Saudis Intercept Missile Fired From Yemen That Came Close to Riyadh

Several hours after the missile attack, the Yemeni capital, Sana, was hit by the worst barrage of Saudi-led coalition airstrikes in more than a year.

About 12 strikes were heard hitting the defense ministry downtown and other targets mostly on the city outskirts. The exchange of fire took place on a day when the region was on edge over the growing tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Earlier, the Lebanese prime minister, Saad Hariri, resigned from a unity government that includes Iran’s Lebanese ally Hezbollah. Speaking from Riyadh, he blamed Iran for interfering in Arab affairs. Iran and Hezbollah read the move as pressure from Saudi Arabia, Mr. Hariri’s patron, to isolate them as part of a campaign to curb Iranian influence.

The Yemeni defense ministry has claimed several times to have fired a Burqan 2 missile at Saudi Arabia, which has acknowledged at least one previous strike.

Residents and travelers in Riyadh reported a loud explosion on Saturday. The Twitter account of King Khalid International Airport issued a message saying airport operations had not been affected.

Videos from the scene showed people rushing to airport windows, smoke and what appeared to be flashes or fires on the ground.

New Video Saudi Arabia intercepts Yemen missile over Riyadh ( riyad الرياض ar-Riyāḍ ) Video by Libertafree Liberta

One showed red flares rising toward the sky.

BREAKING: BALLISTIC MISSILES Intercepted over RIYADH Video by Yehideb Tanakat

Some pro-Saudi commenters in Yemen and Saudi media suggested that the Houthis could have fired the missiles on behalf of Iran or Hezbollah.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Military analysts at IHS Jane’s have written that the Houthis’ emerging use of ballistic missiles offers some support for American, Saudi and Israeli allegations that Iran is aiding them with parts or technology, but add that it would be difficult for Iran to ship whole missiles to Yemen. Another possibility, the analysts say, is that the missiles were acquired by Yemen from North Korea before the current conflict.

In Sana, jets were heard overhead and residents reported airstrikes. Ali Hassan, a taxi driver, said that roads leading to the defense ministry downtown were closed by the police.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

“I saw smoke rising from the ministry,” he said, adding that he also saw an airstrike in another area where a weapon depot was located.

The ministry is in a densely populated area, a World Heritage site known as Bab al-Yemen, which has been targeted before. Saudi-led coalition jets could be heard over Sana. The bulk of airstrikes in retaliation reportedly targeted the outskirts of Sana.

The Houthis’ news channel, Al-Masirah, said on Twitter: “We repeatedly affirmed that capitals of aggression states won’t be spared from our ballistic missiles in retaliation for the constant targeting of innocent civilians.”

Continue reading the main story

Donna Brazile: I considered replacing Clinton with Biden as 2016 Democratic nominee


Donna Brazile at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 26, 2016. (Ricky Carioti/The Washington Post)

Former Democratic National Committee head Donna Brazile writes in a new book that she seriously contemplated setting in motion a process to replace Hillary Clinton as the party’s 2016 presidential nominee with then-Vice President Biden in the aftermath of Clinton’s fainting spell, in part because Clinton’s campaign was “anemic” and had taken on “the odor of failure.”

In an explosive new memoir, Brazile details widespread dysfunction and dissension throughout the Democratic Party, including secret deliberations over using her powers as interim DNC chair to initiate the process of removing Clinton and running mate Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.) from the ticket after Clinton’s Sept. 11, 2016, collapse in New York City.

Brazile writes that she considered a dozen combinations to replace the nominees and settled on Biden and Sen. Cory Booker (N.J.), the duo she felt most certain would win over enough working-class voters to defeat Republican Donald Trump. But then, she writes, “I thought of Hillary, and all the women in the country who were so proud of and excited about her. I could not do this to them.”

Brazile paints a scathing portrait of Clinton as a well-intentioned, historic candidate whose campaign was badly mismanaged, took minority constituencies for granted and made blunders with “stiff” and “stupid” messages. The campaign was so lacking in passion for the candidate, she writes, that its New York headquarters felt like a sterile hospital ward where “someone had died.”


Hillary Clinton at a rally at Arizona State University in Tempe on Nov. 2, 2016. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Brazile alleges that Clinton’s top aides routinely disrespected her and put the DNC on a “starvation diet,” depriving it of funding for voter turnout operations.

As one of her party’s most prominent black strategists, Brazile also recounts fiery disagreements with Clinton’s staffers — including a conference call in which she told three senior campaign officials, Charlie Baker, Marlon Marshall and Dennis Cheng, that she was being treated like a slave.

“I’m not Patsey the slave,” Brazile recalls telling them, a reference to the character played by Lupita Nyong’o in the film, “12 Years a Slave.” “Y’all keep whipping me and whipping me and you never give me any money or any way to do my damn job. I am not going to be your whipping girl!”

Cheng, the campaign’s national finance director, did not participate in this call, according to a senior Clinton campaign official.

Brazile’s book, titled “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House,” will be released Tuesday by Hachette Books. A copy of the 288-page book was obtained in advance by The Washington Post.

Former Clinton campaign officials strongly disputed some details in Brazile’s account as well as her overall characterization of the campaign, and they disparaged her memoir as an effort to sell books and manufacture drama.

More than 100 former senior aides issued an open letter Saturday night reading, “We do not recognize the campaign she portrays in the book.

“We were shocked to learn the news that Donna Brazile actively considered overturning the will of the Democratic voters by attempting to replace Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine as the Democratic Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees,” the letter began. “It is particularly troubling and puzzling that she would seemingly buy into false Russian-fueled propaganda, spread by both the Russians and our opponent, about our candidate’s health.”

Perhaps not since George Stephanopoulos wrote “All Too Human,” a 1999 memoir of his years working for former president Bill Clinton, has a political strategist penned such a blistering tell-all.

In it, Brazile reveals how fissures of race, gender and age tore at the heart of the operation — even as Clinton was campaigning on a message of inclusiveness and trying to assemble a rainbow coalition under the banner of “Stronger Together.”

A veteran operative and television pundit who had long served as DNC’s vice chair, Brazile abruptly and, she writes, reluctantly took over in July 2016 for chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The Florida congresswoman was ousted from the DNC on the eve of the party convention after WikiLeaks released stolen emails among her and her advisers that showed favoritism for Clinton during the competitive primaries.


Donna Brazile talks with CNN correspondent Dana Bash at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia on July 25, 2016. Brazile writes that she reluctantly took over as DNC chairwoman that month. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

Brazile describes her mounting anxiety about Russia’s theft of emails and other data from DNC servers, the slow process of discovering the full extent of the cyberattacks and the personal fallout. She likens the feeling to having rats in your basement: “You take measures to get rid of them, but knowing they are there, or have been there, means you never feel truly at peace.”

