Wednesday, May 04, 2022

Ocasio-Cortez Torches Collins And Murkowski: 'They Don't Get To Play Victim Now'

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) tore into Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Tuesday after they expressed dismay at the Supreme Court’s leaked draft majority opinion that would overturn landmark abortion rights decisions.

“Murkowski voted for Amy Coney Barrett when Trump himself proclaimed that he was appointing justices specifically to overturn Roe,” Ocasio-Cortez tweeted.

“She and Collins betrayed the nation’s reproductive rights when they were singularly capable of stopping the slide. They don’t get to play victim now.”

The senators, who both claim to support abortion rights, provided key support to justices appointed by former President Donald Trump who now appear poised to gut Roe. v. Wade. (Collins voted to confirm Neil Gorsuch in 2017 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018; Murkowski voted to confirm Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020).

Trump pledged during his 2016 campaign to appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the decision. All three of his picks were viewed as likely to do so. As nominees, those justices repeatedly avoided direct statements about Roe, including whether they’d vote to overturn it. However, they often commented on the importance of precedent.

After Politico reported on the leaked draft Monday, Collins and Murkowski expressed disappointment and claimed they were misled by certain justices during their confirmation hearings.

“If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office,” Collins said in a statement.

Murkowski told reporters that the leak “rocked my confidence in the court, because I think there was some representations made with regards to precedent and settled law.”

The current opinion is just a draft, and justices can still change their votes. If Roe is struck down, more than 26 states would likely ban or restrict abortion access, despite polling that has consistently shown a majority of Americans believe Roe v. Wade should be upheld and that decisions about abortion should be left up to women and their doctors.


Susan Collins Told American Women to Trust Her to Protect Roe. She Lied.

Eleanor Clift

Mon, May 2, 2022

Photo Illustration by Thomas Levinson/The Daily Beast/Getty

The one person most responsible for the looming loss of abortion rights—aside from the president who appointed three anti-Roe justices—is Maine Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who in October of 2018 became the 50th and deciding vote in the Senate for Brett Kavanaugh. He would not have been confirmed if it weren’t for Collins, who wanted women to believe as she did that he would keep his word to her.

He did not.

Maybe his fingers were crossed because whatever he said to Collins, it was a lie. Kavanaugh’s confirmation on a bare 50 to 48 vote was the beginning of the end for Roe v Wade, and everybody knew it except maybe Collins, who insisted Kavanaugh was telling her the truth, that he had such reverence for precedence, what they call stare decisis, which means “to stand by things decided,” that Roe would be safe in his hands.

Collins is pro-choice, moderation is her brand, and the pro-choice community waited with apprehension as she did due diligence on Kavanaugh. She assembled a team of 19 lawyers to help her go through his positions before spending two hours and fifteen minutes with the judge, where she claimed to secure his commitment to stand by the 1973 Roe decision and its successor, Planned Parenthood v Casey, the ruling that in 1992 reaffirmed Roe.

By the time Collins went to the Senate floor to deliver her nearly hour-long speech, which she dragged out to full effect until it felt more like a laying on of hands, cynicism had sprouted to the point where it seemed as though the fix was in. Collins was on board with this nomination no matter what, and when a last-minute bombshell revelation threatened to derail Kavanaugh, Collins was there in high dudgeon to denounce the supposed unseemliness of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation of sexual assault.

She deplored the “steady decline in the dignity of the confirmation process” and “gutter politics” that she blamed on interest groups and activists on the left.

It’s Time to Stop Calling Susan Collins ‘Pro-Choice’

After the contentious hearings where Kavanaugh mounted an emotional defense, Collins said she met with him again and in that second meeting she again extracted what she believed was his commitment to uphold Roe. “Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article 3 of our Constitution itself. He believes that precedent is not just a judicial policy, it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent. In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration. It is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance and fairness.”

There was an out, of course, that we’ll no doubt hear a lot about in the coming days and months, that on the rare occasion when the court corrects a “grievously wrong decision,” like Brown vs. The Board of Education overruling Plessy vs. Ferguson, or one that is deeply inconsistent with the law, then SCOTUS has an obligation to right the wrong.

