RIYADMEDIA

In less than two months, Democrats will take control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is the favorite to assume the party’s leadership role as Speaker of the House, has signaled her willingness to work with President Trump and Senate Republicans. But as VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports from Capitol Hill, the bi-partisan cooperation may be short-lived.
…

In less than two months, Democrats will take control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is the favorite to assume the party’s leadership role as Speaker of the House, has signaled her willingness to work with President Trump and Senate Republicans. But as VOA’s congressional correspondent Katherine Gypson reports from Capitol Hill, the bi-partisan cooperation may be short-lived.
…

A federal appeals court is weighing whether special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment to lead the Russia investigation was constitutional.

At issue Thursday was whether Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had the authority to appoint Mueller.

The special counsel’s office says yes. But lawyers for a former aide to longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone say no. The aide, Andrew Miller, brought the case because he doesn’t want to testify before a grand jury as part of Mueller’s investigation into whether Donald Trump’s Republican campaign coordinated with Russia in 2016. 

Mueller is focusing on Stone’s connection to WikiLeaks. American intelligence agencies have concluded that Russian agents were the source of damaging information on Democrat Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released during her 2016 presidential campaign against Trump.

Stone has denied any wrongdoing.
…

A federal appeals court is weighing whether special counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment to lead the Russia investigation was constitutional.

At issue Thursday was whether Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had the authority to appoint Mueller.

The special counsel’s office says yes. But lawyers for a former aide to longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone say no. The aide, Andrew Miller, brought the case because he doesn’t want to testify before a grand jury as part of Mueller’s investigation into whether Donald Trump’s Republican campaign coordinated with Russia in 2016. 

Mueller is focusing on Stone’s connection to WikiLeaks. American intelligence agencies have concluded that Russian agents were the source of damaging information on Democrat Hillary Clinton that WikiLeaks released during her 2016 presidential campaign against Trump.

Stone has denied any wrongdoing.
…

The Trump administration unveiled new rules on Thursday to sharply limit migrant asylum claims by barring individuals who cross the U.S. southern border illegally from seeking asylum. 

Immigrant advocates denounced the move, saying it violated existing U.S. law that allows people fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries to apply for asylum regardless of whether they enter illegally or not. 

The regulations released Thursday, in conjunction with an order expected to be signed by President Donald Trump, would effectively ban migrants who cross the U.S. border with Mexico illegally from qualifying for asylum.

Once the plan goes into full effect, migrants entering at the U.S. southern border would be eligible for asylum only if they report at official ports of entry, officials said. 

More resources, staffing

“What we are attempting to do is trying to funnel … asylum claims through the ports of entry where we are better resourced, have better capabilities and better manpower and staffing to actually handle those claims in an expeditious and efficient manner,” a senior administration official told reporters in a news briefing Thursday, on condition of anonymity. 

The Trump administration has already made it more difficult for migrants to qualify for asylum in the United States. 

Administration officials have said existing U.S. asylum rules encourage illegal immigration and bog down legitimate claims. 

In June, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued an appellate decision that sharply narrowed the circumstances under which immigrants can use violence at home as ground for U.S. asylum. 

Sessions, who resigned at Trump’s request this week, also instructed immigration judges and asylum officers to view illegal border-crossing as a “serious adverse factor” in deciding a case and to consider whether applicants could have escaped danger by relocating within their own countries. 

Trump made his hard-line policies toward immigration a key issue ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections, sending thousands of U.S. troops to help secure the southern border and repeatedly drawing attention to caravans of Central American migrants trekking through Mexico toward the United States. 

Currently, U.S. asylum rules do not bar people who enter the country without authorization, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, which governs the U.S. immigration system, specifically allows people who arrive in the United States, whether or not they do so at a designated port of entry, to apply for asylum. 

Court challenge appears likely

The administration’s plan, which invokes the same authority Trump used to justify his travel ban on citizens of several Muslim-majority nations, is likely to be quickly challenged in court. 

The move would largely affect migrants from Central America’s Northern Triangle — Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador — who cross the U.S. border with Mexico to flee violence and poverty in their home countries. 

“The vast majority of aliens who enter illegally today come from the Northern Triangle countries,” the regulation’s text says. “Channeling those aliens to ports of entry would encourage these aliens to first avail themselves of offers of asylum from Mexico.” 

Immigrant advocates denounced the administration’s move as unlawful, and said the plan to funnel migrants to ports of entry was just a way to cut asylum claims overall. 

“Congress has directly spoken to this question as to whether individuals can be rendered ineligible for asylum if they cross between ports of entry and has specifically said people are eligible regardless of where they cross,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 

“Ports of entry … are overcrowded,” said Jonathan Ryan, executive director of RAICES, a Texas-based immigrant defense group. “Asylum-seekers have been left to camp out for days and weeks on bridges at the border, when they should be guaranteed a right to enter the country for a fair hearing.” 
…

The Trump administration unveiled new rules on Thursday to sharply limit migrant asylum claims by barring individuals who cross the U.S. southern border illegally from seeking asylum. 

Immigrant advocates denounced the move, saying it violated existing U.S. law that allows people fleeing persecution and violence in their home countries to apply for asylum regardless of whether they enter illegally or not. 

The regulations released Thursday, in conjunction with an order expected to be signed by President Donald Trump, would effectively ban migrants who cross the U.S. border with Mexico illegally from qualifying for asylum.

