The Dogtrack

  • Loading stock data...

News From NBC News

Michael Cohen Sues Trump Organization, Says It Owes Him Nearly $2M

Thursday March 7th, 2019 06:39:23 PM Jim Mustian

President Donald Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen filed a lawsuit Thursday claiming the Trump Organization broke a promise to pay his legal bills and owes at least $1.9 million to cover the cost of his defense.

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in New York state court, claims the Trump Organization stopped paying Cohen’s mounting legal fees after he began cooperating with federal prosecutors in their investigations related to Trump’s business dealings in Russia and attempts to silence women with embarrassing stories about his personal life. It alleges breach of contract and seeks damages on Cohen’s behalf. 

Messages seeking comment have been left with the Trump Organization.

The lawsuit says the company stopped paying for his legal defense about two months after the FBI raided Cohen’s home and office last year. It says that was around the time Cohen began discussing privately with friends and family that he was considering cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller and federal prosecutors in New York.

“When it was publicly reported that I might be cooperating with prosecutors, the Trump Organization breached its agreement and stopped paying fees and costs,” Cohen said in a statement released by his attorneys.

Cohen pleaded guilty in August to tax crimes, lying to Congress and campaign finance violations. He is expected to begin serving a three-year prison term in May.

The lawsuit said that as part of his work for Trump, the company agreed to indemnify him for his company-related work. It said the Trump Organization initially lived up to that promise, footing the bill for more than $1.7 million in Cohen’s legal fees.

Cohen hired the law firm McDermott Will & Emery in spring 2017 after it became clear he was a “person of interest” in Mueller’s investigation.

That firm withdrew from his case late last spring after the Trump Organization stopped paying Cohen’s bills, a withdrawal the lawsuit says “prejudiced” Cohen’s ability to respond to the federal investigations.

In addition to the $1.9 million in legal fees Cohen is seeking, the lawsuit claims the Trump Organization should also pay the $1.9 million Cohen was ordered to forfeit “as part of his criminal sentence arising from conduct undertaken by Mr. Cohen in furtherance of and at the behest of the Trump Organization and its principals, directors, and officers.”

Cohen was one of Trump’s lawyers and closest advisers for a decade until their public split last summer.

After once bragging that he would “take a bullet” for the president, Cohen met with federal prosecutors in New York and with the office of special counsel Robert Mueller, telling them he had lied to Congress to protect Trump and paid off two women to keep them from speaking out about alleged affairs with Trump.

Earlier this year, Cohen hired two new Chicago lawyers and parted ways with the attorneys who represented him for months as he cooperated with Mueller and prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. The Associated Press previously reported that the shake-up followed what a person familiar with the matter described as a dispute over unpaid legal fees.

The person spoke to The Associated Press on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the matter.

Last week, Cohen told lawmakers he also has not been paying Lanny Davis, an attorney who has served as an adviser and spokesman for Cohen over the past several months.

“So he’s doing all this work for nothing?” U.S. Rep. Jody Hice, R-Ga., asked Cohen during his daylong testimony before the House Oversight and Reform Committee.

“Yes, sir,” Cohen said.

Cohen told Congress that Trump was a racist, a liar and a con man.

Trump, in turn, has assailed Cohen as a “rat” and a “serial liar.”

Cohen has also tried crowdsourcing his legal fees. A GoFundMe page that Davis set up for Cohen after he first pleaded guilty in August has collected about $215,000, including $50,000 from an anonymous donor.

Analysis: Trump Faces Narrow But Consequential Charges

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 02:17:09 PM Julie Pace

The articles of impeachment offered up Tuesday against President Donald Trump are narrow, but consequential. They are also likely to be approved by Democrats alone.

The impending vote will thrust Trump into a club no president wants to join: only the third American leader to be impeached by the House of Representatives. He’s confronting his allegations without a hint of contrition, more eager to fight than accept blame for his actions.

House Democrats say Trump abused the American presidency for personal political gain by asking Ukraine for help investigating political rivals, including Joe Biden, the former vice president and current Democratic White House contender. And they charge he obstructed Congress by blocking access to documents and testimony, an article of impeachment aimed at reasserting the authority of a co-equal branch of government.