Collins said at the time she is not naïve, that she knows how the court works, and she prided herself on asking all the right questions. “When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed that it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no,” Collins told the Senate and the country in what has now become an infamous speech.

(On Tuesday morning, Collins released a statement that read in part: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”)

Collins won a fifth term in the Senate in 2020, and her re-election wasn’t even a close call. She was too eager to believe all that fluff about stare decisis, and now a constitutional right that has been in place for 50 years is about to be shattered on the wing of a promise to her that predictably turned out to be a lie.

Susan Collins told the women of America that they could trust her to protect their reproductive freedom. She let us down.

Ana Navarro says Republicans 

have 'mistresses that get 

pregnant' and they'll regret 

overturning Roe

CNN contributor Ana Navarro appeared Tuesday on Don Lemon Tonight, where she spoke about the bombshell Supreme Court draft opinion that was leaked Monday. The draft appears to signal that the court plans to repeal Roe v. Wade. Navarro, a Republican herself, said that some in the GOP could end up regretting the repeal of abortion rights if that does indeed happen. She referenced the multiple congressional Republicans who have been staunchly anti-abortion in public, but were privately all for it when it came to their mistresses.

“Republicans have daughters, young daughters, and mistresses that get pregnant, too. And how many Republican legislators have we heard about in Congress, some of them, who had to leave their jobs because we learned they wanted their mistresses to get abortions,” Navarro said. “So this is one of these causes, one of these issues, where now that they got what they wanted, they may regret it. They may be saying to themselves, ‘Oh, holy lord. We got what we wanted, now what?’”

One such example of what Navarro is talking about is Tennessee Rep. Scott DesJarlais, a pro-life, family-values congressman and doctor, who reportedly once pressured a patient of his to get an abortion after he had gotten her pregnant. Another is former Pennsylvania Rep. Tim Murphy, who reportedly asked his mistress to get an abortion during an “unfounded pregnancy scare.” Murphy resigned from office in 2017. DesJarlais is up for reelection in November.

I got only one thing to say to Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins: Girls, you got played.Ana Navarro

Navarro also called out Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, both of whom released statements in response to the leaked opinion expressing shock that Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who reportedly voted in favor of repealing Roe v. Wade, did what they expressed they wouldn’t during their confirmation hearings.

Collins’s statement read: “If this leaked draft opinion is the final decision and this reporting is accurate, it would be completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office.”

Murkowski’s read: “It was not the direction I believed that the Court would take based on the statements that have been made about Roe being settled and being precedent.”

“I got only one thing to say to Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins: Girls, you got played. They absolutely did get played,” Navarro said. “They might have been told one thing in their office. Certainly some of these justices testified to something completely different during their confirmation hearings, and then now we see they intend to vote a very different way.”

And Navarro levied some serious charges against the justices.

“Either they perjured themselves when they were under oath in those confirmation hearings, or they lied to those senators in their offices,” Navarro said. “And Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski, who should know better, got played. They got absolutely played.”


Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, and Sinema weigh in on SCOTUS leak


Grayson Quay, Weekend editor
Tue, May 3, 2022, 

Joe Manchin Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Swing-vote Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Tuesday expressed their views on the draft Supreme Court opinion that was leaked Monday night and would overturn Roe v. Wade.

"Overturning Roe v. Wade endangers the health and wellbeing of women in Arizona and across America," Sinema wrote in a statement posted to Twitter.

Despite her opposition to the court's decision, Sinema said she was unwilling to kill the Senate filibuster to force through legislation codifying abortion rights into federal law, The Hill reported.

Manchin did not directly criticize the draft ruling, but he did echo Sinema by voicing support for the filibuster. Both Manchin and Sinema noted that the filibuster has been used in the past to protect "women's rights."




Sens. Collins and Murkowski are both pro-choice, and both expressed disappointment with the leaked opinion. Murkowski said the idea of a decision to overturn Roe "rocks my confidence in the court," while Collins said the draft ruling was "completely inconsistent with what Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh said in their hearings and in our meetings in my office." Both justices reportedly indicated to Collins that they considered Roe to be settled law.

Neither GOP senator, however, is likely to vote to weaken the filibuster while Democrats are in the majority.

