election news near Independence Hall in Philadelphia on Saturday morning.

(Luis Sinco / Los Angeles Times)

“Philadelphia saved the world,” said Andrew Phillips, a 49-year-old property manager carrying an “Elections Have Consequences” sign. “We haven’t been this relevant since the 1780s.”

But in a country no less divided than it was before the election, the counterweight to all that exhilaration was anger, resignation and, in the streets, defiance — fueled by the president’s refusal to concede even as his favorite Fox News called the election for Biden and did not run with his baseless fraud claims.

In Philadelphia, dozens of police officers on bike patrol kept revelers apart from Trump supporters, who were demanding to stop the vote counting.

Jim Eberhardt, a 63-year-old school bus driver, drove to Philadelphia from his home in Rockland County, N.Y., to show his opposition to what he says is vote fraud taking place inside the convention center, based on the false claims by Trump.

The president, who has complained that mail ballots were being tallied after election day, on Saturday pledged to continue his fight to overturn the election.

“I felt it was the least I could do to come down,” said Eberhardt, his Trump flag hoisted on his shoulder. “I think the election’s been stolen, obviously.”

Similar scenes played out across the country.

“This isn’t over,” said Lisa Kathryn, at the Michigan state Capitol, still holding her red Trump 2020 sign.

A Trump supporter shouts down counter-protesters during a demonstration Saturday over ballot counting outside the Michigan State Capitol in Lansing.

(John Moore / Getty Images)

“Democrats think they’re going to steal an election? This country will not head into socialism,” Kathryn said, mirroring Republicans’ false claims that the moderate Biden is a radical.

Kathryn, who voted for Trump in 2016 and again this election, said she came to show her support for the president and spend an afternoon with like-minded voters. Dozens of Trump supporters packed in front of the Capitol building, some outfitted in camouflage and openly carrying firearms.

“This is our country,” yelled a man with a megaphone and a Glock 9mm holstered on his right hip. “Freedom!” shouted a woman walking past and offering him a high-five.

Kathryn grinned. “We all love this country just like any other American,” she said. “We are here to speak our minds and stand by President Trump.”

For much of the country, this fervid support made for a bittersweet catharsis, the exhilaration dampened by knowing at least 70 million Americans have doubled down on the Trumpist view of the world, and still mourning all that occurred on his watch.

The author and commentator Van Jones put that emotion in searing terms when he learned of the victory on CNN.

“It’s easier to be a parent this morning. It’s easier to be a dad. It’s easier to tell your kids character matters. It matters. Telling the truth matters. Being a good person matters.”

He choked up, trying to hold back sobs, talking of Muslims who no longer “have a president that doesn’t want you here,” of undocumented immigrants who don’t have to worry about being separated from their children.

“This is a vindication for a lot of people who have really suffered. You know, ‘I can’t breathe.’ You know that wasn’t just George Floyd. That was a lot of people that felt they couldn’t breathe,” Jones said. “Every day you’re waking up and you’re getting these tweets and … you’re going to the store and people who have been afraid to show their racism are getting nastier and nastier to you. And you’re worried about your kids and you’re worried about your sister, and can she just go to Walmart and get back into her car without someone saying something to her?

“And you spent so much of your life energy just trying to hold it together.”

Many Biden supporters felt the racism Trump unleashed in America could never be put back in a bottle.

“There’s a Black woman at the second highest position in the country,” Adriana Holt of Decatur, Ga., said of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris. “That’s wild. And to know that I had a part in this.”

(Jenny Jarvie/Los Angeles Times)

In Decatur, Ga., Adriana Holt’s elation was weighed down by that reality. But it wasn’t going to stop the party. The 28-year-old Black social media manager and her sister, Alexandria, a sports service representative, piled into a Nissan Juke, switched on “My President” by Young Jeezy and headed into Atlanta.

All over the Old Fourth Ward neighborhood, which had been home to the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., cars honked horns and blasted the anthem “F— Donald Trump” out of their windows.

Some walked the streets with raised fists. Others smoked cigars or popped open champagne bottles.

“Now there’s light at the end of the tunnel,” Alexandria Holt said as the sisters snapped photos in front of a mural of George Floyd. Adriana nodded.

“Today, I almost feel the first sigh of relief since the day Trump got elected,” she said.

When she woke up four years ago to learn that Trump had been elected president, she felt that America had told her that, as a Black person, a woman, a survivor of sexual assault, she didn’t matter.