Some Democrats pushed for more, eager to seize the opportunity to hold Trump to account for a range of other actions, including evidence of obstruction of justice outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi held them off, determined to put forward only articles she believes can win the support of members who — like Pelosi herself — were reluctant to launch the impeachment proceedings in the first place.

“I wish it were not necessary,” Pelosi said after the text of the articles of impeachment were made public. But she added: “We take an oath to protect and defend. If we did not do that, we would be, again, delinquent in our duties.”

While she seems to have succeeded in persuading Democrats of that view, the process — dozens of hours of public testimony from diplomats and other national security officials that left much of the evidence beyond dispute — has so far done nothing to persuade Republicans to break with the president.

Broadening the charges would have only risked turning off Democrats, some particularly those moderates who won in House districts where Trump is popular.

“I think they made a calculation in the House that the evidence that had been presented recently with regards to Trump’s actions involving Ukraine were concise, clear and accessible,” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., a Biden supporter. “Rather than charging a broad range of misconduct over many years, they stuck to one topic.”

Though there are few historical comparisons, the Democrats’ decision means Trump will face fewer articles of impeachment than any of his predecessors in trying to avoid the ultimate constitutional punishment for a president.

The House approved 11 charges against Andrew Johnson, the first president to be impeached in 1868. In 1974, lawmakers were set to vote on three articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon — abuse of power, obstruction of justice and contempt of Congress — but he resigned from office when it became clear the charges had bipartisan support.

Lawmakers voted on four articles against President Bill Clinton in 1994 after being presented with 11 possible impeachable offenses by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. But only two passed — exactly the kind of scenario Pelosi and other Democratic leaders hoped to avoid.

During the Clinton impeachment, the House backed charges of perjury and obstruction of justice, but a substantial number of Republicans helped to vote down the abuse of power and another charge of perjury.

While more moderate Democrats cheered Pelosi’s decision to limit the scope of the impeachment articles, others bemoaned a missed opportunity to hold Trump to account for Mueller’s findings. Mueller said Justice Department guidelines prevented bringing criminal charges against a sitting president, but he appeared to suggest there was another venue to take up the matter: Congress.

The articles unveiled Tuesday make no specific mention of Mueller’s investigation, though there was an oblique reference in the obstruction of Congress charge, which states that Trump’s actions in this matter are “consistent” with previous attempts “to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.”

Corey Brettschneider, a professor of political science at Brown University and the author of “The Oath and the Office: A Guide to the Constitution for Future Presidents,” called the absence of a specific Mueller-related article a “failure of constitutional duty.”

Yet even that more limited scope seems unlikely to gain Republican votes, despite private concerns among some GOP lawmakers with Trump’s actions. No Republicans, in the House or the Senate, voiced support for the articles on Tuesday, including those who are leaving Congress next year.

“My mind hasn’t been changed,” said Rep. Will Hurd, a moderate Republican from Texas who Democrats had hoped to persuade.

Pelosi spent months arguing that Democrats shouldn’t proceed with impeachment unless they could bring some Republicans along with them. A strictly partisan process, she said, would be too damaging for the nation.

But as her party pushed closer to just that scenario, she said inaction would be more destructive.

“If we allow one president, any president, no matter who she or he may be, to go down this path, we are saying goodbye to the republic and hello to a president king,” Pelosi said.

This story uses functionality that may not work in our app. Click here to open the story in your web browser.

Senate Judiciary Panel to Question Horowitz on Russia Probe Report

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 01:43:12 PM

The Justice Department’s internal watchdog will testify Wednesday about his report on the origins of the FBI’s investigation into ties between the Trump presidential campaign and Russia.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee will begin at 10 a.m. ET.

The report released Monday found the FBI was justified in launching the Russia investigation and that law enforcement leaders were not motivated by political bias. But the inspector general does identify “serious performance failures” up the bureau’s chain of command that Republicans are citing as evidence that Trump was targeted by an unfair investigation.

President Donald Trump has insisted he was merely the target of a “witch hunt,” but the inspector general’s report undercuts that claim.

Contrary to the claims of Trump and other critics, it said that opposition research compiled by an ex-British spy named Christopher Steele had no bearing on the decision to open the investigation known as Crossfire Hurricane. And it rejected allegations that a former Trump campaign aide at the center of the probe was set up by the FBI.

