Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

The challenges Springfield, Ohio faces to handle Haitian migrants

Spread the news

(NewsNation) — Unsubstantiated claims that Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio are eating neighbors’ pets have gone from city commission meetings to the 2024 presidential campaign. But the attention has led to a larger discussion about the impact of immigration on U.S. communities.

Springfield, Ohio mentioned during presidential debate

During his debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, former President Donald Trump repeated claims that immigrants in the Ohio town are eating neighbors’ pets. Springfield city leaders have said those claims are unsubstantiated.

Springfield is a town of just under 60,000 people, according to the 2020 Census, and since then an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 migrants have settled there looking for work, many of them from Haiti.

Its city leaders are faced with the same reality many other midsized manufacturing towns are faced with — balancing the need for workers versus managing finite resources in the community.

Immigrants in Springfield

Residents who spoke with NewsNation say the situation is out of control and the city lacks the ability to handle the 20,000 Haitian immigrants. Richard Jordan addressed the issue at a city commission meeting.

“Is there a cut-off point for the population here?” he asked.”I mean, I feel like there should be a ‘No Vacancy’ sign right now and people are still coming in. What’s the cut-off point?”

Some Haitian residents of the city feel they are victims of misconceptions about the community and their status in the country.

“Let’s be clear, there is a preconceived notion that all Haitians here in Springfield are illegal immigrants, which is false. Some of us are Haitian-American citizens who can vote, we are green card holders, and some of us are here via a federal program that allows us to have a Social Security card, employment authorization, that allows us to temporarily stay in the country,” one resident said.

The federal government has pledged $2.5 million to increase access to medical care but Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine says it isn’t enough. 

“They have to step up,” he said. “It is their policies that have created these surges.”

The number of immigrants has strained healthcare services and schools and the number of car accidents has skyrocketed.

Springfield residents talk to NewsNation

Residents tell NewsNation they are additionally concerned about crime in a town that’s already seen a spike in violent offenses. FBI data shows violent crime went up by 142% from 2019 to 2022, the latest year data is available. The agency does not track crime by immigration status.

Bill Monaghan, a former journalist in Springfield, is now part of a group called “Stop the Influx.”

“It’s causing sharp increases in rent and home prices, which is forcing people out of their homes,” Monaghan said. “It’s causing delays in public safety response like police, fire or even emergency services. You go out to a site and no one speaks English.”

Aidan Clark

Last year 11-year-old Aiden Clark was killed in a car accident, and the person driving the car was a Haitian migrant. His father, Nathan Clark, urged politicians not to use his son’s death to further political agendas in a city commission meeting this week, NewsNation affiliate WDTN reported.

“You know, I wish that my son, Aiden Clark, was killed by a 60-year-old white man,” Nathan Clark said. “I bet you never thought anyone would ever say something so blunt. But if that guy killed my 11-year-old son, the incessant group of hate-spewing people would leave us alone. The last thing that we need is to have the worst day of our lives violently and constantly shoved in our faces.”

Rents and home prices have risen nationwide since 2019, with the increases partially attributed to inflation and interest rates as well as a lack of housing stock.

Another man told NewsNation he lost his job and his home because of the influx of immigrants, saying he was replaced by workers willing to accept worse conditions.

“Haitians [replaced me] through a temporary company because they found out they could get it for a lot less than $21 per hour,” Roland said.

Claims of immigrants eating pets

But it’s the topic of immigrants eating pets and other animals that has gone viral. One 911 call included a report of people taking waterfowl.

“I see a group of Haitian people, there are about four of them, they all have geese in their hands,” the caller said. 

In an August city commission meeting, Anthony Harris complained that immigrants were taking ducks from a park. 

“They’re in the park grabbing up ducks by the neck and cutting their head off and walking off with them and eating them,” he said.

Springfield’s mayor denies reports of pets being taken

Springfield police didn’t find any evidence of those actions and the city’s mayor has also denied all reports of pets being taken and eaten.

“The president of the Clark County Commission and I held a press conference to address recent rumors that have been circulating relative to the Haitian Community,” said Clark County Commissioner Rob Rue. “We wish to clarify that there have not been any credible reports or specific claims of pets being harmed, injured or abused by individuals within the immigrant community.”

The city also says that Haitian immigrants are in the country legally under a federal program that allows them to remain in the country temporarily, the Associated Press reported.

Last month the Biden administration granted eligibility for temporary legal status to about 300,000 Haitians already in the United States because conditions in Haiti are considered unsafe for them to return. Haiti’s government has extended a state of emergency to the entire country due to endemic gang violence, according to the AP.

Some residents told NewsNation they don’t believe the city and are now planning to leave. 


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Sharpton-Backed DEI Group Shutters Race-Based Grant Program Following Legal Fight

Spread the news

A diversity, equity, and inclusion activist group backed by anti-Semite Rev. Al Sharpton ended its race-based grant program after settling a legal battle with the American Alliance for Equal Rights.

Venture capital firm Fearless Fund on Wednesday announced the closure of its Fearless Strivers Grant Contest, which awarded $20,000 in grants to black female-owned businesses, the Washington Post reported. In August 2023, Edward Blum, president of the AAER who led the charge against affirmative action in college admissions, sued the Fearless Fund, arguing that the program violated the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

“Race-exclusive programs like the one the Fearless Fund promoted are divisive and illegal,” Blum said Wednesday. “Opening grant programs to all applicants, regardless of their race, is enshrined in our nation’s civil rights laws and supported by significant majorities of all Americans.”

The Fearless Fund’s settlement is the latest blow to DEI initiatives in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action last June. Since winning that battle in the Supreme Court, Blum, a leading anti-discrimination advocate, has scored many victories against DEI efforts in the private sector, including programs at major firms such as Amazon, Meta, and Pfizer, the Washington Post reported.

In June, a U.S. federal appeals court temporarily prohibited Freedom Fund from awarding the grants, saying the contest was “substantially likely to violate” section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

Sharpton, who has supported Fearless Fund’s legal battle since the beginning, counseled the firm to settle the dispute before it went to the Supreme Court, which could result in a precedent-setting ruling against corporate affirmative action. He described Wednesday’s decision as a “sacrifice” and a “painful decision,” according to the Washington Post. 

“If we had fought, and Blum and them wanted to go all the way to the Supreme Court, we’d have lost the fight for generations,” Sharpton said.

