Author: PolitCens

A New York State Supreme Court judge on Thursday ruled that former President Donald Trump and his two oldest children will have to submit to questioning by the state’s attorney general in a civil investigation into potential fraud at the Trump Organization.

Attorneys representing Trump, his son Donald Trump Jr. and his daughter Ivanka Trump had moved to have subpoenas for their testimony canceled. They contended that it was improper for New York Attorney General Letitia James to be pursuing both a civil and a criminal investigation at the same time. James is cooperating in a criminal case that was brought by the district attorney of Manhattan.

Judge Arthur Engoron said that the Trumps’ legal argument “completely misses the mark” and that the attorney general was within her rights to demand testimony from Trump and his children.

However, while the name of the court on which Engoron sits, the Supreme Court of the state of New York, seems to suggest the ruling’s finality, the outcome is not so certain. The state of New York has two levels of judicial review that are above the Supreme Court — first the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, and finally the Court of Appeals.

This means that the Trumps have the right to appeal Engoron’s ruling, something their attorneys signaled Thursday that they planned to do.

Case background

The case James is pursuing against Trump has its roots in revelations dating to the closing days of the Trump presidency, when Trump’s former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, testified before Congress that he was aware of financial irregularities in the Trump Organization’s bookkeeping.

Specifically, Cohen alleged that Trump and Allen Weisselberg, the chief financial officer of the Trump Organization, systematically under-reported the value of the company’s assets when disclosing them for tax purposes, in order to minimize the firm’s tax liability. Additionally, Cohen said, they would overstate the value of the same assets when pledging them as collateral for bank loans and other financial transactions.

Last month, James submitted a filing to the court listing multiple instances in which the Trump Organization had provided information to different parties in different transactions that was contradicted elsewhere.

In the same filing, James referred to testimony from Weisselberg indicating that Trump kept paper records of his financial transactions, but despite requests from her office, none of those records had been disclosed to investigators.

A raucous hearing

The judge’s ruling on Thursday followed a hearing Wednesday in which the attorney representing Donald Trump, Alina Habba, complained that the investigation was political in nature and ought to be shut down.

More than once, Habba had to be warned to stop interrupting Engoron when he was speaking, and she was also criticized for directly addressing Kevin Wallace, an attorney working for James’ office, a breach of courtroom protocol.

“I want to know, Mr. Wallace, Ms. James, are you going to go after Hillary Clinton for what she’s doing to my client?” Habba demanded at one point. “That she spied at Trump Tower in your state? Are you going to look into her business dealings?”

Habba was referring to a debunked claim that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had somehow conspired to spy on Trump while he was president.

Unsparing ruling

The claims from Trump’s attorney that James’ investigation has a political taint are based pledges she made as a candidate running for attorney general. James regularly promised to investigate Trump’s business dealings.

In his ruling, Engoron acknowledged that fact, but said that in his view, the significant evidence suggesting potential wrongdoing by the Trump Organization meant that failing to mount an investigation “would have been a blatant dereliction of duty” on James’ part.

“Indeed, the impetus for the investigation was not personal animus, not racial or ethnic or other discrimination, not campaign promises, but was sworn congressional testimony by former Trump associate Michael Cohen that respondents were ‘cooking the books’” he wrote.

Engoron also dismissed the claim by attorneys representing the Trumps that, by forcing them to testify in a civil case, the attorney general would be collecting statements that could be used against them in the criminal probe.

Engoron noted that the Trumps would retain their “absolute right” under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to refuse to answer any questions that they feel might incriminate them. He reminded them that a third Trump child, Eric Trump, had invoked his right more than 500 times in testimony provided in the same case.

Trump, James respond

After the ruling was issued Thursday, Trump issued a rambling statement that repeated the claim that Clinton had spied on him while he was in the White House, attacked James for comments she made about him during her run for office, and insisted there was no basis for either her civil case or the criminal case being pursued by the Manhattan district attorney.

“It is a continuation of the greatest Witch Hunt in history—and remember, I can’t get a fair hearing in New York because of the hatred of me by Judges and the judiciary. It is not possible!” Trump wrote.

“Today, justice prevailed,” James said in a statement released by her office.

It continued, “No one will be permitted to stand in the way of the pursuit of justice, no matter how powerful they are. No one is above the law.”
…

A federal judge on Friday rejected efforts by former President Donald Trump to toss out conspiracy lawsuits filed by lawmakers and two Capitol police officers, saying in his ruling that the former president’s words “plausibly” led to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said in his ruling that Trump’s words during a rally before the violent storming of the U.S. Capitol were likely “words of incitement not protected by the First Amendment.”

“Only in the most extraordinary circumstances could a court not recognize that the First Amendment protects a president’s speech,” Mehta wrote. “But the court believes this is that case.”

The order is the latest example of growing legal peril for the former president. Just hours earlier, the National Archives said records found at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort contained classified information and that it had notified the Justice Department.

On Thursday, a judge in New York ruled that Trump and two of his children must answer questions under oath in New York state’s civil investigation into his business practices. Another judge ordered that his company’s financial chief be subjected to questioning in another probe by the District of Columbia attorney general’s office. And earlier this week, the firm that prepared Trump’s annual financial statements said the documents, used to secure lucrative loans and burnish Trump’s image as a wealthy businessman, “should no longer be relied upon.”