It found that the FBI had an “authorized purpose” when it opened its investigation in July 2016 into whether the Trump campaign was coordinating with Russia to tip the election in his favor. The report said the FBI had cause to investigate a potential national security threat.

FBI Director Chris Wray, in an interview with The Associated Press, noted that the report did not find political bias but did find problems that are “unacceptable and unrepresentative of who we are as an institution,” including 17 “significant inaccuracies or omissions” in applications for a warrant from the secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to monitor the communications of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page and subsequent warrant renewals.

The errors, Horowitz said, resulted in “applications that made it appear that the information supporting probable cause was stronger than was actually the case.”

The FBI is implementing more than 40 actions aimed at fixing some of the bureau’s most fundamental operations, such as applying for surveillance warrants and interacting with confidential sources.

The affirmation of the investigation’s legitimacy, balanced by criticism of the way it was conducted ensured that partisan battles would persist over one of the most politically sensitive investigations in FBI history.

In announcing the hearing, the committee’s chairman, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called Horowitz a “good man” who has “served our nation well.”

The committee said in a statement that Horowitz will be questioned on his findings and asked to offer recommendations as to how to make the government’s judicial and investigative systems better.

This story uses functionality that may not work in our app. Click here to open the story in your web browser.

Democrats’ Divide: Free College for All or for Some?

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 10:06:42 AM Josh Boak

Pete Buttigieg’s latest ad on college affordability was a relatively quiet one: The presidential candidate is seen explaining his plan for free public college tuition for some to a small group of nodding middle-aged voters, his measured tone hardly shifting as he takes an indirect swipe at his Democratic rivals. 

But the message was received and returned — in all caps. 

“Universal public systems are designed to benefit EVERYBODY!” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted in defense of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ college plan, using her social media muscle to unleash a fresh barrage of tweets, posts and debate about how best to overhaul the way Americans pay for higher education. 

The heated exchange exposed the potency of one of the sleeper issues of the Democratic presidential primary. College affordability may not get the attention of “Medicare for All” or carry the emotional punch of debates over race and gender, but it stands as one of the sharpest policy divides between the leading candidates in the race and one likely to have staying power. 

As their party’s electoral fortunes increasingly depend on college graduates, Democrats are under pressure to do something about Americans’ mountain of student debt — a $1.5 trillion behemoth. Their search for solutions is creating conflicts about how to best address inequality, but the debate is also about how to best motivate college graduates to vote Democratic during the general election next year against President Donald Trump.

“There are a lot of dividing lines in politics right now — but the diploma divide is a real cleaver among voters between those who are open to Trump and adamantly opposed to Trump,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic party strategist.

The plans up for debate fall into familiar camps — those who want incremental changes, such as Buttigieg, former Vice President Joe Biden and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, and those who call for a creation of a large-scale new government benefit, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sanders. Those favoring more incremental change are sold as fair and pragmatics, given the general opposition that Republicans and older voters have toward free college tuition.

“I only want to make promises that we can keep,” Buttigieg says in his ad, which is running in Iowa, home to three major public universities in communities where younger people are increasingly clustered. Buttigieg’s proposal would offer free public college tuition for students from households earning less than $100,000 a year.

“What I’m proposing is plenty bold,” he said. “These are big ideas. We can gather the majority to drive those big ideas through without turning off half the country before we even get into office.”

Roughly 70% of U.S. households would qualify for free tuition under Buttigieg’s plan, which does not appear to make allowances for families who live in places with a high cost of living, such as parts of New York and California.

Buttigieg’s plan is a step bolder than what’s offered by Biden and Klobuchar, both of whom call for free community college and increasing federal financial aid. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum are Warren and Sanders, who propose access to free public college tuition for all while offering to cancel much — if not all — of the existing student debt.

The plans are rooted in the idea that a universal plan optimizes the benefits to society and secures the broadest political support. Advocates often point to Social Security — the most politically durable of all entitlement programs — as a model. 

“The promise of universal free access can cut through yearly budgetary fights, reduce bureaucratic hurdles to access, and increase citizens’ trust in and willingness to use the program,” said Suzanne Kahn, a program manager at the Roosevelt Institute, a liberal think tank.

