BILL BARR'S BUCCANEERS 

Justice Department proposes limiting internet companies’ protections

Action follows Trump’s executive order seeking to weaken broad immunity enjoyed by Facebook, Twitter and other platforms

Published: June 17, 2020 By Brent Kendall and John D. McKinnon

BLOOMBERG NEWS/LANDOV
The Justice Department proposed a rollback of legal protections that online platforms have enjoyed for more than two decades, in an effort to make tech companies more responsible in how they police their content.

The department’s changes, unveiled Wednesday, are designed to spur online platforms to be more aggressive in addressing illicit and harmful conduct on their sites, and to be fairer and more consistent in their decisions to take down content they find objectionable, a Trump administration official said.

The Justice Department proposal is a legislative plan that would have to be adopted by Congress.

The move represents an escalation in the continuing clash between the Trump administration and big tech firms such as Twitter Inc. TWTR, -0.83%, Alphabet Inc.’s Google GOOG, +0.58% GOOGL, +0.42% unit and Facebook Inc. FB, -0.05%.


An expanded version of this report appears at WSJ.com.

THE DEMENTED RODENT RETURNS

‘More police officers are shot and killed by blacks than police officers kill African-Americans,’ claims former New York Mayor Giuliani

"TRUTH IS NOT TRUE"

‘I think logically, 99%, if not more, of the police contact with the public is appropriate,’ Giuliani says

THE BIGGEST RAT IN NEW YORK CITY 


Rudy Giuliani in a ‘Fox News’ appearance. FOX NEWS/YOUTUBE
‘More police officers are shot and killed by blacks than police officers kill African-Americans.’

That’s former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani offering his perspective to Fox News on rising concerns that police disproportionately kill black Americans.

“The unarmed shootings — which are the ones that are the troublesome ones — there are only 9 of them against blacks — 20 against whites in 2019. So that‘ll give you a sense. Meanwhile, there were 9,000 murders of blacks, 7,500 of which were black-on-black,” Giuliani told Fox’s Ed Henry during a recent interview.

The comments come as President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed an executive order calling on police departments to adopt stricter use-of-force standards and create a database to track officer misconduct amid an eruption of social unrest in America over racial inequality and the treatment of blacks by law enforcement after a number of recent incidences.

Protests across the globe have been ignited by the death of George Floyd, a 46-year-old African-American man who perished in police custody on May 25 in Minneapolis as a white police officer drove his knee into his neck for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

Giuliani, however, described the reaction to the incidences and calls to defund the police as “created” and “almost hysterical.”

“I think logically, 99%, if not more, of the police contact with the public is appropriate,” said the former mayor, a Trump confidant and lawyer.

The statistics rattled off by Giuliani, a New York district attorney and federal prosecutor before becoming mayor, however, drew a rebuke from the Washington Post, who refuted his claims, making the case that “black Americans are more likely to be shot and killed by police when unarmed than are whites.”
The paper argued, drawing from its own database, that there were 55 incidents in which police shot and killed unarmed individuals last year, not the 9 that Giuliani notes. The newspaper goes on to say that of some 1,002 deaths at the hands of law enforcement last year, 250, or 25%, were of black people, while noting that 48 police offers died over the same period, citing data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Check out the complete Giuliani interview on Fox below:

Meanwhile, lawmakers on Capitol Hill were locking horns over congressional moves to reform policing, with Senate Republicans putting forth legislation that was viewed as less stringent than the House bill on policing expected to be approved later Wednesday.

Washington, D.C., statehood bill set for vote in House of Representatives 

STATEHOOD OR DC AUTONOMOUS ZONE!

House Democrats plan to bring the issue to floor on June 26

Published: June 16, 2020 By  Jonathan Nicholson

Overhead view of the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington 

 the U.S. Capitol in the background. GETTY IMAGES

House Democratic leaders say they’ll take the first step toward making the District of Columbia the 51st state next week, with a vote on June 26 in the House of Representatives.

The move is unlikely to gain any traction in the Republican-held Senate, but shows again an impact of the protests unleashed by the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police.

