Trump’s CDC director says Fauci shut down debate on Covid’s origin

Trump administration CDC Director Robert Redfield told a congressional committee Wednesday that his former colleague, Anthony Fauci, and former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins froze him out of discussions on Covid-19’s origins.

The accusation came during a politically charged hearing Wednesday of the House Oversight and Accountability Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic and stoked Republican claims that Fauci in early 2020 promoted the view that an infected animal spread the virus to humans to divert attention from research the U.S. sponsored at China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

“It was told to me that they wanted a single narrative and then I obviously had a different point of view,” Redfield told representatives.

Redfield said Fauci, who led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases at the time, and Collins left him out because Redfield suspected the coronavirus had leaked from the Chinese lab.

Fauci, who was not at the hearing, dismissed Redfield’s accusation as “completely untrue.”

“No one excluded anyone,” he told POLITICO after the hearing.

“And the idea of saying that he was not wanted there because he had a different opinion … there were several people on the call who had the opinion that it might have been an engineered virus,” said Fauci, who retired from his government post at the end of last year.

Collins, who is now a science adviser to President Joe Biden, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. He has previously said he shares Fauci’s view that the virus likely came from nature, but that a lab leak was possible.

Redfield thought the highly infectious nature of the virus distinguished it from other coronaviruses and made it unlikely to have evolved naturally, he told representatives.

Fauci and others said it most likely came from a natural spillover from animals, as was the case with other coronaviruses, such as SARS and MERS, Redfield said.

The former CDC director said he later found out he was excluded from a Feb. 1, 2020, conference call with Fauci and Jeremy Farrar, a U.K. scientist who at the time led the Wellcome Trust, and other conversations that resulted in the publication of an article in Nature in March 2020 dismissing the possibility of the virus originating in a lab. Farrar is now the World Health Organization’s top scientist.

Fauci told POLITICO he was not involved in the drafting of the article.

But Republican representatives at the hearing accused Fauci of having orchestrated it to deflect attention from U.S. funding research at the Wuhan lab.

“I think Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They got caught supercharging viruses in an unsecured Chinese lab,” said James Comer (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee.

Fauci has repeatedly denied that the NIH financed so-called gain-of-function research at the Wuhan lab. That research aims to make viruses either more lethal or more transmissible or both to find ways to combat them.

Some Democratic representatives at the hearing warned that accusing Fauci of ill motives would further erode trust in government health officials, threatening public health.

“I want the facts, but I hope and say to my colleagues on the other side: We cannot go down a dangerous path by pushing unfounded conspiracies about Dr. Fauci and other long-serving career public health officials,” said Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.).

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/EZLq9sY
via IFTTT

Read More

House GOP plots crypto overhaul

House Republicans are ramping up work on a comprehensive plan to revamp cryptocurrency regulation, a key lawmaker in the effort said Wednesday.

What's happening: GOP members of the House Financial Services Committee have started to float smaller, more targeted crypto proposals that may get a vote later this month. But Rep. French Hill, the Arkansas Republican who leads the panel's digital assets subcommittee, said in an interview that the longer-term plan is to go bigger.

“We’re working on a comprehensive regulatory framework that goes beyond the bills," Hill said. "We're going to spend March and April in a significant effort on listening to stakeholders in the digital assets arena [and] considering other legislative proposals. So that'll be our principle work plan for the next two months."

Why it matters: It's unclear what the committee will propose, but the effort comes as federal banking and markets regulators ramp up enforcement of traditional financial regulations in the crypto space. Digital asset firms are urging Congress to carve out a specialized rulebook for crypto, as some jurisdictions like the European Union have started to do.

The recent crackdown by U.S. agencies will be the focus of a subcommittee hearing that Hill will lead Thursday. It will feature testimony from Paul Grewal, chief legal officer of the U.S.-based crypto exchange Coinbase.

"Europe, the U.K., Australia and Singapore — just to name a few — are putting in place regulatory frameworks that are creating high standards for crypto,” Grewal said in prepared remarks. “It is truly a race to the top, and the U.S. is already behind.”

