“I’m not going to put the country out of business trying to maintain certain standards that probably don’t matter,” President Donald Trump told VOA when asked about the economic impacts of climate change.

When not denying its existence, the Trump administration’s approach to

climate change essentially comes down to three arguments: the United States has already cut its greenhouse gas emissions more than other countries, regardless of any international agreement; regulations to cut emissions come with high costs and few benefits; and those regulations would put the United States at a disadvantage because other countries will not follow.

“When you look at China, and when you look at other countries where they have foul air,” Trump added, “we’re going to be clean, but they’re not, and it costs a lot of money.”

As U.N. climate negotiations get under way in Poland to work out rules for implementing the Paris climate agreement — from which Trump intends to withdraw the United States — experts weigh in on the administration’s claims.

Emissions cuts

It’s true that the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas production more than any other country. U.S. emissions peaked in 2005. In the last decade, they have fallen by about 13 percent, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

But the United States was the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases until 2006. And, others have made bigger cuts by percentage. Hungary’s levels, for example, decreased 14 percent.

U.S. emissions started to fall when the fracking boom took off.

The new technique of hydraulic fracturing turned the United States into a major natural gas producer. As the price of natural gas has dropped, it has been steadily replacing coal as the dominant fuel for electricity generation. Because burning natural gas produces far less carbon dioxide than coal, greenhouse gas emissions have decreased.

More recently, renewable sources such as solar and wind power have started to make inroads on the power grid.

While U.S. emissions have fallen since the 2000s, China’s have soared.

The country pursued astonishing economic growth with an enormous investment in coal-fired power plants. China is now the leading producer of greenhouse gases by far, roughly doubling U.S. output.

Cost-benefit

Trump has argued that regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions would hobble the U.S. economy. He has moved to undo the Obama administration’s proposed rules on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances, among others.

Critics question whether those regulations would cost as much Trump suggests.

“None of these policies were going to have dramatic increases in the prices that consumers would see,” Duke University public policy professor Billy Pizer said. He added that normal price swings would likely swamp the cost of the regulations Trump targets.

The emissions reductions the Obama administration pledged in Paris “were built largely on a continuation of the coal-to-gas transition and a continuation of growth in renewable energy that’s already happening,” said Alex Trembath of the Breakthrough Institute research center. As such, he added, they “don’t imply a large cost. In fact, they imply a marginal increased benefit to the U.S.”

Those benefits come, for example, because burning less coal produces less air pollution, which lowers health costs.

Not to mention the direct results of climate change: wildfires, floods, droughts and so on.

“We have enough science and enough economics to show that there are damages resulting from us releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. We know that that is not a free thing,” University of Chicago public policy professor Amir Jina said. “And yet, we are artificially setting it as free because we’re not paying the price of that externality.”

He said economists nearly unanimously support a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade program or some other way to put a price on carbon emissions.

Collective action

Few nations have taken the necessary steps to meet the emissions reduction pledges they made in Paris, according to the most recent United Nations emissions gap report.

Even those pledges would fall far short of the Paris goal of limiting global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the report adds. Reaching that target will take “unprecedented and urgent action.” A 2016 report said an additional $5.2 trillion investment in renewable energy will be necessary worldwide over the next 25 years.

Trump’s statement — “we’re going to be clean, but they’re not, and it costs a lot of money” — sums up why nations are reluctant to act: no one wants to take on burdens that they think others won’t.

“It’s the thing which has been dogging action on climate change for generations,” Jina said.

“We only really solve the problem if everybody acts together,” he added. “And if enough people are not acting, then we don’t.”

Paris depends on countries following through on increasingly ambitious emissions cuts.

Each country decides what it is willing to do. Every five years, countries come together and show their progress.

“You over time build confidence in each other,” Pizer said. “Ideally, you ratchet up the commitments as you see your actions reciprocated by other countries.”

Trump’s backpedaling on the U.S. commitment raises questions about the prospects.

However, the first of these check-ins is five years away. Trump can’t formally withdraw the United States from the agreement until 2020.

Pizer notes that the predecessor to the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, failed in part because it imposed caps on countries’ carbon emissions, and most of the world balked.

“In my mind, this is the best we can do,” he said. “If there were a different way to do it, I’d be all over that.”
…

“I’m not going to put the country out of business trying to maintain certain standards that probably don’t matter,” President Donald Trump told VOA when asked about the economic impacts of climate change.

When not denying its existence, the Trump administration’s approach to

climate change essentially comes down to three arguments: the United States has already cut its greenhouse gas emissions more than other countries, regardless of any international agreement; regulations to cut emissions come with high costs and few benefits; and those regulations would put the United States at a disadvantage because other countries will not follow.

“When you look at China, and when you look at other countries where they have foul air,” Trump added, “we’re going to be clean, but they’re not, and it costs a lot of money.”

As U.N. climate negotiations get under way in Poland to work out rules for implementing the Paris climate agreement — from which Trump intends to withdraw the United States — experts weigh in on the administration’s claims.

