Google appears to dodge disaster as justices review tech law

The Supreme Court appears unlikely to gut tech companies’ coveted legal protections that cover how they recommend and curate content for users.

Despite widespread fear in the tech community about such a blow, a majority of the justices during oral arguments Tuesday seemed reluctant to upend almost three decades of legal precedent that has effectively immunized search engines and social media companies from liability for their decisions about policing content, including practices that amplify or hide particular posts.

The case before the high court — Gonzalez v. Google — seeks to hold Google’s YouTube liable for the death of Nohemi Gonzalez, a California college student killed in a 2015 terrorist attack in Paris blamed on ISIS. Her family claims Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act doesn’t protect YouTube’s use of algorithms to recommend ISIS recruitment content to users.

Both liberal and conservative justices suggested Congress is the best body to amend Section 230, not the courts. Justice Elena Kagan warned it would be best for lawmakers to take a scalpel to the law — whereas the court’s reinterpretation of the statute could upend years of legal precedence and lead to a deluge of lawsuits.

“We’re a court. We really don't know about these things. These are not like the nine greatest experts on the internet,” Kagan said, prompting laughter from across the courtroom and the bench.

Even Justice Clarence Thomas — who for years had urged in separate dissents for the court to take up a Section 230 case — seemed unconvinced that algorithms aren’t covered by the liability shield. “I see these as suggestions and not really recommendations, because they don't really comment on them,” Thomas said of YouTube’s use of algorithms to promote videos.

Thomas also said he didn't see the ties between YouTube’s use of algorithms to recommend ISIS videos as a “aiding and abetting” terrorism under the Anti-Terrorism Act when YouTube relies on a neutral algorithm to recommend content.

“I'm trying to get you to explain to us how something that is standard on YouTube for virtually anything that you have an interest in suddenly amounts to aiding and abetting because you're in the ISIS category,” the conservative justice said.

Kagan, an appointee of President Barack Obama, said she didn’t have to accept the tech industry's “sky is falling” arguments to accept that “there is uncertainty about going the way [the plaintiff] would have us go, in part just because of the difficulty of drawing lines in this area.”

“Once we go with you, all of a sudden, we're finding that Google isn't protected, and maybe Congress should want that system. But isn't that something for Congress to decide, not the court?” she said to Eric Schnapper, a University of Washington law professor representing the Gonzalez family.

Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought up the concerns raised by many tech companies in their amicus briefs that a completely different interpretation could “really crash the digital economy.”

“Those are serious concerns and concerns that Congress — if it were to take a look at this and try to fashion something along the lines of what [the plaintiff] is saying could account for — we are not equipped to account for that,” the conservative justice said.

Despite expectations that the conservative justices would aggressively challenge Google’s claim for far-ranging legal immunity, the most hostile and outspoken voice Tuesday against the firm and the tech industry’s broader arguments was Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who’s emerging as one of the high court’s most liberal members.

Jackson, the court’s only justice appointed by President Joe Biden, repeatedly argued that tech companies’ protection from liability should be limited to the actual hosting and transmission of user-created content, with all decisions about how to organize, rank and display that content subject to potential litigation under ordinary legal standards.

Jackson said the broad protection Google was claiming “seems to bear no relationship to the text of the statute.” She insisted the primary purpose of the law was to encourage policing of “offensive” content and that the result the tech firms were seeking would have the perverse effect of immunizing companies when they deliberately amplify inflammatory videos or other posts.

“What the people who were crafting this statute were worried about was filth on the internet,” said Jackson. “That seems to me to be a very narrow scope of immunity that doesn’t cover whether you were making recommendations or promoting it. … How is that even conceptually consistent with what it looks as though this statute was about?”

Google’s lawyer, Lisa Blatt of Williams & Connolly, said the law had dual purposes and one key part was to promote robust debate in a critical field of emerging technology.

“This is about diversity of viewpoints, jumpstarting an industry having information flourishing on the internet and free speech,” Blatt said.

Even Justice Samuel Alito, who has appeared skeptical of protections for tech firms in other contexts, said he was baffled by the argument made by Schnapper that Section 230 gives immunity for hosting others’ content and for search engine activities, but not for implicit or explicit recommendations.

“I don’t know where you’re drawing the line. That’s the problem,” Alito said.

