Tag Archives: united airlines

Putin’s ‘Invincible’ Missile Is Aimed at US Vulnerabilities

He also used the speech to reassure Russians that the military buildup was taking place even as the government was spending big sums to improve the quality of their lives.

But the main attention grabber in the speech was the weapons, which Mr. Putin described as a response to what he called the repudiation of arms control by the United States and its plans for a major weapons buildup.

The Trump administration has said that countering the world’s two other superpowers, Russia and China, was becoming its No. 1 national security mission, ahead of counterterrorism.

It has largely blamed Russia’s military modernization for that shift and has justified new work on nuclear weapons and bolstered missile defenses as the appropriate answer.

Mr. Putin may have further fueled the tension on Thursday by essentially declaring that Russia’s military brains had made America’s response obsolete.

He said a team of young, high-tech specialists had labored secretly and assiduously to develop and test the new weapons, including a nuclear-powered missile that could reach anywhere and evade interception.

“With the missile launched and a set of ground tests completed, we can now proceed with the construction of a fundamentally new type of weapon,” Mr. Putin said.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

He showed a video that illustrated the weapon flying over a mountain range, then slaloming around obstacles in the southern Atlantic before rounding Cape Horn at the tip of South America and heading north toward the West Coast of the United States.

Given that deception lies at the heart of current Russian military doctrine, questions arose about whether these weapons existed. American officials said that the nuclear cruise missile is not yet operational, despite Mr. Putin’s claims, and that it had crashed during testing in the Arctic.

The threats evoked the bombast of the Cold War. But this time they are not based on greater numbers of bombs but increased capabilities, stealth and guile.

Mr. Putin’s boasts about undersea nuclear torpedoes and earth-hugging cruise missiles emphasized the uselessness of American defenses against such weapons.

Oddly, apart from a reference to renewing the American nuclear arms enterprise in his State of the Union address, Mr. Trump has said almost nothing about the new era of competition with Mr. Putin or Russia. With multiple investigations into whether his campaign’s connections to Russians had influenced policy, he has neither protested the Russian buildup nor publicly endorsed, in any detail, his own administration’s plans to counter it.

The cruise missile was among five weapons introduced by Mr. Putin, each shown in video mock-ups on giant screens flanking him onstage. He threatened to use the weapons, as well as Russia’s older-generation nuclear arms, against the United States and Europe if Russia were attacked.

“We would consider any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies to be a nuclear attack on our country,” he said.

Mr. Putin said he could not show the actual weapons publicly, but assured his audience of Russia’s main political and prominent cultural figures that they had all been developed.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

If Mr. Putin was not bluffing, said Aleksandr M. Golts, an independent Russian military analyst, then “these weapons are definitely new, absolutely new.”

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

“If we’re talking about nuclear-armed cruise missiles, that’s a technological breakthrough and a gigantic achievement,” he said in an interview. But, he added, “The question is, is this true?”

Several analysts writing on Facebook and elsewhere leaned toward the bluff theory. Given the recent history of Russian launch failures or premature crashes, the idea that Russia suddenly possessed a new generation of flying weapons strained credulity.

“The real surprise in among all of this is a nuclear-powered cruise missile,” said Douglas Barrie, a senior fellow for military aerospace at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London. “It was talked about in the ’60s, but it ran into a lot of obstacles. To the extent that the Russians are seriously revisiting this is pretty interesting.”

Such technology could alter the balance of power, but Mr. Barrie questioned whether Russia was even close to deploying it.

“Does reality mean you have an item in the budget saying, ‘Develop nuclear propulsion for a missile?’” he said. “Or does it mean, ‘We’re going to have one ready to use soon’? I’d certainly want to see more evidence to believe that.”

Mr. Putin said Russia had developed the weaponry because the United States had rejected established arms control treaties and was deploying new missile defense systems in Europe and Asia.

President Barack Obama said that he was willing to negotiate cuts deeper than the 1,550 arms that Washington and Moscow are permitted to deploy under the 2010 New Start treaty, which took full effect last month. But it expires in a few years, and neither Mr. Putin nor Mr. Trump has shown interest in renewing it.

The United States has also accused Russia of violating the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty. After Mr. Putin’s speech, Heather Nauert, the State Department’s spokeswoman, said Mr. Putin essentially confirmed that by trumpeting the country’s development of new nuclear weapons.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Putin was correct that the United States is investing in expanding missile defenses. But those were not meant to counter Russia’s huge arsenals, but rather the launching of a few missiles by a state like North Korea.

The new Russian weapons would render such defenses obsolete, Mr. Putin gloated, and if anyone found a workaround, “our boys will think of something new.”

Other weapons the Russian leader discussed included a ballistic missile called Sarmat that could round either pole and overcome any defense system; hypersonic nuclear weaponry that fly at 20 times the speed of sound; and unmanned deepwater submarines that could go huge distances at enormous speed.

Mr. Putin said that some of the weapons were so new that they had yet to be named, and announced a naming contest on the Ministry of Defense website.