Brazile writes that she was haunted by the still-unsolved murder of DNC data staffer Seth Rich and feared for her own life, shutting the blinds to her office window so snipers could not see her and installing surveillance cameras at her home. She wonders whether Russians had placed a listening device in plants in the DNC executive suite.

At first, Brazile writes of the hacking, top Democratic officials were “encouraging us not to talk about it.” But she says a wake-up moment came when she visited the White House in August 2016, for President Obama’s 55th birthday party. National security adviser Susan E. Rice and former attorney general Eric H. Holder Jr. separately pulled her aside to urge her to take the Russian hacking seriously, which she did, she writes.

That fall, Brazile says she tried to persuade her Republican counterparts to agree to a joint statement condemning Russian interference but that they ignored her messages and calls.

Backstage at a debate, she writes, she approached Sean Spicer, then-chief strategist for the Republican National Committee, but “I could see his eyes dart away like this was the last thing he wanted to talk to me about.” She asked RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, too, but “I got that special D.C. frost where the person smiles when he sees you but immediately looks past you trying to find someone in the room to come right over and interrupt the conversation.”

There would be no joint statement.

The WikiLeaks releases included an email in which Brazile, a paid CNN contributor at the time, shared potential topics and questions for a CNN town hall in advance with the Clinton campaign. She claims in her book that she did not recall sending the email and could not find it in her computer archives. Nevertheless, she eventually admitted publicly to sending it, believing her reputation would have suffered regardless.

At the Oct. 19 debate in Las Vegas, with the email scandal simmering, the Clinton campaign sat Brazile not in the front row — where she had been at the previous debate — but in bleachers out of view of cameras. She recalls watching the debate with the Rev. Jesse Jackson, “among others whom they had to invite but wanted to tuck away.”

Brazile describes in wrenching detail Clinton’s bout with pneumonia. On Sept. 9, she saw the nominee backstage at a Manhattan gala and she seemed “wobbly on her feet” and had a “rattled cough.” Brazile recommended Clinton see an acupuncturist.

Two days later, Clinton collapsed as she left a Sept. 11 memorial service at Ground Zero in New York. Brazile blasts the campaign’s initial efforts to shroud details of her health as “shameful.”

Whenever Brazile got frustrated with Clinton’s aides, she writes, she would remind them that the DNC charter empowered her to initiate the replacement of the nominee. If a nominee became disabled, she explains, the party chair would oversee a complicated process of filling the vacancy that would include a meeting of the full DNC.

After Clinton’s fainting spell, some Democratic insiders were abuzz with talk of replacing her — and Brazile says she was giving it considerable thought.

The morning of Sept. 12, Brazile got a call from Biden’s chief of staff saying the vice president wanted to speak with her. She recalls thinking, “Gee, I wonder what he wanted to talk to me about?” Jeff Weaver, campaign manager for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), called, too, to set up a call with his boss, and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley sent her an email.


Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), left, poses with his mother, Carolyn Booker, and then-Vice President Biden at a Senate swearing-in ceremony at the Capitol on Oct. 31, 2013. (J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press)

Brazile also was paid a surprise visit in her DNC office by Baker, who, she writes, was dispatched by the Clinton campaign “to make sure that Donna didn’t do anything crazy.”

“Again and again I thought about Joe Biden,” Brazile writes. But, she adds, “No matter my doubts and my fears about the election and Hillary as a candidate, I could not make good on that threat to replace her.”

Neither Baker nor any other senior campaign official were aware that Brazile had any thoughts about or actively contemplated changing the ticket, a senior Clinton campaign official said Saturday.

“Charlie may well have been there to talk her out of doing something crazy, but it certainly was not about this,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.

Brazile writes that she inherited a national party in disarray, in part because President Obama, Clinton and Wasserman Schultz were “three titanic egos” who had “stripped the party to a shell for their own purposes.”

Brazile writes that she inherited Wasserman Schultz’s office — with “tropical pink” walls that she found hard on the eyes — and “ridiculous” perks, such as a Chevrolet Tahoe with driver and a personal entourage that included an assistant known as a body woman.

In her first few days on the job, Brazile writes that she also discovered the DNC was $2 million in debt and that the payroll was stacked with “hangers-on and sycophants.” For instance, Wasserman Schultz kept two consulting firms — SKDKnickerbocker and Precision Strategies — each on $25,000-a-month retainers, and one of Obama’s pollsters was still being paid $180,000 a year.


Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) at a rally in Coconut Creek, Fla., on Oct. 25, 2016. She resigned as DNC chairwoman on the eve of the party’s national convention that summer. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

“The outgoing president no longer needed to assess his approval ratings or his policy decisions, at least not when the Democratic Party was fighting for its survival against a hostile foreign power,” she writes.

Jen O’Malley-Dillon, a partner at Precision Strategies, defended her firm’s work for the DNC. “We worked hard to get the party’s technology, infrastructure and ground operations in shape for the general election, regardless of the nominee,” she wrote Saturday in an email. “There was no gravy train and we are proud of our work.”

Brazile also details how Clinton effectively took control of the DNC in August 2015, before the primaries began, with a joint fundraising agreement between the party and the Clinton campaign.

She said the deal gave Clinton control over the DNC’s finances, strategy and staff decisions — disadvantaging other candidates, including Sanders. “This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity,” she writes.

An excerpt of this chapter — titled “Bernie, I Found the Cancer” — was published Thursday in Politico, sparking discord and recriminations through the party.

As she traveled the country, Brazile writes, she detected an alarming lack of enthusiasm for Clinton. On black radio stations, few people defended the nominee. In Hispanic neighborhoods, the only Clinton signs she saw were at the campaign field offices.

But at headquarters in New York, the mood was one of “self-satisfaction and inevitability,” and Brazile’s early reports of trouble were dismissed with “a condescending tone.”

Brazile describes the 10th floor of Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters, where senior staff worked: “Calm and antiseptic, like a hospital. It had that techno-hush, as if someone had died. I felt like I should whisper. Everybody’s fingers were on their keyboards, and no one was looking at anyone else. You half-expected to see someone in a lab coat walk by.”


Staffers at Hillary Clinton headquarters in Brooklyn watch a GOP debate on Sept. 16, 2015. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

During one visit, she writes, she thought of a question former Democratic congressman Tony Coelho used to ask her about campaigns: “Are the kids having sex? Are they having fun? If not, let’s create something to get that going, or otherwise we’re not going to win.”

“I didn’t sense much fun or [having sex] in Brooklyn,” she deadpans.

Brazile writes that Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and his lieutenants were so obsessed with voter data and predictive analytics that they “missed the big picture.”

“They knew how to size up voters not by meeting them and finding out what they cared about, what moved their hearts and stirred their souls, but by analyzing their habits,” she writes. “You might be able to persuade a handful of Real Simple magazine readers who drink gin and tonics to change their vote to Hillary, but you had not necessarily made them enthusiastic enough to want to get up off the couch and go to the polls.”

