politics

Trump intensifies his push for arming teachers amid bipartisan criticism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

christi.parsons@latimes.com

Twitter: @cparsons



Source link

Two Muslim women journalists allege police assault in India | Civil Rights News

Two Muslim female journalists allege they were detained and brutally assaulted by police in India’s capital, Delhi. Police have denied the allegations, claiming the journalists were brought to the station over an illegal parking dispute.

Source link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Josh Edelson / For The Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

liam.dillon@latimes.com

@dillonliam

ALSO

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

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

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

Updates on California politics



Source link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Times staff writer Chris Megerian contributed to this report.



Source link

Iran war: Why US midterms could be a pivotal moment | US-Israel war on Iran News

As the United States and Iran exchanged attacks this week, one date was increasingly looming over the conflict.

The US midterm elections on November 3 could prove a pivotal moment in the war, as senior advisers to President Donald Trump seek to prevent the conflict from returning to all-out war before the polls when Republicans will be defending narrow majorities in both houses of Congress.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The push for restraint comes as Washington turns to economic pressure on Iran instead of military force. In August, the Trump administration announced its so-called “Economic D-Day”, imposing sanctions on 60 entities that it says facilitate oil revenues for trade with Iran and threatening other countries doing business with Tehran with secondary sanctions.

At the same time, the US naval blockade of Iranian ports in and around the Strait of Hormuz continues to exert pressure on Tehran’s oil exports.

Vice President JD Vance has meanwhile sought to downplay the war, which the US and Israel launched with attacks on Iran on February 28, as rising fuel prices and public opposition in the US threaten to become political liabilities for Republicans before the vote.

But there are clear limits to the restraint the Trump administration can show, with US forces continuing to strike Iran in recent days, and US leaders insist that further military action remains an option. Vance said this week that “everything that could happen is on the table,” including economic, military, diplomatic and covert pressure.

That leaves the coming two months as a particularly tricky period to navigate. Washington will want to avoid an all-out war while ratcheting up economic pressure, but Iran has its own calculations and could respond militarily anyway, potentially forcing the US into an escalation it would rather avoid before Americans go to the polls.

Here’s what we know.

Why do the midterms matter for Trump?

The midterms will determine whether the Republican Party can retain its narrow control of Congress. If the war escalates again before then, that could persuade more people to vote against the Trump administration.

Containing the fighting until November, therefore, may help prevent an already deeply unpopular war from dominating the political agenda.

A late-August Reuters/Ipsos poll suggested that just 31 percent of Americans support the war, compared with 63 percent who oppose it. Trump’s approval rating has also fallen since the outbreak of hostilities, from 40 percent to 33 percent, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling.

Observers say the Trump administration did not expect things to get to this point.

In early March, Trump insisted the war would last for “four or five weeks”. Instead, the conflict has dragged on, and unexpected consequences – including Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz causing energy prices to spike – have made it even more unpopular with US households.

US diesel prices hit a record high on Thursday, surpassing the previous peak recorded in 2022, as higher crude oil prices and refining bottlenecks drove up the cost of a fuel that underpins much of the US economy.

That is particularly damaging for a president who campaigned partly on a promise to dramatically reduce energy costs – as well as not to get involved in “unnecessary” wars.

The fallout from the war has not stopped at the petrol pump. Sustained increases in fuel and transport costs feed into the price of groceries, manufactured goods and other everyday purchases – potentially worsening inflation when Democrats are making the cost of living a defining issue for the midterm campaign.

A Politico poll conducted in August suggested that 61 percent of Americans believe the Iran war had made life more expensive for their families, four percentage points higher than a month earlier.

Can Trump keep the war contained until November?

There are signs that his administration is trying to do exactly that.

In recent weeks, Washington has intensified its campaign to economically isolate Iran, threatening severe sanctions against countries that continue trading with it while maintaining military pressure around the Strait of Hormuz.

With strikes on Iran earlier this week, Trump has also indicated he is willing to engage in sporadic attacks, while trying to keep the war from escalating back to all-out conflict.

Senior administration officials have simultaneously sought to play down the scale of the military confrontation. Asked at a White House briefing whether the Iran war would be resolved before the midterm elections, Vice President JD Vance said he “wouldn’t call it a war” and claimed there was “no active shooting right now”.

Asked when Iran would stop attacking commercial shipping, Vance said: “You would have to ask the Iranians.” He also said the conflict was having “less effect day by day” on global energy markets. The US claims it is escorting about 30 ships per night through the Strait of Hormuz – and officials claimed some 18 million barrels of oil were transported through on Tuesday this week. However, shipping data does not appear to fully support this claim.

Trying to maintain a strategy of “no war, no peace” with sporadic attacks is high-risk, analysts have warned. Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Washington, DC-based Center for International Policy, told Al Jazeera this week: “Tehran will not capitulate under [economic] pressure. Both sides may believe they can control the escalation, but every new exchange increases the risk of a wider regional conflict.”

One of the US attacks this week is also believed to have hit a civilian home where a wedding was taking place in Kuhestak, southern Iran, killing at least four people, including children, and wounding dozens.

Furthermore, The Washington Post reported on Sunday that senior Army, Navy and Air Force leaders have warned Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth in a written assessment that continuing the war at its current pace is unsustainable and risks undermining US military readiness in other parts of the world.

Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the US-based Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, told Al Jazeera that this week’s attacks point to a US strategy that remains deeply unsettled.

“I think it’s quite likely that what we’re seeing right now is just complete military, strategic disarray on the American position in which the positions, the actions, the tactics, the strategies keep on getting changed,” Parsi said.

Washington had imposed sweeping economic sanctions on Iran in an apparent attempt to make further military intervention unnecessary, he noted. “Seven days later, the US is back into bombing Iran.”

The US appears to be “jumping from one position to the other”, he added.

What are Iran’s calculations?

While the most recent attacks between the US and Iran have been less intense than the heavy exchanges seen in the early weeks of the war and during the two flare-ups in July, the risk of escalation is high. And it may be in Iran’s interests for that to happen sooner rather than later.

Iran has excelled at the use of asymmetric warfare against an enemy with considerable military might – using cheap, mass-produced drones to exhaust US supplies of very expensive defensive systems, and launching attacks on US allies around the Gulf, sowing disharmony.

In particular, Tehran has demonstrated that it can severely disrupt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, causing global economic consequences.

Continued Iranian attacks on US or regional military assets, shipping or energy infrastructure would place pressure on Washington to retaliate more strongly than via the few attacks it has carried out this week, creating the possibility of an escalatory cycle that could return the two countries to a much wider war regardless of the White House’s electoral calculations.

Furthermore, Washington’s economic strategy to isolate Tehran – an attempt to move away from open warfare – may in fact create a greater Iranian incentive to retaliate.