Fed Chair Jerome Powell, testifying on Capitol Hill this week, suggested it would be a good idea for Congress to weigh in. Hill pressed him on it Wednesday.

"I do think it would be important for us to have a workable legal framework around digital activities," Powell said Tuesday. "That is important, and something Congress in principle needs to do because we can't really do that."

Hill dropped some possible hints Wednesday about the GOP's direction on a crypto regulation plan.

During the hearing, he asked Powell if a U.S. digital asset framework would help banks, brokers and custodians understand how they could participate in the market safely. He also asked if it should preserve the role of state regulators in overseeing the industry.

Republicans signal crypto support: Thursday's digital assets subcommittee hearing will showcase a handful of Republican-led crypto bills that are generally supportive of the industry and its customers. The legislation may get a committee vote at a markup planned for March 28.

“I’m not sure that we’ll mark them up there, but we’re talking about it,” Hill said. “We may have some other ones introduced, so we may have some other priorities.”

The bills include proposals that would express congressional support for blockchain tech and digital assets, exempt blockchain developers from some reporting and licensing requirements and scale back tax reporting requirements for crypto firms.

The Senate: Senate Agriculture Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who has floated her own crypto regulation plan, said Wednesday she has "had some conversations" with her House counterparts.

"There's certainly, I think, a general belief that this is an area that needs to be regulated, so [as] to protect consumers," she said.

Asked whether she expected lawmakers to reach agreement, she replied: "I'm actually optimistic. I think the hard part is the farm bill."

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/2ofqWzT
via IFTTT

Read More

There’s a new push to create a Space National Guard. Lawmakers say the price is right.

Lawmakers from both parties have failed — twice — to give the Space Force its own Space National Guard, which they say the new service needs in order to draw on skilled personnel, just like the Army does with the National Guard.

Now, supporters of creating the Space Guard have mounted a fresh pressure campaign with a revised pitch to win over the Biden administration and other opponents: it's not as expensive as you think.

It’s the latest round in a cross-party turf war that pits members of Congress and National Guard leaders against fellow lawmakers and an administration wary that standing up a separate Space Guard — which would see some current members of the Air National Guard transfer over to the new service — will result in more expensive bureaucracy.

Lawmakers from seven states and one U.S. territory that contain National Guard units with military space missions are banking that this year they'll sway the administration and skeptical senators that a Space National Guard is the best way to provide part-time forces to the fledgling Space Force. But they still have a high hurdle to clear.

Advocates are aiming to convince cynics the true cost is much lower than administration estimates that drove the initial opposition. They’re also banking on a long-delayed report from the Air Force that outlines how to best structure the space guard and reserve mission. And one top proponent is making the case directly to the Space Force’s top officer.

"I think momentum is building," Rep. Jason Crow (D-Colo.) said in an interview. He argued that the current structure, in which members of the Air National Guard with space-related duties would stay in the Air Guard, is "not workable in the long term."

The Space Force has a complex mission, which includes keeping an eye on missile warnings, monitoring space launches and detecting nuclear detonations. So it will likely rely heavily on part-time personnel, who bring high-tech experience from their day jobs and who don't want to commit to the military on a full-time basis. But those weekend warriors are now in the Air National Guard, an arrangement that proponents of a new outfit argue complicates training and staffing of the Space Force.

Several prominent lawmakers from both parties support creating a separate Space Guard. Crow and Colorado Republican Doug Lamborn, who chairs the House Armed Services panel that oversees military space issues, are reintroducing a Space Guard bill, while Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) are spearheading legislation in the Senate. National Guard brass are also on board. Several state Guard leaders have publicly called for the shift and Guard Bureau Chief Gen. Daniel Hokanson supports the move.

The White House and the Pentagon aren’t sold, however, and neither is much of the Senate, as many prefer to wait and see what Air Force and Space Force leaders propose.

Crow plans to make his case directly to Space Force brass. The Colorado Democrat said he's spoken to Chief of Space Operations Gen. Chance Saltzman about the issue several times, including at the Munich Security Conference last month.