Political analysts said it was an effective campaign ploy whether the weapons existed or not. “He’s giving people the image of a desired future, of a future for Russia, and that’s appealing for his domestic audience,” said Aleksei V. Makarkin, the deputy head of the Center for Political Technologies, a Moscow think tank.

Mr. Putin’s guns-and-butter, Russia-can-do-it-all speech came 17 days before the March 18 election. It seemed intended to reassure voters that expanded social spending would help solve the economic problems of the past four years, while sending the message that Mr. Putin was their best hope in protecting a Russia portrayed as a besieged fortress.

The reality that the country lacks the money to pay for a giant increase in social spending combined with a new generation of weapons was beside the point, Mr. Makarkin said.

“People may say Russia depends on oil, Russia doesn’t have the money, but the population at large doesn’t care about that,” he said. “They just want to know that we are a superpower.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

On the social front, Mr. Putin promised to double government spending on health care and raise pensions. He said Russia would reduce the poverty rate — official statistics indicate that around 14 million Russians live below the poverty line — by 2024.

Mr. Putin also said that life expectancy, currently at 73, a leap from when he first took office in 2000, should exceed 80 by 2030.

Critics doubt that Russia will ever have the means to deliver so much, given its stumbling economy and relatively depressed oil prices. Max Trudolyubov, a newspaper columnist and political analyst, called the speech a modern version of the Czar Cannon, a giant 16th-century piece of armament that sits on the Kremlin grounds and that legend holds never really worked.

For years, Mr. Putin has chafed at the perceived disrespect showed to him and Russia by the United States. “Nobody listened to Russia,” he said near the end of the speech, to huge applause. “Well, listen up now.”

Correction: March 1, 2018

An earlier version of this article misstated the age of the Czar Cannon. It is from the 16th century, not the 15th century.


Continue reading the main story

Trump Calls Sessions’s Handling of Surveillance Abuse Allegations ‘Disgraceful’

But the president’s options are constrained, advisers said, because he recognizes that he would have a difficult time winning Senate confirmation for a replacement. Mr. Sessions served there for 20 years, and his former colleagues have bristled at Mr. Trump’s attacks. Any dismissal of Mr. Sessions would be taken by Democrats and even some Republicans as an effort to seize control of the Russia investigation and could trigger a bipartisan backlash.

The exchange on Wednesday began when the president lashed out at Mr. Sessions for seeming to suggest that the Justice Department’s inspector general would look into Republican charges of misconduct in the opening stage of the Russia investigation rather than opening his own examination.

“Why is A.G. Jeff Sessions asking the Inspector General to investigate potentially massive FISA abuse,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. “Will take forever, has no prosecutorial power and already late with reports on Comey etc. Isn’t the I.G. an Obama guy? Why not use Justice Department lawyers? DISGRACEFUL!”

Republicans have accused Justice Department and F.B.I. officials of abusing their powers while President Barack Obama was still in office by using information from a dossier prepared by a former British spy paid by Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign to justify surveillance of a former Trump campaign adviser, Carter Page. Officials did not fully inform the court that issues warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, of the origin of the information, Republicans complained. Democrats have called that a distortion and distraction.

The inspector general, Michael E. Horowitz, was appointed by Mr. Obama in 2012, but previously worked for the Justice Department under Republican and Democratic presidents. He has already been investigating how James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director until Mr. Trump fired him last spring, handled the inquiry into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server while she was secretary of state.

Mr. Sessions seemed to take umbrage at the president’s latest message. “We have initiated the appropriate process that will ensure complaints against this department will be fully and fairly acted upon if necessary,” he said in his statement.

“As long as I am the attorney general,” he added, “I will continue to discharge my duties with integrity and honor, and this department will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner according to the law and Constitution.”

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Mr. Sessions’s response, polite but pointed, was all the more striking because he had largely kept quiet after previous attacks by the president. Mr. Trump has never forgiven Mr. Sessions for recusing himself from the Russia investigation, a decision that helped lead to the appointment of Mr. Mueller. Mr. Trump has publicly called Mr. Sessions “weak” and said he would not have appointed him had he known Mr. Sessions would step aside.

His latest eruption was prompted by Mr. Sessions’s comment on Tuesday that if a FISA surveillance warrant was wrongfully obtained, the matter would be “investigated” by the department’s inspector general. His comment was interpreted as confirmation that the inspector general had opened a second official inquiry on top of the Comey review.

But Mr. Sessions only meant to reiterate what he said after a memo drafted by House Republicans was released alleging abuse of the FISA process. At the time, Mr. Sessions said he would “forward to appropriate D.O.J. components all information I receive from Congress regarding this.”

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

The nuance was lost on Mr. Trump, who among other things did not seem to understand that an attorney general cannot order an inspector general to investigate anything, only refer information.

“The president’s tweet reveals that he really doesn’t understand how the government works and how the Justice Department works,” said Michael Bromwich, a former department inspector general.

He added that the inspector general’s office has a reputation for professionalism. “It’s incredibly demoralizing to have the chief executive of the government not only not understand and appreciate what you do, but attack what you do on a constant basis,” Mr. Bromwich said.

