UK

Rishi Sunak Recorded A Video About Scrapping HS2 While Claiming No Decision Had Been Made

Kevin Schofield
Thu, 5 October 2023 

Rishi Sunak's video was clearly recorded in No.10

Rishi Sunak's video was clearly recorded in No.10

Rishi Sunak recorded a video explaining why he had scrapped the next leg of HS2 while telling people he had still not made a decision on the future of the project.

The prime minister posted the clip on X (formerly Twitter) shortly after announcing that he was axing the Birmingham to Manchester leg.

But users of the social media platform spotted that it had been recorded in No.10, despite the fact that Sunak had been in Manchester since the weekend at the Tories’ annual conference.

That means the video was made several days ago, during which time Sunak repeatedly told interviewers that he had not yet made up his mind on HS2′s future.


Transport secretary Mark Harper endured an excruciating round of TV interviews this morning in which he tried to deny the PM’s apparent deception.

On Sky News, Kay Burley said: “Why didn’t you just tell us it had been scrapped rather than waiting until yesterday?”

Harper insisted that the final decision was not taken by the cabinet until Wednesday morning.

He added: “I don’t really know why people are getting so het up about this particular issue.”

Burley replied: “Because you knew about it at the beginning of the week and you didn’t tell us.”

On BBC Breakfast, Harper denied that the decision had already been taken when the PM recorded his video.

Presenter Naga Munchetty said: “The prime minister said he would not be forced into making a decision, yet he had recorded a video in Downing St [even though] he’s been in Manchester since the weekend. So the decision was made.”

The transport secretary replied: “No it wasn’t.”

Munchetty said: “He told all of us that he wouldn’t be forced into making a decision. So why had he already made a video extolling the virtues of this decision?”

But Harper said: “I’ll be very clear with you. We’ve been working on this issue for a period of time. I took the decision on Tuesday and it was agreed by the cabinet yesterday.”


Sunak has said the £36bn saved by axing the next phase of HS2 will be spent on dozens of smaller transport projects across the country.

But his decision has been slammed by David Cameron, Boris Johnson and George Osborne.

UK

Sunak’s ‘spiteful’ sale of land intended for HS2 dashes hopes of revival

Helen Pidd North of England editor

THE GUARDIAN
Thu, 5 October 2023

Photograph: Xinhua/Shutterstock

A future Labour government would not be able to easily reverse Rishi Sunak’s decision to scrap the northern leg of HS2 as he has “spitefully” authorised the sale of properties that were subject to compulsory purchase orders on part of the route.

Steve Rotheram, the mayor of the Liverpool city region, said the move killed HS2 “stone dead” and would “tie any future government’s hands and make the delivery of HS2 for the north all but impossible”.

Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, on Thursday refused to commit to building HS2, telling ITV News Meridian: “What I can’t do is stand here now they have taken a wrecking ball to this project, and say that we will simply reverse it.


“What I will say is we will work with leaders across the country to make sure that we have the transport we need between our cities and within our cities and projects that can actually be delivered.”

The government failed to deny that HS2 would not be extended to Euston unless enough private investment was secured to pay for the new station.

“There is already support and interest from the private sector. Ministers have had discussions with key partners since the announcement,” a government spokesperson said.

Mark Harper, the transport secretary, also conceded on Thursday that paying off contracts previously awarded for the cancelled HS2 sections would cost hundreds of millions of pounds.

He told BBC Breakfast that the cost of pulling out of the agreements would “broadly balance out” with money recovered from selling land and property acquired for the high-speed railway.

National Labour proponents of HS2 were blindsided on Wednesday when the prime minister not only cancelled the Manchester leg but made it extremely difficult for the project to be restarted. “We expected him to kick it into the long grass,” said one party source. “We are now trying to understand where this leaves us. Selling off the land was unexpected.”

Gareth Dennis, a railway engineer and writer, said the decision to sell off the land was motivated by “spite” and was, in effect, “salting the earth” to make it extremely difficult for Labour to restart the project.

The Department for Transport (DfT) said that within “weeks” it would lift the so-called “safeguarding” order on phase 2a of the route, which would have run from Birmingham to Crewe in Cheshire. Safeguarding is the process HS2 Ltd and the government use to buy up land needed for the railway.

As of last week, HS2 Ltd had bought up 239 properties on phase 2a at a cost of £219.3m. “Any property that is no longer required for HS2 will be sold and a programme is being developed to do this,” said the DfT in its Network North prospectus, released on Wednesday.

“Phase 2a safeguarding will be formally lifted in weeks,” said the document.

However, the DfT confirmed on Thursday that safeguarding would remain for now on the Crewe to Manchester leg (phase 2b west) as well as the Birmingham to Leeds spur (phase 2b east), which was paused by the government in November 2021. “Phase 2b safeguarding will be amended by summer next year”, said the government, to retain any land needed for Northern Powerhouse Rail, a new east-west line across the Pennines.

