Belarus: Thousands attend protester's funeral amid unrest

https://eng.belta.by/all-rubric-news/viewSuzet/presidential-elections-in-belarus-48/

3 hours ago AUGUST 15,2020



Media captionProtesters chant anti-government slogans in a show of defiance

Thousands of people have attended the funeral of a man who died during recent protests against the disputed presidential election in Belarus.

Opposition supporters turned out in the capital, Minsk, on Saturday where they laid flowers, waved banners and chanted for the long-time president to resign.

Mass protests erupted after President Alexander Lukashenko claimed a landslide victory in the 9 August vote.

The result has been condemned with widespread allegations of vote-rigging.

The Central Election Commission says Mr Lukashenko, who has been in power since 1994, won 80.1% of the vote and the main opposition candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya 10.12%.

But Ms Tikhanovskaya insists that where votes were properly counted, she won support ranging from 60% to 70%.

Five things you may not know about the country

On Friday, European Union foreign ministers agreed to prepare new sanctions on Belarusian officials responsible for "falsification". The US has also condemned the election as "not free and fair".

And on Saturday, three Baltic states called for the vote to be re-run.
What's the latest with the protests?

Thousands of people waved flags, lit candles and laid flowers at the scene close to the metro station where Alexander Taraikovsky died on Monday. Others held up pictures of injured protesters, while drivers joined in by honking their horns.

Many opposition supporters chanted "Leave!" - a call for President Lukashenko to resign - and some carried signs with slogans against police violence.

REUTERS

People laid flowers and waved banners near to a metro station where a protester died

The circumstances of Mr Taraikovsky's death are unclear. Officials say he died when an explosive device went off in his hand during a protest, but opposition supporters dispute this.

His partner, Elena German, told the Associated Press news agency that she believed the 34-year-old was shot by police.

On Friday, Ms German visited the mortuary where Mr Taraikovsky's body was held.

"There is a seam in the chest area - the hole was sewn up, but there is a black bruise; it's small but we noticed. His hands and feet are completely intact, there are not even bruises," she said.

Mr Taraikovsky had worked hard at his automobile repair business, Ms German said, and that neither of them had shown an interest in politics until the presidential election when they decided to support Ms Tikhanovskaya.
What else is happening?

A "March for Freedom" is also planned in the centre of the city on Sunday, a week after the contested election.

It follows Ms Tikhanovskaya's call for further peaceful rallies across the country on Friday. "Don't stay on the sidelines," she said.

'Human life is the most precious thing': Svetlana Tikhanovskaya speaks out from exileWatch: Opposition leader speaks from exile

Meanwhile, state media reported that Mr Lukashenko had discussed the situation with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday.

Mr Lukashenko had said he needed to speak to Mr Putin as the protests were not "a threat to just Belarus anymore".

In a joint statement on Saturday, the prime ministers of three Baltic republics - Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia - "expressed deep concern at the violent crackdown... and the political repression of the opposition by the authorities".
'Scenes unimaginable a few weeks ago'

Analysis by Will Vernon, BBC News, Minsk

There has been a clear shift in mood here.

Earlier in the week, police with batons beat anyone who dared to come out on the street in the evening. But following widespread strike action in some of Belarus' largest factories, people have been emboldened to come out in greater numbers in the daytime.

On Friday, workers from the famous Minsk Tractor Factory joined thousands of protesters in a spontaneous march and rally on Independence Square in Minsk.

Such scenes would have been unimaginable just a few weeks ago - in a country where, in normal times, any opposition to President Lukashenko is brutally repressed.

One woman told us: "We're sure everything will change. We believe in our victory. That's why we will come to the streets every day. Every day!"

The leaders said the presidential election was "neither free nor fair" and called for a "transparent" vote "with the participation of international observers".

"The prime ministers urge the Belarusian authorities to refrain from violence against peaceful demonstrators [and to] release all political prisoners and those that have been detained," the statement added.

Sergiy says riot police in Belarus threatened to burn him alive'If you croak we don't care': Brutality in Belarus

Ms Tikhanovskaya left for Lithuania following the election after she publicly denounced the results. She had sent her children to Lithuania for safety before the vote.

Lithuania and Latvia have also previously said they are prepared to mediate in Belarus, provided the authorities stopped violence against protesters and formed a national council with members of civil society. They warned that the alternative was sanctions.

