Posts in category: Blog

A white Louisiana police officer was arrested and charged in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man earlier this month.

Shreveport Police Officer Alexander Tyler, 23, was responding to a domestic disturbance on Feb. 3 when he shot and killed Alonzo Sentell Bagley, 43, according to authorities.

When Tyler arrived at the scene on Feb. 3 at about 10:51 p.m., Bagley said he was going to take care of his dog before jumping over a railing from the apartment’s balcony. As Bagley ran from the building’s parking lot, Tyler and an additional officer gave chase.

Body camera footage showed Tyler fired a shot that struck Bagley in the chest.

“Oh my God, you shot me,” Bagley is heard saying.

Tyler rendered aid to Bagley, who collapsed to the ground after being shot in the video. Bagley was then transported to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead around 11:30 p.m.

Following the shooting, Tyler made “several statements claiming the suspect came toward him and could not see his hands,” according to state police court documents, USAToday reported. But no weapons were found in Bagley’s possession.

Tyler has now been charged with negligent homicide and was released Thursday from the Caddo Correctional Center on $25,000 bond. according to the Shreveport Times. Bagley’s family, who are represented by attorney Ron Haley, filed a $10 million lawsuit against Tyler.

“Alonzo was so scared,” Haley told the Shreveport Times. “Everyone at the scene, including the perpetrator, Alexander Tyler, knew that Mr. Bagley should not have been shot that night.”

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers updated on the most essential Texas news.

Gov. Greg Abbott wants lawmakers to spend $15 billion to lower Texans’ property taxes and at least $750 million for school safety measures, such as security and expanding mental health services, while continuing to fully fund its border security operation, according to him. Budget proposal 2024-25 distributed on Thursday.

“To build the Texas of tomorrow, we must continue the state’s continued efforts to build infrastructure, grow the energy sector, improve job training and public education, and ensure access to health care — all while keeping Texans safe and preserving the freedoms we enjoy today for the future. generations,” the Republican governor wrote in the 25-page document, first reported by quorum report.

The proposal lays out for the first time how Abbott wants lawmakers to cut property taxes — an idea Republicans have agreed on in both chambers, even if the details vary between the plans.

Abbott is proposing to keep existing school property tax cuts made as part of a massive school funding package passed in 2019 and use state dollars to further reduce taxes under that law. The state doesn’t actually raise property taxes — that money is collected by cities, counties, school districts and other local entities — but by directing more state money to schools, it’s able to lower the amount schools collect. The reductions would apply to both homes and businesses.

He also asks lawmakers to consider expanding broadband access, supporting alternatives to abortion, creating family leave for state employees, investing in flood mitigation and other large infrastructure projects, paying off some of the state’s unfunded liabilities for the pensions of state employees and the granting of raises for teachers. both active and retired.

Abbott also includes a new proposal to increase death benefits for members of the Texas National Guard who have been stationed along the border as part of his multibillion-dollar security mission, Operation Lone Star.

The document also calls for extending postpartum Medicaid benefits to 12 months, addressing staffing and funding shortages in nursing homes and purchasing risk-reducing drugs for law enforcement to fight the fentanyl crisis. He proposes funding reform to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services and supporting child abuse investigators and kinship care programs for children removed from their parents’ homes.

As with Abbott’s budget proposals in previous sessions, the document is short on details. It doesn’t set funding totals at the state level or for each state agency, and it doesn’t provide details on how to balance the cost of the ideas it proposes with other spending requirements or state spending limits. Most of the specific budget work will fall to House and Senate lawmakers, although Abbott has veto power over the final product and the ability to remove certain line items.

The governor’s budget outline is required by the Texas Constitution to be delivered to lawmakers before his biennial State of the State address.

Each initially proposed $130.1 billion in general revenue spending for the 2024-2025 biennium, leaving at least $50 billion of available money unallocated in early projects.

This includes a historic budget surplus of $32.7 billion attributed to record tax collections over the past 18 months.

“Our strong Texas economy has produced another record — we now have the largest budget surplus in our state’s history,” Abbott wrote in the proposal. “But make no mistake, that money does not belong to the government. It belongs to the taxpayers.”

Lawmakers are required to pass a balanced budget before the end of the session. The new budget is usually approved at the end of May.

Abbott’s proposals for the next biennium largely reflect the priorities he outlined Thursday night during his State of the State address at Noveon Magnetics in San Marcos.

In his speech Thursday, he named seven emergency items that lawmakers can vote on immediately: cutting property taxes, ending COVID-19 restrictions “forever,” expanding school choice, increasing school safety, ending bail policies with ” revolving door”, state insurance. the Mexican border and the crackdown on fentanyl.

The budget document was distributed Thursday and addressed to House Speaker Dade Phelan, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and members of the 88th Legislature. The document had not been posted on Abbott’s website as of Friday morning.

Reduction of property taxes

The $15 billion Abbott wants to spend on property tax cuts is in line with the amount already set in the House and Senate spending proposals and his previous statements about spending at least half of the surplus on those cuts.

“We must — and will — do more to provide meaningful tax relief to homeowners and businesses across the state,” Abbott said in the document. “Fortunately, a strong growing economy and the extraordinary revenue surplus in the state budget have given us the opportunity to do so.”

Missing from Abbott’s budget proposal is any mention of an increase in the state homestead exemption for school district taxes or the dollar amount of a home’s value that cannot be taxed. Increasing the exemption is a top priority for Patrick, who has called for using $3 billion to increase the exemption from $40,000 to $70,000. But that would only benefit homeowners, critics noted — meaning more of the burden of paying property taxes would fall on renters and businesses.

But Abbott and Patrick appear aligned on the idea of ​​reducing the property taxes companies pay on “personal property” such as furniture and equipment — with Abbott voicing support for “targeted help” for businesses by increasing the personal property exemption.