Even if Democrats could remove the filibuster, they'd still be two votes short on codifying abortion access. Collins, Murkowski, Manchin, and Bob Casey (D-Penn.) all oppose the Democrats' Women's Health Protection Act.

Republicans Suddenly Don't Want To Talk About Banning Abortion

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Tuesday avoided answering questions about outlawing abortion in the wake of a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion suggesting Roe v. Wade’s days are numbered.

Instead, Republicans focused on the unprecedented nature of the leak itself, calling for repercussions against the leaker and expressing concern about what such a breach of trust within the court would mean for legitimacy of the justices.

When asked if he took pride for the apparent demise of Roe, which wouldn’t be possible without him, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) bristled at the suggestion.

“That’s not the story for today,” McConnell insisted to reporters at a weekly press conference on Capitol Hill.

Republicans have been working for decades to overturn Roe, an effort that culminated in the appointment of three Supreme Court justices by former President Donald Trump, who promised to nominate only justices who opposed abortion rights.

One would think that Republicans would be openly celebrating their apparent victory before the court like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), who was shedding tears of joy following the news on Monday. But GOP leaders pointedly refrained from doing so, something Democrats chalked up to the coming midterm elections.

“They spent decades trying to repeal Roe and now they won’t even own up to it …Their spin masters are telling them to avoid the subject and they did,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday. “They’re like the dog that caught the bus ... They know they’ll pay consequences in the 2022 elections.”

Polling has long suggested that most voters don’t favor overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court precedent that legalized abortion nationwide. Fifty-four percent of Americans think Roe should be upheld, while 28% believe it should be overturned, a 2-1 margin, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC poll.

“They know that this is bad for them,” pollster Molly Murphy, president of Impact Research, said Tuesday at an EMILY’s List conference. “They know that this is not an issue they should be talking about.”

Schumer said it is his intention to hold a vote on a bill that would enshrine abortion access in federal law, but Republicans are almost certain to block it. Democrats also lack the support within their caucus to eliminate the filibuster to pass it on their own.

Republicans could retake the Senate in this fall’s midterm elections, giving them a chance to hold a vote on abortion legislation on their own. Anti-abortion advocates have pushed for a nationwide ban; already, 26 states are either likely or certain to outlaw abortion if Roe is overturned, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

On Tuesday, HuffPost interviewed more than a dozen Republican senators. Most declined to comment on future abortion legislation, saying they were more focused on the impropriety of someone leaking a draft Supreme Court opinion.

“I am going to focus right now on the leak,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) said. “That’s what we’re talking about right now. Let’s let the Supreme Court go through their deliberations first, go through the proper process.”

Ernst is planning to introduce legislation banning abortion nationwide, according to an anti-abortion activist interviewed by The Washington Post.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), speaks with reporters on Wednesday, March 10 in Washington. (Photo: via Associated Press)
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), speaks with reporters on Wednesday, March 10 in Washington. (Photo: via Associated Press)

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), speaks with reporters on Wednesday, March 10 in Washington. (Photo: via Associated Press)

Only Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said he still supported an abortion ban, but lamented that such a proposal probably lacked enough support.

“There’s not the votes for a federal abortion ban at this point, but I think every child is valuable and I think we will get there eventually,” Lankford said.

In the draft opinion, which the Supreme Court has confirmed as authentic but said is not final, Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote that it “is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives,” meaning state legislatures.

Several Republicans agreed with Alito, saying that if the Supreme Court ultimately does overturn Roe, lawmakers in each state should decide whether abortion should be legal or illegal.

“If the court makes the right decision and strikes down Roe, the result would not be that abortion would be illegal everywhere,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said. “In bright blue states like California and New York, at least in the short term, abortion almost surely would remain universally available. In redder states like my home state of Texas, we would see more significant restrictions.”

Cruz has supported federal anti-abortion bills in the past, such as bans on “partial birth” abortion. He said voters can “vote in new representatives” if they disagree with state or federal laws.

Thirteen states have “trigger” laws on the books that will immediately go into effect if Roe is overturned. Trigger laws have never actually been implemented so the legality and court challenges surrounding them are unclear. Most trigger laws have limited exceptions for rape and incest, while some only include exceptions if the pregnant person’s life is at risk. Several trigger laws, like in Tennessee and Kentucky, would make it a felony for a doctor to perform an abortion. All trigger laws exempt people seeking abortion from being criminalized, at least for now.

