Categories
Politics

Trump Doc Inquiry Poses Unparalleled Take a look at for Justice Dept.

WASHINGTON — As Justice Department officials haggled for months this year with former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers and aides over the return of government documents at his Florida home, federal prosecutors became convinced that they were not being told the whole truth.

That conclusion helped set in motion a decision that would amount to an unparalleled test of the Justice Department’s credibility in a deeply polarized political environment: to seek a search warrant to enter Mar-a-Lago and retrieve what prosecutors suspected would be highly classified materials, beyond the hundreds of pages that Mr. Trump had already returned.

By the government’s account, that gamble paid off, with FBI agents carting off boxloads of sensitive material during the search three weeks ago, including some documents with top secret markings.

But the matter hardly ended there: What had started as an effort to retrieve national security documents has now been transformed into one of the most challenging, complicated and potentially explosive criminal investigations in recent memory, with tremendous implications for the Justice Department, Mr. Trump and public faith in government.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland now faces the prospect of having to decide whether to file criminal charges against a former president and likely 2024 Republican candidate, a step without any historical parallel.

Remarkably, he may have to make this choice twice, depending on what evidence his investigators find in their separate, broad inquiry into Mr. Trump’s efforts to reverse the outcome of the 2020 election and his involvement with the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

The department’s Jan. 6 investigation began as a manhunt for the rioters who attacked the Capitol. But last fall it expanded to include actions that occurred before the assault, such as the plan to submit slates of electors to Congress that falsely stated Mr. Trump had won in several key swing states.

This summer, prosecutors in the US attorney’s office in Washington began to ask witnesses directly about any involvement by Mr. Trump and members of his inner circle, including the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, had in efforts to reverse his election loss.

For all his efforts to distance the department from politics, Mr. Garland cannot escape the political repercussions of his decisions. How he handles Mr. Trump will surely define his tenure.

It is still unclear how either case will play out. Prosecutors working on the investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified information are nowhere near making a recommendation to Mr. Garland, according to people with knowledge of the inquiry. Court filings describe the work as continuing, with the possibility of more witness interviews and other investigative steps to come.

The Trump Investigations

Cards 1 of 6

The Trump Investigations

Numerous inquiries. Since former President Donald J. Trump left office, he has been facing several civil and criminal investigations into his business dealings and political activities. Here is a look at some notable cases:

The Trump Investigations

Jan 6 investigations. In a series of public hearings, the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack laid out a comprehensive narrative of Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election. This evidence could allow federal prosecutors, who are conducting a parallel criminal investigation, to indict Mr. Trump.

The Trump Investigations

Georgia election interference case. Fani T. Willis, the Atlanta-area district attorney, has been leading a wide-ranging criminal investigation into the efforts of Mr. Trump and his allies to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia. This case could pose the most immediate legal peril for the former president and his associates.

The Trump Investigations

New York State civil inquiry. Letitia James, the New York Attorney General, has been conducting a civil investigation into Mr. Trump and his family business. The case is focused on whether Mr. Trump’s statements about the value of his assets were part of a pattern of fraud or were simply Trumpian showmanship.

So far, Mr. Garland has signaled that he is comfortable with owning all of the decisions related to Mr. Trump. He has resisted calls to appoint a special counsel to deal with investigations into the former president. In his first speech to the department’s 115,000 employees last year, he expressed faith that together they could handle any case. “All of us are united by our commitment to the rule of law and to seeking equal justice under law,” he said.

Over the course of this year, as prosecutors sought to understand how sensitive government documents ended up at Mr. Trump’s Florida resort, they began to examine whether three laws had been broken: the Espionage Act, which outlaws the unauthorized retention or disclosure of national security information; a law prohibiting the mishandling of sensitive government records; and a law against obstructing a federal investigation.

By summertime, the investigation into Mr. Trump’s handling of classified information had started to yield compelling indications of possible intent to thwart the law, according to two people familiar with the work. While there was not necessarily ironclad evidence, witness interviews and other materials began to point to the possibility of deliberate attempts to mislead investigators. In addition to witness interviews, the Justice Department obtained security camera footage of various parts of Mar-a-Lago from the Trump Organization.

What we consider before using anonymous sources.
How do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even satisfied with these questions, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.

The heavily redacted affidavit explaining the government’s desire for a search warrant said that the Justice Department had “probable cause to believe that evidence of obstruction will be found at” Mar-a-Lago, and that “the government has well-founded concerns that steps may be taken to frustrate or otherwise interfere with this investigation if facts in the affidavit were prematurely disclosed.”

But a decision about whether to charge Mr. Trump over attempts to obstruct the investigation, or his handling of sensitive national security information, would involve a variety of considerations.

At the heart of the case would be evidence uncovered by the FBI, which is still trying to understand how and why government records made their way to Mar-a-Lago and why some stayed there despite repeated requests for their return by the National Archives and a later subpoena from the Justice Department.

But the highly classified nature of some of the documents retrieved from Mar-a-Lago and the possible evidence of obstruction are only some elements that will go into any final decision about pursuing a prosecution.

Career national security prosecutors will conduct a robust analysis of whether that evidence persuasively shows that laws were broken. That process will include a look at how the facts have been applied in similar cases brought under those same laws, information that prosecutors examined when they investigated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the former CIA director David H. Petraeus.

Key developments in the inquiries into the former president and his allies.

In the case involving Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server, for instance, officials in the national security division asked prosecutors to dive deep into the history of the Espionage Act. At issue was whether her handling of classified information indicated she had engaged in gross negligence. One compelling case of gross negligence that they did find, involving a former FBI agent, included far more serious factors. After examining past examples, they found that her case did not meet that standard. In the end, the consensus was not to charge Mrs. Clinton.

But Mr. Trump’s case presents the additional question of obstruction of justice, and the possibility that evidence could show that he or his legal team defied the Justice Department to hold onto documents that belonged to the government.

That in some ways echoes a previous obstruction inquiry conducted by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who examined whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election. His final report showed that Mr. Trump tried to curtail, or even end, the special counsel inquiry as he learned more about it. But Mr. Mueller declined to say whether Mr. Trump had broken the law, allowing the attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, to clear Mr. Trump of that crime.

There is no way to know whether the Justice Department has facts regarding obstruction that meet its standard of prosecution, which is evidence that would “probably be sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction.”

But the Justice Department’s own legal filings have thrust the question of obstruction into public view. Should Mr. Garland find that there is not enough evidence to indict Mr. Trump, the Justice Department under two successive administrations will have chosen not to recommend prosecuting Mr. Trump for that crime.

If Mr. Garland chooses to move forward with charges, it will be a historic moment for the presidency, a former leader of the United States accused of committing a crime and possibly forced to defend himself before a jury of his fellow citizens. It is a process that could potentially unfold even as he runs again for the White House against an incumbent whose administration is prosecuting him.

That, too, runs huge risks for the department’s credibility, particularly if the national security threat presented by Mr. Trump’s possession of the documents, inevitably disclosed at least in part during the course of any trial, do not seem substantial enough to warrant such a grave move.

Mr. Garland and his investigators are fully aware of the implications of their decisions, according to people familiar with their work. The knowledge that they will be scrutinized for impropriety and overreach, they say, has underscored the need to hew to the facts.

But a decision to prosecute — or to decline to prosecute — has political implications that Mr. Garland cannot escape. And no matter of judiciousness can change the fact that he is operating within an America as politically divided as it has been in decades.

Mr. Trump’s supporters have viewed any investigative steps around the former president as illegitimate attacks by a partisan Justice Department that is out to get him. And his detractors believe that any decision not to prosecute, no matter the evidence, would show that Mr. Trump is indeed above the law.

Categories
World News

How one can weblog about journey? How one can host a television present about journey?

From waiting tables to living in a basement apartment, three travel hosts tell CNBC about how they got to where they are.

Here are their stories.

Samantha Brown

Job: Emmy-award winning TV host of “Samantha Brown’s Places to Love”
Started in: Comedy

I went to Syracuse University for musical theater because I so desperately wanted to move to New York City and become a thespian. I wanted to do Shakespeare and be on Broadway.

That didn’t pan out. I waited on tables for a good eight years. But I loved improv, and I was a part of an improv comedy troupe. So I just kept auditioning for jobs.