Sharpton, a prominent Democratic ally, provoked the 1991 Crown Heights riots—one of the worst eruptions of anti-Semitic violence in American history that inspired chants such as “Let’s get the Jew!” and “Hitler didn’t finish the job!” Sharpton has also said Jews have the “blood of innocent babies” on their hands.

The post Sharpton-Backed DEI Group Shutters Race-Based Grant Program Following Legal Fight appeared first on .


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Brooklyn-born jewelry brand Catbird celebrates 20th birthday in Williamsburg

Spread the news

In 2004, Brooklynite Rony Vardi opened her first store on Metropolitan Avenue in Williamsburg. Catbird, in the beginning, sold an eclectic assortment of items: clothes, art supplies, candles, and jewelry.

Twenty years later, the business has found its niche and flourished. Catbird now has seven — soon to be eight — locations across the country, and its demi-fine jewelry has become a viral sensation. The brand’s delicate rings and necklaces are popular with models, influencers, and everyday New Yorkers, and videos of people getting the popular “Forever Bracelets” zapped onto their arms are everywhere on social media.

catbird ring
The “Twisted Stacker” ring, part of the Birthday Collection. Photo courtesy of Catbird

For its 20th birthday, the brand is inviting locals to celebrate right in the center of Williamsburg, where it all began. On Sept. 14, Catbird will celebrate throw its 20th birthday party at the Williamsburg flagship store on North 7th Street, just blocks from its original location.

The sparkling party will offer raffle prizes; a prize jar filled with envelopes, which attendees can select to find vouchers for discounts, necklaces, and other jewelry; and free gift bags included with every purchase of $200 or more. At the Williamsburg store exclusively, Catbird leaders will serve up a special Luckybird birthday cake. 

“At Catbird, our jewelry is created to be a part of the many chapters, milestones and celebrations of our customers’ lives,” Vardi said in a statement. “We are so grateful and honored to celebrate our own momentous milestone — 20 years of Catbird —surrounded by those we have come to know and love in the city where it all began.”

catbird williamsburg jewlery
The brand offers a huge collection of necklaces, bracelets, rings, and more. Photo courtesy of Catbird

All of Catbird’s jewelry is crafted in the store’s Brooklyn Navy Yard Studio by a team of about 40 jewelers, and the brand says it uses all recycled and ethically-sourced metals and diamonds. The store stocks hundreds of pieces — from simple chains and thin stacking rings, a hallmark of the brand, to engagement rings and celebrity collaborations.

To celebrate two decades in business, Catbird released a special limited-run birthday collection, with just five items – all “shiny solid gold classics, reimagined,” per the website. 

The collection includes a small swan feather charm, a thin gold stacking ring, tiny alphabet stud earrings, and, the most popular item, a “Hang in There” kitten charm, featuring a miniature gold kitten dangling from a gold chain, a lá the inspirational classroom posters. Days before the 20th birthday party, the kitten charm was already sold out, with potential buyers able to join a waitlist to buy when it’s back in stock. 

The sold-out “Hang in There” kitten charm. Photo courtesy of Catbird

Catbird also offers New York City mementos in its permanent collection. A series of small gold “City Charms” pay homage to the sights and sounds of the city, like pretzels, bodega coffee, and yellow taxicabs. 

“Williamsburg will always hold a special place in our hearts as we continue to spread our wings and bring the magic of Catbird to new heights,” she said. 

Correction 9/12/24, 10:18 a.m.: This story previously misstated the number of Catbird stores. We regret the error. 


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Trump and Harris Agree: More Bombs for Israel

Spread the news

A boy climbs a pit after Israeli airstrikes on the humanitarian area known as Al-Mawasi in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, Tuesday, September 10, 2024. Israel said its aircraft struck Hamas terrorists in a command and control center inside a humanitarian area in Gaza, but Hamas denied its fighters were in the area and said dozens of people were killed in the attack that hit tents housing the displaced. (Photo by Saeed Jaras / Middle East Images / Middle East Images via AFP) (Photo by SAEED JARAS/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)
A boy climbs a pit after Israeli airstrikes on the al-Mawasi humanitarian in Khan Younis, Gaza, on Sept. 10, 2024.
Photo: Saeed Jaras/Middle East Images//AFP/Getty Images

On stage last night during the presidential debate, as the war on Gaza grinds on, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump battled over who had the most pro-Israel and anti-Iran credentials. After a brief moment of hope that Harris might offer something different to American voters, this seemed to confirm a grim status quo: No matter who is elected president, the U.S. will remain deeply invested in structures of violence and repression across the Middle East. 

On Israel, Harris spent time during the debate stating her commitment to helping Israel “defend itself,” which is Harris-speak for a continued blank check of U.S. military support for Israel. This oft-repeated Harris position, now enshrined on her campaign website, undermines the hope that many Democratic voters might have had for a future Harris administration that would prioritize an end to Israel’s war in Gaza

Trump tried to outflank Harris from the right by claiming that Harris “hates Israel” and that she would destroy the country. In one of Trump’s many ridiculous statements of the night, he argued, “If she’s president, I believe that Israel will not exist within two years.” Harris responded by doubling down on her pro-Israel bona fides: “I have my entire career and life supported Israel and the Israeli people.” 


Related

The U.S.-Led Ceasefire Talks Are Just Buying More Time for Israel’s Genocide


Harris did mouth words of sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza, declaring once again that “far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed.” She went on to say, “This war must end, it must end immediately and the way it will end is we need a ceasefire deal and we need the hostages out.” 

But such statements won’t amount to much if Harris’ underlying policy is to maintain U.S. military support for Israel. So long as Harris is committed to arming Israel, she has no leverage with which to end Israel’s genocide of Palestinians.

U.S. military hegemony in the Middle East rests upon three relationships: the alliance with Israel, alliances with the oil monarchies of the Gulf, and hostility toward Iran. These three relationships reinforce each other and keep the U.S. locked into permanent military involvement across the region. That’s why Israel in particular often pushes for U.S. conflict with Iran. Without U.S.–Iran hostilities, more Americans might question whether the U.S. needs an alliance with Israel. 

In their debate last night, both Harris and Trump also underlined their shared determination to use U.S. military power against Iran.

