US attorney general accused Chicago Police of unconstitutional behaviour - CNN

Why is Chicago so broken? Hundreds of newly released files detail violence
"The resulting deficit in trust and accountability is not just bad for residents -- it's also bad for dedicated police officers trying to do their jobs safely and effectively," Lynch said.
Read the full Justice Department report
Chicago's problems stem in part from severely insufficient training and accountability procedures, Lynch said.
"CPD has not provided officers with adequate guidance to understand how and when they may use force, or how to safely and effectively control and resolve encounters to reduce the need to use force," the report says.
'Misconduct will not be tolerated'
Mayor Rahm Emanuel said the police department has upgraded use-of-force policies, provided every officer with a body camera and made other changes.
"While the Chicago Police Department has made real progress and achieved meaningful reforms, the incidents described in this report are sobering to all of us," he said in prepared remarks. "Police misconduct will not be tolerated anywhere in this city and those who break the rules will be held accountable for their actions."
Dean C. Angelo Sr., president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7, expressed concerns about what he termed the "lightning speed" of the DOJ investigation.
"Completing an investigation into the 12,000 member Chicago Police Department, and in a city with more than 2 million citizens in less than one year, clearly brings to light that the outgoing DOJ wanted to issue a report before the new administration takes over on January 20, 2017," he said in a statement. "What also remains to be seen is whether or not the report might be considered compromised, or incomplete as a result of rushing to get it out before the Presidential Inauguration."
Friday's announcement came a day after the Justice Department announced a deal on a plan to reform police policies in Baltimore, after a similar investigation found that police there searched and arrested a disproportionate number of African-Americans and used excessive force against juveniles.
Shooting at fleeing suspects
The Justice Department's report detailed examples of what it said was excessive force by Chicago police officers, including:



Chicago police department accused of institutional racism
• The shooting of a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back.
"The officer told investigators the suspect had turned around to point a black object. This account did not square with the location of the shooting victim's gunshot wounds and appeared contrary to video footage that showed the suspect running away from the officer," the report says, without revealing the names or date involved.
The city's review panel, the Independent Police Review Authority, accepted the officer's account "despite the conflicting evidence," and issued a report that did not mention the video, the Justice Department says.
• The fatal shooting of a pedestrian who ran after being ordered to freeze "because he had been fidgeting with his waistband."
"Three officers gave chase and began shooting as they ran. In total, the officers fired 45 rounds, including 28 rifle rounds, toward the man," the report says. "Several rounds struck the man, killing him. The officers claimed the man fired at them during the pursuit. Officers found no gun on the man.
"However, officers reported recovering a handgun nearly one block away. The gun ... was later determined to be fully loaded and inoperable, and forensic testing determined there was no gunshot residue on the man's hand."
IPRA "found the officers' actions were justified without addressing the efficacy of the pursuit or the number of shots fired," the report says.
• Threats and force against boys who were accused of playing basketball on an officer's property, after a neighbor had called to report them.
"The officer pointed his gun at them, used profanity, and threatened to put their heads through a wall and to blow up their homes," the report says. "The boys claim that the officer forced them to kneel and lie face-down, handcuffed together, leaving visible injuries on their knees and wrists.
"Once released, one boy called his mother crying to tell her an officer had pointed a gun at his face; another boy went home and showed his mother his scraped leg and, visibly upset, said 'the police did this to me.' "
After the incident was reported to IPRA, the officer received a five-day suspension, but "was never interviewed and his reasons for not contesting the allegations are not documented in the file," the report says.
Chicago police under scrutiny for shootings
The Justice Department began investigating Chicago police in December 2015 in the wake of several high-profile cases of alleged police misconduct, including the death of McDonald, whose case spurred protests and helped fuel a national conversation about police officers' use of deadly force. The report said the department had violated safeguards in the Fourth Amendment.

McDonald, a black teen, was shot 16 times as he walked away from officers in October 2014. His death went largely unacknowledged until November 2015, when a judge ordered the release of dashboard camera footage that contradicted officers' accounts of the shooting.
Justice Department fact sheet on Chicago police probe
Just before the video was released, Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder; he pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.
The video outraged many Chicagoans, who took to the streets to protest what they felt was an excessive use of force and dishonesty by police who initially accused McDonald of threatening them.
In the fallout of the case, the police superintendent resigned and many called for Emanuel to do the same. But Emanuel held firm and vowed to repair the department's trust with the African-American community.
The mayor had said of the DOJ investigation back in 2015: "We accept it, and we need it."
'No regard for the sanctity of life'
The mayor created an independent task force to examine the police force, which released a report in April that accused the department of institutional racism and described its accountability system as broken.
That report said police "have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color" and have alienated blacks and Hispanics with the use of force and a longstanding code of silence.