During a planned rally on the Ellipse just hours before Congress was to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election, Trump told his supporters to “Fight like hell and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He said, “(We’re) going to try to and give (weak Republicans) the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country,” and then told the crowd to “walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

Mehta said Trump’s speech could have directed people to break the law. But the judge dismissed similar charges made against Trump’s son Donald Trump Jr. and lawyer Rudy Giuliani, saying their speech was protected by the First Amendment. Mehta did not yet rule on another motion to dismiss from Alabama Republican Rep. Mo Brooks, also named in the suits.

The lawsuits, filed by Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., officers James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby and initially by Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., argued that Trump, Trump Jr., Giuliani and Brooks made “false and incendiary allegations of fraud and theft, and in direct response to the Defendant’s express calls for violence at the rally, a violent mob attacked the U.S. Capitol.”

Thompson later dropped out of the lawsuit when he was named to lead the Select Committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection. The NAACP continued in his stead.

The lawsuits cite a federal civil rights law that was enacted to counter the Ku Klux Klan’s intimidation of officials. They spell out in detail how the Trumps, Giuliani and Brooks spread baseless claims of election fraud, both before and after the 2020 presidential election was declared and charged that they helped to spin up the thousands of rioters before they stormed the Capitol. Five people died as a result of the violence on Jan. 6, including a U.S. Capitol Police officer.

They have all denied the allegations.

Mehta said Trump’s efforts to dismiss the case ignored the theory that his words sparked what followed, but that argument was plausible.

“In this one-of-a-kind case, the First Amendment does not shield the president from liability,” Mehta wrote. 
…

Classified information was found in the 15 boxes of White House records that were stored at former President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, the National Archives and Records Administration said Friday in a letter that confirmed the matter had been sent to the Justice Department. 

The letter from the agency followed numerous reports about Trump’s handling of sensitive and even classified information during his time as president and after he left the White House. The revelation could also interest federal investigators responsible for policing the handling of government secrets, though the Justice Department and FBI have not indicated they will pursue the case. 

Federal law bars the removal of classified documents to unauthorized locations, though it is possible that Trump could try to argue that, as president, he was the ultimate declassification authority.  

No matter the legal risk, it exposes him to charges of hypocrisy given his relentless attacks during the 2016 presidential campaign on Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server as secretary of state. The FBI investigated but ultimately did not recommend charges.  

Trump recently denied reports about his administration’s tenuous relationship with the National Archives, and his lawyers said that “they are continuing to search for additional presidential records that belong to the National Archives.”

Social media records not preserved 

The letter from the archivists in response to the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, which is investigating, also details how certain social media records were not captured and preserved by the Trump administration. And it also says that the agency learned that White House staff frequently conducted official business using unofficial messaging accounts and personal phones.  

Those staff did not copy or forward their official messaging accounts, as required by the Presidential Records Act, the letter said.

The letter also reveals that additional paper records that had been torn up by the former president were among those transferred to the National Archives.  

“Although White House staff during the Trump administration recovered and taped together some of the torn-up records, a number of other torn-up records that were transferred had not been reconstructed by the White House,” the letter said.  

Lawmakers are also seeking information about the contents of the boxes recovered from Mar-a-Lago, but the agency cited the records act as holding them back from divulging.

Representative Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., the chairwoman of the Oversight Committee, said in a statement Friday that “these new revelations deepen my concern about former President Trump’s flagrant disregard for federal records law and the potential impact on our historical record.” 

She added, “I am committed to uncovering the full depth of the Presidential Records Act violations by former President Trump and his top advisers and using those findings to advance critical reforms and prevent future abuses.” 

House investigators will be looking to see if Trump’s actions, both during his presidency and after, violated the Presidential Records Act, which was enacted in 1978 after former President Richard Nixon wanted to destroy documents related to the Watergate scandal. 

The law mandates that presidential records are the property of the U.S. government, rather than the president himself. A statute, punishable by up to three years in prison, makes it a crime to conceal or intentionally destroy government records. 
…

Republican lawmakers in several states are scaling back access to government business, extending pandemic-era rules that restrict when journalists can report from the floors of state legislative chambers and, in effect, making it easier to dodge the press. 

As the public returns to the corridors of state capitols, new rules approved in Iowa last month and in Utah this week critically limit reporters’ access to lawmakers, sparking an outcry from media organizations and press advocates.

“It is critical that there is some accountability with respect to those who have tremendous power, such as you,” Lauren Gustus, the executive editor of The Salt Lake Tribune, told Utah lawmakers in a committee hearing last week, where she testified against such rules.

These rule changes limit when journalists can work on the floor of the legislature where lawmakers sit, making it easier for elected officials to avoid interacting with the press, even when they take up high-profile topics like election laws, taxes and abortion.

Rules governing where journalists can work vary across the nation’s 50 statehouses. Most allow credentialed reporters to observe from the chamber floors; some allow reporters to ask questions before or after proceedings; others require they remain in press boxes or alcoves separated from lawmakers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

In states that are now moving to change their procedures, lawmakers argue that creating formal rules allays security concerns and prevents bad actors from disrupting governance. Press advocates say the proposed rules make it more difficult for journalists to ask questions and impede the reporters’ ability to keep tabs on fast-paced statehouse action.

In Iowa, Republican leaders this year did not issue credentials to journalists to work at press benches on the state Senate floor as they had previously. They said the policy change addressed “confusion” because of changing media that now includes blogs and newsletters that identify themselves as the press.

In Utah, reporters are now being required to ask for permission each time they’d like to interview a lawmaker on the Senate floor or in certain adjacent hallways. There and in the Iowa Senate, reporters now must work from a gallery high above the chambers though they can still work from the floor in the House of Representatives. 

Under new rules passed through Utah’s Senate and advancing through the House, camera crews will be required to ask for permission to film in certain parts of committee rooms.

