29 May 23
Live on the homepage now!
Reader Supported News
And some news about that Kremlin drone strike
First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic:
- The play that explains Succession (and everything else)
- The Russian red line Washington won’t cross—yet.
- COVID shots are still one giant experiment.
- The far right is splintering.
A Tense Summer
Russia has taken another step toward nuclearizing its satrapy in neighboring Belarus. This is bad news but not a crisis (yet). But first, I want to add a note to what I wrote a few weeks ago about the drone attack on the Kremlin.
I suggested that the weird strike on a Kremlin building was unlikely to be an act sanctioned or carried out by the Ukrainian government. My best guess at the time was that the Russians might be pulling some kind of false-flag stunt to justify more repression and violence against Ukraine as well as internal dissent in Russia. I didn’t think the Ukrainians would attack an empty building in the middle of the night.
The U.S. intelligence community, however, now thinks the strike could have been some kind of Ukrainian special operation. Those same American analysts, according to The New York Times, are not exactly sure who authorized action against the Russian capital:
U.S. intelligence agencies do not know which unit carried out the attack and it was unclear whether President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine or his top officials were aware of the operation, though some officials believe Mr. Zelensky was not.
That’s not much to go on, especially because the intelligence community’s confidence in this view is “low,” meaning there is at least some general, but not specific, evidence for it. The Americans suggest the attack may have been “orchestrated” by the Ukrainian security services, but that could mean any number of possibilities, including civilians, a small militia, a few people loosely affiliated with the Ukrainians, or even a commando team.
The best evidence, however, that this was not a false flag is that with the exception of firing a wave of missiles, the Russian government has said and done almost nothing in response either in Ukraine or in Russia. If Vladimir Putin’s security forces had engineered the incident, they’d almost certainly be taking advantage of it, but they’re not. Instead, the Kremlin seems paralyzed and has clamped down on any further reporting about the whole business; if the Ukrainian goal was to rattle Russian leaders, mission accomplished. So my theory has gone up in smoke—a hazard of trying to piece together an explanation while waiting for better evidence—but I thought it important to update you here.
Now, about those Belarus nukes.
Putin announced back in March that he intended to station nuclear arms in Belarus, a move that had Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko doing a bit of uneasy throat-clearing as he tried to stay in Putin’s good graces while being understandably nervous about hosting weapons of mass destruction in his fiefdom. The hesitation is over: Belarusian Defense Minister Victor Khrenin and Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu yesterday signed a formal agreement allowing the deployment of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus.
This would be the first time post-Soviet Russia has stationed nuclear weapons outside its own territory, but the bombs aren’t in Belarus yet. Lukashenko was in Moscow yesterday to attend a summit of the Eurasian Economic Forum, and although he claimed that the complicated process of relocating Russian nuclear bombs has already begun, I don’t believe him. (There I go again, theorizing in the absence of evidence. But Western intelligence agencies watch the movement of Russian nuclear weapons pretty closely, and so far, none of them has indicated that they see anything happening.) Besides, Lukashenko’s assertion wasn’t exactly definitive; when asked in Moscow if the weapons had already arrived, he said, “Maybe. I will go and take a look.”
Now, without getting too far over my skis, I will say that the leaders of countries with nuclear weapons in their territory know without exception whether they have them or not, and don’t need to “go and take a look.” Lukashenko’s flip comment suggests to me that he knows that nothing has been moved yet, and that he understands that his role in this dangerous sideshow is to play along with the Kremlin’s attempt to jangle Western nerves about nuclear war.
Putin, for his part, has said that storage facilities for Russian nuclear arms will be complete by July 1. Nuclear weapons, of course, require highly secure military installations and personnel trained in dealing with such systems, such as how to load them onto their delivery vehicles, and the unique safety precautions that surround them. Even in the best of times, nuclear weapons are a high-maintenance proposition, and accidents do happen: In 2007, an American B-52 flew across the United States with six nuclear bombs that the crew didn’t realize were mounted on the wings.
It’s also possible that Putin is squeezing political impact of a nuclear agreement while he still can, given recent questions about Lukashenko’s health. The Belarus strongman has looked weak lately. It would be very much Putin’s gangland style to make sure he gets Belarus as a stage for his nuclear threats as soon as possible, if he thinks the grim reaper is about to step in.