Samantha Brown said the best part of her job isn’t “that I get to travel to all these free places — it’s that I get to spend time with people in their everyday lives.”

Source: Samantha Brown Media Inc.

A writer recommended me to a production company that was … looking for a host. But my audition for it had to be totally improvised. That’s how I got the job.

When you are a travel host, there’s no script. Yet it is still up to you to define the scene, to understand the trajectory of a story and how to end it. so inside improv, the golden rule is to never say no, it’s always yes — to keep things going.

Waiting on tables in New York City for eight years, you start to be really humbled, [but] those were the tools that I had that got me a job that I never thought in my wildest dreams I would ever have.”

Mike Chen

Job: Creator of “Strictly Dumpling” and other YouTube channels (total: about 8 million subscribers)
Started in: Accounting and wedding videography

“I moved to the US from China when I was 8 years old. My parents started working in restaurants, and eventually started their own very Americanized Chinese restaurant. So I grew up on a steady diet of General Tso’s chicken and crab rangoon.

There wasn’t a lot of diversity where I’m from, but it helped that my parents sent me back to China when I was 13. Most people got grounded and sent to their room as a punishment — I got sent to China for two years. That’s when I was like: Wow, it’s so amazing — the people, the history — I want to know more.

After college, I went to New York and worked on Wall Street for a year. Then I became a wedding videographer because I wanted to be flexible. I was living in a small basement apartment in Brooklyn with no air conditioning, making about $400 — on a good week.

But this was the first time I was eating something that wasn’t Red Lobster and Olive Garden. I got a taste of diverse ethnic food in Chinatown, and I started to discover a lot of my heritage that I never really saw as important before.

I started recording food videos on YouTube as a food diary for myself. I remember having a conversation with a friend that food content will never amount to anything. There wasn’t anybody online doing it. I had like 10 subscribers. Somehow it grew to this, which was never expected.

I never really had much money growing up — or throughout most of my adulthood. So I was always looking for things that were inexpensive but also really filling and delicious. And that’s pretty much what I do around the world now.”

Colleen Kelly

Job: Television host of “Family Travel with Colleen Kelly”
Started in: Sales

“I tried out for the broadcast school at the University of Texas. The school gave you one chance to be accepted into the program. I was never satisfied at an anchor desk with a camera pointed at me. I failed miserably.

Several years later, I graduated and got my first job in sales, eventually moving to Chicago and working in the pharmaceutical industry. The money was amazing, and I had a company car. But I wasn’t living my dream, and this started to really bother me.

In my early 30s, I got married and eventually quit my job to be a stay-at-home mom. One day, when my two little girls were in school, I went to our town hall’s cable TV station and asked if, in exchange for teaching me how to edit, I could host the local entertainment show about our village — something like “Access Hollywood ” for our 50,000-resident town.

Because they had no other offers, they said yes. I acted confident, but I was as green as they came. every time I did an interview and read voice-over, but I was gaining experience and knowledge.

Colleen Kelly with her family at Mirabell Gardens in Salzburg, Austria (left); and filming “Family Travel with Colleen Kelly” at Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland (right).

Source: Kelly Media Productions LLC

I confided in another mom that my dream was to host a national travel show, and, surprisingly, she agreed to produce it with me. We wrote a script, found a local camera guy for a few dollars and made a pilot.

I took meetings with two major companies — both said no. I was told by one network that women don’t watch travel shows, so the concept of family travel didn’t appeal to them. I then sent thousands of emails to television stations. Nothing worked. Finally, my mother suggested I call the local PBS station. I googled the head of programming, called him (no emails) and got a meeting.

After more meetings, we learned PBS was picking two shows to go national, and “Family Travel with Colleen Kelly” was one of them.

We scraped by for a year, producing 13 episodes that first season. Now the show has been on for more than 10 years. And, the best part is that I can bring my family with me.

It’s been a long and arduous journey, but I hope this story inspires others to believe in themselves, ignore the naysayers, and never give up on their dream.”

Editor’s note: These interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Categories
Entertainment

What Does a Dancing Physique Really feel Like in Ukraine? ‘I Am a Gun.’

Anna Vinogradova, an independent dance artist living in Kyiv, doesn’t carry a gun. She’s not even particularly patriotic, she said. Her body, though, is speaking up. “It’s like, I am a gun,” she said, “and I am staying here to protect the city.”

She knows that she can’t actually defend people. She knows the army is in charge of that. “But with my presence, with my energy,” she said, “I’m fighting.”

Before the Russian invasion on Feb. 24, Vinogradova helped to run a small movement school for children. She had also become enamored of pole dancing, which led to a satirical work, combining standup and pole dancing, that she performed in a strip club. Vinogradova dressed as a miner — a homage to her hometown, Donetsk, which has been in conflict with Russia since 2014.

“I tried to look at my culture through pole dancing,” she said.

Times have changed. Now there is little opportunity for that kind of artistic reflection or for dance making. “This is life and death, and there are many things that need to be done,” said Larissa Babij, a Ukrainian American dancer who has lived in Ukraine since 2005 and now works at the foundation Heroes Ukraine to support a unit of the country’s Special Operations Forces.

Stories of Ukrainian ballet dancers have made headlines in the United States and Europe, but I was curious about Ukraine’s lesser-known contingent of independent dance artists and contemporary choreographers. Over the past few months, I have spoken to more than a dozen independent and experimental dance artists living in Ukraine, in video interviews and on WhatsApp, to discover more about what the scene was — small and underfunded, yet a network of people all the same — and what it has become.

Many dancers have left Ukraine to live and work elsewhere — most going to other parts of Europe. And many who have remained understandably don’t have dancing on their minds. There’s too much else to contend with, even when bombs aren’t dropping.

Some are using their knowledge of bodies and dance in practical ways to help the military (and themselves) contend with the mental stress and physical strain of war. Others are finding solace in the simple yet essential routines that hold the body together — sleeping and showering, stretching and breathing. Viktor Ruban, a dance artist, scholar and activist, said he views these as a somatic practice that comes “from the impulse of the body.”

He also spoke about crying. He is not a crier. But when tears come, he lets them flow.

“The amplitude of the emotions is so, so huge on a daily basis,” he said. “I experience from my body the tension in the chest and also some muscle spasms and trembling feet or trembling arms, palms. Just noticing what’s happening in the body is also helping a lot.”

Beyond securing Ukraine’s freedom, there isn’t a theme tying the stories of these artists together. How could there be? This is a war and they are individuals, reacting to it and to their own altered reality in different ways.

Dance artists have a particular sensitivity to the way trauma inhabits the body. Many I spoke to have experience in somatic work, which places a spotlight on the internal experience of moving: feeling sensations within the body. It’s less about changing your outward physicality and more about how movement affects you from the inside out. It can be robust or slow and methodical; it tends to be calming and centering. An aim is to unearth a greater awareness of and insight into the mind-body connection.

Mykyta Bay-Kravchenko, a dancer and teacher who lives in Lviv, has started to teach somatic classes focusing on what he called “static movement,” which facilitates connections among people, in part because of how he feels in his own body: At times, frantic.

“I feel like something is drumming inside,” he said, likening the sensation to Steve Reich’s minimalist, propulsive composition “Drumming.” “It’s not a good feeling of energy. We have terrible news every day. Every day something is bombed, and always you have it in your mind that today can be your last day.”

Other artists are volunteering in humanitarian and military efforts. After the Russian invasion began, Krystyna Shyshkarova, whose Totem Dance School in Kyiv is a prominent space for contemporary dance, left for a small town in the Vinnytsia area in west-central Ukraine, where she used her skills as a teacher and a choreographer to direct volunteers. Around that time, she described the way she felt as having a “cold anger inside — I’m like a machine a little bit.”

Since early May, Shyshkarova has been back in Kyiv, where she is teaching and choreographing at her school, although with a much smaller group of students. One of her studios is deep in the building. There are no windows. “It’s completely defended, like in a capsule,” she said, so when the alarms sound, “We are like, What can we do? Let the rockets fly and we’ll dance. It’s a strange feeling.”

She still does volunteer work, locating drones, thermal vision goggles and vests. One part of her studio is essentially a storage facility. But recently she has started to think about how she could help in a more specific, perhaps even lasting way.

