06 October 20
Fund-Raising is the Hardest Thing We Do
With a budget, this Reader Supported News agency prospers. It's worth it no matter how difficult. Public donations are capable of building a news agency, of the readers, by the readers and for the readers.
Nothing makes the corporate news cartel pay attention faster than a Reader Supported challenger. Get us a budget, we know you can do it.
Thanks to all.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611
06 October 20
It's Live on the HomePage Now:
Reader Supported News
Robert Reich | Trump, Covid and Empathy for the World's Least Empathetic Man
Robert Reich, Guardian UK
Reich writes: "Joe Biden is praying for him. Kamala Harris sends him heartfelt wishes. President Obama reminds us we're all in this together and we want to make sure everyone is healthy. But hold on: why should we feel empathy for one of the most unempathetic people in the world?"
Biden is praying for him – and yet the Trump campaign’s negative ads continue. There’s an asymmetry of decency here
or about a minute today I found myself feeling sorry for Donald Trump. The poor man is now “battling” Covid-19 (the pugilistic verb is showing up all over the news). He’s in the hospital. He’s out of shape. He’s 74 years old. His chief of staff reportedly says his symptoms are “very concerning”.
President Obama reminds us we’re all in this together and we want to make sure everyone is healthy.
But hold on: why should we feel empathy for one of the most unempathetic people in the world?
One reason is out of respect. He’s a human being. He’s our president.
Yet there’s an asymmetry here. While the Biden campaign has taken down all negative television advertising, the Trump campaign’s negative ads continue non-stop.
And at almost the same time that Biden, Harris and Obama offered prayers and consoling words, the Trump campaign blasted “Lyin’ Obama and Phony Kamala Harris” and charged that “Sleepy Joe isn’t fit to be YOUR President”.
Can you imagine if Biden had contracted Covid rather than Trump? Trump would be all over him. He’d attack Biden as weak, feeble and old. He’d mock Biden’s mask-wearing – “See, masks don’t work!” – and lampoon his unwillingness to hold live rallies: “Guess he got Covid in his basement!”
How can we even be sure Trump has the disease? He’s lied about everything else. Maybe he’ll reappear in a day or two, refreshed and relaxed, saying, “Covid is no big deal.” He’ll claim he took hydroxychloroquine, and it cured him. He’ll boast that he won the “battle” with Covid because he’s strong and powerful, without crediting the best medical care money can buy.
Meanwhile, his “battle” has distracted the nation from revelations that he’s a tax cheat who paid only $750 in taxes his first year in office, and barely anything for 15 years before that; and that he’s a failed businessman who’s still losing money.
And from his cringeworthy debate performance last week, in which he didn’t want to condemn white supremacists.
It even takes our mind off the major reason Covid is out of control in America: because Trump blew it.
He downplayed it, pushed responsibility on to governors, and then demanded they allow businesses to reopen – too early – in order to make the economy look good before the election.
He has muzzled and disputed experts at the CDC, promoted crank cures, held maskless campaign events, and encouraged followers not to wear masks. All of this has contributed to tens of thousands of unnecessary American deaths.
Trump’s “battle” with Covid also diverts attention from his and Mitch McConnell’s perversions of American democracy.
This is where the asymmetry is deeper. McConnell is now moving to confirm Trump’s supreme court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, after having prevented Obama’s nominee from getting a Senate vote for almost a year on the basis of a concocted “rule” that the next president should decide.
Yet Biden won’t talk about increasing the size of the court in order to balance it, and Democratic leaders have shot down the idea.
Nor do Biden and top Democrats want to suggest making Washington DC and Puerto Rico into states – a step that would remedy the bizarre inequities in the Senate where a bare majority of Republicans representing 11 million fewer Americans than their Democratic counterparts are able to confirm a supreme court justice.
It would also help rebalance the electoral college, which made Trump president in 2016 despite losing the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by more than 3 million.
Democrats worry this would strike the public as unfair. Unfair, when Trump won’t even commit to a peaceful transition of power and refuses to be bound by the results?
When he’s already claiming the election is rigged against him and will be fraudulent unless he wins?
When he’s now readying slates of Trump electors to be certified in states he’ll allege he lost because of fraud? When he’s urging his followers to intimidate Biden voters at the polls?
Whether responding to Trump’s hospitalization this weekend or to Trump’s larger political maneuvers, Democrats want to act decently and nicely, to take the high road and be fair. They want to protect democratic norms, values and institutions.
This is admirable. It’s also what Democrats say they stand for.
But the other side isn’t playing the same game. Trump and his enablers will do anything to retain and enlarge their power.
It’s possible to be sympathetic toward Trump this weekend while acknowledging that he is subjecting America to a moral test.
What kind of society does the nation want: one based on decency and democracy, or on viciousness and raw power?