Putin’s July deadline is also important because it means the Russians will be moving nuclear weapons in the middle of what looks to be a summer of intense fighting. Such a timetable is probably intentional. The Kremlin boss believes that the West is deeply afraid of nuclear war, and he intends to play on that fear. Western leaders, of course, are deeply afraid of nuclear war, because they are not utter psychopaths. Putin and his generals, although brutal and vicious men, are afraid of it, too, no matter what they might say, because they are not suicidal. (So were Soviet leaders and their generals, as we learned after the Cold War.)
What Putin fails to understand, however, is that years of struggling with the Soviet Union taught the United States and its allies how to contend with an aggressive Kremlin and the dangers of escalation at the same time. Putin, as I often note, is a Soviet nostalgist who longs for the old Soviet empire and who still seems to believe that a weak and decadent West will not continue to oppose him.
As ever, I worry not about Putin’s deliberate move to start World War III, but about some kind of error or accident when transferring nuclear weapons from one paranoid authoritarian country to another. Putin may well place nuclear weapons close to Ukraine and then claim that NATO is threatening Russia’s nuclear deterrent, thus provoking a crisis he thinks will induce the West to back away from supporting Kyiv. This would be yet another harebrained blunder in a series of poor moves, but Putin, as we know, is not exactly a master strategist. It’s going to be a tense summer.
READ MORE 
The Mountain Valley pipeline has won support from the White House, which argues the controversial project is needed for U.S. energy security. (photo: Steve Helber/AP)
The controversial natural gas project has been a priority for West Virginia, but its approval will bring new criticism for the Biden administration.
But the backing of the pipeline that would deliver gas from West Virginia into the Southeast is sure to set off bitter complaints from the environmental groups that have fought its construction for years and turned the project into a symbol of their struggle against fossil fuels.
Manchin hailed the bill’s language, saying finishing the pipeline would lower energy costs for the United States and West Virginia.
“I am proud to have fought for this critical project and to have secured the bipartisan support necessary to get it across the finish line,” he said in a statement.
The bill agreed by the White House and House Republicans must still be approved by both chambers of Congress, which is expected to happen in the coming week.
“After working with Speaker McCarthy and reiterating what completing the Mountain Valley Pipeline would mean for American jobs and domestic energy production, I am thrilled it is included in the debt ceiling package that avoids default,” Capito, a Republican, said in a statement. “Despite delay after delay, we continued to fight to get this critical natural gas pipeline up and running, and its inclusion in this deal is a significant victory for the future of West Virginia.”
The project has won support from the White House, which argues the controversial project is needed for U.S. energy security. Its approval comes after the approval of the Willow oil project in Alaska, which activists have said undercuts the Biden administration’s climate promises.
Including the project in the debt bill came as a surprise that wasn’t revealed by either negotiating side until the release of the bill text Sunday night.
The bill approves all outstanding permits for the pipeline, which has suffered court setbacks.
READ MORE
Supporters of Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan celebrate as the president declared victory in the country's presidential elections. (photo: Ozan Kose/AFP)
Erdogan declared winner by Supreme Election Council after unofficial vote count, will extend power into a third decade.
With almost all of the votes counted, Erdogan received 52.14 percent of votes in the second round on Sunday, beating his challenger, Kemal Kilicdaroglu, who won 47.86 percent, according to the Supreme Election Council.
The result is expected to be confirmed in the coming days.
The vote seals Erdogan’s place in history as he extends his 20-year rule for a further five years.
He had already outstripped the 15-year presidency of the Republic of Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk.
Erdogan appeared outside his residence in Istanbul’s Uskudar, where he sang before thanking an adoring crowd.
“We have completed the second round of the presidential elections with the favour of our people,” Erdogan said. “God willing we will be worthy of your trust as we have been for the last 21 years.”
He added that all 85 million citizens of the country were the “victors” of the two rounds of voting on May 14 and May 28.
The president also said that the main opposition Republican People’s Party (CHP) will hold candidate Kilicdaroglu accountable for his bad performance, adding that the number of the CHP seats in the parliament decreased compared to the 2017 polls.
