The Washington Supreme Court on Thursday upheld its previous ruling that a florist discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to sell them flowers for their wedding.

The court found in 2017 that the company, Arlene’s Flowers, had violated state anti-discrimination law by refusing the same-sex couple.

But the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 ordered the state’s justices to review whether there was “religious animus” in the decision after the high court narrowly ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Washington court found that state courts “did not act with religious animus when they ruled that the florist and her corporation violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination … by declining to sell wedding flowers to a gay couple, and they did not act with religious animus when they ruled that such discrimination is not privileged or excused by the United States Constitution or the Washington Constitution.”

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the conservative Christian group representing florist Barronelle Stutzman in the case, said Thursday that it will request the Supreme Court to take up the case once again.

“Barronelle serves all customers; she simply declines to celebrate or participate in sacred events that violate her deeply held beliefs,” John Bursch, the vice president of appellate advocacy at ADF, said in a statement.

“Despite that, the state of Washington has been openly hostile toward Barronelle’s religious beliefs about marriage, and now the Washington Supreme Court has given the state a pass. We look forward to taking Barronelle’s case back to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

“Washington state law protects same-sex couples from discrimination based on their sexual orientation, the same way it protects Washingtonians from discrimination based on their religion, veteran or military status, disability, race and other protected classes,” Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement Thursday. “I will continue to uphold these laws and fight to protect Washingtonians from discrimination.”

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in 2018 in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, finding that there were “some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility” from the state commission toward the baker’s religious beliefs.

The high court is currently considering whether to take up a similar case in Oregon, where a baker also refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple.

––This post was updated at 2:11 p.m.

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-CortezAlexandria Ocasio-CortezHillicon Valley: YouTube to ban extremist videos | Company in firestorm over conservative commentator | Big tech braces for antitrust showdown | Study finds Russian trolls more effective than thought | Democrats want answers on medical data breach Hillicon Valley: YouTube to ban extremist videos | Company in firestorm over conservative commentator | Big tech braces for antitrust showdown | Study finds Russian trolls more effective than thought | Democrats want answers on medical data breach On The Money: US, Mexico fail to get deal on tariffs | Trump says ‘not nearly enough’ progress | Dems needle GOP to buck Trump on trade | SEC approves new financial adviser rule MORE (D-N.Y.) joked on Thursday that she never thought one of her first legislative pushes would be alongside Sen. Ted CruzRafael (Ted) Edward CruzOvernight Defense: Senators plan 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sale | Trump defends transgender military plan | Trump, lawmakers prep to mark D-Day anniversary Texas Dem voters would rather see O’Rourke run for Cornyn’s Senate seat than 2020 presidency Texas Dem voters would rather see O’Rourke run for Cornyn’s Senate seat than 2020 presidency MORE (R-Texas). 

“It’s super bizarre, really weird, never thought in my life that one of my first pushes would be alongside Ted Cruz,” she told The Young Turks’s Rebel HQ in an interview published Thursday.

The two announced this week that their offices are holding staff-level meetings on efforts to pass a lifetime ban on former lawmakers lobbying.

Click Here: bape jacket cheap

ADVERTISEMENT

“I think it really shows what the true spirit of not being partisan is,” Ocasio-Cortez added. “Bipartisanship doesn’t mean let’s come together to go to war and lower taxes on the rich, but bipartisanship means OK I will swallow all of my distaste in this situation because we have found a common interest.”

The bipartisan efforts between the unlikely duo came after the Texas Republican said he agreed with his New York colleague that it should be illegal for former members of Congress to become corporate lobbyists.

“I have long called for a LIFETIME BAN on former Members of Congress becoming lobbyists,” Cruz tweeted last week to Ocasio-Cortez. “The Swamp would hate it, but perhaps a chance for some bipartisan cooperation?”

“If you’re serious about a clean bill, then I’m down. Let’s make a deal,” Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most prominent members of her party’s progressive wing, tweeted in response.

Lobbyists and K Street-watchers expressed skepticism to The Hill this week, saying that they have seen similar efforts fail in the past. Lobbyists said any bill would be a long-shot bid and, if passed, could face a fierce challenge in the courts.