Emissions cuts

It’s true that the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas production more than any other country. U.S. emissions peaked in 2005. In the last decade, they have fallen by about 13 percent, according to the BP Statistical Review of World Energy.

But the United States was the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases until 2006. And, others have made bigger cuts by percentage. Hungary’s levels, for example, decreased 14 percent.

U.S. emissions started to fall when the fracking boom took off.

The new technique of hydraulic fracturing turned the United States into a major natural gas producer. As the price of natural gas has dropped, it has been steadily replacing coal as the dominant fuel for electricity generation. Because burning natural gas produces far less carbon dioxide than coal, greenhouse gas emissions have decreased.

More recently, renewable sources such as solar and wind power have started to make inroads on the power grid.

While U.S. emissions have fallen since the 2000s, China’s have soared.

The country pursued astonishing economic growth with an enormous investment in coal-fired power plants. China is now the leading producer of greenhouse gases by far, roughly doubling U.S. output.

Cost-benefit

Trump has argued that regulations aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions would hobble the U.S. economy. He has moved to undo the Obama administration’s proposed rules on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and efficiency standards for vehicles and appliances, among others.

Critics question whether those regulations would cost as much Trump suggests.

“None of these policies were going to have dramatic increases in the prices that consumers would see,” Duke University public policy professor Billy Pizer said. He added that normal price swings would likely swamp the cost of the regulations Trump targets.

The emissions reductions the Obama administration pledged in Paris “were built largely on a continuation of the coal-to-gas transition and a continuation of growth in renewable energy that’s already happening,” said Alex Trembath of the Breakthrough Institute research center. As such, he added, they “don’t imply a large cost. In fact, they imply a marginal increased benefit to the U.S.”

Those benefits come, for example, because burning less coal produces less air pollution, which lowers health costs.

Not to mention the direct results of climate change: wildfires, floods, droughts and so on.

“We have enough science and enough economics to show that there are damages resulting from us releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. We know that that is not a free thing,” University of Chicago public policy professor Amir Jina said. “And yet, we are artificially setting it as free because we’re not paying the price of that externality.”

He said economists nearly unanimously support a carbon tax, a cap-and-trade program or some other way to put a price on carbon emissions.

Collective action

Few nations have taken the necessary steps to meet the emissions reduction pledges they made in Paris, according to the most recent United Nations emissions gap report.

Even those pledges would fall far short of the Paris goal of limiting global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the report adds. Reaching that target will take “unprecedented and urgent action.” A 2016 report said an additional $5.2 trillion investment in renewable energy will be necessary worldwide over the next 25 years.

Trump’s statement — “we’re going to be clean, but they’re not, and it costs a lot of money” — sums up why nations are reluctant to act: no one wants to take on burdens that they think others won’t.

“It’s the thing which has been dogging action on climate change for generations,” Jina said.

“We only really solve the problem if everybody acts together,” he added. “And if enough people are not acting, then we don’t.”

Paris depends on countries following through on increasingly ambitious emissions cuts.

Each country decides what it is willing to do. Every five years, countries come together and show their progress.

“You over time build confidence in each other,” Pizer said. “Ideally, you ratchet up the commitments as you see your actions reciprocated by other countries.”

Trump’s backpedaling on the U.S. commitment raises questions about the prospects.

However, the first of these check-ins is five years away. Trump can’t formally withdraw the United States from the agreement until 2020.

Pizer notes that the predecessor to the Paris Agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, failed in part because it imposed caps on countries’ carbon emissions, and most of the world balked.

“In my mind, this is the best we can do,” he said. “If there were a different way to do it, I’d be all over that.”
…

Five living American presidents will come together Wednesday to pay final tribute to George Herbert Walker Bush, the nation’s 41st president, who died last Friday at the age of 94.

Former presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama will join the current commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, for Bush’s funeral services at the Washington National Cathedral, where they will hear a eulogy from George W. Bush, the late president’s son and the 43rd president.

Also scheduled to speak at the state funeral will be former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson, and historian Jon Meacham, the elder Bush’s biographer. Among the dignitaries who will be in attendance include Britain’s Prince Charles, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Lech Walesa, Poland’s former president.

WATCH: Mourners give their condolences

​Wednesday’s services will begin when a motorcade will deliver the ex-president’s flag-draped casket to the cathedral from the U.S. Capitol, where it lay in state Tuesday as thousands of mourners filed through the Rotunda to pay their final respects. An emotional moment during the public viewing occurred when 95-year-old former Senator Bob Dole was helped from his wheelchair and saluted his fellow Republican and World War Two veteran. 

After the funeral, former President Bush’s casket will be taken to Andrews Air Force Base and flown back to Houston, Texas for a second and final service on Thursday.

He will be laid to rest at his presidential library and museum at Texas A&M University in nearby College Station, next to his wife of 73 years, Barbara, who passed away in April, and their daughter Robin, who died of leukemia in 1953 when she was only three years old. 

President Trump has designated Wednesday as a national day of mourning in Bush’s honor. The New York Stock Exchange will be closed, as are most government offices.
…

Five living American presidents will come together Wednesday to pay final tribute to George Herbert Walker Bush, the nation’s 41st president, who died last Friday at the age of 94.

