Categories
Travel News

U.S. states remove vaccine doses from federal nursing home program

It didn’t take long for Keith Reed, an assistant health commissioner in Oklahoma, to spot a big logistical problem with the rollout of immunization in the state. Week after week, Oklahoma was allocating thousands of valuable doses to a federal program for nursing home patients that was not using them all. In reality, tens of thousands of doses remained intact in the freezers.

So his department called an audible. It has decided to stop allocating more vaccines from Oklahoma to the federal program, a partnership with private pharmacies like CVS and Walgreens that aims to immunize residents of long-term care facilities. Instead, they would go to distribution channels that would put them in people’s arms faster.

A number of states have taken similar steps to divert supplies from the federal effort, known as the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program, a shining example of how the vaccination effort in the States- United has been chaotic so far. Some of the other states include Minnesota, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio.

Mr Reed said Oklahoma’s move would do no harm: Walgreens and CVS assured him, he said, that all residents of nursing homes across the state who needed – and wanted – be vaccinated would have the first of their two vaccines by the end. of the week.

The federal program used a formula that has been found to dramatically overestimate the number of vaccines needed for long-term care facilities like nursing homes, whose residents are particularly vulnerable to the coronavirus. And another problem has arisen: a considerable number of residents and, in particular, workers in establishments refuse the possibility of being vaccinated.

A study released Monday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that in the program’s first month, 77.8% of residents and 37.5% of workers received the vaccine in the long-term care facility way. The study indicates that the actual rate for workers may be higher because some may have been vaccinated in other settings. But, even so, federal officials are particularly concerned about the number of workers who refuse vaccinations and have redoubled their efforts to change their mind.

Mr Reed said the doses Oklahoma was taking out of the federal program would go to thousands of Oklahomans aged 65 or older and not living in nursing homes.

“Our goal is to get the vaccine from freezers to someone’s arm within seven days of receiving it,” Reed said in an interview last week. “We just struggled with this amount of vaccine that was banned for us that was set aside for this program, when we could use this vaccine to go straight to Oklahomans.”

Advocates for nursing home residents are watching closely for any signs the movements will prevent their vaccinations.

“If we find that older people are not getting the vaccines they need, we are concerned,” said Lisa Sanders, a spokesperson for LeadingAge, which represents more than 5,000 nonprofit aging service providers. .

Categories
Travel News

Why remove Trump now? Guide to the second impeachment of a president

WASHINGTON – On Wednesday, the House was set to impeach President Trump for the second time, a first in American history, accusing him of “inciting insurgency” a week after pushing a crowd of supporters who stormed the Capitol as Congress convened to formalize President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Democrats moved quickly to impeach Mr. Trump in the wake of the assault, which unfolded after he told his supporters at a rally near the National Mall to march on the Capitol in an effort to bring the Republicans to reverse defeat. At least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died during the siege and immediately after.

The process is proceeding at extraordinary speed and will test the limits of the impeachment process, raising questions never before considered. Here is what we know.

Impeachment is one of the most important tools the Constitution gives Congress to hold government officials, including the President, accountable for the fault and abuse of power.

House members consider whether to impeach the president – the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal case – and Senate members consider whether to remove him, holding a trial in which senators act as a jury. The test, as defined by the Constitution, is whether the president has committed “treason, a bribe or other serious crimes and misdemeanors.”

The House vote only requires a simple majority of lawmakers to agree that the president has, in fact, committed serious crimes and misdemeanors; the Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority.

The article, written by Representatives David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Ted Lieu of California, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Jerrold Nadler of New York, accuses Mr. Trump of “incitement to insurgency,” claiming he is guilty of “inciting violence against the United States government.”

The article cites Mr. Trump’s week-long campaign to falsely discredit the November election results, and directly quotes the speech he gave on siege day in which he told his supporters to surrender at the Capitol. “If you don’t fight like hell,” he said, “you won’t have a country.

While the House has moved with remarkable speed to impeach Mr. Trump, the Senate trial to determine whether to impeach him cannot begin until January 19, his last full day in office. This means that any conviction would almost certainly not be over until after he left the White House.