In a hearing on the rule last week, Utah lawmakers said daily press conferences and efforts to stream all proceedings online demonstrated their commitment to transparency. They said putting a clear rule on the books would help both lawmakers and the press know what’s allowed.

“The barriers of civility and discourse that have been respected in this state and this country for years and for decades are changing and they’re changing rapidly,” said Utah GOP Sen. Todd Weiler, who supported the rule change, adding that “if they are pushing the barriers, it is nice to have a rule in place.”

In Kansas, new rules from leaders in the state Senate relegate newspaper reporters to the chamber’s gallery, which has made it easier for senators to avoid reporters after sessions. In exceptional circumstances, like when the gallery is filled with other members of the public, journalists are allowed to report from the floor like the rules allowed before.

“Placing restrictions on journalists in the Senate chamber suggests there is something to hide, or that leadership is taking unwarranted and unnecessary retaliation against reporters,” former Kansas lawmaker Steve Morris wrote in an editorial in the Kansas Reflector.

Morris, who led Republicans in the Kansas Senate from 2005 to 2013, said that as a politician and a news consumer he saw the benefits of having journalists able to observe and report from a statehouse floor. When discussions draw considerable public interest, he said, people want to know how their lawmakers are reacting, which at times can mean body language like eye rolls or enthusiastic gestures.

“Reporters are our avenue to see what’s going on,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press.

“Especially when there’s something controversial,” he added. “The session adjourns and members skedaddle out of there rapidly so it’s hard for journalists to get to them, unlike when they’re on the floor they can immediately get to them.”

The new limits come in an environment of increasing attacks on the media and parallel new restrictions placed on journalists covering protests and courtroom proceedings.  They also come as states and cities loosen coronavirus restrictions that have returned restaurants, sporting events and offices to pre-pandemic capacity.

Parker Higgins, the advocacy director at the Freedom of The Press Foundation, said the ways transparency and access increased during the pandemic — for example, when  courtrooms allowed members of the public to hear and watch trials remotely — were being reversed.

After speaking with reporters in Kansas and Iowa, he said “most say it’s not impossible to do their jobs without floor access. But, in terms of doing your job quickly and effectively, you can’t get that from the public gallery.
…

The Senate gave final approval Thursday to legislation averting a weekend government shutdown, sending President Joe Biden a measure designed to give bipartisan bargainers more time to reach an overdue deal financing federal agencies until fall. 

Final passage was by a bipartisan 65-27 vote, five more than the 60 votes needed. The House easily approved the legislation last week. Each party had concluded that an election-year shutdown would be politically damaging, especially during a pandemic and a confrontation with Russia over its possible invasion of Ukraine.  

Yet as with virtually all must-pass bills, politics hitched a ride. Before passage, conservatives forced votes on amendments including on one of the year’s hot-button issues: COVID-19 vaccine mandates. They were defeated along party lines. 

One by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and several colleagues would have blocked existing federal vaccine requirements for the military, government employees and contractors and health care workers. 

Another by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, would have halted federal funds for school districts imposing their own vaccine requirements. Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., proposed another requiring Congress’ non-binding federal budgets to balance within 10 years.  

United Democrats can defeat GOP proposals in the 50-50 Senate with Vice President Kamala Harris’ tie-breaking vote. But with Harris in Europe and some Democrats missing because of illness or ailing spouses, Democrats prevailed after several Republicans also left for travel or to begin the chamber’s recess. 

A separate GOP move to block federal spending on pipes used to smoke crack faded away after the Biden administration said it never planned to do that and would not. The money is part of a program aimed at helping drug abusers avoid hurting themselves further.  

Amending the bill would have caused complications because the House is also gone for recess but would have had to pass the revamped version before sending it to Biden.  

Without Senate passage of the identical House bill, agencies would have had to stop functioning over the weekend. The legislation will finance the government through March 11. 

 
…

President Joe Biden on Thursday visited a small, deindustrialized Ohio steel town to tout his ambitious multi-trillion-dollar proposed spending plan, to announce a $1 billion initiative for environmental cleanup and restoration, and to court voters in a crucial state ahead of this year’s tightly contested midterm elections.

“Today, we’re announcing an investment of $1 billion — $1 billion — from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill,” he said, speaking to about 60 invited guests, including members of Congress, local elected officials and labor leaders at a shipyard in the lakeside town of Lorain, Ohio.

“It’s going to allow the most significant restoration of the Great Lakes in the history of the Great Lakes. We’re going to accelerate cleanup of sites across six states in the Great Lakes Basin — from Duluth, Minnesota, to Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Gary, Indiana, to Buffalo, New York, and everywhere in between,” Biden said.

Lorain is a town of about 65,000 people whose moribund main street runs straight into Lake Erie. The town was hit hard by the decline of American manufacturing. Yet both of Biden’s predecessors have made a point of visiting the once-bustling steel town to tout their accomplishments and to court voters. This corner of America is especially important this year, as swing-state Ohio will see the retirement of Republican Senator Rob Portman.

Or, as former President Donald Trump put it when he visited a nearby town in June for his first post-presidential rally: “Next year, the Republican red wave is going to begin right here,” Trump told the crowd at the Lorain County Fairgrounds, which is in the nearby town of Wellington. “We will fight for more jobs for Ohio families, fair trade for Ohio workers, and more Ohio factories forging more products stamped with that beautiful, beautiful phrase, ‘Made in the U.S.A.'”

And a small corner of southern Lorain is represented by one of Biden’s harshest critics, Republican U.S. Representative Jim Jordan, who voted against Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure bill. His opposition to the bill echoes that of many in his party.