In a campaign messaging memo obtained by Axios on Tuesday, the National Republican Senatorial Committee advised Republicans to a compassionate consensus-builder on abortion policy.

“Republicans DO NOT want to throw doctors and women in jail. Mothers should be held harmless under the law,” the document says.

Most Republican senators co-sponsored a symbolic bill last year that would impose criminal penalties and prison time for doctors who fail to provide care for an “infant born alive after an abortion.”

On Tuesday, some Republicans suggested that the Supreme Court leaker should maybe be thrown in jail.

“​​Everyone who had access to this document should be interviewed and asked if they leaked it,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) said. “And then the leaker is going to have to make a decision whether to tell the truth or lie to an FBI agent.”

Alanna Vagianos and Amanda Terkel contributed reporting.

This article originally appeared on HuffPost and has been updated.

Phoebe Bridgers reveals she had an abortion last year, says 'everyone deserves' Planned Parenthood access


·Writer, Yahoo Entertainment

Phoebe Bridgers revealed she had an abortion in 2021 while on tour. The 27-year-old singer-songwriter shared her story on social media in the wake of a leaked draft majority opinion that shows the U.S. Supreme Court intends to strike down Roe v. Wade.

"I had an abortion in October of last year while I was on tour. I went to planned parenthood where they gave me the abortion pill. It was easy. Everyone deserves that kind of access," she wrote.

Singer Phoebe Bridgers reveals she got an abortion last year.
Singer Phoebe Bridgers reveals she got an abortion last year. (Photo: Reuters)

Bridgers directed her followers to The Cut's article "Donate to an Abortion Fund Right Now," which lists on-the-ground organizations that help coordinate and pay for abortion care for women who need it.

The "Motion Sickness" singer didn't disclose which Planned Parenthood she went to. Bridgers unexpectedly canceled a show in New Orleans on Oct. 3 and many of her tour stops last October were in red states.

In an unprecedented move, Politico published the draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito in February that strikes down the landmark 1973 decision guaranteeing federal constitutional protections of abortion rights.

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," Alito writes.

According to the draft, the U.S. Supreme Court also rejects the subsequent 1992 decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey that reaffirmed Roe.

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito says in the document, labeled as the "Opinion of the Court." "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."

Bridgers is hardly the only star to speak out about the possibility of Roe being overturned. Amy Schumer, Lena Dunham, Busy Philipps and Whoopi Goldberg condemned the likely ruling.

Russia lashes out at Israel as rift over Holocaust and Ukraine widens


·Senior White House Correspondent

The Kremlin escalated its rhetorical dispute with Israel over World War II history on Tuesday morning by reiterating and expanding on the falsehood-riddled comments made by Russia's foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, about the supposed collaboration of Jews during the Holocaust with their own Nazi killers.

In a post titled “On Antisemitism,” published on the Telegram social media network, Russia’s foreign ministry tried to equate Israel's support for Ukraine with Jews whom it alleged collaborated with Nazis in World War II, arguing (incorrectly) that history “is unfortunately familiar with tragic examples of Jewish-Nazi collaboration.”

It went on to accuse the current regime in Kyiv — headed by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who is Jewish — of precisely such complicity, while insisting to Israel that it was the Red Army “that stopped the Holocaust and the destruction of the Jewish world.”

The post went so far as to suggest that Israel, which has not played a prominent role in supporting Ukraine in its war effort, may be too naive to realize that after “canceling” Russians, the Ukrainian leadership will inevitably move against the nation’s Jewish population.

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in front of the miscrophone, stares fixedly at an interlocutor (not seen) at a conference table.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov at a meeting in Moscow on April 27. (Russian Foreign Ministry/Handout/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

It was a remarkable turn of events, considering that when the war began, Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett sought to broker a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. Slow to help at first, Israel offered Ukraine material support late last month. If that support has been more limited than that of European nations and the United States, that is largely because Israel’s precarious geopolitical status leaves it little room to maneuver between allies and foes.