“There’s no going back to how it was,” Adriana Holt said. “You know, Trump just made it OK to be racist. So, it’s like the people I knew beforehand, now I know: I can’t be your friend anymore. This is permanent.”

Still, she could feel change. She was born just a month before Georgia voted for its last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, and now her home state was tilting blue for the first time she could remember.

“There’s a Black woman at the second highest position in the country,” she said. “That’s wild. And to know that I had a part in this.”

Flashbacks to four years ago still tormented some of the most vulnerable.

Hernan Hernandez-Vela, 31, began to weep as he talked about the racism that many people have endured since Trump took office.

The Las Vegas resident recalled the time someone ran him off the road while he was in the car with his young son. He talked about parents whose children were told to “go back to Mexico.”

“The last four years, our community has been criminalized,” said Hernandez-Vela, who works for La Pulga de Las Vegas, a community organization that helps Latinos. “We just want our kids to feel safe on the playground, to feel safe at school.”

His organization heard from Latinos who weren’t paid for work and were threatened with ICE when they spoke up.

When he was a child, Hernandez-Vela would read about Martin Luther King and the racial issues that divided the country. He felt like King brought it to light and laws were changed.

“But Trump came and brought all that back. He single-handedly targeted the Hispanic community,” he said. For Hernandez-Vela, whose parents were immigrants from Mexico, Biden’s win meant everything.

“We feel like we’re human again,” he said. “With Biden winning, we feel like we finally have a voice. We have somebody in office who cares about our community, who cares about our families.

“He shows that racism isn’t right, that hatred isn’t right,” he said.

Janet Pulido, 19, in small-town Siler City, N.C., remembered watching classmates come to school wearing Trump gear to celebrate.

“Everybody’s racism came out,” she said. For Pulido, it hit hard. Her family immigrated from Veracruz, Mexico, in 1999, and some still lacked legal status.

On Saturday, when she went to Walmart, a sense of joy washed over her as she noted that the Trump hats and shirts she normally saw on customers were conspicuously absent.

“As the day goes on, it’s starting to hit me more,” she said. “Come Jan. 20, he’s gone. That’s it. The nightmare’s over.”

The stakes of this election were the starkest for those on the margins.

In Austin, Texas, Marco Jaramillo said Biden’s election meant the end of living under the cloud of deportation. His legal status in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was under threat as Trump fought to end the Obama-era program.

“It means a lot of hope, because Biden has already said he’s going to make it permanent,” he said.

Jaramillo, 32, was brought from Mexico to the U.S. as a child by his parents and runs a local cleaning business.

He said he spent the past four years “living in fear of deportation.”

He joined Saturday’s crowd in celebrating with handmade signs that said, “Love over hate” and “We are all Dreamers” in Spanish.

Friend and fellow DACA recipient Raul Armenta said he was tired of spending years listening to the president demonize Mexican immigrants

“We’re not criminals,” Armenta said. “I feel content now that they can’t make us leave.”

In a spontaneous crowd outside the Palacio del Sol in Las Vegas, Mayra Aguirre, 38, felt “mega feliz,” she said — super happy — because it felt like democracy was rescued.

The last four years had felt like a weight, she said. “I felt like the country was broken, like I was drowning,” Mayra said. She felt the racism in the community. Over the past three days, she hasn’t slept. And when she did, it was only for two hours.

“Today, when I heard the news, I felt like I could breathe,” she said. “I feel like the country is coming together again … we’re going back to the country we were before Trump got into the White House.”

Her family grouped together and sang a spin on a song by the Miami group Los 3 de la Habana. The original version went “voy a votar por Donald Trump.” (“I’m going to vote for Donald Trump.”)

They sang a new version: “Que alegre soy, voy a botar a Donald Trump — fuera de La Casa Blanca.” (“I’m so happy, I’m going to kick out Donald Trump out of the White House.”)

In other cities, the tug-of-war between celebrants and Trump supporters was more fraught.

In Austin, several hundred Trump supporters waving flags and signs reading “Stop the Steal” and “Fraud” chanted and shouted at a smaller crowd of Biden supporters across the street. More than a dozen bicycle police pedaled between the two sides, intervening when Trump supporters crossed the street.

At least one Trump supporter was carrying an AR-15 rifle slung across his chest. A pickup truck slowed as it passed the Trump crowd and the driver shouted, “The nonsense is over!”