Mr Lukashenko said on Saturday that he did not need outside mediators to solve the situation in Belarus, state news agency Belta reported.

Some 6,700 people were arrested in the wake of the election, and many have spoken of torture at the hands of the security services.

Amnesty International said accounts from released detainees suggested "widespread torture".

Prisoners continued to be released from the notorious Okrestina detention centre in Minsk on Friday, revealing their bruised and swollen bodies.

"They beat people ferociously, with impunity, and they arrest anyone. We were forced to stand in the yard all night. We could hear women being beaten. I don't understand such cruelty," one man said as he showed the BBC his bruising.

Belarus Interior Minister Yuri Karayev said he took responsibility for people being injured and wanted to apologise to people caught up in the violence.

Donald Trump Won't Host G7, Can't Spell It Either

Doktor Zoom

August 14, 2020 

https://www.wonkette.com/donald-trump-wont-host-g-7-cant-spell-it-either

 

Donald Trump said Monday that, all things considered, he'd rather not hold the annual G7 summit at all this year. It's just not a good time, what with the Europeans being all tied up with a pandemic, his popularity soaring so much that he has to hide from adoring crowds, and all his planning for the nation's freest, fairest election ever in history. Plus he thinks he'll be washing his hair. Or at least he said he'd just rather not do the G7 at all, at least not until after the election. At a presser, Trump told reporters,

I'm much more inclined to do it sometime after the election. [...] We could do it through teleconference or we could do it through a meeting.

He added that holding off on the summit until after Nov. 3 would make for a "better, calmer atmosphere to have a G7."
It's probably all for the best, although there's little reason to think the summit would take place after then, either. If Trump loses, he'll be too busy sulking, hate-tweeting, and/or ordering nuclear strikes on major US population centers. And if he "wins," he'll be too busy consolidating power, ordering the executions of blue-state governors, and ordering nuclear strikes on major US population centers.
It's good to know we can be sure of some things.
Donald Trump has little use for the G7, at least not since George Soros prevented him last year from holding it at his Miami trash palace. He generally hates going to the summits anyway, because they're SO BORING, UGH, and he has to act like he's listening to Angela Merkel and isn't even allowed to punch her. None of his real friends are there, just a bunch of lazy European "allies" who don't tell him he's a genius. Worse, just like with other international gatherings, they make fun of him when he's not right in front of them, and probably when he is.
This year's G7 conference was originally scheduled to take place at Camp David (boring boring boring) in late June, but it was canceled because European leaders were big wusses afraid of an itty-bitty virus in the USA. Like their countries are so great, even.
When Trump announced in May that the summit would be rescheduled for early September, he made clear his complete lack of interest. For one thing, he said, "I don't feel as a G7 it probably represents what's going on in the world. It's a very outdated group of countries" that didn't even have Putin in it. (Not a joke.) And for another, he just scootched around the Oval Office like this, sighing heavily.

Washington Post foreign policy columnist Josh Rogin notes that with less than a month to go before the supposedly rescheduled G7,

Several administration officials told me that, as of yesterday, no firm plans had been set and there seemed to be "no movement" on the summit preparations. [,,,]

Diplomatic sources told me the leaders of France and Germany had already informed the White House that they would not attend in person because of the pandemic. In addition to the G-7, four other countries were invited: Australia, Brazil, India and South Korea. As of yesterday, those governments had no idea whether the event was going to be held in person, over video teleconference or not at all.

Rogin also points out that Trump appeared to only mention his intention to delay the meeting until after November when a reporter asked Trump about the G7. What if everyone had shown up, but Trump forgot they were even coming, and he didn't even show up to pick them up at the airport? How embarrassing, and also Nancy Pelosi's fault.
Because he is a sharp wit who loves to make people laugh, Rogin writes this comical premise:

A constructive G-7 meeting with other large democracies could be immensely valuable in coordinating the international response to the coronavirus pandemic and devising economic strategies for the aftermath.

