Texas’ revamped voter ID law is unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday. The judge, Nelva Gonzales Ramos, issued an injunction, saying it violates the Voting Rights Act and the 14th and 15th Amendments of the Constitution. Gonzales Ramos also blocked another Texas voter ID law, which passed in 2011 and took effect in 2013. A number of subsequent legal challenges have largely blocked that law.

The protracted legal battle over Texas and its voter ID laws–among the toughest in the country–represents a larger voter fraud debate, playing out at both at the state and federal levels. Critics of voter ID laws say Republican-controlled states are deliberately stymying minorities from voting, because they are more likely to vote Democratic. Proponents of voter ID laws say voter fraud is rampant and must be kept in check with tougher voting standards.

Gonzales Ramos said Texas’ updated law, which was set to take effect in January, “remains discriminatory because it imposes burdens disproportionately on blacks and Latinos.” She added that the revisions made in the updated law, known as Senate Bill 5, do not “fully relieve minorities of the burden of discriminatory featured” of the 2011 law.

“The court thus issues injunctive relief to prevent ongoing violations of federal law and the recurrence of illegal behavior,” she wrote in the ruling.

Gonzales Ramos tossed the 2011 law, Senate Bill 14, in 2014. A circuit court affirmed the decision, but asked Ramos and the District Court for the Southern District of Texas to reexamine its discriminatory purpose. In April, Gonzales Ramos once again ruled that the law intentionally discriminated against minorities.

The original law required Texas voters to show one of seven forms of government-issued photo ID, such as a driver’s license or a passport. Critics contend minorities are less likely to have any of the seven ID options, and thus would be disproportionately barred from voting. The revamped law offered more options for identification, including utility bills or bank statements. Still, Gonzales Ramos found the law to be too restrictive.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has vigorously fought the legal challenges to the voter ID laws over the past few years. In a statement, he called Wednesday’s ruling “outrageous,” and vowed to appeal the decision. He also cited the Justice Department’s support of the law. Paxton added: “Safeguarding the integrity of elections in Texas is essential to preserving our democracy.”

Voting rights activists, civil rights groups, and a number of Democratic politicians cheered the decision. U.S. Representative Joaquin Castro (D-TX), issued a statement saying, “Republican state leaders’ transparent efforts to make it harder and less likely that some Texans will vote are disgraceful.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Judge Blocks Texas Voter ID Laws…Again appeared first on Law Street.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is officially a suspect in two criminal cases, Israeli police officials said last week. Netanyahu, head of the conservative Likud party, has been under investigation for months. His alleged crimes: accepting illegal gifts from wealthy friends, and floating a quid pro quo deal with a newspaper publisher in a bid for more favorable coverage.

Netanyahu’s fortunes appeared to turn last week, when his former chief of staff Ari Harrow agreed to become a witness for the prosecution. Harrow, according to police, revealed damaging information about his former boss, who is suspected of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

The probes into the prime minister, known as “Case 1000” and “Case 2000,” deal with two separate instances. In “Case 1000,” Netanyahu is accused of accepting cigars and bottles of champagne from wealthy and powerful friends, including a Hollywood producer.

“Case 2000” concerns a phone call Netanyahu allegedly had with the publisher of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Arnon Mozes. Netanyahu reportedly asked Mozes for more favorable coverage. In exchange, Netanyahu would curtail the circulation of Israel Hayom, a competitor that is traditionally pro-Netanyahu. Israel Hayom is backed by an American casino magnate, Sheldon Adelson.

On Monday, Israel’s Supreme Court said Netanyahu must reveal the dates of his phone calls with Adelson and Amos Regev, the former editor-in-chief of Israel Hayom.

According to legal analysts in Israel, it is likely Netanyahu will face charges, potentially forcing him to end his fourth term as prime minister years before scheduled elections. An indictment, which could still be months off, does not necessarily mean Netanyahu will step down, according to analysts and those familiar with Israeli law. And though Israeli prime ministers have been taken down by corruption investigations, a sitting prime minister has never been indicted.

Netanyahu’s predecessor, Ehud Olmert, was released from prison last month after serving a 16-month sentence. Olmert was forced from power in 2008, leading to early elections in 2009, when Netanyahu was elected to the premiership.

For his part, Netanyahu has called the investigations as “background noise,” vehemently denying any wrongdoing. “We cannot go without a ‘weekly affair’, so I want to tell you, citizens of Israel, I’m not referring to the background noise, I’m continuing to work for you,” Netanyahu said in a video published on his Facebook page last Friday.

But according to a recent poll by Israeli broadcaster Channel 10, Netanyahu’s popularity might be dwindling. According to the poll, 66 percent of Israelis say Netanyahu should resign if he is charged.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Investigations into Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Russia’s election meddling and its potential ties to the Trump campaign, impaneled a grand jury. Twitter exploded. The casual observer quickly became a legal expert; it’s only a matter of time before President Donald Trump is indicted and impeached, many concluded. Not necessarily. So what exactly is a grand jury? And what does Mueller’s move portend for Trump’s fortunes?

Grand Jury v. Trial Jury

A grand jury is distinct from a trial jury in a number of ways. For one, a grand jury consists of more jurors than a trial jury, comprised of anywhere between 16 to 23 jurors. The primary function of a grand jury is to issue a preliminary decision on whether or not a prosecutor should indict a defendant. The road to making that decision is a long one: grand jury investigations can last months or even years.

In conducting an investigation, a grand jury has the power to subpoena documents and witnesses. According to Solomon Wisenberg, a white collar criminal defense attorney, grand juries have a broad mandate when subpoenaing witnesses. He said: “Federal grand jury subpoenas are almost never quashed on grounds that they call for irrelevant information or go beyond the grand jury’s authority.”

Grand jury investigations are private affairs. The defense is not present, nor are there any cross examinations. In fact, lawyers are not even allowed to be present during a grand jury’s deliberations.

What Does This Mean for Trump?

It is too early to tell if Mueller’s decision to form a grand jury will lead to an indictment of Trump or any of his campaign associates. In order for the grand jury to determine Trump’s actions warrant criminal charges, they will have to determine probable cause exists. Mueller’s decision to impanel a grand jury essentially means that the investigation is entering a new, potentially lengthy stage that may or may not lead to an indictment.

Mueller took charge of the probe after Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself. The investigation then fell to Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, who appointed Mueller as the special counsel. Trump’s campaign and its potential ties to the Kremlin are also under investigation by the Senate and House.

According to people familiar with Mueller’s inquiry, he is moving beyond Trump’s involvement with Russia’s election meddling, and into Trump’s finances and real estate dealings. Because of their wide scope, grand jury investigations can take prosecutors down roads previously unseen–roads that can sometimes lead to an indictment.

Bill Clinton’s Impeachment

In 1998, Bill Clinton became the first president to testify as the subject of a grand jury investigation. His testimony, which lasted for four hours, was the coda to independent counselor Kenneth Starr’s investigation into the Whitewater scandal. But while Starr’s four-year investigation began with examining real estate deals in Arkansas, it ended with him examining Clinton’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Clinton lied under oath, and continued to lie in his grand jury testimony, according to Starr. Clinton has denied that he ever misstated facts–he has said his answers were all “legally accurate.” Starr disagreed, and eventually indicted Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The House voted to impeach Clinton in December 1998, but the Senate acquitted him after a five-week trial.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the Mueller Grand Jury appeared first on Law Street.

The Justice Department sent letters to a handful of so-called “sanctuary cities” on Thursday, denying them crime-fighting resources until they increase compliance with federal immigration authorities. The letters were in response to requests to take part in the DOJ’s Public Safety Partnerships (PSP) initiative, which would provide additional federal resources to jurisdictions with higher than average crime rates.

The letters, sent to the police chiefs of Baltimore, Albuquerque, and Stockton and San Bernardino in California, said:

Your jurisdiction has expressed interest in receiving assistance through the PSP program. Based on our review, we have concluded that your jurisdiction has levels of violence that exceed the national average, that your jurisdiction is ready to receive the intensive assistance the Department is prepared to provide, and that your jurisdiction is taking steps to reduce its violent crime.

But those four jurisdictions are all sanctuary cities, meaning their officers do not fully cooperate with federal authorities to enforce national immigration laws. So before those cities can participate in the PSP program, they must give federal authorities access to jails. They also must “honor a written request from [Department of Homeland Security] to hold a foreign national for up to 48 hours beyond the scheduled release date,” according to the letters. The cities must show proof of compliance by August 18.

The letters mark the second time in a week that Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold funds from sanctuary cities. Last week, he said cities must comply with federal authorities seeking detainees held on immigration violations–or else they would not receive federal grants. But federal judges have recently ruled that withholding grants from cities that limit compliance on immigration matters is illegal.

Announced in June, the PSP is a “training and technical assistance program designed to enhance the capacity of local jurisdictions to address violent crime in their communities,” according to a statement from Sessions that accompanied the letters. Twelve locations have been selected for the program so far.

Sessions, in a statement on Thursday, said sanctuary cities “make all of us less safe.” He added: “The Department of Justice is committed to supporting our law enforcement at every level, and that’s why we’re asking ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions to stop making their jobs harder.”

Of the requests to the sanctuary cities looking to take part in the PSP initiative, Sessions said: “By taking simple, common-sense considerations into account, we are encouraging every jurisdiction in this country to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Denies More Crime-Fighting Resources for Four Sanctuary Cities appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate unanimously passed a $3 billion expansion to the G.I. Bill on Wednesday, paving the way for veterans to pursue STEM careers while bolstering existing benefits. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the measure, which the House passed last week, also in a unanimous vote. The original G.I. Bill was created after World War II, allowing returning veterans to receive an education in return for their service.

Named after Harry Walter Colmery, a veteran who drafted the original 1944 bill, the expanded benefits “will further invest in the proven educational success of our veterans and help propel them toward becoming the civic, business and public leaders of our country,” according to the text.

The measure expands financial assistance and other benefits for Purple Heart recipients, families of soldiers killed on the battlefield, and veterans who pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, also known as STEM fields. It also repeals the 15-year benefits limit.

“When new industries emerge and we rely on American workers to fill those jobs, it shouldn’t matter if a veteran is five, 15, or 30 years out of the service,” Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Phil Roe (R-TN) wrote in an op-ed after the House passed the measure. “If you haven’t used your benefits yet, you should be able to get an education at any point in your life,” McCarthy and Roe, chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, wrote.

After a brief disagreement on how the expanded benefits would be funded, Congress settled on a solution: reduce the increase in housing benefits for new beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure, which will cost $3 billion over a decade, will ultimately be cost neutral.

Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, called the bill a “great victory for out veterans and their future.” He added: “When our veterans return home, they should have every opportunity available to them to pursue their desired profession and career.”

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the measure “will help our nation’s service members transition back to civilian life by opening doors for their future success.”

Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin also expressed support for the measure, also known as the Forever G.I. Bill:

The #ForeverGIBill strengthens an important #Veterans benefit. I thank the House and Senate for making this bill a priority.

— Dr. David J. Shulkin (@SecShulkin) August 2, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New G.I. Bill Benefits Focus on STEM Careers appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump reluctantly signed a bipartisan bill Wednesday morning that imposes additional sanctions on Russia. The bill, which also levies sanctions on North Korea and Iran, severely limits Trump’s ability to lift Russian sanctions in the future. Between the House and Senate, 517 members of congress supported the bill, giving Trump pretty much no choice but to sign it.

The bill represents a rare showing of bipartisanship–and of congressional Republicans’ willingness to stand up to the Trump Administration. Republicans, traditionally hawkish on Russia, have until now overlooked Trump’s repeated overtures to Russian President Vladimir Putin–during the campaign and his presidency–in order to pursue other legislative goals.

The new sanctions target Russia’s energy and defense sectors, but perhaps more important than the sanctions themselves, the bill gives Congress the final say if the president decides to lift sanctions. Congress would have a 30-day review period to consider any such actions by Trump or future presidents. The administration has decried this part of the bill as “unconstitutional,” as it unfairly limits the president’s flexibility on matters of foreign policy.

In a statement released Wednesday after Trump signed the legislation, the White House said the bill contained “a number of clearly unconstitutional provisions” that “purport to displace the President’s exclusive constitutional authority to recognize foreign governments, including their territorial bounds.”

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) said the bill sends a “powerful message to our adversaries that they will be held accountable for their actions.” He added: “We will continue to use every instrument of American power to defend this nation and the people we serve.”

After signing the bill, Trump released a second statement calling it “seriously flawed” because it “encroaches on the executive branch’s authority to negotiate.” He went on to deride Congress for its failure to pass health care legislation: “Congress could not even negotiate a health care bill after seven years of talking,” he said.

Since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fomented a separatist rebellion in eastern Ukraine, Washington has been engaged in a diplomatic tit-for-tat with Moscow. Last December, after it became clear Russia meddled in the 2016 election, former President Barack Obama increased Russian sanctions. He also expelled Russian diplomats and seized two of its diplomatic compounds.

The Kremlin retaliated with measures of its own over the weekend, ordering the U.S. to slash its diplomatic staff throughout Russia by 755. It also seized two properties used by U.S. diplomats. On Wednesday, after Trump signed the bill into law, Russian officials offered ominous signs, with Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev saying it amounts to a “full scale trade war.”

And Vassily Nebenzia, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, added his two cents: “Some U.S. officials were saying that this is a bill that might encourage Russia to cooperate with the United States; to me that’s a strange sort of encouragement,” he said. “Those who invented this bill, if they were thinking they might change our policy, they were wrong.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Signs “Significantly Flawed” Russian Sanctions Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Cory Booker, a Democratic senator from New Jersey, introduced a bill on Tuesday that would legalize marijuana at the federal level. Titled the Marijuana Justice Act of 2017, the legislation aims to lessen the impact of marijuana arrests and convictions, which disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities. The bill also establishes a fund to invest in community programs and institutions.

“Our country’s drug laws are badly broken and need to be fixed,” Booker said in a press release accompanying the bill’s announcement. “They don’t make our communities any safer – instead they divert critical resources from fighting violent crimes, tear families apart, unfairly impact low-income communities and communities of color, and waste billions in taxpayer dollars each year.”

While marijuana is fully legal in eight states and D.C., it is barred at the federal level, classified as a Schedule I substance, joining heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Booker’s bill would declassify marijuana, effectively legalizing it.

The legislation also would penalize states that have not legalized marijuana and have “a disproportionate arrest rate or a disproportionate incarceration rate for marijuana offenses.” Such states would not receive federal funding for constructing or staffing prisons and jails. Other funds would be withheld as well.

The Marijuana Justice Act calls for retroactive expungement, community investment pool + state incentives to change their laws. Interesting. https://t.co/aIs0WCgj2l

— Ava DuVernay (@ava) August 1, 2017

 A prominent advocate for criminal justice reform, Booker also seeks to remedy the ills brought to minority communities by the War on Drugs. The bill would retroactively expunge federal marijuana convictions, and allow prisoners’ sentences to be reviewed. Marijuana arrests make up more than half of all drug arrests. And a 2013 ACLU report showed that in 2010, a black American was four times as likely as a white American to be arrested for marijuana possession.

Booker, in a statement on his Facebook page, said his bill “is the right thing to do for public safety, and will help reduce our overflowing prison population.” The legislation would create a Community Reinvestment Fund “to establish a grant program to reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs.” Grants would go toward job training and reentry programs, public libraries, youth programs, and health education programs.

Erik Altieri, executive director of marijuana reform group NORML, applauded Booker’s bill. In a statement, he said: “Not only is it imperative we end our failed experiment of marijuana prohibition, we must also ensure justice for those who suffered most under these draconian policies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cory Booker Proposes Bill to Legalize Marijuana at the Federal Level appeared first on Law Street.

In a report issued on Monday, a commission created to combat drug addiction recommended that President Donald Trump declare the opioid crisis a national emergency. The Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis, formed via an executive order Trump signed in March, is chaired by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and is co-chaired by a bipartisan group of governors and health professionals.

In its interim report–a final review is due in October–the commission said its “first and most urgent recommendation” is for Trump to deem the crisis a state of emergency. The report continued:

Your declaration would empower your cabinet to take bold steps and would force Congress to focus on funding and empowering the Executive Branch even further to deal with this loss of life. It would also awaken every American to this simple fact: if this scourge has not found you or your family yet, without bold action by everyone, it soon will.

More Americans die from drug overdoses than from car accidents or gun violence. According to the Centers for Disease Control, 142 Americans die each day from a drug overdose; 91 die from an opioid overdose. In 2015, opioids like Percocet, Oxycontin, heroin, and fentanyl were responsible for nearly two-thirds of all drug overdose deaths. The trend is on the rise: Since 1999, according to the CDC, the number of overdose deaths linked to opioids has quadrupled.

The commission–which includes Republican Governor Charlie Baker of Massachusetts and Democratic Governor Roy Cooper of North Carolina–recommended a number of other reforms. It asked Trump to waive the barriers that keep patients at addiction treatment facilities from qualifying for Medicaid services. The commission wrote: “This will immediately open treatment to thousands of Americans in existing facilities in all 50 states.”

Regardless of what the Trump Administration decides to do, states are beginning to tackle the opioid epidemic on their own. Earlier this year, the governors of Arizona, Florida, Virginia, and Maryland declared a state of emergency for the epidemic. But if the federal government declared the opioid crisis a state of emergency, would that make a tangible difference?

“It’s really about drawing attention to the issue and pushing for all hands on deck,” Michael Fraser, the executive director of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, told the New York Times. “It would allow a level of attention and coordination that the federal agencies might not otherwise have, but in terms of day-to-day lifesaving, I don’t think it would make much difference.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Should the Trump Administration Declare the Opioid Crisis a National Emergency? appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. imposed direct sanctions against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on Monday, freezing his U.S. assets and barring Americans from conducting business with him. The sanctions came a day after a vote that expanded his powers, giving the international community fresh concerns that Venezuela is creeping from democracy to dictatorship.

“By sanctioning Maduro the United States makes clear our opposition to the policies of his regime and our support for the people of Venezuela,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin said during a press briefing at the White House on Monday. “As we continue to monitor this situation we will continue to review all of our options.”

U.S. officials reportedly considered enacting additional measures against Maduro, including banning imports of Venezuelan oil. But in the end, officials worried that halting imports of Venezuelan crude, which makes up about 10 percent of all U.S. oil imports, would unfairly punish regular Venezuelans. Maduro joins three other heads of state directly under U.S. sanctions: North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Robert Mugabe, the 93-year-old president of Zimbabwe.

On Sunday, Venezuelans voted in a referendum on whether or not to dissolve the country’s legislative body, the National Assembly, for a new, 545-member Constituent Assembly, entirely composed of Maduro loyalists. Maduro’s opponents–not to mention Brazil, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Chile, and Panama–saw the vote as illegitimate. The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, slammed the vote on Twitter:

Maduro’s sham election is another step toward dictatorship. We won’t accept an illegit govt. The Venezuelan ppl & democracy will prevail.

— Nikki Haley (@nikkihaley) July 30, 2017

Opposition leaders in Venezuela, and millions of citizens, fear that the Constituent Assembly will be a vehicle for Maduro to re-write the constitution, giving him broader, incontestable powers.

Those powers are already bearing fruit. Early Tuesday morning, two prominent Maduro critics, Leopoldo Lopez and Antonio Ledezma, were reportedly taken from their homes by SEBIN, Venezuela’s intelligence service. The opposition leaders’ families posted on social media detailing their arrests.

Lopez’s wife, Lilian Tintori, tweeted early Tuesday: “They just took Leopoldo from the house. We do not know where he is or where he is being taken. Maduro is responsible if something happens to him.”

And in a video statement, Ledezma’s daughter said: “He was in pajamas. We don’t know where he was taken. A group of men came with their faces concealed and in camouflage and they took him. They have kidnapped him once again. We hold the regime responsible for his life and physical integrity.”

Lopez and Ledezma are among Maduro’s most vocal and influential critics. Lopez was detained in early 2014 for allegedly inciting anti-government protests. He was released from military prison to house arrest last month. Ledezma, the former mayor of Caracas, Venezuela’s capital and the center of political unrest in recent months, is also a leading opposition figure.

As Maduro looks to cement his power, Venezuelans are growing increasingly desperate, struggling to obtain basic necessities like food and water. Since protests ratcheted up in April, at least 125 people have died; 10 people were reportedly killed during protests on Sunday. Maduro seems unfazed by the mounting unrest, the plight of his people, and the condemnation of the international community.

“If the empire’s threats and sanctions don’t intimidate me, nothing scares me,” Maduro said on state television after Sunday’s vote. “Issue all the sanctions you want, but the Venezuelan people have decided to be free and I have decided to be the president of a free people.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. Imposes Sanctions on Venezuelan President: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

A 72-year-old British man was convicted on Monday of importing a child sex doll that was “anatomically detailed and correct,” according to Britain’s National Crime Agency (NCA). Over the past year or so, British authorities have been dealing with an increasing number of such cases, which are difficult to prosecute under British law, as it’s not illegal to own a child sex doll. But importing one could amount to a criminal offense under the 1959 Obscene Publication Act.

Judge Simon James ruled on David Turner’s case at the Canterbury Crown Courthouse in Kent, a city southeast of London. Turner was found guilty of importing a 3-foot-11-inch doll from China. He also bought clothes for the doll, and owned others he used for sexual purposes.

At Turner’s home in Kent, police uncovered more than 34,000 images of children ages three to 16, along with two other child dolls, and 29 stories that “described sexual abuse of children,” according to the NCA. Turner was arrested last November, when customs officers at Stansted Airport seized a doll, which was mislabeled as a mannequin.

The importation of child sex dolls is an emerging trend in the UK. Since March 2016, the Border Force has seized 123 dolls. Those previously charged in similar cases pleaded guilty to importing obscene objects, but Turner asked the judge whether or not using the doll for sexual purposes was considered “indecent or obscene in law.” In a first, the judge ruled that it was. Turner’s sentencing is scheduled for September 8.

“Our front line officers and intelligence teams are vigilant to emerging criminal trends such as the importation of obscene dolls,” Dan Scully, deputy director of the Border Force’s Intelligence Operations said in a statement. “Through our work with law enforcement partners like the NCA, we are committed to preventing the smuggling of obscene articles and bringing those responsible to justice.”

Hazel Stewart, operations manager of the NCA’s Child Exploitation and Online Protection wing, said “Importers of such obscene items should expect to have law enforcement closing in on them.”

Some doubt that child sex dolls can be a therapeutic tool for would-be abusers. “There is no evidence to support the idea that the use of so-called child sex dolls helps prevent potential abusers from committing contact offenses against real children,” Jon Brown, head of development at the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said in a statement. “And in fact there is a risk that those using these child sex dolls or realistic props could become desensitized and their behavior becomes normalized to them, so that they go on to harm children themselves.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 72-Year-Old British Man Convicted of Importing Child Sex Doll appeared first on Law Street.

A hearings judge in Hawaii ruled the state could reissue a building permit for a telescope on Mauna Kea, a 14,000-foot dormant volcano that has become a lighting rod over the past few years. While the ruling is sure to fan the flames of a long-simmering conflict between astronomers and Native Hawaiians, the telescope has a ways to go before it can decipher the deepest mysteries of the universe.

The $1.4 billion behemoth, commonly called the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT), would be the largest telescope in the Northern Hemisphere. It is one of three mammoth-sized telescopes being considered around the globe–the other two are in Chile. The project is backed by researchers at the California Institute of Technology and the University of California, who say it would be used to observe far-away planets and galaxies. India, China, and Canada have reportedly invested in the project as well.

Would a gigantic observatory despoil Hawaii’s sacred Mauna Kea? A judge says no. https://t.co/APwOLJEZ3y

— NYT Science (@NYTScience) July 28, 2017

But a faction of environmental groups and Native Hawaiians have passionately protested the telescope’s construction on Mauna Kea. The legal battle over Mauna Kea, considered a sacred site by some native groups, began in 2011, two years after the site was selected as the future home of the TMT. The state’s Board of Land and Natural Resources issued a permit for the telescope, which was contested by the project’s opponents to no avail.

In 2015, the Hawaii Supreme Court revoked the building permit, saying the board cut corners in approving the telescope. The application process started over, and retired Judge Riki May Amano was appointed to rule on whether or not the board should be granted the ability to issue a new building permit. On Wednesday, Amano decided that the board should be able to do so, on the condition that workers and astronomers undergo “mandatory cultural and natural resources training.”

“TMT welcomes the recommendation that a state permit be issued, and we respectfully look forward to the next steps,” Ed Stone, executive director of the TMT International Observatory, said in a statement. “We are grateful to all our supporters and friends who have been with us during the hearing process and over the past 10 years, and we remain respectful of the process to ensure the proper stewardship of Mauna Kea.”

Hawaii Gov. David Ige has also expressed support for the project. In a statement released after Amano’s decision, Ige said: “I support the coexistence of astronomy and culture on Mauna Kea along with better management of the mountain.”

Next up, the board will hear arguments on whether or not to accept Amano’s ruling. Regardless of the board’s decision, the case is likely to wind up back at the Hawaii Supreme Court. The telescope’s directors said if the telescope does not get built on Mauna Kea, it will end up in the Canary Islands off the coast of Spain.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Says Telescope on Hawaii’s Sacred Mauna Kea Should be Built appeared first on Law Street.

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) made it clear on Thursday what would happen if President Donald Trump fires his attorney general, Jeff Sessions. “If Jeff Sessions is fired, there will be holy hell to pay,” he told CNN. Graham also said he is looking to introduce legislation next week that would block the firing of special counsels without a judicial review.

Rumors have been swirling around Capitol Hill this week that Trump is looking to dispose of Sessions and Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russia’s election interference, and any potential links between the Kremlin and the Trump campaign.

“This effort to basically marginalize and humiliate the attorney general is not going over well in the Senate,” Graham told CNN. “If you believe Jeff Sessions should be fired, use the power you have and accept the consequences.”

On Monday, Trump fired off a tweet calling Sessions “beleaguered,” asking why he has not looked into “Crooked Hillarys [sic] crimes & Russia relations.” Trump is reportedly upset that Sessions recused himself from the Russia investigation, which left an opening filled by Mueller, a widely respected prosecutor who Trump is also unhappy with.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has taken a VERY weak position on Hillary Clinton crimes (where are E-mails & DNC server) & Intel leakers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 25, 2017

Sessions was one of Trump’s earliest advocates, and the first senator to embrace his candidacy. The attorney general has also faithfully pursued Trump’s campaign vision–perhaps more than any other cabinet appointee–adopting a hard-line immigration stance and a law and order philosophy on crime.

Republican senators rushed to Sessions’ defense following Trump’s Twitter barrage. They were joined by some Democrats, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who warned that firing Sessions could provoke a “constitutional crisis.” Others said it would further prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice in the investigations involving Russia and his campaign.

Sessions had been largely mum on the topic of his potential firing until Thursday afternoon. In an interview with Fox, he called Trump’s attacks “hurtful,” but said that Trump “is determined to move this country in the direction he believes it needs to go to make us great again.” He added that Trump “wants all of us to do our jobs and that’s what I intend to do.”

Graham’s legislation would essentially make it more difficult for Trump, and future presidents, to fire a special counsel, which includes Mueller. Dismissing a special counsel would require a judicial review to determine if reasons behind the firing “meet the statutory definitions,” Graham said.

The effort is likely to be a bi-partisan endeavor. Graham’s Democratic colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) have said they are working on the bill. Blumenthal said it “might be a committee effort,” adding that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lindsey Graham: If Trump Fires Sessions, “There Will be Holy Hell to Pay” appeared first on Law Street.

A House committee on Tuesday blocked an amendment in a VA spending bill that would have expanded access to medical marijuana for veterans. Because marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, it is banned by the federal government. Even as states legalize cannabis for medical and recreational purposes, veterans have struggled to gain access to medical marijuana through the VA.

Sponsored by Representative Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), the Veterans Equal Access amendment would bar federal funds from blocking veterans’ access to medical marijuana in states that have legalized it. The amendment, proposed as part of the 2018 Military Construction bill, would have permitted VA doctors to “make appropriate recommendations, fill out forms, or take steps to comply” with medical marijuana programs in states that have legalized it.

In the 29 states–plus D.C.–that have legalized medical marijuana, VA doctors cannot prescribe or recommend medical marijuana to their patients, because the VA is a federal agency. For veterans afflicted with psychiatric conditions, like PTSD, medical marijuana can be an effective tool–and is much less dangerous than opiates. The American Legion and other veterans groups support greater access to medical marijuana for veterans.

“Given that veterans are more likely to commit suicide or die from opiate overdoses than civilians, our fight to provide them safer alternatives won’t stop here,” Blumenauer, a founding member of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said in a statement. “We have stronger support in the House and Senate than ever before, and we will keep advocating for a more rational approach.”

For the last several years, a growing group of lawmakers from both parties have tried to tie the equal access amendment to the VA spending bill. Last year, both the House and the Senate passed the amendment, but it was dropped during conference discussions on the final bill. This year’s effort is not entirely dead. Earlier this month, the Senate Appropriations Committee easily passed a similar amendment, so when both chambers meet to hash out the final VA bill, it could still make the cut.

“All we want is equal treatment for our wounded warriors,” Blumenauer added. “This provision overwhelmingly passed on the House floor last year – and bipartisan support has only grown. It’s outrageous that the Rules Committee won’t even allow a vote for our veterans. They deserve better. They deserve compassion.”

Despite the federal government’s reluctance to reform marijuana laws, or to reclassify marijuana, a bipartisan chorus is growing in support of legalization–Blumenauer’s amendment was co-sponsored by nine Democrats and nine Republicans. And though the House committee did not pass the amendment, at least one Republican member publicly supported it.

“I’ve seen firsthand the benefit people can derive from medical marijuana,” Representative Dan Newhouse (R-WA) said. “It seems to me if it’s available and it works, we should make that available to our veterans as well.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Committee Blocks Medical Marijuana Access for Veterans appeared first on Law Street.

To kick off a week-long trip to Washington, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri met with President Donald Trump on Tuesday to address common security threats and increased economic and security funding. Lebanon is an important U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State. It also has taken in 1.5 million Syrian refugees, who now comprise about a quarter of its entire population.

But Lebanon is a land of contradictions, largely due to the outsized influence of Hezbollah–an Iranian-backed group that the U.S., the EU, and Israel all consider a terrorist organization–on its politics and security. President Michel Aoun is an ally of the militant group, which is fighting on the side of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, even while Lebanon absorbs scores of refugees displaced by Syria’s intractable civil war.

At a press conference on Tuesday, following a private meeting with Hariri, Trump seemed to fundamentally misunderstand Hezbollah’s role within Lebanon. He said: “Lebanon is on the front lines in the fight against ISIS, al-Qaeda, and Hezbollah.”

