Appointments and Executive Changes

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      NYC Mayoral Campaign: Yang Hires Woman Who Once Disparaged Him

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }N.Y.C. Mayoral RaceWho’s Running?11 Candidates’ N.Y.C. MomentsA Look at the Race5 Takeaways From the DebateAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyIn Campaign Team Shake-up, Yang Hires a Woman Who Once Disparaged HimThe new campaign co-manager, Sasha Neha Ahuja, criticized the candidate in 2019 after he was accused of gender discrimination, writing, “Wish I could say it was unbelievable.”Andrew Yang, a newcomer to New York City politics, has lurched toward the front of the city’s mayoral race.Credit…Jose A. Alvarado Jr. for The New York TimesDana Rubinstein and Feb. 12, 2021Updated 6:01 p.m. ETIn 2019, a story about gender discrimination centering on a presidential candidate was making the rounds, and a New York City progressive activist, Sasha Neha Ahuja, found it to be credible.The candidate was Andrew Yang, and Kimberly Watkins, one of his former employees at the test-prep company he once ran, had publicly accused Mr. Yang of firing her after she got married, allegedly because he thought she would not want to work as hard.“Wish I could say it was unbelievable,” Ms. Ahuja wrote on Twitter, sharing an article from HuffPost about Ms. Watkins’s allegations, which Mr. Yang has long denied.Last month, Mr. Yang named Ms. Ahuja as the co-manager of his campaign for New York City mayor, selecting an operative who may be able to help him connect with progressives skeptical of Mr. Yang’s campaign. Yet a review of her activity on Twitter suggests that on multiple issues, involving politics and personnel, her instincts have been at odds with the leading candidate she is now assisting.Her elevation to the role, running the campaign alongside Chris Coffey, a Tusk Strategies executive, came as a result of an apparent leadership shake-up within the campaign in the weeks leading up to Mr. Yang’s entry into the race.The developments offer among the clearest signs yet of some of the turbulence that Mr. Yang, a leading mayoral candidate but a newcomer to city politics, has encountered as he works to get his campaign off the ground.Ms. Ahuja said in a statement released on Friday that “when I heard the testimony in 2019, I was taken aback. It’s incredibly important for us to listen to the experiences of all people in the workplace, especially those who tend to experience discrimination most frequently.”“It is also important to make sure all sides are heard and promote a workplace culture that is inclusive and committed to equity,” said Ms. Ahuja, who is the current chair of New York City’s Equal Employment Practices Commission. “That’s why when I had the chance to work for Andrew and build that type of culture on a mayoral campaign, I jumped at the chance and am so excited to be here.”Her tweets also suggest that she has been far more progressive on matters including criminal justice than Mr. Yang is in his current bid. And during a recent special City Council election in Queens, Ms. Ahuja tweeted encouragingly about a deeply progressive candidate who was embraced by leading liberal figures but was vigorously opposed by some members of the Orthodox Jewish community, a constituency Mr. Yang is now aggressively courting.Mr. Yang did not engage in that election, his campaign said, and Ms. Ahuja noted that “there are so few South Asian women who run for office in New York City and I support many of them, independent from any professional work.”In a statement, Mr. Yang defended Ms. Ahuja’s tweets about him.“The rest of the field can focus on my staffer’s tweets from years ago, but we’re focused on the big ideas like cash relief,” responding to Covid-19 and managing the economic recovery, he said. “I wanted my team to represent a diverse array of backgrounds, experiences, and views, and I’m proud to have all these folks fighting with me for New Yorkers.”Ms. Watkins, who is now running for Manhattan borough president, said she was “shocked” after being shown Ms. Ahuja’s tweet on Friday.“If she’s working now for Andrew Yang, having declared that she believed that to be true, it tells me that she is under the influence of someone who does not tell the truth about their history with women in the workplace,” Ms. Watkins added.Ms. Ahuja’s appointment was not the only personnel change on Mr. Yang’s campaign team in recent weeks.Zach Graumann, who was Mr. Yang’s presidential campaign manager, signed multiple fund-raising emails last month indicating that he was Mr. Yang’s mayoral campaign manager. Mr. Graumann, who came under scrutiny in a recent Business Insider article about how Mr. Yang’s 2020 campaign was mired in “bro culture,” is now listed as a senior adviser to Mr. Yang. They continue to host a podcast together.Mr. Yang’s team has said that Mr. Graumann helped the campaign get started but that it wanted to put New York political experts in charge of the team.At a recent candidates’ forum, Mr. Yang mentioned Ms. Ahuja in response to a question from Maya D. Wiley, another mayoral candidate, about the Business Insider article.“One of my co-campaign managers is a woman of color, Sasha Ahuja,” he said. “I could not agree more with the fact that you need, you need to have women in positions of leadership in order to actually operate at the highest levels.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Justice Dept. to Keep Special Counsel Investigating Russia Inquiry

