“A former FBI informant charged with fabricating corruption allegations about President Joe Biden and his son has agreed to plead guilty to four felony charges to resolve two pending federal criminal cases against him, according to a court filing.
Alexander Smirnov, 44, admitted to lying when he told the FBI that he took part in meetings with executives from Ukrainian energy company Burisma in 2015 or 2016 about a scheme to pay $10 million to Joe and Hunter Biden. Joe Biden was the vice president at the time of the fabricated meetings, and Smirnov claimed the purported payments were bribes to “protect us … from all kinds of problems,” according to a plea agreement filed Thursday in federal court in Los Angeles.”
“as a historical matter, the critics are dead wrong when they insist that the Hunter Biden pardon is a unique and uniquely polarizing use of the pardon power. Presidents since George Washington have wielded that power, often in extraordinarily controversial ways.
The question isn’t whether Biden’s action was somehow singular in its offensiveness — history shows us that it is not. It’s whether the pardon power, a constitutional holdover from the divine rights of kings, is a power worth removing altogether from the Constitution.
Here are four earlier examples of controversial uses of the pardon power, from Washington to Bill Clinton. Together, they make Biden’s pardon look almost quaint.”
“Although only 14 percent of urban road miles nationwide are under state control, two-thirds of all crash deaths in the 101 largest metro areas occur there, according to a recent Transportation for America report. In some places, this disparity is widening: From 2016 to 2022, road fatalities in Austin, Texas, fell 20 percent on locally managed roads while soaring 98 percent on those the state oversees.”
…
“Instead of fixing such roadways, state officials tend to keep them as they are, citing limited resources or a need to maintain traffic speeds. In doing so, they constrain the capacity of even the most comprehensive local reforms to respond to urgent problems like car crash deaths, which are far more widespread in the US than among peer countries, or unreliable bus service.
Unless state DOTs recognize that a successful urban road must do more than facilitate fast car trips, that problem will persist.”
“The big reason is that fossil fuel consumption is up. Oil and gas account for the bulk of this increase in emissions, with coal a distant third. While greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are rising, their output is level or falling from some of the largest historical emitters. The European Union’s emissions are declining. US emissions are holding steady. China, the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter, is on track to see its output grow by just 0.2 percent this year, one of the tiniest increases in years.
Bucking this trend are many developing countries like India, currently the world’s third-largest emitter. India has seen a huge increase in renewable energy deployment, but its still developing energy from all sources, including fossil fuels. The Global Carbon Budget found India’s fossil fuel emissions are on track to increase 4.6 percent this year.
There are a few additional factors that drove up emissions this year. The lingering effects of El Niño helped push global temperatures to record highs. Extraordinary heat waves in India and China pushed up energy demand for cooling, and that meant burning more fossil fuels. “We’re beginning to see some of those negative feedback loops where the climate crisis itself is impacting on the energy system and making it harder to reduce emissions,” Grant said.
Still, there are glimmers of good news. More than 30 countries have already managed to grow their economies while cutting carbon dioxide pollution, a clear sign that coal, oil, and natural gas are not the only paths to prosperity. These countries have already summited their emissions peaks and are now on the descent, breaking a pattern that has held for nearly two centuries.”
“Trump could strip away civil rights and nondiscrimination protections enumerated under the Biden administration, which specifically apply to trans students.
The executive branch has a lot of control over what counts as discrimination in education, thanks to Title IX, a civil rights law originally meant to advance women’s equality. The Biden administration took the position that the law’s protections against discrimination “on the basis of sex” mean that discrimination against trans students on the basis of their trans identity qualifies as sex discrimination.
That interpretation of the law faced legal challenges and has been rejected by about half of the states. The Trump administration can — and likely will — simply take the stance that Title IX offers no protections to trans students.”
“There is a more realistic move Kennedy could take to address his concern about vaccine side effects: He could resuscitate the National Vaccine Program Office, which monitored vaccine safety with particular rigor but was shuttered under the first Trump presidency.”
…
“The US began fluoridating drinking water in 1945. An estimated 209 million Americans now drink tap water that contains added fluoride. The intervention is considered a historic public health win: It dramatically reduces tooth decay in children and also reduces tooth loss in adults.”