He then headed to Ankara, where he addressed supporters at the presidential palace. Erdogan congratulated the crowds, and told them that the most urgent issue the country currently faced was inflation, before adding that it was not a difficult problem to solve.
Official data shows that inflation in Turkey was at 50.5 percent in March, down from a high of 85.6 percent in October.
“The most urgent issue… is to eliminate the problems arising from the price increases caused by inflation and to compensate for welfare losses,” the president said.
Erdogan added that healing the wounds of the February earthquakes and rebuilding the cities and towns destroyed in the natural disaster would continue to be among his priorities.
“Our hearts and hands will continue to be on the earthquake region,” Erdogan said.
In his first comments after it became clear that Erdogan would continue as president, Kilicdaroglu said that he would continue what he termed a “struggle for democracy”.
“All the means of the state were mobilised for one political party and laid at the feet of one man,” the CHP leader said. “I would like to thank the heads of the Nation Alliance, their organisations, our voters, and the citizens who protected the ballot boxes and fought against these immoral and unlawful pressures.”
Despite the loss, Kilicdaroglu is yet to resign, although calls for him to do so will now likely increase.
Close campaign
The two-month election period witnessed one of the most bitter campaigns in recent memory.
Erdogan repeatedly referred to his opponent as being backed by “terrorists” – due to the support offered by the main pro-Kurdish party – while Kilicdaroglu ended the campaign by calling Erdogan a “coward”.
The campaign took on an increasingly nationalist tone, with the opposition in particular promising to force Syrians and other refugee populations to leave.
Sunday’s run-off vote was the first time since direct presidential elections were introduced in 2014 that the vote had gone to a second stage.
Despite citizens being called to vote again two weeks after May 14’s initial election, the turnout remained around 85 percent.
For Turks following the opening of ballot boxes on television, the results depended on which platform they were following – the state-run Anadolu news agency or the Anka agency, which has ties to the opposition.
Two hours after the polls closed – as the election authority said a quarter of ballots had been counted – Anadolu was showing Erdogan leading at 53.7 percent while Anka showed Kilicdaroglu ahead at 50.1 percent.
As the evening wore on, however, the difference between the two accounts narrowed and Erdogan was shown ahead in both.
The elections – a parliamentary poll was run alongside the leadership race on May 14 – were widely billed as the most important in recent Turkish history and took place during the centenary year of the republic’s foundation.
The choice between the candidates was portrayed in similarly striking terms – either an extension of Erdogan’s two-decade rule or a leader pledging a return to a parliamentary system.
The polls, in which more than 64 million Turks at home and abroad were entitled to vote, took place against a background of a cost-of-living crisis that saw inflation peak at 85 percent in October and earthquakes in February that killed more than 50,000 people in the country’s southeast.
Erdogan, who came to power in 2003, initially as prime minister, offered a vision of further development, promising to extend the improvements made by his Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government.
Following his success in the parliamentary election – the AK Party and its allies won 323 of 600 seats – Erdogan was also able to promise the stability offered by controlling both the legislature and the government.
Kilicdaroglu, meanwhile, pledged democratisation and a rollback of Erdogan’s “one-man rule” while addressing what he called economic mismanagement.
The nationalist tone preceding the presidential run-off was partly a bid to gain the support of voters who backed Sinan Ogan, the candidate who secured more than 5 percent of the vote on May 14.
Ogan eventually backed Erdogan, but other nationalists backed Kilicdaroglu.
Erdogan reached 49.5 percent in the first round against Kilicdaroglu’s 44.9 percent.
Having endured the last two months of campaigning, voters now have 10 months to steel themselves for local elections in March, when Erdogan will push to retake cities including Istanbul and Ankara that were taken by the opposition in 2019.
READ MORE 
Rostyslav Yanchyshen, a ballet dancer of the Odesa National Academic Opera and Ballet Theater, stepped in to defend Ukraine during the first days of Russia's full-scale invasion. The 31-year-old was killed in combat near Bakhmut on April 19, 2023. (photo: Ukraine Culture Ministry/Facebook)
Some of them had tears in their eyes.
