Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

45 Hong Kong Activists Receive Prison Sentences in Landmark National Security Case

Spread the news

Police officers stand guard outside the West Kowloon Court ahead of a sentencing hearing for 45 pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong, China, on Nov. 19, 2024.

HONG KONG — Forty-five ex-lawmakers and activists were sentenced to four to 10 years in prison Tuesday in Hong Kong’s biggest national security case under a Beijing-imposed law that crushed a once-thriving pro-democracy movement.

They were prosecuted under the 2020 national security law for their roles in an unofficial primary election. Prosecutors said their aim was to paralyze Hong Kong’s government and force the city’s leader to resign by aiming to win a legislative majority and using it to block government budgets indiscriminately.

[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]

The unofficial primary held in July 2020 drew 610,000 voters, and its winners had been expected to advance to the official election. Authorities postponed the official legislative election, however, citing public health risks during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Legal scholar Benny Tai, whom the judges called the mastermind, received the longest sentence of 10 years. The judges said the sentences had been reduced for defendants who said they were unaware the plan was unlawful.

However, the court said the penalties were not reduced for Tai and former lawmaker Alvin Yeung because they are lawyers who were “absolutely adamant in pushing for the implementation of the Scheme.”

In the judgment posted online, the judges wrote that Tai essentially “advocated for a revolution” by publishing a series of articles over a period of months that traced his thinking, even though in a letter seeking a shorter sentence Tai said the steps were “never intended to be used as blueprint for any political action.”

Two of the 47 original defendants were acquitted earlier this year. The rest either pleaded guilty or were found guilty of conspiracy to commit subversion. The judges said in their verdict that the activists’ plans to effect change through the unofficial primary would have undermined the government’s authority and created a constitutional crisis.

The judges rejected the reasoning from some defendants that the scheme would never have materialized, stating that “all the participants had put in every endeavor to make it a success.”

The judges highlighted that a great deal of time, resources and money were devoted to the organization of the primary election.

“When the Primary Election took place on the 10 and 11 July, no one had remotely mentioned the fact that Primary Election was no more than an academic exercise and that the Scheme was absolutely unattainable,” the judgment read. “In order to succeed, the organizers and participants might have hurdles to overcome, that however was expected in every subversion case where efforts were made to overthrow or paralyze a government.”

Some of the defendants waved at their relatives in the courtroom after they were sentenced.

Gwyneth Ho, a journalist-turned-activist who was jailed for seven years, said “our true crime for Beijing is that we were not content with playing along in manipulated elections” on her Facebook page.

“We dared to confront the regime with the question: Will democracy ever be possible within such a structure? The answer was a complete crackdown on all fronts of society,” she wrote.

Chan Po-ying, wife of defendant Leung Kwok-hung, told reporters she wasn’t shocked when she learned her husband received a jail term of six years and nine months. She said they were trying to use some of the rights granted by the city’s mini-constitution to pressure those who are in power to address the will of the people.

“This is an unjust imprisonment. They shouldn’t be kept in jail for one day,” said Chan, also the chair of the League of Social Democrats, one of the city’s remaining pro-democracy parties.

Emilia Wong, the girlfriend of Ventus Lau, said his jail term was within her expectations. She said the sentencing was a “middle phase” of history and she could not see the end point at this moment, but she pledged to support Lau as best as she could.

Philip Bowring, the husband of Claudia Mo, was relieved that the sentences were finally handed down.

Observers said the trial illustrated how authorities suppressed dissent following huge anti-government protests in 2019, alongside media crackdowns and reduced public choice in elections. The drastic changes reflect how Beijing’s promise to retain the former British colony’s civil liberties for 50 years when it returned to China in 1997 is increasingly threadbare, they said.

Read More: ‘We Are at the Point of No Return’: How a Series of Protests Escalated Into an All-Out Battle for the Soul of Hong Kong

Beijing and Hong Kong governments insisted the national security law was necessary for the city’s stability.

The sentencing drew criticism from foreign governments and human rights organizations.

The U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong said the U.S. strongly condemned the sentences for the 45 pro-democracy advocates and former lawmakers.

“The defendants were aggressively prosecuted and jailed for peacefully participating in normal political activity protected under Hong Kong’s Basic Law,” the statement said, referring to the city’s mini-constitution.

In Beijing, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian told reporters no one should be allowed to use democracy as a pretext to engage in unlawful activities and escape justice.

Hong Kong Secretary for Security Chris Tang said in a news briefing that the sentences showed those committing national security crimes must be severely punished.

The subversion case involved pro-democracy activists across the spectrum. They include Tai, former student leader Joshua Wong and former lawmakers. Wong was sentenced to four years and eight months in jail. Young activist Owen Chow was given the second-longest jail term, seven years and nine months.

Most of them have already been detained for more than three and a half years before the sentencing. The separations pained them and their families.

