Category Archives: Latest News

Georgetown Law students and faculty protest speech by Attorney General Jeff Sessions

Dozens of Georgetown University students gathered Tuesday on the steps of McDonough Hall to protest an address from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that lambasted schools for infringing on students’ free-speech rights.

The students were joined by faculty members who initially took a knee and later linked arms.

They took turns speaking into a bullhorn, decrying Sessions, the process the university used to bring him to campus and posing questions they would have asked the attorney general had they been allowed into the event.

“We, the disinvited, find it extraordinarily hypocritical that AG Sessions would lecture future attorneys about free speech on campus while excluding the wider student body,” third-year law student Ambur Smith said into the bullhorn.

Some of the roughly 100 protesters who gathered outside at Georgetown’s law school wore duct tape over their mouths. They held signs that proclaimed, “DEPORT HATE,” FREE SPEECH IS NOT HATE SPEECH,” and “Sessions is afraid of questions.”

Georgetown law professor Heidi Li Feldman was one of about 40 faculty and staff members who joined students on the steps of McDonough Hall.

“A law school is a place for people to learn about the deepest principles that undergird our democratic republic. Those principles are trampled upon by Attorney General sessions, in particular, and Donald Trump,” she said. “You cannot invite people who so thoroughly threaten the basic premises of American law to a campus and not speak up if your mission in life is to educate people about the American legal system.”

Third-year law student Imani Waweru cited President Trump’s criticism of NFL players and other actions by the White House in asserting that the administration  “has fallen short in a lot of areas about understanding what free speech entails.”

“We just firmly believe that this administration does not demonstrate that they have a full understanding of free speech,” Waweru said.

By 12:20 p.m., the crowd of demonstrators had thinned to about half its earlier size.

Inside the hall where Sessions spoke, a line of attendees sitting near the back stood up as the attorney general concluded his address. The group sat back down, and had tape over their mouths.

Greyson Wallis, a Georgetown law student from Bradenton, Fla., was among those who demonstrated up after Sessions delivered his remarks. She said that though Sessions is a controversial figure, that wasn’t the main reason for the protest. Wallis, 24, said Georgetown students signed up for the event, but were then told via email their invitations had been rescinded.

“It seemed like they were rescinding those invites because they didn’t want any sort of hostile environment, and I can understand not wanting to have a violent environment, but that’s not at all what we were trying to do,” Wallis said. “We’re law students. We all just wanted to hear what he had to say and let him know where we differ from his opinions.”

Wallis, who wore a black toque that read “nasty woman,” said she felt Sessions gave a speech to an “echo chamber,” a group of people who agree with his policies and stances.

“This was at no point at risk of turning into Berkeley in any manner,” she said, referring to violent protests earlier this year in the California city. “But people wanted to be here and hear what he had to say. Unfortunately, his message of opening yourself up to the other side isn’t going to reach the people that he wants it to reach. Because they weren’t allowed to be in here today.”

Joshua Spielman, 29, a Georgetown law student in the audience, said he agreed with what Sessions told the crowd Tuesday, and said he felt it was important for the university to “uphold the values of allowing all speech.”

“I find that there are students who believe themselves to be in the ideological majority without understanding that there may be students who want to hear a free flow of ideas,” he said. “But that doesn’t necessarily mean they agree with everything that the administration has to say. And I think it’s important as a university for us to ensure that all ideas are heard. Because if you don’t hear all ideas, then correctly, as the attorney general said, you can’t possibly formulate your own.”

Spielman, of Teaneck, N.J, said he would be considered a “more conservative” student on campus, then added: “but that doesn’t mean I’m a conservative.”

“There may be policies within the Trump administration that I agree with, that doesn’t mean I condone the president’s behavior and the way he seeks to vocalize his opinions or the administration’s stances,” he said. “That doesn’t mean there aren’t components of his administration’s polices that I don’t agree with. But what I find to be a major problem to be on campus, here and around the country, is that if you express any semblance of agreement with any variation or even piece or kernel of any of those policies, you’re immediately labeled as someone who is on the poles of one side or another.”

The attorney general’s address on free speech at the Georgetown’s Law Center sparked a variety of responses in advance from students and faculty members.

Some welcomed the opportunity to hear from the top law-enforcement officer and top lawyer in the U.S. government. But others objected to the late notice and limited audience for such a high-profile speaker, and argued that was antithetical to the idea of free speech and an open exchange of ideas.

Sessions, who has sparked controversy over immigration, race and other issues, planned to talk about free speech on college campuses. It’s a fraught topic nationally, with many conservatives saying that only liberal viewpoints are welcome on many college campuses, stifling free exchange and overly sensitive students finding alternative viewpoints too offensive to hear.

On Monday, some students said they got messages informing them they would not be allowed to attend the event, as they were not included on the invitation list drawn up by the Georgetown Center for the Constitution at Georgetown Law, which is hosting Sessions.

More than 130 students who had followed official channels to register for a seat in the auditorium were told they could attend, Lauren Phillips, a student at the school, wrote in an email Monday night. But the students were later suddenly uninvited because they were not part of a group that, Phillips believes, would ensure a sympathetic audience.

She said those students “find it extraordinarily hypocritical that AG Sessions would lecture future attorneys about the importance of free speech on campus while actively excluding the wider student body,” and that school officials had told students they could voice their objections only within a designated “free speech zone” which she said was a tiny, isolated corner of the campus. “We hope in the future that the university will truly uphold the principles of free speech, including the right to dissent.”

Tanya Weinberg, a spokeswoman for Georgetown’s law school, disputed the notion of a free speech zone.

“Free speech is protected for students on campus; there is no particular zone,” Weinberg said. “At events like today’s, we designate protest areas to allow free expression on campus in a manner that upholds safety and security and minimizes potential disruptions to learning.  Additionally, students in the auditorium were allowed to protest in a way that did not disrupt the event.”

Sessions spoke at a university that publicly objected earlier this month to the Trump administration’s move to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and includes several faculty members who are high-profile opponents of administration policies such as Neal Katyal, one of the lawyers challenging the travel ban.

Several students said they would have liked to have had the opportunity to ask questions about administration policies — especially about the topic of free speech.

It’s ironic, said Spencer McManus, a third-year student from California, “that this attorney general is coming to our campus to tell us to exercise our constitutional rights, when he and the president have repeatedly condemned those who have exercised those rights. … We want people to understand what the First Amendment means.”

Over the weekend, President Trump condemned NFL players who sat out or took a knee during the national anthem before games in protest, saying they should be fired.

