Biden should not just drop out of the race. He should resign.

from THE HILL, (Washington newsletter)

SPONSORED:

JUST IN

BY JAMIE BARNETT, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 07/02/24 9:45 AM ET

This is a tough question, BUT: Absolutely not resign. WTF? Yet an open convention might be good. If Joe has no more senior moments his nomination could be reaffirmed. But note that the conservative HILL newsletter also has an opinion piece urging BOTH major party nominees to resign for the good of the country. We have two old men, one of which is certifiably insane. And then there’s the other: Joe Biden. The mainstream press that The Trump is always denigrating has been working diligently to ease Biden out for his senior moment daily updates.

This news blog editor is not voting for the President. But that has nothing to do with doubts about his age. It has to do with being EYELESS IN GAZA: a human rights catastrophe that Biden-Blinken seem to be deaf to. So a write-in is in order: say, Micky Mouse. Biden’s opponent is the most dangerous, mentally defective individual to seek the office– Ever.

The press gave lip service to Donald’s cascade of lies at the debate and his threats if elected. But they did not do much more than tap his wrists, because the expectations were so low and it was assumed that Biden would be in “State of the Union” mode. He wasn’t when it counted, but Was when visiting North Carolina the next day. The fact that ex-President Bone-spur has avoided prison and will be kept out of jail by his pet Supreme Court, another disgrace guarantees that 2024 will continue to be a rocky year. Yes, Joe Biden should have been a highly rated 1-term president.

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA – MAY 29: U.S. President Joe Biden and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris wave to members of the audience after speaking at a campaign rally at Girard College on May 29, 2024 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Biden and Harris are using today’s rally to launch a nationwide campaign to court black voters, a group that has traditionally come out in favor of Biden, but their support is projected lower than it was in 2020. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

https://instaread.co/player?article=biden-should-not-just-drop-out-of-the-race-he-should-resign&publication=thehill&article_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fopinion%2F4750336-biden-resign-presidency-campaign&version=1719928800000

President Joe Biden should not just leave the presidential race. He should resign the presidency. Now. 

The New York Times editorial board and a host of other non-partisan voices have called for Biden to announce that he will no longer run for president. But in this particular race, it is not enough. Biden’s departure from the race this summer would kick-off a tumultuous, bitter fight for the nomination in an open convention that is already in jeopardy of crippling protests. The infighting would leave bruises or wounds among the likely Democratic contenders and the constituencies that have been loosely united behind the incumbent until his unfortunate debate performance. Biden’s remaining in the race would most probably ensure a return of Donald Trump to the White House.  

These are not the musings of a Trump supporter. I actively campaigned for the Obama-Biden ticket twice and appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention in 2008 and in a convention video in 2012. I served in a low-level appointive position in the first Obama administration. I campaigned for Joe Biden in 2020, and I have a picture of him on the wall of my office. I think history will remember him as an extraordinarily effective president in a time of incredible peril. 

Joe Biden does not get anywhere near the credit he deserves for his performance. He came into the presidency with the economy wrecked by Donald Trump’s malfeasance in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden was able to overcome embittered partisanship to deliver the infrastructure bill with $1.2 trillion in investments to bridges, roads, waterways, broadband and energy. The infrastructure bill also paved the way to record-breaking job growth. 

The CHIPS Act bolstered strong jobs with an industrial policy that ensures national security and a reliable supply chain. His Inflation Reduction Act has actually helped reduce the inflation caused by Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic and the Trump tariffs, which drove up prices for Americans. There are many other examples. At this time in history, no one else could have achieved this except Joe Biden. Whatever mistakes Biden has made, these achievements shine brightly. 

But his greatest achievement was his first one, the one that caused him to run in 2020: saving the nation and the world from the disaster of another Trump term. 

Biden has the judgment and the character to be president again, two things that Donald Trump does not have and never will. But judgment and character will not defeat Donald Trump. If President Biden stays in the race, I will vote for him, but we may look back at this moment and wonder whether Biden’s judgment and character should have led him to leave the race and the presidency. 

If the goal is once again for Joe Biden to save the nation and the world from the disaster of another Trump term, there is no dishonor if Biden passes the baton, of his own accord, having run the good race. If he resigns the presidency now, he will give the Democratic Party a fighting chance to beat Trump. He will create the first female president, the first African American female, the first multi-racial female president in history. In one fell swoop, he will have enlivened many of the constituencies that the media have claimed are disaffected. Kamala Harris will have the first first gentleman in history, one who is Jewish. She will be able to unite the party with a strong running mate.  

This will not keep the Democratic National Convention from being a chaotic, open convention, but it will be a strong move that could lead to unity and victory. It will be Joe Biden that provides that victory.  

There are drawbacks, there are counterarguments to such a bold move. One is that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) would be second in line to the presidency, and the minority-controlled Senate would be unlikely to confirm a new vice president before the election. Biden would be criticized for choosing his successor, but he already did in choosing Harris as his vice president. 

Biden is no quitter. He has overcome many, many tragedies and challenges. But despite his weakened presentation as a campaigner, he is a truth teller, and he has good judgment and good character. He has said over and over: This is not about him. 

It’s about the country. It’s about the democracy. It’s about the people. 

Jamie Barnett is a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, serving 32 years in the Navy and Navy Reserve. After he retired, he served as the chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission during the Obama administration.

Biden should not just drop out of the race. He should resign.

BY JAMIE BARNETT, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR – 07/02/24 9:45 AM ET

SHAREPOST

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA – MAY 29: U.S. President Joe Biden and U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris wave to members of the audience after speaking at a campaign rally at Girard College on May 29, 2024 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Biden and Harris are using today’s rally to launch a nationwide campaign to court black voters, a group that has traditionally come out in favor of Biden, but their support is projected lower than it was in 2020. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

https://instaread.co/player?article=biden-should-not-just-drop-out-of-the-race-he-should-resign&publication=thehill&article_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthehill.com%2Fopinion%2F4750336-biden-resign-presidency-campaign&version=1719928800000

President Joe Biden should not just leave the presidential race. He should resign the presidency. Now. 

The New York Times editorial board and a host of other non-partisan voices have called for Biden to announce that he will no longer run for president. But in this particular race, it is not enough. Biden’s departure from the race this summer would kick-off a tumultuous, bitter fight for the nomination in an open convention that is already in jeopardy of crippling protests. The infighting would leave bruises or wounds among the likely Democratic contenders and the constituencies that have been loosely united behind the incumbent until his unfortunate debate performance. Biden’s remaining in the race would most probably ensure a return of Donald Trump to the White House.  

These are not the musings of a Trump supporter. I actively campaigned for the Obama-Biden ticket twice and appeared on stage at the Democratic National Convention in 2008 and in a convention video in 2012. I served in a low-level appointive position in the first Obama administration. I campaigned for Joe Biden in 2020, and I have a picture of him on the wall of my office. I think history will remember him as an extraordinarily effective president in a time of incredible peril. 

Joe Biden does not get anywhere near the credit he deserves for his performance. He came into the presidency with the economy wrecked by Donald Trump’s malfeasance in handling the COVID-19 pandemic. Biden was able to overcome embittered partisanship to deliver the infrastructure bill with $1.2 trillion in investments to bridges, roads, waterways, broadband and energy. The infrastructure bill also paved the way to record-breaking job growth. 

The CHIPS Act bolstered strong jobs with an industrial policy that ensures national security and a reliable supply chain. His Inflation Reduction Act has actually helped reduce the inflation caused by Trump’s mishandling of the pandemic and the Trump tariffs, which drove up prices for Americans. There are many other examples. At this time in history, no one else could have achieved this except Joe Biden. Whatever mistakes Biden has made, these achievements shine brightly. 

But his greatest achievement was his first one, the one that caused him to run in 2020: saving the nation and the world from the disaster of another Trump term. 

Biden has the judgment and the character to be president again, two things that Donald Trump does not have and never will. But judgment and character will not defeat Donald Trump. If President Biden stays in the race, I will vote for him, but we may look back at this moment and wonder whether Biden’s judgment and character should have led him to leave the race and the presidency. 

If the goal is once again for Joe Biden to save the nation and the world from the disaster of another Trump term, there is no dishonor if Biden passes the baton, of his own accord, having run the good race. If he resigns the presidency now, he will give the Democratic Party a fighting chance to beat Trump. He will create the first female president, the first African American female, the first multi-racial female president in history. In one fell swoop, he will have enlivened many of the constituencies that the media have claimed are disaffected. Kamala Harris will have the first first gentleman in history, one who is Jewish. She will be able to unite the party with a strong running mate.  