Parsi told Al Jazeera that Iranian officials appear to believe Trump ultimately intends to restart the war on a larger scale but is just waiting until after the midterms.

That creates a potentially dangerous calculation for Tehran, where it is better to escalate now – while Trump is at his most politically vulnerable. “The reaction of the Iranians to that might be to actually trigger the war themselves early right before the midterm elections in order to maximise the pain that will impose on the US president,” Parsi said.

What happens after November?

Reuters reported on Wednesday that senior White House officials are already considering whether to intensify military operations against Iran after the November 3 vote, although no decision has been made on returning to full-scale conflict, it reported.

A Republican victory in the midterms could give Trump greater political room for this option, particularly if the administration interprets the result as approval – or at least lack of enough disapproval – for the war despite the economic consequences for voters.

A Republican defeat presents a more complicated picture, however. On the one hand, losing one or both chambers of Congress will constrain the administration, as Congress controls government funding. Democratic control of the House or Senate would also give Trump’s opponents greater scope to hold hearings, investigate the US conduct of the war and challenge requests for additional military spending.

Conversely, with Trump no longer facing a congressional election, he may feel less pressure to contain the war, experts fear.

Parsi warned that an electoral defeat could therefore have the opposite effect to what Tehran might expect.

“I’m not so sure that it’s going to pay off necessarily for the Iranians because a Trump that is humiliated at the elections, who is faced with a Democratic [majority] House [of Representatives] and potentially a Democratic Senate, may also become a much more desperate and reckless president,” he said.

Source link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

People line up to attend The Democratic Socialists of America fundraiser

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

(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s see how far the Raman storm goes.

Source link

Reform UK officials step down as new funding scandal hits far-right party | Politics News

Resignations come after documentary alleges party arranged for overseas company to fund polling.

Two officials from Britain’s Reform UK have stepped down amid the latest in a series of funding scandals for the far-right political party.

Party officials James Orr and Dan Jukes announced on Friday that they would step down, following the broadcast of an investigative television documentary. The party, which has seen support slide amid numerous reports regarding infringement of party donation rules, said it would launch a probe into the latest allegations.

Recommended Stories

list of 2 itemsend of list

The undercover investigation by Channel 4 News alleged that the Reform UK officials breached political donation rules by arranging to have polling paid for by an overseas company.

In the documentary, Jukes is seen suggesting to an undercover reporter how to evade electoral law to make donations to the party from abroad.

Sitting at the table, Party leader Nigel Farage says all is “above board” as the reporter tells him that he has been in talks with Orr for some time.

The resignation of long-term Farage aide Jukes, and Reform’s head of policy Orr, comes on the eve of the party’s annual conference.

Farage – who has been dogged by questions over money received on a personal basis as well as by Reform in recent months – insisted on Friday in a radio interview that the party has “broken no laws”.

However, he added, “entrapped conversations don’t look good, and that’s why we’ve [launched the party investigation]”.

A spokesperson for London’s Met Police said it was “aware of media reporting … involving political party donations and an alleged breach of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 relating to polling”.

The ruling Labour Party, as well as the opposition Liberal Democrats, said they had reported Reform to the police following the revelations, which the anti-immigration party initially dismissed as a “hoax”.

Farage sought to hit back by accusing other political parties of “selling peerages”.

“In the world of political funding, all sorts of things have been done over decades that are wrong,” he asserted. “We as a party have done nothing wrong. A couple of our contractors have said things that shouldn’t have been said.”

Amid the series of funding scandals to have hit Reform in recent months, the disclosure of an undeclared personal gift of 5 million pounds ($6.7m) to Farage by cryptocurrency billionaire Christopher Harborne has done the most damage so far.

Both criminal and parliamentary investigations into Harborne’s donations – he has also given Reform more than 25 million pounds ($33.6m) – are continuing.

Scrutiny is focused on Tether, Harborne’s cryptocurrency, which has been widely linked to drug cartels, fraud and human trafficking.

Amid the storm, Farage made international headlines by resigning his parliamentary seat to prompt a by-election, in which he cast himself as taking on “the establishment”.

With other major parties dismissing the move as a stunt and refusing to put up candidates, the populist leader won comfortably, although the nearly 10,000 votes achieved by his closest rival, “intergalactic space warrior” Count Binface, illustrated significant opposition.

Source link

LAPD internal affairs file spills details on racist recordings scandal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jong did not respond to emailed questions from The Times.

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

Venezuela’s Democratic Transition Has 7% Progress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

DOJ asks Supreme Court to lift block on USPS mail-in voting authority

Sept. 3 (UPI) — The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to permit enforcement of its mail-in voting restrictions, arguing it will suffer irreparable harm because two states will begin sending ballots to voters before the block is to expire next week.

Filed Thursday by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, the request for an immediate administrative stay of the district court’s temporary restraining order comes in protracted litigation over a Trump administration rule giving the U.S. Postal Service authority to screen outbound mail-in ballots for compliance with envelope standards and verify recipients have been entered on their state’s USPS Mail-In and Absentee Participation list.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Massachusetts sided with the League of Women Voters in Massachusetts, which has been fighting the rule it says is unlawful and violates federalism principles of the Constitution, issuing a 14-day block against enforcing its key provisions while she considers the request to impose a longer, more restrictive preliminary injunction.

In his filing Thursday, Sauer argued that the federal government will be irreparably harmed if the restraining order is not lifted before North Carolina and Alabama send out their mail-in ballots next week, saying a court decision would come too late for those ballots.

“With respect to the November 2026 election, the order thus partially nullifies the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud,” he said.

Sauer continued that despite Talwani’s order allowing the Postal Service and states to take steps to ensure their envelopes meet the rule’s requirements, her block “risks sowing confusion and chaos because it makes those preparatory steps voluntary, rather than mandatory.

“Thus, if the order is eventually stayed and the rule takes effect for this year’s elections — as should occur — there is a grave risk that states may not have taken the necessary steps to comply due to the false sense of latitude created by the court’s improper order, potentially depriving those states’ citizens of the ability to vote by mail,” he said.

Despite using the mail to vote himself, Trump has long been a critic of mail-in ballots, claiming them to be a source of voting fraud, though studies have found no evidence that mail voting produces higher overall rates of voter fraud.

The USPS rule is one of several actions Trump and his administration have taken ahead of November’s midterm elections, which the president has become increasingly focused on as he has warned Republicans that losing the House to Democrats could lead to his impeachment as well as investigations. While the moves generally have widespread Republican support, Democrats and critics say they are efforts to rig the midterms.

The new USPS rule being litigated comes in response to an executive order Trump signed in March to expand federal control over mail-in ballots, including authorizing the USPS not to send them to voters unless certain conditions are met.