The Biden administration largely sided with the Gonzalez family on the central question at issue at the high court, arguing that the Section 230 protections should not extend beyond simple hosting of third-party content. However, Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart told the court that even without immunity for recommendations or curation of content, tech firms would only rarely be liable for such activity.

But Kagan and Kavanauagh warned that even a small opening for such litigation could have a dramatic effect on the internet ecosystem and potentially swallow up the protections Congress was trying to grant to companies hosting other people’s content.

“You can't present this content without making choices,” Kagan said. “But still, I mean, you are creating a world of lawsuits really anytime you have content.”

How the Supreme Court rules in Gonzalez could also relate to its conclusions about a similar tech case scheduled for arguments Wednesday — Twitter v. Taamneh. That case asks whether Twitter, Google and Facebook can be held liable under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act for allegedly aiding and abetting terrorists by sharing ISIS recruitment content.

The decision in Tuesday’s case could also tee up the justices for a potential ruling in two other cases the court punted to next term involving GOP-backed laws from Texas and Florida that ban platforms from removing users’ viewpoints and deplatforming candidates. The companies contend that the laws violate their free speech rights.

The pair of tech-related disputes being argued this week are the first closely-watched cases the justices have taken up this year, after hearing attention-grabbing cases last fall about redistricting procedures and the power of state legislatures over Congressional elections. Next week, the high court is to take up one of the cases of most intense interest to the Biden administration: the president’s controversial plan to forgive the college debt of many students.

So far, the court has issued only one substantive opinion, a unanimous ruling in an obscure case. Rulings in all the cases argued this term are expected between March and June.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/M4cBsqE
via IFTTT

Read More

In Europe, Biden makes his pitch to be democracy’s general

WARSAW — Eleven months ago, President Joe Biden came to Poland to denounce a war he’d hoped to avoid. On Tuesday, he returned having fully embraced the mantle of wartime leader, boasting of a U.S.-led Western response that blunted Vladimir Putin’s invasion and slowed the march of global authoritarianism.

Having stood in sunny and free Kyiv the day before — nearly a year after the war began — Biden in Warsaw was steeled for a fight he intends to see through while in the Oval Office. He may not be commanding troops in this battle, but he is acting like democracy’s civilian general, commanding an alliance strung together by geography, fear and necessity.

“NATO is more united and more unified than ever before,” Biden said. “The democracies of the world have grown stronger, not weaker. The autocrats of the world have grown weaker, not stronger.”

The feeling behind those words reflected the long-held views of a devout transatlanticist, a man who was 3 years old when World War II ended. Biden grew up in an era of American military and economic domination bolstered by partners across the Atlantic. The mission to safeguard Europe from tyranny since the 1940s has expanded worldwide, leading the United States to defend the “rules-based international order” it created against those opposed to free markets and free societies.

A fortification of that order, maintained through the sanctity of alliances, is central to the president’s entire foreign policy. And the war in Ukraine for Biden is a test of whether the U.S. is, in some respects, the nation of yesteryear. Can it stand for something, inspire and lead? Can it still be a force for good? Can it prolong global democracy’s flickering flame?

The president held that the answers to those questions were yes, yes and yes.

“When Russia invaded, it wasn’t just Ukraine being tested. The whole world faced a test for the ages,” Biden said. “Europe was being tested. America was being tested. NATO was being tested. All democracies were being tested. And the questions we face are as simple as they are profound: Would we respond, or would we look the other way?”

“One year later, we know the answer: We did respond. We would be strong, we would be united, and the world would not look the other way.”

To celebrate the 75th anniversary of the alliance, Biden also announced the United States will host the NATO summit next year.

Hours before the speech, national security adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters Biden wanted to stand in Europe to affirm “what is at stake here is more than just the success and survival of the nation of Ukraine, but the rules-based international order, the fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity and the fundamental values of independence, democracy, freedom that matter so much to everyday American people.”

“The president has believed passionately in the themes … for decades,” Sullivan said, applying them now at what Biden terms “an inflection point in history.”

Biden’s allies say he struck the right notes both in Ukraine and Poland. “The president’s address makes clear to Russia and other aggressors watching how steep the price will be for those who threaten freedom and democracy,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), who chairs the Foreign Relations Committee’s Europe panel.