This will not keep the Democratic National Convention from being a chaotic, open convention, but it will be a strong move that could lead to unity and victory. It will be Joe Biden that provides that victory.  

There are drawbacks, there are counterarguments to such a bold move. One is that Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) would be second in line to the presidency, and the minority-controlled Senate would be unlikely to confirm a new vice president before the election. Biden would be criticized for choosing his successor, but he already did in choosing Harris as his vice president. 

Biden is no quitter. He has overcome many, many tragedies and challenges. But despite his weakened presentation as a campaigner, he is a truth teller, and he has good judgment and good character. He has said over and over: This is not about him. 

It’s about the country. It’s about the democracy. It’s about the people. 

Jamie Barnett is a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, serving 32 years in the Navy and Navy Reserve. After he retired, he served as the chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission during the Obama administration.

Anti-Muslim hate groups in US surge back into spotlight


Pilgrims offer prayers outside at the Grand Mosque during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, June 12, 2024.
Pilgrims offer prayers outside at the Grand Mosque during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, June 12, 2024.

Here We Go Again

WASHINGTON — 

Once seemingly fading into obscurity, anti-Muslim hate groups in the United States have surged back into the spotlight in recent months, reinvigorated by the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

Many of these groups, such as Jihad Watch and ACT for America, emerged in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. and thrived on public fears of terrorism. But as those fears waned in recent years, so did the groups’ sway. Some disbanded, while others gravitated to other hot-button issues.

From a peak of 114 in 2017, their number dropped to a mere 34 last year, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit that tracks hate groups.

In early 2023, “Islamophobia was down to a slow trickle,” SPLC senior research analyst Caleb Kieffer said.

Then came the October 7 Hamas assault on Israel, which claimed about 1,200 lives and triggered a massive Israeli military response in Gaza.

Anti-Muslim groups that had “opportunistically” seized on divisive issues, such as critical race theory and LGBTQ-inclusive policies, swung back into action.

“These anti-Muslim groups went right back to their core messaging,” Kieffer said in an interview with VOA. “They’ve been going hard on the rhetoric since October last year.”

Take ACT for America. Founded in 2007 by Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese American political activist and self-described “survivor of terrorism,” it grew into one of the country’s leading anti-Muslim organizations.

At its peak, the group had more than 50 active chapters, each counted as a separate hate group by the SPLC. But in recent years, most of those chapters either shut down or shifted into other areas, leaving ACT for America with just eight on SPLC’s most recent list.

According to the SPLC, ACT for America embraced a “nativist tone” before October 7, circulating, among other things, a petition calling to “Stop the Taxpayer Funded Border Invasion.”

After October 7, the group launched another petition more in line with its agenda and with a call by former U.S. President Donald Trump to stop admitting Palestinian refugees from Gaza.

Warning her followers about homegrown jihadi terror, Gabriel, a staunch Trump supporter, began peddling her bestselling anti-Muslim book, Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America, in exchange for a $25 donation.

In a video titled “Wake Up America” in October, she claimed, “Hamas has a large network of cells spreading all across America,” from Laurel, Maryland, to Tucson, Arizona.

Other groups that had also latched onto contentious issues similarly pivoted back to their core agenda.

Muslim pilgrims circumambulate the Kaaba, the cubic building at the Grand Mosque, during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, June 11, 2024.
Muslim pilgrims circumambulate the Kaaba, the cubic building at the Grand Mosque, during the annual Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, June 11, 2024.

Jihad Watch, a website run by prominent anti-Muslim figure Robert Spencer, published an article last October claiming, “We’re in a war between savages and civilization. Everything else is a detail.”

Eight days later, an affiliated political website called FrontPage Magazine ran a piece titled “It’s Islam, Stupid,” arguing that everything Hamas did “has been done by Muslims throughout history and is still being practiced today.”

FrontPage Magazine is published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center, another leading anti-Muslim group. Jihad Watch is a project of the center.

ACT for America, Jihad Watch and the David Horowitz Freedom Center are part of what experts describe as a well-funded, close-knit anti-Muslim industry, with each group playing a distinct role in the ecosystem.

With chapters across the country, Washington-based ACT for America provides the “grassroots muscle” to the movement, Kieffer said. The Center for Security Policy serves as its think tank, he said.

The SPLC-designated groups appear on other hate lists. Several SPLC-branded groups contacted by VOA condemned their designation.

In a statement to VOA, a spokesperson for ACT for America rejected the “anti-Muslim” label, saying the organization has “always welcomed and included members of all faiths,” including Muslims, and hosted Muslim keynote speakers at its conferences.

ACT for America works “on a broad range of issues, none of which are anti-Muslim,” the spokesperson said. “As a matter of fact, since the defeat of ISIS and al-Qaida between 2018 and 2024, you didn’t hear a blurb from ACT for America about radical Islam.”

In response to a VOA query, Jihad Watch’s Spencer accused the SPLC of smearing and defaming “organizations that oppose its far-left political agenda by lumping them in with the likes of the KKK and neo-Nazis.”

In a brief interview with VOA, J. Michael Waller, a senior analyst for strategy at the Center for Security Policy, called the designation “slander,” saying it was tied to his group’s criticism of the Iranian government and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Kieffer defended the SPLC’s methodology, saying it only designates groups that “vilify” and “demonize” people because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.

The SPLC defines anti-Muslim hate groups as organizations that “broadly defame Islam and traffic in conspiracy theories of Muslims being a subversive threat to the nation.”

Not every anti-Muslim hate group has stood the test of time. In recent years, dozens of ACT for America chapters have closed.

The ACT for America spokesperson said most of its member groups have “turned into digital chapters meeting via zoom or other technology platforms.”

Last year, an anti-refugee and anti-Muslim blog called Refugee Resettlement Watch became inactive and was dropped from SPLC’s list of hate groups.

Another well-known anti-Muslim group called Understanding the Threat announced last year it was shutting down. The group was operated by a former FBI agent known for spreading anti-Muslim conspiracy theories.

Other groups have rebranded. One former ACT for America chapter now operates as AlertAmerica.News, according to SPLC. Its focus ranges from “strengthening national security” to “fighting communism and American Marxism.”

Kieffer said while the group’s central focus may have shifted away from Islamophobia, it continues to invite well-known, anti-Muslim speakers to its events.

With the war in Gaza still raging, the resurgence in Islamophobia remains unabated, Kieffer said. But that’s likely to change in the run-up to the presidential election in November.

“I imagine that we’re going to slowly see a decline again as these groups start to push other issues,” he said.

Brian Levin, a criminologist and hate crime researcher, noted that anti-Muslim hate crimes have surged in recent years, even as the number of hate groups has dwindled.

That’s because hatred has found a new home in the mainstream, rendering niche groups such as Islamophobic outfits increasingly obsolete, he said.

“The bottom line is, the way we associate to express and amplify hatred has changed,” Levin said in an interview with VOA. “Up-and-coming bigots of all sorts will find an array of xenophobic bigotry and conspiracism within general mainstream platforms.”

Crisis-ridden Haiti turns a page, officially welcomes new transitional government

Miami Herald

Crisis-ridden Haiti turns a page, officially welcomes new transitional government

Jacqueline Charles

Wed, June 12, 2024 at 4:07 PM EDT·4 min read

balawou.blogspot.com

Garry Conille - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia

Haiti welcomed a new government on Wednesday, completing the final step in a new political transition that many are hoping will bring a reprieve to the country’s ongoing gang-fueled crisis and pave the way for long-overdue general elections.

A new cabinet of ministers was presented by newly selected Prime Minister Garry Conille at a ceremony. Conille this week finalized his government after days of negotiations with members of the transitional presidential council. Conille, 58, a former regional director with UNICEF, the United Nations child welfare agency, managed to reduce the cabinet from 18 ministers to 14 by combining some ministries.

Like former Prime Minister Ariel Henry, who was forced to resign by the United States to pave the way for a transition amid gang attacks that erupted on Feb. 29, Conille will keep for himself the portfolio of interior minister. In Haiti, the interior ministry is responsible for issuing passports and staging elections.

Most of the members of Conille’s new cabinet are unknowns or relative newcomers to Haitian politics. Most of their names, however, were put forward by the sectors represented on the nine-member presidential council, where seven members have voting rights and two serve as observers. Still, there are some notable names among them. They include Carlos Hercule, the new minister of justice; Dominique Dupuy, the minister of foreign affairs and Haitians Living Abroad, and Ketleen Florestal, the minister of finance and planning.