The audience was commemorating the opera's late ballet dancer, Rostyslav Yanchyshen, who stepped in to defend Ukraine during the first days of Russia's full-scale invasion and was killed in combat on April 19.
"Rostyslav was a very noble man," Harry Sevoyan, the head of Rostyslav's ballet troupe, told the Kyiv Independent. "He was a professional dancer who loved his country. An example of a true patriot."
Rostyslav joined a paramilitary volunteer formation that reports to the Territorial Defense Force in his native western Ukrainian city of Kamianets-Podilskyi shortly after Feb. 24, 2022, the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion.
For nearly a year, he was tasked with guarding critical infrastructure and checkpoints in his hometown. In late January, he was drafted into the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
For his first combat mission, Rostyslav was deployed near Bakhmut, the site of the heaviest fighting of the full-scale Russian war, where both sides have reportedly suffered extremely high casualties.
Just a day after he was deployed to the front line, Russian mortar fire killed the 31-year-old.
His older brother, Ukrainian soldier Dmytro Yanchyshen, 34, says Rostyslav underwent nearly two months of military training, becoming a skillful shooter and grenade launcher operator.
"He was an excellent shot," Dmytro says.
"Though he did not have combat experience, those who did were ready to follow him to the battlefield," he adds. "I learned about it only after his death since he never bragged about anything."
Since the government does not disclose Ukraine's military losses, it is still unknown how many soldiers have been killed over the year of Russia's all-out war. But the casualty numbers are expected to be high.
In September, President Volodymyr Zelensky said around 50 Ukrainian soldiers were killed in action every day. In December, an advisor to the head of Ukraine's Presidential Office, Mykhailo Podolyak, said, citing Ukraine's military, that the country had lost from 10,000 to 13,000 soldiers.
These figures do not include the 4,619 Ukrainian soldiers killed in Russia's war in eastern Ukraine in 2014-2022.
The calling
Growing up in Kamianets-Podilsky, the two brothers took Ukrainian folk dance classes in their childhood, "just like most of the children back then," says Dmytro.
Upon graduating from school, Rostyslav surprised his family with the decision to study choreography in college. He soon entered the Serzh Lyfar Dance Academy in Kyiv.
"He was very good at it," Dmytro says. "Rostyslav was very tall and in perfect shape," he continues. "He also loved it a lot."
Studying in Kyiv, Rostyslav switched from folk dance to ballet and went on his first tour abroad after graduation in 2012.
Dmytro says he spent almost a month in Lebanon and went straight to Odesa upon return, looking for a job at the opera theater there.
"I met Rostyslav 11 years ago when he applied for a ballet dancer job," says Sevoyan. "We did not hesitate to hire him. He had great professional skills."
Sevoyan and Rostyslav instantly became good friends through their work. Rostyslav was a "very kind and caring person who always helped others,” according to Sevoyan.
"I can not talk about him without a lump in my throat."
Sevoyan says that Rostyslav was engaged in the "current repertoire of all ballet performances," such as the iconic ballets "Don Quichotte," "Giselle," and "La Bayadere."
His brother says that Rostyslav traveled "half of the world" on tours with his ballet troupe. He visited the U.S. and Canada twice and hoped to perform there more often. He also wanted to take their parents abroad and "show the whole world to them," Dmytro says.
He and their mother often visited Odesa to see Rostyslav performing. Dmytro says their mother was very proud of him and immensely enjoyed watching her son dance on stage.
According to Dmytro, Rostyslav was also a patriot who was deeply concerned about Ukraine’s future.
He participated in demonstrations in Odesa when downtown Kyiv was ablaze with massive protests against then pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych during the EuroMaidan Revolution in 2014.
When Russia attacked peaceful Ukrainian cities in the early morning of Feb. 24 last year, the two brothers saw no other choice but to join the fight for the freedom of their homeland.
The sacrifice
While Rostyslav continued his volunteer service in Kamianets-Podilskyi for nearly a year, Dmytro, drafted just two days after joining the territorial defense unit in his hometown, was sent to the sites of heavy fighting across the front line.
"I saw what war was like, and I did not want my younger brother to see it," he says. "I told him that I would fight for both of us."
In late January, however, Rostyslav was drafted as well. "He called me and said: 'This day has finally come,'" Dmytro recalls.