Before even letting us catch our breath, though, he brings us back to earth by reminding us that in March, Mike Pompeo sabotaged the possibility of the G7 countries issuing a joint statement on the pandemic because he insisted on using the phrase "Wuhan virus" instead of the internationally recognized "SARS-CoV-2," also informally known as the "Trump's a shithead virus."
So probably no G7 until after the election, and maybe not even then, since none of the other members will go along with Trump's repeated efforts to invite Vladimir Putin, who was very unfairly kicked out of the group in 2014 just because he invaded Ukraine and Barack Obama knew that would make Trump look bad.
Hey, that would free up some time for Trump to invite Putin to the White House so they could have their very own summit. They could call it the G-Just-Us-2, and send very mean notes to all the other G7 members telling them they weren't invited because they smell. Oh, just think of all the cool stuff they could add to the Burn Book.
[WaPo / US News]
Yr Wonkette is entirely supported by reader donations! Please send us some money if you can, so we can hold our big Wonkette Drinky Summits again sometime next year, Crom willing. In Jerusalem maybe. Like the one in New York, or maybe the one in Rhode Island.

See You in Court, Michigan. The Tampon Tax Is Discrimination | Opinion

JENNIFER WEISS-WOLF
ON 8/14/20 

This has been a monumental week for gender equality in America. Joe Biden announced his selection of Kamala Harris as running mate, days before the centennial of the 19th Amendment and the kickoff of the Democratic National Convention.

Also this week, three women filed a class-action lawsuit claiming discrimination on the basis of sex by the state of Michigan and its Department of Treasury.

The crux of the case? That Michigan's imposition of sales and use taxes on the purchase of menstrual products—commonly known as the "tampon tax"—violates the Equal Protection clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. The plaintiffs seek to represent millions of Michiganders forced to pay the 6 percent sales or use tax on these products, amounting to nearly $7 million per year.

In addition to asking the court to declare the taxation of menstrual products unconstitutional, the lawsuit also calls upon the court to order the state to issue refunds to class members of the sales and use tax levied over the past four years—a hefty price tag, over $25 million potentially owed.

"The devastation wrought by the coronavirus pandemic has only amplified the impact of this unfair and regressive tax," opens the complaint. Even before the health and economic crisis struck, Michigan women earned 77 cents for every dollar a Michigan man earned. As we enter what's been dubbed "America's First Female Recession," we're seeing, too, all the ways women are disproportionately represented in the front-line workforce, risking their lives to provide health care, child care and other underpaid yet essential services.

"The tampon tax has always been an unfair burden, but it's even more punitive for the state to raise money off purchases people are struggling to afford," said one of the plaintiffs, Emily Beggs, who volunteers for the nonprofit I Support The Girls, which distributes menstrual products to local relief organizations and shelters. Beggs said she has seen demand increase by over 50 percent since the pandemic reached Michigan in March. Melina Brann, executive director of the Women's Center of Greater Lansing, echoed that sentiment: "The inability to afford or access menstrual products is compromising the safety and dignity of many in our community."

Michigan is one of 30 U.S. states that still impose the tampon tax. During her campaign for governor, Gretchen Whitmer strongly supported eliminating the tax. Recognizing and calling out discrimination when she saw it, she tweeted, "Stop taxing women for being women." Yet, three years later, Whitmer's Department of Treasury still does just that.

The Michigan legislature has considered eliminating the tampon tax every year since 2016—there's bipartisan backing for doing so—but the measures have never been put up for a vote. Yet, as the lawsuit points out, the administration does not need to wait for legislation. Michigan's Treasury Department already has the power to stop imposing this unconstitutional tax—and, in fact, has used this power before to avoid levying taxes unconstitutionally.

Though Michigan has lagged, an array of bipartisan leaders nationwide have stepped up. Ten states eliminated the tampon tax over the past five years, bills passed and signed by Republicans and Democrats alike. Since 2016, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Utah and Washington all moved legislation; Nevada took the vote directly to the people via a 2018 statewide ballot measure; Rhode Island's exemption for menstrual products was cemented as part of the state budget; and California started exempting menstrual products this year, but only through a temporary budget measure slated to expire in July 2023. Some local governments have eliminated the tax, too: Chicago, Denver and the District of Columbia.

Michigan is one of 30 U.S. states that still impose the tampon tax.

RIVERNORTHPHOTOGRAPHY/ISTOCK/GETTY

Even dysfunctional Congress has advanced the cause. As part of the CARES Act, signed by the president in March, menstrual products were classified as medical necessities, making them eligible for purchase with pre-tax Flexible Savings Account and Health Savings Account dollars. Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell cut taxes on menstrual products. Why hasn't Michigan?