Democrats have argued that Mr. Trump’s offense – using his power as leader of the country and commander-in-chief to incite an insurgency against the legislature – is so serious that it needs to be dealt with, even by a few. days of his term. Leaving him unpunished, Democrats argued, would set a dangerous precedent of impunity for future presidents.

“Is there little time left?” Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and Majority Leader, said during the debate. “Yes. But it’s never too late to do the right thing.”

Republicans, many of whom voted to overturn the election results, have argued that going through the impeachment process so late in Mr. Trump’s tenure would foster unnecessary division and that the country would have to come out of the siege last week.

A conviction in an impeachment trial would not automatically disqualify Mr. Trump from future public office. But if the Senate were to condemn it, the Constitution allows a subsequent vote to prohibit a public servant from performing “any function of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

This vote would only require a simple majority of senators. Such a move could be an attractive prospect not only for Democrats, but also for many Republicans who have set their sights on the presidency themselves or are convinced that it is the only thing that will purge Mr. Trump of their party. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, would have the latter opinion.

There is, however, no precedent for disqualifying a president from future office, and the issue could end up in the Supreme Court.

Democrats who control the House can choose when to send their impeachment article to the Senate, in which case that chamber will have to move immediately to begin the trial. But since the Senate is not to hold an ordinary session before January 19, even if the House immediately shifts the charge to the other side of the Capitol, an agreement between the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate would be necessary to resume it before that date. . .

Mr McConnell said on Wednesday he would not agree to do so, which means the process could only be started the day before Mr Biden was sworn in. Given that the Senate needs time to set the rules for an impeachment trial, this means the proceedings would likely not begin until Mr. Biden is president and Democrats have operational control of the Senate.

Once the Senate receives the charge of impeachment, it must immediately deal with the matter, as articles of impeachment carry the highest privilege. Under rules that have been in place for decades, impeachment is the only issue the Senate can consider while a trial is pending; it cannot simultaneously consider other legislative matters.

But Mr Biden asked Mr McConnell if it would be possible to change that rule, allowing the Senate to conduct Mr Trump’s impeachment trial on a parallel track to the scrutiny of his cabinet candidates, dividing his days between the two. Mr McConnell told Mr Biden he would consult with the Senate parliamentarian to see if that would be possible.

If such a forked process was not possible, House Democrats could choose to withhold the article to give Mr Biden time to gain confirmation from his team before the trial begins.

The Senate could hold a trial for Mr. Trump even after he leaves, although there is no precedent for this. Only two presidents other than Mr. Trump were removed from office – Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 – and both were ultimately acquitted and completed their terms.

Nicolas fandos contribution to reports.

Categories
Travel News

Why remove Trump now? Guide to the second impeachment of a president

WASHINGTON – On Wednesday, the House was set to impeach President Trump for the second time, a first in American history, accusing him of “inciting insurgency” a week after pushing a crowd of supporters who stormed the Capitol as Congress convened to formalize President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Democrats moved quickly to impeach Mr. Trump in the wake of the assault, which unfolded after he told his supporters at a rally near the National Mall to march on the Capitol in an effort to bring the Republicans to reverse defeat. At least five people, including a Capitol Police officer, died during the siege and immediately after.

The process is proceeding at extraordinary speed and will test the limits of the impeachment process, raising questions never before considered. Here is what we know.

Impeachment is one of the most important tools the Constitution gives Congress to hold government officials, including the President, accountable for the fault and abuse of power.

House members consider whether to impeach the president – the equivalent of an indictment in a criminal case – and Senate members consider whether to remove him, holding a trial in which senators act as a jury. The test, as defined by the Constitution, is whether the president has committed “treason, a bribe or other serious crimes and misdemeanors.”

The House vote only requires a simple majority of lawmakers to agree that the president has, in fact, committed serious crimes and misdemeanors; the Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority.

The article, written by Representatives David Cicilline of Rhode Island, Ted Lieu of California, Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Jerrold Nadler of New York, accuses Mr. Trump of “incitement to insurgency,” claiming he is guilty of “inciting violence against the United States government.”