Despite the somber reason for his visit to Kyiv — the one-year anniversary of Russian troops, tanks, warplanes and missiles crossing into Ukraine — Biden displayed a joyous bounce as he wandered through the city. He stood alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy even as air-raid sirens blared throughout the capital, a reminder that Russia still holds 20 percent of Ukraine and threatens nearly all of it with its weapons, terrorizing civilians daily. It was the first time a modern-day president traveled to a warzone the U.S. military didn’t control.

Biden’s lifted spirit drew from the symbolism of his lengthy and clandestine journey on “Rail Force One.” He was there as a physical representation of America’s continued commitment to Ukraine — “as long as it takes,” is his mantra — and rebuke to Putin. The Kremlin boss has unleashed war criminals, mercenaries and conscripts to unseat Zekenskyy, the same man with whom Biden was coordinating, congratulating and consoling.

The images beamed around the world were meant to deliver one message: These were two presidents on America’s Presidents’ Day showing a thug what true leadership looked like. It was, after all, only a year ago when Biden, also standing outside Warsaw’s Royal Palace, said that Putin “cannot remain in power.”

This year, with the palace garden surroundings lit up in blue and yellow and in front of a roaring crowd waving American, Polish and Ukrainian flags, Biden reported that “Kyiv stands strong, it stands proud and it stands free.”

But with the pageantry ending, and the drama receding, what remains are questions about how Biden can repeat his performance in the year ahead. The fear from within and outside the administration is that a weakened Russia could still deal Biden a setback as the brutal war of attrition drags on.

Putin, for all his struggles, hit similar notes of confidence, including during his State of the Union speech Tuesday which he moved up to pre-rebut Biden’s Warsaw address. "Step by step, we will accomplish all our tasks carefully and consistently," he said before falsely accusing the West of starting the war. "We are using force to stop it." He spiked tensions further by suspending the last-remaining nuclear treaty between the U.S. and Russia, the same one he and Biden extended for five years in 2021.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken called Putin’s decision “deeply unfortunate and irresponsible.”

With no end in sight, and no peace deal Ukraine could likely accept, Biden needs European allies to hold strong for months, maybe years. Officials from this continent say they were lucky the winter season was relatively mild, allowing Europeans to withstand high energy prices and cold snaps. But another 365 days of shivers and thinning wallets could see continental voters turn against their governments.

One of Biden’s audiences was back home: the bipartisan congressional coalition supporting Kyiv has largely held, though isolationist voices in the GOP have grown louder. And, as Biden’s likely reelection bid approaches, polls suggest Americans are cooling on sending money to Kyiv. Biden also aimed, subtly, at Beijing. He suggested China should not increase its aid to Moscow, again framing the generational struggle between democracies and autocracies.

But it is unclear if the West’s arsenal of democracy can keep up with demand. At the Munich Security Conference, held days before Biden’s trip, European leaders like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and French President Emmanuel Macron echoed that their weapons-production lines weren’t humming along as desired for Ukraine’s and their own security. Macron implored Europe “to invest more in defense. If we want peace, we need the means to achieve it.”

Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.), part of the U.S. congressional delegation to the conference, worried about America’s ability to fill at least part of that gap. “The burn rate is very unsustainable,” he said in an interview there, as Ukrainian troops “are firing more munitions than we can produce. We can't create, in the short term, a larger pipeline. The industrial base cannot do it.”

“The way we fix that is we actually train them on fire and maneuver and advanced tactics that use substantially less ammunition to achieve the same or greater result,” the House Armed Services Committee member and veteran said.

This week also featured some slight cracks in American and European rhetoric regarding Russia. The Biden administration repeats that it seeks Moscow’s “strategic defeat,” depleting it of the resources to sustain a modern economy, an equipped military and system of kleptocracy that keeps Putin in control. But in an interview with a French newspaper this week, Macron called on the West to help Ukraine win the war but not “crush” Russia. That followed his comments last year that Moscow should not be “humiliated over its invasion.”

Tending to America’s vast and varied allies is paramount for Biden, though there have been missteps along the way. Some allies raged then, and still do now, about his withdrawal from Afghanistan, and France was irate after being cut out of a nuclear submarine deal with Australia.

