De Blasio hit with historic conflicts of interest fine over presidential run

NEW YORK — Former Mayor Bill de Blasio was hit with a historic fine Thursday by New York City’s Conflicts of Interest Board for using an NYPD security detail for his ill-fated presidential run in 2019.

The former mayor was ordered to pay $474,794 — a whopping sum that includes compensating the city for police officers' travel expenses and a $155,000 fine, the largest ever issued by COIB.

“Although there is a City purpose in the City paying for an NYPD security detail for the City’s Mayor, including the security detail’s salary and overtime, there is no City purpose in paying for the extra expenses incurred by that NYPD security detail to travel at a distance from the City to accompany the Mayor or his family on trips for his campaign for President of the United States,” board members wrote in a Thursday order. “The Board advised Respondent to this effect prior to his campaign; Respondent disregarded the Board’s advice.”

In response, de Blasio filed a lawsuit. In a statement, his attorney said the board’s ruling was illegal and could open elected officials up to all manner of violence in an era where partisanship has reached a fever pitch.

“With today’s decision, the COIB has broken with decades of NYPD policy and precedent, ignored the professional expertise of the greatest law enforcement agency in the world, and violated the Constitution to boot,” said Andrew Celli, Jr., an attorney with Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel. “In the wake of the January 6th insurrection, the shootings of Congressmembers [Gabby] Giffords and [Steve] Scalise, and almost daily threats directed at local leaders around the country, the COIB’s action — which seeks to saddle elected officials with security costs that the City has properly borne for decades — is dangerous, beyond the scope of their powers, and illegal."

In May 2019, de Blasio broached the topic of a presidential run with the board, asking if the city could pick up the cost of the mayor’s security detail while out of town on the stump. In response, the board said that while taxpayers could foot the bill for salary and overtime costs, billing the city for travel costs would be a misuse of city resources.

De Blasio subsequently went on 31 out-of-state campaign trips through September, racking up $319,794 in costs the board had warned against charging the city for. He dropped out of the race in September 2019 after he was unable to get more than 1 percent in the polls and struggled to fundraise for the long-shot bid.

In response to the ruling, the Department of Investigation said that COIB's conclusions mirrored its own report on the security detail released in 2021.

“The Conflicts of Interest Board’s conclusions regarding former Mayor Bill de Blasio’s misuse of his security detail reaffirms DOI’s investigative findings, and shows that public officials — including the most senior — will be held accountable when they violate the rules,” DOI Commissioner Jocelyn Strauber said in a statement Thursday.

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

Read More

U.S. deploys F-22s to Middle East in response to 'unsafe' Russian aircraft activity

The Air Force has deployed F-22 fighter jets to the Middle East because of unsafe Russian aircraft activity, U.S. Central Command announced on Wednesday.

The stealth jets, deployed from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, will join existing American and allied air and ground forces in the area, according to a news release from CENTCOM, which also covers portions of South and Central Asia.

“Russian Forces’ unsafe and unprofessional behavior is not what we expect from a professional air force,” Army Gen. Michael “Erik” Kurilla, the head of CENTCOM, said in the release. “Their regular violation of agreed upon airspace deconfliction measures increases the risk of escalation or miscalculation.”

As the war in Ukraine continues, relations between the U.S. and Russia have remained tense. American military officials have reported increasingly reckless Russian activity in the Mideast region for several months.

Armed Russian jets flew over a U.S. military output in Syria nearly every day in March, an army commander told NBC News that month. In April, Russian pilots were seemingly inviting American jets to dogfight in Syria, a lieutenant general told the military publication Defense One.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/Cr2hOXb
via IFTTT

Read More

House passes another gas stove bill this time to thwart Energy Department efficiency rule

House lawmakers passed the second bill in as many days Wednesday to fend off federal action on gas stoves — moving legislation aimed at stopping the Energy Department from finalizing a proposed efficiency regulation for the appliances.

The Biden administration has repeatedly disavowed any ban on gas stoves. But the bipartisan bill — alongside legislation passed Tuesday to preemptively prohibit the Consumer Product Safety Commission from using federal funds to ban gas stoves — represents Republican efforts to combat what they call overreach by the Biden administration and its efforts to push efficiency measures as part of a larger anti-fossil fuel agenda.

"It's all part of this government-control agenda that we're seeing from this administration," Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Tuesday. "The Biden administration — it seems like every single department. It’s CFPB here, it's the Department of Energy over there, it's EPA in another place, trying to tell people what they can and can't do with their lives."

