Connect with us

Politics

Mattis and Other Military Leaders Slam Trump Over Threat to Deploy Troops in U.S.

Published

on

Photo by Leah Millis for Reuters

  • Former Defense Secretary James Mattis spoke out against President Trump in a cutting op-ed where he criticized the president for his recent actions and accused him of being intentionally divisive.
  • Trump responding in a series of tweets where he attacked Mattis’ character and falsely claimed he fired the former Secretary, who resigned on his own accord in December 2018.
  • Numerous military officials and current Defense Secretary Mark Esper have spoken out against Trump’s threats to send the military to states to address protests over the killing of George Floyd.
  • Others have defended Trump’s remarks, including Sen. Tom Cotton who wrote an op-ed in the New York Times titled “Send in the Troops.” Numerous Times employees slammed the newspaper for publishing the piece.

Mattis Slams Trump

Former Defense Secretary James Mattis criticized President Donald Trump for his recent actions and remarks in a scathing statement published in the Atlantic Wednesday.

Mattis resigned from his post in December 2018 in protest of Trump’s policy on Syria, and until Wednesday, he had remained largely quiet about his opinions of the president.

“I have watched this week’s unfolding events, angry and appalled,” Mattis opened. 

He went on to say that the demonstrators protesting the death of George Floyd were fighting for Equal Justice Under Law, which he called “a wholesome and unifying demand—one that all of us should be able to get behind. We must not be distracted by a small number of lawbreakers.”

“Never did I dream that troops taking that same oath would be ordered under any circumstance to violate the Constitutional rights of their fellow citizens—much less to provide a bizarre photo op for the elected commander-in-chief, with military leadership standing alongside,” he added.

The former Defense Secretary also slammed President Trump’s recent threat to deploy the military to states that did not respond to protests in a manner he felt was effective. 

“We must reject any thinking of our cities as a ‘battlespace’ that our uniformed military is called upon to ‘dominate,’” he said. “At home, we should use our military only when requested to do so, on very rare occasions, by state governors.”

“Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people—does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us,” Mattis stated. “We are witnessing the consequences of three years of this deliberate effort. We are witnessing the consequences of three years without mature leadership.”

“We know that we are better than the abuse of executive authority that we witnessed in Lafayette Square,”  he continued. “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution.”

Trump Responds With Falsehoods

Trump was quick to respond to Mattis’ rebuke, attacking the esteemed general in a series of tweets where he made a least two false claims.

“Probably the only thing Barack Obama & I have in common is that we both had the honor of firing Jim Mattis, the world’s most overrated General,” Trump wrote. “I asked for his letter of resignation, & felt great about it. His nickname was ‘Chaos’, which I didn’t like, & changed to ‘Mad Dog’”

Despite his bold claim, Trump did not fire Mattis. As noted earlier, the former secretary resigned on his own accord in protest after Trump announced that he was withdrawing troops from Syria.

Numerous officials have backed up that account, which Mattis’ letter of resignation also appears to support.

“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down from my position,” he wrote at the time.

Trump’s assertion that he changed Mattis’ nickname from “Chaos” to “Mad Dog” is also false. Chaos was Mattis’ military call name, not his nickname, and it has been reported by multiple outlets that the nickname “Mad Dog” was given to Mattis years before Trump took office.

Other Military Officials & Esper Respond

However, Mattis is not the only prominent military official who has criticized Trump’s threat to deploy the military to states.

Earlier this week, two former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairmen, Gen. Martin Dempsey and Adm. Mike Mullens spoke out against the president’s warning.

“America is not a battleground. Our fellow citizens are not the enemy,” Dempsey wrote in a tweet on Monday.

Mullens, however, was more direct in his condemnation of the president.

“I have to date been reticent to speak out on issues surrounding President Trump’s leadership, but we are at an inflection point,” he wrote in an op-ed in the Atlantic published on Tuesday.

Mullens went on to say that police brutality and injustices against African Americans must be addressed, and that the right to peaceful assembly must be defended.

“And neither of these pursuits will be made easier or safer by an overly aggressive use of our military, active duty or National Guard,” he wrote. “The issue for us today is not whether this authority exists, but whether it will be wisely administered.”

“Furthermore, I am deeply worried that as they execute their orders, the members of our military will be co-opted for political purposes,” he added.