Inspectors general at cabinet agencies are kept separate to preserve their independence. Paul Light, a New York University professor and specialist on the offices, recalled that President Ronald Reagan fired all of the inspectors general but was forced by Congress to rehire some of them. “They have protections in statutes against arbitrary dismissal,” he said.

After Mr. Trump’s tweet, Mr. Horowitz, the inspector general, received support from Republicans, including Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that confirmed him.

“I have complete confidence in him and hope he is given the time, the resources and the independence to complete his work,” said Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina and the chairman of the House Oversight Committee.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Several Republicans expressed dismay at the president’s continued campaign against Mr. Sessions. “It’s kind of mind-boggling that he would call out his own attorney general,” former Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah said on Fox News.

Representative Peter T. King of New York, also on Fox, expressed sympathy with Mr. Trump’s desire for a second investigation run by Mr. Sessions, but added that the president should not berate him. “Jeff Sessions is loyal to the president and he’s one of the first to support him, and he’s often in very difficult positions and I think he’s trying to reconcile as best as he can,” he said.

Michael W. McConnell, a former appellate judge now at Stanford Law School, said a president has every right to direct his attorney general.

“What raises eyebrows is the form and tone of the tweet, which appears to be a commentary on the attorney general’s decisions rather than an exercise of presidential supervisory authority,” he said. “Mr. Trump is the president. If he wants something done differently, he should order that it be done differently, with serious reflection, through proper channels and in the proper form.”

Jamil Jaffer, a law professor at George Mason University and former associate White House counsel under President George W. Bush, said social media was not the best way to direct action by an attorney general. “The president has a lot of tools that are a lot more effective than putting the A.G. on blast on Twitter,” he said.

But Mr. Trump got support from other quarters. Representative Lee Zeldin of New York and a dozen other Republicans sent a letter to Mr. Sessions on Wednesday urging him to appoint a special counsel to investigate the handling of Mrs. Clinton’s case and the FISA warrant targeting Mr. Page.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell Jr., the president of Liberty University, suggested that Mr. Sessions had never really supported Mr. Trump in the first place.

“@USAGSessions must be part of the Bush/Romney/McCain Republican Establishment,” he wrote on Twitter. “He probably supported @realDonaldTrump early in campaign to hide who he really is. Or he could just be a coward.”

Eileen Sullivan, Michael Schmidt and Nicholas Fandos contributed reporting.

Follow Peter Baker and Katie Benner on Twitter: @peterbakernyt @ktbenner.

A version of this article appears in print on March 1, 2018, on Page A1 of the New York edition with the headline: Trump Tears Into Sessions Over Russia Investigation.


Continue reading the main story

Trump Stuns Lawmakers With Seeming Embrace of Gun Control

Democrats, too, said they were skeptical that Mr. Trump would follow through.

“The White House can now launch a lobbying campaign to get universal background checks passed, as the president promised in this meeting, or they can sit and do nothing,” said Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut.

At the core of Mr. Trump’s suggestion was the revival of a bipartisan bill drafted in 2013 by Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia, and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania, after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Despite a concerted push by President Barack Obama and the personal appeals of Sandy Hook parents, the bill fell to a largely Republican filibuster.

Video

Most Americans Want More Gun Control. Why Doesn’t It Happen?

Polls show solid support for stricter laws, especially after mass shootings. But there is also deep disagreement, staunch opposition and growing disenchantment with gun control.


By ROBIN STEIN, DREW JORDAN and NATALIE RENEAU on Publish Date February 27, 2018.


Photo by Tom Brenner/The New York Times.

Watch in Times Video »

Mr. Trump’s embrace did not immediately yield converts. Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, said after the meeting that he was unmoved, repeating the Republican dogma that recent shootings were not “conducted by someone who bought a gun at a gun show or parking lot.” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican, who sat next to the president looking flustered, emerged from the meeting and declared, “I thought it was fascinating television and it was surreal to actually be there.”

But Mr. Trump suggested that the dynamics in Washington had changed after the school shooting in Florida that claimed 17 lives, in part because of his own leadership in the White House, a sentiment that the Democrats in the room readily appeared to embrace as they saw the president supporting their ideas.

“It would be so beautiful to have one bill that everyone could support,” Mr. Trump said as Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and a longtime advocate of gun control, sat smiling to his left. “It’s time that a president stepped up.”

Democrats tried to turn sometimes muddled presidential musings into firm policy: “You saw the president clearly saying not once, not twice, not three times, but like 10 times, that he wanted to see a strong universal background check bill,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota. “He didn’t mince words about it. So I do not understand how then he could back away from that.”

Just what the performance means, and whether Mr. Trump will aggressively push for new gun restrictions, remain uncertain given his history of taking erratic positions on policy issues, especially ones that have long polarized Washington and the country.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The gun control performance on Wednesday was reminiscent of a similar televised discussion with lawmakers about immigration in January during which the president appeared to back bipartisan legislation to help young immigrants brought to the country illegally as children — only to reverse himself and push a hard-line approach that helped scuttle consensus in the Senate.