Brazile describes Mook, in his mid-30s, as overseeing a patriarchy. “They were all men in his inner circle,” she writes, adding: “He had this habit of nodding when you are talking, leaving you with the impression that he has listened to you, but then never seeming to follow up on what you thought you had agreed on.”

Many of Clinton’s senior staff were women, including Mook’s chief of staff, as well as campaign co-chair Huma Abedin.

Brazile’s criticisms were not reserved for Mook. After Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri challenged Brazile’s plan for Kaine to deliver a pep talk to DNC staff at the party convention in Philadelphia, Brazile writes, “I was thinking, If that b—- ever does anything like that to me again, I’m gonna walk.”

Palmieri on Saturday disputed Brazile’s account, tweeting: “Sad to learn she feels this way about me. Don’t recall request she refers to.”


Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook, right, and his lieutenants are described in the book as being so obsessed with voter data that they “missed the big picture.” Mook is seen on the campaign plane on Oct. 28, 2016. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Brazile writes with particular disdain about Brandon Davis, a Mook protege who worked as a liaison between the DNC and the Clinton campaign. She describes him as a spy, saying he treated her like “a crazy, senile old auntie and couldn’t wait to tell all his friends the nutty things she said.”

In staff meetings, Brazile recalls, “Brandon often rolled his eyes as if I was the stupidest woman he’d ever had to endure on his climb to the top. He openly scoffed at me, snorting sometimes when I made an observation.

Brazile opens her book by describing the painful days following Clinton’s defeat. She received calls of gratitude from party leaders but still felt slighted.

“I never heard from Hillary,” she writes. “I knew what I wanted to say to her and it was: I have nothing but respect for you being so brave and classy considering everything that went on. But in the weeks after the loss, every time I checked my phone thinking I might have missed her call, it wasn’t her.”

Finally, in February 2017, Clinton rang.

“This was chitchat, like I was talking to someone I didn’t know,” Brazile writes. “I know Hillary. I know she was being as sincere as possible, but I wanted something more from her.”

Arriving in Japan, Trump projects confidence, says he’ll probably meet Putin during Asia trip


President Trump waves to U.S. military personnel after giving an address at Yokota Air Base in Fussa, Tokyo Prefecture, Japan on Nov. 5. Trump arrived in the outskirts of Tokyo on the first leg of his 12-day Asian tour, during which he will attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting in Vietnam. (Kimimasa Mayama/EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock)

TOKYO — President Trump donned a military-style bomber jacket shortly after arriving in Japan on Sunday and projected confidence that the United States will confront threats in Asia, telling hundreds of U.S. troops that they will have the resources “to fight, to overpower and to always, always, always win.”

Trump’s tough talk in a speech to U.S. and Japanese military personnel at Yokota Air Base, shortly after Air Force One touched down here, aimed to set a tone for his five-nation tour during which the president said he is likely to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a regional summit in Vietnam later this week.

The president told reporters during his flight that he wants “Putin’s help on North Korea,” as his administration attempts to consolidate support for its strategy to pressure Pyongyang over its nuclear weapons program.

“History has proven over and over that the road of the tyrant is a steady march towards poverty, suffering and servitude,” Trump told the troops, perhaps referring obliquely to North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, whose name he did not mention. Noting that he has proposed a bigger military budget, Trump surveyed the troops in an air base hangar and declared: “We’ve got a lot of stuff coming; use it well.”

The boisterous scene, during which the troops cheered and chanted “U.S.A.!” was probably closely watched in capitals across Northeast Asia, where governments from Seoul to Beijing are looking for signals of how Trump will address the threat on his first trip to the region. The president’s heightened rhetoric aimed at the North and the Kim regime has set the region on edge over concerns that increasing tensions could result in a military confrontation.

On the plane, Trump told reporters that he plans to decide “very soon” whether to re-label North Korea a state sponsor of terror. The North spent 10 years on that list before being removed in 2008 by the George W. Bush administration for meeting nuclear inspection requirements. Pyongyang later violated the agreement.

But Trump also offered encouragement for North Korean citizens, calling them “great people.”

“They’re industrious, they’re warm, much warmer than the world really knows and understands,” he told reporters on the plane. “They’re great people and I hope it all works out for everybody. And it would be a wonderful thing if it could work for those great people, and for everybody.”

And he seemed unconcerned about the prospect that North Korea might use his trip to the region to demonstrate its military might by firing a missile. “We’ll soon find out,” he said. “Good luck!”

After speaking at the air base, Trump was scheduled to spend the day with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, including nine holes of golf and a dinner. At the golf course, the two signed white baseball caps with the embroidered words: “Donald and Shinzo Make Alliance Even Greater.” On Monday, the two will hold formal bilateral meetings.

The golf outing aimed to recreate the bond the two men forged during Abe’s visit in February to Trump’s Florida resort, Mar-a-Lago, where they played a round. It was while the two leaders dined together that evening that Kim launched a missile test, prompting an angry condemnation from both men at a joint statement to reporters in Florida.

Trump, who had spent Saturday night in Honolulu and toured Pearl Harbor, seemed in buoyant spirits  Sunday. He wore an unbuttoned, open-collared white shirt with no tie to chat with the press on Air Force One, and he enthusiastically donned the brown leather bomber jacket presented to him by Air Force officers at Yokota. “I like this better,” he joked, after replacing his navy blue suit coat.

Trump confirmed that he expects to meet with Putin on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Da Nang, Vietnam, later in the trip. The meeting would come as special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s probe into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia has heated up. Last week, Mueller indicted three people in Trump’s orbit — two senior campaign aides and one lower-level, unpaid volunteer — as part of his ongoing investigation.

But the president, who has often expressed admiration for authoritarian leaders, has remained reluctant to criticize Putin.

The president also promised that trade will also be a key focus of his trip, with China — a frequent target of his trade-related ire — looming largest on the economic front. Chinese President Xi Jinping consolidated power last month at the 19th Communist Party Congress, and Trump is preparing to face a newly emboldened Xi on his home turf.

“I think we’re going in with tremendous strength,” Trump said. When a reporter asked him about Xi’s elevated position, the president cut off the questioner, saying, “Excuse me, so am I.”

He then rattled off a laundry list of highlights of U.S. power, including the surging stock market, low unemployment and success in combating the Islamic State in the Middle East.

“I think he’s viewing us as very, very strong, and also very friendly,” Trump said. “But we have to do better with trade with China because it’s a one-way street right now and it has been for many years. And we will. But the reason our stock market is so successful is because of me. I’ve always been great with money, I’ve always been great with jobs, that’s what I do.”

Trump noted that he will spend the first anniversary of Election Day 2016 in China, and facetiously invited his traveling press corps to join him in the festivities. “Can you believe it is almost exactly one year? We’re going to be in China — together,” he said. “We’ll have to celebrate together, Nov. 8. I hope we’ll all celebrate together. In fact, I was going to have a big celebration party, and then I said, ‘Well.’ But we’ll celebrate together.”