More than 200 people stood in line in rain and winds Tuesday morning for a seat in the court, including one of the acquitted defendants, Lee Yue-shun. Lee said he hoped members of the public would show they care about the court case.

“The public’s interpretation and understanding has a far-reaching impact on our society’s future development,” he said.

Wei Siu-lik, a friend of convicted activist Clarisse Yeung, said she arrived at 4 a.m. even though her leg was injured. “I wanted to let them know there are still many coming here for them,” she said.

Thirty-one of the activists entered guilty pleas and had better chances of getting reduced sentences. The law authorizes a range of sentences depending on the seriousness of the offense and the defendant’s role in it, from under three years for the least serious to 10 years to life for people convicted of “grave” offenses.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Imposing neutrality on Ukraine will not stop Putin or bring peace to Europe

Spread the news

With Donald Trump’s election win fueling fresh speculation over the prospects for a negotiated settlement to the Russo-Ukrainian War, Russian President Vladimir Putin has once again underlined his insistence on Ukrainian neutrality. “If there is no neutrality, it is difficult to imagine any good-neighborly relations between Russia and Ukraine,” he commented on November 7 in Sochi.

This is nothing new. Since the eve of the full-scale invasion, the Kremlin has been consistent in its calls for permanent Ukrainian neutrality. Neutral status was a key condition set out by the Kremlin during the abortive peace talks that took place in the first weeks of the war. It once again featured prominently when Putin laid out an updated peace proposal in June 2024.

Many in the international community regard Putin’s push for a neutral Ukraine as by far his most reasonable demand. Indeed, some have even accused NATO of provoking the current war by expanding into Russia’s traditional sphere of influence since 1991 and deepening cooperation with Ukraine. They argue that if Ukraine can be kept in geopolitical no-man’s-land, Russia will be placated.

Such thinking is likely to feature prominently as the debate continues to unfold in the coming months over the terms of a future peace deal. While Trump has yet to outline his plans for a possible settlement, unconfirmed reports suggest that a twenty-year freeze on Ukraine’s NATO membership aspirations is under consideration. This would be a costly blunder. Imposing neutrality on Ukraine will not bring about a durable peace in Europe. On the contrary, it would leave Ukraine at Putin’s mercy and set the stage for a new Russian invasion.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ukrainians have already learned the hard way that neutrality does not protect them against Russian aggression. The country officially embraced non-aligned status during the 2010-2014 presidency of Viktor Yanukovych, but this didn’t prevent Moscow from seeking to reassert full control over Ukraine. Initially, Russia’s efforts focused on orchestrating Ukraine’s economic reintegration through membership of the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union. When this sparked a popular backlash that led to the fall of the Yanukovych regime, Putin opted to use force and began the military invasion of Ukraine.

Ever since the start of Russia’s attack on Ukraine in spring 2014, Putin has sought to justify Russian aggression by pointing to the looming danger of Ukrainian NATO membership. In reality, however, Ukraine has never looked like progressing toward the distant goal of joining the alliance. For the past decade, NATO leaders have refused to provide Kyiv with an invitation and have instead limited themselves to vague talk of Ukraine’s “irreversible” path toward future membership. Putin is well aware of this, but has chosen to wildly exaggerate Ukraine’s NATO prospects in order to strengthen his own bogus justifications.

Putin’s complaints regarding NATO enlargement are equally dubious. Indeed, his own actions since early 2022 indicate that Putin himself does not actually believe that the alliance poses a genuine security threat to Russia. Instead, he merely exploits the NATO issue as a convenient smokescreen for Russia’s expansionist foreign policy.

Tellingly, when Finland and Sweden responded to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by announcing plans to abandon decades of neutrality and join NATO, Putin was quick to declare that Russia had “no problem” with the move. This evident indifference was particularly striking, given that Finnish NATO membership has more than doubled Russia’s NATO border while Sweden’s accession has transformed the Baltic Sea into a NATO lake. Over the past two-and-a-half years, Putin has continued to demonstrate his almost complete lack of concern over NATO’s Nordic enlargement by withdrawing the vast majority of Russian troops from the Finnish border and leaving the area largely undefended.

Putin obviously understands perfectly well that NATO is not a threat to Russia itself, and sees no need to guard against a NATO invasion that he knows will never come. While Putin’s resentment over the expanding NATO presence on his borders is real enough, he only really objects when the alliance prevents Russia from bullying its neighbors. In other words, Putin’s opposition to Ukraine’s NATO aspirations has nothing to do with legitimate security concerns. Instead, it confirms that his ultimate goal is the destruction of Ukrainian statehood.