While the U.S. and its allies view the group as a terrorist outfit, Lebanon does not. In fact, Hezbollah, which is fighting ISIS in Syria on behalf of the Assad regime, enjoys broad support in Lebanon. Its priorities certainly diverge from those of the U.S.–it is an Iranian proxy force and has vowed to destroy Israel. But Hezbollah (“Party of God”) is key to stabilizing the country, Hariri said in remarks at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington on Wednesday.

Hariri said he has numerous differences with Hezbollah, but “one thing we agree on is that the national interest of Lebanon is to have stability and to have a government that is functional.” And despite Trump’s apparent confusion over Hezbollah, the “administration understand very well the position of Lebanon,” Hariri said.

U.S. lawmakers are currently considering sanctions against Hezbollah, and any Lebanese banks that do business with it. Hariri has opposed any effort to sanction Hezbollah, because he says it would cripple the country’s entire banking system.

The U.S.-Lebanon partnership remains vital, however. In April, the State Department announced it would provide an additional $167 million to Lebanon to help support Syrian refugees. Hariri, during Wednesday’s event, said Trump had promised $140 million more in aid.

“Our approach supporting the humanitarian needs of displaced Syrian citizens as close to their home country as possible is the best way to help most people,” Trump said in the Rose Garden on Tuesday. Aid for Syrian refugees in the U.S. will likely dry up soon. Earlier this month, the U.S. reached its 50,000-refugee limit for the year, a threshold Trump lowered from 100,000 as part of his travel ban that will be heard in the Supreme Court later this year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lebanese PM Saad Hariri and Donald Trump Discuss ISIS, Syrian Refugees appeared first on Law Street.

And the beat goes on: Republicans on Tuesday voted–with a tiebreaking assist from Vice President Mike Pence–to move forward and debate health care legislation. Next up in the seven-year Republican crusade against Obamacare: hours of debate, possibly dozens of amendments, and, eventually, a floor vote. But the ultimate trophy of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act with a Republican-backed alternative remains elusive. Here is what comes next:

Debate then Vote-o-Rama

With the 51-50 vote Tuesday night on the motion to proceed, Senate Republicans are in for a long couple of days. First, they will debate for dozens of hours the various versions of the bill that have been proposed in the House and the Senate. Senators will also debate what will likely amount to dozens of amendments.

A so-called “vote-o-rama” will commence after the debate. Lawmakers from both parties will be permitted to introduce amendments to the health bill–Democratic aides have hinted the party will flood Republicans with amendments to trip up their efforts. Each amendment will be allotted one minute of debate before a vote, and the entire process can go on as long as is needed.

Option 1: Repeal and Replace

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been leading the repeal-and-replace charge over the past seven years, and it falls to him to corral his fellow Republican senators to agree on a bill. McConnell’s ideal scenario would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a health law that suits Republican priorities.

But the majority leader has so far struggled to align moderate GOP lawmakers and the Senate’s most conservative members behind a single bill. Several Senators have stated their opposition to prior health care legislation either because of Medicaid cuts or its insufficient conservative bona fides. McConnell scored a small victory with Tuesday’s motion to proceed vote, but can he rally enough of his troops to agree on a common strategy?

The first attempt at passing comprehensive legislation failed on Tuesday evening, as nine Republicans broke ranks and opposed the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) by a 43-57 margin in a crucial procedural vote. That bill was Republicans’ primary choice to repeal and replace Obamacare and included two amendments to try to reconcile the party’s disparate corners.

The first, introduced by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), would add $100 billion to a stability fund to help offset slashed Medicaid funds. A second amendment, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), would allow insurers to sell pared down plans as long as they concurrently sell more comprehensive plans that meet certain Obamacare requirements. Further votes on various versions of the BCRA or alternative bills could happen later this week.

Option 2: Repeal Only

A number of Republican Senators have already stated they will not support a repeal bill in the absence of replacement legislation. As early as Wednesday afternoon, a vote could be held on a repeal bill similar to one vetoed by President Barack Obama in 2016. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that bill would lead to 32 million more uninsured Americans within 10 years.

Another idea that has been floated is known as a “skinny repeal,” which would eliminate a few of Obamacare’s provisions while still leaving intact others. The narrow repeal would get rid of Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, which required individuals to have health insurance coverage and employers to provide insurance or pay a penalty. It may also repeal Obamacare’s medical device tax. It’s possible that the “skinny repeal” bill could dramatically change when the House and Senate meet to reconcile each chamber’s respective bills.

The road ahead is still long and filled with potentially unbridgeable divides. Immediately following Tuesday’s vote, a number of Republicans suggested they would not support a bill that is not significantly different than what has already been presented.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) said: “If the final product isn’t improved for the state of Nevada, then I will not vote for it; if it is improved, I will support it.” And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who returned from his week-long absence on Tuesday to cast a “yea” vote on the motion to proceed, said: “Asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition–I don’t think that’s going to work in the end, and probably shouldn’t.” McCain, who was recently diagnosed with brain cancer, said it “seems likely” the effort would fail.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Next in the Republicans’ Effort to Repeal and Replace Obamacare? appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, a federal appeals court issued an injunction on a statute that would have severely limited gun rights in the District of Columbia. The 2-1 ruling represents a victory for Second Amendment advocates, and another setback in the effort to curb gun rights in the nation’s capital.

The D.C. measure in question is commonly referred to as a “good reason” clause. It directs the police chief to set guidelines to limit gun possession in the city, making an exception for those who could justify carrying a weapon. But a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said the Supreme Court’s guidance made clear that such a law would violate the Second Amendment.

Writing for the majority, Judge Thomas Griffith cited a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down D.C.’s 32-year ban on handguns.

The District of Columbia v. Heller ruling proved that “the Second Amendment erects some absolute barriers that no gun law may breach,” wrote Griffith.

He added, “At the Second Amendment’s core lies the right of responsible citizens to carry firearms for personal self-defense beyond the home, subject to longstanding restrictions.”

Gun rights in D.C. have followed a pattern over the last decade: the city passes an ordinance to curb gun rights; the ordinance is blocked in court. From 1976 to 2008, handguns were banned in D.C.

With the Heller ruling, D.C. repealed its ban, and issued a new ordinance that made it impossible to obtain a permit to carry outside the home. In 2014, that measure was ruled unconstitutional. In response, D.C. amended the ordinance, making permits available to those who could show “good cause” to carry a handgun.

Unsurprisingly, gun advocates cheered the court’s decision. Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement that “the opinion makes it clear that the Second Amendment’s core generally covers carrying in public for self-defense.”

He added: “To read the majority opinion and not come away convinced that such ‘good reason’ or ‘good cause’ requirements are just clever ways to prevent honest citizens from exercising their rights is not possible.” 

But Judge Karen Henderson argued in her dissent that, “the sole Second Amendment ‘core’ right is the right to possess arms for self-defense in the home.”

She added: “By characterizing the Second Amendment right as most notable and most acute in the home, the Supreme Court necessarily implied that that right is less notable and less acute outside the home.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Appeals Court Blocks D.C. Effort to Curb Gun Rights appeared first on Law Street.

For the past six months, Democrats have been glued together in a unified front against President Donald Trump, but haven’t articulated many plans of their own. On Monday, for the first time since Trump took the White House, Democrats presented their vision for the 2018 midterms and beyond. Democratic leaders unveiled the plan in Berryville, Virginia, in a predominantly Republican district currently represented by Republican Representative Barbara Comstock.

Titled “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future,” the Democratic message is a grab-bag of populist ideas nicked from both the Trump and Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) schools of thought, as well as long-running Democratic policies. It lays out a plan to boost jobs and lower the costs of living, including prescription drug prices. The plan also includes a proposal to increase the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. Here is what else you need to know:

Better Jobs

On jobs in particular, the new agenda borrows heavily from the Trump campaign playbook of attacking “special interests” and “elites.” But Democratic leaders also sought to draw a line between their working-class promises and the promises Republicans and the Trump Administration have failed to deliver on. “Republicans have spent six months trying to raise Americans’ health costs to fund tax breaks for billionaires,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (R-CA) said in an op-ed published in the Washington Post on Monday. “Our agenda is focused on efforts to create jobs and raise incomes for American workers, to lower the cost of living for American families, and to build an economy that gives every American the tools to succeed in the 21st century,” Pelosi continued.

The minority leader, who some progressives view as embodying the elite image the party needs to rid itself of, promised “good-paying, full-time jobs” for 10 million more Americans over the next five years. Tax credits for employers to train employees, she said, would help achieve that lofty goal. Pelosi also said Democrats envision a “massive new national commitment to expanding apprenticeships and paid on-the-job training that advances their skills and careers.”

“Rigged Economy”

“A Better Deal” was not drafted by Sanders. But in their public statements about the plan, Democratic leaders have peppered their vernacular with Sanders-style rhetoric, calling the economy “rigged” and railing against “vulture capitalists.”

The second page in the new Democratic playbook concerns reforming America’s antitrust laws to increase competition and innovation, and stifle consolidation and mergers in a number of fields, from airlines to communications companies. Pelosi said the party would focus on “breaking the grip of the special interests and confronting the rising everyday costs that families have endured for too long.”

“Over the past thirty years, growing corporate influence and consolidation has led to reductions in competition, choice for consumers, and bargaining power for workers,” the Democratic plan states. “The extensive concentration of power in the hands of a few corporations hurts wages, undermines job growth, and threatens to squeeze out small businesses, suppliers, and new, innovative competitors.”

To fix these issues, Democrats promise to “prevent big mergers that would harm consumers, workers, and competition.” The party also proposed a tougher post-merger review process.

“Reorienting Government”

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed Pelosi in an op-ed published Monday in the New York Times, but framed the agenda in simple, rhetorical strokes. He wrote: “American families deserve a better deal so that this country works for everyone again, not just the elites and special interests.”

But Schumer also did what Democrats have largely failed to do since election night: admit that voters were unclear on where the party stood. “Democrats have too often hesitated from taking on those misguided policies directly and unflinchingly — so much so that many Americans don’t know what we stand for,” Schumer wrote.

But a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests voters are still unsure of what Democrats believe in. A slim majority of those polled–52 percent–said the party only espouses an anti-Trump message, while 37 percent said the Democratic Party “currently stands for something.” With less than a year and a half until the 2018 mid-term elections, Democrats are trying to change that perception: “Our better deal is not about expanding the government, or moving our party in one direction or another along the political spectrum,” Schumer said. “It’s about reorienting government to work on behalf of people and families.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Democrats’ “A Better Deal”: Classic Liberal Priorities and a Dash of Populism appeared first on Law Street.

Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoed two of three bills on Monday that would have broadened the government’s powers in shaping the Supreme Court. The three laws, proposed by the populist Law and Justice Party (PiS) and passed by parliament last week, ignited protests across the country. They also brought swift condemnation from the European Union and the U.S. State Department.

In a televised statement, Duda said the judicial reforms would “not strengthen the sense of justice” in Poland. Duda added that he supports reform, “but a wise reform.”

The vetoed legislation would have allowed the Justice Ministry to remake the Supreme Court. Current justices would have been pushed out, forced into early retirement, while new judges would have been selected by the justice minister. The third bill, which Duda approved, gives the justice minister the authority to select judges to fill Poland’s lower courts.

Despite Duda’s surprising decision to veto the controversial bills, PiS can still push through the reform measures with a three-fifths majority vote. PiS could not achieve that unilaterally however, and would need an assist from other parties. Given the bill’s unpopularity outside the right-wing PiS, a veto-proof majority is an unlikely scenario.

The effort by PiS, the ruling party, to reshape the courts prompted protests in at least 100 cities over the weekend. In Warsaw, thousands of people packed the streets to protest the legislation, waving EU and Polish flags, and carrying signs that read “constitution.” Some protests turned violent.

“People can demonstrate in the streets, can show their dissatisfaction, but not resort to violence,” Duda said in his address.

The EU and the U.S. also disapproved of the reforms. Last week, Donald Tusk, the European Council president and former leader of Poland, said the bills would “ruin the already tarnished public opinion about Polish democracy.” The EU also threatened to trigger Article 7 and impose sanctions on Poland, a rarely used diplomatic maneuver.

The State Department also chimed in, saying in a statement on Friday that the legislation “appears to undermine judicial independence and weaken the rule of law in Poland.”

“We urge all sides to ensure that any judicial reform does not violate Poland’s constitution or international legal obligations and respects the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers,” the statement from State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert continued.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Polish President Vetoes Controversial Judicial Reform Bills appeared first on Law Street.

The Treasury Department fined Exxon Mobil $2 million on Thursday for signing business deals in 2014 with a Russian oil magnate who had been blacklisted under U.S. sanctions. Exxon, which at the time of the sanctions breach was led by now-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, immediately responded by filing a lawsuit against the Treasury Department.

“OFAC seeks to retroactively enforce a new interpretation of an executive order that is inconsistent with the explicit and unambiguous guidance from the White House and Treasury,” Exxon said in a statement, referring to the Office of Foreign Assets Control, the Treasury Department’s sanctions enforcement agency.

According to OFAC, Exxon subsidiaries signed eight legal documents with Igor Sechin, president of Russia’s state-owned energy conglomerate Rosneft. While Rosneft had not been sanctioned as part of the U.S. punishment for Russia’s seizure of Crimea and incursion in Ukraine in 2014, Sechin had been individually blacklisted. That meant U.S. entities were barred from doing business directly with him.

In Exxon’s complaint, filed in a U.S. district court in Texas, the company called the penalty “unlawful.” Exxon argued OFAC’s enforcement of the sanctions, implemented by the Obama Administration in April 2014 is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law.” The lawsuit also alleges that the penalty denies Exxon its due process.

In a release announcing the lawsuit against OFAC, Exxon pointed to a White House fact sheet published in 2014. The fact sheet said the purpose of blacklisting individuals was to target “personal assets, but not companies that they may manage on behalf of the Russian state.”

Effectively, the oil giant contends, doing business with Rosneft had never been illegal, and so dealing with Sechin in his capacity of its top representative should be permitted. The Treasury Department disagreed, saying there is no “exception or carve-out for the professional conduct of designated or blocked persons.”

Tillerson was Exxon’s CEO at the time of its alleged sanctions violation, and, during an annual meeting, said he did not support sanctions “unless they are very well implemented.” In January, during Tillerson’s Senate confirmation hearing, his past with Exxon and its extensive dealings in Russia raised concerns that he would be partial in dealing with Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

But in his short tenure as America’s top diplomat, Tillerson has worked to keep the sanctions against Russia in place. Earlier this month, in a visit to Ukraine, Tillerson said the sanctions “will remain in place until Moscow reverses the actions that triggered these particular sanctions.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Exxon Fined $2 Million for Violating Sanctions During Tillerson’s Tenure appeared first on Law Street.

Federal officials visited Denver and Colorado Springs this week, holding a number of private meetings with local representatives about Colorado’s legal marijuana system and its sizable black market. The federal fact-finding mission comes as pro-marijuana advocates across the country worry about a fresh crack-down on marijuana users and sellers by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The first meeting took place in Denver on Tuesday. According to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper’s marijuana adviser Mark Bolton, representatives from the Office of National Drug Control Policy, Domestic Policy Control, and the State Department attended the closed-door session.

“Our purpose was to convey to them the strength of our regulatory system and our enforcement system and our policies and practices,” Bolton, who was also present at the meeting, told The Cannabist. He added that the federal officials saw the meeting “as an educational opportunity.”

Colorado’s attorney general, Cynthia Coffman, also met with the federal officials. Coffman and Hickenlooper, in a joint statement, said the meeting “focused on sharing Colorado’s experience creating and executing a robust and effective regulatory and enforcement system, and our continuing efforts to protect public health and public safety.”

In April, Hickenlooper joined three other governors from states that have legalized marijuana in asking Sessions and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to consult them “before embarking on any changes to regulatory and enforcement systems.”

Thus far, Sessions has expressed a personal animus for marijuana, but has not taken any drastic measures to enforce federal law over state law. Marijuana is banned at the federal level, while eight states and D.C. have fully legalized cannabis.

In the second meeting, on Wednesday in Colorado Springs, federal officials, including representatives from the DEA, met with the city’s mayor, John Suthers. Local officials were criticized for holding the meeting in private, which they did because the meetings “include sensitive investigative information,” according to a statement from Suthers.

“The folks that came out didn’t want it public; there’s no reason for it to be public,” Suthers told KKTV 11, a local news station that reported the meetings. Suthers added he believes the officials visited Colorado, which legalized marijuana in 2012 “to find out what law enforcement and other regulatory agencies’ view is toward marijuana regulation in Colorado.”

Both meetings come the week before the Justice Department is set to release a report on violent crime, immigration, and drug trafficking. It is unclear if the meetings, which also featured discussions about Colorado’s black marijuana market, are related to that report.

Meanwhile, a Denver-based research company reported this week that Colorado has collected over $500 million from marijuana taxes since legal sales began in January 2014.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Officials Visit Colorado to Learn About Legal Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

There are few issues in Washington that attract as much bipartisan support as criminal justice reform. Across the yawning political divide, leaders have stressed the need to reform America’s sentencing laws, treatment options, and prison conditions. Billionaire donors–from the libertarian Koch brothers to the liberal George Soros–have opened their coffers to find solutions.

America is the world’s foremost jailer, especially when it comes to women–nearly one-third of all female prisoners on the planet can be found in a U.S. facility. Congress, governors, NGOs, and leaders in the private sector are beginning to recognize the importance of tackling the issue of female incarceration, and its debilitating effects on women, children, and families.

“Biggest Cancer”

On July 11, a group of Democratic senators–Cory Booker (NJ), Elizabeth Warren (MA), Richard Durbin (IL), and Kamala Harris (CA)–introduced the Dignity for Incarcerated Women Act, which proposes “common-sense reforms to how the federal prison system treats incarcerated women,” according to a press release.

Female incarceration is the “biggest cancer on our body politic,” Booker said this week at an event at Washington D.C.’s Newseum called, “Women Unshackled.” Discussions with formerly incarcerated women, he said, shed a light on the issues they face before, during, and after incarceration, and led him to draft a policy to address some of those problems.

The legislation seeks to end the practice of placing incarcerated women who are pregnant–three percent of female prisoners in federal prisons are pregnant upon admission–in solitary confinement. It would also ensure all feminine hygiene products are provided free of charge, ban the shackling of pregnant women (including while they are giving birth), and allow overnight visits to children whose mothers are imprisoned.

“We’ve been offered a false choice on criminal justice policy,” Harris, also speaking at the “Women Unshackled” program, said. “A choice that suggests one is either soft on crime or tough on crime, instead of asking are we smart on crime.” As it pertains to incarcerated women in particular, she said, “we need to be smarter.”

Harris’ reform efforts continued on Thursday, when she and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced a bail reform bill, the Pretrial Integrity and Safety Act. In an op-ed published in the New York Times on Thursday, the two senators wrote:

Whether someone stays in jail or not is far too often determined by wealth or social connections, even though just a few days behind bars can cost people their job, home, custody of their children — or their life… Our bail system is broken. And it’s time to fix it.

Their legislation, Harris and Paul wrote, “empowers states to build on best practices” and “holds states accountable.” It also encourages better data collection to “help guarantee that reforms yield better outcomes.”

Generational Effects

Women are the fastest growing segment of America’s incarcerated population, rising by over 700 percent from 1980 to 2014. As of 2014, American jails house roughly 215,000 women, the vast majority of whom are behind bars for non-violent, low-level drug offenses. According to a 2016 report by the Vera Institute of Justice, a criminal justice non-profit, nearly 80 percent of incarcerated women are mothers–65 percent have children under 18 years old.

“An incarcerated woman means that a family will be impacted,” Harris said. “And its effects can be generational; what impacts a woman, impacts a child.”

Booker framed the impacts of America’s female incarceration rates as a “stain” on the country’s founding values of freedom, justice, and dignity: “Do we take pregnant women and empower them? No, we shackle them, put them in solitary confinement,” he said. “This is a stain upon everything we say we stand for.”

Harris saw the effects of female incarceration up close as California’s attorney general, a position she held from 2011 to early 2017.

“If someone commits a serious and violent offense,” she said, “there is no question they need to be held accountable and there must be severe, swift, and certain consequence.” But the vast majority of imprisoned women have been convicted of non-violent crimes, and thousands of others are jailed, awaiting trial. Some wait years.

In addition to legislation, like the recent bill Harris co-sponsored with Booker, Warren, and Durbin, she said a number of steps can be taken to make the system more just. For one, Harris believes preventive measures should be undertaken to stem some of the “seemingly small issues now” that might lead to poor choices down the road.

Harris said education, beginning with elementary school, is vital to future success: “a child going without an education is tantamount to a crime,” she said. Harris also sees “untreated, undiagnosed, and undetected trauma” as the seed that could lead to future incarceration–eight in 10 incarcerated women have experienced abuse.

Bipartisan Issue, State-Level Solutions

Female incarceration is an issue that has gained traction from conservatives, liberals, and libertarians alike. The federal government is following the lead of states like Texas, Georgia, Utah, and Kentucky in addressing criminal justice reform. One Republican governor, Mary Fallon of Oklahoma, is paving the path forward with innovative programs and aggressive policies.

“[There are] things that can be done on the state level,” Fallon said during the “Women Unshackled” event’s keynote address. For instance, she said, states can “prioritize treatment for women who are pregnant, for women who have children, and provide those services in a targeted way to meet their very special needs.”

Under her governorship–a mantle she has held since 2011–Oklahoma, which has the highest female incarceration rate in the nation, has opened residential treatment facilities. It has implemented community-based substance abuse programs. Fallon stressed the importance of public-private partnerships in keeping women out of prison.

Fallon highlighted a program called Women in Recovery, an “intensive outpatient alternative for women facing long prison sentences for non-violent, drug-related offenses,” she said. And in a strategy that Fallon said is the first of its kind, Oklahoma “pays for success.” The state essentially provides additional funding to private programs for each patient who is successfully treated.

Fallon is far from the only Republican to recognize criminal justice reform, and female incarceration in particular, as a pressing issue. Representative Doug Collins (R-GA), also speaking at the event in D.C., presented criminal justice reform as a moral imperative for the entire country.

“If we as a country value life as much as we say we do, then we value all life, even those who have made mistakes, and have went through the incarceration system,” he said. Second chances, he said, begin by seeing jails as places to “put people in we are scared of, not those that we are mad at.”

Last year, Congress signed into law the Comprehensive Justice and Mental Health Act, which Collins introduced in 2016. The legislation proposed reforms for how people with mental health issues are treated, diagnosed, and sentenced, “rather than treat prisons and jails as psychiatric facilities,” Collins said in a statement when the bill was introduced.

Now, Collins is focused on finding ways “for people to have better choices,” he said at the “Women Unshackled” event. Opportunities must be found to allow people to “recover from” mistakes, he said, “and to restore families, and to restore lives, and restore hope.”

“Hope is not a partisan issue,” Collins added. “It is for those who need to know that somebody cares.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Inside the Bipartisan Effort to Reform the Incarceration of Women appeared first on Law Street.

Jerry Brown, the governor of California, made no bones about the dangers of climate change at a public hearing last week, calling it a “threat to organized human existence.” As the Trump Administration removes the U.S. from the frontline in the battle against climate change, cities and states have stepped forward to fill the void.

Monday evening, after hours of intense debate and an energized push from Brown himself, California lawmakers voted to extend the state’s cap-and-trade program through 2030. The current system, implemented in 2012, is set to expire in 2020. Extending the program, which Brown has been trying to spread to other states, has galvanized critics from two disparate corners: liberals and environmental groups who think it is too cautious, and Republicans who see it as a job killer.

But Brown, at 79 and nearing the end of his fourth term in office, has argued cap-and-trade is an effective way to combat carbon emissions while allowing economic growth.

“America is facing not just a climate crisis with the rest of the world, we are facing a political crisis,” Brown told lawmakers at the four-hour public hearing last week, after introducing the cap-and-trade extension bill. “Can democracy actually work? Is there a sufficient consensus that we can govern ourselves? That, I submit to you, is an open question.”

Brown has positioned himself as a buffer against President Donald Trump’s systematic unraveling of the Obama Administration’s climate regulations. In the wake of Trump’s decision to remove the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, Brown and a number of other governors and mayors have soothed concerns at home and abroad. Brown recently traveled to China to talk climate change, and will attend a climate summit in Germany later this year.

While other governors and mayors have pledged to double-down on green initiatives and other carbon-cutting regulations, Brown has remained steadfast in his cap-and-trade approach. Championed by those who would like to fight climate change with a market-based system, cap-and-trade issues limited permits to carbon-producing companies, dictating how much carbon they can emit in a given time period. Some permits are free, others are auctioned off; companies can then sell, buy, and trade permits among each other.

But Brown’s extension effort received pushback from environmental groups and state lawmakers. Senate Republicans sent a letter last week to Brown, expressing their opposition to the bill, which is paired with another measure that seeks to improve air quality.

“We are committed to protecting and enhancing California’s environment,” a group of state Republican lawmakers wrote, adding that the cap-and-trade program is a “crushing blow to California residents and small business negatively impacting their quality of life.”

California progressives have also criticized the plan, though for a vastly different reason: many say it does not do enough to halt carbon emissions. Environmental justice groups see Brown’s bill as a capitulation to the oil and gas industry, and argue it includes too many compromises to pro-industry Republicans and moderate Democrats.

“It’s California climate policy that’s been written by big oil,” Amy Vanderwarker, co-director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance, recently said about the bill. “At a time when all eyes are on California, we have to stand strong and say this is not something we can support.”

After the bill passed Monday night, Brown applauded Californians for standing against “the existential threat of our time” by extending the cap-and-trade program. He also thanked both Republicans and Democrats who “set aside their differences, came together and took courageous action.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Extends Cap-and-Trade Program Through 2030 appeared first on Law Street.

The House passed a defense bill on Friday that included a description of global warming as “a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” The bill, which sets the Pentagon’s budget and priorities for Fiscal Year 2018, easily passed by a 344-81 vote.

In addition to its acknowledgement of climate change as a potential security threat, the National Defense Authorization Act includes a number of amendments that directly contradict Trump Administration policy.

For instance, the bill declines President Donald Trump’s request to shutter a number of military bases around the country in 2021. Defense Secretary James Mattis told the Armed Services Committee in a hearing last month that closing the bases would save $10 billion over five years. The Obama Administration failed to garner congressional support with the same request.

An additional rebuff to Trump’s stated policies is the bill’s directive that the Pentagon create a so-called “Space Corps.” The proposed unit, opposed by both the Pentagon and the White House, would fall under the Air Force’s auspices, and would provide a front line of defense against future space-related threats. The Senate will negotiate the proposal when it takes up the defense bill.

But the bill’s most surprising feature is its nod to the myriad threats posed by climate change. In addition to calling climate change a “direct threat” to U.S. national security, it also directs the Pentagon to issue a report to Congress on the effects climate change might have on military bases.

Republicans in Congress have long been reluctant to address climate change as a real threat, and Friday’s vote by the Republican-controlled House might mark a change in posture.

Trump has made clear his own views on climate change–he recently withdrew the U.S. from the 194-nation Paris Climate Accord–but the Pentagon’s highest-ranking official, Mattis, has hinted that he recognizes the security threat posed by rising temperatures.

“‘I agree that the effects of a changing climate—such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others—impact our security situation,” Mattis said in his confirmation hearing testimony earlier this year.

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) expressly supported the bill, specifically for its 2.4 percent pay increase for military troops. “[The bill] includes support for military families, and honestly, a really well-deserved pay raise for our troops,” Ryan said earlier this week.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Passes Defense Bill that Calls Climate Change “Direct Threat” to U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, three months after Dr. David Dao was dragged off a United flight at Chicago’s O’Hare airport, the Chicago Department of Aviation released a report on the incident. The report said that the officers who removed Dao from the aircraft were “improperly” marked as police officers. Steps would be taken by the CDA to prevent a recurrence of any similar incidents, the report said.

“CDA is working hard to learn from the regrettable incident that took place on UA Flight 3411 and doubling efforts to strengthen policies, procedures, and training to ensure that something like this never happens again,” the report said.

On April 9, Dao, a 69-year-old physician, was forcibly removed from an aircraft at Chicago’s O’Hare airport. The flight was overbooked, and United needed to secure seats for its staff, the airline said. When none of the passengers voluntarily gave up their seat, officers entered the cabin and selected four passengers to remove at random. Dao was one of them.

He refused to comply, however, and security officers slammed Dao to the ground and dragged him down the aisle like a piece of luggage. The incident was captured on video; it went viral, and incited outrage at the officers’ conduct. Dao sued United, which eventually reached a settlement for an undisclosed amount of money.

The officers who removed Dao were airport security, not Chicago police officers, despite the fact that their uniforms, badges, and vehicles were labeled “police.” The report said the security officers’ labeling would change in the coming months.

And in a more concrete development, the CDA announced a new policy: airport security officers will only be allowed on an aircraft to respond to a disturbance if Chicago police requests them, or “if there is a medical emergency or a battery in progress,” according to CDA spokeswoman Lauren Huffman.

“The safety of our passengers has always been our top priority, and we are taking action to ensure that the policies and procedures are in place to deliver the most effective security responses,” Ginger Evans, commissioner of the CDA said in a news release.

She continued: “We are confident that these actions are necessary to guide our department forward, while improving clarity for the aviation security officers who play an integral role in maintaining safe and secure conditions for the traveling public at both of Chicago’s airports.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Department of Aviation Issues Report on David Dao Incident appeared first on Law Street.

Senate Republicans unveiled a revised draft of their new health care bill Thursday, the chamber’s second crack at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. The new draft, released at a closed-door, Republican-only meeting Thursday morning by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), contains an amendment aimed at the Senate’s most conservative members. Only two Republicans can oppose the bill for it to still pass, though as of Thursday, a handful have expressed deep reservations about the proposal.

The revised legislation largely resembles the initial Senate plan which was released last month. Medicaid would still face steep cuts, a provision that has led many moderate Republicans from states that recently expanded Medicaid to oppose the bill.

Perhaps the most striking change to the bill is an amendment courtesy of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), one of the Senate’s most conservative members. The so-called Cruz Amendment would permit insurance companies to offer plans that fail to meet certain Obamacare regulations, as long as they concurrently sell plans that do. Critics of the amendment, which was presented in the document in brackets–meaning it is liable to change–say it would hike care costs for sick people.

Under the revised plan, two taxes on the wealthy imposed by Obamacare would remain in place, as would a tax on health executives’ pay. The measure would also infuse a $112 billion “stability fund,” aimed at lowering premiums, with an additional $70 billion. Addressing lawmakers’ concerns about the ongoing opioid crisis, the bill earmarks $45 billion toward combating drug addiction.

Still, McConnell and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), the majority whip, must corral enough “yea” votes in a caucus with a cacophony of competing voices. There are moderates, like Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who have objected to the Republican bill at every turn. On Thursday afternoon, Collins tweeted, “Still deep cuts to Medicaid in Senate bill. Will vote no on MTP. Ready to work w/ GOP & Dem colleagues to fix flaws in ACA.”