Hercule, a lawyer, formerly headed the Port-au-Prince bar association. In his role he will need to rebuild the justice system that today is wrestling with the escape of more than 4,000 inmates after armed groups raided the country’s two largest prisons in early March. There is also the thorny issue of the investigation into the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse. More than 50 people, including the president’s widow, have been indicted and Hercule will face pressure to continue to pursue the case.

The justice ministry has also been intimately involved in the negotiations with the government of Kenya over the deployment of the Multinational Security Support mission to help the country’s beleaguered police take on powerful gangs.

Dominique Dupuy, Haiti’s former ambassador to UNESCO, has been named Haiti’s foreign minister.
Dominique Dupuy, Haiti’s former ambassador to UNESCO, has been named Haiti’s foreign minister.

Dupuy was Haiti’s ambassador to UNESCO and had been previously named as one of the seven members of the presidential council by a political party coalition led by former prime minister and foreign minister Claude Joseph. She resigned, citing threats to her life. She will be charged with not only overseeing Haiti’s foreign policy but cleaning up a ministry saddled with corruption allegations in some of its foreign embassies.

A Columbia University graduate, Florestal is an economist who began her career as a law intern and briefly served as chief of staff in Haiti’s justice ministry in the early 1990s. She replaces finance minister Michel Patrick Boisvert, who served as interim prime minister after Henry’s resignation Florestal has worked on the Haiti portfolio at the three leading international lending institutions including the World Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Florestal holds a master’s degree from Columbia University in economic policy management and a master’s from Johns Hopkins University in applied economics.

The new government faces a host of challenges, from restarting the economy to addressing the ongoing violence.

Armed violence that escalated nearly four months ago has brought Haiti to the brink of both economic and humanitarian collapse. The most recent numbers from the United Nations show that there’s been a 60% increase in the number of people displaced between March and June, from 360,000 to nearly 580,000.

On Wednesday, a court in Kenya postponed for two weeks a hearing on a new lawsuit against the government’s efforts to deploy police officers to Haiti. Days earlier three Haitian police officers were killed after armed gang members set a trap, leading to their ambush in the Delmas neighborhood of the capital.

In March, the Caribbean Community, along with the U.S. and other nations, brokered a deal with Haitian political and civic leaders that led to the formation of a nine-member presidential council. Last month, after wading through more that five dozen applications, the council selected Conille, a former U.N. development expert who briefly served as prime minister between 2011 and 2012 , as the new prime minister.

Over the weekend, Conille needed medical care after experiencing breathing problems. He was discharged from a hospital after spending the night. Though he immediately addressed the population in a video about his ordeal, Conille has yet to provide specifics about his priorities or how he intends on governing Haiti.

Haiti formalizes transitional council in move toward new elections

Defense

Haiti formalizes transitional council in move toward new elections

by Brad Dress – 04/12/24 6:03 PM ET

Share

Post

Video Player is loading.

https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.633.0_en.html#goog_1609359528

Advertisement: 0:00

Haiti has formalized a new presidential transitional council that will help to move the embattled nation toward peace after the Caribbean island has been consumed by gang violence and left with almost no government.

A decree was published Friday establishing the new nine-member council in Le Moniteur, the official gazette of the Haitian government, according to local Haitian outlets. The decree states a goal of securing peace in the country and moving toward elections, with the formation of various governmental bodies to achieve those aims.

The Caribbean Community (CARICOM), an organization made up of regional nations, welcomed the arrival of the new council as the “possibility of a new beginning for Haiti.”

“CARICOM has supported Haiti, its sister nation, through the challenging process of arriving at a Haitian owned formula for governance that will take the troubled country through elections to the restoration of the lapsed state institutions and constitutional government,” the group said in a statement.

Haiti plunged into violence after the 2021 assassination of – Haitian President Jovenel Moïse, and gang violence has grown particularly rampant in the past year.

Gangs have run amok in the capitol of Port-au-Prince, pushing the island nation into a humanitarian crisis that the United Nations and aid groups say is teetering on the brink of a complete collapse.

The violence and demands from gang leaders forced Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry to step down last month. The U.S., U.N. and CARICOM want to restore order with a Kenyan-led police force, but Kenya paused its deployment in the wake of Henry’s resignation because there was no official government to work with.

The transitional council is viewed by regional countries as a step toward securing peace in Haiti.

In the decree shared by Haitian outlets, officials said Haiti must hold elections by February 2026. Haiti has not had an election since 2016 and has been without a president since 2021.

The decree also outlines steps toward constitutional and election reform and economic recovery.

CARICOM said the first priority for the new council will be to “address the security situation so that Haitians can go about their daily lives in a normal manner” and get access to food, water and other critical services.

“There are still daunting challenges ahead,” the organization said in the statement. “CARICOM stands ready to continue to support the Haitian people and their leaders as they determine their future in a sovereign manner through this transitional period on the path to stability, security and long-term sustainable development for Haiti.” Tags Ariel Henry CARICOM gang violence Haiti Haiti Jovenel Moise transitional council


Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Share

Post

Top Stories

See All

House

Speaker Johnson’s perilous moment on Ukraine has finally arrived

by Mike Lillis and Mychael Schnell

1 hour ago

https://757e5bcd8cf0aad8de4e6d50e2d53bde.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

Most Popular

  1. Former Obama adviser: Kushner engaged in ‘level of corruption that we’ve …
  2. Hard-liners vow retaliation against Republicans who sank FISA warrant mandate
  3. Third South Dakota tribal nation bans Noem from reservation
  4. Speaker Johnson’s perilous moment on Ukraine has finally arrived
  5. Judge rejects Trump bid, rules hush money trial will begin on Monday
  6. Passengers at international airports in U.S. can enroll in ‘Global …
  7. NPR editor’s tell-all confirms what we already knew about the media
  8. Fears ramp up over Iranian attack on Israel
  9. Senate Republicans furious over Trump trying to derail FISA bill
  10. Moskowitz: Greene ‘doesn’t have the votes to rename a post office,’ let …
  11. House approves contentious FISA bill in bipartisan vote
  12. Trump tells Arizona Legislature to act after GOP blocks bills to repeal 1864 …
  13. Ex-RNC chief: Trump polling lead ahead of hush money trial an ‘abomination’
  14. CBS to end “The Talk” show later this year after 15 seasons
  15. Trump seeks to give boost to RFK Jr.
  16. 5 key questions as Trump’s first criminal trial begins
  17. Senate Democrats issue subpoena in Supreme Court ethics probe
  18. Rarely-seen ‘species of concern’ captured on West Virginia trail cam

Load more

https://757e5bcd8cf0aad8de4e6d50e2d53bde.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-40/html/container.html

DON’T MISS A BRIEF. SIGN UP FOR OUR DAILY EMAIL.

TheHill.com

News

Policy

Video

Opinion

Resources

Other Areas

Contributors

Follow Us On

Get the App

Get the Android app from Google Play

Get the iOS app from App Store

THE HILL 1625 K STREET, NW SUITE 900 WASHINGTON DC 20006 | 202-628-8500 TEL | 202-628-8503 FAX

© 1998 – 2024 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.

Supreme Court Seems Inclined to Reject Bid to Curtail Abortion Pill Access

Supreme Court Seems Inclined to Reject Bid to Curtail Abortion Pill Access

A majority of the justices questioned whether a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations trying to sharply limit availability of the medication could show they suffered harm.

The U.S. Supreme Court facade behind some vegetation.
The challenge to the abortion pill was brought in the fall of 2022, a few months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.Credit…Kent Nishimura for The New York Times

By Abbie VanSickle

Reporting from Washington

  • March 26, 2024

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared deeply skeptical on Tuesday of efforts to severely curtail access to a widely used abortion pill, questioning whether a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations had a right to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication.

Over nearly two hours of argument, justices across the ideological spectrum seemed likely to side with the federal government, with only two justices, the conservatives Samuel A. Alito Jr. and, possibly, Clarence Thomas, appearing to favor limits on the distribution of the pill.

Describing the case as an effort by “a handful of individuals,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch raised whether it would stand as “a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal government action.”

The challenge involves mifepristone, a drug approved by the F.D.A. more than two decades ago that is used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the country. At issue is whether the agency acted appropriately in expanding access to the drug in 2016 and again in 2021 by allowing doctors to prescribe it through telemedicine and to send the pills by mail.

The Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court favored curbing distribution of the drug. Until the justices decide, access to mifepristone remains unchanged, delaying the potential for abrupt limits on its availability.

Even if the court preserves full access to mifepristone, the pills will remain illegal in more than a dozen states that have enacted near-total abortion bans. Those bans do not distinguish between medication and surgical abortion.