Abbott also called for freezing county property taxes for seniors and ensuring they automatically receive an additional $10,000 exemption already reserved for seniors.

In particular, Abbott said the House and Senate budget writers should look to federal funds made available through bills like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act — President Joe Biden’s signature accomplishments — and “to determine which programs are worth pursuing.”

School vouchers and other policy measures

Among the more hotly debated policy ideas in Abbott’s proposal is directing public school money to charter schools, private schools and home-schooling programs — a battle the Legislature has been waging for decades and one that divides Republicans in districts rural and urban.

“Parents deserve the opportunity to choose the educational setting that is best for their child, whether it is a traditional public school, public charter school, private school or home school,” Abbott wrote in his budget proposal.

The proposal suggests the creation of Education Savings Accounts to “give parents the option to use funds that would otherwise be allocated to their child’s public school for a variety of educational expenses, such as private school tuition, online learning programs, teaching materials and educational. therapies.”

But critics of vouchers and similar programs, including rural Republicans and most Democrats, say they drain vital funding from a school system that is — unlike charter and private schools — accessible to all students and should be fully funded.

“After nearly a decade under Governor Abbott, he is responding to the anger and frustration parents and teachers feel at cash-strapped schools with a ploy that further undermines the public education that the vast majority of Texas schools and families rely on their.” Rep. state Rep. Gina Hinojosa, D-Austin, said in a statement.

School security

Among Abbott’s budget priorities are allocating at least $600 million for what he called “school safety measures,” which include technology improvements; “hardening” or increasing the security of school buildings and campuses to protect against mass shootings; and “expanded mental health resources.”

He is also requesting $147 million to continue funding a statewide telehealth program to connect children with mental health resources through schools, a program run through state universities by the Texas Child Mental Health Care Consortium.

Abbott also wants to spend $6.6 million on active shooter training for law enforcement, a priority he has listed among his school initiatives.

The proposal makes no mention of substantially increasing funding for struggling public schools or tying funding to enrollment rather than attendance, both ideas promoted by public education advocates.

Public safety and border security

In the proposal, Abbott also praises his Operation Lone Star border initiative for apprehending migrants and seizing the synthetic opioid fentanyl. Funding for the operation, which has involved the deployment of members of the Texas National Guard and the Texas Department of Public Safety and cost $4.3 billion in state funds so far, should continue, Abbott said. He wrote that Texas will continue to push the federal government to reimburse what it says are $6.7 billion in costs to the state to secure its border with Mexico.

In his proposal, Abbott calls for a new program to increase death benefits for the Texas National Guard. In April, Bishop Evans died during Operation Lone Star while trying to rescue migrants from the water. His family was ineligible for state death benefits, sparking an effort by lawmakers to change that policy.

“While much has been accomplished by the brave men and women of the border, there is still a great deal of work to be done to protect Texans as the federal government shows no willingness to quell this humanitarian crisis,” the document said .

James Barragán contributed to this report.

Private security guards close the gate of a building that houses the BBC office in New Delhi, India.

Altaf Qadri/AP

hide legend

switch subtitles

Altaf Qadri/AP

Private security guards close the gate of a building that houses the BBC office in New Delhi, India.

Altaf Qadri/AP

MUMBAI — After three days of searching the BBC’s offices in India, Indian tax authorities say they have found evidence of unpaid taxes and undeclared income.

Without naming the BBC, India’s finance ministry says its tax inspectors have found “substantial evidence” showing “discrepancies and inconsistencies” in the tax returns of “a prominent international media company”.

Press freedom campaigners around the world have condemned this week’s raids on the BBC – in which journalists and accountants alike were questioned and phones and laptops searched. Some slept in their office for two nights.

The searches came weeks after the British broadcaster aired a documentary critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi – and his government banned it from airing here.

The BBC said it was cooperating with the authorities and that its journalists here would continue to report “without fear or favour”.

Former President Donald Trump in 2017. File photo by Brendan Photo by Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images

NEW YORK (AP) — Donald Trump’s lawyers want to bar from his upcoming civil rape trial the “Access Hollywood” tape in which the former president explicitly brags about how celebrities can molest women.

Trump lawyers Alina Habba and Michael Madaio filed papers in federal court in Manhattan late Thursday seeking to block references to the 2005 taped meeting and the tape itself from an April lawsuit stemming from claims by longtime columnist E .Jean Carroll.

They called the tape “irrelevant and highly prejudicial” and said it could be unfairly used to suggest to jurors that Trump had a propensity for sexual assault and therefore must have raped Carroll. They also asked to bar the testimony of two women who have accused Trump of sexual misconduct and to ban references to his campaign speeches.

Carroll, 79, sued Trump in November after New York state temporarily changed laws to allow adult rape victims to sue their abusers, even if the attacks occurred dozens years ago. A trial is scheduled for April 25, and Trump and Carroll are expected to testify.

Carroll, a former columnist for Elle magazine, said in her 2019 memoir, “What Do We Need Men For?” that Trump raped her in late 1995 or early 1996 in the dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman, an upscale department store in Manhattan.

Trump has denied it, sometimes angrily, in public statements.

READ: Part of Trump’s deposition in the E. Jean Carrol libel trial

In an October deposition for the next trial, Trump dismissed Carroll’s claims, saying, “Physically, she’s not my type,” even though he misidentified her as his ex-wife when shown a photo.

Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, confronted him about the claims two dozen other women have made against him, asking if some of them were true.

“I would say. I mean, I don’t see any. I mean, you haven’t shown me anything,” Trump replied, according to the transcript.

His answers could increase the relevance of lewd comments he made on the “Access Hollywood” tape, which was released just weeks before he won the November 2016 presidential election.

In the tape, he said that sometimes when he sees beautiful women, “I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait.” And he added that, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything,” including grabbing women between the legs.

He later issued a rare apology, saying the comments were “locker room banter” caught on a hot mic.