“Democrats’ economic plan is basically the dumbest plan in history because it is ‘lock down the economy, spend like crazy, pay people not to work, and oh, for everyone who has been working, we’re now going to raise your taxes,'” he said shortly after the bill passed late last year.

Environmental advocates praised the expenditure — and Biden’s choice to visit the area to talk about it.

“The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is clear that these are the types of environmental remediation projects that the $1.2 trillion should be used for,” said Steve Cochran, associate vice president of state affairs for the Environmental Defense Fund. “The President is making it a priority, which shows that the solutions are not only important but have broad support in the region and for these constituencies. Given the problems in the Great Lakes, and how much the communities depend on them, this is an excellent use of resources.”

Bipartisan observers agree.

“The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was a significant achievement. It makes political sense to barnstorm the country touting it,” said Andy Winkler, director of the Bipartisan Policy Center. “But there’s also real value in these visits. The U.S. needs to make transformational investments in infrastructure to address climate change and stay economically competitive. To the extent the administration can, it must encourage state and local officials to take advantage of every resource the law offers and invest wisely.”

But, Winkler added: “President Biden should visit red states and blue states alike, in places he won and places he didn’t, to meet with Republicans and Democrats and explain why the bill was a significant bipartisan achievement and a win for the country.”

Biden, who said his priority taking office was to bring unity to this divided nation, evoked that in Lorain by mentioning the town’s most famous daughter, Nobel laureate Toni Morrison. In her seminal novel, “Beloved,” she wrote: “Me and you, we got more yesterday than anybody. We need some kind of tomorrow.”

“Places like Lorain have a lot of proud yesterdays,” Biden said. “Now you’re going to have some brighter tomorrows — and because of all of you.”
…

U.S. lawmakers struggled to agree this week on sanctions to deter Russia’s Vladimir Putin from a possible Ukraine invasion. VOA Congressional Correspondent Katherine Gypson says that despite the snag, there is still pressure to mount a unified U.S. response.

Producer: Katherine Gypson.
…

The families of nine victims of a massacre at an elementary school nearly ten years ago in the northeastern U.S. state of Connecticut reached a $73 million settlement Tuesday in a lawsuit against Remington Arms, the maker of the rifle used in the mass killing. 

The settlement is a rare instance of a U.S. gunmaker paying damages for bloodshed arising from the criminal use of a firearm. 

“While this settlement does not erase the pain of that tragic day, it does begin the necessary work of holding gun manufacturers accountable for manufacturing weapons of war and irresponsibly marketing these firearms,” President Joe Biden said in a statement Tuesday.

Biden encouraged state and local lawmakers, as well as victims of gun violence, to pursue similar actions.

“Together, we can deliver a clear message to gun manufacturers and dealers: they must either change their business models to be part of the solution for the gun violence epidemic, or they will bear the financial cost of their complicity,” the president said. 

Twenty first grade students and six educators were killed on December 12, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut by Adam Lanza, who repeatedly fired a Remington semi-automatic rifle as he made his way through the school. 

The families and a survivor of the massacre sued Remington in 2015, maintaining the company should have never sold such a dangerous military-style weapon to the public. They also said they are focused on preventing other mass shootings.

“Today is not about honoring our son Benjamin. Today is about how and why Ben died,” said Francine Wheeler, whose 6-year-old son was killed in the massacre. “Our legal system has given us some justice today, but David and I will never have true justice. True justice would be our fifteen-year-old healthy and here with us.”

The civil lawsuit in Waterbury Superior Court focused on how the Bushmaster XM15-E2S rifle was marketed, maintaining Remington singled out younger, at-risk males in marketing and in product placements in violent video games. 

Remington did not immediately comment on the settlement but the gunmaker had argued there was no evidence that its marketing of the rifle was linked to the killings. 

The gun manufacturer also had said the lawsuit should have been dismissed because of a federal law that grants broad immunity to the gun sector. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled, however, that Remington could be sued under state law over how it marketed the rifle. 

Remington appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. 

The gunmaker offered to pay the plaintiffs nearly $33 million in July. In 2018, Remington filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and emerged from it later that year under the control of its creditors. The company filed for bankruptcy again in July 2020 after more retailers restricted gun sales after other school shootings in the U.S. 

The plaintiffs said four insurers for Remington agreed to pay the full amount of coverage available, totaling $73 million. 

“This victory should serve as a wake-up call not only to the gun industry, but also the insurance and banking companies that prop it up,” said Josh Koskoff, a lawyer for the plaintiffs. “For the gun industry, it’s time to stop recklessly marketing all guns to all people for all uses and instead ask how marketing can lower risk rather than court it.” 

The rifle used by Lanza, who was 20 years old at the time of the shootings, was legally owned by his mother. He used to the rifle to kill his mother at their Newtown home before committing the mass shooting at the school. Lanza killed himself with a handgun as police arrived. 

Some information for this report came from The Associated Press and Reuters. 
…

Congress on Thursday gave final approval to legislation guaranteeing that people who experience sexual harassment at work can seek recourse in the courts, a milestone for the #MeToo movement that prompted a national reckoning on the way sexual misconduct claims are handled. 

The measure, which is expected to be signed by President Joe Biden, bars employment contracts from forcing people to settle sexual assault or harassment cases through arbitration rather than in court, a process that often benefits employers and keeps misconduct allegations from becoming public.  

Significantly, the bill is retroactive, nullifying that language in contracts nationwide and opening the door for people who had been bound by it to take legal action.  

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who has spearheaded the effort, called it “one of the most significant workplace reforms in American history.”  

