United States Politics and Government

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      House Condemns Biden and Harris Over Afghanistan Withdrawal

      by

      Ten Democrats joined the G.O.P.-led effort to rebuke 15 senior members of the Biden administration for the failures of the Afghanistan withdrawal in a symbolic vote.A bipartisan House majority passed a resolution on Wednesday condemning President Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and 13 other current and former members of the administration over their roles in the chaotic and deadly U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, after 10 Democrats joined all Republicans in delivering the rare and sweeping rebuke.The 219-to-194 vote was the House’s final roll call before members departed Washington to focus on the election, in which control of the chamber is up for grabs. Though the resolution was uniquely broad and direct in condemning the president, members of his cabinet and top advisers in a personal capacity, instead of as an administration, the vote was symbolic because the measure carries no force of law.Still, the participation of 10 Democrats — almost all of them facing tight re-election contests — buoyed the Republicans behind the effort to formally hold senior administration officials primarily responsible for the failures of the withdrawal in the summer of 2021, which left 13 U.S. service members dead. Democratic leaders have dismissed the resolution as a politically biased crusade.“Ten Democrats just joined me in condemning Biden-Harris admin officials who played key roles in the deadly Afghanistan withdrawal,” Representative Michael McCaul, the Texas Republican who is the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement on social media after the vote. “I am glad these colleagues put politics aside and voted to do what was right — deliver accountability to the American people.”While the bipartisan vote was a political punch to the Biden administration at the height of a critical campaign season, the move stood as a far cry from the sort of legislative consequences that Republicans had threatened to wield against Mr. Biden when they began the various investigations into his administration’s policies and his personal conduct.“After their laughingstock flop of an impeachment investigation, they’re flailing about now to attack the president or the vice president however they can,” Representative Jamie Raskin, Democrat of Maryland, who opposed the Afghanistan measure, said after Wednesday’s vote. “The country sees it as cheap election-year antics and games.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      3 Takeaways From Kamala Harris’s Interview on MSNBC

      by

      As Vice President Kamala Harris parses out the details of her agenda, she has favored broad strokes over detailed policy papers. Only recently has she begun sitting for interviews, which have elicited few details about what her presidential administration might look like.Little about that careful approach changed during a 25-minute interview with Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC that was broadcast on Wednesday night. It was Ms. Harris’s first one-on-one interview on cable television since becoming the Democratic nominee.In her discussion with a friendly interviewer, the vice president again presented herself as a champion of the middle class and hit many of the same themes from her pro-business economic speech earlier in the day. She largely avoided direct questions about how she would govern and why some voters remain fond of former President Donald J. Trump’s stewardship of the economy.Here are three takeaways from Ms. Harris’s interview.Harris had roundabout answers to open-ended questions.Ms. Ruhle’s first question was about how Ms. Harris might respond to people who hear her proposals and say, “These policies aren’t for me.” The MSNBC host’s second was about why voters tend to tell pollsters that Mr. Trump is better equipped to handle the economy.Ms. Harris responded to the fairly basic and predictable questions with roundabout responses that did not provide a substantive answer.Instead of offering any explanation for why Mr. Trump polls better on the economy — a matter that has vexed Democrats as President Biden has overseen a steadily improving economy — Ms. Harris instead blasted Mr. Trump’s record. She blamed him for a loss of manufacturing and autoworker jobs and said his tariff proposals would serve as an added sales tax on American consumers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Lawmakers Seek Inquiry Into F.D.A. Device Chief’s Potential Conflicts

      by

      A top medical device regulator’s work overlapped at times with his wife’s legal representation of clients with business before the agency.Two members of Congress have asked an inspector general to investigate whether the top federal regulator for medical devices like pacemakers and artificial hips acted ethically in work that overlapped with that of his wife, a leading lawyer for device companies.The lawmakers cited an investigation by The New York Times that examined the intersection of the work of the regulator, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren of the Food and Drug Administration, and his wife, Allison Shuren, a co-chair of the drug and medical device practice at the prominent Washington office of Arnold & Porter.The two House Democrats who wrote a letter seeking an inquiry are Representatives Anna Eshoo, of California and ranking member of the health subcommittee, and Rosa DeLauro, of Connecticut and ranking member of the appropriations committee.The Times found several instances in which the couple’s work overlapped and could have posed conflicts of interest requiring Mr. Shuren’s recusal. The F.D.A. acknowledged ethics violations, saying that Dr. Shuren should have stepped aside or sought approval to be involved in two matters to “avoid any potential appearance of bias.”“In circumstances such as these,” the congresswomen’s letter to the inspector general, Christi Grimm, said, “the only way to get to the truth and be fair both to the public and Dr. Shuren is through an independent review of the matter to determine whether this is simply an appearance of impropriety or actual inappropriate and unethical conduct.”A spokeswoman for the inspector general’s office of the Health and Human Services Department said that the letter was received Tuesday and that “we are reviewing it for appropriate action.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      Leadership Failures Helped Lead to FAFSA Debacle, Watchdog Finds