For years, Putin has made no secret of his belief that the emergence of an independent Ukraine is an historical mistake and a symbol of modern Russia’s retreat from empire. He has repeatedly claimed that Ukraine is not a “real country,” and is fond of declaring that Ukrainians are actually Russians (“one people”). In July 2021, Putin even published an entire essay arguing against the legitimacy of an independent Ukrainian state.

Since the start of the full-scale invasion, it has become increasingly apparent that Putin’s ultimate goal is not Ukraine’s neutrality but Ukraine’s destruction. The Kremlin propaganda machine has portrayed Ukraine as an intolerable “anti-Russia,” and has promoted the idea that Ukraine’s continued existence is incompatible with Russian security. Meanwhile, Putin has compared his invasion to eighteenth century Russian ruler Peter the Great’s imperial conquests, and has repeatedly claimed to be “returning” historically Russian lands.

Putin’s imperialistic outbursts must be taken seriously. Throughout occupied Ukraine, his soldiers and administrators are already imposing a reign of terror that directly echoes the criminal logic of his imperial fantasies. Millions have been displaced, with thousands more simply vanishing into a vast network of camps and prisons. Those who remain face policies of relentless Russification and the suppression of all things Ukrainian. Adults must accept Russian citizenship in order to access basic services, while children are forced to undergo indoctrination in schools teaching a new Kremlin curriculum.

The crimes currently taking place in Russian-occupied Ukraine are a clear indication of what awaits the rest of the country if Putin succeeds. Despite suffering multiple military setbacks, he remains fully committed to his maximalist goals of ending Ukrainian independence and erasing Ukrainian identity.

Furthermore, since 2022 Putin has demonstrated that he is prepared to wait as long as it takes in order to overcome Ukrainian resistance, and is ready to pay almost any price to achieve his imperial ambitions. Imposing neutrality on Ukraine in such circumstances would be akin to condemning the country to a slow but certain death.

Any peace process that fails to provide Ukraine with credible long-term security guarantees is doomed to fail. Acquiescing to Putin’s demands for a neutral Ukraine may provide some short-term relief from the menace of an expansionist Russia, but this would ultimately lead to more war and the likely collapse of the current global security order. There is simply no plausible argument for insisting on Ukrainian neutrality other than a desire to leave the country defenseless and at Russia’s mercy.

Peace will only come once Putin has finally been forced to accept Ukraine’s right to exist as an independent country and as a member of the democratic world. Naturally, this includes the right to choose security alliances. It is absurd to prioritize Russia’s insincere security concerns over Ukraine’s very real fears of national annihilation. Instead, if serious negotiations do begin in the coming months, Ukrainian security must be the number one priority. Until Ukraine is secure, Europe will remain insecure and the threat of Russian imperialism will continue to loom over the continent.

Mykola Bielieskov is a research fellow at the National Institute for Strategic Studies and a senior analyst at Ukrainian NGO “Come Back Alive.” The views expressed in this article are the author’s personal position and do not reflect the opinions or views of NISS or Come Back Alive.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Imposing neutrality on Ukraine will not stop Putin or bring peace to Europe appeared first on Atlantic Council.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

1000 days of war: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine passes grim milestone

Spread the news

This week sees the one thousandth day of the war launched by Vladimir Putin in February 2022. The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the largest European conflict since World War II, and one of the first major wars to be covered in real time on social media. Audiences around the world have watched in disbelief as the Russian army has advanced into Ukraine, reducing entire cities to rubble and displacing millions of people. For almost three years, this unfolding tragedy has been the world’s leading news story.

Few expected Ukraine to reach this week’s grim milestone. Indeed, on the eve of Russia’s full-scale invasion, the consensus was that any organized Ukrainian resistance would likely crumble within a matter days. In retrospect, it is now clear that both Vladimir Putin and the vast majority of international observers were equally guilty of underestimating Ukraine.

While their country has surpassed all expectations, Ukrainians have little to celebrate as the war passes the 1000-day mark. The Russian invasion has inflicted unparalleled suffering on Ukraine, with hundreds of thousands killed and more than fourteen million people forced to flee their homes. Huge numbers of Ukrainian service personnel and civilians have suffered life-changing injuries. For the men and women defending the country on the front lines, the physical and psychological toll from almost three years of relentless fighting has been immense.

Beyond the battlefield itself, the Russian invasion has plunged the entire Ukrainian population into a mental health crisis that will last for decades. Almost everyone has experienced some kind of personal loss or wartime trauma. In towns and cities across Ukraine, people have grown used to the daily routine of air raid alarms, bomb shelters, and electricity blackouts, all accompanied by gut-churning news of the latest Russian atrocities.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Despite the many horrors and hardships, Ukrainians have remained broadly united by a shared sense of purpose. While most people are understandably desperate for peace, there is also widespread recognition that Ukraine is fighting for national survival and faces destruction if Russia’s invasion succeeds. This has been made abundantly clear by the actions of the Russian army in areas of Ukraine under Kremlin control, with thousands of potential dissenters abducted and children sent for indoctrination to rob them of their Ukrainian heritage.