Constitutional law scholars around the country recognize that the tampon tax is more than just bad policy—and that it is unconstitutional. "If the government were to require that only men or only women had to pay a tax of several hundred dollars a year solely because of their sex, that would be an unconstitutional denial of equal protection under the 14th Amendment," Dean of UC Berkeley School of Law Erwin Chemerinsky wrote in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, "Yet that is exactly the effect of the so-called tampon tax." This argument necessarily includes the experience of non-binary and transgender individuals, as well, many of whom face considerable burdens and costs to accessing menstrual products.

With this new lawsuit, Michigan now must decide whether to defend its imposition of a punitive and discriminatory levy—explaining exactly why the state will not eliminate the tampon tax despite having the legal authority and moral obligation to do so. Issuing compulsory refunds will only make Michigan's precarious fiscal situation worse, so the legislature should consider this issue as it crafts a budget this fall.

It is 2020 and time for the tampon tax to go. It is wrong for Michigan, or any state, to tax and profit off our periods. Period.


Jennifer Weiss-Wolf is vice president and women and democracy fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, as well as author of Periods Gone Public: Taking a Stand for Menstrual Equity. She is co-founder of Period Equity, which is among the entities that represent the plaintiffs in the Michigan lawsuit.

Deconstructing Philippines’ New Anti-Terrorism Law
AUGUST 12, 2020
Kanak Mishra
Edited by: Akshita Tiwary

Kanak Mishra, a final year law student at O. P. Jindal Global Law University in Sonepat, India, discusses the arbitrariness of the new anti-terrorism law passed by Philippines in relation to international human rights law...

Rodrigo Duterte’s presidential term in the archipelagic country of the Philippines has been deeply concerning human rights activists since 2016. Immediately after assuming the Presidency, Duterte confirmed that he had personally killed three men when he was the Mayor of Davao to show the police that killing troublemakers should not be difficult.

Amid a deadly pandemic, the controversial President has urgently passed a new Anti-Terrorism Law. Prima facie, the law is believed to have come into effect to counter Islamic militancy in the south of the country. However, the law blatantly disregards human rights and actively suppresses any dissent. It is also expected to raise targeted and systemic killings, especially against illegal drug dealers in the country. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, recently released a report highlighting the systemic killings being carried out in the country under Duterte’s regime as a means to counter illegal selling of drugs, which is in absolute disregard of the legal process. Amnesty International has also taken cognizance of Duterte’s targeted killing of the poor by condemning it as “nothing but a large-scale murdering enterprise”.

According to the new law, any individual can be ‘branded’ as a terrorist for being suspected of committing or assisting in committing a ‘deemed’ terrorist act under Sections 4 to 12 of the legislation. None of the Sections in the legislation attempt to lay down explicitly as to what acts, in particular, would amount to terrorist acts. It can be said that the legislation does not lay down any concrete mechanism through which the Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) would have to justify the branding of any individual as a ‘terrorist’. The absence of the liability of the ATC to provide any justification or reasons for classifying an individual as a terrorist implies the unabashed arbitrariness of the legislation. The exercise of powers as grave as these would be in clear violation of the natural justice principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Thus, by violating this principle, the law also contravenes Article 14(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which provides for the right to a fair trial, thereby recognizing the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty as an important human right.

The law has obnoxiously widened the scope of terrorism by categorizing the destruction of all public properties as acts of terrorism. In Section 3 of the legislation, i.e., the definitions clause, public property is referred to as ‘critical infrastructure’. While the flowery language used in the text of the statute might seem convincing, it is a complete farce that considers even the slightest destruction of property as an act of terrorism. The definition of critical infrastructure ranges from telecommunications, water, energy, and food to radio and television assets. Additionally, it also criminalizes the destruction of any asset or system, the working of which is ‘vital to societal functions’. Considering that any dissent or protests are carried out primarily to oppose the existing societal functioning, the language of the text is very vague in its understanding of whether it seeks to criminalize dissent or destruction of property.

The definition of terrorism has been overextended to punish an individual for 12 years for inciting others through “speeches, writings, proclamations, emblems, banners, and other representations tending to the same end”. This constitutes a blatant suppression of the freedom of the press. The right to freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948.