      by

      Two reports by the Government Accountability Office found that mismanagement and wildly unrealistic projections derailed the student aid application process this year.Leaders in the Education Department systematically failed to manage deadlines and badly underestimated technical shortcomings while overhauling the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, according to a pair of damaging reports released by the Government Accountability Office on Tuesday.The reports provide new insight into a breakdown that is already painfully familiar to thousands of students and families, who struggled for much of this year to get an accurate estimate of how much they would need to pay for college because of glitches in the application form, known as FAFSA.Signs of trouble with FAFSA started around this time last year, when students typically can begin to submit their household’s financial data to the government, which in turn helps calculate financial aid offers.By January, many students found themselves running into a variety of bugs and data entry problems that locked them out of the form, produced an inaccurate summary of their finances or otherwise prevented them from applying.Many findings in the reports released on Tuesday, including how the Education Department struggled to manage contractors it hired to help build the form, have been publicly known for some time through reporting and several congressional inquiries.But the accountability office’s findings highlighted startling details about just how poorly the department underestimated the problems that would affect families and force college administrators to sort out discrepancies through much of this summer.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares139 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Golf Course Suspect Is Charged With Attempted Assassination

      by

      The new federal indictment in Florida comes on top of two gun charges against Ryan W. Routh, an itinerant contractor with an extensive criminal record.The man accused of lurking with a gun near former President Donald J. Trump at one of his Florida golf courses was charged on Tuesday with the attempted assassination of a presidential candidate, a crime that carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.The indictment was returned by a federal grand jury in Miami and filed in Federal District Court in southern Florida. The case was randomly assigned to Judge Aileen M. Cannon, the Trump-appointed judge who recently dismissed the case related to Mr. Trump’s retention of classified documents after he left office.The new charges against the suspect, Ryan W. Routh, 58, were expected. They come on top of two gun charges against Mr. Routh, an itinerant contractor with an extensive criminal record who exhorted Iran to assassinate Mr. Trump.In addition to the assassination charges, Mr. Routh was charged with possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, along with assaulting or intimidating a Secret Service agent — possibly referring to reports of his pointing the rifle in the direction of the agents before fleeing the perimeter of the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach.Earlier on Tuesday, a federal magistrate judge ordered Mr. Routh held until trial, citing his “lengthy criminal history with over a hundred arrests,” a history of weapons violations and his recent travel to Ukraine and Taiwan, which made him a flight risk.Just hours before that, federal prosecutors in North Carolina unsealed charges against Mr. Routh’s son, Oran A. Routh, accusing him of buying and possessing child pornography. An F.B.I. search of his apartment for evidence in his father’s case uncovered “hundreds” of sexual images on his phone involving children as young as 6, according to a court filing.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Alex Jones’s Infowars Will Be Auctioned Off to Pay Sandy Hook Families