Dennis said: “I knew Sunak would cancel HS2 to Manchester but I didn’t expect him to be so spiteful that he would authorise the sell-off of land on the route. There are barely any votes in lifting the safeguarding. It’s pure salting the earth to make it extremely hard for Labour to build it.

“What will happen now is essentially a fire sale. The land is not going to be returned to nature. It’s going to be developed on. That will make it much more expensive and much more complex should any future government want to build it.”

Rotheram said: “After weeks of uncertainty and confusion, Rishi Sunak’s lifting of the HS2 safeguarding order means that he has not only cancelled HS2 but he’s killed it stone dead. The consequences of this decision will tie any future government’s hands and make the delivery of HS2 for the north all but impossible.

“The Liverpool city region was set to benefit from a £15bn economic boost from the delivery of HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail in full. Almost overnight, the prime minister has robbed us of that chance to grow and develop our economy. He has turned the northern powerhouse into the northern powerless with this latest act of a long line of pronouncements that are holding the north down, not levelling us up.”

In his first interview since his speech to the Conservative party conference, Sunak declined to apologise for the decision to scrap the rail line, saying that he sometimes needed to take “decisions that aren’t always easy”.

Sunak said “the facts have changed” on HS2, pointing to costs doubling since the project was approved more than a decade ago and changes in passenger behaviour since Covid as evidence that the economic case for it had been “severely eroded”.

He denied that the line would be reduced to a mere “shuttle service” between London and Birmingham, insisting that many more people would be helped by paring back plans for the project and boosting other transport schemes instead.

UK

Who began HS2? When was the project started, which Prime Minister and government started it - Tory or Labour


Alex Nelson
Thu, 5 October 2023 

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak waves as he and wife Akshata Murty leave following his speech during the final day of the Conservative Party Conference, during which he announced the scrapping of the Manchester leg of the HS2 rail link (Photo: Christopher Furlong/Getty Images)

The Prime Minister has declared that the government will support a number of transportation initiatives, after cutting HS2 north of Birmingham.

Rishi Sunak has promised to “reinvest every single penny, £36bn, in hundreds of new transport projects in the north and the midlands, across the country”.

This includes developing what he called Network North, which entails enhancing the bus, rail, and road networks.


Over the years, HS2 has been a subject of political debate, with different parties and politicians taking varying positions on it. Something of a political football, with parties using it as a point of contention, the latest twist in the tale is sure to only fire up those debates further.

But which government is ultimately responsible for HS2? Which politicians were instrumental in its development, and how did it come to be? Here is everything you need to know about it.

Who started HS2?

HS2 was initially proposed and launched by the Labour Party - led by Prime Minister Gordon Brown at the time - during its time in government. The project was officially announced by Labour's Secretary of State for Transport, Andrew Adonis, in March 2010.

But it was the Conservative Party, which came to power in the UK in May 2010 under Prime Minister David Cameron, that continued to support and eventually gave the project the go-ahead.

Justine Greening served as the Secretary of State for Transport in Cameron's government and was responsible for overseeing the project during its early stages; when Patrick McLoughlin succeeded Greening, he continued to champion the HS2 project during his tenure.

As Prime Minister from 2016 to 2019, Theresa May's government reaffirmed its commitment to HS2. While there were debates and discussions about the project's costs and benefits, her government did not reverse its support for the project.

Boris Johnson, who became Prime Minister in July 2019, initially expressed some reservations about HS2, particularly regarding its cost. However, his government ultimately confirmed its support for the project after a review, and construction continued under his leadership.

So, while the project was initially proposed and launched by the Labour Party, it received cross-party support and was advanced by Conservative governments as well. It is a major infrastructure project aimed at improving rail connectivity in the UK.

Why was it started?

The idea for HS2 began to take shape in the mid-2000s as a response to the increasing capacity constraints on the existing rail network, particularly the West Coast Main Line, which connects London to major cities in the North of England and Scotland.

The existing rail infrastructure was becoming congested and unable to meet the growing demand for passenger and freight services. Various options were considered to address these challenges, but ultimately, it was decided that plans to develop a high-speed rail network would be put into action.

At one point in time, HS2 consisted of two main phases, with multiple branches, connecting major cities in England.

'Phase One' - which remains under development - is planned to connect London to Birmingham. It will start at London Euston station in the capital and terminate at a new high-speed station called Birmingham Curzon Street.

In 2013, the government announced a 'Phase Two' extension of the HS2 route to include a Y-shaped network, with one branch heading north from Birmingham to Manchester and the other to Leeds. This expansion aimed to improve rail connectivity to major cities in the North of England.

The branch to Leeds was cancelled in 2021, and with the recently announced cancellation of the Manchester branch, Phase Two will never be completed.

How was HS2 received?