Once the plan goes into full effect, migrants entering at the U.S. southern border would be eligible for asylum only if they report at official ports of entry, officials said. 

More resources, staffing

“What we are attempting to do is trying to funnel … asylum claims through the ports of entry where we are better resourced, have better capabilities and better manpower and staffing to actually handle those claims in an expeditious and efficient manner,” a senior administration official told reporters in a news briefing Thursday, on condition of anonymity. 

The Trump administration has already made it more difficult for migrants to qualify for asylum in the United States. 

Administration officials have said existing U.S. asylum rules encourage illegal immigration and bog down legitimate claims. 

In June, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued an appellate decision that sharply narrowed the circumstances under which immigrants can use violence at home as ground for U.S. asylum. 

Sessions, who resigned at Trump’s request this week, also instructed immigration judges and asylum officers to view illegal border-crossing as a “serious adverse factor” in deciding a case and to consider whether applicants could have escaped danger by relocating within their own countries. 

Trump made his hard-line policies toward immigration a key issue ahead of Tuesday’s midterm elections, sending thousands of U.S. troops to help secure the southern border and repeatedly drawing attention to caravans of Central American migrants trekking through Mexico toward the United States. 

Currently, U.S. asylum rules do not bar people who enter the country without authorization, and the Immigration and Nationality Act, which governs the U.S. immigration system, specifically allows people who arrive in the United States, whether or not they do so at a designated port of entry, to apply for asylum. 

Court challenge appears likely

The administration’s plan, which invokes the same authority Trump used to justify his travel ban on citizens of several Muslim-majority nations, is likely to be quickly challenged in court. 

The move would largely affect migrants from Central America’s Northern Triangle — Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador — who cross the U.S. border with Mexico to flee violence and poverty in their home countries. 

“The vast majority of aliens who enter illegally today come from the Northern Triangle countries,” the regulation’s text says. “Channeling those aliens to ports of entry would encourage these aliens to first avail themselves of offers of asylum from Mexico.” 

Immigrant advocates denounced the administration’s move as unlawful, and said the plan to funnel migrants to ports of entry was just a way to cut asylum claims overall. 

“Congress has directly spoken to this question as to whether individuals can be rendered ineligible for asylum if they cross between ports of entry and has specifically said people are eligible regardless of where they cross,” said Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. 

“Ports of entry … are overcrowded,” said Jonathan Ryan, executive director of RAICES, a Texas-based immigrant defense group. “Asylum-seekers have been left to camp out for days and weeks on bridges at the border, when they should be guaranteed a right to enter the country for a fair hearing.” 
…

The official website of the campaign supporting Amendment 6 in Florida featured a white-and-purple layout, filled with endorsements from local politicians and filmed testimonials from crime victims, who say their personal tragedies could have been prevented by the proposed legislation. The website was identical to others supporting Amendment 4 in Georgia, Question 1 in Nevada, and State Question 794 in Oklahoma.

The campaigns all linked back to the website for Marsy’s Law for All, a nonprofit organization driving what it calls the victims’ rights movement. It recruits and funds local efforts to incorporate Marsy’s Law, a controversial set of protections for crime victims, into state constitutions.

Six states had Marsy’s Law amendments on their ballots Tuesday, all of which passed. Five of these states now will alter their constitutions to include proposed changes that critics say are overly broad and harmful.

Marsy’s Law encompasses a number of provisions based on the idea that victims should have equal rights to those of the accused in criminal proceedings. This includes requiring victims to be notified of proceedings involving their case and the release or escape of the accused; to be heard at plea or sentencing hearings; to obtain reasonable protection from the accused, and to be guaranteed a meaningful role in the criminal justice system.

Critics say the protections hamper the justice system through their vague wording, while undermining due process by pitting defendants’ rights, which are meant to protect defendants from the state, against those of victims. Notably, the American Civil Liberties Union opposes Marsy’s Law, calling it “poorly drafted” and “a threat to existing constitutional rights.”

Marsy’s Law for All national communications adviser Henry Goodwin told VOA News he had never heard a good example of a victim’s rights undermining a defendant’s rights.

“The justice system is very adept at balancing rights within the system,” Goodwin said. “You know, the victim’s rights which Marsy’s Law advocates are complementary to defendant’s rights. We’re not seeking to undermine or take anything away from defendants. It’s not a zero-sum game.”

Marsy’s Law for All was formed in 2009 by Dr. Henry Nicholas, a former Broadcom CEO recently estimated by Forbes to be worth more than $3 billion. Marsy’s Law is named for his sister Marsalee, who was shot to death by her ex-boyfriend in 1983.

After successfully spearheading a 2008 campaign to bring Marsy’s Law to California, Nicholas decided to form a national organization with the goal of bringing the amendments to all 50 states, and eventually the U.S. Constitution. Since then, Marsy’s Law amendments have passed in Illinois, the Dakotas and Ohio.

