Troy Downing, a Montana businessman seeking to challenge Sen. Jon TesterJonathan (Jon) TesterSenate confirms Trump’s watchdog for coronavirus funds Montana barrels toward blockbuster Senate fight The 10 Senate seats most likely to flip MORE (D-Mont.) next year, has chosen Lola Zinke to be his new campaign manager.
Zinke, the wife of Interior Secretary Ryan ZinkeRyan Keith ZinkeOvernight Energy: Trump officials may pursue offshore drilling after election, report says | Energy regulators to delay projects pending appeals | EPA union calls for ‘moratorium’ on reopening plans Trump administration could pursue drilling near Florida coast post-election: report Trump to make it easier for Alaska hunters to kill wolf pups and bear cubs: report MORE, worked on President Trump’s campaign last year and was a member of the transition team for the Veterans Affairs Department after the election.
“This isn’t title only, I’m going to be hands-on in this campaign because it’s vital for Montana and America that we elect Troy,” Lola Zinke said in a statement.
ADVERTISEMENT
“I first met Troy on a fishing trip and his kindness, intelligence, youthful enthusiasm, business experience and amazing military history made me think that one day he must serve his state and country again. And right now is the perfect time,” she added.
Downing, a businessman and commercial real estate professional, is one of four candidates seeking to oppose Tester next year.
Ryan Zinke himself was once considered a leading Republican challenger to Tester, but Trump picked the former congressman to head his Interior Department instead.
Lola Zinke was a member of Trump’s Hispanic and women’s outreach efforts last year.
She wrote a Breitbart News op-ed last October saying she supported Trump because of his support for the military and because “I believe Trump’s business acumen will help build a stronger economy and he will surround himself with incredibly smart and successful individuals rather than career bureaucrats.”
Downing said in a statement that “Lola brings our campaign to an entirely new level.”
“Her dynamic presence is a major addition to our team as we give the citizens of Montana a clear conservative voice focused on Montana values, not Washington D.C.’s [Sen.] Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenWarren, Democrats urge Trump to back down from veto threat over changing Confederate-named bases OVERNIGHT DEFENSE: Joint Chiefs chairman says he regrets participating in Trump photo-op | GOP senators back Joint Chiefs chairman who voiced regret over Trump photo-op | Senate panel approves 0B defense policy bill Trump on collision course with Congress over bases with Confederate names MORE (D-Mass.) values,” he added.
Lola Zinke’s decision to back Downing also gives him a major leg up in his crowded GOP primary.
Her support could give Downing a boost among the Interior secretary’s network of supporters and donors.
State Auditor Matt Rosendale, state Sen. Albert Olszewski and former state Rep. Russell Fagg are among the candidates fighting for the chance to take on Tester.
Ben Kamisar contributed to this report, which was updated at 12:07 p.m.
Sen. Luther StrangeLuther Johnson StrangeThe biggest political upsets of the decade State ‘certificate of need’ laws need to go GOP frets over nightmare scenario for Senate primaries MORE (R-Ala.) said in an interview early Tuesday that he hopes to be working “on offense” with President Trump,” arguing the United States is at “a turning point.”
“I want to be on offense with the president and the vice president because this is a turning point in our country,” Strange told “Fox & Friends” as voters in Alabama cast their ballots.
“We can’t have any more obstructionists, any more people that just want to give speeches. We need results, conservative results. That’s why I want to be up there. I think that’s why I’ve hit it off with the president so well.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Strange is facing off against former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore in Alabama’s Republican Senate primary runoff.
Trump has endorsed Strange, campaigning for him in Alabama last week. The president’s endorsement puts him at odds with his support base and has allied him with Senate GOP leadership.
It has also put Trump up against his former chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, who has thrown his support behind Moore. Moore’s backers have sought to portray Strange as a member of the corrupt Washington, D.C., establishment who needs to be ousted.
Moore in a recent poll led Strange by about 11 points.
The winner of the Tuesday runoff will advance to the general election in December, when Republicans will work to defend the seat vacated by Attorney General Jeff SessionsJefferson (Jeff) Beauregard SessionsMcCabe, Rosenstein spar over Russia probe Rosenstein takes fire from Republicans in heated testimony Rosenstein defends Mueller appointment, role on surveillance warrants MORE.