Former presidents Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama will join the current commander-in-chief, Donald Trump, for Bush’s funeral services at the Washington National Cathedral, where they will hear a eulogy from George W. Bush, the late president’s son and the 43rd president.

Also scheduled to speak at the state funeral will be former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada, former U.S. Senator Alan Simpson, and historian Jon Meacham, the elder Bush’s biographer. Among the dignitaries who will be in attendance include Britain’s Prince Charles, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and Lech Walesa, Poland’s former president.

WATCH: Mourners give their condolences

​Wednesday’s services will begin when a motorcade will deliver the ex-president’s flag-draped casket to the cathedral from the U.S. Capitol, where it lay in state Tuesday as thousands of mourners filed through the Rotunda to pay their final respects. An emotional moment during the public viewing occurred when 95-year-old former Senator Bob Dole was helped from his wheelchair and saluted his fellow Republican and World War Two veteran. 

After the funeral, former President Bush’s casket will be taken to Andrews Air Force Base and flown back to Houston, Texas for a second and final service on Thursday.

He will be laid to rest at his presidential library and museum at Texas A&M University in nearby College Station, next to his wife of 73 years, Barbara, who passed away in April, and their daughter Robin, who died of leukemia in 1953 when she was only three years old. 

President Trump has designated Wednesday as a national day of mourning in Bush’s honor. The New York Stock Exchange will be closed, as are most government offices.
…

The body of former U.S. President George H. W. Bush returns to Texas for burial Wednesday after the funeral service at the Washington National Cathedral. Thousands of visitors paid their respect to the 41st U.S. president while his body was lying in state at the U.S. Capitol from Monday evening until Wednesday afternoon. VOA’s Zlatica Hoke reports dignitaries and the general public mingled in the Capitol’s Rotunda as they parted with the former leader.
…

The body of former U.S. President George H. W. Bush returns to Texas for burial Wednesday after the funeral service at the Washington National Cathedral. Thousands of visitors paid their respect to the 41st U.S. president while his body was lying in state at the U.S. Capitol from Monday evening until Wednesday afternoon. VOA’s Zlatica Hoke reports dignitaries and the general public mingled in the Capitol’s Rotunda as they parted with the former leader.
…

Incoming members of the Democratic Party’s new U.S. House majority say they’re ready to turn the energy of their campaigns into real power on Capitol Hill.

Rep.-elects Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and a handful of other liberal-leaning incoming Democrats used an orientation event for freshman lawmakers Tuesday sponsored by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics to stake out some of their top issues – from gun violence to health care to climate change.

They say they’re ready to leverage their victories at the ballot box into victories in Congress — an institution that prizes seniority.

Pressley said power is about more than just how many terms a lawmaker has served.

“It’s a confluence of things. It’s about the committees that we’ll be appointed to. It’s about the values- and issues-based caucuses that we’ll serve on. And it’s about us simply leveraging the platform that we have available to us as well as our social media networks,” Pressley said.

Pressley won election to the House by beating a fellow Democrat – longtime U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano – in a September primary.

Ocasio-Cortez said like-minded incoming Democratic members of the House have the numbers needed to press their case for change.

“We have a magic number in the House … and it’s 218,” she said. “Two hundred and eighteen is the magic number to get things done and how many member Democratic freshmen do we have? Sixty Three. Sixty-three of that 218 is brand new and 35 of that 63 have rejected corporate PAC money, 35 of that 63 is not funded by opioid companies, not funded by the NRA, not funded by for-profit health care, not funded by fossil fuels. Thirty-five are independent of the interests of corporate influence.”

Like Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez also won election by defeating another veteran Democratic incumbent – Joe Crowley – in New York’s June primary.

​Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats have to fight back against an opposition she said “is predicated on us being turned against each other, of us accepting the idea of zero-sum thinking that one community’s gain must be another community’s loss.”

“We know that all of our issues are tied and are the same,” she added. “There is no health care justice without gun violence reform.”

Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley have both pledged to support Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker after Democrats take control of the House in January.

Other new and incoming Democratic House members who spoke at Tuesday’s event include Lori Trahan of Massachusetts, Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania and Andy Levin of Michigan.

Pressley said the timing of Tuesday’s press conference wasn’t meant as a rejection of the Harvard orientation event.

On its website the school says the sessions are designed to help incoming House members “forge bipartisan relationships and learn practical skills of lawmaking just one month prior to taking the oath of office.” Since 1972, the program has hosted nearly 700 current and new member of Congress. 

“There is nothing adversarial,” Pressley said. “This is about us lifting up the voices, the stories, the struggles, the innovation and the ideas of the people that we represent. So I think it’s a good thing.”
…

Incoming members of the Democratic Party’s new U.S. House majority say they’re ready to turn the energy of their campaigns into real power on Capitol Hill.

Rep.-elects Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and a handful of other liberal-leaning incoming Democrats used an orientation event for freshman lawmakers Tuesday sponsored by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics to stake out some of their top issues – from gun violence to health care to climate change.