Harris stated, “I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.” Trump again attacked from the right, blaming President Joe Biden and Harris for being weak with regards to Iran, declaring, “Iran was broke under Donald Trump … now they’re a rich nation,” despite the fact that the Biden administration has not significantly changed the sanctions imposed on Iran after Trump backed out from the Obama-era nuclear deal. Trump, then, went a step further and tried to argue, against the evidence, that Hamas attacks on Israel and the actions of Yemen’s Houthis were the result of Biden and Harris coddling Iran. 

But the U.S. alliance with the petromonarchies of the Gulf went entirely unmentioned. This marks a dramatic shift from the politics of 2020, when Biden felt the need to call Saudi Arabia’s government a “pariah.” Biden’s long-since-discarded hostility to Saudi Arabia originally occurred in the aftermath of the kingdom’s killing of dissident Jamal Khashoggi and the Trump administration’s naked wheeling and dealing with Middle Eastern autocrats.

What the silence on this topic means today is that the Trump and Harris campaigns are likely in agreement on maintaining close U.S. alliances with Saudi Arabia and the other oil monarchies of the region, a policy that has been almost as destructive to human life as the U.S.–Israel alliance. During the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, Saudi Arabia and the UAE often used U.S. weapons as they killed thousands of Yemeni civilians in their war with Houthi rebels. And both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have repeatedly intervened against the possibility of democracy across the region.

At the heart of this reality is an ugly fact that many Democrats don’t want to acknowledge. The Biden–Harris administration has implemented and worked to expand upon a core Trump foreign policy: the Abraham Accords. These agreements marginalized Palestinians by securing diplomatic recognition between Israel and several of the monarchies in the region, like the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco. 


Related

Most Americans Want to Stop Arming Israel. Politicians Don’t Care.


Biden’s push to expand upon Trump’s Abraham Accords by securing formal Saudi recognition of Israel would amount to the final nail in the coffin for Arab governments’ solidarity with Palestinians. This was likely a key factor in Hamas’s foolish and ugly decision to attack Israel on October 7.

Biden’s effort to secure a mutual recognition agreement between Saudi Arabia and Israel represents the ultimate Washington consensus. Saudi–Israel mutual recognition is a key plank in the conservative movement’s Project 2025 agenda. Last night’s presidential debate ultimately revealed, despite all their differences on domestic policy, just how similar both candidates are on policies that maintain U.S. military dominance over the Middle East and perpetuate the bloody status quo.

The post Trump and Harris Agree: More Bombs for Israel appeared first on The Intercept.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

It is unlikely that Moscow will escalate its conflict with the West in the near future, even if the latter makes decisions in favor of Ukraine

Spread the news

Ukraine’s operation on Russian territory (in the Kursk region) has revealed that the Kremlin’s rhetoric about so-called “red lines” is a psychological operation aimed at exerting pressure on U.S. and EU leaders. This suggests that the West is mistaken in believing that some of its decisions will lead to an escalation of the conflict and its spread to NATO member countries. With conspiracy theories dominating Kremlin thinking, Moscow is convinced that Ukraine’s defense operations on Russian soil are part of a Western plot.

However, The Ukrainian operation in the Kursk region, launched in August 2024, serves multiple strategic purposes. First, it disrupts Russian plans for offensive operations from Kursk into northern Ukraine, specifically the Sumy region, and diverts Russian forces away from key areas of conflict in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine’s Commander-in-Chief Oleksandr Syrskyi stated that the operation also aims to create a “security zone” and take Russian POWs, ultimately weakening Russian morale and defensive posture in other regions.

Ukrainian forces have established control over certain areas of Kursk, which has forced Russia to redeploy significant military resources—approximately 60,000 troops—from the Ukrainian frontlines to defend this region. This shift is particularly impactful as it has reduced Russia’s artillery dominance in places like Pokrovsk, where the Ukrainian-Russian ratio of artillery fire has decreased from 12:1 to 3:1. Despite this, the operation remains highly risky for both sides, as Russia is expected to mount counteroffensives to reclaim lost ground.

In the broader context, Ukraine’s push into Kursk has not drastically changed the military situation in Ukraine’s eastern and southern regions but has given Kyiv increased leverage for potential future diplomatic negotiations. The operation signals that Ukraine can strike inside Russian territory, enhancing its position in possible talks to end the war. 

We are convinced that the operation in the Kursk region has exposed the limitations of Russian resources, as Moscow was forced to redeploy units stationed in Africa. This points to a shortage of forces and assets in the event of an invasion of Russia from its western and eastern borders. Despite the Kremlin’s threats to reconsider its nuclear doctrine and conduct exercises simulating the use of tactical nuclear weapons, Moscow has not seriously considered such a scenario in response to the shifting of hostilities to the Kursk region. Statements by former President Dmitry Medvedev reflect his psychological state, exacerbated by alcohol abuse and depression stemming from his lack of prospects in Russian politics and the loss of influence in the Kremlin. Thus, we are confident that Russia will not escalate the conflict in response to Western decisions, such as granting Ukraine permission to strike deeper into Russian territory. It is likely that the current situation has crossed a threshold beyond which Russian leadership is unwilling to further intensify its confrontation with the West. This reluctance is also driven by the sharp decline in Vladimir Putin’s approval ratings. The potential expansion and deepening of the conflict are not in the Kremlin’s interest, especially after the escalation of hostilities on Russian soil, as it would lead to a continued drop in the regime’s popularity.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Election Certification Refusers Are a Movement: Georgia Lawsuit Highlights Alarming Trend

Spread the news

Given Georgia’s status as an important battleground state, it may be tempting to view the latest election litigation there in isolation. The stakes are high enough in the Peach State alone: The Georgia State Election Board unveiled rules this summer that could threaten to wreak havoc in this year’s presidential election. But what exactly is happening in Georgia offers insight into trend lines in other parts of the country.

One of the new rules in Georgia focuses on county boards, traditionally ministerial and technocratic bodies of civil servants tasked with simply counting votes. The rule orders the county boards, however, to conduct an undefined and unprecedented “reasonable inquiry” before certifying election results. Another rule gives board members similarly novel powers to “examine all election-related documentation created in the conduct of elections.” In tandem, the two rules would appear to vest partisan-affiliated local administrators with an expansive, if not freewheeling, ability to question, investigate, delay, or even nullify election results, and this power-grab seems to have won the enthusiastic endorsement of the Republican Party, despite some significant pockets of intra-GOP resistance including from the Georgia Secretary of State. Exactly a month after the board unveiled the then-proposed “reasonable inquiry” rule, former President Donald Trump praised the three Republican board members by name — Janice Johnston, Rick Jeffares and Janelle King — for their efforts in helping to pass the new rule. 