Two weeks ago, the high court lifted an injunction blocking Trump’s mail-voting executive order, stating the challenge to the USPS provisions was premature as the agency had yet to issue a final rule. After the final rule was published Aug. 26, two dozen Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia sued, resulting in the two-week block the Trump administration is now contesting.

Source link

Entertainment over policy? White House arcade games ignite backlash | Donald Trump News

Critics argue that the administration’s arcade games prioritise entertainment over pressing issues like rising costs and foreign conflicts.

The White House’s unveiling of five arcade-style games on its website, each believed to be promoting a different policy of United States President Donald Trump’s agenda, has ignited backlash, with critics accusing the administration of prioritising entertainment over addressing rising living costs and the ongoing war on Iran.

Announced on Thursday, the games include “Build the Wall” where players run to capture little green figures before they reach a border wall; “Rio Run”, a Snake-style game in which players gather border crossers along a fence; “Supply Line”, in which players reject food items that fail to meet “Make America Healthy Again” standards; “Flappy Bill,” a Flappy Bird-style game in which a bald eagle carries legislation over the National Mall; and “Trump Savings Tycoon”, in which players catch flying cash and gold bars to “fill your kids’ Trump Accounts,” in reference to the administration’s child savings programme.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

“Heating oil is near an all-time high but hey you can play Border Czar Tom Homan in a video game,” Senator Matt Lesser wrote on X.

Rights groups have also criticised the administration for the gaming website.

“Makes me sick. They’ve been playing games with people’s lives for years, now they’ve made a video game of what they’re doing,” Amerika Garcia Grewal, co-director of the Frontera Federation in Eagle Pass, Texas, told AFP news agency.

The game designers “have lost touch with what it means to be human and care for others”.

Adriana Jasso, programme coordinator for AMIGOS San Diego Community, who works at the border, said the arcade-style games showed a fundamental “lack of seriousness” from the administration.

“The cruelty, the extremity of the administration … is no longer surprising,” she said.

In recent months, Trump has faced mounting criticism over the economic toll of the war on Iran and his broader domestic agenda.

The conflict has kept the Strait of Hormuz closed for nearly six months, disrupting global supplies of oil and natural gas and fertiliser, and pushing US inflation above the Federal Reserve’s 2-percent target, according to reporting by Texas Public Radio.

Trump has also faced criticism over tariff policies that the Supreme Court partly struck down earlier this year, along with cuts to food assistance programmes and the expiration of Affordable Care Act tax credits, all of which economists say have compounded the squeeze on household budgets.

The White House, meanwhile, appeared unfazed, posting “CAN’T STOP WINNING” on X alongside a link to the games.

Source link

Missouri Supreme Court blocks Trump-backed map from November’s midterms | US Midterm Elections 2026 News

The Missouri Supreme Court has unanimously blocked a congressional map backed by United States President Donald Trump ahead of November’s midterm elections, restoring the state’s previous districts.

Thursday’s ruling delivered a rare judicial rebuke to Trump in the national battle over redistricting. But it is unlikely to be the final word in the case, with Republican officials already pledging to appeal the ruling.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

At the heart of the case is a congressional map signed into law in September 2025, designed to help Republicans win an extra seat in the US House of Representatives this year.

But the partisan redistricting effort prompted a popular backlash, with nearly 300,000 Missouri residents signing a petition to instead put the new map to a vote.

Missouri’s Secretary of State Denny Hoskins rejected the petition as legally insufficient. That set up the legal fight, which the Missouri Supreme Court decided on Thursday.

“The referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise,” the court wrote in its ruling.

It added that the Missouri Constitution has made such petitions legal, and “no exception applies”. The court is staffed by seven judges, five of whom are Republican-appointed.

The decision, however, places Missouri in a complicated position. Two months remain until the midterm elections, and ballots will soon be printed.

There are also outstanding legal questions over whether a state’s general election can use different congressional districts than its primaries did.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, said she would immediately appeal the ruling to the US Supreme Court. She called Thursday’s decision a “full-fledged constitutional crisis”.

“Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election,” she said in a statement.

Trump also denounced the ruling in a social media post, calling it “horrible, ridiculous, and unConstitutional”.

“The Missouri Supreme Court just ridiculously ruled in favor of changing the maps back to what they were a long time ago. It’s called, Ancient History,” he wrote.

Last year, Trump triggered the nationwide redistricting fight when he approached Texas state lawmakers to redraw their maps in a way that would give Republicans an advantage.

Normally, congressional maps are redrawn once every 10 years to reflect census results.

But Trump encouraged Republican-led states to issue new maps mid-decade, as a strategy to help the right-wing party maintain control over the House.

Some 10 states ultimately decided to redistrict, including Missouri. Most tilted in favour of Republicans. California, meanwhile, redrew its map to skew Democratic.

Prior to Thursday’s ruling, Missouri’s Supreme Court affirmed that the special legislative action to change the state’s congressional map was lawful. In the US, no federal law bars partisan redistricting, known as gerrymandering.

But Thursday’s decision upheld the legality of the petition campaign to put the map up for a vote.

The Missouri Supreme Court barred the 2025 map from being used in November’s midterm election or any future election until Missouri voters approve it first.

The group People Not Politicians spearheaded the referendum petition. In a statement on Thursday, it applauded the state court’s decision, which overturned a lower court ruling.

“Supreme Court of Missouri has ruled: Missourians will vote on politicians’ rigged map,” the group wrote on social media.

It also blamed Missouri’s secretary of state for any hurdles to restoring the old map.

“Hoskins had the power to prevent all this confusion months ago — and he chose not to,” the group said.

A day before the court’s ruling, hundreds of people rallied outside the state Supreme Court, chanting: “Let us vote!”

Grant Christensen, a resident of Jefferson City and referendum supporter, said he had signed the petition.

“Gerrymandering is the same as voter suppression,” Christensen said. “Cutting up districts in order to steer them to vote one way or the other is not fair.”

Missouri’s 2025 congressional map had already shaped the state’s primary elections. Critics, however, point out that Hoskins did not reject the referendum until August 4, the day of the party primaries.

The outcome of the legal battle is likely to be most pivotal for Missouri’s 5th congressional district, currently held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver. His district, which encompasses parts of Kansas City, was reshaped to favour Republicans.

Source link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lasting Achievement

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

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

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

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

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

Comeback, Comedown

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Early Years

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

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

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

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

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

Senate Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Road to Presidency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Ideas Flourish

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vietnam War Protests

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Nominees Rejected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic Vs. Foreign

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

China Triumph

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trouble at Home

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

But by then, Nixon was a President disgraced.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘I’m Not a Crook’

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging From Exile

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tale of Two Books

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He concluded:

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

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

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

Key Dates in Richard Nixon’s Life

Richard Nixon

Age: 81

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1956: Re-elected as vice president.

