Categories
Politics

U.S. Carries Out Airstrikes in Iraq and Syria

WASHINGTON – The United States launched air strikes in Iraq and Syria early Monday morning against two Iran-backed militias that the Pentagon said had carried out drone strikes against American personnel in Iraq in recent weeks, the Department of Defense said.

“On orders from President Biden, US forces launched precision air defensive strikes tonight against facilities used by Iran-backed militias in the Iraqi-Syrian border region,” Pentagon spokesman John F. Kirby said in a statement.

Kirby said the facilities were used by Iranian-backed militias, including Kata’ib Hezbollah and Kata’ib Sayyid al-Shuhada, to store weapons and ammunition for attacks on locations where Americans were in Iraq. There have been no immediate reports of casualties, but a post-action military review is ongoing, Pentagon officials said.

The strikes were the second time Mr Biden ordered the use of force in the area. The United States carried out air strikes in eastern Syria in late February against buildings that the Pentagon said were Iran-backed militias responsible for attacks on American and allied personnel in Iraq.

The most recent attacks were carried out by US Air Force fighter-bombers stationed in the area.

Pentagon planners have been collecting information about the websites and militia networks they use for weeks, American officials said on Sunday. Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III and General Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, briefed Mr Biden on the potential for attack earlier last week, and Mr Biden agreed to attack the three targets, officials said.

The strikes came a little over a week after Iranian hardliner Ebrahim Raisi was elected as his next president.

The military action also came when negotiations aimed at bringing the United States and Tehran back into compliance with an international nuclear deal reached a crucial point. President Donald J. Trump pulled the United States out of the deal in 2018, and Mr Biden tried to revive it.

On Sunday, Foreign Minister Antony J. Blinken discussed the nuclear deal negotiations with Israel’s Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, who said Israel had “serious reservations” about the deal, which would ease sanctions against Iran in return for restrictions on its nuclear weapons program.

Earlier this month, the Biden government blocked access to countless websites related to Iran after the nation held a presidential vote to appoint Mr. Raisi, a close ally of the chief leader of the clerical government, as its highest elected official .

For weeks now, there has been pressure from Democrats and Republicans in Congress, as well as some of Mr Biden’s top advisors and commanders, to crack down on American diplomats and the 2,500 US soldiers in Iraq who train and advise Iraqis against the drone threat avenge forces.

At least five times since April, the Iran-backed militias have deployed small, explosive-laden drones that ricochet bombs on their targets during nighttime attacks on Iraqi bases – including those used by the CIA and US special forces. So far, no Americans have been injured in the attacks, but officials are concerned about the precision of the drones, also known as unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs

The drones are part of a rapidly evolving threat from Iranian proxies in Iraq, with militias specializing in using more sophisticated weapons to hit some of the most sensitive American targets in attacks that have escaped US defenses.

Iran, weakened by years of tough economic sanctions, is using its proxy militias in Iraq to increase pressure on the United States and other world powers to negotiate easing these sanctions as part of a possible revival of the 2015 nuclear deal. Iraqi and American officials say Iran developed the drone strikes to minimize the number of casualties in order to avoid US retaliation.

American officials said the attacks – against two targets in eastern Syria and a third just across the border in Iraq – were carried out around 1 a.m. local time by a mix of Air Force F-16 and F-15Es stationed in the region.

The fighter-bombers dropped several bombs – £ 500 and £ 2,000 satellite ammunition – on each of the three structures. American officials said the militias used the targeted sites in Syria primarily for storage and logistics purposes; The site hit in Iraq was used to launch and recover the armed drones that officials said were either made in Iran or used Iranian technology.

Kirby and other government officials called the strikes defensive, but leading lawmakers on Sunday called for more details.

“Congress needs to be notified immediately of these air strikes,” said Senator Tim Kaine, Democrat of Virginia, who has led the struggle to limit the president’s powers of war for a decade on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “If the attacks were against militias using UAVs to attack American personnel, it would be a justified conventional self-defense action. But we need to know more. “

Michael P. Mulroy, a former CIA officer and senior Middle East policy official at the Pentagon, has warned that using the technology provided by the Iranian Quds Force – the outward-facing arm of the Iranian security apparatus – drones are rapidly becoming more sophisticated and relatively minor Costs.

“This action should send a message to Iran that it cannot hide behind its proxy forces to attack the United States and our Iraqi partners,” Mulroy said on Sunday.

But Mr Biden’s top aides have also said they want to avoid the angry rhetorical taunts and threats that Mr Trump often makes with Iran and its deputies in Iraq, and avoid escalating tensions with Tehran at one time in which the White House tries to nail down the nuclear deal.

