Category Archives: Donald Trump

When the Houses lawsuit seeking to enforce a subpoena against former Trump White House Counsel Donald McGahn was randomly assigned to Jackson in 2019, the consensus among court watchers was that Trump was likely to be fileted. What emerged from Jackson was an 118-page jeremiad that did not mince words in dissecting Trumps claim that his advisers had an absolute right to ignore Congressional subpoenas at his direction.

Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings, Jackson wrote, dismissing the longstanding argument as a fiction and a proposition that cannot be squared with core constitutional values.

Beyond that decision and another in which Jackson blocked the Trump administration from expanding the use of expedited deportation proceedings, there are few rulings with clear political overtones.

Theres very little there that can legitimately be characterized as radical. Shes a judge who takes pains to find and apply the law in an evenhanded manner with a balanced tone, said Tomiko Brown-Nagin a constitutional law scholar and dean of the Harvard-Radcliffe Institute.

Republicans seemed to concede that there wasnt a lot in Jacksons judicial record to view as outlandish or extreme. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell noted that Jackson has only authored two opinions on the D.C. Circuit since she joined that court eight months ago. But he quickly said what makes him most concerned about Jackson is that liberals support her.

Judge Jackson was the favored choice of far-left dark-money groups that have spent years attacking the legitimacy and the structure of the court itself, McConnell said.

Indeed, just as Republican presidents now routinely look beyond a nominees rulings or writings to assure themselves of his or her conservative bona fides, Democratic presidents and liberal groups do the same.

Their sense that Jackson would be an unapologetically left-leaning justice stems in part from her resume: Biden and his aides have proudly boasted that, if confirmed, she will be the first former federal defender to serve on the nations highest court. Thats the kind of experience that liberal legal activists have been for at all levels of the court, arguing that too many judges are former federal prosecutors and tend to harbor a pro-prosecution perspective.

Still, over most of his career, Biden has been more closely identified with tough-on-crime policies than with the criminal justice reform movement that remains ascendant in liberal circles.

Biden and his top aides seemed to take the back-to-the-future approach in public Friday as the president and even the nominee herself seemed eager to offer assurances that her work as a defense lawyer did not mean she was pro-criminal or anti-police.

She comes from a family of law enforcement, the president said, flanked by Jackson and Vice President Kamala Harris. He went on to quote a police unions statement expressing confidence that Jackson would treat issues related to law enforcement fairly and justly.Advocates for more professional and career diversity on the bench welcomed the mention of Jacksons work as a public defender, but some found the appeals to law enforcement seemed like pandering to Republicans.

This discussion around law enforcement felt like a political moment of wanting to set the stage for confirmation hearings, said Judith Dianis of the Advancement Project, a civil rights group. I would love to hear more about her experience as a public defender. I didnt feel like that part was balanced.

In his speech Friday, Biden praised Jacksons strong moral compass and said she possesses the courage to stand up for what she thinks is right, but he said she doesnt improvise on the bench.

Her opinions are always carefully reasoned, tethered to precedent and demonstrate respect for how the law impacts everyday people, the president added. It doesnt mean she puts her thumb on the scale of justice one way or the other but she understands the broader impact of her decisions.

Biden called Jackson a proven consensus builder, but the public evidence for that is limited. Shes been on the D.C. Circuit, which generally sits in three-judge panels to consider cases, for less than nine months. Prior to that, she sat in the same courthouse, ruling on cases solo as a district court judge.

The presidents reference to Jacksons ability to work across the ideological divide appeared to allude to her service on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which sets guidelines federal courts use to try to encourage more uniform sentences in criminal cases. Judge Jackson was known for working with Democrats and Republicans to find common ground on critical issues, Biden said.

Legal experts said Jacksons work on the relatively obscure commission isnt much of an indicator of whether she would be able to bridge ideological divides on the nations highest court or even whether she would try to.

I think one of the biggest unknowns with Judge Jackson is: Whats her ability to build coalition on a nine-member court? said South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman.

As a former law clerk to the justice she has been nominated to replace Justice Stephen Breyer Jackson could be an heir to his approach of trying to rein in the courts conservative bent by narrowing cases and seeking compromise decisions where possible. But Breyer had his most success doing that when the court was split, 5-4, between Republican appointees and Democratic ones. Now that its a 6-3 court under firm control of conservatives, the opportunities for bridge-building and even the wisdom of doing so are less evident.