Asked about a new book about former presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, in which they sharply criticize Trump, the president showed uncharacteristic restraint.

“The Bushes? I’ll comment after we come back,” he said. “I don’t need headlines. I don’t want to make their book successful.”

Police arrest neighbor after Rand Paul is assaulted at Kentucky home

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is recovering after being assaulted at his Kentucky home Friday, joining a growing list of lawmakers who have been injured or threatened with violence this year.

Paul, a second-term senator, suffered a minor injury when he was assaulted at his Warren County, Ky., home Friday afternoon. Kelsey Cooper, Paul’s ­Kentucky-based communications director, said in a statement Saturday that the senator “was blindsided and the victim of an assault. The assailant was arrested, and it is now a matter for the police.”

It was unclear whether politics was a motivation for the attack, according to a senior aide to the senator, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the aide was not authorized to speak about the incident.

Kentucky State Police charged 59-year-old Rene Boucher with fourth-degree assault with a minor injury. He is being held at Warren County jail on $5,000 bond, state police said.

Boucher is an anesthesiologist and the inventor of the Therm-a-Vest, a cloth vest partially filled with rice and secured with Velcro straps that is designed to help with back pain, according to the Bowling Green Daily News.

Troopers responded to Paul’s residence at 3:21 p.m. Friday after reports of an assault. Upon arrival, troops determined that Boucher “had intentionally assaulted Paul, causing a minor injury,” state police said.

Robert Porter, who has known the senator and his family for more than 20 years, said he went to see his friend Saturday evening. He would not specify where or how the senator was injured but said Paul “didn’t get any severe injuries to his face.”

“He’s in some pain, but he’s going to be fine,” Porter said, adding that Paul’s return to Washington will be a “game-time decision” but that Paul is planning to return to work at some point in the coming days.

Paul and Boucher live in the same gated community along Rivergreen Lane in Bowling Green, Ky., according to Porter and another person close to Paul who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of respect for the senator.

Porter said Paul was mowing his lawn and wearing ear plugs Friday afternoon just before the alleged assault. Shortly after stepping off the riding mower to do something in the yard, Paul “got blindsided. He didn’t hear him or see his neighbor come over,” Porter said.

“He hadn’t really talked to his neighbor in years,” Porter said, noting that there is a large amount of land between their adjoining homes, so the lack of interaction would not be surprising to locals.

Porter said he was unaware of any previous incidents between Paul and his neighbor.

Porter said that he and Paul and their spouses raised their kids together. He also traveled with the senator to Guatemala in 2014 as part of a missionary trip to provide free eye care to hundreds of impoverished patients.

Paul, 54, has served in the Senate since 2011. He is an ophthalmologist who has practiced in Bowling Green, Ky., where he moved with his wife in 1993.

He ran unsuccessfully for president in 2016, focusing the closing months of his bid on attacking then-candidate Donald Trump and his readiness for office.

In recent months, he was a lead opponent of Republican attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

But more recently, Paul has emerged as a leading defender of Trump’s policies and has golfed with the president at Trump’s Virginia golf course.

Porter said he didn’t know whether Paul and Boucher had ever worked together at local medical facilities.

A Facebook page purportedly used by Boucher says he is a former U.S. Army pain management specialist and graduated from the College of Osteopathic Medicine in Des Moines in 1984. The page also includes links to articles or memes critical of Trump and a news article about a Montana Republican congressional candidate who attacked a reporter the day before winning his seat.

The page was overrun late Saturday by other Facebook users criticizing Boucher for his alleged assault on Paul.

While it is unclear whether the attack was politically motivated, an unprecedented wave of threats against House and Senate lawmakers this year has prompted congressional security officials to review and follow up on thousands of threatening messages to members of both parties.

The threats turned to violence this summer when House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was shot and nearly killed by a gunman who showed up at a congressional baseball practice in Alexandria, Va.

More recently, Rep. Frederica S. Wilson (D-Fla.) skipped several days of votes after threats were made against her after she sparred with Trump over the treatment of the widow of a soldier killed in Niger.

In addition to Scalise, Paul and Wilson, Rep. Al Green (D-Tex.) has faced threats since suggesting that Trump should face impeachment. And several GOP lawmakers, including Sens. Jeff Flake (Ariz.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.), have faced threats. Rubio, another failed 2016 presidential candidate, was spotted in July walking around the U.S. Capitol with three U.S. Capitol Police officers wearing suits and ties.

Brian Fung and David Weigel contributed to this report.

Citigroup, 21st Century Fox, Twitter: Prince’s Arrest Touches Many

It could also shake investor confidence in Saudi Arabia as the kingdom tries to shed its image as an oil-dependent petrostate. The move comes just days after Saudi Arabia held a major investment conference to drum up interest in that effort.

The arrest, which was part of a sweep that included at least 10 other princes as well as current and former ministers, came just hours after the creation of a new anti-corruption committee by King Salman, who gave it broad powers to freeze the assets of anyone it considers corrupt.

Prince Alwaleed made early bets on some of the tech world’s biggest stars, also including Snap, riding a boom that has catapulted many young entrepreneurs to top the rich lists, and earned him handsome returns. Prince Alwaleed also made an early bet on JD.com, a Chinese online retailer, anticipating that country’s emergence as a vast e-commerce market.

In moments of corporate crises, Prince Alwaleed has stepped in to tip the balance.

When the phone hacking scandal rocked a London tabloid owned by the Murdochs, the prince went on the BBC to say that Rebekah Brooks, the chief executive officer of the British unit of Mr. Murdoch’s News Corporation, had to resign. “You bet she has to go,” he said in July 2011. She resigned the next day.

At the time, Prince Alwaleed was the second-biggest shareholder in News Corporation, with a more than 6 percent stake. He later sold most of his stake in the company. He also owns a stake in 21st Century Fox, which was a part of News Corporation until it was spun off into a separate listed company in 2013. The prince played a leading role in the shareholder vote to split the two companies, as the second most powerful shareholder behind the Murdoch family.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

In the darkest hours of the 2008 financial crisis, Prince Alwaleed said he would increase his stake in Citigroup, in a move of solidarity with the then-embattled bank’s chief executive officer, Vikram S. Pandit.

Later, when Mr. Pandit faced a rebuke from angry shareholders over a 2012 pay package that totaled $15 million, the prince said he voted for it, according to a recent interview in Vanity Fair.

Prince Alwaleed has worked closely with some of Wall Street’s biggest and best known banks and investors.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Just a month ago, Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and chief executive officer of Goldman Sachs, sat across from Prince Alwaleed at a meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The two talked about investments and economic developments in the Middle East. A longtime banker for Kingdom Holding, Goldman Sachs recently helped Prince Alwaleed’s company acquire a 16 percent stake in Banque Saudi Fransi, the Saudi bank.