The article cites Mr. Trump’s week-long campaign to falsely discredit the November election results, and directly quotes the speech he gave on siege day in which he told his supporters to surrender at the Capitol. “If you don’t fight like hell,” he said, “you won’t have a country.

While the House has moved with remarkable speed to impeach Mr. Trump, the Senate trial to determine whether to impeach him cannot begin until January 19, his last full day in office. This means that any conviction would almost certainly not be over until after he left the White House.

Democrats have argued that Mr. Trump’s offense – using his power as leader of the country and commander-in-chief to incite an insurgency against the legislature – is so serious that it needs to be dealt with, even by a few. days of his term. Leaving him unpunished, Democrats argued, would set a dangerous precedent of impunity for future presidents.

“Is there little time left?” Rep. Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland and Majority Leader, said during the debate. “Yes. But it’s never too late to do the right thing.”

Republicans, many of whom voted to overturn the election results, have argued that going through the impeachment process so late in Mr. Trump’s tenure would foster unnecessary division and that the country would have to come out of the siege last week.

A conviction in an impeachment trial would not automatically disqualify Mr. Trump from future public office. But if the Senate were to condemn it, the Constitution allows a subsequent vote to prohibit a public servant from performing “any function of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

This vote would only require a simple majority of senators. Such a move could be an attractive prospect not only for Democrats, but also for many Republicans who have set their sights on the presidency themselves or are convinced that it is the only thing that will purge Mr. Trump of their party. Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, would have the latter opinion.

There is, however, no precedent for disqualifying a president from future office, and the issue could end up in the Supreme Court.

Democrats who control the House can choose when to send their impeachment article to the Senate, in which case that chamber will have to move immediately to begin the trial. But since the Senate is not to hold an ordinary session before January 19, even if the House immediately shifts the charge to the other side of the Capitol, an agreement between the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate would be necessary to resume it before that date. . .

Mr McConnell said on Wednesday he would not agree to do so, which means the process could only be started the day before Mr Biden was sworn in. Given that the Senate needs time to set the rules for an impeachment trial, this means the proceedings would likely not begin until Mr. Biden is president and Democrats have operational control of the Senate.

Once the Senate receives the charge of impeachment, it must immediately deal with the matter, as articles of impeachment carry the highest privilege. Under rules that have been in place for decades, impeachment is the only issue the Senate can consider while a trial is pending; it cannot simultaneously consider other legislative matters.

But Mr Biden asked Mr McConnell if it would be possible to change that rule, allowing the Senate to conduct Mr Trump’s impeachment trial on a parallel track to the scrutiny of his cabinet candidates, dividing his days between the two. Mr McConnell told Mr Biden he would consult with the Senate parliamentarian to see if that would be possible.

If such a forked process was not possible, House Democrats could choose to withhold the article to give Mr Biden time to gain confirmation from his team before the trial begins.

The Senate could hold a trial for Mr. Trump even after he leaves, although there is no precedent for this. Only two presidents other than Mr. Trump were removed from office – Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998 – and both were ultimately acquitted and completed their terms.

Nicolas fandos contribution to reports.

Categories
Travel News

Video: House calls on Pence to remove Trump from power

new video loaded: House calls on Pence to remove Trump from power

transcription

transcription

House calls on Pence to remove Trump from power

The House of Representatives voted 223 to 205 on Tuesday night to call on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment to strip President Trump of his powers for inciting a mob to attack the Capitol.

“I think every member of this body should be able to agree that this president does not perform the most minimal functions of power. He does not keep the oath he has sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. We are simply asking Vice President Pence to exercise his powers under 25th Constitutional Amendment, Section 4, to summon the cabinet and mobilize the cabinet to state and articulate what is obvious to the American people: this president does not does not fulfill his office duties and is clearly unable to do so. The 25th Amendment deals specifically with the inability of the president to perform the duties of his office. It was never intended as a political weapon when Congress does not like the way it carries out these functions. Now I have read this speech. He never suggested ransacking the Capitol and disrupting Congress. “The facts are very clear. The president called for this seditious attack on Wednesday morning. He attended a rally to encourage rioters to march on the Capitol and fight. The actions of the president demonstrate his absolute inability to discharge the most basic and fundamental powers and duties of his office. Therefore, the president must be removed from office immediately. “The adoption of this political resolution would be more a source of division than ofification. The vice president said he did not intend to take any action under the amendment, so this process is pure political theater on the part of the majority. “On this vote, the yeses are 223; the nays are 205. The resolution is adopted without opposition. The reconsideration motion is on the table. “

Recent episodes of United States and politics

.