“The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) was unable to reach a consensus on Japan’s Nippon Steel’s $15 billion acquisition of U.S. Steel. The very committee that is responsible for safeguarding the U.S. from compromising foreign investments doesn’t recommend blocking the merger”
…
“CFIUS’s inability to recommend blocking the merger on national security grounds is not surprising: Japan is not an enemy of the U.S., but a close ally. The U.S. has been formally allied with Japan since the signing of the U.S.-Japan Security Treaty in 1951. In April, Biden and former Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida issued a joint statement celebrating “a new era” of bilateral security cooperation and announcing “several new strategic initiatives to strengthen our defense and security cooperation [and] bolster economic security.”
A section of the joint statement details the two countries’ commitment to economic cooperation under the U.S.-Japan Competitiveness and Resilience (CoRe) Partnership, which the Biden administration announced in April 2021 to advance cooperation “on sensitive supply chains…and on the promotion and protection of critical technologies.” The statement also celebrates mutual investment, pointing to Microsoft’s $2.9 billion investment in AI and cloud infrastructure in Japan and Toyota’s $8 billion battery production investment in North Carolina—a mere 1 percent of Japan’s $800 billion in foreign direct investment in the U.S.
If mutual investment in critical industries like semiconductors and batteries doesn’t compromise national security, the burden of proof is on those opposing Japanese investment in American steel production to explain why it does. CFIUS could not meet this burden and refrained from issuing a recommendation accordingly.”
“In 2023, over strong objections of activists on the right and left, the Biden administration announced a proposed change to Title IX, the law that prohibits discrimination based on sex in any federally funded educational program. Their suggested change would prohibit outright bans on transgender athletes, but would permit schools to restrict transgender students from participating if they could demonstrate that inclusion would harm “educational objectives” like fair competition and the prevention of injury.
This more nuanced stance marked the first time the Biden administration took the position that sex differences can matter in school sports, something hotly disputed by leading LGBTQ rights organizations. The proposed rule also reflected research that suggests sex differences emerge over time, so the standard for inclusion in high school should not necessarily be the same as that in younger grades.
Contrary to the post-election grumblings from Biden allies in the Atlantic, the president has been virtually silent on his own administration’s proposal for the last 18 months. He’s never spoken about it, and it was never mentioned by any other Biden official, including in any White House briefing on transgender issues.
The White House declined to comment for this story. A spokesperson for the Department of Education said their rulemaking process is still ongoing, as they consider the 150,000 public comments they received. “We do not have information to share today on a timeline,” they added.”
…
“Tellingly, Biden’s proposed policy on transgender athletes — allowing targeted restrictions for fairness and safety while rejecting blanket bans — would likely resonate more with average Americans than the hardline stances typically associated with Republicans, who leaned on transgender fearmongering in the midterms only to see their candidates flop, or Democrats, who many voters perceive as having no nuance on the topic at all. Yet the Biden administration’s reluctance to clearly communicate their middle-ground position left a vacuum that Republicans were happy to fill. It’s a dynamic that political observers say has become increasingly common: Democratic leaders stake out a position but, wary of internal rifts, default to strategic ambiguity even on issues where their stances might resonate with voters.”
…
“the Biden administration initially staked out a position that said there’s no legitimate basis to discriminate based on sex differences. In 2021, Biden’s Justice Department intervened in a lawsuit filed by parents of an 11-year-old transgender girl against the state of West Virginia, affirming this view.
“[West Virginia] cannot point to any valid evidence that allowing transgender girls to participate on girls’ sports teams endangers girls’ athletic opportunities,” the department said in its filing. “Instead, the State legislated based on misconceptions and overbroad assumptions about transgender girls.”
While praised by major LGBTQ groups like the Human Rights Campaign, this position obscured quieter disagreement among transgender leaders. Some questioned whether sports participation should be a top priority for the movement, while others doubted whether litigation was the best approach for advancing inclusion, given the state of public opinion. The Justice Department’s position also masked divides within the Democratic Party. Though it’s a complex topic and more research is needed, some existing scientific evidence suggests that transgender girls and women who do not suppress testosterone can have advantages in sports, particularly if they have gone through male puberty.
The West Virginia lawsuit wasn’t the only federal suit in the works. Happening at the same time was another case involving two transgender girls that was quickly drawing national attention. In response to Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood winning multiple state track titles in Connecticut, competitors’ parents and the Christian right-wing legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against Connecticut’s policy of including transgender athletes. Though initially dismissed in 2021, a federal judge just this month said the Title IX case could proceed.