The February air strikes against the same militias were also a relatively small, carefully calibrated military response: seven 500-pound bombs dropped on a small cluster of buildings at an unofficial border crossing on the Syrian-Iraqi border with the aim of destroying weapons and fighters smuggle.

These earlier attacks took place just across the border in Syria to avoid a diplomatic backlash against the Iraqi government. The same calculation influenced the planning of the attack on Monday – two of the three targets were in Syria along the Iraqi border, and the third was directly on Iraqi territory. The strikes took place early Monday in part to avoid civilian casualties, officials said.

“The United States has taken necessary, appropriate and deliberate measures to limit the risk of escalation – but also to send a clear and unequivocal message of deterrence,” said Kirby.

How the militias and Iran will react is unclear, and American officials said the relatively small air strikes were unlikely to stop the militia strikes entirely. After the February strikes, there was a lull in militias against American sites for weeks, but then an even more dangerous threat emerged: the small armed drones.

Jennifer Steinhauer, Julian Barnes and John Ismay contributed to the coverage.

Categories
Politics

GOP senators say deal can go ahead after Biden walkback

US President Joe Biden speaks with Senator Rob Portman (R-OH) after a bipartisan meeting with US Senators about the proposed framework for the Infrastructure Bill at the White House in Washington, USA, on June 24, 2021.

Kevin Lemarque | Reuters

U.S. Senator Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said Sunday the bipartisan infrastructure deal can move forward after President Joe Biden made it clear he will sign the bill, even if it comes without a reconciliation package.

The president had said last week that he would refuse to sign the deal unless the two bills came together, a remark that angered and surprised Republican lawmakers.

Following backlash from Republicans including Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, Biden released a lengthy statement on Saturday withdrawing the comment and reiterating full support for the deal.

“We were all taken by the comments the day before that these two bills were linked,” Portman said during an interview with ABC’s This Week.

“I’m glad they were decoupled and it is very clear that we can move forward with bipartisan law that is widespread not only among members of Congress but also among the American people,” Portman said. He added that both parties had been “in good faith” throughout the negotiations.

The second bill, known as the American Families Plan, would provide spending on Democratic-backed issues such as climate change, childcare, health care, and education. It would be passed through reconciliation, a process that does not require Republican votes to pass Congress.

Administrative officials have called the problems in the reconciliation package “human infrastructure”, while the bipartisan infrastructure law mainly focuses on improving roads, bridges and broadband.

Senator Bill Cassidy, R-La., Told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday that McConnell was likely to be in favor of the infrastructure deal, but that “he didn’t like the president throwing a wrench in.”

In a statement, Biden said his remarks “gave the impression that I threatened the very plan that I had just agreed to, which was certainly not my intention.”

The president also called on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, DN.Y., to plan the bipartisan deal and reconciliation bill for Senate action, and expects both bills to go to the House of Representatives.

Senator Mitt Romney, R-Utah, a key negotiator on the deal, said he believes enough Republicans will support the infrastructure bill to pass it and he is confident the president will sign it.

“A lot of my colleagues were very concerned about what the president was saying … but I think the water calmed down from what he said on Saturday,” Romney said in an interview with CNN’s State of the Union.

Categories
Politics

Mike Gravel, Unconventional Two-Time period Alaska Senator, Dies at 91

Mr. Gravel drew much more national notice on June 29, 1971. The New York Times and other newspapers were under court injunctions to stop publishing the Pentagon Papers, a secret, detailed government study of the war in Vietnam.

He read aloud from the papers to a subcommittee hearing that he had quickly called after Republicans thwarted his effort to read them to the entire Senate. He read for about three hours, finally breaking down in tears and saying, “Arms are being severed, metal is crashing through human bodies — because of a public policy this government and all of its branches continue to support.” (In a major ruling on press freedom, the injunction against The Times was overturned by the Supreme Court the next day.)

Mr. Gravel acknowledged many years later that his political ambition had led him to express support for the Vietnam War at the start of his political career, although he said he had personally opposed it.

In his 1968 Democratic primary challenge to Senator Ernest Gruening, one of two senators to vote against the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized President Lyndon B. Johnson to use conventional military force in Southeast Asia, Mr. Gravel said the North Vietnamese leader Ho Chi Minh and not the United States was the aggressor. In 2007, while running for president, he told an NPR interviewer, “I said what I said back in 1968 because it was to advance my career.”

He told Salon magazine the same year that Alaskans did not share Mr. Gruening’s opposition to the war at the time, and that “when I ran, being a realistic politician, all I had to do was stand up and not deal with the subject, and people would assume that I was to the right of Ernest Gruening, when in point of fact I was to the left of him.”