Under Section 45 of the legislation, the President shall appoint an Anti-Terrorism Council (ATC) that would comprise of the National Security Advisor, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, and National Defense among others. The functions of the ATC are laid down in Section 46 of the legislation. The main functions of the ATC are to formulate and adopt plans and relevant measures to counter-terrorism, direct speedy trials, monitor the investigation process to establish a comprehensive database of terrorist activities and organizations, and take actions in compliance with UN Resolutions.

The ATC has unbridled power under Section 29 of the legislation in terms of ‘detention without judicial warrant of arrest’. This Section allows a person suspected of committing or assisting in terrorism to be put into preventive detention for a maximum of 24 days. Section 29(1) defines the period of custody as 14 days. But, Section 29(2) allows the ATC to extend the period of detention to a maximum of 10 more days on vague grounds such as preservation of evidence, completion of the investigation, necessity for further detention, and to conduct investigation ‘properly and without any delay’. Since the ATC members are appointed by the President himself, it is evident that they would be acting under his orders.

The Philippine government has defended the law by asserting that it does not go against International Human Rights Law. The President has tried to pacify lawyers by saying that law-abiding citizens should not fear the Anti-Terrorism Law as it is only meant to counter-terrorism. However, despite all these defenses, the people of the Philippines are protesting against this law mainly because it has the potential to conduct systemic killings, suppress dissent, and curb free speech in the country. Several rights groups, critics, lawyers, and indigenous people across the country have called the law ‘draconian’ and a ‘perilous piece of legislation’. In light of the severe and life-threatening attacks on human rights defenders and critics of the government including activists, journalists, lawyers, church leaders, trade union leaders, and individuals and groups affiliated with the political left, the Human Rights Council has adopted Resolution 41/2 to address the deterioration of human rights in Philippines.

But merely addressing the problem and being politically correct is not enough. Human Rights bodies have to actively step up to devise concrete measures to ensure that such grave and vicious human rights violations seize at the earliest. The Philippines, on the other hand, ought to direct its focus to reforming existing public and legal institutions instead of coming up with dangerous laws like the Anti-Terrorism Law. Considering the terrorism, corruption, and lawlessness prevalent in the country, the government should introspect the root causes of such problems rather than acting up and engaging in illegal acts itself. The need of the hour demands international players to act in solidarity in order to abolish the systemic and targeted killings of the poor and indigenous people of the country.


Kanak Mishra is a Final Year Law Student from O. P. Jindal Global University. Her areas of interest are Environmental Law, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), International Human Rights Law (IHRL), International Trade Law and Gender Studies. She believes that her intersectional understanding is helping her become a more politically informed individual.


Suggested citation: Kanak Mishra, Deconstructing Philippines’ New Anti-Terrorism Law, JURIST – Student Commentary, August 12, 2020, 

https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2020/08/kanak-mishra-philippines-anti-terrorism-law/

.

HRW report: COVID-19 making it difficult for Colombia’s Wayuu indigenous group to survive

AUGUST 13, 2020 02:06:40 PM

Cassandra Maas

COVID-19 is making it more difficult for Colombia’s indigenous Wayuu people to survive, according to a report released Thursday by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the Johns Hopkins Center for Humanitarian Health.


The Wayuu are an indigenous group that lives in La Guajira, a state in northeastern Colombia. In La Guajira, there is a high rate of poverty and a lack of sufficient food, water and health service access. This, combined with a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, government corruption and climate change, has led to high levels of malnutrition in La Guajira.

One in every 10 children under the age of 5 dies due to malnutrition. On average, one child dies because of malnutrition every week, which is six times the national rate. Even though La Guajira has roughly 7 percent of Colombia’s population, it accounted for over 20 percent of the country’s malnutrition deaths in children under five in 2019. Many deaths go unreported.

Wayuu people often walk hours to obtain water, and often this water is contaminated, leading to poor hygiene and disease. As many as 75 percent of La Guajira families are food insecure. Many children only eat once a day, and they often depend upon meals provided at school.

According to the report, COVID-19 poses a threat not only to the health of an “already struggling population,” but also has economic impacts that may deepen food insecurity and increase challenges to access water, healthcare, and education.

In La Guajira, there were at least 1,808 cases of and 103 deaths from COVID-19 as of July 27. At least 49 Wayuu people were infected. The pandemic has amplified food insecurity because many Wayuu families have lost their source of income due to COVID-19. Only 10 percent of the families have internet access, so they are unable to work remotely. Additionally, children who depended upon government-provided meals at school are unable to get these meals because schools are currently closed.