But Democrats who oppose the bill say Republicans are misleading Americans on what the proposed rule would do. Instead, they said the “commonsense” proposal — which would only apply to new gas stoves sold three years after the rule is finalized — would lower energy bills, improve Americans' health and cut pollution.

"There's simply no reason for this proposed rule to be controversial," Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) said Tuesday. "No one is saying you can't keep your gas stove. No one is saying you don't have a choice. No one is saying you have to move to electric stoves. This is all misinformation."

Lawmakers passed the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, H.R. 1640 (118), by a 249-181 vote Wednesday. Twenty-nine Democrats joined Republicans in support of the bill.

The bill is unlikely to gain traction in the Democratic-controlled Senate, and no action on the measure has been scheduled there. However, Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) led seven colleagues Wednesday in introducing companion legislation to prohibit the Energy Department from implementing its proposed rule. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) is among its backers. Manchin previously withdrew his support last month for an Energy Department nominee, citing the department's efficiency proposal on gas stoves and the Biden administration's overall approach to fossil fuels.

The House legislation passed Wednesday after stalling last week amid a conservative revolt that blocked a procedural measure setting up its consideration.

The bill would prohibit the Energy Department from finalizing, implementing or enforcing its proposed rule setting new energy efficiency requirements for cooking tops and ovens or any "substantially similar" rule.

The department has said it is following its congressional and legal requirements to review and update the energy efficiency rules, which will save consumers and businesses money. But Republicans contend the proposed rule amounts to a backdoor regulatory ban on gas stoves.

Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.), sponsor of the legislation, called the Energy Department's proposal “extreme regulation” that shows “how out of touch” the Biden administration's policies have become.

"Consumers don't want the government taking away the features on gas stoves that they like and use. That is not the role of the U.S. government,” she said from the floor Tuesday.

Republicans and opponents of the efficiency regulation point to initial technical analysis from the department that signaled most gas cooking top models tested would not meet the proposed standards. But Democrats, the Energy Department and efficiency advocates have pushed back, saying that figure is related to high-end models and not a test designed to represent the whole market.

The department said earlier this year that gas cooking tops representing nearly half of the market would not be impacted by the proposed standard, if finalized.

“Now they claim that nearly 50 percent of gas stoves will pass their rule. But guess what? That means more than 50 percent won't. Don't tell me they're not trying to ban gas stoves,” Lesko responded.

Pallone said the bill could also limit the Energy Department from taking action to improve energy efficiency of cooktops because it does not include a sunset clause.

Lawmakers added an amendment to the bill by voice vote Tuesday from GOP Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan that requires the Energy secretary to disclose stakeholder meetings with entities that have ties to China, produced studies regarding or advocated for policies that ban the use of any type of energy and have applied for or received federal funds.

Lawmakers, however, rejected an amendment offered by Pallone on Wednesday that sought to remove the provisions in the bill that would limit future DOE rulemaking authority, as well as an amendment from House Rules ranking member Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) to certify that the legislation would not adversely affect U.S. energy security.

The White House has "strongly" opposed the legislation, although it has stopped short of issuing a veto threat.

The vote could potentially put vulnerable House Democrats in the tricky position of signaling support for gas stoves, while also making clear the administration has no plans to ban the appliances. Twenty-nine Democrats joined Republicans in voting for the Consumer Product Safety Commission legislation Tuesday.

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

Read More

U.S. and allies negotiating security guarantees for Ukraine

The Biden administration is working with allies to provide Ukraine with security guarantees, a step that falls short of Kyiv’s desire for those assurances to come from NATO.

According to multiple American and European officials, the U.S., Britain, France and Germany — known as the “European Quad” — would in essence formalize their military and economic support for Ukraine, keeping it flowing even after the fighting with Russia ends. However, neither a bilateral deal or multilateral agreement would have the legal force of a treaty.

In effect, the four countries are offering more of the same for an indefinite period of time.

“The U.S. is in talks with Ukraine and our allies and partners on how we can reassure Ukraine about their long-term security to deter any future aggression for after this war ends,” a National Security Council spokesperson confirmed. The official was not authorized to use their name when providing this statement to the press.

Still, “these negotiations and discussions are ongoing but they haven't reached any particular fruition, as of yet, because there's no doubt that this is also a very, very complicated issue,” said a European official who wasn’t authorized to speak to media.

The Financial Times was first to report on the discussions, which even some allies are upset about.

“The real security guarantee is provided only by the alliance,” said the European official, “and any temporary arrangements cannot be sold as replacements for full membership, which provides a collective guarantee of countries to each other and which is, I would say, the strongest available guarantee in Europe.”