Donald Trump at a rally. (photo: David Hume Kennerly/Getty Images)
'Maybe I'm Immune': Trump Returns to White House, Removes Mask Despite Infection
Scott Neuman, NPR
Neuman writes: "President Trump, who spent the weekend in the hospital being treated for COVID-19, made a theatrical return to the White House on Monday evening, disembarking Marine One and walking the staircase to the South Portico entrance, where he turned to face the cameras, removed his mask and gave his signature two thumbs up."
resident Trump, who spent the weekend in the hospital being treated for COVID-19, made a theatrical return to the White House on Monday evening, disembarking Marine One and walking the staircase to the South Portico entrance, where he turned to face the cameras, removed his mask and gave his signature two thumbs up.Shortly before, a masked Trump had emerged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, where he was receiving treatment, pumping his fist and giving a thumbs up as he ignored questions from reporters.
In a video recorded at the White House that he tweeted later, the president seemed somewhat more circumspect about a virus that he has often downplayed, along with measures to halt its spread, such as wearing masks.
Trump thanked the staff of Walter Reed and said that during his three-night stay he had "learned so much about coronavirus."
"One thing that's for certain – don't let it dominate you. Don't be afraid of it. You're going to beat it," he said. "We have the best medical equipment. We have the best medicines. All developed recently. And you're going to beat it."
"I went, I didn't feel so good," he said, but added that "two days ago, I could have left two days ago. Two days ago I felt great, like better than I have in a long time. I said just recently, better than 20 years ago."
Trump's physician, Sean Conley, said he is cautiously optimistic about the president's prognosis but that medical staff needed to remain on guard for another week.
"Over the past 24 hours, the president's condition has continued to improve," Conley told reporters at a news briefing Monday. "He's met or exceeded all standard hospital discharge criteria."
"Although he may not be entirely out of the woods yet, the team and I agree that all our evaluations, and most importantly, his clinical status, support the president's safe return home, where he will be surrounded by world-class medical care, 24/7."
The president's treatment has included the steroid dexamethasone and a five-day course of remdesivir. Dr. Brian Garibaldi told reporters on Monday that Trump would get a fifth dose of remdesivir at the White House on Tuesday night and that he continues to receive a steroid.
Asked by a reporter if he had concerns about a possible worsening or reversal of the president's condition, Conley responded: "You're absolutely right."
"That's why we all remain cautiously optimistic and on guard, because we are in a bit of uncharted territory when it comes to a patient who received the therapies he has so early in the course," Conley said.
"The first week of COVID, and in particular the days seven to 10, are the most critical in determining the likely course of this illness. At this time the team and I are extremely happy with the progress the president has made," he said.
Trump tweeted early Friday that he and the first lady had tested positive for the coronavirus just hours after they went into quarantine following a positive test for White House adviser Hope Hicks. Since then, at least nine others in Trump's inner circle have tested positive for the virus that causes COVID-19.
Critics have charged that the Trump administration's slow response to the growing pandemic — and the mixed messages coming from the president about the use of masks — helped the virus gain a foothold in the U.S., where it has spread rapidly. The first U.S. case was detected in January, and since then, nearly 7.5 million Americans have become infected with more than 210,000 COVID-19 deaths — the highest of any country.
In the video on Monday, the president defended his actions regarding the pandemic, particularly his decision to open up the economy even as the disease showed no signs of waning.
"We're going back to work. We're going to be out front," he said. "As your leader, I had to do that. I knew there's danger to it, but I had to do it. I stood out front. I led," he said.
"Nobody that's a leader would not do what I did," the president added. "And, I know there's a risk; there's a danger. But that's OK."
"And now I'm better. And maybe I'm immune, I don't know. But don't let it dominate your lives. Get out there. Be careful," he said.
FBI Director Christopher Wray. (image: Daily Beast)
Trump Wants to Oust FBI Director Chris Wray After the Election
Asawin Suebsaeng and Spencer Ackerman, The Daily Beast
Excerpt: "President Donald Trump has had difficulty articulating a second-term agenda. But there is one thing he's itching to do if he wins another four years in the White House: ditch his FBI director Christopher Wray, whom he privately trashes as a tool of a supposed 'deep state.'"
The president has indicated that he wants to cut loose his top cop. He’s even solicited recommendations for a replacement.
resident Donald Trump has had difficulty articulating a second-term agenda. But there is one thing he's itching to do if he wins another four years in the White House: ditch his FBI director Christopher Wray, whom he privately trashes as a tool of a supposed “deep state.”
Over the past three months before testing positive for COVID-19, the president had indicated to several senior officials and close associates that he intends to replace Wray near the start of a second term in office, routinely expressing dissatisfaction with the director’s performance and apparent unwillingness to swiftly root out Trump’s perceived enemies in the bureau, two people familiar with the president’s private remarks said. One of these sources said that when the issue of Wray’s alleged subversion came up last month, Trump said that the matter would be resolved “next year,” which this source took to mean after the 2020 election, assuming Trump emerges victorious.
Trump’s desire to dump Wray is pronounced enough that, this summer, he solicited recommendations from close advisers on who they think he should choose as a replacement, the knowledgeable sources said. One of them said they provided Trump with “a couple suggestions” but declined to name names. Neither of these people who’d spoken to the president recently about Wray recalled him mentioning anything about axing the FBI director before the November election.