Some dont see in Jackson the stridency often expressed by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who has emerged as the courts liberal stalwart in the wake of the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Shes probably closer to Breyer than she is to Sotomayor, Blackman said of Jackson. He also noted the interpersonal dynamics of the nations highest court are unique and not entirely predictable.

Judge Jackson and Justice Jackson may not be the same person, Blackman noted.

If Jackson is confirmed, one of the earliest tests of how she changes the court will come this fall, as the justices take up longstanding challenge to affirmative action in college admissions. The marquee case is a suit filed against Harvard in 2014, arguing that the schools policies to try to boost admission of Black and Hispanic students amount to illegal discrimination against Asian Americans.

Many of Jacksons supporters have said they relish the opportunity for her, as a Black woman, to defend affirmative action programs when the issue is argued at the high court later this year. However, its not at all clear that Jackson will take part in arguments on the Harvard case, since she has served on a prominent governing panel there Harvards Board of Overseers since 2016.

Jackson likely will participate in a companion case the high court has also agreed to decide involving a challenge to policies at the public University of North Carolina.

While its unclear exactly how argument in the cases will proceed and how Jackson will approach the recusal issue, theres little chance that her view will be decisive on the broader question. Affirmative action programs in higher education have been hanging by a thread at the high court for decades and they seem doomed in light of the six-justice majority of Republican appointees on the court following Trumps three appointments.

Still, if Jackson does take part in those cases, she is positioned to play a unique role similar to the one Justice Thurgood Marshall played in the courts private deliberations when he became its first Black member.

She brings a history and perspective that is completely different from every other person that is going to be sitting in the [conference] room when the justices leave the courtroom, Innocence Project Executive Director Christina Swarns said during the Twitter Spaces session. That is, whether directly or indirectly, influential to the way the court will perceive and address these issues.

More here:

That time Jackson shredded Trump in a federal court ruling - POLITICO

While Biden hosted Zelenskyy at the White House last fall, Trump allies often point out that the former president didnt entirely deprive Ukraine of military aid during his tenure the U.S. did deliver Javelin missiles and other arms, a fact Trump backers cited during his first impeachment trial to blunt Democratic charges of coziness with Russia. But Trump also pushed Zelenskyy to pursue politically motivated investigations that might hurt Bidens White House bid as Zelenskyy sought more missiles from the United States.

We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps. Specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes, Zelenskyy said on a July 25, 2019, call, the transcript of which became key evidence in Trumps first impeachment. Trump replied: I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot, and Ukraine knows a lot about it.

Now Trump is seeking to undercut Bidens handling of the Russia-Ukraine conflict by portraying himself as better-equipped to handle Moscow. Heres a look at how other key players in Trumps first impeachment are operating during the current Ukrainian invasion:

Bill Taylor: Taylor took over as the top U.S. envoy to Ukraine after his predecessor, Marie Yovanovitch, was removed following a conspiracy theory-laden campaign by Trump allies, led by Rudy Giuliani. During the subsequent impeachment probe, Taylor testified to investigators about concerns among Trumps handpicked advisers that the then-president had tied security aid to demands for an investigation of Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and discredited theories that blamed Ukraine, rather than Russia, for interference in the 2016 election. Recently Taylor has become a frequent presence on national TV analyzing Russias incursion into Ukraine and the Wests response.

Rudy Giuliani: Trumps longtime adviser and lawyer played an integral role in pressuring Ukrainian leaders to investigate Joe Biden, who had just entered the 2020 presidential race. Giuliani aligned himself with pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs and even a Ukrainian lawmaker since deemed by intelligence agencies to be a Russian agent. In recent days, hes joined the pro-Trump chorus criticizing Bidens handling of Ukraine.

Mike Pence: Trump pushed his vice president, a key conduit between his administration and Ukraine, to skip Zelenskyys inauguration in April 2019, a decision that came as the newly elected Ukrainian president was seeking U.S. recognition to show solidarity against Russia. Pence later met with Zelenskyy in Warsaw, where they discussed Trumps decision to freeze military assistance. Pence has tangled with Trump in recent months by publicly emphasizing that he had no authority to overturn the 2020 election, but he has also piled on Biden without mentioning earlier events or his role in the impeachment saga.