Mr. Gravel won that primary, stressing his youth (he was 38 to Mr. Gruening’s 81) and campaigning in the smallest of villages, where he showed a half-hour movie about his campaign. He went on to defeat his Republican rival, Elmer E. Rasmuson, a banker and former mayor of Anchorage, in the general election.

Categories
Politics

Biden commemorates Pleasure Month, names Pulse Nightclub a nationwide memorial

President Joe Biden commemorated Pride Month at the White House Friday and designated the location of the 2016 Pulse Nightclub shooting a national memorial.

Biden signed a bill honoring the 49 people killed in a mass shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida on Nov.

The bill passed the Senate by vote earlier this month and the House of Representatives passed its own version in May.

The president also announced the appointment of Jessica Stern, leader of New York’s human rights group OutRight Action International, as special envoy to the State Department. Stern will help guide U.S. diplomatic efforts to advance the human rights of LGBTQI + people around the world.

Biden signed the bill along with survivors of the shooting and the victim’s family members, as well as members of the Florida Congressional Delegation and the Congressional Equality Caucus.

“The site of the deadliest attack on the LBGTQ + community in American history is now a national memorial,” said Biden.

The President, along with Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg, made remarks who broke barriers by becoming the first openly gay man to serve in the Cabinet. The president was introduced by 16-year-old transgender advocate Ashton Mota. In attendance were LGBTQ + advocates, elected state and local officials, and members of Congress.

“The fact that we are here shows how much change is possible in America,” said Buttigieg on the podium.

Biden is also urged that the Senate pass the Equality Act, a landmark bill on LGBTQ + rights that would create legal protection for LGBTQ + Americans. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives on February 25, but faces an tougher battle in the evenly divided Senate.

He also condemned the recent proliferation of anti-LGBTQ + laws passed in several states. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, 23 states reviewed more than 50 bills targeting transgender youth during the 2021 legislature.

“More than a dozen of them have already passed … let’s get that straight, this is nothing more than bullying disguised as legislation,” Biden said.

Biden also outlined the steps his government has taken to advocate for equality for LGBTQ + Americans. This includes, among other things, the recognition of Pride Month in a proclamation from 1.

“Representation is important, recognition is important. Another thing that matters is results, ”Biden said at the White House. “I am proud to lead the most professional LGBTQ equality administration in US history.”

Categories
Politics

Trump, Looking for to Preserve G.O.P. Sway, Holds First Rally Since Jan. 6

WELLINGTON, Ohio — Former President Donald J. Trump returned to the rally stage on Saturday evening after a nearly six-month absence, his first large public gathering since his “Save America” event on Jan. 6 that resulted in a deadly riot at the Capitol.

On Saturday, the same words — “Save America” — appeared behind Mr. Trump as he addressed a crowd of several thousand at a county fairgrounds in Wellington, Ohio, about 35 miles southwest of Cleveland.

He repeated familiar falsehoods about fraudulent 2020 votes. He attacked Republican officials for refusing to back his effort to overturn the election results — including Representative Anthony E. Gonzalez of Ohio, who voted to impeach Mr. Trump, and whose primary challenger, Max Miller, was the reason for Mr. Trump’s visit. The former president praised Mr. Miller as they appeared onstage together.

Mr. Trump remains the most powerful figure in the Republican Party, with large numbers of G.O.P. lawmakers parroting his lies about a stolen 2020 election and fearful of crossing him, and many in the party waiting to see whether he will run again for the White House in 2024.

Yet in the audience and on the stage, the scene in Ohio on Saturday was reflective of how diminished Mr. Trump has become in his post-presidency, and how reliant he is on a smaller group of allies and supporters who have adopted his alternate reality as their own. One of the event’s headliners was Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, the far-right Republican who has promoted the QAnon conspiracy theory.

Mr. Trump’s speech — low-key, digressive and nearly 90 minutes long — fell flat at times with an otherwise adoring audience. Scores of people left early as he bounced from topic to topic — immigration, Israel, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s protective mask.

“Do you miss me?” Mr. Trump asked in one of his biggest applause lines. “They miss me,” he declared.

In interviews, many in the crowd expressed steadfast belief in Mr. Trump’s election falsehoods, and indulged his rewriting of history on the Capitol mob attack.

Tony Buscemi, 61, a small-business owner from West Bloomfield, Mich., who stood with his daughter, Natalie, in the sun-baked field where Mr. Trump spoke, said he had been at the Capitol on Jan. 6, and he claimed falsely that it had been a “mostly peaceful” gathering.

“People were praying. People were singing,” Mr. Buscemi said, adding that he might have gone inside the building himself had his daughter not persuaded him that it was a bad idea. “There was no insurrection,” he insisted. “I didn’t see anything wrong with it.”