“I start to see how many traumas the soldiers have,” Shyshkarova said, “and it’s not about the bullet, not about bombs. It’s because they run too much and something goes wrong with the back. Or they turn, and something is wrong with the knees.”

She and her husband, Yaroslav Kaynar, also a dancer, choreographer and teacher, began to take courses in tactical training. And she studied YouTube videos about how to manage weapons and to move with greater efficiency. “There are mechanical and good body patterns or healthy body patterns,” Shyshkarova said. “This is what we have in contemporary dance — we learn this from childhood.”

To better train those in the military, Shyshkarova is creating a system that she calls “tactical choreography” and is developing it with Andrii Polyarush, a soldier who lost a hand in March.

“He wants to be useful,” she said. “He wants to go back to the battlefield. I said, ‘Come on, you don’t have a hand. How you can do it?’ Stay here. Help me.”

Using a combination of modern dance techniques and tactical training, the program will feature preparatory exercises for civilians and military personnel to create healthy movement habits. Sitting down, standing up, rolling over — without injuring any joints — are not as simple as they sound. And try adding to that body armor and ammunition.

“How to fall quickly,” she said. “How to move parallel to the floor or change the position of the body without letting go of the weapon and without losing focus on the enemy.”

Reading Lynn Garafola’s recent biography of Bronislava Nijinska, I sensed a connection between the grit of these contemporary dance artists and the innovative spirit of Nijinska, who developed her progressive ideas about movement and dance working in Kyiv, starting in 1915. The sister of the brilliant dancer Vaslav Nijinsky, Nijinska was a member of Diaghilev’s groundbreaking Ballets Russes. But it was in Kyiv, away from her former ballet life in Russia, that her radical movement theories were formed. She and her experimental colleagues were ahead of their time: For her, the arts could let go of narrative. Dance didn’t need music; the body could exist on its own.

Nijinska formed her School of Movement in Kyiv, but left the country in 1921 because of political pressures. (Ukraine’s prolific avant-garde period — of which theater was always more prominent than dance — came to an end in the 1930s, suppressed by Stalin.)

Ruban is invested in preserving Ukrainian dance and theater heritage; his work grows out of the embers not just of Nijinska — with Svitlana Oleksiuk, another dance artist, he created a lecture-performance about the choreographer — but also of that experimental period more broadly.

For Ruban, who recently presented a version of an older piece — he said he finds it easier to look at past work and adapt it to the current climate — now it is not the time to delve into a deep creative process. “It’s really hard to find the movement and dance language to speak about the situation,” he said. “We do things that are more vital at this point.”

One thing he has done is start the Ukrainian Emergency Performing Arts Fund to provide financial assistance to artists. He has also begun working with Liudmyla Mova, a choreographer, psychologist and professor, on a new program that helps people in the military cope with physical and mental stress. “We’ll be giving work on body structure and centering,” he said, as well as on grounding, balancing and “many other applicable things from somatic work.”

Somatic methods are not alien to the military. Katja Kolcio, a somatic movement educator and a professor of dance at Wesleyan University, helped to develop a program in somatic resiliency during war and has worked closely with Ukrainian war-relief workers, the Ukrainian National Guard, Ukrainian Armed Forces and veterans.

“Somatic practices combine movement exploration with reflection in order to deepen awareness by drawing on our own inner wisdom and resilience,” Kolcio said.

The lived experiences, memories and the culture of participants matter. Those practices, she continued, “are particularly effective in the context of this war on Ukraine because they draw on the very resources that Putin is aiming to eradicate — Ukrainian cultural history and knowledge, passed down through generations of Ukrainian experience.”

It is through the arts, she said, that Ukrainians have been able to maintain a sense of selfhood, even when books and language were banned, and performances and artwork censored by the Soviets (as well as by Russia, long before Soviet times):“It was such an explicit attempt to erase a sense of Ukrainian-ness,” she said, and yet that was preserved “through the embroidery, through the chants and songs and movements.”

She added, “And so I think being able to finally feel one’s selfhood, it’s a physical act.”

At Soma, an independent space for movement exploration in Lviv, led by Olha Marusyn, somatic classes are offered, including a morning preparation. The word preparation is intentional. “You really prepare yourself for something, for anything,” she said. “And then we try to work with the body-mind connection, with attention, with knowing where you’re situated and what you’re looking at and what’s happening around.”

But dancing as an art continues in Ukraine, too. This month, the All-Ukrainian Association Contemporary Dance Platform presents “Let the Body Speak,” featuring dance videos by Ukrainian choreographers. Anton Ovchinnikov, a founder of the platform and an established Ukrainian choreographer and festival organizer, said it is “a kind of archive of, as we say, body memory. The idea is to edit these videos until the end of the war.”

Ovchinnikov estimates that 70 percent to 75 percent of Ukrainian choreographers have left the country for other parts of Europe. “Let the Body Speak” features their voices, too. (It is supported by the British Council and the Ukrainian Institute, and created in collaboration with the Place, a London organization for dance.) “Our idea is not about presenting it in Ukraine, but abroad,” Ovchinnikov said, as a way to “represent Ukrainian contemporary dance.”

Not everyone thought it was a good idea. “There were a group of dancers who told us that now is not the time to present dance or dance videos,” he said.

But Ovchinnikov said everyone must decide for themselves whether to make dances now. “It’s very, very private,” he said. “It’s important that this decision should be outside of any of the opinions or restrictions.”

There is also the question of what Ukrainian contemporary dance is. Especially in this moment. Of course, there is still ballet and folk dance. (At the National Opera of Ukraine in Kyiv, ballet performances have resumed, though at a smaller scale until more dancers become available.) There are street dancers in Kyiv who raise money for war efforts. The contact improvisation scene in Kyiv was described to me as being strong and well organized — as much of a social club as a dancing community. Yet what some see as contemporary work is not avant-garde, but commercial dance more aligned to what you might see on the TV show “So You Think You Can Dance.”

What can dance, as an art form, mean under these circumstances? For the young choreographer Danylo Zubkov, who leads a group in Kyiv, Ukrainian contemporary dance can only be created now by dance artists living in the country since the Russian invasion on Feb. 24. And that means starting from scratch. As he sees it, now is the time for the birth of authentic, essential Ukrainian contemporary dance. To be an independent artist, he says, is about trying to create something new. “When you do not question yourself,” he said, “you cannot find it.”

He works regularly with his dancers, but it’s early days: He said he doesn’t have the words to describe his work now. But what he does know is that it has nothing to do with generating choreographic material for a show. He wants to usher in a new era of dance; to him, that’s what being an independent artist is all about. “And this new is not connected with anything,” he said. “Me and my friends are not making dance just as a way to forget about the reality. We are trying to save it as something more.”

Categories
Politics

Dr. Ouncessides with vitality trade after receiving oil, gasoline donations

dr Mehmet Oz has championed the oil and gas industry as he sees to win a coveted Senate seat in Pennsylvania.

The former TV personality’s vocal support for the energy business follows years of industry donations to his nonprofit and then his campaign, according to financial records reviewed by CNBC. Oz also has a personal stake in oil and gas through investments in two major energy companies, according to his financial disclosures.

Pennsylvania’s next senator will be a key vote for the energy industry, as it has a major presence in the Keystone State. Pennsylvania is the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer after Texas and the third-largest coal producer, according to the US Energy Information Administration.

Oz backed the energy industry this year as Americans felt the strain from spiking gas prices. In a recent interview, he ripped President Joe Biden after he called on companies that run gas stations to bring down prices at the pump.

“Now, they’re blaming the energy companies for the gas prices. And I’m thinking, like most Americans, what are you talking about? I mean, you did things that make it, make it impossible for these companies to exist, ” Oz said in a July interview with Fox News host Sean Hannity. He called Biden’s comments “class warfare.”

As Oz champions oil and gas in his bid to represent Pennsylvania in the Senate, both his campaign and personal coffers have benefited from the industry and its executives.

Oz, a veteran physician and television host, is running against Democrat John Fetterman for a Senate seat being vacated by Republican Sen. Pat Toomey. Oz is trailing Fetterman by just under 8 percentage points in an average of recent polls, according to RealClearPolitics. Fetterman’s campaign has raised over $25 million, while Oz and his team have brought in just over $18 million, according to data from the nonpartisan OpenSecrets.