Jennifer Williams, an aide to Mike Pence, and Alexander Vindman testify on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Nov. 19, 2019, during a public impeachment hearing of President Donald Trump.|Alex Brandon/AP Photo

Alexander Vindman: A national security adviser who listened in on Trumps fateful July 2019 call with Zelenskyy, he became one of the key witnesses against Trump during the 2019-2020 impeachment process. He testified that he thought Trumps call undermined national security by essentially pressuring an ally to help the presidents domestic political fortunes. Vindman was removed from his post shortly after Trumps first trial; more recently, he sued Trumps son Donald Trump Jr., Giuliani and other close Trump allies, alleging attempted intimidation during the proceedings. Since Russia began its current invasion of Ukraine, Vindman has spoken out in support of Bidens handling of the conflict.

John Bolton: The former Trump national security adviser refused to testify during the House impeachment investigation, even as other witnesses revealed he sounded grave alarms about Trumps handling of Ukraine and called Giulianis involvement a hand grenade. Instead, Bolton waited to offer testimony until just before the Senate trial as news of his impending book began to circulate and the GOP-controlled Senate denied his offer. This year, Bolton has begun vocally criticizing Bidens handling of Ukraine despite having withheld his evidence against Trump during the key moments of the impeachment probe.

Go here to read the rest:

How the Ukraine invasion connects to Trump's first impeachment and where the players are now - POLITICO

While anti-war protestors flood the streets throughout Russia, and Ukrainian citizens are conscripted to fight off a foreign invasion, Donald Trump Jr., Ben Shapiro, and Steve Bannon are using the attack on Ukraine as a springboard to voice their right-wing views on anti-LGBTQ+ inclusion in the U.S.

Russian President VladimirPutin, who has been vocal in his anti-LGBTQ+ politics for years, is finding his opinions on the matter signal boosted by right-wing conservatives. Rather than touting Donald Trump's recycled "America First" ethos to diffuse a war already at hand, his eldest son is fueling further aggression and intolerance in the world.

On Thursday morning, Trump Jr. took to Twitter to say:

Last year, Putin revitalized his warpath beating down "Western liberalism." In a speech given at theannual meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club held at the Black Sea resort of Sochi said that Russia should stick to its own "spiritual values and historical traditions," according to coverage of the speech that year by The Washington Post.During that same speech, Putin went on to say that the idea of children being "taught that a boy can become a girl and vice versa" is monstrous and "on the verge of a crime against humanity."

Related:From Russia with hate: How Putin's anti-LGBT crackdown led to the persecution of gay men in Chechnya

Putin's views on the LGBTQ+ community, and his belief that the modern push towards inclusion and acceptance of those who shirk the social, sexual, and emotional confines of gender binary, have an audience here in America in the form of public-facing right-wingers like Trump Jr. and his peers. The strained consensus is that our nation's efforts to strengthen inclusion for the LGBTQ+ community make the U.S. in some way "weak" and a target for foreign aggresion.

Ben Shapiro was in the same mindset on Thursday morning when he shared his own views on the matter:

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

Steve Bannon, ex-advisor to former President Trump, preceded these statements by Shapiro and Trump Jr. during Wednesday's episode of his show "War Room." During the segment joined by Erik Prince, aprivate military contractor, Bannon said"Putin ain't woke. He is anti-woke." From there Bannon and Prince went on to have a lively exchange about bathroom policies.

Watch the "War Room" exchange below:

Read more:

Kelly McClure is a journalist and fiction writer who lives in New Orleans. She is Salon's Nights and Weekends editor, and her work has been featured in Vulture, The A.V. Club, Vanity Fair, Cosmopolitan, Nylon, Vice, and elsewhere. Her first novella, Something is Always Happening Somewhere, comes out on May 13, 2022 via WolfieVibes Publications.

See the original post:

Donald Trump Jr., right-wing media use Russia's invasion of Ukraine to attack the U.S. - Salon

Run, run as fast as you can, you cant catch me, Im the gingerbread man.The House Committee investigating the Jan. 6th attack on the capital will never catch Donald Trump.No one will ever find him guilty because of shady financial dealings.Hes the Gingerbread Man.

The former president complains bitterly about the unfair attacks against him and his cronies.But these are only crocodile tears.You cant buy this kind of publicity.