Washington, D.C., residents have no full voting representation in Congress and only gained the right to vote for president in 1961 with the enactment of the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Mayor Muriel Bowser, appearing at a press conference with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, said the cause had gained additional support on Capitol Hill after the incident two weeks ago at St. John’s Church, where peaceful protesters were forcibly pushed out of Lafayette Square with tear gas before President Donald Trump and an entourage walked across the park to take a picture with a Bible in front of the church.

“They knew now that our cause for statehood is certainly about making sure we have two voting senators to speak up for us and making sure our congresswoman has a vote and making sure that we have seats at the table when the governors and state legislators are talking,” Bowser said.

The District’s delegate, Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat, is able to vote on the House floor, but her role is largely symbolic as, under House rules, her vote cannot be the determinative one for a motion to succeed or fail. The city has no representation at all in the Senate.

Democrats have long sought representation for the District, whose population was until recently skewed heavily toward African American residents. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Washington’s 705,749 estimated inhabitants as of 2019 were made up almost equally — about 46% each — of white and black residents. The District’s three Electoral College votes are reliably Democratic.

The bill, which is numbered H.R. 51 as a nod to the where D.C. would stand in the order of joining the Union, is assured of House passage, with 224 co-sponsors already signed up. It would declare the city a new state, named “Washington, Douglass Commonwealth,” and set up procedures for transferring authority and possession of much of the city’s nonresidential land to the federal government.

It would also speed up the process of repealing what would then be a redundant 23rd Amendment. However, there has long been a legal debate over whether Washington could be admitted by passing a law like H.R. 51 or whether that would require another amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

For Bowser, the question is one of equity.

“I don’t know about all Washingtonians, but when I heard all the talk during the pandemic about the governors are going take care of it, the governors are going to go do this, the governors are going to do that,” she said. “And I would sit there — what are we, chopped liver? Seven hundred thousand taxpayers who give more to the federal government than we get back.”

Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, said Tuesday afternoon that the GOP would not bring the House bill to the Senate floor if it passes the lower chamber

‘Denise Ho: Becoming the Song’ Trailer: Meet the Lesbian Cantopop Icon and Hong Kong Activist
Jude Dry Indiewire June 16, 2020

View photos

In the midst of one revolution, it can be energizing to look to others for inspiration. As Black Lives Matter protests continue to thrive across the globe, organizers and activists have been sharing images and resistance tactics used in Hong Kong protests, whether it’s tips on dismantling a tear gas canister to protecting your identity from government surveillance. In the middle of Pride month, there couldn’t be a better time for a documentary about a queer activist who risked a successful music career to speak truth to a very intimidating power.

Directed by veteran documentary producer Sue Williams, “Denise Ho: Becoming the Song” follows the lesbian Cantopop icon on her journey from artist to activist, illuminating the ways her journey aligns with Hong Kong’s relationship to China. The exclusive first trailer for the Kino Lorber release promises Ho will serve as a magnetic and inspiring guide through a topic that couldn’t be more timely.


The official synopsis for the film reads: “Denise Ho came out to the world as a proud lesbian in 2012 at the Hong Kong Pride Parade, the first major female star in Hong Kong to come out as gay. In 2014, at the height of her career, she started to publicly support the students who were demanding free elections during the Umbrella Movement (protesters held up umbrellas to fight off tear gas). Her influential involvement at the forefront of the pro-democracy uprisings led to her arrest during a clearing of protest camps. The financial and social cost to her was enormous. She was blacklisted by Mainland China, her music banned. As a result major commercial and luxury sponsors like Lancôme dropped her, colleagues feared to be associated with her, and venues around the world to this day are afraid to allow her to perform.”

Williams began following and filming Ho in 2017, as she toured the UK and North America as an independent artist, attempting to rebuild her career while continuing to take to the streets with Hong Kongers during the massive protests of 2019.

“Under the cloak of the global pandemic, China is carrying out a harsh crack down on ordinary Hong Kongers and arresting more pro-democratic leaders,” said Williams in an official statement. “Denise’s creativity and resilience are a moving reminder of the power of courageous individuals — and music — in the fight for freedom and democracy.”

