google-site-verification: google6508e39c6ec03602.html The news

google-site-verification: google6508e39c6ec03602.html

Sunday, 29 October 2023

‘These are not good or smart people’: Haley slams Trump on praise for U.S. adversaries


Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Saturday slammed Donald Trump directly ahead of his remarks at the Jewish Coalition Conference, attacking the former president for past and recent comments on foreign adversaries.

“There are plenty of Democrats and Republicans who fail to understand the nature of the threats we face. You’ve already heard from some of them today. And I’m not today’s last speaker,” Haley said, a nod to Trump taking the stage directly after her. Some in the crowd laughed.

Haley, taking the stage in Las Vegas amid an escalating crisis in Gaza and fears of widespread unrest in the Middle East, praised Trump for a number of foreign policy moves he made as president, including his abandonment of the Iran nuclear deal, his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and his administration’s brokering of the Abraham Accords.

“History will record that Donald Trump was a pro-Israel president,” said Haley, the former ambassador to the United Nations under the Trump administration. “I’m happy to give President Trump the credit he deserves. And I was honored to have played a part in those efforts.”

But she quickly pivoted into a string of attacks, criticizing Republicans — including Trump — who question support for Ukraine today and, ultimately she said, future support for Israel. She said these politicians have lost sight of who the country’s friends versus enemies are, adding that is “not who you want in the Oval Office.”

“As Americans, we need to ask a critical question. We all know what Trump did in the past. The question is, what will he do in the future?” Haley said.

Among the other GOP 2024 candidates at the convening, Haley hit Trump the hardest, and most directly. The former South Carolina governor has seen a rise in the polls in recent months, sliding into third place behind Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Haley also struck Trump for his recent comments on Hezbollah and referenced previous remarks, such as the former president referring to North Korea's Kim Jong Un as his “friend” and his praising of China's President Xi Jinping.

“These are not good or smart people. Along with Iran’s ayatollah, they’re the most evil dictators in the world. And the last thing they want is an American president who knows it and calls them out on it,” Haley said. “They want us to stay divided, distracted, and morally confused. Well, I’ve said it before. With all due respect, I don’t get confused.”



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/ExK7LRj
via IFTTT

Ramaswamy addresses Israel policy criticism at Jewish forum in Las Vegas


Vivek Ramaswamy on Saturday addressed criticism of his Israel stance before a Jewish audience in Las Vegas, drawing both boos and applause for his various policy positions amid an escalating war in Gaza.

Ramaswamy leaned into the backlash as the first candidate to take the stage at the Republican Jewish Coalition Conference’s convening of 2024 candidates and Jewish Republican donors in Nevada.

“Let me relieve some of the tension in the room this morning by calling out the elephant in the room: Many of you have heard my policy views described by the press as unfriendly to Israel. Some have even called me anti-Israel. That’s dead wrong,” Ramaswamy told the crowd.

“We have enough antisemitism in this country that we don’t need to artificially manufacture more of it. My message to you this morning will be, I believe, the most pro-Israel vision that you will hear today, but it’s not going to take the form of standard GOP-approved talking points,” he added.

Since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack in Israel, Ramaswamy has increasingly generated controversy over his remarks about the U.S.’s role in the conflict, and his suggestion that the U.S. should not provide military aid to Israel until the government clearly outlines its steps after a Gaza invasion.

In an interview earlier this month with Tucker Carlson on X, Ramaswamy talked about the “selective nature of ignoring certain other conflicts” and U.S. interests, noting that he believes “there are, frankly, financial and corrupting influences that lead [politicians in both parties] to speak the way they do.”

A number of Republicans have lambasted Ramaswamy for what they perceived to be antisemitic tropes about Jewish power — adding fuel to longstanding GOP concerns about Ramaswamy’s policies on Israel. The GOP contender has made headlines this month for confrontations with former U.N. ambassador and 2024 candidate Nikki Haley, Iowa Republican Sen. Joni Ernst and Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

He repeatedly referenced David Ben-Gurion, the primary national founder of the state of Israel and its first prime minister, noting that he is to Israel as George Washington is to the United States.

“[George Washington] reminded us that our job here is to be strong at home, to mind our own affairs, to avoid foreign military entanglements that do not relate directly to our homeland here in the United States of America,” Ramaswamy said, with some in the audience then booing. “It’s OK. I’m sharing my honest view, and we have to have open debate to find a path forward.”

“I am a George Washington, America-first conservative, and I believe the U.S.-Israel relationship is strongest when it is grounded in American self interest, as I believe it is and will be strongest when it is. Not in fleeting sympathy. That is better for America. That is better for Israel,” he added.