Oz and his wife, Lisa, have a financial stake in the industry he has championed, as they own shares of oil and gas giants ConocoPhillips and Pioneer Natural Resources, according to their financial disclosure report. The filing notes they own shares of ConocoPhillips valued between $15,001 and $50,000 and Pioneer stock valued between $1,001 and $15,000.

Oz’s connections to the industry formed before he pursued politics.

His nonprofit HealthCorps, which promotes itself as a group aiming to help teens with their health and wellness, has seen at least $210,000 in contributions from gas and oil producer Continental Resources since 2016, according to the group’s annual financial reports. Continental’s support has continued into Oz’s Senate bid: The company’s founder and chair, Harold Hamm, endorsed Oz for Senate in an April campaign video.

The backing from energy industry leaders has led to contributions to Oz’s campaign.

Hamm is among a group of over a dozen oil and gas industry leaders who have combined to contribute over $200,000 to Oz’s campaign since he announced his run for Senate late last year, according to a CNBC review of Federal Election Commission filings. Others with ties to the oil and gas business who have donated at least $2,900 to Oz’s campaign include Jimmy Haslam, an owner of the Cleveland Browns and chair of Pilot Company, a business that owns fueling stations across the country. His father and Pilot founder, James Haslam II, also donated to the Oz campaign.

Other top energy donors in recent months include Brad Cox, the chair of oil producer Cox Operating, and Janet Cafaro, the president of Silcor Oilfield Services, FEC records show.

Jimmy Haslam and his wife, Susan “Dee” Haslam, combined to give $50,000 to the per-Oz super PAC American Leadership Action.

Jimmy and Dee Haslam told CNBC in a statement that they have “tremendous respect for the long, successful career Dr. Oz has had in the private sector and appreciate that he now wants to serve his country by bringing his expertise and experience to the United States Senates.” The Haslam family, as of 2015, had a net worth of $6 billion, according to Forbes.

Representatives for Cox and Cafaro did not return requests for comment.

Hamm told CNBC in a statement that he considers Oz a “friend.” He said the two have known each other for almost a decade, with the goal of bringing HealthCorps’ services into Oklahoma schools.

Hamm explained that he believes Oz will be a key advocate for the energy sector, which has enriched the oil billionaire. He and his family have a net worth of at least $21 billion, according to Forbes.

“Dr. Oz will champion American energy in the US Senate much like he’s championed health his entire career,” Hamm said.

The nonprofit’s annual reports from 2016 through 2020 give a range of how much donors contributed to HealthCorps. Continental Resources regularly ranked among the Oz group’s top backers. The company is often listed as donating between $50,000 and $99,999 during those years. A HealthCorps filing says it received a range of $10,000 to just under $25,000 from Continental in 2018.

In its earlier filings before 2016, HealthCorps lists Continental as either a “national” or a “community” sponsor. The group’s website notes that its national sponsors contribute $1 million and its community donors write checks for $250,000. The disclosures pre-2016 do not say or show a range of how much the company gave those years.

Oz’s support from the massive energy industry coincides with an apparent shift in his opinion on fracking, which allows companies to drill deep into the earth for oil and gas resources. Critics say that fracking hurts the environment by harming water supplies and polluting the air.

Before Oz ran for Senate, he repeatedly wrote columns that took aim at fracking, noting its potential threat to public health, Vice reports.

“And in Pennsylvania, there are multiple reports of air and water contamination, possibly from hydraulic fracturing sites, causing folks breathing problems, rashes, headaches, nosebleeds, numbness, nausea and vomiting,” Oz said in a 2014 column critical of fracking.

Brittany Yanick, a spokeswoman for the Oz campaign, said the candidate has not changed his view on fracking and is a strong supporter of the drilling method. She also took aim at Fetterman’s position on the issue.

“As a scientist, Dr. Oz understands that, like with COVID, the Biden administration is ignoring the science and the benefits of natural gas in order to satisfy the radical Left, the same liberal Democrats that are supporting radical environmental measures and funding John Fetterman’s campaign,” Yanick said in an emailed statement. “John Fetterman has called fracking a ‘stain’ on Pennsylvania, he’s called for a moratorium on fracking, and he would be a rubber stamp for the failing Biden Agenda.”

Fetterman has a mixed history with where he stands on fracking. Inside Climate News reported that Fetterman dropped his support for a fracking moratorium after his failed 2016 primary run for Senate. His position evolved after the state moved toward stricter regulations on fracking.

Emilia Rowland, a spokeswoman for Fetterman’s campaign, told CNBC that “John does not support a ban on fracking in Pennsylvania and that includes a moratorium on new fracking sites.” She said he hasn’t taken any campaign money from the fossil fuel industry.

“John believes fully heartedly that we have to preserve the union way of life for the thousands of workers currently employed by the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania and the communities where they live. We can’t just abandon these people, and tell them to go learn how to code,” Rowland said in a statement. “It’s a totally false choice that we have to choose between jobs and a clean environment. That’s just not true. We can have both.”

Still, Oz appears more vocal than Fetterman in publicly supporting the oil and gas industry. In a recent op-ed, he said it’s “gross, and deeply unpatriotic” for oil companies to charge high gas prices while their businesses are making massive profits. Fetterman namechecked Chevron, Exxon and Shell in the op-ed.

Oz has rubbed elbows with industry officials during his campaign.

He was invited to a June “energy industry meet and greet” by longtime lobbyist Missy Edwards. The invite says the meeting was set to take place at Edwards’ offices in Washington. Her current clients include Southern Company and General Motors, OpenSecrets says.

A spokeswoman for General Motors said she was “not sure if GM had a representative in attendance.” Edwards and a representative for Southern Company did not return requests for comment.

Categories
World News

Referendum Seeks to Mend the Open Wound at Australia’s Coronary heart

MELBOURNE, Australia—When Capt. James Cook sailed to Australia in 1768, he did so with instructions that he should “show every kind of civility and regard” to the land’s indigenous people and get their consent before possessing their land. He did neither.

The brutal colonization that followed has set the tone for how Aboriginal people have been treated throughout the nation’s history. To this day, a treaty has never been signed with Aboriginal people, and they are not recognized in the Australian Constitution.

Now, a newly elected Labor government has started the process of repairing the open wound at the heart of the nation. Last month, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese kick-started the process of holding a referendum to enshrine in the Constitution a body to advise the government on Indigenous issues, to be known as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

“We are seeking a momentous change, but it is also a very simple one,” Mr. Albanese said in announcing the draft ballot question. “Enshrining a voice in the Constitution gives the principles of respect and consultation strength and status.”

In the month since, the prime minister has worked to build support for the referendum, consulting with Aboriginal leaders and even holding an unusual news conference on Saturday in Sydney with Shaquille O’Neal.

But the effort faces many challenges. After decades of stalled discussions about Indigenous recognition, the previous two conservative prime ministers opposed a referendum, and the current conservative political opposition has not yet said whether it will support the proposal. A referendum has never succeeded in Australia without bipartisan backing.

Critics have seized on the fact that Mr. Albanese has not yet fully explained what the Aboriginal voice would entail. He sought to answer the criticism on Saturday, saying that while it would ensure that Indigenous people were consulted on issues that affect them, it would not “usurp” Parliament.

Advocates say the proposal would be both a symbolic and structural change in a country that still struggles to acknowledge the bloodiest parts of its colonial history and the legacy of that past.

The Voice to Parliament, its supporters say, is a simple proposal.

“What it’s saying is: You need to better include Aboriginal and Torres Strait people in political and legal decision-making in their own affairs,” said Dani Larkin, the deputy director of the Indigenous Law Center at the University of New South Wales.

The proposal is the result of a consultation process undertaken in 2017 by Indigenous leaders with Aboriginal communities around Australia. They sought to find a solution for the powerlessness, stemming from the history of colonization, that had entrenched disadvantage in their communities.

Given the absence of a treaty with Aboriginal peoples, “it was particularly cruel and unjust the way the dispossession happened here, and the lack of redress to this date has been appalling,” said Hannah McGlade, an associate professor of law at Curtin University and a member of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues.