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyJustice Dept. to Keep Special Counsel Investigating Russia InquiryJohn H. Durham will remain as special counsel even as the Biden administration requests a mass resignation of U.S. attorneys. The prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden’s taxes will also remain.The Justice Department will begin to ask dozens of remaining Trump-era U.S. attorneys to resign on Tuesday.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesFeb. 9, 2021Updated 8:03 a.m. ETWASHINGTON — The Justice Department will allow John H. Durham to remain in the role of special counsel appointed to investigate the origins of the Trump-Russia inquiry, even after he relinquishes his role as the top federal prosecutor in Connecticut, according to a senior Justice Department official.Mr. Durham is expected to step down as the U.S. attorney in Connecticut as early as Tuesday, when the Biden administration will begin to ask dozens of Trump-era U.S. attorneys who have not already quit to submit their resignations, the official said Monday.All of the remaining U.S. attorneys appointed by President Donald J. Trump and confirmed by the Senate will be asked to tender their resignations except for David C. Weiss, the U.S. attorney in Delaware who is overseeing the tax fraud investigation into President Biden’s son Hunter Biden. Acting Attorney General Monty Wilkinson called Mr. Weiss on Monday evening and asked him to remain in office, according to the official.It is common for new presidents to replace U.S. attorneys en masse, and the request for resignations has long been expected. But Mr. Durham’s and Mr. Weiss’s investigations had created delicate situations for the Biden administration, which is seeking to restore the Justice Department’s image of impartiality.It is not clear exactly when the resignations, 56 in all, will take effect, or when their replacements can be confirmed by the Senate. The resignations were reported earlier by CNN.The confirmation hearing for Judge Merrick B. Garland, Mr. Biden’s nominee for attorney general, is not expected to begin for two weeks, according to a person briefed on the matter. The process has been slowed by the tumultuous transition from the Trump administration and by the second impeachment trial of Mr. Trump, which begins on Tuesday.Since the spring of 2019, Mr. Durham has been investigating whether any Obama administration officials broke the law when they examined the Trump campaign’s potential ties to Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.The New WashingtonLive UpdatesUpdated Feb. 9, 2021, 9:53 a.m. ETBiden will spend the day focused on the stimulus package and his push to increase the minimum wage to $15.Conservative media, the apparatus that fed Trump’s power, is facing a test, too.Trump’s trial is expected to be brief but may have lasting political repercussions.Both Mr. Trump and the attorney general at the time, William P. Barr, had publicly said they were certain that Mr. Durham would uncover grave offenses, if not outright criminal behavior, that supported the idea that the Russia investigation was a plot created to sabotage Mr. Trump.But Mr. Durham never lived up to their expectations. The only criminal case Mr. Durham has brought was against Kevin E. Clinesmith, a former lower-level F.B.I. lawyer, who falsified information in an email from the C.I.A. that the bureau used to renew a wiretap order that targeted Carter Page, a onetime Trump campaign aide. In the weeks before the 2020 election, Mr. Trump and his supporters expressed outrage that the Durham inquiry had not produced anything useful to Mr. Trump’s campaign efforts.In October, Mr. Barr secretly appointed Mr. Durham to serve as special counsel to continue his work. The move gave Mr. Durham independence from a possible Biden administration and made it very difficult for a new attorney general to end his investigation, all but ensuring the Durham inquiry would live on after Mr. Trump left office.“In advance of the presidential election, I decided to appoint Mr. Durham as a special counsel to provide him and his team with the assurance that they could complete their work, without regard to the outcome of the election,” Mr. Barr wrote in a letter that he submitted to Congress in December.Dozens of Mr. Trump’s U.S. attorneys have already resigned, in the weeks before and after the election, leaving those offices in the hands of acting officials. While Mr. Durham and several more U.S. attorneys are expected to join them this week, that cohort will not include the leaders of the largest, most prominent federal prosecutor’s offices: Audrey Strauss, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, who was appointed to her position by the courts, and Michael R. Sherwin, the U.S. attorney in Washington, who is an acting official and was not confirmed by the Senate.Both Ms. Strauss and Mr. Sherwin were elevated to their roles amid upheaval and controversy that stemmed from Mr. Barr’s handling of politically delicate cases involving Mr. Trump.Ms. Strauss was made the acting U.S. attorney after her boss, Geoffrey S. Berman, angered the White House with his handling of cases against Mr. Trump’s associates and ultimately refused to leave when Mr. Barr tried to replace him. The standoff between the two men ended when Mr. Barr allowed Ms. Strauss, a registered Democrat, to lead the office. Federal judges in her district, exercising a rarely used power, formally appointed her to the position in December.Mr. Sherwin was tapped to lead the Washington office after his predecessor was removed amid a contentious decision by Mr. Barr to force prosecutors to lower a sentencing recommendation for one of Mr. Trump’s allies, Roger J. Stone Jr. Mr. Sherwin has since emerged as the face of the Justice Department’s sprawling investigation into the Jan. 6 siege of the Capitol by a pro-Trump mob.Mr. Sherwin could remain at the department to work on the Capitol riots investigation, even after the administration nominates a new U.S. attorney, according to a person with knowledge of the deliberations.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      How Biden United a Fractious Democratic Party Under One Tent

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyHow Biden United a Fractious Party Under One TentPresident Biden and progressive Democrats are united by a moment of national crisis and the lingering influence of his predecessor. But the moment of harmony may be fragile.Members of President Biden’s administration have sent careful signs that they are listening to liberal Democrats.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesLisa Lerer and Feb. 9, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETFor years, Bernie Sanders and Joseph R. Biden Jr. wrestled over the Democratic Party’s future in a public tug of war that spanned three elections, two administrations and one primary contest.But when Mr. Sanders walked into his first Oval Office meeting with the new president last week and saw the large portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt opposite the Resolute Desk, the liberal luminary felt as if he were no longer battling Mr. Biden for the soul of the party.