A bicycle food delivery worker pedaled in his wake, calmly adding, “It’s over, guys.”

Trump supporter Elizabeth Brumbaugh, 62, disagreed. “It’s not over!” she shouted, holding her Trump 2020 sign aloft “Count the legal votes, not the illegal!”

“You lost — take it like a man!” Natalie Roberts, 43, shouted at the occupants of a pickup truck with a Trump sign in the back, who grew livid. Roberts, a single mother who runs an Austin social media marketing company, voted for Biden but hadn’t joined a protest until she saw the pro-Trump crowd Saturday.

Christian Rico, 20, a student at Concordia University, took turns with a friend chanting through a bullhorn at Trump supporters: “You guys lost!”

A Biden supporter began blasting Queen’s “We Are the Champions.” And on it went.

People celebrate in Orlando, Saturday, after Democrat Joe Biden defeated President Donald Trump to become 46th president of the United States.

(Melissa Gomez/Los Angeles Times)

As an event in downtown Orlando came to a close, 61-year-old retiree Don Luellen happily held a homemade “Biden Harris 2020” sign but worried about the future.

“Trump has done nothing but divide our country for the last four years,” he said. He fears the president won’t stop.

“My greatest fear is that even though Biden is president, that Trump will not be quiet and will keep on drumming up hatred and division,” he said. “I’m scared to death of them and militias.”

“But I’m hoping that when Biden starts to get into the presidency, that a lot of people that feel that way will start to calm down.”

The Trump administration is promising an even tougher anti-immigration agenda after an Afghan national was charged this week in the shooting of two National Guard members, with new restrictions targeting the tens of thousands of Afghans resettled in the U.S. and those seeking to come, many of whom served alongside American soldiers in the two-decade war.

But those still waiting to come were already facing stricter measures as part of President Trump’s sweeping crackdown on legal and illegal migration that began when he started his second term in January. And the Afghan immigrants living in the U.S. and now in the administration’s crosshairs were among the most extensively vetted, often undergoing years of security screening, experts and advocates say.

In its latest move, the Trump administration announced Friday that it will pause issuing visas for anyone traveling on an Afghan passport.

The suspected shooter, who worked with the CIA during the Afghanistan war, “was vetted both before he landed, probably once he landed, once he applied for asylum,” said Andrew Selee, president of the Migration Policy Institute. “But more importantly, he was almost certainly vetted extensively and much more by the CIA.”

Haris Tarin, a former U.S. official who worked on the Biden-era program that resettled Afghans, predicted that “as the investigation unfolds, you will see that this is not a failure of screening. This is a failure of us not being able to integrate — not just foreign intelligence and military personnel — but our own veterans, over the past 25 years.”

The program, Operations Allies Welcome, initially brought about 76,000 Afghans to the United States, many of whom had worked alongside American troops and diplomats as interpreters and translators. The initiative was in place for around a year before shifting to a longer-term program called Operation Enduring Welcome. Almost 200,000 Afghans have been resettled in the U.S. under the programs.

Among those brought to the U.S. under the program was the suspected shooter, 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, who now faces a first-degree murder charge in the death of 20-year-old Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom. The other National Guard member who was shot, 24-year-old Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, remains in critical condition.

Those resettlements are now on hold. The State Department has temporarily stopped issuing visas for all people traveling on Afghan passports, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced late Friday on X.

Anti-immigrant rhetoric

Trump and his allies have seized on the shooting to criticize gaps in the U.S. vetting process and the speed of admissions, even though some Republicans spent the months and years after the 2021 withdrawal criticizing the Biden administration for not moving fast enough to approve some applications from Afghan allies.

CIA Director John Ratcliffe said Lakanwal “should have never been allowed to come here.” Trump called lax migration policies “the single greatest national security threat facing our nation,” and Vice President JD Vance said Biden’s policy was “opening the floodgate to unvetted Afghan refugees.”

That rhetoric quickly turned into policy announcements, with Trump saying he would “permanently pause all migration” from a list of nearly 20 countries, “terminate all of the millions of Biden illegal admissions,” and “remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States.” Many of these changes had already been set in motion through a series of executive orders over the last 10 months, including most recently in June.

“They are highlighting practices that were already going into place,” said Andrea Flores, a lawyer who was an immigration policy advisor in the Obama and Biden administrations.

Lakanwal applied for asylum during the Biden administration, but his request was approved in April of this year — under the Trump administration — after undergoing a thorough vetting, according to #AfghanEvac, a group that helps resettle Afghans who assisted the U.S. during the war.