Most Ukrainians acknowledge the need to fight on, but there are growing concerns over continued international support. During the initial months of the invasion, the watching world was awed by Ukrainian courage and tenacity as the country fought back against the might of the Russian military. This helped convince Western leaders that arming Ukraine was both morally right and worthwhile. However, as the war has dragged on, grumbles over the cost of supplying the Ukrainian military have grown louder, as has the chorus of voices calling for some form of compromise with the Kremlin.

Every time Western leaders delay the delivery of military aid, the cost can be measured in Ukrainian lives. These delays enable Russia to bomb Ukrainian cities and advance further along the front lines of the war. Shortfalls in military support are also making it significantly harder for Ukraine to mobilize new troops for the army, with many potential recruits left alarmed by the prospect of being sent into battle without adequate weapons or armor.

While Kyiv struggles to convince wavering Western leaders, Moscow is creating an axis of autocrats to bolster the Russian war effort. Since the start of the full-scale invasion almost three years ago, Putin has strengthened ties with China, Iran, and North Korea, receiving a range of support including sanctioned high-tech weapons components, attack drones, ballistic missiles, and vast quantities of artillery shells. This alliance is playing an increasingly direct role in the invasion of Ukraine, with North Korean soldiers recently appearing on the battlefield.

Donald Trump’s election victory is now fueling anticipation that the war is about to enter a new phase, with the incoming US administration expected to push for a negotiated settlement. Nobody wants to end the war more than Ukrainians, of course. At the same time, there are mounting concerns that Western efforts to pursue peace from a position of weakness may lead to Kremlin-friendly terms that would end up emboldening Putin and setting the stage for further Russian aggression.

Ukrainians have particularly painful memories of the failed peace process that followed Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea and eastern Ukraine’s Donbas region. For eight years, Russia refused to even acknowledge its direct involvement in hostilities, insisting instead on noncombatant status. This farcical situation made it virtually impossible to achieve any meaningful progress toward peace. It is now clear that while Moscow was pretending to engage in diplomatic efforts to end the war, Russia was busy preparing for the full-scale invasion of February 24, 2022.

Ahead of any peace talks, Ukrainians will be hoping their international allies have not lost sight of the huge costs they will face if they fail to stop Russia in Ukraine. The invasion launched by Putin one thousand days ago has already transformed the geopolitical landscape and led to the emergence of a formidable authoritarian alliance that shares a common commitment to ending the era of Western ascendancy. Russian success in Ukraine would dramatically strengthen this alliance, with alarming ramifications for the security situation everywhere from Central Europe to East Asia.

As the world reflects on one thousand days of Russia’s attack on Ukraine, the Ukrainian nation is exhausted but remains determined to end the war on terms that will allow the next generation to live in peace. This will not be possible without continued international support. Putin was wrong to assume that Ukraine would collapse in the wake of his invasion. Western leaders must now convince him that he is equally wrong to believe he can outlast them in Ukraine.

Kira Rudik is leader of the Golos party and a member of the Ukrainian parliament.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post 1000 days of war: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine passes grim milestone appeared first on Atlantic Council.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Biden’s green light highlights the diminishing power of Putin’s red lines

Spread the news

After months of debate and hesitation, US President Joe Biden has finally given Ukraine the green light to conduct long-range strikes inside Russia using US-supplied weapons. According to reports, Biden has initially authorized strikes in Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukraine has occupied hundreds of square kilometers of territory since summer 2024 but now faces a counteroffensive involving thousands of North Korean troops.

The relaxation of restrictions on airstrikes inside Russia using US-made ATACMS missiles represents a major shift in US policy. It comes just weeks before Biden is set to be replaced in the White House by Donald Trump, who is expected to push for peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

Biden’s decision has provoked a mixture of anger and alarm in Russia. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov led the chorus of criticism, accusing the United States of “deliberately pouring oil on the fire.” Russian Senator Vladimir Dzhabarov went even further, branding the move, “a very big step toward the beginning of World War III.” Meanwhile, Russian government newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta warned that “the madmen who are drawing NATO into a direct conflict with our country may soon be in great pain.”

Despite the histrionics in Moscow, this week’s US move to allow limited strikes on Russian territory is unlikely to transform the battlefield or spark a world war. The scope for potential strikes is far too narrow, while Russia has already had more than enough time to move the most interesting targets well out of range. The real significance of Biden’s green light lies in what it tells us about the diminishing impact of Vladimir Putin’s red lines.

Stay updated

As the world watches the Russian invasion of Ukraine unfold, UkraineAlert delivers the best Atlantic Council expert insight and analysis on Ukraine twice a week directly to your inbox.