Indigenous people’s lives remain drastically worse than those of other Australians and are even deteriorating in some areas. Indigenous people have shorter life spans and poorer health. The gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people is “actually widening in relation to incarceration, child removal and suicide rates,” Professor McGlade said.

While symbolic gestures acknowledging Aboriginal peoples are common in Australia, much of the population is reluctant to do more. Last year, a proposal to include more Indigenous history in school curriculums was slammed by the education minister at the time as promoting an “overly negative view” of Australia.

Eddie Synot, a law lecturer at Griffith University who was involved in the proposal for the Voice to Parliament, said, “In Australia, there’s very much been an emphasis throughout our history on just assimilating into the rest of Australian society and forgetting the past. ”

The proposal seeks to address the forces that relegate Indigenous people to second-class status. The plan developed by Aboriginal leaders, outlined in 2017 in a document called the Uluru Statement From the Heart, includes three demands: Voice, Treaty and Truth.

The Voice advising governments would “really give effect to Indigenous representation and reflect Indigenous self-determination,” Professor McGlade said.

As for the other two pillars, “the treaty-making process will go some way to redress this wrongful acquisition of land,” she said, “and truth telling is fundamental because there is still such denial of the deep violence of our history — the violence of colonization, the systemic discrimination of Indigenous people face today.”

Constitutional change is difficult in Australia. It can be done only through a referendum, one that requires a “double majority” — a majority of voters nationwide, as well as majority support in a majority of states.

When Malcolm Turnbull, the prime minister from 2015 to 2018, was in power, he said that there was not enough support among Australians to amend the Constitution on this issue, as critics voiced fears that a Voice to Parliament would act as a “third chamber of Parliament.” His successor, Scott Morrison, made a similar argument.

Mr. Albanese, who became prime minister in May, took a different view. Before the election, he promised that his Labor Party would put the voice to a referendum.

The issue was about “common courtesy,” he said, which dictates that “where you are implementing a policy that affects a group — in this case the oldest continuous civilization on the planet, something we should be proud about — you should consult, you should involve them.”

That could be achieved, he said, by adding just three sentences to the Constitution, creating a Voice to Parliament whose composition, functions and powers would be decided by Parliament.

The simplicity of the proposal seeks to avoid the failings of Australia’s last referendum, in 1999, when a majority of the public supported the idea of ​​making the country a republic but rejected the ballot question because of disagreements about the new model of governance.

But the lack of detail with the new referendum — whose date has not yet been set — has given critics an opening. A former conservative prime minister, Tony Abbott, said it meant that “a particular group will have an unspecified say about unspecified topics with unspecified ramifications.”

Anne Twomey, a constitutional expert at the University of Sydney, said that arguments framed around the need for more detail were often disingenuous.

If the debate stays in the realm of principles, where Mr. Albanese is trying to keep it, the referendum has a good chance of success, she said. But a debate about the details of the voice and how it could be used in the future could prove more challenging.

Some Indigenous people say that no matter the details, a Voice to Parliament would not be enough.

“I really don’t see how this is going to bring justice to our people by providing advice,” said Lidia Thorpe, an Indigenous senator. “We’ve had many, many advisory bodies.”

Still, she said, if the referendum fails, “it will set Australia back as a nation, and it will have an impact on the health and well-being of First Nations people.”

dr Larkin, of the University of New South Wales, said that Australia should embrace its chance at a long-overdue reckoning with its treatment of Aboriginal people.

We’re inviting the Australian people to walk with us because we believe in the Australian people’s humanity and compassion,” she said.

Categories
Politics

Trump’s Authorized Group Scrambles to Discover an Argument

On May 25, one of former President Donald J. Trump’s lawyers sent a letter to a top Justice Department official, laying out the argument that his client had done nothing illegal by holding onto a trove of government materials when he left the White House.

The letter, from M. Evan Corcoran, a former federal prosecutor, represented Mr. Trump’s initial defense against the investigation into the presence of highly classified documents in unsecured locations at his members-only club and residence, Mar-a-Lago. It amounted to a three-page hodgepodge of contested legal theories, including Mr. Corcoran’s assertion that Mr. Trump possessed a nearly boundless right as president to declassify materials and an argument that one law governing the handling of classified documents does not apply to a president .

Mr. Corcoran asked the Justice Department to present the letter as “exculpatory” information to the grand jury investigating the case.

Government lawyers found it deeply puzzling. They included it in the affidavit submitted to a federal magistrate in Florida in their request for the search warrant they later used to recover even more classified materials at Mar-a-Lago — to demonstrate their willingness to acknowledge Mr. Corcoran’s arguments, a person with knowledge of the decision said.

As the partial release of the search warrant affidavit on Friday, including the May 25 letter, illustrated, Mr. Trump is going into the battle over the documents with a hastily assembled team. The lawyers have offered up a variety of arguments on his behalf that have yet to do much to fend off a Justice Department that has adopted a determined, focused and so far largely successful legal approach.

“He needs a quarterback who’s a real lawyer,” said David I. Schoen, a lawyer who defended Mr. Trump in his second Senate impeachment trial. Mr. Schoen called it “an honor” to represent Mr. Trump, but said it was problematic to keep lawyers “rotating in and out.”

Often tinged with Mr. Trump’s own bombast and sometimes conflating his powers as president with his role as a private citizen, the legal arguments put forth by his team sometimes strike lawyers not involved in the case as more about setting a political narrative than about dealing with the possibility of a federal prosecution.

“There seems to be a huge disconnect between what’s actually happening — a real live court case surrounding a real live investigation — and what they’re actually doing, which is treating it like they’ve treated everything else, recklessly and thoughtlessly,” Chuck Rosenberg, a former US attorney and FBI official, said of Mr. Trump’s approach. “And for an average defendant on an average case, that would be a disaster.”

Mr. Trump’s team had a few small procedural wins. On Saturday, a federal judge in Florida signaled that she was inclined to support Mr. Trump’s request for a special master to review the material seized by the government in the search of Mar-a-Lago on Aug. 8.

It is not clear how much the appointment of a special master would slow or complicate the government’s review of the material. Mr. Trump’s team has suggested that it would be a first step toward challenging the validity of the search warrant; but it also gives the Justice Department, which is expected to respond this week, an opportunity to air new details in public through their legal filings.

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

Cards 1 of 4

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

The release on Aug. 26 of a partly redacted affidavit used by the Justice Department to justify its search of former President Donald J. Trump’s Florida residence included information that provides greater insight into the ongoing investigation into how he handled documents he took with him from the White House. Here are the key takeaways:

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

The government tried to retrieve the documents for more than a year. The affidavit showed that the National Archives asked Mr. Trump as early as May 2021 for files that needed to be returned. In January, the agency was able to collect 15 boxes of documents. The affidavit included a letter from May 2022 showing that Trump’s lawyers knew that he might be in possession of classified materials and that the Justice Department was investigating the matter.

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

The material included highly classified documents. The FBI said it had examined the 15 boxes Mr. Trump had returned to the National Archives in January and that all but one of them contained documents that were marked classified. The markings suggested that some documents could compromise human intelligence sources and that others were related to foreign intercepts collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Takeaways From the Affidavit Used in the Mar-a-Lago Search

Prosecutors are concerned about obstruction and witness intimidation. To obtain the search warrant, the Justice Department had to lay out possible crimes to a judge, and obstruction of justice was among them. In a supporting document, the Justice Department said it had “well-founded concerns that steps may be taken to frustrate or otherwise interfere with this investigation if facts in the affidavit were prematurely disclosed.”

Some of the Trump lawyers’ efforts have also appeared ineffective or misdirected. Mr. Corcoran, in his May 25 letter, made much of Mr. Trump’s powers to declassify material as president, and cited a specific law on the handling of classified material that he said did not apply to a president. The search warrant, however, said federal agents would be seeking evidence of three potential crimes, none of which relied on the classification status of the documents found at Mar-a-Lago; the law on the handling of classified material cited by Mr. Corcoran in the letter was not among them.

Two lawyers who are working with Mr. Trump on the documents case — Mr. Corcoran and Jim Trusty — have prosecutorial experience with the federal government. But the team was put together quickly.