      by

      A sale of the Infowars website and other property is set for November, and could determine the conspiracy theorist’s fate as a broadcaster.A Houston bankruptcy judge ruled on Tuesday that assets from the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones’s Infowars empire can be auctioned off to help pay families of the Sandy Hook mass shooting victims the defamation awards he owes them.The auction, set for mid-November, will include Infowars’ website, social media accounts, broadcasting equipment, product trademarks and inventory owned by Free Speech Systems, Infowars’ parent company.Mr. Jones’s fate as a broadcaster most likely depends on who buys his business. Though the Infowars name and assets are potentially of interest to a range of entities on the far right, under the terms of the sale anyone can bid.Mr. Jones spent years spreading lies that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that killed 20 first graders and six educators was a hoax aimed at confiscating Americans’ firearms, and that the victims’ families were actors complicit in the plot. The families suffered online abuse, personal confrontations and death threats from people who believed the conspiracy theory.Relatives of 10 victims sued Mr. Jones in 2018 for defamation and were awarded more than $1.4 billion in damages in trials in Texas and Connecticut. But the most the families are likely to ever see is a small fraction of that, and they have been divided over how to equitably distribute the money.As the cases headed to court in 2022, Mr. Jones’s company declared bankruptcy. Mr. Jones declared personal bankruptcy soon afterward.Since then, the families have been wrangling in bankruptcy court over assets and revenue that are far less than they originally envisioned. Mr. Jones’s personal and business assets combined are worth less than $10 million, according to independent valuations presented in court. His lawyers and other bankruptcy professionals will be paid first, leaving even less for the families.The Connecticut and Texas sides divided sharply over how to go after Free Speech Systems. Lawyers for the families who sued Mr. Jones in Connecticut — the relatives of eight victims — favored shutting down the company and liquidating its assets, with the money distributed among the family members.Lawyers for families who sued Mr. Jones in Texas favored a settlement in which he would pay them a percentage of his income over the next decade, most likely netting more money for each relative. As a condition of the latter deal, Mr. Jones would have had to agree never to mention the shooting again.The asset sale is probably the least lucrative option for the family members, though its potential for shutting down Infowars appealed to some. Juries in the two lawsuits awarded individual relatives widely varying amounts, and lawyers from the Connecticut and Texas sides have been dueling over how to fairly allocate the money.The situation is further complicated by the fact that a jury has yet to decide how much in damages Mr. Jones must pay Lenny Pozner and Veronique De La Rosa, whose son Noah Pozner died in the shooting. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Bernie Moreno Under Fire Over Comments About Suburban Women

      by

      Bernie Moreno, the Republican Senate candidate in Ohio, is facing criticism over demeaning remarks he made last week against women who support abortion rights, including from Nikki Haley, the former Republican presidential candidate and one of the most prominent women in her party.Speaking on Friday at a town hall in Warren County, Ohio, Mr. Moreno characterized many suburban women as “single-issue voters” on abortion rights, suggesting that older women should not care about abortion because they were too old to have children.“It’s a little crazy, by the way — especially for women that are like past 50,” Mr. Moreno said, drawing laughter from the crowd. “I’m thinking to myself: I don’t think that’s an issue for you.”In a social media post on Tuesday morning quoting Mr. Moreno’s remarks, Ms. Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, addressed the Senate candidate: “Are you trying to lose the election? Asking for a friend.”Ms. Haley, who was former President Donald J. Trump’s top rival in the Republican presidential primaries this year, has endorsed his candidacy even as she has offered advice and criticism to him and the party from the sidelines.In interviews on Fox News, Ms. Haley has said that the party needs a “serious shift” to defeat Vice President Kamala Harris, saying this month that Mr. Trump and his running mate, Senator JD Vance of Ohio, “need to change the way they speak about women.”“You don’t need to call Kamala dumb,” Ms. Haley said, adding that “she didn’t get this far, you know, just by accident” and that “she’s a prosecutor. You don’t need to go and talk about intelligence or looks or anything else.”She added that “when you call even a Democrat woman dumb, Republican women get their backs up, too.”Democrats have embraced abortion rights as an issue that they see as advantageous to them, spotlighting Mr. Trump’s bragging about appointing three of the Supreme Court justices who voted to end the constitutional right to abortion enshrined in Roe v. Wade, and pinning their hopes of winning control of the Senate on abortion initiatives. Voters, by a wide margin, say they trust Ms. Harris to handle abortion over Mr. Trump. More

    • 50 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Mark Zuckerberg’s Political Evolution

      by

      It was only a little more than a decade ago that Mark Zuckerberg had few qualms about airing his politics.Earnest and optimistic — perhaps naïvely so — he rushed onto the national stage to discuss issues he cared about: immigration, social justice, inequality, democracy in action. He penned columns in national newspapers espousing his views, spun up foundations and philanthropic efforts and hired hundreds of people to put his vast riches to work on his political goals.That was Mark Zuckerberg in his 20s. Mark Zuckerberg in his 40s is a very different Mark Zuckerberg.In conversations over the past few years with friends, colleagues and advisers, Mr. Zuckerberg has expressed cynicism about politics after years of bad experiences in Washington. He and others at the top of Meta, the parent company of Facebook, believed that both parties loathed technology and that trying to continue engaging with political causes would only draw further scrutiny to their company.As recently as June at the Allen and Company conference — the “summer camp for billionaires” in Sun Valley, Idaho — Mr. Zuckerberg complained to multiple people about the blowback to Meta that came from the more politically touchy aspects of his philanthropic efforts. And he regretted hiring employees at his philanthropy who tried to push him further to the left on some causes.In short — he was over it.His preference, according to more than a dozen friends, advisers and executives familiar with his thinking, has been to wash his hands of it all.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More