762 murders in 12 months: Chicago's deadly 2016
As the department has grappled with allegations of excessive force, it also has battled a soaring homicide rate. Chicago had a staggering 762 murders in 2016, marking the city's deadliest year in nearly two decades.
The Justice Department's report touched on the homicide surge, saying that for Chicago to find solutions, "it is imperative that the city rebuild trust between (the police department) and the people it serves."
Under increasing criticism, the Chicago Police Department has pledged changes, including how it trains officers on the use of force.
Last year, Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson announced that all police officers soon would be required to wear body cameras and that 970 additional sworn positions would be added over the next two years to provide "new blood" to the department.
In addition to the human toll, the alleged police misconduct has weighed heavily on the city coffers in terms of settlements. Chicago spent nearly $642 million on alleged police misconduct from 2004 through 2015, according to a Better Government Association analysis.
The Justice Department's 161-page report on the probe took issue with the city panel that reviews use of force. In a few cases where the Justice Department determined that force was unnecessary, the city panel found that officers' actions were justified.
Why is Chicago so broken? Hundreds of newly released files detail violence
"The resulting deficit in trust and accountability is not just bad for residents -- it's also bad for dedicated police officers trying to do their jobs safely and effectively," Lynch said.
Read the full Justice Department report
Chicago's problems stem in part from severely insufficient training and accountability procedures, Lynch said.
"CPD has not provided officers with adequate guidance to understand how and when they may use force, or how to safely and effectively control and resolve encounters to reduce the need to use force," the report says.
'Misconduct will not be tolerated'
Mayor Rahm Emanuel said the police department has upgraded use-of-force policies, provided every officer with a body camera and made other changes.
"While the Chicago Police Department has made real progress and achieved meaningful reforms, the incidents described in this report are sobering to all of us," he said in prepared remarks. "Police misconduct will not be tolerated anywhere in this city and those who break the rules will be held accountable for their actions."
Dean C. Angelo Sr., president of the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7, expressed concerns about what he termed the "lightning speed" of the DOJ investigation.
"Completing an investigation into the 12,000 member Chicago Police Department, and in a city with more than 2 million citizens in less than one year, clearly brings to light that the outgoing DOJ wanted to issue a report before the new administration takes over on January 20, 2017," he said in a statement. "What also remains to be seen is whether or not the report might be considered compromised, or incomplete as a result of rushing to get it out before the Presidential Inauguration."
Friday's announcement came a day after the Justice Department announced a deal on a plan to reform police policies in Baltimore, after a similar investigation found that police there searched and arrested a disproportionate number of African-Americans and used excessive force against juveniles.
Shooting at fleeing suspects
The Justice Department's report detailed examples of what it said was excessive force by the Chicago Police Department.
• The shooting of a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back.
"The officer told investigators the suspect had turned around to point a black object. This account did not square with the location of the shooting victim's gunshot wounds and appeared contrary to video footage that showed the suspect running away from the officer," the report says, without revealing the names or date involved.
The city's review panel, the Independent Police Review Authority, accepted the officer's account "despite the conflicting evidence," and issued a report that did not mention the video, the Justice Department says.
• The fatal shooting of a pedestrian who ran after being ordered to freeze "because he had been fidgeting with his waistband."
"Three officers gave chase and began shooting as they ran. In total, the officers fired 45 rounds, including 28 rifle rounds, toward the man," the report says. "Several rounds struck the man, killing him. The officers claimed the man fired at them during the pursuit. Officers found no gun on the man.
"However, officers reported recovering a handgun nearly one block away. The gun ... was later determined to be fully loaded and inoperable, and forensic testing determined there was no gunshot residue on the man's hand."
IPRA "found the officers' actions were justified without addressing the efficacy of the pursuit or the number of shots fired," the report says.
• Threats and force against boys who were accused of playing basketball on an officer's property, after a neighbor had called to report them.
"The officer pointed his gun at them, used profanity, and threatened to put their heads through a wall and to blow up their homes," the report says. "The boys claim that the officer forced them to kneel and lie face-down, handcuffed together, leaving visible injuries on their knees and wrists.
"Once released, one boy called his mother crying to tell her an officer had pointed a gun at his face; another boy went home and showed his mother his scraped leg and, visibly upset, said 'the police did this to me.' "
After the incident was reported to IPRA, the officer received a five-day suspension, but "was never interviewed and his reasons for not contesting the allegations are not documented in the file," the report says.
Chicago police under scrutiny for shootings
The Justice Department began investigating Chicago police in December 2015 in the wake of several high-profile cases of alleged police misconduct, including the death of McDonald, whose case spurred protests and helped fuel a national conversation about police officers' use of deadly force. The report said the department had violated safeguards in the Fourth Amendment.

McDonald, a black teen, was shot 16 times as he walked away from officers in October 2014. His death went largely unacknowledged until November 2015, when a judge ordered the release of dashboard camera footage that contradicted officers' accounts of the shooting.
Justice Department fact sheet on Chicago police probe
Just before the video was released, Officer Jason Van Dyke was charged with first-degree murder; he pleaded not guilty and is awaiting trial.
The video outraged many Chicagoans, who took to the streets to protest what they felt was an excessive use of force and dishonesty by police who initially accused McDonald of threatening them.
In the fallout of the case, the police superintendent resigned and many called for Emanuel to do the same. But Emanuel held firm and vowed to repair the department's trust with the African-American community.
The mayor had said of the DOJ investigation back in 2015: "We accept it, and we need it."
'No regard for the sanctity of life'
The mayor created an independent task force to examine the police force, which released a report in April that accused the department of institutional racism and described its accountability system as broken.
That report said police "have no regard for the sanctity of life when it comes to people of color" and have alienated blacks and Hispanics with the use of force and a longstanding code of silence.

As the department has grappled with allegations of excessive force, it also has battled a soaring homicide rate. Chicago had a staggering 762 murders in 2016, marking the city's deadliest year in nearly two decades.
The Justice Department's report touched on the homicide surge, saying that for Chicago to find solutions, "it is imperative that the city rebuild trust between (the police department) and the people it serves."
Under increasing criticism, the Chicago Police Department has pledged changes, including how it trains officers on the use of force.
Last year, Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson announced that all police officers soon would be required to wear body cameras and that 970 additional sworn positions would be added over the next two years to provide "new blood" to the department.
In addition to the human toll, the alleged police misconduct has weighed heavily on the city coffers in terms of settlements. Chicago spent nearly $642 million on alleged police misconduct from 2004 through 2015, according to a Better Government Association analysis.

CNN

VW Emissions-Cheating Deal Could Put Employees In the Hot Seat - TIME

VW Emissions-Cheating Deal Could Put Employees In the Hot Seat

Posted: 10 Jan 2017 10:24 PM PST

DETROIT (AP) — The imminent criminal plea deal between Volkswagen and U.S. prosecutors in an emissions-cheating scandal could be bad news for one group of people: VW employees who had a role in the deceit or subsequent cover-up.
VW on Tuesday disclosed that it is in advanced talks to settle the criminal case by pleading guilty to unspecified charges and paying $4.3 billion in criminal and civil fines, a sum far larger than any recent case involving the auto industry.
It’s likely that VW will agree to cooperate in the probe, turning over documents and other information, said David M. Uhlmann, a former chief of the Justice Department’s Environmental Crimes Section who is now a University of Michigan law professor.