Gen. John Allen, the former commander of American forces in Afghanistan made a similar argument in an op-ed in Foreign Policy published Wednesday.

“Right now, the last thing the country needs—and, frankly, the U.S. military needs—is the appearance of U.S. soldiers carrying out the president’s intent by descending on American citizens.”

However, the most significant remarks on the matter came from current Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who made the striking decision to disagree with the president on a question of military deployments.

The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations,” Esper said during a press conference Wednesday. “We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.” 

Tom Cotton Op-Ed

Despite very notable military officials openly disagreeing with the president, there are plenty of others who support the move to deploy the military.

On Wednesday, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) expressed his desire to send the military to quell the unrest in states in an op-ed for the New York Times titled “Send In the Troops.”

“The rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence,” he wrote. “On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.”

“One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers,” he continued. “But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup.”

“In normal times, local law enforcement can uphold public order,” Cotton added. “But in rare moments, like ours today, more is needed, even if many politicians prefer to wring their hands while the country burns.”

Both Cotton’s op-ed and the decision to publish it prompted significant backlash from numerous Times employees. Dozens of writers, reporters, editors, and magazine staffers expressed their dissatisfaction with their employer by sharing the same tweet: “Running this puts Black @nytimes staffers in danger”

Others also broadly condemned the op-ed, and one reporter pointed out that Cotton’s claim that “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa [are] infiltrating protest marches” had been debunked as misinformation by the Times itself.

James Bennet, the Editorial Page Editor defended the decision to run.

“We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton’s argument painful, even dangerous,” he wrote on Twitter. “We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate.” 

See what others are saying: (NPR) (CNN) (The Washington Post)

Politics

California to Ban the Sale of New Gas-Powered Cars by 2035

Published

on

  • California Governor Newsom (D) signed an executive order Wednesday aimed at banning sales of new gasoline vehicles by 2035.
  • The ban will not prevent anyone from owning or even selling a used gas-powered vehicle.
  • While many environmentalist groups praised Newsom for the order, they noted that California will need to be proactive to accomplish the goal in its current time frame. Some even criticized Newsom for not going a step further by also limiting oil and gas production. 
  • Despite this, Newsom announced a goal to end new fracking permits by 2024, which was later condemned by many energy companies.
  • Because California has such a massive influence, many believe other states could follow its lead, causing ripple effects in the car market.

Newsom Announces Gas-Powered Car Ban for 2035

As part of an “ambitious” new goal, California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) issued an executive order on Wednesday meant to ban the sale of new gas-powered cars by 2035.

“I think it’s self-evident to anybody who’s been paying any attention about [the] state of California that we’ve been suffering and struggling through simultaneous crises,” Newsom when announcing the order.

“Of all the simultaneous crises that we face as a state, and I would argue as a nation — and for that matter, from a global perspective — none is more impactful, none is more forceful than the issue of the climate crisis. And that’s exactly what we’re advancing here today is a strategy to address that crisis head-on, to be as bold as the problem is big.” 

In part, Newsom’s order directs regulators to develop a plan that would require automakers to steadily sell more zero-emissions vehicles, with the state completely phasing out the sale of new gas-powered passenger vehicles in just 15 fifteen years. This order will not ban people from owning, driving, or even selling used cars that rely on gas. 

Among other measures, the order sets a goal to make all medium and heavy-duty vehicles on the road zero emissions by 2045, “where feasible.”

It also directs state transportation agencies to “identify near-term actions” that would build infrastructure such as “an integrated, statewide rail and transit network” or that would “[support] bicycle, pedestrian, and micro-mobility options, particularly in low-income and disadvantaged communities in the State.”

Is This Goal Feasible?

One of the biggest challenges to this goal is its feasibility. 

As experts have pointed out, increasing the production and sale of emissions-free vehicles in the state over a relatively short period of time will be a massive hurdle.  

Last year, only about 8% of passenger vehicles in the state were either electric or hybrid. On top of that, California would need to increase financial incentives for electric vehicles since they tend to be pricier. It would also need to drastically expand its charging infrastructure. 

Still, Newsom stressed in his Wednesday announcement that over 40% of the state’s carbon emissions come directly from transportation. In fact, transportation even outpaces the industrial, agricultural, and residential sectors combined.