“President Biden understands that, like Roosevelt, he has entered office at a time of extraordinary crises and that he is prepared to think big and not small in order to address the many, many problems facing working families,” Mr. Sanders said in an interview. “There is an understanding that if we’re going to address the crises facing this country, we’re all in it together.”After a 15-month primary contest that highlighted deep divides within the party, Mr. Biden and his fractious Democratic coalition are largely holding together. United by a moment of national crisis and the lingering influence of his predecessor, the new president is enjoying an early honeymoon from the political vise of a progressive wing that spent months preparing to squeeze the new administration.Democrats have remained resolute about pushing through Mr. Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus rescue plan over near-unanimous dissent from Republicans, and they are determined to hold former President Donald J. Trump accountable for his role in the Jan. 6 Capitol violence in the impeachment trial that starts Tuesday.Liberal standard-bearers like Mr. Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts are holding their fire. The progressive “Squad” in the House — Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and her allies — have focused their rage on the Republicans who inspired the siege of the Capitol.And activists who have built careers out of orchestrating public pressure campaigns have been disarmed by the open line to the White House they enjoy, and by the encouragement they receive from its highest levels — a signal that the administration is tending to the Democratic base in a way that wasn’t done during the Obama or Clinton years.The moment of unity could be fragile: Sharp differences remain between Mr. Biden and his left flank over issues like health care, college costs, expanding the Supreme Court and tackling income equality. A battle looms over whether to prioritize a $15 per hour minimum wage in the administration’s first piece of legislation; the debate flared anew on Monday when a report from the Congressional Budget Office said the $15 level would significantly reduce poverty but cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.Yet in the embryonic stage of the Biden administration, Democrats appear to be largely coexisting under their big tent.Even Mr. Biden’s decision to hold his first high-profile White House meeting with Republican senators, and not Democrats, didn’t faze progressives who urged him to stand firm in the face of efforts to whittle down his $1.9 trillion stimulus package.“Biden said he would reach out to Republicans,” Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon, one of the chamber’s most progressive members, said in an interview. “He had to give it a shot.”The harmony reflects how far Mr. Biden and his party shifted to the left during the Trump administration. During the campaign, Republicans accused Mr. Biden of being a “Trojan horse” for liberal interests. But the administration hasn’t tried to smuggle in progressive proposals; it has simply rebranded them as its own.Elements of the Green New Deal, economic proposals and initiatives on racial equity and immigration are appearing in the executive orders and legislative plans the administration has issued.Even party moderates like Senator Joe Manchin III of West Virginia now believe that Democrats must adopt a more aggressive approach to passing their agenda than they used a dozen years ago, when they last held full control of the federal government and spent months negotiating with Republicans. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, second from left, Mr. Biden’s liberal opponent in the Democratic primary last year, has become an influential inside player in government.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesLast week, by contrast, Democrats moved toward passing their expansive coronavirus relief package through reconciliation, a fast-track budgetary process that allows the party to muscle through parts of its agenda with a simple majority vote.Within the Democratic caucus, Mr. Biden’s team has avoided other pitfalls he witnessed during the Obama administration, when White House spokesmen dismissed activists as “the professional left” and banished intraparty critics from the administration’s circles of influence. Instead, Mr. Biden’s White House has welcomed many such critics to virtual meetings, and the chief of staff, Ron Klain, has encouraged progressive criticism on his Twitter feed.The New WashingtonLive UpdatesUpdated Feb. 9, 2021, 9:53 a.m. ETBiden will spend the day focused on the stimulus package and his push to increase the minimum wage to $15.Conservative media, the apparatus that fed Trump’s power, is facing a test, too.Trump’s trial is expected to be brief but may have lasting political repercussions.Melissa Byrne, a progressive activist, discovered as much when she wanted to prod Mr. Biden to focus on forgiving student loan debt. To complement her steady stream of tweets, Ms. Byrne bought full-page ads in The News Journal, a newspaper that was delivered to Mr. Biden’s Delaware house daily during the presidential transition.Ms. Byrne expected some bristling from Mr. Biden’s team over her public protests. Instead, her efforts were encouraged. Mr. Klain told her to keep up the pressure, inviting her to more Zoom meetings with the transition team.“We just kept being able to have people at the table,” she said. “That showed me that we could do cool things like sit-ins and banner drops, but we could also be warm and fuzzy.”The singular focus on the pandemic has enabled Mr. Biden to align the central promise of his campaign — a more effective government response — with the priorities of party officials in battleground states, who say that voters expect Mr. Biden to deliver a competent vaccine distribution along with direct economic relief. Already, there is widespread agreement within the party that Democrats will be judged in the 2022 midterms and the 2024 presidential contest by their handling of the twin crises.“Needles and checks — that’s got to be the focus,” said Thomas Nelson, the executive of Wisconsin’s Outagamie County. Mr. Nelson was a Sanders delegate in 2020 and is running in the 2022 election for the seat held by Senator Ron Johnson, a Republican. “People in my county, we need those checks.”Mr. Biden has also paid attention to other policy matters. He has signed about 45 executive orders, memorandums or proclamations enacting or at least initiating major shifts on issues including racial justice, immigration, climate change and transgender rights.While his inner circle is largely composed of long-serving aides, he has placed progressives in influential administrative posts. He has also avoided selecting figures reviled by the left, like former Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago — who was Mr. Obama’s chief of staff in 2009 — for high-profile positions.