Dmytro says that during training everyone noticed how strong Rostyslav was but at the same time, wondered why a ballet dancer would want to go to war.
According to Dmytro, Rostyslav was deployed to serve with the 56th Motorized Brigade, based near Kramatorsk in Donetsk Oblast.
April 18 was the first trip to the front line for Rostyslav.
"He hadn’t fought before," Dmytro says. "I told him everything I knew about where and how to hide (from fire). I also told him he needed to survive."
Rostyslav tried calming down his loved ones, saying everything would be fine. He did not tell his mother about the combat mission.
Overnight, Dmytro sent Rostyslav a text message which he never responded to.
"I told him to have my phone number as his emergency contact but not our mother's," Dmytro says.
A couple of hours later, Dmytro received a phone call telling him that his brother had been killed.
Rostyslav's commander told Dmytro it was "the heaviest mortar attack he has experienced in years." Out of 20 people from Rostyslav's unit, 13 were wounded, and he was the only one killed.
"When I went to the war, I thought dying would be the hardest part. No one ever told me that dying is, in fact, nothing. But losing people is the most terrifying part," Dmytro says.
"I lost so many fellow soldiers, good ones, and I lost my brother," he adds. "My life is different. It is so empty now. I no longer smile."
Rostyslav was buried in his native Kamianets-Podilsky on April 26.
"He sacrificed himself (for Ukraine), and it was a conscious sacrifice of his," Dmytro says.
"I'm sure that even if he knew what would happen, he would still go and fight for Ukraine."
READ MORE 
Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they try to storm the US Capitol in 6 January 2021. (photo: Joseph Prezioso/AFP)
Prosecutors are asking judges to impose fines on top of prison sentences to offset donations from supporters of Capitol rioters
The justice department now wants Goodwyn to give up more than $25,000 he raised – a clawback that is part of a growing effort by the government to prevent rioters from being able to personally profit from participating in the attack that shook the foundations of American democracy.
An Associated Press review of court records shows that prosecutors in the more than 1,000 criminal cases from January 6, are increasingly asking judges to impose fines on top of prison sentences to offset donations from supporters of the Capitol rioters.
Dozens of defendants have set up online fundraising appeals for help with legal fees, and prosecutors acknowledge there’s nothing wrong with asking for help for attorney expenses. But the justice department has, in some cases, questioned where the money is really going because many of those charged have had government-funded legal representation.
Most of the fundraising efforts appear on GiveSendGo, which bills itself as “The #1 Free Christian Fundraising Site” and has become a haven for January 6 defendants barred from using mainstream crowdfunding sites, including the more widespread GoFundMe, to raise money. The rioters often proclaim their innocence and portray themselves as victims of government oppression, even as they cut deals to plead guilty and cooperate with prosecutors.
Their fundraising success suggests that many people in the US still view the rioters as justified and cling to the baseless belief that Democrats stole the 2020 presidential election from Donald Trump. The former president himself has fueled that idea, pledging to pardon rioters if he is elected again.
Markus Maly, a Virginia man scheduled to be sentenced next month for assaulting police at the Capitol, raised more than $16,000 from an online campaign that described him as a “January 6 POW” and asked for money for his family. Prosecutors have requested a $16,000-plus fine, noting that Maly had a public defender and did not owe any legal fees.
“He should not be able to use his own notoriety gained in the commission of his crimes to ‘capitalize’ on his participation in the Capitol breach in this way,” a prosecutor wrote in court papers.
So far this year, prosecutors have sought more than $390,000 in fines against at least 21 riot defendants, in amounts ranging from $450 to more than $71,000, according to the AP’s tally.
Judges have imposed at least $124,127 in fines against 33 riot defendants this year. In the previous two years, judges ordered more than 100 riot defendants to collectively pay more than $240,000 in fines.
Separately, judges have ordered hundreds of convicted rioters to pay more than $524,000 in restitution to the government to cover more than $2.8m in damage to the Capitol and other January 6-related expenses.
More rioters facing the most serious charges and longest prison terms are now being sentenced. They tend to also be the prolific fundraisers, which could help explain the recent surge in fines requests.