“They’re on fire. They’re doing a great job,” Trump told a cheering crowd in Atlanta on Aug. 3, describing the board members as “all pitbulls fighting for honesty, transparency and victory.” Those three members passed the “reasonable inquiry” rule on Aug. 6, three days later. 

The MAGA ties to the “reasonable inquiry” rule do not end there. Fulton County commissioner Bridget Thorne, a Republican who reportedly spread election fraud lies about the 2020 presidential race, originally submitted it, claiming to have done so in her capacity as a private citizen. Earlier this month, the Republican Party’s state and national organizations sought to intervene in support of the Board’s rules, arguing in a motion that they would be “harmed by certification of inaccurate election results” and “lawsuits that upend the administration of Georgia elections.” The RNC’s attorney William Bradley Carver did not respond to a request for comment seeking an explanation of what powers the party believes county boards should have across the country — and what constraints, if any, there should be on their actions. According to The Associated Press, Thorne played down the effects of the rule that she spearheaded by claiming that it  “simply offers guidance on following the existing law.”

Others take a more wary view of the drafters’ intentions. 

On Aug. 26, the Democratic Party’s state and national entities joined 10 Georgia voters in filing a petition seeking to block the rules’ ability to provoke electoral “chaos.” Traditionally, courts have adjudicated election contests and fraud allegations, but Georgia’s board apparently offered an alternative end-run to this process through county officials. (The state board plays no direct role in the certification process.)

“These rules ask election officials to approach their duties as though they have discretion to delay or refuse certification of election results,” the challengers wrote in a motion seeking to expedite the case to seek a ruling before Election Day. “Georgia law permits no such discretion. But if officials interpret the new rules as the drafters assert they should, the officials could (unlawfully) delay certifying an election to complete a ‘reasonable inquiry’ or examine documents—or could even (unlawfully) refuse to certify at all.” 

The “reasonable inquiry” rule’s challengers emphasize that time is of the essence.

“A delay or failure to certify at the county level would run headlong into the Secretary of State’s own certification obligations, potentially interfering with binding federal deadlines […] and could result in the Secretary certifying results without counting ballots from the affected county,” their petition states. “That would mean mass disenfranchisement of eligible, registered Georgians.”

Aside from its ramifications in Georgia, the DNC’s lawsuit points to a trend: Emboldened by Trump’s attempts to subvert the 2020 presidential contest, once-modest public servants tasked with a clerical yet crucial role in election administration have tried to anoint themselves as the arbiters of the races within their jurisdictions — and grown into a national movement. 

No Longer “Without Fanfare or Controversy”

Georgia’s “reasonable inquiry” regime did not crop up in a vacuum. 

“For many decades, the certification of election results was a straightforward administrative process that was faithfully followed by local officials without fanfare or controversy,” the Democratic Party’s petition states. “But, in recent years, efforts to delay or impede the certification of election results have become increasingly common. During the 2020 election cycle, these efforts culminated with the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.”

Since the Capitol insurrection, certain partisan members on county boards across the country have contested election results they disapprove of with every passing race until being ordered to certify the results through emergency litigation.

 

During primary elections in 2022, the pattern occurred in New Mexico’s Otero County, Arizona’s Cochise County and no fewer than three counties in Pennsylvania, where the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Al Schmidt, has been targeted by Trump’s election denialism. Schmidt, who was formerly Philadelphia’s only Republican commissioner, testified two years ago before the House Jan. 6 Committee about the threats he received after debunking Trump’s false claims that dead people voted in the 2020 election. “The threats became much more specific, much more graphic, and included not just me by name, but included members of my family, by name, ages, our address, pictures of our home – every bit of detail you can imagine,” Schmidt told the Committee on June 13, 2022. 

Such efforts at intimidation have not slowed Schmidt’s fight against election denialism. His office wrote in an email to Just Security:The Department of State is working closely with our county partners to ensure the 2024 general election runs smoothly and to minimize opportunities for bad-faith actors to unnecessarily delay certification at the county or state level.”

By the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s count, “at least 19 election board members across nine Georgia counties … have objected to certifying an election over the past four years.” That the election-board refuseniks appear to be especially persistent and entrenched in Georgia may not be surprising in a state where the coordinated attack on the 2020 election is being prosecuted as a racketeering scheme. Georgia is, after all, the state where Rudy Giuliani unleashed his disinformation campaign defaming two poll workers, daughter Wandrea “Shaye” Moss and mother Ruby Freeman, and where Trump implied that Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger could face prosecution if he did not “find 11,780 votes” to flip the election results.

“Most recently, a member of the Fulton County Registration and Elections Board refused to vote to certify the May 2024 primary results,” the DNC’s petition notes. “Indeed, that member has brought suit in this Court, seeking a declaration that her duties regarding certification are discretionary.”

The Georgia petition summarizing this broader trend, though eye-opening, does not purport to be comprehensive. In their study titled Certification and Non-Discretion: A Guide to Protecting the 2024 Election, published in the Stanford Law & Policy Review, Lauren Miller and Will Wilder tracked other attempts to subvert election results on the local level, offering a historical perspective of county board-certifications as well as strategies for combating attacks on the system. In a report titled “Election certification under threat,” Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), an anti-corruption watchdog, counted “35 rogue election officials across the country who have already refused to certify election results and may be in a position to do so again,” including in other states like Colorado, Nevada, North Carolina, and Michigan, though not all of these refusers’ efforts went to litigation. 

Many of these nationwide efforts appear to be aligned with a strategy spawned in part by Steve Bannon years ago, as ProPublica documented in a 2021 report.

Georgia’s GOP Secretary of State Tells Counties: “Follow the Law”

Trump’s attacks on the 2020 election results in Georgia failed, in no small part, because his fellow Republicans — such as Raffensperger and Gov. Brian Kemp — resisted the former president’s pressure campaign to overturn then-president elect Joe Biden’s victory in the state. Raffensperger made clear once again that he opposes any delays to certification of election results. 