Mr. Trusty was hired after Mr. Trump saw him on television, people close to the former president have said. Mr. Corcoran came in during the spring, introduced by another Trump adviser during a conference call in which Mr. Corcoran made clear he was willing to take on a case that many of Mr. Trump’s other advisers were seeking to avoid, people briefed on the discussion said.

What we consider before using anonymous sources.
How do the sources know the information? What’s their motivation for telling us? Have they proved reliable in the past? Can we corroborate the information? Even satisfied with these questions, The Times uses anonymous sources as a last resort. The reporter and at least one editor know the identity of the source.

Mr. Trump’s allies have reached out to several other lawyers, but have repeatedly been turned down.

Mr. Corcoran in particular has raised eyebrows within the Justice Department for his statements to federal officials during the investigation documents. People briefed on the investigation say officials are uncertain whether Mr. Corcoran was intentionally evasive, or simply unaware of all the material still kept at Mar-a-Lago and found during the Aug. 8 search by the FBI

Mr Corcoran did not respond to a request for comment. Taylor Budowich, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, said only that Mr. Trump and his legal team “continue to assert his rights and expose the Biden administration’s misuse of the Presidential Records Act, which governs all pertinent facts, has been complied with and has no enforcement mechanism.”

Even before Mr. Corcoran joined the team, Mr. Trump’s legal filings in various cases read like campaign rally speeches that he had dictated to his lawyers. The former president has a history of approaching legal proceedings as if they are political conflicts, in which his best defense is the 74 million people who voted for him in the 2020 election.

The closest thing to a legal quarterback in Mr. Trump’s orbit is Boris Epshteyn, a onetime lawyer at the Milbank firm who was a political adviser to Mr. Trump in 2016, ultimately becoming a senior staff member on his inaugural effort and then a strategic adviser on the 2020 campaign.

Mr. Epshteyn has championed Mr. Trump’s claims, dismissed by dozens of courts, that the election was stolen from him, and has risen to a role he has described to colleagues as an “in-house counsel,” helping to assemble Mr. Trump’s current legal team.

Mr. Trump’s advisers continue to insist that he was cooperating before the search in returning the documents. They have also suggested that they were quick to respond to Justice Department concerns, citing what they described as a request in June that a stronger lock be placed on the door leading to the storage area where several boxes of presidential records had been kept.

Yet the unsealed affidavit showed a portion of a letter from a Justice Department lawyer sent to Mr. Trump’s lawyers that did not specify anything about a lock and read less like a request than a warning.

The classified documents taken from the White House “have not been handled in an appropriate manner or stored in an appropriate location,” the letter read. “Accordingly, we ask that the room at Mar-a-Lago where the documents had been stored be secured and that all of the boxes that were moved from the White House to Mar-a-Lago (along with any other items in that room ) be preserved in that room in their current condition until further notice.”

During the Aug. 8 search, the FBI found additional documents in that area and also on the floor of a closet in Mr. Trump’s office, people briefed on the matter said.

Mr. Trump and a small circle within his group of current advisers maintain that he was entitled to keep documents he took from the White House, or that he had already declassified them, or that they were packed up and moved by the General Services Administration — an assertion flatly denied by that federal agency.

Mr. Trump, people familiar with his thinking say, sees the attorney general, Merrick B. Garland, not as the federal government’s chief law enforcement officer, but merely as a political foe and someone with whom he can haggle with about how much anger exists over the situation.

Shortly before Mr. Garland announced that he was seeking to unseal the search warrant, an intermediary for Mr. Trump reached out to a Justice Department official to pass along a message that the former president wanted to negotiate, as if he were still a New York developers.

The message Mr. Trump wanted conveyed, according to a person familiar with the exchange, was: “The country is on fire. What can I do to reduce the heat?”

A Justice Department spokesman would not say if the message ever made it up to Mr Garland; but the senior leadership was befuddled by the message, and had no idea what Mr. Trump was trying to accomplish, according to an official.

Categories
Entertainment

Colin Kaepernick and Nessa Welcome First Youngster

Colin Kaepernick and Nessa are parents! Ahead of attending the MTV VMAs on Sunday, the 41-year-old radio and TV personality announced that she and the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback, 34, welcomed their first child a few weeks ago.

“I thought long and hard about sharing our life changing news today. I decided to do so because today is the first day in a few weeks where I stepped out for work with a new life title – MOM!” Nessa wrote on Instagram alongside a black-and-white photo of the pair with their newborn. “Colin and I welcomed our amazing baby to the world a few weeks ago and we are over the moon with our growing family.”

Nessa revealed that she initially wasn’t planning on sharing the news publicly. She explained, “Recovering after delivery has been a journey (more on that later) and honestly I wasn’t going to share anything because this is sooooo personal to us and I realized I’m a complete mama bear! Colin is the most amazing dad and I’m soooo grateful that he is by our side for every moment of this journey.”

She continued: “I know sharing this allows me to connect with you in different ways that I never imagined. My conversations and life experiences have already changed. And my world has gotten that much bigger thanks to our sweet little baby who has shown me how to love in ways I never knew.”

Nessa and Kaepernick first met in 2015, and they began dating shortly after. Aside from a few red carpet appearances and photos on social media, the pair are pretty private when it comes to their romance.

Categories
Politics

Secret Service returns fraudulent pandemic loans to federal SBA

The US Secret Service returned $286 million in fraudulently obtained pandemic aid loans to the Small Business Administration, the agency announced Friday.

The funds sent back to the SBA were obtained via the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program using both fabricated information and stolen identities.

The suspects used Green Dot Bank, a fintech institution, to hold and move the fraudulent funds. More than 15,000 accounts were used in the conspiracy, by individuals in the US as well as domestic and transnational organized crime rings, the agency said.

Investigations are ongoing and further information about suspects was not immediately released. the Investigation was initiated by the Secret Service field office in Orlando, Florida, and Green Dot bank worked with the agency to identify the fraudulent accounts.

“Fraudsters in general are always looking for ways and techniques to better do their crimes and modern conveniences are just one of those things they use. So currently, cryptocurrency is a big thing, fintechs, third-party payment systems. But there’s not an institution , even our traditional financial institutions, that weren’t targeted during the pandemic,” Roy Dotson, lead investigator for the Secret Service, told CNBC in an interview.

Initial investigations indicated the majority of the fraudulent accounts at Green Dot were established with synthetic and stolen identities, and involved using “willing and unwilling money mules,” Dotson said.

The Secret Service and SBA Office of Inspector General put out advisories to 30,000 financial institutions in early 2020 to lay out fraud indicators and guide the banks to partner with federal agencies to recover fraudulent funds, Dotson said. He added these investigations will likely last years due to their size and scope.

OIG Inspector General Hannibal Ware said the partnership with the Secret Service has to date resulted in more than 400 indictments and nearly 300 convictions related to pandemic fraud.

The US government allocated more than $1 trillion to Main Street under both the Paycheck Protection Program and EIDL program. The PPP allowed small businesses to borrow loans that may be forgiven if the borrower used the majority of the capital on payroll, while the Covid-19 EIDL program allowed borrowers to access loans based on temporary losses of revenue due to the pandemic. An advance grant was also available under the EIDL.

Reviews of the two programs by the SBA’s Office of Inspector General warned that criminals would potentially exploit the system due to the fast-moving nature of the rollout and demand for aid. CNBC investigations revealed, in some cases, how easy it was for criminals to obtain fraudulent aid via stolen identities.

The SBA OIG said it has identified $87 billion of potentially fraudulent EIDL loans.

Over the past two years, the Secret Service said it has seized over $1.4 billion in fraudulently obtained funds and assisted in returning some $2.3 billion to state unemployment insurance programs. Nearly 4,000 pandemic-related fraud investigations and inquiries have been initiated by the Secret Service. More than 150 field offices and 40 cyber task forces are involved.

“This is not going to be a quick fix. As we talked about today, 15,325 accounts at one financial institution — this is one case, so you can just think of the potential number of suspects and how many investigations that could come out of those . And with all of our federal, state and local partners working this and having the same mission. It’s going to be a long process,” Dotson said at a news conference announcing the returned funds.

Categories
World News

EV makers face money squeeze amid hovering battery, manufacturing prices

Production of electric Rivian R1T pickup trucks on April 11, 2022 at the company’s plant in Normal, Ill.

