vox--2020-01-09--Trump has created a loophole to allow pipelines to avoid environmental review

President Donald Trump ’ s administration is about to make it easier for companies to build pipelines , bridges , and roads without an environmental review — opening the door to projects that could pollute the US and accelerate climate change .
The proposed rule , first reported by the New York Times and announced by Trump Thursday , would be the biggest deregulatory change to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act in nearly three decades .
Currently , all major federal construction projects must undergo a mandatory review , or environmental impact statement , if they ’ re expected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ecosystem .
However , the new standard would create a new “ non-major ” project category , allowing smaller federal infrastructure projects to begin construction without a review .
Trump ’ s administration — which has waged a widespread campaign to roll back environmental regulations and protections — had hinted this was coming .
“ While the goals of NEPA remain the same as they did 50 years ago , the environmental review process designed to improve decision making has become increasingly complex and difficult to navigate , ” the White House said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ landmark legislation ’ s anniversary .
Industry organizations , such as the American Petroleum Institute , the US Chamber of Commerce , and several transportation groups , had been seeking such a change for years .
Many of them complained in a November letter to Mary Neumayr , chair of the Council on Environmental Quality , about the lengthy environmental review process , which they contended currently takes an average of almost six years and can produce reports that encompass hundreds of pages — a message that resonated with the Trump administration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ too many projects are “ tied up and bogged down by an outrageously slow and burdensome federal approval process.
” Under the proposal , reports will now be subject to page limits and must be completed within two years .
However , the rule ’ s broad language may allow for some large construction projects to skip a review .
According to the New York Times , one administration official familiar with the changes said there will be no set dollar figure for separating major from non-major projects , which could open the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other projects to avoid environmental assessments.
” The proposed rule also does not mention climate change but could pose problems for federal agencies ’ efforts to combat it , according to the Times report : And not only will they not have to account for a project ’ s impact on climate change , but agencies also won ’ t have to examine whether rising sea levels or other effects of climate change will compromise a bridge or road ’ s safety in the future .
Thursday ’ s announced rule change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration ’ s years of assault on environmental regulations .
Despite vague campaign promises to “ promote clean air and water , ” the New York Times has identified 58 separate rules rolling back environmental protections that have completed the administrative process , and 37 more that are still in the works .
The rollbacks span across the environmental spectrum , from clean air and water rules , to loosening regulations governing oil and gas extraction , to wildlife protections .
And the president , long a climate change skeptic , is taking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to withdraw from the Paris climate accords .
Last month , Trump ordered an administrative review of the Environmental Protection Agency ’ s WaterSense program , which encourages use of low-flow bathroom fixtures such as toilets and showers .
“ People are flushing toilets 10 times , 15 times as opposed to once .
They end up using more water , ” Trump said at the time .
The quality of air and water in the US is mixed , with lead contamination and air pollution of increasing concern to scientists .
Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ address these issues , and began unraveling the environmental protections put in place by his predecessors almost immediately after assuming office , as Vox ’ s Matthew Yglesias has explained : Democratic-controlled state governments and environmental advocates have turned to the courts to fight back against the administration ’ s loosening regulatory agenda .
In August last year , more than 20 states sued the EPA over a rollback of climate change rules for power plants .
In September , 22 Democratic states sued the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration , a division @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a rule that revoked states ’ rights to set their own vehicle emissions standards .
A similar fate could be in store for the administration ’ s latest proposed rule .
The Environmental Protection Act requires that all federal projects undergo an environmental impact study , and it ’ s unclear whether that portion of the law can be changed by administrative fiat .
“ A regulation can ’ t change the requirements of a statute as interpreted by the courts , ” Richard Revesz , a professor of environmental law at New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , he said that the loosened regulations could lead to more lawsuits against individual infrastructure and energy projects , which could exacerbate the long construction delays the proposed rule seeks to bring to an end .

President Donald Trump’s administration is about to make it easier for companies to build pipelines, bridges, and roads without an environmental review — opening the door to projects that could pollute the US and accelerate climate change.
The proposed rule, first reported by the New York Times and announced by Trump Thursday, would be the biggest deregulatory change to the 50-year-old National Environmental Policy Act in nearly three decades. Currently, all major federal construction projects must undergo a mandatory review, or environmental impact statement, if they’re expected to have major effects on the surrounding ecosystem. However, the new standard would create a new “non-major” project category, allowing smaller federal infrastructure projects to begin construction without a review.
Trump’s administration — which has waged a widespread campaign to roll back environmental regulations and protections — had hinted this was coming.
“While the goals of NEPA remain the same as they did 50 years ago, the environmental review process designed to improve decision making has become increasingly complex and difficult to navigate,” the White House said in a January 1 statement on the landmark legislation’s anniversary.
Industry organizations, such as the American Petroleum Institute, the US Chamber of Commerce, and several transportation groups, had been seeking such a change for years. Many of them complained in a November letter to Mary Neumayr, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, about the lengthy environmental review process, which they contended currently takes an average of almost six years and can produce reports that encompass hundreds of pages — a message that resonated with the Trump administration.
Announcing the change Thursday, Trump said too many projects are “tied up and bogged down by an outrageously slow and burdensome federal approval process.” Under the proposal, reports will now be subject to page limits and must be completed within two years.
However, the rule’s broad language may allow for some large construction projects to skip a review.
According to the New York Times, one administration official familiar with the changes said there will be no set dollar figure for separating major from non-major projects, which could open the door for “major mining, drilling and other projects to avoid environmental assessments.”
The proposed rule also does not mention climate change but could pose problems for federal agencies’ efforts to combat it, according to the Times report:
The changes would also eliminate the need for agencies to consider the “cumulative impacts” of projects, which in recent years courts have said include studying the planet-warming consequences of emitting more greenhouse gases.
And not only will they not have to account for a project’s impact on climate change, but agencies also won’t have to examine whether rising sea levels or other effects of climate change will compromise a bridge or road’s safety in the future.
Trump’s attacks on the environment
Thursday’s announced rule change is just the latest in the Trump administration’s years of assault on environmental regulations. Despite vague campaign promises to “promote clean air and water,” the New York Times has identified 58 separate rules rolling back environmental protections that have completed the administrative process, and 37 more that are still in the works.
The rollbacks span across the environmental spectrum, from clean air and water rules, to loosening regulations governing oil and gas extraction, to wildlife protections. And the president, long a climate change skeptic, is taking the steps to fulfill a campaign promise to withdraw from the Paris climate accords.
Last month, Trump ordered an administrative review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s WaterSense program, which encourages use of low-flow bathroom fixtures such as toilets and showers. “People are flushing toilets 10 times, 15 times as opposed to once. They end up using more water,” Trump said at the time.
The quality of air and water in the US is mixed, with lead contamination and air pollution of increasing concern to scientists. Trump, however, has done little to address these issues, and began unraveling the environmental protections put in place by his predecessors almost immediately after assuming office, as Vox’s Matthew Yglesias has explained:
Democratic-controlled state governments and environmental advocates have turned to the courts to fight back against the administration’s loosening regulatory agenda. In August last year, more than 20 states sued the EPA over a rollback of climate change rules for power plants. In September, 22 Democratic states sued the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a division within the Department of Transportation, over a rule that revoked states’ rights to set their own vehicle emissions standards.
A similar fate could be in store for the administration’s latest proposed rule. The Environmental Protection Act requires that all federal projects undergo an environmental impact study, and it’s unclear whether that portion of the law can be changed by administrative fiat. “A regulation can’t change the requirements of a statute as interpreted by the courts,” Richard Revesz, a professor of environmental law at New York University, told the Times.
In fact, he said that the loosened regulations could lead to more lawsuits against individual infrastructure and energy projects, which could exacerbate the long construction delays the proposed rule seeks to bring to an end.


vox--2020-01-09--An Australian ecologist explains just how bad the fires are for wildlife