It’s not impossible to think that this goal could become a reality. As Don Anair, deputy director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, told The New York Times: “It’s feasible, but it’s going to take California pulling all the levers at its disposal.” 

California isn’t the first place to announce a phasing out of gas-powered vehicles. Fifteen other countries — including Britain, Denmark, and Norway — have all set similar goals; however, California is the first government in the United States to set such aggressive goals.

Environmentalists Express Concerns Over Oil and Gas

While many environmentalists praised the order, that also doesn’t mean they’re fully satisfied with it. Many have pointed out that California is one of the country’s largest oil and gas producers.

In recent years, energy companies in the state have used fracking to unlock new fossil-fuel reserves. Because of that, Kassie Siegel, the director of the Climate Law Institute at the Center for Biological Diversity, told The Times:  “Setting a timeline to eliminate petroleum vehicles is a big step, but Newsom’s announcement provided rhetoric rather than real action on the other critical half of the climate problem — California’s dirty oil production.”

“Newsom can’t claim climate leadership while handing out permits to oil companies to drill and frack,” she added.

In his order, Newsom set a goal to end new permits for fracking by 2024. He also said he would work to help the state’s energy industry move away from its reliance on oil and gas. 

Regarding why he did not issue an executive order banning fracking, he said he lacks the authority to do so on his own. Therefore, he called on the state legislature to enact such a ban. 

Online Criticism and Criticism from Energy Companies

Energy companies offered even sharper words following Newson’s announcement of his fracking goals.

“Let’s be clear: Today’s announcement to curb in-state production of energy will put thousands of workers in the Central Valley, Los Angeles basin, and Central Coast on the state’s overloaded unemployment program, drive up energy costs when consumers can least afford it, and hurt California’s fight to lower global greenhouse gas emissions,” Rock Zierman, chief executive of the California Independent Petroleum Association.

Many online also criticized Newsom’s goals, with one person saying, “You are going to ruin California’s economy and people will lose their jobs.”

California’s Move Could Send a Ripple Across Other States

California is the fifth-largest economy in the world, and it’s not unlikely to think that pressure on auto companies from the state could prompt other states to increase their electric vehicle usage as well.

“We’ve seen this show before, where California does something, and others jump on board,” veteran auto industry analyst Karl Brauer told The Washington Post.

“If you want to reduce asthma,” Newson said Wednesday, “if you want to mitigate the rise of sea level, if you want to mitigate a loss of ice sheets around the globe, then this is a policy for other states to follow.”

Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia already follow California’s fuel-efficiency standards; however, the Trump administration is currently challenging California’s long-standing authority to set those standards for itself.

Because of that, last year, California and nearly two dozen other states sued the Trump administration for the right to set their own standards.

See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (NPR) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

Politics

Social Media Companies Roll Out New Features to Prepare for a Contentious Election

Published

on

  • As the election draws closer, most of the major social media platforms have started announcing new policy changes to prepare for Nov. 3.
  • YouTube said Thursday that it was expanding its use of information panels to content regarding mail-in voting, as well as searches concerning federal candidates, voter registration, and other queries about how to vote.
  • Last week, Twitter rolled out its new election information hub which it said will provide resources on mail-in ballots, how to register for the election, and information about congressional and gubernatorial candidates.
  • Earlier this month, Facebook announced a series of updates, including adding labels to certain posts made by politicians who declare victory in an election before the final results are in. On Wednesday, it said it was expanding the policy to prevent politicians from running ads claiming victory before the results are finalized.

YouTube’s New Policies

Social media platforms are preparing for what is widely expected to be an inflammatory and highly contentious election cycle by announcing a series of new tools and policies.

On Thursday, YouTube rolled out several features it says are aimed at combatting election misinformation. In a blog post, the company announced that it is expanding the use of information panels under videos that address “well-established topics that are subject to misinformation, such as the moon landing or COVID-19”

Most significantly, YouTube will now start adding information panels under videos about voting by mail that will direct viewers to “authoritative information from the Bipartisan Policy Center, a bipartisan think tank.”

Additionally, the platform will also have panels pop up whenever users search for presidential or Congressional candidates, voter registration, or queries about how to vote.

Those who conduct searches regarding voter registration will see a panel that provides information on “deadlines, registration options, and an easy way to check the status of your registration.” 