They say they’re ready to leverage their victories at the ballot box into victories in Congress — an institution that prizes seniority.

Pressley said power is about more than just how many terms a lawmaker has served.

“It’s a confluence of things. It’s about the committees that we’ll be appointed to. It’s about the values- and issues-based caucuses that we’ll serve on. And it’s about us simply leveraging the platform that we have available to us as well as our social media networks,” Pressley said.

Pressley won election to the House by beating a fellow Democrat – longtime U.S. Rep. Michael Capuano – in a September primary.

Ocasio-Cortez said like-minded incoming Democratic members of the House have the numbers needed to press their case for change.

“We have a magic number in the House … and it’s 218,” she said. “Two hundred and eighteen is the magic number to get things done and how many member Democratic freshmen do we have? Sixty Three. Sixty-three of that 218 is brand new and 35 of that 63 have rejected corporate PAC money, 35 of that 63 is not funded by opioid companies, not funded by the NRA, not funded by for-profit health care, not funded by fossil fuels. Thirty-five are independent of the interests of corporate influence.”

Like Pressley, Ocasio-Cortez also won election by defeating another veteran Democratic incumbent – Joe Crowley – in New York’s June primary.

​Ocasio-Cortez said Democrats have to fight back against an opposition she said “is predicated on us being turned against each other, of us accepting the idea of zero-sum thinking that one community’s gain must be another community’s loss.”

“We know that all of our issues are tied and are the same,” she added. “There is no health care justice without gun violence reform.”

Ocasio-Cortez and Pressley have both pledged to support Nancy Pelosi as House Speaker after Democrats take control of the House in January.

Other new and incoming Democratic House members who spoke at Tuesday’s event include Lori Trahan of Massachusetts, Mary Gay Scanlon of Pennsylvania and Andy Levin of Michigan.

Pressley said the timing of Tuesday’s press conference wasn’t meant as a rejection of the Harvard orientation event.

On its website the school says the sessions are designed to help incoming House members “forge bipartisan relationships and learn practical skills of lawmaking just one month prior to taking the oath of office.” Since 1972, the program has hosted nearly 700 current and new member of Congress. 

“There is nothing adversarial,” Pressley said. “This is about us lifting up the voices, the stories, the struggles, the innovation and the ideas of the people that we represent. So I think it’s a good thing.”
…

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said in Iowa on Tuesday that he would do everything he can to make climate change the defining issue of the 2020 Democratic presidential nominating campaign, despite resistance in regions of the country that his party would likely need to recapture the White House. 

More than 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers) away in Charleston, S.C., fellow billionaire Tom Steyer — who, like Bloomberg, is weighing a 2020 Democratic presidential bid — held a roundtable discussion focused on voting rights in the nation’s first Southern primary state. 

The two deep-pocketed Democrats have been noncommittal about whether they will run for president in 2020, but on Tuesday they joined the growing list of visitors to early primary and caucus states.  

In an interview, Bloomberg didn’t provide a timeline for when he’d decide whether to seek the presidency. 

“I am obviously thinking about what the right thing to do is, but I think honestly I know that there’s a time by which I have to do something,” he said. “I also think that there are going to be a lot of events over the next few weeks or very small number of months that are going to be important.” 

Steyer said he is closely watching the decisions made by other Democrats, joking, “I assume there are going to be more Democrats running than there are going to be voters.” 

Skepticism in Trump states

While both men have put the climate atop their agendas, and spent millions promoting awareness and solutions, they could face skepticism in states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, where President Donald Trump won in 2016 by promising to protect the coal industry. 

“I will do everything for sure to try to make it the issue,” Bloomberg told reporters after visiting a solar-electric panel installation company in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “Every place I have gone, people always want to talk about the climate. They always want to bring up the fact that I’ve been very active in closing coal-fired power plants.” 

Steyer on Tuesday turned his focus to voting rights — one of the “five rights” in the platform he released last month — calling South Carolina the “perfect place” to begin that conversation.  

“If you look historically, South Carolina has a long history of trying to make sure that people don’t have equal votes,” Steyer said at the start of the town hall. He called South Carolina a state that, “whether people here enjoy it or appreciate it or are sorry about it,” plays an outsized part in the national conversation about the future of the country. 

Both men have been sharply critical of Trump and agree that he is not fit for the presidency. Steyer, who has amassed a 6 million-person email list from his “Need to Impeach” campaign against Trump, has repeatedly said Trump is a danger to the country and must be ousted. 

Speaking on Tuesday, Steyer described Trump as “the most corrupt president in American history who is a basic threat to our system and our safety and to the Constitution itself.” He said that many politicians, from both parties, “don’t think it’s good for their careers to talk about that.” 

Bloomberg, however, said, “It would be a mistake to say anything about that before you see what comes out of the investigation” being conducted by former FBI Director Robert Mueller into Russian election meddling. 

Backers of Democratic candidates

Bloomberg and Steyer spent millions during the 2018 midterm campaigns on behalf of Democratic candidates. Their travel gave them new opportunities to test their message and, perhaps most important, gauge the interest of Democratic primary voters and activists in the potential candidacies. 