"We're going to follow up," Crow said. "He agreed to take a meeting with me to discuss it."

Fear of a budget blowup

The biggest hurdle for proponents — which includes space-heavy states such as Colorado, Florida, California and Hawaii — is convincing the Biden administration that creating a new Guard branch out of the current space missions housed in the Air National Guard won’t be as expensive as they fear.

Administration officials “strongly oppose” creating a separate Space National Guard, the White House declared last July, citing the “additional overhead” that would come with a new component.

The Congressional Budget Office assessed the costs of creating smaller and larger models for a Space National Guard in a 2020 report.

A smaller Space Guard — based on transferring 1,500 personnel from existing Guard units with space missions in Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Guam, New York, Ohio and Wyoming — would result in $100 million in additional annual operating costs, the nonpartisan scorekeeper assessed.

The CBO also examined a larger model in which a Space National Guard is a size proportional to the Air National Guard relative to the active-duty Air Force, and could have a presence in every state and territory. CBO estimated doing so would balloon the hypothetical organization to 5,800 personnel.

The nearly $500 million annual price tag is a figure that OMB cited when arguing against creating the organization. The nonpartisan analysis group is not currently working on an update to the 2020 report, a spokesperson said in a statement.

That sticker shock is a concern that mired a push to create an active-duty Space Force years ago. But Space Guard advocates say the hefty price tag doesn’t accurately capture their plans.

"I think there is a substantial misunderstanding about what it is we're trying to achieve here. We're simply trying to grandfather in the existing states and territory that have Space Guard and reserve components into a Guard,” Crow said. “We're not trying to create a new Guard infrastructure in every state. And that seems to be what OMB thinks we're trying to do.”

Proponents, including the National Guard Bureau of the United States, argue the costs are wildly overstated, with some advocates arguing the actual cost could even be as low as $250,000 and would not require any new facilities.

‘Organizational disconnect’

Supporters contend that, just like other branches, the Space Force needs its own part-time cadre to draw the personnel it needs to fully carry out its mission.

Lawmakers also argue that the Space Force won't truly be on par with other military branches while its Guard personnel continue as part of the Air National Guard, which they warn would undermine training, recruiting and funding.

Feinstein said doing so will fix an "organizational disconnect" between active-duty and Guard personnel in the Space Force.

"A Space Force National Guard would save money because otherwise we will eventually have to replace the capabilities we have in the Guard today with new units created from scratch inside the Space Force," Feinstein said in a statement. "A Space National Guard should have been created when Space Force was created."

Air National Guard units that are conducting space missions have an unusual relationship with the Space Force. While they fall under the Air Force’s command structure, the personnel receive operational tasking orders from the Space Force.

The arrangement makes it difficult for these Air National Guard personnel to get appropriate training because that is overseen by a different service, said Lt. Gen. Michael Loh, head of the Air National Guard and former Colorado adjutant general.

“I can't right now send them to basic military training with the Space Force [the service] they would actually be going off to combat with,” Loh told reporters last year at the Air & Space Forces Association annual Air Warfare Symposium.

But opponents consider the move a power play by Guard and state leaders, and even some leaders who see a Space Guard as inevitable aren't convinced it's needed just yet.

On top of the potential cost, they contend a Space Guard would mean extra bureaucracy and overhead when the Space Force was intended to be as streamlined and cost-effective as possible when it was created.

Space Force brass, meanwhile, haven't publicly endorsed the concept, instead floating a hybrid model that draws on both active-duty and reserve guardians.

Senate skeptics

Some on the Armed Services Committees are waiting to see the Space Force’s proposal before choosing sides. The service is expected to submit a proposal for a reserve component as part of the fiscal 2024 budget request.

"There's a little bit of hesitancy without a solid, solid plan to impose the entirety of the [National Guard Bureau] structure on top of such a small and agile service,” said one congressional aide, who was granted anonymity to discuss the debate.