“Georgia’s Election Integrity Act requires counties to certify the election results by November 12th and we fully anticipate that counties will follow the law,” Raffensperger wrote in an X (formerly Twitter) post on Aug. 7, the day after the state board passed the disputed rule. 

Four days earlier, Raffensperger responded to Trump’s attack against him on Truth Social with a warning that election-denialist tactics backfired on the former president in 2020. 

“Georgia’s elections are secure,” Raffensperger said in a statement directed to Trump on Aug. 3. “The winner here in November will reflect the will of the people. History has taught us this type of message doesn’t sell well here in Georgia, sir.”

In a motion to fast-track their lawsuit, the challengers of the Georgia State Election Board’s rules also quote Raffensperger as warning, “These misguided, last-minute changes from unelected bureaucrats who have never run an election and seem to reject the advice of anyone who ever has could cause serious problems in an election that otherwise will be secure and accurate.” Their case has landed before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney, who was appointed by a Republican governor and presided over the special grand jury investigation that preceded Trump’s election-racketeering indictment. On Tuesday, McBurney dismissed a lawsuit filed by Julie Adams, a Republican member of the Fulton County Board of Elections and Registration who refused to certify the county’s May 2024 primary election based on supposed “discrepancies.” (Adams, who named the wrong defendant in her lawsuit, will have an opportunity to correct her technical error and refile.)

Now adjudicating two election-related cases on his docket, McBurney has been asked to declare the certification of election results a mandatory duty — and reaffirm that this process must take place by Nov. 12 at 5 p.m. ET. The Georgia board’s “reasonable inquiry” rule formally took effect on Sept. 4, exactly 20 days after its filing with the Secretary of State’s office. 

“Settled Georgia law establishes that election contests — not certification — are the designated mechanism for resolving disputes about alleged irregularities in the election process,” the lawsuit states. “Such contests are a separate process, within the judicial system and thus with the attendant evidentiary standards and other procedural protections, that follows certification.” The State Election Board has yet to respond with a brief of its own.

Fortifying the Guardrails

With election refusers racking up defeats, some state and local officials remain confident that the guardrails protecting vote totals from nullification remain fortified. Alex Curtas, a spokesman for New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, emphasized in a phone interview that the state’s Supreme Court decision ordering deep-red Otero County to certify its election left no room for confusion.

“We feel that that Supreme Court order is the stark black line that already showed anyone who had this kind of strategy in mind that that is not a legal strategy,” Curtas said. 

Otero County is a staunchly conservative county that has remained a hotbed of election-related denialism. The county’s former commissioner Couy Griffin, the founder of a group called Cowboys for Trump, was disqualified from public office under the 14th Amendment for his role in the Jan. 6th insurrection, following his federal prosecution for climbing barricades in his approach to the U.S. Capitol. (Griffin, who did not ultimately enter the building, was found guilty of misdemeanors.) After the 2022 primary election, county board members sought to nullify the results based on unspecified suspicions related to Dominion voting machines, a baseless conspiracy theory that forced Fox to pay a $787 million defamation judgment for disseminating it in the wake of the last presidential election. 

Had Otero’s county board members succeeded, they ironically would have negated the 2022 primary elections of their own Republican candidates in their broader efforts to sow doubt over Trump’s defeat in 2020. 

“One of the [Otero County] commissioners was on the ballot,” Curtas noted. “So he was basically going to not certify the election that would allow him to move forward and be reelected.  So it’s got this sort of illogical, shoot-yourself-in-the-foot aspect to it.”

Curtas noted that New Mexico law has procedures in place for disputing the election results, and as the challengers of the Georgia State Election Board’s new rules note, so do other states across the country.

“If election officials have concerns about possible election irregularities, they are free to voice those concerns at the time of certification, so that they may be considered and adjudicated, by judges, in any subsequent election contest,” the Georgia lawsuit states. “But they may not point to those election irregularities (or anything else) as a basis for delaying certification or denying it entirely. Absent a valid court order, certification by the deadline is mandatory.” 

Before the 2020 election, such principles were uncontroversial, but the organized opposition to this framework by partisan operatives — posing as local election functionaries — could remain a sustained challenge to U.S. democracy, regardless of the outcome of any particular litigation.

IMAGE: A graphic of select states where county boards contested election results during races that took place in the years after the 2020 presidential election, until being forced to certify through litigation (Photo Credit: Just Security).

The post Election Certification Refusers Are a Movement: Georgia Lawsuit Highlights Alarming Trend appeared first on Just Security.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Highline Public Schools school district suspended its activities following a cyberattack

Spread the news

Highline Public Schools, a school district in Washington state, remains closed following a cyberattack that occurred two days ago.

Two days ago Highline Public Schools (HPS), a school district in Washington state, suffered a cyber attack that caused a significant disruption of its activities.

Highline Public Schools (HPS) is a public school district in King County, headquartered in Burien, Washington, it serves more than 18,000 students.

The HPS took critical systems offline in response to the security incident.   

“We have detected unauthorized activity on our technology systems and have taken immediate action to isolate critical systems. We are working closely with third-party, state and federal partners to safely restore and test our systems.” reads the first statement published by the school district on Monday. 

“We understand this comes as an unexpected disruption, particularly on the eve of the first day of kindergarten for many of our families. We recognize the burden this decision places on both families and staff, but student safety is our top priority, and we cannot have school without these critical systems in place.”

Two days later, the Washington state school district is still closed due to the unavailability of its IT systems.

Following the cyberattack, the school district announced the closure of its facilities and the temporary suspension of all activities, including athletics and meetings.

“All schools will remain closed on Tuesday, September 10. All school activities, athletics and meetings are canceled. Central office will be open.” reads the statement published by the HPS on its website. “Our investigation into unauthorized activity on our technology systems is ongoing, and critical systems are still offline. We understand canceling school is a significant disruption for our families and staff, but student safety remains our top priority.”

The HPS did not provide details about the attack, however, the measures adopted in response to the incident suggest it was the victim of a ransomware attack. At this time, no cybercrime group has claimed responsibility for the attack.

Unfortunately, school districts are privileged targets of cybercrime groups due to the huge amount of date they manage.

In March 2024, schools in Scranton, Pennsylvania, experienced a ransomware attack, resulting in IT outages. In September 2022, one of the US largest School districts, the Los Angeles Unified School District, suffered a ransomware attack.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, Education) 


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

RansomHub ransomware gang relies on Kaspersky TDSKiller tool to disable EDR

Spread the news

Researchers observed the RansomHub ransomware group using the TDSSKiller tool to disable endpoint detection and response (EDR) systems.