In excerpts of his statement, entered into the public record late Thursday, Trump said it has been largely true “over the last million years” that celebrities can attract women they find attractive. “Unfortunately or fortunately,” he added.

“And you consider yourself a star?” Kaplan asked.

“I think you can say that, yes,” Trump replied.

In her lawsuit, Carroll said she had a chance encounter with Trump that turned into playful banter when he asked her to help him pick out underwear for a friend. She said they teased each other to try on a piece of underwear and went into the dressing room, where Trump became violent and raped her.

Her attorney declined to comment Friday.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Decisions to shoot down several unidentified objects over the U.S. and Canada this month have put the spotlight on amateur aeronauts who insist their creations pose no threat.

In the past three weeks, US President Joe Biden has ordered fighter jets to shoot down three objects detected in US airspace – a suspected Chinese spy balloon off the coast of South Carolina. as well as smaller unidentified objects over Alaska and Lake Huron. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau ordered another object shot down over the Yukon last week; an American fighter jet performed that mission.

US government officials have not yet definitively identified the objects, but Biden said Thursday that they were likely balloons tied to private companies, meteorologists or hobbyists.

Tom Medlin, owner of the Tennessee Ham Radio Roundtable podcast and a balloon enthusiast himself, said he’s been in contact with a club in Illinois that believes the object shot down over the Yukon was one of their balloons. No one at the club responded to messages left Friday, but Medlin said the club was tracking the balloon and it disappeared over the Yukon the same day the unidentified object was brought down.

The incidents have left aviators to defend their hobby. They insist their balloons fly too high and are too small to pose a threat to aircraft and that government officials are overreacting.

“The spy balloon had to be shot down,” Medlin said. “This is a national security threat, for sure. Then what happened is, I think, the government got a little worried. Maybe the word is trigger. I do not know. When they knocked them down, they didn’t know what they were. It’s a little worrying.”

White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Friday that the Biden administration could not confirm reports that the object belonged to the Illinois club. He said the wreckage had not yet been recovered and “we all have to accept the possibility that we may not be able to recover it”.

US officials said Friday they had stopped looking for debris from the objects that crashed over Alaska and Lake Huron after finding none. Search efforts for debris from the Yukon object are ongoing.

Kirby dismissed the idea that Biden’s decision to use rockets costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to shoot down balloons that most likely cost less than $20 was an overreaction.

“Absolutely not,” said Kirby. “Given the situation we were in, the information available, the recommendation of our military commanders — it was exactly the right thing to do at exactly the right time.”

Medlin said the balloons he flies now cost about $12 and are about 32 inches in diameter.

The balloons carry transmitters powered by solar energy that weigh less than 2 grams and broadcast a signal every 10 minutes or less that radio amateurs around the world can use to track the balloon’s locations, he said. He has a balloon aloft that has been in the air for 250 days and circled the globe 10 times, he said.

The fun is watching the balloon circle the globe and building the tiny transmitters, Medlin said, adding that the devices are so small that he needs a microscope to build them. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration collected data from ham radio operators to track wind patterns, he said.

Balloons are so light that the Federal Aviation Administration does not regulate them or require aviators to file flight plans, Medlin said. They inflate their balloons with enough hydrogen to ensure they will fly at about 50,000 feet. That’s well above most commercial aircraft, he said.

Current regulations posted on the FAA’s website state that no one may operate an unmanned balloon in a manner that creates a hazard, and the agency’s regulations only apply to balloons that carry a payload of more than four pounds.

Medlin speculated that after US officials detected the suspected Chinese balloon, they adjusted their radar to pick up very small objects. But hobbyist balloons do not pose a threat to aircraft, he said.

“We follow FAA rules and regulations,” Medlin said. “They are the experts on whether this should or shouldn’t be done. Take a cork and throw it in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Will a ship hit him? Probably not. And if they did, they wouldn’t do any damage to the ship.”

Ron Meadows co-founded San Jose-based Scientific Balloon Solutions with his son, Lee. He said the company makes balloons up to 8 1/2 feet in diameter for college and high school students. He said those balloons have a payload of about 10 to 20 grams, with emitters the size of a popsicle stick. Some balloons have a 20-foot (6-meter) antenna, he said.

He understands that government officials are trying to keep people safe, he said, but they don’t understand that balloons are totally benign, and there’s no doubt they’re overreacting. Jet engines likely ingest much larger objects, such as birds, and most pilots probably wouldn’t even notice if they hit a balloon, Meadows said.

He said he tried to contact the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense to educate officials about the balloons, but that his calls went to voicemail.

“It would have been nice to get our government the information they needed,” he said.

Meadows said he anticipates that after this month’s incidents, the The FAA will come out with stricter restrictions on balloons. He said he wasn’t too worried because his balloon business was a side job; he also runs a swimming pool repair service.

“We’re in this (balloon) business more for the students, not to make money,” he said. “This is for education. When we build these things, the time it takes to build them, we can do more in our day-to-day work.”

Medlin said the balloons can reach speeds of up to 130 mph (210 km/h) if caught in the jet stream. But Bob Boutin, a flight instructor in Chicago, said such balloons are unlikely to pose much of a threat to aircraft.

Most commercial aircraft fly between 25,000 and 45,000 feet, below the level of the balloons, he said. Some corporate jets climb higher than 50,000 feet, but at that altitude the sky is usually clear with visibility of 20 to 40 miles, Boutin said.

The White House’s Kirby said the downed objects travel low enough to pose a risk to civilian aircraft, but Boutin said that even at lower altitudes, a small balloon would not merit a military strike.

“Birds and planes are a much bigger problem than a balloon would be,” he said. Even if the balloon were to go into a jet engine, “most planes have two engines, and if you lose one, technically it’s an emergency, but not one that means the plane crashes,” Boutin said.

___

Associated Press reporter Aamer Madhani in Washington, DC, contributed to this report.