Ever since the very first hours of the invasion, Putin has been using thinly veiled threats to intimidate the West into inaction. This approach has proved highly effective, with risk-averse Western leaders delaying arms deliveries to Ukraine and imposing absurd restrictions on the use of Western weapons that have left many in Kyiv exasperated. However, as the war has progressed, Putin’s red lines have repeatedly been crossed without consequence, leading many to conclude that the Russian dictator has been bluffing all along.

Putin’s first big bluff came during his official address announcing the attack on Ukraine, when he warned Western leaders that any attempts to interfere would result in consequences “such as you have never seen in your entire history.” Three days later, he hammered the point home by placing Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert. When a coalition of Western nations chose to ignore these warnings and began arming Ukraine, there was no nuclear escalation.

Six months later, Putin unveiled plans to annex four partially occupied Ukrainian provinces and vowed to use “all means at our disposal” to defend Russia’s conquests. “I’m not bluffing,” he declared. The Ukrainians were unimpressed by this nuclear saber-rattling and continued offensive operations in all four provinces. Within weeks they had liberated Kherson, the only Ukrainian regional capital captured by Russia during the invasion. This was a very personal humiliation for Putin, who had just pronounced the city “Russian forever.” Nevertheless, he did not reach for his nuclear button.

Putin’s approach to wartime setbacks in Crimea has arguably been even more revealing. Ever since the seizure of the Ukrainian peninsula in spring 2014, the Kremlin has portrayed the conquest of Crimea as Putin’s crowning glory and the basis for his claim to a place in Russian history among the country’s greatest rulers. This led many to assume that he would defend Crimea with particular vigor. Instead, when Ukraine bombed Russia’s Crimean naval headquarters and sank or damaged one-third of Putin’s entire Black Sea Fleet, he quietly ordered his remaining warships to retreat to the safety of Russian ports.

The biggest blow to the credibility of Putin’s threats came in August 2024, when the Ukrainian army crossed the reddest of all red lines by invading Russia itself. Faced with the first foreign occupation of Russian soil since World War II, Putin issued no nuclear ultimatums and made no effort to rally the Russian people against the invader. On the contrary, he downplayed the entire Ukrainian offensive as a mere “provocation,” and ordered the Kremlin-controlled Russian media to minimize the significance of Ukraine’s historic advance.

Despite these very public embarrassments, Putin has clung to his intimidation tactics. Indeed, as the debate over permitting long-range strikes inside Russia gained momentum in September 2024, he actually sought to up the ante by announcing that any decision by the US or European countries to lift restrictions would mean they were “at war” with Russia. Weeks later, he unveiled proposed changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine that lowered the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and specifically addressed possible long-range missile attacks. In hindsight, this may have been too blatant, even by Russian standards.

Unfortunately for Putin, it appears that even the Biden White House has now concluded that his threats are empty. This is undoubtedly bad news for the Russian war effort. For almost three years, Western leaders have allowed themselves to be intimidated by Putin, and have let fear of escalation define their response to the largest European invasion since World War II. The West’s excessive caution has left the Ukrainian army perpetually short of weapons, and has made it possible for Russia to punch far above its weight in what would otherwise have been a complete military mismatch.

That may now be changing. Biden’s decision to authorize long-range strikes inside Russia will not alter the course of the war, but it does strike a powerful blow against the failed policies of escalation management that have done so much to undermine international support for Ukraine. Putin’s ability to intimidate the West has been his biggest success of the entire war, but it would seem that his bluff has been called once too often and his threats no longer resonate. If other countries now follow Biden and abandon the timidity of the past three years, they may find that Putin suddenly becomes much keener on the idea of a negotiated settlement.

Peter Dickinson is editor of the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert service.

Further reading

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Center’s mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media
and support our work

The post Biden’s green light highlights the diminishing power of Putin’s red lines appeared first on Atlantic Council.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Google Hosts Party for Democratic Operatives Plotting To ‘Resist the Republican Agenda’

Spread the news

The resistance’s bar tab is on Google.

Priorities USA, a top Democratic super PAC with an affiliated dark money group, is convening a summit of left-wing digital activists on Wednesday afternoon to deliver a post-mortem on Vice President Kamala Harris’s election loss and strategize how to “resist the Republican agenda,” according to an invite obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. Afterwards, Priorities USA invited attendees to attend an afterparty that will be “co-hosted by our friends at Google.”

“Recognizing that there is still a lot of data to be collected and analysis to be done, we hope that you will join our 2024 Digital Retrospective during which we will discuss what was done online this cycle and how we can prepare to resist the Republican agenda,” Priorities USA said in the email invitation. “This is just an initial conversation, we will be in touch in the coming weeks and months with information to join additional deeper dive conversations, briefings, and planning meetings.”

“For those in DC, we hope that you will also join us for a social hour co-hosted by our friends at Google,” the invite stated.