The case brought the issue of abortion access back to the Supreme Court, even as the conservative majority had said in the case that overturned Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, that it would cede the question “to the people and their elected representatives.”

Justice Gorsuch’s pointed questioning was echoed by other justices, who asked whether any of the doctors involved in the lawsuit could show they were harmed by the federal government’s approval and regulation of the abortion drug.

In one instance, Justice Elena Kagan asked the lawyer for the anti-abortion groups whom they were relying on to show an actual injury.

“You need a person,” Justice Kagan said. “So who’s your person?”

Although the argument contained detailed descriptions of abortion, including questions about placental tissue and bleeding, the focus on whether the challengers were even entitled to sue suggested that the justices could rule for the F.D.A. without addressing the merits of the case.

Since the decision to overturn Roe v. Wade ended a nationwide right in place for nearly a half-century, abortion pills have increasingly become the center of political and legal fights.

The case began in November 2022, when a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations sued the F.D.A., asserting that the agency erred when it approved the drug in 2000.

A federal judge in Texas, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, issued a preliminary ruling last spring invalidating the F.D.A.’s approval of the drug. In August, a panel of federal appeals judges in New Orleans limited his ruling, determining that mifepristone should remain legal but imposing significant restrictions on access. Those focused on the F.D.A. decisions about telemedicine and pills by mail.

Got a news tip about the courts?

If you have information to share about the Supreme Court or other federal courts, please send us a secure tip at nytimes.com/tips.

A ruling for the anti-abortion doctors could have implications for the regulatory authority of the F.D.A., potentially calling into question the agency’s ability to approve and distribute other drugs.

Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, arguing for the government, warned of the far-ranging consequences, both for the pharmaceutical industry and for reproductive rights. “It harms the pharmaceutical industry, which is sounding alarm bells in this case and saying that this would destabilize the system for approving and regulating drugs,” she said. “And it harms women who need access to medication abortion under the conditions that F.D.A. determined were safe and effective.”

To bring the legal challenge, the anti-abortion doctors and groups must show that they will suffer concrete harm if the pill remains widely available. Lawyers call this requirement standing.

Whether anti-abortion groups had met this basic threshold took up much of the questioning.

The argument zeroed in on the declarations by seven anti-abortion doctors in the lawsuit. They said they have suffered moral injuries from the availability of the abortion pill because they may be forced to treat women who come to emergency rooms suffering complications from the pill, including heavy bleeding.

Erin M. Hawley, the lawyer for the anti-abortion doctors, claimed that her clients suffered harm from the abortion pill and were subjected to acting against their conscience. They were forced to treat women in “life-threatening situations in which the choice for a doctor is either to scrub out and try to find someone else or to treat the woman who’s hemorrhaging on the emergency room table,” she said.

Ms. Hawley, who is married to Josh Hawley, a Republican senator from Missouri who has been involved in anti-abortion legislation, added that in an emergency, “it’s a lot to ask” for “doctors to go up to the top floor and litigate this with the general counsel when the federal government’s telling them they don’t have a conscience protection.”

Ms. Prelogar asserted that the claims by the anti-abortion doctors and groups “rest on a long chain of remote contingencies,” with scientific studies showing that medical complications from abortion pills are very rare.

She argued that there was only a slim chance that doctors who oppose abortion would have to treat patients. If those doctors wanted to opt out, they can do so under federal conscience protections, policies that allow doctors and other health workers to refrain from providing care they object to.

The anti-abortion challengers had made generalizations, with no specific example of a doctor who had to provide care against their conscience, Ms. Prelogar said, demonstrating “that the past harm hasn’t happened.”

She urged the justices to “put an end to this case.”

Justice Thomas asked Ms. Prelogar who could bring such a lawsuit, if she was correct that the doctors could not show a direct injury.

When Ms. Prelogar demurred, Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs, returned to the point.

“Is there anybody who could challenge in court the lawfulness of what the F.D.A. did here in this particular case?” he asked.

“In this particular case, I think the answer is no,” Ms. Prelogar responded.

“Well, that wasn’t my question,” Justice Alito said. “Is there anybody who can do that?”

Ms. Prelogar said there was “a profound mismatch here” between the injury claimed by the doctors — that they would be forced to participate in abortion by treating women who had taken an abortion pill — and the remedy they sought, which was to end access to the drug for everyone.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson examined the idea that if the justices chipped away at the F.D.A.’s regulatory powers, it may fall to “judges parsing medical and scientific studies” to determine whether a drug is safe.

Jessica L. Ellsworth, the lawyer for Danco Laboratories, a manufacturer of the drug, agreed that such a system would raise concerns for “pharmaceutical companies who do depend on F.D.A.’s gold standard review process to approve their drugs and then to be able to sell their products in line with that considered judgment.”

Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting. More about Abbie VanSickle

Biden and Trump set for election rematch after clinching nominations

OK, then the question becomes: How long are the media going to fill their copy with obsession with the aging candidate? Or candidate’s? Or as a neurologist on NPR interview suggests: age Can be a a factor increasing cognitive issues. BUT age is not a disease, you have to judge the older person on a specific basis. Biden’s sharpness on policy speaks for itself.

By Kayla Epstein,BBC NewsShare

Getty Images Viewers watch a 2020 presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The two will likely face off again in the 2024 US presidential election.Getty ImagesViewers watch a 2020 presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The two will likely face off again this year

US President Joe Biden and his predecessor Donald Trump have both passed the delegate thresholds to clinch their parties’ nominations.

They each won several states in primary elections on Tuesday to propel them over the finish line.

The two 2020 contenders will provide the US with its first rematch in a presidential election for 70 years.

Polling suggests it will be a tight race that will come down to narrow margins in a few key states.

The nominations will be made official at party conventions this summer.

The 81-year-old president said on Tuesday evening that he was “honoured” voters had backed his re-election bid “in a moment when the threat Trump poses is greater than ever”.

Citing positive economic trends, he asserted the US was “in the middle of a comeback”, but faced challenges to its future as a democracy, as well as from those seeking to pass abortion restrictions and cut social programmes.

“I believe that the American people will choose to keep us moving into the future,” Mr Biden said in a statement from his campaign.

Incumbency gave Mr Biden a natural advantage and he faced no serious challengers for the Democratic nomination.

Despite persistent concerns from voters that his age limits his ability to perform the duties of the presidency, the party apparatus rallied around him.

Meanwhile, Mr Trump, 77, remains very popular with the Republican voter base, which has propelled him to victory in primary after primary over well-funded rivals.

His campaign for a second term in the White House has zeroed in on stricter immigration laws, including a pledge to “seal the border” and implement “record-setting” deportations.

Graphic showing delegates won in Republican race

Mr Trump has also vowed to fight crime, boost domestic energy production, tax foreign imports, end the war in Ukraine and resume an “America first” approach to global affairs.

Tuesday night’s results do not come as a shock, as both men have dominated their races so far.

Both their re-nominations seemed all but predetermined, despite polling that indicates Americans are dissatisfied with the prospect of another showdown between Mr Biden and Mr Trump in November.

The US presidential primaries and caucuses are a state-by-state competition to secure the most party delegates.

line

More on the US election

line

The Democrats and the Republicans have slightly different rules for their primaries, but the process is essentially the same.

Each state is allocated a certain share of party delegates, which are awarded either as a whole to the winning candidate or proportionally, based on the results.

A Republican candidate must secure at least 1,215 of their party’s delegates during the primary season to win their presidential nomination, while a Democrat must secure 1,968.

On Tuesday, Republicans held primaries in Mississippi, Georgia and Washington State, as well as a caucus in Hawaii.

Democrats, meanwhile, held primaries in the states of Georgia, Washington and Mississippi, as well as in the Northern Mariana Islands and for Democrats living abroad.

Graphic showing delegates won in Democratic race

Mr Biden and Mr Trump’s main competitors had dropped out before Tuesday’s primary contests, so the results had been all but certain.

Former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, Mr Trump’s last remaining rival, dropped out earlier this month after losing 14 states to Mr Trump on Super Tuesday.

Although several more states have yet to hold their primary contests, with Mr Trump and Mr Biden over the delegate threshold, the 2024 general election is now in effect under way.

The US presidential election will be held on 5 November 2024.

A simple guide to the US 2024 election

How does US electoral college choose presidents?