Polling suggests that most Republicans remain skeptical of President Biden’s election victory. Thirty-six percent of Republicans said in a Monmouth University poll released on Monday that Mr. Biden had won the election fairly, while 57 percent said his victory was the result of fraud.

Still, there is evidence that Mr. Trump’s influence over Republican voters is waning — though only slightly.

In late April, 44 percent of Republicans and G.O.P.-leaning independents said in an NBC News poll that they were more supportive of Mr. Trump than of the party itself. A slightly higher share, 50 percent, said they were more apt to support the party.

It was the first time since NBC pollsters began asking the question in early 2019 that as many as half of Republicans said they were more supportive of the party than of the man.

Giovanni Russonello contributed reporting.

Categories
Politics

Biden reiterates assist for bipartisan infrastructure plan, didn’t threaten veto

President Joe Biden on Saturday said he doesn’t plan to veto a bipartisan infrastructure bill if it comes without a reconciliation package, walking back a declaration last week that he would refuse to sign it unless the two bills came in tandem.

The comment angered some Republican lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who said the president was threatening to veto the bipartisan deal in remarks on the Senate floor on Thursday.

“That statement understandably upset some Republicans, who do not see the two plans as linked,” the president said in a statement.

“My comments also created the impression that I was issuing a veto threat on the very plan I had just agreed to, which was certainly not my intent,” the president said.

A bipartisan group of lawmakers closed a deal on an infrastructure initiative Thursday following weeks of negotiations to craft a package that could get through Congress with Republican and Democratic support. The framework will include $579 billion in new spending to improve the country’s roads, bridges and broadband.

The second bill would include funding for Democrat-backed issues like climate change, childcare, health care and education, issues that administration officials have called “human infrastructure.” It would be passed through a Senate process called reconciliation, which doesn’t require Republican votes.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., on Thursday morning said the House would not take up either piece of legislation until both are passed through the Senate. Democrats can’t lose a single vote on a reconciliation bill in the evenly split chamber.

Biden said he will ask Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to schedule the infrastructure plan and the reconciliation bill for action in the Senate and expects them both to go to the House.

“Ultimately, I am confident that Congress will get both to my desk, so I can sign each bill promptly,” Biden said.

Read the president’s full statement here:

On Thursday, I reached a historic agreement with a bipartisan group of Senators on a $1.2 trillion plan to transform our physical infrastructure. The plan would make the largest investment in infrastructure in history, the biggest investment in rail since the creation of Amtrak, and the largest investment in transit ever. It would fix roads and bridges, make critical investments in our clean energy future, and help this country compete with China and other economic rivals. It would replace lead water pipes in our schools and houses, and connect every American to high-speed internet. It would create millions of high-paying jobs that could not be outsourced.

In the days since, the primary focus in Washington has not been about the Plan’s scope, scale or provisions—but rather, how it relates to other legislation before Congress: my American Families Plan. The American Families Plan—which would make historic investments in education, health care, child care, and tax cuts for families, coupled with other investments in care for our seniors, housing, and clean energy—has broad support with the American people, but not among Republicans in Congress.

I have been clear from the start that it was my hope that the infrastructure plan could be one that Democrats and Republicans would work on together, while I would seek to pass my Families Plan and other provisions through the process known as reconciliation. There has been no doubt or ambiguity about my intention to proceed this way.

At a press conference after announcing the bipartisan agreement, I indicated that I would refuse to sign the infrastructure bill if it was sent to me without my Families Plan and other priorities, including clean energy. That statement understandably upset some Republicans, who do not see the two plans as linked; they are hoping to defeat my Families Plan—and do not want their support for the infrastructure plan to be seen as aiding passage of the Families Plan. 

My comments also created the impression that I was issuing a veto threat on the very plan I had just agreed to, which was certainly not my intent. So to be clear: our bipartisan agreement does not preclude Republicans from attempting to defeat my Families Plan; likewise, they should have no objections to my devoted efforts to pass that Families Plan and other proposals in tandem. We will let the American people—and the Congress—decide. 

The bottom line is this: I gave my word to support the Infrastructure Plan, and that’s what I intend to do. I intend to pursue the passage of that plan, which Democrats and Republicans agreed to on Thursday, with vigor. It would be good for the economy, good for our country, good for our people. I fully stand behind it without reservation or hesitation. 

Some other Democrats have said they might oppose the Infrastructure Plan because it omits items they think are important: that is a mistake, in my view. Some Republicans now say that they might oppose the infrastructure plan because I am also trying to pass the American Families Plan: that is also a mistake, in my view. I intend to work hard to get both of them passed, because our country needs both—and I ran a winning campaign for President that promised to deliver on both. No one should be surprised that that is precisely what I am doing. 