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

Saturday, 28 October 2023

First TikTok, now Meta: States find a new way to go after social media


The sweeping lawsuits from over 40 states filed against Meta this week — the biggest legal strike at the social-media giant yet over kids’ safety — are deploying a novel tactic for going after social-media platforms, one that a handful of Republican states are also trying out in their campaign against TikTok.

This week’s lawsuits accuse Facebook and Instagram of harming children with deliberately addictive features, and misleading users about their products’ risks. They’re using state consumer-protection laws to make the case, a weapon that prosecutors hope will let them break through the powerful protections that online platforms enjoy under U.S. law.

The approach echoes one taken by three GOP-led states — Indiana, Arkansas and Utah — in their suits against the ultra-popular app TikTok.

With Washington largely at a political standstill on regulating social-media platforms of any kind, those Republican states began mobilizing a unique legal strategy over the past year, using their existing consumer-protection laws to allege that TikTok was misleading users about its safety claims and its relationship with China-based owner ByteDance, and could pose a national security threat.

The goal, say lawyers, is to work around a 1996 law — Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act — that protects websites from being sued over most of the content that other people post on their sites.

“They don’t have Section 230 immunity for misleading consumers about the content on their platform,” said David Thompson, a managing partner at Cooper and Kirk who is the lead attorney for Indiana and Arkansas’ TikTok cases.

Republican New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella hit the issue directly in a press conference following the multi-state Meta lawsuit on Tuesday: “We believe that Section 230 defense will be one defense that Meta raises. We do not believe it will be successful."

All 50 states and the District of Columbia have their own consumer protection laws — known as Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices statutes, going back to the 1970’s and 1980’s — that were intentionally written broadly to encompass new technologies.

Two weeks ago, the attorney general of Utah filed a consumer protection lawsuit against TikTok, saying the app harms kids and deceives users about ties to its Beijing-based owner ByteDance. That followed two suits from Indiana, and two from Arkansas filed over the past year alleging similar claims that the viral video app pushes unsafe content to kids, and its connection to China threatens consumers’ data security.

The multi-state federal lawsuit and accompanying state lawsuits against Meta landed on Tuesday. Republican and Democratic attorneys general from 41 states and the District of Columbia followed largely the same playbook, suing on consumer protection grounds. The federal lawsuit also alleges Meta violated a federal kids’ privacy law as well.

Both TikTok and Meta are pushing back. TikTok has moved to dismiss the first lawsuit filed by Indiana, and has also defended the safeguards it puts in place for kids, including an automated 60-minute time limit for users under 18 and parental controls for accounts created by teens. “We will continue to work to keep our community safe by tackling industry-wide challenges,” Michael Hughes, a TikTok spokesperson, told POLITICO.

Similarly, Meta has criticized the lawsuits, saying it has made more than 30 design changes in recent years to improve children’s safety across its products. “We’re disappointed that instead of working productively with companies across the industry to create clear, age-appropriate standards for the many apps teens use, the attorneys general have chosen this path,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

The states, and the companies, could be in for a long and costly fight.

The sweeping new suits have drawn comparison to the multi-state suits against Big Tobacco in the 1990’s, which took years to resolve, led to a $206 billion settlement and eventually curtailed what once seemed like an unstoppable industry.

Eric Goldman, an internet law professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law, called those comparisons “ill-informed” because online platforms are speech products that have qualitatively different legal protections than tobacco products — including the First Amendment. “So I think none of the precedents involving other kinds of harmful goods or services predict what happens in the speech cases,” he said.

He said the state lawsuits appear to be going after the underlying content itself, which would ultimately sink the states’ argument. “If the addiction is to the consumption of third-party content,” he said, “we're back at the same place that Section 230 says that the states can't go.”

Vera Eidelman, an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, said that unlike tobacco products that are harmful to health, “it’s important to note that really valuable stuff happens on social media.” The platforms give kids access to information they may not have found otherwise, and connection to communities outside of their locality.

The novel approach of the new round of lawsuits — and the challenges the states now face — highlight a void in federal law. Despite bipartisan criticism of social media platforms, none of the bills on digital privacy and safety introduced over the past few years have passed. Pressure has also come from the White House, with President Joe Biden pushing for lawmakers to act and his U.S. Surgeon General warning that extended use of social media apps like Instagram and TikTok harm children’s mental health. But with Congress facing an uphill battle to pass any kind of safety legislation, Washington has few if any tools to rein in social media platforms — shifting the momentum largely to the states.