After unexpectedly violent protests forced the shutdown of a speech by provocative writer Milo Yiannopoulos at the University of California at Berkeley in February, Trump suggested that federal funding should be withheld if a state flagship school couldn’t tolerate free speech.

Berkeley has been the most visible flash point, but similar philosophical fights have played out at many other campuses as well.

Many people are critical of the idea of campuses giving students “safe spaces” and “trigger warnings” to protect them from ideas that they find offensive or upsetting.

“Holding an event that creates a safe space for the attorney general — and such a safe space that you don’t even invite people who commit to not disrupt the event while it’s ongoing — demonstrates a certain amount of hypocrisy,” said Heidi Li Feldman, a professor at the law school who said she had been denied permission to attend.

“To invite somebody who purports to be an authority  on free speech who so profoundly misunderstands the theories and law of free speech in our country … is laughable,” she said.

Some faculty members issued a statement Monday night, saying they acknowledge his right to speak on campus but “condemn the hypocrisy of Attorney General Sessions speaking about free speech.”

Feldman said some professors would protest — not by blocking or disrupting the event, but by expressing their opinions.

Richard Hand, a third-year student, said: “In law school, I’ve learned the most from my colleagues who have different opinions than me. I’ve also seen that people can disagree without disrespecting or insulting each other. I’m sure the attorney general and president would be welcome to sit in on a class.”

Some objected to Sessions himself, and his views.

“No fascists on campus,” a student wrote in an online forum planning protests. “A university that claims to care about the travel ban and DACA rescindment shouldn’t invite the man who defended both. Bring any signs and banners you can …”

Some objected only to the way the audience was drawn up.

The event was hosted by a center at the school, and they handled the invitations, according to a law school spokeswoman.

The invitations were issued in the same way they typically are, Tanya Weinberg said, without an attempt to assure an ideologically sympathetic crowd. Given limited capacity, she said, the school’s policy has held that the hosting organization determines the guest list. In this case, the Center for the Constitution decided to invite students who have attended past events held by the center, and Barnett invited students from his classes.

Scholars at the center are invited, she said, along with some “personal/VIP” guests invited by the center and the Justice Department.

Some students expressed dismay that their own invitations seemed to be revoked as the day went on, with many sharing a message they had received: “You RSVP’d earlier today to an invitation to hear Attorney General Jeff Sessions, sponsored by the Center for the Constitution. Regrettably, the email you subsequently received indicating you have a seat for the event was in error. Our records indicate that you were not part of the Center’s student invitation list, which includes student fellows of the Center (students who signed up to attend events sponsored by the Center) and students enrolled in the classes taught this semester by the Center’s Director, Professor Randy Barnett. As stated in the initial invitation email, the invitation was non-transferable and intended only for the individual to whom it was sent. Unfortunately, we will not be able to offer you a seat for the event.

“We regret any inconvenience.”

Phillips, who said she was one of the students who received such a message, said that if they had been allowed to attend, they would have asked questions about the Trump administration’s policies on criminal justice. She also wanted answers on why the issue of private citizens protesting during the national anthem before NFL games seemed to demand more of Trump’s attention recently than other pressing issues, and why the Trump administration seems more critical of student demonstrations on campus than white-supremacist rallies.

She said they would gather outside before the speech, bringing their questions for Sessions.

Statement by some faculty members:

Acting DEA chief Chuck Rosenberg to step down; Rick Fuentes under consideration

WASHINGTON – Acting Drug Enforcement Administration chief Chuck Rosenberg, appointed two years ago to bring stability to an agency riven by controversy, announced late Tuesday that he was stepping down, effective Oct. 1.

Rosenberg, a long-time Justice Department official who also served as a two-time U.S. attorney and a chief of staff to former FBI Director James Comey, was appointed slightly more than two years following a series of scandals that forced the ouster of embattled administrator Michele Leonhart.

“Almost two and half years ago, I wrote to express how grateful I was to join the DEA…to see up close your amazing work,” Rosenberg wrote in a message to staffers. “I was proud to support your unique and vital mission and to tout your accomplishments everywhere I went. Now, during my last week, I write to thank you for your courage, integrity and devotion.”

A holdover from the Obama administration, Rosenberg’s departure was not unexpected. Rosenberg worked closely with Comey, the FBI director Trump abruptly fired in May. Rosenberg also once served as a counselor to former FBI Director Robert Mueller, who is now the special counsel directing the investigation into Russia’s intervention in the 2016 election.

As the Trump administration ramps up its response to the opioid crisis and formulates a harder line policy on marijuana, it has been considering a slate of other potential nominees to fill the top DEA slot, including New Jersey State Police Superintendent Rick Fuentes.

Fuentes has discussed the job with top Justice officials, according to two people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. 

A career New Jersey law enforcement official, Fuentes was appointed to lead the state police in 2003 and is the state’s longest serving superintendent.

His candidacy also is supported by the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest police union.

“Col. Fuentes is the consummate cop’s cop,” FOP President Chuck Canterbury wrote in a July 7 letter to President Trump, urging the superintendent’s consideration. “He has earned the respect of his officers and local law enforcement officers throughout the state, as well as his federal counterparts.”

Fuentes declined to comment.

Before Rosenberg’s appointment by then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch, the DEA had been reeling from a series of scandals under Leonhart, who retired in wake of an internal Justice investigation found that agents participated in sex parties with prostitutes supplied by drug cartels in Colombia.

Saudi Arabia Resists Independent Inquiry on Yemen Atrocities

The Yemen conflict, which began in 2014, has killed thousands, devastated the water and public health systems, left 700,000 people infected with cholera and seven million at risk of famine.

Photo

A man carried a young girl who was rescued from the site of a Saudi-led airstrike that killed eight of her family members last month in Sana.

Credit
Khaled Abdullah/Reuters

Human rights groups have documented a trail of international law violations on both sides of the conflict. The United Nations has repeatedly complained of a lack of access in the country, including for the delivery of lifesaving aid.

The latest United Nations human rights report, released in early September, found that Saudi-led coalition airstrikes continued to be the “leading cause” of civilian deaths, including child deaths.

The draft resolution, seen by The New York Times, encourages the Yemen national human rights body to cooperate with the United Nations human rights office and seeks to establish a three-member commission of inquiry. That panel, according to the draft, would “carry out comprehensive investigations into all alleged violations and abuses of human rights and violations of international law by all parties to the conflict in Yemen since September 2014.”

Newsletter Sign Up

Continue reading the main story

It is sponsored by Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.

The Saudi ambassador to the United Nations, Abdallah Y. al-Mouallimi, called the draft resolution “premature.”

He said the United Nations should instead help Yemen’s national authorities carry out their own investigations. Saudi Arabia had circulated its own resolution proposing that approach and said it hoped “a reasonable outcome” would be reached.