“Companies often face the dilemma of whether to protect their employees or cooperate with government investigations, but almost always end up deciding in the company’s best interest to share what information they have,” Uhlmann said.
Although VW’s communications with lawyers may be exempt, emails between employees and company executives should help prosecutors reach as far up VW’s organizational chart as the scandal went, he said. Prosecutors now have three witnesses giving them information and have arrested Oliver Schmidt, VW’s former head of U.S. environmental compliance who dealt with the EPA and California Air Resources Board after the scandal was uncovered.
The cooperation of witnesses and the company should help investigators determine if the scandal went beyond VW’s engineers, Uhlmann said. But extraditing any executives from Germany would be a problem.
Volkswagen has admitted equipping diesel cars with sophisticated software that turned on emissions controls when engines were being tested by the Environmental Protection Agency, then turned them off during normal driving. The software, called a “defeat device” because it defeated the emissions controls, improved engine performance but spewed out harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times above the legal limit.
Volkswagen has reached a $15 billion civil settlement with environmental authorities and car owners in the U.S. under which it agreed to buy back up to 500,000 vehicles. The company also faces an investor lawsuit and criminal probe in Germany. In all, some 11 million vehicles worldwide were equipped with the software.
The criminal investigation likely will continue into the administration of President-elect Donald Trump and attorney general nominee Sen. Jeff Sessions. Uhlmann, who served under Republican and Democratic attorneys general, doesn’t think the new administration will back off from the VW prosecution.
“All administrations want to be tough on crime, including corporate crime,” he said. “I doubt the Trump administration will be any different.”
A draft of the VW settlement with the government calls for the appointment of an independent monitor to oversee compliance and control measures for three years. The draft still must be approved by Volkswagen’s boards and U.S. courts.
The scandal was revealed in September 2015, when West Virginia University tested on-road diesel emissions. The EPA issued a notice of violation, and VW apologized and brought in U.S. law firm Jones Day to investigate.
If finalized, a $4.3 billion settlement would eclipse Toyota’s $1.2 billion penalty over unintended acceleration problems as well as General Motors’ $900 million payment to resolve a deadly ignition-switch scandal.
____
McHugh reported from Frankfurt, Germany.

US Senate probe into election hacking - CNN

Senate probe into election hacking to review possible links between Russia, campaigns

Washington (CNN)The Senate Intelligence Committee's review of Russian meddling in the 2016 election will include a look at any intelligence "regarding links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns."
Sen. Richard Burr, R-North Carolina, the committee's chairman, and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Virginia, the committee's vice chairman, said in a joint statement that the investigation into alleged Russian interference in the election also will focus on Russian cyberactivity and "active measures" against the US.
It was known that intelligence panels in both chambers of Congress were tapped by Republican leaders to probe the hacking, but Friday's announcement makes clear the scope and details about the review. It is also notable that the announcement was joined by Warner, as Democrats have clamored for a bipartisan look into what role, if any, Russia may have played in the election.
The statement said the committee will produce both a classified and unclassified report on its findings.
Burr and Warner said the committee will hold hearings examining Russian intelligence activity and interview senior officials within both President Barack Obama and President-elect Donald Trump's administrations about the matter, and will issue subpoenas if necessary.
"We believe that it is critical to have a full understanding of the scope of Russian intelligence activities impacting the United States," they said.
The statement cited an announcement in early October by the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that publicly raised the specter of Russia interfering in the election. On January 6, the intelligence community issued an unclassified report detailing information that generally concluded Russia attempted to interfere with the outcome of the election.
Both Obama and Trump have publicly stated that they believe Russia was involved in the hacking, though Trump has repeatedly expressed skepticism at the intelligence community's findings, particularly its conclusion that Russia interfered to boost his chances of victory.
Comey explains actions to Senate
Also on Friday, US officials told CNN that FBI Director James Comey explained in a Senate classified briefing Thursday why his bureau looked again into emails connected to the Hillary Clinton email server investigation in October.
Comey told them for the first time that investigators found new classified emails -- which were on a computer owned by Anthony Weiner -- though none were marked classified, the officials said. Many were ones they had seen before, but some were new, and the FBI didn't know what they were dealing with.
It appears Comey didn't provide as much information in a House briefing on Friday.
In the end, none of the emails changed the overall conclusion that Clinton had not acted illegally.

Volkswagen Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges in Emissions Scandal - TIME Business