Searches for “how to vote” will direct users to a panel that links out to Google’s “how to vote” feature, with information concerning “ID requirements, registration and voting deadlines, and guidance for different means of voting, like in person or mail.”

Twitter‘s Policies

In addition to YouTube, Twitter has also recently announced several new measures in preparation for the election.

Last week, the platform rolled out its new voting information hub. Much like YouTube’s plans with information panels, Twitter’s hub will include facts on mail-in ballots and how to register for the election

The centralized resource center will also provide users with as information about congressional and gubernatorial candidates and “localized news and resources” based on the state each lives in.

In a separate announcement last week, the company also said that it was working to better secure high-profile accounts in the wake of the election, including those of politicians, political organizations, large media outlets, and journalists.

Facebook‘s Policies

Facebook, for its part, is easily facing the most pressure to put safeguards in place ahead of Nov. 3, due to the platform’s oversized role in the spread of misinformation during the 2016 election.

Earlier this month, the company announced a series of new changes. Among other things, Facebook said it would not run new political ads the week before the election and that it would add labels to certain posts, including those made by politicians who declare victory in an election before the final results are in. 

On Wednesday, Facebook also said that it was expanding its policy preventing politicians from declaring an early victory in posts to also stop them from doing so in ads.

Regarding actions the platforms claims it will take after the election, during an interview with the Financial Times earlier this week, Facebook’s head of global affairs said the company will take serious steps to “restrict the circulation of content” on the platform the if presidential election descends into widespread chaos or violent unrest.

While some have applauded these changes, many have said that Facebook needs to do more leading up to the election, and not just implement its strongest policies after.

Throughout the election cycle, this broader criticism is one that has been made a lot with regards to Facebook. In addition to continually receiving backlash for not doing enough, the company has also been widely criticized by many people who believe the so-called “sweeping changes” Facebook says it has implemented are barely changes at all, or end up being widely ineffective.

Just this week, a number of recent reports have detailed major flaws and failures with systems the company has put into place. 

In an article published Wednesday, CNN outlined the findings from an analysis of Facebook’s ad transparency data by the activist group Avaaz.

“Facebook allowed political advertisers to target hundreds of misleading ads about Joe Biden and the US Postal Service to swing-state voters ranging from Florida to Wisconsin in recent weeks, in an apparent failure to enforce its own platform rules less than two months before Election Day,” the outlet wrote.

The report also noted that ads being run by both Pro-Donald Trump and Pro-Democrat PACs that appeared to violate Facebook’s guidelines were left up and attracted millions of views.

Also on Wednesday, Bloomberg reported that a watchdog group found serious issues with the content monitoring system Facebook has encouraged elections authorities to use to identify voting misinformation in their states.

Bloomberg went on to note that the tool “doesn’t effectively monitor most posts on the social media service, including those in private groups or from most individual users,” or Instagram accounts with less than 75,000 followers. 

See what others are saying: (The Verge) (CNN) (Bloomberg)

Continue Reading

Politics

Rep. Gaetz Calls for Investigation After Bloomberg Pays Florida Felons’ Debts To Clear Them for Voting

Published

on

  • Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg raised $16 million to pay outstanding fees for 32,000 felons in Florida, making them eligible to vote in November.
  • The move comes about a week after an appeals court upheld a law that requires felons to pay all outstanding fees before they can vote, effectively preventing hundreds of thousands of people from casting ballots in the crucial swing state. 
  • That court ruling follows years of legal battles over a ballot measure passed overwhelmingly by Florida voters in 2018 which allowed most felons to vote after they completed their parole and probation periods.
  • Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz claimed Bloomberg’s actions were illegal, saying they are considered providing “something of value to impact whether or not someone votes,” and called for the matter to be investigated.

Florida Voting Rights 

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) claimed Tuesday that former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg acted illegally when he helped raise $16 million to cover the court debts of felons in Florida so that they could be eligible to vote in the November election.

Bloomberg’s contribution comes after a years-long legal battle in Florida concerning the voting rights of felons.

Voters overwhelmingly approved a measure in 2018 to end the state’s lifetime ban on most felons voting. That measure, known as Amendment 4, effectively restored the voting rights of felons who had completed their parole and probation periods, with the exception of those who had been convicted of sex crimes or of murder. Around 1.5 million people —  nearly 10% of the state’s adult population — were given the ability to vote.