And then there are heels-dug-in conservatives who viewed the initial bill as not being far enough to the right, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT). Lee, who previously advocated for the Cruz Amendment, would like to see more details before signing off on the revised bill, according to a spokesman. The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan budget analysis agency, is reviewing two versions of the bill–one with the Cruz Amendment, one without.

Many senators have expressed reservations that the bill, which will likely be debated next week, will even be considered.

“I don’t even know that it’s going to get to a vote,” Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told Politico. Appearing on Fox News on Thursday morning, Cornyn, the man responsible for ensuring the bill garners the requisite number of votes, said: “If you vote ‘no’ on this bill, it essentially is a vote for Obamacare because that’s what we’re going to be left with.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans Release Revised Health Care Plan appeared first on Law Street.

The Senate held a hearing on Wednesday to consider the Taylor Force Act, legislation that seeks to end the Palestinian Authority’s support of violence against Israeli citizens. The bill proposes to cut U.S. funding to the PA, which amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, until it stops paying families of Palestinians who commit terrorist attacks against Israelis and others.

Introduced by Sen. Lindsey Graham in February, the bill would “condition assistance to the West Bank and Gaza on steps taken by the Palestinian Authority to end violence and terrorism against Israeli citizens.” Funding would resume if the PA takes “credible steps to end acts of violence against United States and Israeli citizens that are perpetrated by individuals under its jurisdictional control,” the bill says.

After Taylor Force hearing, @AIPAC not ready to endorse: “Discussions continue to find a bipartisan path forward.” https://t.co/wPQIOTTCtB

— Michael Wilner (@mawilner) July 12, 2017

The State Department provides about $400 million annually to the PA, led by Mahmoud Abbas, as the chief political body of the Palestinians. For years, Israel and the U.S. have criticized payments the PA provides to families of “martyrs,” or Palestinians who have killed Israelis and others in acts of terror. Stability in the West Bank is paramount to Israel’s security, however, so Israel has not conditioned its financial assistance on the PA’s practice of paying the families of jailed terrorists.

But Congress decided to act after the death of Taylor Force–for whom the act is named.

In March 2016, Taylor Force, a veteran of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, was visiting Tel Aviv with a delegation from Vanderbilt University Business School. The group had come to build connections with the Israeli tech sector. Force, 29 at the time, was stabbed to death by a 21-year-old Palestinian man while walking in Jaffa, the oldest section of Tel Aviv, on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea.

We have an opportunity to send a message to the Palestinian Authority that ‘Pay to Slay’ must end.

WATCH: https://t.co/vvWU3phT2c

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) July 12, 2017

If the bill passes–it has not been considered by either chamber yet–the only funds the U.S. would provide to the PA would be for security assistance. Bipartisan support for the legislation has slowly been building since its introduction. The bill was introduced by a Republican and, early on, championed by Republicans. But a number of high-ranking Democrats, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have recently signaled they would support the bill.

Wednesday’s hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), featured testimony from men with decades of experience in both Washington and Israel. Elliott Abrams, a diplomat in the Reagan and George W. Bush Administrations, said the PA’s payments to the families of imprisoned terrorists “reward and incentivize acts of terror.”

“There are cases of unemployed and desperate men who commit acts of terror in order to get these payments—which can amount to a permanent government salary,” he said. He added that “all the payments that give assistance to or directly benefit the PA itself should be stopped,” but the U.S. should continue funding NGOs and municipalities in the West Bank that do development work.

Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador for Israel from 2011 to 2017, also provided testimony. He called the payments an “abominable practice” that “must stop,” adding “there should be no extra bonuses for someone who attacks Israelis. It incentivizes the killing of innocents, and it is just wrong.”

But Shapiro said that the Taylor Force Act, in its current form, would tackle the problem with a hammer, effectively choking aid to the PA entirely. He would prefer to use a scalpel.

“Stability in the West Bank, both economic and political, serves Israel’s security interests by dampening the atmosphere in which more Palestinians might be drawn to extremism,” he said. Shapiro said he supports the bill’s intentions, but would like to see it address the problem “without cutting off aid that goes directly to the Palestinian people, provides humanitarian relief, or bolsters stability and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Taylor Force Act: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration recently announced it would be delaying an Obama-era rule that would allow foreign entrepreneurs to temporarily live and work in the U.S. to build up their companies. In the administration’s announcement, it said the rule would be delayed until next March. But it made clear that its ultimate goal is to scrap the rule entirely.

The delay will “provide [the Department of Homeland Security] with an opportunity to obtain comments from the public regarding a proposal to rescind the rule,” the announcement said. The rule, known as the International Entrepreneur Rule, was set to go into effect next week. It was approved by former President Barack Obama before he left office in January.

The rule was designed “to improve the ability of certain promising start-up founders to begin growing their companies within the United States and help improve our nation’s economy through increased capital spending, innovation and job creation,” according to a press release issued when the final rule was signed earlier this year.

To qualify, foreign entrepreneurs would have to show they have raised at least $250,000 from known American investors, or at least $100,000 from government entities. Qualified applicants would have been granted stays of up to 30 months, with possible extensions. The rule would also have applied to a grantee’s spouse and children. Under the Obama Administration, DHS estimated roughly 3,000 entrepreneurs would have benefitted from the rule.

In explaining its decision to scrap the rule, the Trump Administration pointed to an executive order President Donald Trump signed in January, titled “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements.”

The order directs the DHS to “take appropriate action to ensure that parole authority is exercised only on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the plain language of the statute, and in all circumstances only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole.”

Investors, along with many tech industry representatives, blasted the administration’s decision to delay, and potentially delete, the rule. In a statement, Bobby Franklin, the president and CEO of the National Venture Capital Association, said the announcement “is extremely disappointing and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the critical role immigrant entrepreneurs play in growing the next generation of American companies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Delays Implementation of International Entrepreneur Rule appeared first on Law Street.

Jane Sanders, the wife of former presidential candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), is currently under federal investigation. The probe concerns a 2010 land purchase orchestrated by Jane Sanders, who was, at the time, president of Burlington College in Burlington, Vermont. The Sanders camp contends the investigation is a political ploy to stymie Bernie Sanders’ political future. But the investigation is heating up, according to The Washington Post. Here is what else you need to know:

Land Deal

In 2010, Jane Sanders purchased $10 million-worth of land to build a new Burlington College campus. She promised the owner of the 33-acre property, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington, that she would pay off the purchase with private donations. Jane Sanders told trustees that $2.6 million in donations had already been pledged to the college and projected a surge in enrollment in the coming year.

To finance the exchange, the college borrowed $6.7 million from the People’s United Bank. The diocese provided the college with an additional loan, expecting to be repaid based on Jane’s assurances.

Jane Sanders Resigns

Soon after the purchase was complete, the diocese realized that Jane Sanders’ promises had been largely overstated. Enrollment did not substantially increase, and the donations Sanders said had already been pledged fell well short of the $2.6 million she promised. Following an uproar from the board of trustees, Jane Sanders resigned in 2011, and the college closed in 2016.

According to David V. Dunn, a former Burlington College trustee, neither of Jane Sanders’ promises–the increased enrollment and $2.6 million in donations–were true. However, there were other management issues that contributed to her firing.

“I don’t believe that there was fraud in terms of willful intent,” Dunn  told the New York Times. “I believe that there was information that was misrepresented.”

Politically Motivated?

Jeff Weaver, the spokesman for Jane and Bernie Sanders, considers the investigation to be politically motivated. He said the probe was launched because of Brady Toensing, a lawyer who sent a letter to the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Vermont in January alleging potential bank fraud.

“We request an investigation into what appears to be federal loan fraud involving the sale of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington headquarters,” Toensing wrote in the letter.

“This apparent fraud resulted in as much as $2 million in losses to the Diocese and an unknown amount of loss to People’s United Bank, a federally financed financial institution,” said Toensing, who at the time was the vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party. Toensing later became the state chairman for President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

Unsurprisingly, Bernie Sanders sees the investigation as little more than a political ruse. He highlighted the timing of the inquiries into his wife’s college in an interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper:

“Right in the middle of my presidential campaign–and I know this will shock the viewers–the vice chairman of the Vermont Republican Party, who happened to be Donald Trump’s campaign manager, raised this issue and initiated this investigation.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jane Sanders Bank Fraud Investigation: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Dozens of pharmacy shelves in Uruguay will soon be stocked with a plant that is entirely prohibited in most other countries: cannabis. Three and a half years ago, Uruguay became the first country to fully legalize marijuana. And later this month, after overcoming legal hurdles and a presidential transition, government-approved marijuana will be sold out of dozens of pharmacies across the country.

Priced at $1.30 per gram, the legal weed will exclusively be sold at pharmacies. Uruguay’s government will have tight control over the process, from planting to puffing. The marijuana plants’ genetic material will be determined by the government, as will its THC–marijuana’s psychoactive component–concentration. Uruguayans ages 18 and up can purchase up to 40 grams each month.

According to the Washington Post, customers will register for the marijuana program via a government database. Instead of producing identification at the register to prove their age, customers will place their thumb on a scanner, which will be linked to the database, providing pharmacies with a buyer’s purchasing history.

Unlike some of the U.S. states that have legalized recreational marijuana, there will be no smoking cafes as part of Uruguay’s legalization regime. Foreigners cannot purchase marijuana, and there will be no shops selling pot edibles or other marijuana-infused products. For some, the caveats to Uruguay’s marijuana legalization are overburdensome and unnecessary. But to public health officials, the regulations will hopefully ensure marijuana does not tread down the same path as the tobacco industry.

“The risk of what they’re doing in Colorado is that you end up with something like the tobacco industry,” Julio Calzada, a public health official in Uruguay, told the Washington Post. “To us, marijuana is a vegetable substance with a capacity to generate addiction,” added Calzada, who helped design the regulatory framework after legalization in 2013, “so what we’re trying to do is control the production, distribution and consumption of that substance as effectively as possible.”

Uruguay is a socially liberal society, where gambling and prostitution are legal. The government maintains control of a majority of sectors, including banking and utilities. The same goes for its nascent legal weed market–only two government-approved private firms will supply marijuana to about three dozen pharmacies across the nation.

Distribution will be coordinated by the Institute for the Regulation and Control of Cannabis (IRCCA). According to its website, over 4,600 people have already signed up for the government database. Meanwhile, in America, marijuana advocates are worried the country’s top enforcer, Attorney General Jeff Sessions, will initiate stringent anti-marijuana measures. He once said “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Uruguay is Set to Become First Country to Sell Fully Legal Marijuana appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany on Friday, their first face-to-face meeting since Trump’s election. They reportedly spoke for over two hours, in what was meant to be a 30- to 40-minute meeting.

I look forward to all meetings today with world leaders, including my meeting with Vladimir Putin. Much to discuss.#G20Summit #USA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 7, 2017

It is unclear precisely what Trump and Putin discussed. But from the Syrian civil war and Russia’s meddling in the U.S. election, to Putin’s opposition to NATO and Trump’s recent endorsement of the alliance, they certainly had no shortage of potential issues to review.

“Putin and I have been discussing various things, and I think it’s going very well,” Trump told reporters in Hamburg. “We’ve had some very, very good talks. We’re going to have a talk now and obviously that will continue. We look forward to a lot of very positive things happening for Russia, for the United States and for everybody concerned. And it’s an honor to be with you.”

Over the past few weeks, White House officials and Putin himself have hinted at what the American and Russian leaders might cover in their first meeting. Last week, Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, announced the meeting, and said it would have “no specific agenda.” He added that “it’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about,” and that Trump would seek avenues of cooperation with Moscow.

PUTIN:”I’m delighted to be able to meet you personally Mr. President. And I hope, as you have said, our meeting will yield positive result.” pic.twitter.com/ayKu0O0BZv

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) July 7, 2017

Tensions between the U.S. and Russia are deepening, and the relationship has hardly seen the re-start that Trump alluded to during his campaign. For one, the Trump Administration has continued, and has intensified in some instances, the campaign against Islamic State in Syria. Russia is the primary backer of the Syrian government, which has decimated the country and has murdered its own people. The U.S.-backed alliance of rebels firmly opposes the Syrian army.

Immediately after the meeting concluded, the Associated Press reported that Washington and Moscow struck a cease-fire agreement in southwest Syria. Citing three White House officials, the AP said the agreement includes Jordan and Israel, and will go into effect Sunday.

In a discussion with Russian media outlets last month, Putin outlined the issues he hoped to address with Trump. The U.S. and Russia should cooperate to advance “non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” he said. “This is an area of crucial importance and concerns not just the North Korean issue but other regions too.”

Putin added that “settling the crisis in southeast Ukraine,” where Russia has fomented a pro-Russian separatist movement, is paramount. The U.S. provides nominal support to Ukrainian troops battling the pro-Russian forces in the ongoing conflict.

And then there is the issue of Russia’s role in hacking the Democratic National Committee emails in the run-up to last November’s election. U.S. intelligence agencies have unanimously concluded that the hack was orchestrated by the Kremlin with the goal of aiding the Trump campaign. Trump has previously denied Russia’s involvement. And on Thursday, he said, “I think it was Russia, and I think it could have been other people in other countries,” adding: “It could have been a lot of people interfered.”

The AP reported that Trump and Putin did indeed discuss the election hack during Friday’s meeting:

BREAKING: Russian foreign minister says Trump accepted Putin’s assurances that Russia didn’t meddle in the U.S. election.

— The Associated Press (@AP) July 7, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and Putin Meet in Germany, Strike Partial Cease-Fire in Syria appeared first on Law Street.

South Carolina recently passed a law that requires police officers in the state to undergo training to better recognize when a mental illness, not malicious intent, is behind a person’s actions. The legislation, passed unanimously by both chambers and signed by the governor in May, applies to all 16,000 officers, including corrections officers, in South Carolina.

Training in “mental health or addictive disorders,” as the law terms the newly required subjects, is already standard practice for 59 accredited police agencies in South Carolina. But for the remaining 240 or so agencies, the course will be added to the 40 hours of re-training officers complete every three years for recertification.

Supporters of the new training requirements say officers need to be equipped to deal with people whose actions can be ascribed to illness, not ill intent.

“Someone may be acting in a strange way,” said State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel, “and officers need to understand it’s not just out of meanness but someone has an issue going on and they need help — not necessarily jail, but a hospital.”

The legislation does not define the exact number of training hours officers are required to commit to mental health, nor does it outline what the course would include. Instead, the law says the course must be approved by the Criminal Justice Academy, which is working with the National Alliance on Mental Health to hammer out the details.

In its most recent training catalogue, the academy offers a course titled, “Law Enforcement Awareness for the Mentally Ill.” According to the course description, it will “help the first responder as well as the seasoned officer better understand what someone with a mental illness is dealing with.” The course will include “group discussions with mentally ill clients.” 

According to a recent survey conducted by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, 41 of 42 states (eight states did not respond to the study) “have standards for mental health training.” State standards for mental health training, the survey found, are often instituted by a state’s officer training entity. Some states, like South Carolina, use the state legislature to pass legislation that addresses training. 

South Carolina is no stranger to the problems that can arise when officers are not properly trained to spot mental illness.

In August 2010, Andrew Torres’ family asked three officers to come to his Greenville home, and enforce a court order that would commit him to a mental hospital. Torres did not willingly comply, and the officers tasered him (the exact series of events are in dispute). Torres, who had been diagnosed as schizophrenic, went into cardiac arrest, and died at a hospital. Torres’ family sued the officers, and in 2014 were awarded $500,000 for the death of their son.

The recently-passed bill, sponsored by Senator Vincent Sheheen (D-Camden), is meant to prevent such episodes from happening again. Sheheen recently said that if officers are not properly trained, a confrontation with a mentally ill subject “escalates to criminality or violence or trouble.” He added: “It’s not fair to law enforcement to put them on the street and not equip them.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New South Carolina Law Requires Officers to Undergo Mental Health Training appeared first on Law Street.

A federal appeals court on Monday blocked EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt from temporarily freezing an Obama-era regulation on methane gas emissions. The ruling represents the first legal setback Pruitt has faced during his months-long quest to dismantle the Obama Administration’s environmental rules.

The case highlighted the split between the EPA’s growing cadre of opponents, mostly made up of environmental groups, and its allies, mostly made up of industry groups. It specifically pitted Pruitt and the American Petroleum Institute against six environmental groups. The plaintiffs, which include the Environmental Defense Fund and the Sierra Club, brought their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in June.

The events that led to the court’s 2-1 decision began in June 2016, when the EPA announced a rule that would require oil and gas companies to, among other things, monitor and reduce methane gas emissions. The rule was set to take effect in August 2016; companies would be required to conduct an “initial monitoring survey” of their methane emissions by June 2017.

In April, soon after Pruitt was anointed head of the EPA, he announced a 90-day delay of the methane rule. And in June, Pruitt proposed an extension of the stay for two years. Monday’s ruling struck down Pruitt’s 90-day delay; a separate hearing will be held on the two year extension.

The EPA “lacked authority under the Clean Air Act to stay the rule, and we therefore grant petitioners’ motion to vacate the stay,” Judges David Tatel and Robert Wilkins wrote in the majority opinion. Pruitt’s 90-day stay, the judges said, “is essentially an order delaying the rule’s effective date, and this court has held that such orders are tantamount to amending or revoking a rule.”

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, Pruitt defended his stay, saying that it did not necessarily portend a complete reversal of the rule. He argued: “Just because you provide a time for implementation or compliance that’s longer doesn’t mean that you’re going to necessarily reverse or redirect the rule.”

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Janice Rogers Brown largely echoed Pruitt’s point, saying, “The Court presumes a certain outcome from EPA’s reconsideration, one that a stay alone gives us no basis to presume.”

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is typically emitted during the fracking process for natural gas. According to a fact sheet released by the EPA last year, methane is the second most prevalent greenhouse gas in the U.S., behind carbon dioxide. About one-third of methane emissions come from natural gas, the fact sheet says, adding that the Obama Administration’s methane regulation would have reduced 510,000 tons of methane gas by 2025.

The court’s ruling was a victory for environmental groups, many of which have found themselves in staunch opposition to the governmental body that is supposed to share their goals. David Doniger, director of the Natural Resource Defense Council’s climate and clean air program, said in a statement:

“This ruling declares EPA’s action illegal — and slams the brakes on Trump Administration’s brazen efforts to put the interests of corporate polluters ahead of protecting the public and the environment.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Federal Appeals Court Hands EPA Admin Scott Pruitt Legal Defeat appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Kris Kobach, appointed by President Donald Trump to investigate voter fraud, sent a letter to all 50 states, requesting their voter files. Voters’ names, their party affiliation, military status, and other personal information, Kobach wrote, should be handed over to the Election Integrity Commission. In addition, the last four digits of voters’ Social Security numbers should be provided to the federal government, the letter said.

Within a few days, a majority of states rejected Kobach’s request; many were aghast at his demands. And on Friday, Kobach himself said he could not comply with parts of his own request. Here is what you need to know about the whole situation:

Trump Decries Voter Fraud

Kobach’s effort has its roots in Trump’s repeated claims about voter fraud. Trump has said three to five million people illegally voted in last fall’s election, thus handing the popular vote to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. After the election, in which Trump won the electoral college but lost the popular vote, he tweeted, “in addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.”

He later pegged the number of illegal votes, in an unsubstantiated and so far unfounded claim, at three to five million. Kobach, during an interview in January, said, “If you take the whole country,” illegal votes were “probably in excess of a million, if you take the entire country for sure.”

In May, Trump created the Election Integrity Commission to investigate voter fraud during the 2016 election, appointing Kobach, Kansas’ secretary of state, as the commission’s vice chairman. The commission is chaired by Vice President Mike Pence.

Kobach’s Letter

Last Wednesday, Kobach sent a letter to all 50 secretaries of states–even the ones who are not in charge of their state’s voter information. The letter specifically requested:

Publicly-available voter roll data including, if publicly available under the laws of your state, the full first and last names of all registrants, middle names or initials if available, addresses, dates of birth, political party (if recorded in your state), last four digits of social security number if available, [and] voter history from 2006 onward.

Kobach said the information would be made available to the public, and said states had until July 14 to fork over the information to the commission.

“Yet Another Boondoggle”

As of Monday afternoon, at least 27 states have rebuffed all or parts of Kobach’s request–including Kansas, Kobach’s own state. Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia reacted swiftly to the letter, saying he has “no intention of honoring [Kobach’s] request.” He added in a statement: “Virginia conducts fair, honest, and democratic elections, and there is no evidence of significant voter fraud in Virginia.”

Alex Padilla, California’s secretary of state, said he “will not provide sensitive voter information to a commission that has already inaccurately passed judgment that millions of Californians voted illegally.” Some states have said they would provide Kobach with “publicly available information” like voter rolls, while questioning the commission’s true intentions.

Voting rights advocates have rejected Kobach’s letter as a “propaganda tool” to justify voter suppression ordinances in the future. Dale Ho, director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, said:

I have every reason to think that given the shoddy work that Mr. Kobach has done in this area in the past that this is going to be yet another boondoggle and a propaganda tool that tries to inflate the problem of double registration beyond what it actually is.

And on Friday, Kobach himself suggested he could not comply with his own request. In an interview with the Kansas City Star, Kobach said he would not provide the commission with Kansas voters’ Social Security information.

“In Kansas, the Social Security number is not publicly available,” he said. “Every state receives the same letter, but we’re not asking for it if it’s not publicly available.”

Meanwhile, over the weekend, Trump expressed his discontent with the states refusing to comply.

Numerous states are refusing to give information to the very distinguished VOTER FRAUD PANEL. What are they trying to hide?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Quest to Prove His Claim About Voter Fraud: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

South Korean President Moon Jae-in is officially in D.C. to meet with President Donald Trump. Elected in May, following the impeachment of South Korea’s former leader, Moon comes to Washington with a vision on how to deal with North Korea that is much different than the Trump Administration’s.

Moon has scaled back maneuvers that could be seen as aggressive toward North Korea, while stressing the importance of dialogue with his country’s northern neighbor. Trump, on the other hand, lacks a coherent Pyongyang strategy, and has flirted with both an armed response and a diplomatic one.

Before the two leaders met, Moon, who landed in the U.S. on Wednesday, sought to highlight the countries’ common interests. To kick-off his first visit to the U.S. as president, Moon visited a Marine base in Quantico, Virginia, and laid a wreath to commemorate the Marines who died fighting in the Korean War. He used the occasion to underscore the U.S.-South Korea alliance.

“Together we will achieve the dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear program, peace on the Korean Peninsula and eventually peace in Northeast Asia,” Moon said. Later, in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Moon highlighted South Korea’s economic and trade ties with the U.S., and called for further cooperation. He said:

The U.S. market share in Korea’s import market has increased and Korea has also seen an increase in its share of the U.S. important market. Expansion of bilateral trade is enriching the daily lives of our peoples…Both our countries have new governments in place; let us become best partners by creating new jobs in our countries. Let us move forward hand in hand toward a path of joint and common prosperity.

Despite the very real economic and military ties between Washington and Seoul, the presidents are bound to clash when it comes to North Korea. Moon is South Korea’s first liberal president in decades; he supports increased dialogue and investment with Pyongyang rather than the more military-based, isolationist approach of his conservative predecessors.

Moon also recently delayed the deployment of additional missile defense batteries supplied by the U.S. He said the delay is intended to provide time for an environmental review. But some analysts see it as a move to placate China, which opposes the system, known as Thaad. Still, where Moon and Trump might bump heads most forcefully is on how to deal with North Korea in the immediate future.

The Trump Administration’s most recent public comments on its North Korean strategy came on Wednesday, from National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster. The U.S. is preparing “all options,” McMaster said on Wednesday, “because the president has made clear to us that he will not accept a nuclear power in North Korea and a threat that can target the United States.”

Under Kim Jong-un’s leadership, North Korea has increased its ballistic missile tests over the past few years. The launch frequency has increased since Trump took office, and Kim has stated his nuclear arsenal is nearing the capacity to strike the continental U.S. with a nuclear-tipped missile.

Though analysts say Pyongyang is months, if not years, away from acquiring such capabilities, the threat is growing by the day. In addition, thousands of U.S. soldiers are spread across South Korea, Japan, and Guam, all of which are currently within North Korea’s range. A few months into his tenure, Trump seemed to have embraced the idea of using China to bully the North to curtail its nuclear ambitions. That tact has apparently failed. Last week, Trump tweeted:

While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 20, 2017

On Thursday, the Trump Administration tightened the screws on China, imposing sanctions on a Chinese bank that deals with North Korea. On Wednesday, in a stark reminder of the threat North Korea poses, its state-run news agency issued a “death penalty” on former South Korean President Park Geun-hye and her former spy chief. Accusing the former president of attempting to assassinate Kim, the statement said, she might receive a “miserable dog’s death any time, at any place and by whatever methods from this moment.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump and South Korean Leader Moon Jae-in Meet Despite Different North Korea Strategies appeared first on Law Street.

On Tuesday, three officers involved in the shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald were indicted on three felony counts: conspiracy, official misconduct, and obstruction of justice. None of the officers pulled the trigger that killed McDonald on October 20, 2014 in Chicago’s South Side. Instead, they are accused of intentionally shielding the man who is charged with McDonald’s murder, Officer Jason Van Dyke.

According to the indictment, Detective David March and patrol officers Joseph Walsh and Thomas Gaffney provided a misleading report after the shooting. Detailing the events that led Van Dyke to shoot and kill McDonald, the officers said the teenager wielded a knife and was aggressively approaching the officers, slashing his blade in their direction.

Three current or former Chicago police officers indicted in Laquan McDonald case https://t.co/fom5AeCmki pic.twitter.com/NKwFTBzbOu

— CNN (@CNN) June 27, 2017

But about a year after the shooting, in November 2015, the Chicago Police Department released dashcam footage that contradicted the officers’ report. In the video, McDonald appears to be holding a knife, but is clearly staggering away from the officers. Shots ring out and McDonald falls to the pavement, as Van Dyke continues to fire his weapon. In all, 16 shots were fired. The video, which sparked massive protests across Chicago, ultimately led to the dismissal of Police Superintendent Garry F. McCarthy.

“These defendants lied about what occurred during a police-involved shooting in order to prevent independent criminal investigators from learning the truth,” said Patricia Brown Holmes, the special prosecutor who announced the charges on Tuesday.

The indictment said that the three men were aware that a “public airing” of the shooting and the video “would inexorably lead to a thorough criminal investigation by an independent body and likely criminal charges.” The charges also said March, a detective with over three decades of experience, “failed to locate, identify, and preserve physical evidence” of the crime, “including video and photographic evidence.”

The three officers also allegedly conspired together to avoid interviewing three witnesses that would have conflicted with Van Dyke’s account of his encounter with McDonald. Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder in 2015; he pleaded not guilty, and there is no trial date set at this point. March, Walsh, and Gaffney are scheduled to be arraigned on July 10. If convicted, they could face over ten years in prison and tens of thousands of dollars in fines.

In the Obama Administration’s last months in office, officials conducted an investigation into the CPD. The findings were announced just days before President Donald Trump’s inauguration. The Justice Department found a pattern of racial discrimination within the CPD, and said the department “engages in a pattern or practice of using force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chicago Officers Indicted on Three Felony Counts in Laquan McDonald Murder appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump is considering taking punitive action against China for its trade practices and its inability to reign in North Korea, three senior administration officials told Reuters.  Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross could announce tariffs against Chinese steel as soon as this week, along with the results of an departmental probe into steel imports. Some analysts worry that such a move could spark a trade war between the world’s two largest economic powers.

In April, Trump released a memo directing Ross to conduct a review of “unfair trade practices and other abuses.” The memo added:

In the case of steel, both the United States and global markets for steel products are distorted by large volumes of excess capacity–much of which results from foreign government subsidies and other unfair practices.

On the campaign trail, Trump repeatedly inveighed against Beijing’s trade practices, accusing it of dumping steel and manipulating its currency. But in April, after a warm meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump walked back his harsh language. Placing his faith in China’s ability to influence North Korea–a near-nuclear power that relies heavily on trade with China–Trump admitted that China is not a currency manipulator.

Trump is reportedly upset with Beijing over its lack of progress on North Korea. The insulated country continues to test medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and is inching toward having the capability to strike the coastal U.S. with a nuclear-tipped missile. North Korea has balked at negotiation attempts by South Korea’s new president, and has shown no signs it’s willing to scale back its nuclear ambitions.

Last week, Trump sent out an ominous tweet that seemed to signal further actions against China might be on the horizon:

While I greatly appreciate the efforts of President Xi & China to help with North Korea, it has not worked out. At least I know China tried!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 20, 2017

Steel stocks rose Tuesday in anticipation of Trump’s potential actions against China.

“They did a little, not a lot,” one of the White House officials told Reuters, referring to China’s efforts to curtail North Korea. “And if he’s not going to get what he needs on that, he needs to move ahead on his broader agenda on trade and on North Korea.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Trump About to Start a Trade War with China? appeared first on Law Street.

A recently published study found evidence that Seattle’s phased-in $15 hourly minimum wage has led to an overall decrease in low-wage jobs. But some analysts doubt the study’s methodology, and attribute the low-wage job decrease to Seattle’s booming labor market. Low-wage workers are simply getting paid more because of the market, critics of the study contend, thus the decrease in wages for lower paying jobs.

In 2014, Seattle became one of the first jurisdictions to commit to a $15 per hour minimum wage, a benchmark that would be phased-in over a few years. The first wage hike was in April 2015, as large businesses began paying their employees at least $11 per hour, up from $9.47. In January 2016, the minimum hourly wage for large businesses rose to $13; in January of this year, the rate finally hit $15. The wage increases for smaller businesses were more modest–many have yet to reach the $15 benchmark.

The study, conducted by University of Washington researchers, concluded the following:

Using a variety of methods to analyze employment in all sectors paying below a specified real hourly rate, we conclude that the second wage increase to $13 reduced hours worked in low-wage jobs by around 9 percent, while hourly wages in such jobs increased by around 3 percent. Consequently, total payroll fell for such jobs, implying that the minimum wage ordinance lowered low-wage employees’ earnings by an average of $125 per month in 2016.

But not everyone is taking the study’s findings at face value. For one, it has not been peer reviewed. Critics say the drop in working hours for low-wage jobs is not necessarily a result of the minimum wage bump–the decline is due to Seattle’s flowering economy, they say. Instead, some analysts say, lower wage earners have seen a paycheck bump because of natural economic trends.

“The key challenge this study faces is how to separate the normal shift that’s happening in a booming labor market — where low-wage jobs disappear and are replaced by higher-wage jobs — from an actual increase in the minimum wage,” Ben Zipperer, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, told the New York Times.