U.S. senators are attempting to block the State Department’s deal to sell Saudi Arabia nearly $1.5 billion in weapons, just days after the move was announced by the Obama administration.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) told Foreign Policy that he would “work with a bipartisan coalition to explore forcing a vote on blocking this sale. Saudi Arabia is an unreliable ally with a poor human rights record. We should not rush to sell them advanced arms and promote an arms race in the Middle East.”
Congressional opposition to the arms sale came as the Saudi-led, U.S.-backed military coalition broke an unsteady five-month ceasefire in Yemen last week and resumed bombing in the capital city of Sana’a—prompting immediate reports of civilian deaths. On Saturday, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) reported that an airstrike on a school in northern Yemen killed 10 children and wounded 28 others.
Paul and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), both of whom sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, are outspoken critics of the coalition.
“If you talk to Yemeni Americans, they will tell you in Yemen this isn’t a Saudi bombing campaign, it’s a U.S. bombing campaign,” Murphy said in June. “Every single civilian death inside Yemen is attributable to the United States.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Congress has 30 days after arms sales are announced to block or modify the deal, but actual intervention is rare.
A number of human rights organizations have opposed the deal. Oxfam and CODEPINK, among others, launched a petition to “[f]orce a public debate on U.S. participation in the Saudi war in Yemen by advocating for blocking the planned transfer of U.S. tanks and armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia,” which as of Monday had collected 9,500 signatures.
And this specific arms deal is especially important, according to foreign policy experts. As Robert Naiman explains, “In this particular case, it’s plausible that if we can block the Saudi arms sale, or even come close and have a robust public food fight about it, we can help end the catastrophic Yemen war.”
The effort is also supported by many lawmakers in the House of Representatives. Over the weekend, Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), warned that “the Saudi military’s operational conduct in Yemen and the killing of civilians with U.S.-made weapons have harmed our national security interests, and I will continue to oppose any arms sale that contributes to its operations in that arena.”
“This approved sale deserves to be scrutinized by Congress rather than rubber-stamped during the summer recess,” he said.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a controversial trade deal between Canada and the European Union (E.U.), threatens food safety and other consumer standards, according to a new report by a coalition of advocacy groups.
Even as other global trade deals like the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) fall apart amid failed negotiations, consumers and workers around the world still aren’t in the clear. According to Food Safety, Agriculture and Regulatory Cooperation in the Canada-E.U. Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (pdf), released by groups including the Council of Canadians, War on Want, and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, European farmers under CETA will have to compete with Canadian imports while contending with “no animal welfare penalties and lower safety standards.”
Meanwhile, corporations will have the ability to address trade disagreements through mechanisms like the Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), also included in the TPP, which allows private companies to sue governments over projected lost profits.
“For the U.K. this is of extra importance, as under CETA’s anti-democratic terms, we could still be open to being sued in corporate courts up to 20 years after leaving the E.U.,” said War on Want senior trade campaigner Mark Dearn.
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
And these kinds of pro-corporate provisions will serve to perpetuate the same kind of problems as other trade deals, the Council of Canadians explained (pdf).
“This would be yet another blow for European farmers who will now be competing Canadian agribusiness with no animal welfare penalties and lower safety standards,” said Maude Barlow, the council’s chairperson. “Canada is not the pristine wilderness Europeans imagine with small farms dotting the landscape. Under NAFTA, Canada has shifted towards large-scale agricultural production with half of all food production coming from just five percent of farms.”
Moreover, CETA was negotiated prior to Britain’s decision to leave the E.U.; in the wake of Brexit, tariff rate quotas for Canadian meat would be “exceedingly high” and impact European farmers “already facing a crisis over low agricultural prices,” the report found.
That’s especially concerning because, according to the council, Canada is “the third-largest producer of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the world.” The country also recently approved GMO salmon, which under CETA could be sold and eaten internationally.