“I’m very glad that Mr. Buttigieg is worried that I have been too easy on upper-income people and the millionaires and billionaires,” Sanders told MSNBC in an interview. “That I’m going to allow their kids to go to public colleges and universities, just, by the way, as they do go to public schools right now.”

Warren has noted that Buttigieg’s claim that the government shouldn’t pay for college for affluent children rings hollow, since her plan is financed by a wealth tax of fortunes in excess of $50 million. She compared her tuition plan to the GI Bill after World War II that funded college for returning veterans, saying in an interview with the news outlet Iowa Starting Line that the program “not only helped millions of individuals, it also supercharged our economy.”

Critics of Buttigieg’s plan note that the current financial aid system is already income-based and that government support has failed to curb students’ dependence on personal debt to finance the rising costs of college. 

But key to Buttigieg’s college plan is voters’ sense of fairness that the wealthy should not be subsidized at public expense.

“You have people who are left of center wondering why the University of Virginia or Berkeley should be free to the children of the affluent,” said Jason Delisle, a resident fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute whose research focuses on college financing.

College costs have climbed as a degree has essentially become a requirement for entering the job market — with all the net job gains over the past 12 months going to college grads, even though this group makes up just a third of the U.S. population, according to Labor Department figures. The result is that student debt has become the price of admission to the U.S. economy, imposing financial burdens that have been associated with delays in home-buying, marriage and having children.

“Higher education is an engine of enabling citizens to achieve in life independently of where they started — having those engines in life makes society healthy,” said Marshall Steinbaum, an economist with the University of Utah.

In an economy that depends on consumer spending, the risk is that the student debt buildup after the Great Recession has suppressed spending and saving by the more than 40 million Americans who borrowed for school — and that hurts overall economic growth.

Concerns about student debt have mounted as college grads have become more likely to support Democrats. In 2018, Democrats nationwide won college graduates by 14 points, according to AP VoteCast, a nationwide survey of midterm voters. White college graduates had until recently been a reliable group of voters for Republicans, but they’re now increasingly tilting toward Democrats.

But proposals for free college also carry risks as the issue splits along partisan and generational lines. 

While nearly three-quarters of Democrats consider free public college tuition a good idea, just about 2 in 10 Republicans do, according to a July poll from NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist. Less than half of Americans older than 45 support the idea, while 62% of Americans younger than 45 favor free college tuition.

This story uses functionality that may not work in our app. Click here to open the story in your web browser.

Buttigieg Discloses Ex-Clients as Fundraising Swing Begins

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 03:04:24 AM Steve Peoples and Michelle R. Smith

Facing intense pressure to answer questions about his work in the private sector, Democratic presidential contender Pete Buttigieg on Tuesday disclosed a roster of former consulting clients that include a major health insurance provider, a nationwide electronics retailer, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Department of Defense.

He also opened a big-dollar fundraiser for the first time to the media, a change of heart he later admitted “took a little getting used to” but was “the right thing to do.”

Buttigieg’s campaign released the details while the 37-year-old mayor of South Bend, Indiana, attended an evening fundraiser on Park Avenue in Manhattan. It was the first event on a five-day fundraising swing that features 10 meetings with big donors, and the first time he allowed the media to cover fundraising events that had previously been kept secret.

Speaking on MSNBC later Tuesday night, Buttigieg said that the decision to open his fundraisers — which he had previously resisted — took some “getting used to because traditionally campaigns haven’t generally done this.” Former Vice President Joe Biden has opened his fundraisers to the press, while neither Sens. Elizabeth Warren nor Bernie Sanders holds big-dollar fundraisers.

Buttigieg added: “I think it makes sense. We’re talking a lot about transparency in this campaign. We’ve got a president who’s moved in the exact wrong direction in terms of transparency.”

Walking into the event, he told The Associated Press he’s “seeking to live out the values of transparency that we talk about, and given that we have a White House that has so moved radically in the opposite direction.”

His work history, never before revealed, features a detailed list of the clients he worked for when he was an associate at the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. between 2007 and 2010, his first job after graduating from Oxford. In a press release announcing the disclosure, Buttigieg downplayed his role in the firm, saying he had released details of his work there “even though it was my first job out of school where I had little decision making authority.” On MSNBC, Buttigieg downplayed the McKinsey work, saying that there’s “nothing particularly sizzling about the clients I released.”