1960: Narrowly loses presidency to John F. Kennedy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable Quotes from Nixon’s Career

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

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

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

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

Notable Quotes From Nixon’s Career

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notable Quotes From Nixon’s Career

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

Missouri court blocks Trump-backed congressional map, orders vote

The Missouri Supreme Court has unanimously blocked new congressional districts backed by President Trump from being used in the November election and ordered a statewide vote on whether to uphold or reject the new map.

The decision Thursday marks a rare setback for Republicans in a national redistricting battle. Republicans had hoped Missouri’s new gerrymandered congressional boundaries could help them win an additional seat and hold on to their slim House majority in the midterms.

Missouri Atty. Gen. Catherine Hanaway, a Republican, said she would appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserting that the decision “has thrust our state into a full‑fledged constitutional crisis.”

Missouri’s new districts were used in the August primaries. But the state Supreme Court said they cannot be used in the November general election — or ever again, unless voters first uphold the new districts passed by the Republican-led Legislature.

The court ruled that the new districts were effectively placed on hold last December, when opponents submitted more than 300,000 petition signatures seeking to put the map to a vote of the people. Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins waited until primary election day in August to reject the petition. He asserted that the referendum process cannot be used for congressional redistricting. A lower court agreed, but the Supreme Court overturned Hoskins’ decision.

“The referendum petition was legal, sufficient, and timely, and the secretary incorrectly concluded otherwise,” the court said in its ruling. The legislation containing the new districts “did not go into effect and will not go into effect unless and until approved by the voters.” As a result, the congressional map adopted after the 2020 census “remains in full force and effect for the November 2026 general election.”

Hanaway, whose office represented Hoskins, called the ruling an unprecedented violation of federal law. So did Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, who proposed the new congressional map to lawmakers to favor the GOP.

“Never before in American history has a court overturned a congressional map after a primary and before a general election,” Hanaway said in a statement.

Court ruling hinged on referendum rights

The Missouri Constitution does not specifically say a referendum petition can be used for a congressional redistricting law passed by the Legislature. But the Supreme Court ruled that a constitutional provision allowing a referendum on “any act” of the Legislature encompasses congressional redistricting.

It rejected assertions from Hanaway’s office that federal law prohibits referendum petitions on congressional redistricting.

“This is what democracy looks like,” said Richard von Glahn, executive director of People Not Politicians Missouri, which sponsored the referendum petition. “The people of Missouri demanded a voice, and the court just confirmed what we’ve been saying all along. People, not politicians, will have the final say.”

Hoskins, acknowledging the loss, vowed to continue “the war to preserve our constitutional republic.”

The ruling, which capped a year of political maneuvering and legal wrangling, was one of two to go against Republican officials Thursday. The Supreme Court also ruled that Hoskins had wrongly rejected a petition for a ballot proposal making it difficult for politicians to change measures enacted by voters through ballot initiatives. The court also ordered that measure to be placed on the November ballot.

Missouri redistricting targeted longtime Kansas City lawmaker

Missouri currently has six Republicans and two Democrats in the U.S. House.

After Trump urged Republicans to redraw congressional districts to their advantage, Kehoe called lawmakers into a special session last year to reconfigure the 5th Congressional District, held by Democrat Emanuel Cleaver.

Cleaver, who was unopposed in the August primary, has carried the Kansas City-based district with at least 60% of the vote in each of the last two elections.

Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin won an August primary in the gerrymandered 5th District, which had been stretched eastward to include rural Republican areas. About 59% of the district’s voters were new under the revised map, according to an Associated Press estimate.

Cleaver had not posted campaign signs in many of the new rural areas, explaining that he was waiting for the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision. But he had vowed to continue his reelection campaign regardless of the outcome.

“Despite the cynical and deeply shameful attempt to silence many of our neighbors, the people fought back and won,” Cleaver said in a social media post Thursday.

Brattin, a Marine veteran and founding member of the conservative Missouri Freedom Caucus in the state Legislature, said the decision disenfranchises thousands of primary voters who now will be shifted to different districts with candidates they didn’t get to choose.

The court “handed Democrats a decision they desperately needed in their effort to help national Democrats retake the U.S. House of Representatives,” Brattin said in a statement.

Redistricting battle spread to over a quarter of states

Congressional districts typically are redrawn at the start of each decade, based on new census data. But Trump’s quest for a midterm election advantage triggered an unusual mid-decade redistricting battle that spread to more than a dozen states, including California — and triggered a dozen lawsuits in Missouri alone.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruling was one of only a few nationally to go against Republicans’ redistricting efforts.

Prior to its latest ruling, Missouri’s top court already had rejected claims that the special session was illegal, mid-decade redistricting isn’t allowed and the new districts aren’t compact enough.

After the Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday, a few hundred people chanted, “Let us vote!” while rallying outside the courthouse. Grant Christensen, of Jefferson City, said he had signed the referendum petition to put the map to a vote.

“Gerrymandering is the same as voter suppression,” Christensen said. “Cutting up districts in order to steer them to vote one way or the other is not fair.”

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

For candidates, a new California gold rush

A UCLA linebacker shells out $11,100 to help a Republican senator in Pennsylvania.

A businessman from the small Northern California town of Eureka spends $515,000 to defeat a powerful Democrat in South Dakota.

A Silicon Valley couple funnels cash to elect Democratic secretaries of state in swing states like Ohio who will oversee voting in the coming presidential election.

Those tidbits from campaign finance reports demonstrate why California lately feels like Iowa or New Hampshire next winter. For politicians, including presidential candidates, it’s where the money is.

Last week alone, Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois, Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware made the trek. Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona was also here, following his rival, former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who had been here the week before. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, another Republican contender, will be here next month.

“It is the place you go to get political money,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, D.C.

Californians spent at least $502 million on federal campaigns in the last four years, federal campaign records show — 24% more than runner-up New York and about 13 % of all federal campaign funds raised nationally.

At The Times’ request, the center compiled a list of California’s top 100 donors to federal campaigns. The Times interviewed contributors and reviewed Federal Election Commission documents and other records.

The donors gave during the 2003-2004 election cycle, which included the latest presidential campaign, and the 2005-2006 races for the U.S. House and Senate.

Donors’ motives vary. They might be trying to gain an edge in business, or access to powerful officials. Some win perquisites, such as ambassadorships. Many are ideologues whose passions run high on the war or healthcare or taxes.

Federal law restricts donors from giving more than $4,600 directly to a single candidate in a year. But many give far larger sums to independent campaign committees. Others leverage their money by organizing fundraising events.