Mr. Trump’s comments during the hourlong meeting were at odds with his history as a candidate and president who has repeatedly declared his love for the Second Amendment and the N.R.A., which gave his campaign $30 million. At the group’s annual conference last year, Mr. Trump declared, “To the N.R.A., I can proudly say I will never, ever let you down.”

Graphic

With AR-15s, Mass Shooters Attack With the Rifle Firepower Typically Used by Infantry Troops

When a gunman walked into a Florida school on Feb. 14, his rifle let him fire in much the same way that many American soldiers and Marines would fire M16 and M4 rifles in combat.


But at the meeting, the president repeatedly rejected the N.R.A.’s top legislative priority, a bill known as concealed-carry reciprocity, which would allow a person with permission to carry a concealed weapon in one state to automatically do so in every state. To the dismay of Republicans, he dismissed the measure as having no chance at passage in the Congress. Republican leaders in the House had paired that N.R.A. priority with a modest measure to improve data reporting to the existing instant background check system.

“You’ll never get it,” Mr. Trump told Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the House Republican whip who was gravely injured in a mass shooting last year but still opposes gun restrictions. “You’ll never get it passed. We want to get something done.”

Mr. Trump also flatly insisted that legislation should raise the minimum age for buying rifles to 21 from 18 — an idea the N.R.A. and many Republicans fiercely oppose. When Mr. Toomey pushed back on an increase in the minimum age for rifles, the president accused him of fearing the N.R.A. — a remarkable slap since the association withdrew its support for Mr. Toomey over his background check bill.

“If there’s a Republican who’s demonstrated he’s not afraid of the N.R.A., that would be me,” Mr. Toomey said after the meeting.

The president appeared eager to challenge the impression that he is bought and paid for by the gun rights group. While calling the membership of the N.R.A. “well meaning,” he also said he told its leaders at a lunch on Sunday that “it’s time. We’re going to stop this nonsense. It’s time.”

Officials at the gun group were taken aback by the president’s comments and immediately ramped up their lobbying against measures that they have long said would damage the Second Amendment and do little to protect people against gun violence.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“While today’s meeting made for great TV, the gun control policies discussed would make bad policy that wouldn’t keep our children safer,” said Jennifer Baker, a spokeswoman for the N.R.A.’s lobbying arm. “We are going to continue to work to pass policies that might actually prevent another horrific tragedy.”

But at least for Wednesday, Mr. Trump seemed willing to venture far from the N.R.A. script, even appearing to suggest that he might back an ban on assault-style weapons when Ms. Feinstein asked what they could do about “weapons of war.” The N.R.A. has helped defeat an assault weapons ban since the last one expired in 2004.

The reaction in Washington was swift. Breitbart.com, a right-wing site once led by Stephen K. Bannon, the president’s onetime chief strategist, published an article with a headline in bright red that said, “TRUMP THE GUN GRABBER.”

The site added that the president “Cedes Dems’ Wish List — Bump Stocks, Buying Age, ‘Assault Weapons,’ Background Checks. Tells Scalise to Take a Hike — After Surviving Assassination Attempt.”

The president did return several times to a proposal that conservatives like: arming teachers in schools and ending the so-called gun-free zones around schools that Mr. Trump said had made those institutions among the most vulnerable targets for mass shooters.

“You’ve got to have defense, too,” the president told the lawmakers. “You can’t just be sitting ducks. And that’s exactly what we’ve allowed people in these buildings and schools to be.”

But several times, he acknowledged how controversial that proposal was, and seemed to accept the idea that it might not be included in a comprehensive gun control measure that could pass both chambers of Congress.

He also backed a modest measure sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat in the Senate to improve the quality of the data in the background check system. But he told the bill’s author, Mr. Cornyn, to consider just adding that proposal to the broader expansion of the background check system.

“It would be nice to add everything on to it,” Mr. Trump said. “Maybe change the title. Maybe we could make it much more comprehensive and have one bill.”

Correction: February 28, 2018

An earlier version of this article misstated the timing of a similar televised meeting. It was in January, not last year.


Continue reading the main story

Supreme Court sounds wary of Microsoft’s shield for emails stored abroad

“There is nothing under your position that prevents Microsoft from storing United States communications, every one of them, either in Canada or Mexico or anywhere else, and then telling their customers, ‘Don’t worry. If the government wants to get access to your communications, they won’t be able to,'” Roberts said.

ICE confirms 150-plus arrests in California sweep, slams Schaaf’s early warning


Caption

Close

Federal officials confirmed that they launched a big immigration enforcement action this week in Northern California.

Federal officials confirmed that they launched a big immigration enforcement action this week in Northern California.

Photo: LM Otero/AP




FILE – In this Thursday, Jan. 18, 2018, file photo, Diana Colin, right, with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights shouts as the group from California protests outside the office of House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, of California, on Capitol Hill in Washington, in favor of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. On Monday, Feb. 26, 2018, a federal judge issued a sweeping ban on the U.S. government revoking deportation protection of immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children. less

Photo: Jacquelyn Martin, AP








Federal officials said Tuesday they arrested more than 150 undocumented immigrants in a Northern California sweep aimed at countering local sanctuary laws, while suggesting Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf’s decision to alert the public to the secret operation may have allowed some targets to elude capture.