I will ask Leader Schumer to schedule both the infrastructure plan and the reconciliation bill for action in the Senate. I expect both to go to the House, where I will work with Speaker Pelosi on the path forward after Senate action. Ultimately, I am confident that Congress will get both to my desk, so I can sign each bill promptly.

Categories
Politics

Biden Walks Again Impromptu Feedback That Imperiled Bipartisan Deal

WASHINGTON – President Biden on Saturday stepped back from comments jeopardizing a bipartisan deal for $ 579 billion in new infrastructure spending, and said in a statement that he “left the impression that I was against the very plan I was about.” had agreed to have issued a threat of veto ”. . “

He added that that was “certainly not my intention”.

The admission was an attempt by the White House to save what for a fleeting moment was one of the signature successes for a president hoping to cement a legacy as a bipartisan deal maker. On Thursday, Mr Biden proudly announced the infrastructure deal in front of the west wing, flanked by an equal number of legislators from both parties.

But in an isolated comment at the end of a press conference an hour later, the president deviated from the script, saying that he would not sign the compromise law that had just been announced unless Congress also passed a larger measure, only for Democrats, by much to enact the remainder of Mr. Biden’s $ 4 trillion economic agenda.

“If this is the only thing I can think of, I won’t sign it,” said Mr Biden, answering a reporter’s question at the time of his legislative agenda. “I’m not just signing the bipartisan law and forgetting the rest.”

In essence, Mr Biden was saying aloud what the Liberals in his party wanted to hear. But in the process, the president detonated a political hand grenade in the middle of his own short-lived victory. His Republican opponents took up his statements to suggest that he had negotiated with bad faith. And moderates – who had just left the White House ceremony – were furious at his suggestion that weeks of work be at the mercy of a Democratic wish list.

“No blackmail deal!” South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Twitter after approving an initial framework this month. “It was never suggested to me during these negotiations that President Biden hold the bipartisan infrastructure proposal hostage unless a liberal reconciliation package was also passed.”

In his statement, Mr Biden accused Republicans of trying to thwart the infrastructure measure in order to build opposition to the larger spending plan. He blamed Republicans for rejecting the bipartisan infrastructure plan for supporting the other bill called the American Families Plan.

Updated

June 25, 2021, 7:09 p.m. ET

“Our bipartisan agreement doesn’t stop Republicans from trying to thwart my family plan,” Biden said, adding, “We’ll let the American people – and Congress – decide.”

But the president also tried to allay concerns among moderate lawmakers who had negotiated the bipartisan measure that he still supports it.

“The bottom line is, I’ve given my word to support the infrastructure plan, and that’s exactly what I intend to do,” wrote Biden. “I intend to vigorously pursue the adoption of this plan, which the Democrats and Republicans agreed on Thursday. It would be good for the economy, good for our country, good for our people. I stand behind it wholeheartedly, without reservation or hesitation. “

On Saturday it was unclear whether Mr Biden had done enough. But the drama doesn’t seem to have failed the deal just yet. Key senators and aides said Saturday they would go ahead, work out details and legislation, and lobby for the 60 votes required to clear the Senate’s filibuster.

Mr Biden will be publicly promoting it with an event in Wisconsin on Tuesday, officials said.

“People are very committed to what we’ve done,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, Democrat of New Hampshire and one of the negotiators. “I didn’t understand that the president was in that position, so I’ll keep working and try to build support for the infrastructure package.”

Legislative text for the bipartisan agreement has yet to be written as Democrats are also working on the second, potentially multi-trillion dollar package that is a priority for liberal lawmakers. But this second package, which is expected to be adopted as part of the reconciliation process, may not be ready for voting until the autumn, given the tough budgetary hurdles it has to overcome.

“There’s no question that there’s still work to be done and he’s ready to roll up his sleeves and work like hell,” said Jen Psaki, White House press secretary, at a briefing Friday.

Categories
Politics

Biden Justice Division suing Georgia over new voting restrictions

The Justice Department is suing Georgia, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced Friday that a recently passed electoral law violates the protection of the voting rights law for minority voters.

“Wherever we see federal law violations, we will act,” Garland said at a press conference.

Garland said Georgia’s electoral reform law was “enacted with the aim of denying or restricting black Georgians the right to vote on the basis of race or color.”

He called the Justice Department’s new lawsuit “the first of many steps we are taking to ensure that all eligible voters can cast a vote,” that all legitimate votes are counted and that every voter has access to accurate information.

CNBC policy

Read more about CNBC’s political coverage:

Garland quit the federal lawsuit about three months after Georgia Republican Governor Brian Kemp signed the GOP-controlled state legislature passed the electoral revision bill.