To discern the precise cause of the decrease in low-wage jobs–either Seattle’s economic forces or its minimum wage hike–the researchers cobbled together a control group. Normally, researchers would compare Seattle to a city with near-identical variables, but a city that, unlike Seattle, did not significantly raise its minimum wage. For this study, however, the researchers took parts of areas throughout Washington State and patched them together to create a control group. Still, the researchers found Seattle’s situation to be unique.

“You see the biggest difference in the effect when the minimum wage increased from $11 to $13,” said Mark Long, one of the authors of the UW study. “The timing suggests it’s the minimum wage,” he added, not the natural effects of a growing economy. But Long did allow that his study’s conclusions might be flawed: “If the areas we’re picking to put weight on don’t match what would have happened to Seattle in the absence of the minimum wage, our results would be potentially biased.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Has Seattle’s $15 Minimum Wage Hurt Employment? appeared first on Law Street.

Opponents of marijuana legalization often cite safety concerns, especially regarding the effects it would have on drivers. Alcohol causes enough harm, why add marijuana to the mix? Two recent studies, both published last week, provide some insights into how legalization has–or has not–affected crash and fatality rates.

The first study, conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), analyzed insurance claims for car crashes between January 2012 and October 2016. The study compared claims filed in states that have legalized marijuana–Colorado, Washington, and Oregon–with states nearby that have not. In the states that had legalized pot, insurance claims were about three percent higher than what would be expected if they had not legalized pot, the study found.

“The combined-state analysis shows that the first three states to legalize recreational marijuana have experienced more crashes,” Matt Moore, the senior vice president of IIHS’s Highway Loss Data Institute, said in a statement. “The individual state analyses suggest that the size of the effect varies by state.”

David Zuby, executive vice president and chief research officer at IIHS, said: “Worry that legalized marijuana is increasing crash rates isn’t misplaced,” adding that the findings “should give other states eyeing legalization pause.”

But another study published in the American Journal of Public Health found no significant uptick in crashes due to legalization.

Using federal data on vehicle collisions between 2009 to 2015, the study found no increase in crashes between Washington and Colorado–both of which have legalized recreational marijuana–and other states.

“Three years after recreational marijuana legalization, changes in motor vehicle crash fatality rates for Washington and Colorado were not statistically different from those in similar states without recreational marijuana legalization,” the study concluded.

While previous studies have illustrated the dangers of driving under the influence of marijuana, others have suggested that states with medical marijuana laws have seen a drop in traffic incidents. A study published last December, also in the American Journal of Public Health, found an 11 percent drop in crash fatalities in the 28 states (and D.C.) that have legalized medical marijuana.

Dr. Silvia Martins, the author of that study, theorized that the drop could be the result of drivers swapping alcohol, a substance that led to about 10,300 driving deaths in 2015, to marijuana.

“We found evidence that states with the marijuana laws in place compared with those which did not, reported, on average, lower rates of drivers endorsing driving after having too many drinks,” Martins said in a statement when the study was published last year.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Has Marijuana Legalization Impacted Driving Safety? appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court announced Monday that it will hear President Donald Trump’s travel ban case. The hearing will be in October, and until then, the court said parts of the ban will be allowed to go into effect. Trump issued a revised executive order in March, blocking travel from six countries. Two federal courts have since ruled that the ban is unconstitutional and a breach of executive power. The Supreme Court agreed to examine both courts’ decisions.

For the time being, the ban will be reinstated “with respect to foreign nationals who lack any bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States,” the justices said. A bona fide relationship includes “a close familial relationship” for individuals. For entities, “the relationship must be formal, documented, and formed in the ordinary course, rather than for the purpose of evading [the order].”

“The students from the designated countries who have been admitted to the University of Hawaii have such a relationship with an American entity,” the court added.

Trump’s second attempt at stemming travel from a handful of Muslim-majority countries reined in a few of the tenets of his first order, which was originally issued in January. For one, the revised order dropped Iraq from the list of affected countries–Iran, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and Syria.

The order stipulates that residents of the six countries are barred from traveling to the U.S. for 90 days, until stricter vetting procedures are in place. The refugee program will be halted for 120 days, and the number of admitted refugees will drop to 50,000 from about 110,000.

This is Trump’s first travel ban-related victory since he issued the updated order in March. Both orders faced a torrent of opposition–thousands of people hit the streets and packed airports across the country in protest. Trump’s directive fared no better in the courts.

Last month, a federal appeals court, the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, issued an injunction on parts of the travel ban, arguing that it “drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and violated the First Amendment.

A few weeks ago, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that the ban violated the president’s authority as granted by Congress. The court said Trump “did not meet the essential precondition in exercising his delegated authority,” which requires “a sufficient finding that the entry of these classes of people would be ‘detrimental to the interests of the United States.'”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Reinstates Parts of Trump’s Travel Ban, Will Hear Case in Fall appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court made it more difficult for the government to strip a naturalized American’s citizenship simply because he or she lied during the naturalization proceedings. The case, Maslenjak v. United States, concerns an ethnic Serbian woman who, fleeing war and prosecution from Bosnia in the 1990s, was granted refugee status in the U.S. in 1999. In 2007, she became a citizen, despite lying about her husband’s service in the Bosnian Serb military.

The court’s unanimous decision largely hinged on the standard on which the case was argued and ruled on by the lower courts. Namely, that any sort of lie, no matter its causal link or lack there of to the granting of citizenship, is enough to revoke a naturalized American’s citizenship. That is how the Justice Department’s lawyer, Robert Parker, argued the case. Those were the grounds on which a district court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati ruled. Both sided with the government.

But the Supreme Court fundamentally disagreed that a naturalized citizen’s rights could be revoked based on an immaterial falsehood. It sent the case back to the Sixth Circuit, allowing it to be reviewed on a different standard.

“We hold that the government must establish that an illegal act by the defendant played some role in her acquisition of citizenship,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the unanimous opinion. She continued:

When the illegal act is a false statement, that means demonstrating that the defendant lied about facts that would have mattered to an immigration official, because they would have justified denying naturalization or would predictably have led to other facts warranting that result.

The story begins in 1999, when Divna Maslenjak was granted refugee status. An ethnic Serb fleeing what was then known as Bosnia, Maslenjak said Muslims would mistreat her and her husband because of their ethnicity. At the same time Serbs would punish them because her husband, she claimed, evaded military service. In 2007, Maslenjak and her husband were granted citizenship.

It turns out, however, that Maslenjak did indeed lie about her husband’s circumstances; he served in a Bosnian Serb military unit–one that was accused of committing war crimes. A district court judge ruled that Maslenjak’s falsehood warranted a revocation of her and her husband’s citizenships. The Sixth Circuit, in April 2016, agreed. Their citizenship was revoked, and both Maslenjak and her husband were deported to Serbia.

The Supreme Court’s decision vacates the lower courts’ rulings. In unanimously rejecting the government’s assertion that any lie, regardless of its relevance to citizenship, could lead to revocation, the court strengthened protections for naturalized Americans.

In April, during the arguments for the case, the justices seemed perplexed at the government’s position. In fact, Chief Justice John Roberts confessed to a past misdeed to make a point. “Some time ago, outside the statute of limitations, I drove 60 miles an hour in a 55-mile-an-hour zone,” he said.

If on the citizenship form he answered “no” to the question of whether he had ever committed an offense, Roberts asked Parker, “20 years after I was naturalized as a citizen, you can knock on my door and say, ‘Guess what, you’re not an American citizen after all?” Parker continued to baffle the justices, saying, “If we can prove that you deliberately lied in answering that question, then yes.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Furthers Protections for Naturalized U.S. Citizens appeared first on Law Street.

Jared Kushner will attempt to re-ignite peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians while on his trip to Jerusalem and Ramallah this week. He would be laying the groundwork for what President Donald Trump calls the “ultimate deal.” The trip is Kushner’s first to the region in his capacity as Trump’s chief envoy for the peace process.

For over two decades, American diplomats have been flummoxed by the peace process. Successful mediation of a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians has eluded even the most experienced and well-respected diplomats. Evidently, experience alone has not worked, leading some experts to believe Kushner’s inexperience could be beneficial.

Immediately upon landing in Israel on Wednesday, Kushner visited the parents of Hadas Malka, a 23-year-old Israeli police officer who was stabbed to death by a Palestinian last Friday.

Kushner arrives in Israel, visits family of slain border guard https://t.co/14UkeWSkxj

— The Times of Israel (@TimesofIsrael) June 21, 2017

 Later, Kushner met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at his office in Jerusalem. He was joined by Jason Greenblatt,Trump’s other envoy for the peace push, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, and his American counterpart David Friedman. Greenblatt has been particularly exhaustive in his efforts, speaking with representatives from both sides of the conflict. He also regularly live tweets his endeavors in the region:

Spending time w/families who r breaking the #Ramadan fast at Pediatric Cancer Ward @ Makassed Hospital. I pray for the kids’ quick recovery. pic.twitter.com/xHIggTxPuk

— Jason D. Greenblatt (@jdgreenblatt45) June 20, 2017

Back at the Kotel for much needed prayer. Inspired by the constant stream of warm wishes for success in bringing peace from others praying. pic.twitter.com/bPTMXVEOeT

— Jason D. Greenblatt (@jdgreenblatt45) June 20, 2017

According to the Associated Press, before the meeting began Netanyahu told Kushner it was “an opportunity to pursue our common goals of security, prosperity, and peace.”

On Thursday, Kushner is expected to travel to Ramallah in the West Bank to meet with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian officials.

Deep divisions exist between the negotiating parties, including the status of East Jerusalem and the nearly 500,000 Israeli settlers living in the West Bank. The Palestinians are adamant that East Jerusalem be the capital of their future state, which would largely exist in the West Bank. Israel captured both areas, along with the Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip, which is governed by the terrorist group Hamas, during the 1967 Six-Day War.

Trump’s ascendence to the White House initially overjoyed the far-right elements of Netanyahu’s governing coalition. His embrace of Israel, a far warmer public posture than former President Barack Obama, led many to believe his administration would be a blank check for settlement building. But he has since made it clear that he thinks settlements are, at least in part, an impediment to peace.

Could Trump’s flexibility–his ignorance and inexperience, critics might say–benefit him in a realm that has proven intractable for decades?

“President Trump is at his point of maximum leverage,” Daniel Shapiro, the former U.S. ambassador to Israel under Obama, told The Washington Post. “He has gained respect in the region. He is seen as serious. Add to that, his known streak for being unpredictable. This might make it very difficult to say no to him or to a member of his family.”

But still, Shapiro warned, “This creates an opening. Not more than an opening. One shouldn’t be irrationally exuberant. But the opening is real.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kushner Heads to Israel, West Bank for First Crack at Peace appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks and months, President Donald Trump’s military policy has begun to coalesce around a somewhat coherent idea: defer decision-making to the Pentagon. In contrast to its predecessor, the Trump Administration has taken a more hands-off approach to the ongoing conflicts in Syria, Afghanistan, and Yemen. The U.S. has had a footprint in all three battlefields for years. But the day-to-day operations since Trump took office have seemingly shifted from the White House to the Pentagon.

Afghanistan

Last week, the administration quietly announced it would increase the U.S. presence in Afghanistan by 3,000 to 5,000 troops. The precise number of troops, the White House said, would be determined by Defense Secretary James Mattis. The U.S. currently maintains a force of about 8,800 troops in Afghanistan, where they train and advise Afghan government forces in the 16-year battle against the Taliban.

Deferring such a decision to the Pentagon could reflect the inner conflict taking place within the White House. Steven Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist, favors an isolationist approach, and would like to see the U.S. stay out of global conflicts. Others, like Mattis and National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, favor a strong U.S. presence in places like Syria and Afghanistan.

Still, some see the Pentagon’s longer leash as a reflection of the administration’s lack of a coherent longterm strategy. In a statement released Monday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said “six months into the new administration, it still has not delivered a strategy” in Afghanistan. According to the White House, a comprehensive strategy will be in place by mid-July.

Yemen

The first indication that Trump would afford the military greater command in overseas conflicts came in January. U.S. special forces raided a compound in Yemen that belonged to al-Qaeda leaders, a mission that the Obama Administration had not approved. The raid resulted in the death of a Navy SEAL and a number of civilians, including children. Months later, in April, Trump said he was giving the military “total authorization”

“Frankly, that’s why they’ve been so successful lately,” he added. “If you look at what’s happened over the last eight weeks and compare that really to what has happened over the last eight years, you’ll see there is a tremendous difference.”

Syria

In Syria, a number of incidents over the past month has demonstrated the differences in approach between Trump and former President Barack Obama, who many critics say micromanaged the military to its detriment.

On Sunday, a U.S. F-18 Super Hornet downed a Syrian jet after it dropped bombs near the Syrian Democratic Forces, a coalition of U.S.-backed rebel groups. The Pentagon said the action was taken “in collective self-defense of coalition-partnered forces.”

“The coalition’s mission is to defeat ISIS in Iraq and Syria,” the Pentagon said in a statement. “The coalition does not seek to fight Syrian regime, Russian or pro-regime forces partnered with them, but will not hesitate to defend coalition or partner forces from any threat. “

The episode marked the first time the U.S. directly took down a Syrian government jet. Earlier this year, after Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime unleashed a chemical agent on its own citizens, the Trump Administration responded with an airstrike against a Syrian airstrip. The strike was the first direct U.S. attack against the Syrian government during the six-year-old civil war. 

Four direct engagements w Syria/Iran/Russia in 45 days. Trump is quietly starting a new war that Congress has not declared. Red alert. https://t.co/D4MKPLXFTS

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 19, 2017

During Obama’s tenure, airstrikes and other combat actions in Syria were often meticulously reviewed by the White House. Critics, including people within the Obama Administration, argued that approach was too timid, perhaps contributing to the deteriorating situation in the war-torn country.

But critics of Trump’s approach say the lack of a diplomatic strategy to go along with a weightier military component can be dangerous. It can potentially escalate tensions between the U.S. and other powerful actors in the region, like Iran and Russia, some observers say.

Within the administration, there have been lobbying efforts to broaden the war against Iran and its proxies in Syria, according to Foreign Policy. But Mattis and other generals with decades of battlefield experience have snuffed that idea. The ultimate goal in Syria remains the destruction of Islamic State. The push toward Raqqa, the group’s de facto capital, is well underway.

Regardless of the Trump Administration’s tactics, the outcome in Syria remains the same as it was under Obama. The Pentagon recently wrote in a statement: “The coalition calls on all parties in southern Syria to focus their efforts on the defeat of ISIS, which is our common enemy and the greatest threat to regional and worldwide peace and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Trump Doctrine: Let the Pentagon Handle It appeared first on Law Street.

The New Jersey legislature held its first hearing on Monday for a bill that would legalize recreational marijuana in the state. New Jersey would become the ninth state, along with D.C., to legalize recreational marijuana. It would be the first to do so through legislation; all other states so far have legalized marijuana through ballot measures.

Governor Chris Christie is opposed to marijuana legalization, and would likely veto the bill, which was introduced last month. But Senator Nicholas Scutari, the bill’s sponsor, has said it is intended to lay the groundwork for Christie’s successor, who he hopes will be Democrat Phil Murphy. Murphy has expressed support for marijuana legalization.

“My goal is to have the best bill possible for a Murphy administration within the first 100 days so we can get it signed, sealed and delivered,” Scutari, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, said.

The Democratic-controlled legislature has not scheduled a vote on the bill yet. If Murphy, the Democratic front-runner, wins the gubernatorial race in November, there is a good chance this bill or some version of it will pass sometime next year. The bill would legalize possession of up to one ounce of cannabis for people 21 and older. A sales tax would be imposed on recreational marijuana sales, increasing over time.

Testimony on bill to legalize marijuana in New Jersey getting underway now #S3195 pic.twitter.com/ZiQjXrMAxM

— Katie Kyros (@KatieKyros) June 19, 2017

A number of doctors and lawmakers made their cases for–and some against–marijuana reform during the hours-long hearing. Some addressed the issue from a legal standpoint, while others came it from the angle of marijuana’s health effects.

“We’ve penalized our public, we’ve ruined countless lives and no one has died from it,” Scutari said. “Yet doctors prescribe opioids like they’re going out of style. Opioids you can get all day long.”

Two doctors present at the hearing held opposing views on marijuana’s health benefits. Dr. David Nathan, a psychiatrist, supports legalization, saying, “From the medical standpoint, marijuana should never have been illegal for consenting adults.”

But Dr. Sheri Rosen, an optometrist, disagreed, saying: “You’re sending the wrong message by legalizing. You’re saying that it’s OK, and there’s no harm. People are going to get mixed messages.”

Jon-Henry Barr, a municipal prosecutor in New Jersey who was present at the hearing, made the case that marijuana legalization will save money.

“We Republicans are against the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on government programs that do not work and are not necessary,” he said. “The war on marijuana is a government program that does not work and is not necessary.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey Begins Marijuana Legalization Effort appeared first on Law Street.

French President Emmanuel Macron and his allies won a large majority in the country’s second and final round of parliamentary elections on Sunday. While Macron captured the seats he needs to carry out his centrist agenda, the election saw a record-low turnout, suggesting that much of the country is unenthusiastic about the young leader’s ability to change realities on the ground.

Macron’s En Marche party and its ally, the Democratic Movement, picked up 350 spots in the 577-seat National Assembly, Parliament’s powerful lower chamber. The vote was a repudiation of France’s establishment parties, as the center-right Republicans captured 135 seats, while the left-leaning Socialist bloc won 45 seats. Led by Macron’s deeply unpopular predecessor, Francois Hollande, the Socialists dominated the 2012 election, winning both the presidency and a majority in Parliament.

“A year ago, no one could have imagined such a political renewal,” Prime Minister Édouard Philippe said on Twitter. Referring to the record abstention rate–only 43 percent of eligible voters went to the polls–he added: “Abstention is never good news for democracy. The government interprets it as a strong obligation to succeed.”

Fatigue could account for the record-low turnout–there were two rounds of presidential voting in May plus two rounds of parliamentary voting in June. But more likely, a majority of French voters are simply unsure about Macron’s program. According to Luc Rouban, a professor at the Center for the Study of French Political Life at Sciences Po, “Many people are in a state of uncertainty.”

“The level of abstention in the second round is a sign that a large part of the working-class electorate are not going to vote anymore,” Rouban told the New York Times.

Contrary to France’s traditional left-right politics, Macron, 39, ran on a centrist platform that advocated for continued integration with the European Union, and shedding restrictions on businesses. Since ascending to the presidency, many observers have applauded Macron’s interactions with leaders who would like to see the Western liberal alliance erode, like Russian President Vladimir Putin. But still, for French voters, Macron has a lot to prove.

The poles of France’s political spectrum also suffered a convincing defeat on Sunday–Le Pen’s far-right National Front picked up nine seats, while the far-left leader Jean Luc Melenchon and his allies won 27 seats. Aside from the rejection of the left and right, French politics are changing in other ways: over 200 women were elected to Parliament, a record in France’s modern history.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Macron Wins Large Parliamentary Majority Despite Low Turnout appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it will hear an appeal regarding political gerrymandering, in what legal experts say could be the most consequential such case in decades. It could alter the tradition of political parties redrawing voting districts for their political advantage. The case, Gill v. Whitford, concerns Wisconsin’s legislature and its gerrymandering efforts in 2011.

In 2010, Republicans gained control of Wisconsin’s legislature for the first time in four decades. After the census, they redrew the state’s voting districts, and in 2012, despite winning less than 50 percent of the vote, Republicans captured 60 of the legislature’s 99 seats. In 2014, Republicans won 52 percent of the vote and increased their state assembly majority to 63 seats.

It is a common practice for state legislatures to redraw voting districts to confer an advantage on the governing party. Redistricting commonly takes place after the once-a-decade census is conducted. The Supreme Court has never struck down districts because of partisan advantage. However, it has, as recently as this year, nixed districts that were devised in order to dilute the vote of minority populations.

In May, the Supreme Court struck down two districts in North Carolina, affirming a lower court’s decision that the Republican-controlled legislature drew the map to dilute the influence of African-American voters.

Last November, a federal district court ruled that Republicans’ 2011 gerrymandering effort in Wisconsin crossed a line and was unconstitutional. In a 2-1 ruling, the court found that the districts were drawn in order to minimize the influence of Democratic votes, and were “designed to make it more difficult for Democrats, compared to Republicans, to translate their votes into seats,” the majority opinion concluded.

“Although a majority of the [Supreme Court] has suggested that states can violate the Constitution if they draw legislative districts primarily to benefit one political party, the justices have never been able to identify the specific point at which states cross the constitutional line,” Steve Vladeck, a Supreme Court analyst and law professor at the University of Texas School of Law, told CNN. “In this case, a lower court held that Wisconsin had indeed crossed that line.”

According to the plaintiffs in Gill v. Whitford, Republicans in Wisconsin accomplished their politically-motivated gerrymandering via two techniques: packing and cracking. Packing is fairly self-explanatory: the state legislature stuffs the opposition party’s voters into a single district, thus diluting each individual vote. Cracking is the practice of spreading opposition votes in districts where the governing party enjoys a majority, keeping those votes out of districts that could swing either way.

In a statement released Monday, Wisconsin’s Republican Attorney General Brad Schimel said the state’s redistricting was constitutional. He said: “I am thrilled the Supreme Court has granted our request to review the redistricting decision and that Wisconsin will have an opportunity to defend its redistricting process.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Will Hear Wisconsin Partisan Gerrymandering Case appeared first on Law Street.

At Nationals Park on Thursday night, during the annual Congressional Baseball Game, Republicans and Democrats sat in opposite sections. But all rooted for one team: Team Scalise. For a few hours, just a day after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot while practicing at a baseball diamond in the Virginia suburbs, the game was a rare moment of unity.

Before the first pitch, both teams trotted out to second base and huddled around each other for a moment of prayer. And after the game, which the Democrats won 11-2, the Democratic manager, Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA), gave the trophy to the Republicans to put in Scalise’s office.

“Not here this evening, but in our thoughts and prayers–Steve Scalise,” boomed the loudspeaker at the end of announcing the GOP’s lineup. Both sides of the stadium responded with a raucous standing ovation. There were other unifying symbols: some members from both parties wore Louisiana State University hats and shirts, in a nod to Scalise’s alma mater. Signs in both the Republican and Democratic sections read: “Scalise Strong” and “Team Scalise.”

President Donald Trump delivered a video message to the 60 or so congressmen on the field: “By playing tonight, you are showing the world that we will not be intimidated by threats, acts of violence, or assaults on our democracy,” Trump said. “The game will go on.”

The view from the Republican side. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street.

But not all of the record-setting 25,000 attendees felt that this fleeting moment of unity signaled a shift toward bipartisanship.

“The country is not going to get past partisanship,” John Blasko, wearing a Washington Nationals jersey and carrying a blue, Democratic foam finger, told Law Street. “It’s not going to happen.” Blasko, who works in real estate and sells merchandise at Grateful Dead shows (he’s been to 410, by his count) said partisanship in the U.S. “couldn’t be worse.”

Blasko is not hopeful Wednesday’s shooting will lead to any significant change in the political climate, saying it “means nothing.” But still, despite his fatalistic outlook, Blasko’s parting words were befitting of a Grateful Dead die-hard: “everybody love everybody,” he advised.

That sentiment seemed distant on Wednesday morning, when John Hodgkinson, a vocal Trump critic, stormed the GOP’s practice in Alexandria, Virginia, with a rifle. He sprayed the field with bullets, hitting four, including Scalise and Capitol Police officer David Bailey, who threw the first pitch at Thursday’s game. As of Thursday evening, Scalise remained in critical condition, and “will be in the hospital for some time,” the hospital that is treating him said in a statement.

The stands on Thursday were full of hope for the future, in spite of Wednesday’s attack.

Julian, a sophomore at Yale majoring in political science, said the political climate “could be better.” Still, he told Law Street while munching on nachos early on in the game, “I don’t think we’re on a downward slope, I think we’re going to be fine.” He said the unity on display Thursday night is “one of those markers to the public that yes congressmen can be bipartisan, yes they can cooperate, yes they are friends in the office. They’re not just bitter enemies.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Congressional Baseball Game: Seven Innings of Unity appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, the Senate overwhelmingly backed a bill that would impose additional sanctions on Iran and Russia. The Senate’s move sent a clear signal to the White House that any conciliatory actions toward the Kremlin would have to go through Congress.

The bill, which passed by a vote of 98-2, would ensure that President Donald Trump could not unilaterally lift sanctions against Russia; any attempt to do so would have to be approved by Congress. The legislation is expected to head to the House in the coming weeks. The two Senators that voted “no” were Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rand Paul (R-KY).

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released a statement after the vote. He said:

With passage of this legislation, the Senate reasserts congressional authority–while providing the Trump administration appropriate national security flexibility–and sends a clear signal to both Iran and Russia that our country will stand firm in the face of destabilizing behavior and that Congress will play a leading role in protecting our national interests.

The expanded sanctions on Iran were in response to its ballistic missile development, and its support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and the Houthi rebels in Yemen. Tehran also aids Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

An amendment was added to the popular Iran sanctions bill to expand existing sanctions to Russia–citing its election meddling, its seizure of Crimea in 2014, and its support of separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia is also the primary backer of Assad.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has said that the Russian sanctions stand. Yet in a hearing this week, he said the administration would like “flexibility to adjust sanctions to meet the needs of what is always an evolving diplomatic situation.” Tillerson urged Congress to allow him room to maneuver.

Congressional aides told Reuters that the House will likely pass the bill, and support in both chambers will be strong enough to override a veto if the president takes that route.

In a statement following Thursday’s vote, Sanders said he supports additional sanctions against Russia, but believes tightening sanctions against Iran “could endanger the very important nuclear agreement that was signed between the United States, its partners, and Iran in 2015.” Sanders added that Iran’s “policies and activities” are deeply concerning.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Votes to Make it Harder for Trump to Lift Russia Sanctions appeared first on Law Street.

Late Wednesday, a variety of news outlets published reports that Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed to investigate Russian meddling in the 2016 election, requested interviews with a trio of current and former intelligence officials.

The news was first reported by the Washington Post, and later by the New York Times. It came from anonymous sources and fueled speculation that Mueller is widening his investigation to determine whether President Donald Trump, in firing Comey last month, obstructed justice. On Thursday morning, Trump tweeted that the obstruction of justice probe is a “phony story” created by “conflicted” people:

They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people! #MAGA

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2017

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Mueller to lead the investigation last month, soon after Trump fired Comey, who at the time was heading the FBI’s inquiry into Russia and its potential links to the Trump campaign. Testifying in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee–which is conducting its own investigation into Russia’s interference–last week, Comey said a number of private meetings with the president led him to document the encounters.

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document,” Comey said.

In his retelling of the events, Comey recalled Trump said he “hoped” that he would shutter the FBI’s investigation into former National Security Adviser Mike Flynn. This, some observers have said, might amount to a case against Trump for obstructing justice. The Post’s report does indicate Mueller is indeed investigating the matter in terms of potential obstruction, but it does not mean that Trump is guilty of any misdeeds.

“This unfounded accusation against the president changes nothing,” the RNC said in a statement in response to the Post’s story, despite the fact that Mueller has yet to level any accusations against the president. “There’s still no evidence of obstruction, and current and former leaders in the intelligence community have repeatedly said there’s been no effort to impede the investigation in any way.”

According to the anonymous source, Mueller will interview three current and former high-ranking intelligence officials: Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats, NSA Director Mike Rogers, and former deputy director of the NSA Richard Ledgett.

Rogers has publicly acknowledged that he had never felt pressured to end the FBI’s probe into Flynn. During a hearing last week, he said:

“I have never been directed to do anything I believe to be illegal, immoral, unethical or inappropriate,” Rogers said. “And to the best of my recollection, during that same period of service, I do not recall ever feeling pressured to do so.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mueller’s Apparent Obstruction of Justice Investigation: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Wednesday morning, at a baseball diamond in Alexandria, Virginia,  a man opened fire on a group of Republican congressmen who were practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA) was shot and is in stable condition, but needed surgery. At least two police officers and one staffer were injured as well. The shooter, identified as 66-year-old James Hodgkinson, has died, according to President Donald Trump.

The incident comes at a time of intense political polarization in D.C. and across the country, a fact that Wednesday’s tragedy only underscored.

Who is Steve Scalise?

Scalise, the third-ranking Republican in the House, was reportedly “in good spirits and spoke to his wife by phone” after being shot in the hip. He is being treated at a nearby hospital. The 51-year-old has been in Congress since 2008, and in 2014 was elected to the position of majority whip. Before he was elected to the House, Scalise served in the Louisiana legislature. He recently helped pass the American Health Care Act, House Republicans’ Obamacare replacement. According to his House biography, Scalise and his wife have two children, and own a home in Jefferson, Louisiana.

There’s a Congressional Baseball Game?

This annual charity baseball game, in which Republican and Democratic congressmen face off at Nationals Park, began in the early 20th century. This year’s game is scheduled to be played on Thursday, and will reportedly go on. After years of Democratic dominance, Republicans won last year’s game 8-7. A showing of bipartisanship, the game is also meant to raise money for charity.

The Shooter

Shortly after spraying a baseball field full of GOP congressmen with bullets, Hodgkinson was shot by Capitol Police. Hours later, he reportedly died while being treated at a hospital. Short and stocky with a wispy white goatee, Hodgkinson, a native of Belleville, Illinois, had reportedly been in Alexandria for two months. Representative Jeff Duncan (R-SC), who was present at the scene, told BuzzFeed News that Hodgkinson came up to him before the attack and asked if the players on the field were Democrats or Republicans. Duncan’s account has not yet been corroborated by other sources.

According to the Belleville News-Democrat, Hodgkinson belonged to a number of anti-Republican groups, including “Terminate the Republican Party,” “Donald Trump is Not My President,” and “The Road to Hell is Paved with Republicans.” Hodgkinson also has a criminal history: he was reportedly arrested in 2006 for assaulting his girlfriend.

PHOTOS: Shooter identified as James T. Hodgkinson pic.twitter.com/77fnpblbBZ

— Trey Yingst (@TreyYingst) June 14, 2017

Politicizing a Tragedy

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, people on both sides of the aisle took to Twitter with political takes. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, retweeted Harlan Hill’s claim that the recent, highly controversial Shakespeare in the Park performance was to blame for Wednesday’s attack:

Events like today are EXACTLY why we took issue with NY elites glorifying the assassination of our President

— Harlan Z. Hill (@Harlan) June 14, 2017

Others branded the attack as “leftist terrorism,” referring to the shooter’s apparent support for the Bernie Sanders campaign:

The Orlando massacre was about islamic terrorism.

The shooting of Steve Scalise is about leftist terrorism.