A federal judge on Thursday released the audio of a voicemail that then-Trump attorney John Dowd left in late 2017 asking lawyers for former national security adviser Michael Flynn for a “heads-up” if he knew of information implicating President TrumpDonald John TrumpPelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Pelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Warren invokes Obama, Trump when asked about electability MORE.

Special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerSchiff says Intel panel will hold ‘series’ of hearings on Mueller report Schiff says Intel panel will hold ‘series’ of hearings on Mueller report Key House panel faces pivotal week on Trump MORE examined the November 2017 message in his obstruction of justice inquiry. Dowd left the voicemail for Flynn’s then-attorney Robert Kelner after they withdrew from the joint defense agreement with Trump’s attorneys.

ADVERTISEMENT

In it, Dowd asks Flynn’s attorney’s for a “heads-up” if there is information that “implicates the president.” Dowd also reminds the lawyers that Trump’s “feelings” toward Flynn, a former campaign adviser, still remain.

“I understand that you can’t join the defense; so that’s one thing. If, on the other hand, we have — there’s information that implicates the president, then we’ve got a national security issue, or maybe a national security issue,” Dowd says, according to the recording. “We need some kind of heads-up.”

Judge Emmet Sullivan had obtained the audio from federal prosecutors through a prior court order and has now made it publicly available.

Last week, prosecutors filed a complete transcript of the voicemail after they were ordered to by Sullivan. Dowd and others have complained that the full transcript, which shows him telling Flynn’s attorneys not to give up “confidential information,” demonstrates that Mueller selectively edited the voicemail as it appears in his 448-page report.

A partial transcript of the voicemail is referenced in Mueller’s report in the section discussing potential obstruction.

In an interview with Fox News’s Sean HannitySean Patrick HannityGOP takes aim at Comey, Brennan Hannity calls Mueller ‘basically full of crap,’ says ex-FBI head ‘doesn’t know the law’ Fox News wins monthly cable news race for 209th consecutive time MORE this week, Dowd called Mueller’s report a “fraud” and accused him of making “a false statement” in his report by editing down the transcript of the voicemail in a way that altered the “tenor and contents” of his contacts with Kelner.

Sullivan, a Clinton appointee, had initially ordered that federal prosecutors also provide him with transcripts of any recorded conversations Flynn had with Russian officials, likely then-Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.

But after prosecutors said in a court filing that those contacts were not being considered in the course of Flynn’s sentencing, Sullivan said they no longer needed to release the transcripts.

The release of the audio is one of several developments in Flynn’s case over the past few weeks. Prosecutors filed a less-redacted version of a memo last month revealing Flynn had cooperated in Mueller’s obstruction inquiry in addition to the Russia investigation, including by turning over the voicemail.

The former national security adviser on Thursday also fired his attorneys representing him in the case, a sign that he may be switching up his legal strategy as his sentencing nears.

Flynn was originally set to be sentenced last year, but chose to delay it after Sullivan harshly criticized the ex-Trump official and indicated that he would sentence Flynn to prison time.

Flynn is expected to take the witness stand against his former business partner, Bijan Kian, who faces a July trial on charges of failing to register as a foreign agent for the Turkish government. Flynn is expected to be sentenced sometime thereafter.

Click Here: bape jacket cheap

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was reportedly sued on Monday by a nonprofit over a directive keeping many scientists off of agency advisory panels, according to Reuters. 

The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), alleges that an Oct. 31, 2017, directive from former EPA chief Scott PruittEdward (Scott) Scott PruittEPA sued for keeping scientists off advisory committees EPA sued for keeping scientists off advisory committees Overnight Energy: EPA head accuses media of not reporting agency’s achievements | Leaked FDA study finds cancer-linked chemicals in food supply | Wheeler calls Flint water ‘safe to drink’ MORE overturned decades of EPA practices “for no good reason” and without required public comment.

ADVERTISEMENT

The NRDC claimed that the directive has been used to remove qualified scientists from the agency’s roughly 23 advisory committees, allowing EPA to replace scientific advisers with industry representatives, Reuters reported.

The nonprofit environmental advocacy group seeks to set aside the directive and all decisions that have been based on it.

A spokesperson for the EPA told The Hill it does not comment on pending litigation.

Pruitt’s 2017 directive bars anyone who receives EPA grant money from serving on advisory panels, citing a need for the committees to be more independent.