His campaign said Buttigieg’s work included trips to Iraq and Afghanistan during a three-month project in 2009 for the U.S. Department of Defense. That project, he said, was focused on “increasing employment and entrepreneurship.”

He also worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, where the campaign said he “looked at overhead expenditures such as rent, utilities, and company travel.” That work, his first assignment at McKinsey, did not involve policies, premiums or benefits, according to his campaign.

Still, Buttigieg argued on MSNBC that his time working on the Blue Cross project gave him a “sense of what that world is like” and helped influence his “Medicare for All Who Want It” healthcare plan, which would offer Americans a government-run health care option while preserving private insurance.

His time at Blue Cross Blue Shield, Buttigieg said, is “one of the reasons why I believe that with a public alternative, we can deliver something that will out-compete all the private plans out there. I’m just not willing to assume that on behalf of individuals before they have the choice to put it to the test.

Helen Stojic, a spokeswoman for Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, said in a statement to the AP that “for a brief time” the candidate was “part of a larger McKinsey team we engaged back in 2007 to consult with our company during a corporate-wide reorganization.”

“He was not involved as a leader on that team, but rather as part of the larger consultant group,” Stojic said.

Blue Cross announced it would cut up to 1,000 jobs in January 2009, and it’s not immediately clear whether that happened as part of the same reorganization they refer to in the statement. When asked on MSNBC if his work with McKinsey contributed to those layoffs, Buttigieg said, “I doubt it,” and pivoted to attacking his opponents — Sanders and Warren, though he didn’t reference them by name — who would eliminate private insurance outright, thereby costing health insurance industry jobs.

Speaking to donors at the fundraiser, Buttigieg delivered much of his standard stump, making the case for his candidacy.

He demurred when a questioner asked if President Donald Trump’s attacks on Biden and his son were hurting him. Buttigieg said voters “have kind of decided what they think about that already” and said he doesn’t hear much about it on the trail in Iowa.

Buttigieg did, however, acknowledge his biggest challenge remains building “a broad coalition,” referencing his efforts to reach out to black voters. Polling has shown they are still broadly unfamiliar with the mayor.

He also dismissed Trump’s reelection campaign as asking voters to “tolerate the chaos, tolerate the division, tolerate the bad example for your children, and in return for that I will give you job growth almost as good as you had in the Obama years.” He argued that Democrats should now “own the issue of fiscal responsibility” in the face of a Republican president who has had the deficit balloon on his watch.

Protesters outside his Tuesday fundraiser on Manhattan’s Upper East Side seemed more bothered by Buttigieg’s association with wealthy donors than his work history.

Progressive activist Alice Nascimento led chants of “Wall Street Pete” from the sidewalk outside the event.

“He’s hanging out with millionaires!” she charged. “He’s not for working people.”

While he is still unknown by many voters nationally, Buttigieg has emerged as one of his party’s most successful fundraisers this year — collecting more than $50 million so far in 2019 — in part by tapping the resources of big donors. That’s set him apart from Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders, who have rejected traditional fundraising techniques in favor of small-dollar donations.

Buttigieg resisted opening his fundraisers to public scrutiny for much of the year, but that position became untenable as his campaign moved into the top tier of the Democratic primary.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the only other current Democratic candidate who regularly opens his fundraisers to a pool of reporters. Warren only does fundraisers for the Democratic Party and says she’ll only do those if they are open to the media. Sanders holds what his campaign calls “grassroots” fundraisers that are meant to prioritize even small donors and have generally been open to the press or livestreamed.

Buttigieg was under significant pressure to release details about his work for the McKinsey & Co. consulting firm. The company said Monday that it would allow Buttigieg to identify the clients he served more than a decade ago.

Buttigieg told The Atlantic on Tuesday he was moved off the assignment at Blue Cross after three months in 2007, long before the nonprofit slashed hundreds of jobs. The campaign said he also worked for the Canadian supermarket chain Loblaw’s in Toronto on pricing; worked for the retail chain Best Buy on a project about energy-efficient products; and researched energy efficiency for several utilities, government agencies and nonprofits.