Plan or none, the debate is expected to play out again in annual defense policy legislation. Senate Armed Services Chair Jack Reed (D-R.I.) — whose support is needed for a Space Guard proposal to pass the upper chamber — isn’t swayed yet. Instead, Reed says he’s waiting to see what Saltzman and Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall recommend.

“I don't sense the movement,” Reed said of senators supporting a Space Guard. “But we really haven't brought it up."

Only one of Feinstein and Rubio’s eight cosponsors, Florida Republican Rick Scott, sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

House Armed Services is likely to approve a Space Guard as part of its version of the National Defense Authorization Act, as it has done with little controversy over the past two years. But even House leaders who support the concept aren’t sure the time is right for a full-fledged Guard.

Decorating the Christmas tree

House Armed Services Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) said he’s “fine” with Crow and Lamborn’s proposal being included when the committee considers the defense bill in the spring, but said congressional leaders would ultimately make a call based on whether the Space Force agrees.

"This is one of those things that I want the Space Force to have what they need, but I'm gonna let them do it at their pace,” Rogers said. “I think it's inevitable that it's going to happen. I just don't think it's gonna happen right away."

It’s unclear so far what the Pentagon will recommend or if top brass will ultimately come around to agree with a standalone Guard branch.

Saltzman stuck to the Pentagon line that a dedicated Space National Guard isn’t currently needed during his Senate confirmation last September. He reiterated the service’s stated goal of a hybrid model that includes full and part-time guardians in a “single component.”

And the argument over how best to train, equip and supply part-time talent to the Space Force may get overshadowed by other more heated space debates on Capitol Hill. The Colorado and Alabama delegations are engaged in a political slugfest over the fate of the permanent headquarters of the U.S. Space Command.

But a slow and steady buildup could win again if the most vocal advocates of the newest military branch aren’t anxious to move ahead with a separate Guard.

“It's like a Christmas tree. You start with just the tree. Then you start adding lights and then you start adding decorations,” Rogers explained. “We just put the tree up that first year and what we have done subsequently has just been layering on things. And that's always the way I've envisioned the Space Force growing."

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/5Vm8OYv
via IFTTT

Read More

Federal investigators to probe Norfolk Southern's ‘safety culture’

The federal agency probing the Feb. 3 derailment of a Norfolk Southern train that spewed toxic chemicals in East Palestine, Ohio, announced Tuesday that it plans a special investigation into the railroad's safety culture — an unusual move for the agency, which typically focuses on the causes of individual accidents.

The independent National Transportation Safety Board said it's undertaking a focus on the railroad itself "given the number and significance of recent Norfolk Southern accidents."

The NTSB cited five "significant" accidents involving Norfolk Southern since December 2021, including two that have happened in the last three days. Those two involve a 212-car freight train that derailed in Springfield, Ohio on March 3, and one on March 7 where a dump truck collided with a train car in Cleveland, killing a Norfolk Southern conductor. The NTSB said that as part of the investigation they would also review an Oct. 28, 2022, Norfolk Southern derailment in Sandusky, Ohio.

NTSB urged the company to "take immediate action today to review and assess its safety practices, with the input of employees and others, and implement necessary changes to improve safety."

Norfolk Southern announced several safety measures on Monday, but most were focused on addressing one of the specific problems thought to have caused the Feb. 3 derailment, primarily involving an overheating wheel and the adequacy of detection technology.

The railroad had no immediate comment on the NTSB's new probe.

The CEO of Norfolk Southern, Alan Shaw, is scheduled to testify Thursday before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee — his first time facing lawmakers following the East Palestine derailment.

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

Read More

Opinion | How Russia’s War Against Ukraine Is Advancing LGBTQ Rights

KYIV — Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has galvanized Ukrainian society in many unexpected ways, but perhaps one of the most remarkable is how it has advanced the rights of LGBTQ people.