But what the president showcased in Poland was lockstep support for the transatlantic bond that undergirds his defense of Ukrainian and global democracy from behind the Resolute Desk.

“The stakes are eternal,” said Biden. “The choice between chaos and stability, between building and destroying, between hope and fear, between democracy that lifts up the human spirit and the brutal hand of the dictator that crushes it.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/YOtcaFZ
via IFTTT

Read More

Capitol security officials surprised by McCarthy-Carlson deal on Jan. 6 footage

On Monday, the Fox News host described his producers’ access as “unfettered."

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/zKfg0NF
via IFTTT

Read More

DOT pledges new actions on hazardous trains, asks Congress and industry to also take steps

DOT said Tuesday that it plans to issue new rules on train brakes and other items in the wake of the Feb. 3 derailment in East Palestine, Ohio and is also calling for action from Congress and the firefight rail industry.

DOT says it will pursue rulemaking on high-hazard flammable trains and electronically controlled pneumatic brakes. It did not specify what the rule would do, but it will likely hew to a 2015 rule that was withdrawn under the Trump administration that would have required some trains carrying hazardous materials to install this type of brake.

They’ll also initiate focused safety inspection programs on train routes over which hazardous materials travel as well as of older tank cars “and the shippers and railroads who have chosen not to upgrade to the safer tank cars.”

DOT also highlighted a rule in the works to require a minimum train crew of two people, which industry has opposed, and pledged to spend resources from the 2021 infrastructure law that can be spent on rail safety improvements.

DOT also wants railroads to give state authorities a heads-up when hazardous gas tank cars will be passing through. DOT said it's also working on requiring this through regulation, "but railroads should not wait."

The department is asking the railroads — including but not limited to Norfolk Southern — to do the following:

— Proactively let state emergency response teams know when they are transporting tank cars with hazardous gases through their states;

— Join FRA’s whistleblower protection program, which many smaller railroads and passenger railroads participate in but which the major freights do not;

— Deploy automated track inspection technology without asking to get rid of human inspectors;

— Move up the phase-in of safer, more durable tank cars that railroads had lobbied to delay until 2029, currently slated for 2025; and

— Provide workers paid sick leave, the unfinished business of the resolution of the strike threat last year.

What DOT wants from Congress: DOT called on Congress to increase maximum fines for rail safety violations from the current $225,455 cap, which the agency called “a rounding error” for profitable companies.

In a letter Sunday to Norfolk Southern CEO Alan Shaw, Pete Buttigieg noted the railroad’s “exceptionally profitable business,” running a 38 percent operating margin and issuing $18 billion in stock buybacks and dividends over the last five years — “reportedly twice as much as the amount Norfolk Southern invested in its railways and operations.”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/F3JTsiw
via IFTTT

Read More

GOP lawmakers seek investigation of ‘unauthorized’ disclosure of their Air Force records

Two Republican lawmakers say the Air Force alerted them that their military records were improperly released during the midterm campaign.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) was informed of the “unauthorized release” in a letter from the Air Force obtained by POLITICO. Rep. Zach Nunn (R-Iowa) said in a statement that he was told by the Air Force that his own records were also disclosed without his approval.

Bacon said Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall first told him that an internal probe revealed 11 people’s records were disclosed and that the Air Force would send the results of its inquiry to the Justice Department — while offering no further information on whether a formal DOJ investigation would result. The GOP lawmaker called for a probe of the role played by a Democratic-linked firm that the Air Force told him “inappropriately requested” his personnel records.

The DOJ declined to comment. Air Force spokesperson Ann Stefanek said “virtually all” of the 11 unapproved releases were made to the same third party “who represented himself as a background investigator seeking service records for employment purposes.”

The revelation follows the uproar over the disclosure of Indiana House GOP candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green’s military records after POLITICO reported on them in October. And it promises to intensify Republicans’ already keen interest in investigating whether other sitting members of Congress were affected — as well as the role that a Democratic-linked research firm played in the episode.

The Air Force launched its audit after the disclosure of Green’s records, according to Stefanek.

The Feb. 7 letter Bacon received from the Air Force names Abraham Payton of the research firm Due Diligence LLC as the person who “inappropriately requested copies of your military personnel records for the stated purpose of employment and benefits,” adding that Payton was already in possession of Bacon’s Social Security number. Payton is a former research director for the Democratic political group American Bridge.