In the past four years, Deborah Rappaport and her husband, venture capitalist Andrew Rappaport, of Woodside, have spent $5.2 million on federal politics, much of it to encourage young people to vote. They held a fundraiser for Democratic presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina this month, raising more than $100,000.

“The stakes are huge,” Deborah Rappaport said, describing herself as “an old lefty.”

In one of the more unusual uses of campaign money, Silicon Valley Democrats Michael and Frances Kieschnick helped fund a successful campaign in 2006 to elect Democrats as secretaries of state who will oversee balloting in five swing states — a reaction to what some perceived as bias by Republican officials in Florida and Ohio in the 2000 and 2004 presidential vote counting.

Los Angeles-area developer Rick Caruso has a goal of raising $1 million for Romney’s bid for the Republican nomination.

“I’m on a big Republican list,” said Caruso, who has given $315,000 since 2003 to federal campaigns. “Politicians … never lose your number.”

Californians had a significant role in the 2006 fight for control of Congress, donating $6.6 million directly to candidates in the six U.S. Senate races that tipped control to Democrats, campaign records show.

In Montana, Democrat Jon Tester ousted Republican Sen. Conrad Burns by 3,600 votes, aided in part by Richard and Marilyn Mazess of Montecito. They gave $50,000 to the independent group Campaign Money Watch, which aired a commercial ridiculing Burns for his ties to “big oil.”

Hollywood moguls Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg and other Californians donated a total of $500,000 directly to Tester. Burns collected $460,000 from such Californians as Los Angeles venture capitalist Elliott Broidy and Edward Atsinger III, of Camarillo, chief executive of Christian radio network Salem Broadcasting.

“The money — the California and New York money — was very important to Tester,” said political scientist Craig Wilson of Montana State University, Billings.

In addition to familiar California sources of political money — defense, energy and aerospace companies, developers, unions, Hollywood and Silicon Valley — the top donors include numerous lawyers, heirs and heiresses, and little-known financial, agricultural and other players scattered around the state.

(Among the big-name donors who don’t make the latest list: Hollywood mogul David Geffen and investor Ronald Burkle.)

California is widely seen as a bastion of Democrats. But its greenbacks often are shaded Republican red.

Robin Arkley, who owns a finance and real estate firm in Eureka, had a hand in upending the Democratic power structure nationally in 2004. The Republican spent $515,000 on independent campaign ads attacking then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota. Daschle was ousted by Republican John Thune, who raised $1.29 million from California, more than any other state — including South Dakota, according to Political Moneyline.

For the 2006 election, Steven B. Taylor, a retired farmer from Salinas, his wife and their three adult children spent heavily on the GOP.

One of the Taylors’ sons, Christian, plays football for UCLA. He donated $45,000, much of it to such Republicans as Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. Altogether, the Taylor family gave Santorum $14,700.

There was one exception to the Taylors’ Republican ways. They gave $20,000 to the Green Party of Luzerne County, Pa., including $9,000 from Christian. The goal: to help a Green Party candidate take votes from Robert P. Casey Jr., the Democrat challenging Santorum. The strategy failed and Casey unseated Santorum.

The Taylors did not return calls.

In addition to directly raising millions for President Bush, the state’s Republicans have funded Progress for America, a group based in Washington that has countered the liberal MoveOn.org. In 2005, it aired television ads urging senators to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court. It also has run ads supporting the war in Iraq.

A. Jerrold Perenchio, chairman of Univision, the Spanish-language television network, has given the group nearly $10 million since 2003. Stockton developer Alex G. Spanos gave another $5 million, as did Los Angeles billionaire Roland E. Arnall and his wife, Dawn. Caruso chipped in $100,000 to help Roberts, now chief justice.

Bush has bestowed ambassadorships on five Californians, including Los Angeles car dealer Robert H. Tuttle, United Kingdom; Orange County investor George Argyros, formerly to Spain; Los Angeles venture capitalist Ronald Spogli, Italy; and investor Frank Baxter, Uruguay. Combined, they have given $1.6 million to the GOP since 2000, including donations to Bush’s inaugurals.

The fifth, Arnall, is the biggest donor-ambassador. He represents U.S. interests in the Netherlands. Since 2004, Roland and Dawn Arnall have given $5.5 million primarily to Republican candidates and organizations, and another $1 million to Bush’s 2005 inaugural. Arnall owns home mortgage lender Ameriquest Capital Corp.

Los Angeles movie producer Stephen L. Bing was the state’s largest single donor, with nearly $14.2 million, to federal campaigns during the past four years, most of it to Democrats. Bing, who declines interviews, spent another $49 million on a failed California initiative in 2006 to boost alternative energy. He likely will support Clinton’s candidacy.

Clinton has taken $7.7 million from here for her U.S. Senate campaigns, second only to the $26.5 million she has raised in her home base.

After Illinois, California has been the second largest source of money for Obama, Federal Election Commission records show.

Sacramento Democrat Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis and her father, Angelo Tsakopoulos, have helped organize events for many Democrats, but are “Hillary people all the way.”

“We want to see the White House restored to competent hands,” she said.

She explained her family’s political involvement by telling her father’s story.

He came here at age 15 from Greece with nothing, made a fortune as a developer and hosted a president, Bill Clinton, at his home. Tsakopoulos never could have attained such success in the old country.

These days, Democratic politicians all come courting.

“Everybody calls and we love it,” she said. “What an incredible honor and privilege.”

*

Dan.morain@latimes.com

Times researcher Janet Lundblad contributed to this report.

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Top 20 organizational donors

California corporations, labor unions and organizations include some of the biggest national donors to federal campaigns. Federal law bars corporations and unions from giving directly to candidates. But their executives and employees are free to make donations. Here is a list of the top 20 donors by organization.

*–* Donor Industry Total (millions) Party preference Service Employees Internationa Labor $4.83 Democrat l Union Northrop Aerospace 3.19 Leans Rep Grumman Sierra Club Environment 3.10 Democrat Lerach, Attorney-Plaintiffs 2.09 Democrat Coughlin et al Time Warner Entertainment 2.05 Democrat American Academy of Health Care 1.98 Leans Rep Ophthalmolog y Cisco Systems Technology 1.64 Bipartisan Kleiner, Finance 1.46 Leans Dem Perkins et al Edison Energy 1.24 Leans Rep Internationa l TCW Group Finance 1.23 Republican SAIC Defense 1.22 Leans Rep Morongo Band Native American of Mission issues; casinos 1.16 Bipartisan Indians Chevron Corp Energy 1.13 Republican Allianz Insurance 1.11 Republican General Defense 1.09 Leans Rep Atomics Jacobs Engineers 1.09 Bipartisan Engineering Group Kazan, Attorney-Plaintiffs 0.98 Democrat McClain et al Intuit Technology 0.93 Bipartisan Occidental Energy 0.93 Leans Rep Petroleum Capital Finance 0.92 Bipartisan Group Cos

*–*

Democrat or Republican means at least 80% donated to one party or affiliated candidate or interest group; leans means 60% or more to one party; bipartisan means 40% to 60% to each party. Donations from companies based elsewhere came from California branch.