___

Harm Venhuizen is a member of the Associated Press Corps/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercover issues. Follow Harm Twitter.

Republicans are turning the US-Mexico border into an expansive campus for the House of Representatives.

A two-week recess triggered a series of hearings and visits to the border by several GOP-led House committees, with more in the works.

Republicans are looking to blame the Biden administration for the drug trafficking, national security and humanitarian crisis as migrant encounters at the southern border remain near record levels.

And they believe that being on location will help increase public disapproval of democratic policies.

Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) visited the border in Cochise County, Ariz., on Thursday with four Republican front-runners who flipped Democratic-held seats in 2022: Reps. Juan Ciscomani (Ariz.), Lori Chavez-DeRemer (Ore. ). .), Jen Kiggans (Va.) and Derrick Van Orden (Wis.).

Speaking from a farmer’s property with the boundary fence in the background — location found by GPS coordinates rather than an address — McCarthy said GOP activity on the border is aimed at forcing Democrats to pay attention.

“The new majority in Congress, we will fight to fix this problem. “Democrats will no longer be able to ignore the problem and act like it’s not happening,” McCarthy said. “We will have hearings at the border. It is the responsibility of all members to attend. Those who come to testify will come from both sides of the aisle.”

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s investigations and health subcommittees held a joint field hearing Wednesday in McAllen, Texas, arguing that President Biden’s border policies have contributed to a public health crisis with fentanyl deaths.

Next Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing near the border in Yuma, Arizona.

Members of the House Homeland Security Committee will travel to El Paso, Texas, next week as part of a “border boot camp” focused on educating front-line members on the day-to-day operations of Customs and Border Protection and Texas Department of Public Safety. according to a source from the commission. They plan to hold a border hearing in March.

Rep. Mark Green (R-Tenn.), the new chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, wants to hire full-time staff at the U.S.-Mexico border. After he was tapped as chairman last month, he told reporters that those employees would “give us real-time updates” on border issues.

The House Oversight and Reform Committee, which held a hearing in Washington on the border earlier this month, also plans to travel to the South for oversight in the future.

Border hawks are excited to see the Republicans there in person.

“It’s really common sense. That’s what leaders do. They go to the heart of the crisis, whether it’s a hurricane or a tornado, a terrorist attack, it doesn’t matter,” said Mark Morgan, the former chief operations officer and acting commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection during the Trump administration. The hill. “When you physically see it up close and personal, it changes your understanding. It changes your perspective.”

Morgan, who is now a visiting fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, spoke about the emotional impact of seeing Border Patrol agents in person interacting with migrants. And he criticized White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre for commenting last year that “it’s not like anybody’s crossing” the border.

“It’s exactly what they do all day,” Morgan said. “If he had spent 30 seconds at the border — 30 seconds — he would have seen … It would have changed his mind; it would have changed his perception.”

But Democrats see the activities as little more than publicity stunts.

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), whose district includes parts of Cochise County, made his own visit to the border Thursday and criticized the tenor of Republicans’ focus on the border.

“I don’t see this thing as serious, what McCarthy is doing, skydiving, having a photo op, going out with the farmer and the sheriff. [Dannels]taking his word as the Bible and moving on,” Grijalva told The Hill on Thursday.

Cochise County Sheriff Mark Dannels is a favorite witness on border issues for the GOP and a frequent guest on Fox News, but he has been accused by Democrats and immigration advocates of espousing an anti-immigrant agenda.

“I would have gone to the towns and communities that are on the border. I would like them to sit down with the people of Douglas, to sit down with the people of Nogales, to sit down with the people of San Luis and Somerton, to sit down with the people of Naco, to sit down with the people of Sasabe, to sit down with the people who do business at that border, sit with the families that have been there for generations, sit with them and talk about their needs and their perception of the border,” Grijalva said.

A White House spokesman dismissed McCarthy’s trip Wednesday, saying “House Republicans should spend less time on partisan publicity stunts and more time working on solutions.”

And Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee will not attend next week’s hearing in Yuma.

Ranking Member Jerry Nadler (DN.Y.) and Immigration Integrity, Security and Enforcement Subcommittee Ranking Member Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in a joint statement Thursday that there was “no consultation” with Democrats in hearing and that many Democratic members have already embarked on other congressional delegation trips.

They called it “a blatant act of political insight,” adding, “as a result, Democrats who have been regulars at the border in recent years will not be attending next week’s performance hearing. In addition, Judiciary Democrats will conduct their own trip to the border next month, where we will hear from the community and government officials on the ground.”

The House Judiciary GOP said in a tweet that it was “FAKE NEWS,” and Republicans have been consulting with Democrats for weeks about the trip — sharing a video with comments from Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) at the committee’s first meeting to inform the minority of a planned trip to the border that week.

“They are just afraid to face the harsh realities of the #BidenBorderCrisis,” the committee tweeted.

Also looming over personal activities at the border is the potential dismissal of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Those calling for his dismissal claim he has not achieved “operational control”.

McCarthy did not commit to indicting Mayorkas, saying the indictment would not be “political.” But in November, he asked Mayorkas to resign or face Moldova’s investigations – warning that it could lead to his dismissal.

But even as they try to draw attention to the border and target Democrats, Republicans face internal disagreements over legislation to address immigration issues. GOP leaders had planned to quickly bring to the House floor a bill that would allow the Homeland Security secretary to turn back migrants to gain “operational control” of the border.

Objections from moderates like Rep. Tony Gonzales (R-Texas) that the legislation is “anti-immigrant” derailed that plan.

Republicans are now working on border and immigration legislation, which will go through a normal committee process.

“We have a lot of ideas in Congress. It’s different from the Congress before,” McCarthy said at the border Thursday. “We’re just not going to write the bill and put it on the floor. We will listen to those who are at the border. We’ll listen to the border agents. We want the best ideas.”