The former EPA chief, who resigned in July 2018 amid a growing number of ethics and spending scandals, argued that serving on a committee like the Science Advisory Board would be a conflict of interest for someone receiving agency money to conduct scientific research.

Click Here: highlanders rugby gear world

“We want to ensure that there’s integrity in the process, and that the scientists who are advising us are doing so with not any type of appearance of conflict,” Pruitt said at the time. “And when you receive that much money … there’s a question that arises about independence.”

Opponents countered that Pruitt wanted to increase representation from the fossil fuel industry and other Trump administration allies on the influential committees.

Since the directive took effect, representation for regulated industries and their allies has grown on the committees, at the expense of academics and researchers, The Hill reported in February.

A legal challenge to the directive fell short that month.

Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee to the District Court for the District of Columbia, dismissed the lawsuit from public health groups, saying it does not dictate who can be appointed to advisory boards.

The laws and regulations at issue “do not dictate whom administrators must, or even should, appoint to federal advisory committees,” McFadden wrote in a ruling dismissing the case.

“To say that certain individuals may not serve is very different than saying that the rest must serve,” he wrote. “Agency heads retain substantial discretion to determine membership on federal advisory committees.”

Former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenOvernight Energy: Biden unveils trillion climate plan | Plan included passages lifted from green groups | Warren offers trillion green manufacturing plan | Ocasio-Cortez praises Inslee on climate Overnight Energy: Biden unveils trillion climate plan | Plan included passages lifted from green groups | Warren offers trillion green manufacturing plan | Ocasio-Cortez praises Inslee on climate Ocasio-Cortez calls Jay Inslee’s climate plan the ‘gold standard’ MORE unveiled his plan to battle climate change Tuesday, but the plan lifted multiple passages from climate policy think tanks.

The Biden campaign said they inadvertently left citations off of some passages of the report, adding that the proposal was updated to include proper citations.

“Several citations, some from sources cited in other parts of the plan, were inadvertently left out of the final version of the 22 page document. As soon as we were made aware of it, we updated to include the proper citations,” Biden’s campaign told The Hill.

ADVERTISEMENT

Biden’s campaign had described carbon capture sequestration, a method of trapping carbon emissions from power plants and other polluting industries, as “a rapidly growing technology that has the potential to create economic benefits for multiple industries while significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions.”

The Blue Green Alliance described the process in almost exactly the same way in a letter 2017 letter to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, omitting only the word “the” before “potential.” The group acknowledged in a statement to The Hill on Tuesday that Biden’s campaign used language from documents publicly available on its website.

That example and others were first flagged by Josh Nelson, vice president of Credo Mobile who previously worked for the Climate Reality Project, which was founded by former Vice President Al GoreAlbert (Al) Arnold GoreOvernight Energy: Biden unveils trillion climate plan | Plan included passages lifted from green groups | Warren offers trillion green manufacturing plan | Ocasio-Cortez praises Inslee on climate Overnight Energy: Biden unveils trillion climate plan | Plan included passages lifted from green groups | Warren offers trillion green manufacturing plan | Ocasio-Cortez praises Inslee on climate Biden campaign updates climate plan after lifting passages from green groups MORE, and the National Wildlife Federation.

In another portion of his climate plan, Biden’s proposal said it hoped to make carbon capture sequestration “a widely available, cost effective, and rapidly scalable solution to meet mid-Century climate goals.”

The nonpartisan Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) describes the goal of the Carbon Capture Coalition the exact same way.

Plagiarism has been an issue in Biden’s past presidential ambitions. The former longtime Delaware senator withdrew from the 1988 presidential race after reports that he incorporated passages from other speeches into his own.

“We do not coordinate with campaigns, but carbon capture should be an essential element in any comprehensive strategy to eliminate carbon emissions,” said Alec Gerlach, communications director with C2ES.

Mike Williams, interim co-executive director of the Blue Green Alliance, acknowledged that Biden’s campaign used language from the group’s website but said the group is “appreciative that multiple campaigns have put forward plans to address climate change and we have been in communication with several campaigns to discuss ways to tackle this crisis that put America’s workers at the forefront of the discussion.”

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia

“We’re proud of our efforts to champion policies that will address climate change, repair America’s infrastructure systems, and build a stronger, fairer economy for all Americans,” he said in a statement.

Updated: 4:55 p.m.