“It really shows that Congress is derelict. Congress is not doing anything on this,” said Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), of the state-level suits against TikTok and Meta. As Missouri’s former attorney general, he previously opened an investigation into Facebook’s data practices. “A big coalition like this was very effective in the tobacco case, it was very effective in the opioid case as a driver of change.”

Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) pointed to an irony: Tech companies may have unintentionally brought the lawsuits onto themselves by lobbying so hard against federal laws. “This is a result of their strategy being successful. It's going to be disastrous for them until and unless they improve their products,” he said, “and until and unless they wrap their minds around the need for federal laws.”

TikTok may be the next target for another broad coalition state lawsuit. Democratic Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser is helping lead a consumer protection investigation from 46 attorneys general into the viral video app’s alleged harm to kids’ mental health. They’re still getting documents in discovery. 

The multi-state suit against Meta is the result of a similar investigation of Instagram launched by Democratic California Attorney General Rob Bonta and a group of other state AGs in November 2021, after Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen testified before Congress that Instagram knew its algorithms pushed unhealthy eating content to teen girls.

“Our investigation of Meta was not by any means just about Meta — it was about the broader challenges, and the TikTok matter is very much on our minds as well,” Weiser said.

In the interim, the U.S. government and more than 30 states have banned TikTok on government-owned devices. Montana went further by passing a law this summer specifically banning TikTok as a national security threat. However, that law is now facing a First Amendment challenge and a judge appeared skeptical of its legality.

Ultimately, the lawsuits could take a long time to resolve. Weiser stressed he’s looking for dynamic remedies — at least for Meta’s products — that are adaptive, so that new features don't have the same addictive tendencies as their current products.

“So it's gonna require us to be thoughtful, creative and effective. We're up to this challenge and we're gonna pursue this as vigilantly as we can,” he said.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/Yy4AZ5B
via IFTTT

Friday, 27 October 2023

Blake Masters announces House bid in Arizona, forgoing another run for Senate


Former Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters announced Thursday that he would run for an open congressional seat in the Phoenix suburbs, changing course from a planned second run for Senate in 2024.

“I’m running for Congress, to fight for Arizona’s 8th,” Masters tweeted Thursday, along with a video featuring his family. “Biden has failed. We need Trump back. We need to stop inflation, Build the Wall, avoid WW3, and secure Arizona’s water future. We need to fight for our families.”

Masters, who ran against Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) in a marquee Senate race in the 2022 midterm elections and lost by nearly 5 percentage points, had been hailed by conservative figures like Tucker Carlson as the “future of the Republican Party.” He has also received financial support from tech billionaire Peter Thiel.

Masters received considerable attention during the 2022 campaign for his views on abortion and his flirtations with “the great replacement,” a racist conspiracy theory promoted by white nationalists that contends elites — and in some cases Jews and Democrats — plan to use nonwhite immigrants to radically change the country’s demographics.

He had previously planned to make another run for Senate, this time against incumbent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.). Masters’ entry could have kicked off a tough and expensive primary against Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and former gubernatorial candidate and television reporter Kari Lake.

The safely Republican district, which encompasses many of the northern and western suburbs of Phoenix, went for former President Donald Trump by 13 points in 2020 and has been represented by outgoing Rep. Debbie Lesko, a Republican, since 2018.

Lesko announced earlier this month that she would retire in 2024, saying in a statement that “I want to spend more time with my husband, my 94-year-old mother, my three children, and my five grandchildren.”

Masters, who lives 120 miles away from the district in Tucson, will face off against Abraham Hamadeh, a former prosecutor and candidate for Arizona attorney general in 2022, in the Republican primary. Hamadeh, who lives just outside the district, has been endorsed by Lake and other prominent Republicans. Both Hamadeh and Masters unsuccessfully challenged their 2022 losses in court.

“All the way from Tucson, Blake Masters apparently has crawled out from under the rock he was hiding under after his terrible performance last November and now wants to run for a district hours away,” Erica Knight, a spokesperson for the Hamadeh campaign, told POLITICO.

“The key endorsements for Abe Hamadeh so far, including Kari Lake, Ric Grenell, Kash Patel and Bernie Kerik, tell you everything you need to know about who the true America First fighter is in this race,” Knight added.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/6kSdvnM
via IFTTT

Gavin Newsom slams Maine Republicans over gun control after mass shooting


California Gov. Gavin Newsom slammed Maine Republicans on social media for rejecting a gun control bill that would have required a 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases earlier this year after a gunman opened fire and killed at least 18 people in Lewiston Wednesday night.

Newsom pointed the finger at Republicans, but Democrats have control of both Maine's House and Senate. The June legislation's rejection was bipartisan, failing in the House 73-69 with 65 Republicans and seven Democrats voting against and in the Senate 24-11 with all 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats voting against.

Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills had remained largely silent on the proposal. At a press conference Thursday, Mills condemned the shootings without mentioning gun control.

“They seriously could not fathom waiting 72 hours to buy a gun,” Newsom wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, in a post that also criticized Maine's lack of laws to ban assault weapons, require permits to carry a gun in public or require background checks on all gun sales.

The California governor also repeated his calls for further gun control action from Congress. He has been vocal about calling out Republicans for not passing gun safety legislation, particularly after two mass shootings in his state left 19 people dead earlier this year.

On Wednesday night, a man shot and killed at least 18 people and injured at least 13 at a restaurant and a bowling alley in Lewiston, Maine, and then fled the scene. Law enforcement continued to search for the suspect, identified as Robert Card, on Thursday.

Card was described as a firearms instructor believed to be in the Army Reserve and assigned to a training facility in Saco, Maine, according to the Associated Press.



from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/GAWe7t9
via IFTTT

Thursday, 26 October 2023

From Trump loyalists to state witnesses: The evolution of 3 ex-members of Trump's legal team


In November 2020, Donald Trump mobilized a team of lawyers to help challenge the presidential election results. Their aim was to push state legislators to unlawfully appoint presidential electors and make baseless claims that voting machines were tampered with.

Nearly three years later, these same lawyers are abandoning the former president with guilty pleas to Georgia prosecutors. Trump and 18 allies were indicted in August on racketeering charges stemming from their efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia.

Over the past week, three Trump-affiliated lawyers — Jenna Ellis, Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell — struck plea deals that will allow them to avoid prison. The three guilty pleas could spell bad news for Trump because the deals require all three lawyers to cooperate with prosecutors and potentially testify for the state at trial.

Here is how the former president’s lawyers went from having his back to turning against him.

Jenna Ellis



Before she became part of team Trump, Ellis was a staunch critic of the former president, calling him an “idiot” in 2016. But the attorney became a Trump campaign adviser in November 2019 and was soon known for going to bat for him on TV and social media.

“In 2016, people were hesitant because they weren’t sure that President Trump would fulfill his promises, as opposed to the 2020 election where he has a track record where he has been so pro-American family,” Ellis said in an appearance on Fox Business in August 2019.

After the election, Ellis became part of a legal team challenging the results. She often traveled with Rudy Giuliani to various Biden-won states and pushed Republican lawmakers to appoint alternate slates of presidential electors.

“I’m so proud of this president. That President Trump is completely behind protecting election integrity and is making sure that the people and these corrupt election officials, from governors to secretaries of state all the way down to these local election officials, that they don’t get away with this,” Ellis said after the election in November 2020.

Prosecutors charged Ellis in August with a felony for participating in an effort to make false statements to Georgia lawmakers about election fraud. She pleaded guilty Tuesday.

Ellis had distanced herself from the former president, calling him a “malignant narcissist” on her radio show in September. She tearfully expressed remorse to the judge in her plea.

“What I did not do but should have done, your honor, was to make sure that the facts the other lawyers alleged to be true were in fact true,” Ellis said in court Tuesday. “In the frenetic pace of attempting to raise challenges to the election in several states, including Georgia, I failed to do my due diligence.”

Kenneth Chesebro



Chesebro worked as an outside adviser to the Trump campaign and was a behind-the-scenes architect of the far-fetched legal arguments that Trump used to justify his last-ditch attempt to remain in power.

Chesebro sent memos in November and December 2020 to James Troupis, a former Wisconsin judge and a lawyer with the Trump campaign who asked for Chesebro’s help on campaign litigation in Wisconsin, describing the push to send pro-Trump electors to Congress as a way to preserve Trump’s chances to win in post-election legal battles. But when those courtroom battles all fizzled, Chesebro’s rationale for the false electors evolved, and he noted that pro-Trump members of Congress could invoke them to potentially flip the Electoral College to Trump on Jan. 6, 2021.

Chesebro has largely stayed quiet about his involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election. In an interview with Talking Points Memo in June 2022, he said that it was the “duty of any attorney to leave no stone unturned in examining the legal options that exist in a particular situation.”

“Lawyers have an ethical obligation to explore every possible argument that might benefit their clients. In my work for the Trump-Pence campaign, I fulfilled that ethical obligation,” Chesebro told the outlet.

Chesebro pleaded guilty last week to a single felony count of conspiring to file false documents.

Sidney Powell



Powell became prominent during the Trump presidency as the attorney for Michael Flynn, who served as Trump’s first national security adviser, later pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI and was eventually pardoned by Trump. Powell was later hired to Trump’s legal team to challenge the results of the 2020 election.