The reason he and other plutocrats will not be caught is that they have established a set of buffers to protect themselves.The buffers arelawyers, legislators, and lobbyists. They rotate among themselves and wear several hats.This cabal of crooks has gamed the system.They try to fool average people into thinking they also can play the game with success.

Many people are pawned off into thinking that the most important things in life are white supremacy, the border wall, opposing abortions,opposing critical race theory, opposing gays, opposing vaccines, opposing masks, opposing the equal rights amendment,or anything else that they think will fly.The lawyers, legislators, and lobbyistsdont really care about any of these importantissues.

What Trump cares about is money.And the money rolls in.You cant catch me, Im the Gingerbread Man.

Phil Mayberry,Fernandina Beach

Read more from the original source:

Letter: Donald Trump reminds me of the gingerbread man - The Florida Times-Union

A majority of American voters say that Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich PutinTrudeau announces sanctions on Putin, Russian foreign minister Overnight Defense & National Security Ukraine hangs in the balance Capitals' Ovechkin calls for 'no more war' with Ukraine MORE would not have invaded Ukraine had former President TrumpDonald Trump62 percent of voters say Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president: poll Noem: Biden should resign if he doesn't take stronger action against Russia Inhofe's chief of staff launches bid to replace him MORE still been in office, according to a newsurvey releasedon Friday.

A new Harvard Center for American Political Studies (CAPS)-Harris Poll survey released Friday found that 62 percent of those polled believed Putin would not be moving against Ukraine if Trump had been president. When looking strictly at the answers of Democrats and Republicans, 85 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of Democrats answered this way.

However, 38 percent of all Americans polled believed that Putin would have invaded Ukraine even if Trump had been president.

A majority of Americans polled 59 percent alsosaid they believed that the Russian president moved on Ukraine because Putin saw weakness in President BidenJoe BidenOvernight Defense & National Security Ukraine hangs in the balance On The Money Inflation held firm in January as omicron raged Photos of the Week: Ukraine, Ketanji Brown Jackson and stallions MORE, while 41 percent said that it was not a factor in Putins decision to invade Ukraine.

Soon after Russia invaded Ukraine late Wednesday, President Biden condemned what he described as an "unprovoked and unjustified attack" and expressed solidarity with Ukraine. The U.S. has imposed sanctions on Russian financial institutions, Russian elites and their family members, the Nord Stream 2 AG the parent company of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and, the White House confirmedFriday, Putin himself, among other entities.

However, the U.S. has resisted calls to kick Russia out of the SWIFT international banking system, despite appeals from Ukrainian officials and some U.S. lawmakers.

The polling comes after Biden has suffered low approval ratingsin recent months. Since taking office, the president has had to navigate a multitude of issues, including a lingering COVID-19 pandemic, a chaotic evacuation from Afghanistan, infighting among Democratsover the administration's legislative agendaand now the invasion of Ukraine.

The Harvard CAPS-Harris Poll survey was conducted between Feb. 23 and Feb. 24 with 2,026 registered voters. The survey is an online sample drawn from the Harris Panel and weighted to reflect known demographics. As a representative online sample, it does not report a probability confidence interval.

See more here:

62 percent of voters say Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine if Trump were president: poll | TheHill - The Hill

PALM BEACH, Fla. Conspiracy-minded followers of the enigmatic cult figure QAnon have developed a new popular theory inspired by the anime JoJos Bizarre Adventure which suggests that Donald Trump may soon unleash his stand.

Based on the speed and power of that most recent clip of Trump playing golf, I have to assume hes got the power of a Stand whos currently invisible to us, said Vaughn Roberts of the YouTube channel WhereWeGoVaughnWeGoAll. The way he keeps deflecting subpoenas and legal challenges at lightning speed, its the only explanation at this point.

Speculation along these lines has run rampant, with clue-hungry QAnon followers eager to jump on any detail to confirm evidence of Stand powers at use.

I made a post that got to the front page because we thought it was the first spirit photo of Trumps stand in action, but it turned out to be Barron Trump, said another commenter, JoJoBidensBizarrePresidency. How was I supposed to know the difference? That kid grows five more inches every time he steps in front of a camera. Either way, thanks for the gold I guess!