The law has reportedly enacted a range of restrictive and potentially confusing measures that critics claim will affect voter turnout, especially in democratic and minority urban and suburban counties.

The changes sparked a national outcry among Democrats and constituencies. Large corporations and organizations such as Coca-Cola and the NCAA also protested the Peach State’s actions.

Kemp later disrupted the DOJ’s lawsuit on Friday, accusing Democrats, including President Joe Biden and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, of “armed” the agency.

“This lawsuit is born out of the lies and misinformation that the Biden government urged against Georgia’s electoral integrity law from the outset,” Kemp said in a statement.

“Joe Biden, Stacey Abrams and their allies tried to force an unconstitutional takeover of power by Congress – and failed to overwhelm our democracy.”

The governor insisted that the electoral law he signed should ensure that “it is easy to vote in Georgia and difficult to cheat”.

Kemp’s state isn’t the only one putting voting restrictions in place. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a similar bill in May, while other state parliaments across the country are considering legislation.

In Texas, the Democrats recently thwarted the passage of a restrictive voting law. Republican Governor Greg Abbott has vowed to revive it.

Garland promised Friday that the Biden government’s Justice Department would “look into new laws aimed at restricting voter access”.

Garland said it was cause for celebration that Georgia had a record turnout in the 2020 election. But SB 202, signed in March, contains numerous provisions that “make it difficult for people to vote,” he said.

The historically republican state fell apart for Biden over former President Donald Trump, an angry victory that Trump still rejects.

Trump’s conspiracy theories that widespread fraud were costing him re-election helped fuel restrictive voting laws across the country.

As part of the DOJ’s efforts to protect and expand access to voting, Garland also urged Congress to restore a federal provision that the Supreme Court placed in the landmark Shelby County v. Holder from 2013 defused.

That measure, Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, required that certain jurisdictions’ proposed changes to their electoral rules could not be enforced until they demonstrated to federal authorities that those changes did not deny or restrict voting rights based on race, color, or minority status.

“If Georgia had still been covered by Section 5, SB 202 would likely never have taken effect,” Garland said. “We urge Congress to restore this invaluable tool.”

Garland also said his division’s civil rights division will publish new guidance to ensure post-election audits – several of which are controversial examples running in key states – comply with federal law.

The department is also working on guidelines for early voting and mail-in voting, as well as guidelines clarifying protections for districts when redesigning their maps, Garland said.

The attorney general also noted a “dramatic increase in threats and violent threats” against election officials at all levels, “from senior administrators to volunteer electoral workers”.

Assistant Attorney General Lisa Monaco will issue an order directing federal prosecutors to prioritize investigations into these threats, Garland said.

The Democratic leaders and the Biden government have pushed for the passage of a comprehensive bill to revise the electoral rules. They argue that legislation known as the “For The People Act” provides a variety of safeguards to protect voters from repression and other attacks on the right to vote.

Republicans have criticized the “radical” law as a naked seizure of power that would overturn all elections in favor of the Democrats.

The Republicans in the Senate blocked the submission of the bill in their chamber on Tuesday.

Categories
Politics

What Does Eric Adams, Working-Class Champion, Imply for the Democrats?

He bluntly challenged leftist leaders in his party on police and public safety issues. He advertised in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, and often ignored Manhattan’s neighborhoods next to Harlem and Washington Heights. And he described himself as a blue-collar candidate with a keen personal understanding of the challenges and worries faced by working-class New Yorkers of color.

With his sizable early lead in Tuesday night’s Democratic mayoral election when the votes were counted, Brooklyn borough president Eric Adams demonstrated the enduring power of a candidate who can and can connect with black and Latin American working class and middle class voters at the same time appeals to some white voters with moderate views.

Mr. Adams is not yet sure of victory. But if he prevails, it would be a triumph for a campaign more focused on these constituencies than any other victorious New York mayoral candidate in recent history.

As the national Democratic Party debates identity and ideology, the mayoral election in the largest city in the United States raises critical questions about who base the party on and who speaks best for them in the Biden era.

Barely a year has passed since President Biden won the Democratic nomination, defeating several more progressive rivals across the board for the support of black voters and older moderate voters, and running for the working class himself. But the Democrats are now struggling to hold together a coalition that includes liberal and centrist college graduates, young left activists, and colored working class voters.

“America says we want justice and security and end inequalities,” said Adams at a press conference on Thursday and offered his opinion on the direction of the party. “And we don’t want fancy candidates.”

Mr Adams’ allies and advisers say he based his campaign strategy from the start on connecting with colored voters of the working and middle classes.