The RansomHub ransomware gang is using the TDSSKiller tool to disable endpoint detection and response (EDR) systems, Malwarebytes ThreatDown Managed Detection and Response (MDR) team observed.

TDSSKiller a legitimate tool developed by the cybersecurity firm Kaspersky to remove rootkits, the software could also disable EDR solutions through a command line script or batch file.

The experts noticed that the ransomware group also used the LaZagne tool to harvest credentials. During the case investigated by MDR, experts observed that LaZagne generated 60 file writes, likely logging extracted credentials, and performed 1 file deletion, likely to hide traces of the credential-harvesting activity.

“Although both TDSSKiller and LaZagne have been used by attackers for years, this is the first record of RansomHub using them in its operations, with the TTPs not listed in CISA’s recently published advisory on RansomHub.” reads the Malwarebytes MDR’s report. “The tools were deployed following initial reconnaissance and network probing through admin group enumeration, such as net1 group "Enterprise Admins" /do. 

RansomHub used TDSSKiller with the -dcsvc flag to try disabling critical security services, specifically targeting Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Service (MBAMService). The command aimed to disrupt security defenses by disabling this service.

Command linetdsskiller.exe -dcsvc MBAMService where the -dcsvc flag was used to target specific services. In this instance, attackers attempted to disable MBAMService.

TDSSKiller

RansomHub is a ransomware as a service (RaaS) that was employed in the operations of multiple threat actors. Microsoft reported that RansomHub was observed being deployed in post-compromise activity by the threat actor tracked as Manatee Tempest following initial access by Mustard Tempest via FakeUpdates/Socgholish infections.

Experts believe RansomHub is a rebrand of the Knight ransomware. Knight, also known as Cyclops 2.0, appeared in the threat landscape in May 2023. The malware targets multiple platforms, including Windows, Linux, macOS, ESXi, and Android. The operators used a double extortion model for their RaaS operation.

This isn’t the first time that security experts documented the use of the tool developed by Kaspersky.

The Sangfor Cyber Guardian Incident Response team reported that the LockBit ransomware gang used the -dcsvc parameter of TDSSKiller as part of their attack chain.

Attackers use legitimate tools because are not blocked by security solutions.

Malwarebytes shared indicators of compromise (IoCs) for these attacks and recommends:

  • Isolate critical systems through network segmentation to limit lateral movement.
  • Restrict Bring Your Own Vulnerable Driver (BYOVD) exploits by implementing controls to monitor and restrict vulnerable drivers like TDSSKiller, especially when executed with suspicious command-line flags such as -dcsvc. Quarantining or blocking known misuse patterns while allowing legitimate uses can prevent BYOVD attacks.

Follow me on Twitter: @securityaffairs and Facebook and Mastodon

Pierluigi Paganini

(SecurityAffairs – hacking, RansomHub ransomware) 


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

America’s Overlooked National Security Threat

Spread the news

As America’s 2024 presidential campaign enters its stretch run after last night’s debate, it is tempting to believe that electing one ticket or the other will solve all our problems. Have no doubt: this is a hugely consequential election, and the slate the U.S. people elect will have enormous power to shape the future of America’s foreign and national security policy. But we must not ignore that the United States’ deepest constitutional and national security challenge involves not personalities, but structure.

Consider two hypotheticals. First, upon resuming office, could Donald Trump by tweet unilaterally withdraw the United States from every treaty, agreement, and international institution to which the United States is a party? If not, what legally could stop him? Alternatively, if Kamala Harris should become president, would current law allow her unilaterally to back into a wider war in the Middle East, out of a desire to help Israel fight Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and Iran-backed militias in the Red Sea? If that would be illegal, what is to stop her?

In both cases, the sobering answer is: probably nothing. Our 21st century history teaches that in both cases, the president could likely do it and claim it is lawful, Congress would likely defer, and the courts would either decline to adjudicate or rubber-stamp the president’s actions on the merits. So the problem is bigger than personalities. The president currently has too much discretion to take acts that seem both unwise and illegal without legal check or consequence. The deeper question is: how have nearly 250 years of American history so distorted structural features of our national security system to transform the chief defender of our national security, the president, into today’s biggest potential national security threat?

My new book The National Security Constitution in the 21st Century explains the confluence of interactive institutional incentives that has brought us to this precarious state of affairs. The book culminates nearly five decades of studying the constitutional conduct of America’s foreign policy, from both inside and outside the government. When I first studied this topic during the Iran-Contra Affair, nearly four decades ago, I argued that a subset of constitutional norms, precedents, and framework laws best understood as “The National Security Constitution” govern the making of U.S. foreign policy. I further argued that two divergent constitutional visions have competed for dominance over our nation’s history: the Framers’ founding vision of balanced institutional participation, captured in Justice Robert Jackson’s landmark concurrence in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, versus the unilateralist vision of the president as “the sole organ of our Nation in foreign affairs” trumpeted by Justice George Sutherland in United States v. Curtiss Wright Export Corp. (which, when I first joined the Justice Department was called, only half-jokingly, “the Curtiss-Wright, so I’m right cite.”).

As my book chronicles, the Founders sought above all to avoid installing a new American king. But the Curtiss-Wright vision found adherents even at the Founding and has since asserted itself repeatedly over the nearly 250 years of American foreign policy; each time, the Youngstown vision has persistently clawed back. As recently as the presidencies of George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, the Youngstown vision continued to hold sway. But with the successive 21st century presidencies of George W. Bush (“Bush 43”), Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and Joe Biden, the Curtiss-Wright vision has taken hold with increasing ferocity. Bush 43 and Trump seized unilateral power proactively, and in Trump’s case, with naked disdain for the rule of law. Obama and Biden, saddled with weak legislative majorities, grasped unilateralism reactively. But whether proactive or reactive, the presidential grab for unilateral power has continued, with successive presidents becoming victims as much as villains in a national security process in which they bear all of the public expectations, all of the responsibility, and ultimately, all of the blame. So with each presidency this century, the constitutional pendulum has swung further and further toward executive unilateralism, climaxing in Trump’s breathtaking assertion that Article II “gives me the right to do whatever I want,” his post-defeat call for “the termination of all rules…even those found in the Constitution,” and his Supreme Court’s jaw-dropping decision in Trump v. United States apparently immunizing him for any foreign policy or national security actions so long as they can be dubbed “official.”