Earlier this month, the judge who sentenced Nathaniel DeGrave to more than three years in prison also ordered him to pay a $25,000 fine. Prosecutors noted that the Nevada resident “incredibly” raised over $120,000 in GiveSendGo fundraising campaigns that referred to him as “Beijing Biden’s political prisoner” in “America’s Gitmo” – a reference to the Guantánamo Bay detention center.
“He did this despite seeking to cooperate with the government and admitting he and his co-conspirators were guilty since at least November 2021,” a prosecutor wrote.
Lawyer William Shipley, who has represented DeGrave and more than two dozen other January 6 defendants, said he advises clients to avoid raising money under the auspices of being a political prisoner if they intend to plead guilty.
“Until they admit they committed a crime, they’re perfectly entitled to shout from the rooftops that the only reason they’re being held is because of politics,” Shipley said. “It’s just first amendment political speech.”
Shipley said he provided the judge with documentation showing that DeGrave raised approximately $25,000 more than what he paid his lawyers.
The government’s push for more fines comes as it reaches a milestone in the largest federal investigation in American history: over 500 defendants have been sentenced for January 6 crimes.
A jury convicted romance novel cover model John Strand of storming the Capitol with Simone Gold, a California physician who is a leading figure in the anti-vaccine movement. Now prosecutors are seeking a $50,000 fine on top of a prison term for Strand when a judge sentences him on Thursday.
Strand has raised more than $17,300 for his legal defense without disclosing that he has a taxpayer-funded lawyer, according to prosecutors. They say Strand appears to have “substantial financial means”, living in a home that was purchased for more than $3m last year.
Goodwyn, who appeared on Carlson’s show in March, will be sentenced next month.
READ MORE 
Mr. Paxton reading a statement the day before the impeachment vote. (photo: Eric Gay/AP)
The building conflict between moderates and hard-liners in one of the Republican Party’s most important states highlights tension over the future of the party.
While the vote in the House of Representatives on Saturday tore suddenly through the heart of Texas politics, the underlying resentments had been gathering force for months, if not years, not over individual personalities but over how Republicans should use their power and what shape the party should take in the future.
The fight over Mr. Paxton’s impeachment, which drew in national Republican figures including former President Donald J. Trump, offered a stark demonstration of two increasingly warring currents in Republican politics.
Though the eruption was unexpected — as of a week ago there was little public indication that an impeachment could be imminent — it was the culmination of a session of the Texas Legislature, where Republicans dominate both chambers, that was defined by steadily increasing intraparty acrimony.
“It’s the battle between the version of the Republican Party under Trump and the version of the traditional Republican Party,” said Jeronimo Cortina, a professor of political science at the University of Houston. The fight is especially urgent in Texas, he added, because increasing urbanization and demographic changes threaten the party’s dominance over Democrats.
“The question for Republicans is, do you want to stay in government for a couple of years” by catering to a shrinking pool of aging voters? Mr. Cortina said, describing the party’s most conservative members. “Or do you want to invest in having a Republican Party that’s going to have a future in Texas?”
At the impeachment proceeding, some of the most conservative members of the Legislature found themselves railing against the power politics of their own moderate leadership in the House.
“Don’t end our session this way,” Representative Tony Tinderholt said as he implored fellow Republicans to vote against impeaching Mr. Paxton, an archconservative who has made a national reputation fighting Democrats on immigration, health care, voting and other issues. “Don’t tarnish this institution.”
In the end, 60 out of the 85 Republicans in the Texas House disagreed and voted to impeach Mr. Paxton over accusations of corruption, bribery and abuse of office, temporarily removing him from office pending a coming trial in the State Senate.
By the close of the session, which officially ends on Monday, the conservative juggernaut that had swept in a wave of legislation during lawmakers’ last session two years ago encountered significant pushback, not only from Democrats but also from fellow Texas Republicans willing to draw a line in the sand on some issues.
A special session to address some of the enduring divides — on education funding, property taxes, border security and renewable energy regulation, not to mention the fate of Mr. Paxton — appeared all but certain.
Anger among conservative activists and hard-right lawmakers had been building for months as they watched many of their priorities sail through the State Senate only to become stymied in the Texas House.