His final project was one to look for new revenue for the U.S. Postal Service in 2010, he said.

One of the donors who attended Tuesday’s fundraiser, Henry Lowenstein, shrugged off questions about Buttigieg’s work history.

“There’s not a candidate that doesn’t have baggage,” he said. “This is the smartest guy who has a grasp of every issue, but unlike Elizabeth Warren doesn’t have a plan for every issue. He’s the real deal.”

Associated Press writer Alexandra Jaffe contributed to this report.

Who’s Running for President in 2020?

The field of Democratic 2020 presidential candidates is packed, though some have already dropped out. Those still in the race include a former vice president, senators, businessmen, House members, a former governor and a mayor. As for the GOP, a former governor and former congressman are vying to challenge President Trump.

Click the photos to learn more

Updated Nov. 20, 2019
Note: Incorrect information about Michael Bennet’s cancer diagnosis and titles for Joe Sestak and William Weld have been revised on July 29, 2019, 3:17 p.m. ET.
Credit: Jo Bruni, Emma Barnett, Asher Klein, Dan Macht, Kelly Zegers / NBC;  Photos: Getty Images

Trump to Sign Order Targeting Anti-Semitism at Colleges

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 12:41:09 AM Matthew Lee and Jill Colvin

President Donald Trump will sign an executive order on Wednesday targeting antisemitism on college campuses, the White House said.

The order, which is likely to draw criticism from free speech advocates, will broaden the federal government’s definition of antisemitism and instruct it to be used in enforcing laws against discrimination on college campuses, according to three U.S. officials. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly preview the move.

Trump has been accused of trafficking in anti-Semitic tropes, including comments about Jews and money. But he has also closely aligned himself with Israel, including moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and taking a hard line against Iran.

In the order, Trump is expected to tell the Department of Education to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism — which can include criticism of Israel — when evaluating discrimination complaints under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 

Title VI bars discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin at colleges and universities that receive federal funding. One official said Trump’s order would make it clear that Title VI will apply to anti-Semitism as defined by the IHRA. That definition says antisemitism may include “targeting of the state of Israel.”

Still, a second official insisted the order was not intended to limit freedom of expression and was not aimed at suppressing the boycott, divestment, sanctions movement known as BDS that aims to support Palestinian aspirations for statehood by refusing to purchase Israeli products or invest in Israeli companies. The movement is on the rise, sparking tension on many college campuses. 

The Israeli government has urged allies to rein in the boycott movement, while its backers deny anti-Semitism charges and describe themselves as critical of Israeli decision-making, not Jews.

A third official said the order was a response to an alarming rise in the number of anti-Semitic incidents on campuses and would mean that Jewish students who are discriminated against for their religion have the same kind of recourse as black students who are victimized by racism.

The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism found white supremacist propaganda on campuses up 7% from the last academic year, which ended this May.

Previous attempts to clarify and codify the application of Title VI to anti-Semitic acts have become bogged down in debates over whether Judaism should be seen as race or is indicative of a national origin. Free-speech advocates have also expressed concerns that a broader definition of anti-Semitism might be used to limit criticism of Israeli government actions.

The Republican Jewish Coalition applauded the move, with the group’s chairman, former Sen. Norm Coleman, calling it “a truly historic and important moment for Jewish Americans” and hailing Trump as “the most pro-Jewish President” in the nation’s history.

The Trump administration has previously acted to constrain perceived campus anti-Semitism, last year reopening a case of alleged discrimination against Jewish students at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

The ADL and the Academic Engagement Network released model guidelines for faculty in November after two instructors at the University of Michigan declined to write letters of recommendation for students seeking to study abroad in Israel.

Trump delivered a speech on Saturday night that featured remarks from a recent New York University graduate who had accused the school of failing to protect its Jewish students from harassment.

Associated Press writer Elana Schor contributed to this report from New York.

Feed aggregation powered by Syndicate Press.
Processed request in 1.82985 seconds.