Asked if the Saudis would retaliate economically against those countries pushing a commission of inquiry, the Saudi ambassador offered a nuanced response.

“We don’t link these issues with commercial considerations,” Mr. Mouallimi said, “but I think all the countries recognize we have presented a reasonable proposal and that trying to take alternative action would not be considered a friendly gesture.”

Ravina Shamdasani, a spokeswoman for The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, said in an email that Yemen’s national commission lacked access to Houthi-controlled areas and “cannot do its work impartially,” noting that it received funds from Saudi Arabia.

Continue reading the main story

Trump has picked fights over the flag before. But this time was different.

As a businessman, Donald Trump erected unauthorized flagpoles on his properties to embarrass local officials who were trying to uphold zoning ordinances. As a presidential candidate, he told the first football player who sat in protest during the national anthem to “find another country.” And as president-elect, he attempted unsuccessfully to revive the decades-old debate about the constitutionality of flag burning, after a single incident at a small college in Massachusetts.

So when he decided, out of the blue, to attack the National Football League over its players’ protests during the national anthem, the resulting controversy followed a well-worn formula. What was different, however, was the enormous backlash that his comments created — far larger than any of those previous incidents combined.

Trump attacked an enormously popular sport whose fans prefer it to be a politics-free arena, while once again touching on the raw nerve of race. In so doing, the president proved anew that divisive provocations can mean something completely different when they come not from a private citizen, but the man whose very job description is to lead the country.

“Most presidents believe that a big part of their job is to keep the country together,” said Michael Beschloss, a presidential historian, who noted that even Richard M. Nixon spoke of bringing the nation together during his 1969 inauguration. “There is very little sign that Donald Trump has much of an idea that unifying this country has much to do with being president. He just hasn’t shown it.”

Trump credits his ability to see and exploit cracks in American society as the key to his political success. During the campaign, he praised his gut instinct in latching onto fears about Muslim refugees and Hispanic immigration as the key to his victory in the Republican primary, comparing it to his ability to predict successful real estate investments.

“I understand people,” he said before another rally in Alabama in 2015. “I’ve made a lot of money because of people, because deals aren’t anything other than people.”

But those same instincts may be tripping him up as president. While it’s not clear what the ultimate effect of sticking to old habits will be for his presidency, his rejection of the unifying traditions of the White House has already had a clearly negative effect on his political support. A recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 66 percent of Americans say Trump has done more to divide the country than unite it, up from 49 percent in the same poll shortly after the election in November. The new poll, which was conducted Sept. 18 to 21, before the NFL controversy, found that 57 percent of the country disapproves of his job performance.

Trump started the latest controversy Friday by using a crude epithet to describe football players who kneel in protest on the field during the national anthem. The comments echoed far beyond political circles, effectively unifying the most popular sports league in the country against him. Players linked arms in defiance, the number kneeling during the anthem skyrocketed, 30 of the 32 team owners released statements calling for unity, and millions tuned in to watch an array of sportscasters and athletes offer public condemnations of the president’s position.

“I would say he should apologize,” NBC color commentator Chris Collinsworth said before “Sunday Night Football,” the top-rated show on broadcast television. “They’re not SOBs. They’re smart, thoughtful guys.”

Trump seemed initially to welcome the attention on Sunday, retweeting posts from those who supported his position and escalating his campaign with the retweeted hashtags #StandForOurAnthem and #BoycottNFL. But he also showed signs of discomfort at the resulting firestorm, telling reporters later in the day that he was not calling on supporters to boycott the NFL. “They can do whatever they want,” he said.

He argued, in a separate tweet, that players who locked arms during the anthem were doing something “good,” even though those same players said they were demonstrating their unity against the president’s statements. And he returned to his habit of rebroadcasting, and exaggerating, the support he has received for his position.

“There was tremendous solidarity for our flag and for our country,” he told reporters about Sunday’s football games, which featured more protests during the anthem than ever before.

The White House on Monday sought to soften the president’s controversial comments.

“Celebrating and promoting patriotism in our country is something that should bring everybody together,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “This isn’t about the president being against something. This is about the president being for something.”

Trump’s political strategy appears to be following the logic of other national firestorms he has prompted: take a stand for a position that brings into clear relief the divide between himself and those who he describes as unpatriotic elites. He uses the controversy to dominate the news cycle, position himself as a strong leader and demonstrate that he is fighting for regular working Americans nostalgic for an earlier time in the country’s history.

At a campaign rally for Sen. Luther Strange (R) on Friday in Huntsville, Ala., Trump previewed the gains he foresaw by denouncing players who voiced political opinions on the field. The first owner who bans players from protesting on the field “will be the most popular person in this country,” he suggested, giving political advice that only he has taken so far.

Trump’s longtime instincts tend to come to the fore when he is looking to distract from other issues. Shortly after his attorney general recused himself from the Russia investigation, Trump decided to rattle the government with a false claim that President Barack Obama had wiretapped Trump Tower during the 2016 presidential campaign. The most recent attack on the NFL came as he stares down two potential blows to his presidency this week, the likely failure of another Senate plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act and a special primary election in Alabama, where his chosen candidate, Strange, continues to trail in the polls.

There is little question that fights over the flag helped Trump when he was a private citizen and then as a candidate. On his golf courses, he has used flags — typically giant ones on poles as tall as eight stories — as a way of shaming local authorities with whom he has tangled over other issues. He put up one on a California course, refusing to pay the required permitting fee, and another at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Fla., in clear violation of local rules. In both cases, he publicly argued that local officials were unpatriotic, even though they were only following regulations. “The town council of Palm Beach should be ashamed of itself. They’re fining me for putting up an American flag,” Trump fumed to the news media.

“It was a huge win for him when he took on the town of Palm Beach with the flag,” said Christopher Ruddy, a friend of Trump who is a member of his club at Mar-a-Lago. “It was a win because it got a lot of attention.” In the end, Trump settled with the community, agreeing to make a donation to charity in lieu of a fine, and to reposition the flag on a slightly smaller pole. In California, the local city council eventually granted retroactive approval for his golf course flag.

During his presidential campaign, he repeatedly used respect for the flag as a stand-in for his own connection to his supporters, mocking those who disrespected it as un-American elites. “Total disrespect for the American flag,” Trump said at a Greensboro, N.C., rally in October, after a protester held up a flag upside down and began shouting. “That’s what’s happening to our country.”

A few weeks earlier, when Colin Kaepernick, then a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers decided to sit for the national anthem before games in protest of racial inequality, Trump had a quick rejoinder. “I think it’s a terrible thing,” he said.