The two chambers have often been in conflict in recent legislative sessions, with the House acting as a more moderate check to the hard-right leadership of Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Senate.
This year, though, the resentments appeared greater than usual.
Most of the eye-catching conservative proposals came out of the Senate, which rapidly passed a series of hard-line bills, including ending tenure in state universities, creating new restrictions on teaching about sex and gender similar to a highly contentious law in Florida, adding extensive new voting restrictions in Houston and putting the Ten Commandments in every public school classroom in Texas.
But tensions escalated as the weeks passed and deadlines approached. Many of the Senate priorities languished and then officially died in the House, to the consternation of some of its most conservative members.
A dispute over how best to cut property taxes for Texans — a seemingly easy lift in a tax-averse state that was sitting on a more than $30 billion budget surplus — led Mr. Patrick to begin calling Dade Phelan, the House speaker, who had a different plan, by one of the more insulting nicknames one can think of in Texas politics: “California Dade.”
Mr. Patrick even enlisted Mr. Trump to weigh in. The former president adopted the nickname and endorsed Mr. Patrick’s property tax plan.
That tactic did not result in a breakthrough in negotiations, though it did focus a spotlight on Mr. Phelan, a Republican from the city of Beaumont. The House and Senate agreed on Saturday to a spending plan that set aside more than $17 billion for a tax cut, but they still have been unable to come to terms on how it would actually work.
The California nickname was replaced last week in certain conservative activist circles by “Drunk Dade,” after Mr. Paxton accused Mr. Phelan of being intoxicated during a recent late-night session of the House. Mr. Phelan denied the accusation, which was leveled just as it became clear the House had secretly been investigating Mr. Paxton.
Mr. Trump again condemned Mr. Phelan on Saturday before and after the impeachment vote, vowing to “fight” any Republicans who voted for impeachment.
The Republican Party of Texas, which has positioned itself to the right of many state elected officials, has been attacking Mr. Phelan since the start of the session, running radio ads against him in February because he continued a longstanding practice of allowing Democrats to chair some committees.
But the conservative discontent goes deeper.
“I think of it as part of an evolution rather than anything specifically focused on Phelan,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “There is growing aggravation among social conservatives that they don’t have the kind of control in the Texas House as Patrick does in the Senate to move a social conservative agenda.”
The divisions spilled into the open on Saturday in a display rarely seen in the current atmosphere of hyper-partisanship: a formal proceeding, governed by Republicans, holding to account a popular but scandal-plagued politician from their own ranks. Its speed was remarkable: Just days after the investigation into Mr. Paxton was first publicly discussed, he had been impeached.
“I’ve been watching this stuff for a long time,” Mr. Jillson said, “and I have never really seen such a major development erupt so unexpectedly.”
While lawmakers debated in Austin, Gov. Greg Abbott — who has not commented on the impeachment — toured the state trying to drum up Republican support for his top policy goal: a program to use public money to pay for private schools.
In pushing for what is variously known as school vouchers or school choice, Mr. Abbott visited Christian schools and churches around Texas and appeared with the influential Texas Public Policy Foundation, a conservative nonprofit backed by important Republican donors.
The governor, who has tried to thread the needle between the party’s factions, had support from the State Senate, which passed a bill to enact school choice using so-called education savings accounts, or E.S.A.s. But the effort encountered resistance from many rural Republicans, particularly in the Texas House.
In a fit of pique this month, the governor threatened to use his power to force lawmakers to come back for another legislative session after this one ends.
Hours after the impeachment vote on Saturday, it became clear that he would have to if he wanted to save his school funding plan: In an 11th-hour attempt, Senate Republicans failed to force through a school voucher plan that tacked it onto a House bill increasing school funding and teacher pay.
“Teacher raises are being held hostage to support an E.S.A. plan!” Representative Ken King, a rural Republican from the Texas Panhandle and the bill’s sponsor, said in a statement on Saturday. “What the governor and senate has done is inexcusable.”
Despite the rifts, some of the pieces of contentious legislation made it through both chambers. A bill to ban hormone therapies, surgeries and other medical treatments for transgender children passed. So too did a measure — derided by Democrats as the “Death Star bill” — that would prevent local governments, including major cities run by Democrats, from making their own local ordinances on certain issues, such as worker protections. And legislators agreed on a bill to allow school districts to hire religious chaplains as counselors.