‘It’s like 2020 all over again – with higher stakes’

US election 2024

Donald Trump

United States

Joe Biden

How Americans View Russia-Ukraine, Israel-Hamas and China-Taiwan Conflicts


From The Pew Research Center: Americans Weigh In on Foreign Conflicts
Odesa Technical College in Odesa, Ukraine, damaged in a nighttime Russian drone attack on Feb. 8. (Nina Liashonok/Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images)
Odesa Technical College in Odesa, Ukraine, damaged in a nighttime Russian drone attack on Feb. 8. (Nina Liashonok/Ukrinform/Future Publishing via Getty Images)

Two years on from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 74% of Americans view the war there as important to U.S. national interests – with 43% describing it as very important.

Similar shares see the war between Israel and Hamas (75%) and tensions between China and Taiwan (75%) as important to U.S. national interests, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Jan. 22-28.

How we did this

Bar chart showing that majorities of Americans see the Israel-Hamas war, tensions between China and Taiwan, and the war between Russia and Ukraine as important to U.S. interests and to them personally

When asked how important each conflict is to them personally, 59% of Americans say the war between Russia and Ukraine is important to them.

This is similar to the share who say tensions between China and Taiwan (57%) are important to them personally. But it is lower than the share who see the Israel-Hamas war as personally important (65%).

Roughly a third of Americans describe the Israel-Hamas war as very important to them personally, compared with around a quarter for the other two conflicts we asked about.

Differences by party

Dot plot chart by party showing that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to see Russia-Ukraine war as important, both to U.S. interests and to them personally

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents are more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to see the Russia-Ukraine war as important to U.S. national interests (81% vs. 69%).

Related: About half of Republicans now say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine

However, Democrats and Republicans are about equally likely to see the Israel-Hamas war (76% vs. 77%) and China-Taiwan tensions (76% vs. 78%) as important to U.S. interests.

Americans at the ideological poles – that is, conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats – are more likely than their more moderate counterparts in each party to view both the Israel-Hamas war and China-Taiwan tensions as important to U.S. interests.

When it comes to the importance of each conflict to them personally, Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say the Russia-Ukraine war is important to them (65% vs. 56%), while Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say this about China-Taiwan tensions (62% vs. 56%). Roughly equal shares of Democrats (67%) and Republicans (66%) say the Israel-Hamas war is personally important to them.

Related: Americans’ Views of the Israel-Hamas War

Differences by age

Dot plot chart showing that the oldest Americans are more likely than younger Americans to see the Israel-Hamas war, tensions between China and Taiwan, and the war between Russia and Ukraine as important to U.S. interests and to them personally

For all three conflicts we asked about, the oldest Americans are more likely than younger Americans to perceive them as important to both U.S. national interests and to them personally.

However, even among U.S. adults under 30, a majority (58%) see the Israel-Hamas war as personally important. This is not the case for the Russia-Ukraine war or for the ongoing tensions between China and Taiwan.

Note: Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

Putin Quietly Signals He Is Open to a Cease-Fire in Ukraine

Key question for this article: SHOULD PUTIN ACCEPT A NEGOTIATED SOLUTION IN UKRAINE, WOULD HIS NEED TO “DECLARE VICTORY” BE ACCEPTED ZELENSKY (Symbolic Victory with little loss of Ukrainian territory in reality)~ Blog Editor FLS

Despite its bravado in public, the Kremlin has indicated its interest in striking a deal to halt the war — so long as it could still declare victory.

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia speaking at a rally in February at Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow.Credit…Nanna Heitmann for The New York Times

  • Share full articl
Anton Troianovski
Adam Entous
Julian E. Barnes

By Anton TroianovskiAdam Entous and Julian E. Barnes

  • Dec. 23, 2023

President Vladimir V. Putin’s confidence seems to know no bounds.

Buoyed by Ukraine’s failed counteroffensive and flagging Western support, Mr. Putin says that Russia’s war goals have not changed. Addressing his generals on Tuesday, he boasted that Ukraine was so beleaguered that Russia’s invading troops were doing “what we want.”

“We won’t give up what’s ours,” he pledged, adding dismissively, “If they want to negotiate, let them negotiate.”

But in a recent push of back-channel diplomacy, Mr. Putin has been sending a different message: He is ready to make a deal.

Mr. Putin has been signaling through intermediaries since at least September that he is open to a cease-fire that freezes the fighting along the current lines, far short of his ambitions to dominate Ukraine, two former senior Russian officials close to the Kremlin and American and international officials who have received the message from Mr. Putin’s envoys say.

In fact, Mr. Putin also sent out feelers for a cease-fire deal a year earlier, in the fall of 2022, according to American officials. That quiet overture, not previously reported, came after Ukraine routed Russia’s army in the country’s northeast. Mr. Putin indicated that he was satisfied with Russia’s captured territory and ready for an armistice, they said.

A group of soldiers in camouflage riding on an armored vehicle.
Ukrainian soldiers atop an armored vehicle last year in Ukraine’s northeastern Kharkiv region. Credit…Finbarr O’Reilly for The New York Times
A group of soldiers in camouflage riding on an armored vehicle.
Multiple bodies lying along a dirt road.
The bodies of Russian soldiers outside Lyman, Ukraine, in October 2022 after a railroad hub was retaken by Ukrainian forces.Credit…Nicole Tung for The New York Times
Multiple bodies lying along a dirt road.

Mr. Putin’s repeated interest in a cease-fire is an example of how opportunism and improvisation have defined his approach to the war behind closed doors. Dozens of interviews with Russians who have long known him and with international officials with insight into the Kremlin’s inner workings show a leader maneuvering to reduce risks and keep his options open in a war that has lasted longer than he expected. While deploying fiery public rhetoric, Mr. Putin privately telegraphs a desire to declare victory and move on.

“They say, ‘We are ready to have negotiations on a cease-fire,’” said one senior international official who met with top Russian officials this fall. “They want to stay where they are on the battlefield.”

There is no evidence that Ukraine’s leaders, who have pledged to retake all their territory, will accept such a deal. Some American officials say it could be a familiar Kremlin attempt at misdirection and does not reflect genuine willingness by Mr. Putin to compromise. The former Russian officials add that Mr. Putin could well change his mind again if Russian forces gain momentum.

In the past 16 months, Mr. Putin swallowed multiple humiliations — embarrassing retreats, a once-friendly warlord’s mutiny — before he arrived at his current state of relaxed confidence. All along, he waged a war that has killed or maimed hundreds of thousands while exhibiting contradictions that have become hallmarks of his rule.

While obsessed with Russia’s battlefield performance and what he sees as his historic mission to retake “original Russian lands,” he has been keen for most Russians to go on with normal life. While readying Russia for years of war, he is quietly trying to make it clear that he is ready to end it.

“He really is willing to stop at the current positions,” one of the former senior Russian officials told The New York Times, relaying a message he said the Kremlin was quietly sending. The former official added, “He’s not willing to retreat one meter.”

Editors’ Picks

In the Face of Racial Discrimination, a D.C. Family Builds a Property LegacyMerry Christmas. I Got You a Tiny Cow.Just How Formulaic Are Hallmark and Lifetime Holiday Movies? We (Over)analyzed 424 of Them.

An airport waiting area filled with people. Children are at a window looking at planes on the tarmac.
Passengers waiting for delayed flights in August in Moscow. The airspace had been closed that morning because of drone strikes.Credit…Nanna Heitmann for The New York Times
An airport waiting area filled with people. Children are at a window looking at planes on the tarmac.
A woman walks on a street outside a building that was damaged by a drone strike.
A damaged skyscraper in a Moscow business district after a reported drone attack in August.Credit…Nanna Heitmann for The New York Times
A woman walks on a street outside a building that was damaged by a drone strike.

Mr. Putin, the current and former officials said, sees a confluence of factors creating an opportune moment for a deal: a battlefield that seems stuck in a stalemate, the fallout over Ukraine’s disappointing offensive, its flagging support in the West, and, since October, the distraction of the war in Gaza. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity, like others interviewed for this article, because of the sensitive nature of the back-channel overtures.

Responding to written questions after declining an interview request, Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said in a voice message that “сonceptually, these theses you presented, they are incorrect.” Asked whether Russia was ready for a cease-fire at the current battle lines, he pointed to the president’s recent comments; Mr. Putin said this month that Russia’s war goals had not changed.

“Putin is, indeed, ready for talks, and he has said so,” Mr. Peskov said. “Russia continues to be ready, but exclusively for the achievement of its own goals.”

Ukraine has been rallying support for its own peace formula, which requires Moscow to surrender all captured Ukrainian territory and pay damages. President Volodymyr Zelensky said Tuesday that he saw no sign that Russia wanted to negotiate.

“We just see brazen willingness to kill,” he said.