In the Des Moines area, Bloomberg was visiting a community college’s wind-energy program and was scheduled to meet with mothers organized to curb gun violence before attending a screening of his climate change film, “Paris to Pittsburgh.” 

Bloomberg contributed $250,000 to the Iowa Democratic Party this year, giving him some claim to gains such as capturing two Republican-held House seats last month. He also has plans to meet with key Democratic operatives. But other potential candidates, including Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Sen. Kamala Harris of California and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock, have been more aggressive in their efforts. 
…

Allegations of flagrant absentee ballot fraud in a North Carolina district have thrown the Election Day results of one of the nation’s last unresolved midterm congressional races into question.

Unofficial ballot totals showed Republican Mark Harris ahead of Democrat Dan McCready by 905 votes in the 9th Congressional District. But the state elections board refused to certify the results last week in view of “claims of numerous irregularities and concerted fraudulent activities” involving mail-in ballots in the district.

The elections board has subpoenaed documents from the Harris campaign, a campaign attorney confirmed Tuesday. Investigators seem to be concentrating on activities linked to a longtime political operative from Bladen County, where allegations about mail-in absentee ballots also surfaced two years ago during a tight election for governor. 

In affidavits offered by the state Democratic Party, voters described a woman coming to their homes to collect their absentee ballots, whether or not they had been completed properly. State law bars this kind of “harvesting” of absentee ballots, which must be submitted by mail or in person by the voter or a close family member. 

If the allegations are accurate, “this is the biggest absentee fraud in a generation or two in North Carolina,” said Gerry Cohen, an election law expert and former longtime legislative staff attorney. “North Carolina has a long history of this kind of thing, particularly in rural areas.” 

Concerns about voter harvesting worried state election officials so much that they sent a letter to every Bladen County address where a voter requested a mail-in ballot asking the voter to call them if someone else tried take the ballot or fill it out.

“Elections officials will never come to your house to pick up your absentee ballot or tell you how to vote,” the letter warned.

The portion of Bladen County in the 9th District was the only place in the district’s eight counties where Harris won a majority of the mail-in ballots, according to unofficial election data. Bladen and Robeson County — where officials also have requested information — had the highest percentages of unreturned mail-in absentee ballots in the state, according to Catawba College political scientist Michael Bitzer. The total number of unreturned ballots for Bladen and Robeson in the 9th exceeded the current margin.

The district attorney in Raleigh announced this week that she’s been investigating potential Bladen County “voting irregularities” since last January. The investigation that began with claims from 2016 has now spread to this year’s primary and general elections, Wake County DA Lorrin Freeman said in an interview. 

Freeman said she was investigating in part because of comments made by McCrae Dowless of Bladen County during a State Board of Elections hearing in December 2016. Dowless worked as a contractor for Harris’ chief strategist in the campaign, Harris campaign lawyer John Branch confirmed Tuesday. 

Dowless, who served prison time in 1995 for felony fraud and was convicted of felony perjury in 1992, has worked on get-out-the-vote efforts for various local and legislative candidates through the years. Dowless put his name on an elections protest, backed at the time by the campaign of then-GOP Gov. Pat McCrory, that alleged a massive scheme'' by a local political group to run anabsentee ballot mill” to improperly submit votes for a write-in candidate for a position Dowless was seeking.

But the board peppered Dowless with questions about his own absentee ballot activities. Dowless acknowledged he hired people in 2016 to urge voters to turn in absentee ballot request forms, which is legal. In sworn testimony, Dowless said he never handled or filled out the actual ballots. The board dismissed Dowless’ protest but sent all of its evidence to local and federal prosecutors.

Visited by a reporter Tuesday at his Bladenboro home, Dowless declined to comment. He said the voice on the speaker phone in his hand was that of an attorney advising he decline to describe his election activities.

Documents released late Tuesday by the elections board as part of its investigation show Dowless appears to have been the top collector of Bladen County absentee ballot requests this fall. A copy of the Bladen election board’s log book shows Dowless turned in well over 500 applications.  

The elections board has said it will hold a hearing on the allegations on or before Dec. 21. Board members can call for a new election if they find enough problems that could have altered the outcome or cast doubts on the election’s fairness. An election would take place well after the new session of Congress convenes Jan. 3, likely creating a temporary vacancy.

Republican leaders say Harris, a Southern Baptist minister, should be certified the winner, saying no evidence has been made public that show he didn’t get the most lawful votes. 

“The campaign was not aware of any illegal conduct in connection with the 9th District race,” Branch said in a statement. 

Although Democrats won enough House seats nationally to take back the chamber come January, the 9th is gaining attention in part because a Republican has held the seat continuously since 1963. Democrats had hoped McCready, an Iraq War veteran, would end the streak, especially after Harris edged U.S. Rep. Robert Pittenger in the May GOP primary.  

Incoming Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland said Tuesday that a “very substantial question” about fraud exists and hopes state officials “get to the bottom” of the controversy. Hoyer said Harris is “not eligible for being sworn into the House” at this point.