“All over the world, people want more local, sustainable and healthy food, for our economies, our environment and our well-being. CETA takes us in the opposite direction—towards factory farms, unsustainable production, and questionable safety regulations,” said Sujata Dey, Council of Canadians trade campaigner, who coordinated the report. “Food is an essential part of our communities and our values. Europeans must know how their regulations could be downgraded before they make a decision on CETA.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Former British Prime Minister David Cameron announced Monday he is resigning from Parliament.
He said in a statement:
The development comes less than three months after Cameron resigned as prime minister following the Brexit referendum. During his time as prime minister, as Common Dreams wrote, he faced “criticism over his support for austerity policies, disregard for the environment, callous approach toward refugees, and hawkishness on the bombing of Syria.”
Cameron’s resignation, which counters his previous claim that he was “very keen” to continue as MP, triggers a by-election for his Oxfordshire seat of Witney. Cameron said in his statement that he would support the Conservative candidate.
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Backing up the Standing Rock Sioux and its allies, a United Nations expert has called on the United States to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Echoing pipeline opponents’ concerns, the statement from the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples, Victoria Tauli-Corpuz, cited the pipeline’s threats to drinking water and sacred sites. She also admonished the U.S. for failing to protect protesters’ rights and failing to properly consult with communities affected by the fossil fuel infrastructure.
“The tribe was denied access to information and excluded from consultations at the planning stage of the project, and environmental assessments failed to disclose the presence and proximity of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation,” Tauli-Corpuz stated Thursday—just two days after Standing Rock Chairman Dave Archambault II urged the UN Human Rights Council to help the tribe stop the pipeline.
Informed consent from those affected—and abiding by the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—is essential, she said, “particularly in connection with extractive resource industries.”
Responding to the crackdown on pipeline protesters, she said, “The U.S. authorities should fully protect and facilitate the right to freedom of peaceful assembly of indigenous peoples, which plays a key role in empowering their ability to claim other rights.”
According to Tom Goldtooth, the director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, “The UN Expert got it right.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“What the U.S. calls consultation is not consultation but a statement telling people what they’re doing after millions of dollars have been invested, painting Indigenous Peoples as spoilers. The right of free, prior, and informed consent begins prior to the planning process, not when their bulldozers are at your doorstep.”
Tauli-Corpuz’s statement was endorsed by seven other UN experts, including Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, Léo Heller; Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, John H. Knox; and Special Rapporteur on cultural rights, Karima Bennoune.
The pipeline, slated to snake a 1,172-mile path across four states from the Bakken fields of North Dakota to a hub in Illinois, has faced months of building resistance.
Given the continued protests—and legal hurdles—”the way forward won’t be simple” for the pipeline company, the Bismark Tribune reports this weekend.
And if it is ultimately halted, that’d be good news for pipeline opponents and proponents alike, according to Jacob Johns, a Spokane, Wash. resident and member of the An akimel O’Othm (Gile River Pima) and Hopi tribes.
“We’re out there protesting on behalf of the people who were for the pipeline,” he said to KXLY. “They don’t realize we’re out there fighting for each other, we are humanity trying to heal itself and save itself.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Excerpts of Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street institutions, divulged by WikiLeaks late on Friday, show why the Democratic presidential nominee was reluctant to have them publicized during her primary battle against populist rival Bernie Sanders.
In the lucrative speeches, for which she was paid some $225,00 a pop, Clinton signaled support for a plan that would lower corporate tax rates while raising the Social Security age; admitted she was out-of-touch with regular Americans; explained how politicians “need both a public and a private position;” and embraced a strong pro-trade position that could conflict with remarks she’s made on the campaign trail.
The excerpts were contained in an email sent from Clinton research director Tony Carrk to campaign chairman John Podesta and other senior aides, with a note that “[t]here is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub with Policy.”
WikiLeaks said the cache came from Podesta’s email account.
In one revealing excerpt, from a 2014 speech at a Goldman Sachs-Black Rock event, Clinton discussed being “kind of far removed” from the struggles of the middle class, saying:
She also lamented as “onerous and unnecessary” requirements that political candidates divest from certain assets and sell stocks before entering government, saying “there is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives.”