Priorities USA, whose major donors include billionaire financier George Soros and former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, closed its invite with a quote from Harris’s concession speech: “This is not a time to throw up our hands. This is a time to roll up our sleeves.”

A Google spokesman confirmed that the company will host a happy hour for Priorities USA on Wednesday, but will not participate in Priorities USA’s “digital retrospective” event preceding it.

“We did not participate in creating the content of the meeting,” the Google spokesman told the Free Beacon. “As they do for large ad buyers on both sides of the aisle, our political sales team will host some drinks after it.”

Google’s move to host a happy hour for Priorities USA, which spent $75 million on “digital mobilization” efforts to support Harris, comes as Donald Trump sets Big Tech in his crosshairs.

Trump has long been a fierce critic of Google, alleging that the company has “rigged” its search engine to inundate users with negative stories about him. Though Trump signaled on the campaign trail he wasn’t willing to break up Google as a monopoly so long as it serves as a bulwark against China, the president-elect said he would do “something” about its search engine to “make sure it’s more fair.”

“I think it’s a whole rigged deal. I think Google is rigged just like our government is rigged all over the place,” Trump said on the campaign trail.

Big Tech is also on edge over Trump’s nomination of former Rep. Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.) to serve as attorney general. During his four terms in the House, Gaetz established himself as one of the most outspoken Republican supporters of antitrust legislation targeting Big Tech, going so far as to praise President Joe Biden’s Justice Department during a 2023 hearing for its antitrust legal efforts against Google.

“I think you’re doing a good job, and that is a painful admission for me to have to make about anyone who works at the Department of Justice,” Gaetz told Biden’s Justice Department antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter, adding that he was “perhaps just as concerned about the monopoly power of Google” and urged him to “continue to pursue those cases,” the Washington Post reported.

The post Google Hosts Party for Democratic Operatives Plotting To ‘Resist the Republican Agenda’ appeared first on .


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Psaki to Dems: Stand By Your Trans

Spread the news

MSNBC host Jen Psaki on Sunday attacked Democrats who argue that the party’s focus on transgender issues helped sink Vice President Kamala Harris’s presidential bid, accusing them of “falling prey to right-wing propaganda.”

“This is a good time for Democrats to self-reflect about what went wrong and what to do better moving forward,” the former White House press secretary said on her show. “But during that process, it’s important not to yield to manufactured panic and to align with the actual facts before making sweeping claims.”

Psaki pointed to Rep. Seth Moulton (D., Mass.), who told the New York Times he has “two little girls” and doesn’t “want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete.” He later added on MSNBC that the Democratic Party is “out of touch.” Moulton has since faced a primary threat and left-wing protesters outside his district office.

“Echoing and adopting the panic from the other side is not leading,” Psaki said. “It’s not meeting people where they are. It’s simply falling prey to right-wing propaganda without checking the facts first.”

Psaki said the GOP is exaggerating the prevalence of trans issues, arguing that the transgender population is minuscule and that there are few trans athletes affecting women’s sports. She accused Republicans of using ads during the election “to amplify their bad faith attacks to the point that people do have concerns, as misguided and misinformed as those concerned may be.”

But Psaki ignored trans policies that Democrats have spearheaded.

The Biden-Harris administration, for example, tried changing language to Title IX, the federal ban on sex discrimination, by replacing sex with gender identity. Lawsuits alleging that the move would allow males in female spaces like locker rooms and bathrooms have stalled the proposal, which will likely be rolled back under President-elect Donald Trump. 

As a presidential candidate in 2020, Harris supported allowing illegal immigrants and prisoners to use taxpayer dollars for sex-change surgeries. Psaki criticized Trump campaign ads that called out the vice president’s support.

“If that sounds like a particularly obscure issue, it is because it applies to a tiny group of people,” Psaki said.

Congressional Democrats have similarly pushed transgender issues in recent years, such as through the Equality Act, which would have made gender identity a protected class. They also championed a Transgender Bill of Rights, which would allow student-athletes to compete on teams aligning with their gender identity. Both efforts have failed several times.

The post Psaki to Dems: Stand By Your Trans appeared first on .


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Dem-Controlled PA Supreme Court Slaps Down Bob Casey’s Efforts To Count Invalid Mail-In Ballots: ‘Critical to the Rule of Law’

Spread the news

The Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania Supreme Court slapped down Democratic senator Bob Casey’s attempts to count invalid mail-in ballots, the latest blow to the three-term incumbent’s efforts to overturn his loss to Republican Dave McCormick.

The court upheld its ruling earlier this month that mail-in and absentee ballots that lack the required signatures and accurate dates cannot be counted. “It is critical to the rule of law that individual counties and municipalities and their elected and appointed officials, like any other parties, obey orders of this Court,” Justice David Wecht, a Democrat, wrote in a concurring opinion.