Still, it is not entirely clear why the Kremlin has decided to invoke one of the most controversial and misunderstood aspects of World War II history as a means of persuading Israel — and, presumably, other nations — that it was right to invade Ukraine. Such an attempt may have been inevitable, given that Russia’s initial rationale for attacking its much smaller neighbor was a need to “de-Nazify” Ukrainian leadership.

Lavrov offered his own thoughts on the matter on Sunday, telling an Italian outlet,“Wise Jewish people say that the most ardent antisemites are usually Jews.” He also repeated the debunked claim that the Nazi dictator, Adolf Hitler, was partly Jewish.

Having just commemorated the Holocaust the previous week, Israeli leadership vigorously denounced Lavrov’s remarks. “Foreign Minister Lavrov’s remarks are both an unforgivable and outrageous statement as well as a terrible historical error,” Lavrov’s counterpart, Israeli foreign minister Yair Lapid, wrote on Twitter. “Jews did not murder themselves in the Holocaust. The lowest level of racism against Jews is to accuse Jews themselves of antisemitism.”

Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid at a podium beside the Israeli flag, with Ministry of Foreign Affairs printed on the wall behind him.
Israeli Foreign Minister Yair Lapid holds a press conference on the question of Ukraine at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Jerusalem on April 24, 2022. (Israeli Gov't Press Office (GPO/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)

Despite the fact that there is little evidence that Lavrov’s argument — or any other Russian justification for the Ukraine invasion — has gained any traction, Russia’s foreign ministry decided to post a lengthy exposition on Telegram that called Lapid’s statement “anti-historical” and repeated Lavrov’s claim that European Jews were responsible for their own destruction.

The Russian foreign ministry charged Zelensky with “consciously” abetting Ukrainian neo-Nazis, comparing him to Jewish leaders during World War II who may have been aware of some aspects of the Holocaust but who chose to say nothing. Zelensky, on the other hand, is helping neo-Nazis “quite voluntarily,” the Telegram post said.

Russia's claims about complicity with the Nazis fail to reflect what the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum calls “impossible moral dilemmas” faced by Jewish leaders in Eastern European ghettos, from which hundreds of thousands of Jews were deported to the death camps of Poland.

The Nazis kept secret their plans for the Holocaust, telling Jews that they were merely being “resettled” in Poland. Rumors of the death camps did reach the ghettos, where Jews were housed in inhumane conditions, but many refused to believe them.

Even as the Russian foreign ministry proffered its arguments about Jewish-Nazi collaboration, it acknowledged — in the same Telegram post — that any such collaboration on the part of Jewish leaders was, in the words of three leading Israeli historians, a “marginal phenomenon.”

Not the opinion police': Disinformation board is latest headache for White House


·Senior White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON — Questions about whether a new Department of Homeland Security panel to combat disinformation will curb Americans’ free speech, and whether the woman named to run the board is too partisan for the position, have emerged as the latest headache for the Biden administration, which appeared to be unprepared for the controversy.

“I think we probably could have done a better job of communicating what it does and does not do,” DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas admitted to Dana Bash of CNN, in one of several interviews he conducted on Sunday morning to explain why Americans should not be worried about what he came to describe as merely a “working group” to counter foreign influence campaigns.

But by then, the Orwellian narrative had spread far and wide.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testifies before the a House committee.
Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas testifies before the House Judicary Committee on Thursday. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The extensive effort at damage control was a tacit recognition that since Mayorkas somewhat casually mentioned the creation of the Disinformation Governance Board last Wednesday at a House budgetary hearing, the administration had not done enough to explain its function, letting imaginations run wild.

“I really haven’t dug into this exactly,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Thursday as criticism of the new board was building. While some of that criticism was ideological, some was also driven by the appointment of Nina Jankowicz, a former Wilson Center disinformation scholar who has been unabashed in her political views — and colorful in her musical endeavors, which ranged from tributes to Harry Potter, the fictional wizard, to Elizabeth Warren, the Democratic senator from Massachusetts.

“I don’t have any information about this individual,” Psaki said Thursday as videos of Jankowicz’s performances were making their way across social media, leading some Twitter detactors to dub her “J. Edgar Jazzhands,” in reference to the infamous former director of the FBI.

