raise

Nov. 22 (UPI) — A Democrat and a Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives have co-sponsored a resolution that calls for raising the number of votes needed to censure a colleague from a majority to 60% as a way to force “bipartisan support.”

The two-page resolution introduced by Democrat Don Beyer of Virginia and Republican Don Bacon of Nebraska on Friday comes amid efforts to censure three House members in an escalating numbers of members looking to take action against one another.

“The process of censures and disciplinary measures in the House is broken, and all of us know it,” Beyer said in a joint press release with Bacon announcing the legislation.

“These measures were historically reserved for rare and exceptional cases after a lengthy process that allowed time for investigations and due process, but that precedent has deteriorated,” he said. “Our resolution would break the cycle of censures to help return focus in the House to solving problems for the American people.”

The effort, the duo told colleagues in a letter on Thursday, would fix the problem and raise the level of sanity in the chamber, the New York Times reported.

“A U.S. House ruled by mob mentality cannot function. The institution and American people deserve better than what we’ve seen this week. The vast middle must stand up to the extremes and put commonsense safeguards in place,” Bacon said in the release.

The bill already had 29 sponsors by Friday afternoon, Roll Call reported.

“It has become a political tactic, rather than an action to protect the reputation of the House,” Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., who in past years served as the majority and minority leader, told the Times. “If it becomes common, it will lose its prophylactic effect.”

Since 1832, the House has censured members 25 times and issued reprimands 11 times — and censured members just six times in the 21st century, according to NBC News.

Bacon and Beyer noted in the press release that most censures in history have come “after lengthy ethics investigations that established criminal activity or serious misconduct.”

Expulsion from Congress requires two-thirds approval, with 16 members of the House and five members of the Senate having been ejected from office, according to Congressional records. The vast majority — 17 — got the boot during the Civil War for backing the Confederacy.

The most recent expulsion was former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., who was later convicted in federal court, although President Donald Trump commuted his sentence after he had served three months in prison.

“The proliferation of resolutions to punish our fellow Members with censure, disapproval or the revocation of committee assignments has become unsustainable, to the point that they now impair our ability to work together to address serious issues. I fear this is inflicting lasting damage on this institution,” Beyer said Friday.

Just this week, there has been a raft of censure efforts introduced in the House, some successful and some not.

On Tuesday, the House rebuked Rep. Jesus Garcia, a Democrat serving Illinois, for hand-selecting his successor after announcing his retirement after the filing deadline for the Democratic primary.

Also on Tuesday, the House voted against censuring Stacey Plaskett, the U.S. delegate representing the U.S. Virgin Islands, amid revelations that she received information via text from convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein during a congressional hearing

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., filed a resolution to censure Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., who has been accused of financial misconduct and domestic abuse. In that case, the House voted to refer the matter to the House Ethics Committee.

Rep. Greg Steube, R-Fla., also threatened to censure, and then expel, fellow Floridian, Democratic Rep. Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick after she was indicted this week for allegedly stealing $5 million in federal disaster funds.

Southern California lawmakers are demanding answers from U.S. Homeland Security officials following the deaths of two Orange County residents and nearly two dozen others while in federal immigration custody.

In a letter Friday to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, U.S. Reps. Dave Min (D-Irvine) and Judy Chu (D-Pasadena) pointed to the deaths of 25 people so far this year while being held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The number of in-custody deaths has reached an annual record since the agency began keeping track in 2018.

Two Mexican immigrants — who had long made their homes in Orange County and were sent to the Adelanto ICE Processing Center north of Hesperia — were among the deaths.

“These are not just numbers on a website, but real people — with families, jobs, and hopes and dreams — each of whom died in ICE custody,” the lawmakers wrote. “The following cases illustrate systemic patterns of delayed treatment, neglect, and failure to properly notify families.”

Ismael Ayala-Uribe, 39, died Sept. 22 about a month after being apprehended while working at the Fountain Valley Auto Wash, where he had worked for 15 years, according to a GoFundMe post by his family.

He had lived in Westminster since he was 4 years old, and had previously been protected from deportation under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA. The Times previously reported that his application for continued protection was not renewed in 2016.

Ayala-Uribe’s relatives and members of Congress have alleged that he was denied proper medical care after being taken into ICE custody in August. Adelanto detention staff members were aware of his medical crisis, according to internal emails obtained by The Times. But Ayala-Uribe initially was taken back to his Adelanto dorm room, where he waited for another three days before being moved to Victor Valley Global Medical Center in Victorville.

ICE officials acknowledged that Ayala-Uribe died at the Victorville hospital while waiting for surgery for an abscess on his buttock. The suspected cause of the sore was not disclosed.

Ayala-Uribe’s cause of death is under investigation, ICE has previously said.

A second man — Gabriel Garcia-Aviles, 56, who lived near Costa Mesa — died Oct. 23, about a week after being detained.

ICE said Garcia-Aviles was arrested Oct. 14 in Santa Ana by the U.S. Border Patrol for an outstanding warrant, and eventually sent to the Adelanto center. ICE said in a previous statement that he was only at the Adelanto facility for a few hours before he was taken to the Victorville hospital for “suspected alcohol withdrawal symptoms.”

His condition rapidly worsened.

The deaths have focused attention on the treatment of detained immigrants as well as long-standing concerns about medical care inside Adelanto, one of the largest federal immigration detention centers in California. The situation raises broader concerns about whether immigration detention centers throughout the country are equipped to care for the deluge of people rounded up since President Trump prioritized mass deportations as part of his second-term agenda.

“These deaths raise serious questions about ICE’s ability to comply with basic detention standards, medical care protocols, and notification requirements, and underscore a pattern of gross negligence that demands immediate accountability,” Min and Chu wrote in the letter to Noem and Todd M. Lyons, the acting director of ICE.