Its currently unknown how the former president could have acquired the theorized stand, said Roberts in a follow-up video rounding up the top ten most popular clues related to the theory. But we believe that it must have short-range abilities, with the ability to detect satanic pedophiles and possibly obliterate their genitals. Surely Trump will show the Stands true power soon and all will be revealed then. He sure does love to leave us on cliffhangers, just like JoJos!

At press time, proponents of the theory were speculating on whether Trumps stand might be named Dead Kennedys, Back In The U.S.A., or Ol Dirty Bastard.

Originally posted here:

New 'JoJo's Bizarre Adventure' Inspired QAnon Theory Suggests Donald Trump Will Soon Unleash his Stand - Hard Drive

All of the living former U.S. presidents, with the exception of former President Trump, have issued formal statements condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Republican and Democratic ex-presidents characterized the Kremlin's assault as "brazen," "reckless," "the gravest security crisis on the European continent since World War II" and an "unjust assault on the sovereignty of Ukraine." President Biden issued new sanctions on Russian financial institutions Thursday, calling Putin's attack "premeditated."

"Russia's attack on Ukraine constitutes the gravest security crisis on the European continent since World War II," said former President George W. Bush. "I join the international community in condemning Vladimir Putin's unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine. The American government and people must stand in solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people as they seek freedom and the right to choose their own future. We cannot tolerate the authoritarian bullying and danger that Putin poses."

Former President Barack Obama said Russia launched an attack on Ukraine "not because Ukraine posed a threat to Russia, but because the people of Ukraine chose a path of sovereignty, self-determination, and democracy."

"For some time now, we have seen the forces of division and authoritarianism make headway around the world, mounting an assault on the ideals of democracy, rule of law, equality, individual liberty, freedom of expression and worship, and self-determination," Obama said. "Russia's invasion of Ukraine shows where these dangerous trends can lead and why they cannot be left unchallenged."

Obama urged Americans, regardless of party, to support Mr. Biden's efforts to sanction Russia.

Obama critics pointed out that in a 2012 presidential debate, he appeared to mock then-candidate Mitt Romney for calling Russia the biggest geopolitical threat. At the time, Obama said the "1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back."

Former President Bill Clinton said Putin's "war of choice has unraveled 30 years of diplomacy and put millions of innocent lives in grave danger."

"The world will hold Russia and Russia alone accountable, both economically and politically, for its brazen violation of international law. I stand with the people of Ukraine and am praying for their safety," Clinton said.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who was president during the Cold War, while the Soviet Union was still intact, said Russia's "unprovoked attack on Ukraine using military and cyber weapons violates international law and the fundamental human rights of the Ukrainian people."

"I condemn this unjust assault on the sovereignty of Ukraine that threatens security in Europe and the entire world, and I call on President Putin to halt all military action and restore peace," Carter said. "The United States and its allies must stand with the people of Ukraine in support of their right to peace, security, and self-determination."

Trump, Mr. Biden's predecessor, has not issued a formal statement about Russia's incursion in Ukraine since it took place, although he did appear on Fox News as the invasion began.

"This all happened because of a rigged election," the ex-president claimed to Fox News host Laura Ingraham.

He called the situation a "terrible thing," but said Putin "wanted to do something and negotiate and it just got worse and worse."

"And then he saw the weakness. And you know it really started, I think with the weakness in Afghanistan," Trump said, an apparent reference to the chaotic U.S. withdrawal at the end of last August.

At a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser Wednesday evening, before the assault began, Trump called Putin "pretty smart" in "taking over a country for $2 worth of sanctions."

CBS News' Fin Gomez contributed to this report.

Trending News

Kathryn Watson is a politics reporter for CBS News Digital based in Washington, D.C.

Read more from the original source:

Former Presidents Donald Trump, Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter respond to Russia's assault on Ukraine - CBS News

During the first hundred hours of Joe Biden's presidency, Biden issued a wave of executive actions aimed at undoing the legacy of his conservative predecessor, Donald Trump. At the time, many of those actions successfully scaled back or outright eliminated Trump's policies on immigration, climate, and public health, leading many mainstream outlets to frame Biden's win as the dawn of a new era. But as Biden continues to maintain, and in some cases, expand the policies and practices of the Trump-era, failing to deliver on many of his campaign promises, it's hardly apparent that this new era will arrive at all.

Biden's failure to deliver on his agenda holds especially true with respect to immigration, an issue on which the president has bolstered a number of Trump-era holdovers.