The movement, on a state and national level, is funded by Nicholas’ personal wealth. The six campaigns backing Marsy’s Law this November all received the vast majority of their money either directly from Nicholas or from Marsy’s Law for All, which Goodwin confirmed to VOA News is entirely funded by Nicholas. In total, the six campaigns amassed a war chest of $60 million. Roughly $30 million was spent in Florida alone.
…

President Donald Trump declared the U.S. midterm elections were “close to complete victory” the day after Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives but maintained their majority in the Senate. Patsy Widakuswara reports on the president’s combative news conference after his party’s mixed performance at the polls.
…

President Donald Trump declared the U.S. midterm elections were “close to complete victory” the day after Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives but maintained their majority in the Senate. Patsy Widakuswara reports on the president’s combative news conference after his party’s mixed performance at the polls.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump forced his controversial Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign Wednesday, setting up a possible showdown with newly energized congressional Democrats over the investigation of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

Sessions, in a resignation letter to Trump, wrote that he was stepping down at “your request,” accepting a fait accompli he’d long sought to avert despite Trump’s repeated public humiliations of the attorney general over his recusal from oversight of the Russia probe.

The forced departure of Sessions, a former Republican senator and early supporter of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, capped a turbulent tenure that hit a rough patch in early 2017 when he stepped aside from the Russia investigation shortly after taking office.

WATCH: Trump Asks Attorney General to Resign

Trump blamed Sessions’ recusal for the speedy appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and, over the course of the attorney general’s 20-month tenure, repeatedly castigated Sessions for failing to rein in what he called a “witch hunt” being led by Mueller and “17 Angry Democrats.”

While undertaking a wholesale repeal of Obama-era policies and implementing Trump’s tough-on-crime and immigration agenda, Sessions was increasingly shunned by the president, to the point that Trump told an interviewer earlier this year, “I don’t have an attorney general.”

In a pair of tweets Wednesday afternoon announcing Sessions’ resignation, Trump thanked the attorney general for his service and said Matt Whitaker, Sessions’ chief of staff and a former U.S. attorney under former President George W. Bush, would take over as acting attorney general. A permanent replacement would be announced later, Trump said.

Though long expected, Sessions’ departure fueled Democratic fears that Trump may be maneuvering to assert control over the Mueller investigation through a trusted appointee or possibly shut down it all together.

Congressional probe urged

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee and a frequent Trump critic, urged Congress to investigate “the real reason” for the attorney general’s “termination.”

At a testy White House news conference earlier Wednesday, Trump said he could end the Mueller investigation “right now,” but “I stay away from it … I let it just go on.”

Other Democratic congressional leaders, including House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Mark Warner issued nearly identical tweets urging Whitaker to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, citing his vocal criticism of the probe.

“Given his previous comments advocating defunding and imposing limitations on the Mueller investigation, Mr. Whitaker should recuse himself from its oversight for the duration of his time as acting attorney general,” Schumer tweeted.

Whitaker served as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Iowa from 2004 to 2009. According to his LinkedIn profile, he headed Foundations for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a self-described ethics watchdog, until September 2017, shortly before joining the Justice Department.

In an opinion piece for CNN.com in July 2017, two months after Mueller’s appointment, Whitaker wrote that he agreed with Trump that investigating the president’s finances fell outside Mueller’s mandate, and he urged Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to limit the special counsel’s authority.

‘In charge of all matters’

Asked whether Whitaker would take control of the Russia probe, Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said, “The acting attorney general is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice.”

Flores did not directly answer questions about whether Whitaker had consulted or planned to consult Justice Department ethics experts on whether he should recuse himself from the Russia probe.

“We’re following regular order here,” she wrote via email.

John Malcolm, a former federal prosecutor now with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, said he saw no reason for Whitaker to step aside.

“He is the acting attorney general. He has no reason to recuse himself,” Malcolm told VOA.

Malcolm said Sessions did “a solid job of implementing the president’s law enforcement priorities,” and he praised the attorney general for “protecting the integrity of the department and trying to keep it above politics.”

It remains to be seen whether Trump will tap Whitaker for the job permanently and send his name to the Senate for confirmation.

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and close Trump ally, tweeted that he looked “forward to working with President Trump to find a confirmable, worthy successor.
…

U.S. President Donald Trump forced his controversial Attorney General Jeff Sessions to resign Wednesday, setting up a possible showdown with newly energized congressional Democrats over the investigation of Russia’s involvement in the 2016 presidential election.

Sessions, in a resignation letter to Trump, wrote that he was stepping down at “your request,” accepting a fait accompli he’d long sought to avert despite Trump’s repeated public humiliations of the attorney general over his recusal from oversight of the Russia probe.

The forced departure of Sessions, a former Republican senator and early supporter of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, capped a turbulent tenure that hit a rough patch in early 2017 when he stepped aside from the Russia investigation shortly after taking office.

WATCH: Trump Asks Attorney General to Resign

Trump blamed Sessions’ recusal for the speedy appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller and, over the course of the attorney general’s 20-month tenure, repeatedly castigated Sessions for failing to rein in what he called a “witch hunt” being led by Mueller and “17 Angry Democrats.”

While undertaking a wholesale repeal of Obama-era policies and implementing Trump’s tough-on-crime and immigration agenda, Sessions was increasingly shunned by the president, to the point that Trump told an interviewer earlier this year, “I don’t have an attorney general.”

In a pair of tweets Wednesday afternoon announcing Sessions’ resignation, Trump thanked the attorney general for his service and said Matt Whitaker, Sessions’ chief of staff and a former U.S. attorney under former President George W. Bush, would take over as acting attorney general. A permanent replacement would be announced later, Trump said.