Gillibrand, a Democrat from New York, said the arbitration process is secretive and biased and denies people a basic constitutional right: a day in court.  

“No longer will survivors of sexual assault or harassment in the workplace come forward and be told that they are legally forbidden to sue their employer because somewhere in buried their employment contracts was this forced arbitration clause,” she said.

Introduced in 2017 

Gillibrand, who has focused on combating sexual harassment and sexual misconduct in the military, originally introduced the legislation in 2017 with Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina. 

The legislation had uncommonly broad, bipartisan support in a divided Congress. That allowed the bill to be passed in the Senate by unanimous consent — a procedure almost never used for significant legislation, especially one affecting tens of millions of Americans. The House passed the bill this week on a robust bipartisan basis in a 335- 97 vote. 

Former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, who accused now-deceased network CEO Roger Ailes of making unwanted advances and harming her career when she rejected him, testified in support of the legislation. Some employee contracts at the network included binding arbitration clauses. 

Carlson, who appeared with Gillibrand and other senators at a news conference after Senate passage of the bill, said she could never have imagined, after coming forward with her allegations five years ago, that it would lead to a change in the law that both Democrats and Republicans would get behind. 

“Marching in the streets can inspire us. Editorials can open our minds. Hashtags can galvanize, but legislation is the only thing that lasts,” Carlson said. 

An estimated 60 million American workers have clauses tucked into their employment contracts forcing them to settle any allegations of sexual misconduct in private arbitration proceedings, rather than in court. The widespread practice has come under fire in the wake of the #MeToo movement for forcing employees to seek recourse without a jury, a chance to appeal a decision or the sunlight of a public court process.

‘Overdue’ legislation

“If you could ever say any legislation was long overdue, this is it,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. He called it “almost medieval” to force victims of harassment and assault “to shut up, not tell anyone about it and not seek justice.”

The secretive nature of binding arbitration protects companies and perpetrators, critics contend, and allows corporations to avoid changing any policies or removing serial abusers.  

The clauses barring lawsuits are not just limited to employment contracts but have been found in other service agreements, preventing those who were sexually assaulted at nursing homes or massage parlors from taking their claims to court.  

Defenders of the arbitration process, including business groups, have contended it is a faster and less costly way to resolve disputes than through lengthy courtroom proceedings.  

Graham said on the Senate floor that it does not harm businesses to ensure people who are harassed at work are treated fairly. 

“This is not bad for business. This is good for America,” he said.  

Many workers don’t realize they’re bound by forced arbitration rules and how the process can disproportionately benefit employers, with companies typically paying out smaller sums to settle claims, Gillibrand said.  

In a sign of the power of the #MeToo movement and wide-ranging support behind the change, the legislation’s co-sponsors included senators who are ideologically polar opposites, such as New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker and Missouri Republican Josh Hawley. 

Graham said at the news conference that things can be “pretty screwed up” in Washington but the legislation signals “that there’s some hope, as long as we listen to each other and try to make life better where we can find common ground.” 

The White House released a statement earlier this month in support of the bill.  
…

Legislation has advanced in the U.S. House of Representatives to impose sanctions on Ethiopians committing human rights abuses, blocking food aid delivery, or taking other actions that are worsening the country’s 15-month crisis. It would also sanction those providing training, weapons, or financial support to those involved in the conflict.

The proposed Ethiopian Stabilization, Peace and Democracy Act was voted out of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Tuesday. It can now be voted on by the full U.S. House. A similar bill is being considered in the Senate.

If enacted, the bill would sanction individuals as well as suspend U.S. security and financial assistance to the Ethiopian government until certain human rights conditions are met. It would also require the U.S. to oppose loans by international agencies such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to Ethiopia and Eritrea.

Congressman Tom Malinowski, a Democrat from New Jersey who co-sponsored the bill, said urgent action is needed.

“The war in Ethiopia has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world, and all the combatants, along with their foreign backers, are responsible for horrific abuses of basic human rights,” he said.

“Today, Congress is coming together to say that the conflict must end, and to hold accountable all those responsible for perpetuating it.”

The bill follows September sanctions and the November decision to suspend Ethiopia from the African Growth and Opportunity Act, which allows African countries’ exports duty-free access to the U.S. market.

One of the issues of ongoing concern to Congress is also the mass detention of Tigrayan civilians in several cities across Ethiopia, including the capital, Addis Ababa. Rights groups, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, say ethnic Tigrayans have been targeted since the start of the conflict in November 2020, citing reports of forced disappearances and arbitrary arrests among other human rights violations.

“The mass detention of Tigrayan civilians in unlivable conditions is a human rights violation so outrageous that it demands a forceful U.S. response,” tweeted Congressman Brad Sherman of California, calling for action on what he called an atrocity.

The bill calls on the State Department to determine whether war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide has been perpetrated by any party to the conflict. It also asks State to report on the role of foreign governments including those of China, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey in fueling the conflict.

The bill has drawn condemnation from the Ethiopian government and supporters in the global diaspora.

The American-Ethiopian Public Affairs Committee, a nonprofit diaspora organization that has supported the government during this conflict put the blame squarely on the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, which the government has designated a terrorist group, and armed forces in Tigray.

“This bill ignores the millions in Amhara and Afar … who were victims of the TPLF’s attacks,” the AEPAC said in a tweet.

The group further criticized the impact it would have on ordinary Ethiopians. “It will do nothing to repair the lives of those who have been left without loved ones or who have suffered serious injuries.”