Michael Wayland/CNBC

In the transition from gas-powered vehicles to electric, the fuel every automaker is after these days is cold hard cash.

Established automakers and startups alike are rolling out new battery-powered models in an effort to meet growing demand. Ramping up production of a new model was already a fraught and expensive process, but rising material costs and tricky regulations for federal incentives are squeezing coffers even further.

Prices of the raw materials used in many electric-vehicle batteries — lithium, nickel and cobalt — have soared over the last two years as demand has skyrocketed, and it may be several years before miners are able to meaningfully increase supply.

Complicating the situation further, new US rules governing EV buyer incentives will require automakers to source more of those materials in North America over time if they want their vehicles to qualify.

The result: new cost pressures for what was already an expensive process.

Automakers routinely spend hundreds of millions of dollars designing and installing tooling to build new high-volume vehicles — before a single new car is shipped. Nearly all global automakers now maintain hefty cash reserves of $20 billion or more. Those reserves exist to ensure that the companies can continue to work on their next new models if and when a recession (or a pandemic) takes a bite out of their sales and profits for a few quarters.

All that money and time can be a risky bet: If the new model doesn’t resonate with customers, or if manufacturing problems delay its introduction or compromise quality, the automaker might not make enough to cover what it spent.

For newer automakers, the financial risks to designing a new electric vehicle can be existential.

Take Tesla. When the automaker began preparations to launch its Model 3, CEO Elon Musk and his team planned a highly automated production line for the Model 3, with robots and specialized machines that reportedly cost well over a billion dollars. But some of that automation didn’t work as expected, and Tesla moved some final-assembly tasks to a tent outside its factory.

Tesla learned a lot of expensive lessons in the process. Musk said later called the experience of launching the Model 3 “production hell” and said it nearly brought Tesla to the brink of bankruptcy.

As newer EV startups ramp up production, more investors are learning that taking a car from design to production is capital-intensive. And in the current environment, where deflated stock prices and rising interest rates have made it harder to raise money than it was just a year or two ago, EV startups’ cash balances are getting close attention from Wall Street.

Here’s where some of the most prominent American EV startups of the last few years stand when it comes to cash on hand:

Rivian

Production of electric Rivian R1T pickup trucks on April 11, 2022 at the company’s plant in Normal, Ill.

Michael Wayland/CNBC

Rivian is by far the best-positioned of the new EV startups, with over $15 billion on hand as of the end of June. That should be enough to fund the company’s operations and expansion through the planned launch of its smaller “R2” vehicle platform in 2025, CFO Claire McDonough said during the company’s earnings call on Aug. 11.

Rivian has struggled to ramp up production of its R1-series pickup and SUV amid supply chain snags and early manufacturing challenges. The company burned about $1.5 billion in the second quarter, but it also said it plans to reduce its near-term capital expenditures to about $2 billion this year from $2.5 billion in its earlier plan to ensure it can meet its longer-term goals.

At least one analyst thinks Rivian will need to raise cash well before 2025: In a note following Rivian’s earnings report, Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Jonas said that his bank’s model assumes Rivian will raise $3 billion via a secondary stock offering before the end of next year and another $3 billion via additional raises in 2024 and 2025.

Jonas currently has an “overweight” rating on Rivian’s stock, with a $60 price target. Rivian ended trading Friday at roughly $32 per share.

Lucid

People test drive Dream Edition P and Dream Edition R electric vehicles at the Lucid Motors plant in Casa Grande, Arizona, September 28, 2021.

Caitlin O’Hara | Reuters

Luxury EV maker Lucid Group doesn’t have quite as much cash in reserve as Rivian, but it’s not badly positioned. It ended the second quarter with $4.6 billion in cash, down from $5.4 billion at the end of March. That’s enough to last “well into 2023,” CFO Sherry House said earlier this month.

Like Rivian, Lucid has struggled to ramp up production since launching its Air luxury sedan last fall. It’s planning big capital expenditures to expand its Arizona factory and build a second plant in Saudi Arabia. But unlike Rivian, Lucid has a deep-pocketed patron — Saudi Arabia’s public wealth fund, which owns about 61% of the California-based EV maker and would almost certainly step in to help if the company runs short of cash.

For the most part, Wall Street analysts were unconcerned about Lucid’s second-quarter cash burn. Bank of America’s John Murphy wrote that Lucid still has “runway into 2023, especially considering the company’s recently secured revolver [$1 billion credit line] and incremental funding from various entities in Saudi Arabia earlier this year.”

Murphy has a “buy” rating on Lucid’s stock and a price target of $30. He’s compared the startup’s potential future profitability to that of luxury sports-car maker Ferrari. Lucid currently trades for about $16 per share.

fisherman

People gather and take pictures after the Fisker Ocean all-electric SUV was revealed at Manhattan Beach Pier on November 16, 2021 in Manhattan Beach, California.

Mario Tama | Getty Images

Unlike Rivian and Lucid, Fisker isn’t planning to build its own factory to construct its electric vehicles. Instead, the company founded by former Aston Martin designer Henrik Fisker will use contract manufacturers — global auto-industry supplier Magna International and Taiwan’s Foxconn — to build its cars.

That represents something of a cash tradeoff: Fisker won’t have to spend nearly as much money up front to get its upcoming Ocean SUV into production, but it will almost certainly give up some profit to pay the manufacturers later on.

Production of the Ocean is scheduled to begin in November at an Austrian factory owned by Magna. Fisker will have considerable expenses in the interim — money for prototypes and final engineering, as well as payments to Magna — but with $852 million on hand at the end of June, it should have no trouble covering those costs.

RBC analyst Joseph Spak said following Fisker’s second-quarter report that the company will likely need more cash, despite its contract-manufacturing model — what he estimated to be about $1.25 billion over “the coming years.”

Spak has an “outperform” rating on Fisker’s stock and a price target of $13. The stock closed Friday at $9 per share.

Nikola

Nikola Motor Company

Source: Nikola Motor Company

Nikola was one of the first EV makers to go public via a merger with a special-purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. The company has begun shipping its battery-electric Tre semitruck in small numbers, and plans to ramp up production and add a long-range hydrogen fuel-cell version of the Tre in 2023.

But as of right now, it probably doesn’t have the cash to get there. The company had a tougher time raising funds, following allegations from a short-seller, a stock price plunge and the ouster of its outspoken founder Trevor Milton, who is now facing federal fraud charges for statements made to investors.

Nikola had $529 million on hand as of the end of June, plus another $312 million available via an equity line from Tumim Stone Capital. That’s enough, CFO Kim Brady said during Nikola’s second-quarter earnings call, to fund operations for another 12 months — but more money will be needed before long.

“Given our target of keeping 12 months of liquidity on hand at the end of each quarter, we will continue to seek the right opportunities to replenish our liquidity on an ongoing basis while trying to minimize dilution to our shareholders,” Brady said. “We are carefully considering how we can potentially spend less without compromising our critical programs and reduce cash requirements for 2023.”

Deutsche Bank analyst Emmanuel Rosner estimates Nikola will need to raise between $550 million and $650 million before the end of the year, and more later on. He has a “hold” rating on Nikola with a price target of $8. The stock trades for $6 as of Friday’s close.

Lordstown

Lordstown Motors gave rides in prototypes of its upcoming electric endurance pickup truck on June 21, 2021 as part of its “Lordstown Week” event.

Michael Wayland/CNBC

Lordstown Motors is in perhaps the most precarious position of the lot, with just $236 million on hand as of the end of June.

Like Nikola, Lordstown saw its stock price collapse after its founder was forced out following a short-seller’s allegations of fraud. The company shifted away from a factory model to a contract-manufacturing arrangement like Fisker’s, and it completed a deal in May to sell its Ohio factory, a former General Motors plant, to Foxconn for a total of about $258 million.

Foxconn plans to use the factory to manufacture EVs for other companies, including Lordstown’s Endurance pickup and an upcoming small Fisker EV called the Pear.

Despite the considerable challenges ahead for Lordstown, Deutsche Bank’s Rosner still has a “hold” rating on the stock. But he’s not sanguine. He thinks the company will need to raise $50 million to $75 million to fund operations through the end of this year, despite its decision to limit the first production batch of the endurance to just 500 units.