Categories
Travel News

Facebook will remove the erroneous “Stop the Steal” information.

Facebook on Monday announced plans to remove content focused on the “Stop the Steal” movement from its platform, as the social network prepares for a potentially contentious presidential inauguration on January 20.

The company said it plans to remove any posts, photos or videos containing the phrase “Stop the Steal,” a term commonly associated with Trump supporters attempting to delegitimize the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by the president-elect Joseph R. Biden.

“We enabled robust conversations related to the election outcome and that will continue,” said Guy Rosen, vice president of Facebook’s Integrity division, responsible for overseeing and moderating problematic and harmful content. “But with the continued attempts to stage events against the outcome of the US presidential election that may lead to violence, and the use of the term by those involved in Wednesday’s violence in Washington, we are taking that extra step ahead of the inauguration. . “

The move, which comes just days after hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building in Washington, goes beyond Facebook’s previous actions. Facebook deleted the official “Stop the Steal” Facebook group in November for inciting violence. The company said it is also proactively monitoring the platform for other types of harmful content.

Facebook also said it will include a new section in the Facebook News tab of its mobile app on inauguration day, providing users with up-to-date and reliable information on the day’s events in the nation’s capital. The company has refused to remove most types of disinformation from its network in the past, with Mark Zuckerberg saying he didn’t want Facebook to become “an arbiter of truth.”

And following last week’s storm in the capital, Facebook also confirmed on Monday that it plans to suspend all contributions to any political action committee at least until the first quarter of 2021, citing the need to review its policies. Other big tech companies, like Microsoft, Google and Airbnb, took similar action on Monday afternoon.

Categories
Travel News

How to remove a president in 12 days: here’s what it takes

WASHINGTON – After President Trump incited a crowd of his supporters who violently stormed the Capitol on Wednesday, Congress is once again considering whether to impeach him, this time just days away from his tenure.

It is an extraordinary circumstance raising political, constitutional and logistical questions seldom considered in American history. No president has ever been indicted twice or in the last days of his term, and none has ever been convicted.

Given the brevity of his time in the White House and the gravity of his conduct, lawmakers are also considering a provision in the Constitution’s impeachment clauses that could allow them to bar Mr. Trump from return to federal office.

Democrats are leading the process so far, but some Republicans have indicated they would be willing to hear a case. Here’s what we know about how the process works.

The Constitution allows Congress to remove presidents or other executive officers before the end of their terms if lawmakers believe they have committed “treason, corruption or other serious crimes and misdemeanors.”

Impeachment is a two-part and deliberately difficult process. First, the House votes on whether to impeach – the equivalent of indicting a person in a criminal case. The charges are codified in articles of indictment detailing the alleged offenses against the nation.

If a simple majority in the House votes in favor of the impeachment, the Senate must quickly consider them during a trial. The House continues the case, appointing impeachers to argue before the senators, who act as a jury, and the president is traditionally allowed to mount a defense. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court oversees the trial.

In the Senate, the conviction threshold is much higher. Two-thirds of senators seated at any given time must agree to condemn; otherwise, the president is acquitted. If all 100 senators were all seated at the time of trial, that means 17 Republicans would have to join Democrats in securing a conviction – a high bar to cross.

While it may seem unnecessary to impeach a president when he is about to step down, there could be real consequences for Mr. Trump beyond the stain of his record. If found guilty, the Senate could vote to prevent him from returning to office. Following a conviction, the Constitution states that the Senate may consider “disqualification from exercising and exercising a function of honor, trust or profit in the United States”.

Only a simple majority of senators should agree to successfully disqualify Mr. Trump, who is considering another presidential bid in 2024, an attractive prospect not only for Democrats, but for many Republicans considering their own run.