“None of the people we were afraid of got into this cabinet,” said Larry Cohen, the chairman of Our Revolution, the political group that formed out of the 2016 Sanders campaign. “It’s fine and well for Rahm Emanuel to be an ambassador someplace.”Mr. Biden has signed about 45 executive orders, memorandums or proclamations enacting or at least initiating major policy shifts on a wide array of issues.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesFor the first time in his decades in Washington, Mr. Sanders is an influential inside player in governance. He is chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and speaks frequently with administration officials including Mr. Klain. He has had a number of conversations with Mr. Biden, whom he considers a friend, and said his calls to the White House were returned “very shortly.”“He sees the progressive movement as a strong part of his coalition,” Mr. Sanders said of Mr. Biden. “He is reaching out to us and is adopting some of the ideas that we have put forth that make sense in terms of today’s crises.”There’s plenty of overlap between Mr. Biden’s agenda and his left flank and some of the praise stems from the new president’s taking steps he had already promised during his campaign, including rejoining the Paris climate accord.Republicans have complained that Mr. Biden is a moderate being led astray by liberals in Congress and the White House. But as Democratic ideology shifted during his decades in Washington, Mr. Biden always recalibrated his positions to remain at the middle of his party. After four years of the Trump administration, that center has shifted decidedly to the left.While Mr. Biden took pains to separate himself from the progressive left during the campaign — “I beat the socialist,” Mr. Biden was fond of saying after he bested Mr. Sanders — he forged a rapprochement last summer when his campaign agreed to policy task forces with members appointed by Mr. Sanders. For his part, Mr. Biden has reinterpreted his campaign promise to bring the country together into the loosest definition of the term. His aides have begun portraying it as finding broad support for their plans among voters — regardless of whether they garner the votes of any congressional Republicans.“If you pass a piece of legislation that breaks down on party lines, but it gets passed, it doesn’t mean there wasn’t unity,” Mr. Biden said recently. “It just means it wasn’t bipartisan.”Still, reconciliation is subject to strict limits, so fights over what policies should be pursued and how to overcome Republican opposition are likely to be unavoidable.Senators Elizabeth Warren and Chuck Schumer held a news conference at the Capitol last week calling for student loan forgiveness.Credit…Anna Moneymaker for The New York TimesBattle lines are already being drawn over whether to eliminate the filibuster, which would allow the party to pass measures with a simple majority. Mr. Biden and moderate Democrats remain committed to keeping the tactic, a decision liberals say could block a robust policy portfolio.“Everyone is trying to make the argument that their priority can move through reconciliation,” said Adam Jentleson, a former Senate aide who recently founded a new organization to help progressive groups push their agenda in Washington. “As people start to see that their thing is not going to get done that way, there will be more pressure.”Mr. Biden’s honeymoon may be short on other issues as well. Advocates working near the Mexican border would like to see Mr. Biden flex his executive power to stop all deportations, going further than his promised 100-day moratorium, which was blocked in court.“The feeling is really, ‘Why did we come up with all this work to come up with this plan only for you to come up with an executive order to say you’re still reviewing it?’” said Erika Pinheiro, the policy and litigation director at Al Otro Lado, a legal aid service for migrants and deportees.Not everyone is quite as impatient. Ms. Byrne, the activist, said Mr. Biden’s executive order extending a pause on federal student loan payments until September served as a sufficient first step.“As long as they keep doing good stuff, we will be happy,” Ms. Byrne said. “You give them a moment to operate in good faith, and you keep the cycle going.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Watchdogs Appointed by Trump Pose Dilemma for Biden

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyWatchdogs Appointed by Trump Pose Dilemma for BidenRemoving inspectors general installed by the former president under a political cloud could have the consequence of further eroding good-government norms.Only one Democrat in the Senate voted to confirm Brian D. Miller, who had been a White House lawyer for President Donald J. Trump, as an inspector general hunting for abuses in pandemic spending.Credit…Pool photo by Salwan GeorgesFeb. 1, 2021Updated 8:08 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Even as the Biden administration has moved aggressively to undo Donald J. Trump’s policies and dislodge his loyalists from positions on boards and civil-service jobs, it has hesitated on a related choice: whether to remove two inspectors general appointed by Mr. Trump under a storm of partisan controversy.At issue is whether the new administration will keep Eric Soskin, who was confirmed as the Transportation Department’s inspector general in December, and Brian D. Miller, a former Trump White House lawyer who was named earlier in 2020 to hunt for abuses in pandemic spending.Both were confirmed over intense Democratic opposition after Mr. Trump fired or demoted a number of inspectors general last year, saying he had been treated “very unfairly” by them.By ousting or sidelining inspectors general who were seen as investigating his administration aggressively, Mr. Trump set off a partisan backlash that undercut a tradition under which nearly all inspectors general since Congress created the independent anti-corruption watchdog positions in 1978 were confirmed unanimously or by voice vote without recorded opposition.The Biden team wants to repair what it sees as damage to the government wrought by Mr. Trump through his many violations of norms. It also wants to restore and reinforce those norms, according to people briefed on its internal deliberations about inspectors general dating back to the campaign and transition.But in the case of inspectors general like Mr. Soskin, those two goals are seen as conflicting, those people said. To remove him would itself be another violation of the norm of respecting such officials’ independence and not firing them without a specific cause, like misconduct.