British commentator and former “Celebrity Apprentice” winner Piers Morgan pressed President TrumpDonald John TrumpPelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Pelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Warren invokes Obama, Trump when asked about electability MORE in an interview about the president’s public support of the LGBTQ community while issuing a ban on transgender people serving in the military.

Morgan, in an interview that aired Wednesday on “Good Morning Britain,” asked Trump why he felt the “need to ban transgender people” from the military.

ADVERTISEMENT

“This week, you tweeted your support for the LGBT community around the world where they’re being persecuted or excluded,” Morgan said. “Which does prompt the obvious question: If you feel that protective of the LGBT community, why did you feel the need to ban transgender people from serving in the U.S. military?”

Trump said it was because transgender people “take massive amounts of drugs.”

“They have to … and you’re not allowed to take drugs,” Trump said. “You’re not allowed to take any drugs. You take an aspirin. And they have to after the operation. They have to. They have no choice. They have to.”

Morgan pointed out to the commander in chief that the cost of medication for transgender troops is “minuscule” compared to the U.S. military’s budget.

“The U.S. military spends a lot more money on, for example, giving Viagra to servicemen than it does actually on medical bills for transgender people,” the host added.

Trump said he didn’t know that statistic.

“So it just seems to me an unnecessary thing for a guy who wants to be supportive of the LGBT rights and the community around the world, that you’ve taken this action,” Morgan told the president.

Trump responded, “It is what it is.”

The president then claimed that many service members were joining the military, requesting operations and then taking time off for recovery.

“You have to have a standard and you have to stick by that standard,” Trump said in the interview. “We have a great military and I want to keep it that way. And maybe they would be phenomenal, I think they probably would be.”

“But, again, you have very strict rules and regulations on drugs and prescription drugs and all of these different things. And they blow it out of the water,” the president added.

Transgender troops have been serving openly since the Obama administration lifted a previous ban in 2016.

But in July 2017, Trump tweeted he would “not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. military.”

Trump’s controversial policy was met by a series of lawsuits from LGBTQ advocacy groups, but it took effect in April.

Under the new policy, outlined in a March memo, transgender service members currently serving or anyone who has already signed an enlistment contract can continue to serve openly and receive medical care.

But transgender individuals who join the military going forward will have to serve in the gender they were assigned at birth. Anyone diagnosed with gender dysphoria will not be allowed to enlist unless a doctor certifies they have been stable in their biological sex for 36 months.

Troops who receive a gender dysphoria diagnosis while currently serving in the military will fall under the new rules.

Click Here: online rugby store malaysia

A bipartisan group of senators plans to flood the Senate with 22 separate resolutions to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies that the Trump administration hoped to muscle through, they announced Wednesday.

Among the senators joining together to introduce the resolutions of disapproval is Trump ally Sen. Lindsey GrahamLindsey Olin GrahamOvernight Defense: Senators plan 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sale | Trump defends transgender military plan | Trump, lawmakers prep to mark D-Day anniversary Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales MORE (R-S.C.), who has split with the president over his support for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack

“While I understand that Saudi Arabia is a strategic ally, the behavior of Mohammed bin Salman cannot be ignored,” Graham said in a Wednesday statement. “I am also very concerned about the precedent these arms sales would set by having the Administration go around legitimate concerns of the Congress. I expect and look forward to strong bipartisan support for these resolutions of disapproval.”

The others introducing the resolutions are Sens. Bob MenendezRobert (Bob) MenendezEnding the Cyprus arms embargo will increase tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean We can accelerate a cure for Alzheimer’s The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Manafort sentenced to total of 7.5 years in prison MORE (D-N.J.), ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee; Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyOvernight Defense: Senators plan 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sale | Trump defends transgender military plan | Trump, lawmakers prep to mark D-Day anniversary Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales MORE (D-Conn.); Rand PaulRandal (Rand) Howard PaulOvernight Defense: Senators plan 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sale | Trump defends transgender military plan | Trump, lawmakers prep to mark D-Day anniversary Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales MORE (R-Ky.); Patrick LeahyPatrick Joseph LeahyOvernight Defense: Senators plan 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sale | Trump defends transgender military plan | Trump, lawmakers prep to mark D-Day anniversary Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales MORE (D-Vt.); Todd YoungTodd Christopher YoungOvernight Defense: Senators plan 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sale | Trump defends transgender military plan | Trump, lawmakers prep to mark D-Day anniversary Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales MORE (R-Ind.); and Jack ReedJohn (Jack) Francis ReedOvernight Defense: Senators plan 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sale | Trump defends transgender military plan | Trump, lawmakers prep to mark D-Day anniversary Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales Senators plot 22 resolutions to block Saudi arms sales MORE (D-R.I.), the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Under normal procedures outlined in the Arms Export Control Act, lawmakers have 30 days to review and potentially block an arms sale once the administration formally notifies Congress about it.