At issue were efforts by Casey’s allies in several Pennsylvania counties to openly defy the earlier Supreme Court ruling in hopes of counting invalid mail-in ballots. The boldest act of defiance came from Bucks County commissioners Diane Ellis-Marseglia and Bob Harvie, longtime allies of Casey who donated $2,600 to his campaign this year. “The law needs to be changed,” Harvie said at a commission meeting last week. And Marseglia announced she would openly defy the earlier Supreme Court ruling because “precedent by a court doesn’t matter anymore in this country.”

“People violate laws anytime they want. So, for me, if I violate this law, it’s because I want a court to pay attention,” Marseglia said.

Casey has refused to concede the race, which he trailed by around 31,000 votes when the Associated Press called it in favor of McCormick. The Washington Post editorial board urged Casey to drop out of the race and waive his right to a recount, which is triggered when the vote margin is within a half of a percentage point. The recount, which will last until Nov. 26, will cost taxpayers at least $1 million.

“Today’s ruling is a massive setback to Senator Casey’s attempt to count illegal ballots,” McCormick campaign spokeswoman Elizabeth Gregory said after the ruling. “Bucks County and others blatantly violated the law in an effort to help Senator Casey. Senator-elect McCormick is very pleased with this ruling and looks forward to taking the Oath of Office in a few short weeks.”

The court, which is made up of five Democrats and two Republicans, issued the ruling hours after Casey defended his refusal to concede the race on the grounds that he wants to see all “legal” votes counted in the race. But Casey also suggested that he supports the actions of his allies in Bucks County and that the Supreme Court ruling had the effect of “disenfranchising thousands of voters.”

“This close race has also put a spotlight on undated mail ballots, as my opponent and his allies have filed an appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to disqualify mail ballots where a voter has accidentally written the date wrong or didn’t write a date at all,” Casey wrote in a PennLive op-ed. “At its core, this is a debate about the constitutionality of disenfranchising thousands of voters due to a requirement that has no bearing on a voters’ eligibility and has no impact in deterring fraud.”

Casey’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on the Supreme Court decision.

The post Dem-Controlled PA Supreme Court Slaps Down Bob Casey’s Efforts To Count Invalid Mail-In Ballots: ‘Critical to the Rule of Law’ appeared first on .


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

WATCH: Matt Gaetz Donor Makes Pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago To Kiss the Ring

Spread the news

MSNBC cohosts (and passionate lovers) Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski went to Mar-a-Lago to meet with President-elect Donald Trump last week, the duo announced Monday on Morning Joe. It was their first in-person conversation with Trump in seven years. Many were shocked by the announcement, given that Scarborough and Brzezinski have repeatedly denounced Trump as a “racist” and a “fascist.” As recently as October of this year, Scarborough expressed disdain for the “pathetic people that are trying to cozy up to Donald Trump.” Now he’s one of them.

“It’s gonna come as no surprise to anybody who watches this show, has watched it over the past year or over the past decade, that we didn’t see eye-to-eye on a lot of issues, and we told him so,” Scarborough said Monday. The MSNBC personality has previously accused Trump of waging “an attempted fascist overthrow of American democracy,” and assailed all of Trump’s supporters for “knowingly voting for a fascist.” Brzezinski, who recently condemned Trump for holding a “hate” rally in Madison Square Garden, described the president-elect as “cheerful” and “interested in finding common ground with Democrats.” The goal of the meeting, she explained, was to “restart communications.” Trump confirmed the meeting in an interview with Fox News and thanked the MSNBC power couple for congratulating him on a “great and flawless campaign, one for the history books.”

The pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago could also be seen as a desperate attempt to rehabilitate MSNBC’s reputation as a cesspool of partisan invective and racial grievance. The radical left-wing network’s ratings plunged as much as 50 percent in the days following Trump’s election. Its parent company, Comcast, is mulling whether to cut ties with MSNBC and other declining TV assets by spinning them off into a separate entity.

Alas, the network might be beyond saving at this point. MSNBC viewers were shocked to learn the Morning Joe hosts had met with Trump. Former Hillary Clinton strategist Adam Parkhomenko called it a “pathetic betrayal.” Liberal social media activist @JoJoFromJerz was seething with rage. “F—k Joe & Mika,” she wrote. “F—k Morning Joe. And f—k MSNBC if they keep them on the f—ing air.”

Scarborough is no stranger to controversy. He received a two-day suspension from MSNBC in 2010 for failing to disclose political donations to former congressman Matt Gaetz (R., Fla.), who was then a candidate for the Florida State Legislature and was recently announced as Trump’s nominee for attorney general. Making the trip to Mar-a-Lago was presumably a humiliating affair for Joe and Mika, who enjoyed a close relationship with Trump during the 2016 Republican primary, when all mainstream networks were eager to juice their ratings by letting Trump call into their shows. That relationship quickly turned sour after Trump won the primary and the general election against Hillary Clinton. In a post complaining about the unfair coverage on MSNBC, Trump blasted “Psycho Joe” and “low I.Q. Crazy Mika,” while claiming to have seen Brzezinski “bleeding badly from a facelift.”