“It’s very possible — and it would be a real mistake — for the Biden people to remove those I.G.’s because they were appointed by Trump,” said Danielle Brian, the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight, a government watchdog group. “That would be essentially exacerbating the problems he created in the first place.”Ms. Brian in December was one of the few outside observers to call attention to a little-noticed push by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, then the majority leader, to get Mr. Soskin confirmed as the Transportation Department inspector general. The 48-to-47 vote to confirm Mr. Soskin made him the first such official to take office on a purely party-line clash.The office Mr. Soskin now controls has been investigating whether Mr. Trump’s Transportation secretary, Elaine Chao, improperly steered grants to Kentucky as her husband, Mr. McConnell, was seeking re-election there. During the lame-duck session, Mr. McConnell used his power to prioritize getting Mr. Soskin confirmed over four other inspector general nominees who had been waiting for floor votes longer, raising the question of why he was trying to ensure that a Republican appointee would control that post even after Mr. Biden took office.“Hmm why would Majority Leader McConnell be pushing this nomination for Dept of Transportation IG today?” Ms. Brian wrote on Twitter on Dec. 18, a day after he filed a so-called cloture motion to end debate and hold an up-or-down vote on Mr. Soskin. “Perhaps it has something to do with the allegation of wrongdoing that office is reportedly handling against his wife, the Sec of Transportation?”Elaine Chao, then the transportation secretary, and her husband, Senator Mitch McConnell, in the Capitol last month.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesMr. McConnell had on the same day also filed a cloture motion for a second inspector nominee, but not enough Republicans were in town when the clotures votes were held on Dec. 19 to constitute a majority, and both votes to end debate failed. He then successfully tried again for Mr. Soskin on Dec. 21 and got him confirmed, while abandoning the other nominee without explanation.Earlier in the year, only one Democrat voted to confirm Mr. Miller, who had worked in the Trump White House, with others rejecting him on the grounds that he was seen as too close to the Trump administration to aggressively hunt for waste or fraud in pandemic spending during an election year.Amid competing priorities, the Biden team appears not to have reached any decision about what, if anything, to do about Mr. Soskin and Mr. Miller. In a statement, a White House spokesman, Michael Gwin, extolled the general virtue of keeping politics away from such positions.“President Biden believes strongly in the role of inspectors general in keeping government honest and protecting taxpayer dollars, and he’s committed to protecting their independent role in his administration,” Mr. Gwin said in a statement. “Any politicization of the inspector general community is highly inappropriate and has no place in government.”Scrutiny of Mr. Miller has stemmed partially from the fact that he produced scant public sign of activity in his first eight months on the job.But his office delivered a report to Congress on Monday describing some investigative work, including developing 69 leads about suspected fraud that were referred to law-enforcement partners and opening five new preliminary investigations. A person familiar with his office said he had hired 34 staff members by the end of January.“I try to be bipartisan and nonpartisan — certainly as an inspector general and in everything that I do,” Mr. Miller said in an interview.During Mr. Soskin’s confirmation hearing last summer, he also pledged to do his job impartially. Through a spokesman, he declined to comment about the status of the Chao-McConnell investigation.A spokesman for Mr. McConnell, while not directly responding to a question about whether he prioritized Mr. Soskin because of that inquiry, pointed to a 2019 statement in which Mr. McConnell had made no apology for using his position “to advance Kentucky’s priorities” after Politico reported on arrangements under Ms. Chao favoring grants to Kentucky.At a time when the Senate is narrowly divided and the Biden team is trying to get major legislation passed, ousting Mr. Soskin would most likely anger other Republicans as well — particularly Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, a champion of inspectors general.Mr. Grassley scolded Mr. Trump last year over his failure to articulate a concrete reason for his removal of one such official, Michael Atkinson, who had sought to bring to Congress’s attention the whistle-blower complaint that led to Mr. Trump’s first impeachment. He also chastised President Barack Obama in 2009 for initially giving little explanation for removing the AmeriCorps inspector general.“It’s hard to imagine how President Biden could have a good reason to fire an I.G. who’s only been on the job less than a month,” Mr. Grassley said in a statement. “If he chooses to fire any I.G., he’d better have a darn good reason to do it, and he’d better notify Congress well in advance, as the law requires. If he doesn’t, he’ll get the same earful from me that Presidents Obama and Trump got.”Mr. Trump nominated Mr. Soskin in May, around the time he was moving against numerous independent inspectors general. The purge included firing some Senate-confirmed officials on the vague basis that he purportedly lacked confidence in them. He also appointed outsiders to serve as new acting heads of offices whose top positions were vacant — layering over the career deputy inspectors general who had been temporarily in control.Mr. Biden sharply criticized the purge at the time during a Yahoo News town hall and pledged to act differently.Some of the targeted officials had attracted Mr. Trump’s personal ire, such as Mr. Atkinson. Others were leading investigations that threatened Trump allies and other Republicans; he removed Steve A. Linick as