Chris Hedges's Blog, page 391

Donald Trump Is Right About Our Defense Spending (No, Really)

This piece originally appeared on anti-war.com.

When he’s right, he’s right. Look, I’ve been critical of this president too many times to count, but – unlike most mainstream media pundits – I’m willing to give credit when it’s due. Last week, in a surprise morning tweet, President Trump called U.S. defense spending, which topped out at a record $716 billion this year, “crazy.” Furthermore, he even hinted at talks with America’s two main military rivals, President Xi of China, and President Putin of Russia to stave off what Trump referred to as “a major and uncontrollable arms race.” Of course, we woke up this morning to the news that Trump seems – unsurprisingly – to have reversed course again, with administration officials stating that Trump will instead boost the Pentagon budget to $750 billion.

Still, it’s worth reflecting on Trump’s initial announcement. After all, I had to read the original Trump tweet twice. Was the candidate who promised to bomb “the shit out of” ISIS and to “bring back” waterboarding torture and a “whole lot worse” turning dove? Well, not exactly, but Trump was talking sense. And it’s not the first time he’s done so. Remember that candidate Trump regularly declared the 2003 invasion of Iraq “the single worst decision ever made.” Couldn’t have put it better myself. Then, just before disappointingly announcing a troop increase in Afghanistan, Trump admitted his initial “instinct” was to “pull out.” Right again.

It seems that one of the only things holding Trump back from ushering in real change in America’s militarized foreign policy are his rather more mainstream advisors and bipartisan congressional war-hawks. Over and over again, media, especially conventional center-left “liberal” media, assures us that these folks – the Jim Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and John Kellys of the world – are the “adults in the room,” far more “responsible” than loose cannon Trump. And you know what, yea, that may occasionally been true. But on foreign policy these retired generals and their Republican and Democratic supporters on the Hill have been wrong at every turn over the last 17 years.

They, the “adults” in the Beltway crowd, have for two decades sold the American people the snake oil of increased military intervention, counterinsurgency dogma, and armed nation-building, achieving nothing more than destabilization of the entire Greater Middle East and the worst humanitarian catastrophes since World War II. They insist on ever-expanding military budgets – a lovely kickback to the American arms industry – and assure the public that they need “just a little more time” to win a “victory” of sorts in the perpetual wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is long past time for some fresh thinking on military policy in the Middle East and common sense caps on runaway defense spending. And, if such good sense has to come from a man like Trump, then, well, so be it. Let’s give him a chance.

Military spending truly is out of control in the United States, and it has been ever since the end of the Second World War. At least during the Cold War (1946-91) there was some, albeit exaggerated, justification for high defense budgets. Nonetheless, except for a brief dip during President Bill Clinton’s first term, military spending never slowed down. And, after 9/11, such outlays ran straight off-the-rails. But it wasn’t necessary. Terrorism isn’t, and never was, an existential threat, or a danger on anywhere near the scale of a potential Cold War nuclear exchange with the Soviets. On the contrary, most of the post-9/11 spending and the concurrent on-the-ground military interventions in the Muslim world have been nothing but counterproductive.

And it’s all so needless. In 2017, US defense spending was equal to that of the next seven countries combined. Furthermore, five of those seven big spenders – Saudi Arabia, India, France, Britain, and Japan – are friendly US “partners.” So let’s not pretend that modest cuts to this bloated budget will pose some colossal threat to American homeland security. What all that spending and fighting and killing and dying has done is fill the coffers of a domestic arms industry that is one of the last remnants of America’s once vibrant manufacturing industry. Those billions of dollars found their way into CEO’s pockets, the campaign nest eggs of compliant Democratic and Republican legislators, and the bloated salaries of revolving-door second jobs for retired military generals.

What such skyrocketing spending doesn’t do is benefit the average American. Military spending represented over 53% of total discretionary budget spending in 2015, and it’s only rising. That’s ten times the expenditure each on education and veterans’ benefits, about twenty times US spending on peaceful foreign aid, and fifty times the outlay for food and agriculture. There are, we must admit, some real opportunity costs inherent in such ballooning military spending. Five star general, West Point grad, and eventual President Dwight Eisenhower – a man whose stated policies on this topic would today place him to the left of both his own Republican Party and the neoliberal Democratic Party – parsed this out as early as 1953. That year, in his famous “A Chance for Peace” speech, Ike warned of the dangers of the growing military-industrial complex and opined on the lost opportunity costs of runaway spending, concluding presciently that:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.
The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.
It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.
It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.
We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.
We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Conservative or liberal, democratic socialist or libertarian, all ideologically consistent political groups should be touched by Eisenhower’s generations-old words and support President Trump’s modest call for spending cuts and arms control talks with Russia and China. Think of the good that the hundreds of billions spent on the merchants of death could do for everyday Americans. (Small c) conservatives and libertarians could have their tax cuts, balanced budgets, and fiscal discipline. True liberals and progressives could fight to shift some of that money to healthcare and education. No doubt, such groups would fight over the best use of those funds – and that’s a battle I’ll postpone for a later date – but the first step is agreeing on the need for common sense reductions and the demilitarization of the American economy. This is a fight that requires an alliance between principled, traditional opponents on the left and right. And, it demands a tough public battle with the bipartisan militarist consensus running Washington.