Volkswagen Pleads Guilty to Criminal Charges in Emissions Scandal Posted: 11 Jan 2017 11:02 AM PST (WASHINGTON) — Six high-level Volkswagen employees from Germany were indicted in the U.S. on Wednesday in the VW emissions-cheating scandal, while the company itself agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $4.3 billion — by far the biggest fine ever levied by the government against an automaker. In announcing the charges and the plea bargain, Justice Department prosecutors detailed a large and elaborate scheme inside the German automaker to commit fraud and then cover it up, with at least 40 employees allegedly involved in destroying evidence. “Volkswagen obfuscated, they denied and they ultimately lied,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said. Prosecutors may have trouble bringing the executives to trial in the U.S. German law generally bars extradition of the country’s citizens except within the European Union. Privately, Justice Department officials expressed little optimism that the five VW executives still at large will be arrested, unless they surrender or travel outside Germany. Still, the criminal charges are a major breakthrough for a Justice Department that been under pressure to hold individuals accountable for corporate misdeeds ever since the 2008 financial crisis. Lynch held out the possibility of charges against more high-ranking VW executives. “We will continue to pursue the individuals responsible for orchestrating this damaging conspiracy,” she said. VW admitted installing software in diesel engines on nearly 600,000 VW, Porsche and Audi vehicles in the U.S. that activated pollution controls during government tests and switched them off in real-world driving. The software allowed the cars to spew harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times above the legal limit. U.S. regulators confronted VW about the software after university researchers discovered differences in testing and real-world emissions. Volkswagen at first denied the use of the so-called defeat device but finally admitted it in September 2015. Even after that admission, prosecutors said, company employees were busy deleting computer files and other evidence. The fines easily eclipse the $1.2 billion penalty levied against Toyota in 2014 over unintended acceleration in its cars. VW also agreed to pay an additional $154 million to California for violating its clean air laws. The penalties bring the cost of the scandal to VW in the United States to nearly $20 billion, not counting lost sales and damage to the automaker’s reputation. Volkswagen previously reached a $15 billion civil settlement with environmental authorities and car owners in the U.S. under which it agreed to repair or buy back as many as a half-million of the affected vehicles. The company pleaded guilty to conspiracy, obstruction of justice and importing vehicles by using false statements. Under the agreement, VW must cooperate in the continuing investigation let an independent monitor oversee its compliance for three years. The six supervisors indicted by a federal grand jury in Detroit were accused of lying to environmental regulators or destroying computer files containing evidence. All six are German citizens, and five remained in Germany. The only one under arrest was Oliver Schmidt, who was seized over the weekend in Miami during a visit to the U.S. Schmidt was in charge of VW’s compliance with U.S. environmental regulations. Those indicted also included two former chiefs of Volkswagen engine development and the former head of quality management and product safety. Prosecutors said one supervised 10,000 employees. All six were charged with conspiracy to defraud the U.S. by making false statements to regulators and the public. Three were also charged with fraud and clean-air violations. Government documents say one engine development supervisor asked an assistant to search another supervisor’s office for a hard drive that contained emails between them. Then another assistant was asked to throw it away, prosecutors said. According to the plea agreement, Volkswagen officials began deceiving the Environmental Protection Agency and other regulators starting in 2006, when they realized new diesel engines wouldn’t meet 2007 emissions standards. Under the direction of supervisors, VW employees borrowed the defeat device idea from VW’s Audi luxury division, which was developing different engines with similar software. In November 2006, some employees raised objections to the defeat device to the head of VW-brand engine development, prosecutors said. That official allegedly directed the employees to continue and warned them “not to get caught.” In 2014, VW employees learned about a West Virginia University study that found emissions discrepancies in VWs. Three of the supervisors and other employees decided not to disclose the defeat device to U.S. regulators, prosecutors said. In August 2015, a VW employee ignored instructions from supervisors and told U.S. regulators about the device. VW also faces an investor lawsuit and criminal probe in Germany. In all, some 11 million vehicles worldwide were equipped with the software.

What the last 48 hours told us about Trump's next 4 years - CNN

What the last 48 hours told us about Trump's next 4 years

By Gregory Krieg, CNN

Updated 0650 GMT (1450 HKT) January 13, 2017

Trump: People don't care about my tax returns

NEW YORK, NY - JANUARY 11: President-elect Donald Trump speaks at a news cenference at Trump Tower on January 11, 2017 in New York City. This is Trump's first official news conference since the November elections. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Trump's first presser as President-elect

NEW YORK, NY - JANUARY 11: President-elect Donald Trump speaks at a news cenference at Trump Tower on January 11, 2017 in New York City. This is Trump's first official news conference since the November elections. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Trump pans intel claim, shouts down reporter

CNN: Why Trump's 'fake news' claim is wrong

Trump: Intel report is all 'fake news'

Trump Acosta split

Trump shuts down CNN reporter

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, Wednesday, January 11, 2017.

Trump on hacking DNC: I think it was Russia

Trump: Pence getting approvals for wall

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York, Wednesday, January 11, 2017.

Trump describes Obamacare plan

Spicer: Russia-Trump report is disgraceful

Trump: I will turn business over to my sons

trump acosta split

CNN reporter: Spicer threatened to kick me out

Trump: People don't care about my tax returns

NEW YORK, NY - JANUARY 11: President-elect Donald Trump speaks at a news cenference at Trump Tower on January 11, 2017 in New York City. This is Trump's first official news conference since the November elections. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Trump's first presser as President-elect

NEW YORK, NY - JANUARY 11: President-elect Donald Trump speaks at a news cenference at Trump Tower on January 11, 2017 in New York City. This is Trump's first official news conference since the November elections. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Trump pans intel claim, shouts down reporter

CNN: Why Trump's 'fake news' claim is wrong

Trump: Intel report is all 'fake news'

(CNN)President-elect Donald Trump went nose-to-nose Wednesday with a press corps itching to cross-examine him after more than five months at arm's length, while his top nominees faced off with senators during a strategic crush of confirmation hearings.

The raucous 48 hours, beginning on Capitol Hill early Tuesday, represented an unofficial inauguration of the 45th president -- a whirlwind welcome to Trump's Washington, a chaotic and contentious place where graying norms seem destined to clash relentlessly with an idiosyncratic administration.

By Thursday morning, after a Senate vote-a-rama effectively paved the way for GOP efforts to dismember Obamacare, new information had emerged and old suspicions were affirmed, as the final countdown to the historic transition neared its end.

Here are seven lessons -- and the moments that defined them -- from the past two days:

1. The lesson: Trump escalates his conflicts with the media and other perceived enemies

The moment: At his news conference Wednesday, the President-elect refused to hear a question from CNN's Jim Acosta. Incoming press secretary Sean Spicer then threatened to throw Acosta out of the room if he persisted in asking.

"I have great respect for the news, great respect for freedom of the press and all that," Trump said during his long-delayed press conference Wednesday.

But the lovefest had its limits, as the President-elect ripped CNN and BuzzFeed over a pair of stories published the day before -- CNN's a carefully sourced report; BuzzFeed's a less scrupulous document dump -- and purposefully conflated the two in order to avoid answering serious questions about his and his staff and advisers' alleged ties to Russia.

Trump passed over Acosta during the news conference and Spicer threatened to eject him if he spoke up again. When ABC's Cecilia Vega pressed Trump on the matter, the President-elect spent nearly 90 seconds filibustering before heading for the elevators, where he eventually denied to reporters that he or anyone on his team had been in contact with the Russians during the campaign.

2. The lesson: Republican Russia hawks could emerge as Trump's most galvanizing opponents

The moment: Marco Rubio on Wednesday blitzed secretary of state nominee Rex Tillerson over his connections to Russia and whether, in his opinion, Vladimir Putin was a "war criminal."