The political calendar complicates plans to fire Wray. If Trump dumps him during the intermediary period before a new Congress is sworn in, or if the Republicans keep hold of the Senate, Trump can afford to lose potentially a handful of Republican votes when the nominee comes up for confirmation. Should the Democrats take control of the Senate and Trump maintain office, it’ll be harder to place a loyalist into the post.
As Axios reported in May, efforts among prominent Trumpworld figures to convince the president to fire Wray, who was confirmed with an overwhelming Senate vote, has rapidly intensified this year. Late last month, White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows openly mocked Wray during a CBS interview, alleging that the FBI director “has a hard time finding emails in his own FBI let alone figuring out whether there is any kind of voter fraud.” Last week, after the director of national intelligence circulated Russian disinformation accusing Hillary Clinton of fabricating allegations that Russia meddled in the 2016 election on Trump’s behalf, Trump ally Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) called Wray “complicit” and demanded his resignation. Wray joined the FBI about a year after the FBI’s Trump-Russia inquiry began.
Lawyer and conservative-media darling Joe diGenova, who’s informally advised Trump, told The Daily Beast on Wednesday evening that the current FBI director has “been completely inadequate and not up to the challenge of reforming the FBI,” arguing that Wray should have delivered a speech to FBI officials following the ouster of his predecessor, James Comey, about how he was “embarrassed by previous leadership.” By not doing so, the Trump loyalist contended, Wray “sent a signal that what preceded was OK. That is not a leader.”
DiGenova, who said his preferred pick for the next director is former New York City police commissioner Ray Kelly, said, “I hope Christopher Wray is removed tomorrow.”
Wray has had a rough tenure at the FBI after he was tapped by Trump to replace Comey in 2017. Trump and his allies have accused the FBI of misconduct for investigating Trump’s connections to the Russian interference in the 2016 election—some of it deserved. That’s only intensified in 2020, as Wray’s FBI has been conspicuous by its absence in the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security crackdowns on protests in Washington, D.C. and Portland, Oregon.
But Wray has been particularly out of step with the president’s priorities in recent weeks. He testified, accurately, that antifa was more a “movement or an ideology”—antifascism—than the terrorist organization Trump portrays. He has emphasized that Russia is a particular danger for 2020 election interference. He, like the FBI, has warned that white supremacist violence is the premier domestic terrorism threat facing the United States. And he has undermined Trump’s misinformation campaign that mail-in voting is a vector for election theft, telling Congress for the FBI there is no evidence of “coordinated national voter fraud.”
The FBI director’s ongoing public divergences with Trump, and Wray’s reluctance to settle Trump’s scores, have further solidified the president’s desire to remove Wray, those close to Trump said.
In the past three weeks, a source close to Trump recounted the president suddenly bringing up Wray in an unrelated conversation, citing critical TV commentary he’d recently watched, including that of Fox Business star and Trump confidant Lou Dobbs savaging the bureau’s director. Dobbs regularly broadcasts segments portraying Wray as a leader in some nefarious “Obamagate” “cover-up.” The host floated the idea of indicting Wray this summer.
The FBI declined comment on this story, as did two of Wray’s friends. White House spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment.
Many but not all retired FBI agents consider Wray a bulwark against Trump turning a domestic investigative agency with tremendous power over Americans’ freedom into an adjunct of the White House. At a time when Trump has placed loyalists atop crucial security agencies—John Ratcliffe as director of national intelligence, Chad Wolf as acting Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General Bill Barr—there is worry over what a re-elected Trump will instruct a post-Wray FBI to do.
Wilfred Rattigan, a retired FBI special agent, said his colleagues still at the bureau tell him the tensions with Trump are constant distractions.
“Morale is dipping. Instead of focusing on their mission and their mandate, they’re concerned with what comes out of the White House next,” said Rattigan. “‘Is Wray out, who’s going to replace him, are we going to go back to what we were before? It’s a distraction.”
Rattigan saw previous directors clash with presidents, like Louis Freeh did with Bill Clinton in the 1990s. But he said the situation with Trump is different.
“If your leadership is entangled with the White House over who should and should not be investigated and when, what kind of message does that send to the troops?” he said.
Michael German, another retired FBI special agent, pointed out that Wray’s statements—and the bureau’s actions—are less opposed to Trump than Trump’s loyalists believe.
“The idea that the FBI in general or Director Wray in particular are anti-Trump or oppositional to the Trump policies is ludicrous, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump believes it’s true,” said German, now with the Brennan Center for Justice.
In the same congressional testimony where Wray described antifa ephemerally, he contradicted himself by saying antifa was coalescing into “regional small groups or nodes” that the FBI is actively investigating. The FBI has also been documented interrogating arrested protesters in New York to find actionable ties to antifa.
“They’re trying to manufacture a conspiracy case against antifascist groups by interrogating detainees and seeking out information, rather than focusing on white supremacist militants who are moving state to state without much law enforcement intervention,” German said.
Brian O’Hare, the president of the FBI Agents Association, and active-duty FBI special-agents group, declined to comment on the Trump-Wray relationship and praised Wray’s tenure. “Director Wray is committed to the truth and focused on the facts. He has led the Bureau through unprecedented challenges with a steady hand,” O’Hare said.