Those comments were quickly forgotten in the quick-moving presidential campaign. But Trump returned to them weeks after his election, when a flag at Hampshire College in Amherst, Mass., was burned by an unknown vandal as it hung on a campus pole. Trump’s response was to propose new consequences for a form of protest that the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 is protected under the Constitution.

“Perhaps a loss of citizenship or a year in jail!” the president-elect tweeted.

The crusade never caught on, and it quickly faded from public attention. Seven-and-a-half weeks later, Trump was sworn in as the 45th president.

Alejandro Villanueva sorry for making Steelers look bad by standing alone

8:50 PM ET

PITTSBURGH — Steelers left tackle Alejandro Villanueva blames himself for the image of him standing apart from teammates during Sunday’s national anthem, saying he unintentionally separated himself in the moments leading up to the anthem.

“When everybody sees the image of me by myself, everybody thinks the team, the Steelers, are not behind me, and that’s absolutely wrong. I made Coach [Mike] Tomlin look bad, and that is my fault and my fault only. I made my teammates look bad, and that is my fault and my fault only.”

Alejandro Villanueva

The Steelers decided to stay in the Soldier Field tunnel during the anthem before Sunday’s loss against the Chicago Bears in response to comments made by President Donald Trump about anthem protests by NFL players.

Feeling the need to see the flag during the anthem, Villanueva, a former Army Ranger who toured several times in Afghanistan, asked quarterback Ben Roethlisberger if he could stand in front of the tunnel to get a vantage point. Roethlisberger agreed, and Villanueva ventured out while trying to gauge where the flag was. He contemplated turning back, but the anthem had already started at that point. Only the team captains — Roethlisberger and defensive end Cam Heyward — knew about this last-second arrangement.

“When everybody sees the image of me by myself, everybody thinks the team, the Steelers, are not behind me, and that’s absolutely wrong,” Villanueva said. “I made Coach [Mike] Tomlin look bad, and that is my fault and my fault only. I made my teammates look bad, and that is my fault and my fault only.”

Villanueva got positioned for the anthem’s start at 12:57 p.m. ET, and then turned around to “signal everybody else to come in so they wouldn’t leave me alone,” he said. But Villanueva said someone carrying a flag from a previous celebration was passing by the tunnel, and the players were unable to exit. Walking back to his teammates “would have looked extremely bad,” Villanueva said.

Villanueva called the “national anthem ordeal … out of control” because of the way it portrayed him as an outcast and the team as not supporting the anthem. Villanueva said he understands why teammates would be frustrated with him. ESPN reported that many Steelers were surprised and confused by Villanueva’s isolation since he had said in Saturday’s players-only meeting he didn’t want to bring attention to himself.

“I see that picture of me standing by myself and I’m embarrassed to a degree, because intentionally I left my teammates behind,” Villanueva said. “It wasn’t me stepping forward. I never planned to boycott. … At the end of the day, whether I want it or not, whether it was my intended plan or not, the reason I went out there by myself is the reason it’s causing all this distress.”

Big Ben regrets how Steelers showed unity

The Steelers’ decision to remain in the tunnel during the playing of the national anthem weighed on quarterback Ben Roethlisberger, who wrote on his website that he wishes the team handled its show of unity differently.

Villanueva will not stop standing for the anthem, and he said his teammates wanted to stand as well. Roethlisberger and Heyward said the team will be on the sideline during future anthem presentations.

“People die for the flag. There’s no way else to put it,” Villanueva said. “I wish I could stay at home. I wish we could all play ‘Call of Duty’ and not have to go to war. But some men, some women sign up for this tough challenge and they have to do it for the flag. When I see a flag on the mission on the shoulder of a soldier, that reminds me that the guy’s with me. … That’s what the flag means to me, that’s what the flag means to a lot of veterans. I think my teammates respected this thoroughly; it was just not communicated and the plan did not allow them the chance to go out and support me.”

Villanueva’s place in the spotlight helped him learn more about a divisive issue that he believes shouldn’t be divisive. People should realize taking a knee is not a direct protest of the flag or the anthem, said Villanueva, one of the first critics of Colin Kaepernick’s method of protest.

“I’ve learned that I don’t know what it’s like to be from Dade County, I don’t know what it’s like to be from Oakland,” Villanueva said. “I can’t tell you I know what my teammates have gone through, so I’m not going to pretend like I have the righteous sort of voice to tell you that you should stand up for the national anthem. It’s protected by our constitution and our country. It’s the freedom of speech. People felt, based on the comments the president made, they had to go out and protect and support Colin Kaepernick, and that’s completely in their right. But it was not something we were trying to do with the Steelers. We were trying to be unified.”

At Least 6 White House Advisers Used Private Email Accounts

During the 2016 presidential race, Mr. Trump repeatedly harped on Hillary Clinton’s use of a private account as secretary of state, making it a centerpiece of his campaign and using it to paint her as untrustworthy. “We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office,” Mr. Trump said last year. His campaign rallies often boiled over with chants of “Lock her up!”

The F.B.I. closed its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information and recommended no charges. But even after becoming president, Mr. Trump has prodded the Justice Department to reinvestigate.

While the private email accounts spurred accusations of hypocrisy from Democrats, there are differences. Mrs. Clinton stored classified information on a private server, and she exclusively used a private account for her government work, sending or receiving tens of thousands of emails. The content and frequency of the Trump advisers’ emails remain unknown, but Trump administration officials described the use of personal accounts as sporadic. The emails have not been made public.

“All White House personnel have been instructed to use official email to conduct all government related work,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, said Monday in response to questions about the emails. “They are further instructed that if they receive work-related communication on personal accounts, they should be forwarded to official email accounts.”

The acknowledgment of private email use came as the White House is responding to a wide-ranging Justice Department request for documents and emails as part of the special counsel investigation into Russian election meddling. The use of private emails has the potential to complicate that effort, but the White House said it was confident in its process.

“I am dealing with honorable professionals and getting what I need,” said Ty Cobb, the White House lawyer leading the response to the investigation. “I am doing all I can to ensure the special counsel receives the materials they request.”

It is not clear why even sporadic use continued after a campaign in which email habits became a source of controversy. A former administration official noted, though, that in many cases, people received emails to their personal accounts. In some instances, officials used their private accounts to talk with reporters.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

Most of Mr. Trump’s aides used popular commercial email services like Gmail. Mr. Kushner created a domain, IJKFamily.com, in December to host his family’s personal email. That domain was hosted by GoDaddy on a server in Arizona, records show.

Mr. Priebus and Mr. Bannon did not respond to messages seeking comment. A person close to Mr. Bannon insisted he almost never used his private email for work purposes. A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a question for comment about the current officials.