“Denise Ho: Becoming the Song” will have its virtual World Premiere with Frameline Film Festival on Friday, June 26, including a Q&A with Williams. The film will be available by virtual cinema through Kino Marquee starting Friday, July 1. The film’s July 1 virtual theatrical release date was chosen to coincide with the anniversary of Britain’s handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. The film is being released in solidarity with the annual protests marking the handover of Hong Kong to China.

Check out the film’s trailer and poster, available exclusively on IndieWire, below.

UK
Thousands of refugees set to be evicted from Home Office accommodation within two weeks

May Bulman The Independent 16 June 2020

Shutterstock

Thousands of refugees could be evicted from their government-funded accommodation within a matter of weeks, prompting fears of a “new mass homelessness population” during the coronavirus pandemic.

The Home Office announced at the end of March that asylum seekers would not be asked to leave their accommodation once their claim or appeal had been decided for the next three months due to the lockdown.

Ministers said the halt on evictions would be reviewed in June, but charities are still waiting to receive an update from government, and fear many newly granted refugees, and asylum seekers who have received negative decisions, will face a “cliff edge” in support in a fortnight.

The government is already under scrutiny over its treatment of immigrants after the Windrush scandal saw hundreds of Caribbean migrants living and working in the UK wrongly targeted as a result of its “hostile environment” policies.

Hazel Williams, national director at the NACCOM Network, said: “We are extremely concerned that thousands of newly granted refugees and people seeking asylum could be evicted from their Home Office accommodation over the next few months, leaving them homeless and unable to access services, many with no recourse to public funds.

“The cliff edge we feared could become a reality as we still await news of the Home Office plans. Creating a new mass homelessness population, is not only inhumane, but during a global pandemic creates the potential for a public health disaster.

Ms Williams called for the suspension of evictions to be extended for the next 12 months to enable people to access the advice and support they need.

Stephen Hale, chief executive of Refugee Action, said: “A responsible and humane government would never intentionally make people homeless.

“If this government does restart mass evictions it will heap yet more misery on people seeking asylum. Many are already suffering in this pandemic, struggling to meet their essential needs due to appallingly low financial support.

“The government must provide more clarity on its timeline for evictions, and make sure the asylum support system keeps a roof over people’s heads and food on their table.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We have said very clearly that we are taking a compassionate approach during this pandemic with those affected by circumstances beyond their control. Action has been taken across the asylum system to help, including supporting people who would otherwise have been destitute with accommodation and essential living costs, and it is right that we review arrangements at the end of June to make sure the most appropriate support is in place.”

Hundreds of asylum seekers having to travel to London to submit claims

Hundreds of refugees left destitute during coronavirus, charities warn

Home Office face legal battle over ‘scandalously low’ asylum support

US offers belated 'concern' over Philippine journalist case

WIMP OUT

MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press•June 16, 2020



Philippines Convicted Journalists
Rappler CEO and Executive Editor Maria Ressa, left, talks with former Rappler reporter Reynaldo Santos Jr., right, during a press conference in Manila, Philippines on Monday June 15, 2020. Ressa, an award-winning journalist critical of the Philippine president, her online news site Rappler Inc. and Santos were convicted of libel and sentenced to jail Monday in a decision called a major blow to press freedom in an Asian bastion of democracy. (AP Photo/Aaron Favila)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has offered a muted and belated expression of “concern” over the convictions of two Philippine journalists on criminal libel charges.

A one-sentence State Department statement titled “On Press Freedom in the Philippines” and released on Tuesday nearly 48 hours after a Manila court pronounced the convictions may raise new questions about the U.S. commitment to supporting press freedom abroad.

In the statement, State Department spokeswoman Morgan Ortagus called for the Philippines to resolve the case but pointedly did not take issue with the legal process or the guilty verdicts rendered against award-winning journalist Maria Ressa and her former colleague Reynaldo Santos Jr. of the Rappler online news site.

“The United States is concerned by the trial court’s verdict against journalists Maria Ressa and Reynaldo Santos and calls for resolution of the case in a way that reinforces the U.S. and Philippines’ long shared commitment to freedom of expression, including for members of the press,” she said.