Mr. Putin first explored peace talks in the early weeks of the war, but they fell apart after Russia’s atrocities in Ukraine came to light. Then, in the fall of 2022, after Russia’s embarrassing retreat from northeastern Ukraine, Mr. Putin again sent messages to Kyiv and the West that he would be open to a deal to freeze the fighting, American officials say.

Some of Ukraine’s supporters, like Gen. Mark A. Milley, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, encouraged Kyiv to negotiate because Ukraine had achieved as much on the battlefield as it could reasonably expect. But other top American officials believed it was too soon for talks. And Mr. Zelensky vowed to fight on until the entire country had been freed from Russia’s grasp.

By early 2023, gloom had settled over Moscow. On eastern Ukraine’s frozen plains, much of Russia’s prewar professional force had been decimated, leaving poorly trained draftees and convicts recruited from prisons to be gunned down in haphazardly planned infantry storms.

Mr. Putin said little in public about the war, stoking questions about his plans and motivations. In private, though, Mr. Putin embraced his role as commander in chief with an almost messianic determination during these months, the people close to the Kremlin contend. One said last February that the president held two videoconferences a day with military officials who briefed him on the minutiae of movements on the battlefield.

A group of people gathered behind a coffin at a funeral. One woman stands beside the coffin, which is draped in a Russian flag.
The funeral for Garipul S. Kadyrov, a Russian soldier who was killed while fighting in Ukraine, last month in the village of Ovsyanka, Russia.Credit…Nanna Heitmann for The New York Times
A group of people gathered behind a coffin at a funeral. One woman stands beside the coffin, which is draped in a Russian flag.
The outside of a building that has Russian military recruitment banners on it.
Recruitment advertising for the Russian Army featuring the slogan, “People are not born heroes — they are self-made,” in May in Ivolginsk, Russia.Credit…Nanna Heitmann for The New York Times
The outside of a building that has Russian military recruitment banners on it.

The war was “impossible to stop,” the person said, describing a conversation with a top Russian military official, because Mr. Putin “remains consumed by all this.”

“People want to tell him only good news, and there’s not much of that,” the person said. “So you have to lie.”

Sergei K. Shoigu, the Russian defense minister, made clear in a private meeting earlier this year that, despite his setbacks, Mr. Putin was determined to keep fighting. According to the senior international official, who was present, Mr. Shoigu gave statistics showing Russia’s advantage in tanks and warplanes and its plans to increase defense production. He boasted that Russia could mobilize as many as 25 million men, the official recalled.

“For Putin, it’s about Russia versus the U.S. and the West,” the official said after the meeting. “Putin can’t afford to back down.”

As Ukraine launched its long-anticipated counteroffensive in June, Mr. Putin appeared tense, anxious for battlefield updates, people close to the Kremlin said. In public, Mr. Putin became a live commentator of the fight, eager to claim incremental successes.

“The enemy is trying to attack,” Mr. Putin said onstage at his marquee St. Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 16, describing a battle happening “right now.” “I think the armed forces of Ukraine have no chance.”

The same day, a delegation of African leaders arrived in Kyiv hoping to broker peace. At one point, Ukrainian officials rushed them into a shelter, warning of an attack. The next day, in St. Petersburg, President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa asked Mr. Putin whether he had really bombed the Ukrainian capital while the African leaders were there.

“Yes, I did,” Mr. Putin responded, according to two people close to Mr. Ramaphosa, “but I made sure it was very far from where you were.”

He still tried to play the gracious host, taking the leaders on a dinner cruise. A member of the African delegation said Mr. Putin seemed interested in preparing a channel for future talks.

“It’s not that I want to negotiate,” the person said, describing Mr. Putin’s stance. “But I need to have ready, when the time will come, a very well-conceived, intelligent, capable channel of negotiations.”

A nearly completely flattened body of a soldier on a dirt road.
The body of a Russian soldier in July in the Zaporizhzhia region, where Ukraine was waging a counteroffensive.Credit…Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
A nearly completely flattened body of a soldier on a dirt road.
A group of men in suits and soldiers in camouflage next to destroyed military equipment.
Part of a delegation of African leaders to Kyiv, Ukraine, in June visited an exhibition of destroyed Russian military equipment.Credit…Brendan Hoffman for The New York Times
A group of men in suits and soldiers in camouflage next to destroyed military equipment.

A week later, the mercenary warlord Yevgeny V. Prigozhin launched his failed mutiny.

After Mr. Prigozhin accepted a deal to retreat to Belarus, Mr. Putin proceeded to spin what seemed to be one of the most humiliating moments of his 24 years in power into a victory. He declared in a lavish Kremlin ceremony that the failure of the rebellion demonstrated the strength of the Russian state. It offered a hint of what Mr. Putin might do if he fell short of his original goals in Ukraine: declare victory and move on.

The Kremlin’s analysis appeared to be that public support for the war was broad, but not deep — meaning that most would accept whatever Mr. Putin termed a victory. One of the government’s pollsters, Valery Fyodorov, said in a September newspaper interview that only 10 to 15 percent of Russians actively supported the war, and that “most Russians are not demanding the conquest of Kyiv or Odesa.”

By the end of the summer, events were shifting in Mr. Putin’s favor. Mr. Prigozhin’s death in a plane crash, widely seen as the Kremlin’s doing, eliminated his most dangerous domestic foe. On the battlefield, Russia already appeared to be successful in repelling Ukraine’s counteroffensive.

Mr. Putin and his government exuded stability and confidence. The president continued to go for his morning swims, several people with knowledge of his schedule said. Top Kremlin officials had gone back to taking vacations.

“They’ve calmed down already,” Prime Minister Akylbek Zhaparov of Kyrgyzstan said in an interview in October, referring to the surprise and worry among many Russian officials and the elite when Mr. Putin invaded Ukraine last year. After first seeing Mr. Putin’s war as a “catastrophe,” he added, “they’ve now gotten used to it.”

On a Saturday in October, Mr. Putin marked his 71st birthday with the leaders of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, two Central Asian countries that have tried to take a neutral stance in the war. When they arrived at his suburban Moscow residence, Mr. Putin got behind the wheel of a new Russian-made limo, showing off one of the ways in which, in the Kremlin’s telling, Russia is becoming more self-sufficient.

Once indoors, the three leaders spoke about a plan to sell Russian gas to Uzbekistan. A person present recalled Mr. Putin’s calm confidence and relaxed body language.

“He doesn’t look like a man who’s waging war,” the person said.

Vladimir Putin with Shavkat M. Mirziyoyev, who is next to a car.
A photograph released by Russian state media of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and President Shavkat M. Mirziyoyev of Uzbekistan in October near Moscow.Credit…Vyacheslav Prokofyev/Sputnik, via Associated Press
Vladimir Putin with Shavkat M. Mirziyoyev, who is next to a car.
A long line of police officers snaking through trees.
Police officers stood guard at the Porohovsky cemetery in St. Petersburg in August after it was announced that Yevgeny V. Prigozhin, the mercenary warlord, had been buried there.Credit…Nanna Heitmann for The New York Times
A long line of police officers snaking through trees.

Only after a birthday lunch did they grasp the full significance of events elsewhere. It was Oct. 7.

The terrorist attack by Hamas that day — and Israel’s fierce military response — proved to be a propaganda boon for Russia, pulling attention away from Ukraine and allowing Mr. Putin to line up with much of the world in condemning the bombardment of Gaza and American support for Israel.

“He sees that the attention of the West is turning away,” said Balazs Orban, an aide to Prime Minister Viktor Orban who participated in the Hungarian leader’s meeting with Mr. Putin in October.

In late October, Grigory A. Yavlinsky, a liberal Russian politician, waited past midnight for an audience at the Kremlin. He said he tried to impress upon Mr. Putin the scale of the Russian deaths in Ukraine, which dwarfed Soviet losses over a decade of war in Afghanistan.

Then Mr. Yavlinsky made what he said was his central pitch in the 90-minute meeting: If Mr. Putin were prepared “at least to think about a cease-fire,” Mr. Yavlinsky, who was born in western Ukraine, would be ready to act as a negotiator.

“The fact that he agreed to talk to me for so long speaks for itself,” he said.

Since at least September, Western officials have been picking up renewed signals that Mr. Putin is interested in a cease-fire.

The signals come through multiple channels, including via foreign governments with ties to both the United States and Russia. Unofficial Russian emissaries have spoken to interlocutors about the contours of a potential deal that Mr. Putin would accept, American officials and others said.

“Putin and the Russian army, they don’t want to stretch their capacity further,” said the international official who met with top Russian officials this fall.

Mr. Putin has also made vague public comments about being open to negotiations, which have largely been dismissed by Western commentators.