On more than one occasion, she spoke of how bankers should take a leading role in shaping financial regulations, saying in 2013, “the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who work in the industry.”
And on trade, Clinton told a Brazilian bank in 2013: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders…We have to resist, protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
Furthermore, Slate reported:
Still, as The Intercept points out, “there are signs in the emails released by WikiLeaks that she also took a fairly progressive stance on certain topics, including health care reform”:
Beyond the speech excerpts, Politico reports, “the emails affirm the campaign’s reputation for extreme caution, with an eagerness to proactively influence news coverage. Whether it’s plotting the candidate’s response to an early attack on influence peddling at the Clinton Foundation or writing jokes for an Iowa dinner speech, ad hoc committees—often incorporating advice from Bill Clinton—are shown agonizing over wording and tone. Under fire, they’re determined ‘not to look beleaguered,’ as one aide put it.”
WikiLeaks declared on Twitter that it had published just “1% of the #PodestaEmails so far. Additional publications will proceed throughout the election period.”
The leak comes after the U.S. on Friday accused Russia of hacking political organizations in an effort to influence the presidential election. The Clinton camp cited that accusation in its official response, with Clinton spokesman Glen Caplin stating Friday: “Earlier today the U.S. government removed any reasonable doubt that the Kremlin has weaponized WikiLeaks to meddle in our election and benefit Donald Trump’s candidacy. We are not going to confirm the authenticity of stolen documents released by Julian Assange, who has made no secret of his desire to damage Hillary Clinton.”
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lending credence to those who warn Donald Trump’s administration will be dangerous for women nationwide, conservative Texas lawmakers last week filed a slew of new bills attacking reproductive rights.
Legislation filed by GOP state representative Byron Cook would require healthcare centers to bury or cremate fetal remains after an abortion or miscarriage. In October, women’s rights advocates delivered 5,500 signatures to the Department of State Health Services (DSHS) opposing a similar—and costly (pdf)—proposal put forth by that agency at the direction of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott.
At a hearing on the DSHS proposal held the day after Trump’s election, “[s]ome women were in tears as they shared stories about their traumatic miscarriages and abortions,” the Austin American-Statesman reported. “They said they would have suffered more had they been required to bury or cremate the fetus.”
Notably, Vice President-elect Mike Pence signed a bill containing a similar provision as Indiana governor earlier this year. It was blocked from going into effect by a federal judge in June.
Another proposal, put forth by Republican state senator Charles Schwertner, gives lip service to top anti-choice talking points. Schwertner’s “Pre-Born Protection and Dignity Act” would “declare something that is already illegal everywhere in the United States, so-called ‘partial-birth’ abortion, illegal in the state of Texas,” the Dallas Observer explained. “Schwertner’s bill would also ban most fetal tissue donation in the state, despite the fact that Texas has not had an active fetal tissue donation program 2010.”
Citing Schwertner’s legislation among other “high-priority bills,” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick declared last week:
Yet another proposed bill was described by the Observer as “the first shot in a battle that could end in abortion being banned in the state.”
Of state senator Bob Hall’s effort, the outlet wrote:
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
In a television interview after his election, Trump reiterated his vow to elect “pro-life” justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, where they could potentially overturn Roe v. Wade and send the matter of abortion access “back to the states.” Pence, for his part, has said he wants to “see Roe v. Wade consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs.”
The Dallas Morning News further reported on other anti-choice proposals put forth in Texas:
The Daily Beast pointed out that Schaefer has put forth similar legislation in sessions past, with “little legislative success.”
However, the publication continued, “these men who would do away with abortion, elected by and loyal to the Tea Party, might find more success or at least more support in a nation ruled by President Donald Trump.”
Indeed, Jordan Smith wrote last week for The Intercept that the Texas proposals are “a preview of Trump’s America,” saying: “[T]he federal government has been crucial in insulating Texas women (and women in similar states) from the insidious regulations championed by conservative state lawmakers—but under a Trump presidency, those important protections may altogether disappear.”
Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks took on the issue over the weekend:
Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is calling on House Democrats’ campaign arm to give back money from film producer Harvey Weinstein, who has been accused of serial sexual harassment and rape.