Compared with a deadly pandemic or a war in Ukraine, the controversy is relatively minor. But it poses a fresh challenge for a White House seeking to find its political footing in a difficult climate. And though the administration sees some culture wars worth fighting, this one seems to have caught it by surprise.

A potentially substantial part of the problem for the Biden administration — and, arguably, for society as a whole — is that there is no agreed-upon definition of disinformation; the White House did not provide one in this case. And though it says the new board will combat foreign outlets without infringing on Americans’ own First Amendment rights, a globalized media landscape could make such distinctions difficult — and, very likely, contentious.

President Biden speaking at the memorial service for former Vice President Walter Mondale.
President Biden speaking at the memorial service for former Vice President Walter Mondale in Minneapolis on Sunday. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP via Getty Images)

The administration says the panel will flag reports persuading migrants to come to the border with Mexico, falsely raising their expectations of entering the United States. Mayorkas also wants to head off influence campaigns targeting minority communities within the U.S. ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. Such campaigns have, in particular, focused on Spanish-language populations.

“The spread of disinformation can affect border security, Americans' safety during disasters, and public trust in our democratic institutions,” DHS said in a statement last week, without offering the kinds of details that may have reassured Americans who are concerned with freedom of speech and other liberties.

The vacuum allowed some Republicans to brand the whole effort as something akin to the Ministry of Truth from “1984,” George Orwell’s dystopian novel.

"It can only be assumed that the sole purpose of this new Disinformation Governance Board will be to marshal the power of the federal government to censor conservative and dissenting speech,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said in a statement. “This is dangerous and un-American. The board should be immediately dissolved."

Criticism also came from mainstream outlets like Politico (“hopeless”) and the New Republic (“a bad idea”). A government agency, such critics added, was hardly the way to increase media literacy and institutional trust among Americans.

Then there was Elon Musk, whose acquisition of Twitter has led liberals to worry that he would turn the social media outlet into a hate-speech free-for-all.

“Discomforting,” Musk declared in a one-word verdict.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk deep in thought, with eyes closed and hands clasped.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk at the opening of a Tesla plant in Germany on March 22. (Christian Marquardt — Pool/Getty Images)

The appointment of Jankowicz has proved a challenge of its own, leading to questions about whether the board could ever engender the kind of trust it would need in order to be effective. The author of “How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News and the Future of Conflict,” Jankowicz has worked in Ukraine, making her ostensibly well equipped to craft a strategy against the nation’s (if not the free world’s) top informational malefactor.

Yet her rich online presence has also allowed conservatives to malign Jankowicz — and the disinformation board itself. A lot of that presence has to do with her singing, including for a Harry Potter-themed band called the Moaning Myrtles that she started in 2015.

Neither Jankowicz nor DHS replied to a Yahoo News request for comment.

Conservatives have seized on Jankowicz’s dismissal of New York Post reporting into the fate of Hunter Biden’s laptop, a story that keeps resurfacing to the White House’s dismay. She has also endorsed the anti-Trump dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. The most controversial parts of that document have since been discredited as precisely the kind of disinformation that Jankowicz will be tasked with identifying.

Fox News commentators found Jankowicz an irresistible target, with former George W. Bush political strategist Karl Rove dismissing her as a “political hack” on Saturday night.

Just hours later, Mayorkas was on the same network, defending both the disinformation board and its new head. “Don't question her objectivity," he said, adding that his department is “not the opinion police.”

U.S. takes unprecedented steps to replenish Colorado River's Lake Powell

"We are never going to see these reservoirs filled again
 in our lifetime,"

Tue, May 3, 2022,
By Daniel Trotta

May 3 (Reuters) - U.S. officials on Tuesday announced unprecedented measures to boost water levels at Lake Powell, an artificial reservoir on the Colorado River that is so low as to endanger the production of hydroelectric power for seven Western states.

Amid a sustained drought exacerbated by climate change, the Bureau of Reclamation will release an additional 500,000 acre-feet (616.7 million cubic meters) of water this year from the Flaming Gorge Reservoir upstream on the Wyoming-Utah border that will flow into Lake Powell.

Another 480,000 acre-feet that otherwise would have been released downstream will be retained in the artificial lake on the Utah-Arizona border, officials said.