Others in the Tigrayan diaspora have, however, supported the bill and previous U.S. sanctions on Ethiopian and Eritrean officials, including Omna Tigray, a nonprofit group consisting of Tigrayans residing in the diaspora who see the move as a way to protect the lives of civilians caught in the conflict.

Other analysts point to the effectiveness of earlier sanctions. Vanda Felbab-Brown, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said that “the praiseworthy design of the sanctions regime avoids typical pitfalls.” She said that implemented sanctions are meant to give “legal exceptions for humanitarian relief delivery.”

U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration has emphasized the goal of targeted sanctions is to ensure perpetrators are held to account.

“These sanctions authorities are not directed at the people of Ethiopia or Eritrea,” a White House official said in September during a call with reporters. “The new sanctions program is deliberately calibrated to mitigate any undue harm to those already suffering from this conflict.”

The United Nations has said thousands have been displaced by conflict in the country, and more than 60,000 Ethiopians, mostly from the Tigray region, are seeking refuge in neighboring Sudan. The U.N. estimates that about 9.4 million people in northern Ethiopia’s Tigray, Amhara, and Afar regions are in dire need of humanitarian assistance.
…

Congress would lift onerous budget requirements that have helped push the Postal Service deeply into debt and would require it to continue delivering mail six days per week under bipartisan legislation the House approved Tuesday.  

The election-year bill, coming at a time of widespread complaints about slower mail service, would also require the Postal Service to display online how efficiently it delivers mail to communities. 

The Postal Service is supposed to sustain itself with postage sales and other services but has suffered 14 straight years of losses. The reasons include growing worker compensation and benefit costs plus steady declines in mail volume, even as it delivers to 1 million additional locations every year.  

Postal Service officials have said that without congressional action, it would run out of cash by 2024, a frequent warning from the service. It has estimated it will lose $160 billion over the coming decade.  

Those pressures have brought the two parties together for a measure aimed at helping the Postal Service, its employees, businesses that use it and disgruntled voters who rely on it for delivery of prescription drugs, checks and other packages. Tuesday’s vote was 342-92, a rare show of partisan agreement, with all Democrats and most Republicans backing it. 

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, said the Postal Service “provides service to every American, no matter where they live, binding us together in a way no other organization does.”  

Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, that committee’s top Republican, said “the days of letters alone driving Postal Service revenue are not coming back.” The bill, he said, will “help it succeed into the 21st century.”  

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said he’s planning a vote before a recess that starts after next week. The bill has 14 GOP sponsors and, with strong Democratic support expected, seems on track to gain the 60 votes most bills need for Senate passage.  

Over the years, some lawmakers have wanted to impose tougher requirements for faster service by the Postal Service, while others have favored privatizing some services. The compromise omits controversial proposals.  

There has been talk over the years of reducing deliveries to five days per week, which could save more than $1 billion annually, according to the Government Accountability Office, the accounting agency of Congress. That idea has proven politically toxic and has not been pursued. 

The bill would also require the Postal Service to set up an online dashboard that would be searchable by ZIP code to show how long it takes to deliver letters and packages.  

The measure is supported by President Joe Biden, the Postal Service, postal worker unions, industries that use the service and others. 

Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said the bill would help “provide the American people with the delivery service they expect and deserve.” Mark Dimondstein, president of the American Postal Workers Union, called the bill “outstanding” in an interview. 

One of the bill’s few critics was Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., who said its changes fell short. 

“It has failed to make a profit, it has failed the American people, and everyone who has a mailbox knows it,” he said.  

The bill would end a requirement that the Postal Service finance, in advance, health care benefits for current and retired workers for the next 75 years. That obligation, which private companies and federal agencies do not face, was imposed in 2006. That ended up being the year that the Postal Service’s mail volume peaked and its financial fortunes steadily worsened. 

The Postal Service hasn’t made those payments since 2012. Overall it faces unpaid obligations of $63 billion, according to its most recent annual report. The bill forgives much of that debt. 

Instead of those obligations, the Postal Service would pay current retirees’ actual health care costs that aren’t covered by Medicare, the federal health insurance program for older people.  

The legislation would also require future Postal Service retirees to enroll in Medicare, which about 3 in 4 do now. The shift would save the Postal Service money by having Medicare cover much of its costs. 

Proponents say the changes would save tens of billions of dollars over the next decade. 

The Postal Service had a successful 2021 holiday season, delivering 97% of shipments on time during two weeks in December, according to ShipMatrix, which analyzes shipping package data. In 2020 more than a third of first-class mail was late by Christmas Day. 

Since the Postal Service has its own finance system, it is not counted as part of the federal budget. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill would save the government $1 billion over the next 10 years. 

That is largely because retirees’ prescription drug expenses under Medicare would be covered by required discounts from pharmaceutical makers. 

 
…

U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Michael Carpenter spoke with VOA’s Russian service Monday to discuss the situation along the Russia-Ukraine border.

Carpenter said the allies and its partners are trying “to see if the Kremlin is interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution to this crisis, to seeking to de-escalate the situation along Ukraine’s border, which is very dire.”

Here is a transcript of the interview, edited for clarity and brevity.

VOA: German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is in Washington and French President (Emmanuel) Macron is in Moscow. What are your expectations from these negotiations, and what could be the result of these massive diplomatic efforts?

U.S. Ambassador to the OSCE Michael Carpenter: Well, I think you’re right. It’s a massive diplomatic effort. We’re trying, with our allies and partners, to see if the Kremlin is interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution to this crisis, to seeking to de-escalate the situation along Ukraine’s border, which is very dire. The military buildup is really unprecedented. And so, naturally, we’re consulting very closely with allies and partners. We are here at the OSCE. We are at NATO. We’re doing it bilaterally, telegraphing to (Russian) President (Vladimir) Putin that there will be intense repercussions, both in terms of sanctions, in terms of export controls, in terms of military force posture, if he invades Ukraine, but also holding out hope for the potential for a diplomatic solution, as well.