Despite the fact that ending the ban had bipartisan support among Florida voters, shortly after Amendment 4 took effect, the state’s Republican-controlled legislature passed legislation requiring felons to pay off all outstanding debts in order to be eligible to vote, and Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law in June 2019.

Under the law, roughly 775,000 felons still who owed fines related to their convictions would not be able to vote until they paid them off. That number included some of the estimated 85,000 who had already registered to vote since Amendment 4 went into effect in January 2019.

However, the state offered almost no assistance for felons to determine how much they owed, or even if they owed anything at all. Officials even explicitly said it would take around six years to make a database for felons to look up their debts.

The Republican’s law immediately faced a number of legal challenges, and in May of this year,  district court judge Robert Hinkle struck down the law, ruling that it was an unconstitutional “pay-to-vote system.”

In his decision, Hinkle argued that an “overwhelming majority” of the felons would not be able to pay their debts or even figure out how much they owed. He went so far as to say that the law amounted to a poll tax.

However, a federal appeals court blocked his order from going into effect while it considered the case, thus effectively allowing the law to stay in place. In July, the Supreme Court refused to overturn the federal appeals court’s decision to block felons from voting while they decided the case.

Then, just over a week ago, the appeals court delivered its final judgment, deciding in a 6-4 ruling that the Republican’s law was not unconstitutional, and that felons would be required to pay fees in order to vote.

Bloomberg’s Donations

The move prompted significant outrage, and civil rights groups representing the felons said they would keep fighting.

But with just weeks to go before the election — and even less time before Florida’s Oct. 5 voter registration deadline — it would be almost impossible for yet another full-scale legal battle to be resolved in their favor.

With little hope for any kind of sweeping legal change, many people instead began paying the fines felons owed so that they could vote. The effort, which has been spearheaded by the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition (FRRC), specifically focuses on Black and Hispanic voters who are already registered and who owe debts that are less than $1,500.

According to the FRRC, the list of people who have donated to their cause includes Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and John Legend. 

The largest donation so far, however, appears to be from Bloomberg and his team. The contribution, which the former mayor announced in a statement Tuesday, comes just after he pledged to give at least $100 million to elect Democratic nominee Joe Biden in Florida.

According to a memo accessed by The Washington Post, Bloomberg viewed the contribution as a more cost-effective way to get more Democratic votes in the state than persuading other voters.

“We have identified a significant vote share that requires a nominal investment. The data shows that in Florida, Black voters are a unique universe unlike any other voting bloc, where the Democratic support rate tends to be 90%-95%,” the memo allegedly read.

Although Bloomberg’s efforts are political, Desmond Meade, the president of the FRRC, emphasized in a statement to The Post that the group is nonpartisan and does not share Bloomberg’s goal of encouraging just one political party.

Gaetz Claims Bloomberg’s Donations are Illegal

While Meade said Bloomberg’s donation does not dictate how the FRRC is operating, others, including Gaetz, have raised legal questions regarding the move.

“[Under Florida law] it’s a third-degree felony for someone to either directly or indirectly provide something of value to impact whether or not someone votes. So the question is whether or not paying off someone’s fines and legal obligations counts as something of value, and it clearly does,” the representative explained when speaking with Fox New’s Sean Hannity Tuesday night.

“If Michael Bloomberg was offering to pay off people’s credit card debts, you would obviously see the value in that. When you improve someone’s net worth by eliminating their financial liabilities, that’s something of value.”

“I believe there may be a criminal investigation already underway of the Bloomberg-connected activities in Florida,” he added, noting that he had spoken with Florida’s Attorney General.

The existence of a criminal probe has not been confirmed by any law enforcement officials. Bloomberg, for his part, has not yet responded to the accusations.

In a matter as politically charged as felon voting rights, it is probable that both sides will pull out all the stops. Especially because, in a state as heavily contested as Florida, adding felons to the voter rolls could actually sway the election.

In 2016, President Donald Trump only won Florida in 2016 by 1.2 percentage points — less than 113,000 vote difference. Right now, polls from the state show Trump and Biden in a dead heat.

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Politico) (The New York Post)

Continue Reading