Unlike Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions a day earlier, Tillerson, the Exxon Mobil chief with extensive business ties to Moscow, was confronted with a blistering round of inquiries from the senators who will decide if his nomination vote goes to the full chamber. Rubio in particular pressed Tillerson with a categorical question.

"Is Vladimir Putin a war criminal?" the Florida senator asked.

Tillerson hedged, saying he "would not use that term" and required "much more information" before giving a clear answer.

Rex Tillerson grilled on foreign policy

Rex Tillerson grilled on foreign policy 03:33

Rubio pressed on, running off a laundry list of Russian aggression, from its actions in Aleppo to the murder of dissidents and journalists, but Tillerson didn't budge.

Further questions about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia and the Philippines were met with similar demurrals.

By late Wednesday, Amnesty International USA had weighed in with their growing concerns.

"After a day of questioning, Tillerson's commitment to human rights in the US and abroad is in serious question," the group's executive director, Margaret Huang, said in an email. "He must use tomorrow's hearing to clarify today's troubling statements."

3. The lesson: A Justice Department led by Jeff Sessions will not vigorously police the police

The moment: Asked on Tuesday for his opinion on the Justice Department's use of consent decrees to oversee and reform police departments with records of abuse, Sessions expressed serious doubts.

During the tenures of Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch, the Justice Department has been proactive in applying oversight measures to local law enforcement outfits found to have committed civil rights violations.

The department has used a tool called a consent decree -- a period of enforced reform, with terms agreed by municipal authorities and Justice Department officials as a means of avoiding federal court action. Ferguson, Missouri and Cleveland are among the wide range, in size and prominence, of cities to sign on after high-profile offenses.

"I think there is concern that good police officers and good departments can be sued by the Department of Justice when you just have individuals within a department that have done wrong," Sessions said when asked during the first day of his hearing. "These lawsuits undermine the respect for police officers and create an impression that the entire department is not doing their work consistent with fidelity to law and fairness, and we need to be careful before we do that."

With an attorney general -- and Sessions is all but guaranteed to be confirmed -- so openly critical of the process, it's hard to imagine the Trump Justice Department will be initiating the reviews that became a hallmark of its predecessor.

4. The lesson: Protesters -- not a beleaguered Democratic minority -- are set to emerge as leaders in the anti-Trump resistance

The moment: The Sessions confirmation hearings, Day 1. While senators mostly treated Sessions with deference during what many had expected to be a fraught and tense confirmation hearing, Democrats were not nearly as vocal as the demonstrators that frequently interrupted the proceedings.

Protesters disrupt Sessions' AG hearing

Protesters disrupt Sessions' AG hearing 01:30

Protesters from a variety of grassroots progressive groups and larger liberal organizations were often the harshest voices in the room during Sessions' hearings. They rose at seemingly regular intervals to rail against the Alabama senator, who was denied a federal judgeship in 1986 amid allegations he made racist comments to a colleague. More recently, Sessions has emerged as a vocal backer of voter ID laws.

Activist Kai Newkirk, who was arrested during a sit-in at Sessions' office, told CNN Wednesday he was willing to be jailed because "Sessions' history and present positions make it undeniably clear that he cannot be entrusted to uphold equal justice, civil rights, or the right to vote."

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee panel were mostly restrained in their questioning, with Minnesota's Al Franken the rare Sessions colleague to confront him over his past record -- deliberately overstated, Franken suggested -- as a civil rights proponent.

With their party set to turn over the White House, and already nearly powerless in Congress, Democrats sitting on Capitol Hill could soon take a backseat to progressives and allied groups planning to stand up to Trump with mass protests and direct actions.

5. The lesson: Difficult conversations about race in policy clashes and political conflicts aren't going anywhere during the Trump era.

The moment: Both Rep. John Lewis, the civil rights hero, and Sen. Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, testified against Sessions on the second day of his confirmation hearings.

Booker to Sessions: 'Love all our citizens'

Booker to Sessions: 'Love all our citizens' 02:04

As their colleagues came under fire for offering what liberals saw as an overabundance of senatorial courtesy, Lewis, Booker and Congressional Black Caucus Chairman Rep. Cedric Richmond zeroed in on Sessions' history with a sharper edge.

"Those who are committed to equal justice in our society wonder whether Sen. Sessions' call for 'law and order' will mean today what it meant in Alabama when I was coming up back then," Lewis said during his testimony. "The rule of law was used to violate the human and civil rights of the poor, the dispossessed, people of color."

Booker, meanwhile, sought to channel the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., when he said, "The arc of the moral universe does not just naturally curve toward justice, we must bend it."

"America needs an attorney general who is resolute and determined to bend the arc," Booker testified. "Sen. Sessions' record does not speak to that desire, intention or will."

Booker's decision to so publicly oppose a Senate colleague -- he is the first to do so in a confirmation hearing -- shed light on the depth of the racial fault lines that figure to roil the new administration and its critics.

Difficult conversations are obviously not new in this country and they escalated during the course of the Obama administration, when Americans were focused at various times on Ferguson, Baltimore, Black Lives Matter and the very visceral fight over voting rights and the Confederate flag. Trump and his cabinet will bring a very different perspective than Obama and his. Partisan fights over race seem destined to escalate over the coming four years.

6. The lesson: The role of the FBI, in particular Director James Comey, in the 2016 campaign will remain a flashpoint in 2017

The moment: Democrats were alternately outraged and baffled when, in the course of a hearing with the Senate Intelligence Committee, Comey refused to comment on whether the bureau was investigating links between President-elect Donald Trump's campaign and Russia.

The question came from Sen. Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat. He wanted to know whether the FBI had investigated potential contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia.

The director, however, was not in a forthcoming mood and refused to comment.

Maine Sen. Angus King, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, couldn't help himself.

"You didn't say one way or another whether even there was an investigation underway?" King asked again.

"Correct," Comey said. "I don't, especially in a public forum, we never confirm or deny a pending investigation."

"The irony of your making that statement here, I cannot avoid," King said, a clear reference to Comey's looser lips during the campaign, when he jolted the contest with a very late public revelation that his agents would renew their review of emails potentially tied to Hillary Clinton's private server.