But last month, the Trump administration notified Congress it was invoking a provision of that law allowing arms sales to go through immediately without the review period.

In doing so, the administration cited an alleged heighten threat from Iran to sell $8.1 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, with the UAE then transferring some to Jordan.

The sales had been long stalled amid bipartisan opposition fueled by concern about civilian deaths caused by the Saudi-led coalition’s operations in the Yemeni civil war. Opposition only grew after the Saudis killed U.S.-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi in their consulate in Istanbul.

Despite the administration using emergency powers, Congress can still block the sales until the weapons are delivered.

The law also makes resolutions of disapproval privileged, meaning the senators can force a vote on them.

The administration has argued that using emergency powers on arms sales is not unprecedented. The emergency provision has been used four times before, with the Trump administration particularly highlighting when President Reagan did so in 1984 during the Iran-Iraq War after Iran attacked Saudi oil tankers.

But lawmakers opposed to the move argue that it is unprecedented to use the provision how the administration has, saying President TrumpDonald John TrumpPelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Pelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Warren invokes Obama, Trump when asked about electability MORE is attempting to circumvent Congress.

“The Trump administration’s effort to sell billions of U.S. weapons to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is yet another example of an end-run around Congress and a disregard for human rights,” Menendez said in a statement. “The best thing the secretary of State can do right now is withdraw his emergency certification, immediately submit these sales for the normal congressional review and engage with senators to address our concerns.

“Failing that, I am prepared to move forward with any and all options to nullify the licenses at issue for both Saudi Arabia and UAE and eliminate any ability for the administration to bypass Congress in future arms sales.”

A federal judge in New York on Monday indicated that he would not quickly resolve new claims about how a citizenship question was added to the 2020 census, saying that the matter was secondary to the Supreme Court’s current consideration of the question.

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

Judge Jesse Furman said during the brief hearing in a New York federal courthouse that he considers the new claims to be secondary to the matter currently before the Supreme Court, according to multiple media reports.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Supreme Court is expected to rule by the end of the month about whether the citizenship question should be allowed in the 2020 census.

Newly-revealed documents claim that late GOP redistricting strategist Thomas Hofeller played a substantial role in adding the citizenship question. Opponents of the question have long claimed it was added for political reasons, while the Trump administration has argued that the question is necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

Furman, an Obama appointee, said he considers the new claims surrounding Hofeller’s alleged role to be “serious,” according to media reports.

But he also said he wasn’t prepared yet to issue a decision on whether Trump administration officials should be sanctioned in light of the new claims, saying he needed further briefings on the matter.

The judge set deadlines that stretch over the next couple of months for parties in the case to make those filings, with the final briefing due on Aug. 2.

Furman’s order is a blow for those who hoped the new evidence would impact the upcoming Supreme Court ruling. Legal experts tell The Hill that it’s unlikely the justices will consider the new claims, as the record for the case is already closed.

In a statement released after the hearing, Dale Ho, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) Voting Rights Project, pointed to Furman’s assessment that the evidence is “serious.” Furman called a hearing on the new claims after the ACLU revealed the evidence in a court filing last week.

“Those questions go to the heart of this case: whether the Trump administration engaged in a cover-up or its real motive in adding a citizenship question to the census is to dilute the voting rights of minority communities,” Ho said.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority signaled during arguments in the case earlier this year that they would rule in favor of the citizenship question.