“For the past few cycles, mayor’s race winners have generally started on a whiter, more affluent base and then expanded,” said Evan Thies, a spokesman and advisor for Adams. Mr Adams’ campaign, he said, began “with black, Latino and immigrant low-income, middle-income communities and then reached middle-income communities.”

Mr. Adams would be the second black mayor of New York after David N. Dinkins. Mr. Dinkins, who described the city as “a beautiful mosaic,” was more focused than Mr. Adams on winning over liberal white voters.

Mr Adams was the first choice of about 32 percent of the New York Democrats who voted in person on Tuesday or during the early parliamentary term. Maya Wiley, a former lawyer for Mayor Bill de Blasio and a progressive favorite, received about 22 percent of that vote. Kathryn Garcia, a former hygiene officer who touted her leadership experience, received 19.5 percent.

According to the city’s new ranking electoral system, in which voters can nominate up to five candidates, the candidate of the Democrats is now determined by a process of elimination. Ms. Garcia or Ms. Wiley could ultimately outperform Mr. Adams, although this seems like an uphill battle and a final winner may not be determined for weeks.

If Mr. Adams wins, it will be in part because he had great institutional advantages.

He was well financed and spent a lot on advertising. He received the support of several of the city’s most influential unions, representing many black and Latin American New Yorkers. His name was known even after years in city politics, including as a senator.

And although some of the most prominent members of the New York Congress delegation supported Ms. Wiley as their first choice, Mr. Adams received other important endorsements, including that of the District Presidents of Queens and Bronx and of Rep. Adriano Espaillat, the first Dominican-American member of Congress and a powerful one Figure in Washington Heights.

Equally important was that Mr. Adams was perceived as credible in the eyes of his followers on what turned out to be the most momentous and divisive issue in the race: public safety.

Mr. Adams, who experienced economic hardship as a child and said he was once beaten by the police, grew up to join the police and was promoted to captain. Critics within the ministry saw him as something of a riot, while many progressive voters now think that his answers to complex problems too often include an emphasis on law enforcement.

But he has long since cemented his reputation with some voters as someone who questions wrongdoing within the system and gives him the power to speak out about the fight against crime.

“He’s been with the police, he knows what they represent,” said Gloria Dees, 63, a Brooklyn resident who voted for Mr. Adams, describing how deeply she was about both rising crime and police violence against black people is concerned. “You have to understand something to make it work better.”

Polls this spring showed that in the face of random underground attacks, a flurry of prejudice and an increase in shootouts, public safety is becoming an increasingly important issue for Democratic voters. On the Sunday before the primary, campaign workers announced that a volunteer had been stabbed to death in the Bronx.

“Being an ex-cop while having security and justice was a message that resonated with the people of the Bronx,” said MP Karines Reyes, a Democrat who represents parts of the county and who did not support anyone in the race. Mr. Adams won the Bronx by an overwhelming majority in the first vote count. “You’re looking for someone to tackle the crime.”

The city’s violent crime rate is well below the level it was decades ago, but there have been shootings in some neighborhoods and older voters in particular are deeply afraid of going back to the “bad old days”.

Donovan Richards, Queens County President and a supporter of Mr. Adams, cited the recent fatal shooting of a 10-year-old boy in the Rockaways as something that struck many people in the area.

“We’re still a long way from where we were in the 80s or 70s,” he said. But, he added, “When you see a shootout ahead, nobody cares about statistics.”

Thursday’s interviews with voters on both sides of Eastern Parkway in Brooklyn vividly demonstrated the attractiveness and limitations of Mr. Adams. In parts of Crown Heights, initial results show that the parkway was a physical dividing line between voters who voted for Ms. Wiley and those who preferred Mr. Adams.

Among the older colored working class voters south of the Parkway, Mr. Adams held a leading position.

“He’s going to support the poor people and the blacks and browns,” said one, Janice Brathwaite, 66, who is disabled, and said she voted for Mr. Adams.

Ms. Brathwaite expelled Ms. Wiley after hearing about her plans to overhaul the police department, including reallocating $ 1 billion from the police budget to social services and anti-violence measures.

“She is someone who is against the cop, who protects me and makes sure no one shoots me,” said Ms. Brathwaite.

Ms. Wiley has said there are times when armed officers are needed, but she has also argued that in some cases, mental health experts can be more effective in stopping crime.

This approach appealed to Allison Behringer, 31, an audio journalist and podcast producer who lives north of the Parkway, where Mr. Adams’ challenges could be seen among some of the young professionals who live in the area.

“She was the best progressive candidate,” said Ms. Behringer of Ms. Wiley, who she rated as her first choice. “She talked about rethinking what public safety is, that really appealed to me.”