On Tuesday, in a move that would have been nearly unthinkable a year ago, a Ukrainian lawmaker introduced legislation in the country’s parliament that would give partnership rights to same-sex couples. This legislation, along with a prohibition against anti-LGBTQ hate speech abruptly adopted in December, reflects a sharp rejection of Russia’s effort to weaponize homophobia in support of its invasion.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said repeatedly that he attacked Ukraine last year partly to protect “traditional values” against the West’s “false values” that are “contrary to human nature” — code for LGBTQ people. Perhaps he hoped this would rally conservative Ukrainians to Russia’s side — it’s a tactic Kremlin allies have tried repeatedly over the past decade. But this time, it instead appears to be convincing a growing number of Ukrainians to support equality and reject the values Putin espouses.

I’ve traveled to Ukraine and neighboring countries three times in the past year, and I’ve seen firsthand how queer people have achieved unprecedented visibility as Ukraine fights to preserve its sovereignty. Ukraine’s military has more out queer soldiers than ever before, and their stories are reaching a broad audience thanks in large part to the social media of a Ukrainian group called “LGBTIQ Military” and a Ukrainian news media that’s sympathetically covering queer peoples’ contributions to the war effort. Dozens of LGBTQ organizations across Ukraine have transformed themselves into humanitarian relief groups, assisting the displaced and providing food, medicine and other resources to people affected by the fighting.

As LGBTQ people have demonstrated their commitment to defending Ukraine’s democracy, public opinion has rapidly grown more supportive of reforms to fully recognize their rights as citizens.

Queer soldiers, who have come out in record numbers amidst the fighting, have been particularly influential in changing broader public opinion. As Inna Sovsun, the member of parliament who authored the partnership legislation, told me, they “give visibility and legitimacy to the claims for equal treatment by the community itself.” They make the case that, “we want equal treatment, because we're serving in the military equally.’”

I could not have imagined the LGBTQ movement building such momentum when I first visited Ukraine as a reporter in 2013. Ukraine was then on the verge of consummating its long-negotiated “association agreement” with the European Union, a step Russian President Vladimir Putin bitterly opposed. As the deadline to sign the agreement approached, an oligarch close to Putin funded a campaign with billboards reading, "Association with EU means same-sex marriage.” Anti-EU protesters dubbed the EU “Gayropa.”

This effort failed to dissuade Ukrainians from a European path. When Ukraine’s then-president, Viktor Yanukovych, tried to call off the EU deal at the last moment, pro-European protesters revolted, taking to the streets across Ukraine until a new government was installed and moved ahead with the deal. (This became known as the Revolution of Dignity, or the Maidan, after the square where the protests were centered.) LGBTQ activists across the country were integral to this movement, reflecting both their aspirations for their country and the belief that becoming a European democracy would advance LGBTQ rights. When Russia responded to the revolution with bloodshed — seizing Crimea and backing puppet armies in the eastern Donbas region — LGBTQ people stepped up to support the Ukrainian military fighting for the country’s autonomy.

But Ukrainians and their leaders did not immediately recognize LGBTQ people’s contribution to the fight for democracy, nor that true democracy required LGBTQ equality.

At the time, Ukraine’s new lawmakers refused to comply with a standard requirement for countries seeking closer ties with the EU, to adopt legislation banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. The EU bent its rules to move ahead with the process anyway, allowing the Ukrainian government to later quietly ban employment discrimination with an administrative order that required no vote in parliament. When activists planned an LGBTQ pride march in Kyiv in 2014, Mayor Vitaly Klitschko used the fight with Russian-backed forces in the country’s east to argue a pride parade would be inappropriate “when battle actions take place and many people die."

As Ukrainian activists organized new pride parades in city after city over the last decade, many have been met with hostility from city leaders, violence, or both. This was in part just a reflection of the times — anti-LGBTQ policies still prevailed in much of Europe, especially in the eastern part of the continent. But anti-LGBTQ propaganda coming out of Russia also swayed many Russian-speakers in the region, and this messaging gained moral legitimacy from anti-LGBTQ religious leaders.

But the past decade has also seen Ukrainians standing firm in their commitment to democracy, and a growing understanding that this includes protections for fundamental rights.