As more of these politically charged lawsuits and bills mounted, the Biden administration announced it would be delaying its proposed changes to Title IX, despite its Day 1 executive order. Sources involved said the delay was largely understood as a political move driven by the upcoming midterm elections. When the Education Department finally released its proposed school sports rule in 2023, its language represented more of a compromise.
The rule marked the Biden administration’s first time saying that sex differences can matter in school sports and schools can discriminate in some cases, while also saying schools do not have to — thus permitting blue states like Connecticut to continue with existing policy. While its merits were debated, the federal proposal was on the table.
“The draft regulation recognizes that there are real sex differences and that these matter in competition,” Doriane Coleman, a law professor at Duke University who focuses on sports and gender, told Vox. “For the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which takes the position that all sex differences are just myth and stereotype, that was a big, maybe even treasonous move.””
It’s not conservatism. What we call the conservative movement today is not what the conservative movement historically has been in the United States. It’s a species of reactionary politics. The distinction rests in the party’s fundamental attitude towards democracy and democratic institutions.
The old Republican Party, for all of its faults, played by the political rules. It had faith in the idea that elections determine the winner, and that when elections happen, you accept the verdict of the people and you adjust based on that regardless of whether or not you like the policy preferences.
Reactionary parties are different from conservatism. They both share an orientation towards believing that certain ways in which society is arranged — certain setups, institutions, even hierarchies — are good and necessary. There’s value in the way that things are. What differs between the two of them is that conservative parties don’t see potential social change as an indictment of democracy. That is to say, even if a democracy or an election produces an outcome that they don’t like, that threatens to transform wholesale certain elements of the social order, a conservative would not throw out the political order as a consequence of that. Reactionaries are willing to do that.
My view is, at the core of the Trump movement, which I want to distinguish from every Trump supporter because they’re not the same, but the people who have given Donald Trump an iron grip on the Republican Party, that base of hardcore support, are animated primarily by reactionary politics, by a sense that things have gone too far in a socially liberal and culturally liberal, and even in some cases economically liberal direction, and they want things to go back to partially a past that never existed, but also a past that did exist where there was a little bit more order and structure in terms of who was in charge and what the rules were.”
…
“Coming into office last time, Trump didn’t have a vendetta against large chunks of the government. He didn’t believe an election had been stolen from him and that needed to be rectified. At the very least, he thinks it is a public blemish that needs to be shown to be false to many people, because if many people believe that he won, then that’s good enough. It doesn’t matter if he actually did. What matters, to put it differently, is Donald Trump’s honor, and the honor of Donald Trump must be avenged at all costs, and the insult of 2020 must be erased from the history books. That’s the kind of thing that he cares about.
The degree and scope of the planning that has gone into this and the willingness to take a hammer to different institutions and the specificity of the plans for doing so is not normal. To name just one example from Project 2025, they want to prosecute the former Pennsylvania secretary of state who presided over the 2020 elections using the [Ku Klux] Klan Act, which was passed to fight the first Klan. It’s basically alleging that by trying to help people fix improperly filed mail-in ballots in 2020, this Pennsylvania secretary of state was rigging the election, trying to undermine everyone else’s fair exercise of their votes in a way akin to the Klan intimidating Black voters in the 1860s by threatening to lynch them.
When I speak to legal experts about this, they’re like, “No credible prosecutor I know would bring such a charge.” It’s a real abuse of power and anti-democratic in many ways because it’s trying to wield federal power to prevent local authorities from administering elections properly and helping people vote. So in order to try to even begin an investigation on this front, let alone actually prosecute, what you need to do is fire the people who would do that kind of job, which would typically be in the Justice Department Civil Rights Division role, so the Election Crimes Unit and the Criminal Division, fire those people who work on these cases, bring in attorneys who are willing to do what you say, even though it’s ludicrous on the basis of a traditional read of the law, and then initiate an investigation, try to get charges spun up, and then get them to a judge like Aileen Cannon, who’s presiding over Trump’s documents case and has clearly shown herself to not really care about what’s going on, but rather just to interpret the law in whatever way is most favorable to Trump.
All of that stuff, and this is just one specific example, illustrates the ways in which doing what Trump and his allies have outlined as part of their revenge campaign requires attacking very fundamental components of American democracy: the building blocks, like the rule of law, like a nonpartisan civil service that treats all citizens equally, like a judiciary that’s designed with interpreting the law as best as it can, rather than delivering policy outlines, you need all of those things in order to act on already offered promises in what is widely understood to be the planning document for the Trump administration.”