German added that Wray had the bureau’s “institutional interests as a top priority,” but noted that those interests hardly stand against Trump’s—at least when the FBI isn’t specifically investigating the president.
“If you talk to Black Lives Matter activists or Standing Rock water protectors or environmentalists, the FBI has certainly been aggressive in its suppressive investigations,” German said. “I imagine that could get worse.”
Computer software pioneer John McAfee, 75, has allegedly hid assets including real estate property, a vehicle and a yacht. (photo: Joe Skipper/Reuters
John McAfee, Antivirus Software Pioneer, Arrested in Spain for Tax Evasion in US
Sam Jones, Guardian UK
Jones writes: "The antivirus software entrepreneur John McAfee, who has been indicted for tax evasion in the US after allegedly failing to declare earnings running into millions of dollars, has been arrested by Spanish police while attempting to board a flight from Barcelona to Istanbul."
Entrepreneur indicted for tax evasion in US after failing to declare million-dollars earnings
he antivirus software entrepreneur John McAfee, who has been indicted for tax evasion in the US after allegedly failing to declare earnings running into millions of dollars, has been arrested by Spanish police while attempting to board a flight from Barcelona to Istanbul.
A June indictment charging McAfee with tax evasion and wilful failure to file tax returns was unsealed in federal court in Memphis, Tennessee, on Monday after McAfee’s arrest in Spain, where extradition is pending, the US attorney’s office said.
McAfee, 75, has been charged with evading taxes after failing to report millions earned promoting cryptocurrencies, consulting work, speaking engagements and the sale of the rights to his life story for a documentary.
According to prosecutors, he hid assets from the Internal Revenue Service, including real estate property, a vehicle and a yacht, in the names of other people.
The securities and exchange commission has also brought civil charges against McAfee, alleging he made more than $23.1m (£18m) in undisclosed compensation from false and misleading cryptocurrency recommendations.
A Spanish police source said McAfee had been arrested at Barcelona’s El Prat airport on 3 October.
“He was travelling to Istanbul and when his documents were run through the database, it emerged that he was the subject of a US warrant on fraud charges,” said the source.
Judicial sources told Reuters McAfee had appeared before a high court judge via videolink after his arrest and had been remanded in custody in a Catalan jail pending the extradition process.
Following his detention, McAfee’s official Instagram account posted a “Free McAfee” message accompanied by a photo of him.
The US indictment alleges that McAfee failed to file tax returns from 2014 to 2018, despite receiving “considerable income” from several sources. The indictment does not allege that McAfee received any income or had any connection with the antivirus software company bearing his name during those years, prosecutors said.
If convicted of all charges, he could face up to 30 years in prison.
Since making a fortune with the antivirus software in the 1980s that still bears his name, McAfee has become a self-styled crypto-currency guru, and has 1 million followers on Twitter.
But in recent years, his personal life had drawn as much interest as his professional achievements. He became the subject of frenzied media scrutiny following the unsolved 2012 murder of a neighbour in Belize. McAfee said he knew nothing about the murder, but was worried he may have been the attacker’s intended target.
When the police found him living with a 17-year-old girl and discovered a large arsenal of weapons in his home in the Central American country, McAfee disappeared on a month-long flight that drew breathless media coverage.
The dead neighbour’s family later filed a wrongful death suit against McAfee and last year a court in Florida found against him, ordering him to pay the family more than $25m.
In 2015, McAfee was arrested in the US for driving under the influence and possession of a gun while under the influence.
He was released from detention in the Dominican Republic in July 2019 after he and five others were suspected of travelling on a yacht carrying high-calibre weapons, ammunition and military-style gear, officials in the Caribbean island said at the time.
Andrew Wheeler, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection. (photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
EPA Grants Oklahoma Control Over Tribal Lands
Ti-Hua Chang, TYT
Chang writes: "The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has granted the state of Oklahoma regulatory control over environmental issues on nearly all tribal lands there, TYT has learned. This strips from 38 tribes in Oklahoma their sovereignty over environmental issues."
Agency Decision Reverses Tribal Sovereignty That Was Recognized in Landmark Supreme Court Ruling
This strips from 38 tribes in Oklahoma their sovereignty over environmental issues. It also establishes a legal and administrative pathway to potential environmental abuses on tribal land, including dumping hazardous chemicals like carcinogenic PCBs and petroleum spills, with no legal recourse by the tribes, according to a former high-level official of the EPA.
This also includes hazardous chemicals that are byproducts of petroleum procurement and refining. In 2019, Oklahoma had the fourth largest petroleum industry in the US.
TYT has obtained a copy of the letter EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler sent to Gov. J. Kevin Stitt (R-OK) on October 1. The end of the opening paragraph states simply, “EPA hereby approves Oklahoma's request.”
DOCUMENT: EPA Administrator Wheeler's letter on tribal sovereignty in Oklahoma
TYT previously revealed that on July 22, Stitt requested control of environmental regulations on tribal land involving a wide range of issues. All of Stitt’s requests in his letter were granted by the EPA. They include:
- Hazardous waste dumping on tribal lands which could be any of the hundreds of hazardous chemicals listed by the EPA, including formaldehyde, mercury, lead, asbestos, toxic air pollutants, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), pesticide chemicals, glyphosate, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
- Underground Injection Control, an EPA program used to permit fracking. Fracking uses large amounts of high-pressured water to remove oil and gas from shale rock. It is a contributor to climate change and is known to leave behind contaminated water and toxic pollution.