Since Sunday, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have fanned out from the Central Valley to the far northern reaches of the state, knocking on doors, detaining people and prompting alarm from community activists and some Democratic politicians who oppose President Trump’s immigration crackdown.


Agency officials, who had remained silent about the operation for three days, said in a written statement that they arrested people in cities including San Francisco, Bay Point, Sacramento and Stockton, and that half of those arrested had criminal convictions, including for violent crimes.

The operation was named Keep Safe. Officials did not say whether the first letters of the operation were intended as a reference to Kate Steinle, the San Francisco woman shot dead on a bay pier in July 2015 by a homeless undocumented immigrant. ICE also did not say whether the sweep was over.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions like San Francisco and Oakland shield dangerous criminal aliens from federal law enforcement at the expense of public safety,” said Thomas Homan, the acting director of ICE. “Because these jurisdictions prevent ICE from arresting criminal aliens in the secure confines of a jail, they also force ICE officers to make more arrests out in the community, which poses increased risks for law enforcement and the public.”

Mayor Schaaf said she had multiple sources confirming that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are planning to conduct raids this week. (Feb. 25)


Media: Associated Press



Homan slammed Schaaf, who on Saturday night released an unprecedented warning that ICE was about to begin arresting people. Schaaf said she issued the alert after receiving confidential tips from “credible sources,” and conferring with attorneys to make sure she wasn’t opening herself up to federal prosecution.

The mayor’s move endangered ICE officers and alerted their targets, Homan asserted, “making clear that this reckless decision was based on her political agenda.” He said 864 “criminal aliens and public safety threats remain at large in the community, and I have to believe that some of them were able to elude us thanks to the mayor’s irresponsible decision.”

Fox News, which was given a ride-along with ICE officers during the operation, reported that agency officials were asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether Schaaf broke any laws.

In a statement Tuesday night, Schaaf stood by her decision to go public.

“My statement on Saturday was meant to give all residents time to learn their rights and know their legal options. It was my intention that one mother, or one father, would use the information to help keep their family together,” the mayor said. “I do not regret sharing this information. It is Oakland’s legal right to be a sanctuary city and we have not broken any laws. We believe our community is safer when families stay together.”

San Francisco Mayor Mark Farrell released a statement saying that the city won’t “cower” as the “administration pursues their political plan of haphazardly punishing sanctuary cities.”

“We stand with our hardworking, law-abiding immigrant neighbors and we are unified in our response to the divisive rhetoric of this president.”

The Chronicle reported in January that federal officials were planning the Northern California operation. The Trump administration has repeatedly expressed frustration at sanctuary laws in the state, which restrict cooperation between local authorities and ICE in an effort to convince undocumented immigrants they don’t need to live in the shadows.

Trump seized upon the killing of Steinle to argue that sanctuary policies are dangerous. The undocumented immigrant shooter, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, had previously been released from San Francisco County Jail under the city’s sanctuary ordinance, even though immigration officers had asked that he be turned over for a sixth deportation.

This week’s sweep is the second to target California since a statewide sanctuary law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, SB54, went into effect in January. The legislation, among other things, limits the circumstances in which jails across the state can turn over undocumented inmates to ICE and forbids police from arresting people on immigration warrants.

Earlier this month, ICE arrested more than 200 immigrants suspected of being undocumented in an operation in Los Angeles. Federal agents also told 122 businesses there that they would be checking whether their employees were authorized to work. ICE launched a similar action in Northern California in January, visiting 77 businesses.

“If you take all of the administration’s statements in context … it suggests that this is highly politically motivated and meant to send a message to California,” said Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a professor and immigration expert at Santa Clara University School of Law. The message, he said, is that “not cooperating with federal immigration authorities will result in aggressive immigration enforcement.”

The ACLU of Northern California said Tuesday that reports from rapid-response networks over the previous three days suggested “that ICE enforcement is terrorizing communities of color. The targeting of cities and states that refuse to use their limited resources to fuel the Trump administration’s deportation machine is cruel and inhumane.”

ICE said the agency “focuses its enforcement resources on individuals who pose a threat to national security, public safety, and border security.” But officials also said ICE “no longer exempts classes or categories of removable aliens from potential enforcement.”

Among those arrested this week, ICE said in a statement, was a 38-year-old “documented Sureño gang member” with four previous deportations to Mexico and multiple criminal convictions, including for assault with a deadly weapon.

In Bay Point, officials said, officers arrested a man with eight past deportations and a conviction for assault with a deadly weapon, and in Stockton they arrested a man with a conviction for committing lewd acts on a child. ICE did not release a full list of those arrested.

The Northern California sweep began three days after Trump threatened to remove ICE officers from the state, saying, “In two months they’d be begging for us to come back.”