Morning Woe: Scarborough, Brzezinski Grovel to ‘Fascist’ Trump as MSNBC’s Fate Hangs in the Balance, Viewers Slam ‘Pathetic Betrayal’

The post WATCH: Matt Gaetz Donor Makes Pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago To Kiss the Ring appeared first on .


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

Trump picks Sean Duffy to be transportation secretary

Spread the news

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — President-elect Donald Trump said Monday he is naming former Wisconsin Rep. Sean Duffy as his nominee to be transportation secretary, as he continues to roll out picks for his Cabinet.

Duffy is a former reality TV star who was one of Trump’s most visible defenders on cable news — a prime concern for the media-focused president-elect. Duffy served in the House for nearly nine years, was a member of the Financial Services Committee and was chairman of the subcommittee on insurance and housing. He left Congress in 2019, and is now co-host of a show on Fox Business, the “Bottom Line.”

In his announcement Monday, Trump noted that Duffy is married to a Fox News host, calling him “the husband of a wonderful woman, Rachel Campos-Duffy, a STAR on Fox News.”

Trump said Duffy would use his experience and relationships built over the years in Congress “to maintain and rebuild our Nation’s Infrastructure, and fulfill our Mission of ushering in The Golden Age of Travel, focusing on Safety, Efficiency, and Innovation. Importantly, he will greatly elevate the Travel Experience for all Americans!”

Duffy in 2022 ruled out a run for Wisconsin governor, despite pleas from Trump to make a bid, saying he needed time to care for the needs of his family of nine children, posting on social media that his youngest child had a heart condition.

He is a former lumberjack athlete and frequent contributor to Fox News. He was featured on MTV’s “The Real World: Boston” in 1997. He met his future wife on the set of MTV’s “Road Rules: All Stars” in 1998.

He was a special prosecutor and Ashland County district attorney who won election to Congress as part of a tea party wave in 2010. He served until resigning in 2019.


Spread the news
Categories
Full Text Articles - Audio Posts

NYC DROUGHT WARNING: Mayor Adams elevates actions to conserve water amid continued rainless streak in NYC

Spread the news

Mayor Eric Adams elevated NYC’s drought watch to a warning Monday amid the city’s longest rainless streak in recorded history.

Per the warning, the mayor ordered city agencies to implement various drought protocols to conserve water. Among the measures, city agencies will limit how frequently they wash their vehicles. NYC Parks will limit water use for fountains and golf courses and reduce water usage at artificial ponds and lakes unless they are habitats for fish or other wildlife.

NYC Public Schools will start a water conservation awareness program for students, and city agencies will conduct leak surveys and repair activities where necessary.

The FDNY and NYPD will also help close illegally opened hydrants.

The mayor has also paused the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) Delaware Aqueduct Repair Project, an ongoing effort to fix the 86-mile pipeline that delivers half of Big Apple’s water supply from the Catskills. Pausing the project will restart the flow of water from four additional reservoirs, city officials said.

“As our city and watershed continues to experience significant precipitation shortages, today, I’m upgrading our drought watch to a drought warning, pausing our Delaware Aqueduct repair project, and ordering our agencies to immediately implement water saving measures,Adams said. “Our city vehicles may look a bit dirtier, and our subways may look a bit dustier, but it’s what we have to do to delay or stave off a more serious drought emergency.”

A drought warning is the second of three water conservation declarations from the city. If dry conditions persist, the city may declare a drought emergency, which would involve escalating requirements on government agencies and requiring New Yorkers to reduce water usage, officials said. 

The city provided additional steps New Yorkers can take to help preserve water:

  • Report open fire hydrants and street leaks to 311.  
  • Don’t flush the toilet unnecessarily
  • Take shorter showers, which the city says can save five to seven gallons a minute. When taking a bath, fill the tub only halfway and save 10 to 15 gallons.  
  • Don’t run the tap while shaving, washing hands, or brushing teeth. Faucets use two to three gallons per minute.   
  • Fix leaks. A leaky faucet that drips at the rate of one drip per second can waste more than 3,000 gallons per year, according to the EPA.  
  • Run the dishwasher and washing machine only when full. Use short cycles if available. Turn off the water while washing dishes.  
  • Install water-saving fixtures, including low-flow toilets and showerheads, as well as faucet aerators.  
  • Sweep driveways and sidewalks clean rather than washing them down with a hose.  

More information is available on the DEP’s website at nyc.gov/dep.


Spread the news