- Protecting large agricultural polluters in industrial-sized livestock operations, most often dairy cows, hogs or chickens. These mega farms produce enormous amounts of waste, according to the Sierra Club, which estimates that “the quantity of urine and feces from even the smallest CAFO [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation] is equivalent to the urine and feces produced by 16,000 humans.” In his letter, Wheeler acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court decision McGirt v. Oklahoma precipitated this EPA action. The McGirt ruling found that, by treaty, much of eastern Oklahoma is still Native American territory, which could mean under five tribes’ jurisdiction including for taxation and regulation. In anticipation of the decision, the Seminole tribe in 2018 issued an eight percent tax on oil and gas wells on its reservation land.
The EPA has now granted the State of Oklahoma the same authority it had before McGirt on environmental issues, especially on petroleum. It can do this because federal legislation can nullify Supreme Court rulings. In 2005, a midnight rider attached to a transportation bill took away environmental regulatory control by Oklahoma tribes if requested by the state as it has now done. The Oklahoma state government is pro-fossil fuel and pro-big agribusiness.
This return to previous pro-fossil fuel regulations may be one factor in the multi-billion dollar merger of Oklahoma’s Devon Energy with WPX Energy.
As previously reported by TYT, the Petroleum Alliance of Oklahoma knew about Governor Stitt’s letter to the EPA on July 22, the day it was sent. This was close to one month before the tribal governments were told.
The EPA action infuriated Oklahoma’s Ponca Tribe. Casey Camp-Horinek, Environmental Ambassador & Elder & Hereditary Drumkeeper Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, provided the following statement to TYT:
“After over 500 years of oppression, lies, genocide, ecocide, and broken treaties, we should have expected the EPA ruling in favor of racist Governor Stitt of Oklahoma, yet it still stings. Under the Trump administration, destroying all environmental protection has been ramped up to give the fossil fuel industry life support as it takes its last dying breath. Who suffers the results? Everyone and everything! Who benefits? Trump and his cronies, climate change deniers like Governor Stitt, Senators Inhofe and Langford, who are financially supported by big oil and gas. I am convinced that we must fight back against this underhanded ruling. In the courts, on the frontlines and in the international courts, LIFE itself is at stake.”
SUMMARY REPORT TO TRIBES
TYT also obtained the EPA Summary Report sent Sept. 29 to Oklhaoma’s tribes. In it, the EPA writes that the agency will keep Oklahoma’s environmental actions within federal law. But this is the same EPA that has rolled back 100 of the agency’s previous regulations protecting the environment and has pushed for a rule which would bar the agency from relying on scientific studies that have granted confidentiality to the people tested.
DOCUMENT: EPA Summary Report on Oklahoma Regulatory Control
In a seminar Sept. 21 at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank funded by fossil fuel companies, Wheeler concluded that he had fulfilled President Trump’s requests to him. Wheeler said, "[Trump] asked me to continue to clean up the air, continue to clean up the water and continue to deregulate and help create more jobs…”
The EPA not only granted all of Oklahoma’s requests, it added additional ones such as regulatory control over underground storage (the state has one of the largest oil storage facilities in the country), air pollution, pesticides, lead-based paints, and asbestos in schools.
The EPA Summary report says it consulted with 13 Oklahoma tribes in September. The report says that all the tribes questioned the limited consultation and short time of it, saying, “Comments submitted state that the length of the consultation period was too short, that the consultation should have been extended to tribes beyond Oklahoma…”
The EPA report also acknowledged that the Oklahoma tribes said the agency’s decision was contrary to the principles contained within the EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations (1984 Indian Policy). That policy requires a government-to-government negotiation.
The summary report concluded, “However, EPA is also bound to apply the clear and express mandate of Section 10211(a) of SAFETEA, a duly enacted Act of Congress, that specifically allows environmental regulation under EPA administered statutes by the State in areas of Indian country, and that requires EPA to approve a request of the State to so regulate notwithstanding any other provision of law…” Section 10211 (a), the federal law giving Oklahoma the legal right to take over environmental regulations on Tribal land, is a mere two-paragraph rider on page 795 of the 836-page SAFETEA transportation bill. In 2005, this midnight rider was maneuvered into this massive transportation bill by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). Inhofe is a staunch fossil fuel advocate and climate-change denier. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler worked for Inhofe for 14 years.
FORMER HIGH-LEVEL EPA OFFICIAL NOTES EPA CHOSE NOT TO HAVE DISCRETION
The former high-level official worked in the EPA’s office of general counsel. The former official told TYT, “EPA overstates when it claims '[t]he statute provides EPA no discretion to weigh additional factors in rendering its decision.' The statute says that Oklahoma need not make any further demonstration of authority than it already did when it sought approval from EPA to administer the same programs elsewhere in the state. But the position EPA takes in the letter -- that it lacks discretion entirely -- departs from earlier statements made by EPA in Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental Quality v. EPA, where it interpreted SAETEA as still allowing it to attach conditions to its approval of Oklahoma programs implemented in Indian Country."