White House Has Given No Orders to Counter Russian Meddling, NSA Chief Says

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said the Department of Homeland Security was working with state and local elections officials to prevent attacks on electoral systems, which were wider than initially thought during the 2016 vote. She also cited a program to provide $40 million to counter Russian and Chinese propaganda, though she failed to mention that the money was delivered to the State Department only after months of delays and withering criticism from Republicans in Congress.

As for Admiral Rogers, “nobody is denying him the authority,” Ms. Sanders said before blaming the Obama administration, noting that the Russian campaign began on its watch.

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

Asked during the earlier hearing whether he had the authority and the ability to disrupt the Russian attacks “where they originate,” Admiral Rogers replied, “I don’t have the day-to-day authority to do that.”

“So you would need, basically, to be directed by the president,” said Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

“Have you been directed to do so?” Mr. Reed added.

“No, I have not,” Admiral Rogers said.

But, Admiral Rogers insisted, he is using the authorities already at his disposal “to begin some specific work.” He would not give details in the open hearing because the work was classified, he said.

Exactly what capabilities the United States has to deter Russian meddling are highly classified and shrouded by layers of secrecy. But the N.S.A. is known to have developed dangerous cyberweapons. A number have leaked out in the past few years, providing hackers with the tools they needed to infect millions of computers around the world, crippling hospitals, factories and businesses.

But Mr. Rogers said on Tuesday that “it’s probably fair to say that we have not opted to engage in some of the same behaviors that we are seeing, if I could just keep it at that.”


Continue reading the main story

Supreme Court Turns Down Trump’s Appeal in ‘Dreamers’ Case

The court’s decision not to hear the appeal could also relieve the immediate political pressure on lawmakers to permanently address the status of those immigrants, or to deal with the additional one million Dreamers who had never signed up for the DACA program. They remain at risk of deportation if immigration agents find them.

Even as he ended the DACA program, Mr. Trump had called upon Congress to give the young immigrants legal status — and an eventual path to citizenship — before the program was scheduled to expire March 5.

But that proposal has been bogged down in partisan gridlock as members of Congress argue about broader changes to the United States’ immigration system that the president and his conservative allies in Congress have demanded as part of any deal to address the future of the young immigrants.

This month, senators failed to reach consensus in a series of votes on bills to address the Dreamers and other immigration issues. A bipartisan coalition in the Senate roundly rejected a measure backed by Mr. Trump that would have all but ended the family-based migration system that has been in place for decades. A separate bipartisan measure that would have legalized the Dreamers and allocated $25 billion for a wall on the border with Mexico fell six votes short of the 60 needed to proceed to a final vote.

Now, the court’s action is likely to lessen the urgency on Capitol Hill over the issue, making it even more probable that Congress will take no action as the legal process plays out.

Graphic

Dreamers’ Fate Is Now Tied to Border Wall and Other G.O.P. Immigration Demands

Lawmakers are working to extend legal protections for undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, but the discussion is complicated by other issues on the table.


As a possible fallback plan after the Senate’s failure this month, lawmakers could negotiate a short-term patch that would continue the DACA program for a few years, perhaps in exchange for partial funding of Mr. Trump’s wall. Such a deal could be tucked into a broad spending bill that lawmakers must approve by March 23, when government funding is set to expire.

But the court’s move could undercut any momentum to push for even a very narrow deal in the next few weeks, and there has been little evidence of progress toward any kind of bipartisan pact that would be acceptable to Mr. Trump. House Republican leaders still appear focused on a hard-line conservative immigration bill that would be a nonstarter in the Senate.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“While the court’s decision appears to have pushed this deadline beyond March, House Republicans are actively working toward a solution,” said AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.

Mr. Trump has repeatedly condemned Democrats in recent days, accusing them of not caring about the young immigrants. In one recent Twitter post, he said Republicans “stand ready to make a deal” to protect the Dreamers from deportation.

But Democrats, and some Republicans, accuse Mr. Trump and his hard-line conservative White House advisers of using the Dreamers as leverage for changes to the immigration system that conservative, anti-immigrant activists have long sought.

The case at the Supreme Court was brought in California by five sets of plaintiffs. They included four states — California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota — and Janet Napolitano, the president of the University of California. As secretary of homeland security in the Obama administration, Ms. Napolitano signed the document that established the program in 2012.

In January, Judge William H. Alsup of the Federal District Court in San Francisco ruled that the administration had abused its discretion and had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in rescinding the program. Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Federal District Court in Brooklyn issued a similar ruling this month.

The judges acknowledged that presidents have broad powers to alter the policies of earlier administrations. But they said the Trump administration’s justifications for rescinding the program did not withstand scrutiny.

The administration had argued that the program was an unconstitutional exercise of authority by the executive branch, relying on a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, concerning a related program. The Supreme Court deadlocked, 4 to 4, in an appeal of that ruling.

The judges said the two programs differed in important ways, undermining the administration’s legal analysis. They noted, too, that Mr. Trump had issued conflicting statements about the DACA program.

Both judges issued nationwide injunctions ordering the administration to retain major elements of the program while the cases moved forward. Such nationwide injunctions from judges in individual cases, which have been used to block executive actions in both the Obama and Trump administrations, have been the subject of much commentary and criticism.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The administration appealed Judge Alsup’s ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, and that court put the appeal on a fast track. In an unusual move, the administration also asked the Supreme Court to grant immediate review, leapfrogging the appeals court.