HRW urged Colombia’s government to ensure that all people have adequate food, safe and affordable water, and accessible health services. As the report said:


Even if Covid-19 itself does not devastate Wayuu communities, the further limits on access to food could, since thousands of children rely on meals that were provided in schools, which are now shut down. Although the government, private sector actors, and humanitarian groups are delivering thousands of food baskets, the inaccessibility of many Wayuu communities means some of the most vulnerable have no food.

THIS DAY @ LAW

US Congress passed "starve or sell" bill pressuring Sioux to give up Black Hills

On August 15, 1876, two months after the Battle of Little Big Horn, the US Congress passed a "starve or sell" bill providing that no further appropriations would be made for the subsistence of the Sioux Indian nation unless they gave up the Black Hills, where General George C. Custer had found gold in 1874.
Learn more about the US seizure of the Black Hills and Sioux legal efforts to have the land returned.

Liberia and South Korea established

On August 15, 1824, a group of freed slaves from the United States founded Liberia. South Korea was also established on August 15 in 1948.
Read the constitutions of South Korea and Liberia.

More This Day @ Law... ▸

US State Department did not evaluate civilian risk in Saudi Arabia arms transfers: report

AUGUST 13, 2020 10:53:50 AM

Muskan Yadav                                        

The US State Department did not evaluate risks of civilian casualties and implement measures to reduce them when it approved $8.1 billion arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in May 2019, according to an Office of Inspector General (OIG) report released Tuesday.

The unredacted version obtained by Politico raises doubts over Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s assertions that an emergency situation existed to bypass congressional review even as it objected to the sales over human rights abuses including the state-sanctioned killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and the Saudi-led war in Yemen that has led to a massive civilian death toll. The timeline of events related to the emergency certification as well as the fact that only four out of the 22 arms transfer cases were taken delivery of at the time of the review of the certification indicates that no such emergency existed.

This report came after lawmakers asked the OIG to investigate the transfer of military equipment to the Middle Eastern countries through the use of emergency authority conferred by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). The inspector general’s office found that the exercise of emergency authorities was in compliance with AECA requirements.

Steve Linick, the inspector general under whom the investigation had begun, was dismissed recently, making him the fourth official in the post to be terminated since April. The report was released by Diana Shaw, who is now the acting Inspector General.

Congress had sought to block the transfers by passing three joint resolutions. It was feared that the military equipment could be used to target civilians, but President Donald Trump had vetoed those efforts. The Conventional Arms Transfer (CAT) Policy prohibits the US from approving arms transfers having the knowledge that they would be used to target civilians.

In a statement, Representative Eliot Engel, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, showed concern over State Department’s press briefing and redactions before the report was released. He said, “The lengths to which the State Department has gone in the last day to spin and obscure the facts show how desperate they are to hide the truth.”

ter-American Dialogue)

US government report: acting DHS secretary improperly appointed

AUGUST 14, 2020 02:18:41 PM

Thomas DeLorenzo

The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the results of an investigation into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Friday, determining that Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and Acting Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli were improperly appointed to their positions.

After the departure of DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in April 2019, Kevin McAleenan assumed the leadership position of the agency. One of McAleenan’s first actions as Acting Secretary of DHS was to amend the order of succession, delegating positions to individuals like Wolf and Cuccinelli. After McAleenan’s resignation in November 2019, he was succeeded by Wolf as part of the amended succession plan.

The GAO determined that President Donald Trump improperly appointed McAleenan as Acting Secretary of DHS, invalidating the amended order of succession and therefore invalidating Wolf’s appointment as the current acting head of DHS and Cuccinelli’s appointment as Acting Deputy Secretary. The GAO said that the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which established the DHS, laid out clear instructions for establishing and amending the order of succession. According to GAO, upon Nielsen’s resignation, the succession plan called for the Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Christopher Krebs, to succeed her. Since this procedure was not followed and McAleenan, then the Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, was appointed to the position, his appointment was invalid. As a result, McAleenan’s actions, such as amending the order of succession to install Wolf, were also invalid.

Although the report has no legal weight, the GAO referred its findings to the DHS inspector general for further review. In addition, the report will likely be used by groups seeking to challenge the actions of DHS under McAleenan and Wolf as evidence that the agency’s actions were unlawful.