The letter was signed by 43 other lawmakers, including Reps. Robert Garcia (D-Long Beach), J. Luis Correa (D-Santa Ana), John Garamendi (D-Walnut Grove) and Maxine Waters (D-Los Angeles).

An ICE representative did not immediately respond to an email Saturday seeking comment.

The lawmakers stressed the need to treat the immigrants with humanity.

The lawmakers said Garcia-Aviles had lived in the U.S. for three decades. His family did not learn of his dire medical condition until “he was on his deathbed.” Family members drove to the hospital to find him “unconscious, intubated, and . . . [with] dried blood on his forehead” as well as “a cut on his tongue … broken teeth and bruising on his body.”

“We never got the chance to speak to him anymore and [the family] never was called to let us know why he had been transferred to the hospital,” his daugher wrote on a GoFundMe page, seeking help to pay for his funeral costs. “His absence has left a hole in our hearts.”

A newly released batch of correspondence involving disgraced sex offender Jeffrey Epstein has prompted new speculation about ties between the deceased financier and United States President Donald Trump, but experts say its significance stretches beyond the White House.

The never-before-seen emails have added to pressure on the Trump administration to release files about Epstein in the US government’s possession, with a vote in Congress now expected as early as next week. Trump has rejected suggestions that he has anything to hide, and insists that while he knew Epstein, they broke ties in the early 2000s.

But the newly released emails also raise ethical questions about the role played by acclaimed author Michael Wolff as he appeared to provide advice to Epstein on how to handle his dealings with Trump.

In the exchanges published by the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, Wolff – best known for his bestselling books on the first Trump presidency – appeared to share confidential information before a presidential debate on CNN in December 2015 with Epstein, advising him on how to exploit his connection with Trump.

“I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you – either on air or in scrum afterwards,” Wolff wrote.

“If we were to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be?” Epstein replied.

“I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency,” Wolff told Epstein.

“You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he’ll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime,” Wolff added, in his response to Epstein.

Al Jazeera reached out to Wolff for comment, but has not received a response.

In a conversation on a podcast with the news outlet The Daily Beast, Wolff said he was seeking to build a relationship with Epstein at the time to better understand Trump, but acknowledged that in “hindsight”, his comments could be seen as “embarrassing”.

Wolff, 72, is best known for his four books exposing the inner workings of the first Trump presidency, including Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House.

Jane Kirtley, professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said any judgement on whether behaviour like Wolff’s with Epstein was appropriate would depend on how the writer’s role is understood.

“Some people are reporters, some are commentators, and some are book authors, and there are some differences in the way that those different people operate,” Kirtley told Al Jazeera.

“If you want to be a public relations person, or if you want to be an agent, those are perfectly valid career choices. But I think that they are unfortunately incompatible with journalism because the public has a right to assume and to believe that you are acting independently,” she continued.

“You can’t serve two masters, as the saying goes, and your interest has to either be the public interest or serving some other interests.”

Insider reporting

Experts note that reporters often face ethical and professional dilemmas while cultivating relationships with sources, especially in areas where insider information is highly sought after, such as Wolff’s research on relations between various figures in the first Trump administration.

But the prerogative to build rapport with sources, especially those with influence, can also raise difficult questions about a reporter’s proximity to the very centres of power they are supposed to be scrutinising.

Edward Wasserman, a professor of journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, said such relationships have to maintain certain boundaries and be balanced with the usefulness of the information being brought to the public’s attention.

“I think that the public has the right to be sceptical of this kind of cosy relationship with sources,” Wasserman told Al Jazeera. “But the answer the journalist has is that this is in the interest of the public, that there’s a redemptive dimension to this. It enables the kind of relationships that will allow people to confide in a reporter, who can then share that information with the public.”

Still, such relationships can also have a troubling inversion, where a journalist might be tempted to offer a source preferential treatment if they believe they might be rewarded with information.

Another journalist who corresponded with Epstein in emails released on Wednesday, a former New York Times finance reporter named Landon Thomas Jr, also appeared to have a close relationship with the convicted sex offender, whom he informed about a writer named John Connelly who was researching him.

“Keep getting calls from that guy doing a book on you – John Connolly. He seems very interested in your relationship with the news media. I told him you were a hell of a guy :)” Thomas Jr said in an email dated June 1, 2016.

“He is digging around again,” Thomas Jr said in another email to Epstein on September 27, 2017. “I think he is doing some Trump-related digging too. Anyway, for what it’s worth…” he added.

The public broadcaster NPR reported that Thomas Jr was no longer working for the Times by January 2019, and it had come to light that the reporter had asked Epstein for a $30,000 donation to a cultural centre in New York City. The New York Times has previously stated that the behaviour was a clear violation of its ethics policies and that it took action as soon as it learned of the incident.

In the case of Wolff, Wasserman also noted that his direct participation in matters relating to Trump, Epstein, and the media raised doubts about the writer’s ability to credibly report on those issues. Those questions may be especially poignant in a scandal that, for many people in the US, has become a symbol of close relationships among figures at the highest levels of power.

“The problem is that Wolff was offering advice on how to engineer, how to play this situation, in a way that’s advantageous to Epstein. And the problem that I have with that is that he then would presumably preserve the right to report on the consequences,” he said.

It also remains unclear whether Wolff’s relationship with Epstein resulted in the kind of public revelations that journalists typically point to when justifying close ties with sources.

“It occurs to me as important that in this exchange, Wolff doesn’t do anything to illuminate the core mystery, which is whether Trump was a sexual participant in what was going on with Epstein and these young women,” said Wasserman.

“And there’s nothing in this where I’m seeing Wolff even asking that,” he added.