Share All sharing options for : An Australian ecologist explains just how bad the fires are for wildlife Australia ’ s wildfires have been terrifying to watch .
It ’ s one of the country ’ s worst fire seasons on record : 17.9 million acres have burned .
That ’ s an area larger than West Virginia , and more than nine times the area that burned in California in 2018 , the state ’ s most destructive year for wildfires .
People have been forced out of their homes , and at least 27 have died .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But perhaps the greatest damage is to wildlife .
An estimated 1 billion animals have been lost , and scientists fear long-term damage to many sensitive ecosystems .
Australia is one of the great biodiversity hot spots in the world .
The island continent was isolated from the rest of the world for millions of years , allowing evolution to take strange new paths , with little human influence until fairly recently .
Before the fires , its great diversity was already threatened due to invasive species , habitat destruction , and climate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science research agency , CSIRO .
Now , ecologists fear severe ecological consequences from so much land being burned at once .
Sarah Legge is an ecologist at the Australian National University who studies how species respond to fire .
In an interview this week , she explained just how bad the situation is for Australia ’ s wildlife — and which species will be most severely impacted .
It ’ s not the koala ( a staggering 8,000 of which have died ) .
It ’ s the lesser-known species that live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engulfed .
“ Hundreds of species have been affected by these fires , ” Legge says .
“ That includes many dozens of threatened species ; some of these will be brought to the brink of extinction as a result of this event .
And if they ’ re not made extinct by this event , I think this is the beginning of the end for them .
Because this event will reoccur .
It ’ s awful .
It will be ecosystem collapse in a lot of cases .
And we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ll end up with at the end of it all.
” This interview has been edited for length and clarity .
As you ’ ve been watching this situation evolve and grow , how do you tell the story of what ’ s going on ?
Fire is a natural part of many Australian habitats .
So many Australian plants and animals are adapted to cope with fire .
But they ’ re not adapted to cope with fire of this scale and this intensity .
These fire events are unprecedented .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that just ... don ’ t burn normally .
Some of the [ UNESCO ] listed subtropical rainforests along the Queensland-New South Wales border have burned .
And we don ’ t even know how it can recover from fire because in our experience , in our living knowledge , they don ’ t burn .
You said some of these species are adapted to fire , but not of this scale .
How do some species normally respond to fire , and why wouldn ’ t they be able to use those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parts of the overall distribution [ of where the species lives ] would be affected .
The fire might affect 5 percent of the distribution , not 100 percent .
And the fire would be lower in intensity .
So [ a species ] might [ hide ] in a rocky pile where the radiant heat of the fire doesn ’ t kill it outright .
It could survive the fire event , and there ’ s still bits of habitat in the immediate vicinity that it can use .
That ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have examples of this in mind ?
You got species like the long-footed potoroo — that ’ s a small marsupial that lives in the forest of East Gippsland in Victoria .
That ’ s a fire-prone environment , so that animal has evolved with fire over many millennia .
But now its entire distribution has been nuked in one intense event .
Another good example is the Kangaroo Island dunnart , which is a small carnivorous marsupial that lives on Kangaroo Island .
Almost all of the national park on Kangaroo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is already very rare .
It shelters under the foliage of grass trees .
Those grass trees have been incinerated .
So any dunnart sheltering under there will have been killed .
Whereas in a lower-intensity fire , some of the grass trees wouldn ’ t have burned , and certainly not all of the distribution of the dunnart would have burned in one go .
There ’ s been a lot of attention paid to the number of koalas being killed in the fire .
How does their situation compare to these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distribution is at an extreme risk .
The images we see of suffering koalas are horrible .
But they have a much bigger distribution , so this species probably hasn ’ t been brought to the brink in the same way that species with smaller distributions may have .
The silver-tailed antechinus , another carnivorous marsupial that lives in Queensland — its entire distribution pretty much has been burned .
Glossy black cockatoos on Kangaroo Island , their distribution is being burned .
Is the fear that a lot of the damage won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we think about what happens next , and what can be done to help these species ?
A lot of us are feeling shell shock at the moment .
There are some priorities .
One is we need to prioritize the species that we ’ re most worried about , and then go out and look for them .
Are they still there ?
Are there any bits of habitat in their distributions that didn ’ t burn ?
And if we can find those bits of habitat , we need to protect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from feral predators and weed incursion — all these things that fire amplifies .
There are things we can do to help them hang on for a few years .
But apart from that , people are talking about strategic feeding [ of species ] , strategic setting up nest boxes .
It won ’ t always be the best thing to do .
But there will be cases where those kind of very intensive and small-scale actions could help .
And they ’ ll certainly make people feel better .
What happens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
As well as the immediate mortality that ’ s caused by the fire , there ’ s going to be ongoing mortalities as the result of starvation — there will be nothing to eat — and the lack of shelter .
After an intense fire event , feral predators including foxes and cats are actually attracted to that fire-affected area to hunt there .
Their hunting efficiency increases quite dramatically because the native animals have got nowhere to hide .
So cats will come in from 20 , 30 kilometers away to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and they mop up all the native animals that are left there over the next few months .
What draws these predators to the fire ?
It ’ s amazing .
They can travel quite a big distance to get to a fire event .
We assume they are following the smoke .
They might see smoke .
But it ’ s incredible that , a ) they know it ’ s worth going , and b ) where to go .
On the bright side : Are there any interesting research opportunities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Oh , my gosh .
To be honest , I don ’ t think so .
Obviously , there has been research in the past on the impact on extreme fire events , but they ’ ve all been smaller in scale .
An event like this , I don ’ t think anyone is thinking about the research opportunities .
I think they ’ re thinking about the catastrophe and how we can limp through it and minimize the damage .
Is there any aspect of this story that you think needs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here is climate change , leading to extended drought and high temperatures .
Australia is looking at 3 to 4 degrees of warming .
I ’ m frightened to even imagine the country in that scenario .
If this fire event is what we experienced with 1 degree of warming , what on earth are we going to be experiencing at 3 or 4 degrees of warming ?
It ’ s terrifying .
How to help Australia • If you ’ re in Australia , Givit has a list of specific items needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bushfires .
• People with emergency response training can sign up to volunteer in Queensland .
• The World Wildlife Fund is collecting donations to restore habitats for koalas impacted by the fires .
• You can donate to the Australian Red Cross ’ s fire recovery and relief fund .
• You can also donate directly to the New South Wales Rural Fire Service , the Country Fire Service Foundation in South Australia , and the Country Fire Authority in Victoria .

Share All sharing options for: An Australian ecologist explains just how bad the fires are for wildlife
Australia’s wildfires have been terrifying to watch. It’s one of the country’s worst fire seasons on record: 17.9 million acres have burned. That’s an area larger than West Virginia, and more than nine times the area that burned in California in 2018, the state’s most destructive year for wildfires.
People have been forced out of their homes, and at least 27 have died. It’s a serious humanitarian disaster. But perhaps the greatest damage is to wildlife. An estimated 1 billion animals have been lost, and scientists fear long-term damage to many sensitive ecosystems.
Australia is one of the great biodiversity hot spots in the world. The island continent was isolated from the rest of the world for millions of years, allowing evolution to take strange new paths, with little human influence until fairly recently. Before the fires, its great diversity was already threatened due to invasive species, habitat destruction, and climate change, according to Australia’s science research agency, CSIRO. Now, ecologists fear severe ecological consequences from so much land being burned at once.
Sarah Legge is an ecologist at the Australian National University who studies how species respond to fire. In an interview this week, she explained just how bad the situation is for Australia’s wildlife — and which species will be most severely impacted. It’s not the koala (a staggering 8,000 of which have died). It’s the lesser-known species that live in small areas that have been totally engulfed.
“Hundreds of species have been affected by these fires,” Legge says. “That includes many dozens of threatened species; some of these will be brought to the brink of extinction as a result of this event. And if they’re not made extinct by this event, I think this is the beginning of the end for them. Because this event will reoccur. It’s awful. It will be ecosystem collapse in a lot of cases. And we’re not exactly sure what we’ll end up with at the end of it all.”
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Brian Resnick
As you’ve been watching this situation evolve and grow, how do you tell the story of what’s going on?
Sarah Legge
Fire is a natural part of many Australian habitats. So many Australian plants and animals are adapted to cope with fire. But they’re not adapted to cope with fire of this scale and this intensity. These fire events are unprecedented.
And the fire has also burned some habitats that just ... don’t burn normally. Some of the [UNESCO] listed subtropical rainforests along the Queensland-New South Wales border have burned. And we don’t even know how it can recover from fire because in our experience, in our living knowledge, they don’t burn.
Brian Resnick
You said some of these species are adapted to fire, but not of this scale. How do some species normally respond to fire, and why wouldn’t they be able to use those strategies now?
Sarah Legge
Normally, just small parts of the overall distribution [of where the species lives] would be affected. The fire might affect 5 percent of the distribution, not 100 percent. And the fire would be lower in intensity.
So [a species] might [hide] in a rocky pile where the radiant heat of the fire doesn’t kill it outright. It could survive the fire event, and there’s still bits of habitat in the immediate vicinity that it can use. That’s not the case this time.
Brian Resnick
Do you have examples of this in mind?
Sarah Legge
You got species like the long-footed potoroo — that’s a small marsupial that lives in the forest of East Gippsland in Victoria. That’s a fire-prone environment, so that animal has evolved with fire over many millennia. But now its entire distribution has been nuked in one intense event.
Another good example is the Kangaroo Island dunnart, which is a small carnivorous marsupial that lives on Kangaroo Island. Almost all of the national park on Kangaroo Island has been burnt.
This animal is already very rare. It shelters under the foliage of grass trees. Those grass trees have been incinerated. So any dunnart sheltering under there will have been killed. Whereas in a lower-intensity fire, some of the grass trees wouldn’t have burned, and certainly not all of the distribution of the dunnart would have burned in one go.
Brian Resnick
There’s been a lot of attention paid to the number of koalas being killed in the fire. How does their situation compare to these other species?
Sarah Legge
Anything with a small distribution is at an extreme risk. The images we see of suffering koalas are horrible. But they have a much bigger distribution, so this species probably hasn’t been brought to the brink in the same way that species with smaller distributions may have.
The silver-tailed antechinus, another carnivorous marsupial that lives in Queensland — its entire distribution pretty much has been burned. Glossy black cockatoos on Kangaroo Island, their distribution is being burned.
Brian Resnick
Is the fear that a lot of the damage won’t be salvageable? How should we think about what happens next, and what can be done to help these species?
Sarah Legge
A lot of us are feeling shell shock at the moment. There are some priorities. One is we need to prioritize the species that we’re most worried about, and then go out and look for them. Are they still there? Are there any bits of habitat in their distributions that didn’t burn?
And if we can find those bits of habitat, we need to protect them from further fire, from predation from feral predators and weed incursion — all these things that fire amplifies. There are things we can do to help them hang on for a few years.
But apart from that, people are talking about strategic feeding [of species], strategic setting up nest boxes. It won’t always be the best thing to do. But there will be cases where those kind of very intensive and small-scale actions could help. And they’ll certainly make people feel better.
Brian Resnick
What happens to these environments after the fires cease?
Sarah Legge
As well as the immediate mortality that’s caused by the fire, there’s going to be ongoing mortalities as the result of starvation — there will be nothing to eat — and the lack of shelter.
After an intense fire event, feral predators including foxes and cats are actually attracted to that fire-affected area to hunt there. Their hunting efficiency increases quite dramatically because the native animals have got nowhere to hide. So cats will come in from 20, 30 kilometers away to hunt in a recently burned area, and they mop up all the native animals that are left there over the next few months.
Brian Resnick
What draws these predators to the fire?
Sarah Legge
It’s amazing. They can travel quite a big distance to get to a fire event. We assume they are following the smoke. They might see smoke. But it’s incredible that, a) they know it’s worth going, and b) where to go.
Brian Resnick
On the bright side: Are there any interesting research opportunities that will result from the fire?
Sarah Legge
Oh, my gosh. To be honest, I don’t think so. Obviously, there has been research in the past on the impact on extreme fire events, but they’ve all been smaller in scale. An event like this, I don’t think anyone is thinking about the research opportunities. I think they’re thinking about the catastrophe and how we can limp through it and minimize the damage.
Brian Resnick
Is there any aspect of this story that you think needs more attention?
Sarah Legge
Obviously, the driver here is climate change, leading to extended drought and high temperatures. Australia is looking at 3 to 4 degrees of warming. I’m frightened to even imagine the country in that scenario. If this fire event is what we experienced with 1 degree of warming, what on earth are we going to be experiencing at 3 or 4 degrees of warming? It’s terrifying.
How to help Australia


vox--2020-01-10--Amy Klobuchar is tempting some Biden supporters in New Hampshire to change their minds