Ressa and Santos were convicted Monday of libeling a wealthy businessman in a decision that human rights activists called a major blow to press freedom in an Asian bastion of democracy. The verdict was announced Sunday night Washington time and repeated requests for U.S. comment about the case beginning on Monday morning in Washington went unanswered.
Ressa, the site's founder and former CNN reporter who was one of Time magazine’s Persons of the Year in 2018, and Santos were convicted for a May 29, 2012, Rappler story that cited an intelligence report linking businessman Wilfredo Keng to a murder, drug dealing, human trafficking and smuggling. The site’s lawyers disputed any malice and said the time limit for filing the libel complaint had passed.

Rappler’s lawyers said the story was based on an unspecified intelligence report and that Philippine penal law requires a libel complaint to be filed within one year. Keng filed his lawsuit in 2017, five years after the story was published.

The cybercrime law, which the Rappler journalists allegedly violated, was enacted in September 2012, or four months after the story written by Santos was published. Rappler’s lawyers said Philippine penal laws cannot be retroactively applied.

Ressa was sentenced to up to six years in prison, but her lawyer, Theodore Te, said the jail terms and other penalties imposed could not be enforced unless all appeals were rejected. She posted bail for the case last year and will study possible appeals in the next 15 days, Te said.

Human rights and press freedom advocates have condemned the convictions, which they say are symptomatic of an erosion in journalists' ability to independently report news in the Philippines specifically and around the world more generally. Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists and Freedom House were among those to denounce the ruling,

Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, whom President Donald Trump has said he admires, and other Philippine officials have said the criminal complaints against Ressa and Rappler were not a press freedom issue but a part of normal judicial procedures arising from their alleged violations of the law.

Like Trump, Duterte has openly lambasted journalists and news sites who report critically about him, including the Philippine Daily Inquirer, a leading daily, and ABS-CBN, the country’s largest TV network, which was shut down by the government’s telecommunications regulator last month.

Opinion: If you're worried about political violence, look to the right, not just the left


THE LEFT HAS NOT ENGAGED IN ARMED STRUGGLE SINCE THE WEATHERMEN IN THE SEVENTIES AND ANTIFA DOES NOT COME TO PROTESTS ARMED

Scott Martelle, Los Angeles Times Opinion•June 16, 2020

Investigators examine the wreckage of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 1995, which was bombed by right-wing domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh. (David J. Phillip)

While the nation has focused on the widespread demonstrations and marches protesting police brutality against people of color — particularly the killings of unarmed Black men — a parallel story has been unfolding in a series of violent incidents involving armed far-right extremists.

Federal officials announced Tuesday that a man in jail in connection with the killing of a Santa Cruz County sheriff’s sergeant is also implicated in the murder last month of a federal security officer in Oakland. Federal officials said the man — Air Force Sgt. Steven Carrillo — is linked to the loose-knit boogaloo movement that anticipates a new civil war in the United States.

Meanwhile, an armed counter-protester in Albuquerque shot and critically wounded a man who was part of a group demanding the removal of a statue of a 16th century conquistador, Don Juan de Oñate, who has a legacy of atrocities against native peoples.

In Bethel, Ohio, southeast of Cincinnati, armed counter-protesters engaged in violent encounters with Black Lives Matter demonstrators, though no shots were fired.

In Las Vegas, police detained three white right-wing extremists who allegedly assembled Molotov cocktails in a plot to instigate violence during a planned peaceful protest against the death of George Floyd while in Minneapolis police custody.

And in March, the FBI shot and killed an anti-government extremist whom they confronted during an investigation into a suspected plan to blow up a Kansas City hospital — a plot that seems to have been inspired by Timothy McVeigh's 1995 truck bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City.

And let's not forget the armed militants who stormed the State Capitol in Lansing, Michigan, demanding that the state's stay-home orders be lifted, or the groups that took to patrolling streets in parts of Idaho in response to internet rumors that antifa protesters were on their way.

And President Trump thinks antifa is the problem.

Far-right and anti-government extremists have been among us for decades. They moved into a low level of prominence in the 1980s with The Order, the Aryan Nations and Posse Comitatus, groups that committed a series of murders and robberies as they sought, in part, to create a white homeland in the Pacific Northwest. Several died in violent confrontations with police.