When he traveled to New York in 2016, Prince Alwaleed met with Mr. Blankfein and Mr. Bloomberg. After a meeting, Mr. Bloomberg agreed to support news programming on the Alarab News Channel, a venture that Prince Alwaleed owns privately.

Kingdom Holdings has played a role in top leadership at AccorHotels, in which it has a 5.8 percent stake. A recent news release showed pictures of Prince Alweleed laughing with former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, who was asked to join the board of the French hotel chain earlier this year.

The arrest could shake confidence in Saudi Arabia as it tries to diversify its economy. The kingdom is planning to list the state-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco next year in what is expected to be the biggest initial public offering in history.

President Trump on Saturday publicly called for Saudi Arabia to list the company in the United States.

Andrew Ross Sorkin contributed reporting from New York.


Continue reading the main story

US releases 10-year-old immigrant with cerebral palsy

HOUSTON — U.S. authorities on Friday released a 10-year-old immigrant girl with cerebral palsy who had been detained by border agents after surgery because she is in the U.S. without legal permission.

The ACLU and U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro said that Rosa Maria Hernandez was returned Friday afternoon to her family. Her parents brought her into the U.S. from Mexico in 2007, when she was a toddler, and they live in the Texas border city of Laredo.

A cousin who is an American citizen took Rosa Maria from Laredo to a children’s hospital in Corpus Christi on Oct. 24, where she was scheduled to have emergency gallbladder surgery. To get to Corpus Christi, about 150 miles away, she had to pass through an interior checkpoint in South Texas operated by the Border Patrol.

Border Patrol agents followed Rosa Maria and the cousin to the hospital, then took the girl into custody after the surgery and transported her to a facility in San Antonio for unaccompanied immigrant minors, under the custody of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Border Patrol has said it had no choice but to detain Rosa Maria, arguing that she was considered an unaccompanied minor under federal law, the same as a child who crosses into the United States alone without legal permission.

The ACLU sued the government on Rosa Maria’s behalf Tuesday, argued that the U.S. government violated federal law on unaccompanied minors and endangered Rosa Maria’s health by not sending her home.

“She never should have been in this situation in the first place,” ACLU lawyer Michael Tan said Friday. “There is no reason Border Patrol had to target a child.”

While Rosa Maria has been reunited with her family, she still faces the threat of deportation. Tan said Friday that Border Patrol agents had issued Rosa Maria a notice to appear in immigration court, but that the case had yet to move forward.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which oversees the Border Patrol, declined to comment. HHS declined to comment on Rosa Maria’s case, but said the agency’s focus was “on the safety and best interest of each child.”

Leticia Gonzalez, an attorney for Rosa Maria’s family, said the 10-year-old had the mental capacity of a child closer to 4 or 5 years old due to her cerebral palsy. Priscila Martinez, an activist at the Workers Defense Action Fund, said the child had started to show signs of socially withdrawing while in detention and refusing to eat her favorite kind of bread.

Federal immigration authorities have faced strong criticism from advocates and some Texas Democratic congressmen over their handling of the case.

Castro, a San Antonio Democrat, said Friday that he had tried to see Rosa Maria earlier in the day and had spoken to federal officials about her case. He said Border Patrol agents could have chosen to let Rosa Maria pass through the checkpoint without following or detaining her.

“Staking out the hospital room of a young, sick girl and keeping her away from her family is not a humane treatment for her,” Castro said.

But U.S. Customs and Border Protection said in a previous statement after she was detained that “there is no discretion with regard to the law whether or not the agents should enforce the law.”

Gabriel Acosta, assistant chief patrol agent for the Border Patrol’s Laredo sector, said Tuesday that his agents moved quickly to get her through the checkpoint and “acted professionally and compassionately to get this child the medical attention she needed.”

Trump administration releases report finding ‘no convincing alternative explanation’ for climate change

This story has been updated.

The Trump administration released a dire scientific report Friday calling human activity the dominant driver of global warming, a conclusion at odds with White House decisions to withdraw from a key international climate accord, champion fossil fuels and reverse Obama-era climate policies.

To the surprise of some scientists, the White House did not seek to prevent the release of the government’s National Climate Assessment, which is mandated by law. The report affirms that climate change is driven almost entirely by human action, warns of a worst-case scenario where seas could rise as high as eight feet by the year 2100, and details climate-related damage across the United States that is already unfolding as a result of an average global temperature increase of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900.

“It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” the document reports. “For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.”

The report’s release underscores the extent to which the machinery of the federal scientific establishment, operating in multiple agencies across the government, continues to grind on even as top administration officials have minimized or disparaged its findings. Federal scientists have continued to author papers and issue reports on climate change, for example, even as political appointees have altered the wording of news releases or blocked civil servants from speaking about their conclusions in public forums. The climate assessment process is dictated by a 1990 law that Democratic and Republican administrations have followed.

The White House on Friday sought to downplay the significance of the study and its findings.

“The climate has changed and is always changing. As the Climate Science Special Report states, the magnitude of future climate change depends significantly on ‘remaining uncertainty in the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to [greenhouse gas] emissions,’” White House spokesman Raj Shah said in a statement. “In the United States, energy related carbon dioxide emissions have been declining, are expected to remain flat through 2040, and will also continue to decline as a share of world emissions.”

Shah added that the Trump administration “supports rigorous scientific analysis and debate.” He said it will continue to “promote access to the affordable and reliable energy needed to grow economically” and to back advancements that improve infrastructure and ultimately reduce emissions.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, Energy Secretary Rick Perry and President Trump have all questioned the extent of humans’ contribution to climate change. One of the EPA’s Web pages posted scientific conclusions similar to those in the new report until earlier this year, when Pruitt’s deputies ordered it removed.

The report comes as Trump and members of his Cabinet are working to promote U.S. fossil-fuel production and repeal several federal rules aimed at curbing the nation’s carbon output, including ones limiting greenhouse-gas emissions from existing power plants, oil and gas operations on federal land and carbon emissions from cars and trucks. Trump has also announced he will exit the Paris climate agreement, under which the United States has pledged to cut its overall greenhouse-gas emissions between 26 percent and 28 percent compared with 2005 levels by 2025.

The report could have considerable legal and policy significance, providing new and stronger support for the EPA’s greenhouse-gas “endangerment finding” under the Clean Air Act, which lays the foundation for regulations on emissions.

“This is a federal government report whose contents completely undercut their policies, completely undercut the statements made by senior members of the administration,” said Phil Duffy, director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

The government is required to produce the national assessment every four years. This time, the report is split into two documents, one that lays out the fundamental science of climate change and the other that shows how the United States is being affected on a regional basis. Combined, the two documents total over 2,000 pages.

The first document, called the Climate Science Special Report, is a finalized report, having been peer-reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and vetted by experts across government agencies. It was formally unveiled Friday.