Clinton was cleared, again, days later, but many Democrats believe the brouhaha cost her precious votes in a race that was ultimately decided by the narrowest of margins in a handful of states. Like Trump, their grudge is likely to endure.

7. The lesson: The leader of the Democratic Party is Barack Obama -- and no one else comes close

The moment: In his farewell address from Chicago on Tuesday night, the outgoing president delivered a stark warning about the challenges facing American democracy while, both in the speech and recent remarks, offering a more coherent path forward than anyone else in his party.

Obama said goodbye in much the same way he entered national politics -- with an appeal to a shared decency and common interests across the partisan divide. But a decade on from the beginning of his brief Senate stay, the twice-elected president addressed a country more openly at odds over race.

Watch President Obama's full farewell address

Watch President Obama's full farewell address 50:07

"After my election," Obama told supporters in McCormick Place, "there was talk of a post-racial America. Such a vision, however well-intended, was never realistic. Race remains a potent and often divisive force in our society."

Framing that divide as a "threat to our democracy," Obama pleaded with Americans to emerge from their digital bubbles and more openly engage with political opposites.

"If you're tired of arguing with strangers on the Internet," he said to laughs, "try talking with one of them in real life."

But his appeal to economic solidarity -- which sounded a lot more like Bernie Sanders than his would-be successor Hillary Clinton -- struck hardest.

"If every economic issue is framed as a struggle between a hardworking white middle class and an undeserving minority, then workers of all shades are going to be left fighting for scraps while the wealthy withdraw further into their private enclaves," he said, while pointedly encouraging Democrats to engage "the middle-aged white guy."

Whether that adds up to a winning strategy remains to be seen, but for a night at least, the departing Obama towered over the Democrats he leaves behind to take on Trump.

What will the Republican Party do to Obama Care ? - New York Times

A Senate Vote-a-RamaPrimer, in Case You Plan to Sleep Tonight ( on Obama Care )

By THOMAS KAPLAN
JANUARY 11, 2017
WASHINGTON — The Senate is getting ready for a very late night.
As Republicans push forward with repealing the Affordable Care Act, lawmakers are about to undertake a grueling Senate tradition: the vote-a-rama, a marathon of rapid-fire votes that is likely to stretch on for hours.
Yes, that’s really what it’s called.
For at least some people in the Capitol, like those who enjoy sleeping when it is nighttime, the experience will be unpleasant. But there is a reason for the spectacle.
For Democrats, it provides an opportunity to draw a distinction between their views on health care and how Republicans are approaching the issue. For Republicans, the completion of the exercise clears the way for them to advance to the next step in their quest to gut the health care law.
In lieu of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, here is a primer on what to expect.
Will the health act be repealed while I sleep tonight?
No. Republicans have embarked on a fragile, multistep process to repeal major parts of the health care law, one that is on pace to at least take weeks, even without any big stumbles.
But an important step on the way to repealing the law could be taken soon, perhaps early Thursday. The Senate is close to approving a budget resolution that would set in motion the process of drawing up and ultimately passing legislation to repeal the act.
What’s a budget resolution?
Don’t be fooled by the name. In this case, Congress isn’t working on the federal budget.
Republicans are taking a series of steps to allow them to repeal the health care law without facing a Democratic filibuster. Passing the budget resolution will set in motion the process that, as drawn up by Republican leaders, will culminate in the passage of legislation repealing major parts of the act.
The resolution will direct House and Senate committees to come up with that legislation. (There is some disagreement about the deadline for the committees to finish their work; Republican leaders planned for Jan. 27, but this week a group of five Republican senators suggested extending that date by five weeks, until March 3.)
The legislation that the committees come up with will be packaged in what is called a reconciliation bill, which is not subject to a filibuster. That’s critical, because Republicans have a 52-seat majority, and overcoming a filibuster requires 60 votes.
Vote-a-what?
Special rules apply to budget resolutions. Senators can offer an unlimited number of amendments, and being generally crafty people, they like to take advantage of that opportunity.
The result is the spectacle known as the vote-a-rama. The Senate can consider dozens of amendments in quick succession, a task that can extend into the wee hours of the night.
None of the amendments hold the force of law: A budget resolution is essentially a blueprint for Congress, and the measure never goes to the president for a signature. But the amendments can be used to provide grist for campaign ads, giving each party the opportunity to force the opposing party’s members to take votes on politically delicate topics.
The lengthy undertaking, with minimal debate about the amendments being voted on, is not the ideal deliberative experience.
Former Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire and a past chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, once described the vote-a-rama as “the Senate’s equivalent to Chinese water torture.”
What happens tonight?
The Senate is expected to begin the vote-a-rama Wednesday evening. Not surprisingly, Senate Democrats are expected to focus on amendments relating to health care law, as part of their effort to denounce the Republican push to unwind it.
It remains to be seen how long the vote-a-rama drama will go on. Senate Democrats have already displayed their stamina once this week: They spoke on the floor in defense of the law until past midnight on Monday night.
Once the amendments have been dealt with, the Senate is expected to approve the budget resolution, a key step toward the Republicans’ goal of repealing the law.
Then what?
The House will take up the budget resolution, which it plans to do once the Senate gives its approval. The House vote could take place on Friday.
But some Republicans in the House have expressed unease with voting on the measure this week, because of uncertainty about when and how the health care law would be replaced.

New York Times

Will Trump slash civil servant pay to $1 using Armageddon Rule ？ - Guardian

Before he even won, Donald Trump had already threatened civil liberties and the central tenets of democracy when he said he wanted to jail his political opponent and sue the New York Times. Now Congress has made it possible for him to undermine something even bigger: government writ large.

An arcane procedural rule allowing lawmakers to slash the pay of specific federal workers down to as low as $1 was quietly revived as part of appropriations negotiations last week. The so-called Holman Rule, named for the congressman who dreamed it up in 1876, is just the latest sign the Trump administration might target members of the civil service – the nation’s single largest employer – for politically motivated reasons.