Sources: Center for Responsive Politics, Times research, federal election records. Graphics reporting by Dan Morain

Top 20 individual contributors

California is like a magnet to candidates nationally. From 2003 to 2006, Californians donated at least $502 million to federal candidates and national political parties, and to independent campaign groups known as 527s. The top 20 donors are spread from Eureka to

San Diego:

*–* Amount Party Name City Industry (in millions) preference Stephen Bing Los Angeles Real estate $14.18 Dem. heir, film prod Herbert&Mar; Oakland Finance; 13.85 Dem. ion Sandler retired A. Jerrold Los Angeles Univision 9.94 Rep. Perenchio chairman Roland and Los Angeles Ameriquest; Dawn Arnall ambassador 5.52 Rep. to Netherlands Alexander Stockton SD Chargers, 5.48 Rep. G./Faye deve Spanos Deborah/And Portola Valley Venture 5.19 Dem. rew capital Rappaport Ted Waitt San Diego Gateway co-founder, Avalon 5.06 Dem. Capital Anne Getty Corona del Mar Getty heiress 1.63 Dem. Earhart Susie/Mark San Francisco Found Esprit 1.60 Dem. Buell clothing Angelo Sacramento Real estate 1.25 Dem. Tsakopoulos Louise Gund Berkeley Philanthropi 1.24 Dem. st Marcia l. Los Angeles Entertainment 1.24 Dem. Carsey Robin, Cherie, Allison, Elizabeth Eureka Finance, 1.23 Rep. Arkley real estate Peter S. Los Angeles Investments, Bing father of 1.09 Dem. Stephen Wayne B. Glendale Public 1.07 Rep. Hughes Storage Inc. Michael/Fra Palo Alto Fin.,philant 1.07 Dem. nces hropy Kieschnick William/Wil Newport Beach Developer 0.99 Rep. la Dean Lyon Richard/Sha Los Angeles Entertainment 0.96 Dem. ri Foos Stewart/Lyn Los Angeles Finance, ag. 0.90 Dem. da Resnick M. Quinn and Wayne Jordan Oakland Philanthropy 0.67 Dem. Delaney , real estate

*–*

In some cases, immediate family members also donated

Sources: Center for Responsive Politics, Times research, federal election records. Graphics reporting by Dan Morain

Source link

Billionaire Leon Black skips Epstein deposition and sues House panel over subpoenas

Billionaire investor Leon Black refused to appear for a sworn deposition before Congress on Thursday and instead sued the House Oversight Committee, asking a federal court to block subpoenas issued as part of its investigation into disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The House Oversight Committee served Black with two subpoenas during a closed-door voluntary interview in June after lawmakers said he refused to answer questions about nondisclosure agreements. One subpoena demanded Black produce nondisclosure agreements and other documents, while the other compelled him to return for a deposition before the committee.

Black’s lawsuit argues the subpoenas exceed the committee’s authority by seeking private information unrelated to Epstein or any legitimate legislative purpose. It asks a federal judge to declare the subpoenas invalid and prevent the committee from enforcing them.

“The Committee is on a fishing expedition that oversteps its authority and completely ignores its responsibility,” Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich, said in a statement. “This is no longer about finding the truth about Epstein. It is about trying to destroy Mr. Black.”

Top Oversight lawmakers threaten to hold Black in contempt

The top Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the committee both criticized Black’s lawsuit and said they planned to discuss later Thursday whether they would hold him in contempt of Congress.

“This is unacceptable. We’re very disappointed,” said House Oversight Chair James Comer. “Of all the powerful billionaires and political people we’ve brought in for interview and depositions, this is the first time anyone’s filed suit.”

Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, called the lawsuit “laughable” and that Black is “trying to slow the process down of getting us the information.”

“Today, the process of contempt has to begin,” Garcia said.

Being held in contempt opens up a witness to criminal prosecution. If the House approves a contempt resolution against Black, it would fall to the Justice Department to decide whether to bring charges against him.

Black paid Epstein over $150 million during their yearslong relationship

Black is the co-founder and former chief executive of the private equity firm Apollo Global Management. He stepped down in 2021 during the fallout over his ties to Epstein.

Lawmakers have alleged that Black paid Epstein $180 million during their yearslong relationship.

A 2021 review commissioned by Apollo found that Black paid Epstein $158 million from 2012 to 2017, after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The review said the payments were for “bona fide tax, estate planning and other related services.”

Black is among a number of influential figures to appear in the investigation into Epstein and the web of wealth and influence around him. Other figures to have appeared for the investigation include former Democratic President Bill Clinton, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.

Black is mentioned repeatedly in files that the Justice Department has released related to the Epstein investigation. He also appears in a collection of birthday messages sent to Epstein that were released by the House committee last year, including a poem attributed to Black that refers to “Blond, Red or Brunette, spread out geographically.”

Before the June 26 appearance before the committee, Black maintained that he was not aware of Epstein’s “nefarious activity” until 2019 and that he paid Epstein for legitimate purposes, in part due to his “unrivaled network of relationships” with influential figures.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Report finds holes and delays in how Secret Service updates its protection policy

The U.S. Secret Service dealt with several drone-related incidents without adjusting its protection policies or documenting why it didn’t, according to a government report released Thursday. That information may have helped illustrate the emerging threat of civilian drone use before one was used in the 2024 assassination attempt on then-candidate Donald Trump in Butler, Pa.

The report from the Government Accountability Office found delays and holes in how the Secret Service updates its policies regarding threats, and arrives after a few turbulent years for the agency charged with the president’s protection.

The would-be assassin in Butler positioned himself on a roof left unsecured, nicking the president’s ear with a bullet. Months later, a man with a rifle got surprisingly close to Trump at his West Palm Beach, Fla., golf course. And in April, an armed man got beyond security barriers at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner, where the president sat.

The report found that between 2015 and 2025 the Secret Service dealt with 83 security incidents and that it updated its protection policies in response to 25 of them. Among the incidents was a drone that made contact with President Obama’s motorcade in 2015 and another flown about 200 feet over a rally for then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders.

Failing to document why the Secret Service decided not to change its policy is the concern, said Nathan Tranquilli, acting director of the Government Accountability Office, adding that the drone incidents were a “compelling example” of that.

“Some of the missing information has been relevant to subsequent attacks,” the report read. It cited the Butler incident, where the culprit flew a drone for 11 minutes over the crowd, which helped him position himself to get a clear shot at Trump.