The House impeached Mr. Trump in December 2019 for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress related to his attempts to pressure Ukraine to sully its then political rival Joseph R. Biden Jr. The Senate voted to acquit him on both counts.

Only three US presidents have been removed from office, including Mr. Trump. None have ever been indicted twice.

But it appears that nothing in the Constitution prevents Congress from impeaching a president again on a new set of charges.

With Mr. Trump expected to step down on January 20, one of the biggest political and logistical hurdles is the timing. Previous presidential impeachments, including the one the House undertook in 2019, have typically been lengthy with inquiries, hearings and weeks of public debate.

Part of this deliberate process is aimed at creating consensus for such radical action, but it is not necessary under the rules. If Democrats and some Republicans agree that they must act, they can move in days, bypassing the House Judiciary Committee, to lay charges, introduce and proceed directly to debate and vote on the floor of the Chamber. In this case, since Congress is just getting started and committees haven’t even formed yet, this may be the only practical option.

As soon as the House votes to pass articles of impeachment, it can immediately forward them to the Senate, must quickly begin a trial.

According to a theory under discussion, the House could impeach Mr. Trump and hold on to the articles for a few days to wait for Democrats to take control of the Senate, which will happen after Mr. Biden is sworn in. The length of a trial, and the rules that govern it, are determined by the members of the Senate.

History gives little guidance on whether a president can be impeached once he leaves office, and House attorneys have been quick to understand legal and constitutional issues.

There is a precedent for this in the case of other senior officials. In 1876, the House removed President Ulysses S. Grant’s Secretary of War from office, even after he resigned his post. At the time, the Senate questioned whether it still had jurisdiction to hear the case of a former public servant and determined that it was. Eventually the secretary was acquitted.

Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional scholar at the University of North Carolina who testified in the latest impeachment proceedings, wrote on Friday that he saw no reason why Congress could not continue.

“It would make no sense for former officials, or those who resign just in time, to escape this redress mechanism,” he wrote. “It should therefore go without saying that if an indictment begins while a person is in office, the process can surely continue after he or she resigns or leaves.”

Categories
Travel News

Pelosi threatens to pursue impeachment if Trump’s cabinet does not remove him using the 25th Amendment.

Leading Congressional Democrats on Thursday called for the immediate impeachment of President Trump for his role in mobilizing against the violent mob that passed the Capitol the day before, disrupting the ratification of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s election victory.

President Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York have called on Vice President Mike Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment, which allows him and the cabinet to wrest the power of the presidency from Mr. Trump.

If Mr. Pence refuses to act, they have said Democrats are ready to impeach Mr. Trump for the second time.

“Although there are only 13 days left, any day can be a horror sight for America,” Pelosi said, calling Mr. Trump’s actions on Wednesday a “seditious act.”

At an extraordinary press conference in the reconquered Capitol, Ms Pelosi referred to the members of the Cabinet by name, asking them why they would not intervene.

“Are they ready to say that for the next 13 days this dangerous man can attack our democracy?” Ms Pelosi said of the cabinet.

She said she hoped to get a response from Mr Pence later on as to whether he would try to use the 25th Amendment. The two executives attempted to call Mr Pence directly on Thursday, but were left on hold for 20 minutes without Mr Pence picking up.

It was unclear how quickly Democrats could move to impeach Mr. Trump. There is no clear precedent for bringing a former Senate official to justice, and with just 13 days in office, it was uncertain whether Democrats could actually complete such a complicated and politically charged process on a timeline. tight.

Mr. Schumer, the Senate’s top Democrat, said: “What happened on Capitol Hill yesterday was an insurgency against the United States, instigated by the President. This president should not be in office one more day.

Ms Pelosi was the most prominent voice in a growing chorus of Democrats and a few Republicans, who examined the aftermath of Wednesday’s historic events and concluded that Mr Trump was too dangerous to stay in office until January 20, when Mr. Biden is ready to be sworn in.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, made a similar appeal earlier Thursday, posting on Twitter that the president had “broken away not only from his duty or oath, but from reality itself.”