Share All sharing options for : Amy Klobuchar is tempting some Biden supporters in New Hampshire to change their minds CONWAY , New Hampshire — Moderate New Hampshire voters think Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar could beat President Donald Trump in a general election .
They ’ re just not sure she can win the Democratic primary .
Coming off a strong December debate performance — and with fundraising and polling numbers good enough to be on the January debate stage — Klobuchar is getting a lot of interest from moderate voters in the Granite State .
As she campaigns on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over disaffected Trump voters in areas Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 , voters here , especially those who are anxious about electability , are paying attention .
Klobuchar ’ s case to voters : She has a record of handily winning elections ( and Trump counties ) in her home state of Minnesota , a state she likes to point out also has a history of electing to executive office controversial Republicans with a penchant for drama , like former Gov .
Jesse Ventura .
“ I appeal to independents just based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ get done .
Independent voters in New Hampshire are like people everywhere , ” Klobuchar told me in a recent interview .
“ They want to have a check on this president , they want to make sure you have their backs , and they want to make sure that you show how you ’ re going to pay for things , that you get things done.
” After Klobuchar ’ s recent town hall in Conway , Madison resident and Joe Biden supporter Margaret Merrill told me the senator ’ s words @ @ @ @ @ @ @ She ’ s now considering Klobuchar .
“ I was Biden when I walked in here , and now I ’ m not , ” she said .
Merrill and multiple other voters described Klobuchar ’ s recent debate performance as commanding and impressive , and said it made them eager to see her in person .
And many told me that once they did , they found they liked the senator ’ s message — and her personality .
“ She ’ s feisty , and we need someone to be feisty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me at a recent town hall .
Waiting to see Klobuchar speak at an event in Wolfeboro , voter Susan Kucha told me she was considering both Klobuchar and Biden , even though she was hesitant about Klobuchar ’ s low polling .
“ It ’ s the polls ; you never know whether to trust them or not , ” Kucha said , adding , “ I ’ m rooting for her now.
” But Klobuchar convinced her , Kucha told me , after she saw the Minnesota senator speak in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for her , ” she said .
“ She just seems so authentic and rational and reasonable.
” This attraction to Klobuchar ’ s message and temperament means she could be the right candidate for New Hampshire voters who like former Vice President Joe Biden but are wary of his age ; voters who think former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg is too inexperienced ; and even some voters who like Sens .
Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders but fear they are too progressive to appeal to moderates in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s problem is that she ’ s stuck in fifth place , in both Iowa and New Hampshire .
All four of those candidates are ahead of her ; Biden and Sanders are currently tied for the lead with 21 percent support in New Hampshire , per the latest FiveThirtyEight polling average , while Klobuchar is closing in on 5 percent .
With Klobuchar behind the big four of Biden , Sanders , Warren , and Buttigieg , she needs to show moderate New Hampshire voters she can rise in the polls — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of these formidable candidates in Iowa .
While her top-tier rivals could arguably survive stumbles in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire — Biden , for instance , enjoys strong support in South Carolina and Nevada , states that could offset disappointing showings in the first two contests — the same isn ’ t true of Klobuchar .
Her ability to continue in the race ( and to build on poll numbers that have improved in recent weeks ) depends on outperforming expectations in the first two states .
Whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen .
Pulling off such a victory won ’ t be easy , in large part because it hinges on overcoming a difficult paradox : A lot of moderate New Hampshire Democrats like her — but they ’ re worried other people don ’ t .
The core of Klobuchar ’ s pitch to voters is electability .
Beating Trump in a general election is at the top of many voters ’ minds ; multiple polls earlier this election season showed that defeating him was the most important issue for Democrat or Democratic-leaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s national frontrunner , has argued that his experience and record makes him the most electable candidate .
Klobuchar says the same is true of her — and has suggested she is Democrats ’ best chance to carry those Midwestern areas Clinton struggled with during the 2016 election .
“ We have to have someone that can win .
I ’ ve won every race down to the fourth grade , ” Klobuchar told voters at a recent New Hampshire event .
“ When they did a poll in my state about a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ poll — about who could beat Donald Trump in a state that knows me , I beat Donald Trump by 17 points.
” Klobuchar added that she did the best with Minnesota men of any Democratic candidate .
This message of winning , especially in the Midwest , could resonate with primary voters this year .
Democrats across the country are obsessed with taking back states like Michigan and Wisconsin , where they unexpectedly lost to Trump in the 2016 general election .
“ My No .
1 , 2 , and 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump , ” San Diego voter Dori Jaffee told me as she exited a recent event for Warren in Hanover .
Jaffee ’ s comments encapsulate what the overwhelming majority of voters say : anyone but Trump .
“ New Hampshire voters want to beat Donald Trump , ” a Klobuchar aide told Vox .
“ Amy is certainly leaning into that message .
It ’ s also her record of winning counties that voted for him , and why she has an electoral appeal that not everyone else has.
” As Vox @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Minnesota is seen as bluer than Wisconsin because of its largest city , Minneapolis .
But in 2016 , Hillary Clinton won just nine of the state ’ s 87 counties , whereas Klobuchar won 51 of them two years later .
In other words , the state is a good test case for the senator ’ s electability argument .
Klobuchar talks a lot about her unblemished record of winning elections in Minnesota , but the even bigger thing is how large her margins were in these elections .
Klobuchar won her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 points .
And as Yglesias wrote : Those are enviable margins in a general election .
But Klobuchar first has to navigate a crowded primary field , where she ’ s broken out at times but has also been overshadowed by fellow moderates , including newcomer Buttigieg and familiar entity Biden .
Klobuchar could benefit from a New Hampshire win .
But she has to win Iowa first .
In many ways , a candidate like Klobuchar is a great fit for an independent-minded state like New Hampshire , where independent voters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up the biggest slice of the electorate .
She has proved her ability to create a diverse base in her native Minnesota , and New Hampshire seems like it would pose an opportunity to replicate that success .
But her inability to make a strong early showing in the state appears to be undercutting her potential to grow her support .
For instance , independent Hopkinton voter Tony Gilmore told me he liked Klobuchar but wasn ’ t willing to support her because he was worried she wasn ’ t gaining traction .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , she ’ s really got her feet on the ground , ” he said , adding that rather than voting for Klobuchar , he planned to vote for Bill Weld in the Republican primary to take a vote away from Trump .
Other voters voiced similar concerns to me , suggesting that finding a way to break out of this cycle — where Klobuchar is liked but not supported because of concerns about the size of her base — is key to her winning the state .
One way she could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , would be to win or overperform in Iowa in a big way — coming in first , or at the very least , second .
“ Klobuchar has to put up this shock-the-world number in Iowa and be the story , ” said University of New Hampshire political science professor Dante Scala .
“ I think a lot of Biden voters would find Klobuchar a good substitute .
If Biden doesn ’ t come through , they ’ d find [ her ] a nice , safe choice .
That depends on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allies in New Hampshire told me they ’ re confident in the vice president ’ s enduring appeal here , even with younger moderates like Klobuchar and Buttigieg also in the race .
“ If she surprises everybody in Iowa , she could be a factor here , ” said former US Ambassador Terry Shumaker , a prominent Biden supporter in New Hampshire .
“ I keep coming back to this steady hand on the tiller , a lot of people just want the daily chaos to stop .
If I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is Joe Biden.
” But being an Iowa surprise won ’ t be easy for Klobuchar .
Though there ’ s some advantage to being the underrated candidate going into the Iowa caucuses on February 3 , Klobuchar has a lot of ground to make up : Her polling average puts her in fifth place in the state , roughly 8 percentage points behind Warren .
“ I don ’ t think anyone is counting her out , but she ’ s got a ways to go , ” veteran Iowa pollster Ann @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seen caucuses where someone who is not leading surges in the last month , even the last week .
What people don ’ t understand is the caucus is designed for people to keep an open mind.
” So while Klobuchar is not considered one of the frontrunners , she is close enough to the top of the pack that it isn ’ t inconceivable she might put up unexpectedly large numbers in Iowa and continue strong into New Hampshire .
And given the profiles of those frontrunners — the progressive Sanders and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buttigieg — Klobuchar told me she sees herself as having an appeal that all four lack .
Independent voters in the early states are “ people who are sometimes progressive , but practical , ” she said .
“ That describes me .
”