James Norton, a former senior homeland security official during the George W. Bush administration, said private accounts pose security risks — a criticism often raised against Mrs. Clinton.

“These private email accounts become targets of phishing attacks or other types of ways of collecting information,” he said. “It’s an issue not only for the person who owns that account, but the person who is receiving the emails. It is introducing risk into the system.”

Richard W. Painter, a chief White House ethics lawyer under Mr. Bush who is now the vice chairman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, said that there is often a “gray area” over what is considered official business. But, he said, “If it has anything to do with the president’s policy, including defending the president’s policy to the press, it’s very difficult to escape that being official.”

“I think Kushner was sloppy to do this,” he said. “I think Hillary was sloppy. I don’t think any of it was criminal.”

The special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is leading the investigation into Russian interference in the presidential election and whether anyone around Mr. Trump was involved. Mr. Mueller’s team has the power to subpoena a company to turn over customer emails.

White House officials hope it does not come to that. They have been hurrying to provide Mr. Mueller with the documents he has asked for. Mr. Cobb has described it as “full cooperation mode.” He has reminded White House aides to search their private accounts for records to give to Mr. Mueller.

Advertisement

Continue reading the main story

The White House views such cooperation as its best chance to escape the glare of a special counsel investigation that also touches on Mr. Trump’s actions as president.

The private email accounts immediately triggered questions in Congress. Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, who was among those who most vociferously criticized Mrs. Clinton’s email use, sent a letter to the White House and federal agencies asking about the Trump administration’s personal email use.

Representative Elijah E. Cummings, the senior Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, asked the White House to make sure that none of Mr. Kushner’s emails are deleted.

“Before requesting copies or calling for the public release of all official emails you sent or received on your personal email account,” Mr. Cummings wrote, “I first request that you preserve all official records and copies of records in your custody or control and that you provide the information requested below.”

“Your actions in response to the preservation request and the information you provide in response to this letter will help determine the next steps in this investigation,” he added.

Mr. Cummings noted that Trump administration officials had previously said that senior White House officials did not use multiple email accounts. And he reminded the White House about the grilling that Mrs. Clinton received from congressional Republicans over her email practices.

Both political parties have fought for years over the use of private email accounts. Long before Mrs. Clinton’s emails were a campaign issue, Democrats criticized members of the George W. Bush administration for the practice.

Matt Apuzzo reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York. Sharon Lafraniere contributed reporting from Washington.


Continue reading the main story

Steelers, Seahawks, Titans remain in locker room during national anthem

6:30 PM ET

CHICAGO — In a sign of solidarity, the Pittsburgh Steelers stayed in the locker room during the national anthem before their 1 p.m. ET kickoff with the Chicago Bears.

Players for the Seattle Seahawks and Tennessee Titans did the same before their 4 p.m. ET kickoff.

An NFL official told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter that no fines are being considered for those players who stayed in the locker room during the anthem.

Locked arms, kneeling dominate NFL anthems

It started early Sunday in London and continued throughout the NFL as players, coaches and even owners locked arms or knelt during the national anthem.

  • DE Wolfe on protests: Worse places than U.S.

    Broncos defensive end Derek Wolfe told ESPN’s Josina Anderson that he believes it’s “disrespectful” to Americans who have lost their lives in battle to protest during the national anthem.

  • Petty, Childress: Protests carry consequences

    NASCAR team owners Richard Childress and Richard Petty hinted that anybody working for them who protested the national anthem would face serious consequences.

  • As the anthem began in Soldier Field, several Steelers coaches were on the sideline, including head coach Mike Tomlin, while the players were not present. Offensive coordinator Todd Haley, offensive line coach Mike Munchak and running backs coach James Saxon also were spotted.

    Players took the field within a few seconds of the anthem’s end, just after fireworks launched; quarterback Ben Roethlisberger was one of the first players out of the tunnel. Left tackle Alejandro Villanueva, an Army Ranger who served in Afghanistan, was seen on the CBS broadcast at the edge of the tunnel during the anthem, hand over heart.

    In Nashville, the Seahawks and Titans both issued statements saying their players were united in their actions.

    “As a team, we have decided we will not participate in the national anthem,” the Seahawks’ statement said. “We will not stand for the injustice that has plagued people of color in this country. Out of love for our country and in honor of the sacrifices made on our behalf, we unite to oppose those that would deny our most basic freedoms. We remain committed in continuing to work towards equality and justice for all.”

    Seahawks general manager John Schneider said in a pregame radio interview that coach Pete Carroll met with a few players individually Saturday, prior to a “pretty emotional” meeting by the entire team later that night.

    The Seahawks walked onto the field after the anthem with players locking arms.

    “We’re just staying together,” Carroll said in a pregame radio interview. “This is a day that we all want to make sure that we’re together and celebrating the opportunity to play this game together in the best way we can possible.”

    The Titans took a similar approach with their statement.

    “As a team, we wanted to be unified in our actions today. The players jointly decided this was the best course of action. Our commitment to the military and our community is resolute and the absence of our team for the national anthem shouldn’t be misconstrued as unpatriotic.”

    Steelers coach told CBS’ Jamie Erdahl before the game that the team wanted to “remove ourselves from the circumstance” and means no disrespect.

    “We’re not going to play politics,” Tomlin said. “We’re football players, we’re football coaches. We’re not participating in the anthem today — not to be disrespectful to the anthem, but to remove ourselves from the circumstance.

    “People shouldn’t have to choose. If a guy wants to go about his normal business and participate in the anthem, he shouldn’t be forced to choose sides. If a guy feels the need to do something, he shouldn’t be separated from his teammate who chooses not to.”

    The Steelers did not protest the anthem last year and had stayed relatively neutral on the national discussion, but President Donald Trump’s verbal attack on NFL players who protest appears to have changed things.

    Team president Art Rooney II released a statement regarding the pregame protest.

    Several Steelers leaders, including defensive end Cameron Heyward, linebacker James Harrison and others, were involved in the discussion about Sunday’s protest, one team source said. Those discussions took hold Saturday as the team traveled to Chicago and got situated at the team hotel.

    “We will not be divided by this,” Tomlin said after the game. “We’ve got a group of men in there that come from different socio-economic backgrounds, races, creeds, ethnicities, religions and so forth. That’s football. That’s a lot of team sports. But because of our position we get drug into bulls—, to be quite honest with you. Some have opinions; some don’t. We wanted to protect those who don’t and we wanted to protect those who do.”

    ESPN’s Brady Henderson and Cameron Wolfe contributed to this report.