Some analysts argue that Mr. Putin benefits from a long war, and that he wants to delay any negotiation until a possible return to office by former President Donald J. Trump, the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024. The former Russian officials said that Mr. Putin would prefer to strike a deal sooner, given the uncertainty inherent in war.

They said that Mr. Putin’s propaganda could easily spin the status quo as a victory, celebrating a land corridor to Crimea, an army that withstood Ukraine’s Western-supplied counteroffensive and Russia’s claimed annexation of four Ukrainian regions — papering over the fact that Russia doesn’t fully control them.

Three soldiers wearing camouflage, with one firing a weapon.
Ukrainian soldiers with the 22nd Mechanized Brigade firing at Russian positions in the direction of Bakhmut, in eastern Ukraine, last month. The front line has remained largely static over the past year.Credit…Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
Three soldiers wearing camouflage, with one firing a weapon.
A soldier lies on his side on a table. One of his pant legs has been ripped open, exposing a bloodied leg.
A Ukrainian soldier who was severely injured on the front line in Avdiivka, in the Donetsk region of Ukraine, in November.Credit…Tyler Hicks/The New York Times
A soldier lies on his side on a table. One of his pant legs has been ripped open, exposing a bloodied leg.

The ideal timing, one of the people said, would be before Russia’s presidential election in March. Mr. Putin is certain to secure another six-year term, but he cares deeply about the election as a marker of his domestic support.

Publicly, Mr. Putin has stuck to his aggressive stance, saying he is resisting a West seeking to destroy a 1,000-year-old Russian civilization.

But American officials see a shift in Mr. Putin’s position, noting that he is no longer demanding the departure of Mr. Zelensky’s government. They said that the cease-fire being floated by Mr. Putin would maintain a sovereign Ukraine with Kyiv as its capital, but leave Russia in control of the nearly 20 percent of Ukrainian territory it has already conquered. They added that while Mr. Putin is telegraphing that he is open to such a deal, he is waiting to be brought a more specific offer.

Among the many likely sticking points is Mr. Putin’s determination to keep Ukraine out of NATO. But one of the former Russian officials said a disagreement on that score would not be a deal breaker for Mr. Putin, because the alliance is not expected to admit Ukraine in the foreseeable future.

Still, senior American officials said they did not believe that any prominent Ukrainian politician could agree at this time to a deal leaving Russia with so much Ukrainian territory.

A group of Russian soldiers in uniform sitting on bleachers.
Russian conscripts in the Moscow region last year.Credit…Nanna Heitmann for The New York Times
A group of Russian soldiers in uniform sitting on bleachers.
A group of young Russian girls and boys listen to a man talk at a museum.
A tour of the Victory Museum, a museum dedicated to the Great Patriotic War, in Moscow. Mr. Putin sees the current war as part of a historic Russian struggle against a West seeking to destroy a 1,000-year-old Russian civilization.Credit…Nanna Heitmann for The New York Times.
A group of young Russian girls and boys listen to a man talk at a museum.

Another potential impasse stems from Mr. Putin’s efforts to put the United States at the center of any negotiations.

The U.S. and Russian governments have channels for communications on issues that include prisoner swaps. But William J. Burns, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and Sergei Naryshkin, the director of Russia’s foreign intelligence service, last met about a year ago in Turkey, officials said. And U.S. officials say the United States has not and will not negotiate on behalf of Ukraine.

American officials argue that regardless of Mr. Putin’s overture, Ukraine must demonstrate its staying power, and the United States must show it is willing to support Ukraine to puncture Mr. Putin’s confidence that time is on his side and to force concessions in any negotiations.

Many in the West are skeptical of a cease-fire because they say Mr. Putin would rearm for a future assault. President Edgars Rinkevics of Latvia argued in an interview that Mr. Putin was committed to war because he dreams of “re-establishing the empire.”

“They never honored any agreements,” Mr. Rinkevics said of the Russians, “and they have violated them immediately when they saw it was convenient.”

Snow covers debris outside a heavily damaged church, which is painted blue and white.
A heavily damaged church last month in the village of Bohorodychne, in Ukraine’s Donetsk region.Credit…Emile Ducke for The New York Times
Snow covers debris outside a heavily damaged church, which is painted blue and white.

Reporting was contributed by Neil MacFarquhar, John Eligon, Declan Walsh, Andrew E. Kramer and Valerie Hopkins.

Anton Troianovski is the Moscow bureau chief for The Times. He writes about Russia, Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. More about Anton Troianovski

Adam Entous is a Washington-based investigative correspondent and a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner. Before joining the Washington bureau of The Times, he covered intelligence, national security and foreign policy for The New Yorker magazine, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal. More about Adam Entous

Julian E. Barnes covers the U.S. intelligence agencies and international security matters for The Times. He has written about security issues for more than two decades. More about Julian E. Barnes

A version of this article appears in print on Dec. 24, 2023, Section A, Page 1 of the New York edition with the headline: Putin Quietly Signals Openness to Ukraine Deal. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Washington watchdog gets victory in Trump Colorado disqualification case

Just In…

Washington watchdog gets victory in Trump Colorado disqualification case

by Taylor Giorno – 12/22/23 5:30 AM ET

A District of Columbia nonprofit that has filed numerous ethics complaints and launched in-depth investigations into former President Trump was a key player in the case that got him kicked off the Colorado ballot.

In a stunning decision, Colorado’s highest court ruled this week that Trump was disqualified from running for president in the state for his role in inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol that left five people dead, more than 100 Capitol Police officers injured and a nation divided.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) was part of a bipartisan legal team that brought the case on behalf of six Republican and unaffiliated Colorado voters including Norma Anderson, the former Republican majority leader of the state House and Senate.

“My fellow plaintiffs and I brought this case to continue to protect the right to free and fair elections enshrined in our Constitution and to ensure Colorado Republican primary voters are only voting for eligible candidates. Today’s win does just that,” Anderson said in a statement issued by CREW.

CREW President Noah Bookbinder told The Hill that “we have drifted back towards normalizing what happened after the 2020 election, particularly on Jan. 6,” and he hopes the Colorado court’s decision will help ensure the “unprecedented attack on democracy not be allowed to be normalized.”

The Colorado Supreme Court disqualified Trump from appearing on the state’s 2024 primary ballot under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which bars people who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” after taking the oath of office from holding certain positions.

“I think this decision shows that this is very much a living protection in the Constitution, and one that we need to use and can use and will use going forward,” Bookbinder, former chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, told The Hill.

The former president lashed out at the “TRUMP DERANGED ‘CREW’” on various social media platforms following the decision.

This isn’t the first time CREW has clashed with Trump, whom the organization described in a January 2018 report as as “the most unethical president in history.”

CREW previously sued Trump for refusing to divest from his business interests when he took office and filed ethics complaints against more than a dozen key Trump officials, including top aide Kellyanne Conway.

“We’re an organization that pushes for government ethics and reducing the influence of money in politics and really, you know, protecting our democratic form of government,” Bookbinder said. “I feel entirely justified in devoting a lot of energy to combating this unique threat.”

‘Unprecedented’ decision draws criticism from both sides

Many Republicans have attacked the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision as voter suppression, and some Democrats and left-leaning groups have been wary of the decision.

Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) called the decision “extreme judicial activism that is designed to suppress the vote and voices of hundreds of thousands of Coloradans, which is absolutely unacceptable.”

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) argued that voters “should not be denied the right to support our former president and the individual who is the leader in every poll of the Republican primary.” Trump has consistently led in GOP presidential primary polls, clocking a 52.9 percent lead over his closest opponent, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, according to the latest The Hill/Decision Desk HQ polling average.

Even former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a GOP presidential primary candidate who has criticized the former president for his actions Jan. 6, said it would be “bad for the country” if a court kept Trump off the ballot.

Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), who is challenging President Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination, wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, that even though he believes Trump is guilty of “inspiring an insurrection and doing nothing to stop it,” it is “absolutely” wrong to bar Trump from the Colorado ballot.

Bookbinder disagrees. 

“The Constitution sets out the rules for our democracy,” Bookbinder argued, adding that not engaging in an insurrection after taking an oath is just as much a qualification as being at least 35 years old and a natural-born citizen.

“It is unprecedented,” Bookbinder said. “We’ve never seen anything like that before in this country and so it kind of makes sense that the legal responses to it are going to be things you haven’t seen very often.”

A ‘very unique threat’ to democracy

For more than two decades, CREW has leveraged legal action and investigations to hold elected officials they say use their power for personal gain or to advance special interests accountable.

CREW, which describes itself as a nonpartisan nonprofit, has gone after both Republican and Democratic officials in the past.