Rafael Bernal contributed.

A former federal judge — who served as an informal adviser to former Vice President Pence — raised doubts about Pence’s reasoning for resisting a subpoena to testify about the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

J. Michael Luttig argued that any constitutional right Pence has not to testify should yield to the criminal investigation process.

Luttig said on Twitter thread On Friday, whether Pence has protection from having to testify in certain proceedings under the Constitution’s “speech and debate” clause is an unresolved question.

“If a vice president has such privileges and protections with respect to this joint session, they are few in number and limited in scope,” he wrote.

Special Counsel Jack Smith issued a summons to Pence last week as part of his investigation into former President Trump’s role in the insurgency. He has vowed to fight the subpoena — which requests documents and testimony — on the grounds that he should be protected from doing so in his capacity as vice president of the Senate.

Article I of the Constitution states that members of Congress should not be required to answer questions about “any speech or debate” they make while speaking during a session of Congress.

Pence argues that because the vice president serves as president of the Senate, he was essentially a member of Congress and should be protected by the speech and debate clause.

He presided over the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021, when the electoral votes were counted, and he followed Luttig’s guidance before that day that the vice president did not have the power to override certain electoral votes, as Trump and his allies have said he did it.

Luttig said in his post that the vice president’s privileges and protections in his capacity to preside over this joint session are “few in number and limited in scope,” if any, because there are few situations in which they would be needed.

He said this is because the vice president has only a ceremonial role in counting electoral votes.

Luttig argued that the vice president serves independently of the House, Senate, president, president-elect and vice president-elect in that role. He explained that this is a different situation than when the vice president can cast a casting vote if the Senate is bound by a piece of legislation.

The former judge added that if there are protections under the Speech and Debate Clause, they “would yield to the requirements of criminal trial,” as they do for senators and representatives — and as executive privilege protections do for presidents.

Luttig testified before the House Select Committee investigating last year’s insurrection about Pence’s advice on the vice president’s role in counting electoral votes.

Pence refused to testify before this committee on the grounds that it was motivated by partisanship and lacked the authority to investigate.

A year into Russian President Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine, Russia has suffered a major strategic defeat, Ukraine has achieved a major strategic victory, and the West has demonstrated a combination of resolve, unity, and cohesion that few had expected. This, however, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.

The war continues with no end in sight. Neither side is ready to negotiate. Both are preparing to launch major offensives in the near future. Neither side has achieved a major breakthrough in recent months that would change the course of the war. Whereas Russia’s failure to win in a blitzkrieg prompted many predictions of Ukraine’s imminent victory, lately the commentary has been about a stalemate.

Ukrainians, having tasted victory on the battlefield and united in their desire for justice and revenge, cannot accept a land-for-peace compromise. For Putin, whose war it is primarily, compromise is not an option after the humiliation of the failed campaign in pursuit of his maximalist objectives. This war was not existential for him when he began it, but it is now. He has staked his entire presidency on it and must win it. He is preparing for a long war.

The Correlation of Forces

In a long war, the correlation of forces favors Russia. In 2021, the last prewar year, Russia’s GDP was nine times larger than Ukraine’s GDP. After contracting by about 2–4 percent in 2022, the Russian economy is projected to resume growing, albeit slowly, in 2023. Successive waves of unprecedented sanctions have hurt the Russian economy and damaged its prospects for growth in the long run. But countries adapt, as Russia is doing already, with alternative supply chains, lower-tech replacements, and jerry-rigged substitutes for components it can no longer get. It is selling record volumes of oil to India and China, and it has found other buyers and acquired a fleet of tankers to bypass Western sanctions.

The prewar population of Russia was three times larger than the population of Ukraine. Russia’s territory is intact and unlike Ukraine’s, it is not under the constant threat of bombardment. Its defense factories are operating “around the clock,” and Putin has pledged to spend as much as it takes to supply his troops.

Ukraine is now in effect a ward of the EU and NATO. Notwithstanding the bravery and resilience of its people, its ability to carry on the fight depends on the West’s military and financial support. It is under relentless Russian bombardment. It has suffered catastrophic damage to its economy. Its GDP is estimated to have declined by one-third in 2022. Its reconstruction costs are projected to exceed $1 trillion. Millions of its citizens have been displaced, many of them probably permanently.

Russia has suffered massive casualties—reportedly 200,000 dead and wounded. Ukraine’s losses are estimated at 100,000. While Russian losses are reported widely, the extent of Ukrainian losses is less well known.

For Ukraine, it is a bigger loss than for Russia. These numbers do not favor Ukraine, a fact that is recognized by those who advocate for an immediate dramatic increase of Western assistance to Ukraine to enable it to achieve decisive results quickly and force Putin’s hand to negotiate on terms favorable to Ukraine.

This plan appears to be based as much on hope as on experience. The West has extended massive amounts of military assistance to Ukraine over the past twelve months. From drones and tanks to artillery shells and real-time targeting data, the United States and its allies have supplied Ukrainian armed forces with ever-increasing, ever-more-lethal hardware and support. With every new weapons system provided to Ukraine, hopes rise for a breakthrough and a decisive turn in the course of the war. Yet that decisive breakthrough has so far eluded the Ukrainian army.

What Next?

The next phase of the war promises to be very difficult for Ukraine. Offensive operations are an inherently more difficult form of warfare than defense. Military analysts assess that the Ukrainian army will have to conduct them against a Russian army that has had time to recover somewhat from the setbacks it suffered last summer and fall and dig in to prepare for the widely anticipated Ukrainian offensive. Recent reports that Ukraine is experiencing shortages of artillery shells to defend against the latest Russian offensive are indicative of the likely challenges it will face once it launches its own offensive operation in the south of the country and, by extension, needs to expend ammunition at a much higher rate to press the attack.