That procedure, called “certiorari before judgment,” is used rarely, typically in cases involving national crises like President Harry S. Truman’s seizure of the steel industry and President Richard M. Nixon’s refusal to turn over tape recordings to a special prosecutor.

In a statement, the Justice Department said it would continue to make its legal arguments as the case proceeded.

“While we were hopeful for a different outcome, the Supreme Court very rarely grants certiorari before judgment, though in our view, it was warranted for the extraordinary injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to maintain DACA,” said Devin M. O’Malley, a spokesman for the department. “We will continue to defend D.H.S.’s lawful authority to wind down DACA in an orderly manner.”

Lawyers for the challengers expressed satisfaction with Monday’s developments.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court is allowing the normal appellate process to run its course,” said Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., who represents people affected by the program. “DACA is a lawful and important program that protects young people who came to this country as children and who know this country as their only home.”

In a brief urging the Supreme Court to deny review, lawyers for the University of California wrote that “it has been nearly 30 years since the court granted certiorari before judgment without the benefit of a court of appeals ruling on the question presented.”

In a second brief, lawyers for the four states wrote that no national emergency warranted use of the unusual procedure.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

“Since 2012, the DACA program has allowed hundreds of thousands of young people to receive deferred action, work authorization and other benefits,” they wrote. “The district court’s preliminary injunction only partially and temporarily restores the situation that existed prior to petitioners’ abrupt decision to terminate the program — and only for individuals who had already received deferred action under DACA.”

“Petitioners are entitled to a prompt appeal,” the brief said, “but there is no imminent deadline posing a critical threat to the public interest of the sort that might justify bypassing the normal channels for that review.”

In the administration’s brief, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco told the justices that “an ongoing violation of federal law being committed by nearly 700,000 aliens” required the Supreme Court to act. But he did not ask the court to stay Judge Alsup’s injunction while the case moved forward. Mr. Francisco wrote that an immediate stay would interfere with the administration’s goal of an “orderly wind-down” of the program.


Continue reading the main story

Sheriff says he got 23 calls about shooter’s family, but records show more

Washington (CNN)As critics have taken aim at law enforcement for missing warning signs about South Florida school shooter Nikolas Cruz, public records have emerged that conflict with Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel’s statements about the number of times deputies were dispatched to the shooter’s home.