And some U.S. lawmakers also aren’t sure that focusing on providing security guarantees outside of the alliance right now is wise. Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), co-chair of the NATO Observer Group, said he’d prefer NATO send a “strong message” to Russian President Vladimir Putin by having all allies meet their 2 percent defense-spending obligation. “Then we can have a discussion about security agreements, after the facts on the ground [in Ukraine] change."

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asked that a timetable for Ukraine’s NATO membership and alliance-provided security guarantees be extended at next month’s summit in Vilnius. But all signs point to him getting none of his wishes. “I think the allies now are in agreement that a proper invitation is unlikely while they’re engaged in a full-scale war,” Julianne Smith, the U.S. ambassador to NATO, told POLITICO last week.

In the meantime, lawmakers in the U.S. are offering some ideas on how to defend Ukraine for the long term. Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, suggested elevating the NATO-Ukraine Commission to a “Council,” thereby giving Kyiv the authority to call for alliance meetings and allowing more for intelligence sharing.

Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a close confidante of President Joe Biden, noted certain security guarantees were already extended to Ukraine in the “Budapest Memorandum” after the country turned over nuclear weapons following the Soviet Union’s collapse. We’re “back to the future,” he said in an interview.

Outside of the complexities of any arrangement, what remains unclear is the appetite for each of the four countries to abide by their promises.

“Security guarantees for Ukraine, it seems to me, would never be credible, since we have refused to fight directly for Ukraine in its time of greatest peril,” said Ben Friedman, policy director at the restraint-oriented Defense Priorities think tank. “Why would that change later just because of a paper promise?”

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/7Uf82DK
via IFTTT

Read More

House passes bill to block federal gas stove ban

After a weeklong blockade of floor action by conservatives, the House passed bipartisan legislation Tuesday to prevent the federal government from banning gas stoves — the latest Republican bid to stop what they say is the Biden administration's anti-fossil fuel agenda.

The bill and a related measure expected to pass this week on efficiency measures for the appliances are unlikely to get votes in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But Republicans have touted their legislation as pushback against overreach by the Biden administration, even though there are no federal proposals to outright prohibit the sale of gas stoves under consideration.

Lawmakers passed the Gas Stove Protection and Freedom Act, H.R. 1615 (118), which would bar the Consumer Product Safety Commission from banning gas stoves by a 248-180 vote. Twenty-nine Democrats ultimately voted alongside Republicans to support the measure.

"We know the motivation of the CPSC and throughout this entire administration is a green climate push," Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-N.D.), the sponsor of the legislation, said. "The goal is to dictate how you live every aspect of your life — how you save and invest for the future by pushing ESG, how you drive by banning gas-powered cars, and now the goal is to control how you cook."

The votes came after House conservatives unexpectedly revolted last week and blocked a procedural measure setting up consideration of the legislation, a move aimed at showing their frustration over the deal Speaker Kevin McCarthy struck with the White House to raise the debt ceiling. McCarthy and the GOP hardliners eventually reached an agreement this week, teeing up advancement of the gas stove bill.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission legislation would block the commission from using federal funds to ban gas stoves or to enforce any consumer product safety standard on gas stoves that would result in a prohibition of the appliance or substantially increase its average price.

"Now they want to tell you what kind of stove you have to operate in your home and having to pick a less efficient and more costly option by banning gas stoves," said Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.). "We're pushing back against that."

Republicans say the action, alongside a separate proposed efficiency rulemaking at the Energy Department, is an example of federal overreach infringing on consumers' choices. It also comes as several Democratic-led cities and states seek to ban the appliances in new buildings.

"This week, we will hold the Biden administration accountable by standing up for the American people to stop the outrageous and really insane ban on gas stoves — a bad idea that started in New York that is now being embraced by every Democrat and the Biden administration," said Republican Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) on Tuesday.

New York recently became the first state to ban gas stoves from most new buildings through legislative action. Other states have sought to do so through building codes.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission is not currently considering a ban and has made clear it has no plans to pursue a national ban on gas stoves after one of its members opened the door to the possibility earlier this year. Instead, the commission has opened an inquiry into the potential health hazards of gas stove emissions.

The Biden administration Monday urged a federal court to reverse its April decision that struck down a ban on gas hookups in Berkeley, Calif., as a violation of federal energy efficiency law.

House Democrats who opposed the bill called Republicans' arguments "misinformation" on Tuesday and said it was a distraction that will do nothing to address pressing issues such as tackling the impacts of climate change.

"I just don't quite understand the energy and hysteria almost in places about gas stoves," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee. "No one is taking away your gas stove."