Even if a Ukrainian offensive is successful, notwithstanding these likely obstacles and heavy losses the Ukrainian army may suffer in the course of it, the war will not come to an end. A Ukrainian breakthrough in southern Ukraine could put at risk Russia’s hold on Crimea. The peninsula, annexed illegally by Russia in 2014, represents Putin’s most important geopolitical accomplishment. Its loss would not be an acceptable option for him, let alone a bargaining chip to use in negotiating the terms of ending the war.

The annexation of Crimea was popular and welcomed by an overwhelming majority of Russians. Unlike Donbas, where the fighting has continued since 2014, Crimea was never contested militarily by Ukraine following the annexation, though it was not recognized by Ukraine as part of Russia. During the eight years preceding the February 24, 2022, escalation of Russia’s war against Ukraine, the Russian public had accepted the Kremlin’s slogan “Krym Nash” (“Crimea Is Ours”). In the eyes of the Russian public, the prospect of losing Crimea would lend credence to Putin’s claims that the war is being fought in defense of the homeland.

In the past twelve months, there has been a great deal of speculation about Russian red lines and what actions by Ukraine and its Western supporters might cross them. The sinking of the Moskva, the blowing up of the Crimea bridge, and strikes well inside Russian territory were all accompanied by speculation about where those Russian red lines were and what might finally trigger a massive retaliation or even prompt Putin to order nuclear strikes against Ukraine. Putin did escalate—he ordered a partial mobilization and launched a bombing campaign against Ukrainian cities and critical infrastructure. But, thanks to Ukrainian resilience and ingenuity, the effects of this escalation proved to be less severe than had been feared, especially after Russian officials resorted to nuclear saber-rattling. The worst—a direct attack on a NATO country or a nuclear strike—did not happen, even though those suspected red lines had been crossed. This in turn led to arguments that Russia had no red lines and that they were self-imposed by the West, as well as speculation about why Putin had not yet ordered nuclear strikes.

Nobody knows what could prompt Putin to resort to nuclear strikes. He no doubt understands the gravity of such a step, including the prospect of a direct NATO military response. But if there is one contingency that could move him to take it, the prospect of losing Crimea is a leading candidate among various such grim scenarios. It would amount to not just a defeat, but a humiliating defeat. Far from forcing Putin to negotiate at that point—aside from whether Kyiv would be inclined to halt its offensive with a major symbolic victory within reach—the loss of Crimea or its prospect would likely prompt him to resort to nuclear strikes. Thus, a Ukrainian breakthrough in the south of the country could be as likely to trigger a dramatic escalation of the war as to end it.

Same Goals, Different Strategy

Putin started the war betting on a short and decisive campaign. Russia was favored to win quickly. A year later, he is betting on the opposite—to wage a long war against Ukraine, exploiting the advantages that Russia’s size, resilient economy, and relative security from retaliation afford him. Victory on the battlefield has proved elusive. A counteroffensive in Donbas, combined with the ongoing campaign of terror against Ukrainian cities and towns and destruction of the country’s infrastructure, is his next best options.

From Putin’s perspective this is likely to be a viable strategy for the next phase of the war. He faces little pressure at home from a docile public mostly approving of his handling of the situation in general, supportive of the war, and accepting of the narrative the Kremlin has used to justify it. The Russian leader is probably betting that Ukraine will eventually be unable to endure a true war of attrition and that the West will lose patience with it and curtail its support for Ukraine.

A change in strategy, however, does not mean a change in Russian war aims. Ukraine, not Donbas, is the prize.

A year into the war, its main result is that Putin has achieved exactly what he had hoped to prevent from happening, if his rationale for the war is to be accepted at face value. He has created on Russia’s doorstep a country that is united in its hatred toward Russia, full of resolve to resist the invasion, and committed to eventually defeating it no matter the cost. Before the war, one of Putin’s chief complaints was that NATO was pumping Ukraine full of weapons. Those prewar supplies were minuscule compared to the quantities of advanced weaponry NATO allies have been sending Ukraine to fight off Russian aggression. Ukraine has a competent, battle-hardened military. It has resolved to join NATO, and even if that does not happen in the near future, it has already developed close security ties with the alliance, which is actively discussing what security arrangements it can offer Ukraine to bolster its capabilities for defense and deterrence against Russia.

Having accomplished all that, Putin has turned his war into Russia’s war. He will depart the stage one day. His successor will have to deal with the legacy of his rule over Russia. That legacy will include an untenable situation on the country’s southwest border. If the war is over by then, and regardless of the terms on which the war ends, it is impossible to imagine that Ukraine will reconcile with Russia in ten, twenty, thirty years, possibly ever, after the trauma and devastation inflicted on the country by Putin’s aggression. A hostile Ukraine entrenched in the Western camp and in effect turned into its militarized outpost on Russia’s doorstep, jeopardizing Russia’s access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, is not something any future Russian leader is even remotely likely to tolerate. If not a war, this is virtually certain to become a long-term, tense geopolitical standoff, the forward edge of the larger standoff between Russia and the rest of Europe. Putin’s war will thus become Russia’s war.

The West: No Good Options

Russia has suffered multiple strategic setbacks in this war. It has lost its position as Europe’s preeminent energy supplier, some maintain, for good. Russian leverage against Europe has diminished dramatically. Its reputation as a re-emerging military power has been damaged. Its position in the Baltic was dealt a serious blow when Sweden and Finland announced their plans to join NATO. Its anti-access and area-denial (A2/AD) bubble over Crimea, once thought to be formidable, has been pierced, reducing it to yet another Potemkin village. NATO has been re-energized, and a new consensus has emerged: the war has driven the final nail in the coffin of the old, pre-2014 security model in Europe when it was still possible to cling to the remnants of the post–Cold War security order in Europe. If the Kremlin cares at all about its soft power, it will take decades, if not generations, to rebuild.