While such amendments would still have to be approved by majorities in the House and US Senate, with Republicans in control of both chambers and voting in unison, that’s not an implausible scenario. Take, for instance, the fact that all but three Republican members of the House ultimately voted for the passage of this rule as part of the spending package, despite early Republican grumblings behind closed doors.

It’s not just this newly revived rule that makes federal workers vulnerable. As Maureen Gilman, legislative director for the National Treasury Employees Union, told the Washington Post last week: “This is part of a very chilling theme that federal workers are seeing right now.”

We were ethics lawyers for Bush and Obama. Trump's cabinet hearings must be delayed
 Read more
The rule’s reinstatement follows a string of chilling moves by the Trump administration’s transition team, which already announced a freeze on federal hiring during Trump’s first 100 days, and a series of cabinet nominations that are antithetical to the agencies represented. (Consider, for starters, the climate denier who Trump would have lead the Environmental Protection Agency). Last week, the New York Times reported that the Trump administration, in a break with precedent, would be denying politically appointed ambassadors a grace period in vacating their posts.

That doesn’t begin to cover all the norms that may be violated, or federal benefits that may be at risk, under the new administration. Pension plans could be slashed and automatic raises eliminated; even the modest 2.1% raise President Obama awarded federal workers in January last year could be rolled back.

Regardless of whether any of that comes to pass, the implicit threat is clear.

And relatedly, even if the Holman rule is never once enacted, its chilling effect will be significant. Employees whose job description makes them politically vulnerable are already leaving government and there’s expected to be something of an exodus in the weeks and months ahead. As one federal worker told the writer Marin Cogan: “I have no doubt, that what we will see is the purge of good, committed, and competent talent out of federal service.”

For those who opt to stay, the pressure to self-censor in certain departments will be tremendous. Whether government employees admit this to themselves or not, the law of self-preservation dictates anyone working on potentially partisan issues, like women’s health or climate, will have a tremendous incentive to make their work politically palatable – or simply disappear.

Donald Trump didn't save the ethics committee. You did | Richard Wolffe
 Read more
It’s difficult to say with much precision which individuals or teams within agencies will be targeted using this provision. When asked this very question, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy refused to say. But last month many of those who work on climate change were quietly put on notice that their jobs are at risk.

This was the subtext of the Trump transition team’s demand that the EPA hand over a list of names for all the people in their agency working on international climate change treaty negotiations. That the department pointedly refused to cooperate doesn’t insulate employees from the knowledge that their names would have been on that list. It’s especially cold comfort given that their protection from the Trump administration will last, at this point, less than two more weeks.

Most insidious of all, perhaps, is the fact that there’s no way of knowing how pervasive this chilling effect will be – only that it will be pervasive. Sure, we can know how many federal employees opt to leave government, but there’s no way to measure how many of those who stay will submit to having their hands tied or accept being blindfolded to science in the interest of saving their jobs.

And that, perhaps, is the one silver lining to the resurfacing of what’s been called the “Armageddon rule”. It may spell the end of a politically insulated federal government – but if lawmakers use it, at least Trump and the Republican party’s witch-hunt will be visible to the public eye. Then, everyone will be able to see their bullying for what it is.

6 most moving farewell speeches by past US presidents - TIME

When President Barack Obama delivers his farewell address in Chicago on Tuesday, he will be only the 10th president in American history to present a formal goodbye as such, according to Gleaves Whitney, the author of American Presidents: Farewell Addresses to the Nation, 1796-2001. Though the practice has become much more common through the years, the vast majority of presidents have said their goodbyes during their final Annual Messages to Congress or State of the Union addresses.

By Whitney’s count, the other presidents to deliver a separate farewell have been George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. (Many historians also count George H.W. Bush’s West Point speech as a farewell address, but Bush himself did not identify it as such.)

For those presidents who have chosen to announce the ends of their careers in public service through a separate speech, a typical farewell address—which could take the form of a lengthy editorial in early years and more recently has been delivered to an audience—has involved not only thanking staff and supporters, but also reiterating an administration’s ideas about America’s national purpose. As a result, these speeches can also be a window into the unique challenges the country faced during a president’s term.

Here are some of the most memorable ones:

George Washington (1796): The first farewell address remains one of the most influential statements in American political history. In 32 handwritten pages, printed in Philadelphia’s American Daily Advertiser on Sept. 19, 1796, the first President laid out many ideas that continue to shape the nation. He announced he would not seek a third term, setting the precedent for two-term presidents. He warned that “factions” or political parties could become a threat to unity, a notion that resonates in today’s particularly polarized political climate. He also issued guidelines for U.S. foreign policy that are still commonly cited today, as proponents of American isolationism often look back to his warning to “steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world,” which was inspired by his efforts to keep the U.S. neutral when France and Britain faced off during the French Revolution. Concerned that getting entangled in European conflicts could destabilize the new, weak republic, he advised only getting involved in “temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”

Washington concluded by asking for forgiveness: “Though, in reviewing the incidents of my administration, I am unconscious of intentional error, I am nevertheless too sensible of my defects not to think it probable that I may have committed many errors. Whatever they may be, I fervently beseech the Almighty to avert or mitigate the evils to which they may tend…and that, after forty five years of my life dedicated to its service with an upright zeal, the faults of incompetent abilities will be consigned to oblivion, as myself must soon be to the mansions of rest.”

Andrew Jackson (1837): In the first formal farewell address since Washington—ghostwritten in large part by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Roger Taney—Jackson harked back to that earlier version fondly as “paternal counsels…warning of us of the evil to come.” Now that the Constitution had turned 50, it was “no longer a doubtful experiment,” he said. But, though things had changed, Jackson did have some warnings of his own, speaking out against pork-barrel politics (it might turn Congress “into a scramble for personal and sectional advantages”) as well as a national banking system that he believed favored “money power” — a.k.a. East Coast manufacturers — over the “common man.” The speech illuminates its era’s shifting politics as, in the midst of westward expansion, more Americans were participating in national affairs. Because he was the first President who was not part of the founding elite, Whitney says, “the age of Jackson is considered a new era in American politics because now the so-called ‘common man’ could participate.”