The militia movement faded under legal challenges by the Southern Poverty Law Center and other rights advocacy groups and after the Oklahoma City bombing, which horrified the nation. But the far-right extremists continued in other forms.

With the election of President Obama, the first Black man to serve in the Oval Office, far-right groups began bubbling up again, and with the advent of Trump, they have become emboldened to the dangerous degree we see today. Even Trump’s FBI director, Christopher Wray, has pointed out to Congress that his agency views the threat of violence from the far right to be a more immediate risk than attacks from foreign terrorists.

This is not an easy problem to resolve. Romanticized notions of defending America from excesses of a tyrannical government course through the Second Amendment movement, something Trump likely fanned by blustering that he would send in the military to control unruly protests on city streets. But it's a problem that must be addressed.

Israel Hawks Are Scrambling To Save Democratic Rep. Eliot Engel

Daniel Marans HuffPost June 17, 2020

Hawkish pro-Israel groups are pouring money into the reelection of Rep. Eliot Engel, a Bronx, New York, Democrat and influential Israel hawk facing a spirited challenge on his left from middle school principal Jamaal Bowman.

An Engel loss in Tuesday’s primary would not only deprive the pro-Israel activist community of a staunch ally atop the House Foreign Affairs Committee, but also threaten the bipartisan support for Israeli policies on Capitol Hill that has long inoculated the Israeli government from tougher criticism and stricter conditions on U.S. aid.

“The stakes are very big,” said Ben Chouake, a New Jersey physician and president of NORPAC, a big-spending pro-Israel political action committee. “If the Squad members can take out a member like Engel, they’re going to be very emboldened. It’ll send shivers through the Democratic Party.”

NORPAC has bundled nearly $634,000 in donations for Engel this cycle out of Engel’s total campaign haul of $2 million.

The volume of money that pro-Israel groups are spending indirectly to reelect Engel ― as opposed to campaign donations ― is also considerable. The Democratic Majority for Israel PAC, a super PAC known for spending $1.4 million on TV advertisements blasting Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) during the 2020 presidential primary, has ratcheted up its investments in TV ads, digital ads, campaign literature and paid phone-banking. The group has now spent over $732,000 in support of Engel’s reelection.

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) faces a robust primary challenge from Jamaal Bowman. New York primary voters head to the polls on Tuesday, June 23. (Photo: Bill Clark/Getty Images)More

But DMFI’s latest TV ad doesn’t mention Israel at all, choosing instead to blast Bowman for failing to pay some of his New York state taxes in the early 2000s.

“Shouldn’t Mr. Bowman pay his own taxes before he tries to spend ours?” the narrator asks.

Asked about the ad, Bowman said in a statement that he had struggled with debt as a young father trying to make ends meet. As of the ad’s airing, Bowman had paid off all of his tax debts except for an outstanding $2,000 bill from 2004, which he learned about from the ad and paid off on Wednesday.

A new @DemMaj4Israel PAC TV spot blasts Jamaal Bowman for unpaid state taxes from early 00s. “Shouldn’t Mr. Bowman pay his own taxes before he tries to spend ours?”

Bowman paid off a $2k debt from '04 today after learning about it from ad. Was result of $ troubles, he said. pic.twitter.com/4srhAT2RKk
— Daniel Marans (@danielmarans) June 17, 2020

“This attack by a group funded by Donald Trump’s donors to paint me as some sort of criminal is ugly and desperate,” Bowman said.

Bowman’s statement references the fact that DMFI PAC received $100,000 from the super PAC Americans for Tomorrow’s Future, which the Center for Responsive Politics lists as “Republican/Conservative.” As The Intercept first reported, Americans for Tomorrow’s Future’s treasurer was an aide to former Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), and some of its top donors have also maxed out to Trump.

DMFI PAC President Mark Mellman maintains that Americans for Tomorrow’s Future is a “bipartisan pro-Israel PAC,” claiming two out of three of its board members are registered Democrats and the third is an independent.

Perise Practical and Avacy Initiative, two dark-money groups whose legal structure allows them to conceal their agendas and donors, are also spending heavily to reelect Engel. As The Intercept notes, the only other candidate that the pair of groups have intervened to assist is Teresa Leger Fernandez, a Democrat running to represent New Mexico in the House. Fernandez defeated Valerie Plame in the state’s Democratic primary earlier this month. Plame, a former CIA operative with Jewish heritage, had faced criticism for anti-Semitic tweets in 2017.