His statement followed similar statements by Representatives Charlie Crist and Ted Lieu on Wednesday and a letter signed by 17 Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee was sent to Mr Pence calling for invocation of the 25th Amendment.

On Thursday morning, a Washington-based law firm Crowell & Moring, which represents a number of Fortune 500 companies, added its voice to the growing chorus of business and civic leaders calling for the president’s impeachment. Asking other lawyers to join us, the firm said that “when it comes to defending our Constitution and our system of laws, we have a special duty and an exceptional perspective.”

A bipartisan group of more than two dozen lawyers, including a former senior official in the Trump administration, also called Thursday for Mr. Trump’s resignation from office.

“Both constitutional remedies are necessary and appropriate to hold Trump accountable and protect the nation,” the group said. “These processes should be executed immediately, unless he resigns first.”

The group included many conservative lawyers, including former Department of Homeland Security General Counsel John Mitnick; and staunch Trump critic George Conway, the husband of former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway. Liberal professor Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School was also part of the group.

Categories
Travel News

Artists call on MoMA to remove Philip Johnson’s name, citing racist views

Philip Johnson was one of the most influential architects of the last century, a chameleon in each of his roles as New York energy broker, art collector and creator of his “Glass House”, a famous landmark of Modernist design. in Connecticut.

He also championed racist and white supremacist views in his youth. Johnson’s Nazi sympathies, for example, have been well documented and he spent the years after World War II trying to distance himself from them.

Today, a group of more than 30 prominent artists, architects and academics shed light on the most distasteful part of Johnson’s legacy, demanding in a letter posted online Nov. 27 that institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art and the Harvard Graduate School of Design are removing the name of the architect, who died in 2005, from their spaces.

“Johnson’s architectural work has a role to play in archives and historical preservation,” wrote the Johnson Study Group, a largely anonymous group of designers and architects, in the letter. “However, the naming of titles and spaces inevitably suggests that the winner is a role model for curators, administrators, students and others who participate in these institutions.

The letter was signed by contemporary artist Xaviera Simmons; Kate Orff, landscape architect and member of MacArthur; and V. Mitch McEwen, Assistant Professor of Architecture at Princeton University, one of eight of 10 architects for an upcoming MoMA exhibit – “Reconstructions: Architecture and Blackness in America” – slated to open on February 20 .

He cites Johnson’s “widely documented” plea for white supremacist views, his attempt to found a fascist party in Louisiana, and his failure to include the work of a single black artist or designer in the MoMA collection during his tenure there. -low. (He served in various roles for six decades.) The letter urged all institutions using his name to remove it.

“He not only nodded but added to the persistent practice of racism in the field of architecture,” the letter said, “a legacy that continues to hurt today.”

Johnson’s name appears in one of the exhibition galleries at the Museum of Modern Art, where he was the first responsible for architecture and design since 1984. His name is also included in the title of chief curator of the architecture and design of the museum.

Johnson created buildings that are widely regarded as architectural masterpieces of the 20th century, including the MoMA Sculpture Garden and the Pavilion that houses pre-Columbian art from the Dumbarton Oaks Estate in Washington. In his obituary, New York Times critic Paul Goldberger hailed him as the “godfather, fly, scholar, patron, critic, curator and cheerleader” of American architecture.

But as a youth, he openly admired Hitler’s manifesto, “Mein Kampf,” attended Nazi rallies in Germany and was investigated by the FBI for his ties to the Nazi Party. He rejected Nazism after the end of World War II.

Representatives from MoMA and Harvard did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.

Ms Orff, a landscape architect and MacArthur scholar, said in an email Thursday that removing Johnson’s name from the gallery and from the post of curator would represent an important step in dismantling racism in design culture.

“Landscape architecture is catching up in its assessment of its own heritage,” Ms. Orff said. “To move forward with a more imaginative, fair and equitable culture in the fields of design, we have to take into account the numbers of the past that set the ground rules.”

Categories
Travel News

The White House hints at a deal that would remove the names of Confederate leaders from military bases.

Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, has privately hinted that President Trump will drop his objection to removing the names of Confederate leaders from military bases, which threatens to derail the annual military policy bill , if the Democrats agreed to repeal an important legal shield. for social media businesses.