Both Bacon and Nunn are calling for an investigation into whether political opposition research turned into illegal activity.

“I understand the evidence has been turned over to the Department of Justice and I expect those who break the law to be prosecuted,” Bacon said in a statement to POLITICO. “This was more than just ‘dirty tricks’ by Democrat operatives, but likely violations of the law.”

Nunn also suggested that the disclosure of his records amounted to criminal activity.

“The recent targeting of Members of Congress’s personnel military records [and] the breach of sensitive data … taken by political hacks isn’t only a violation of public trust — it’s criminal,” he said in a statement.

How it began

Bacon said the Air Force began looking into the matter in response to what happened to Green, who lost a battleground-district race in November to Rep. Frank Mrvan (D-Ind.).

The Air Force publicly acknowledged the unauthorized release of Green’s records to "a third party," though it did not specify whether that person was the same individual who provided them to POLITICO during the campaign.

POLITICO was told by the person who gave it Green’s military records that they were obtained through a public records request. POLITICO reviewed the request for the records made by a third party, which sought a “publicly releasable/redacted copy of OMPF [Official Military Personnel File] per Freedom of Information Act statutes.” The requester identified the purpose of the request as relating to “benefits,” “employment” and “other.”

POLITICO also reviewed the letter sent in response to the requester. A military employee responded with a password-protected version of the file with limited redactions. After publication, the Air Force said it erred in releasing the records and launched an investigation.

Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, said in an October statement that a “preliminary” inquiry found Green’s “service record was released to a third party by a junior individual who didn't follow proper procedures and obtain required consent.”

After POLITICO’s initial reporting on Green’s Air Force records, Green responded that the material was "illegally" obtained. Her records referenced a sexual assault she experienced during her time in service.

Green blamed Mrvan and his allies for the release. Mrvan's campaign has denied any involvement, and a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee told Fox News at the time that “we would never use anyone’s experience with sexual assault against them.”

Green spokesperson Kevin Hansberger said in a statement last week that the release of her “and other Republicans’ personal records is reprehensible and illegal.”

“There must be full transparency of the investigation and its findings. Those responsible for these illegal acts should face criminal charges and be held accountable for their actions,” Hansberger added.

Hansberger reiterated Green’s previous argument that political opponents were behind the release of her records, saying that the incident shows that Democrats “will go to any lengths necessary, even breaking the law, to protect their interests.”

DCCC did not return a request for comment on whether it received and used materials provided by Due Diligence Group during the 2022 midterms. According to Federal Election Commission records, the House Democratic campaign arm paid Due Diligence just over $110,000 between January 2021 and December 2022.

Due Diligence’s website states that it uses “public records research to provide our clients with the knowledge and insights needed to drive strategic decision making.”

It’s unclear whether Payton and Due Diligence were the only third-party entities that sought the service records.

Stefanek, the Air Force spokesperson, said in a response to written questions: “Virtually all unauthorized disclosures were in response to a third party who represented himself as a background investigator seeking service records for employment purposes through a process commonly used by other federal agencies to conduct employee background checks.”

Due Diligence did not respond to requests for comment. Payton, whom POLITICO attempted to reach at an email address connected to Due Diligence, did not respond to a request for comment.

Tracking the extent of the releases

The Republican chairs of the House Oversight and Armed Services Committees publicly revealed last week that the Air Force had improperly released the records of 11 people to “a private research firm which allegedly misrepresented itself in order to obtain access.” That GOP letter also identified Due Diligence as the firm that obtained Green’s records.

Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) and Oversight Chair James Comer (R-Ky.) asked Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin in their letter last week for the full list of people affected by improper records disclosures.

The House GOP duo also sought details on any actions — “administrative or punitive” — taken against those involved in the unauthorized release, and whether any criminal referrals have taken place regarding the matter.

“This news comes on the heels of a prior admission by the Air Force to having inappropriately released the [military personnel files] of former Republican Congressional candidate Jennifer-Ruth Green to the very same research firm, Due Diligence Group,” Rogers and Comer wrote. “That disclosure served to revictimize a servicemember by releasing details about her sexual assault.”

The House GOP committee chairs mentioned only Due Diligence in their letter, not Payton. Additionally, Nunn provided no further information regarding the notification he received of the unauthorized release.