Flores said the system has worked across administrations: “You may hear people say, ‘Well, he was granted asylum under Trump. This is Trump’s problem.’ That’s not how our immigration system works. It relies on the same bedding. No asylum laws have really been changed by Congress.”

Afghans in the U.S. fearful for their status

Trump and other U.S. officials have used the attack to demand a reexamination of everyone who came to the U.S. from Afghanistan, a country he called “a hellhole on Earth” on Thursday.

“These policies were already creating widespread disruption and fear among lawfully admitted families. What’s new and deeply troubling is the attempt to retroactively tie all of this to one act of violence in a way that casts suspicion on entire nationalities, including Afghan allies who risked their lives to protect our troops,” Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, said in a statement Friday.

This has left the nearly 200,000 Afghans living across the U.S. in deep fear and shame over actions attributed to one person. Those in the U.S. are now worrying about their legal status being revoked, while others in the immigration pipeline here and abroad are waiting in limbo.

Nesar, a 22-year-old Afghan who arrived in the U.S. weeks after the fall of Kabul, said he had just begun to assimilate into life in the U.S. when the attack happened Wednesday. He agreed to speak to the Associated Press on condition that only his first name be used for fear of reprisals or targeting by immigration officials.

“Life was finally getting easier for me. I’ve learned to speak English. I found a better job,” he said. “But after this happened two days ago, I honestly went to the grocery store this morning, and I was feeling so uncomfortable among all of those people. I was like, maybe they’re now looking at me the same way as the shooter.”

Two days before the shooting, Nesar and his father, who worked for the Afghan president during the war, had received an interview date of Dec. 13 for their green card application, a moment he said they had been working toward for four years. He says it is now unclear if their application will move forward or whether their interview will take place.

Another Afghan national, who also spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity out of fear of reprisal, said that after fearing for his life under Taliban rule, he felt a sense of peace and hope when he finally received a special immigrant visa to come to the U.S. two years ago.

He said he thought he could use his experience working as a defense attorney in Afghanistan to contribute to American society. But now, he said, he and other Afghans will once again face scrutiny because of the actions of an “extremist who, despite benefiting from the safety and livelihood provided by this country, ungratefully attacked two American soldiers.”

“It seems that whenever a terrorist commits a crime, its shadow falls upon me simply because I am from Afghanistan,” he added.

Cappelletti and Amiri write for the Associated Press. AP writer Renata Brito contributed to this report.

California voters, it appears, have tired of peace and freedom–well, of Peace & Freedom, anyway–forcing the one and only Jan B. Tucker to take his leftist politics elsewhere.

Tucker, a Toluca Lake-based private eye and activist for every leftist cause under the sun, was the last hope for the state’s Peace & Freedom Party, which formed in California amid the political upheaval of 1968.

His campaign for state treasurer last year, “Tucker for Treasurer: Politics as Unusual,” represented the best chance for Peace & Freedom to maintain its spot on the state ballot. Tucker had run for governor and president on the Peace & Freedom ticket in previous years, and has a politician’s gift for self-promotion.

But Tucker’s third-party candidacy–which espoused such unorthodox fiscal views as using the power of the state stock portfolio to help break the glass ceiling for women and minorities–failed to ignite the liberal crowd.

He gathered less than 2% of the vote, the amount required for a party to stay on the ballot, and Secretary of State Bill Jones has since announced that Peace & Freedom has gone the way of Nehru jackets and the Age of Aquarius.

Peace & Freedom loyalists could get back on the ballot by increasing the number of voters registered to the party. There is little indication that is going to happen. But Tucker–who is active in the local chapters of the National Organization for Women, the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, a local newspaper guild and an animal-rights organization–isn’t about to give up the fight just yet. He plans to do what any crafty politician would do under the circumstances: adapt.

Tucker is going to team up with another minor party on the left, the Green Party, which, not coincidentally, has been gaining in popularity at the same time Peace & Freedom has been losing it. He believes the leadership of his new party is more grounded in reality.

“The Greens don’t have the ideological baggage and weirdo reputation that the Peace & Freedom Party has,” Tucker said. “It’s hard to be taken seriously when the party leaders stand up at conventions and say, ‘We are the new Bolsheviks.’ I tried to take some new recruits there, and they said, ‘This is “Alice in Wonderland.” ’ “

His next candidacy, he said, will be for U.S. Senate. In the meantime, Tucker says he will urge that his new party try to deal with what he sees as its biggest weakness: lack of minority representation.