The “pro-Israel” groups ― and activists ― backing Engel generally hail from the right wing of Israel’s base of support. J Street, a liberal pro-Israel group that encourages U.S. leaders to pressure the Israeli government to end the occupation of Palestinian territories, has not endorsed in the race.

According to Engel and the hawkish Israel supporters backing him, Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands captured in 1967, which renders millions of people stateless, is almost entirely the fault of Palestinians and their nonsovereign governing bodies for tolerating violent attacks against Israeli civilians and rejecting previous compromises. Unlike many mainstream foreign policy experts, and former President Barack Obama, these advocates want the U.S. government to play the role of Israel’s protector and benefactor with few strings attached.
“I am of the opinion, as noted by others, that there is no country anywhere facing the same threats as Israel, that has a better human rights record,” Rabbi Avi Weiss, a prominent rabbi in the district and right-leaning Israel activist, wrote in an open letter to Bowman picked up by Jewish news outlets. In some versions of the letter, Weiss noted that his daughter and her family live in a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, where Jews enjoy Israeli citizenship and full political rights, but Palestinian residents do not.

Still more controversial figures like former New York state Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D) and Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, a right-wing alternative to more mainstream pro-Israel groups, have flocked to defend Engel, even as they conceded to HuffPost that Engel is to their left.

Hikind, who has come under fire for fundraising for West Bank settlements and dressing in blackface for the Jewish holiday of Purim, called out Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for abandoning Israel with his refusal to endorse Engel.

Although Klein’s group, ZOA, is adamantly opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state and hosted former Trump adviser Steve Bannon in 2017, Engel spoke at ZOA’s advocacy day in Washington in 2019. A spokesman for Engel did not respond to a request for an explanation of why he chose to address ZOA activists.

“Eliot Engel has been a strong supporter of U.S.-Israel relations,” Klein told HuffPost, while emphasizing that due to ZOA’s nonprofit status, neither he nor his organization have endorsed in the race.

It’s easy to see why Engel’s appeals to Israel hawks. Whenever more dovish Democrats veer left, he sticks to a hard-line pro-Israel approach. He opposed the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal in 2015 and the Obama administration’s parting rebuke to the right-wing Israeli government over settlement expansion in 2016, and welcomed the Trump administration’s decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

For his part, Bowman, who now enjoys the backing of virtually every prominent progressive in the country, has steered clear of some of the third-rail issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He supports a two-state solution that would preserve Israel’s Jewish character, and does not support the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel.


What we see of Jamaal Bowman is typical of where the Democratic Party is likely to go, particularly in more progressive and urban areas.Peter Beinart, CUNY

Instead, NORPAC, DMFI PAC and Weiss all cited Bowman’s call to “seriously consider” placing tougher conditions on the United States’ annual $3.8 billion in military aid to Israel, in light of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s expansion of West Bank settlements, which entrench the Israeli occupation, and plans to permanently annex some of the Palestinian territories.

“U.S. assistance to Israel reflects not only a moral commitment to an ally with shared interests, it helps Israel defend itself from very real enemies, and assurances of such aid would need to be in place for any viable peace process between Israelis and Palestinians,” DMFI PAC’s Mellman said.

Mellman also claimed that Bowman’s stance was “out of touch with the vast majority of Democrats.”

In fact, 71% of Democrats ― and 56% of the American public as a whole ― support conditioning aid to Israel on Israeli compliance with U.S. opposition to settlements, according to a poll released in October. The Center for American Progress, which commissioned the poll, is the preferred think tank of the Democratic establishment, not the party’s more progressive wing.

What is true is that it has been almost three decades since the U.S. seriously leveraged aid to Israel to get it to change its behavior. In 1991, then-President George H.W. Bush (R) threatened to deny Israel loan guarantees unless Israel provided ironclad assurances that it would not use the funds on Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

If Bowman were to unseat Engel, it would not fundamentally shift Democratic Party policy toward Israel, let alone that of the country. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s victory over Sanders, who is more critical of Israel, in the 2020 presidential primary, attests to the endurance of a bipartisan pro-Israel consensus.