Even if Mr. Abbott does not call them back, lawmakers will be returning to the Capitol for a unique sort of special session and one that was likely to further test the bonds of Republicans: the trial in the Senate of Mr. Paxton.
The date has yet to be set for what will be the first impeachment trial of a statewide official in Texas in more than a century, one in which the dividing lines in the Republican Party are likely to be front and center. Representatives of the House present the case. Mr. Paxton will have a chance to defend himself. And the senators — including Mr. Paxton’s wife, Angela, and his longtime friend, Bryan Hughes, unless they recuse themselves — will act as a jury.
Mr. Patrick, who will preside over the trial and set its rules, is a firebrand conservative and former talk radio host whose supporters and donors come from the same wing of the party as Mr. Paxton. But on the subject of the trial, Mr. Patrick has maintained a neutral posture so far. “The senators, all 31 senators, will have a vote,” he said in an interview on the Y’all-itics podcast. “We will all be responsible as any juror would be.”
READ MORE 
The Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema speaks during their picket against Uganda's anti-homosexuality bill at the Ugandan High Commission in Pretoria, South Africa on April 4, 2023. (photo: Themba Hadebe/AP)
The Anti-Homosexuality Act 2023 punishes those found guilty of “aggravated homosexuality” with death, a category broadly defined by legislators to include offenses that range from having gay sex with a minor to seducing someone through “misrepresentation” or “undue influence.”
The new law also imposes life imprisonment as punishment for anyone found to have performed a sexual act with a person of the same gender, and up to seven years in prison for “an attempt to commit the offense of homosexuality.”
“The people of Uganda have spoken,” tweeted parliamentary speaker Anita Annet Among, announcing that President Yoweri Museveni had signed the legislation. “I now encourage the duty bearers under the law to execute the mandate bestowed upon them in the Anti-Homosexuality Act.”
Uganda’s parliament originally passed the bill in March but it was returned to legislators by a presidential veto. The final bill, approved by Museveni, remains largely the same but no longer includes a requirement for people to report homosexual activity or criminalizes the mere identifying as LGBTQ+.
Its passage into law Monday sparked fear and confusion among LGBTQ+ Ugandans, many of whom have already fled the country.
“The news means that I will never see home again,” said a 32-year-old gay asylum seeker speaking to The Washington Post by phone from Kakuma refugee camp in Kenya. He spoke on the condition of anonymity.
“I left Uganda in 2018; it was a scary time for me. I feel the fear, like that morning I ran away from my home. I am in the refugee camp at the moment and never felt so disillusioned in my life,” he said.
“I feel extremely scared,” said Jude, 38, who asked to be identified only by his first name to protect his identity, speaking by phone from the same refugee camp as Kwame on Monday.
“It’s a tragedy on our story and entire community,” he said. “I have no option in Uganda.”
According to the Human Dignity Trust, a London-based nongovernmental organization that monitors the legal status of LGBTQ+ people in different countries, same-sex activity has been punishable by life imprisonment in Uganda since 1950, when the law was inherited from British colonial statues. The organization said there is substantial evidence of the previous law being used to arrest and arbitrarily detain LGBTQ+ people, but actual prosecutions are rare.
Western officials and nongovernmental organizations condemned the act, with some arguing that Uganda’s stigmatization of LGBTQ+ people threatened the health of people living with HIV there. “Uganda’s progress on its HIV response is now in grave jeopardy,” said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS, in a joint statement signed also by the leaders of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the Joint U.N. Program on HIV/AIDS and the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief.
“LGBTQI+ people in Uganda increasingly fear for their safety and security, and increasing numbers of people are being discouraged from seeking vital health services for fear of attack, punishment and further marginalization,” they said.
Versions of Monday’s legislation targeting LGBTQ+ people have been around in Uganda since 2009. In 2014, Museveni’s government passed a similar law, whose first iteration included the death penalty for some offenses — but was struck down by the court for not following due parliamentary process.
Follow us on facebook and twitter!
PO Box 2043 / Citrus Heights, CA 95611
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.