“It’s a marriage whose time has come,” he said of his conversion to Green. “I’d like to help the Greens to diversify their ranks, because they need it. Their heart’s in the right place.”

*

NO REST: As if Rep. James Rogan (R-Glendale) didn’t have enough liberals angry at him. Now he is being accused of getting in the way of world peace.

Rogan, fresh off his controversial role as prosecutor in President Clinton’s Senate impeachment trial, was awarded straight Fs on the latest political report card of California Peace Action, a group that fights the proliferation of nuclear weapons and arms sales to recognized dictatorships. The Peace Action claims to be the state’s largest “peace” organization, with a statewide membership of 33,000.

“While Rep. Rogan’s role in the impeachment process has received a great deal of attention, we don’t want people to overlook his terrible record on nuclear weapons, human rights and wasteful military spending,” said Danielle Babineau, the group’s southern California political director. “You can’t do worse than an F.”

*

EAR TO THE RAIL: When City Council candidates went door to door recently trying to qualify for the April 13 ballot, residents asked about one issue more than any other.

Should the San Fernando Valley break away from Los Angeles and form its own city?

“That was the most consistent question that people asked me about,” said David R. Guzman Sr., one of four candidates challenging Councilman Hal Bernson in the northwest Valley’s 12th District.

Guzman said most residents doubted that the Valley would be better off after a breakaway from Los Angeles, a skepticism he and many other candidates share.

“They are afraid of it because they fear it may add to the red tape and cost the Valley more,” said Guzman, who isn’t convinced secession is a good idea.

Secession has divided candidates vying for four Valley seats on the City Council, an informal survey found. Most said the issue of Valley cityhood will be a major point of discussion in their campaigns.

Bernson supported a study of cityhood, but has declined to take a position on secession, citing his service on the county commission that is examining the financial issues involved, said Ali Sar, a spokesman.

Among other 12th District candidates, newsletter publisher Marilyn Stout said she does not believe secession is the answer, while attorney Charles Rubel said the Valley would be better off as a separate city.

“I’m definitely for it, if it’s feasible,” Rubel said, adding he believes it will bring government closer to Valley residents.

Stout said she would prefer to see charter reform bring city residents together.

“It [cityhood] would worsen the quality of life throughout the city,” Stout said.

In the race for the 2nd District seat in the East Valley, Councilman Joel Wachs was one of the first to sign a petition calling for a study of cityhood, but has said he wants to see the study results before taking a position on secession.

Second District challenger Kathy Anthony, who runs a Sunland tailoring business, said the Valley has been shortchanged by the rest of Los Angeles.

“Unfortunately, I don’t feel we have an option” but to secede, Anthony said. “We have to do something to get attention and dollars back to the Valley.”

John Spishak, another 2nd District candidate, also believes secession will improve the quality of life for Valley residents.

“I’m definitely for it,” he said. “People are so tired of what they are not getting from City Hall.”

In the 7th Council District, covering the northeast Valley, front-runner candidates Corinne Sanchez and Alex Padilla have not yet taken positions on secession, but Ollie McCaulley supports it. Barbara Perkins is not sure it’s a good idea.

“It’s long overdue,” McCaulley said. “The San Fernando Valley should be its own city. We are such a large part of the tax base, but we’re not getting the services in return.”

McCaulley said 90% of the voters he spoke with asked him about his stand on secession, but unlike Guzman’s experience, the vast majority were in favor, he said.

Perkins resigned as a board member of Valley VOTE because she believed the group was promoting Valley cityhood, not just a study of the issue.

“I don’t see any indication that we’re going to be better off if we [secede],” Perkins said. “I support going ahead with the study, but I can’t be supportive of secession at this time.”

*

ANOTHER BREAKUP: In filing for divorce from state Sen. Richard Alarcon, Corina Alarcon enlisted the help of an attorney who knows what it is like to oppose a powerful spouse.

She has retained attorney Manley Freid, who has represented a who’s-who of spouses breaking from powerful people, including one of Mayor Richard Riordan’s former wives.

Freid said he has also represented Tom Arnold against Roseanne Barr, Loni Anderson against Burt Reynolds and Lee Iacocca’s former wife in her divorce from the ex-Chrysler chairman.