Ms. Behringer alluded to ethical concerns raised about Mr. Adams. He’s been scrutinizing his taxes, real estate holdings, fundraising practices, and residence.

A new round of voting results to be released on Tuesday will provide further clarity about the race. You can show whether these problems harm Mr. Adams among some very dedicated voters in Manhattan and elsewhere. The new results could also suggest whether Ms. Wiley or Ms. Garcia had a broad enough pull to take his lead.

As in Brooklyn, there was a clear geographic divide between voters in Manhattan: East 96th Street, with those who preferred Ms. Garcia first being mostly in the south, and those who preferred Mr. Adams or Ms. Wiley higher up .

Ms. Garcia, a relatively moderate technocrat who was supported, among other things, by the editorial staff of the New York Times, won Manhattan easily. Like Ms. Wiley, she hopes to beat Mr. Adams by being the second choice of many voters and getting unmatched absentee votes.

One afternoon that month in Harlem, Carmen Flores had just cast her early vote for Mr. Adams when she came across one of his rallies. She said she found his trajectory inspiring.

“He comes from below,” she said, adding, “He was in every facet of life.”

Regardless of the final vote, Democratic strategists warn against drawing far-reaching political conclusions from the local elections following the June pandemic. If Mr. Adams becomes mayor, as the Democratic candidate almost certainly will, progressive leaders can still point to signs of strength in other city races and elsewhere in the state.

When asked about the mayor’s race, Waleed Shahid, a spokesman for the leftist organization Justice Democrats, said “scare tactics work when crime rises” and noted that several leftist candidates were leading their races in the city.

He also argued that some people who supported Mr. Adams might have done so for non-ideological reasons.

“There may be some voters who voted for Eric Adams because of his political platform,” said Shahid. “But there are probably many more voters who voted for Eric Adams based on their feelings for him. It is often whether they identify with a candidate. “

Nate Schweber contributed to the coverage.

Categories
Politics

Vice President Kamala Harris visits the U.S.-Mexico border as immigration disaster continues

Vice President Kamala Harris made her first visit as Vice President to the US-Mexico border on Friday, touring immigration facilities and meeting with young women.

Speaking to reporters after her tour, Harris said the border trip increased the need to address the root causes of the surge in undocumented migrants from Central America.

“The lack of economic opportunity, very often violence, corruption and food insecurity,” said Harris, “including fear of cartels and gang violence.”

“The work we have to do is address the root causes or else we will continue to see the effects of what is happening at the border,” she said. “It will, as we have done, require a comprehensive approach that recognizes every part of it.”

Earlier this year, President Joe Biden appointed Harris to work to address these causes. In June, she visited Guatemala and Mexico, where she delivered a blunt message to potential migrants.

“I want to make it clear to people in the region who are considering making this dangerous hike to the US-Mexico border, don’t come. Don’t come,” Harris said at a press conference in Guatemala on June 7th. “I think if you get to our border, you will be rejected.”

Harris had been criticized by Republicans in recent weeks for not having personally visited the US-Mexico border.

The White House said Harris always plans to make the trip at the right time. However, the June 25 election may have been influenced by former President Donald Trump’s announcement on Tuesday to visit the June 30 border with Texas GOP Governor Greg Abbott.

A day after Trump announced his upcoming trip, the White House said Harris would visit the border on June 25. Harris’ trip took the White House press corps by surprise. Typically, West Wing aides brief a small group of reporters at least a week in advance of the President and Vice President’s travel plans to give news agencies time to organize their coverage.

Harris denied on Friday that Trump’s plans had any impact on her schedule.

“I said I was going to the border in March, so this is not a new plan,” Harris told reporters after landing in Texas. “Coming to the border … means looking at the effects of what we’ve seen in Central America.”

However, the White House said El Paso’s choice to visit was actually influenced by the former president. In his 2019 State of the Union address, Trump claimed his border wall had turned El Paso from a criminal city into a safe city that angered residents.

Biden and Harris have been criticized for pulling back on Trump-era restrictive immigration policies, even though immigrant detentions on the U.S.-Mexico border have hit 20-year highs in recent months.

Immigration remains a hot topic for both sides. Democrats and pro-immigrant activists have urged Biden to further reduce enforcement and ensure humane treatment of migrant children and families who arrive at the border.

White House officials have said for months that Harris’ efforts to curb immigration from Central America are diplomatic-centered and distinct from border security issues.

“The Vice President’s trip to Guatemala and Mexico earlier this year was about the causes, and this border visit is about the effects,” their spokesman, Symone Sanders, told reporters on Thursday. “Both trips will influence the government’s cause strategy.”

– Reuters correspondent Nandita Bose contributed to this report.