“I think this report is basically the most comprehensive climate science report in the world right now,” said Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers who is an expert on sea-level rise and served as one of the report’s lead authors.

It affirms that the United States is already experiencing more extreme heat and rainfall events and more large wildfires in the West, that more than 25 coastal U.S. cities are already experiencing more flooding, and that seas could rise by between 1 and 4 feet by the year 2100, and perhaps even more than that if Antarctica proves to be unstable, as is feared. The report says that a rise of over eight feet is “physically possible” with high levels of greenhouse-gas emissions but that there’s no way right now to predict how likely it is to happen.

When it comes to rapidly escalating levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the report states, “there is no climate analog for this century at any time in at least the last 50 million years.”

Most striking, perhaps, the report warns of the unpredictable — changes that scientists cannot foresee that could involve tipping points or fast changes in the climate system. These could switch the climate into “new states that are very different from those experienced in the recent past.”

Some members of the scientific community had speculated that the administration might refuse to publish the report or might alter its conclusions. During the George W. Bush administration, a senior official at the White House Council on Environmental Quality edited aspects of some government science reports.

Yet multiple experts, as well as some administration officials and federal scientists, said Trump political appointees did not change the special report’s scientific conclusions. While some edits have been made to its final version — for instance, omitting or softening some references to the Paris climate agreement — those were focused on policy.

“I’m quite confident to say there has been no political interference in the scientific messages from this report,” David Fahey, an atmospheric scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a lead author of the study, told reporters on Friday. “Whatever fears we had weren’t realized. … This report says what the scientists want it to say.”

A senior administration official, who asked for anonymity because the process is still underway, said in an interview that top Trump officials decided to put out the assessment without changing the findings of its contributors even if some appointees may have different views.

Glynis Lough, who is deputy director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists and had served as chief of staff for the National Climate Assessment at the U.S. Global Change Research Program until mid-2016, said in an interview that the changes made by government officials to the latest report “are consistent with the types of changes that were made in the previous administration for the 2014 National Climate Assessment, to avoid policy prescriptiveness.”

Perhaps no agency under Trump has tried to downplay and undermine climate science more than the EPA. Most recently, political appointees at the EPA instructed two agency scientists and one contractor not to speak as planned at a scientific conference in Rhode Island. The conference marked the culmination of a three-year report on the status of Narragansett Bay, New England’s largest estuary, in which climate change featured prominently.

The EPA also has altered parts of its website containing detailed climate data and scientific information. As part of that overhaul, in April the agency took down pages that had existed for years and contained a wealth of information on the scientific causes of global warming, its consequences and ways for communities to mitigate or adapt. The agency said that it was simply making changes to better reflect the new administration’s priorities and that any pages taken down would be archived.

Pruitt has repeatedly advocated for the creation of a government-wide “red team/blue team” exercise, in which a group of outside critics would challenge the validity of mainstream scientific conclusions around climate change.

br /
a href=”https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4173244/CSSR2017-FullReport.pdf”CSSR2017 FullReport (PDF)/a/p
pa href=”https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4173244/CSSR2017-FullReport.txt”CSSR2017 FullReport (Text)/abr /

Other departments have also removed climate-change documents online: The Interior Department’s Bureau of Land Management, for example, no longer provides access to documents assessing the danger that future warming poses to deserts in the Southwest.

And when U.S. Geological Survey scientists working with international researchers published an article in the journal Nature evaluating how climate change and human population growth would affect where rain-fed agriculture could thrive, the USGS published a news release that omitted the words “climate change” altogether.

The Agriculture Department’s climate hubs, however, remain freely available online. And researchers at the U.S. Forest Service have continued to publish papers this year on how climate change is affecting wildfires, wetlands and aquatic habitat across the country.

The climate science report is already coming under fire from some of the administration’s allies.

The day before it was published, Steven Koonin, a New York University physicist who has met with Pruitt and advocated for the “red team/blue team” exercise, preemptively criticized the document in the Wall Street Journal, calling it “deceptive.”

Koonin argued that the report “ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century.”

But one of the report’s authors suggested Koonin is creating a straw man. “The report does not state that the rate since 1993 is the fastest than during any comparable period since 1900 (though in my informal assessment it likely is), which is the non-statement Steve seems to be objecting to,” Kopp countered by email.

Still, the line of criticism could be amplified by conservatives in the coming days.

Joseph Bast, the chief executive of the Heartland Institute, a think tank that has long challenged many aspects of the science of global warming, also strongly critiqued the report in a statement to The Washington Post Friday.

“This is typical Obama-era political science,” Bast said. “It’s all been debunked so many times it’s not worth debating anymore. Why are we still wasting taxpayer dollars on green propaganda?”

The administration also released, in draft form, the second volume of the National Climate Assessment, which looks at regional impacts across the United States. This document is available for public comment and will begin a peer review process, with final publication expected in late 2018.

Already, however, it is possible to discern some of what it will conclude. For instance, a peer-reviewed EPA technical document released to inform the assessment finds that the monetary costs of climate change in the United States could be dramatic.

That document, dubbed the Climate Change Impacts and Risk Analysis, finds that high temperatures could lead to the loss per year of “almost 1.9 billion labor hours across the national workforce” by 2090. That would mean $160 billion annually in lost income to workers.

With high levels of warming, coastal property damage in 2090 could total $120 billion annually, and deaths from temperature extremes could reach 9,300 per year, or in monetized terms, $140 billion annually in damage. Additional tens of billions annually could occur in the form of damage to roads, rail lines and electrical infrastructure, the report finds.

This could all be lessened considerably, the report notes, if warming is held to lower levels.

Jason Samenow contributed to this report.

Read more at Energy Environment:

White House reviewing new report that finds strong link between climate change, human activity

Obama left Trump a major climate-change report — and independent scientists just said it’s accurate

EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

For more, you can sign up for our weekly newsletter here, and follow us on Twitter here.

Kevin Spacey Dumped by Netflix After Network Vows to Cancel House of Cards If He’s Involved

As Kevin Spacey seeks treatment amid multiple allegations that he has made unwanted sexual advances toward young men, Netflix executives have decided the streaming network won’t air new episodes of House of Cards if the actor remains involved in the series.

“Netflix will not be involved with any further production of House of Cards that includes Kevin Spacey,” a rep for the network says in a statement to PEOPLE. “We will continue to work with [production company] MRC during this hiatus time to evaluate our path forward as it relates to the show . ​ We have also decided we will not be moving forward with the release of the film Gore, which was in post-production, starring and produced by Kevin Spacey.”

After Netflix issued the ultimatum, they released a new statement to PEOPLE saying the actor had been suspended.

“While we continue the ongoing investigation into the serious allegations concerning Kevin Spacey’s behavior on the set of HOUSE OF CARDS, he has been suspended, effective immediately,” the statement read. “MRC, in partnership with Netflix, will continue to evaluate a creative path forward for the program during the hiatus.”