However, Russia’s losses do not translate directly into gains for the United States and its allies. It is tempting to conclude that the war presently being waged on the territory of Ukraine actually benefits the United States and Europe—their major adversary is being weakened while the West only expends treasure (and not too much of it at that); Ukraine is doing all the fighting while Western militaries learn valuable lessons from the battlefield; the NATO alliance has received the wake-up call it desperately needed; and the war has effectively taken one great power out of competition.

But no matter how appealing this cold-blooded rationality may be to some, it ignores the reality of a long war in Europe and the moral aspect of pretending to wage a war against Russia at arm’s length, with only Ukrainian lives at stake. It ignores the risk of escalation, even if not nuclear, and the possibility of NATO joining the fight directly. The idea that the West can just give Kyiv the tools to “finish the job,” despite its Churchillian ring, is not grounded either in history or in reality: Great Britain could not finish the job alone when Churchill, in February of 1941, pleaded for the United States to send arms. The job was finished only after Hitler attacked the Soviet Union and the United States entered the war later that year, and it took four more years. And the same is true now, given Russia’s major advantages over Ukraine in a long war of attrition. Worse yet, Russia’s military stature has been diminished, but its reputation as a dangerous and unpredictable neighbor brandishing nuclear weapons has been reinforced. Neither the United States nor its NATO allies are prepared to be drawn directly into this war.

That leaves the United States and its allies without any good options as the war enters its second year, except to ramp up military support and hope for the best. It is not morally right to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, but it is not right either to dictate to Ukrainians what they should settle for in their just war. A land-for-peace compromise is not an option for them, especially since it is unlikely to bring them the kind of stable, durable peace they need and deserve. They would live under a constant threat of renewed Russian aggression.

Russia does not appear ready for a compromise either. Ukraine’s terms for negotiations with Russia—restoration of 1991 borders, reparations, and war crimes tribunals—are nothing short of demands for an unconditional surrender. Russia accepting these terms is not even a remote prospect.

Having pledged—repeatedly—to support Ukraine “as long as it takes,” the United States and its allies have effectively delegated the task of defining the goals in this war to the Ukrainian leadership. In the current highly acrimonious political atmosphere, any suggestion that U.S. goals should be anything other than a complete Ukrainian victory and complete Russian surrender is certain to trigger charges of betrayal from multiple quarters, even though American and Ukrainian interests are not 100 percent aligned.

The war can continue along three possible scenarios: a stalemate; Ukraine wins; or Russia wins. The first scenario in effect becomes a forever war, perhaps something similar to the permanent standoff on the Korean Peninsula. The second scenario carries with it the risk of a dramatic escalation by Russia, which in turn could prompt NATO to become directly involved in combat. The third scenario too carries with it the danger of a direct NATO-Russia confrontation as the prospect of Russia prevailing on the battlefield will lead to calls for NATO to become involved in order to save Ukraine.

Of the three, the first scenario—forever war—is the path of least resistance associated with the least immediate risks. However, betting on a stalemate without giving serious thought to the other two scenarios would not be a sound strategy. Besides, the forever war scenario carries with it many other threats and challenges for the United States and its allies, ranging from Russian interference in regional crises and fragile states to the collapse of arms control and the breakdown of global efforts to contain the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means of their delivery. Living with rogue Russia means living dangerously.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. (KCTV) – An 18-year-old man has been charged with involuntary manslaughter in the Wednesday night crash that killed a Kansas City officer, his K-9 companion and a nearby pedestrian.

Jerron Allen Lightfoot, of Tonganoxie, was charged with two counts of first degree involuntary manslaughter in the fatal accident this happened just before 10pm on wednesday at the intersection of benton boulevard and truman road.

Court records state that Lightfoot was traveling south on Benton in a Ford Fusion when he struck Officer James Muhlbauer’s police car, which then overturned and killed a nearby pedestrian. Responding medical crews said they found Muhlbauer unconscious in the driver’s seat of the police car and transported him to a nearby hospital, where he died. Muhlbauer’s K-9 officer companion was dead in the back seat of the patrol car.

A pedestrian was found dead under the car.

Dashcam video and vehicle system data showed Lightfoot’s Fusion ran a red light at the intersection and struck Muhlbauer’s car, which was running a green light, according to information released by the Jackson County Prosecutor’s Office.

Lightfoot’s Fusion was traveling over 85 miles per hour just seconds before the collision. There was a sudden drop in speed and the Fusion was traveling 62 miles per hour at the time of impact, according to court documents. Police said Lightfoot claimed his brakes failed at the time of the crash, but vehicle system data indicated his brakes were working properly, according to the prosecutor’s office.

First responders said Lightfoot was sitting outside his vehicle when they arrived. He suffered minor injuries and was detained by the police.

Lightfoot has yet to receive a court date. KCTV5 will provide you with the latest information on this process as information becomes available.

A conviction for involuntary manslaughter comes with a potential 3-10 years in prison.

Prosecutor Jean Peters Baker gave the following statement:

“My office spoke with the family of our officer’s victim Thursday evening. We have not yet been able to meet with the family of our pedestrian victim prior to this case, but we will soon meet with that victim’s family. Our condolences go out to both the grieving families and the police department. We are grateful for the speed of the police department’s investigative work that allowed us to file these charges so quickly.”

Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves addressed the public Thursday about the fatal incident, noting that Muhlbauer was a 20-year police veteran who was a loving father and devoted husband.

KCPD released a Facebook post with a photo showing Muhlbauer and his K-9 companion, Champ. The post said:

Rest in peace, Officer James Muhlbauer and K-9 Officer Champ.

The partners were killed in the line of duty on Wednesday night when a vehicle crashed into them while they were on patrol.

Muhlbauer was a 20-year veteran of the KCPD, while K-9 Champ had been with us for one year.

It hurts us.

K-9 Champ lived with Muhlbauer and his family. Mulhbauer was married and a father. Please pray for them.