the State Department’s watchdog, for example, at the request of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who was facing several potentially damaging investigations. (A subordinate to Mr. Pompeo later did accuse Mr. Linick of specific misconduct, but an inspector general council investigated and found that the evidence refuted his accusations.)Filling the Transportation Department inspector general post last year had political sensitivities for both Mr. Trump and Mr. McConnell, then the two most powerful Republicans in Washington. In 2019, Politico reported that the department’s longtime inspector general, Calvin L. Scovel III, was overseeing an investigation into whether the department under Ms. Chao was improperly favoring grants to Kentucky as her husband sought re-election there.In January 2020, Mr. Scovel retired for health reasons, and his deputy, Mitch Behm, took over as acting head. But in May, Mr. Trump installed a different acting head: Howard Elliott, a political appointee known as Skip who, in an unorthodox arrangement, remained subordinate to Ms. Chao. Mr. Trump also nominated Mr. Soskin, then a Justice Department lawyer, for the role.Under Mr. Elliott’s tenure, the election came and went, and the office issued no report about grants to Kentucky. Mr. McConnell won re-election, but Mr. Trump lost, meaning political appointees like Mr. Elliott were set to leave by the inauguration. Had Mr. McConnell not pushed Mr. Soskin through, the office would have reverted to Mr. Behm’s control until Mr. Biden nominated and the Senate confirmed a new inspector general.Still, Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor who co-wrote a book proposing post-Trump reforms to government, said that no matter how well Mr. Biden might couch a justification to remove such an inspector general, it would further damage the notion that presidents ought not remove them without cause.“If Biden refrains from firing Senate-confirmed but disfavored inspectors general, that will buck up the norm of independence,” Mr. Goldsmith said. “The ostensible norm is not an actual norm if it doesn’t constrain the president in painful ways.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 75 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Fact-Checking Biden’s First Week in Office

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The New WashingtonliveLatest UpdatesExpanding Health CoverageBiden’s CabinetPandemic ResponseAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyFact CheckFact-Checking Biden’s First Week in OfficeAll but three of 20 claims the president made were accurate, demonstrating his regard for basic facts and his proclivity to err when speaking off the cuff.In the past week, President Biden used the presidential podium mostly to promote his policy priorities.Credit…Doug Mills/The New York TimesJan. 30, 2021, 5:00 a.m. ETPresident Biden, in his first week in office, typically stuck to vetted scripts and verified facts — a departure from his predecessor’s freewheeling and fact-free rhetorical style.Over all, Mr. Biden used the presidential podium to promote his policy priorities. His remarks were aspirational and light on empirical assertions. Of 20 factual claims The New York Times analyzed from Jan. 20 to Jan. 26, all but three were largely if not completely accurate. One claim was an overly optimistic projection, another falsely criticized former President Donald J. Trump and a third Mr. Biden corrected almost immediately.Here’s a review.The president got basic facts right on the toll and racial disparities of the pandemic.Mr. Biden most often used statistics from government agencies and think tanks to emphasize the severity of the coronavirus pandemic.His assertions that 900,000 Americans filed for unemployment the week before his inauguration, and that almost 16 million continued to claim unemployment benefits, that almost 10 percent of Black Americans and just over 9 percent of Hispanic Americans are unemployed, and that 600,000 workers in local education have lost their jobs are all backed by the latest Labor Department reports.His claims that one in seven households and more than one in five Black and Latino households “don’t have enough food to eat” come from a Census Bureau survey from December. (A day after Mr. Biden made those assertions while signing executive orders meant to promote racial equity, the Census Bureau released a more recent survey showing that the situation had improved slightly in January; one in 10 households and one in six Black and Latino households reported food insecurity.)He was also right that Black and Latino Americans are dying from and being hospitalized because of the coronavirus at rates almost three times that of white Americans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Research from the left-leaning think tanks the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and the Center for Economic and Policy Research buttress Mr. Biden’s claims that 14 million people are behind on rent and 40 percent of frontline workers are Black and Latino.And it was true, as he first claimed during his inauguration, that more Americans have died from the coronavirus (406,194 on Jan. 20) than in all of World War II (405,399, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs). He often accurately cited positive analyses of his plans, and sometimes omitted the less flattering.When promoting his policy priorities, Mr. Biden was armed with favorable citations.He accurately quoted Kevin Hassett, a former top economic adviser to Mr. Trump, as “absolutely” in favor of the Biden administration’s proposed $1.9 trillion fiscal rescue package.It would lift 12 million Americans out of poverty, Mr. Biden said, referring to a study by Columbia University. And he referred to estimates from Moody’s Analytics that the package would create 7.5 million jobs this year, and that his broader economic plan would create about 18.6 million over four years if enacted in full.Mr. Biden, unsurprisingly, did not mention other analyses of his economic plan that projected a smaller effect on employment. The research institution Oxford Economics, which is based in England, estimated that it would create two million more jobs in four years. Nor did the president cite Mr. Hassett’s October paper, written with another economist for the conservative Hoover Institution, estimating that it would result in 4.9 million fewer jobs over a decade.The plan’s call for a $15 minimum wage, Mr. Biden said, would lift people out of poverty. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2019 that a $15 minimum wage would bring 1.3 million people above the poverty line — and also put 1.3 million people out of work.The president also repeatedly urged masking up, twice claiming that “wearing masks from just now until April would save 50,000 lives.” That is in line with a study that found about 130,000 lives could be saved if 95 percent of people wore masks in the 160 days from Sept. 22, 2020, to Feb. 28, 2021, equivalent to about 52,000 lives saved in 70 days.The New WashingtonLive UpdatesUpdated Jan. 29, 2021, 9:45 p.m. ETThe retired general in charge of the Air Force Academy alumni association refuses to condemn Jan. 6 riot, angering its members.Brian Sicknick, the Capitol Police officer who died from injuries at the Capitol riot, will lie in honor in the Rotunda.Biden intelligence briefings to be led by veteran C.I.A. officer, who previously briefed George W. Bush.He strayed from the facts when selling his own policies and critiquing his predecessor.During the 2020 Democratic primary and general election races, Mr. Biden was more prone to factual errors when speaking off the cuff, particularly in attacks on political opponents or as he defended or embellished his own record. The three inaccurate claims of his first week in office demonstrated those tendencies.While signing an executive order on strengthening domestic manufacturing, Mr. Biden suggested on Monday that his predecessor paid only lip service to supporting American businesses but “didn’t take it seriously enough.”“Under the previous administration, the federal government contracts awarded directly to foreign companies went up 30 percent,” Mr. Biden said.That was false. A White House spokesman said that Mr. Biden was referring to contract obligations that rose from 2017 to 2019. But a database of government contracts shows that the value awarded to foreign companies rose from about $11.9 million in the 2017 fiscal year to about $13.2 million in the 2019 fiscal year (an increase of 11 percent) and to about $12.9 million in the 2020 fiscal year (an increase of about 8.4 percent).Moreover, raw dollars do not take into account increased government spending or inflation. The same database shows that the share of foreign contracts actually decreased under Mr. Trump to 1.9 percent of all contracts in the 2020 fiscal year from about 2.3 percent in the 2017 fiscal year.At that same event, Mr. Biden overhyped the effect of one of his clean energy policies when he claimed that replacing all of the cars and trucks owned by the federal government with electric vehicles would create “a million autoworker jobs in clean energy.”It is dubious that electrifying the federal fleet of 645,000 cars and trucks would create one million auto jobs, even by the rosiest projections. After all, the entire auto sector employs just under three million people in manufacturing and dealership jobs, while 15 million to 20 million cars are sold a year.Existing research also shows a far more moderate influence on employment than Mr. Biden claims. For example, a 2010 study estimated 1.9 million jobs created if 123 million vehicles are powered by electricity, while a 2009 paper projected 129,000 to 351,000 jobs added if two-thirds of vehicles sold by 2030 are electric.The president also took aim at some critics of his goal to deliver 100 million doses of the coronavirus vaccine in 100 days.“I found it fascinating — yesterday the press asked the question: Is, you know, 100 million enough? A week before, they were saying, ‘Biden, are you crazy? You can’t do 100 million in a hundred days,’” he said last week. “Well, we’re going to, God willing, not only do 100 million, we’re going to do more than that.”Mr. Biden has a point that some were skeptical that the administration could meet that benchmark when he first made the pledge in early December, a few days before the Food and Drug Administration approved the Pfizer vaccine. Experts told The Times at the time that the goal was achievable, but optimistic. Mr. Biden himself noted in late December — when the country was administering about 200,000 vaccine doses daily — that it would take the United States years to adequately vaccinate the public.But by the week before he took office, the number of shots administered daily reached almost one million. That is the pace required to reach the 100 million doses goal, leading to some criticism that such a goal is now no longer ambitious enough.The president acknowledged in remarks this week that the 100 million number was a floor, not a ceiling.“I’m quite confident that we will be in a position, within the next three weeks or so, to be vaccinating people at the range of a million a day or in excess of that,” he said. “I think we may be able to get that to 1.5 million a day, rather than one million a day. But we have to meet that goal of a million a day.”After a reporter pointed out that the country had already crossed the threshold of one million, Mr. Biden readily corrected himself, using two words his predecessor virtually never uttered: “I misspoke.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 50 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      The First Post-Reagan Presidency

      by

      Credit…Timo LenzenSkip to contentSkip to site indexOpinionThe First Post-Reagan PresidencySo far, Joe Biden has been surprisingly progressive.Credit…Timo LenzenSupported byContinue reading the main storyOpinion ColumnistJan. 28, 2021, 8:50 p.m. ETDuring Donald Trump’s presidency, I sometimes took comfort in the Yale political scientist Stephen Skowronek’s concept of “political time.”In Skowronek’s formulation, presidential history moves in 40- to 60-year cycles, or “regimes.” Each is inaugurated by transformative, “reconstructive” leaders who define the boundaries of political possibility for their successors.Franklin Delano Roosevelt was such a figure. For decades following his presidency, Republicans and Democrats alike accepted many of the basic assumptions of the New Deal. Ronald Reagan was another. After him, even Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama feared deficit spending, inflation and anything that smacked of “big government.”I found Skowronek’s schema reassuring because of where Trump seemed to fit into it. Skowronek thought Trump was a “late regime affiliate” — a category that includes Jimmy Carter and Herbert Hoover. Such figures, he’s written, are outsiders from the party of