Mr Trump has threatened to veto legislation, which allows pay increases for US troops, if it contains the base name change requirement, which has attracted bipartisan support in the House and Senate .

In several conversations, Representative Adam Smith from Washington, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, asked Mr. Meadows what might persuade Mr. Trump to sign the measure with the name change requirement intact, according to people. close to discussions.

Mr Meadows, according to people, said adding a repeal of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, considered the most consistent law governing Internet speech, would help.

Such a deal would amount to a radical last-minute overhaul of the communications law, and a Democratic congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to disclose internal discussions, said many party lawmakers saw it as a non-starter.

But the offer reflected the White House’s desire to secure distant victories high on the agenda in the final days of Mr. Trump’s presidency. And that further complicated what could turn out to be an uphill battle on Capitol Hill over the issue of Confederate base names.

A White House spokesperson declined to comment on the conversations. A spokesperson for Mr Smith also declined to comment, citing an informal policy of not disclosing details of these negotiations.

Mr. Trump and his closest allies in Congress have campaigned for a revocation of Section 230, which shields social media companies from liability for content posted by users to their sites.

The Ministry of Justice has drafted a legislative proposal to reform the law. And Mr. Trump signed an executive order several months ago to limit some of the provisions of Section 230.

Categories
Travel News

Governor of Virginia may remove Robert E. Lee statue, but not yet Judge’s Rules

A towering statue of Robert E. Lee in the Virginia capital that survived a summer of Confederate monument overthrow may be removed, a state judge said Tuesday.

Richmond Circuit Court judge W. Reilly Marchant upheld orders issued in June by Democratic state Governor Ralph Northam ordering the removal of the 21-foot statue, which rests on a 40-foot base. . But the judge put his decision on hold, allowing the monument to remain in place pending an appeal from plaintiffs who had challenged the governor’s order.

Patrick McSweeney, an attorney for the plaintiffs, a group of residents who live near the statue’s Monument Avenue location, told Politico his clients plan to appeal the ruling.

Still, the decision was celebrated by officials in Virginia who attempted to remove the statue and other symbols linking the state to Confederacy.

“The statue of Lee has held an important place and has been a memorial to Virginia’s racist past in the center of our capital for too long,” Mark R. Herring, Virginia attorney general, said in a statement.

“This move brings Virginia one step closer to the permanent removal of this symbol of division,” he said, “and I remain as determined as ever to ensure that it is removed. once for all.

In the weeks following the death of George Floyd after being pinned to the ground by the knee of a white policeman in Minneapolis, protests across the country against systemic racism and police violence against blacks have drawn attention on Confederation monuments and other historical figures linked to slavery. Some monuments were demolished by demonstrators. Others have been fired by local lawmakers.

In June, for example, protesters in Richmond knocked over a statue of Jefferson Davis on Monument Avenue. A month later, the City of Richmond removed three statues of Confederate figures along Monument Avenue. Also during that month, “a life-size statue of Lee and seven busts of other ex-Confederates” were ordered to leave the State Capitol, Judge Marchant noted.

Mr Northam intervened with the order to remove the statue of Lee, but was challenged in court.

In Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Marchant wrote that the governor had the power to essentially overrule the agreements related to the statue, some dating back to 1887. These agreements were supposed to ensure that the statue of Lee would remain in a public space in the city. ‘State.

An agreement reached in 1890 demanded that the Commonwealth of Virginia “guarantee that it will hold said statue, pedestal and circle of earth perpetually sacred for the monumental purpose to which they have been consecrated and that it will faithfully guard and protect them lovingly.”

Judge Marchant wrote that he concluded that the governor’s order “would no longer contravene public order or violate the Constitution of Virginia.”

In his ruling, the judge also cited the testimony of two professors who described what led to the installation of the statue. The testimony of Dr Edward L. Ayers, professor of history at the University of Richmond, and of Dr Kevin K. Gaines, professor of African studies and history at Cornell, “has overwhelmingly established the need for the citizens of the south to establish a monument to their “lost cause”, and to some extent to their way of life, including slavery, “the judge wrote.

Concepción de León contributed reporting.