    As Trump escalates criticisms, NFL seeks to unite amid more anthem protests

    NFL game day dawned Sunday with a powerful display of unity by the Baltimore Ravens’ and Jacksonville Jaguars’ players and coaches, who locked arms on the sideline of London’s Wembley Stadium — some kneeling, others standing — during the singing of the United States national anthem.

    Their statement without words, echoed in similar demonstrations nationwide prior to 1 p.m. games, came in response to a three-day campaign by President Trump, who at 6:44 a.m. Sunday renewed his demand that NFL owners “fire or suspend” players who kneel during the national anthem in protest and called on fans to boycott games if the practice continued.

    “If NFL fans refuse to go to games until players stop disrespecting our Flag Country, you will see change take place fast. Fire or suspend!” Trump tweeted roughly three hours before kickoff of the NFL’s first game of the day, staged in London as part of an ongoing effort to extend the league’s fan base abroad.

    Roughly 30 minutes later, at 7:13 a.m., Trump continued in a second tweet: “NFL attendance and ratings are WAY DOWN. Boring games yes, but many stay away because they love our country. League should back U.S.”

    Trump started his crusade against protesting NFL players during a campaign-style rally in Alabama on Friday night. In his remarks, he made a thinly veiled allusion to former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, whose decision to take a knee during August 2016 preseason games in protest of police violence against minorities initiated the practice and debate. Trump called on NFL coaches to get the “son of a b—” players off the field if they continued to kneel.

    The tenor and substance of those remarks, which Trump reiterated via social media over the weekend, triggered reactions from many players, coaches and executives of the NFL’s 32 teams. While far from universally in favor of the form of protest Kaepernick chose, many team owners issued statements defending the rights of players — and all Americans — to express themselves on matters they are passionate about.

    In closed-door meetings Saturday night, players and coaches of many teams discussed how to handle the national anthem before Sunday’s kickoffs.

    The Pittsburgh Steelers chose to remain in the locker room during the playing of the anthem before their 1 p.m. kickoff in Chicago, while Coach Mike Tomlin took the field with several assistants and left tackle Alejandro Villanueva, a former Army Ranger, stood just outside the locker room tunnel.

    Prior to kickoff of the Eagles’ game against the New York Giants, as an enormous American flag was stretched over the field, Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie joined his players, staff and several police officers standing to shoulder to shoulder on Philadelphia’s sideline. Eagles safety Malcolm Jenkins, standing near Lurie, raised his fist. Some Giants kneeled, such as Olivier Vernon, Landon Collins and Damon Harrison, while others stood — each extending an arm to the man beside him.

    During pregame ceremonies at Foxborough Stadium, Patriots quarterback Tom Brady locked arms with teammates, putting a hand over his heart, as the anthem played. Some Patriots took a knee, while others stood. Some fans were heard booing the gestures while others chanted, “Stand up.” Similar dissent was heard in Buffalo, where some fans voiced their displeasure by booing as members of the Denver Broncos took knees.

    Trump reacted to the showings by tweeting at 2:20 p.m., “Great solidarity for our National Anthem and for our Country. Standing with locked arms is good, kneeling is not acceptable. Bad ratings!”

    Redskins players held no teamwide discussions on the anthem Saturday, according to a person in the organization, speaking on condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the topic. He characterized the Redskins’ locker room as lacking in outspoken voices on social issues.

    Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, among eight NFL owners who have made significant donations to Trump, had no comment “at this time,” a team spokesman said Saturday night and repeated Sunday.

    According to Ian Rapoport of NFL.com, the offensive line of the Oakland Raiders, who’ll face the Redskins at FedEx Field in the nationally televised Sunday night game, intends to sit or kneel during the anthem. And Raiders owner Mark Davis told ESPN Sunday that in light of Trump’s comments, he felt he could no longer ask his players not to protest. “The only thing I can ask them to do is do it with class. Do it with pride. Not only do we have to tell people there is something wrong, we have to come up with answers. That’s the challenge in front of us as Americans and human beings.”

    Sunday’s mass demonstrations were particularly notable because the NFL demands conformity far more than other pro sports leagues, devoting lengthy sections of its rulebook to the height of players’ socks, for example, the maximum size of towels they may attached to their game-day pants and the permissible forms of “spontaneous celebration.” Players are most prized for executing assignments precisely as directed, and because NFL careers are short and contracts aren’t guaranteed — unlike those of NBA or Major League Baseball players — players speak out often at their own peril.

    NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith, the NFLPA’s executive director, spoke Saturday about President Trump’s comments but didn’t coordinate a response, according to one person close to the situation. Sunday’s on-field displays, rather, were individual teams’ decisions.

    The Ravens-Jaguars response reflected that: players and coaches choosing whether to stand or kneel yet linking arms in solidarity. Jacksonville owner Shad Khan joined his squad on the Wembley sideline and explained afterward that he considered it a privilege to show unity and support for diversity of race, faith and opinion in the face of the president’s “divisive and contentious” comments.

    By Sunday morning, nearly half the NFL’s 32 owners had issued statements. Among the more notable was New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, a staunch and vocal Trump supporter, as well as a $1 million donor to his inaugural, who wrote that he was “deeply disappointed by the tone of the comments made by the President on Friday.”

    “There is no greater unifier in this country than sports and, unfortunately, nothing more divisive than politics,’ Kraft wrote in his statement. “I think our political leaders could learn a lot from the lessons of teamwork and the importance of working together toward a common goal. Our players are intelligent, thoughtful and care deeply about our community and I support their right to peacefully affect social change and raise awareness in a manner that they feel is most impactful.”

    On ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos,” Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin defended Trump’s comments.

    “This is about respect for the military, the first responders,” he said. Mnuchin also declined to criticize the coarse language Trump used, saying, “I think the president can use whatever language he wants to use.”

    Of the players, Mnuchin said: “They have the right to have their First Amendment off the field. This is a job.”

    Another White House official, Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short, said on NBC News’s “Meet the Press” that Trump is standing with the “vast majority” of Americans who believe the flag “should be respected.”

    He added that Trump plans to take more action on improving race relations.

    “The president believes it is his role to improve race relations,” Short said.

    Seattle’s Pete Carroll was the first NFL head coach to issue a statement about the matter, posting on Facebook and Twitter that “there’s no longer a place to sit silently. It’s time to take a stand.”

    Carroll’s statement followed those of Seattle owner Paul Allen and cornerback Richard Sherman.