Corina Alarcon said she has received a lot of backing from community leaders, including a vigil last week attended by about 30 supporters who are upset at Richard Alarcon’s decision to separate from his wife right after he was elected to the Senate.

*

DEMOCRATS’ DARTBOARD

Rep. James Rogan of Glendale has become a key target for Democrats. A3

Newport Beach businessman Dale Dykema is a highly sought-after guest when potential Republican presidential candidates visit California.

He recently attended an intimate dinner with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a cocktail party headlined by Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and a half-hour tete-a-tete with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

In the last quarter of a century, Dykema, 85, has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to GOP candidates, party organizations and political action committees. He has yet to make up his mind on whom to back — and more importantly, whom to raise money for — in the 2016 presidential campaign.

“There are just so many candidates in the race. I’m completely on the fence,” said Dykema, founder of TD Service Financial Corp., a company that provides foreclosure services for the mortgage industry. In 2012, he said, he settled quickly on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, but for the upcoming election he may wait until after the first couple of primaries before deciding.

The size of the field — well over a dozen likely candidates — coupled with the lack of a clear favorite mean many Republican donors in California share Dykema’s reluctance to commit.

“Normally, there’s a candidate that the entire establishment is behind and there’s this huge fundraising juggernaut for one person,” said Jon Fleischman, a state GOP official from Anaheim Hills and publisher of an influential conservative blog. “This year, no one has the brass ring already in hand. We’re seeing a lot more listening and a lot less giving early.”

On the Democratic side, state donors are already uniting behind former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, the party’s overwhelming favorite. She raised millions for her nascent campaign at events hosted earlier this month by entertainment and business leaders.

As Republican donors weigh their choices, they’re grilling the 2016 candidates on a range of issues, including immigration, religious freedom and net neutrality. They’re doing so in homes in Bel-Air, boardrooms in the Silicon Valley, parties in Orange County and GOP functions all over the state — a nod to California’s primacy in what is known in political circles as the “invisible primary.”

California probably doesn’t matter in the nominating fight. Its June 7, 2016, presidential primary is almost certainly too late to affect the GOP’s process. The state is also too Democratic to put it in play in next year’s general election. But California is the biggest source of campaign cash in the nation.

In the 2012 election, presidential candidates directly raised more than $112 million from California’s deep-pocketed donors. That’s almost the combined total raised in the next two most-generous states, Texas and New York, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. These figures do not include the millions donated to party committees and outside groups such as “super PACs” that are not controlled by a candidate.

Not surprisingly, given California’s tilt toward Democrats, President Obama was the biggest beneficiary then, raising $62.8 million here for his reelection bid, according to the center. But GOP candidates also filled their campaign coffers here — Romney collected $41.3 million, and the rest of the Republican field raised nearly $8 million.

Romney’s extensive fundraising network in California, which he cultivated over nearly a decade, became available to others when he decided in January not to run again.

“We’re talking a lot about it, but no one’s committing to anyone right now,” said Bret de St. Jeor, a Modesto businessman and Romney fundraiser in 2012. “It’s just flat-out too early…. Let’s hear a little bit more. Let’s hear the opening statements from the other candidates before we start jumping on somebody’s bandwagon.”

Donors “love the courting process,” said Shawn Steel, a Republican National Committee member from Surfside in Orange County. “Most of the serious candidates are coming to California repeatedly, and their mission is to establish a rapport as early as possible … and to try to meet as many folks as possible.”

Steel, who is undecided, recently co-hosted a meet-and-greet and intimate dinner for Walker at the tony Pacific Club in Newport Beach. He noted that the field includes multiple candidates who appeal to the same GOP faction, whether it’s establishment voters, social conservatives or tea party groups.

Many potential candidates, he added, have connections to California, or have the opportunity to grow support.

Former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina retains backers from her unsuccessful run against Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2010, Steel said. Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry developed ties to the state during his unsuccessful 2012 presidential bid, in part because one of his top strategists is a longtime and well-respected California GOP fundraiser.

Walker is a familiar face in California’s donor community, as he is across the nation, because of his fierce fight against unions in Wisconsin. Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul has spent considerable time wooing the libertarian streak that runs through Silicon Valley. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio has blown away audiences with his oratory, Steel said. And Bush’s family has long-standing alliances in the state.

Jeb Bush’s brother, former President George W. Bush, was a prodigious fundraiser here, performing a “cash-ectomy on the California donor community” whenever he visited, Fleischman said. “It was staggering.”