Though long expected, Sessions’ departure fueled Democratic fears that Trump may be maneuvering to assert control over the Mueller investigation through a trusted appointee or possibly shut down it all together.

Congressional probe urged

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee and a frequent Trump critic, urged Congress to investigate “the real reason” for the attorney general’s “termination.”

At a testy White House news conference earlier Wednesday, Trump said he could end the Mueller investigation “right now,” but “I stay away from it … I let it just go on.”

Other Democratic congressional leaders, including House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senate Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Mark Warner issued nearly identical tweets urging Whitaker to recuse himself from the Russia investigation, citing his vocal criticism of the probe.

“Given his previous comments advocating defunding and imposing limitations on the Mueller investigation, Mr. Whitaker should recuse himself from its oversight for the duration of his time as acting attorney general,” Schumer tweeted.

Whitaker served as U.S. attorney for the southern district of Iowa from 2004 to 2009. According to his LinkedIn profile, he headed Foundations for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT), a self-described ethics watchdog, until September 2017, shortly before joining the Justice Department.

In an opinion piece for CNN.com in July 2017, two months after Mueller’s appointment, Whitaker wrote that he agreed with Trump that investigating the president’s finances fell outside Mueller’s mandate, and he urged Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to limit the special counsel’s authority.

‘In charge of all matters’

Asked whether Whitaker would take control of the Russia probe, Justice Department spokeswoman Sarah Isgur Flores said, “The acting attorney general is in charge of all matters under the purview of the Department of Justice.”

Flores did not directly answer questions about whether Whitaker had consulted or planned to consult Justice Department ethics experts on whether he should recuse himself from the Russia probe.

“We’re following regular order here,” she wrote via email.

John Malcolm, a former federal prosecutor now with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research group, said he saw no reason for Whitaker to step aside.

“He is the acting attorney general. He has no reason to recuse himself,” Malcolm told VOA.

Malcolm said Sessions did “a solid job of implementing the president’s law enforcement priorities,” and he praised the attorney general for “protecting the integrity of the department and trying to keep it above politics.”

It remains to be seen whether Trump will tap Whitaker for the job permanently and send his name to the Senate for confirmation.

Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and close Trump ally, tweeted that he looked “forward to working with President Trump to find a confirmable, worthy successor.
…

Results were disappointing for two Democratic candidates who vied to become the first African American governors in Florida and Georgia, after closely contested campaigns where race and identity politics were highly divisive issues. VOA’s Brian Padden reports on these two close races in traditionally conservative states.
…

Shouts of “Beto 2020!” filled the air in El Paso’s 7,000 seat-capacity baseball stadium, after their underdog candidate for U.S. Senate — Beto O’Rourke — had already lost the race.

On Tuesday night, “Beto,” a 46-year-old congressman from Texas’ 16th district, lost his bid to unseat the incumbent Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, by a three-point margin, with 92 percent of precincts counted.

​AP called the race at 9:27 p.m. local, but in West Texas’ Southwest University Park, the crowd of faithful El Pasoans stayed another hour, awaiting the hometown favorite.

“Look at all the people here,” said 21-year-old Karla Amador, a student at the University of Texas at El Paso. “El Paso never votes; we’re the lowest of voter turnout. Look at the turnout. This is amazing.”

A little after 10 p.m., O’Rourke came on stage, and so did the tears. 

“It hurts. … I worked for Beto harder than I’ve worked for anyone,” said Alta Compton, who spent a year-and-a-half volunteering for the O’Rourke campaign. “It made me realize that I wasn’t alone in Texas, that there are democrats, there are liberals, and we have a voice.”

​‘A battle of ideas’

In Houston, 1,182 kilometers southeast of El Paso, Senator Cruz called the election “a battle of ideas” during his victory speech. Among his own ideas: “more jobs, more security, more freedom.”

“It was a contest for who we are and what we believe,” Cruz told his supporters. “It was a contest and the people of Texas decided this race.”

An intimate crowd of constituents at the El Paso County Republican headquarters gathered in confidence and ate cake as the night unfolded.

In interviews with VOA, Republicans shared the same priority: an opposition to “open borders.”

“This is dead wrong. You come to a place, whatever country, and you have to do it correctly, or you just don’t get in,” El Paso resident Cynthia Lyman said.

“I think seniors such as myself are frankly not going to allow this country being thrown off the cliff, and it didn’t start with O’Rourke,” Lyman added. “It started with [former President] Obama.”

Cruz, who emerged as a beneficiary of the Tea Party movement, said O’Rourke “poured his heart” into the campaign. The senator has held the position for one term after he won the seat in 2012.

He did, however, criticize the amount of money funneled into his opponent’s campaign. 

“We saw a $100 million race with Hollywood coming in against the state, with the national media coming in against the state. But all the money in the world was no match for the good people of Texas and their hard work,” Cruz said. 

Politifact, a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials, reported that O’Rourke did not receive money from private corporations.

“Cruz’s victory means everything to me,” said David Zamora. “I’m a proud Texan, and I believe he represents everything that this state is all about.”

‘A future for Beto’

“When Beto entered this race a year or so ago, we were all horrified that he would give up his seat in Congress to run for a position that he couldn’t possibly won,” said Martha Hood, at the O’Rourke rally. “And look what he’s done.”

​I think there’s a future for Texas. I think there’s a future for Beto,” Hood added.