“More importantly, to complete the production of this first batch, management will have to raise more substantial capital in 2023,” Rosner wrote after Lordstown’s second-quarter earnings report. And given the company’s difficulties to date, that won’t be easy.

“Lordstown would have to demonstrate considerable traction and positive reception for the endurance with its initial customers in order to raise capital,” he wrote.

Rosner rates Lordstown’s stock a “hold” with a price target of $2. The stock closed Friday at $2.06.

Categories
Politics

In New Hampshire, Republicans Weigh One other Onerous Proper Candidate

MANCHESTER, NH — He has said the state’s popular Republican governor is “a Chinese Communist sympathizer,” called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment allowing direct popular election of senators and raised the possibility of abolishing the FBI

The man behind these statements is Don Bolduc, a retired Army general, who leads the Republican field in what should be a competitive race for the New Hampshire Senate seat held by Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat.

In one primary after another this year, Republican voters have chosen hard-right candidates who party officials had warned would have trouble winning in November, and Mr. Bolduc could be on course to be the next. Like him, many embraced former President Donald J. Trump’s election denial. “I signed a letter with 120 other generals and admirals saying that Donald Trump won the election and, damn it, I stand by” it, Mr. Bolduc said at a recent debate.

The suddenly fraught midterm landscape for Republicans caused Senator Mitch McConnell, the GOP leader, to complain recently that poor “candidate quality” could cost his party a majority in the Senate that had long seemed the likely result.

In the final competitive primary of the year, scheduled for Sept. 13, Republican officials in New Hampshire are echoing Mr. McConnell. They warn that grass-roots voters are poised to elect another problematic nominee, Mr. Bolduc, and jeopardize a winnable race against a vulnerable Democrat.

This month, Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican moderate broadly popular in his purple state, said on New Hampshire talk radio that Mr. Bolduc was a “conspiracy theorist-type candidate.” He added: “If he were the nominee, I have no doubt we would have a much harder time trying to win that seat back.”

Mr. Bolduc, who served 10 tours in Afghanistan, held a formidable lead with Republican voters in a poll this month, in large part because he has barnstormed continuously for more than two years, while his rivals joined the race later. The contest was effectively frozen for a year until November, when Mr. Sununu, a top recruiting target of national Republicans, declined to run for Senate, deciding instead to seek a fourth term as governor.

Mr. Bolduc has built a following by offering red meat to the conservative base. But New Hampshire is a politically divided state where Republicans who win statewide traditionally appeal to independents and conservative Democrats. Its four-member congressional delegation is entirely Democratic; State government is firmly in the hands of Republicans.

“We’re not a red state, we’re not a blue state, we’re a weird state,” said Greg Moore, a Republican operative not involved in the Senate primary. He was skeptical that Mr. Bolduc, after targeting only his party’s base, would be able to attract a broader coalition in November.

In a debate on Wednesday outside Manchester, Mr Bolduc denounced the provision in Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act authorizing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices, saying, “Anything the government’s involved in, it’s not good, it doesn’t work.”

A rival of Mr. Bolduc’s, Kevin Smith, told him at an earlier debate, “You know, Don, your MO seems to be ‘Fire, ready, aim.'”

Mr. Bolduc, 60, is a compact figure who still sports a military haircut close-cropped on the sides. In the minutes before the debate went live on Newsmax, while other candidates studied their notes, he spontaneously led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance and in singing “God Bless America.”

A poll this month by the New Hampshire Institute of Politics showed Mr. Bolduc with support from 32 percent of registered Republican voters, well ahead of his closest rival, Chuck Morse, the State Senate president, who was at 16 percent. Others in the poll, including Mr Smith, a former Londonderry town manager, were in the low single digits.

All of the candidates have struggled to raise money and draw voters’ attention — 39 percent of Republicans said in the poll they were still undecided.

That gives Mr. Bolduc’s rivals hope, although time is running out: The primary is just one week after Labor Day, when most voters traditionally tune in.

Ms. Hassan has long been seen as vulnerable. Just 39 percent of voters in the Institute of Politics survey said they deserved to be re-elected.

At the debate outside Manchester, the candidates bashed Ms. Hassan, a former governor, linking her to rising gas prices and expected high prices for home heating oil this winter.

Ms Hassan, in response, defended voting for Democrats’ climate and prescription drug law. “While I’m fighting to get results for New Hampshire, my opponents are out on the campaign trail defending Big Oil and Big Pharma and bragging about their records of opposing a woman’s fundamental freedom,” she said in a statement.

Mr. Trump has made no endorsement in New Hampshire, and he may not make one at all. He snubbed Mr. Bolduc in a 2020 Senate primary, endorsing a rival. Neither Mr Bolduc nor Mr Morse have spoken to Mr Trump lately about the race, according to their campaigns.

Corey Lewandowski, Mr. Trump’s first 2016 campaign manager, who is a New Hampshire resident, has publicly urged his former boss not to back Mr. Bolduc, calling him “not a serious candidate.”

Mr. Bolduc declined to comment for this article. Rick Wiley, a senior adviser to Mr. Bolduc, said the criticisms of him — that he is unelectable, that independents won’t vote for him — were the same ones thrown at Mr. Trump in 2016.

“The electorate wants an outsider, that is resoundingly clear,” Mr. Wiley said. Shrugging off Mr. Sununu’s criticisms, he added: “I expect we’re probably going to be sharing a ballot with the governor. There will be unity on the ticket in November and Republicans up and down the ballot will be successful because of the policies Biden and Maggie Hassan have put in place.”

The biggest primary threat to Mr. Bolduc, and the preferred candidate of much of what remains of the GOP establishment, is Mr. Morse, a low-key, self-made tree nursery owner with a strong Granite State accent, who appears in his TV ads riding a tractor at dawn at his operation in southern New Hampshire.

Despite his prominent role in state government, a poll in April found that 54 percent of Republican voters didn’t know enough about Mr. Morse to have an opinion. Just 2 percent named him as their choice for the nomination. His rise to 16 percent in the latest public poll this month is seen by supporters as a sign of momentum.

Dave Carney, a strategist for Mr Morse, agreed that Mr Bolduc was the current race leader. But he said that Mr. Morse’s superior fund-raising, which allowed him to buy TV ads, was raising his profile, and predicted that he would continue to gain on Mr. Bolduc.

“Sixty-one percent of the voters are willing to replace Hassan,” Mr. Carney said, referring to the share of voters in the Institute of Politics survey who said that it was time to give someone new a chance to be senator or that they were undecided. “We need to nominate somebody who can do that.” He called Mr. Bolduc a “flawed candidate,” adding, “I don’t think there’s any way in hell he could get conservative Democrats or the vast majority of independents to go his way.”

Mr. Morse had $975,000 in his campaign account as of July, compared with Mr. Bolduc, who had just $65,000. Ms. Hassan’s $7.3 million on hand has allowed her to aggressively spend on TV ads all year, including one promoting her work for people with disabilities that features her son who was born with cerebral palsy.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which this month slashed its planned spending in three battleground states — Pennsylvania, Arizona and Wisconsin — has kept a commitment to spend $6.5 million on the New Hampshire race after the primary, reflecting its belief in Ms. Hassan’s vulnerability.

With the Senate divided 50-50 between the parties and Democrats optimistic about flipping at least one seat, in Pennsylvania, Republicans need to take down two or more Democratic incumbents to win a majority. Their top targets are in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada and New Hampshire.

At the recent debate, the audience was mostly committed supporters of each of the candidates, with few appearing undecided. Bolduc fans dismissed out of hand Mr. Sununu’s view that their candidate would have a hard time in November.

“Sununu is a globalist clown and is not a Republican,” said Kelley Potenza, a candidate for the state House of Representatives who is from Rochester. “He’s afraid because Don Bolduc is the only candidate that’s not going to be controlled.”

In the audience before the lights went down, Bill Bowen, a recent transplant from California and a Morse supporter, said Mr. Bolduc had reached his ceiling in the polls. He said supporters of Mr Bolduc who ignored doubts about his electability in November were misguided.

“That’s all that matters,” he said, adding, “This is the 51st vote,” referring to a potential Republican majority in the Senate.