WHO BENEFITS FROM EPA DECISION?
Who will benefit from the state of Oklahoma taking over environmental regulations on tribal lands there? Fossil fuel companies, big agriculture, and livestock companies. This is based on what a former high-level EPA official said after reviewing Governor Stitt’s letter to the EPA requesting jurisdiction.
As for the future of Oklahoma’s environmental control, the EPA Summary Report includes one paragraph that suggests a pro-environment president and Congress could have impact, but only if new federal legislation is passed:
“EPA has found no evidence, nor has any been provided by tribes, that indicates section 10211 has sunset and is therefore no longer valid. Should Congress elect to repeal this provision after EPA approves the State’s request, EPA would address any effect on its approval of the State’s request at that time."
THE NEXT MOVE?
U.S. Attorney General William Barr has now joined other Republican officials trying to nullify the McGirt v. Oklahoma ruling that much of the eastern portion of the state is tribal land. The Associated Press and a local Cherokee Radio station report that during a Sept. 30 visit to the Cherokee Nation headquarters, Barr said that he is working with Oklahoma’s federal congressional delegation to devise a “legislative approach" to address the McGirt decision. Both Governor Stitt and Senator Inhofe have called for a federal “legislative solution.”
As TYT has reported, Stitt and Inhofe have pushed for federal legislation to take over not only environmental regulatory control of Tribal lands but all regulatory control, which would return Oklahoma back legally to pre-McGirt status.
In six emails between the EPA’s public relations office and TYT, the agency has not denied the accuracy of TYT’s main points or the Wheeler letter and Summary Report.
Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó takes part in a gathering with health-care workers Thursday in Caracas. (photo: Manaure Quintero/Reuters)
UK Appeal Court Removes Juan Guaido's Access to Venezuelan Gold
teleSUR
Excerpt: "The United Kingdom Court of Appeals Monday annulled the decision that granted opposition lawmaker Juan Guaido control of 31 tons of gold that Venezuela has deposited in England."
President Nicolas Maduro's administration wins appeal related to monetary gold reserves deposited in the Bank of England.
In September, Venezuela filed an appeal against the decision of the British High Court that prevented President Nicolas Maduro's administration from accessing monetary reserves valued at more than US$1 billion, which are deposited in the Bank of England in London.
Previously, in July, High Court Judge Nigel Teare granted self-proclaimed president Guaido control of those monetary reserves, arguing that the United Kingdom recognized him as the "president in charge" of Venezuela.
Once Judge Teare's decision was known, the Central Bank of Venezuela (BCV), chaired by Calixto Ortega, reported that it would immediately appeal this decision, which it classified as "absurd and unusual."
On Monday, in his ruling on this case, Judge Stephen Males said that the U.K.’s recognition “is to my mind ambiguous, or at any rate less than unequivocal,” as reported by Bloomberg.
Sarosh Zaiwalla, a lawyer for the President Maduro-appointed central bank, commented that the previous decision of a British lower court was not correct as it granted control of the monetary reserves to "a group of people living outside of Venezuela, to whom the Venezuela's Constitutional Court had already ruled that they had no legal authority."
"The Court of Appeal has now... ordered that this important matter receive further consideration," he added, referring to the decision of the judges that an investigation be carried out to determine factually what the diplomatic relations existing between the United Kingdom and Venezuela are.
An American voter. (photo: Mark Makela/The New York Times)
Climate Change Could Tip the Scales in These 6 Toss-Up House Races
Teresa Chin, Jesse Nichols and Joseph Winters, Grist
Excerpt: "With so much focus on the 2020 presidential race, it's easy to forget there's also a lot at stake elsewhere on the ballot. Seats in the Senate, House, and state legislatures - not to mention quite a few governors' roles - are just a few of the positions up for grabs on Election Day."
Climate change could tip the scales in these 6 toss-up House races.
That means voters will have an opportunity to shift the balance of power between Republicans and Democrats on both a local and national level.
In some of the nation’s most heated Congressional races, concern over climate change just might be the issue that tips the scales. Worry, after all, is a particularly significant emotion during elections in that it tends to mobilize voters rather than paralyze them, according to Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication.
And there’s plenty to worry about, given the current political climate around, well, the climate. The issue — and, frankly, the world — is hotter than in any previous election cycle. After years of record-breaking heat waves, wildfires, and hurricanes, more than 60 percent of Americans now say climate change is affecting their communities. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, 77 percent of young voters — the mobilizing force behind the recent climate protests — ranked environmental protection as their top political issue. And even now that we are grappling with coronavirus, two-thirds of Americans remain worried about climate change.
While climate might become more of a bipartisan priority in the near future — voters between the ages of 18 and 38 tend to have similar views on the issue, regardless of party affiliation — environmental concern currently tends to split along party lines. In the 2018 midterms, for example, the districts most worried about climate change voted overwhelmingly for Democratic House candidates, whereas the least-worried ones favored Republicans.