    ‘);$vidEndSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–active’);}};CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;var configObj = {thumb: ‘none’,video: ‘politics/2018/02/22/gun-town-hall-sheriff-call-action-sot.cnn’,width: ‘100%’,height: ‘100%’,section: ‘domestic’,profile: ‘expansion’,network: ‘cnn’,markupId: ‘body-text_6’,adsection: ‘const-article-inpage’,frameWidth: ‘100%’,frameHeight: ‘100%’,posterImageOverride: {“mini”:{“width”:220,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221235051-town-hall-israel-nra-dana-loesch-small-169.jpg”,”height”:124},”xsmall”:{“width”:307,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221235051-town-hall-israel-nra-dana-loesch-medium-plus-169.jpg”,”height”:173},”small”:{“width”:460,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221235051-town-hall-israel-nra-dana-loesch-large-169.jpg”,”height”:259},”medium”:{“width”:780,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221235051-town-hall-israel-nra-dana-loesch-exlarge-169.jpg”,”height”:438},”large”:{“width”:1100,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221235051-town-hall-israel-nra-dana-loesch-super-169.jpg”,”height”:619},”full16x9″:{“width”:1600,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221235051-town-hall-israel-nra-dana-loesch-full-169.jpg”,”height”:900},”mini1x1″:{“width”:120,”type”:”jpg”,”uri”:”//cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180221235051-town-hall-israel-nra-dana-loesch-small-11.jpg”,”height”:120}}},autoStartVideo = false,isVideoReplayClicked = false,callbackObj,containerEl,currentVideoCollection = [],currentVideoCollectionId = ”,isLivePlayer = false,moveToNextTimeout,mutePlayerEnabled = false,nextVideoId = ”,nextVideoUrl = ”,turnOnFlashMessaging = false,videoPinner,videoEndSlateImpl;if (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === false) {autoStartVideo = false;if (autoStartVideo === true) {if (turnOnFlashMessaging === true) {autoStartVideo = false;containerEl = jQuery(document.getElementById(configObj.markupId));CNN.VideoPlayer.showFlashSlate(containerEl);} else {CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = true;}}}configObj.autostart = autoStartVideo;CNN.VideoPlayer.setPlayerProperties(configObj.markupId, autoStartVideo, isLivePlayer, isVideoReplayClicked, mutePlayerEnabled);CNN.VideoPlayer.setFirstVideoInCollection(currentVideoCollection, configObj.markupId);videoEndSlateImpl = new CNN.VideoEndSlate(‘body-text_6’);/*** Finds the next video ID and URL in the current collection, if available.* @param currentVideoId The video that is currently playing* @param containerId The parent container Id of the video element*/function findNextVideo(currentVideoId) {var i,vidObj;if (currentVideoId jQuery.isArray(currentVideoCollection) currentVideoCollection.length 0) {for (i = 0; i 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.showEndSlateForContainer();}}}callbackObj = {onPlayerReady: function (containerId) {CNN.VideoPlayer.reportLoadTime(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.handleInitialExpandableVideoState(containerId);CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, CNN.pageVis.isDocumentVisible());if (Modernizr !Modernizr.phone !Modernizr.mobile !Modernizr.tablet) {var containerClassId = ‘#’ + containerId;if (jQuery(containerClassId).parents(‘.js-pg-rail-tall__head’).length) {videoPinner = new CNN.VideoPinner(containerClassId);videoPinner.init();} else {CNN.VideoPlayer.hideThumbnail(containerId);}}},/** Listen to the metadata event which fires right after the ad ends and the actual video playback begins*/onContentEntryLoad: function(containerId, playerId, contentid, isQueue) {CNN.VideoPlayer.showSpinner(containerId);},onContentMetadata: function (containerId, playerId, metadata, contentId, duration, width, height) {var endSlateLen = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find(‘.js-video__end-slate’).eq(0).length;CNN.VideoSourceUtils.updateSource(containerId, metadata);if (endSlateLen 0) {videoEndSlateImpl.fetchAndShowRecommendedVideos(metadata);}},onAdPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, token, mode, id, duration, blockId, adType) {clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (Modernizr !Modernizr.phone !Modernizr.mobile !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onTrackingFullscreen: function (containerId, PlayerId, dataObj) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleFullscreenChange(containerId, dataObj);},onContentPlay: function (containerId, cvpId, event) {var playerInstance,prevVideoId;/** When the video content starts playing, inject analytics data* for Aspen (if enabled) and the companion ad layout* (if it was set when the ad played) should switch back to* epic ad layout. onContentPlay calls updateCompanionLayout* with the ‘restoreEpicAds’ layout to make this switch*/if (CNN.companion typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘restoreEpicAds’);}clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);if (CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibraryName(containerId) === ‘fave’) {playerInstance = FAVE.player.getInstance(containerId) || null;} else {playerInstance = containerId window.cnnVideoManager.getPlayerByContainer(containerId).videoInstance.cvp || null;}prevVideoId = (window.jsmd window.jsmd.v (window.jsmd.v.eVar18 || window.jsmd.v.eVar4)) || ”;if (playerInstance typeof playerInstance.reportAnalytics === ‘function’) {if (prevVideoId.length === 0 document.referrer document.referrer.search(//videos//) = 0) {prevVideoId = document.referrer.replace(/^(?:http|https)://[^/]/videos/(.+.w+)(?:/video/playlists/.*)?$/, ‘/video/$1’);if (prevVideoId === document.referrer) {prevVideoId = ”;}}playerInstance.reportAnalytics(‘videoPageData’, {videoCollection: currentVideoCollectionId,videoBranding: CNN.omniture.branding_content_page,templateType: CNN.omniture.template_type,nextVideo: nextVideoId,previousVideo: prevVideoId,referrerType: ”,referrerUrl: document.referrer});}if (Modernizr !Modernizr.phone !Modernizr.mobile !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);videoPinner.animateDown();}}},onContentReplayRequest: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr !Modernizr.phone !Modernizr.mobile !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(true);var $endSlate = jQuery(document.getElementById(containerId)).parent().find(‘.js-video__end-slate’).eq(0);if ($endSlate.length 0) {$endSlate.removeClass(‘video__end-slate–active’).addClass(‘video__end-slate–inactive’);}}}},onContentBegin: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {CNN.VideoPlayer.mutePlayer(containerId);if (CNN.companion typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘removeEpicAds’);}CNN.VideoPlayer.hideSpinner(containerId);clearTimeout(moveToNextTimeout);CNN.VideoSourceUtils.clearSource(containerId);jQuery(document).triggerVideoContentStarted();},onContentComplete: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (CNN.companion typeof CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout === ‘function’) {CNN.companion.updateCompanionLayout(‘restoreFreewheel’);}navigateToNextVideo(contentId, containerId);},onContentEnd: function (containerId, cvpId, contentId) {if (Modernizr !Modernizr.phone !Modernizr.mobile !Modernizr.tablet) {if (typeof videoPinner !== ‘undefined’ videoPinner !== null) {videoPinner.setIsPlaying(false);}}},onCVPVisibilityChange: function (containerId, cvpId, visible) {CNN.VideoPlayer.handleAdOnCVPVisibilityChange(containerId, visible);}};if (typeof configObj.context !== ‘string’ || configObj.context.length 0) {configObj.adsection = window.ssid;}CNN.autoPlayVideoExist = (CNN.autoPlayVideoExist === true) ? true : false;CNN.VideoPlayer.getLibrary(configObj, callbackObj, isLivePlayer);});/* videodemanddust is a default feature of the injector */CNN.INJECTOR.scriptComplete(‘videodemanddust’);MUST WATCH