Notably, the president has chosen to expand one of Trump's most draconian border policies, "Remain in Mexico," which mandates that all asylum-seekers stay in Mexico until the scheduled date of their immigration hearing. The policy, enacted in January 2019, forces thousands of migrants to live for months in squalid encampments and shelters along the border, which are notoriously rife with gang violence.

Back in October 2019, Biden, then a presidential candidate, blasted Trump over his use of "Remain in Mexico," claiming during a debate that Trump was "the first president in the history of the United States of America that [said] anybody seeking asylum has to do it in another country."

"That's never happened before in America," Biden said. "They're sitting in squalor on the other side of the river."

Upon taking office, the president seemingly kept his word on the matter, nixing the policy in January. But after a Texas judge in August ordered that the rule be reinstated, Biden did little to fight back, Vox noted, and has in some ways actually expanded the policy's scope.

RELATED: Court ordered Biden to restart Trump's "Remain in Mexico" but he didn't have to make it worse

For one, Biden's version of the policy sets out clear individual asylum cases within six months the same period of time allotted by Trump. Biden is also now allowing border agents to determine whether a migrant has "reasonable possibility" of facing danger in Mexico. But while 85 to 90 percent of the program's enrollees say they fear harm, The Washington Post reports, only 10 to 15 percent are found to face a "reasonable possibility" of facing any danger.

Most alarming is the fact that Biden has actually expanded the program's eligibility requirements, as BuzzFeed News reports. Under Trump, only migrants from Spanish-speaking countries, including Brazil, qualified for the program. But under Biden, asylum-seekers from any country in the Western Hemisphere will be sent back to Mexico. This means that Haitians, for example, who primarily speak Haitian Creole, will be sent to Mexico to await the hearing, where the dominant language is Spanish.

This expansion "is going beyond good faith implementation of the court order," one former Biden appointee told BuzzFeed News. "When you add new populations you are intentionally implementing a program that you know is largely indistinguishable from the prior one and putting more populations in it."

Unfortunately, the elimination of "Remain in Mexico" is hardly the only immigration promise Biden has failed to deliver on.

RELATED: Will Biden's Central America plan slow migration or speed it up?

On the campaign trail, Biden vowed to raise Trump's refugee cap of 15,000 to 125,000. But while the cap was ultimately raised to 125,000 last September following months of progressive pressure, Biden only took in a paltry 11,411 in 2021, which, according to the Post, is the lowest level of admittance since 1980.

The president has also failed to do away with Title 42, a little-known public health policy that Trump used to mass-expel immigrants from the U.S. over COVID-19 concerns. Democrats and human rights groups have widely condemned the rule because it offers migrants no legal recourse to gain entry. Furthermore, dozens of doctors and epidemiologists, including Chief Medical Advisor to the President Anthony Fauci, have casted strong doubt over the scientific basis of the policy. Just last month, the Biden administration vigorously defended Title 42 by citing COVID risks, even though the U.S. spread of the Omicron variant was already well underway.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

"The Title 42 order is not and has never been about public health. Rather it represents a cynical manipulation of public health arguments to advance political policies of immigration control," said Dr. Ron Waldman, Professor Emeritus at the Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University. "Despite President Biden's promises to end the harmful immigration practices of the previous administration, his administration, acting through the [CDC], has fully embraced, defended, and used this inhumane policy for a year now."

RELATED: Top State Dept. official rips Biden's "illegal" and "inhumane" deportations on his way out

When it comes to immigration, it's also hard to discount the fact that the Biden administration has refused to right the wrongs of Trump's most draconian border policy: family separation.

Shortly after taking office, the president established a Family Reunification Task Force designed to reunite the approximately 5,500 migrant families that had been separated under Trump. But as of last November, the Biden administration had only reunited thirty, according to Vice News.

Worse, the Department of Justice has withdrawn from monthslong settlement negotiations around compensating the affected families. In November, Biden shot down the idea of paying $450,000 to families who will likely carry the lifelong trauma of temporary or permanent separation.

"That's not going to happen," Biden said during a press conference at the time, calling a Wall Street Journal report alluding to the $450,000 payments "garbage."