Some political commentators and experts argued that HS2 would provide significant economic benefits by improving connectivity between major cities and boosting economic growth, job creation and investment, particularly in the North of England.

Proponents pointed to the capacity constraints on existing rail lines and argued that a high-speed rail network was necessary to alleviate congestion and meet the increasing demand for rail travel.

Supporters also highlighted potential environmental benefits, as high-speed rail could be a more environmentally friendly mode of transportation compared to cars or planes for certain routes.

Some commentators noted that other countries, such as France, Germany, and Japan, had successfully implemented high-speed rail networks, and the UK should not fall behind in terms of modern transportation infrastructure.

But critics expressed concerns about the project's cost, which was estimated to be in the tens of billions of pounds, and questioned whether the economic benefits would justify the high price tag and whether the money could be better spent on other infrastructure projects like upgrading existing rail lines or investing in regional rail connectivity.

Opponents also raised concerns about the environmental impact of the project, particularly during the construction phase, with the destruction of natural habitats and potential damage to the landscape particularly strong points of contention.

This opposition was particularly focused in rural communities along the proposed HS2 route, which were concerned about disruptions, property values and the loss of countryside.

UK
Attorney General ‘could block Rwanda migrant flights if European judges intervene’


Ben Riley-Smith
Thu, 5 October 2023 

Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, has ruled nothing out, according to a government source - Christopher Furlong/Getty Images

Cabinet ministers are braced for the Attorney General to block the deportation of migrants to Rwanda if the European Court of Human Rights intervenes again to stop flights.

The Home Office is preparing to restart flights to Rwanda within weeks if the Supreme Court rules that the scheme is legal. A decision is expected next month. However, European judges could still order the flights to be stopped, as happened last June.

Some ministers believe that, should they do so, Victoria Prentis, the Attorney General, would insist that the order be obeyed because it would be legally binding despite new powers theoretically allowing the UK to ignore it.

Rishi Sunak would then face the prospect of either overruling the concerns of his Attorney General or accepting delays to a policy he believes will deter small boat Channel crossings.

The development would also risk splitting the Cabinet over whether to promise to leave the European Convention on Human Rights at the next general election.

On Thursday, allies of Ms Prentis insisted she does not have blanket opposition to using new powers in the Illegal Migration Act to ignore European Court injunctions and has “ruled nothing out”.

The Government is drawing up contingency plans for both potential outcomes of the Supreme Court hearing, and sources dismissed “speculation” about what moves could be taken after the ruling. Some government insiders have even speculated that Ms Prentis could be moved in a reshuffle before the crunch decision.

The Supreme Court will start its three-day hearing to determine whether it is lawful to deport migrants to Rwanda to claim asylum there, a policy central to Mr Sunak’s “stop the boats” pledge, on Monday.

The Court of Appeal ruled that the policy was unlawful because of the risk that migrants could then be sent back to their country of origin to face persecution or inhumane treatment, in breach of article three of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Tories have long debated whether the UK should remain a signatory of the convention, struck in 1950, which is overseen by the court in Strasbourg.

Cabinet ministers have told The Telegraph that around a quarter of those at the Cabinet table could consider supporting leaving if Rwanda flights are blocked, naming Suella Braverman, Robert Jenrick, Steve Barclay, Kemi Badenoch, Grant Shapps, Alister Jack, David TC Davies and Chris Heaton-Harris.

None are publicly calling to leave the convention, meaning the claim is speculative.

If the Rwanda policy is deemed lawful, flights could be scheduled to take off within weeks. If it is deemed unlawful, the Government is considering signing a formal treaty with Rwanda the following day to counter the legal concerns raised.

This would be likely to make it explicit that migrants deported would not then be sent back to their countries of origin even if their application for asylum in the UK is rejected, currently a point of legal contention.

The Home Office could then choose to push ahead with flights, arguing that it had addressed the points raised in the ruling – a claim certain to be challenged by critics.

Under both scenarios, the European court that oversees the convention could issue another injunction, known as a Rule 39 order, to stop the flights. One such order blocked the first Rwanda flight at the 11th hour last June.

The Government would then have to decide whether to use the powers in the Illegal Migration Act to ignore such a ruling and start flights anyway.

Ms Prentis is said to have had concerns in the past about the legality of such a move before eventually agreeing to include it in the legislation. Some in the Cabinet believe she would push back on attempts to defy Strasbourg’s order and start flights to Rwanda, potentially via formal legal advice.

Allies said she was open to approving flights anyway but would have to scrutinise the specifics of the Supreme Court ruling and what specifically the European court did with its injunction.

A government source said: “The Attorney General has ruled nothing out. She is working closely with Number 10 and the Home Office on stopping the boats. It’s right that we wait for the outcome of the Supreme Court case rather than speculate on hypotheticals.”

A Home Office source said: “This is simply speculation, and the Government has been clear all along that we’ll do everything we can to stop the boats. We’re confident in the legality of our Rwanda scheme and await the Supreme Court’s decision.”