But what it might mean is that the influence of the Israeli government’s defenders in Washington is no longer so strong that it can decide an election in one of the more liberal and racially diverse House seats in the country.

New York’s 16th Congressional District, a solid Democratic seat in the Bronx and Westchester County that Engel has represented since 1989, is now home to more Black and Latino residents than white residents. Rather than focus on U.S.-Israel policy, Bowman has cast himself as a more faithful representative of the racially and economically divided district’s needs. Engel, Bowman is fond of noting, sat out the height of the COVID-19 pandemic in his home in a Maryland suburb of Washington.

“What we see of Jamaal Bowman is typical of where the Democratic Party is likely to go, particularly in more progressive and urban areas,” said Peter Beinart, a political science professor at the City University of New York and author of “The Crisis of Zionism.” Beinart advised Bowman on Middle East policy at the start of his campaign.

While not making the Israeli-Palestinian conflict their main focus, progressive Democrats like Bowman are likely, Beinart predicted, to “try to align the principles that inform their foreign policy views with those boldly progressive principles that they apply to American politics.”

Love HuffPost? Become a founding member of HuffPost Plus today.

Jamaal Bowman greets voters outside a Bronx subway stop on Wednesday, June 17. He has cast himself as a better representative than Engel for the diverse district. (Photo: Jeenah Moon/Getty Images)
The election is also a test of shifting views within the Jewish community. The district is 12% Jewish and contains significant numbers of Modern Orthodox Jews, whose views on Israel tend to be closer to Engel’s than Bowman’s.

But a growing number of more liberal Jews, who are disproportionately younger, have been eager to show that organizations like NORPAC and DMFI PAC do not speak for them. Bowman has picked up the endorsements of IfNotNow, a left-wing Jewish group committed to opposing the Israeli occupation, and the Jewish Vote, the political arm of the left-leaning group Jews for Economic and Racial Justice.

Leaders of the Jewish Vote, which boasts 150 active, dues-paying members in Engel’s district, were not sure whether they were going to endorse in the race at all until after Engel’s endorsement interview in December.

Multiple people present during the interview described Engel reacting incredulously to the fact that the group’s questionnaire did not ask directly about Israel. In response to a question about the diversity of voices he would consult when seeking input from the Jewish community, Engel went on something of a tirade about Palestinian obstruction of peace efforts dating back to their rejection of the United Nations partition plan in 1947. One attendee, who asked for anonymity for professional reasons, recalled squirming at Engel’s descriptions of “Arab violence” and subsequent insistence that his support for U.S. intervention in Kosovo was evidence that he was not Islamophobic.

Members of the Jewish Vote’s endorsement panel were particularly irked that Engel circled back to his Israel talking points multiple times in response to questions about unrelated topics.

“Whenever you lash out, you sound like you’re defensive,” said Henry Moss, a retired trade school administrator from the Riverdale section of the Bronx, who participated in the meeting.

A spokesman for Engel did not respond to a request for comment on details of the endorsement interview.

Regardless, the interview appears to have cost Engel some support.

Moss is generally opposed to primary campaigns against incumbent Democrats, but he came away dissatisfied with Engel’s answers to questions about his membership in the business-friendly New Democrat Coalition. And though Moss is unsure if Bowman has exactly the right prescription for Israel, he is certain that Engel, whom he described as “basically arm-in-arm with Netanyahu,” does not.

“It strikes me that Engel is perhaps trapped in his pro-Israel world,” Moss said.

Trump obsessed with sending CD of Elton John's 'Rocket Man' to Kim Jong-un, ex-aide Bolton claims

THE HOMOSEXUAL COURTSHIP HAS ITS OWN SONG


Justin Vallejo,The Independent•June 17, 2020

Getty

Donald Trump was reportedly obsessed with sending a CD of the song Rocket Man, signed by Elton John himself, to North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, according to a new book that the White House is trying to block.

Former US national security adviser John Bolton makes the claims of Mr Trump "inordinate interest" in his upcoming book The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.