This development comes hours after Variety reported that producers are considering killing off Spacey’s House of Cards character in the show’s sixth and final season. Spacey is also an executive producer on the series.

Kevin Spacey (left) in House of Cards.
Pete Souza

Production was indefinitely suspended on House of Cards earlier this week.

Star Trek: Discovery and Rent star Anthony Rapp, 46, claimed in a Buzzfeed News report published Sunday that Spacey, 58, made inappropriate sexual advances toward him at a private party in New York City in 1986. Spacey was 26 at the time, and Rapp was 14.

“I came forward with my story, standing on the shoulders of the many courageous women and men who have been speaking out, to shine a light and hopefully make a difference, as they have done for me,” Rapp said in a statement to PEOPLE.

As a response to the report, Spacey tweeted a statement saying he didn’t remember Rapp’s alleged incident and apologizing “for what would have been deeply inappropriate drunken behavior.” He also publicly came out as gay, which was met with criticism from prominent LGBTQ celebrities.

Actor Roberto Cavazos later claimed he “had a couple of unpleasant encounters with Spacey that were on the edge of being considered assault” while working at London’s Old Vic Theatre.(A representative for Spacey told PEOPLE he had no comment.)

Late Friday, three more men accused the actor of sexual misconduct in an article by Buzzfeed.

In a CNN article published Thursday, eight anonymous House of Cards employees accused Spacey of creating a “toxic” work environment and displaying “predatory” behavior, allegedly touching staffers without consent and making lewd comments.

PEOPLE reached out to representatives for the actor, Netflix and House of Cards production company MRC in regards to the allegations made to CNN but did not receive any immediate response.

The actor’s agency CAA and his publicist have since announced they have parted ways with the actor.

Lobbying Frenzy Begins on Tax Bill

“It’s pretty weedy stuff,” said Dave Camp, a former chairman of the Ways and Means Committee who wrote a 2014 tax bill that laid some of the groundwork for the current one. Mr. Camp, who is now a senior adviser for PricewaterhouseCoopers, said that when lawmakers attempt to overhaul the code, “you get significant pushback on just about everything.”

The groups pushing back the hardest on Friday included those in the real estate industry. Some of them had raised concerns before the bill was released, only to discover their biggest fears realized in the draft legislation. The bill includes several measures long opposed by those groups, including a limit on interest deductions for new home purchases of $500,000 or more and an expansion of the standard deduction.

The Mortgage Bankers Association plans conference calls and discussions with members of Congress throughout the weekend, said David Stevens, the group’s president. Realtors are running online ads raising concerns over those provisions.

Mr. Stevens complained about the “piling-on effect” of the bill’s provisions on homeownership incentives, and said the bill is “moving really fast” through the House. “Every special interest is going to have concerns,” he said. “If Congress is going to have integrity, they’re going to listen to them and make the best decisions.”

Some of those groups were already training their efforts on a still-unfinished Senate version of the legislation, fearing that House leaders — who introduced their bill on Thursday — were intent on speeding the plan to a vote with little time or opportunity to amend it. The House bill, as one consultant to business groups put it, feels “pretty baked” already.

If Republicans decide to take aim once more at the Affordable Care Act, that would add yet another dimension to the battle over taxes.

Representative Kevin Brady of Texas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said no decision had been made about whether to include repeal of the so-called individual mandate. But he said Mr. Trump wants its inclusion, and he indicated that Republicans wanted to evaluate the fiscal effects of taking that step. Senate Republicans may not be as enthused about its inclusion.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“While I support replacing the individual mandate with an auto enrollment system that allows for a consumer to opt out, it would make it more difficult to pass a tax relief bill if it is combined with a repeal of the individual mandate,” Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said on Friday.

Members of Mr. Brady’s committee will meet Monday to begin marking up the tax bill, but lobbyists fear the process will not yield any substantive changes. Republican leaders are hoping to pass it through the House by Thanksgiving. The Senate, meanwhile, stands ready to release its bill as soon as the House committee approves its version.

Representatives from industry groups were carefully analyzing how the companies they represent would be affected by a proposal in the House bill that would create a 20 percent excise tax on payments to foreign affiliates.

Photo

A nurse attending to medical equipment at the Orange County Children’s Hospital in Orange, Calif. By ripping out a major component of President Barack Obama’s health law, Republicans could claim at least a partial victory on an issue that has stymied them all year.

Credit
Mike Blake/Reuters

The small-government advocacy groups spearheaded by the billionaire Republican megadonor brothers Charles G. and David H. Koch have been seeking to rally opposition to the excise tax from other conservative groups, as well as trade and industry associations.

The Koch groups already have expressed concern about the provision — as well as a plan to retain an upper-income tax bracket — in meetings this week with the Speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, Mr. Brady and Senate leadership.

The proposed excise tax is “misguided” and its costs would be passed along to consumers, said Tim Phillips, the president of Americans for Prosperity, a nonprofit group funded by the Koch brothers and their network of donors.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Yet Mr. Phillips said Americans for Prosperity remains supportive of the overall legislation and is walking a delicate line between trying to tweak the bill without diminishing its prospects.

“It’s important to keep this thing moving forward in the House as we try to improve it,” he said, “and then we get another bite at the apple in the Senate.”

Republican leaders warned on Thursday that interest groups would attack the bill and said they would resist efforts to keep things “status quo.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“You’re going to gore some sacred cows in an operation like this,” said Representative Tom Cole, Republican of Oklahoma, on Friday. “But I really worry about more what happens inside the building. And as I talk to members, they’re not feeling a lot of pressure at this point against this.”

Any lobbyist push is complicated by the House’s math problem: The bill must contain enough revenue to offset its corporate and individual tax cuts. An independent analysis of the bill from the Tax Foundation on Friday suggested that problem might be larger than Republican leaders anticipated.

The analysis found that the draft legislation would cost too much to survive the budgetary requirements needed to pass the Senate on a party-line vote — a sign that Republicans will almost certainly need to rework it in order to keep their hopes alive for delivering a bill to Mr. Trump’s desk by Christmas.

The analysis found that the bill would add $2 trillion to the federal budget deficit over the next decade, an amount that shrinks to $1 trillion even when additional economic growth effects from the bill are factored in.

“This does not pay for itself,” said Scott Greenberg, a senior analyst at the Tax Foundation.

The bill would continue to add to deficits after 10 years, violating the procedural budget rules that Republicans are hoping to use to avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate.

The White House is projecting robust economic growth from the tax cut, and the analysis found that, if those growth projections hold, the bill would create an additional one million jobs and raise incomes for rich, poor and middle-class Americans. If those growth projections fail to materialize, the top 1 percent of earners would see income gains twice as large as those seen by middle-class workers.