DHS has not yet responded to the report.

Federal judge orders Trump campaign to provide evidence of voter fraud

AUGUST 14, 2020

A US federal judge Thursday ordered the Trump campaign to provide evidence of voter fraud in Pennsylvania’s vote-by-mail election system.

Thursday’s order requires the campaign to submit evidence to the court by Friday. Judge Nicholas Ranjan of the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania stated that the “Court finds that instances of voter fraud are relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. … [I]f they have none, state as much.”

The order is part of the ongoing court legal battle between President Donald Trump’s 2020 election campaign and Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar. The campaign alleges that Pennsylvania mail-in voting will undermine the integrity of the election by allowing for invalid votes to be cast.

“[Boockvar’s] hazardous, hurried, and illegal implementation of unmonitored mail-in voting which provides fraudsters an easy opportunity to engage in ballot harvesting, manipulate or destroy ballots, manufacture duplicitous votes, and sow chaos,” the campaign asserted in its June complaint.

Fact-checkers, researchers and journalists have repeatedly denied claims of widespread voter fraud in mail systems as meritless. Pennsylvania Democrats claim that the lawsuit is merely an attempt by the president to raise an inaccurate and false alarm about the validity of mail-in voting.

Earlier this week, Trump said in an interview that he is refusing additional funding to the post office because such appropriations would enable the agency to conduct universal mail-in voting. Former President Barack Obama criticized Trump’s position as an attempt to suppress the vote and urged citizens to cast ballots early in this year’s election.

A hearing about evidence of voter fraud will be held in September.

Obama Says Trump Made 'Terrible' COVID Decisions and Now Pandemic Is 'Raging Out of Control'

BY MATTHEW IMPELLI ON 8/14/20 AT 1:55 PM EDT


Former President Barack Obama criticized President Donald Trump's response to the novel coronavirus pandemic Friday, calling the decisions made by the current administration "terrible."

While speaking on the Campaign HQ podcast hosted by his former campaign manager David Plouffe, Obama was asked about presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's decision to choose California Senator Kamala Harris as his running mate and how he felt Biden's decision-making was different than Trump's.

"She [Harris] is somebody who I think will be able to share the stage with Mike Pence or whoever else, and dissect some of the terrible decisions that have been made over the last four years that have helped create worse problems than were necessary in the midst of this pandemic," Obama said during the podcast.


He also touched on why he feels that Biden, his former vice president, will be able make better decisions than Trump, saying "he wanted and encouraged me to access experts. It's one of the reasons why I'm confident that he's gonna be able to put us in a much better footing when it comes to COVID-19."

Obama added "it's a sharp contrast to the current administration that seems to purposely try to ignore or cntraict experts."

Obama went on to talk about the ongoing pandemic in the U.S. and how it is compared to other countries across the globe.

"We've got a pandemic that's raging out of control and that would have been difficult under any circumstances, for any president, but we actually have a comparison between what's happening in the United States and what's happening in every other wealthy, industrialized country in the world, and we are dead last in how we have effectively responded," Obama said during the podcast. "If you don't have more proof...of the need for change, it's hard to come up with what the arguments would be."

Obama's comments come as the novel coronavirus, which causes the respiratory disease COVID-19 continues to spread throughout the U.S. According to a tracker from Johns Hopkins University, there are currently over 5.2 million confirmed cases and at least 167,369 deaths in the country.

Former President Barack Obama gives the eulogy at the funeral service for the late Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) at Ebenezer Baptist Church on July 30, 2020 in Atlanta, Georgia.POOL/GETTY

In contrast to Obama's comments on how the U.S. handled the pandemic, Trump recently said: "When you look at the job we've done, compared to others, we've done a great job."


"We've done a great job and on top of that, when you look at the numbers, how we were impacted less than these other countries," the president added during a recent press conference.

This is not the first time Obama has criticized Trump's response to the ongoing pandemic, as he made similar comments in a previous conversation with Biden, which was posted as a video on Twitter.

During their conversation, Biden asked Obama "can you imagine standing up when you were president, saying, 'It's not my responsibility?'", alluding to Trump saying he didn't take responsibility for the U.S.'s lagging rate of coronavirus testing.


"Those words didn't come out of our mouths when we were in office," Obama said in response.

Newsweek reached out to representatives of Trump and Obama for comment, but did not receive a response in time for publication.