Rogers and Comer asked the Pentagon chief to provide further information by Feb. 27, arguing that “it is essential that the men and women of the Armed Forces trust their leadership’s ability to protect private personnel data from improper disclosure.”

POLITICO contacted more than a dozen House Republican lawmakers and 2022 candidates who served in the Air Force to ask whether the military has notified them of an authorized disclosure similar to those experienced by Green, Bacon and Nunn. None replied in the affirmative.

The releases of records occurred between October 2021 and October 2022, according to Air Force spokesperson Stefanek.

“Department of the Air Force employees did not follow proper procedures requiring the member's authorizing signature consenting to the release of information. There was no evidence of political motivation or malicious intent on the part of any employee,” Stefanek wrote.

She added that the “Air Force takes full responsibility for releasing the personally identifiable information of these individuals. Records-release procedures have been improved by elevating the approval level for release of information to third parties and conducting intensified retraining for personnel who handle record requests.”

The letter Bacon received from the Air Force’s Texas-based personnel center states that its investigation revealed “no criminal action or malicious intent” on the part of the military employee who released his information.

Bacon, however, is pushing for more information on whether the DCCC or the Democratic-linked House Majority super PAC played any role in the military’s releases of the information.

House Majority PAC said it had no relationship with Due Diligence during the 2022 campaign cycle and did not use the firm’s work in any activity on the Green-Mrvan race.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/GHJCTXw
via IFTTT

Read More

A new nonprofit group is helping DeSantis go national

A newly launched nonprofit group is supporting Ron DeSantis’ national political activity — a major sign of the growing political apparatus around the Florida governor as he moves toward a 2024 presidential bid.

The nonprofit organization, called “And to the Republic,” hosted three events DeSantis held Monday in New York, Chicago and Philadelphia, where he spoke before law enforcement officers. A person familiar with the group said it was "proud to help host the events today featuring Governor Ron DeSantis that put a spotlight on those state policies that are working and those that are clearly not working."

And to the Republic is registered as a 501(c)(4) issue advocacy organization — a type of nonprofit that doesn't have to disclose its donors but can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money advocating for policies it supports.

The person familiar with the nonprofit noted that it plans to host events with politicians other than DeSantis in the future, and it has invited other governors to join events similar to the ones DeSantis spoke at this week. But with the new group, DeSantis joins a slate of other Republican presidential contenders, including former Vice President Mike Pence and former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley, who are benefitting from nonprofit issue advocacy groups. Some of the nonprofits have been active for years, supporting their policies, raising money, building large email lists and paying staff that will form the backbones of presidential campaigns launched later this year.

Corporate records in Michigan show that the new group, which has also launched a bare-bones website, formed on Jan. 30.

The outfit is overseen by Tori Sachs, a Michigan-based Republican strategist who has been a longtime adviser to GOP Rep. John James. Sachs has also worked for several conservative issue advocacy groups, including Michigan Freedom Fund and Michigan Rising Action.

Those briefed on And to the Republic’s plans say it is expected to hold additional events supporting DeSantis. The person familiar with the organization said it would be "announcing events for the future in the coming weeks and months." An Eventbrite page lists the group as the host of an upcoming event for the governor in North Venice, Fla.

DeSantis is taking steps to raise his national visibility ahead of a likely presidential bid. Next week, he is launching a new book, "The Courage to be Free: Florida's Blueprint for America's Revival." And later this week, DeSantis is hosting a three-day donor retreat at the Four Seasons Palm Beach, which is expected to draw around 150 supporters.

Should he enter the race for the White House, DeSantis would start as the leading GOP rival to former President Donald Trump — who has in turn derided the governor on social media as "disloyal," "Meatball Ron" and "Ron DeSanctimonious."

DeSantis, who is not expected to formally launch a bid until after Florida's legislative session ends later this spring, has brushed aside the insults, saying that he doesn't spend his time "trying to smear other Republicans."

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/oSIwYpg
via IFTTT

Read More

Liz Truss: UK should have ‘done more earlier’ to counter Vladimir Putin

Truss was British foreign secretary at time of Russian invasion and tells MPs West got ‘complacent.’

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/7Kr9nCJ
via IFTTT

Read More