The decision about the way forward would ultimately come down to Mr Sunak. He has not publicly speculated on what will happen after the Supreme Court ruling, and Cabinet colleagues say he is resistant to the idea of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights.

Promising to quit would trigger a backlash from liberal Tories and risk international condemnation because many Western countries are signed up to the convention, created in part thanks to the support from Winston Churchill.

Trump allegedly shared potentially sensitive information about US nuclear subs with Australian billionaire


Martin Pengelly in Washington, Sarah Basford Canales and Daniel Hurst in Canberra

The Guardian  Thu, 5 October 2023 

Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

Donald Trump allegedly discussed potentially sensitive information about US nuclear submarines with an Australian billionaire, Anthony Pratt, three months after leaving office, according to a new report.

Citing a source with knowledge of the Australian’s account to investigators for the special counsel Jack Smith, US news outlet ABC News reported an “excited” Trump allegedly discussed “the supposed exact number of nuclear warheads [US submarines] routinely carry, and exactly how close they supposedly can get to a Russian submarine without being detected”.

Smith has charged Trump with 40 criminal counts related to his retention of classified information after leaving office. The former president also faces 17 criminal counts regarding election subversion (four federal, from Smith, and 13 in Georgia) and 34 concerning hush-money payments to the adult film actor Stormy Daniels.

Despite such an extreme predicament – also including civil trials for fraud and defamation – he leads Republican presidential polling by wide margins and is the overwhelming favorite to face Joe Biden in the 2024 race for the White House.

According to the report, Smith did not include any information about Trump’s alleged April 2021 conversation with Pratt in his June indictment against Trump.

ABC said Trump spoke to Pratt, at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida in April 2021.

Pratt then allegedly shared the information about submarines “within minutes” of learning it, shocking a Trump employee who heard him.

Pratt, the ABC report alleged, went on to share the information with at least 45 people, including his own employees, journalists, foreign and Australian officials “and three former Australian prime ministers”.

It is not clear if what Trump told Pratt was accurate, ABC said. Nevertheless, investigators reportedly asked him to stop repeating what he heard.

Pratt, whose corrugated packaging firm, Pratt Industries, is US-based, reportedly told investigators he repeated what Trump told him because he wanted to show he was advocating for Australia in the US.

At the time, Australia was negotiating the purchase of nuclear submarines from the US. The deal was sealed this year.

Related: When Donald met Scott: a reporter’s view of Trump and his White House wonderland

The report has reverberated in Australian politics, with the opposition’s foreign affairs spokesperson predicting that US and Australian national security officials would take the claims “very seriously”.

Simon Birmingham, who was a senior minister in Scott Morrison’s government when it negotiated the Aukus security partnership with the Biden administration, said he and other members of Australia’s national security committee (NSC) were expected to keep operational details secret “for the rest of our lives”.

Birmingham said he could not “prejudge exactly what took place in these discussions” between Trump and Pratt, but observed that US nuclear submarine technologies were “the most advanced in the world”.

“They are the the most treasured, if you like, prized asset of parts of the US defence establishment,” Birmingham told Sky News Australia.

“It’s why it was such a big breakthrough for Australia to be in a position to have them shared with us. But it’s also why I’m sure many in the United States will take very, very seriously the suggestion that these types of technologies and the capabilities associated with them could be subject to discussions outside of those confined spaces, such as, in our case, the Australian NSC.”

Trump and Pratt developed a relationship after Trump won power in 2016 and Pratt joined Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s members club in Florida.

In 2019, Trump attended the opening of a Pratt Industries plant in Wapakoneta, Ohio, also attended by Scott Morrison, then the Australian prime minister.

As reported by the Guardian, Trump and Pratt “exchange[d] lavish compliments as they amble[d] towards the gaggle of reporters. Presumably the box maker [was] explaining recycling to Trump as they [went]. Rubbish in, box out, cash in.”

Of Pratt, Trump said “this man is No 1 in Australia, they say”, adding in formal remarks: “We’re here to celebrate a great opening and a great gentleman … one of the most successful men in the world – perhaps Australia’s most successful man.”

Pratt told reporters Trump would win the 2020 election. He did not.

On Thursday, ABC said Pratt told investigators he now supported Joe Biden – because he was “someone who tends to just ‘side with the king’”.

Trump did not immediately comment, but a spokesperson for Trump later told ABC News: “President Trump did nothing wrong, has always insisted on truth and transparency, and acted in a proper manner, according to the law.”

The former Australian prime minister Malcolm Turnbull told the Guardian that Pratt did not speak to him.

“Trump did ask me in early 2017 why we were buying French rather than US subs,” Turnbull said. “I explained it was important that they be a sovereign capability and we did not have the means at that stage to sustain and maintain nuclear powered submarines ourselves. Sovereignty was of the utmost importance to my government.”