Assuming those trends hold in 2020, we were curious how climate concern would influence the country’s most hotly contested congressional races. Grist once again looked at the Cook Political Report’s assessment of the most competitive House races and combined it with data from Yale’s Program on Climate Change Communication that measures the level of climate concern in each district. Among the 26 races listed as toss-ups as of October 2, 2020, eight have higher levels of climate concern than the national average — where 62 percent of a district’s electorate is worried. (In fact, a majority of voters in all 26 competitive districts said they found the issue concerning.)
Grist decided to take a closer look at six of those races where voters have higher-than-average levels of climate concern — an indication that they might prefer a candidate whose platform includes more aggressive climate action.
The six Congressional toss-up races are scattered throughout the country, and include both urban and rural pockets. We chose to examine House races where environmental crises had altered the political landscape or candidates had notably different climate views that could divide voters.
New York District 11 – 72 percent worried
It’s not surprising that this coastal New York district is the toss-up race where voters are most worried about climate change — it includes the southern portion of Brooklyn and all of Staten Island, which was completely reshaped by Hurricane Sandy in 2012. Some Staten Island neighborhoods experienced up to 9 feet of storm surge, and the borough accounted for half of New York City’s Hurricane Sandy death toll.
Both candidates vying for the area’s House seat agree on one thing: building a sea wall to protect Staten Island from the next superstorm.
“Residents in my district have lived in fear of devastating flooding; they live in fear of another superstorm,” said incumbent Democrat Rep. Max Rose in his inaugural speech to Congress in January 2019. “The question isn’t whether the storm will hit again, it’s when.”
Soon after being seated, Rose introduced a bill to fast track construction of a seawall along the shoreline of Staten Island. His bill, which was wrapped into the major Natural Resources Management Act, was signed into law in 2019. Rose’s challenger, Republican New York State Assemblymember Nicole Malliotakis pushed to include funding for the project in the state’s 2018 budget. The 5-mile seawall would save the island an estimated $30 billion in damages each year, and reduce flood insurance premiums for residents.
But a seawall alone can’t hold off the community’s climate risks forever, and some parts of Staten Island are already undergoing more drastic climate adaptation measures. New York State has already bought out hundreds of Staten Island properties as part of a managed retreat plan — a process of evacuating and re-greening high-risk neighborhoods. And as the island continues to face rising seas and more frequent storms, this surely won’t be the district’s last climate-focused election.
Florida District 26 – 69 percent worried
Climate denial is not on the ballot in this southern Florida district, which was also on Grist’s list of worry wards in 2018. Both the incumbent, Democrat Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, and her challenger, Republican Carlos Gimenez, recognize the dire impacts that the climate crisis may have for their constituents in Miami-Dade County and the Florida Keys.
Mucarsel-Powell is a vocal climate advocate. She was even a co-sponsor of the Green New Deal resolution — something that may or may not help her in this particular region. After narrowly defeating climate-conscious Republican Carlos Curbelo in 2018, she called the climate crisis “one of the most pressing issues facing our country.” In 2019, she introduced bipartisan legislation to protect coral reefs and helped secure over $200 million in funding for an Everglades restoration project. The League of Conservation Voters, or LCV, gave her a score of 97 percent based on her environmental voting record in 2019.
Gimenez, a former firefighter and current mayor of Miami-Dade County, has also taken steps to prioritize climate action. Although he opposes a tax on carbon, he pledged to reduce the county’s greenhouse gas emissions and protect its cities from sea-level rise.
But unlike other coastal communities, such as New York’s 11th, both candidates in Florida’s District 26 are opposed to the Army Corps of Engineers’ proposal to build a 13-foot high sea wall around Miami. The project would cost roughly $8 billion and would require the federal government to appropriate hundreds of beachfront properties.
“The wall’s not something we’re going to be saying yes to in Miami-Dade County,” Gimenez told the Miami Herald, calling instead for more research on climate mitigation and adaptation. Mucarsel-Powell agreed, saying the wall would create winners and losers in terms of which communities were protected by the structure.
New Jersey District 2 – 67 percent worried
We’ve already seen how climate concern can blur the line between Republicans and Democrats on policy, but this South Jersey district takes that ambiguity to a whole new level. Following the House impeachment of Donald Trump 2019, the district’s representative, moderate Jeff Van Drew, announced he was changing his party affiliation from Democrat to Republican.
“I believe that this is just a better fit for me,” Van Drew said at the time as he pledged his “undying support” for the president. Van Drew’s flip-flop caused a Congressional kerfuffle in the lead-up to the election. His anticipated opponent, Republican lawyer and businessperson David Richter, had to relocate his run for office to District 3. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has added this race to its selective “Red to Blue” program, hoping to regain the district for the Democratic Party. Now Van Drew is running a tight race against Democrat Amy Kennedy (who is married to Patrick, a former House member representing Rhode Island and one of those Kennedys).
But having ties to the Democratic Party aren’t all these two District 2 candidates have in common: Both have advocated for various forms of climate action. Van Drew has a lifetime score of 93 percent from the LCV. Before he discovered his “undying” support for Trump, he rejected the president’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. While Van Drew does not support the Green New Deal, he has spoken of the pressing need to act on climate. “The people of South Jersey know that climate change is real and that it impacts their quality of life,” he said while he was still a Democrat. As a Republican, Van Drew has been much less vocal on climate issues, but his congressional campaign website flaunts a 2018 bill he wrote banning offshore drilling in the state.