 
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller is set to give the first public insight into how much information President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser has shared with prosecutors in the Russia investigation.

The special counsel faces a Tuesday deadline in Michael Flynn’s case to file a memorandum recommending a sentence and providing a federal judge with a description of how valuable the retired U.S. Army lieutenant general has been to the probe. The deadline comes ahead of Flynn’s Dec. 18 sentencing and more than a year after he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about reaching out to Russian government officials on Trump’s behalf.

Federal sentencing guidelines recommend between zero and six months in prison for Flynn, leaving open the possibility of probation.

The detailing of at least some of Flynn’s cooperation also comes as Trump has increasingly vented his anger at the probe — and at one of his former confidantes who cooperated with it.

This week, Trump lashed out at his former legal fixer, Michael Cohen, saying he is making up “stories” to get a reduced prison sentence after his latest guilty plea to lying to Congress detailed conversations he had with the then-Republican presidential candidate. In the same morning, Trump praised longtime confidante Roger Stone for saying he would “never testify against Trump,” adding in his tweet: “Nice to know some people still have ‘guts!”’

It’s unclear if Trump will now turn his fury on Flynn, who Trump grew close to during the 2016 campaign and has drawn the president’s sympathy since he came under investigation.

According to memos written by former FBI Director James Comey, Trump tried to protect Flynn by asking Comey to let the investigation into his false statements go. Trump has denied asking Comey to drop the investigation but that episode is among those under scrutiny by Mueller as he probes whether Trump attempted to obstruct the Russia investigation.

Flynn’s case has been a contrast to those of other Trump associates, who have criticized the Russia probe. Most notably, Trump former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, aggressively fought the investigation and is now facing the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence after his cooperation agreement recently fell apart over allegations that he had lied to investigators. Stone has also waged a public campaign against Mueller.

But Flynn has largely remained out of the public eye, appearing only a handful of times in media interviews or campaign events, and he has strictly avoided criticizing the Mueller probe despite widespread encouragement from his supporters to go on the offensive. He has instead spent considerable time with his family and worked to position himself for a post-conviction career.

Flynn’s false statements stemmed from a Jan. 24, 2017, interview with the FBI about his interactions with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s then-ambassador to the U.S., as the Obama administration was levying sanctions on the Kremlin in response to election interference. In court papers filed along with his plea deal, Flynn said that members of Trump’s inner circle, including the president’s son-in-law and White House aide, Jared Kushner, were involved in, and at times directing, his actions in the weeks before Trump took office.

Flynn was forced to resign his post on Feb. 13, 2017, after news reports revealed that Obama administration officials had warned the Trump White House about Flynn’s false statements. The White House has said that Flynn misled officials — including Vice President Mike Pence — about the content of his conversations.

Flynn also admitted to making false statements about unregistered foreign agent work he performed for the benefit of the Turkish government. Flynn was under investigation by the Justice Department for the work when he became national security adviser.
…

Special counsel Robert Mueller is set to give the first public insight into how much information President Donald Trump’s former national security adviser has shared with prosecutors in the Russia investigation.

The special counsel faces a Tuesday deadline in Michael Flynn’s case to file a memorandum recommending a sentence and providing a federal judge with a description of how valuable the retired U.S. Army lieutenant general has been to the probe. The deadline comes ahead of Flynn’s Dec. 18 sentencing and more than a year after he pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about reaching out to Russian government officials on Trump’s behalf.

Federal sentencing guidelines recommend between zero and six months in prison for Flynn, leaving open the possibility of probation.

The detailing of at least some of Flynn’s cooperation also comes as Trump has increasingly vented his anger at the probe — and at one of his former confidantes who cooperated with it.

This week, Trump lashed out at his former legal fixer, Michael Cohen, saying he is making up “stories” to get a reduced prison sentence after his latest guilty plea to lying to Congress detailed conversations he had with the then-Republican presidential candidate. In the same morning, Trump praised longtime confidante Roger Stone for saying he would “never testify against Trump,” adding in his tweet: “Nice to know some people still have ‘guts!”’

It’s unclear if Trump will now turn his fury on Flynn, who Trump grew close to during the 2016 campaign and has drawn the president’s sympathy since he came under investigation.

According to memos written by former FBI Director James Comey, Trump tried to protect Flynn by asking Comey to let the investigation into his false statements go. Trump has denied asking Comey to drop the investigation but that episode is among those under scrutiny by Mueller as he probes whether Trump attempted to obstruct the Russia investigation.

Flynn’s case has been a contrast to those of other Trump associates, who have criticized the Russia probe. Most notably, Trump former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, aggressively fought the investigation and is now facing the possibility of a lengthy prison sentence after his cooperation agreement recently fell apart over allegations that he had lied to investigators. Stone has also waged a public campaign against Mueller.

But Flynn has largely remained out of the public eye, appearing only a handful of times in media interviews or campaign events, and he has strictly avoided criticizing the Mueller probe despite widespread encouragement from his supporters to go on the offensive. He has instead spent considerable time with his family and worked to position himself for a post-conviction career.