There was an explosion of organizing by LGBTQ people in the years that followed the Revolution of Dignity, and some slow advances were made. But it’s been the stories of queer Ukrainians fighting and dying in the war with Russia that have truly helped other Ukrainians to see them as full citizens.

Ukraine’s current LGBTQ rights debate is unprecedented; never before has a country under siege had such visibly out soldiers who have so few formal rights under their own country’s laws. LGBTQ rights supporters have successfully framed the question on same-sex partnership as whether Ukraine will recognize LGBTQ people as equal citizens, which has become the norm throughout much of the European Union, as well as North and South America. They are successfully flipping the proposition that, as one Ukrainian politician once infamously put it, that “a gay cannot be a patriot.”

In fact, as Ukrainian patriotism has increasingly become defined as opposition to Russia, Putin deserves some credit for growing support for LGBTQ rights in Ukraine.

“I actually think that the Russians did a good job in terms of raising awareness and changing attitudes towards the LGBT community in Ukraine,” Sovsun told me in an interview. “The more Russia insists on [homophobia] being a part of their state policy, the more rejection of this policy [there] is from inside Ukraine.”

The aspiration of many Ukrainians to join the European Union has also helped move more Ukrainians to become supportive of queer peoples’ rights, as Ukraine attempts to define itself as a European democracy in contrast to Russian autocracy. A study conducted last May by the Ukrainian LGBTQ organization “Nash Svit” and the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology found nearly 64 percent of Ukrainians said queer people should have equal rights. Even among respondents who said they had a “negative” view of LGBTQ people, nearly half said they still supported equal rights.

The current push for same-sex partnership rights began with a school teacher from Zaporizhzha named Anastasia Andriivna Sovenko. In June, Sovenko registered a petition with Ukraine’s government demanding same-sex couples be granted partnership rights. It said simply, “At this time, every day can be the last. Let people of the same sex get the opportunity to start a family and have an official document to prove it. They need the same rights as traditional couples.”

Sovenko said she was inspired to file the petition after reading a story about different-sex couples getting married before one partner went off to war. It felt unfair to her that queer people couldn’t take the same step to protect their rights. Signatures quickly poured in, stunning even Sovenko herself.

Signature collections got a major boost when a Facebook user named Leda Kosmachevska wrote a widely shared post announcing she was marrying a gay friend in the army to safeguard his wishes if he dies because his partner of 15 years has no rights under Ukrainian law.

“This is me [honoring] his last will, and I will meet him first when he returns victorious,” she wrote. “I’m going to be a military wife. Not because I love him, but because the president of my country, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, has not yet responded to the request of society expressed in a legal way by signing a petition for single-sex marriage.”

Under Ukrainian law, the president is required to formally respond to any petition that gets 25,000 signatures, and the partnership petition quickly cleared that threshold. But in a sign that the politics of the issue remains complicated, Zelenskyy ruled out full marriage rights in his response, arguing that this required a constitutional change that could not be carried out under the rules of martial law. Instead, he punted to the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, to examine the creation of civil unions. His language implied support, but he stopped short of using presidential powers to make it a reality.

“Every citizen is an inseparable part of civil society, he is entitled to all the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said in the referral.

Sovsun believes her partnership legislation still faces an uphill battle in Ukraine’s parliament. Ukraine’s churches — including the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, which severed ties with the Russian Orthodox Church in 2018 and has supported the country’s pro-European movement — still remain a powerful source of opposition to LGBTQ equality.

Recognizing this reality, Sovsun said, she has not included full adoption rights in her legislation. She also has prepared a backup bill, which would only open civil partnerships to people serving in the military, hoping even opponents of LGBTQ rights will not be able to say no to legislation benefiting people serving on the front lines.

Sovsun said she believes the push for partnership recognition and LGBTQ rights in general is part of a broader debate that’s playing out beneath Ukraine’s unified front against Russian aggression. It’s clear what Ukrainians stand against — Russian domination — but there isn’t total agreement on what Ukraine is fighting for. 