The House GOP’s campaign arm launched a video, provided first to The Hill, urging the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) to give back the money from the Democratic mega-donor. According to Open Secrets, Weinstein gave the DCCC $16,200 in 2013 and $5,000 in 2011.
The video uses a clip of an interview with Sen. Chris MurphyChristopher (Chris) Scott MurphyState, city education officials press Congress for more COVID-19 funds The Hill’s 12:30 Report: Trump takes victory lap in morning news conference Pelosi demands Trump clarify deployment of unidentified law enforcement in DC MORE (D-Conn.) who says that those who received money from Weinstein “should probably give it back.”
“In light of these allegations, it’s time for Democrats to return Harvey Weinstein’s dirty money,” NRCC spokesman Matt Gorman said in a statement provided to The Hill. “The DCCC’s silence is unconscionable and they cannot excuse years of abuse by one of their donors.”
ADVERTISEMENTDemocrats who have received money from Weinstein, such as Senate Minority Leader Charles SchumerChuck SchumerOvernight Health Care: US showing signs of retreat in battle against COVID-19 | Regeneron begins clinical trials of potential coronavirus antibody treatment | CMS warns nursing homes against seizing residents’ stimulus checks Schumer requests briefing with White House coronavirus task force as cases rise Schumer on Trump’s tweet about 75-year-old protester: He ‘should go back to hiding in the bunker’ MORE (D-N.Y.), have pledged to donate the money to nonprofit groups that advocate for women who have been sexually abused. Weinstein had also given money to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
The DNC came under fire for donating money from Weinstein to political groups that help elect female candidates instead of charities or nonprofits that help women who are victims of sexual abuse or violence.
The NRCC’s video comes on the heels of a Tuesday report from The New Yorker that three women have reportedly accused Weinstein of rape. The report also said that 13 women alleged that they had been sexually harassed or assaulted by the Hollywood mogul between the 1990s and 2015.
The DCCC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Two federal judges on Wednesday ruled in favor of absentee and mail-in voting plans in Montana and Alabama.
In the first decision, U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen ruled that Montana Gov. Steve BullockSteve BullockTwo federal judges rule in favor of mail-in voting in Montana, Alabama OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Interior Secretary will lead BLM after judge ousts Pendley from public lands role | Trump, Biden spar over climate change at debate | Trump official delays polar bear study with potential implications on drilling: report Interior Secretary will lead BLM after judge ousts Pendley from public lands role MORE’s (D) plan to allow the state’s counties to mail ballots to every voter can proceed, according to Reuters. President TrumpDonald John TrumpTrump signs bill averting shutdown after brief funding lapse Privacy, civil rights groups demand transparency from Amazon on election data breaches Facebook takes down Trump campaign ads tying refugees to coronavirus MORE’s reelection campaign and the Republican Party sued over the plan in early September.
President Trump has frequently claimed that mail-in voting will give rise to widespread fraud, contradicting experts who say it is not a meaningful source of fraud. “The evidence suggests, however, that this allegation, specifically in Montana, is a fiction,” Christensen wrote Wednesday, according to Reuters.
ADVERTISEMENT
“I’m pleased that today’s decision will enable hundreds of thousands of Montanans to vote safely — in person or by mail — this coming election,” Bullock said in a statement. “Montanans can rest assured that our local election administrators will preserve the security and integrity of the election process.”
ADVERTISEMENT
Bullock will be on the ballot in the state in November, challenging Sen. Steve DainesSteven (Steve) David DainesTwo federal judges rule in favor of mail-in voting in Montana, Alabama Senate Democrats want to avoid Kavanaugh 2.0 On The Trail: Making sense of this week’s polling tsunami MORE (R).
In Alabama, U.S. District Judge Abdul Kallon blocked the state from imposing requirements for absentee voting such as notarized signatures, which plaintiffs have said will increase the risk of coronavirus transmission. Both judges are Obama appointees.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) said he planned to appeal Kallon’s decision and that there was no indication the requirements had been a major barrier to voting in the July Alabama primary.