When economic growth is taken into account, the gains would be more evenly distributed, with the middle class seeing the biggest income increase on a percentage basis. That is because the Tax Foundation assumes additional growth spurred by business tax cuts largely finds its way into workers’ paychecks.

Republicans are looking for other ways to squeeze more dollars out of the bill. On Friday, they released an amended version that would reduce the value of the income tax cuts for individuals by $90 billion over the course of a decade and slightly shrink the estimated cost of the legislation.

The amended bill includes a technical change that immediately adopts a revised measure of inflation, known as “chained C.P.I.,” which would change how inflation is calculated, thus slowing the speed at which tax brackets grow with inflation. As a result, Americans would more quickly find themselves in higher marginal tax brackets — jumping from a 12 percent top bracket to 25 percent, for example — as their incomes increase.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The chained measure would also slow the value growth of some inflation-adjusted tax benefits, such as the earned-income tax credit.


Continue reading the main story

Bowe Bergdahl Avoids Prison for Desertion; Trump Calls Sentence a ‘Disgrace’

Last year, Mr. Trump made denunciations of Sergeant Bergdahl a staple of his campaign speeches, repeatedly calling for him to be executed.

Ironically, Mr. Trump’s comments may have contributed to the decision not to sentence him to prison. After Mr. Trump seemed last month to endorse his harsh criticism from the campaign trail, Colonel Nance ruled that he would consider the comments as mitigating evidence at sentencing.

With the sentence still facing review by General Abrams and military appellate judges, Mr. Trump’s post-verdict comments on Twitter seemed to bolster efforts by the defense to have the sentence thrown out on appeal, some military law experts said, on the grounds that the president had unlawfully influenced the case.

“Trump just exponentially increased Bergdahl’s chances of getting this whole case tossed on appeal,” said Rachel VanLandingham, a professor at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles and a retired Air Force lawyer.

The tweet could be interpreted as an effort to pressure officers who still have some control over the sergeant’s fate not to reconsider his sentence, military law experts said.

Sergeant Bergdahl’s chief defense lawyer, Eugene R. Fidell, called the sentence “a tremendous relief” and said his client was still absorbing it.

Standing outside the military courthouse here, Mr. Fidell, who teaches military justice at Yale Law School, then took sharp aim at the commander in chief.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“President Trump’s unprincipled effort to stoke a lynch-mob atmosphere while seeking our nation’s highest office has cast a dark cloud over the case,” he said. “Every American should be offended by his assault on the fair administration of justice and disdain for basic constitutional rights.”

Even though the defense had told the judge that a dishonorable discharge would be appropriate, Mr. Fidell said he hoped that it would be overturned. He noted that such a discharge would deprive his client of health care services and other “benefits he badly needs” from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Sergeant Bergdahl is expected to return to an Army base as the case winds through the appeals process.

Sergeant Bergdahl was 23 and a private first class when he left his base in eastern Afghanistan in June 2009. Army investigators would later characterize his departure as a delusional effort to hike to a larger base and cause enough of a stir that he would get an audience with a senior officer to report what he felt were problems in his unit.

But the soldier, who is now 31, was captured by the Taliban within hours and spent five years as a prisoner, his treatment worsening after every attempt to escape. He was beaten with copper cables and held in isolation in a metal cage less than seven feet square. He suffered dysentery for most of his captivity, and cleaned feces off his hands with his own urine so that he could eat enough bread to survive.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

The military searched for him, and several troops were wounded during those missions. One of them, Sgt. First Class Mark Allen, was shot through the head and lost the ability to walk, talk or take care of himself, and now has minimal consciousness. His wife, Shannon, testified that he is not even able to hold hands with her anymore. On a separate rescue mission, Senior Chief Petty Officer Jimmy Hatch, a Navy SEAL, suffered a leg wound that required 18 surgical procedures and ended his long career in special operations.

Army investigators quickly dismissed claims that troops had died searching for Sergeant Bergdahl — who was promoted during captivity — or that he had intended to defect to the Taliban. They suggested that he could be prosecuted for desertion and for some lesser crimes. But in March 2015, the Army raised the stakes, accusing him not only of desertion but also of misbehavior before the enemy, an ancient but rarely charged crime punishable by up to life in prison. In this case, the misbehavior was endangering the troops sent to search for him.

Even so, the sergeant’s defense seemed to have some momentum. The Army’s chief investigator on the case testified at Sergeant Bergdahl’s preliminary hearing that he did not believe any jail time was warranted, and the preliminary hearing officer suggested the whole episode might have been avoided “had concerns about Sergeant Bergdahl’s mental health been properly followed up.”

But at Fort Bragg, General Abrams ordered that Sergeant Bergdahl face a general court-martial on both charges.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Once Mr. Trump was inaugurated, Sergeant Bergdahl’s defense team demanded that the case be dismissed. There was no way the sergeant could receive a fair trial, his lawyers said, since everyone in the military justice system now reported to President Trump as commander in chief.

Colonel Nance labeled Mr. Trump’s comments about Sergeant Bergdahl “disturbing,” but declined to throw out the case. Then, last month, Mr. Trump seemed to endorse his earlier sentiments about Sergeant Bergdahl, saying, “I think people have heard my comments in the past.”

After another protest by the defense, Colonel Nance ruled that he would consider the president’s comments as mitigation evidence.

During the sentencing hearing, Sergeant Bergdahl apologized for his misconduct, saying he never intended for anyone to get hurt, and that he grieved “for those who have suffered and their families.”

He added, “I’m admitting I made a horrible mistake.”

The lead Army prosecutor, Maj. Justin Oshana, drew a comparison between Sergeant Bergdahl and those who were hurt through his actions.

“It wasn’t a mistake,” Major Oshana said of the sergeant’s decision to walk off his base. “It was a crime.”

Responding to testimony about how captivity had left Sergeant Bergdahl with physical pain, Major Oshana noted that at least the sergeant was able to talk about it. Sergeant Allen was constantly in pain, too, he said, but no longer possessed the ability to describe it.

“Sergeant Bergdahl does not have a monopoly on suffering as a result of his choices,” Major Oshana added.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The defense argued that Sergeant Bergdahl had already suffered a severe penalty for his crimes by being tortured during five years in captivity.

“It is undisputed that Sergeant Bergdahl paid a bitter price for the decision he made,” one of his lawyers, Capt. Nina Banks, told Colonel Nance. She said that a dishonorable discharge was appropriate, but asked that he be spared prison.

The defense argued that Sergeant Bergdahl’s decision to walk away was influenced by a then-undiagnosed severe personality disorder.

Captain Banks also told the judge that the harsh comments by Mr. Trump meant that the sergeant’s persecution did not stop when he was freed.

“Sergeant Bergdahl has been punished enough,” she said.

Correction: November 3, 2017

Because of a production error, an earlier headline with this article misstated Bowe Bergdahl’s sentence. It was a dishonorable, not an honorable, discharge.


Continue reading the main story