    Wrote Carroll:“We stand for love and justice and civility. We stand for our players and their constitutional rights, just as we stand for equality for all people. We stand against divisiveness and hate and dehumanization. We are in the midst of a tremendously challenging time, a time longing for healing. Change needs to happen; we will stand for change. May we all have the courage to take a stand for our beliefs while not diminishing the rights of others, as this is the beating heart of our democracy. As a team, we are united in a mission to bring people together to help create positive change. We can no longer remain silent.”

    Mark Maske and Cindy Boren contributed to this report.

    Read more coverage:

    Sally Jenkins: NFL shows restraint in the face of vulgarity — and gets it right

    The Fix: Trump’s culture war with the NFL is getting very real

    ‘Surreal’: Curry, Warriors have plenty to say about not visiting the White House

    First baseball player joins protest: ‘To single out NFL players for doing this isn’t something we should be doing’

    Perspective: Why is Kaepernick taking a knee different from when Tebow does it?

    Kushner used private email to conduct White House business

    Presidential son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has corresponded with other administration officials about White House matters through a private email account set up during the transition last December, part of a larger pattern of Trump administration aides using personal email accounts for government business.

    Kushner uses his private account alongside his official White House email account, sometimes trading emails with senior White House officials, outside advisers and others about media coverage, event planning and other subjects, according to four people familiar with the correspondence. POLITICO has seen and verified about two dozen emails.

    Story Continued Below

    “Mr. Kushner uses his White House email address to conduct White House business,” Abbe Lowell, a lawyer for Kushner, said in a statement Sunday. “Fewer than 100 emails from January through August were either sent to or returned by Mr. Kushner to colleagues in the White House from his personal email account. These usually forwarded news articles or political commentary and most often occurred when someone initiated the exchange by sending an email to his personal rather than his White House address.”

    Aides who have exchanged emails with Kushner on his private account since President Donald Trump took office in January include former chief of staff Reince Priebus, former chief strategist Steve Bannon, National Economic Council director Gary Cohn, and spokesman Josh Raffel, according to emails described to or shown to POLITICO. In some cases, those White House officials have emailed Kushner’s account first, said people familiar with the messages.

    The decision to set up new, private accounts as Kushner was preparing to enter the White House came in the wake of a bitter election campaign in which Trump routinely excoriated his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for using a personal email account to handle government business when she was secretary of state.

    There is no indication that Kushner has shared any sensitive or classified material on his private account, or that he relies on his private email account more than his official White House account to conduct government business. Aides say he prefers to call or text over using email.

    Still, Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, set up their private family domain late last year before moving to Washington from New York, according to people with knowledge of events as well as publicly available internet registration records. At the time, Kushner — who served as a senior campaign adviser — was expected to be named to a White House role, while Ivanka Trump was publicly saying she didn’t plan to work in her father’s administration.

    Kushner’s representatives declined to detail the server or security measures on it.

    People familiar with the account say it was primarily set up for Kushner’s personal communications, but he has used it to communicate with acquaintances outside the White House about matters relating to Trump and the administration, according to people who have received messages, as well as with his White House colleagues.

    Kushner has been under scrutiny in the ongoing Russia probes, which have expanded to include potential obstruction of justice by the president and his aides since January, and Kushner’s private email traffic may also be of interest to FBI and congressional investigators.

    Ivanka Trump, now an assistant to the president, has an email account on the same domain, they said. POLITICO has not seen Ivanka Trump’s correspondence, and there is no indication that she used her account to discuss government business.

    Private email traffic among White House aides — some of it sent between personal email accounts rather than to or from government addresses — could skirt the requirements of the Presidential Records Act, which requires all documents related to the president’s personal and political activities to be archived. Trump himself is not known to use email but occasionally has email messages to his assistant printed and presented to him.

    Lowell said Kushner has adhered to government record-keeping requirements by forwarding all the emails to his account, though POLITICO could not verify that.

    Other White House officials have also sometimes used personal accounts to correspond with Kushner and with each other, according to emails seen by POLITICO and people familiar with Kushner’s correspondence. They have also used encrypted apps like Signal and Confide that automatically delete messages, prompting former press secretary Sean Spicer in February to issue a warning to communications staffers that using such apps could violate the Presidential Records Act.

    The use of personal email accounts in the Trump White House has been somewhat common, even though the president has been a harsh critic of Clinton’s private email habits, frequently leading “lock her up” chants as he traveled across the country on the campaign trail.

    “It was an incredibly effective attack,” said Evan Siegfried, a GOP consultant. “He did a great job of injecting the emails into the mainstream.”

    Clinton was the target of an extensive FBI investigation, overseen by former FBI Director James Comey, into whether she mishandled classified material by sending or receiving it via her non-government email address.

    In her newly released memoir, Clinton cited the investigation into her email practices as one reason for her defeat. Comey, who in July 2016 formally cleared her of any wrongdoing, reopened the issue in late October, days before the election, after finding a cache of emails backed up on a computer belonging to Anthony Weiner, the husband of Clinton’s top aide Huma Abedin.

    The 2016 election was also shaped by the release of hacked emails stolen from the Democratic National Committee as well as from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. The hack is being investigated as part of FBI special counsel Robert Mueller’s wide-ranging probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

    A former Obama administration lawyer said aides were asked to not use personal email accounts for official or political business but that occasionally an aide would send a message and later forward it to their account.

    If emails related to Trump aren’t saved, it could be difficult for historians, according to Julian Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University. Zelizer said that historians can provide a richer history of how administrations work — and historians have feared for years that the proliferation of email will lead some people to do their business in ways in which the records can’t be archived. Zelizer said it could also make the job more difficult for investigators seeking to understand parts of the White House.

    “There’s a reason we require officials to keep those records,” said Zelizer. “Even if 80 percent of someone’s records are not interesting, the other 20 percent can be very illuminating on how an administration worked.”

    Mexico City Quake Jolts Complacency Over Code Enforcement

    But what spared this metropolitan area of 21 million was, at least in part, luck.

    The 1985 earthquake was 30 times more powerful than the one on Tuesday. It toppled apartment and office towers, killing more than 10,000 people.

    Tuesday’s earthquake, while centered closer to the capital, struck hardest at smaller, less populated buildings, taking fewer lives.

    “They were different seismic activities, in magnitude but especially given the distance,” said Dr. Eduardo Reinoso, a researcher specializing in seismic engineering at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “Because this one was much closer, the shock waves were different. This quake affected shorter houses and buildings, while in 1985 the collapses were mostly high-rises because of the different waves.”

    In a 2016 study of a random sample of 150 buildings constructed after 2004, when the new codes were adopted, Mr. Reinoso found that many failed to meet city standards. In many cases, the buildings reviewed did not even have enough necessary paperwork to conduct a full assessment.