Share All sharing options for: Amy Klobuchar is tempting some Biden supporters in New Hampshire to change their minds
CONWAY, New Hampshire — Moderate New Hampshire voters think Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar could beat President Donald Trump in a general election. They’re just not sure she can win the Democratic primary.
Coming off a strong December debate performance — and with fundraising and polling numbers good enough to be on the January debate stage — Klobuchar is getting a lot of interest from moderate voters in the Granite State. As she campaigns on her Midwestern appeal and ability to win over disaffected Trump voters in areas Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, voters here, especially those who are anxious about electability, are paying attention.
Klobuchar’s case to voters: She has a record of handily winning elections (and Trump counties) in her home state of Minnesota, a state she likes to point out also has a history of electing to executive office controversial figures with a penchant for drama, like former Gov. Jesse Ventura.
“I appeal to independents just based on my agenda and what I want to get done. Independent voters in New Hampshire are like people everywhere,” Klobuchar told me in a recent interview. “They want to have a check on this president, they want to make sure you have their backs, and they want to make sure that you show how you’re going to pay for things, that you get things done.”
After Klobuchar’s recent town hall in Conway, Madison resident and Joe Biden supporter Margaret Merrill told me the senator’s words turned her into an undecided voter. She’s now considering Klobuchar.
“I was Biden when I walked in here, and now I’m not,” she said. Merrill and multiple other voters described Klobuchar’s recent debate performance as commanding and impressive, and said it made them eager to see her in person. And many told me that once they did, they found they liked the senator’s message — and her personality.
“She’s feisty, and we need someone to be feisty,” undecided Sunapee voter Susan Fine told me at a recent town hall.
Waiting to see Klobuchar speak at an event in Wolfeboro, voter Susan Kucha told me she was considering both Klobuchar and Biden, even though she was hesitant about Klobuchar’s low polling.
“It’s the polls; you never know whether to trust them or not,” Kucha said, adding, “I’m rooting for her now.” But Klobuchar convinced her, Kucha told me, after she saw the Minnesota senator speak in person.
“I’m voting for her,” she said. “She just seems so authentic and rational and reasonable.”
This attraction to Klobuchar’s message and temperament means she could be the right candidate for New Hampshire voters who like former Vice President Joe Biden but are wary of his age; voters who think former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is too inexperienced; and even some voters who like Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders but fear they are too progressive to appeal to moderates in a general election.
However, Klobuchar’s problem is that she’s stuck in fifth place, in both Iowa and New Hampshire. All four of those candidates are ahead of her; Biden and Sanders are currently tied for the lead with 21 percent support in New Hampshire, per the latest FiveThirtyEight polling average, while Klobuchar is closing in on 5 percent.
With Klobuchar behind the big four of Biden, Sanders, Warren, and Buttigieg, she needs to show moderate New Hampshire voters she can rise in the polls — or, better yet, beat any one of these formidable candidates in Iowa.
While her top-tier rivals could arguably survive stumbles in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire — Biden, for instance, enjoys strong support in South Carolina and Nevada, states that could offset disappointing showings in the first two contests — the same isn’t true of Klobuchar. Her ability to continue in the race (and to build on poll numbers that have improved in recent weeks) depends on outperforming expectations in the first two states. Whether she can do that remains to be seen.
Pulling off such a victory won’t be easy, in large part because it hinges on overcoming a difficult paradox: A lot of moderate New Hampshire Democrats like her — but they’re worried other people don’t.
Klobuchar’s pitch: A no-nonsense moderate who can beat Trump
The core of Klobuchar’s pitch to voters is electability.
Beating Trump in a general election is at the top of many voters’ minds; multiple polls earlier this election season showed that defeating him was the most important issue for Democrat or Democratic-leaning voters. Biden, the race’s national frontrunner, has argued that his experience and record makes him the most electable candidate. Klobuchar says the same is true of her — and has suggested she is Democrats’ best chance to carry those Midwestern areas Clinton struggled with during the 2016 election.
“We have to have someone that can win. I’ve won every race down to the fourth grade,” Klobuchar told voters at a recent New Hampshire event. “When they did a poll in my state about a month ago — [the] Mason-Dixon poll — about who could beat Donald Trump in a state that knows me, I beat Donald Trump by 17 points.” Klobuchar added that she did the best with Minnesota men of any Democratic candidate.
This message of winning, especially in the Midwest, could resonate with primary voters this year. Democrats across the country are obsessed with taking back states like Michigan and Wisconsin, where they unexpectedly lost to Trump in the 2016 general election.
“My No. 1, 2, and 3 criteria is someone who can beat Donald Trump,” San Diego voter Dori Jaffee told me as she exited a recent event for Warren in Hanover. Jaffee’s comments encapsulate what the overwhelming majority of voters say: anyone but Trump.
“New Hampshire voters want to beat Donald Trump,” a Klobuchar aide told Vox. “Amy is certainly leaning into that message. It’s also her record of winning counties that voted for him, and why she has an electoral appeal that not everyone else has.”
As Vox’s Matt Yglesias has written, Minnesota is seen as bluer than Wisconsin because of its largest city, Minneapolis. But in 2016, Hillary Clinton won just nine of the state’s 87 counties, whereas Klobuchar won 51 of them two years later. In other words, the state is a good test case for the senator’s electability argument.
Klobuchar talks a lot about her unblemished record of winning elections in Minnesota, but the even bigger thing is how large her margins were in these elections.
Klobuchar won her Senate race for reelection in 2018 by 24 points. And as Yglesias wrote:
Back in 2012, Obama won 53 percent of the vote in Minnesota. Klobuchar won 65 percent. Back in 2006, Tim Pawlenty narrowly defeated his Democratic opponent for governor in a race that also saw a significant third-party vote. Klobuchar won 58 percent of the vote in a landslide win that was also the narrowest of her three statewide runs.
Those are enviable margins in a general election. But Klobuchar first has to navigate a crowded primary field, where she’s broken out at times but has also been overshadowed by fellow moderates, including newcomer Buttigieg and familiar entity Biden.
Klobuchar could benefit from a New Hampshire win. But she has to win Iowa first.
In many ways, a candidate like Klobuchar is a great fit for an independent-minded state like New Hampshire, where independent voters not registered with any political party make up the biggest slice of the electorate.
She has proved her ability to create a diverse base in her native Minnesota, and New Hampshire seems like it would pose an opportunity to replicate that success. But her inability to make a strong early showing in the state appears to be undercutting her potential to grow her support.
For instance, independent Hopkinton voter Tony Gilmore told me he liked Klobuchar but wasn’t willing to support her because he was worried she wasn’t gaining traction. “It’s really hard to say, she’s really got her feet on the ground,” he said, adding that rather than voting for Klobuchar, he planned to vote for Bill Weld in the Republican primary to take a vote away from Trump.
Other voters voiced similar concerns to me, suggesting that finding a way to break out of this cycle — where Klobuchar is liked but not supported because of concerns about the size of her base — is key to her winning the state. One way she could do this, political experts told me, would be to win or overperform in Iowa in a big way — coming in first, or at the very least, second.
“Klobuchar has to put up this shock-the-world number in Iowa and be the story,” said University of New Hampshire political science professor Dante Scala. “I think a lot of Biden voters would find Klobuchar a good substitute. If Biden doesn’t come through, they’d find [her] a nice, safe choice. That depends on Klobuchar being the Iowa surprise.”
Biden allies in New Hampshire told me they’re confident in the vice president’s enduring appeal here, even with younger moderates like Klobuchar and Buttigieg also in the race.
“If she surprises everybody in Iowa, she could be a factor here,” said former US Ambassador Terry Shumaker, a prominent Biden supporter in New Hampshire. “I keep coming back to this steady hand on the tiller, a lot of people just want the daily chaos to stop. If I’m assessing the electorate correctly, that candidate is Joe Biden.”
But being an Iowa surprise won’t be easy for Klobuchar. Though there’s some advantage to being the underrated candidate going into the Iowa caucuses on February 3, Klobuchar has a lot of ground to make up: Her polling average puts her in fifth place in the state, roughly 8 percentage points behind Warren.
“I don’t think anyone is counting her out, but she’s got a ways to go,” veteran Iowa pollster Ann Selzer told me. “We have seen caucuses where someone who is not leading surges in the last month, even the last week. What people don’t understand is the caucus is designed for people to keep an open mind.”
So while Klobuchar is not considered one of the frontrunners, she is close enough to the top of the pack that it isn’t inconceivable she might put up unexpectedly large numbers in Iowa and continue strong into New Hampshire.
And given the profiles of those frontrunners — the progressive Sanders and Warren and the more moderate Biden and Buttigieg — Klobuchar told me she sees herself as having an appeal that all four lack.
Independent voters in the early states are “people who are sometimes progressive, but practical,” she said. “That describes me.”
Correction: An earlier version of this story said former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura was a Republican. Ventura ran for governor as a third party candidate.