“I think what we are fighting for is also a matter of political debate,” Sovsun said. “There is the general consensus … that we're fighting for liberal democracy where human rights are respected…. But the devil is always in the details, right? Does that liberal democracy goal include same-sex marriages or not?”

Establishing same-sex partnership rights, she said, is an important step for “Ukraine to be perceived as a Western democracy.”

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

Read More

Tucker Carlson ripped by Capitol Police, GOP senators for mischaracterizing Jan. 6

Capitol Police Chief Thomas Manger on Tuesday ripped Fox News and host Tucker Carlson for airing an “offensive and misleading” portrayal of the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.

Manger wrote in an internal message to officers that Carlson's Monday night primetime program "conveniently cherry-picked from the calmer moments of our 41,000 hours of video" to incorrectly portray the violent assault as more akin to a peaceful protest. He added that Carlson's “commentary fails to provide context about the chaos and violence that happened before or during these less tense moments.”

It’s an unusually blunt statement from Manger, who has labored keep his department away from political conflagrations. And the pushback could easily put the chief at odds with Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who had granted Carlson unfettered access to internal footage related to the riot. But Manger wasn’t alone in his criticisms — a number of Republican senators said they were, at the very least, troubled by Carlson’s depiction.

“Anybody that trespassed into the United States Capitol, you know, whether they did peacefully … did it illegally,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said. “I think that it's unfortunate that [Carlson] is the exclusive holder of the tape recording. I just think it's the kind of thing that should be made available to everybody at the same time, so as to not have a political angle to it.”

Asked about the portrayal of Jan. 6 on Carlson’s show, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) described the day as a violent attack and said any effort to “normalize that behavior is dangerous and disgusting.“

“I was here. It was not peaceful. It was an abomination,” added Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) “You're entitled to believe what you want in America, but you can't resort to violence to try to convince others of your point of view.”

A Fox News spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment on Carlson's use of the Jan. 6 footage.

While House Republicans aren't set to return to the Capitol until Tuesday evening, McCarthy is certain to face fresh questions about his decision to grant Carlson’s show sole access to 41,000 hours of footage captured by Capitol security cameras on Jan. 6, 2021, when Donald Trump supporters overran the building in an attempt to disrupt lawmakers' certification of Trump's loss.

Capitol Police had previously turned over about 14,000 hours of footage — capturing events between noon and 8 p.m. on that day — to the FBI, which shared it with Jan. 6 defendants as part of criminal proceedings.

While dozens of hours of footage have emerged in public court filings, the bulk of it has remained under seal, and the Hill's police force has warned that wide release of the footage could expose security vulnerabilities in the Capitol complex. McCarthy has indicated he hopes to publicly release large amounts of the video files, with some exceptions to protect the security of the campus.

Several Senate Republicans, including Sens. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and Kennedy, said Tuesday most of the footage should simply be made public.

Attorney General Merrick Garland declined to comment directly on Carlson’s report during a Tuesday press conference at Justice Department headquarters, but said the facts about the Capitol riot are well-established.

“Over 100 officers were assaulted on that day, five officers died. We have charged more than 1,000 people with their crimes on that day and more than 500 have already been convicted,” the attorney general added. “I think it's very clear what happened on Jan. 6.”

McCarthy’s decision to share the footage with Carlson has already roiled some of the ongoing prosecutions of Jan. 6 defendants, several of whom have demanded delays in their criminal proceedings to review the voluminous materials. An attorney for a member of the Proud Boys, currently on trial for alleged seditious conspiracy on Jan. 6, said he intends to move for a mistrial as a result of the new footage.

A McCarthy spokesperson did not immediately return a request for comment.

On his Monday night show, Carlson focused particularly on video of Capitol Police officers calmly accompanying Jacob Chansley — known as the “QAnon Shaman” for the garb and mannerisms he adopted on the day of the attack — through the halls.