While the White House has sued to stop the publication of the book, The Washington Post obtained a pre-publication version of the tome, which says Mr Trump wanted Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to hand over the CD to the North Korean dictator in 2018.

Calling Kim "Little Rocket Man" was one of Mr Trump's favoured insults during a time when the two exchanged threats over North Korea's nuclear programme.

A summit on denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula was held in Singapore in June 2018, and Mr Trump wanted Mr Pompeo to deliver the CD during a trip to North Korea in October of that year in an apparent attempt to convince Kim that "Little Rocket Man" was a term of affection meant as a compliment rather than an insult.

"Trump didn't seem to realise Pompeo hadn't actually seen Kim Jong Un [during the trip], asking if Pompeo had handed" the CD, writes Mr Bolton. "Pompeo had not. Getting this CD to Kim remained a high priority for several months."

Mr Trump was reportedly determined to make friends with the North Korean leader, and his desire to give gifts like the Elton John CD violated US sanctions that eventually had to be waived.

Mr Bolton said that Mr Trump cared little for the details of the denuclearisation effort, and that he saw the Singapore summit as merely "an exercise in publicity".

"Trump told . . . me he was prepared to sign a substance-free communique, have his press conference to declare victory and then get out of town," Mr Bolton wrote.

U.S. General Throws Mike Pompeo’s Iran Policy Under the Bus

Matthew Petti, The National Interest•June 15, 2020


The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said that there is “actually no military component” to the maximum pressure campaign against Iran, reversing comments made by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in January.

U.S. forces killed Iranian spymaster Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani as he arrived in Baghdad on January 3, kicking off a round of direct U.S.-Iranian clashes.

Pompeo advertised the assassination as part of his signature “maximum pressure” campaign, which is aimed at forcing Iran to change a host of its domestic and foreign policies.

“It has a diplomatic component, it has had an economic component, and it has had a military component,” he told reporters on January 7, referring to the pressure policy.

But Gen. Kenneth McKenzie, head of U.S. Central Command, pulled back Pompeo’s claims during a speech at the Middle East Institute last week.

“We actually do not directly contribute to the maximum pressure campaign,” said the four-star general, who commands U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia. “Instead, what our responsibility is as U.S. Central Command, is to deter Iran from taking actions either directly or indirectly against the United States or our allies and partners in the region.”

State Department officials have sold the killing of Suleimani as a way to “restore deterrence” against Iran.

McKenzie warned that Iran could act “either directly or indirectly against the United States or our allies and partners in the region” in retaliation to diplomatic and economic pressure.

But he was clear that “there's actually no military component of what's known as the maximum pressure campaign.”

Suleimani’s killing and the Iranian retaliation was the last direct confrontation between Iranian and U.S. forces. Congress voted to restrain President Donald Trump’s war powers soon after, sending a signal that the U.S. public would not endorse any further military escalation.

Iranian and U.S. forces have clashed several times since the beginning of the maximum pressure campaign, before and after Suleimani’s death.

U.S. naval forces began massing in the Persian Gulf in the summer of 2019 after several oil tankers exploded off the coast of Iran. Iranian forces shot down a U.S. surveillance drone they say entered Iranian airspace, and Trump came within minutes of ordering an armed retaliation.

Iranian-backed Iraqi militias were blamed for a rocket attack that killed an American translator in December 2019, causing a spiral of escalation that culminated in the Suleimani killing. Iran then launched ballistic missiles at a U.S. airbase in western Iraq, injuring over 100 troops.

The same Iranian-backed militias killed two more U.S. service members in a rocket attack in March.

Iraq’s parliament has asked U.S. forces to leave the country in light of the U.S.-Iranian clashes.

More rockets struck a U.S. base last week as Iraqi and U.S. officials met for a strategic dialogue, where the two countries agreed on the need to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq.

McKenzie, however, maintained that killing Suleimani has deterred Iran from further action.

“I would assess that right now we're in a period of what I would call contested deterrence with Iran,” he said. “I think the Iranians have had to recalculate because they did not believe that we would actually take that action.”

Matthew Petti is a national security reporter at the National Interest. Follow him on Twitter: @matthew_petti.

Image: Reuters.

Click here to read the full article.