O’Rourke lost the battle, but voters’ showing at the polls reverberated in down-ballot races. Texas democrats picked up two seats in the Texas state Senate, wearing away at its conservative base majority. 

Nationwide, democrats were on track to secure enough seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to shift the balance of power in Congress, and provide a check on President Trump’s presidency.

Driven by a record-setting war chest of $70 million in donations, many of them contributions of $25 or less, supporters in the democratic town of El Paso feel “Beto’s” name is about to become more common.

With more than 90 percent of precincts counted, O’Rourke received 74.4 percent of votes in his hometown of El Paso to Cruz’s 25 percent, as reported by The Texas Tribune.

By night’s end, O’Rourke’s election night party became a rally of hope for the party’s future. In his concession speech, O’Rourke reminded his followers to define themselves by hard work and a willingness to achieve goals.

“To build a campaign like this one solely comprised of people from all walks of life, coming together, deciding what unites us is far stronger than the color of our skin, how many generations we can count ourselves an American, or whether we just got here yesterday, who we love, we pray to, whether we pray at all, who we voted for last time, none of it matters,” O’Rourke said. 

As some speculated O’Rourke’s chances for president in 2020, the defeated candidate offered few clues with regard to his future. 

“We will see you out there, down the road,” O’Rourke said.
…

Shouts of “Beto 2020!” filled the air in El Paso’s 7,000 seat-capacity baseball stadium, after their underdog candidate for U.S. Senate — Beto O’Rourke — had already lost the race.

On Tuesday night, “Beto,” a 46-year-old congressman from Texas’ 16th district, lost his bid to unseat the incumbent Senator Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican, by a three-point margin, with 92 percent of precincts counted.

​AP called the race at 9:27 p.m. local, but in West Texas’ Southwest University Park, the crowd of faithful El Pasoans stayed another hour, awaiting the hometown favorite.

“Look at all the people here,” said 21-year-old Karla Amador, a student at the University of Texas at El Paso. “El Paso never votes; we’re the lowest of voter turnout. Look at the turnout. This is amazing.”

A little after 10 p.m., O’Rourke came on stage, and so did the tears. 

“It hurts. … I worked for Beto harder than I’ve worked for anyone,” said Alta Compton, who spent a year-and-a-half volunteering for the O’Rourke campaign. “It made me realize that I wasn’t alone in Texas, that there are democrats, there are liberals, and we have a voice.”

​‘A battle of ideas’

In Houston, 1,182 kilometers southeast of El Paso, Senator Cruz called the election “a battle of ideas” during his victory speech. Among his own ideas: “more jobs, more security, more freedom.”

“It was a contest for who we are and what we believe,” Cruz told his supporters. “It was a contest and the people of Texas decided this race.”

An intimate crowd of constituents at the El Paso County Republican headquarters gathered in confidence and ate cake as the night unfolded.

In interviews with VOA, Republicans shared the same priority: an opposition to “open borders.”

“This is dead wrong. You come to a place, whatever country, and you have to do it correctly, or you just don’t get in,” El Paso resident Cynthia Lyman said.

“I think seniors such as myself are frankly not going to allow this country being thrown off the cliff, and it didn’t start with O’Rourke,” Lyman added. “It started with [former President] Obama.”

Cruz, who emerged as a beneficiary of the Tea Party movement, said O’Rourke “poured his heart” into the campaign. The senator has held the position for one term after he won the seat in 2012.

He did, however, criticize the amount of money funneled into his opponent’s campaign. 

“We saw a $100 million race with Hollywood coming in against the state, with the national media coming in against the state. But all the money in the world was no match for the good people of Texas and their hard work,” Cruz said. 

Politifact, a fact-checking website that rates the accuracy of claims by elected officials, reported that O’Rourke did not receive money from private corporations.

“Cruz’s victory means everything to me,” said David Zamora. “I’m a proud Texan, and I believe he represents everything that this state is all about.”

‘A future for Beto’

“When Beto entered this race a year or so ago, we were all horrified that he would give up his seat in Congress to run for a position that he couldn’t possibly won,” said Martha Hood, at the O’Rourke rally. “And look what he’s done.”

​I think there’s a future for Texas. I think there’s a future for Beto,” Hood added.

O’Rourke lost the battle, but voters’ showing at the polls reverberated in down-ballot races. Texas democrats picked up two seats in the Texas state Senate, wearing away at its conservative base majority. 

Nationwide, democrats were on track to secure enough seats in the U.S. House of Representatives to shift the balance of power in Congress, and provide a check on President Trump’s presidency.

Driven by a record-setting war chest of $70 million in donations, many of them contributions of $25 or less, supporters in the democratic town of El Paso feel “Beto’s” name is about to become more common.

With more than 90 percent of precincts counted, O’Rourke received 74.4 percent of votes in his hometown of El Paso to Cruz’s 25 percent, as reported by The Texas Tribune.

By night’s end, O’Rourke’s election night party became a rally of hope for the party’s future. In his concession speech, O’Rourke reminded his followers to define themselves by hard work and a willingness to achieve goals.

“To build a campaign like this one solely comprised of people from all walks of life, coming together, deciding what unites us is far stronger than the color of our skin, how many generations we can count ourselves an American, or whether we just got here yesterday, who we love, we pray to, whether we pray at all, who we voted for last time, none of it matters,” O’Rourke said. 