Those relationships haven’t sealed the deal for Jeb Bush here, but they do provide an edge for the yet-undeclared candidate that was visible during a recent, lucrative fundraising swing through the state.

“I really wanted to see him run before his brother ran,” said venture capitalist William H. Draper III, who went to Yale with their father, President George H.W. Bush, and served as his finance chair in his unsuccessful 1980 presidential run.

Draper, a former president of the Export-Import Bank of the United States, co-hosted an East Palo Alto fundraiser for Jeb Bush’s committee.

Susan McCaw, a major fundraiser for George W. Bush who served as his ambassador to Austria, said she was impressed by Jeb Bush’s record as governor of Florida and his support for education and immigration reform. She and her husband held a fundraiser for his political action committee at their Bel-Air home.

“I think he has the best chance of beating Hillary in the general,” she said.

Electability was the one quality nearly every donor — committed or not — mentioned as a priority.

John Jordan, a tech entrepreneur and vintner who has spent millions on Republican causes, plans to make a decision over the summer. He is hosting a dinner for Walker at his Healdsburg vineyard and expects to huddle with Paul soon. His sole focus, he said, is backing the candidate who could win the White House in 2016 by attracting the various factions of GOP voters as well as less ideologically driven general-election voters.

“In a pretty cold-blooded way,” Jordan said, “it has got to be someone that can unite the base, that they will like enough to turn out for … but at the same time isn’t someone that’s obnoxious.”

[email protected]

Twitter: @LATSeema

KABUL, AFGHANISTAN — Barack Obama met with U.S. troops and received a military briefing on conditions in Afghanistan on Saturday during the opening leg of an overseas trip designed to showcase his appeal in foreign capitals and reassure American voters that he would make a reliable commander in chief.

Obama’s trip is scheduled to include a visit to Iraq, and his foreign policy judgment got an unexpected boost from that country’s leader, Nouri Maliki, who praised the Democratic presidential candidate’s plan for withdrawing U.S. troops over a 16-month period.

In an interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, Maliki embraced Obama’s plan, saying: “That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.”

Maliki said he was not making an endorsement in the presidential race.

The presumed Republican nominee, John McCain, has said that conditions in Iraq could worsen if troops were removed at the pace his rival has advised.

Obama’s high-profile trip caps a week on the campaign trail during which he focused on national security and U.S. commitments abroad — areas that are considered special strengths of McCain.

Seizing on Maliki’s favorable comments, the Obama campaign put out a statement from his senior foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice: “Sen. Obama welcomes Prime Minister Maliki’s support for a 16-month timeline for the redeployment of U.S. combat brigades. This presents an important opportunity to transition to Iraqi responsibility, while restoring our military and increasing our commitment to finish the fight in Afghanistan.”

In a speech last week, Obama said that troops should be drawn down in Iraq and two additional combat brigades deployed in Afghanistan, a war he said the U.S. couldn’t afford to lose.

His visit to Afghanistan comes at a time of sharply deteriorating security across the country. Suicide bombings are an everyday occurrence, and the number of foreign troops killed last month was the highest since the start of the war.

The presumptive Democratic nominee and senator from Illinois is part of an official congressional delegation that includes Sens. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.). The lawmakers made a brief visit to Jalalabad airfield in eastern Afghanistan, greeting American troops from their respective home states.

At Bagram Air Base outside Kabul, Obama and the others met with senior military officials and got a briefing from the commander of American forces in eastern Afghanistan, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey J. Schloesser. The decision to have the delegation meet with Schloesser probably reflected growing U.S. concern over infiltration of fighters from tribal lands on the Pakistani side of the frontier, which borders Afghanistan’s eastern provinces.

Although Afghanistan’s south is the traditional heartland of the insurgency, the eastern front, where U.S. forces are concentrated, has heated up dramatically in recent weeks. American troops suffered their worst single-incident loss in three years last Sunday, when about 200 insurgents staged a well-organized assault on a remote base near the Pakistani border manned by U.S. and Afghan troops; nine Americans were killed and 15 wounded.

On Saturday, a NATO soldier was killed in an explosion in southern Afghanistan, in the Panjwayi district of Kandahar province. The soldier’s nationality was not released, but nearly all Western troops in that area are Canadian.

On the eve of his trip, Obama told reporters he wanted to make a firsthand evaluation of the Afghan and Iraqi war zones.