Flynn’s false statements stemmed from a Jan. 24, 2017, interview with the FBI about his interactions with Sergey Kislyak, Russia’s then-ambassador to the U.S., as the Obama administration was levying sanctions on the Kremlin in response to election interference. In court papers filed along with his plea deal, Flynn said that members of Trump’s inner circle, including the president’s son-in-law and White House aide, Jared Kushner, were involved in, and at times directing, his actions in the weeks before Trump took office.

Flynn was forced to resign his post on Feb. 13, 2017, after news reports revealed that Obama administration officials had warned the Trump White House about Flynn’s false statements. The White House has said that Flynn misled officials — including Vice President Mike Pence — about the content of his conversations.

Flynn also admitted to making false statements about unregistered foreign agent work he performed for the benefit of the Turkish government. Flynn was under investigation by the Justice Department for the work when he became national security adviser.
…

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), an organization that helps organize Republican campaigns for the U.S. House, said Tuesday that it had been hacked by an unknown entity over the past year.  

Politico, which broke the story early Tuesday, said that the email accounts of four “senior aides” had been surveilled for several months. The NRCC became aware of the issue in April, Politico said. CNN, citing anonymous sources, reported the hackers had stolen passwords and could have signed into the surveilled accounts. 

NRCC spokesman Ian Prior confirmed that the organization had been hacked and was in the process of conducting an internal investigation.

Prior also said that the FBI had been notified and would be conducting its own probe. 
…

The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), an organization that helps organize Republican campaigns for the U.S. House, said Tuesday that it had been hacked by an unknown entity over the past year.  

Politico, which broke the story early Tuesday, said that the email accounts of four “senior aides” had been surveilled for several months. The NRCC became aware of the issue in April, Politico said. CNN, citing anonymous sources, reported the hackers had stolen passwords and could have signed into the surveilled accounts. 

NRCC spokesman Ian Prior confirmed that the organization had been hacked and was in the process of conducting an internal investigation.

Prior also said that the FBI had been notified and would be conducting its own probe. 
…

The University of California at Berkeley on Monday settled a free speech lawsuit accusing the school of discriminating against speakers with conservative views. 

Under the settlement filed with the federal court in San Francisco, the university will modify its procedures for handling “major events,” which typically draw hundreds of people, and agreed not to charge “security” fees for a variety of activities, including lectures and speeches.

It will also pay $70,000 to cover legal costs of the Berkeley College Republicans and the Tennessee-based Young America’s Foundation, which filed the lawsuit in April 2017.

The settlement followed an April 27 decision by U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney letting the plaintiffs challenge what they called the university’s “secret” or unfairly restrictive policies toward conservative speakers.

She also let the plaintiffs pursue an equal protection claim over a security fee charged to host conservative commentator Ben Shapiro that was well above a fee for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court’s liberal wing.

In a statement, the university said its new fee schedule is consistent with its treatment of other student groups, and called changes to its major events policy “non-substantive.”

“It has been that very policy that has enabled the campus to work effectively with the Berkeley College Republicans as they hosted numerous events featuring prominent conservative speakers without incident or interruption,” spokesman Dan Mogulof said.

Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the settlement addressed university policies that were “flatly unconstitutional” under the First Amendment.

“It is no longer able to tax speech on campus when it finds the speech to be disfavored or unpopular,” she said in an interview. “The university has taken a very important liberty-enhancing step to cover these fees.”

Dhillon added: “We wanted a settlement that doesn’t benefit just conservative students, but all students.”

The U.S. Department of Justice in January filed a “statement of interest” in the case, accusing the university of applying a “double standard” by imposing tougher rules on the Berkeley College Republicans.

Justice Department official Jesse Panuccio applauded the settlement in a statement on Monday, calling it a “win for protecting free speech on public college campuses.”

The case is Young America’s Foundation et al v Napolitano et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-02255.
…

The University of California at Berkeley on Monday settled a free speech lawsuit accusing the school of discriminating against speakers with conservative views. 

Under the settlement filed with the federal court in San Francisco, the university will modify its procedures for handling “major events,” which typically draw hundreds of people, and agreed not to charge “security” fees for a variety of activities, including lectures and speeches.

It will also pay $70,000 to cover legal costs of the Berkeley College Republicans and the Tennessee-based Young America’s Foundation, which filed the lawsuit in April 2017.

The settlement followed an April 27 decision by U.S. District Judge Maxine Chesney letting the plaintiffs challenge what they called the university’s “secret” or unfairly restrictive policies toward conservative speakers.

She also let the plaintiffs pursue an equal protection claim over a security fee charged to host conservative commentator Ben Shapiro that was well above a fee for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court’s liberal wing.

In a statement, the university said its new fee schedule is consistent with its treatment of other student groups, and called changes to its major events policy “non-substantive.”

“It has been that very policy that has enabled the campus to work effectively with the Berkeley College Republicans as they hosted numerous events featuring prominent conservative speakers without incident or interruption,” spokesman Dan Mogulof said.