The firebrand attorney is best known for speaking to the media, particularly Fox News, about conspiracy theories of foreign governments manipulating voting machines. Despite being pushed away by the Trump campaign soon after the 2020 election, Powell continued to advise Trump.

“This is stunning, heartbreaking, infuriating and the most unpatriotic acts that I can even imagine for people in this country to have participated in any way shape or form. And I want the American public to know right now that we will not be intimidated,” Powell said at a press conference after the election that is best remembered for the image of Rudy Giuliani’s hair dye running down his face.

Powell appeared in the Oval Office in December 2020 to push Trump to use the military to seize voting machines. Trump came close to appointing her special counsel and empowering her to lead that effort before rejecting it amid pushback from White House advisers.

“Most of us there knew something very wrong had happened,” Powell said in an August 2021 interview. “It was obvious to me from the mathematical and statistical impossibilities that occurred the night of our election. I already had some knowledge of the ability of voting machines to be tampered with.”

In the Georgia indictment, prosecutors accused Powell of leading an effort to illegally breach voting equipment after the election in Coffee County, Ga.

Last week, Powell pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor counts to commit intentional interference with performance of election duties. Powell also agreed to testify against the other defendants in the case, including Trump.

Three days after Powell pleaded guilty, Trump claimed on his social media platform, Truth Social, that Powell was never his attorney.

“MS. POWELL WAS NOT MY ATTORNEY, AND NEVER WAS. In fact, she would have been conflicted,” Trump wrote on Truth Social.

In November 2020, however, Trump touted Powell as among “a truly great team, added to our other wonderful lawyers and representatives!”



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

ACLU: Trump’s gag order in federal case is unconstitutional


For four years during former President Donald Trump's presidency, the American Civil Liberties Union was one of his biggest courtroom adversaries. Now, the group is taking his side in a high-profile fight over what Trump can say as a criminal defendant.

The ACLU on Wednesday stepped into the battle over Trump’s federal gag order, arguing that U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan violated Trump’s First Amendment rights as well as the public’s right to hear him when she issued the order earlier this month. Chutkan is presiding over the criminal case special counsel Jack Smith is pursuing against Trump for trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election results.

“The obvious and unprecedented public interest in this prosecution, as well as the widespread political speech that it has generated and will continue to generate, only underscores the need to apply the most stringent First Amendment standard to a restraint on Defendant’s speech rights,” ACLU attorneys wrote in a friend-of-the-court brief.

The group urged Chutkan to reevaluate her order, calling it both vague and overbroad, with aspects of its meaning “unknown and perhaps unknowable.” One particular uncertainty the ACLU seized on was the meaning of Chutkan’s prohibition on statements that “target” Smith, his prosecutors, court personnel, defense attorneys or witnesses.

“Reading the order, Defendant cannot possibly know what he is permitted to say, and what he is not,” the group wrote.

Trump’s lawyers opposed the gag and have appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Chutkan has temporarily lifted the gag order while she mulls a request to keep it on ice during that appeal.

While Chutkan said during a hearing on the issue that Trump should not be treated differently from other defendants simply because he’s running for president, the ACLU said the ongoing campaign heightens the public interest in letting the former president speak freely about his prosecution and other grievances against Smith’s office.

“Defendant’s ability to speak publicly about the substance of the prosecution, even including potential witnesses and testimony, is in many ways inextricable from the 2024 presidential campaign in which he is a declared candidate,” the ACLU brief said.

The ACLU brief also echoed arguments from Trump’s lawyers that his speech should not be curtailed simply because some who hear it may have acted violently or issued explicit threats to the targets of his ire.

“The First Amendment does not authorize the Court to impose a judicial gag order on Defendant merely because third parties who hear his public statements may behave badly of their own accord,” the group wrote.

Taking Trump’s side in court is a new look for the ACLU, which once boasted of filing more than 400 legal actions against the Trump administration and saw a huge influx of donations for its legal battles against Trump policies such as the travel ban.

Undoubtedly aware that many ACLU supporters will be surprised to see the organization coming to Trump’s defense, the group’s filing includes a blunt condemnation of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election.

“Defendant’s role in the events related to his obstruction of the peaceful transition of power are relevant not only to the proceedings in this Court, but to the country’s decision about whether he deserves to be elected again,” the organization’s brief says. “Much that he has said has been patently false and has caused great harm to countless individuals, as well as to the Republic itself. Some of his words and actions have led him to this criminal indictment, which alleges grave wrongdoing in contempt of the peaceful transition of power.”



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