Andrew Johnson (1869): When Johnson departed office, the North had won the Civil War, President Lincoln had been assassinated, citizenship was expanding and the nation was in the midst of a difficult Reconstruction period. At the same time, the first President to be impeached was trying to reconstruct his reputation. It didn’t work. Whitney ranks the farewell message that ran in the New York Times and other newspapers across the country as perhaps the least dignified farewell address in national history, because it reads less like an inspirational message and more like an attempt to settle scores and vindicate himself. He listed a so-called “catalog of crimes” committed by “pretended patriots” who strive “by every means, to keep open and exposed to the poisonous breath of party passion the terrible wounds of four-years’ war.” The New YorkHerald wrote that Johnson’s remarks “smell of chagrin, distrust, ill nature, and bad blood.” Johnson ended up sounding so “petty,” as Whitney puts it, that he may have given the idea of such a message a bad name — so bad a name that another formal farewell address would not be delivered for more than eight decades.

Harry S. Truman (1953): Truman revived the tradition of the farewell address, delivering the first such address to take the form of a speech broadcast from the Oval Office at 10:30 p.m. on Jan. 15, 1953. “Truman was at his best,” biographer David McCullough wrote in Truman. The speech remains an important reminder of how much the world had changed for Americans during his term and the years leading up to it, and how much that change had affected the role of the president. The country was still getting used to its top position in a new world order. It had overcome existential threats internally (the Great Depression) and externally (World War II) and “emerged as a superpower that, for the first time in her history, had responsibility for the entire free world. No previous presidents had faced such a global burden,” Whitney says. During the speech, Truman acknowledged that his decisions hadn’t always been the most popular — putting troops in Korea, dropping the atomic bomb — but asked the American people to put themselves in a president’s shoes: “I want all of you to realize how big a job, how hard a job, it is—not for my sake, because I am stepping out of it—but for the sake of my successor.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower (1961): In his farewell address, Truman’s successor discussed how being responsible for the entire free world posed “new and grave challenges to the U.S. foreign policy establishment,” as Whitney puts it. Though he expressed concern about a number of issues that remain relevant, like the need to preserve natural resources, one part of his speech stands out. The National Security Act of 1947 had created a unified military structure for the first time in American history, but that also meant the end of the balanced budget and the risk that American society would become militarized. As such, the former World War II general famously warned about the development of the military-industrial complex. “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” he said. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” He also laid out his vision of what the country’s role in this new world order should be: “America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.”

Richard Nixon (1974): The President who resigned after the Watergate scandal insisted that he wasn’t really saying farewell in farewell remarks to the White House staff on Aug. 9, 1974: “You are here to say goodbye to us. And we don’t have a good word for it in English—the best is ‘au revoir,’ we’ll see you again.” But, though Nixon’s speech does not belong on the roster of formal presidential farewell addresses, no list of White House goodbyes would be complete without it.

Perhaps seeking some pity, he quipped, “I only wish that I were a wealthy man” he said. “At the present time, I have got to find a way to pay my taxes.” He regaled his tearful audience with stories about resilience in people he admired, like his father, a California streetcar motorman who went on to own the “poorest” lemon ranch in the state. “Never be petty” were the words of wisdom from the man who kept a so-called “enemies list”: “Always remember, others may hate you, but those who hate you don’t win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself.”

Trump threatens world trade - Financial Times

Like cats in popular folk wisdom, globalisation appears to have many lives. The integration of markets in goods, services and capital that accelerated in the 1990s with the fall of communism and the rise of China has been written off many times, notably during the global financial crisis. Yet it has survived.
This past year, its obituarists have had more material to work with than usual. The stalling of a number of high-profile trade deals has had the pre-emptive mourners out in force arguing that the engine of liberalisation has failed. Feeble growth in worldwide goods trade relative to the expansion of the global economy has raised fears that protectionism has taken its toll. And the election of Donald Trump, with his tirades against Chinese imports stealing jobs, and the appointment ofChina trade hawks like Peter Navarroto his administration, suggests that the era of liberalised trade is over.
Of these worries, only the last is convincing. Even allowing for the fact that rhetoric on the US presidential campaign trail tends to be far more blood-curdling than subsequent actions when in office, Mr Trump’s zero-sum worldview is deeply troubling.
A number of large trade pacts — usually dubbed “free-trade agreements” whether or not they succeed in liberalising commerce — have failed in recent years. But 2016 was notable for two particularly large ones hitting the buffers — the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), involving the US and EU, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) of 12 Asia-Pacific economies. Moreover, the trade world was treated to some comic relief late in the year when the smaller pact between the EU and Canada was held up for a while by obstreperous Walloons, the government of Belgium’s francophone region objecting to various provisions therein.
That said, none of this was wildly surprising. TTIP, predictably for a large multi-stranded deal between two trading blocs used to acting as hegemons, has struggled since its launch. The TPP was opposed by both presidential candidates, even though Hillary Clinton had been intimately involved in its negotiation. It was always going to face an uphill passage through Congress. Under the radar, however, the EU moved closer to a deal with Japan, two of the world’s largest trading powers quietly getting on with business.
As for the decline in the growth of trade relative to gross domestic product, it seems more likely to be related to changes in the structure of supply chains than to protectionism. Previously disaggregated production lines are being pulled inside single economies, notably China.
The underlying forces against globalisation are often overstated. But Mr Trump’s election could change everything. Armed with a view of the world where China’s gain is America’s loss, and the powers available to any US president to tear up trade treaties and impose emergency tariffs, Mr Trump could do serious damage within a relatively short space of time.
He has already appointed two instinctive protectionists itching for trade confrontation with China, Wilbur Ross and Mr Navarro, to his trade team. It may be up to Congress to restrain the administration’s wilder protectionist impulses — which is a little like putting the toddlers in charge of a nursery.
Globalisation has survived many things, but the rise of mercantilist populism in the form of Mr Trump may be its biggest challenge for decades. The year of 2016 was not a disastrous one for international commerce, but it may prove to be an uneasy calm before the trade wars begin.