    As it often goes in Mexico, it is not the law that is problematic, but rather the implementation. Whether because of a lack of political will, the corruption that seethes through the system or the dysfunction of the bureaucracy, one of the deadliest threats that the nation faces has been left unfixed. Once the dust settles, officials will be confronted once more with a choice: whether to truly enforce a public safety imperative or continue with reforms that seem to exist mostly on paper.

    “Some developers have their preferred inspectors and they usually hire the same person for their buildings, so that inspector is active, familiar, and always has a ton of work,” said Jorge Ortiz, an engineer and architect who is one of several hundred contract inspectors for the city. “And sometimes if you have several projects, they aren’t there as much or are not present at all phases of construction and that’s when there’s carelessness.”

    According to last year’s study, of the buildings that could be fully inspected, 71 percent failed to meet a high threshold of compliance with the city standards, while 36 percent failed to meet even a lower threshold of compliance.

    Advertisement

    Continue reading the main story

    “It would appear that the regulator is not performing its duty,” the study concluded.

    But the inspection of older buildings can also be lax, which might have been the case in the tragedy at the Enrique Rebsamen School , where 19 children and 6 adults died this past week following the collapse of one of its buildings.

    City code requires that certain buildings, including schools, be inspected for safety after an earthquake. After a massive earthquake hit Mexico on Sept. 7, an inspector was dispatched to the school.

    The contracted inspector signed off on the structure, deeming it safe, said Claudia Sheinbaum, the local delegate in charge of the district where the school is located.

    “They came to the school to verify the building and said it was O.K.,” she said.

    There are still tens of thousands of pending requests across the city for engineers to review structural damages, so the estimate of damaged buildings is likely to grow.

    As in many of the recovery efforts, legions of volunteers have raised their hands to help in the building assessments. A patchwork group of engineering groups and nongovernmental organizations have taken to the streets to assess the status of structures whose sagging frames pose dangers to neighboring buildings as well as passers-by.

    Still, it could have been worse, a message that some in the civil engineering community are hoping to send to Mexico City officials to prompt changes to the conflict-ridden system of building inspections.

    “We are concerned if we have a huge earthquake like the one in 1985 we may have problems in buildings,” said Sergio Alcocer the vice president of the Mexican Society of Civil Engineers and the former head of structural engineering for the government’s Center for the Prevention of Natural Disasters. “It’s a wake-up call.”

    Photo

    Workers remove a car from the debris of a collapsed clothes factory in the Colonia Transito, section of Mexico City on Friday.

    Credit
    Adriana Zehbrauskas for The New York Times

    Mr. Alcocer said that while the system was imperfect, he was pleased with how some larger structures held up under Tuesday’s seismic shudders. But he feared that builders, who often hire the cheapest inspectors to review their buildings and may not follow code, might take the wrong lesson from the earthquake if their buildings did not fall.

    Advertisement

    Continue reading the main story

    “In another type of earthquake, we could have problems in buildings that fared well this time,” he said.

    (Yet another earthquake, this one of 6.1 magnitude and centered in the state of Oaxaca, shook Mexico City just before 8 a.m. Saturday, and anxious residents, some in pajamas, raced into the streets. In the Oaxaca city of Juchitán, several houses damaged in the 8.1 earthquake three weeks ago, collapsed, and so did a bridge.)

    Newsletter Sign Up

    Continue reading the main story

    No two earthquakes are the same, even two that strike in the same seismic region. The 1985 quake and the one on Tuesday occurred in the same subduction zone, an area where one of the earth’s large crustal plates is sliding under another.

    The 1985 quake, at magnitude 8.1, released about 30 times more energy than Tuesday’s magnitude 7.1 quake. But it also struck twice as far from the capital – 220 miles compared with about 100.

    There were other differences as well: the 1985 quake was shallower, and even the orientation of the faults — the direction the rocks moved in — was different.

    All of those factors affected the toll in destroyed buildings — about 350 in 1985 and one-tenth that number on Tuesday — and in deaths. Four days after Tuesday’s quake, the death toll was still climbing, but the final tally will be nowhere near the estimated 10,000 who died in 1985.

    Generally, a more powerful quake would cause more shaking and greater destruction. Being farther away would tend to reduce the impact.

    But in the case of the 1985 earthquake, the larger distance from the epicenter played a critical role in which buildings were damaged and destroyed, and in the death toll as well.

    After that quake, engineers noticed a pattern to the destruction. Of the hundreds of buildings that collapsed or were heavily damaged, most were six to 16 stories tall.

    Advertisement

    Continue reading the main story

    The reason soon became apparent. High-frequency waves of energy generated by the quake dissipated over the miles to Mexico City, leaving mostly low-frequency waves to reach the capital. It’s similar to how, when listening to far-off music, treble sounds tend to be absorbed and only bass sounds reach the ear.

    During the earthquake, those lower-frequency waves rolled through the city about one second apart. That closely matches the natural resonance, or rate of vibration, of buildings about 60 to 160 feet tall.

    Successive waves caused those buildings to sway more and more. The soft sediments that the city is built on, which tend to amplify movements, made the swaying even worse until the structures failed.

    In the quake on Tuesday, however, “there wasn’t as much distance for that higher frequency energy to be absorbed,” said Gavin Hayes, a geophysicist with the United States Geological Survey. As more of these shorter, faster waves reached the city, smaller buildings vibrated until failure. Taller buildings were generally spared this time.

    Since smaller buildings hold fewer people, that helped keep the death toll down.

    But not all larger buildings were spared. In an area called Portales Sur, which sits on the fringe of the rapidly gentrifying neighborhood of Narvarte, buildings have sprung up in recent years for young professionals looking to own their first home in the city.

    The builder of a six-story condominium completed this year promised the latest in technology and design – apartments constructed of concrete and steel-draped elegance. Rainwater cisterns fed eco-friendly plumbing, while solar panels stationed by the rooftop garden powered units that sold for about $150,000.

    The building collapsed on Tuesday, taking with it the lives of two people. Now, its remains sit in a pile of twisted metal and fractured concrete, testament to the often-shoddy construction and lax inspections that helped clear the way for a voracious real estate boom in the capital, according to experts and officials.

    Residents are searching for legal recourse, given the failure of inspectors to detect or report the structural flaws.

    They have to. Many did not have property insurance, as few people do in Mexico, and the developer has claimed the quake was unforeseeable, raising fears among the unit owners that the company may try to abdicate responsibility.

    Advertisement

    Continue reading the main story

    “I can’t believe something like this can happen in a new building,” said Luis Reséndiz, 35, a photographer who said he saved for five years to buy an apartment there. “This is the fruit of many years of labor, and here it is, all lost.”


    Continue reading the main story