VOA: How united is the West now in its response to Russian aggressive actions? We saw Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán visiting Putin quite recently.

Carpenter: Well, I think if you step back and look at the entire NATO alliance, I think we’re actually extremely united in an unprecedented way. When we launched a discussion of the crisis in European security here at the OSCE on January 13, really every state spoke out in support of a dialogue, which could be read as a condemnation of Russia’s position. Russia was really alone, and so I think they’re seeing that also in terms of the fact that we’ve had the North Atlantic Council, the European Council, as well as the G-7 (Group of Seven), all speaking in the same language about massive and unprecedented consequences in the event of a Russian military escalation. So, I don’t know that President Putin was counting on this, but the West is in fact very united right now.

VOA: How confident is the United States that Russia is in the final stages of preparing for an invasion of Ukraine? And what is that confidence based on? Can the United States convince OSCE partners of the reality of this threat?

Carpenter: Well look, here’s what I can tell you, that we have well over 100,000 combat-ready troops on the border. We have all of the equipment that would be necessary for invasion that is in place. And by that I mean attack helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, munitions supplies, medical supplies, engineering — all of the enablers that you would need to launch an invasion within a matter of days. And so, when you look at that military capability, you can’t just sit back and wait to see what happens. You have to be prepared, and you have to rally allies and partners to respond in the event that there is an invasion. At the end of the day, I can’t tell you what is in President Putin’s mind. I can’t tell you whether he will invade or not and when he might do it. But what I can tell you is that that capability is of extreme concern.

VOA: What mechanisms does Washington have within the OSCE that it could use now? Because we have the U.S. Helsinki Commission, we have very strong bipartisan statements on Russia from this commission, and we have you as a representative of the executive branch. So, what mechanism can you use?

Carpenter: What we are trying to do is to sharpen the choices for the Kremlin to present them with. On the one hand, a set of very severe consequences if they choose to act militarily, as I said: sanctions, export controls, substantially beefing up NATO’s force posture on the eastern flank. You’re already seeing it in terms of the fact that we’ve had now approximately 3,000 U.S. troops deploying to the European theater on a temporary basis. But if Russia invades Ukraine, a lot of other things are potentially on the table, as well. And then at the same time, holding out that option for diplomacy, including here at the OSCE, on things that the Russians have said in the past, that they do care about, things like deconfliction risk reduction, potentially even new forms of conventional arms control and transparency. If they’re interested in those things, then the OSCE is the place where we can develop the actual instruments, potentially even legally binding agreements, if we get far enough. That would satisfy our concerns and the Russian concerns. But right now, we’re in the process of elaborating these two sets of options and hoping very much that the Russians choose the option of diplomacy.

VOA: You just mentioned binding agreements. What is off the table?

Carpenter: Well first of all, any sort of agreements in terms of military transparency, confidence-building, reciprocal restraint — all of those would need to be negotiated and adhered to by all of our allies and partners. So, nothing about Europe without Europe. You’ve heard the various officials say that in the past as very much our mantra. Second of all, anything we do we’re not going to compromise on the core principles of the European security order, which means no acceding to spheres of influence, no ability of one state to dictate what sort of alliances another state gets to choose. None of that. So first, principles are going to be kept intact. But as I said, there is certainly room for confidence-building, risk reduction, new forms of conventional arms control if we get that far.

VOA: You’ve been studying in Russia for a very long time, both as an official and as an expert. Why do you think Vladimir Putin needed to create this crisis?

Carpenter: Well, I can’t tell you. As a U.S. official, I can’t speculate on what President Putin is thinking. What I can tell you is that there was this massive buildup in April, followed by an even more comprehensive, I would say buildup right now, which has all the hallmarks of a potential invasion of Ukraine. Why is President Putin doing it this time? Is it to seek concessions? Is it to try to escalate the situation militarily to Russia’s advantage? We don’t know. But we have to act from the premise that he may escalate militarily, and therefore, we have to telegraph that the costs that would result from that would be strategically catastrophic for Russia. So that both the Russian leadership and the Russian people understand that if this path is chosen — and let’s again, God forbid, that we go down this path — but if it is chosen, those repercussions and consequences will be massive.

VOA: Yesterday’s statement by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko that the Belarussian army will act jointly with the Russian army, what does this mean for you? How does it change the perspective on the situation? Belarus is a member of OSCE, as well.

Carpenter: Yes, Belarus is a member of the OSCE, and in the past, they have said repeatedly that they would never allow their country to serve as a launching pad for an invasion of a neighbor. And so, that language you’ve just cited has shifted a little bit, which is of extreme concern. We expect that there could be as many as 30,000 Russian troops deployed to Belarus, together with short-range ballistic missiles and other types of equipment that, in fact, would serve as a launching pad for a potential invasion. So, we’re watching the situation very closely. It’s very concerning what the Belarusian Ministry of Defense has said, with regards to the purpose of these exercises, frankly, doesn’t square with the reality on Belarus’ southern border, which is that there is no threat whatsoever from Ukraine. So, I think it deserves to be watched very, very closely.
…

U.S. Ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Michael Carpenter spoke with VOA’s Russian service Monday to discuss the situation along the Russia-Ukraine border. Carpenter said the allies and its partners are trying “to see if the Kremlin is interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution to this crisis, to seeking to de-escalate the situation along Ukraine’s border, which is very dire.”
…

Former Vice President Mike Pence on Friday directly rebutted Donald Trump’s false claims that Pence somehow could have overturned the results of the 2020 election, saying that the former president was simply “wrong.”