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) June 14, 2017

But still, with all of the politicizing and vitriol, there were some hopeful signs to be found on Twitter:

House Democrats pray for Republican colleagues and others injured in a shooting at a GOP baseball practice https://t.co/9zo4CnICPv pic.twitter.com/0VYxEJ93jA

— CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) June 14, 2017

And back at the Capitol, as Scalise’s colleagues prayed for his quick recovery, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) delivered a statement, saying “an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us.” Sanders also issued a statement, saying he had “just been informed that the alleged shooter at the Republican baseball practice is someone who apparently volunteered on my presidential campaign.” He added: “Let me be as clear as I can be. Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The GOP Baseball Practice Shooting: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

It is accepted wisdom at this point that Attorney General Jeff Sessions is no fan of marijuana, including in its medicinal capacity. He is adamant that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.” He recently compared medical marijuana, which has never led to an overdose death, to opioids, which kill nearly a hundred Americans each day.

Now, Sessions is pushing congressional leaders to allow the Justice Department to use its funds to prosecute medical marijuana-related crimes, even in states that have legalized medical marijuana. In a letter sent last month to top-ranking representatives and senators, obtained by MassRoots on Monday, Sessions shows his opposition to a budget provision that would prohibit the Justice Department from spending federal cash to crack down on states with legal medical marijuana laws. He wrote:

I believe it would be unwise for Congress to restrict the discretion of the Department to fund particular prosecutions, particularly in the midst of an historic drug epidemic and potentially long-term uptick in violent crime. The Department must be in a position to use all laws available to combat the transnational drug organizations and dangerous drug traffickers who threaten American lives.

Sessions is referring to the Rohrabacher-Farr Amendment, a budget rider, introduced in 2014, that prevents the Justice Department from allocating funds to press cases against medical marijuana actors in states that have legalized cannabis for medicinal purposes. The amendment was included in the Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus spending bill, which passed early last month, states:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used […] to prevent any of them from implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.

Though the spending bill, which will fund the government until October 1, included the amendment, it is unclear whether it will make the next one. In the letter, which was provided to MassRoots by a congressional staffer, Sessions argues that the amendment prevents the DOJ from cracking down on gangs that operate in states where medical marijuana is lawful.

“Drug traffickers already cultivate and distribute marijuana inside the United States under the guise of state medical marijuana laws,” he wrote. “In particular, Cuban, Asian, Caucasian, and Eurasian criminal organizations have established marijuana operations in state-approved marijuana markets.”

The Obama Administration was no fan of the amendment either. For one, the Justice Department lobbied Congress to strike down the provision in 2014, arguing that it might “limit or possibly eliminate the Department’s ability to enforce federal law in recreational marijuana cases as well.” And even after the amendment passed, the administration still managed to prosecute individuals and organizations in states where medical marijuana had been legalized.

Representatives Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and Sam Farr (D-CA) responded by writing a letter to DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, saying the administration’s interpretation of the amendment “clearly is a stretch.” They added:

The implementation of state law is carried out by individuals and businesses as the state authorizes them to do. For DOJ to argue otherwise is a tortuous twisting of the text of [the provision] and common sense and the use of federal funds to prevent these individuals and businesses from acting in accordance with state law is clearly in violation of Rohrabacher-Farr.

If the Sessions-led Justice Department takes a similar tactic as the previous administration, it will certainly be hearing from Rohrabacher and Farr.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sessions Asked Congress to Remove Marijuana Protections from Spending Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Weeks after House Republicans passed a health care bill, GOP senators are drafting their own version of a law that would repeal and replace Obamacare. Among a variety of differences between the two Republican efforts, one is especially rankling to Democrats: the senators of the Budget Committee are cobbling together their bill in secret. According to a number of Senate aides, nobody outside that committee, including a number of Republican senators, has seen the bill’s precise language.

Influential Senate Democrats took to Twitter to pillory the secretive Republican process:

My advice today: focus 10% of your attention/outrage on Sessions testimony, 90% on the secret health care bill that is speeding to a vote.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 13, 2017

 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Republicans “are trying to pass a health care bill in the dead of night.” He added:

If they were proud of this plan, they wouldn’t hide anything – they’d crow all about it! What exactly are they trying to cover up? 5/7

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 12, 2017

Republicans are hoping to vote on the bill by the July 4 recess, which gives them a window of a couple of weeks to finish drafting the bill, and send it to the Congressional Budget Office for a review. The CBO, a non-partisan analysis agency, released its evaluation of the House health care effort a few weeks after the bill was passed. It found that the bill could result in 23 million more uninsured Americans.

A CBO evaluation could take up to two weeks, so if Republicans hope to vote on the Senate bill by July 4, it would have to be completed in the coming days. But even as the bill nears completion, some high-ranking Republican senators are being kept in the dark as well.

“I want to know exactly what’s going to be in the Senate bill, I don’t know it yet,” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) recently told reporters. “It’s not a good process.” And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said “this is not the best way to do health care, but it’s the way we’re having to do it,” adding that the only thing about the bill he’s aware of is that “they’re writing it.”

While the particulars of the bill are largely unknown, there have been reports about some of its broad outlines. Overall, the bill is expected to be left of the legislation the House passed last month. Medicaid expansions would be phased-out over seven years instead of two, and tax credits would be offered to a broader range of low-income individuals.

Once the bill is out in the open, and hits the Senate floor for a vote, it faces a fractured chamber, not to mention a complete lack of Democratic support. To pass, the bill will need the support of a diverse contingent of Republican Senators–the more conservative members, like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and more moderate ones, like Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), tweeted perhaps the most creative critique of the secretive Republican effort:

BREAKING: Senate Republicans just released the schedule of hearings, committee markups and public testimony for their health care bill. pic.twitter.com/iHtXyZqyMW

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 12, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans’ Health Care Effort is Cloaked in Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

California’s economy, the sixth largest in the world, could receive a $5 billion boost from legal recreational marijuana sales, according to a new state-sponsored study.

The study, as reported by the Los Angeles Times, projects that the share of illegal sales will decline from 75 percent of the total market to 29.5 percent after the legal framework goes into effect. California is expected to issue the first licenses to recreational marijuana businesses at the top of next year.

California’s Bureau of Marijuana Control commissioned the study, which was conducted by the University of California’s Agricultural Issues Center. The study examined the expected impact of Prop 64, which legalized recreational marijuana throughout the state in November, on California’s marijuana market.

According to the LA Times, recreational marijuana use will make up over 61 percent of the overall market. However, the costs associated with legal regulations–legal marijuana will be taxed at 15 percent–will encourage people to, at least initially, remain in the illegal market. Still, for a variety of reasons, a large chunk of Californians are expected to shift to the legal, regulated market for their pot fix.

The study said:

We projected that when legally allowed, slightly more than half of the demand currently in the illegal adult-use segment will quickly move to the legal adult-use segment to avoid the inconvenience, stigma, and legal risks of buying from an unlicensed seller.

According to Lori Ajax, the director of the Bureau of Marijuana Control, the nearly 30 percent of people projected to resist the legal market will eventually enter the regulated marketplace.

“It’s going to take some time,” Ajax told the LA Times. “While it’s unlikely that everyone will come into the regulated market on Day One, we plan to continue working with stakeholders as we move forward to increase participation over time.”

Legalization will also affect the medical cannabis market; legal medical marijuana sales will drop from 25 percent of the market to 9 percent, or from $2.6 billion to $600 million, the study found. As fewer people need to obtain a medical marijuana license, more will simply purchase cannabis through the regulated market.

“Revenues for medical cannabis in Washington State, for instance, fell by one-third in the first year after the legal adult-use cannabis system took effect, and by more subsequently,” the study said.

Some who are opposed to California’s legalization effort see the study, and its finding that 29.5 percent of people will still purchase pot from the black market, as justification that a legal market is little more than a smokescreen.

“We have seen this in other states too, that the legal market is easily undercut by the well-established underground market,” Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes legalization of the drug, told the LA Times. “This is unsurprising. It is just one more unrealized promise from the marijuana industry.”

But the study pointed to another potential boon to California’s economy that legalization might provide: marijuana tourism. The study found:

Given that adult-use cannabis remains illegal in most other states, California’s legalized adult-use industry may attract some new visitors whose primary reason for visiting the state is cannabis tourism, as has been observed in Colorado.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Legal Marijuana Market Could Generate $5B, Study Finds appeared first on Law Street.

Two weeks ago, militants in Marawi City, a Muslim enclave on the Philippines’ southernmost island, burned buildings down and clashed with government forces. Since the initial siege, Filipino President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law, and the military descended upon the city of 200,000. Islamic State-linked militant groups occupy parts of the city–about 10 percent, according to government officials.

Over 170 people, including 20 or so civilians, are believed to have perished in the conflict so far. Hundreds of residents are trapped in the city–180,000 have already fled. The remaining militants, ranging from 40 to 200, according to government authorities, are hiding underground, burrowed in tunnels and basements, stockpiling food and weapons. Led by the Maute group, also known as the Islamic State of Lanao, militants have reportedly destroyed churches and schools; they have also taken hostages, including a Catholic priest.

The conflict began on May 23: Government forces tried to arrest Isnilon Hapilon, a senior leader of Abu Sayyaf, a local extremist group that has declared allegiance to ISIS. Hapilon is also on the FBI’s list of Most Wanted Terrorists; the agency has slapped a $5 million bounty on him. Marawi, located in the middle of the southern island of Mindanao, a Muslim-majority slice of the mostly Catholic country, has long been a staging ground for militants. None, however, have held on to this much territory for so long.

The center of Marawi City. Shots and explosions from many directions. Fires burn from end to end. Day 18. pic.twitter.com/3zwRYzVv9W

— Chiara Zambrano (@chiarazambrano) June 9, 2017

“If the situation in Marawi in the southern Philippines is allowed to escalate or entrench, it would pose decades of problems,” Singapore’s Defense Minister, Ng Eng Hen, said at a conference this week with other regional leaders. “All of us recognize that if not addressed adequately, it can prove a pulling ground for would-be jihadists.”

As for what the militants–a loosely-knit menagerie of fighters from the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Indonesia, Malaysia, India, and Chechnya–desire, a recently captured video of them plotting the initial siege gives some clues.

Gen. Eduardo Ano, the Filipino military’s chief of staff, said the video, which was provided exclusively to the Associated Press, shows that the militants have “this intention of not only rebellion, but actually dismembering a portion of the Philippine territory by occupying the whole of Marawi city and establishing their own Islamic state or government.”

According to Filipino news outlet ABS-CBN, the military launched airstrikes on Maute rebels on Friday. At least three soldiers were killed, with dozens of others wounded. Earlier, a 15-year-old boy who was praying in a mosque was killed by sniper fire.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Siege of Marawi, Philippines: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

Washington nearly exploded on Thursday morning. Not literally, of course. But when James Comey, the now-ubiquitous former FBI Director, testified in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, the capital was transfixed.

For an hour or so, it seemed like much of the country was fairly united–CNN dubbed the event “Washington’s Superbowl.”

But while all eyes were on Comey, all ears were certainly not. Some heard Comey all but indict Trump. Others heard him liberate the president, and take aim at the New York Times and former Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The hearing centered around the FBI’s investigation into the Trump campaign’s possible communications with Russia, and its meddling in the election, which Comey was overseeing before he was fired by the president last month.

Comey’s firing, coupled with a leaked memo Comey wrote (which he revealed in the hearing he had a hand in leaking) that detailed a questionable conversation with Trump, ignited claims that Trump could be guilty of obstruction of justice.

Among other things, here is what Comey revealed in his testimony to the committee: he firmly believes he was fired because he was leading an investigation into Trump’s campaign operatives and Russia; he kept detailed memos of every private conversation he had with Trump because he was afraid the president would later lie about their interactions; Comey believes Trump, in a February 14 conversation, asked him to scrap the FBI’s investigation into Michael Flynn, the former head of the NSA.

To everyone’s surprise, Trump did not tweet during the hearing. But his personal lawyer, Marc Kasowitz, released a statement soon after the proceedings ended. It reads:

Contrary to numerous false press accounts leading up to today’s hearing, Mr. Comey has now finally confirmed publicly what he repeatedly told the President privately: The President was not under investigation as part of any probe into Russian interference.

The statement denied that Trump ever demanded loyalty from Comey, as the former director said he did, or that the president ever, “in form or substance,” instructed Comey to drop the Flynn investigation.

Kasowitz also called out “those in government who are actively attempting to undermine this administration with selective and illegal leaks of classified information and privileged communications.” He added, “Mr. Comey has now admitted that he is one of these leakers.”

During the hearing, Comey said Lynch, the attorney general at the time, requested he publicly refer to the probe into Hillary Clinton’s private email server as a “matter,” rather than an “investigation.” This, he said, along with Lynch’s infamous tarmac meeting with Bill Clinton, partially informed his decision to publicly announce Clinton was under investigation.

Some observers pounced on this small nugget, raising questions as to whether or not Lynch would be charged with obstruction of justice.

Will fmr AG Lynch be charged w/ obstruction of justice after Comey revelations of demands she made? Will Dems demand it?

— Gov. Mike Huckabee (@GovMikeHuckabee) June 8, 2017

The RNC and the DNC released two completely irreconcilable statements following the hearing.

The RNC statement read, “Today’s testimony proved what we have known all along: President Trump is not under investigation, there’s still no evidence of collusion, and he did not hinder the investigation in any way.”

In contrast, the DNC statement said Comey’s testimony “gave us the clearest and most damning evidence yet that President Trump lied to the American people and is likely under investigation for obstruction of justice–a serious and disturbing charge.”

While millions of Americas may have been united in watching Comey’s testimony, both statements illustrate the potentially unbridgeable divide in American politics.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Reactions to Comey Hearing Illustrate America’s Political Divide appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, House Republicans are set to vote on a bill that would significantly repeal or alter major parts of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. Enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and designed to prevent another meltdown, Dodd-Frank has been a Republican target since it was signed into law seven years ago.

Though the bill that would repeal it is expected to narrowly pass the House, entirely on the backs of Republicans, it faces a much higher hurdle in making it through the Senate, where 60 votes would be required to pass. If all 52 Senate Republicans vote for the bill, at least eight Democrats would have to support it to ensure its passage.

Critics of Dodd-Frank contend it stifled economic growth. Supporters say it helps bring financial security to everyday Americans, and is vital in preventing another recession.

The bill that would undo Dodd-Frank, called the Financial Choice Act, was drafted last year by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Among other provisions, it would allow banks to waive some of Dodd-Frank’s restrictions on lending if they can show a substantial reserve of capital to cover potential losses.

On Wednesday, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI), framed the new bill as a way to “rescue” small-town America from federal overreach. He said: “The Dodd-Frank Act has had a lot of bad consequences for our economy, but most of all in the small communities across our country.”

The bill is likely to pass the House despite unequivocal Democratic opposition; Republicans maintain a large advantage in the chamber. To Representative Louise Slaughter (D-NY), Republicans who support the Choice Act are “ignoring the past” and “endangering the future of millions of Americans.” She added: “Dismantling the law will force consumers to go it alone against Wall Street.”

The Choice Act will also weaken the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that was formed after the 2008 crisis. Under the new law, the president would have the authority to unilaterally remove the head of the agency, and many of its oversight functions would be reduced. The law might also gradually reduce the federal deficit. According to a Congressional Budget Office analysis, the legislation would lower the deficit by $24.1 billion over a decade.

Still, Democrats see the bill as a direct rebuke of President Donald Trump’s promises to reign in Wall Street. “The Wrong Choice Act is a vehicle for Donald Trump’s agenda to get rid of financial regulation and help out Wall Street,” said Representative Maxine Waters (D-CA), the ranking Democrat on the Financial Service Committee. “It’s a deeply misguided measure that would bring harm to consumers, investors and our whole economy.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post House Republicans Look to Repeal the Dodd-Frank Act appeared first on Law Street.

A day before former FBI Director James Comey is set to testify in front of the Senate Intelligence Committee, President Donald Trump, who fired Comey in May, nominated his successor. The nominee is Christopher Wray, a former Justice Department official with years of experience in the private sector. Trump made the announcement on Twitter early Wednesday morning:

I will be nominating Christopher A. Wray, a man of impeccable credentials, to be the new Director of the FBI. Details to follow.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 7, 2017

Wray served with the DOJ in various capacities. From 1997 to 2001 he was a U.S. attorney in Georgia. In 2003, President George W. Bush nominated Wray as the assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Crimes Division, where he led a number of investigations.

Donald Trump chooses Christopher Wray to head the FBI https://t.co/Kp6ladW3qg

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) June 7, 2017

Wray “was also integral to the DOJ’s response to the 9/11 attacks and played a key role in the oversight of legal and operational actions in the continuing war on terrorism,” according to his bio on the King & Spaulding website, where he has been a partner since 2005. Specializing in white-collar crime, he has represented a wide array of clients, including: “The Governor of New Jersey in connection with investigations relating to the George Washington Bridge toll lane closings.”

Translation: Wray was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie’s attorney in the infamous “Bridgegate” trial, in which Christie was accused of orchestrating–or willfully ignoring–a plot to close traffic lanes on the George Washington Bridge in the fall of 2013. The lane closures were allegedly a response to the actions of the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee, who refused to back Christie’s re-election bid.

Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor and former colleague of Wray’s at the Justice Department, called him “smart, serious, and professional” in a blog post. He said Wray has “deep experience with federal criminal law and the FBI,” and is “a good choice, a much better choice than any of the politicians I previously saw floated, and a much better choice than I expected Trump to make.”

Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a statement a few hours after Trump’s announcement, calling Wray an “extraordinary person, possessing all the gifts necessary to be a great Director of the FBI.” Sessions added: “The President asked us to look for an FBI Director who has integrity, who understands and is committed to the rule of law, and who is dedicated to protecting the American people from crime, gangs, and terrorists. We have found our man in Chris Wray.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s FBI Director Nominee is Christopher Wray: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

To boost recruitment, the Secret Service is altering its drug policy: now, applicants who have used marijuana at some point in their past can still be considered for a position. An initiative by newly appointed director Randolph Alles, who President Donald Trump appointed to the post at the end of April, the policy change is designed to infuse the agency with a couple thousand more officers. The policy went into effect last month.

“We need more people,” Alles said in a press conference last Thursday. “The mission has changed.” Pointing to threats like international terrorism, groups like al Qaeda and Islamic State, and homegrown actors, he added: “It’s more dynamic and way more dangerous than it has been in years past.”

According to its drug policy statement, the Secret Service “does not condone any prior unlawful drug activity by applicants, but it is recognized that some otherwise qualified applicants may have used or otherwise interacted with illegal drugs at some point in their past.” When examining an applicant’s eligibility, “any prior illegal drug activity along with various considerations associated with that activity will be weighed in that adjudication process.” the statement says.

The agency’s prior policy disqualified candidates who had used marijuana more than a certain number of times at some point in their pasts. The new policy, designed to be a “whole-person concept,” Alles said, will instead look at the time between an applicant’s last use of marijuana, and his or her application date.

For instance, if an applicant was 24-years-old or younger when he or she last used or purchased marijuana, they must wait at least a year before applying to the agency. That standard rises as the age of last use or purchase rises.

Alles, who previously led air and marine missions with Customs and and Border Protections, also underlined a non-terrorism related reality that is requiring the agency to bolster its ranks: the round-the-clock protection of Trump and his family, as well as his collection of properties, including Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach and Trump Tower in Manhattan.

“I think between that and the fact that he has a larger family, that’s just more stress on the organization,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Secret Service Director Loosens Agency’s Drug Policy appeared first on Law Street.

A handful of Gulf Arab nations severed ties with Qatar on Monday, citing its support for terror groups and accusing the oil-rich nation of working behind the scenes with Iran, a regional rival. Some analysts see the abrupt diplomatic freeze as the result of President Donald Trump’s warm embrace of Saudi Arabia during his first overseas visit last month. The countries–Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Yemen, and the Maldives–might have felt emboldened to spar with Qatar, some analysts said, because of Trump’s explicit support of Riyadh.

According to statements from Saudi and Egyptian officials, the coordinated split with Qatar is not related to a recent, isolated event, but rather what they see as a longstanding support of terrorist groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, which the current Egyptian leader ousted from power in 2013.

“[Qatar] embraces multiple terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at disturbing stability in the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood, ISIS, and al-Qaeda,” said a statement from a Saudi state news agency. An Egyptian official similarly said Qatar “threatens Arab national security and sows the seeds of strife and division within Arab societies according to a deliberate plan aimed at the unity and interests of the Arab nation.”

Qatar, for its part, denies the claims of the Gulf countries, saying: “The campaign of incitement is based on lies that had reached the level of complete fabrications.”

Despite its neighbors’ claims that it is conspiring with Iran, Qatar, one of the region’s wealthiest oil producers, backs groups in Yemen and Syria that are battling Iranian-backed proxies. In Yemen, Qatar supports the Saudi-led (and U.S.-backed) coalition against the Houthi group, which Iran aids. In Syria, Qatar provides support to some of the rebel factions that are fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who enjoys Iranian backing as well.

While Gulf Arab states have cut diplomatic ties with Qatar in the past, most recently in 2014, they have not taken as drastic steps as they did Monday: land, air, and sea routes were blocked, and Qatari diplomats and citizens expelled. The unprecedented steps could create problems for the U.S. effort to eradicate ISIS–the U.S. military, which partners with Gulf nations to combat ISIS, uses an air base in Qatar.

Whatever the future implications, some Gulf experts see the coordinated stiff-arming of Qatar to be, at least in part, bolstered by Trump’s strong rebuke of Iran last month in a speech in Riyadh.

“You have a shift in the balance of power in the Gulf now because of the new presidency: Trump is strongly opposed to political Islam and Iran,” Jean-Marc Rickli, head of global risk and resilience at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy, told Reuters. “He is totally aligned with Abu Dhabi and Riyadh, who also want no compromise with either Iran or the political Islam promoted by the Muslim Brotherhood.”

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson implored the feuding nations to work out their differences, though he remains confident the spat will not affect the fight against terrorism. “We certainly would encourage the parties to sit down together and address these differences,” he said, adding that he does not foresee the disagreements having “any significant impact, if any impact at all, on the unified fight against terrorism in the region or globally.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the Diplomatic Standoff Between Gulf Countries and Qatar Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump has clearly made it a priority to reverse as many Obama-era achievements or initiatives as possible. From pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accords to immediately responding to Syria’s chemical weapons attack with force (something President Barack Obama’s critics say he wrongly failed to do), Trump’s emerging doctrine is, effectively: do what Obama did not. Could Trump’s quest to stand in stark contrast to his predecessor eventually undo Obama’s 2014 rapprochement with Cuba?

ABC News recently reported that Trump is indeed gearing up to reorient U.S. policy toward Cuba, making it harder for U.S. companies to engage with the Cuban government and restricting the growing flow of American tourists to the island.

“As the President has said, the current Cuba policy is a bad deal. It does not do enough to support human rights in Cuba,” White House spokesman Michael Short told the Associated Press, which also reported on Trump’s forthcoming policy reversal. “We anticipate an announcement in the coming weeks.”

After five decades of diplomatic inertia, Obama established formal ties with Havana in 2014. Critics say the increased investment will only prop up the Castro regime, which regularly commits human rights abuses. Since the opening of relations, American businesses and tourists have flooded the country with investment and cash. American companies–mostly in the tourism, travel, and communications industries–have struck 26 deals with the Cuban government from 2015 to 2017. And last year, 300,000 tourists flocked to the island.

Sources familiar with the Trump Administration’s thinking on the Cuba issue said the new policy will be phased in over the coming weeks. The administration has been facing intense lobbying by prominent Cuban-American lawmakers and business leaders, as many carry first-hand or second-generation memories of the Castro regime’s atrocities and were aghast at Obama’s actions in 2014.

Two of the loudest voices on Capitol Hill urging Trump to ditch America’s engagement with Cuba are Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), both Cuban-Americans. Rubio recently emailed a number of news outlets the following statement: “I am confident the president will keep his commitment on Cuba policy by making changes that are targeted and strategic and which advance the Cuban people’s aspirations for economic and political liberty.”

Meanwhile, on Cuban Independence Day last month, Trump issued a statement that “cruel despotism cannot extinguish the flame of freedom in the hearts of Cubans, and that unjust persecution cannot tamper Cubans’ dreams for their children to live free from oppression.” Trump added: “The Cuban people deserve a government that peacefully upholds democratic values, economic liberties, religious freedoms, and human rights, and my Administration is committed to achieving that vision.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Trump Reverse Obama’s Diplomatic Opening with Cuba? appeared first on Law Street.

The Trump Administration is taking its fight to implement a controversial executive order halting travel from six largely Muslim countries for 120 days to the highest judicial level: the Supreme Court. Lower courts have blocked parts of President Donald Trump’s revised order–he scrapped a first attempt earlier this year after courts stopped it–over the past few weeks.

Trump’s harsh campaign rhetoric regarding Muslims, critics argued, revealed that his true motivation for instituting the ban was to stop Muslims from coming to the country. Trump has said the order–which blocked travel from Syria, Iran, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, and Somalia–is grounded in national security concerns.

In its brief, the administration argued:

The stakes are indisputably high: The court of appeals concluded that the president acted in bad faith with religious animus when, after consulting with three members of his cabinet, he placed a brief pause on entry from six countries that present heightened risks of terrorism. The court did not dispute that the president acted at the height of his powers in instituting [the order’s] temporary pause on entry by nationals from certain countries that sponsor or shelter terrorism.

The road to the Supreme Court has been seemingly inevitable. Trump crumpled up his first order, issued on January 27, after a federal appeals court in San Francisco blocked it in February.

The president issued a revised ban in March, which dropped the number of affected countries from seven to six (Iraq was removed), removed specific references to protecting Christian minorities, and allowed for a more case-by-case approach to determine which travelers are allowed into the country. Like the first order, it froze the refugee program for 120 days, and dropped the threshold of admitted refugees each year from 110,000 to 50,000.

If the High Court decides to take up the case, it will be an early test for Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest justice. In his Senate confirmation hearing in March, Gorsuch barely budged when asked about his views on the travel ban. Referring to a previous comment from a senator that Gorsuch would likely preserve the ban, Gorsuch said: “He has no idea how I would rule in that case. And senator, I am not going to say anything here that would gave anybody any idea how I would rule.” When Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) asked Gorsuch what he thought of banning other religions or citizens of entire countries, like Jews from Israel, Gorsuch replied:

We have a Constitution. And it does guarantee freedom to exercise. It also guarantees equal protection of the laws and a whole lot else besides, and the Supreme Court has held that due process rights extend even to undocumented persons in this country. I will apply the law faithfully and fearlessly and without regard to persons.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Administration Takes Travel Ban Battle to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

The U.S. just became the third country, joining Syria and Nicaragua, that cannot be counted as part of the Paris Climate Accords. The 195-nation agreement set goals for reducing greenhouse gas pollution for developed and developing nations alike. President Donald Trump, in a speech at the White House Rose Garden, made the announcement, saying:

In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris climate accord but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris accord or an entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.

Trump said he will try to negotiate a deal that is “fair,” adding: “If we can, that’s great. If we can’t, that’s fine.” According to the Associated Press, however, a number of European nations will not be open to the U.S. renegotiating the deal:

BREAKING: France, Germany, Italy issue joint statement saying Paris climate accord can’t be renegotiated.

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 1, 2017

The White House deliberations leading up to Thursday’s announcement were reportedly split between two factions: those who wanted to remain part of the deal and those who wanted to withdraw from it. Ivanka Trump and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson apparently pushed hard for the president to remain, while EPA Chief Scott Pruitt and Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon lobbied him to exit the pact.

Stating his rationale for removing the U.S., the world’s second-largest greenhouse gas emitter behind China, from the accord, Trump said it hurt the U.S. economy and transferred coal jobs overseas. Vice President Mike Pence, introducing Trump at Thursday’s announcement, echoed that reasoning: “Our president is choosing to put American jobs and American consumers first,” he said. “Our president is choosing to put American energy and American industry first. And by his action today, President Trump is choosing to put the forgotten men and women first.”

But many of the leaders in the industries Trump said are harmed by the deal–like ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and BP–supported the climate agreement, and lobbied Trump to stay in. Environmental groups, Democrats, and dozens of congressional Republicans backed the deal as well. In the end, however, Bannon, Pruitt, and others, won the president over. Soon after Trump’s announcement, Jim Immelt, the CEO of General Electric tweeted:

Disappointed with today’s decision on the Paris Agreement. Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government.

— Jeff Immelt (@JeffImmelt) June 1, 2017

The Paris deal, a non-binding agreement signed in December 2015, was an international framework to set the world on the path toward cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The goal was to keep the average global temperature from rising more than two degrees celsius above pre-industrial temperatures. The private sector, as well as some states and cities, have already taken steps to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy. Despite Trump’s decision, the U.S. will technically remain part of the pact until November 4, 2020, a day after the next presidential election.

Former President Barack Obama, who was a central architect in the Paris agreement, issued a statement after Trump announced his decision to withdraw from the accord. He said:

The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack. But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Three Countries Not Invested in Paris Climate Deal: Syria, Nicaragua…and the U.S. appeared first on Law Street.

Few cities have caused as many headaches as Jerusalem. On Thursday, President Donald Trump continued in the tradition of his predecessors in keeping the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv, Israel’s metropolis on the Mediterranean, rather than moving it to Jerusalem, Israel’s proclaimed undivided capital. In the wake of Trump’s announcement, social media has seemingly come to a consensus: Trump broke a campaign promise. Sure, he did. But like everything else involving Jerusalem, it’s not that simple.

Status of the Holy City

When the United Nations officially recognized the State of Israel in 1947, it also sought to designate Jerusalem “corpus separatum,” or an international protectorate, apart from the Arab and Jewish states being created between the Jordan River to the east and the Mediterranean to the west. That did not happen. Instead, after Israel officially declared itself a sovereign nation in May 1948, an attack was launched–Arab armies assaulted Israel, which eventually won the war.

But Jerusalem, which saw heavy fighting in the war, was split: Jordan captured the eastern half, which contains Judaism’s holiest sites (as well as Islamic and Christian holy sites), while Israel held onto the western half. Jordan governed the Holy City for nearly two decades. Under Jordanian rule, Jews were not allowed to visit their holiest site, the Western Wall. Jewish synagogues and cemeteries were destroyed or deconstructed. In the 1948-49 war, Jordan also captured the West Bank.

The Six-Day War in 1967 changed the status of Jerusalem, and shifted the conversation for decades to come. Israel captured a number of land parcels during the war: the Gaza Strip from Egypt; the Golan Heights from Syria; and the West Bank and east Jerusalem from Jordan. Soon after, Israel annexed the Golan Heights and east Jerusalem, moves that the international community did not–and still does not–recognize. Since then, all of Jerusalem–save the Temple Mount, a holy site for all Abrahamic faiths, which remains in Jordan’s hands–has belonged to Israel, which deems the city its undivided, eternal capital.

The U.S. Embassy

The U.S., like all other countries, has kept its embassy in Tel Aviv for decades. Israel has urged U.S. presidents to move the embassy to Jerusalem, home to Israel’s parliament, Supreme Court, and numerous cultural and business institutions. In 1995, the Clinton Administration signed a bill that set a clear path for the embassy move.

The Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 found that the U.S. “maintains its embassy in the functioning capital of every country except in the case of our democratic friend and strategic ally, the State of Israel.” The bill continued: “The United States conducts official meetings and other business in the city of Jerusalem in de facto recognition of its status as the capital of Israel.”

The bill dictated that the U.S. move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem by May 31, 1999. However, it also allowed presidents to waive the move, if it “is necessary to protect the national security interests of the United States.” Like Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Trump made a campaign promise to move the embassy. But on Thursday, despite his firm insistence he would buck the trend and actually go ahead with the move, Trump decided to renew the waiver, which will last for six months.

Despite delaying the embassy move, a White House statement said, “no one should consider this step to be in any way a retreat from the President’s strong support for Israel and for the United States-Israel alliance.” It continued: “President Trump made this decision to maximize the chances of successfully negotiating a deal between Israel and the Palestinians, fulfilling his solemn obligation to defend America’s national security interests.” The White House said “the question is not if that move happens, but only when.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed disappointment, but reiterated the U.S.-Israel partnership. A statement from his office said: “Though Israel is disappointed that the embassy will not move at this time, we appreciate today’s expression of President Trump’s friendship to Israel and his commitment to moving the embassy in the future.”

To Dan Shapiro, the U.S. ambassador to Israel from 2011 to 2017, Trump made the right decision:

1. Trump was right to issue the Jerusalem embassy waiver today. But I hope it’s the last waiver, allowing the move later this year.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

He said Trump has leverage in the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, and a hasty move could have squandered trust. Shapiro said that once all sides, including Sunni Arab countries like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, are on the same page, then the embassy move would be prudent:

6. Then establish the embassy in W Jerusalem. Shatter Pal myth that Israel has no Jerusalem claims & treat Jerusalem as the capital it is.

— Dan Shapiro (@DanielBShapiro) June 1, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump to Keep U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv: What You Need to Know appeared first on Law Street.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday scrapped a ruling by a lower federal court that deemed otherwise reasonable force by a police officer unreasonable if the officer “intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation.” The justices sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, leaving open a victory for the plaintiffs if the court can find wrongdoing on charges other than excessive force.

The case, County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez, involves an incident that took place in October 2010. Los Angeles County police officers were searching a residence for a parole violator who was at-large and apparently armed. A number of officers searched the main area while two deputies, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, burst into a shack in the back of the residence.

In the shack, a homeless couple, Angel Mendez and Jennifer Garcia, who was pregnant, were taking a nap underneath a heap of blankets. Mendez reached for a gun (later discovered to be a BB gun). Conley yelled “Gun!” and the deputies sprayed the couple with bullets.

Both lived, but Mendez had to get part of his leg amputated. Meanwhile, the parolee the officers were seeking was not found on the property. Mendez and Garcia sued the deputies and Los Angeles County on three Fourth Amendment claims: warrantless entry, knock-and-announce, and excessive force. The lower courts ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on all three counts, awarding the couple $4 million.

But the Supreme Court, in a 8-0 vote–Justice Neil Gorsuch had not been confirmed when the case was argued in March–vacated the lower courts’ excessive force ruling. In its ruling, the Ninth Circuit argued the officers’ use of force was reasonable, but because the two deputies provoked the situation, their actions were ultimately unreasonable. The justices disagreed with that outlook, halting the $4 million recovery for the plaintiffs.

“The basic problem with the provocation rule,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote, is that it “provides a novel and unsupported path to liability in cases in which the use of force was reasonable.” He said the Fourth Amendment “provides no basis for such a rule,” adding: “A different Fourth Amendment violation cannot transform a later, reasonable use of force into an unreasonable seizure.”

In a statement, the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs cheered the decision: “This invented rule put the lives of deputies into danger by causing them to hesitate in using reasonable force to defend themselves for fear of later civil liability,” it said.

Alito did allow, however, that the Ninth Circuit could still find reason to award damages to the plaintiffs. He wrote: “For example, if the plaintiffs in this case cannot recover on their excessive force claim, that will not foreclose recovery for injuries proximately caused by the warrantless entry.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Two LA Cops Who Shot a Homeless Couple appeared first on Law Street.

Less than two hours before it was set to premiere in Beirut, Lebanese officials banned the new “Wonder Woman” film, because its lead actress, Gal Gadot, is Israeli. In recent years Lebanon, which has been at war with Israel for decades, has censored films it deems incendiary or offensive, including films that critique religion or involve homosexuality or Israel.

Despite a successful early screening of the film on Tuesday, a six-member committee of Lebanon’s Ministry of Economy pulled the plug on the film hours before its official premiere. Other Arab nations, including Egypt, Morocco, Oman, and Bahrain are still expected to screen “Wonder Woman” in the coming weeks.

Lebanon and Israel most recently fought a war in 2006, and have not had a diplomatic relationship for decades–Lebanese citizens are not allowed to visit Israel, and vice versa. Over the past few months, at least, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which Gadot served in for two years, has bombed arms shipments in Syria it says are destined for Hezbollah, a militant group based in Lebanon. The U.S. and Israel both consider Hezbollah, largely funded by Iran, a terrorist organization.

Previously released films starring Gadot–including the last two “Fast & Furious” installments, and “Knight & Day”–hit box offices in Lebanon and did quite well. The Campaign to Boycott Supporters of Israel led a vocal push to ban “Wonder Woman,” however, and in the end, was successful.

Elie Fares, a popular Lebanese blogger, suggested that the ban might not be the result of Gadot’s nationality, but more that “the movie features strong independent female characters which our patriarchy cannot propagate?” He added:

What’s next, though? Banning every single movie that dares to be associated in any way with Israel? Banning every actor or actress who’s set foot in Israel? Deciding not to show any feature film that has any entity that remotely agrees with anything Israel does? Why don’t we just ban ourselves from everything commercial in the world and be done with it?

Lebanese authorities have a history of banning–or heavily editing–films they deem offensive. The 2016 Egyptian film “The Preacher,” a commentary on religion and power, was only released in Lebanon after it was edited to the satisfaction of the authorities. Last year, the Lebanese film “Beach House” was banned, because it features friends discussing their conflicting Arab identities together. In 1994, Lebanon, along with other Arab countries, banned “Schindler’s List,” a film about the Holocaust.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lebanon Bans Screenings of New “Wonder Woman” Film appeared first on Law Street.

A few minutes past 9 a.m. on Wednesday, President Donald Trump sent out a tweet that had much of the world on the edge of its seat:

I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017

Soon after Trump posted that tweet, the New York Times reported that he is expected to pull out of the 195-nation climate pact, according to three U.S. officials. One senior official told the Times that the decision was not final, and that specifics had yet to be hammered out.

But still, if the president makes good on one of his signature campaign pledges–he said he would “cancel” the agreement–the government’s commitment to combating climate change would essentially vanish–a symbolic blow that could lead other countries to withdraw.

The climate accord–an effort spearheaded by President Barack Obama and signed in Paris in December 2015–has split many of the key actors in Trump’s orbit; Congress has also taken opposing sides on the matter largely, but not exclusively, among party lines.

Leading the charge to abort the accord is Steve Bannon, Trump’s chief strategist. Bannon, a highly influential force in Trump’s ascendance to the White House, sees it as making good on a central campaign promise. Despite reports that Bannon was losing sway with the president in recent weeks, his “don’t forget who got you here” line seems to resonate with Trump.

Scott Pruitt, the EPA director, has also lobbied Trump to withdraw from the pact. In an interview on “Fox & Friends” in April, Pruitt said: “It’s a bad deal for America. It was an America second, third, or fourth kind of approach.”

But there are competing voices as well, with some of Trump’s aides arguing to remain in the agreement or to work on re-tooling it. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Ivanka Trump have argued that leaving the climate deal could jeopardize relationships with allies–like Europe–and leave the U.S. in a less powerful position in setting the rules for the global climate change discussion in the future.

Tillerson is expected to meet privately with Trump on Wednesday afternoon–perhaps to deliver a final plea to remain in the pact.

Several major corporations–including oil and natural gas giants like ExxonMobil–support remaining in the agreement. Darren Woods, Exxon’s CEO, recently wrote a letter to Trump, saying that the U.S., by being part of the accord, “will maintain a seat at the negotiating table to ensure a level playing field so that all energy sources and technologies are treated equitably in an open, transparent and competitive global market so as to achieve economic growth and poverty reduction at the lowest cost to society.”

Congress, like the White House, is breaking along a few different fault lines–some GOP representatives and senators have urged Trump to remain in the agreement, while dozens of others have implored him to withdraw. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) is one of the more vocal Republican voices supporting the pact. In a letter to Trump earlier this month, co-signed by Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), she wrote:

Climate change is a significant environmental challenge that requires global solutions to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and to address the effects already being seen worldwide. For international climate efforts to advance, is is essential that the United States keep a seat at the table.

Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker, GOP Senators from South Carolina and Tennessee, respectively, have also argued that staying in the accord would benefit the United States. Graham recently said leaving it “would be bad for the party, bad for the country.”

Other Republican senators have either remained mum on the subject, or have lobbied Trump to exit the deal. A letter sent last week to Trump, signed by 22 GOP members of the Senate, argued that remaining in the agreement “would subject the United States to significant litigation risk that could upend your Administration’s ability to fulfill its goal of rescinding the Clean Power Plan,” an Obama-era initiative that has yet to go into effect.

“Accordingly,” the senators wrote, ” we strongly encourage you to make a clean break from the Paris Agreement.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Do the Trump Team and Congress Stand on the Paris Climate Accord? appeared first on Law Street.

A day after North Korea launched yet another missile test, the Pentagon tested a missile defense system on Tuesday, its first in three years, in recognition of the closer-than-ever reality of a nuclear-armed North Korea. The system, called the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, is designed to thwart inter-continental ballistic missiles, or ICBMs, that can strike the continental United States.

Kim Jong-un, the North’s leader, suggested Pyongyang is nearly capable of launching such a missile, and its recent flurry of medium and short-range missile tests has proved Kim’s rhetoric is more than mere words.

Here’s how the $244-million defense system works:

A test missile is launched off an atoll in the Marshall Islands. Concurrently, a so-called “interceptor” launches from an underground airbase in California, spitting out a “kill vehicle” that collides with the missile–hopefully destroying it–mid-air before it can hit the earth. The system, which launched its first test in 2004, is far from a sure thing: it has been successful in four of nine attempts.

According to the Associated Press, Tuesday’s test was a success:

BREAKING: Pentagon says it has shot down mock warhead over the Pacific in key success for US missile defense program.

— The Associated Press (@AP) May 30, 2017

“This is part of a continuous learning curve,” Navy Capt. Jeff Davis, a Pentagon spokesman, recently said. “We improve and learn from each test, regardless of the outcome. That’s the reason we conduct them,” he added. “We look forward to understanding the results so we can continue to mature the system and stay ahead of the threat.”

That threat is perhaps more pressing than ever before. North Korea has launched a handful of missile tests since President Donald Trump took office in January. Trump has vowed to stop the threat, and has looked to China, the North’s neighbor, largest trading partner, and primary benefactor, to pressure Kim to cease his provocations. Trump, meanwhile, reacted to North Korea’s latest test on Twitter:

North Korea has shown great disrespect for their neighbor, China, by shooting off yet another ballistic missile…but China is trying hard!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 29, 2017

In addition to Tuesday’s interceptor test, the Pentagon is deploying two U.S. aircraft carriers to the Sea of Japan on Wednesday, for a few days of training. Despite the training sessions taking place hundreds of miles off of the Korean Peninsula, one U.S. official told CNN, “how can we say it’s not sending a message?”

On Sunday’s “Face the Nation,” Defense Secretary James Mattis made clear that the U.S. is taking the North Korean threat seriously. He said: “They have been very clear in their rhetoric — we don’t have to wait until they have an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear weapon on it to say that now it’s manifested completely.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pentagon Tests Defense System Designed to Thwart North Korean Missiles appeared first on Law Street.

Detroit city officials have shuttered over 150 medical marijuana dispensaries since last year, with dozens of additional closings expected in the coming months. The closings reflect the ever-shifting regulatory framework surrounding pot legalization, and how businesses that are slow to respond to new rules could find their doors padlocked.

Melvin Butch Hollowell, the Detroit corporation counsel, told the Detroit Free Press that the city has closed 167 dispensaries around the city since last year.

“None of them were operating lawfully,” he said. “At the time I sent a letter to each one of them indicating that unless you have a fully licensed facility, you are operating at your own risk.” Hollowell also indicated that another 51 closings are in the offing. Detroit is rife with unlicensed or otherwise illegal marijuana establishments; Hollowell said 283 total have been identified, and as of last week, a mere five marijuana facilities in Detroit are fully licensed.

According to the city’s medical marijuana ordinances, which took effect on March 1, 2016 (Michigan voters legalized pot for medical use in 2008), dispensaries have to abide by a number of zoning and other regulations in order to qualify for a license. For instance, marijuana businesses must be more than 1,000 feet away from the following areas: churches, schools, parks, liquor stores (and other places where alcohol is sold), libraries, and child care centers. Marijuana businesses are also required to close by 8 p.m.

Hollowell told the Free Press that city officials go through the courts when seeking an order to shutter an illegal marijuana business. Because the public pushed legalization in 2008, he said, his team pursues the closings “in a way that is consistent with keeping our neighborhoods respected and at the same time, allowing for those dispensaries to operate in their specific areas that we’ve identified as being lawful.”

And according to Winfred Blackmon, the chairman of the Metropolitan Detroit Community Action Coalition, complaints from Detroit residents helped propel the recent surge in dispensary closings. He told the Free Press: “People started getting frustrated with the marijuana shops that kept popping up around their houses and schools.”

Michigan is also weighing a ballot measure for next November that, if voted through, would legalize marijuana for recreational use as well. Language for the measure was submitted to the Board of State Canvassers earlier this month; it is currently under review.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Detroit’s Medical Marijuana Dispensaries are Closing by the Hundreds appeared first on Law Street.

On Thursday, a Muslim man in Dearborn, Michigan filed a class-action lawsuit for $100 million against Little Caesars Pizza which, he claims, sold him a pork pepperoni-covered pizza falsely labeled “halal.” The lawsuit, filed in the Wayne County Circuit Court by Mohamad Bazzi, alleges breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

“It’s really upsetting,” Bazzi’s attorney, Majed Moughni, told the Detroit Free Press. “My clients want the public to know. Especially during Ramadan,” he added, referring to the month-long Muslim holiday that began on Friday, “it would be a travesty if Muslims…in Dearborn bought pizza from Little Caesars and discovered they were eating pork.”

The lawsuit describes the incident: On March 20, Bazzi says he was halfway through eating a Little Caesars pizza with his wife when they realized it was topped with pork pepperoni, not halal pepperoni. They were sure of the pepperoni’s nature, he said, because he used to work at a pizza shop, and his wife is a former Catholic who used to eat pork and can recognize its flavor.

Islamic dietary laws stipulate how certain foods are prepared and, in some cases, some foods, like pork, are banned outright. Much like the kosher meat of Jewish dietary law, halal meat is often prepared and butchered under the blessing of a religious leader. Dearborn, with its dense and thriving Muslim population, is home to a number of halal establishments. Many non-halal restaurants, like Little Caesars, offer halal options.

Jill Proctor, a spokeswoman for Little Caesars, said in a statement that Bazzi’s claim “is without merit.” She added: “Little Caesars cherishes our customers from all religions and cultures, and the communities we serve are very important to us. While we can’t comment on pending litigation, we take this claim very seriously.”

Moughni, who is representing Bazzi in the case, has a history of slightly bizarre legal claims. In 2011, when Moughni was running in the Republican U.S. House race for Michigan’s 12th District, he sued Facebook because it flagged his Facebook page in the run-up to the primary election. And in 2010, in a prescient lawsuit in the age of President Donald Trump’s “America First” platform, Moughni sued former Democratic congressman Rep. John Dingell for allegedly plagiarizing his “Make it in America” campaign slogan.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Man Sues Little Caesars for $100 Million Claiming it Mislabeled a Pizza “Halal” appeared first on Law Street.

June is a wonderful month: Summer is in full swing, but the heat is not quite at August-level oppressiveness. Cities are abuzz with festivals, concerts, and community barbecues. A Transformers movie is likely hitting theaters. But in 2017, June is oozing with another fun summer treat: elections. From Georgia to Britain, California to France, here is your guide to the elections to pay attention to next month.

Special Election: California

On June 6, California’s 34th District will hold a special election to replace the seat left vacant by Xavier Becerra, a Democrat selected as California’s first Latino attorney general last December. A Democratic stronghold–only nine percent of registered voters are Republican–the race for the 34th features two Democrats in a head-to-head runoff: Jimmy Gomez and Robert Lee Ahn. Gomez, a former state assemblyman, has picked up some weighty endorsements, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

General Election: Britain

Prime Minister Theresa May stunned the U.K. last month when she announced an early election set for June 8, contradicting a previous promise to wait before doing so. Many suspect her motivation in calling a snap election is to fill parliament with members of her Conservative Party, giving May a wider mandate in the upcoming Brexit negotiations, which are expected to unfold over two years. Recent polls suggest that the once-commanding Conservative lead is tightening; the Labor Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, looks like it will do a bit better than initially expected.

Parliamentary Elections: France

France made history earlier this month when it elected its youngest ever president, the 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron. But his centrist ideology, rare in the ultra-polarized politics of France, will face a daunting task in the two-round parliamentary elections in mid-June. With the first round on June 11 and the second on June 18, the elections will determine the governing leverage Macron and his En Marche! party will have in fixing the social and economic frustrations that nearly propelled populist Marine Le Pen to power.

Special Election: Georgia

Since Donald Trump was elected president last November, and Republicans in Congress held their majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats have been grasping for a ray of sunshine. Many have looked to the Democratic candidate for Georgia’s Sixth District for that harbinger of hope: Jon Ossoff. The 30-year-old nearly won the election’s first-round outright in April; he narrowly missed winning 50 percent of the vote. This is a race to fill the vacant seat left by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. The final round, held on June 20, will pit Ossoff against Republican Karen Handel.

Special Election: South Carolina

As Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Management and Budget director, helps Trump gut a number of federal programs in Washington, his vacant congressional seat is being wrangled over in South Carolina’s Fifth District. Taking place on the same day as Georgia’s special election, June 20, Democrat Archie Parnell and Republican Ralph Norman will battle for Mulvaney’s vacant seat. According to one recent poll, Norman, a longtime South Carolina legislator, is leading with 53 percent of respondents saying they would select him over Parnell.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post From California to France: Five Elections to Look Out for in June appeared first on Law Street.

During a speech in Brussels on Thursday, President Donald Trump spoke to a cluster of European heads of state. He implored them to pay their fair share in defense spending for the NATO alliance, while simultaneously refusing to commit to support in case of an attack. The speech baffled America’s European allies, and potentially pleased Russia’s militarily-adventurous President Vladimir Putin.

“Members of the alliance must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations,” Trump told the leaders of the 28-member defense bloc, including the newly-elected French President Emmanuel Macron. “Twenty-three of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for their defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.”

Trump, it turns out, was correct: According to NATO figures, only five countries meet the benchmark for defense spending, which is set at two percent of each member nation’s respective GDP. The U.S., Britain, Estonia, Greece, and Poland are the only five NATO members that meet the mark. The rest, including Europe’s economic engines, France and Germany, do not.

Speaking at the opening of NATO’s new billion-dollar headquarters in Brussels, Trump barely mentioned Article 5, the treaty’s tenet of collective defense. Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, and fomented a pro-Russia separatist movement in eastern Ukraine that same year. So, Trump’s refusal to explicitly endorse Article 5 could worry NATO members, especially the Baltic States, which border Russia and were occupied by the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The last–and only–time the 68-year-old alliance triggered Article 50 was after the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, when NATO forces joined the war in Afghanistan. While Trump–who called NATO “obsolete” as a candidate but nominally embraced it as president–did not reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Article 5, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson did.

Asked on Wednesday about Trump’s commitment to Article 5, Tillerson said, “of course we support Article 5.” Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, said all the fuss about Trump’s failure to back Article 5 was “silly because by being here at such a ceremony, we all understand that by being part of NATO we treat the obligations and commitments.” He added: “By having to reaffirm something by the very nature of being here and speaking at a ceremony about it is almost laughable.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post In Speech at NATO HQ, Trump Implores Members to Pay More for Defense appeared first on Law Street.

Thousands of people marched in Chicago on Tuesday and Wednesday, in front of McDonald’s storefronts and the fast food giant’s headquarters, protesting its low hourly wage. Organized by “Fight for 15,” a labor group that advocates for a $15 per hour minimum wage, the protests began on Tuesday, as McDonald’s employees waved banners and signs in the streets.

On Wednesday, a couple hundred people gathered in front of the company’s suburban headquarters during its annual shareholder meeting. According to Reuters, 30 protesters were arrested on Wednesday for blocking a road. Terrance Wise, 42, was at the protest, and told Reuters he was there because he believes the minimum wage should be increased.

“I saw my mother, who worked for 30 years for Hardee’s, struggle on food stamps to raise her family and now I’m doing the same things,” he said, referencing another fast food giant. “Instead of paying their CEO $15 million, they should give him $10 million and pay their workers what’s right.” According to company figures, McDonald’s CEO Steve Easterbrook made $15.3 million last year.

March is about to kickoff. Thousands are ready to shut down streets and march #fightfor15 pic.twitter.com/4TSD27S6u2

— Fight For 15 Chicago (@chifightfor15) May 23, 2017

 “Fight for 15” has referred to McDonald’s as the “Donald Trump of corporations.” A page on its website reads: “Trump AND McDonald’s have a long history of sexual harassment, stealing from or refusing to pay employees, and ripping off taxpayers.”

Since 2015, in the franchises that it owns, McDonald’s pays its employees a wage of $10 per hour. But the majority of its stores are controlled by other owners, who can set the hourly wage as they please. The current federal minimum wage is $7.25 an hour. While many cities and states have raised their minimum wage, and some congressional Democrats have supported a steep increase, the Republican-controlled Congress is unlikely to make a federal change any time soon.

Meanwhile, Trump’s stance on raising the federal minimum wage has flipped more times than a McDouble. He has taken almost every position imaginable: from suggesting the minimum wage should be lowered, to saying it should stay the same. His most recent public comments, however, suggest he would like to see it increased to $10.

Last July, he said: “The minimum wage has to go up. People are — at least $10, but it has to go up. But I think that states — federal — I think that states should really call the shot.”

One-time presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders tweeted his two cents on the minimum wage debate on Thursday:

I know a $15 minimum wage is radical to Republicans.

You know what’s radical? That people working 40 or 50 hours a week live in poverty.

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) May 25, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Thousands Protest McDonald’s Wages, Demand $15 Per Hour appeared first on Law Street.

Taiwan is one step closer to becoming the first country in Asia to legalize same-sex marriage: on Wednesday, Taiwan’s highest court, the Council of Grand Justices, ruled it unconstitutional to bar same-sex couples from marriage. Taiwan’s parliament has two years to pass legislation–either an amended form of the current bill or a new measure altogether–to legalize same-sex marriage.

If the parliament fails to pass legislation, “two persons of the same sex who intend to create the said permanent union shall be allowed to have their marriage registration effectuated… by submitting a written document signed by two or more witnesses,” the 14-member court said.

Taiwan gay marriage supporters cry with joy after landmark Asian ruling pic.twitter.com/V2DhMFDyPq

— AFP news agency (@AFP) May 24, 2017

Taiwan has long been one of the more progressive spots in Asia: it has held a gay pride parade since 2003, and has a thriving LGBT community. But it wasn’t until the Democratic Progressive Party took power last year that marriage equality became a real possibility. President Tsai Ing-wen has expressed support for equal marriage rights, though she has been more subtle in her support in recent months.

In 2015, at Taipei’s gay pride parade, she said: “Every person should be able to look for love freely, and freely seek their own happiness.”

Last November, DPP lawmakers drafted three bills that would have legalized same-sex marriage. Those bills have stalled in recent months, after protests against gay marriage swelled. Despite stiff resistance from the conservative and religious sectors of Taiwanese society, a slim majority of citizens support same-sex marriage. One poll from 2013 found that 53 percent of Taiwanese citizens favor marriage equality.

Well done Taiwan, we needed some good news ️‍ #loveislove pic.twitter.com/mPiDLt7Wgp

— meg is seeing h (@stylesrichonne) May 24, 2017

The court’s ruling was in response to two cases: one request was filed by veteran gay rights activist, Chi Chia-wei, the other by Taipei city officials. Progressive lawmakers in Taiwan cheered the court’s decision.

Yu Mei-nu, a DPP lawmaker, called it “a step forward in the history of Taiwan’s same-sex marriage.” She added: “I hope that the legislators will have the moral courage to pass same-sex marriage into law, however it is hard to predict how long it will take, at this moment…The opposition toward gay marriage in Taiwan won’t just gladly accept it and give up the debate, so the debate will continue.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Same-Sex Marriage in Taiwan Gets a Huge Boost from Supreme Court Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

The two-week wait is over: Vermont Gov. Phil Scott vetoed legislation on Wednesday that proposed a legal framework for recreational marijuana. Scott, a Republican, said he was not “philosophically opposed” to legalization, but he still had concerns–mostly regarding public safety and children’s health–that the bill did not adequately address.

“We must get this right,” Scott said. “I think we need to move a little bit slower.”

The legislation, which passed the Democrat-controlled House earlier this month by a vote of 79-66, would have made it legal for people 21 and up to possess up to one ounce of marijuana. Set to take effect in July 2018, the bill would have created a nine-member commission to establish a regulatory framework. Medical marijuana became legal in Vermont in 2004.

In vetoing the measure, Scott blocked Vermont from becoming the ninth state–plus Washington D.C.–to legalize marijuana for recreational use. A handful of states passed legalization measures through referendums last November. Vermont, which also tried and failed to legalize recreational cannabis last year, does not have legal authority to put marijuana legalization to a ballot vote.

Lt. Gov. David Zuckerman opposed Scott’s decision to veto the bill:

“Prohibition has failed and causes approximately 100,000 Vermonters to be labeled lawbreakers,” he said. “Vermont is now lagging behind other states in the region and is missing opportunities to capture revenue from an underground market that would allow us to address highway safety, drug education and treatment, and other needed state investments to reduce the temptation of drug use.”

Vermont residents are among the most pot-friendly in the country, according to some studies. But they will likely have to wait until next year to have another go at legalization. However Scott did say that lawmakers could amend the bill he vetoed on Wednesday over the summer, during a special legislative session.

In a statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Matt Simon, the New England political director for the Marijuana Policy Project, said he was “disappointed” by the governor’s decision, but “encouraged” by his commitment to eventual legalization. Simon added:

Most Vermonters want to end marijuana prohibition, and it is critical that the legislature respond by passing a revised legalization bill this summer. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and there is no good reason to continue treating responsible adult consumers like criminals.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vermont Governor Rejects Marijuana Legalization Bill appeared first on Law Street.

Over the past few weeks, as Russia-related revelations dominated the discussion in Washington, it has been easy to forget about actual governing. But things are happening. For instance, Republicans have been waiting in the wings for years, eager to pass tax reform legislation. When President Donald Trump–who has been busy swatting away rumors regarding his ties to Russia and jetting to Riyadh–took the White House, and Republicans maintained control of the House and Senate, Republicans could finally take a crack at a tax overhaul. Let’s take a look at their progress so far:

For one, it appears the border tax, favored by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI), is all but moot. In a House Ways and Means committee hearing on Tuesday, a number of Republican members voiced their concerns about the tax, which would levy a 20 percent tariff on imports, while getting rid of export taxes.

Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) said he does not want funding for tax cuts, which would ultimately come from the consumer, “to be on the backs of everyday hardworking American taxpayers.” To another Republican member of the committee, which would have to approve any tax bill before hitting the House floor for a vote, supporting the border tax is out of the question. “I cannot support the border adjustability provisions as introduced last year in the blueprint,” Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) said at the hearing, which included testimony from Target CEO Brian Cornell.

The Trump Administration also appears to oppose the border adjustment tax. “One of the problems with the border adjustment tax is that it doesn’t create a level playing field,” Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin recently said. “It has the potential to pass on significant costs to the consumer.”

At the end of April, Trump unleashed a one-page tax reform plan. The plan’s key features included severe tax cuts and a steep reduction in the corporate tax rate, from 35 to 15 percent. The 2018 budget the administration released on Tuesday did not include any substantial changes to the April plan.

According to a recent report by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the administration’s tax plan “contains specific, costly tax cuts for the wealthy and profitable corporations but only vague promises for working families.” Using IRS data, the report estimates the plan would provide the top one percent with an average annual tax cut of $250,000 per household.

In addition to the administration’s plan, and the House proposal backed by Ryan and Kevin Brady, the Ways and Means committee chairman, the Senate is reportedly developing its own tax blueprint.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Deal with the Republican Tax Plan? appeared first on Law Street.

Fox News retracted a story from its website Tuesday afternoon, after a week of conspiracy theory peddling from one of its most popular television hosts, Sean Hannity. The story was about Seth Rich, the 27-year-old DNC staffer who was murdered last July while walking to his home in D.C. The story was also popular on a number of websites, including alt-right Breitbart and the far-right Drudge Report.

Quoting Rod Wheeler, a private investigator who was supposedly looking into the case on behalf of the Rich family, the story claimed that Rich leaked emails and other documents from DNC staffers and Hillary Clinton to WikiLeaks. That would mean the information did not come from Russian operatives, as both the CIA and the FBI have concluded. Fox issued the following statement on its retraction of the story:

On May 16, a story was posted on the Fox News website on the investigation into the 2016 murder of DNC Staffer Seth Rich. The article was not initially subjected to the high degree of editorial scrutiny we require for all our reporting. Upon appropriate review, the article was found not to meet those standards and has since been removed.

Early last week, Wheeler sparked the tinder that would set the “alt-right” media–and Hannity–aflame: he told Fox 5 D.C. he had sources at the FBI that said Rich had released a trove of emails and attachments to WikiLeaks. Rich was assassinated, according to the unfounded conspiracy, as part of an attempt to spread rumors that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to harm the Clinton campaign by releasing thousands of embarrassing emails.

The FBI, along with the Senate and House intelligence committees, are currently investigating communications between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Hours after Wheeler’s report, he told CNN that his “information” was in fact “from the reporter at Fox News,” not based on hard evidence or any of his own original findings or sources, including at the FBI. Wheeler later told Fox 5 the false report was due to “miscommunication.”

But that has not stopped Hannity and others on Twitter from fanning the flames:

Congress, investigate Seth Rich Murder! @JulianAssange made comments u need to listen to! If Seth was wiki source, no Trump/Russia collusion https://t.co/QPHZwypU34

— Sean Hannity (@seanhannity) May 22, 2017

 On Sunday’s “Fox and Friends,” Newt Gingrich also parroted Wheeler’s false report, saying: “We have this very strange story now of this young man who worked for the Democratic National Committee, who apparently was assassinated at 4 in the morning, having given WikiLeaks something like 53,000 emails and 17,000 attachments.”