As some speculated O’Rourke’s chances for president in 2020, the defeated candidate offered few clues with regard to his future. 

“We will see you out there, down the road,” O’Rourke said.
…

The balance of power shifted in Washington Tuesday as opposition Democrats won back control of the U.S. House of Representatives, dealing a political blow to President Donald Trump and his Republican Party. But Republicans expanded their majority control of the Senate, bolstering the president and setting the stage for more confrontational politics in the year ahead. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has a wrap up of the election results from Washington.
…

The balance of power shifted in Washington Tuesday as opposition Democrats won back control of the U.S. House of Representatives, dealing a political blow to President Donald Trump and his Republican Party. But Republicans expanded their majority control of the Senate, bolstering the president and setting the stage for more confrontational politics in the year ahead. VOA National correspondent Jim Malone has a wrap up of the election results from Washington.
…

Riding solid gains for Democratic candidates in the U.S midterm elections are two candidates now set to make history in January, when they become the first Muslim American women in the U.S. Congress. As VOA’s Kane Farabaugh reports, expectations are high for both Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar as they seek to influence U.S. policy on issues ranging from immigration reform to foreign policy.
…

Riding solid gains for Democratic candidates in the U.S midterm elections are two candidates now set to make history in January, when they become the first Muslim American women in the U.S. Congress. As VOA’s Kane Farabaugh reports, expectations are high for both Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar as they seek to influence U.S. policy on issues ranging from immigration reform to foreign policy.
…

As Election Day unfolds Tuesday in the United States, prominent American political figures are offering their thoughts on the national elections that will determine who controls Congress for the next two years as the country inches closer to the 2020 presidential election.

Here is what some of them said:

Former Vice President Joe Biden, possibly a Democratic challenger to Republican President Donald Trump in the next race for the White House, said he would be “dumbfounded” if Democrats do not win back the House of Representatives.

“This is the single most important off-year election in my lifetime,” said Biden, his voice hoarse from campaign speeches in recent days. “It’s about the character of the country.”

​Eric Trump, one of the president’s sons, said his father’s “name is not on the ballot, but America is winning. We’re winning with everything right now.”

Trump claimed his father has “made America the greatest country in the world.”

“If that army of Trump gets out there today, we win,” he said. “This country is winning. I mean, we are winning. … Our country is doing awesome.”

Vice President Mike Pence wrote in an opinion article in USA Today, “While Republicans have delivered results, Democrats have chosen a one-word agenda: Resist.”

“Democrats’ policies are even more liberal — and dangerous — than ever before,” Pence said. “They want massive tax hikes, weaker borders and a complete government takeover of health care that would hurt our families and seniors.”

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who lost the 2016 election to Trump, said on Twitter: “For the past two years, we’ve watched this administration attack and undermine our democratic institutions and values. Today, we say enough.”

“But we won’t just vote against radicalism, bigotry, and corruption today,” she said. “We’ll vote for fantastic candidates all over the country—including a historic number of women—who want to raise wages, fight for justice, and help more people get health care.”

In a New York Times opinion article, former FBI director James B. Comey, fired by Trump last year, decried the “lying, misogyny, racism and attacks on the rule of law from our president” and urged Americans to vote based on their values. He said he is optimistic the United States eventually will recover from “the current leadership of our country and the ugly undercurrent on which it thrives.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan said he is “cautiously optimistic” that Republicans would keep the House majority after Tuesday’s midterm elections, citing a strong U.S. economy and the Republicans’ record in Congress.

But he acknowledged in a Fox News interview that Republicans could lose their House majority control. “History is not our friend,” he said, noting U.S. political trends weigh against the political party that controls the White House, in this case Republicans, in elections halfway through a president’s four-year term.
…

As Election Day unfolds Tuesday in the United States, prominent American political figures are offering their thoughts on the national elections that will determine who controls Congress for the next two years as the country inches closer to the 2020 presidential election.

Here is what some of them said:

Former Vice President Joe Biden, possibly a Democratic challenger to Republican President Donald Trump in the next race for the White House, said he would be “dumbfounded” if Democrats do not win back the House of Representatives.

“This is the single most important off-year election in my lifetime,” said Biden, his voice hoarse from campaign speeches in recent days. “It’s about the character of the country.”

​Eric Trump, one of the president’s sons, said his father’s “name is not on the ballot, but America is winning. We’re winning with everything right now.”

Trump claimed his father has “made America the greatest country in the world.”

“If that army of Trump gets out there today, we win,” he said. “This country is winning. I mean, we are winning. … Our country is doing awesome.”

Vice President Mike Pence wrote in an opinion article in USA Today, “While Republicans have delivered results, Democrats have chosen a one-word agenda: Resist.”

“Democrats’ policies are even more liberal — and dangerous — than ever before,” Pence said. “They want massive tax hikes, weaker borders and a complete government takeover of health care that would hurt our families and seniors.”

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who lost the 2016 election to Trump, said on Twitter: “For the past two years, we’ve watched this administration attack and undermine our democratic institutions and values. Today, we say enough.”

“But we won’t just vote against radicalism, bigotry, and corruption today,” she said. “We’ll vote for fantastic candidates all over the country—including a historic number of women—who want to raise wages, fight for justice, and help more people get health care.”