In a speech to the conservative Federalist Society in Florida, Pence addressed Trump’s intensifying efforts this week to advance the false narrative that he could have done something to prevent Joe Biden from taking office.

“President Trump is wrong,” Pence said. “I had no right to overturn the election.”

While Pence in the past has defended his actions on January 6 and has said that he and Trump will likely never see “eye to eye” on what happened that day, the remarks Friday marked his most forceful rebuttal of Trump to date. And they come as Pence has been laying the groundwork for a potential run for president in 2024, which could put him in direct competition with his former boss, who has also been teasing a comeback run.

In a statement Tuesday, Trump said the committee investigating the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol should instead look into “why Mike Pence did not send back the votes for recertification or approval.” And on Sunday, he blasted Pence, falsely declaring that “he could have overturned the Election!”

Vice presidents play only a ceremonial role in the counting of Electoral College votes, and any attempt to interfere in the count would have represented a profound break from precedent and democratic norms.

Pence, in his remarks Friday, described January 6, 2021, as “a dark day in the history of the United States Capitol.”

Pence was inside the building, presiding over the joint session of Congress to certify the presidential election, when a mob of Trump’s supporters violently smashed inside, assaulting police officers and hunting down lawmakers. Pence, who had released a statement earlier that day to make clear he had no authority to overturn the will of the voters, was rushed to safety as some rioters chanted “Hang Mike Pence!”

Pence framed his actions that day as in line with his duty as a constitutional conservative.

“The American people must know that we will always keep our oath to the Constitution, even when it would be politically expedient to do otherwise,” he told the group Friday. He noted that, under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, “elections are conducted at the state level, not by Congress” and that “the only role of Congress with respect to the Electoral College is to open and count votes submitted and certified by the states. No more, no less.”

“Frankly there is no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president,” he added. “Under the Constitution, I had no right to change the outcome of our election. And Kamala Harris will have no right to overturn the election when we beat them in 2024.”

Pence also acknowledged the lingering anger among many in Trump’s base. But he said: “The truth is, there’s more at stake than our party or political fortunes. Men and women, if we lose faith in the Constitution, we won’t just lose elections — we’ll lose our country.”
…

US President Joe Biden traveled to New York City on Thursday to highlight a new push by his administration to combat gun violence and crime, including a crackdown on untraceable firearms, so-called ghost guns. White House Bureau Chief Patsy Widakuswara has this report.
…

U.S. lawmakers are nearing a deal on sanctions aimed at deterring Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine. Several lawmakers who recently returned from a trip to Kyiv told VOA’s Congressional Correspondent Katherine Gypson there is broad bipartisan unity on confronting Russia.

Camera: Russian Service Produced by: Katherine Gypson
…

A U.S. senator was resting in the hospital Wednesday after suffering a stroke from which he is expected to recover fully, although it poses problems for the Democrats’ agenda until his return. 

Ben Ray Lujan, 49, underwent brain surgery to relieve swelling late last week and remains hospitalized, according to his office, which added that he was expected back at work in four to six weeks “barring any complications.” 

As he recovers, Democrats effectively lose their advantage in the Senate, which is split 50-50, with Vice President Kamala Harris wielding the tie-breaking vote. 

Unlike in the House, senators must vote in person.  

Party rank-and-file members fear that advancing White House priorities such as a stalled social spending bill and a Supreme Court justice confirmation on a party-line vote may now prove complicated.  

A brain bleed in 2006 took Democrat Tim Johnson out of Senate action for around nine months when he was 59 years old, while Republican Mark Kirk’s stroke in 2012 laid him low for a full year at age 52.  

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer paid tribute to “one of the most beloved members of this body” and said senators were hopeful the freshman member from New Mexico would be “back to his old self before long.” 

Lujan’s chief of staff, Carlos Sanchez, said in a statement the senator began experiencing dizziness and fatigue on Thursday last week and checked himself into the hospital, where the stroke was identified.  

‘Life is precious’

“As part of his treatment plan, he subsequently underwent decompressive surgery to ease swelling,” Sanchez said. 

President Joe Biden plans to announce his nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer by the end of this month and has vowed to pick a Black woman. 

The first Senate confirmation hearings would not likely take place until several weeks later, with a vote expected in late March at the earliest. 

But Biden will need at least one Republican vote if Lujan’s recovery takes more than a few weeks. 

Ketanji Brown Jackson, the early favorite to replace Breyer, won support from three Republican senators last year when she moved up to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

In the meantime, Schumer will likely focus on judicial nominations or legislation with clear cross-party backing. 

A government funding deal or a Russian sanctions package would likely be unaffected, but without Lujan, the planned resurrection of the Build Back Better social welfare and environment spending package appears dead.  

And the prospects for legislation aimed at ending supply chain woes and countering competition from China in the next month are also on shaky ground. 

According to the Congressional Research Service, the average age of senators at the beginning of the year was 64 years and four months, making it the oldest in history. 

The White House was asked in a news conference for Biden’s thoughts on trying to pass legislation with a majority so precarious that any senator falling sick can upend his plans. 

“Life is precious, as we know. You’re … familiar with the average age of senators in the Senate, but that is true on both sides of the aisle,” Biden press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters. 

“So, I would just say we spend most of our time engaging in good faith about the president’s agenda and not making those calculations.”
…