Harmeet Dhillon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said the settlement addressed university policies that were “flatly unconstitutional” under the First Amendment.

“It is no longer able to tax speech on campus when it finds the speech to be disfavored or unpopular,” she said in an interview. “The university has taken a very important liberty-enhancing step to cover these fees.”

Dhillon added: “We wanted a settlement that doesn’t benefit just conservative students, but all students.”

The U.S. Department of Justice in January filed a “statement of interest” in the case, accusing the university of applying a “double standard” by imposing tougher rules on the Berkeley College Republicans.

Justice Department official Jesse Panuccio applauded the settlement in a statement on Monday, calling it a “win for protecting free speech on public college campuses.”

The case is Young America’s Foundation et al v Napolitano et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 17-02255.
…

Speaking to a packed auditorium of enthusiastic young people Nov. 27, Bernie Sanders already seemed to be campaigning for the White House again. But the Vermont senator was appearing at George Washington University as an author — not a presidential candidate.

Sanders’ new book, “Where We Go From Here,” went on sale that day, giving him a fresh opportunity to promote his ideas without going through the formality — yet — of launching another presidential campaign.

“What I believe from the bottom of my heart is that it is absolutely imperative that Donald Trump not be elected president of the United States of America. And I’m going to do everything that I can to make certain that that does not happen,” Sanders said.

He later added that if he concludes he is the strongest candidate to take on Trump, he’ll jump into the race.

Regardless of whether Sanders runs, he and virtually every other prominent Democrat considering a 2020 presidential bid are already participating in the book primary.

Julian Castro, the former Housing and Urban Development secretary, has promoted his book, “An Unlikely Journey: Waking up from My American Dream.” New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand has been on the road touting her children’s book, “Bold & Brave: Ten Heroes Who Won Women the Right to Vote.” And in January, California Sen. Kamala Harris will release her memoir, “The Truths We Hold: An American Journey,” with a picture book memoir to debut around the same time.

And, of course, there’s Michelle Obama. The former first lady has repeatedly said she has no plans to run for office, but she’s filled arenas and influenced the political conversation as she’s promoted her memoir, “Becoming.”

Ahead of a 2020 primary that could pit as many as two dozen Democrats against one another, the books offer potential presidential candidates an early opportunity to introduce themselves to voters in a favorable light.

“Every campaign book has to figure out a way in the predictable tsunami of campaign books that will be coming for the 2020 election to distinguish their book and their product and to extend their brand,” said Steve Ross, who formerly led Random House’s Crown division and worked with authors including former President Barack Obama.

It’s a strategy that has served presidential hopefuls from Abraham Lincoln to Donald Trump, who wrote or authorized books that served as platforms for ideas and shaping their image.

John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage” came out in 1955, when he was in his late 30s, and its sketches of political figures who made unpopular decisions presented him as a serious thinker who, like his subjects, would risk his career for the right cause.

Sen. John McCain’s career was influenced, in part, by his acclaimed memoir “Faith of My Fathers,” which came out in 1999, around the time of his first presidential run. It marked the first time he wrote at length about his time as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, which helped define his public identity.

The deeply personal exploration of race in Barack Obama’s “Dreams from My Father” propelled him onto the national scene when it was republished during his 2004 Senate campaign. His follow-up, “The Audacity of Hope,” mixed policy ideas and personal reflections to become a vital part of his successful 2008 presidential campaign.

Ross, who is now the president of the Steve Ross Agency LLC, said the quality of the writing is key to a campaign book’s success. If a book is well-written, he said, “it’s like selling out a theater with a two-hour biopic about your life that’s directed by you and starring you, the politician.”

“There are a lot of advantages for both the publisher and for the candidate to have a book as a narrative product,” he added. “They can’t control what The Washington Post and The New York Times and Fox News is going to say about them, but they can control what’s between the covers.”

With book authorship comes the opportunity for would-be candidates to travel to promote not only their book but also their strategy for the country, said Michael Steel, who was an adviser to former House Speaker John Boehner and to Jeb Bush’s 2016 Republican presidential campaign.

“Particularly for the higher-profile potential candidates, it’s an opportunity to get out there and talk about your vision and your record — and it’s particularly good because in addition to political news outlets, you can talk to softer-edged media outlets,” Steel said. “You can go on ‘The View,’ you can go on the ‘Today’ show, you can go on radio stations across the country and talk about the book.”

Gillibrand appeared on “The View” in November to promote her book, which contains stories of women who fought for the right to vote. In the interview, she said the book was for “little boys and little girls to understand what leadership looks like.”

As expected, she was asked about her own aspirations.

Calling it a “very important moral question,” Gillibrand told the hosts that she believed she’d been called to fight “as hard as I possibly can” to restore decency and integrity to the country and that she was considering a run.

Steel drew a distinction between the flurry of books that are being released as candidates consider launching campaigns and the books that are released before a presidential run is officially in the works.

“The books that are written before a candidate decides to run are often far more revealing about their actual character and personality and background,” Steel said. “Those are also the ones that can occasionally reveal things that the person probably wouldn’t have revealed if they were planning to run for president.”
…