Kennedy, a former public school teacher with a master’s degree in environmental education, wants to block drilling off the coast of New Jersey and achieve 100 percent clean energy by 2050. Also, her campaign website specifically references environmental justice, saying that “we cannot address climate change if we continue to leave impacted communities behind.”
California District 21 – 65 percent worried
Much of the country considers California to be one big hippie commune, but this Central Valley district — about 200 miles north of Los Angeles — is home to one of the fiercest partisan battles in the country. The two candidates, whose views on climate are anything but aligned, are duking it out over everything from water rights to air pollution.
Incumbent T.J. Cox, a Democrat who in 2018 defeated Republican Rep. David Valadao by less than 1,000 votes, has branded himself as a “clean air champion,” according to the LCV. As the chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee’s Oversight and Investigations panel, he told E&E News the group would “hold the Trump Administration accountable for spreading misinformation about climate science.”
Cox will once again face Valadao, who represented the district from 2012 to 2018. He comes from a long line of dairy farmers, and has spent much of his political career trying to divert more water to farmers in the drought-stricken San Joaquin Valley by reducing the amount used to support endangered fish populations. This focus — along with a tendency to blame Democrats rather than climate change for the region’s water shortages — has contributed to a lifetime LCV score of just 5 percent. According to a 2019 climate adaptation report, Kern County, a portion of which is in the district, is predicted to see higher daily temperatures, more heatwaves, increased wildfires, and a diminished snowpack within this century as a result of climate change.
Pennsylvania District 10 – 63 percent worried
In Central Pennsylvania, climate change isn’t just a dividing line between the two House candidates, it’s a chasm.
Scott Perry, the Republican incumbent, infamously blamed God for polluting the Chesapeake Bay. Perry serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he proposed an unsuccessful amendment to remove climate reporting from the 2018 defense budget, and holds a lifetime rating of 3 percent from the LCV. While Perry supports electrifying dams to produce hydropower, he is a strong supporter of the region’s oil and gas industry, and argues the free market can solve climate change.
Perry faces Pennsylvania’s Democratic Auditor General Eugene DePasquale, the state’s government financial watchdog. While his current role might not sound like an environmental job, DePasquale has used his position to frame environmental inaction as a government accountability issue. In 2014 his department criticized the state’s Department of Environmental Protection for letting the oil and gas industry off the hook for water contamination and falling short on its taxpayer-funded mission to protect the environment.
In 2019, DePasquale’s department released a report, framing climate inaction as a dollars-and-cents issue. It detailed the billions of dollars needed to fix infrastructure damaged by floods, expand the electrical grid to support more air conditioners, rebuild the Philadelphia airport as a result of sea-level rise, and respond to the public health and infectious disease issues linked to climate change. “Your tax dollars will increasingly be spent to clean up after such disasters if state government does not step up now and limit our contribution to the climate crisis,” DePasquale wrote.
Interestingly, the Democrat doesn’t see climate plans like the Green New Deal as realistic — despite being painted as a supporter of it by his opponent.
Texas District 24 – 62 percent worried
Neither House candidate denies the existence of climate change in this northern Texas district, which includes suburbs north of Dallas and Fort Worth. But the two contenders have extremely different visions for what the region should do about it.
Texas’ District 24 has been controlled by the GOP since Tea Party Republican Rep. Kenny Marchant was first elected in 2004. Marchant has stepped down to allow Beth Van Duyne, the former mayor of Irving, 20 minutes west of Dallas, to run for the seat. But despite Van Duyne’s close ties to the Trump administration — she left the mayorship in 2017 to serve as a regional administrator for the Department of Housing and Urban Development — she has broken from the president in calling climate change “undeniable,” though it’s unclear whether she accepts that it’s caused by humans.
Van Duyne favors developing emissions-free nuclear capacity in order to help Texas achieve greater “energy independence” and “show countries like China and India that there are better ways forward for energy development than more coal plants.” She has also supported efforts between the mayors of Dallas, Arlington, and Fort Worth to create a year-round schedule to conserve Texas’ water. But overall, she is not pro-regulation, calling Environmental Protection Agency rules “crippling” for Texas’ cities. Van Duyne’s challenger is Candace Valenzuela, a former school board member who, if elected, would be the first Black Latina in Congress. Her environmental platform emphasizes equity, and she has promised to make combating climate change and advancing social and climate justice her top priorities. Valenzuela’s campaign has highlighted her struggles with homelessness, and painted its candidate as more in touch with the realities of the district’s lower- and middle-income voters.
Likewise, Valenzuela has drawn on her personal connections when framing the climate crisis. In a YouTube video, she described having to give her two sons breathing treatments as a result of the poor air quality from nearby oil and gas operations. “We need to focus on investing in renewable energy options, such as solar, wind, and geothermal, while massively reducing our dependence on coal, gas, and oil,” she tweeted. “Yes, even in Texas.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.