"We have never taken this step before in the Colorado River Basin, but the conditions we see today and the potential risk we see on the horizon demand that we take prompt action," Tanya Trujillo, the Interior Department's assistant secretary for water and science, told reporters.

One acre-foot, or 326,000 gallons (1.48 million liters), is enough water to supply one or two households for a year.

The additional 980,000 acre-feet in Lake Powell, formed when the Colorado River was dammed in northern Arizona in the 1960s, will help keep the Glen Canyon Dam's hydroelectric production online, raising the reservoir's record low surface by 16 feet (4.88 meters), the bureau said.

If Lake Powell, the second largest U.S. reservoir, were to drop another 32 feet, the 1,320-megawatt plant would be unable to generate electricity for millions of people in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and Nebraska.

The western United States has experienced the driest period on record over the past two decades. Some experts say the term drought is inadequate because it suggests conditions will return to normal.

"We are never going to see these reservoirs filled again in our lifetime," said Denielle Perry, a professor at Northern Arizona University's School of Earth and Sustainability.


The new measures will put more stress on Lake Mead, the country's largest reservoir, which is downstream from Lake Powell and also at a record low. Lake Mead, formed by Hoover Dam in the 1930s and crucial to the water supply of 25 million people, has fallen so low that a barrel containing human remains, believed to date to the 1980s, was found in the receding shoreline on Sunday. 

(Reporting by Daniel Trotta; Editing by Donna Bryson and Sandra Maler)
Over 100,000 sign petition to free British geologist facing death penalty in Iraq for taking pottery shards



Ryan General
Mon, May 2, 2022

Over 100,000 petitioners are urging the U.K. government to help save a retired British geologist currently facing the death penalty in Iraq.

Jim Fitton, 66, has been accused of trying to smuggle historic artifacts out of the Middle Eastern country and has been detained there for five weeks.

On April 28, Jim’s daughter Leila launched a petition via Change.org asking the British government to take action against the death sentence.

The scientist, who shares a home in Malaysia with his wife, Sarijah, worked for oil and gas companies. He reportedly took some stones and shards of broken pottery as souvenirs while visiting the archaeological site Eridu as part of a geology and archeology tour.

The items, however, were eventually judged to be artifacts. Under Iraqi law, "whoever exported or intended to export, deliberately, an antiquity, from Iraq, shall be punishable with execution."

“Whilst on the tour, our father visited historical sites around Iraq, where his tour group found fragments of stones and shards of broken pottery in piles on the ground,” Leila narrated in the petition. “These fragments were in the open, unguarded and with no signage warning against removal."

She added that the tour leaders also took shards from the site as souvenirs.

“Tour members were told that this would not be an issue, as the broken shards had no economic or historical value,” she wrote. “Now the tour leader, another British citizen, has passed away from a stroke in custody in Baghdad, and our father awaits his fate.”

Leila, who has not seen her father for over two years now due to COVID-19 restrictions, revealed in a recent petition update that her father had no legal representation when the investigation phase of the case was being heard.

She added that she and her family were forced to create a petition after failing to get help from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO).

According to Leila, they are still hopeful that the FCDO will help them with its “legal and constitutional powers” to secure a meeting with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and other judiciary officials, so they can present a proposal seeking to “have the case closed before trial.”

Leila said their lawyer had drafted the proposal, which “cites the clear lack of criminality, that Jim is a victim of poor guidance and circumstance, and also cites the huge investment that the UK has made in the Iraqi governmental and judicial framework through FCDO funding in the past few years.”

Jim’s family is hoping to get immediate assistance before the hearing for the sentencing court starts on May 8.

Wera Hobhouse, Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, raised Jim’s case with ministers in the House of Commons.

"We are pressing the Foreign Office to intervene but sadly they are continuing to refuse,” Hobhouse said. "I cannot understand why the Foreign Office is not intervening when Jim's life lays in the balance."

In response, FCDO said it is already providing consular support to the family and has been in contact with Iraqi authorities.

"We understand the urgency of the case, and have already raised our concerns with the Iraqi authorities regarding the possible imposition of the death penalty in Mr. Fitton's case and the UK's opposition to the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle," a letter sent by Foreign Office minister Amanda Milling to Hobhouse last week.

Featured Image via Change.org