The office of the former prime minister John Howard said he, too, did not have such a conversation with Pratt. Other former prime ministers were also contacted for comment.

The Australian government did not have an immediate response to the report. The offices of the prime minister and the foreign minister were contacted for comment.

Pratt has been asked for comment via his company, Visy Industries.

Why Clarence Thomas’ trip to the Koch summit undermines his ethics defense

WASHINGTON, DC -  (L-R) Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas sits with his wife and conservative activist Virginia Thomas while he waits to speak at the Heritage Foundation on October 21, 2021 in Washington, DC. Clarence Thomas has now served on the Supreme Court for 30 years.

(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Justin Elliott,
Joshua Kaplan
Alex Mierjeski

October 05, 2023

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom.

Series: Friends of the Court:SCOTUS Justices’ Beneficial Relationships With Billionaire Donors


Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ decadeslong friendship with real estate tycoon Harlan Crow and Samuel Alito’s luxury travel with billionaire Paul Singer have raised questions about influence and ethics at the nation's highest court.

For months, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his allies have defended Thomas’ practice of not disclosing free luxury travel by saying the trips fell under a carve-out to the federal disclosure law for government officials.

But by not publicly reporting his trips to the Bohemian Grove and to a 2018 Koch network event, Thomas appears to have violated the disclosure law, even by his own permissive interpretation of it, ethics law experts said. The details of the trips, which ProPublica first reported last month, could prove important evidence in any formal investigation of Thomas’ conduct.

Thomas’ defense has centered on what’s known as the personal hospitality exemption, part of a federal law passed after Watergate that requires Supreme Court justices and many other officials to publicly report most gifts.

Under the exemption, gifts of “food, lodging, or entertainment received as personal hospitality” don’t have to be disclosed. The law provides a technical definition of “personal hospitality.” It only applies to gifts received from someone at that person’s home or “on property or facilities” that they or their family own. A judge would generally not need to disclose a weekend at a friend’s house; they would need to report if someone paid for them to stay at the Ritz-Carlton.

Numerous ethics law experts have said that gifts of transportation, such as private jet flights, must be disclosed under the law because they are not “food, lodging, or entertainment.”

Thomas has laid out a different view of the disclosure requirements. In his financial disclosure released in late August, Thomas asserted that the personal hospitality exemption extended to transportation. Justice Samuel Alito has made the same argument in an op-ed where he elaborated on his reasoning: private jets would count as “facilities” under the law’s definition of personal hospitality. In this view of the disclosure requirements, a key question would be whether the person providing a private jet flight actually owned the jet. So, for example, Thomas would not need to report flights on his friend Harlan Crow’s private plane because Crow owns it.

Thomas and Alito’s position is incorrect, many experts said, because it simply ignores the statute’s language: that the personal hospitality exemption only applies to food, lodging, or entertainment.

But there’s an additional reason the newly revealed trips should have been disclosed.

ProPublica recently reported that in 2018, Thomas traveled on a Gulfstream G200 private jet to Palm Springs, California, to attend a dinner at the Koch political network’s donor summit. He didn’t hitch a ride on a jet owned by a friend. Instead, he flew there on a chartered plane: a jet available through an Uber-like service that lets wealthy individuals rent other people’s planes. The owner of the jet at the time, Connecticut real estate developer John Fareri, confirmed to ProPublica that he didn’t provide the plane to Thomas and that the Palm Springs flight was a charter flight. That means someone else — not the owner — paid.

A Koch network spokesperson said the network didn’t pay for the flights. Because Thomas didn’t disclose the trip, it’s still not clear who chartered the plane. Jet charter companies told ProPublica the flights could have cost more than $75,000.

Experts told ProPublica they couldn’t think of an argument that would justify not disclosing the Palm Springs trip. “Even using Thomas’ flawed logic about the personal hospitality exception, there’s no way this chartered flight fits into that exception,” said Kedric Payne, a former deputy chief counsel at Congress’ ethics office.

Thomas and his attorney did not respond to questions about why he didn’t disclose the flight or if he paid for it himself. After the Palm Springs donor event, the plane flew to an airport outside Denver, where Thomas appeared at a ceremony honoring his former clerk, then back to northern Virginia, where Thomas lives.

Thomas’ undisclosed trips to the Bohemian Grove present a similar issue. As ProPublica reported last month, Thomas has for 25 years been a regular at the Grove, an all-men’s retreat held on a 2,700-acre property in California. Thomas has been hosted by Crow, who is a member of the secretive club, and stayed at a lodge there called Midway. Members typically must pay thousands of dollars to bring a guest, according to a Grove guest application form obtained by ProPublica and interviews with members.

Crow does not own the Grove nor does he own the lodge where Thomas has stayed. Experts said in these instances again, even by Thomas’ own characterization of the rules, he appears to have violated the law by not disclosing the trips.