Many factors, both external and internal, have contributed to the rise of executive unilateralism. External factors include the end of the Cold War and the rise of a multipolar world; the growing power of nonstate actors; and pervasive threats triggered by the September 11th attacks, the Covid pandemic, and the rising threat of climate change. Internal factors include the wildly disproportionate growth of the national security bureaucracy; the collapse of the bipartisan legislative process; the decentralization of congressional foreign policy decision-making and legal advice; and the federal judiciary’s increasing proclivity to avoid adjudicating or to rubber-stamp dubious executive actions based on what Justice Sonia Sotomayor has dubbed “national security masquerades.” But indispensable actors in this process have been executive branch lawyers. (I have served as one for many years of my career, but for reasons detailed in the book, I stand by the advice I gave). Understandably, the president’s lawyers address each sequential crisis by trying to maximize the president’s ability flexibly to contain and counteract national security threats. But ironically their accumulated precedents, each written to help neutralize the particular urgent national security challenge at hand, now collectively enable the very real prospect that the president will become the greatest national security threat of all.

If this diagnosis is correct, what is to be done? If the problem is structural, the answer cannot simply be stopping Donald Trump’s re-election, although his return to power would surely push the U.S. constitutional system to the breaking point. As dangerous—and as last night’s debate showed, increasingly unhinged—as Trump is, we can easily envision even more unilateralist and dangerous presidents than Trump: populist autocrats inclined to invade foreign countries, shatter alliances, and undermine checks and balances more systematically and competently. We cannot simply rely on elections to throw the rascals out, when there will always be other rascals more adept at stealing elections and grabbing unilateral power.

Our alternatives, quite simply, are acceptance, apathy, despair, or reform: now or later. In an era of legislative deadlock and political polarization, comprehensive national security legislative reform would undeniably be difficult if not impossible to obtain. Instead, the solution must be a mosaic of reforms—some executive, some legislative, and some judicial—implemented over time, and designed individually and collectively to counteract current institutional incentives. Our goal should be to dampen the dysfunctional institutional interaction that keeps driving presidents to act or react unilaterally, Congress to do nothing, and the courts to rubber-stamp and defer. If we are serious about reform, those efforts must extend to all three branches of government.

My book suggests executive restructuring by creating mechanisms to promote better national security legal advice, law enforcement independence, to reduce conflicts of interest, restrain military adventurism, and reform the bureaucracy. It suggests that Congress reform itself by creating a Joint Committee for National Security, a Congressional Legal Adviser, and better congressional tools to restrain executive unilateralism. The courts, I argue, should reduce unnecessary barriers to justiciability (as the Supreme Court began to do by rigorizing the political question doctrine in Zivotofsky v. Clinton) and modify judicial doctrines—such as the presumption against extraterritoriality and the recent Court’s unwillingness to look to foreign law in constitutional interpretation—that are ill-suited to an age of globalization. And over time, proponents of reform must empower other counterweights to executive power, including states and localities, the media, U.S. allies, private actors, and black-letter Restatements of Foreign Relations Law. The penultimate chapter explains how meaningful reform could be achieved in various areas of national security law: warmaking, international lawmaking and agreement breaking, intelligence oversight, information control, and protection of the democratic electoral process.

I harbor no illusions that such reforms will come quickly, but beginning the process is not just necessary, but a useful goal in itself; just starting a decades-long national security reform process will likely spur further reforms. Skeptics may scoff that our current extreme polarization makes even modest reform unobtainable. But in just the last few months, both U.S. presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris and U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer made unequivocal commitments to country over party. As the 21st century unfolds, I refuse to believe that there will not come a time when we can return to a shared national commitment not to “America First,” but rather, to being “Americans First.”

Nor do I have any serious concerns that such reforms would hamstring the presidency. Serving under four presidents has taught me that in genuine emergencies, executive power always finds a way. But under our current system, the president goes it alone, and the courts and Congress wash their hands of responsibility. Structural reform is sorely needed to ensure a strong president within a strong constitutional system of checks and balances. In the end, the Framers understood an important and enduring truth: that our national security is best protected if the power to conduct America’s foreign policy remains a power shared.

IMAGE: An image of the White House (via Getty Images).

The post America’s Overlooked National Security Threat appeared first on Just Security.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Early Edition: September 11, 2024

Spread the news

Signup to receive the Early Edition in your inbox here.

A curated weekday guide to major news and developments over the past 24 hours. Here’s today’s news:

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR 

An Israeli airstrike in the West Bank early today killed five Palestinians, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry. The Israeli military said it targeted a group of militants in the city of Tubas. AP News reports.

Israeli airstrikes on a designated humanitarian zone in southern Gaza yesterday killed 19 people, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. The reported death toll is lower than what had been provided by the Gaza Civil Defense, which earlier said their services had recovered 40 bodies from the site of the strike. Meanwhile, weapons experts and an analysis by the New York Times found strong evidence that Israel used 2,000-pound bombs in the strike. Ephrat Livni, Rawan Sheikh Ahmad, and Abu Bakr Bashir report for the New York Times.

The IDF released a video of a Gaza tunnel where it says six hostages were held in “horrific conditions” before they were murdered by Hamas. The video was filmed by the military last Friday and made public yesterday. Maayan Lubell reports for Reuters.

An Israeli official has floated the option of offering Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar safe passage out of Gaza once all remaining hostages in the Palestinian territory are released. Meanwhile, Israel’s Defense Minister said yesterday that its forces are close to completing their Gaza mission and their focus will turn to the country’s northern border with Lebanon. Hira Humayan and Tara John report for CNN and Reuters reports.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — U.S. RESPONSE 

The Israeli military yesterday said it was “highly likely” it “unintentionally” killed a U.S. citizen near a demonstration last week in the West Bank. Responding to the comments, Secretary of State Antony Blinken called for “fundamental changes” in the way the IDF operates in the West Bank, “including changes to their rules of engagement.” Blinken’s comments seemed to contrast with President Biden’s remarks hours later. “Apparently it was an accident, ricocheted off the ground and just got hit by accident. I’m working that out now,” Biden said. Karen DeYoung, Michael Birnbaum, and Loveday Morris report for the Washington Post.