Hannity and others have been able to latch on to Wheeler’s account, and earlier conspiracies swirling around Rich’s murder, because of the investigation’s lack of progress–the case remains unsolved. The investigation is ongoing; D.C. Metropolitan Police have some evidence that the murder was a botched robbery.

Meanwhile, The Daily Beast reported earlier this week that staff members and reporters at Fox News found Hannity’s insistence that this story has merit to be “embarrassing” and “gross.” Wheeler could find himself in court because of his unfounded claims. Rich’s family already sent a “cease-and-desist” letter to Wheeler through their lawyer, Joseph Ingrisano.

“Your improper and unauthorized statements, many of which are false and have no basis in fact, have also injured the memory and reputation of Seth Rich and have defamed and injured the reputation of the members of the family,” Ingrisano wrote.

Wheeler told the Chicago Tribune that he is “exploring all of my legal options and I sincerely hope that one day we find the person who took Seth’s life.”

In a Washington Post op-ed, Mary and Joel Rich, Seth’s parents, pleaded with those who continue to promulgate the falsehoods “to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son’s murder.” They added: “With every conspiratorial flare-up, we are forced to relive Seth’s murder and a small piece of us dies as more of Seth’s memory is torn away from us.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fox News Retracts Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, in a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court struck down two mapped congressional districts in North Carolina on the grounds that Republican lawmakers drew them with the intention of diluting the African-American vote. In affirming a lower court’s decision, the justices found a narrow–and contentious–distinction between redistricting for political benefit, and redistricting with the intent to harm a certain slice of the electorate based on race.

The case, Cooper v. Harris, was the latest involving racially-motivated gerrymandering to reach the Supreme Court. According to the 1965 Voting Rights Act, state legislatures can redraw congressional districts based on a number of factors, partisanship being the most common. But although race can be one of a smattering of factors when redrawing a state’s districts, it can not be the predominant one.

“The sorting of voters on the grounds of their race remains suspect even if race is meant to function as a proxy for other (including political) characteristics,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the majority opinion. She was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The North Carolina districts in question include one of the state’s largest, District 1, and one of its smallest, District 12. Both are currently held by black Democrats, G.K. Butterfield and Alma Adams, respectively. According to Kagan, the Republican-held General Assembly fashioned the new congressional map after the 2010 census to devalue the black vote.

In District 1, after the census, black people of voting age rose from 48.6 percent to 52.7 percent. In District 12, the percentage of voting-age black residents hit 50.7 from 43.8. Republicans argue that tilting the districts majority-black is within their legal limits, because distinguishing the black vote from the Democratic vote–a vast majority of black voters support Democratic candidates–is almost impossible.

Justice Samuel Alito argued that same point in his dissenting opinion: “If around 90 percent of African-American voters cast their ballots for the Democratic candidate, as they have in recent elections, a plan that packs Democratic voters will look very much like a plan that packs African-American voters.”

He added: “If the majority party draws districts to favor itself, the minority party can deny the majority its political victory by prevailing on a racial gerrymandering claim.” Alito was joined in dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court’s newest member, did not participate, because the case was argued on December 5, months before he was confirmed.

The court’s decision was welcome news for Butterfield and Adams. Butterfield said the decision “clearly reaffirms my position that the Republican-controlled state legislature unlawfully used race as the predominant factor” in gerrymandering. And Adams called for an independent redistricting commission in North Carolina, saying, “we should be working together to make access to the ballot box easier and more fair.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Finds Racial Bias in North Carolina Gerrymandering appeared first on Law Street.

Some convicts in California who have been charged with marijuana-related felonies are seeing their fortunes change with the state’s passage of Prop 64 last November. According to partial state data, since the ballot measure passed legalizing recreational marijuana in California, thousands of people charged with felonies for marijuana-related crimes filed requests to reduce their sentences from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Many have been granted a sentence reduction–and some first-time offenders have seen their records expunged.

California voters overwhelmingly backed Prop 64 in the November election, with 57 percent, or nearly eight million people, supporting it. While its main purpose was to legalize recreational marijuana in California, the first state to legalize medical marijuana in 1996, Prop 64 contained an equally impactful clause for people who had been charged with marijuana-related felonies under the previous sentencing laws.

Prop 64, according to the measure’s language, “authorizes resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions.” People have been taking advantage of that overlooked part of the measure. Through March, 2,500 requests were filed to reduce sentences from felony charges to misdemeanors, according to the partial state data.

Bruce Margolin, an attorney that has worked with a number of people seeking to reduce their marijuana-related charges, told an NBC affiliate in Los Angeles that judges and prosecutors “were totally unprepared” for the flood of reduction requests since Prop 64 passed. “It’s amazing,” he added. “You would have thought they should have had seminars to get them up to speed so we don’t have to go through the process of arguing things that are obvious, but we’re still getting that.”

Prop 64 is not the only ballot measure in California that allows nonviolent offenders with marijuana-related felony charges to seek a reduced–or completely expunged–sentence.

In November 2014, California passed Prop 47, which “allows people who are already serving a felony conviction for [a marijuana crime] to petition in the court for resentencing.” For convicts who have already completed their sentence, Prop 47 permitted them “to file an application before the trial court to have the felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor.”

San Diego County is leading the charge in reducing marijuana-related sentences, according to Rachel Solov, who works in the district attorney’s office in San Diego. She told NBC that 400 people in San Diego have already had their sentences reduced, which she said is “the right thing to do.” Solov added: “If someone’s in custody and they shouldn’t be in custody anymore, we have an obligation to address that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California’s Prop 64 Will Reduce Sentences for Some Nonviolent Offenders appeared first on Law Street.

Saudi Arabia gave President Donald Trump the royal treatment over the weekend, lavishing him with pomp and applause during the first stop in his inaugural overseas trip as president. In a 30-minute speech, Trump gave the Kingdom precisely what it wanted–a strong rebuke of Iran, Saudi Arabia’s enemy and its greatest threat to regional hegemony. Trump signaled a tighter embrace of Saudi Arabia and a more forceful rejection of Iran than his predecessor, President Barack Obama.

Iran provides terrorists “safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment,” Trump said, adding it’s “a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region.” Trump piled on:

From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds arms and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region…It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this very room.

By calling out Iran while delivering a message of “friendship and hope” to Saudi Arabia and leaders from other Gulf Arab nations like Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, and the U.A.E., whose leaders were also in attendance on Sunday, Trump is pivoting to a more traditional U.S. approach to the region than Obama’s.

Obama angered Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations with a variety of decisions–or non-decisions–that they saw as deferring to Iran. For one, he negotiated the nuclear accord with Iran; the Trump Administration recently admitted to Iran’s compliance with the controversial agreement. Additionally, Obama’s inaction in the conflict in Syria–he never took direct military action against President Bashar al-Assad, and instead provided support to various rebel factions–upset the Saudis as well.

The Trump Administration, after the Syrian government dropped chemical bombs on its citizens in March, launched 59 cruise missiles at a government air strip. Since then, however, Trump has largely followed the Obama playbook by supporting proxy forces in the fight against the Islamic State. Still, the decisive action heartened the Saudi monarchy, which virulently opposes Iran and its various proxy projects, like its support for militias in Bahrain, Yemen, and Iraq, and its support of Assad in Syria.

Trump was unreserved in his warm embrace for Saudi Arabia, saying the U.S. “is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture, and commerce” with the Kingdom. He announced that Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and other high-ranking officials pledged billions of dollars in investments for Saudi Arabia and the U.S. The U.S. recently provided the Saudis with over $100 billion worth of arms and other defense equipment.

He also used the speech to highlight two initiatives aimed at combating terrorism–the Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology, and the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center. Both will be built in Riyadh. “Today we begin a new chapter that will bring lasting benefits to our citizens,” Trump said.

In contrast to the traditional, largely bi-partisan U.S. approach to countries like Saudi Arabia, where personal freedom is heavily policed and human rights are consistently trampled upon, Trump made no mention of improving human rights in the country. In fact, he explicitly rejected calling out potential partners in how they choose to govern their countries.

“We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership — based on shared interests and values — to pursue a better future for us all,” he said.

A safe, secure, and prosperous Middle East, Trump insisted, must be shaped with the help of Iran, which held a presidential election on Friday. Iranians re-elected Hassan Rouhani to a second term, rejecting the hard-line Islamic cleric Ebrahim Raisi. Still, in his speech on Sunday, Trump pointed to Iran as the primary font for extremist ideologies in the region, ignoring Saudi Arabia’s own agenda that critics say abets terrorism.

“Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve,” Trump said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Embraces Saudi Arabia and Rebukes Iran appeared first on Law Street.

A bipartisan trio of senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would ban congressmen from working as lobbyists after their time in Congress. Lobbying is a lucrative career that former congressmen often pursue; lobbying firms seek them out for their contacts and familiarity with the various levels of the federal government.

Sponsored by Senators Cory Gardner (R-CO), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Al Franken (D-MN), the Close the Revolving Door Act of 2017 seeks to shutter the Capitol Hill to K Street pipeline.

“Washington has become all too comfortable with the spin of the revolving door,” Bennet said in a statement, referring to the common “revolving door” metaphor to describe the non-stop flow of congressmen to lobbying firms. “By banning members of Congress from lobbying when they leave Capitol Hill, we can begin to restore confidence in our national politics.”

The bill would institute a lifetime ban on current members of Congress from working as lobbyists after leaving Capitol Hill. Former congressional staffers would not be allowed to work as lobbyists until six years have passed since their time in Congress. Currently, that moratorium is one year.

Lobbying firms are common destinations for former U.S. senators and representatives. According to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, over half of the congressmen that either lost re-election or left Congress in 2014 now work as lobbyists. President Donald Trump pledged to combat the issue in January, when he issued an executive order to severely restrict the flow of former federal employees to lobbying firms.

Past presidents–including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama–also issued executive decrees aimed at reforming the lobbying practices of former congressmen. Current law dictates former members and staff of the House have a one-year “cooling off” period, in which they cannot accept a contract from a lobbying firm. For former senators and their staff, the “cooling off” period is two years.

In a statement, Franken said “our democracy can’t function the way it’s supposed to when well-connected special interests have more power than the American people.” Acting against moneyed special interests was a rallying cry for camps on both sides of the political spectrum during last fall’s campaign. Both Bernie Sanders and Trump railed against what they saw as a corrupt (or to Trump, a “swamp”) Washington crippled by vested interests.

This bipartisan effort “would put in place much-needed reforms-by not only banning members of Congress from becoming lobbyists, but also making the industry more accountable and transparent,” Franken said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trio of Senators Seek to Ban Former Members of Congress from Lobbying appeared first on Law Street.

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

A vast majority of those arrested, 41,318 from January 22 to April 29, have criminal records. But the number of detained non-criminal undocumented immigrants also rose sharply, reflecting the directive President Donald Trump issued in January that deemed any immigrant in the U.S. without documentation a priority for arrest and deportation.

“These statistics reflect President Trump’s commitment to enforce our immigration laws fairly and across the board,” Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE, said in a statement. “If you look at the numbers, then men and women of ICE are still prioritizing these arrests in a way that makes sense,” he added in a phone call with reporters after the figures were released.

Acting on his promise to strictly enforce immigration laws, Trump issued an executive order on January 25 “to employ all lawful means to enforce the immigration laws of the United States.” The order effectively reversed an Obama Administration policy that directed ICE agents to prioritize for deportation undocumented immigrants convicted of violent crimes. Under Trump, all immigrants in the country illegally were subject to deportation.

Trump’s crack-down on illegal immigration, a stance that helped propel him to the White House, has not been implemented with impunity, however. A recently-passed spending bill does not include funding for Trump’s long-proposed border wall on the Mexican border. And federal judges throughout the country have stymied his efforts to ban or severely limit travel from a handful of mostly Muslim countries.

Still, Trump is on-track to match or surpass the arrests of undocumented immigrants at the Obama Administration’s peak in 2013, when over 662,000 undocumented immigrants were arrested. After a pointed effort to focus only on high-level criminals, that number dropped in subsequent years.

And although the number of migrants crossing the southern border has precipitously dipped–which accounts for the 12 percent decrease in total deportations this year so far–the rise in arrests of non-criminal undocumented immigrants suggests a greater willingness to enforce the existing rules.

According to the ICE figures, over 10,800 undocumented immigrants without criminal records have been arrested so far. More than 2,700 have been convicted of violent crimes, however, including assault, rape, kidnapping, or murder.

But of those that made up the 38 percent jump in arrests during the first three months of the Trump Administration, over half had been immigrants without criminal records. Their only crime: being in the country without documentation.

Omar Jadwat, the director of the Immigrants’ Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, sees the increase in arrests as a way to beef up numbers without implementing a broader strategy. “What it tells me is that the department is willing to put enforcement numbers ahead of any kind of strategy that would actually try to keep us all safer going forward,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months appeared first on Law Street.

Anthony Weiner, the disgraced former congressman from New York, pleaded guilty to transferring obscene materials to a minor in a federal court in Manhattan on Friday. The expected plea agreement capped an FBI investigation into Weiner’s relationship with a 15-year-old girl. Weiner, 52, could face a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The judge said he will be required to register as a sex offender. Weiner also agreed to not appeal any prison sentence between 21 and 27 months.

In court on Friday, Weiner issued the following statement:

Beginning with my service in Congress and continuing into the first half of last year, I have compulsively sought attention from women who contacted me on social media, and I engaged with many of them in both sexual and non-sexual conversation. These destructive impulses brought great devastation to family and friends, and destroyed my life’s dream of public service. And yet I remained in denial even as the world around me fell apart.

Last September, the girl anonymously shared her story with British tabloid The Daily Mail. She said Weiner had sent her sexually explicit text messages and photographs. She said Weiner was aware that she was a minor. That report came just months after Weiner was embroiled in another sexting scandal that led to a separation with his wife, Huma Abedin, a close aide to Hillary Clinton.

The FBI’s investigation into Weiner’s communications with the 15-year-old girl also affected the presidential campaign–Weiner’s electronic devices contained emails pertinent to the FBI’s investigation into Clinton’s private email server. Recently fired FBI Director James Comey sent a controversial letter to Congress, in the days before the November 8 election, saying that the FBI, while investigating Weiner, found new emails that “appear to be pertinent to the [Clinton] investigation.”

The FBI determined the newly-discovered emails didn’t contain any new information, but Clinton recently blamed the eleventh-hour disclosure as central to her election defeat.

Weiner’s political career crumbled in 2011, when his first sexting scandal went public. He had been a Democratic representative from New York since 1999. Despite his tarnished reputation, he ran for mayor of New York City in 2013. His bid was derailed by yet another sexting scandal.

According to an Associated Press report, Weiner was crying in court as he apologized to the girl, saying, “I have a sickness, but I do not have an excuse.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Anthony Weiner Pleads Guilty in Sexting Case with 15-Year-Old Girl appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump sent shockwaves through Washington last week when he abruptly fired James Comey, the FBI director who was investigating him for his communications with Russia during the campaign. Concerns about how a Trump-appointed director would impartially handle the investigation were somewhat placated on Wednesday, when Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein selected Robert Mueller as a special prosecutor to lead the probe into Trump’s contacts with Russian officials.

But the question remains: who will Trump select to lead the FBI? The president reportedly interviewed four candidates at the White House on Wednesday, and said a selection can come as early as Friday. Here are the top candidates:

Joe Lieberman

Lieberman is no stranger to Washington, serving three terms as a Connecticut senator, twice as a Democrat and once as an Independent. The 75-year-old was Connecticut’s attorney general in the 1980s, and presidential nominee Al Gore’s running mate in the hotly contested 2000 election. On Wednesday, Lieberman said that being considered to lead the FBI was “unexpected,” and “not something I was seeking.”

People on Twitter were quick to point out Lieberman’s connections to the Trump campaign:

Joe Lieberman for FBI Director? Huh, what’s Joe been up to recently? pic.twitter.com/iGaVT7cy7h

— Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) May 18, 2017

Andrew McCabe

Prior to Comey’s firing, McCabe had been serving as his deputy since early 2016. He is now serving as the Acting Director of the FBI. McCabe, 49, worked in the bureau’s New York Field Office in the late ’90s, and has been with the FBI ever since. A Democrat, McCabe attracted some controversy in 2015 when his wife, Dr. Jill McCabe, ran for a Virginia state Senate seat. She was endorsed by Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a friend of Hillary Clinton who, at the time, was being investigated by McCabe and the FBI for her use of a private email server.

Frank Keating

Most well-known for the eight years (1995 to 2003) he served as Oklahoma’s governor, Keating also has spent some time in the FBI. He briefly served in the agency in the 1970s, and was also in consideration for the director position in 2001, when then-director Louis Freeh resigned. Keating, 73, spent years in the private sector, and currently works as an attorney in the international law firm Holland & Knight. If Trump’s track record of loyalty is any indicator, Keating likely won’t get the job. In April 2016, he wrote an editorial in the Tulsa World newspaper titled, “Anyone but Trump.”

Richard McFeely

Of the candidates on Trump’s short-list, McFeely has the most experience in the FBI. The former head of the FBI’s field office in Baltimore, McFeely served in the agency from 1990 to 2014, according to his LinkedIn bio. In 2011, McFeely headed an investigation into the Baltimore Police Department that ended with 17 officers being charged with extortion. Before retiring from the FBI in 2014, McFeely was the executive assistant director of the Criminal, Cyber, Response Services Branch.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Who Are the Top Candidates to Replace James Comey as FBI Director? appeared first on Law Street.

The first bad omen came earlier this week, when an American official reportedly told an Israeli official that the Western Wall in Jerusalem is “not your territory.” Then, President Donald Trump, in a closed-door meeting at the White House with Russian officials, let slip classified intelligence regarding an Islamic State threat. The source of that intel: Israel, the most important ally for the U.S. in the Middle East.

As Trump embarks on a trip to the Jewish State–he arrives on Monday–it’s worth asking whether or not America’s relationship with Israel is in danger. Many top Israeli officials have already reaffirmed their country’s commitment to its partnership with the U.S. But the gaffes keep coming, and the initial honeymoon between Trump and Israel’s leading right-wing faction is slowly fading away.

When Trump was elected, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu breathed a sigh of relief. Eight years of President Barack Obama–with his insistence on freezing Israeli settlement building in the West Bank, and Netanyahu’s perception that Obama never truly grasped the Israeli-Palestinian conflict–drained the prime minister. Trump signaled a change. He was steadfast and vocal in his support for Israel. People close to him–including now-ambassador to Israel David Friedman–had life-long ties to Israel.

Pro-settler groups and lawmakers in Israel thought that Trump would provide a rubber stamp on the settlement project, which Palestinians (and many Israelis) argue is an impediment to peace. But not long after taking office, Trump told Netanyahu, during a visit to the White House, to “hold back on settlements for a bit.” Unlike Obama, Trump has not explicitly condemned settlement building, but he has not been quite the unconditional supporter of settlements many hoped he would be.

Still, the partnership has remained strong. This week has certainly been a test, however. ABC reported that the Israeli source that picked up the ISIS threat that Trump relayed to the Russians might be compromised. Some former Israeli intelligence officials, including former heads of the Mossad, Israel’s chief spy agency, said they might hesitate to share intelligence with the Trump Administration moving forward.

“I get the sense that there are certain questions indeed,” former Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren told the Associated Press. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman played down the episode, and reiterated Israel’s partnership with the U.S.

“The security relations between Israel and its greatest ally, the United States, are deep, significant and unprecedented in their scope and their contribution to our strength. That is how it always was and how it always will be,” he said.

All eyes will be on Trump when he visits Israel–part of the president’s first overseas trip–next Monday. His trip will include visits to Israel’s Holocaust memorial, Yad Veshem, and the Western Wall in Jerusalem’s Old City. One of the holiest sites in Judaism, the Western Wall lies in east Jerusalem, which Israel captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, along with the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Earlier this week, while preparing for Trump’s visit, an American aide told an Israeli aide the Western Wall was not a part of Israel, during a spat about Netanyahu’s request to visit the holy site with Trump, a request that was ultimately rejected. Israel considers Jerusalem its eternal capital, and Palestinians insist its eastern half would be the capital of their future state. But while the status of Jerusalem has been contended for decades, Sean Spicer, the White House press secretary, recently brought some clarity to the debate.

During a Tuesday press conference, when asked about the American aide’s comments in regard to the Western Wall, Spicer said the site is “clearly in Jerusalem,” a fact all sides can agree on.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is America’s Relationship with Israel in Danger? appeared first on Law Street.

Washington was hit with yet another bombshell on Tuesday: according to a memo former FBI Director James Comey wrote in February, President Donald Trump might be guilty of obstructing justice. In the memo, the contents of which were divulged to The New York Times, Comey detailed a closed-door conversation he had with the president a day after he fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Trump allegedly asked Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn and his contacts with Russia. “I hope you can let this go,” Trump told Comey, according to the memo. The FBI investigation into Flynn is ongoing. Shortly after the news broke, Capital Hill was abuzz with accusations that Trump, in nudging Comey to end a federal investigation, crossed the line. Dozens of Democrats, and some Republicans, suggested Trump’s actions, as described in Comey’s memo, constituted obstruction of justice.

In a Twitter post Tuesday night, after the Times’ report about the Comey memo was published, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) wrote: “Just leaving Senate floor. Lots of chatter from Ds and Rs about the exact definition of ‘obstruction of justice’.” Around the same time, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), tweeted: “Asking FBI to drop an investigation is obstruction of justice. Obstruction of justice is an impeachable offense.”

Two prominent Republican congressmen, Justin Amash of Michigan and Jason Chaffetz of Utah, also expressed concern that Trump obstructed justice. The White House, in a statement on Tuesday, denied Comey and Trump ever had the conversation as described in Comey’s memo. “The president has never asked Mr. Comey or anyone else to end any investigation, including any investigation involving General Flynn,” the White House said.

According to legal analysts, the key to determining whether Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice, and if he could eventually be charged, is determining his intent when he fired Comey.

“There’s definitely a case to be made for obstruction,” former federal prosecutor Barak Cohen told the Washington Post. “But on the other hand you have to realize that–as with any other sort of criminal law–intent is key, and intent here can be difficult to prove.” That is, in asking Comey to end the FBI’s investigation into Flynn, and subsequently firing the director a few months later, did Trump intentionally obstruct an ongoing investigation?

Federal law broadly defines what exactly obstruction of justice means. According to Title 18, the criminal code that deals with federal crimes, it is a crime if a defendant “obstructs, influences or impedes any official proceeding.” But again, proving intent to obstruct would be tricky. Besides, any case against Trump would have to be carried out by his own Justice Department, meaning that consequences seem unlikely.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Exactly is “Obstruction of Justice”? appeared first on Law Street.

New Jersey State Senator Nicholas Scutari introduced legislation on Monday that would legalize recreational marijuana use in the Garden State. But in a news conference, Scutari said he does not expect his bill to pass under the current governor, Chris Christie, who is a fervent critic of recreational marijuana. Instead, his intention is to create the groundwork for the next governor to build on.

“It is time to end the detrimental effect these archaic laws are having on our residents and our state,” Scutari said. His proposal would legalize limited quantities of marijuana for recreational use. Medical marijuana, while strictly regulated, is already permitted in New Jersey. Per Scutari’s legislation, possession of up to once ounce of marijuana would be legal. Home cultivation would not be allowed. And a sales tax on marijuana would be imposed, increasing over time.

New Jersey is one of a number of states that have recently proposed a marijuana legalization bill. Last November, many states passed ballot measures that legalized pot use, both recreationally and medically. Currently, medical marijuana is legal in 29 states and D.C. Recreational marijuana is legal in eight states and D.C. But under Christie, full legalization in New Jersey has gone nowhere. In the early stages of his presidential campaign in 2015, he said marijuana is banned at the federal level and “should be enforced in all 50 states.”

With New Jersey’s gubernatorial election taking place in November, Scutari’s proposal, along with any other marijuana legalization effort, is unlikely to have any impact until next year. The Democratic front-runner in the race to replace Christie, Phil Murphy, has expressed support for reforming New Jersey’s marijuana laws. And Lt. Gov. Kim Guadagno, the Republican front-runner, has not explicitly stated her views concerning marijuana reform.

But for now, legalizing recreational marijuana in New Jersey is a far-fetched endeavor. Earlier this month, Christie said “crazy liberals” want to legalize marijuana. “They want that blood money? Let them do it,” the governor said. Perhaps foreshadowing the fortunes of Scutari’s bill, Christie added: “And they will. Let me tell you something — this will be like priority number one come January. I guarantee you, if we have a Democratic governor, it will be priority number one.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Jersey Senator Proposes Marijuana Legalization Measure appeared first on Law Street.

During a meeting in Seoul on Tuesday, South Korean and U.S. officials described guidelines the two allies would follow in dealing with North Korea, which tested a powerful missile on Sunday. With a new administration installed in South Korea last week, a uniform approach between the U.S. and South Korea toward North Korea is facing new uncertainties.

Moon Jae-in, who was elected president last week, is the country’s first liberal leader in years. He supports a more dialogue-based strategy in cooling the North’s nuclear ambitions than his U.S. counterpart, President Donald Trump. The Trump Administration has previously indicated “all option are on the table” in regard to responding to the North Korean threat–including a pre-emptive military strike. But now, U.S. and South Korean leaders appear to be on the same page.

Yoon Young-chan, Moon’s spokesman, detailed the approach to North Korea he discussed on Tuesday with Matthew Pottinger, the Asia director on the National Security Council. “First, the ultimate goal is to completely dismantle the North Korean nuclear weapons,” Yoon said. “Second, to that end, both sides will employ all means, including sanctions and dialogue. Third, dialogue with North Korea is possible when the circumstances are right. Fourth, to achieve these goals, South Korea and the United States will pursue drastic and practical joint approaches.”

Liberals in South Korea, including Moon, favor a diplomatic approach–like increased economic investment–to dampen the nuclear threat from its northern neighbor, in contrast to South Korean conservatives’ hard-line approach. Previous diplomatic overtures to North Korea have failed, and critics say investment from past liberal administrations in South Korea have ironically boosted the North’s nuclear capabilities.

Both Trump and Moon have indicated they would be willing to meet with North Korea’s young leader, Kim Jong-un. North Korean and South Korean leaders last met for face-to-face talks in 2007. In launching a missile test on Sunday, by some estimates its most powerful yet, North Korea reminded the world that its nuclear and military ambitions remain unbroken. The missile flew nearly 500 miles before falling into the sea.

South Korean officials recently said that North Korea’s nuclear program is progressing at a quicker pace than expected. And despite its failed launch last month and recent slaps on the wrist from China, its foremost trade partner and benefactor, North Korea remains a threat to the U.S. and its allies in the region, namely Japan and South Korea.

On Tuesday, U.S. and South Korean officials said a summit meeting between Moon and Trump could come as early as next month. Last Wednesday, when Moon was sworn in at the National Assembly, he said he would “do whatever it takes to help settle peace on the Korean Peninsula,” adding: “If necessary, I will fly immediately to Washington.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.S. and South Korean Officials Outline New Approach to North Korea appeared first on Law Street.

In a meeting last week with top Russian officials, President Donald Trump discussed classified information regarding an Islamic State threat, according to current and former U.S. officials. The revelations sparked outrage in Washington, even among high-ranking Republicans, and raised international questions about whether the U.S. under Trump is a reliable intelligence-sharing partner.

According to the Washington Post report, Trump shared an ISIS plot involving commercial aircraft and laptop computers with the Russian officials, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The president also reportedly shared the name of a Syrian city in which the intel was collected by an unnamed ally in the Middle East. White House officials denied the report, and said Trump did not disclose how the classified intelligence was gathered, or by which Middle Eastern ally.

But early Tuesday morning, Trump took to Twitter to confirm that he did indeed share intel with the Russians concerning an ISIS plot, for “humanitarian reasons.” The president tweeted:

As President I wanted to share with Russia (at an openly scheduled W.H. meeting) which I have the absolute right to do, facts pertaining….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

…to terrorism and airline flight safety. Humanitarian reasons, plus I want Russia to greatly step up their fight against ISIS & terrorism.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 16, 2017

Still, the main concern is that Russia, which is backing Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime, could glean how and from whom the U.S. receives its intelligence in regard to the fight against ISIS. A senior European intelligence official, speaking anonymously, told the Associated Press on Tuesday morning that if the Post’s report was accurate, his country, which the official did not want to be named, could stop sharing intelligence with the U.S.

Top Republicans were dismayed by the report that the Trump Administration was embroiled in yet another controversy, less than a week after Trump dismissed FBI Director James Comey. “The White House has got to do something soon to bring itself under control and in order,” said Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “To compromise a source is something that you just don’t do, and that’s why we keep the information that we get from intelligence sources so close as to prevent that from happening.”

Sen. John McCain, perhaps the most vocal Republican critic of Trump, called the intelligence sharing “deeply disturbing.” He continued, in a statement on Tuesday: “Reports that this information was provided by a U.S. ally and shared without its knowledge sends a troubling signal to America’s allies and partners around the world and may impair their willingness to share intelligence with us in the future.” Top Senate Democrats also responded with concern:

If true, this is a slap in the face to the intel community. Risking sources & methods is inexcusable, particularly with the Russians. https://t.co/CRiSC024F7

— Mark Warner (@MarkWarner) May 15, 2017

Before the Post story was published on Monday, the White House denied its claims. For its part, the Kremlin derided the report as “complete nonsense.” National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster said the sources and methods of the intelligence gathering was not discussed in the meeting, “and the president did not disclose any military operations that were not already publicly known.” In a press conference on Tuesday, McMaster indicated that Trump was unaware the information he shared with the Russian officials was classified, and that the discussion that took place was “wholly appropriate.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Confirms He Shared Classified Intel with Russian Officials appeared first on Law Street.

Buying and selling limited quantities of marijuana has been legal in Colorado for nearly five years. Public use, however, is prohibited. Still, for years, state lawmakers have been trying to determine how to define “open and public” consumption.

One of the more contentious questions state lawmakers have wrangled over: should residents be permitted to smoke marijuana on their front porches? Or should smoking marijuana on a front porch–where children and other passersby could be exposed to the smoke–be prohibited?

Last week, the 2017 legislative session came to a close without answering these questions. Despite successfully passing a number of other bipartisan priorities–like expanding Medicaid benefits–the Colorado legislature could not reach a consensus as to what “open and public” consumption means.

The House and Senate previously passed different versions of a bill that would clarify the question that has lingered since legalization in 2012. But both chambers have yet to land on a bill that suits them equally.

Senate Bill 184, the version of the bill the Senate passed, would have prohibited marijuana consumption in places where “a substantial number of the public” congregates without restriction. It also would have outlawed pot smoking in “a place not protected from unaided observation lawfully made from outside its perimeter,” which essentially would have included front porches.