“It makes a mockery of the statute,” said Richard Painter, who served as the chief ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush White House. Painter said that if charter flights and trips to Grove don’t need to be disclosed, “you could call everything personal hospitality. Broadway show tickets. A first-class ticket on Delta Air Lines. A trip on the Queen Mary.”

Following ProPublica’s reporting on Thomas’ failure to disclose gifts earlier this year, members of Congress sent a complaint to the Judicial Conference, the arm of the judiciary responsible for implementing the disclosure law. In April, the Judicial Conference said it had referred the matter to a committee of judges responsible for reviewing such allegations.

The law says that if there is “reasonable cause” to believe a judge “willfully” failed to disclose information they were required to, the conference should refer the matter to the U.S. attorney general, who can pursue penalties. But that would be unprecedented. As of May, the Judicial Conference said it had never made such a referral. The committee’s process appears to be ongoing.

In his filing in August, Thomas said that his view of the disclosure rules was based in part on conversations he had with staff at the Judicial Conference. Thomas did not respond to questions about the advice he received. A judiciary spokesperson declined to comment on whether it was ever the Judicial Conference’s position that gifts of private jet flights didn’t need to be reported.

This March, the judiciary revised its regulations to make explicit that private jet travel must be disclosed because transportation is not covered by the personal hospitality exemption. Experts said the update merely clarified what was always the case. (ProPublica reviewed other federal judges’ financial disclosure filings and found at least six recent examples of judges disclosing gifts of private jet travel before the regulations were updated.)

More than a decade ago, Thomas’ disclosure practices came under scrutiny following research by a watchdog group and a story in The New York Times about his relationship with Crow. Democratic lawmakers wrote to the Judicial Conference in 2011, saying that Thomas had failed to report the sources of his wife’s income and that he “may” have also received free private jet trips without reporting them.

What happened after that remains opaque.

In a four-sentence letter the following year, the secretary to the Judicial Conference said that the complaint had been reviewed. “Nothing has been presented,” he wrote, “to support a determination” that Thomas improperly failed to report gifts of travel. The letter did not detail what steps the conference took, the reasoning behind its decision or what information it had been presented with.

At the time, nothing in the public record had established that Thomas had ever accepted undisclosed private jet flights. But Thomas’ attorney Elliot Berke has cited the 2012 letter as vindication of Thomas’ practices. “The Judicial Conference issued a letter confirming that Justice Thomas had not improperly failed to disclose information concerning his travel,” Berke wrote.

ProPublica asked the Judicial Conference for details on the 2012 episode, including whether the committee conducted an investigation and an explanation of its ultimate conclusion: Did it determine that private jet flights need not be reported? Or did it determine that it wasn’t clear if Thomas had actually accepted such a gift?

A Judicial Conference spokesperson declined to comment.

'They don’t assimilate': Tuberville says 'we’ve lost' Europe to 'immigration'

U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Image via Twitter / X
David Badash and The New Civil Rights Movement

October 05, 2023

U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) says European countries have been “lost” to “immigration” as he praised Christian nationalist authoritarian Viktor Orbán of Hungary. Tuberville has a history of promoting white nationalism and has said he sees a white nationalist as a “Trump Republican.”

Tuberville declared immigrants “don’t assimilate,” and are “globalists” who “don’t go by the laws.”

“Europe has been overrun by immigration,” Tuberville said on Newsmax Wednesday evening (video below), which he claimed is “noticeable now to everybody across the world.”

“We’ve lost UK, France, Italy, Sweden – they have bombings every day, and it used to be a quiet little country,” Tuberville continued. “But they’ve allowed all these people to come in, and don’t they don’t assimilate. They don’t want to go with our culture. They don’t want to go by anything that they do in terms of their values, they don’t go by the laws.”

“But they’re globalists and that’s what we’ve got here in the Biden administration, they’re all globalists. They want to have no borders. They want everybody to come and be part of what we have. And that’s not what we’re about.”

“And again, you’ve heard the prime minister or president from Hungary,” he said, appearing to refer to Christian nationalist authoritarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who Trump endorsed in 2022.

“I mean, he was exactly right. He is a guy that understands what’s going on. And I heard a speech recently, Vladimir Putin, he’s laughing at us. He’s laughing at the United States of America, saying that we don’t have morals anymore. We don’t have borders anymore. This is the President of Russia laughing at United States of America. We ought to be ashamed ourselves.”

In the U.S., studies show undocumented immigrants, are “far less likely to commit crimes” than U.S. citizens.

While largely making headlines for continuing to hold up the promotions of over 300 U.S. Military officers, an act multiple top Pentagon officials have said is harming America’s military readiness, Tuberville has regularly and repeatedly engaged in far-right rhetoric. Some, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, have deemed it “racist.”In July, in rare remarks on social media which he echoed 0n the Senate floor, Majority Leader Schumer denounced the Alabama Republican by name.