a dominant but decrepit regime.They use the “internal disarray and festering weakness of the establishment” to “seize the initiative.” Promising to save a faltering political order, they end up imploding and bringing the old regime down with them. No such leader, he wrote, has ever been re-elected.During Trump’s reign, Skowronek’s ideas gained some popular currency, offering a way to make sense of a presidency that seemed anomalous and bizarre. “We are still in the middle of Trump’s rendition of the type,” he wrote in an updated edition of his book “Presidential Leadership in Political Time,” “but we have seen this movie before, and it has always ended the same way.”Skowronek doesn’t present his theory as a skeleton key to history. It’s a way of understanding historical dynamics, not predicting the future. Still, if Trump represented the last gasps of Reaganism instead of the birth of something new, then after him, Skowronek suggests, a fresh regime could begin.When Joe Biden became the Democratic nominee, it seemed that the coming of a new era had been delayed. Reconstructive leaders, in Skowronek’s formulation, repudiate the doctrines of an establishment that no longer has answers for the existential challenges the country faces. Biden, Skowronek told me, is “a guy who’s made his way up through establishment Democratic politics.” Nothing about him seemed trailblazing.Yet as Biden’s administration begins, there are signs that a new politics is coalescing. When, in his inauguration speech, Biden touted “unity,” he framed it as a national rejection of the dark forces unleashed by his discredited predecessor, not stale Gang of Eight bipartisanship. He takes power at a time when what was once conventional wisdom about deficits, inflation and the proper size of government has fallen apart. That means Biden, who has been in national office since before Reagan’s presidency, has the potential to be our first truly post-Reagan president.“Biden has a huge opportunity to finally get our nation past the Reagan narrative that has still lingered,” said Representative Ro Khanna, who was a national co-chair of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign. “And the opportunity is to show that government, by getting the shots in every person’s arm of the vaccines, and building infrastructure, and helping working families, is going to be a force for good.” More

    • 100 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Giuseppe Conte to Resign as Italian Prime Minister

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesVaccine InformationTimelineWuhan, One Year LaterAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyItaly’s Prime Minister to Quit, Adding Political Chaos to PandemicPrime Minister Giuseppe Conte’s government is likely to collapse, leaving Italy in an uncertain political situation with Covid-19 infections still very high.Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte of Italy, center, addressing the Senate in Rome on Tuesday.Credit…Alessandro Di Meo/EPA, via ShutterstockJason Horowitz, Gaia Pianigiani and Jan. 25, 2021Updated 5:15 p.m. ETPrime Minister Giuseppe Conte of Italy will offer his resignation on Tuesday, his office said on Monday evening, likely leading to the collapse of Italy’s teetering government and plunging the country deeper into political chaos as it faces a still serious coronavirus epidemic and a halting vaccine rollout.Mr. Conte’s resignation will put Italy back in the familiar situation of government instability, but in extraordinary times, with tens of millions of Italians struggling to stay healthy and get by under pandemic restrictions and a deep, global recession. The coronavirus has killed more than 85,000 Italians, one of the world’s highest death tolls. The government, which was making slow but steady progress in vaccinating public health workers, has hit a speed bump and threatened to sue Pfizer for a shortfall in vaccine doses.What will happen after Mr. Conte offers his resignation to President Sergio Mattarella remains unclear. Mr. Conte could remain in charge, heading a new governing coalition with a different lineup of parties, but the possibilities also include a more thorough reorganization under a different prime minister, or even elections to choose a new Parliament.Mr. Conte, who is serving his second consecutive stint as Prime Minister — first as the head of an alliance of right-wing nationalists and populists, and then as the leader of a coalition of populists and the center-left establishment — desperately wants to stay in power.But last week, Matteo Renzi, a wily former prime minister and critic of Mr. Conte, unexpectedly pulled his small center-left party out of the government, depriving it of majority support in the Senate. Mr. Conte, who leads a coalition of the populist Five Star Movement and the center-left Democratic Party, has been unable to attract enough new support in Parliament to replace the votes Mr. Renzi took away.Mr. Renzi said he withdrew from the coalition to protest Mr. Conte’s management of the epidemic, his lack of vision in deciding where to allocate hundreds of billions of euros in recovery funds that Italy is set to receive from the European Union, and his undemocratic methods in icing out Parliament by relying on unelected task forces.A food distribution site in Milan earlier this month. The pandemic has devastated Italy’s economy.Credit…Alessandro Grassani for The New York TimesBut many here instead saw Mr. Renzi as performing a complicated political maneuver designed to take revenge on his enemies and gain more influence in the government, perhaps even in a third consecutive government led by Mr. Conte.Mr. Mattarella, the Italian president, is imbued with extraordinary powers during a government crisis and has several options for resolving the crisis.He could, in theory, ask the current coalition to continue, but it is seen as all but certain that he will accept that the government has collapsed. He could task Mr. Conte with forming a new government, which would essentially require the support, and appeasement, of Mr. Renzi’s party, with or without him. That would lead to what was in essence a glorified cabinet reshuffle.On Monday night, a third Conte government seemed, at least publicly, to be the governing coalition’s first choice.Nicola Zingaretti, the leader of the Democratic Party, which Mr. Renzi once led, said in a Twitter post Monday evening that he was “with Conte for a new government.” The Coronavirus Outbreak More