Carlson inaccurately stated on-air that Chansley’s entrance to the Capitol remained mysterious, omitting footage showing Chansley inside the Senate chamber scrawling a menacing note to then-Vice President Mike Pence, who had declined then-President Trump’s calls for Pence to single-handedly overturn the election results. Chansley pleaded guilty in September 2021 to obstructing Congress’ proceedings and was sentenced to 41 months in prison.

Manger, in his note to officers, emphasized that Carlson never reached out for context about the officers’ actions.

“One false allegation is that our officers helped the rioters and acted as ‘tour guides.’ This is outrageous and false,” Manger wrote. “The Department stands by the officers in the video that was shown last night. I don’t have to remind you how outnumbered our officers were on January 6. Those officers did their best to use de-escalation tactics to try to talk to rioters into getting each other to leave the building.”

Manger also took particular issue with what he said was a “disturbing” suggestion by Carlson that the late Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick — who died of strokes on Jan. 7, 2021 — did not die because of anything that occurred the day before. Sicknick had been involved in some intense clashes with rioters and was assaulted with chemical spray in the early afternoon of the siege.

A medical examiner later concluded that Sicknick died of natural causes but suggested the stress caused by the riot could have been a contributor.

“The Department maintains, as anyone with common sense would, that had Officer Sicknick not fought valiantly for hours on the day he was violently assaulted, Officer Sicknick would not have died the next day,” Manger wrote.

Daniella Diaz, Nancy Vu, Josh Gerstein and Marianne LeVine contributed to this report.

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

Read More

Eric Adams plans to resettle asylum-seekers across U.S.

NEW YORK — Mayor Eric Adams announced a shift in policy on asylum-seekers that includes a more formal process of resettling migrants throughout the state and in other cities across the country.

The administration’s plans were outlined in a new policy brief released Tuesday called The Road Forward: A Blueprint to Address New York City’s Response to the Asylum Seeker Crisis.

“This blueprint we are releasing today highlights what we have accomplished since the crisis … it’s also going to show the changes we have put in place to move from an emergency response to a steady state of operation,” Adams said at the City Hall press briefing.

The administration plans to brief more migrants on relocation opportunities and work with national nonprofits to identify welcoming cities across the country where they might move, Adams said. Additionally, the state Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance will oversee a $25 million program to help resettle migrant families in municipalities elsewhere in New York.

“There are cities in the state an across the country that … want to play the role,” the mayor said. “They realize that this is a national problem.”

A separate program through the State University of New York in Sullivan County will offer migrants the opportunity to relocate there and participate in a workforce training pilot and earn a credential or degree.

Many details, however, were not explained.

The mayor, for instance, said he did not want to reveal the names of partner cities that are planning to host more migrants for fear of souring those relationships.

"Please don't ask me which cities because I don't need you running to the cities and stopping them," he told reporters at the announcement. "I know you enjoy pitting cities against cities, so we are not giving you that information."

In January Adams criticized the governor of Colorado, a fellow Democrat, for busing migrants to New York City. A month later he admitted to coordinating one-way bus tickets to Plattsburgh, N.Y for migrants who wanted to move to Canada.

He also announced a new office to coordinate responses across city agencies and a new 24/7 intake center.

The Office of Asylum Seeker Operations will coordinate efforts across multiple agencies that are now doing the work. The city also plans to replace intake operations at the Port Authority, where asylum-seekers arrive by bus, with a new facility that will operate around the clock. He did not divulge a location for the intake center.

The blueprint describes a broad shift from emergency response to what City Hall is calling steady state operations — a recognition that the influx of migrants is unlikely to abate any time soon.

The city has spent roughly $650 million on providing services to the newcomers since the middle of last year. And on Monday, the city’s budget director expressed dim hopes the administration would be getting any federal reimbursement beyond an unspecified portion of the $800 million in Federal Emergency Management Agency grant money already earmarked for cities around the country.

“I am concerned about what is going to happen when the border is reopened,” the mayor said, seemingly referring to a recent policy from the Biden administration designed to reduced the number of crossings. “New York City is still a destination."

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/mOPSTo4
via IFTTT

Read More