“GOP Senator Tuberville has been on a one-man mission to defend white nationalism and even suggest that white nationalism is ‘American,’” Leader Schumer wrote. “To speculate about what white nationalism means as if it’s some fun little thought experiment is deeply disturbing.”

In May, Tuberville said white nationalists are simply “Americans.” He also said, “I look at a white nationalist as a, as a Trump Republican. That’s what we’re called all the time.”

Watch below or at this link.

Rightwing group behind regressive US state laws to face protest at DC gala


Nina Lakhani
Wed, 4 October 2023 

Photograph: Rick Bowmer/AP

A broad coalition of opponents to the rightwing corporate agenda of the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec) will hold a rally on Wednesday night outside a glitzy gala event to celebrate the secretive group’s 50th anniversary.

Environmentalists, gun reform campaigners, union leaders and voting rights activists will protest outside the $750-a-ticket event at the National Portrait Gallery in Washington DC, calling on corporations to cut ties with Alec – a tax-exempt group behind a slew of regressive state laws including the stand your ground gun legislation, right-to-work labor policies and so-called critical infrastructure protections that criminalize protest against fossil fuel polluters.

“They design cookie cutter legislation to pass to state houses across the US, helping pass laws that make it harder to vote, harder to get healthcare, harder for workers to unionize, and harder to get dark money out of politics,” said Svante Myrick, CEO of People for the American Way, one of the rally organizers.

“The model bills sound like they are protecting our country but are actually designed to protect corporate interests. We have to shine a light on this,” said Viki Harrison from Common Cause, a group which for years has pushed corporations to break ties with Alec over the racist impact of its legislation.

Alec’s corporate members pay thousands of dollars to each year for access to friendly state legislators and a seat on policy groups such as the Energy, Environment and Agriculture task force, which has been a conduit for the fossil fuel industry to promote state-level policies that weaken environmental regulations and impede efforts to tackle the climate crisis.

Membership dues from legislators, on the other hand, account for less than 1% of Alec’s annual revenues, according to tax filings uncovered by the Centre for Media and Democracy (CMD). The second-largest known donor to Alec is Charles Koch, whose foundations gave the organization just over $2m between 2017 and 2021, CMD found.

Over the past five decades, Alec has secretly worked with corporate lobbyists, far-right groups and conservative state legislators to draft and promote hundreds of model bills that have affected almost every aspect of life in the US including tobacco advertising, prescription costs, access to higher education and abortion healthcare, consumer protections, voting rights and environmental standards.

“We’re exposing who is behind Alec … they are just a cover for corporations to use tax free money to undermine workers’ rights and give cover to polluters, extending the life of the fossil fuel industry,” said Tefere Gebre, chief program officer at Greenpeace USA. “Alec has provided cover for corporations to run our lives, and 50 years is enough.”

Alec’s anniversary gala is sponsored by dozens of corporations, trade associations and rightwing thinktanks including Philip Morris International, The Heritage Foundation, US Chamber of Commerce and NetChoice, a tech industry group whose members include Amazon, Google, Meta and TikTok. Expected speakers include former corporate lobbyist and the current Alec CEO Lisa Nelson, and conservative political commentator Hugh Hewitt.

Alec has been contacted for comment.

An orca mysteriously died thousands of miles from home after swallowing 7 sea otters whole


Maiya Focht
Updated Wed, 4 October 2023 

Otter populations in the Commander Islands have been decreasing in recent years.

Arthur Morris/Getty Images

A beached killer whale was dissected in the Commander Islands in 2020.


Scientists were surprised to find seven fully intact sea otters in the orca's stomach.


They were puzzled because the orca was far from home and because orcas usually don't eat otters.

Orcas are known for being picky eaters.

They'll normally hunt fish, dolphins, seals, sea lions, whales, and even sharks. Whatever they grab, they normally tear apart their food, devouring the most nutrient-dense parts.

That's why scientists in Russia were perplexed when they dissected a beached orca in 2020 and found not one, not two, but seven fully intact sea otters in her gastrointestinal tract. She had probably swallowed them whole.

Combined, the sea otters weighed a whopping 242 pounds. But why sea otters? And why eat them whole?

She probably either had from a health condition or was driven by hunger, scientists reported in a study published on Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Aquatic Mammals.

"Their traditional diets may have dwindled, this individual was starving or it became savvy at picking out otters as easy prey from a coastal gulley," Alex Ford, a professor of biology at the University of Portsmouth who wasn't involved with the study, told Newsweek.

What killed the killer whale?

The aftermath of the dissection of the whale, showing the seven otters found in its stomach.Sergey V. Fomin

Ultimately, her unusual hunting behavior is what may have led to her death, the scientists suspect.

One of the sea otters was found lodged in the orca's esophagus, blocking her respiratory tract. The scientists said she probably died of asphyxiation, unable to breathe.