A compromise was proposed to both chambers–residents can smoke on their front porch as long as no more than five outside guests were present–but was ultimately flouted.

“We’re talking about your own private property,” Rep. Jovan Melton (D-Aurora) told the Denver Post. “And why the number five? Why did we arbitrarily land on that number? We are literally putting things into statute with no explanation.”

Bob Gardner, the Republican state Senator from Colorado Springs, is concerned about marijuana smoke affecting other people in the neighborhood.

“My concern continues to be that in urban and suburban areas property lines are so close that children walking up and down sidewalks that are not 15 feet from [a home],” he recently told the Denver Post. “And frankly it is a crime in Colorado to do a lot of things on your front porch, no matter how much you own that property.”

In 2012, Colorado became the first state in the country to legalize marijuana for recreational use–in private. Figuring out how cannabis should be consumed publicly is a fairly fuzzy conundrum that has consistently bedeviled state lawmakers.

At one point, the legislature nearly passed a law that would have legalized private pot clubs–bars and cafes where people could congregate and smoke pot. But that bill was scuttled after resistance from Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and others.

Pot clubs do exist, but outside of the legal bounds. Now, because state lawmakers could not properly define what “open and public” consumption means, local jurisdictions will continue to be in charge of interpreting the stipulation.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Definition of “Open and Public” Marijuana Use Still Hazy in Colorado appeared first on Law Street.

A years-long, largely bi-partisan effort to reform the criminal justice system in the U.S., the world’s preeminent jailer, is being undermined by Jeff Sessions. On Friday, the attorney general issued a memo directing federal prosecutors to “charge and pursue the most serious, readily provable offense,” with the “goal of achieving just and consistent results in federal cases.”

Sessions’ memo, issued after weeks of harsh-on-crime rhetoric, effectively reverses a 2013 memo issued by then-attorney general Eric Holder, which directed prosecutors to take a case-by-case approach, and to seek the toughest sentences only for violent offenders. The memo returns the Justice Department to a sentencing approach similar to the one taken by the George W. Bush Administration.

“This is a key part of President Trump’s promise to keep America safe,” Sessions said on Friday, after releasing the short memo to the public. “We know that drugs and crime go hand in hand,” he said. “Drug trafficking is an inherently violent business.” Sessions, who spent the height of the 1980s crack epidemic as a prosecutor, added U.S. attorneys “deserve to be un-handcuffed and not micromanaged from Washington.”

According to the Coalition for Public Safety, an organization that partners with both progressive and conservative groups to push criminal justice reform, there are upwards of two million people incarcerated in the U.S., a 500 percent increase over the past 30 years. One quarter of the world’s entire prisoner population is in the U.S. In a statement in response to Sessions’ memo, the group’s president Steve Hawkins, along with U.S. Justice Action Network’s Holly Harris, said:

Research has shown, time and again, that lengthy prison terms for lower-level offenders do not increase public safety. Federal prosecutors have a responsibility to enforce the law firmly, but need the flexibility to do so in ways that will best serve their communities and protect public safety. That’s why we have and continue to support congressional efforts to reform sentencing.

“Locking up people who don’t pose a threat to public safety is a waste of taxpayer money and law enforcement resources, and it doesn’t deter crime,” they added. Congress failed to pass a bipartisan reform bill last year, despite widespread support, and now, with the Justice Department’s shift in tone and official policy, a federal effort is less likely. States, even Republican bastions with high prison populations, are now leading the charge to reform how non-violent drug offenders are punished and treated.

While there are some Republicans who oppose a more lenient approach to incarceration, many prominent Republican senators–and activists like the Koch brothers–back reform. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), a prominent conservative advocate for criminal justice reform, wrote on Twitter on Friday: “To be tough on crime we have to be smart on crime. That is why criminal justice reform is a conservative issue”

Sessions’ memo does allow for “circumstances in which good judgement would lead a prosecutor to conclude that a strict application” of the new policy is “not warranted.” Holder, who was the attorney general from 2009 to 2015, responded to Sessions’ directive in a statement. “This absurd reversal is driven by voices who have not only been discredited but until now have been relegated to the fringes of this debate,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sessions Undermines Bipartisan Push for Criminal Justice Reform appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump’s vow to renegotiate NAFTA is one step closer to materializing: the Senate confirmed Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s U.S. Trade Representative nominee, on Thursday afternoon. The 82-14 vote ended months of uncertainty surrounding the Trump Administration’s trade plans, because it had been functioning without a chief trade envoy. Trump has repeatedly promised to retool the North American Free Trade Agreement with Mexico and Canada. The president has called the 1994 deal a “disaster.”

Lighthizer, 69, has decades of trade experience, both in the public and private sectors. He served as a senior trade official in the Reagan Administration. Since then, Lighthizer has worked as a trade lawyer, representing clients in the U.S. and abroad. His work for foreign firms–between 1985 and 1990, he represented five foreign clients, including Brazil’s government–threatened to derail his nomination.

UPDATE: U.S. Senate confirms Trump’s pick for trade czar, Robert Lighthizer, setting stage for NAFTA renegotiation https://t.co/nlr5Ql8DWS pic.twitter.com/XcnxhXKb2M

— CTV News (@CTVNews) May 11, 2017

A 1995 amendment to the 1974 Trade Act stipulates a nominee who “directly represented, aided, or advised a foreign entity” cannot serve as the U.S. Trade Representative, unless granted a waiver from Congress. But in spite of the potential legal landfalls, the Senate decided that it was high time to install the chief U.S. trade representative, and confirmed Lighthizer by a landslide.

“Mr. Lighthizer’s years of experience in public service, including as staff director for the Senate Finance Committee, as deputy USTR during the Reagan administration, and in private practice make him extremely well qualified to serve as our nation’s trade representative,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, told his colleagues on Thursday from the Senate floor.

Now that he has been confirmed, Lighthizer will move to carry out the Trump Administration’s trade agenda, including exploring ways to renegotiate NAFTA. Lighthizer has also expressed concerns that China is indeed a currency manipulator, a worry Trump promulgated throughout the campaign, but has since walked back on. During his confirmation hearing in March, Lighthizer said he previously believed China “was a substantial currency manipulator,” but whether it still is “is another question.”

Still, though a vast majority of Democrats and Republicans ultimately supported his confirmation, two Republican Senators were in the “nay” camp, Senators John McCain (AZ) and Ben Sasse (NE). In a recent letter to Lighthizer, the two explained their hesitation, saying “your confirmation process has failed to reassure us that you understand the North American Free Trade Agreement’s positive economic benefits to our respective States and the nation as a whole.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Overwhelmingly Approves U.S. Trade Rep Robert Lighthizer appeared first on Law Street.

Three Republican Senators joined the entire field of Democrats on Wednesday to uphold an Obama-era environmental regulation, the first to withstand the Trump Administration’s pointed efforts to roll back the previous administration’s environmental agenda. The Methane Waste Prevention Rule was drafted by the Obama Administration late in his term, part of a flurry of executive actions aimed at bolstering his environmental legacy.

In the weeks leading up to Wednesday’s vote, a handful of Republican Senators were on the fence about withholding or repealing the regulation. A few Democrats were up in the air well. Because of the hurried drafting of the rule in the waning days of the Obama Administration, some saw it as potentially burdensome and not as effective as it could be. In the end, all 48 Democrats and Independents, as well as three Republicans–Senators Lindsey Graham (SC), John McCain (AZ), and Susan Collins (ME)–voted to keep the measure in place.

McCain, who was targeted in an intense lobbying effort by environmental groups in the weeks leading up to the vote, said controlling methane emissions “is an important public health and air quality issue.” He added: “I join the call for strong action to reduce pollution from venting, flaring and leaks associated with oil and gas production operations on public and Indian land.” However McCain, like many Republicans and some Democrats, urged Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke to re-write the rule.

The Bureau of Land Management enacted the regulation last November. It effectively forces oil and gas companies operating on public lands to capture methane, a greenhouse gas, rather than burning it off into the atmosphere. The rule would prevent 180,000 tons of methane from being burned into the atmosphere each year, according to federal estimates. Supporters of the rule contend it is a necessary addition in the fight against climate change. Critics say it is redundant–as many states already draft protections against methane emissions–and inhibits job creation.

“Unfortunately, the previous administration’s methane rule was not a balanced approach,” Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), one of the Republicans who nearly supported keeping the rule, wrote in a statement. “As written, it would have hurt our economy and cost jobs in Ohio by forcing small independent operators to close existing wells and slowing responsible energy production on federal lands. There’s a better way.”

Portman added the Interior Department “should do more to prevent methane venting and flaring on federal lands.” In a letter to Portman, Zinke, the Interior Department secretary, said he would “act within my authority as Secretary to craft solutions that incentivize responsible development.” Zinke added that he shares “concerns regarding methane waste and agree that we must manage our public lands in a pragmatic way.”

Over the past few months, the Trump Administration has been using a 1996 law, the Congressional Review Act, to dismantle a trove of Obama-era environmental regulations. Previously, the law was seldom used by presidents to undo executive actions of their predecessors. The Trump Administration has pushed Congress to utilize its powers 13 times over the past 60 days. But the window allowing the administration to use the bill is expected to end on Thursday; it is only effective within the first 60 days after a regulation is drafted.

But despite the successful preservation of the rule, White House officials signaled that they still intend on drastically reshaping it. Kate MacGregor, the Interior Department’s acting assistant secretary for land and minerals, said: “The vote today in the Senate doesn’t impact the administration’s commitment to spurring investment in responsible energy development and ensuring smart regulatory protections.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Three Republicans Rebuke Trump’s Efforts to Dismantle Environmental Protections appeared first on Law Street.

On May 19, Iran will hold a presidential election, its first since Hassan Rouhani was elected in 2013. Rouhani, a relative moderate who helped broker the nuclear deal with the U.S., is running for re-election against five other candidates. The election pits Rouhani against a host of hard-liners, including Ebrahim Raisi, who has secured the backing of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran’s powerful Revolutionary Guard.

During a speech on Wednesday, Khamenei, who holds greater powers than the president, suggested tensions are growing in the weeks before the election. He bluntly said any troublemakers, anybody seeking to disrupt the election “will definitely be slapped in the face.” It seems Khamenei, who has been Iran’s supreme leader since 1989, was suggesting that protests would be met with violence.

Many Iranians saw the 2009 election as a rigged affair in favor of then-incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Millions flooded the streets in protest; dozens were killed, hundreds more were arrested. Ahmadinejad, an extremely controversial figure who took a hard stance against the U.S. and Israel (he’s a Holocaust denier and has called for Israel’s destruction), registered to run for a third term in the coming election.

In April, Iranian authorities rejected Ahmadinejad’s bid, along with 1,636 other presidential hopefuls. The pool of six candidates who were chosen include the mayor of Tehran, Iran’s capital city. Rouhani, however, is widely expected to net a second term. His presidency has largely been defined by his promise to kick-start the Iranian economy, which he contends the nuclear deal helped achieve.

Forged in 2015, the deal lifted sanctions off Iran’s economy, thawing billions of dollars worth of assets. Many Iranians, however, have not felt a substantial change in their daily lives. The deal was also opposed by Iran’s hard-line clerics and its Revolutionary Guard, who saw the deal as a threat to their own economic power. Rouhani’s platform rests on the success of the deal, which he contends needs time to pan out.

But Iran’s most powerful figures want a president more in line with their hard-line ideology. Raisi, who is close to Khamenei, is accused of helping to orchestrate a 1988 plot that killed thousands of political prisoners. He is also seen as a potential successor to Khamenei, who is 77. Electing Raisi could heighten tensions between Iran, the West, and Israel.

Iran is currently on the opposing side in proxy wars being fought in Syria and Yemen. It also funds Hezbollah, a Lebanese militant group that the U.S. and Israel deem a terrorist organization. Under a more hard-line president like Raisi, who holds virulently anti-Western views, these conflicts could worsen. In addition, the nuclear deal could hold less weight, as a leader like Raisi has less stake than Rouhani in its ultimate success.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What to Expect in the Upcoming Iranian Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

Astounding Democrats and Republicans alike, President Donald Trump fired FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday evening. The abrupt firing ignited widespread calls for a special, independent inquiry into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. 

Comey was leading a probe into Trump’s and his campaign associates’ ties to Russian actors during the 2016 campaign; Russian hackers delivered Democratic operatives’ emails to WikiLeaks, which in turn made the emails public through an online database. U.S. intelligence agencies, including the FBI, concluded that the cyber-meddling was intended to assist Trump.

Comey lost the confidence of almost everyone in Washington, Republican and Democrat alike. When things calm down, they will be thanking me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

Lawmakers expressed worry immediately after the Comey firing that the FBI’s inquiry into the Trump-Russia ties could be compromised. “If there was ever a time when circumstances warranted a special prosecutor, it is right now,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on Wednesday morning. And Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) said in a statement posted to his Twitter account that the timing of this firing is “very troubling,” and that it represents “the loss of an honorable public servant” and “a loss for the nation.”

According to people familiar with the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that led to Comey’s ouster, Trump was upset with Comey on two accounts: the ongoing Russia investigation, and his public rebuttal of  Trump’s claims that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower during the campaign. The White House is also saying that Comey’s dismissal was a result of his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

“While I greatly appreciate you informing me, on three separate occasions, that I am not under investigation, I nevertheless concur with the judgment of the Department of Justice that you are not able to effectively lead the bureau,” read Trump’s letter to Comey.

The Democrats have said some of the worst things about James Comey, including the fact that he should be fired, but now they play so sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 10, 2017

On Wednesday, before Trump was set to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, he told reporters he fired Comey “because he was not doing a good job.” Trump dispatched his aides, including counselor Kellyanne Conway and Vice President Mike Pence, to defend the decision. People familiar with Trump’s deliberations said he was surprised at the torrent of negative reactions–from Democrats, Republicans, and the press–that have followed Comey’s dismissal.

Meanwhile, current and former FBI officials, including Comey himself, were reportedly flabbergasted at the news of Comey’s ouster. “We just have no idea why this happened. No idea,” one recently retired top FBI official told Politico. “No one knew this was coming. Everyone is just shocked that this happened.”

There were conflicting reports over who exactly took the lead in the decision to fire Comey. Some said Attorney General Jeff Sessions and his deputy Rod Rosenstein led the charge. Rosenstein wrote a letter released Tuesday that pointed to Comey’s handling of the Clinton investigation as the grounds for his dismissal, saying “I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgement that he was mistaken.” Other White House officials told reporters that this was a unilateral decision by Trump, who directed the Justice Department to fish out a reason to fire the director.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Did Trump Fire FBI Director James Comey? appeared first on Law Street.

A police officer in Seattle was arrested last Friday on charges of conspiring to distribute hundreds of pounds of marijuana. According to the FBI, which has been investigating the trafficking scheme since the summer of 2015, Officer Alex Chapackdee would drive pot from Seattle to Baltimore and other neighboring cities in Virginia and Maryland.

A preliminary hearing for the 44-year-old is tentatively scheduled for May 22, but that hearing could be canceled if the grand jury returns an indictment in the case.

.@SeattlePD officer Alex Chapackdee described as ‘good, caring cop.’ Now facing drug charge. More reaction live at 6:30 @KIRO7Seattle pic.twitter.com/xqaRwLoakS

— DeborahHorne (@DeborahKIRO7) May 8, 2017

Seattle Police Chief Kathleen O’Toole called Officer Chapackdee’s conduct “disgraceful and disappointing” in a statement Monday.

“While [it is] always disturbing to investigate one of our own, I am proud of the detectives and commanders who worked diligently on this case,” the statement said. “While he will have his due process in the courts, I hope these charges demonstrate to our community that SPD will not tolerate corrupt behavior in our ranks.”

The federal complaint detailed the trafficking scheme that Chapackdee was involved in. While driving in police vans, Chapackdee and others would allegedly deliver hundreds of pounds of marijuana from the Seattle area to Baltimore and other surrounding neighborhoods in Virginia and Maryland. The mules were working on behalf of Tuan Van Le, Chapackdee’s brother-in-law and ringleader of the trafficking scheme.

Trafficking any amount of marijuana across state lines is considered a federal offense. If convicted, Chapackdee faces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years in prison, with a maximum stint of 40 years. He could also face a fine of up to $5 million.

Federal prosecutors allege that Chapackdee and his associates–a team of four–took several one-way flights from Seattle to Baltimore’s BWI airport in order to pick up cash payments for Le’s Seattle-grown marijuana, which they then drove back to the west coast.

According to the FBI’s complaint, Le would also pay Chapackdee $10,000 a month “to keep an eye on all of Tuan Van Le’s marijuana grow houses” and to provide him with information about law-enforcement activities.

Chapackdee’s attorney said that his client’s participation in the marijuana trafficking scheme is a “huge fall from grace, an embarrassment.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Seattle Cop Caught Smuggling Marijuana to Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

Over a two-hour period on Monday, a federal appeals court in Richmond heard arguments on a case concerning President Donald Trump’s revised travel ban, issued via executive order in March. The 13-judge panel was split between those who argued that Trump’s order should be examined on its merits and text, and others who contended that the directive should be viewed in the context of the president’s past statements on Muslim immigration.

The hearing, which was the first test for Trump’s contentious executive order in a federal appellate court, saw arguments from Jeffrey Wall, the acting solicitor general of the U.S. who defended the government’s position, and Omar Jadwat, a lawyer from the ACLU representing the plaintiffs. The fact that 13 judges heard arguments–in a court that usually consists of a three-judge panel–indicates the weight that this case holds.

Questions over how the travel ban should be viewed–either by its merits or in light of Trump’s public statements–were generally split between the Democratic-appointed judges and the Republican-appointed ones. Judge Robert King, appointed by President Bill Clinton, said Trump has “never repudiated what he said about the Muslim ban,” alluding to Trump’s calls for a freeze on Muslim immigration during the campaign.

Judge Pamela Harris, appointed by President Barack Obama, likewise read the travel ban as an anti-Muslim missive. The ban “has a disparate impact on Muslims,” she said. But Judge Paul Niemeyer, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, questioned the wisdom of reading too much into past statements. “Can we look at his college speeches?” he asked. “How about his speeches to businessmen 20 years ago?” He added: “I just don’t know where this stops.”

Wall, representing the Trump Administration in the hearing, said Trump’s past statements do not indicate any motives beyond the text of the order. That is, that it’s a national security measure. “Candidates talk about things on the campaign trail all the time,” he said. Wall also denied the charge that the ban is effectively a Muslim ban. “This is not a Muslim ban” he said. “It has nothing to do with religion. Its operation has nothing to do with religion.” 

Trump’s revised March order banned travel for 90 days from six countries in the Middle East and North Africa: Somalia, Iran, Syria, Libya, Sudan, and Yemen. It also froze admittance of refugees for 120 days, and dropped the number of refugees allowed to enter the U.S. from 120,000 to 50,000. Two federal judges, one in Maryland and one in Hawaii, blocked parts of Trump’s order in March.

Monday’s hearing at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is an appeal of the Maryland ruling. Next Monday, a federal appeals court in Seattle will review an appeal of the Hawaii ruling. Ultimately, regardless of how the judges in Richmond rule, the case is likely to end up at the Supreme Court.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Latest with Trump’s Travel Ban? appeared first on Law Street.

THC, the psychoactive compound in cannabis, improves the memory of aging mice, according to a new study published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine. By conducting cognitive tests on dozens of mice, the researchers determined small doses of THC improved the older creatures’ ability to remember how to perform a number of tasks. Proving the same is true for aging human brains will be quite difficult, however, as recent studies have found that THC can have adverse affects on developing human brains.

“Together, these results reveal a profound, long-lasting improvement of cognitive performance resulting from a low dose of THC treatment in mature and old animals,” the German and Israeli scientists who conducted the study wrote.

The scientists provided some of the mice–aged two months, 12 months, and 18 months old–with daily doses of THC. Others were given a control substance that did not contain THC. The older mice–the 12- and 18-month-olds–showed an improvement in their ability to solve memory-based tasks–like navigating a water maze–with THC in their system.

The two-month-old mice, however, showed the reverse effect. According to the researchers, the younger mice who had ingested THC showed a decline in their ability to solve the cognitive tasks. This mirrors the findings of studies that suggest cannabis has adverse affects on developing human brains. One recent study showed that young people who smoked marijuana daily for a period of a few years almost directly led to cognitive decline.

In the U.S., marijuana is prohibited at the federal level. In recent years, however, eight states and D.C. have legalized pot for recreational use; twenty-nine states (and D.C.) have legalized marijuana use for medical purposes, and nearly a dozen others allow some form of CBD (cannabidiol, a non-psychoactive compound of the cannabis plant) use, also for medical purposes.

As the laws loosen, and the stigma surrounding marijuana use dissipates, marijuana-as-medicine is becoming an increasingly likely reality. Therapeutic uses for marijuana–to help alleviate pain, for instance–have been observed anecdotally for years. But there’s not much in the realm of concrete data proving marijuana’s medical properties exists. And further research is difficult because of the DEA’s classification of marijuana as a Schedule I substance. There is only one government-sanctioned research facility in the U.S.

But despite the lack of robust scientific data on marijuana’s effects on the human brain, the researchers of the recent study published in Nature Medicine are hopeful that THC may one day prove to be a reliable tonic for an aging brain. They wrote that a “chronic, low-dose treatment with THC or cannabis extracts could be a potential strategy to slow down or even to reverse cognitive decline in the elderly.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Marijuana Improve Memory in Aging Brains? appeared first on Law Street.

The world watched with bated breath on Sunday to see if the tide of nationalism sweeping through Western democracies would rise even higher in France. By voting in Emmanuel Macron–a proponent of the European Union–the French people, for the time being, stemmed that rising tide. But Sunday’s election, in which Macron won over 66 percent of the vote, was not a death knell for populism.

Marine Le Pen, the face of France’s populist movement, was roundly defeated by Macron, but one-third of the country supported her populist nationalism and anti-EU posturing. Equally as important to the future of France, however, is the parliamentary elections set to take place between June 11 and 18, which will shape France’s government and determine the length of Macron’s leash as he pursues his agenda.

As France moves beyond this divisive election, it is unclear exactly where it is heading. For one, Le Pen’s National Front party resonated with some 10 million people, a great deal more than it did in 2002 when her father was crushed in the run-off by Republican Jacques Chirac. But the far-right National Front was not the only fringe player this time around. Far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon attracted hordes of young people and others who are equally as disaffected by the European project and its moneyed elites.

Populist yearnings, or at least curiosities, will not simply vanish because of Macron’s resounding victory. In 2017, for the first time in decades, France’s top two parties were not of the traditional left-wing, right-wing dichotomy. People in France–and, seemingly, around the globe–are craving change. If Macron is able to deliver tangible benefits to the people–from the factory worker in France’s hinterlands to the young, unemployed Parisian–then perhaps he can bring about a new stability that will defend against hard-liners like Le Pen and Mélenchon.

The first test of Macron’s effectiveness will come next month, during the two-round parliamentary elections, which follow the runoff format used in the presidential election. His En Marche! (Onward!) party, formed last year, will have to attract a sizable swath of parliamentary seats to carry out Macron’s centrist vision.

Conditions in France have clearly enabled populism to grow–on both ends of the political spectrum. Macron’s most important–and most challenging–task will be to appeal to those who voted him in (many who did so reluctantly, more against Le Pen than for Macron), and to create conditions and opportunities that snuff the growing populist flame. After Sunday’s vote, Macron appeared ready for the myriad challenges that face him and the republic he will now lead.

“I understand the divisions of our country that have led some to vote for extremists,” he said. “I understand the anger, the anxiety, the doubts that a great part among us have also expressed.” Later Sunday evening, Macron, standing in front of the Louvre, pledged to make good on his all-inclusive platform: “I will do everything I can in the coming five years to make sure you never have a reason to vote for extremism again,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emmanuel Macron Won the French Election, but Populism is Not Dead appeared first on Law Street.

Pro-marijuana groups in Michigan submitted language to the Board of State Canvassers on Friday for a ballot initiative to legalize recreational marijuana. If the measure makes it to the November 2018 ballot, Michigan would become the ninth state to fully legalize cannabis for adult use. Spearheaded by the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, the legalization push follows a failed attempt to get a similar measure on the November 2016 ballot.

“Our country’s marijuana prohibition laws have failed miserably. About 20,000 nonviolent offenders are arrested annually for marijuana possession and cultivation, causing an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars and choking our already overburdened court system,” John Truscott, a spokesman for the Coalition to Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol, said in a press release.

“This initiative would make Michigan a leader in responsible adult-use marijuana laws, while also creating an entirely new industry and generating badly needed tax revenue for our state,” he added. The Coalition is bolstered by a national marijuana advocacy group, the D.C.-based Marijuana Policy Project, which is expected to bring experience and cash to the 2018 campaign.

The group backed some of the campaigns that wound up on ballots last November, when California, Maine, Massachusetts, and Nevada passed measures that legalized adult use. In total, eight states and D.C. have legalized recreational pot. Dozens more have legalized medical marijuana. Michigan voters passed a medical marijuana measure in 2008.

Over 250,000 voter signatures are required–within a 180-day period–before the measure can be placed on the ballot. Before the signatory search can begin, however, the Board of State Canvassers must review and approve the ballot’s language. A meeting has not yet been scheduled. In the 2016 legalization campaign, the Coalition secured enough signatures–over 300,000–but not within 180 days of the Board’s approval.

The measure submitted on Friday would legalize the possession and sale of up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana for people who are 21 and up. A ten percent excise tax would be added to marijuana sales, on top of Michigan’s current six percent sales tax. Five groups would be subject to regulations according to the ballot initiative: cultivators (in classes of 100 plants, 500 plants, and 2,000 plants), processors, testing facilities, transporters, and retailers.

Tax revenues from marijuana sales would be split down the middle, with half going to educational institutions, and the other half to Michigan cities and counties that allow marijuana businesses to operate. The proposed ballot measure would also legalize the cultivation of industrial hemp. Though Michigan’s attorney general has yet to stake out a position on legalization, the state’s law enforcement agencies have expressed opposition to the effort.

“There’s no good that I can see that will come out of this,” Blaine Koops, executive director of the Michigan Sheriff’s Association, recently told the Detroit Free Press. “One of the problems we have is that there’s no way to measure the level of intoxication from this drug. And an increase in criminal behavior in all likelihood will occur.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michigan May Have a Marijuana Legalization Measure on the 2018 Ballot appeared first on Law Street.

Adding to its recent legal woes, Uber is facing a criminal probe from the Justice Department, according to people familiar with the investigation. The investigation, which concerns the ride sharing service’s controversial Greyball tracking tool, is reportedly in its early stages. A federal inquiry does not necessarily indicate wrongdoing; criminal charges being brought against Uber executives are also not a guarantee.

Since The New York Times uncovered its existence in March, Greyball has been a lightning rod of controversy. Greyball is a technology that allows Uber to present fake versions of its app to people it does not want in its cars–like city officials looking to reign in the company’s illegal practices–and track them using credit card data and other personal information. Uber claims it used the tool to protect its drivers in new markets, some of which the service operated in illegally, like Portland, Oregon.

After the Times’ report in March, an Uber spokesman said Greyball “denies ride requests to users who are violating our terms of service — whether that’s people aiming to physically harm drivers, competitors looking to disrupt our operations, or opponents who collude with officials on secret ‘stings’ meant to entrap drivers.”

But officials in cities like Portland, where Uber fought through legal hurdles in late 2014 before it began legally operating in the city in April 2015, say the tool was used for more nefarious reasons. According to Portland transportation officials, Uber intentionally skirted 16 city officials who were looking to shut-down the service because it was operating illegally at the time. Uber’s attorneys say the tool was used “exceedingly sparingly” in Portland; it had not been used since April 2015, they said.

Uber and its embattled chief executive, Travis Kalanick, has been embroiled in controversy for much of the year. From a spate of sexual assault accusations to a video of Kalanick berating an Uber driver, the $70 billion dollar behemoth is facing uncertainty as it enters Silicon Valley’s newest frontier: self-driving vehicles. In fact, Uber’s future in that field is increasingly in doubt. It was also recently hit with a lawsuit from Google’s autonomous car division, Waymo, which accused Uber of stealing its trade secrets.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Department of Justice Opens Criminal Investigation into Uber’s Greyball appeared first on Law Street.

With France’s consequential election just around the corner–the final round is Sunday–it’s easy to forget another key U.S. ally is set to choose its next leader in the coming days: South Korea.

Taking place just over a month after former President Park Geun-hye’s impeachment, South Korea’s presidential election could have wide-ranging effects on how the U.S.–and its Asian allies–deals with the threat posed by North Korea.

Early voting began on Thursday at 3,510 stations across the country; the official vote takes place next Tuesday, May 9. Moon Jae-in, a 64-year-old former human rights lawyer, is the current front-runner, polling far ahead of his opponents. A center-left member of the Democratic Party of Korea, Moon favors engagement with his northern neighbor and, eventually, reunification.

“The North and South were one people sharing one language and one culture for about 5,000 years,” he told Time Magazine in a recent interview. “Ultimately, we should reunite.”

The son of refugees from North Korea, Moon could add a layer of complication for U.S. policy in the region if elected. For one, he opposed the deployment of the Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile system, which was recently deployed in a South Korean village. The system is meant to defend against missile launches from the North, but China, an important ally of the South and a vital patron of the North, strongly opposes THAAD.

As the U.S. aims to further isolate North Korea, the likely next leader of South Korea might choose the opposite path. The U.S. House of Representatives just passed a measure to squeeze Kim Jong-un’s regime with tighter sanctions; the Senate is expected to pass the measure as well.

President Donald Trump has pressed China to do more to pressure North Korea to reign in its nuclear weapons program. Analysts predict the North is readying its sixth nuclear test in a decade, which could further increase tensions.

Moon, who narrowly lost to Park in the 2012 election, hews closer to the “sunshine policy” of former President Roh Moo-hyun, whose government he also worked for. That policy called for economic investment with North Korea, as a way to deepen ties between the North and South. Millions of dollars were poured into the North, and critics contend the policy bolstered the North Korean regime’s nuclear program.

Ahn Cheol-soo is Moon’s top competitor. His North Korea policy is at the other end of the spectrum and more in-line with the isolationist approach of the United States. Ahn, who supports the THAAD system, recently said, “If the North is about to launch a nuclear attach, we should first strike the source of attack.”

Ahn and Trump share another similarity: both went to the Wharton business school at University of Pennsylvania.

Despite his softer stance on North Korea, Moon sounds prepared to cooperate with both the U.S. and China. At a campaign event in April, Moon said he will “create a government most feared by North Korea, most trusted by the United States and most reliable for China.”

He also sounds confident that he and Trump will be able to reach common ground. “I believe we will be able to share more ideas, talk better and reach agreements without difficulty,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Does the South Korean Election Mean for the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.