In a New York Times opinion article, former FBI director James B. Comey, fired by Trump last year, decried the “lying, misogyny, racism and attacks on the rule of law from our president” and urged Americans to vote based on their values. He said he is optimistic the United States eventually will recover from “the current leadership of our country and the ugly undercurrent on which it thrives.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan said he is “cautiously optimistic” that Republicans would keep the House majority after Tuesday’s midterm elections, citing a strong U.S. economy and the Republicans’ record in Congress.

But he acknowledged in a Fox News interview that Republicans could lose their House majority control. “History is not our friend,” he said, noting U.S. political trends weigh against the political party that controls the White House, in this case Republicans, in elections halfway through a president’s four-year term.
…

Despite concerns about foreign interference, the 2018 U.S. midterm election launched to a relatively uneventful start Tuesday morning with federal monitors reporting no attempted disruptions.

While still early in a pivotal voting day that will shape the direction of the country for the next two years, absent were reports of a much-feared cyber assault on election systems by Russia or other foreign actors. By all accounts, ballot casting in the country’s 170,000 voting centers was free from major hiccups or interference.

A Department of Homeland Security official said intelligence agencies had seen no sign of a “coordinated campaign” to disrupt Tuesday’s election. There has been “run of the mill” cyber activity during the day but “certainly nothing that could be attributed back to Russia,” the official said.

“We’re not aware of any substantial impacts on voting,” the official said during a press briefing with reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, there were reports of long lines and malfunctioning election machines during the early hours of voting, with some of the biggest problems reported in Georgia.

In the lead-up to Tuesday’s vote, there were persistent worries that U.S. adversaries might attempt to disrupt the election in a reprise of Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential vote. As early as August, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned that the threat of Russian interference was “real” and “continuing.

U.S. agencies logged some 160 reports of suspected foreign interference in recent months, and social media networks have taken down hundreds of suspicious accounts. But the incidents have not risen to the level of 2016, when Kremlin-linked cyber actors targeted the election systems of at least 21 U.S. states and orchestrated one of the largest influence operations in history to sway the outcome of the vote.

“We haven’t seen anything that is alarming,” said John Gilligan, executive chairman of the Center for Internet Security, which has deployed intrusion detection sensors into the election systems of 43 states, said last week.

Decentralized voting leaves security to local officials

The United States has a highly decentralized election system, with virtually all elections administered by state and local governments.  However, in the two years since the Russian attack, U.S. states have worked closely with a host of federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Directorate of National Intelligence to boost their cyber defenses and the integrity of their election systems.The DHS has conducted on-site threat assessments in 21 states while network intrusion detection sensors have been deployed.

“We realize this is a complicated issue, with high interest from malicious actors, but together we have collaborated with IT professionals, the private sector, the federal government and others to do everything in our power to safeguard election infrastructure and restore voter confidence,” Jim Condos, Vermont Secretary of State and president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, said in a statement on Friday.

Top U.S. security officials have offered similar assurances in the run-up to Tuesday’s vote.

“At this time we have no indication of compromise of our nation’s election infrastructure that would prevent voting, change vote counts, or disrupt the ability to tally votes,” said the DNI’s Coats, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in a joint statement released late Monday.

Still, the officials warned that “Americans should be aware that foreign actors and Russia in particular continue to influence public sentiment and voter perceptions.”

Voter suppression, fraud concerns

Although potential foreign interference has drawn the most attention, allegations of voter suppression and potential voter fraud emerged as partisan issues in what is a recurring controversy in U.S. elections.

A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University estimated that in the last two years, at least eight states have adopted “more stringent voting laws” while in the last eight years, 23 states have tightened voting rules such as instituting stricter ID requirements.

Concerned that these laws disenfranchise voters, the Brennan Center, the ACLU, the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and other civil rights organizations have taken the states to court.

“This has been a year [in] which we have been fighting an aggressive and relentless campaign of voter suppression across the country,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. 

Conservative critics and President Donald Trump say the focus on voter suppression is a distraction from what they see as a greater concern: voter fraud.

Earlier this year, Trump disbanded his voter fraud commission that was created to study alleged election fraud in the 2016 vote. The commission had no success validating the president’s claims that millions of fraudulent ballots were cast in the 2016 election.

Aging voting systems

Aging voting machines and election systems that produce no paper trail have been another source of concern during the current elections  and cause of voting irregularities reported during early voting in several states.

Forty-three states use voting machines that are no longer made, according to the Brennan Center. Five states – Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, and South Carolina rely exclusively on touchscreen systems that produce no paper trail while eight others use them in some of their jurisdictions.

Nine states with toss-up or competitive House, Senate or gubernatorial races still use paperless voting machines, according to the Brennan Center. Those states include Georgia, where Democrat Stacey Abrams is running against Republican Brian Kemp, and Texas where Democratic Representative Beto O’Rourke is challenging Republican Senator Ted Cruz. 
…

Despite concerns about foreign interference, the 2018 U.S. midterm election launched to a relatively uneventful start Tuesday morning with federal monitors reporting no attempted disruptions.

While still early in a pivotal voting day that will shape the direction of the country for the next two years, absent were reports of a much-feared cyber assault on election systems by Russia or other foreign actors. By all accounts, ballot casting in the country’s 170,000 voting centers was free from major hiccups or interference.