The Secret Service also failed to update eight of 22 protection policies within a required time frame of four years. A memorandum of understanding between the Secret Service and the Diplomatic Security Service, which designates each agency’s responsibilities for the president’s overseas security, hasn’t been updated since 1991, even though an annual review and update are required. As a consequence, the memorandum doesn’t address newer threats, such as drones.

“When you look at the Secret Service and you look at their mission, really it’s a zero-fail mission, and they’ve got a ton of challenges,” Tranquilli said. “When decisions were being made about where to put time and energy, some of these things fell to the side, and, as a result, there were some delays.”

The report recommended three fixes, including that the Secret Service revise its policy to require that, when a security incident doesn’t warrant a policy update, that the rationale is documented.

A spokesperson for the Secret Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but the report stated that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Secret Service, agreed with all recommendations and plans to implement changes.

Bedayn writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

Jeffries declines to detail punishments for 2 Democrats who backed GOP

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., on Thursday declined to detail possible punishments for two House Democrats who voted with Republicans this week on a procedural vote on GOP-backed bills. File Photo by Daniel Heuer/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 3 (UPI) — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., on Thursday declined to detail any punishment for two Democratic lawmakers who voted earlier this week with Republicans on a procedural vote to advance GOP-led bills.

Democratic Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington on Tuesday voted to advance debate on Republican-led bills, including a resolution condemning socialism that GOP leaders want to use against Democrats during the fall election season.

Without their votes, the procedural vote would have failed. Jeffries and other Democratic leaders sharply criticized the votes by Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez as a “breach of trust” and said there would be a “serious response.”

Jeffries told a news conference Thursday that he spoke with Gluesenkamp Perez, calling the discussion “productive” and “forward-looking.

Some House Democrats suggested Gluesenkamp Perez should be removed from the Appropriations Committee over vote.

“Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, of course, is an important member of the House Democratic Caucus fighting hard for the people that she represents in Washington and a leader of the Blue Dogs,” Jeffries said.

“And we value every single member in our caucus – progressives, the New Dems and Blue Dogs – and we’re going to move forward together, in unity, in order to solve problems for the American people.”

Jeffries said there was a continuing “family discussion about how we all move forward together.”

He tasked an internal panel in charge of caucus rules to discuss sanctions in new rules to prevent House Democrats from voting with Republicans on important procedural votes. The panel, which met Wednesday, did not take immediate action.

Jeffries said Democrats will discuss possible changes to internal caucus rules because of the defections. However, he suggested there be punishments for Gluesenkamp Perez or Golden.

Gluesenkamp Perez is seeking re-election in a district that leans Republican, while Golden is retiring. She represents a district that U.S. President Donald Trump won in 2024, and she is a top target for Republicans in November’s election.

Source link

AP Source: ICE officer charged with lying to investigators in the shooting of Venezuelan man

Federal prosecutors have charged a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer with lying to investigators about the events leading up to the shooting of a Venezuelan man during the Minneapolis immigration crackdown earlier this year, a person familiar with the matter told the Associated Press.

The person was not authorized to publicly discuss the investigation and spoke on condition of anonymity. The person said Christian Castro, the officer who authorities say shot Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in the leg in January, has been charged with making false statements to federal investigators.

The federal charges, which remain under seal, follow Castro’s release from jail last week after Texas’ governor refused to immediately sign an extradition warrant to hand him over to Minnesota authorities, who have charged him separately with assault and false reporting of a crime related to the same shooting.

Federal authorities had initially accused Sosa-Celis and another man of beating an officer with a broom handle and a snow shovel during the confrontation. But federal prosecutors dropped charges against the men after video evidence showed the officers may have lied about the encounter, and officials opened an investigation.

Earlier this week, a federal prosecutor working on the case told lawyers for Sosa-Celis and other victims that Justice Department officials blocked the prosecutor’s push to bring a more serious civil rights charge against the officer for the shooting, ProPublica reported.

But the person familiar with the investigation disputed the prosecutor’s characterization, saying the civil rights probe is continuing and there has been no final decision on whether to bring additional charges. The prosecutor, Matthew Evans, was fired on Thursday and is now under investigation for alleged obstruction of a grand jury probe, the person said.

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

Castro was initially arrested in May in the Minnesota case, and he was held in custody in Brownsville, Texas, a city bordering Mexico, while Minnesota officials sought his extradition. But Texas Gov. Greg Abbott refused to immediately sign off, citing continuing investigations of fraud in government social service programs in Minnesota, which Trump used to justify his immigration crackdown there.

Minnesota officials had sought to stop the sheriff in Cameron County, Texas, from releasing Castro, out of fear that he would flee to Mexico. According to a lawsuit filed by Minnesota, Castro had a conversation with a woman, while he was incarcerated, where he spoke about marrying her and buying a house in Mexico after his release.

But Castro was released a week ago after a federal judge refused to order Texas to extradite him.

The Department of Homeland Security previously called Minnesota’s prosecution of Castro “unlawful and nothing more than a political stunt,” saying only federal authorities have jurisdiction in the case.

Castro was suspended from ICE without pay in February while federal authorities conducted the investigation.

“The men and women of ICE are entrusted with upholding the rule of law and are held to the highest standards of professionalism, integrity, and ethical conduct,” ICE’s acting director at the time, Todd Lyons, said then. “Violations of this sacred sworn oath will not be tolerated. ICE remains fully committed to transparency, accountability, and the fair enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws.”

Minnesota officials alleged that Castro, 52, fired through the front door of a home and shot Sosa-Celis in the thigh.

Castro and another officer had chased a different man, Alfredo Alejandro Aljorna, to the Minneapolis apartment duplex where he and Sosa-Celis lived. Minnesota prosecutors said the officer then falsely accused Sosa-Celis and another man of attacking an ICE officer with a broom handle and a snow shovel.

Attorneys for Sosa-Celis and Aljorna, who Minnesota officials have said were legally in the U.S., didn’t immediately respond to emails Thursday from the Associated Press.

Richer writes for the Associated Press.

Source link

House approves bill to penalize colleges that boycott Israel

Sept. 3 (UPI) — The House of Representatives on Thursday approved a bill to bar colleges and universities from participating in boycotts of Israel or preventing students taking part in exchange programs with the country.

The Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, which was backed by Republicans, passed in a 237-169 vote. Thirty-three Democrats broke with the rest of their party to vote for the bill, while two Republicans voted no.

According to the bill, colleges and universities that take part in federal student aid programs would be barred from participating in boycotts of Israel. Institutions that receive federal funds for international and foreign language programs would be required to certify they do not impose restrictions on students taking part in programs in Israel.