Blinken asked British Foreign Secretary David Lammy last month what it would take for the U.K. to reconsider its Israeli weapons suspension, according to two U.S. officials. Lammy reportedly replied that it would involve a cease-fire and access by international human rights organizations to Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. Erin Banco, Nahal Toosi, and Robbie Gramer report for POLITICO.

ISRAEL-HAMAS WAR — REGIONAL RESPONSE 

In his first statement as Hamas’s overall leader, Yahya Sinwar yesterday congratulated Algeria’s President on his reelection and thanked the country for its support to the Palestinian cause. AP News reports.

ISRAEL-HEZBOLLAH CONFLICT

Israel launched several strikes on southern Lebanon over the past day, including one that killed a senior Hezbollah commander. Hezbollah confirmed the killing and said it responded by launching “dozens” of rockets and several drones toward northern Israel. No casualties were reported, according to the IDF. Mohammed Tawfeeq, Irene Nasser, and Kareem Khadder report for CNN.

RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR

President Biden has hinted at lifting restrictions on Ukraine using U.S. long-range missiles against Russia, saying the U.S. administration was “working that out now.” Russian President Vladimir Putin has previously warned such action could lead to “very serious problems.” Meanwhile, Sec. Blinken and U.K. Foreign Secretary Lammy are in Kyiv to discuss the issue with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelenskyy. Thomas Mackintosh reports for BBC News.

Beijing is giving Moscow “very substantial” help to strengthen its war machine, and in exchange, China is receiving top secret Russian military technology, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Kurt Campbell said yesterday. Stuart Lau reports for POLITICO.

The West is pushing Ukraine to think about a credible plan and realistic goals for what it can achieve in the next year of war, European diplomats say. Max Colchester and Laurence Norman report for the Wall Street Journal.

Ukraine is using “dragon drones” to spew fiery substances on Russia’s front lines, according to videos that have emerged online. Yuliya Talmazan reports for NBC News.

GLOBAL DEVELOPMENTS 

The United States, United Kingdom, France, and Germany will impose sanctions on key Russian and Iranian entities after Russia sent “dozens” of troops to Iran to train on ballistic missiles, a Pentagon spokesperson said yesterday. The measures include restrictions on Iran Air’s ability to fly to the U.K. and Europe, and travel bans and asset freezes on several Iranians. Patrick Tucker reports for Defense One; Matt Murphy reports for BBC News.

Russia is close to signing a new bilateral treaty with Iran soon, state media quoted top security official Sergei Shoigu as saying today. Reuters reports.

Iran’s new reformist President Masoud Pezeshkian traveled to Iraq today on his first visit abroad, hoping to solidify Tehran’s ties to Baghdad. Qassim Abdul-Zahra reports for AP News.

Around 1,200 protesters clashed with police today at a major defense expo in Australia. Some demonstrators set trash cans alight and targeted police horses, according to local media. Police say 33 people have been arrested, as tensions sparked by global conflicts deepen anger toward the arms industry. Lex Harvey reports for CNN.

Mexico’s Senate voted 86-41 early today for a judicial overhaul. The amendment would abolish the current judicial system and give citizens the power to choose nearly all judges. Diplomats, business leaders, and legal scholars have expressed alarm over the measure, with U.S. officials saying the overhaul could pose “a major risk” to the democracy of its top trading partner. Mary Beth Sheridan reports for the Washington Post.

Pakistani police yesterday freed the president of the opposition party of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, a day after he was detained for allegedly inciting violence, his party said. AP News reports.

The Islamist candidate who lost Algeria’s presidential election three days ago filed an appeal to the Constitutional Court yesterday, citing “false figures” and contesting turnout rates. AFP reports via Le Monde.

Jamaica’s Prime Minister yesterday announced that his government will send an initial deployment of 24 security personnel to Haiti to bolster an international security mission aimed at helping battle gang violence. Reuters reports.

Nicaragua said yesterday “it was revoking the citizenship and seizing the property of 135 people who were expelled from the country last week after serving prison sentences in a government crackdown on dissent.” The Supreme Court of Justice announced the action in a press release. Gabriela Selser reports for AP News.

U.S. FOREIGN RELATIONS

The United States is gradually moving aircraft and commandos into coastal West Africa in a fight against Islamist militants. U.S. forces were evicted this summer from their regional stronghold in Niger, and now the Pentagon is aiming to adopt a smaller military footprint, including refurbishing an airfield in Benin, and stationing forces in Ivory Coast and Chad. Michael M. Phillips and Benoit Faucon report for the Wall Street Journal.

​​Iraqi security officials said an explosion targeted a U.S. military facility next to Baghdad airport late yesterday. The statement said Iraqi forces were unable to determine the “type or causes of the explosion, and no party has claimed responsibility for it.” No damage or casualties have been reported. Qassim Abdul-Zahra reports for AP News.

U.S. DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS

The 13 U.S. service members killed in a suicide bombing in Kabul in 2021 were honored posthumously yesterday in a Congressional Gold Medal ceremony at the Capitol. Kaia Hubbard and Melissa Quinn report for CBS News.

An alleged attack on a New York City store owner over a poster of Vice President Kamala Harris displayed in her window is being treated as a hate crime, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said yesterday. Bill Hutchinson reports for ABC News.

The Pentagon is urging the Senate to confirm Lt. Gen. Ronald Clark to a senior Army role after Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) announced he is blocking the promotion. Tuberville’s spokesperson said the senator “has concerns about Lt. Gen. Clark’s actions” during  Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s hospitalization, which had initially been clouded in secrecy. Rebecca Falconer reports for Axios.

A former CIA officer and contract linguist for the FBI who spied for China in exchange for bribes faces a decade in prison if a U.S. judge approves his plea agreement today. Jennifer Sinco Kelleher reports for AP News.

A jury has been selected and opening statements are expected today in the federal trial of three former Memphis police officers charged in the fatal beating of Tyre Nichols. Two officers have already pleaded guilty to federal charges, with the remaining three officers facing life sentences if convicted. Robert Klemko reports for the Washington Post.

Jury deliberation is underway today in Florida in the trial of four activists accused of illegally acting as Russian agents to help the Kremlin sow political disharmony and meddle in U.S. elections. AP News reports.

The post Early Edition: September 11, 2024 appeared first on Just Security.


Spread the news