vox--2020-01-09--Vox Sentences: Shot down

Vox Sentences: Shot down

The news , but shorter .
Your daily wrap-up for the day in news .
Subscribe to get Vox Sentences delivered straight to your inbox .
Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what ’ s happening in the world .
Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter , delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday , or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions .
• The Ukrainian airliner that crashed with no survivors near Tehran on Wednesday was hit by an Iranian missile , new video suggests .
[ NYT / Christiaan Triebert , Malachy Browne @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ] • The missile strike may have been unintentional , according to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau .
One hundred seventy-six people died in the crash , including 63 Canadian citizens and 82 Iranians .
[ Washington Post / Isabelle Khurshudyan , Missy Ryan , Dan Lamothe , and Paul Sonne ] • Initial Iranian statements blamed a technical issue for the crash , which occurred just minutes after the plane took off .
Iran ’ s civilian aviation has also questioned the plausibility of a missile strike .
[ CNN / Jim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Zachary Cohen , and Maegan Vazquez ] • The crash followed closely on the heels of an Iranian reprisal against the US in response to the death of military leader Qassem Soleimani .
Iran launched missiles at two US bases in Iraq .
[ NBC / Tom Costello , Mosheh Gains , Ken Dilanian , and Janelle Griffith ] • The plane ’ s “ black box , ” which contains cockpit recordings and other information , was damaged in the crash .
However , according to Trudeau , Iran will share @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox / Sean Collins and Jen Kirby ] • After a series of severe earthquakes earlier this week leveled buildings and damaged Puerto Rico ’ s largest power plant , about two-thirds of the island is still without power .
[ CNN / Paul P. Murphy ] • Many buildings on the island were never built to withstand an earthquake , and there are concerns that damaged structures could still collapse as aftershocks continue .
[ NYT / Patricia Mazzei , Edmy Ayala , and Frances Robles ] • The Trump administration issued @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the quakes that would free up federal disaster relief funds .
However , Puerto Rico officials are worried about whether aid can be delivered quickly enough .
[ AP / Dánica Coto ] • The earthquakes are only the latest natural disaster to hit Puerto Rico : The island was also ravaged by Hurricane Maria in 2017 .
Residents say that the earthquake has brought back memories — and trauma — from the last crisis .
[ NBC / Nicole Acevedo , Sandra Lilley , and Suzanne Gamboa ] • The island is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nearly $ 20 billion in congressional funding is still on hold , and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused the Trump administration of an “ unlawful withholding of funds.
” [ Washington Post / Erica Werner ] • The return of Infrastructure Week ?
Trump takes aim at environmental impact reviews for construction projects .
[ Politico / Zack Colman ] • After a UK general election last month , Brexit is on course to go into effect at the end of the month .
[ NYT / Stephen Castle ] • Facebook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ political advertising .
[ Recode / Peter Kafka ] • “ I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey ( I ’ ve done before ! )
” : Trump ’ s obsession with sanctions , explained .
[ Washington Post / Ashley Parker ] • A new study shows that a higher minimum wage could mean fewer suicides .
[ NPR / Graison Dangor ] “ There was a senator , I think it was after my pancreatic cancer , who announced with great glee that I was going to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ senator , whose name I have forgotten , is now himself dead , and I am very much alive.
” [ Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who this week announced that she is cancer-free , in an interview last year / NYT ] Listen to this : The other Iranian threat : cyberwarfare How much should we worry about Iranian hackers ?
[ Recode / Arielle Duhaime-Ross and Andy Greenberg ] What young Iranians think about the latest US-Iran conflict Trump has created a loophole to allow pipelines to avoid environmental review The rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7 things everyone should know about Australia ’ s wildfire disaster Trump is taking credit for the decades-old decline in cancer deaths

Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what’s happening in the world. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions.
Reports: Missile strike downed Ukrainian airliner
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Sentences Get the news, but shorter, in one daily newsletter. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Power outages persist after Puerto Rico earthquakes
After a series of severe earthquakes earlier this week leveled buildings and damaged Puerto Rico’s largest power plant, about two-thirds of the island is still without power. [ CNN / Paul P. Murphy ]
] Many buildings on the island were never built to withstand an earthquake, and there are concerns that damaged structures could still collapse as aftershocks continue. [ NYT / Patricia Mazzei, Edmy Ayala, and Frances Robles ]
] The Trump administration issued an emergency declaration Tuesday in response to the quakes that would free up federal disaster relief funds. However, Puerto Rico officials are worried about whether aid can be delivered quickly enough. [ AP / Dánica Coto ]
] The earthquakes are only the latest natural disaster to hit Puerto Rico: The island was also ravaged by Hurricane Maria in 2017. Residents say that the earthquake has brought back memories — and trauma — from the last crisis. [ NBC / Nicole Acevedo, Sandra Lilley, and Suzanne Gamboa ]
] The island is still waiting on hurricane recovery aid. Nearly $20 billion in congressional funding is still on hold, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday accused the Trump administration of an “unlawful withholding of funds.” [Washington Post / Erica Werner]
Miscellaneous
Verbatim
“There was a senator, I think it was after my pancreatic cancer, who announced with great glee that I was going to be dead within six months. That senator, whose name I have forgotten, is now himself dead, and I am very much alive.” [Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who this week announced that she is cancer-free, in an interview last year / NYT]
Listen to this: The other Iranian threat: cyberwarfare
How much should we worry about Iranian hackers? [Recode / Arielle Duhaime-Ross and Andy Greenberg]
Read more
What young Iranians think about the latest US-Iran conflict
Trump has created a loophole to allow pipelines to avoid environmental review
The rise in meth and cocaine overdoses, explained
7 things everyone should know about Australia’s wildfire disaster
Trump is taking credit for the decades-old decline in cancer deaths


vox--2020-01-10--Alphabet’s top lawyer, who has been accused of inappropriate workplace relationships, is stepping do

Alphabet’s top lawyer, who has been accused of inappropriate workplace relationships, is stepping down

David Drummond , the chief legal officer of Google parent company Alphabet , is resigning at the end of this month .
His announcement comes as the company ’ s board recently concluded an investigation into how Alphabet has handled claims of sexual harassment and misconduct , including Drummond ’ s own relationships with women at the company .
The results of the investigation have not been made public , and a spokesperson for the company denied that the investigation is related to Drummond ’ s departure .
Drummond , a 20-year employee who has been with Google since its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as its top lawyer , has seen his long tenure marked by allegations that he has had inappropriate relationships with several women at the company .
His continued employment was a bone of contention for current and former Google employees who are frustrated by how the company has handled alleged sexual misconduct in its upper ranks .
His presence has contributed to roiling internal dissent at a time when management is facing mounting protests from its rank and file about issues from climate change to immigration .
Drummond was one of several subjects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ York Times in 2018 about Google ’ s mishandling of sexual harassment claims and culture around office relationships .
The article reported Drummond ’ s extramarital affair with his former employee in the legal department , Jennifer Blakely , who described being pushed out of the company as Drummond ’ s own career soared .
In August 2019 , Blakely came forward with more details about the affair in a Medium post , alleging that Drummond had multiple affairs while they were together , including with another Google colleague , and that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drummond has denied that he “ started a relationship ” with anyone else at Google or its parent company Alphabet , other than Blakely .
Drummond has reportedly since married another woman who works in Google ’ s legal department .
“ Drummond ’ s persistence at the top of the management chain was something of a running joke in the wake of the walkout , ” Claire Stapleton , a former Google employee and one of the organizers of a historic employee-led walkout against the company ’ s handling of sexual harassment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made it almost impossible to believe Google management was taking the issues seriously.
” Other former Google employees , including a high-ranking former exec , Bill Maris , who founded Google ’ s investment arm , Google Ventures , similarly shared his disapproval of Drummond ’ s employment .
Maris told Axios , “ David Drummond is the reason I left Google .
... We have very , very different ideas about how to treat people , and this was a long time coming.
” Drummond was a top executive at the company @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sign of major leadership changes at the company following the exits of co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin from their executive roles .
Drummond announced his departure in a memo sent to colleagues today , which was reported by various outlets and confirmed to Recode by an Alphabet spokesperson .
It reads in part : “ With Larry and Sergey now leaving their executive roles at Alphabet , the company is entering an exciting new phase , and I believe that it ’ s also the right time for me to make way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drummond has been cashing out his stake in the company prior to his announced departure .
In the past several months , Drummond has sold millions in Alphabet stock as part of a pre-arranged trading plan .
He ’ s reportedly sold $ 200 million worth of his Alphabet shares in January alone .
In the past , Google has drawn scrutiny for offering multimillion dollar exit packages to top executives accused of sexual misconduct at the company .
A spokesperson for Google told Recode that Drummond is not receiving an exit package @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conduct with women at Alphabet and his past relationship with Blakely , saying , “ It ’ s not a secret that Jennifer and I had a difficult break-up 10 years ago .
I am far from perfect and I regret my part in that .
”

David Drummond, the chief legal officer of Google parent company Alphabet, is resigning at the end of this month. His announcement comes as the company’s board recently concluded an investigation into how Alphabet has handled claims of sexual harassment and misconduct, including Drummond’s own relationships with women at the company. The results of the investigation have not been made public, and a spokesperson for the company denied that the investigation is related to Drummond’s departure.
Drummond, a 20-year employee who has been with Google since its infancy and helped the company go public as its top lawyer, has seen his long tenure marked by allegations that he has had inappropriate relationships with several women at the company. His continued employment was a bone of contention for current and former Google employees who are frustrated by how the company has handled alleged sexual misconduct in its upper ranks. His presence has contributed to roiling internal dissent at a time when management is facing mounting protests from its rank and file about issues from climate change to immigration.
Drummond was one of several subjects in a bombshell report from the New York Times in 2018 about Google’s mishandling of sexual harassment claims and culture around office relationships. The article reported Drummond’s extramarital affair with his former employee in the legal department, Jennifer Blakely, who described being pushed out of the company as Drummond’s own career soared. In August 2019, Blakely came forward with more details about the affair in a Medium post, alleging that Drummond had multiple affairs while they were together, including with another Google colleague, and that he knowingly violated rules around workplace relationships. Drummond has denied that he “started a relationship” with anyone else at Google or its parent company Alphabet, other than Blakely. Drummond has reportedly since married another woman who works in Google’s legal department.
“Drummond’s persistence at the top of the management chain was something of a running joke in the wake of the walkout,” Claire Stapleton, a former Google employee and one of the organizers of a historic employee-led walkout against the company’s handling of sexual harassment claims, told Recode. “It made it almost impossible to believe Google management was taking the issues seriously.”
Other former Google employees, including a high-ranking former exec, Bill Maris, who founded Google’s investment arm, Google Ventures, similarly shared his disapproval of Drummond’s employment. Maris told Axios, “David Drummond is the reason I left Google. ... We have very, very different ideas about how to treat people, and this was a long time coming.”
Drummond was a top executive at the company, and his departure is also another sign of major leadership changes at the company following the exits of co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin from their executive roles.
Drummond announced his departure in a memo sent to colleagues today, which was reported by various outlets and confirmed to Recode by an Alphabet spokesperson. It reads in part: “With Larry and Sergey now leaving their executive roles at Alphabet, the company is entering an exciting new phase, and I believe that it’s also the right time for me to make way for the next generation of leaders.”
Drummond has been cashing out his stake in the company prior to his announced departure. In the past several months, Drummond has sold millions in Alphabet stock as part of a pre-arranged trading plan. He’s reportedly sold $200 million worth of his Alphabet shares in January alone.
In the past, Google has drawn scrutiny for offering multimillion dollar exit packages to top executives accused of sexual misconduct at the company. A spokesperson for Google told Recode that Drummond is not receiving an exit package.
Previously, Drummond has defended his conduct with women at Alphabet and his past relationship with Blakely, saying, “It’s not a secret that Jennifer and I had a difficult break-up 10 years ago. I am far from perfect and I regret my part in that.”


vox--2020-01-10--Trump’s team insists Soleimani was an “imminent” threat. Just don’t ask for details.