Students from Israel taking part in programs on their campuses also would be covered.

“This legislation is about a simple principle: our colleges and universities should not discriminate against Israel, Israeli institutions or Israeli students, and federal taxpayer dollars should never support institutions that engage in such discrimination,” said House Education Committee Chair Tim Walberg, R-Mich.

The ranking Democrat on the educational committee, Rep. Bobby Scott of Virginia, said the bill possibly violated the First Amendment.

“No college or university has embraced the BDS movement anyway,” he said. “So, we should combat antisemitism wherever it occurs, but we should not do so by punishing protected speech or conflating a student’s view with university policies.”

Most of the Democrats who voted in favor of the bill are facing tough re-election races in November, or back Israel. Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey, who co-sponsored the bill, called it “narrow and tailored’ and needed to fight anti-Semitism.

“No student, no professor should be shut out of research, study abroad opportunities, or academic partnerships or feel unwelcome in the classroom because of where they are from or what religion they practice,” he said in a statement.

“Yet, that’s exactly what the boycott-divest-sanction movement seeks to do – targeting one country and one religion: Israel and Judaism.”

The legislation now goes to the Senate for debate.

Source link

Abdul El-Sayed is the latest Muslim candidate to labeled an anti-American extremist.

Muslims are embroiled in yet another war, but this one isn’t in the Middle East, Southeast Asia or another predominantly Islamic region.

The battleground is Michigan. New York. Minnesota. Or anywhere else in the U.S. where a politician with a name like Abdul El-Sayed, Zohran Mamdani or Ilhan Omar have run for office — and won.

Today’s primary target is Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate El-Sayed. Since his victory in August, the right’s main strategy to beat him this fall is a familiar one: paint El-Sayed, the Muslim son of Egyptian immigrants, as an anti-American extremist.

Vice President JD Vance recently told a crowd that “there’s something about Abdul El-Sayed that is very, very evil,” suggesting that Democratic nominee represents a divisive ideology. Representative Nancy Mace warned of a larger problem when she said that “every single Muslim holding public office in America” is “a threat to both national security and our republic.” Senator Tommy Tuberville flat-out called El-Sayed a “terrorist.”

“The message is that these candidates are a civilizational threat that is going to destroy American society and Western civilization from within,” says Salam Al-Marayati, president and co-founder of the non-profit Muslim Public Affairs Council. “You saw that a lot when Mamdani was elected.”

And given that he was elected, the Islamophobia playbook may need an overhaul.

New York City Mayor Mamdani and El-Sayed are among the more than 255 Muslim elected officials serving across 26 states and at nearly every level of government, according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations. That number includes a historical high of four Muslim Americans in Congress.

But as their political power has grown, so too has the bigoted rhetoric about the dangers of electing a Muslim to office. But now, there’s pushback.

CBS News, now under the leadership of conservative editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss, caught flack this week for publishing a story with the headline: “Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed’s deleted tweets on Sept. 11 attacks invite scrutiny of past remarks.”

Criticisms of the piece were immediate, including commentary in The Atlantic that called the story a political dog whistle for using a tenuous connection to align El-Sayed’s name with the phrase “9/11 attacks.”

The pandemic-era posts from El-Sayed did not celebrate the tragedy or the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks. He instead compared the nearly 3,000 people killed in the September 11 attacks to the growing COVID-19 death toll in the U.S., and called for a strong response against the virus as there was to the 9/11 attacks. In the second tweet, El-Sayed wrote that more Americans had died from COVID than in the 9/11 attacks, so he hoped “that means we’ll spend the next ten years fighting a war for public health & against poverty … like we launched a global #WaronTerror after 9/11. We could save lives rather than take them.”

Hardly the smoking gun that puts him in an Afghan cave, scheming with bin Laden.

The tweets were deleted along with all of Al-Sayed’s other posts dated before July 2023. His campaign said he did so to prevent “old posts from being taken out of context.” Oh the irony.

Similar tactics were used against Mamdani in his run for mayor. After a particularly rousing speech leading up to his 2025 win, the New York Times noted that “…Republican elected officials and right-wing media figures [are] accusing him of promoting Islamic law, supporting terrorism and posing a threat to the safety of New Yorkers, especially Jews.”

Before Mamdani, Somali-American Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) was the subject of “Send her back” chants at Trump rallies. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) publicly referred to Omar as a member of the “Jihad Squad.”

Nevertheless, Omar became the first African refugee to become a Member of Congress when she assumed office in January of 2019.

“What we have found out from previous elections is that candidates like Abdul Sayed are speaking to the masses,” says Al-Marayati. “They’re not speaking to the Democratic and Republican establishment who believe in this hierarchical structure where you only have a few in control, whether it’s corporate influence or lobbies or a certain race and religion that that are on top and the rest of us are merely visitors who should just be thankful for getting the crumbs from the economy. [El-Sayed and Mamdani] are returning to the vision of a pluralistic democracy.”

The latest efforts to derail El-Sayed’s campaign include weaponizing his association with leftist Twitch streamer Hasan Piker. Piker, who earlier this year appeared on the campaign trail with El-Sayed, is a major influence among progressives and a bogeyman to establishment Republicans and Democrats alike. The right can’t stop talking about his sharp criticisms of MAGA leadership, disdain for US foreign policy, and his pro-Palestinian stance. The left is terrified of being associated with Piker.

Now the candidate is pressed daily to answer for things said by Piker’ stretching as far back as 2019, when the influencer commented that “America deserved 9/11” (a quote that was incorrectly attributed to El-Sayed). El-Sayed has denounced the statement as “stupid,” and Piker has walked back his words.

But the unyielding scrutiny over dubious associations doesn’t cut both ways. Relative to El-Sayed, there’s been little inquiry of Michigan’s Republican U.S. Senate candidate, Mike Rogers, and his close ties with Pastor Lorenzo Sewell. A member of Roger’s faith advisory team, Sewell in August co-organized and led a “Christian Crusader March” and anti-Islam protest in Dearborn, MI alongside far-right activist and January 6 pardoned defendant Jake Lang.

Campaigns that leverage hate and fear against Muslim candidates and elected officials are nothing new, but they appear to be less effective with each passing election season. It’s possible more and more voters see through the prejudiced subterfuge, but it’s more likely that folks simply need a change.

“The real threat that Abdul Sayed represents is that he is knocking down that hierarchical structure, and that’s why you have the attacks on him of being a radical, being a terror sympathizer, being a threat to civilization,” says Al-Marayati. “When Thomas Jefferson was drafting the Charter on Religious Freedom, he included Muslims, and even he was accused of being a Muslim. So you’ve had this problem for a long time. Abdul Sayed’s affiliation with Thomas Jefferson is a badge of honor.”

Source link