But the new evidence has roiled Congress. House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah CummingsElijah Eugene CummingsPelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Pelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Judge says he’s not ready to rule on new claims about census citizenship question MORE (D-Md.) has given Attorney General William BarrWilliam Pelham BarrNadler: ‘It may very well come to’ opening a formal impeachment inquiry Nadler: ‘It may very well come to’ opening a formal impeachment inquiry Judge says he’s not ready to rule on new claims about census citizenship question MORE and Commerce Secretary Wilbur RossWilbur Louis RossJudge says he’s not ready to rule on new claims about census citizenship question Judge says he’s not ready to rule on new claims about census citizenship question Supreme Court should postpone decision on Trump’s citizenship census question MORE until Thursday to hand over documents as his committee investigates how the question was added or face the prospect of being held in contempt by Congress.

The officials had failed to comply with congressional subpoenas for documents in the case, and Cummings pointed to the newly-revealed claims as further reason to obtain the agency records.

Cummings doubled down on that threat on Wednesday, saying that unless his panel receives the documents “we will be forced to move forward with holding Attorney General Barr and Secretary Ross in contempt of Congress.”

— Updated at 6:28 p.m.

Democratic lawmakers are challenging a new Trump administration report they say is – along with other White House moves – a precursor to opening the Grand Canyon to uranium mining. 

Speaking at a House natural resources hearing Wednesday, various lawmakers challenged the plan, arguing the U.S. did not need to mine for its own uranium – and definitely didn’t need to mine the Grand Canyon.

ADVERTISEMENT

The Commerce Department report, titled “Federal Strategy to Ensure Secure and Reliable Supplies of Critical Minerals,” released Tuesday night, lays out methods to ensure the federal government is mining what it considers “critical minerals” for national security purposes. In May the Interior Department added uranium to that list, an action that put many environmentalist and land conservations on edge.

“Even if we agreed with this premise that uranium mining was a national security issue – and I do not agree with that premise – it is important to note that the Grand Canyon region only holds .29 percent of known U.S uranium reserves. That’s less than three tenths of one percent of known U.S. uranium reserves,” said Rep. Alan LowenthalAlan Stuart LowenthalLong-shot Dems see little downside in running for president WHIP LIST: Number of Democrats backing Trump impeachment inquiry rises WHIP LIST: Number of Democrats backing Trump impeachment inquiry rises MORE (D-Calif.) at the legislative hearing.

Rep. Debra Haaland (D-N.M.) Chair of the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands committee said the report appears to jumpstart plans that would expose “tribal communities and Arizonans to the dangerous impacts of uranium mining.”

The U.S. currently relies completely on imports to supply its demand for 14 critical minerals, including uranium. President TrumpDonald John TrumpPelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Pelosi privately told Democrats she wants Trump ‘in prison’: report Warren invokes Obama, Trump when asked about electability MORE in 2017 directed federal agencies through an executive order to determine how to reduce the likelihood of critical mineral supply disruptions, a point echoed in the latest report.

“The United States is heavily dependent on foreign sources of critical minerals and on foreign supply chains resulting in the potential for strategic vulnerabilities to both our economy and military,” it reads.

Many uranium reserves lie near the Grand Canyon. The national park has been mined for the mineral in the past but critics say the action caused irreversible environmental damage and threatened the groundwater there.

“Currently over half of our uranium supplies come from our strongest allies, we’re talking about Australia and Canada, while the U.S. Department of Energy estimates that we already have access to enough uranium to meet our military needs until 2060,” Lowenthal said, arguing the administration was making a weak case for the need of new mining.

Despite a 20-year federal moratorium on the mining of uranium in the U.S. instituted in 2012 by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar under the Obama administration, lawmakers and others are seeing the Trump administration’s latest move as an assault on the ban. They believe the new rule puts the existing safeguard on the chopping block.

Last June, following backlash from one environmental group, an Interior Spokesperson under former Interior Secretary Ryan ZinkeRyan Keith ZinkeGianforte expected to announce gubernatorial bid as early as Friday Gianforte expected to announce gubernatorial bid as early as Friday Overnight Energy: Inslee says DNC won’t hold climate debate | Democrats fear Trump opening door to mining in Grand Canyon | Interior pick gets surprising support from greens | Ocasio-Cortez says effective climate plan needs T MORE tweeted, “The Secretary has no intention to revisit uranium mining in and around the canyon and has made exactly zero moves to suggest otherwise.”

However, current Interior Secretary David Bernhardt championed Trump’s leadership on the issue.