Blogs and News

Associated Press
Atlantic Magazine
Atrios (Eschaton)
Balloon Juice
CNN Business
Crooks and Liars
Daily Beast
Kevin Drum
The Economist
The Fiscal Times
Five Thirty Eight
Google News
The Guardian
The Hill
Huffington Post
Hullabaloo (Digby)
Kiko’s House
Paul Krugman
Lawyers Guns and Money
Little Green Footballs
New York Times
Charles Pierce
The Plum Line
Raw Story
Sam Wang
Talking Points Memo
Tom Toles
Wall Street Journal
Washington Monthly
Washington Post

Sports From ESPN

Sources: Cole to join Yankees for 9 years, $324M

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 05:00:13 AM

Gerrit Cole and the Yankees have agreed to a nine-year, $324 million contract that surpasses the deal Stephen Strasburg finalized with the Nats for most total money and annual average salary for a pitcher, sources told ESPN.

Source: Phillies, SS Gregorius reach 1-year deal

Tuesday December 10th, 2019 10:49:00 PM

The Phillies have reached agreement with former Yankees shortstop Didi Gregorius on a one-year deal, a source confirmed to ESPN's Buster Olney. The deal is for $14 million, NBC Sports Philadelphia reported.

Bell brushes off bowling trip, says he rolled a 251

Tuesday December 10th, 2019 06:53:15 PM

Le'Veon Bell said Tuesday that although he wishes he hadn't been seen bowling in public on Saturday night, he doesn't "feel bad about what I did," noting that he bowled a career-high 251 "coming off the flu."

NAIA guard Culver erupts for 100-point game

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 04:13:43 AM

J.J. Culver, a senior guard for Wayland Baptist, became just the second player in NAIA history to score 100 points, reaching the magical mark in his team's 124-60 rout over Southwestern Adventist on Tuesday night.

Pulisic can inspire next U.S. wave - McConaughey

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 10:37:55 AM

Film star and Austin FC co-owner Matthew McConaughey hopes to see the next generation of U.S. soccer talent follow Christian Pulisic's lead.

How the Knicks' grand plans fell apart this time

Monday December 9th, 2019 09:02:45 PM

Hire, fire, repeat. After 20 years of course-correcting, the one thing the Knicks can't seem to do is get on the right track.

Feed aggregation powered by Syndicate Press.
Processed request in 0.14348 seconds.

NYT Most Shared

Jersey City Shooting Updates: 6 Killed, Including an Officer

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 01:57:51 PM Michael Gold, Nick Corasaniti and William K. Rashbaum
Two shooters opened fire on Tuesday afternoon at a kosher market.

India Steps Toward Making Naturalization Harder for Muslims

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 01:52:45 PM Jeffrey Gettleman and Suhasini Raj
A bill establishing a religious test for immigrants has passed the lower house of Parliament, a major step for Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu-nationalist agenda.

Despite Turnaround, ‘Beetlejuice’ Being Forced Out of Theater

Tuesday December 10th, 2019 06:54:14 PM Michael Paulson
The $21 million musical will be hoping for a new home after the Shubert Organization made way for Hugh Jackman and ‘The Music Man.’

When a DNA Test Says You’re a Younger Man, Who Lives 5,000 Miles Away

Saturday December 7th, 2019 04:50:18 PM Heather Murphy
After a bone marrow transplant, a man with leukemia found that his donor’s DNA traveled to unexpected parts of his body. A crime lab is now studying the case.

Trump Targets Anti-Semitism and Israeli Boycotts on College Campuses

Wednesday December 11th, 2019 04:50:34 AM Peter Baker and Maggie Haberman
The president’s order would allow the government to withhold money from campuses deemed to be biased, but critics see it as an attack on free speech.

Lovers in Auschwitz, Reunited 72 Years Later. He Had One Question.

Monday December 9th, 2019 09:18:31 PM Keren Blankfeld
Was she the reason he was alive today?

Feed aggregation powered by Syndicate Press.
Processed request in 4.57286 seconds.


To display your local weather, click on the 3 short lines at the top right of the widget. Delete “Washington D.C.,” and start typing the name of your nearest fairly large city. When the correct city appears in the drop down list, select it.  Wait for the Page to reload, and there’s your weather. The page should remember your city.

07:1616:46 EST
Feels like: 27°F
Wind: 13mph NW
Humidity: 57%
Pressure: 30.38"Hg
UV index: 1