The DOJ is specifically arguing that families aren't entitled to payouts from the government under the Federal Tort Claims Act, a 1946 federal statute that allows individuals to sue the U.S. government for personal injuries, such as psychological and physical trauma, caused by agents of the state. To make its case, Vox notes, the White House has claimed that Trump's separation policywhich Biden once called "a weapon against desperate mothers, fathers, and children seeking safety and a better life" was legal.

RELATED: Biden Administration may pay out more than $1 billion to migrant families separated under Trump

Back in 2019, a government watchdog found that separated children received little to no mental health support despite exhibiting "more fear, feelings of abandonment, and post-traumatic stress than did children who were not separated."

"There's no amount of money, or anything really, that is ever going to make something like that okay," Conchita Cruz, co-executive director of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project, told Vox.

While immigration is no doubt an area of particular failure when it comes to rectifying Trump-era policies, it's far from the only one when you consider Biden's approach to climate change.

At the COP26 global climate summit in Glasgow, Scotland, back in November, the president promised "demonstrate to the world the United States is not only back at the table but hopefully leading by the power of our example."

But after that firm commitment, the president shortly proceeded to open more than 80 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico to auction off for oil and gas drilling the largest kind of this sell-off in the Gulf of Mexico's entire history. Initially, Biden claimed that the auction was court-ordered due to a June court decision that forced Biden to lift his moratorium on drilling, a pause put in place last January. But according to The Guardian, no court judgment actually compelled the government to hold an auction.

"[The Department of Interior] had a lot of discretion over whether to hold this lease sale and they chose to do it anyway," Brettny Hardy, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, told The Guardian. "We have no good answer as to why they are doing this. It's problematic and disappointing."

RELATED: The Biden administration said its drilling-lease spree in the Gulf was court-ordered. It wasn't

As a presidential candidate, Biden also vowed to ban drilling on all federal land. But his administration has apparently done a u-turn on that promise, approving more oil and gas drilling contracts on federal land than Trump, according to a report by Public Citizen. As Post reported back in November, Biden greenlit 35% more drilling permits during the first year of his presidency than Trump did in that same period.

"Biden's runaway drilling approvals are a spectacular failure of climate leadership," Taylor McKinnon, Senior Public Lands Campaigner for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. "Avoiding catastrophic climate change requires ending new fossil fuel extraction, but Biden is racing in the opposite direction."

Read this article:

Biden tries to reverse Trump's impact on the courts but continues to defend parts of his agenda - Salon

On a podcast on Wednesday, Stephen K. Bannon, Mr. Trumps former adviser, also praised Mr. Putin as anti-woke. He suggested the Ukrainian conflict was not our fight.

After Russias attack began, some online users explained Mr. Putins motives by blending them with conspiracy theories about Covid-19. One Twitter account named War Clandestine declared that Mr. Putin was targeting biolabs in Ukraine that were operated by the United States. The idea was made more believable, the author said, because of the conspiracy theory that the United States engineered Covid-19 at a lab in Wuhan, China.

Pro-America influencers like Mikel Crump and John Basham, who have a combined following of 99,200, amplified the thread. Twitter later suspended the War Clandestine account, plus a second one by the same user for trying to evade the ban, but people continued posting screen recordings of the thread online.

Twitter said that the accounts by the user were permanently suspended for violating its abusive behavior policy and that it was monitoring for emerging narratives that violate its rules. Mr. Crump and Mr. Basham did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some pro-Russia commentators insisted they were right. Many blamed Mr. Biden, dredging up old conspiracy theories about his son Hunter and Hunters employment at a Ukrainian gas company when Mr. Biden was vice president and engaged in diplomatic efforts with the country. There was no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens, but conservatives seized on the narrative during the 2020 election.

When reached for comment, Mr. Oltmann, the conservative podcaster, said, You really have no idea about Ukraine. People support Russia because you did not do the right thing when it came to the fraud and corruption of Biden. I pray for the people in Ukraine but equally pray the people who facilitated the evil communist agenda in the U.S. are held accountable.

In an email, Ms. Owens, the conservative talk show host, also said the Russia-Ukraine war was Mr. Bidens fault. Ukrainians are dying because of the Biden familys criminal connections and insistence on stoking conflict in the region, she said.