Democrats, including House Energy and Commerce ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), also say the legislation would stifle the safety commission's ability to investigate potentially hazardous products. The agency, for example, issued a recall last year on specific gas ranges due to serious risk of injury from carbon monoxide poisoning.

"What you're basically saying is that this agency that protects our safety and health is just basically going to be emasculated and can't do its job," Pallone said on the floor Tuesday. "What possible help is that?"

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.), the chair of the Energy and Commerce subcommittee on energy, climate and grid security, has previously pushed back that the bill wouldn't stop the commission from acting under its statute to address "true safety hazards" associated with "faulty" gas stoves.

The White House, for its part, said it "strongly" opposed the bill. But it did not go as far as saying President Joe Biden would veto the legislation should it reach his desk.

Lawmakers also backed an amendment to the bill from Colorado GOP Rep. Lauren Boebert on a 222-210 vote to expand the prohibition on federal funding to include regulations that would result in the unavailability in the U.S. of a type or class of product based on the type of fuel the product consumes.

The House is also expected to vote this week on the Save Our Gas Stoves Act, H.R. 1640 (118), which would prohibit the Energy Department from finalizing or enforcing its proposed efficiency standards for cooking tops and ovens.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/73BkHWo
via IFTTT

Read More

Biden orders DNC and reelect to remain silent about Trumps indictment

President Joe Biden and his top aides have taken a vow of silence on the federal indictment of his predecessor, Donald Trump — and have explicitly ordered the national Democratic Party and his reelection campaign to do the same.

That directive was issued in recent days after Trump was hit with federal charges for his handling of classified documents after he left the White House, according to three people familiar with the instructions. But that decision has some Democrats and allies worried that Biden could miss a chance to underscore the seriousness of the national moment as well as deliver a political blow to his top White House rival.

Biden declared at the start of his presidency that he would not discuss Department of Justice investigations, particularly those about the former president, and he remained tightlipped when Trump was arraigned Tuesday in a Florida courthouse.

Some in his inner circle hope the decision will be revisited if next year’s general election looks like it could be a rematch with Trump, even if the legal fight has not been resolved by then. As the president’s advisers chart a court for the campaign to come, they are aware that continued silence about the charges facing Trump would deprive Biden’s reelection effort of a potent political weapon.

The number of criminal cases Trump faces are growing and could soon include charges of election interference and inciting the Jan. 6 riot. Those acts make up much of Biden’s long standing case that Trump poses unique threats to American democracy, and there could eventually be a move to allow surrogates and leading Democrats, even if not the president himself, to squarely address the criminal charges.

But Biden to this point has been explicit: The entities that the White House controls, which includes the reelection campaign and the Democratic National Committee, are not to publicly discuss any of the criminal investigations into Trump. Those closest to the president are deeply wary of any perception that Biden is trying to influence the investigations.

“I have never once — not one single time — suggested to the Justice Department what they should do or not do, relative to bringing a charge or not bringing a charge,” Biden told reporters Thursday. “I’m honest.”

Some left-leaning groups outside Biden’s control have already commissioned ads about Trump’s legal woes, which Democratic officials believe helps do the dirty work for them. And first lady Jill Biden did venture a public comment, bemoaning the Republicans standing by Trump in the face of the indictment.

“My heart feels so broken by a lot of the headlines that we see on the news,” she told donors at a fundraiser Monday night in New York. “Like I just saw, when I was on my plane, it said 61 percent of Republicans are going to vote, they would vote for Trump.”

“They don’t care about the indictment. So that’s a little shocking, I think,” she added.

But those groups and the first lady have a more limited reach than the party’s political apparatuses and the president himself. Biden has privately told aides that he is disgusted by Trump’s behavior but is adhering to his promise that the Department of Justice would have independence from the White House. The DNC, meanwhile, has advised members of Congress seeking guidance on what to say that they should not comment on the Trump probes if they are speaking publicly in their role as Biden campaign surrogates.

While Biden has framed his stance as in line with longstanding tradition, it is not uncommon for presidents to occasionally weigh in on ongoing criminal investigations. Biden has at times done so himself — including weighing in before the verdict was announced in the 2021 trial of the white Minneapolis police officer who killed George Floyd.

Some people in Biden’s orbit believe that the moment calls for his imprimatur, outlining for the nation the gravity of a former president facing charges in a federal court. Others believe it would be political malpractice to not make Trump’s woes a campaign issue and privately said that they wish the president’s campaign would take on the issue directly.