“Well, I’m looking forward to seeing what the situation on the ground is,” he said Thursday. “I want to, obviously, talk to the commanders and get a sense — both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad — of, you know, what . . . their biggest concerns are. And I want to thank our troops for the heroic work that they’ve been doing.”

In the Afghan capital, where constant power disruptions limit people’s access to radio and television news reports, many residents were not aware of Obama’s arrival. He is to meet with President Hamid Karzai today.

Obama caused a stir this month with remarks about the struggles of the Karzai government.

“I think the Karzai government has not gotten out of the bunker and helped to organize Afghanistan and [the] government, the judiciary, police forces, in ways that would give people confidence,” Obama told CNN.

Yet there is considerable enthusiasm here at the prospect of a change in the American administration. Many Afghans, while grateful for the U.S.-led invasion more than six years ago that drove the Taliban from power, are disappointed that the country still faces violence and poverty.

Obama “has good ideas about Afghanistan, and I hope he becomes the U.S. president,” said university student Hafeez Mohammad Sultani, 23. “He is young and full of energy.”

Others, however, were more skeptical.

“Bush couldn’t provide security in Afghanistan, so that will be difficult for Obama too,” said telecommunications worker Shams ul-Rahman, 38. “This is a very big challenge for America — maybe there will be some changes in the way Obama is thinking about Afghanistan.”

Obama’s companions on the trip are considered possible administration appointees should he win the presidency. Reed is a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Hagel is a Vietnam veteran who, like Obama, has opposed the Iraq war.

Recent polls show that most Americans see McCain, who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, as the more seasoned of the two candidates when it comes to foreign policy.

To close the gap, Obama has been trying to shore up his credentials. In speeches and opinion pieces, Obama has argued that invading Iraq was a mistake, that Iraqi officials also favor a timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal, and that Afghanistan is the real front in the war on terrorism.

In that respect, Maliki’s remarks gave Obama a boost and left McCain in an awkward spot.

The Arizona senator has said that U.S. troops should leave Iraq when the Maliki government and U.S. commanders on the ground deem the country secure. But McCain has dismissed Obama’s 16-month timeline as politically motivated and said it was an invitation for more chaos in Iraq.

McCain’s senior foreign policy advisor, Randy Scheunemann, said in a statement Saturday: “The difference between John McCain and Barack Obama is that Barack Obama advocates an unconditional withdrawal that ignores the facts on the ground and the advice of our top military commanders. John McCain believes withdrawal must be based on conditions on the ground.

“Prime Minister Maliki has repeatedly affirmed the same view and did so again today. Timing is not as important as whether we leave with victory and honor, which is of no apparent concern to Barack Obama.

“The fundamental truth remains that Sen. McCain was right about the [U.S. troop] surge and Sen. Obama was wrong. We would not be in the position to discuss a responsible withdrawal today if Sen. Obama’s views had prevailed.”

The Republican candidate also has ridiculed Obama for making pronouncements on Iraq and Afghanistan in advance of his visit.

In a radio address Saturday, McCain said: “My opponent . . . announced his strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq before departing on a fact-finding mission that will include visits to both those countries. Apparently, he’s confident enough that he won’t find any facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy. Remarkable.”

Obama is scheduled to visit the Middle East and Europe in what will probably become a media spectacle, with television news anchors covering each stop as though Obama were a head of state.

Images of adoring crowds greeting Obama in Germany and elsewhere feed into a campaign strategy to demonstrate that as president he would improve the United States’ beleaguered reputation in Europe.

Before landing in Afghanistan, the delegation stopped in Kuwait.

Obama relaxed there with U.S. troops, taking to the basketball court for a game of H-O-R-S-E.

—

[email protected]

Times staff writer Nicholas reported from Washington and special correspondent Faiez from Kabul. Times staff writers Laura King in Istanbul, Turkey, Michael Muskal in Los Angeles and Nicholas Riccardi in New York contributed to this report.

—

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

What Maliki said

Here is a part of Iraqi leader Nouri Maliki’s interview with the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which he supported Barack Obama’s timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq:

Would you hazard a prediction as to when most of the U.S. troops will finally leave Iraq?

As soon as possible, as far as we’re concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right time frame for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Is this an endorsement for the U.S. presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of U.S. troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans’ business. But it’s the business of Iraqis to say what they want. And that’s where the people and the government are in general agreement: The tenure of the coalition troops in Iraq should be limited.

Source: Der Spiegel