The Trump administration ’ s stated rationale for killing Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani — that he posed an “ imminent threat ” to Americans requiring the US to take him out — is looking more and more bogus .
From political rallies to press conferences to secret briefings to official documents , Trump administration officials have repeatedly failed to provide evidence that Soleimani posed more danger to Americans at the time he was killed than he routinely did for decades .
Trump ’ s team has so bungled its justification for the strike that even some Republicans have criticized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ imminent threat ” rationale , which could help bolster a self-defense case , experts say the government would struggle to legally justify greenlighting the operation in court .
And despite having now had over a week to provide that evidence to the public , officials from President Donald Trump on down have increasingly begun to talk about the operation as retribution for the killing of an American contractor in Iraq by members of an Iranian-backed militia and the storming of the US embassy in Baghdad in late December .
This failure has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ positive moment in Trump ’ s presidency — the removal of a deadly anti-American general during a standoff with Iran that may have deterred further lethal action — into an embarrassing botch .
“ I ’ m surprised at how poorly they are making any credible public case for it , ” says Suzanne Maloney , an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution .
“ I ’ m not sure if that ’ s arrogance or incompetence or some combination of both.
” The origins of the Trump administration ’ s “ imminent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bombed a two-car convoy carrying Soleimani outside Baghdad ’ s airport on January 2 , the Pentagon put out a statement that would serve as the backbone of the administration ’ s case for killing the military leader .
“ General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region , ” the statement read .
“ This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.
” That statement offers two justifications for the strike , then : 1 ) Soleimani had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to be killed immediately to prevent that from happening ; and 2 ) killing Soleimani would deter Iran from making future plans to attack Americans .
The next day , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN that “ there was , in fact , an imminent attack taking place .
...
The American people should know that this was an intelligence-based assessment that drove this , ” he added .
Put together , the Pentagon and Pompeo statements made it clear the administration was choosing to justify the legality of the strike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rather than , say , arguing it was legal under the 2001 Congressional authorization to use force against the 9/11 attackers , or under the 2002 Congressional authorization for the Iraq War ) .
All Trump ’ s team needed to do was provide evidence that killing the Iranian general was truly an act of self-defense — as Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for in international law — and that killing him was the only way to prevent an imminent attack , and they ’ d be in the clear .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have started falling apart .
The administration has yet to provide the public with any evidence that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack beyond vague and often conflicting statements about plots to blow up one or more embassies .
“ Their justification has been completely crumbling , ” Oona Hathaway , an international law expert at Yale Law School and former Pentagon lawyer , told me .
“ Each time they ’ ve been pressed to give facts for their ‘ imminent ’ case , they just can ’ t do it.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ have said the administration provided sufficient evidence of an imminent attack in a classified briefing with the House and Senate on Wednesday , other GOP members — along with most Democrats — had a different view : “ This was probably the worst briefing I ’ ve seen , at least on a military issue , in the nine years I ’ ve served in the US Senate , ” Sen. Mike Lee ( R-UT ) told reporters after the Senate session .
Sen. Tom Udall ( D-NM ) , a member of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the briefing , told Vox ’ s Worldly podcast on Thursday the officials “ just didn ’ t have ” the requisite evidence of an imminent threat , adding , “ This was a lot of bluster.
” From “ imminent ” to “ days ” to “ you never know ” On Monday , Army Gen. Mark Milley , the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff , told Pentagon reporters that the Soleimani intelligence the US got wasn ’ t overly specific .
“ Did it exactly say who , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” he said .
“ But he was planning , coordinating , and synchronizing significant combat operations against US military forces in the region and it was imminent.
” On Tuesday , after having said just a few days before that the administration had made “ an intelligence-based assessment ” that there was “ an imminent attack taking place , ” Pompeo was asked by a reporter to provide more details about that imminent threat .
His response was to say that Soleimani deserved his fate for having American blood on his hands @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the end of last year , in December , ultimately leading to the death of an American , ” Pompeo said .
“ So , if you are looking for imminence , look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against Soleimani.
” That same day , Defense Secretary Mark Esper was asked by a Pentagon reporter if the intelligence America had showed Soleimani ’ s attack would take place in days or weeks .
“ I think it ’ s more fair to say days @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chief responded .
Esper also insisted the intelligence gathered by the US was “ exquisite , ” but whether it was worthy of the superlative remains an open question as he didn ’ t actually share any of it with the press .
National Security Adviser Robert O ’ Brien — who was one of the administration officials who briefed Congress this week — offered a few more details in an interview with NPR .
He said the intelligence showed an attack was “ imminent ” in Iraq and perhaps Syria , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and place of these things with perfect particularity.
” Pompeo gave a similar statement to Fox News ’ s Laura Ingraham on Thursday night .
“ There were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qassem Soleimani , ” he said .
“ We don ’ t know precisely when , and we don ’ t know precisely where , but it was real.
” On Wednesday , Kelly Craft , the US ambassador to the UN , quietly sent a letter to the president of the UN Security Council @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known as an “ Article 51 letter , ” and as Hathaway , the Yale international law expert , explained on Twitter , it ’ s a document that a country “ is required to file if it is claiming to have acted in self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
” The January 2 operation referred to here is the Soleimani killing .
The letter goes on to list several of those “ armed attacks in recent months ” by Iran and its proxies .
They include an Iranian drone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Iran ’ s shoot-down of a US drone in June , and the killing of a US contractor in Iraq by an Iranian-backed proxy group in December .
What the letter doesn ’ t list , however , is any evidence of an imminent attack being planned by Soleimani .
Even some UN officials I spoke to were surprised Craft had sent that letter .
“ The administration just pointed to general animosities between the US and Iran , ” Hathaway says .
“ That animosity has been true for decades .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The administration , she says , hasn ’ t come close to making a persuasive argument .
“ It just doesn ’ t hold up .
The law can ’ t make up for missing facts .
They actually needed to have a factual predicate to allow them to take the action that they did.
” The administration ’ s stumbling , bumbling , fumbling imminence claims have left Iran experts like Maloney completely stunned .
“ They really need to get their story straight , ” she told me .
“ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into more trouble than the original crime .
”