The rest is here:

Ill Stand on the Side of Russia: Pro-Putin Sentiment Spreads Online - The New York Times

NEW YORK (AP) Lawyers for Donald Trumps longtime finance chief, Allen Weisselberg, are asking a judge to throw out tax fraud charges against him, arguing New York prosecutors targeted him as punishment because he wouldnt flip on the former president.

In court papers filed Tuesday, Weisselbergs lawyer said the Trump Organizations CFO is collateral damage in a singular crusade by Democratic prosecutors to have him implicate and help put the Republican ex-president behind bars.

Mr. Weisselbergs unequal and unfair treatment is the consequence of his proximity to Donald J. Trump, and his rejection of (prosecutors) demand that he cooperate with (their) investigation targeting Mr. Trump and his businesses, Weisselberg lawyers wrote.

Weisselberg was arrested last July on charges he collected more than $1.7 million in off-the-books compensation, including apartment rent, car payments and school tuition. Trumps company is also charged in the case, which prosecutors have described as a sweeping and audacious tax fraud scheme.

Weisselberg and the Trump Organization have pleaded not guilty. Lawyers for the company also sought Tuesday to have the companys charges dismissed.

Weisselberg, 74, is the only Trump executive charged in the yearslong criminal investigation started by former Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr. and now overseen by his successor, Alvin Bragg. Several other Trump executives have been granted immunity to testify before a grand jury in the case.

A message seeking comment was left Wednesday with the Manhattan District Attorneys Office. Prosecutors are expected to respond to Weisselbergs motion to dismiss in a court filing in the coming weeks.

Judge Juan Manuel Merchan has given both sides until spring to file motions and responses and indicated hell decide on them at a July hearing, the next time Weisselberg is due in court. Merchan has said hell likely schedule a trial for the end of August or beginning of September.

Weisselbergs lawyers, who include Mary Mulligan, Bryan Skarlatos and Rita Glavin, have also asked Merchan to consider throwing out part of the indictment and suppressing statements made while in custody on July 1, if the judge doesnt agree to dismiss the case entirely. Glavin also represents former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Weisselbergs lawyers argued that some charges against him are outside the statute of limitations or are otherwise legally deficient. They said Weisselbergs statements to investigators during the eight hours he was in custody after his arrest shouldnt be admissible because they were taken in violation of his rights.

D.A.s office investigators struck up conversations with Weisselberg that were laser-focused on issues relevant to the indictment, even though they were aware that Weisselberg was represented by counsel that wasnt present at the time, the lawyers wrote. The conversations constituted an interrogation and violated Weisselbergs Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, they said.

Trump has not been charged with any wrongdoing, but prosecutors noted he signed some of the checks at the center of Weisselbergs case, which they said stemmed from a 15-year scheme orchestrated by the most senior executives at the Trump Organization.

A judge last week ruled that Trump and his two eldest children, Ivanka and Donald Trump Jr. must answer questions under oath in a parallel civil investigation into his business practices being run by New York Attorney General Letitia James.

James, a Democrat, said her investigation has uncovered evidence Trumps company, the Trump Organization, used fraudulent or misleading valuations of assets like golf courses and skyscrapers to get loans and tax benefits. Trumps longtime accounting firm recently dumped him after warning him not to rely on years of financial statements it prepared based on his companys valuations, given questions about their accuracy.

Although James civil investigation is separate from the criminal investigation, her office has been involved in both, dispatching several lawyers to work side-by-side with prosecutors from the Manhattan D.A.s office. It was evidence uncovered in James civil investigation that led to criminal charges against Weisselberg.

In a statement last week, Trump said he believed Weisselberg was innocent and that the charges against the man he described as a 74-year-old long-term and wonderful employee were overblown.

The charge is that he did not pay taxes on a company car or a company apartment (Do others pay such a tax? Did Cy Vance pay a tax on his car?), and a charge having to do with my paying for the education of his grandchildren, Trump said. Murderers all over the city and they are worried about me helping with young childrens education?

In a separate ruling, a judge last week ordered Weisselberg to sit for a limited deposition in Washington, D.C., Attorney General Karl Racines lawsuit accusing Trumps inaugural committee of grossly overspending at Trumps Pennsylvania Avenue hotel to enrich Trumps family.

___

Follow Michael Sisak on Twitter at twitter.com/mikesisak and send confidential tips by visiting https://www.ap.org/tips/

See more here:

Weisselberg, Trump Organization seek to toss tax fraud case - Associated Press