A Department of Homeland Security official said intelligence agencies had seen no sign of a “coordinated campaign” to disrupt Tuesday’s election. There has been “run of the mill” cyber activity during the day but “certainly nothing that could be attributed back to Russia,” the official said.

“We’re not aware of any substantial impacts on voting,” the official said during a press briefing with reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, there were reports of long lines and malfunctioning election machines during the early hours of voting, with some of the biggest problems reported in Georgia.

In the lead-up to Tuesday’s vote, there were persistent worries that U.S. adversaries might attempt to disrupt the election in a reprise of Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential vote. As early as August, Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats warned that the threat of Russian interference was “real” and “continuing.

U.S. agencies logged some 160 reports of suspected foreign interference in recent months, and social media networks have taken down hundreds of suspicious accounts. But the incidents have not risen to the level of 2016, when Kremlin-linked cyber actors targeted the election systems of at least 21 U.S. states and orchestrated one of the largest influence operations in history to sway the outcome of the vote.

“We haven’t seen anything that is alarming,” said John Gilligan, executive chairman of the Center for Internet Security, which has deployed intrusion detection sensors into the election systems of 43 states, said last week.

Decentralized voting leaves security to local officials

The United States has a highly decentralized election system, with virtually all elections administered by state and local governments.  However, in the two years since the Russian attack, U.S. states have worked closely with a host of federal agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security, the FBI, and the Directorate of National Intelligence to boost their cyber defenses and the integrity of their election systems.The DHS has conducted on-site threat assessments in 21 states while network intrusion detection sensors have been deployed.

“We realize this is a complicated issue, with high interest from malicious actors, but together we have collaborated with IT professionals, the private sector, the federal government and others to do everything in our power to safeguard election infrastructure and restore voter confidence,” Jim Condos, Vermont Secretary of State and president of the National Association of Secretaries of State, said in a statement on Friday.

Top U.S. security officials have offered similar assurances in the run-up to Tuesday’s vote.

“At this time we have no indication of compromise of our nation’s election infrastructure that would prevent voting, change vote counts, or disrupt the ability to tally votes,” said the DNI’s Coats, FBI Director Christopher Wray, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in a joint statement released late Monday.

Still, the officials warned that “Americans should be aware that foreign actors and Russia in particular continue to influence public sentiment and voter perceptions.”

Voter suppression, fraud concerns

Although potential foreign interference has drawn the most attention, allegations of voter suppression and potential voter fraud emerged as partisan issues in what is a recurring controversy in U.S. elections.

A recent report by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University estimated that in the last two years, at least eight states have adopted “more stringent voting laws” while in the last eight years, 23 states have tightened voting rules such as instituting stricter ID requirements.

Concerned that these laws disenfranchise voters, the Brennan Center, the ACLU, the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and other civil rights organizations have taken the states to court.

“This has been a year [in] which we have been fighting an aggressive and relentless campaign of voter suppression across the country,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the National Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights. 

Conservative critics and President Donald Trump say the focus on voter suppression is a distraction from what they see as a greater concern: voter fraud.

Earlier this year, Trump disbanded his voter fraud commission that was created to study alleged election fraud in the 2016 vote. The commission had no success validating the president’s claims that millions of fraudulent ballots were cast in the 2016 election.

Aging voting systems

Aging voting machines and election systems that produce no paper trail have been another source of concern during the current elections  and cause of voting irregularities reported during early voting in several states.

Forty-three states use voting machines that are no longer made, according to the Brennan Center. Five states – Delaware, Georgia, Louisiana, New Jersey, and South Carolina rely exclusively on touchscreen systems that produce no paper trail while eight others use them in some of their jurisdictions.

Nine states with toss-up or competitive House, Senate or gubernatorial races still use paperless voting machines, according to the Brennan Center. Those states include Georgia, where Democrat Stacey Abrams is running against Republican Brian Kemp, and Texas where Democratic Representative Beto O’Rourke is challenging Republican Senator Ted Cruz. 
…

…

President Donald Trump said on Monday he would nominate a new U.S. ambassador to the United Nations by the end of the week and that more changes in his Cabinet may be coming.

Trump said last week he was seriously considering naming U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert to the post to succeed Nikki Haley, who said on Oct. 9 she would resign at the end of the year.

“I’ll announce before the end of the week the U.N. ambassador,” Trump told reporters before leaving Washington for another series of campaign rallies a day before the congressional midterm elections.

“Administrations make changes usually after midterms, and probably we’ll be right in that category, too,” Trump added. “I think it’s very customary. No timeline. For the most part I love my Cabinet. We have some really talented people.”

Haley was the latest in a string of senior Trump administration figures to quit, although she made her announcement in the Oval Office sitting next to Trump, who praised her for doing “an incredible job.”

White House counsel Don McGahn’s departure was announced in August and he has left. Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency chief, resigned on July 5 under fire over ethics controversies.

In response to reporters’ questions as he left for a rally in Cleveland, Trump said he was not planning to replace Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. Last month, Trump said Mattis “may leave” and that he regarded him as “sort of a Democrat.”

He also said Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke was doing a “good job.” Zinke has been under at least three probes by the Interior Department’s inspector general over ethics questions. Last month, the inspector general sent one of the probes to the Justice Department, increasing the chances that Zinke could face a criminal investigation.

Trump did not answer when asked about Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whom he has frequently criticized.
…