The Trump administration’s stated rationale for killing Iranian military leader Qassem Soleimani — that he posed an “imminent threat” to Americans requiring the US to take him out — is looking more and more bogus.
From political rallies to press conferences to secret briefings to official documents, Trump administration officials have repeatedly failed to provide evidence that Soleimani posed more danger to Americans at the time he was killed than he routinely did for decades. Trump’s team has so bungled its justification for the strike that even some Republicans have criticized the administration.
Without evidence establishing the “imminent threat” rationale, which could help bolster a self-defense case, experts say the government would struggle to legally justify greenlighting the operation in court.
And despite having now had over a week to provide that evidence to the public, officials from President Donald Trump on down have increasingly begun to talk about the operation as retribution for the killing of an American contractor in Iraq by members of an Iranian-backed militia and the storming of the US embassy in Baghdad in late December.
This failure has turned what could’ve been a positive moment in Trump’s presidency — the removal of a deadly anti-American general during a standoff with Iran that may have deterred further lethal action — into an embarrassing botch.
“I’m surprised at how poorly they are making any credible public case for it,” says Suzanne Maloney, an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution. “I’m not sure if that’s arrogance or incompetence or some combination of both.”
The origins of the Trump administration’s “imminent threat” argument
After a US drone bombed a two-car convoy carrying Soleimani outside Baghdad’s airport on January 2, the Pentagon put out a statement that would serve as the backbone of the administration’s case for killing the military leader.
“General Soleimani was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq and throughout the region,” the statement read. “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans.”
That statement offers two justifications for the strike, then: 1) Soleimani had been planning to kill Americans and thus needed to be killed immediately to prevent that from happening; and 2) killing Soleimani would deter Iran from making future plans to attack Americans.
The next day, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told CNN that “there was, in fact, an imminent attack taking place. ... The American people should know that this was an intelligence-based assessment that drove this,” he added.
Put together, the Pentagon and Pompeo statements made it clear the administration was choosing to justify the legality of the strike by claiming it was in self-defense (rather than, say, arguing it was legal under the 2001 Congressional authorization to use force against the 9/11 attackers, or under the 2002 Congressional authorization for the Iraq War).
All Trump’s team needed to do was provide evidence that killing the Iranian general was truly an act of self-defense — as Article 51 of the UN Charter allows for in international law — and that killing him was the only way to prevent an imminent attack, and they’d be in the clear.
And that’s where everything seems to have started falling apart. The administration has yet to provide the public with any evidence that Soleimani was planning an imminent attack beyond vague and often conflicting statements about plots to blow up one or more embassies.
“Their justification has been completely crumbling,” Oona Hathaway, an international law expert at Yale Law School and former Pentagon lawyer, told me. “Each time they’ve been pressed to give facts for their ‘imminent’ case, they just can’t do it.”
While some Republican members of Congress have said the administration provided sufficient evidence of an imminent attack in a classified briefing with the House and Senate on Wednesday, other GOP members — along with most Democrats — had a different view: “This was probably the worst briefing I’ve seen, at least on a military issue, in the nine years I’ve served in the US Senate,” Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) told reporters after the Senate session.
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who attended the briefing, told Vox’s Worldly podcast on Thursday the officials “just didn’t have” the requisite evidence of an imminent threat, adding, “This was a lot of bluster.”
From “imminent” to “days” to “you never know”
On Monday, Army Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Pentagon reporters that the Soleimani intelligence the US got wasn’t overly specific. “Did it exactly say who, what, when, where? No,” he said. “But he was planning, coordinating, and synchronizing significant combat operations against US military forces in the region and it was imminent.”
On Tuesday, after having said just a few days before that the administration had made “an intelligence-based assessment” that there was “an imminent attack taking place,” Pompeo was asked by a reporter to provide more details about that imminent threat.
His response was to say that Soleimani deserved his fate for having American blood on his hands.
“We know what happened at the end of last year, in December, ultimately leading to the death of an American,” Pompeo said. “So, if you are looking for imminence, look no further than the days that led up to the strike that was taken against Soleimani.”
REPORTER: Can you be specific about the imminent threat that Soleimani posed?
POMPEO: "We know what happened at the end of last year & ultimately led to the death of an American. If you are looking for immanence, look no further than the days that led up to the strike." pic.twitter.com/yhqyNToZxd — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 7, 2020
That same day, Defense Secretary Mark Esper was asked by a Pentagon reporter if the intelligence America had showed Soleimani’s attack would take place in days or weeks. “I think it’s more fair to say days, for sure,” the defense chief responded.
Esper also insisted the intelligence gathered by the US was “exquisite,” but whether it was worthy of the superlative remains an open question as he didn’t actually share any of it with the press.
National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien — who was one of the administration officials who briefed Congress this week — offered a few more details in an interview with NPR. He said the intelligence showed an attack was “imminent” in Iraq and perhaps Syria, but that “you never know the time and place of these things with perfect particularity.”
Pompeo gave a similar statement to Fox News’s Laura Ingraham on Thursday night. “There were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qassem Soleimani,” he said. “We don’t know precisely when, and we don’t know precisely where, but it was real.”
Pompeo: “there were a series of imminent attacks, we don’t know when, we don’t know where.
pic.twitter.com/ig6dluI63C — Jason Sparks (@sparksjls) January 10, 2020
On Wednesday, Kelly Craft, the US ambassador to the UN, quietly sent a letter to the president of the UN Security Council. It’s what’s known as an “Article 51 letter,” and as Hathaway, the Yale international law expert, explained on Twitter, it’s a document that a country “is required to file if it is claiming to have acted in self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.”
It stated, in part:
[T]he United States has undertaken certain actions in the exercise of its inherent right of self-defense. These actions were in response to an escalating series of armed attacks in recent months by the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iran-supported militias on U.S. forces and interests in the Middle East region, in order to deter the Islamic Republic of Iran from conducting or supporting further attacks against the United States or U.S. interests, and to degrade the Islamic Republic of Iran and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force supported militias’ ability to conduct attacks. These actions include an operation on January 2, 2020, against leadership elements of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force on the territory of Iraq.
The January 2 operation referred to here is the Soleimani killing.
The letter goes on to list several of those “armed attacks in recent months” by Iran and its proxies. They include an Iranian drone flying near a US warship in July, Iran’s shoot-down of a US drone in June, and the killing of a US contractor in Iraq by an Iranian-backed proxy group in December.
What the letter doesn’t list, however, is any evidence of an imminent attack being planned by Soleimani. Even some UN officials I spoke to were surprised Craft had sent that letter.
“The administration just pointed to general animosities between the US and Iran,” Hathaway says. “That animosity has been true for decades. So why kill Soleimani now?” The administration, she says, hasn’t come close to making a persuasive argument.
“It just doesn’t hold up. The law can’t make up for missing facts. They actually needed to have a factual predicate to allow them to take the action that they did.”
The administration’s stumbling, bumbling, fumbling imminence claims have left Iran experts like Maloney completely stunned. “They really need to get their story straight,” she told me. “The cover-up is always likely to get you into more trouble than the original crime.”


vox--2020-01-10--How Hong Kong’s protests have rattled Taiwan’s elections

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen is expected to win reelection in this Saturday ’ s elections .
And her expected victory has a lot to do with China , and the continuing upheaval in Hong Kong .
China always hangs over Taiwan ’ s elections .
Taiwan , also known as the Republic of China , was established in 1949 when the Chinese nationalists fled after the Communist Party took control in mainland China .
It wasn ’ t always a democracy ; Taiwan was ruled by one party ( the Kuomintang ) until democratic reforms took hold in the 1980s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presidential elections since 1996 .
When it comes to mainland China and Taiwan , as Vox ’ s Jennifer Williams has explained : Just a handful of countries have formal ties with Taiwan , but its democratic rule and de facto independence remain a sore spot for Beijing , which wants to exert its influence there and , ultimately , bring the island back under its control .
And during this year ’ s elections , Beijing might be even harder to ignore .
Chinese President Xi Jinping has been explicit that he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and he appears willing to use force to do so .
That could establish a “ one country , two systems ” setup that currently governs its relationship with Hong Kong .
For many Taiwanese , six months of massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong have shown just what a bad deal that would be .
How China — and Hong Kong — play into Taiwan ’ s elections Tsai , the incumbent Taiwanese president , is a member of the Democratic Progressive Party ( DPP ) , which favors an independent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , along with a majority in Taiwan ’ s legislature , the Legislative Yuan .
Her tenure faced some troubles early on .
In 2018 , the DPP suffered big defeats in local elections , which were seen as a rebuke of her leadership .
Tsai was forced to resign as leader of the party , and the calls quickly began for her not to seek reelection in 2020 .
But Tsai ’ s candidacy has surged in recent months , and her tough line against China and unequivocal embrace of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lot to do with it .
Many Taiwanese who worry about Chinese encroachment see Tsai ( who also has cultivated pretty strong ties with the US ) as the better candidate to protect Taiwan from Beijing ’ s heavy hand .
This is especially true of Taiwan ’ s younger voters , who ’ ve grown up with Taiwan as a democracy .
Tsai has played this up as a campaign issue , too , including running ads that compare normal daily life in Taiwan with the unrest in Hong Kong .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort by Tsai and by her party to show that she is the one that can protect Taiwan ’ s sovereignty and security , ” Bonnie Glaser , the China Power Project director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies ( CSIS ) , told me .
She added that the Hong Kong protests wouldn ’ t be as large an issue if there wasn ’ t an upcoming election , mostly because “ people in Taiwan don ’ t look to Hong Kong as their future .
They never have.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may see the benefit in closer ties between Taiwan and China never envisioned Taiwan becoming a vassal state , even before the protests .
This has still created a problem for Tsai ’ s opponent , Han Kuo-yu , who represents the Kuomintang Party ( KMT ) .
Han favors closer ties economic and cultural ties with Beijing , seeing a tighter relationship with the mainland as better securing Taiwan ’ s economy in the long term .
To be clear , Han himself opposes a Hong Kong model for Taiwan .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ one country , two systems ” arrangement with China “ over my dead body.
” But Han , who won a key mayoral election in a DPP stronghold in 2018 , has since struggled because he ’ s still seen as being too friendly toward Beijing at a time when the Hong Kong protests make that position look a lot less tenable .
Han was also implicated in a scandal this fall , when a man who claimed to be a Chinese intelligence operative told Australian authorities that Beijing had been meddling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including by spreading disinformation .
This alleged operative also claimed that he had poured about $ 2 million directly into Han ’ s 2018 mayoral campaign , which Han has denied .
Beijing prefers Han over Tsai ( there ’ s one other candidate running , but these are the main two ) and that ’ s also increased popular skepticism of him .
And there ’ s little doubt that China is again trying to interfere in Taiwan ’ s vote , using tools to spread fake news and disinformation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ to put pressure on Tsai , including conducting military exercises in the Taiwan Strait .
The question is whether such pressure will intensify if Tsai wins reelection .
At present , it ’ s difficult to know if Tsai will come to office with a resounding mandate .
Though she has a large lead in the polls , the results in the Legislative Yuan could be a little more interesting .
If Tsai ’ s party retains its majority , that will go a long way to determining how effective she can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ undoubtedly be a blow to Beijing .

Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has won reelection in this Saturday’s elections.
She received 57 percent of the vote, to her chief rival’s 38 percent, in a victory that had a lot to do with China, and the continuing upheaval in Hong Kong.
“Taiwan is showing the world how much we cherish our free democratic way of life and how much we cherish our nation,” Tsai said in her victory speech, as she warned China to stay out of the island’s affairs: “I also hope that the Beijing authorities understand that democratic Taiwan, and our democratically elected government, will not concede to threats and intimidation.”
China always hangs over Taiwan’s elections. Taiwan, also known as the Republic of China, was established in 1949 when the Chinese nationalists fled after the Communist Party took control in mainland China. It wasn’t always a democracy; Taiwan was ruled by one party (the Kuomintang) until democratic reforms took hold in the 1980s, and it’s had direct presidential elections since 1996.
When it comes to mainland China and Taiwan, as Vox’s Jennifer Williams has explained:
The two territories have been governed separately ever since, with both governments claiming to be the legitimate representative of “One China” — that is, China and Taiwan.” Most countries, including the US, only have formal diplomatic relations with mainland China and don’t officially recognize the government in Taiwan ...
Just a handful of countries have formal ties with Taiwan, but its democratic rule and de facto independence remain a sore spot for Beijing, which wants to exert its influence there and, ultimately, bring the island back under its control.
And during this year’s elections, Beijing has been even harder to ignore. Chinese President Xi Jinping has been explicit that he wants to reunify Taiwan and mainland China, and he appears willing to use force to do so. That could establish a “one country, two systems” setup that currently governs its relationship with Hong Kong. For many Taiwanese, six months of massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong have shown just what a bad deal that would be, and in Saturday’s election, they signaled they want a leader who will fight efforts to bring Taiwan under Beijing’s rule.
“I want to once again call upon Beijing authorities to remind them that peace, parity, democracy and dialogue are key to positive cross-strait interactions and long-term development,” Tsai said Saturday. “Peace means that China must abandon threats of force against Taiwan.”
How China — and Hong Kong — play into Taiwan’s elections
Tsai, the incumbent Taiwanese president, is a member of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which favors an independent Taiwan. She was first elected in 2016, along with a majority in Taiwan’s legislature, the Legislative Yuan.
Her tenure faced some troubles early on. In 2018, the DPP suffered big defeats in local elections, which were seen as a rebuke of her leadership. Tsai was forced to resign as leader of the party, and the calls quickly began for her not to seek reelection in 2020.
But Tsai’s candidacy surged in recent months, and her tough line against China and unequivocal embrace of the protesters in Hong Kong likely has a lot to do with it. Many Taiwanese who worry about Chinese encroachment see Tsai (who also has cultivated pretty strong ties with the US) as the better candidate to protect Taiwan from Beijing’s heavy hand. This is especially true of Taiwan’s younger voters, who’ve grown up with Taiwan as a democracy.
Tsai played this up as a campaign issue, too, including running ads that compare normal daily life in Taiwan with the unrest in Hong Kong.
“Part of it [is an] effort by Tsai and by her party to show that she is the one that can protect Taiwan’s sovereignty and security,” Bonnie Glaser, the China Power Project director at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), told me.
She added that the Hong Kong protests wouldn’t be as large an issue if there wasn’t an upcoming election, mostly because “people in Taiwan don’t look to Hong Kong as their future. They never have.”
In other words, even voters who may see the benefit in closer ties between Taiwan and China never envisioned Taiwan becoming a vassal state, even before the protests.
This still created a problem for Tsai’s opponent, Han Kuo-yu, who represents the Kuomintang Party (KMT). Han favors closer ties economic and cultural ties with Beijing, seeing a tighter relationship with the mainland as better securing Taiwan’s economy in the long term.
To be clear, Han himself opposes a Hong Kong model for Taiwan. He has explicitly said Taiwan would enter a “one country, two systems” arrangement with China “over my dead body.”
But Han, who won a key mayoral election in a DPP stronghold in 2018, has since struggled because he’s still seen as being too friendly toward Beijing at a time when the Hong Kong protests make that position look a lot less tenable.
Han was also implicated in a scandal this fall, when a man who claimed to be a Chinese intelligence operative told Australian authorities that Beijing had been meddling in elections in Hong Kong and Taiwan, including by spreading disinformation. This alleged operative also claimed that he had poured about $2 million directly into Han’s 2018 mayoral campaign, which Han has denied.
Beijing preferred Han over Tsai (there’s one other candidate running, but these are the main two) and that’s also increased popular skepticism of him. And there’s little doubt that China again tried to interfere in Taiwan’s vote, using tools to spread fake news and disinformation.
China has moved in more direct ways to put pressure on Tsai, including conducting military exercises in the Taiwan Strait. The question is whether such pressure will intensify now that Tsai has won reelection.
And it may, particularly given that Tsai will come back into office with a clear mandate. The DPP has won 61 of the Legislative Yuan’s 113 seats, with Han’s KMT winning just 38. Tsai’s party retaining its majority will go a long way in boosting the president’s effectiveness in implementing her agenda — and, like her election, is certainly a blow to Beijing.
Correction: A mistranslation of the word “parity” in Tsai’s statement has been corrected.


vox--2020-01-10--Texas just became the first state to shut the door on refugees

Texas became the first state to refuse to take in refugees Friday under an executive order from President Donald Trump that allows state and local authorities to block refugees from settling in their areas .
Texas Gov .
Greg Abbott wrote a letter to the State Department Friday saying that while Texas has historically welcomed more refugees than any other state , it will not resettle any additional refugees in the 2020 fiscal year .
The decision will not affect refugees who have already been resettled in the US .
So far , 42 out of 50 states with both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resettle refugees in 2020 .
But Texas ’ s move could embolden the remaining states to follow suit in refusing to do so — including Georgia , home to the city of Clarkston , which has been dubbed the “ Ellis Island of the South , ” attracting thousands of refugees .
The remaining states face a January 21 deadline to request funding from the State Department for resettling refugees .
Abbott ’ s decision overrides that of any one city in Texas , such as the historically refugee-friendly cities of Houston , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote Friday that his state has been hit the hardest by unauthorized migration stemming from an immigration system that Congress has “ failed to fix ” and must focus its resources on “ those who are already here , including refugees , migrants and the homeless—indeed , all Texans.
” From October 2018 to October 2019 , Texas took in 2,457 , or about 8 percent , of the 30,000 total refugees resettled in the US , according to the US Refugee Admissions Program .
By comparison , the three other states that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California , New York , and Washington — resettled 1,841 , 1,845 and 1,947 refugees respectively over that period .
Trump ’ s executive order allowed local governments that decide they do not have the resources to support refugees in becoming “ self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance ” to turn them away .
The State Department is working with nongovernmental organizations already handling refugee resettlement to identify places that are able to absorb refugees , according to a senior administration official .
But refugee advocates have expressed concern that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the country , making it next to impossible for the federal government to properly plan for refugee settlement .
Three major refugee resettlement agencies have asked a Maryland federal court to block the executive order , arguing that it violates federal law mandating that federal agencies take into consideration a detailed list of factors to determine where refugees should be resettled .
Krish O ’ Mara Vignarajah , president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service ( LIRS ) — one of the refugee agencies challenging the executive order — said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decision was disappointing , but not surprising given Texas ’ s previous attempt to reject Syrian refugees .
In the wake of the Paris terror attacks in late 2015 , Texas and 30 other states declared they no longer wanted to take in some of the 5.6 million Syrians who have been displaced since 2011 by the ongoing civil war .
But at that time , states didn ’ t have the legal authority to simply refuse refugees ; that was the prerogative of the federal government .

Texas became the first state to refuse to take in refugees Friday under an executive order from President Donald Trump that allows state and local authorities to block refugees from settling in their areas.
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott wrote a letter to the State Department Friday saying that while Texas has historically welcomed more refugees than any other state, it will not resettle any additional refugees in the 2020 fiscal year. The decision will not affect refugees who have already been resettled in the US.
So far, 42 out of 50 states with both Democratic and Republican governors have agreed to resettle refugees in 2020. But Texas’s move could embolden the remaining states to follow suit in refusing to do so — including Georgia, home to the city of Clarkston, which has been dubbed the “Ellis Island of the South,” attracting thousands of refugees.
The remaining states face a January 21 deadline to request funding from the State Department for resettling refugees.
Abbott’s decision overrides that of any one city in Texas, such as the historically refugee-friendly cities of Houston, Dallas, and Fort Worth. He wrote Friday that his state has been hit the hardest by unauthorized migration stemming from an immigration system that Congress has “failed to fix” and must focus its resources on “those who are already here, including refugees, migrants and the homeless—indeed, all Texans.”
NEW: @GregAbbott_TX sends letter to @SecPompeo declining consent to initial refugee settlement for FY2020.
My state will likely be slammed by the MSM, but here's the truth... 1/ pic.twitter.com/CgOg6pTkW9 — Jason Howerton (@jason_howerton) January 10, 2020
From October 2018 to October 2019, Texas took in 2,457, or about 8 percent, of the 30,000 total refugees resettled in the US, according to the US Refugee Admissions Program. By comparison, the three other states that resettle the highest number of refugees — California, New York, and Washington — resettled 1,841, 1,845 and 1,947 refugees respectively over that period.
Trump’s executive order allowed local governments that decide they do not have the resources to support refugees in becoming “self-sufficient and free from long-term dependence on public assistance” to turn them away.
The State Department is working with nongovernmental organizations already handling refugee resettlement to identify places that are able to absorb refugees, according to a senior administration official. But refugee advocates have expressed concern that the executive order creates inconsistent refugee policies across the country, making it next to impossible for the federal government to properly plan for refugee settlement.
Three major refugee resettlement agencies have asked a Maryland federal court to block the executive order, arguing that it violates federal law mandating that federal agencies take into consideration a detailed list of factors to determine where refugees should be resettled.
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service (LIRS) — one of the refugee agencies challenging the executive order — said in a statement that Abbott’s decision was disappointing, but not surprising given Texas’s previous attempt to reject Syrian refugees.
In the wake of the Paris terror attacks in late 2015, Texas and 30 other states declared they no longer wanted to take in some of the 5.6 million Syrians who have been displaced since 2011 by the ongoing civil war. But at that time, states didn’t have the legal authority to simply refuse refugees; that was the prerogative of the federal government.