Copyright 2023 KCTV. All rights reserved.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley’s presidential announcement has officially set the 2024 contest for the Republican nomination in motion, bringing with it an ongoing row over endorsements.

Why does it matter: The endorsements will provide a clearer look at divisions within the GOP and reveal which Republicans are abandoning former President Trump, whose campaign has had a quiet start to the 2022 midterm elections.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R) won an endorsement from Freedom Caucus member Chip Roy (R-Texas) on March 15, even though DeSantis has not formally announced his candidacy.

• “The next president of the United States must be a vibrant and energetic leader with the faith, vision and courage to chart a new course,” Roy said in his opinion.
• “America needs a leader who will truly stand up for her and empower the people against the destructive force of unfettered government and corporate excess, fun spending, and woke cultural indoctrination,” he continued. “That leader is Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.”
• Roy was one of the GOP hardliners who opposed Kevin McCarthy’s prolonged bid for speaker. He broke with Trump after the 2020 presidential election and opposed efforts to block President Biden’s victory.
• DeSantis is unlikely to make an official announcement until at least May.

The whole picture: Haley’s campaign launch in February made her the first candidate to launch a formal challenge to Trump, who is also her former boss, but other candidates are expected to enter what is likely to be a crowded field.

• Trump, who launched his campaign in November, has so far won the support of Republicans in Congress, including senators. Lindsey Graham (SC) and JD Vance (Ohio) and Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.) and Lauren Boebert (Colo.), among others, according to Washington Post.

Haley won her first endorsement from the House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Ralph Norman (RS.C.). Norman described her as a “fierce [and] a bold leader who will fight for America.”

• “It’s time for a reset and a new chapter in Republican national politics, and there’s no better person to help write that new chapter than our former governor and my good friend, Nikki Haley!” Norman wrote in a tweet on February 15, the day of her official announcement.
• Norman has been a strong ally of Trump as well objection upon the certification of the 2020 election results.
• He was also one of the hard-liners of the Party of the Republic of Moldova, who held out during the extended vote for the post of Speaker of the House for the 118th Congress.

Republican Don Bolduc, who lost the 2022 New Hampshire Senate race, approved Haley on Feb. 16, tweeting that Haley is “exactly who we need to get our country out of the mess we’re in.”

• Bolduc bought into Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election during his primary campaign.

Go deeper… The Koch Network indicates it will not support Trump in 2024

Editor’s note: This story will be updated with new details throughout.

Nearly 1,000 New York Times contributors, in addition to tens of thousands of Times subscribers and readers, signed an open letter on Wednesday to the paper’s standards editor, condemning the publication’s coverage of transgender, non-binary and gender nonconforming people.

A the second letter organized by the nonprofit Glaad (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) spoke out Wednesday against what it called “irresponsible and biased coverage of transgender people” in the Times.

The Times asserted that its reporting is nuanced and fair, saying, “Glaad’s advocacy mission and the Times’ journalistic mission are different.”

“As a news organization, we pursue independent reporting on transgender issues, which includes profiling the trailblazer in the movement, the challenges and prejudices the community faces, and how society is dealing with debates about care,” said department director Charlie Stadtlander external to the Times. communications in a declaration which was provided to several media organizations.

In recent months, the Times has published several articles on health care for trans youth, as well as op-eds on the topic.

The contributors’ letter said that “many reporters at the Times accurately cover trans issues,” but criticized the organization and certain reporters for publishing “over 15,000 words from the front page Times coverage debating the appropriateness of medical care for trans children” for the past eight months. That letter, signed by 30,000 supporters by Friday night, includes Chelsea Manning, Cynthia Nixon and Roxane Gay.

The Times’ increased coverage comes at a time when anti-trans attacks have become a major part of the GOP. electoral strategy. Republican state legislators across the country are introducing an unprecedented number of bills aimed at regulating the treatment of trans youth in public schools and restricting the medical care that trans people can receive from doctors.

The contributors’ letter notes that the Times’ reporting has been cited in support of anti-trans legislation, including in a amicus brief by Republican attorneys general in support of an anti-trans law in Alabama.

The contributors’ letter also criticized the Times’ framing of gender diversity as a new phenomenon and suggested that the paper’s current leadership was repeating the mistakes he made during early coverage of gay rights and the AIDS epidemic.

The second letter, from Glaad, the Human Rights Campaign and other advocacy groups, was signed by more than 100 organizations and public figures, including actor Gabrielle Union and Jeopardy! champion Amy Schneider. It included specific demands: that the Times “stop printing biased anti-trans stories,” hold bimonthly community meetings with trans community leaders, and hire at least four trans people for full-time positions at the paper .

In an internal memo, Times executive editor Joe Kahn and opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury appear the paper’s coverage of trans people as “important, deeply reported and sensitively written”. They said individual reporters “endured months of attacks, harassment and threats.”

The memo also included a comprehensive list of the Times’ coverage of transgender issues and said it was against the spirit of the organization’s ethics policy for reporters to be involved in the campaign. “We also have a clear policy that prohibits Times journalists from publicly attacking each other or signaling support for such attacks.”

A day after the open letters became public, the Times faced further criticism for publishing an opinion piece written in defense of author JK Rowling, who has been criticized for her controversial statements about the transgender community.

A spokeswoman for The Times, Danielle Rhoades Ha, told The Guardian on Friday that the paper had published several recent op-eds advocating for trans rights, including one by a Times columnistand that the paper’s editorial staff has “long supported trans rights,” including in a editorial series from 2015.

“We reject any claim that our coverage is biased,” Rhoades Ha said in a statement, pointing to “the breadth of our coverage of transgender issues in both news and opinion”.

A billboard truck also drove around the Times office in Manhattan on Thursday with several messages, including “Dear New York Times: Stop Questioning Trans People’s Right to Exist and Access Health Care “. NBC News reported.

Lois Beckett contributed Report