“Today’s federal strategy lays out a blueprint for America to once again be a leader in the critical minerals sector,” said Bernhardt in a statement. “As with our energy security, the Trump Administration is dedicated to ensuring that we are never held hostage to foreign powers for the natural resources critical to our national security and economic growth.”

He promised Interior would work “expeditiously” to help streamline the permitting process and locate domestic supplies of minerals.

The announcement came after Trump earlier named June the “Great Outdoors Month.”

Environmental groups called Commerce’s plan mining deregulation at its finest. Critics also pointed to the fact that Trump appointed Bernhardt and EPA Administrator Andrew WheelerAndrew WheelerRemaining vigilant against EPA’s clean water rollbacks Overnight Energy: EPA head accuses media of not reporting agency’s achievements | Leaked FDA study finds cancer-linked chemicals in food supply | Wheeler calls Flint water ‘safe to drink’ EPA head says water in Flint ‘safe to drink’ MORE, who were both former energy lobbyists.

“The books were cooked for these uranium mining corporations when Trump appointed two former lobbyists to cabinet positions, both who previously lobbied for and represented the very corporations that stand to benefit from these recommendations. Don’t be surprised if an import quota on uranium comes down the pipeline soon,” said Western Values Project Executive Director Chris Saeger in a statement.

“The threat of lifting the uranium mining moratorium and opening the Grand Canyon withdrawal area to industrial-scale uranium mining is real.”

But House lawmakers are hoping to bind the Trump administration’s hands on the issue. Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) along with 99 other members of Congress introduced a bill this week to make the 20-year mining moratorium established in 2012 permanent. The bill would keep off limits approximately one million acres of public lands north and south of the Grand Canyon from mining.

“The people of Arizona know the facts, that uranium mining is a threat to our precious water resources, to our tribal communities, and to one of our greatest national treasures,” Grijalva said.

Interior did not return a request for comment on whether the new guidelines will circumvent the previous mining moratorium, or whether they will seek to mine in the Grand Canyon.

Click Here: fjallraven kanken backpack

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold NadlerJerrold (Jerry) Lewis NadlerNadler: ‘It may very well come to’ opening a formal impeachment inquiry Nadler: ‘It may very well come to’ opening a formal impeachment inquiry Overnight Health Care: ‘Medicare for All’ gets boost from high-ranking Democrat | Anti-abortion group vows to spend M in 2020 election | Dems make Medicaid center of Kentucky governor fight MORE (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday that he is “confident” special counsel Robert MuellerRobert (Bob) Swan MuellerSchiff says Intel panel will hold ‘series’ of hearings on Mueller report Schiff says Intel panel will hold ‘series’ of hearings on Mueller report Key House panel faces pivotal week on Trump MORE will testify before his panel “soon.”

Nadler also reiterated that the committee would subpoena Mueller for testimony “if we have to,” and underscored Democrats’ demand that his appearance be public and not behind closed doors.  

ADVERTISEMENT

“Let’s just say that I’m confident he’ll come in soon,” Nadler told reporters in the U.S. Capitol. 

When asked whether he would subpoena Mueller, Nadler replied, “We will if we have to.” 

Nadler’s remarks come one week after Mueller delivered his first public statement on his investigation into Russian interference, during which he signaled he did not want to appear publicly before Congress and emphasized any public testimony would not go beyond his report.

“Beyond what I have said here today and what is contained in our written work, I do not believe it is appropriate for me to speak further about the investigation or to comment on the actions of the Justice Department or Congress,” Mueller said. 

Nadler reiterated Wednesday that Mueller has expressed willingness to answer questions behind closed doors, but he described such an arrangement as unacceptable. 

“He has said he is willing to come and testify and make an opening statement and then testify behind closed doors,” Nadler said. “We’re not willing to do that. We want him to testify openly. I think the American people need that. I think, frankly, it’s his duty to the American people, and we’ll make that happen.”

Lawmakers left Washington early this week, many of them traveling to Normandy to participate in the D-Day celebrations.

The House Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing for next Monday featuring testimony from John Dean, the former White House counsel during Richard Nixon’s administration who was a key figure in the Watergate scandal. 

It remains unclear when the committee would subpoena Mueller if such a move was needed. Nadler on Wednesday wouldn’t comment on timing but said he wouldn’t wait “too much.”

Click Here: cheap kanken backpack