Bottlenose dolphins, a close relative of orcas, have also been known to die this way when fish get lodged the wrong way, according to the study.
A long way from home
Killer whales are known for their meticulous hunting skills.Reuters

Whatever was driving her, this killer whale was a long way from home.

DNA analysis revealed that she belonged to a well-known pod called Bigg's Whales, which keep to the Eastern Pacific around the Aleutian Islands, Gulf of Alaska, and coastline of California, LiveScience reported.

But this female was found on the other side of the ocean, along the shores of the Commander Islands, which is nearly 2,000 miles from the Gulf of Alaska.

Why she swam all that way and why she seemingly swallowed seven otters whole may never be entirely clear.

Read the original article on Business Insider

UK government urged to tackle 'killer' XL bully dogs

IT'S NOT THE BREED IT'S THE BREEDERS, IMPORTERS & OWNERS TO BLAME

Helen ROWE
Thu, 5 October 2023 

XL bully owners say they are not dangerous if well trained (Daniel LEAL)

The UK government is facing calls to crack down on the backyard breeders of XL bully dogs, and even to cull the breed, following a string of horrifying attacks.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has pledged to ban the dogs but stopped short of saying they should be euthanised.

The dogs, which have huge, powerful jaws and can weigh over 60 kilogrammes (132 pounds), have risen in popularity since the Covid-19 lockdowns, which saw dog ownership rise.


"These dogs would appear to be valued by some as status symbols prized for their aggressive temperament. We will not tolerate this any longer," wrote environment minister Therese Coffey last month after the ban was announced.

That followed a viral clip of an out-of-control XL bully biting an 11-year-old girl, leaving her traumatised and in need of hospital treatment.

The rampaging dog then chases and attacks one of the men who had gone to her aid in the central English city of Birmingham.

Under Sunak's plan, owners will have to register their dogs and muzzle them in public places.

They will also be required to neuter them so that the dog type dies out within a decade.

But Conservative party lawmaker Robert Goodwill has said the government should be considering faster action, including a "general cull".

Others are calling for a crackdown on unscrupulous breeders.

Since the Birmingham attack on September 9, there have reportedly been at least four more attacks by XLs -- two of them fatal and another involving a toddler.

- 'Fighting stock' -

Lawrence Newport, a researcher at Royal Holloway University of London who has spearheaded efforts to get the dogs banned, says they are uniquely aggressive due to their breeding history.

"These are fighting dogs, originally bred from fighting stock," he said.

XL bully type dogs were now responsible for 70 percent of dog attacks in the UK even though they only made up one percent of all dogs, he said.

If attacks were caused by bad owners, rather than something inherently dangerous about the dog type, there would be more attacks involving other big breeds, he argued.

Others, however, said fixating on one dog type would not solve the problem of underground breeders who would simply move on to other dangerous breeds.

"As soon as something becomes popular, the wrong people get involved and all this cross-breeding and inbreeding starts to create problems," dog safety campaigner Mark Riley, who helps run the group Rocky's Army, told AFP.

"It's happening with other breeds as well so it's not just the XL bully.

"We've heard stories of people crossing rottweilers with other dogs. They're the kind of people that need dealing with."

Riley's group supports people who have had their dogs seized by police under the Dangerous Dogs Act and advocates responsible ownership programmes and licences for dog owners.

Under the law, introduced in 1991, it is illegal to own four types of dog without an exemption, including pit bull terriers and Japanese tosas. Breeding the dogs is also banned.

- 'The Beast' -

The owner of one XL bully told AFP he accepted the dogs looked "pretty big and intimidating" but stressed that "any dog can turn violent" if not handled correctly.

The 30-year-old private ambulance driver from London, who gave his name as Jack said, he had trained his two-year-old dog Frank Sinatra to ensure he was obedient and well behaved.

"These dogs, they crave a lot of attention and you can see that sometimes people don't give them that attention. It's down to ownership," he said.

"They are great dogs. They're great loving family dogs. I trust him around my daughter."

According to the Bullywatch website, XL bully, bully type or crossbreed dogs now accounted for the majority of UK dog attacks.

The group, which aims raise awareness of the scale of dog attacks linked to XL bullys, said it believed there had been 11 confirmed deaths since 2021 and three more suspected deaths.

The general rise in dog attack fatalities in the UK "can be explained directly" by the introduction in recent years of XL bully type dogs, it said.

The mother of a 10-year-old boy who was killed by an XL bully named 'The Beast' nearly two years ago has criticised the government for being slow to act.

Emma Whitfield's son Jack Lis is one of several children killed by the dogs.

While she has said she is relieved by the ban, she is also urging the government to tackle the source of the problem once and for all.

"Banning the dog at the moment will help... but if backyard breeders still exist, they are going to create a new breed and we could find ourselves in a few years in the same place," she said.

har/phz/gil