The organization recently called on Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) to resign after federal prosecutors accused him of a bribery scheme to use his political influence to benefit the Egyptian government, allegations the senator has denied.

The organization also filed a complaint against then-Biden White House press secretary Jen Psaki for violating the Hatch Act after she endorsed Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe from the briefing room podium, prompting an apology from Psaki.

But many of the group’s lawsuits and investigations are aimed at Republican lawmakers, officials and groups, with a particular focus on the former president’s alleged indiscretions.

Bookbinder pushed back on claims that the organization unfairly targets conservatives, saying, “I don’t think it is a partisan exercise to particularly respond to this very unique threat to our democracy.”

CREW’s board includes several former Democratic officials, including former Clinton White House counsel Beth Nolan and former Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), as well as former GOP Rep. Claudine Schneider (R.I.). Other Republicans, including former Rep. Mickey Edwards (Okla.), have sat on the board in recent years.

Bookbinder also said the organization has worked with and continues to work with Republican members of Congress on legislation.

“There are plenty of I think good, ethical, democratic, democratically minded Republicans, just as there are Democrats. But right now that party is led by somebody — or appears to be in many ways led by somebody — who is quite open about being a threat to democracy,” he added, pointing to Trump’s comments that he would only be a dictator on his first day if reelected.

Case revives ‘constitutional protection,’ regardless of outcome

The Colorado high court stayed their decision until Jan. 4, 2024, the day before the deadline to file as a candidate in the state, to allow Trump to appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Trump campaign has said it plans to “swiftly file an appeal” to the Supreme Court and request “a stay of this deeply undemocratic decision.” The case faces a 6-3 conservative majority in the nation’s highest court that includes three Trump-nominated justices.

While much has been made of the partisan makeup of the court and how it could impact the case, Bookbinder told The Hill, “We are confident that we will get a fair hearing before the Supreme Court.”

“This is, in many ways, an issue that is tailored for this court,” Bookbinder said. This Supreme Court is perceived to be an “originalist and textualist” one, he added, an ideal audience for a 14th Amendment case.

“It’s important to note that the 14th Amendment does not say, as it could, convicted of an insurrection,” David Becker, executive director of the Election Official Legal Defense Network, said during a call with reporters Wednesday. “We take the drafters of the Constitution’s language at their word when it’s in there.”

Similar cases in Michigan, Minnesota and other states have thus far failed to remove Trump from the ballot. But this case has thrown a wrench into the Republican primary race with less than a month before other states start casting their ballots.

“On behalf of the American people, it would be better for all of us if this is resolved by the United States Supreme Court sooner rather than later,” Becker said.

Regardless of what happens, Bookbinder said he hopes the case “will help to define how people think about what happened going forward.”

“I think in some ways, regardless of how it goes, this revitalizes that constitutional protection and it’s one that I hope we don’t need to use for another 150 years,” Bookbinder said. “But we know it’s there, it’s alive and it can be used if the republic needs it.”



Five things we learned from this year’s primaries

Five things we learned from this year's primaries

Through a pandemic, protests and partisanship, voters in all but four states have picked party nominees for November’s general election, setting up the clashes that will determine the shape of American politics over the next two years.

Their choices have sent clear signals about where each party’s electorate stands, and what the two warring factions have in common: Both Democratic and Republican voters want change — though there is little agreement on what, exactly, ought to be changed.

As the first general election ballots go out, here are the lessons we learned from the 2020 primary season:

It’s the year of the woman

A century after the ratification of the 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote, women are running for office in record numbers.

The two major parties have nominated 296 women to run for U.S. House seats, blowing away the previous record set in 2018, at 234. Forty-seven districts feature two women running against each other, according to a tally maintained by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers.

More women — 60 — ran for seats in the Senate than ever before. Voters in four states — Iowa, Maine, Wyoming and West Virginia — will decide between two female Senate candidates in November.

It helps that both parties are making special efforts to recruit women — albeit for different reasons. Democrats relied on women to win back the House majority in 2018, when 24 of the 43 candidates who flipped Republican-held seats were women. Republicans, who fear a gender gap they cannot overcome, have made a point of recruiting women candidates, though not all have survived their primaries.

All politics is (still) local

It is very hard to beat a sitting incumbent in a party primary. It is easier when that incumbent has lost touch with his or her district.

Eight members of Congress lost bids for renomination this year. In most cases, those who will find themselves out of a job come January were ousted by voters who thought they had gone Washington.

In the midst of a global pandemic, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) did not travel from his Maryland home to his Yonkers-based district for several months. GOP insiders said Rep. Scott Tipton (R-Colo.), who lost to conservative activist Lauren Boebert, rarely traveled home.

Rep. Wm. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) lost to Cori Bush, who began her political activism in protests against police brutality in the wake of the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo. Bush made an issue out of Clay’s absence from protests this summer over the deaths of Black people in Minnesota and Kentucky at the hands of police.

Reps. Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.) and Denver Riggleman (R-Va.) each lost renomination after breaking with their constituents over hot-button policy issues. Lipinski, perhaps the last anti-abortion rights Democrat in Congress, lost to a progressive activist who had support from major abortion rights groups. Riggleman lost a renominating convention, restricted to only the most die-hard conservative activists, after he had the audacity to preside over a same-sex wedding.

Some of the long-serving incumbents who held off challenges took constituent services more seriously. Reps. Richard Neal (D-Mass.) and Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.), two more House committee chairs who faced progressive activists in their primaries, each campaigned hard to win another term.

The GOP is shifting right

Some election cycles mark ideological shifts in one party or another. The 1994 wave ushered in a new generation of hard-nosed Republicans in the image of Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). The 2010 wave brought the Tea Party to Congress.

This year, a host of Republicans poised to win office in November will make the Tea Party look like genteel moderates.

Boebert is just one of a new brand of arch-conservatives who are likely headed to Congress next year, some of whom have embraced the fringe and fantastical QAnon conspiracy.

In other districts, candidates backed by national Republicans lost primary elections to more conservative challengers. Promising Republican recruits like Pierce Bush in Texas, former Lt. Gov. Evelyn Sanguinetti in Illinois and Earl Granville in Pennsylvania all lost Republican nominations in potential swing districts to more conservative rivals.

The Tea Party’s arrival in Congress ushered in the Freedom Caucus, a group that caused headaches for Republican Speakers John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). The next wave of Republicans will make life just as difficult, albeit in a much different way, for GOP leadership.

ADVERTISING

Trump is everything

President Trump loves touting his support among the Republican base, and he is right. The GOP is held together less by an ideology than to a fealty to their party leader; more Republican-registered voters say they are a supporter of Trump (49 percent) than of the party itself (37 percent), according to a recent poll conducted for NBC News and the Wall Street Journal.

Among candidates running for Congress, that number may be even more skewed.

Trump has appeared in a quarter of all advertisements run by Republican candidates this year, according to data maintained by political scientists who run the Wesleyan Media Project. That is more often than any issue mentioned in GOP ads except taxes.

Trump’s popularity among his party’s core supporters has given him the room to diverge from the ideology that has driven the GOP for decades. He has broken with past Republican presidents on free trade, America’s role in the world, spending and deficits.

Trump’s time in power is limited to either the next few months or the next four and a half years. But even out of office, he is almost certainly not going to give up the Twitter feed that has become his bully pulpit. The party of Trump now is likely to be the party of Trump for years to come.

Absentees are king

The share of Americans who voted by mail has roughly doubled this century, from 10 percent in 2000 to almost 21 percent in the 2016 election, according to Pew Research Center.

Some states, like Washington, Utah and Colorado, have already shifted their elections entirely to the mail. A huge majority of voters in states like Arizona, Florida and Nevada also use mail-in voting.

The coronavirus pandemic is hastening those trends across every other state — even in some where absentee voting has never been a major part of the political culture. State after state has set new records for the number of voters casting ballots in the mail, in some cases beating their old records five, 10 or 15 times over.

Most states are well equipped to handle the surge in volume, and many begin counting ballots even before the polls close. But others are not — New York took more than a month to count the absentee ballots cast in its June primary, and Alaska took a week to begin opening their absentee ballots.

The two parties like absentee ballots: Knowing who has returned their ballot gives the parties the ability to focus their scarce resources to the population that has yet to vote.

But as Trump raises the unsubstantiated specter of fraud in the mail — and even urges his own supporters to vote twice, a felony — the heavy reliance on mail ballots has become a factor fraught with dread. In a close race, absentee ballots counted long after Election Day will prove fodder for those on the losing side, and the Russian bot farms determined to undermine confidence in American democracy.