They argue that the charges connected to Trump’s alleged reckless mishandling of some of the United States’ top secrets shows that he is unfit for the job. And they believe that both the ongoing January 6 and Georgia election interference probes illuminate their central campaign arguments.

“It’s a pretty easy argument to make,” said one senior Democrat not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations. “Vote for our guy, because the other guy is going to jail.”

There is a possibility that the decision could be revisited next year, multiple people close to the process said this week. One option being bandied about is that while Biden would maintain his silence on the Trump investigations, other top Democrats and surrogates would take up the argument. But even that — which aides warn may not ever happen — would likely not occur for months, perhaps after a possible conviction, or after Trump has clinched the GOP nomination. And advisors acknowledge that Biden himself may need to weigh in at a moment when it would be impossible not to comment, like a potential general election debate against Trump.

Some aides also think that if Trump were to be charged for his actions on Jan. 6, Biden would feel comfortable enough talking about the tragedy of that day without linking it to any crimes allegedly committed by his predecessor. Other Democrats believe the current silent treatment is the right approach — and don’t want to inadvertently get in the way of a bad Trump news cycle.

“The Justice Department needs to be able to make its prosecutorial decisions independent of influence from any administration,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said to Politico on Tuesday. “Donald Trump tried to use the Justice Department as a political tool. Joe Biden has said he absolutely will not do that, and I respect that.”

Those close to the president also acknowledge a particular sensitivity at the moment on matters related to the Department of Justice, which is believed to be nearing a charging decision in its investigation into Biden’s son. Hunter Biden is being probed for tax crimes and a potentially illegal purchase of a firearm. While the president has maintained his public silence on the case — other than to offer support for his son — he has privately expressed frustration at the length of the investigation and worries about the outcome of the probe, according to two people close to him.

While Biden has tried to maintain a distance from DOJ affairs, Republicans have been hammering home the talking point that he is using his Department of Justice to investigate his top political rival ahead of 2024.

"The Biden Administration continues to egregiously weaponize the federal government against Joe Biden’s top political opponent,” said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), a member of the House GOP leadership, at a House Republicans news conference Tuesday. “The unequal application of justice by Joe Biden’s DOJ must be stopped. There cannot be one set of rules if your last name is Biden or Clinton and another set of rules for everyone else.”

Those supporting or working on Biden’s re-election ultimately believe they have other compelling arguments to make beyond pointing to Trump’s legal troubles. They believe the president’s week provides an advantageous split screen set nicely against the backdrop of chaos that has descended upon the Republican-controlled House after nearly a dozen far right members rebelled against Speaker Kevin McCarthy.

The president will hit a lot of key 2024 issues, including civil rights, environmental causes, the GOP tax plan and gun regulations, as well as appear with Vice President Kamala Harris at a rally with union workers Saturday in Philadelphia.

The White House, Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee all, fittingly, declined to comment.

Jennifer Haberkorn, Adam Cancryn and Holly Otterbein contributed to this report.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/qB2laUE
via IFTTT

Read More

Haley inclined in favor of Trump pardon

After calling Donald Trump “reckless,” Nikki Haley on Tuesday said she would still be “inclined” to pardon him if he is convicted of federal charges.

Haley’s remarks on the conservative Clay Travis and Buck Sexton radio show came after the former U.N. ambassador and GOP presidential candidate on Monday said the allegations against Trump, if true, show that he put “all of our military men and women in danger.”

In Tuesday’s interview, Haley maintained that Trump was “incredibly reckless with our national security,” based on the indictment — but not reckless enough to deserve to carry out a sentence.

“When you look at a pardon, the issue is less about guilt and more about what’s good for the country,” Haley said. “And I think it would be terrible for the country to have a former president in prison for years because of a documents case.

“So I would be inclined in favor of a pardon.”

Haley added that it’s “really premature” to discuss a pardon if Trump hasn’t yet been convicted of any charges. The former president on Tuesday afternoon had a first appearance in court in Miami.

Haley’s evolving responses to Trump’s ongoing legal dilemma illustrate the difficulty his opponents are having in using the charges as a line of attack. On Friday, Haley’s initial reaction was to discredit the case against him, saying “this is not how justice should be pursued in our country.”

Even Trump’s top rival in the primary, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, has declined to go after him directly on the charges — instead saying that the case is politically motivated and that Democrats aren’t held to the same standard as Republicans.

Earlier Tuesday, fellow GOP primary candidate Vivek Ramaswamy spoke outside the Miami courthouse and called for each presidential candidate to commit to pardoning Trump.

from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/RTK5IkJ
via IFTTT

Read More