Consider this: in the wake of President Trump’s modest, and sensible call for reigning in “crazy” defense spending – to the tune of just a token $30 billion cut – an array of bipartisan hawks both in and outside the administration lost their collective minds. Secretary of Defense Mattis told the Reagan National Defense Forum that cutting defense wouldn’t help the deficit (which sounds illogical) and insisted on the “critical need” for a $733 billion defense budget for 2020. Then, Republican defense-industry cheerleaders in Congress, Representative Mac Thornberry of Texas and Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, exclaimed that such modest cuts would be “dangerous” and have a “crippling effect” on the military. Really, a hefty $700 billion defense budget would be “crippling”? Me thinks the congressmen doth protest too much.

In spite of the inevitable protestations from mainstream bipartisan war hawks around Washington, Americans should support the president’s seemingly new inclination for arms control and defense reductions. This president, maybe more than most, feeds on public adulation and positive attention. Thus, the citizenry should back the president’s nascent sensible comments and proceed with cautious optimism, hoping that Trump pulls a Ronald Reagan and reverses his hawkish ways in favor of international negotiation. Remember that Reagan was elected as a Cold Warrior super-hawk in 1980, but later decided to work with Soviet Premier Mikael Gorbachev to cut nuclear and defense arsenals. That was the right call, though it’s important and instructive to remember that most of Reagan’s own cabinet and a majority of the Republican Party was initially skeptical, if not downright unsupportive.

Who knows if President Trump is serious about commonsense defense cuts and prudent arms reduction negotiations. After all the man has reversed and contradicted himself a time or too – even on this very topic. Still, if Mr. Trump pulls this off it would be a surprise master stroke that would likely be applauded on Main Street but pilloried on K Street in D.C.

Should he surprise his critics, upset his corporate backers, and lessen international tensions even a little bit, well, then we’ll have to admit he has for once demonstrated his potential.

Now that’d be the “Art of the Deal.”

White House Considers Plan to Deport Vietnam War Refugees

In what critics described as a “consciously racist” and immensely cruel move that has the fingerprints of White House senior adviser Stephen Miller all over it, the Trump administration is reportedly working to make Vietnam War refugees who have lived in the United States for decades eligible for deportation.

First reported by The Atlantic on Wednesday, the White House plan seeks to reinterpret a long-standing agreement with Hanoi that protects from deportation all Vietnamese people who arrived in the U.S. before July 12, 1995—the date the two nations officially reestablished diplomatic relations after the Vietnam War, in which the U.S. killed millions of people and inflicted damage that lives on to this day.

“In essence, the administration has now decided that Vietnamese immigrants who arrived in the country before the establishment of diplomatic ties between the United States and Vietnam are subject to standard immigration law—meaning they are all eligible for deportation,” The Atlantic noted.

Winnie Wong, progressive organizer and founder of People for Bernie, offered a succinct translation of the proposed policy change: “Trump wants to deport Vietnamese grannies who have been living here for more than 40 years.”

Let me translate this for you: Trump wants to deport Vietnamese grannies who have been living here for more than 40years.https://t.co/TVXulB6gGQ

— Winifred (@WaywardWinifred) December 12, 2018

“Donald Trump’s cruelty knows no bounds,” declared Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.).

In addition to the sheer Trumpian cruelty of the policy shift, several commentators were quick to note that the plan also bears all the signs of Miller’s pernicious influence.

“Let’s see here. This is 1) Unnecessary 2) Cruel 3) Trolls the Libs 4) Secures the existence of our people and a future for white children,” author Mike Duncan wrote on Twitter. “Yes, we see you Stephen Miller.”

The Week‘s Ryan Cooper also argued that Miller is clearly a key force behind the “despicable” proposal.

“If there is a hell Stephen Miller will be fed magma-hot ethnic food for eternity,” Cooper added.

there is not even a constituency of bad people for this. it is just deliberate, consciously racist cruelty. absolutely fucking despicable. if there is a hell Stephen Miller will be fed magma-hot ethnic food for eternity

— ryan cooper (@ryanlcooper) December 12, 2018

“You don’t need to be the child of Vietnamese immigrants, like me, to find this shameful,” concluded Buzzfeed reporter Ryan Mac. “Considering the deportation of people who have lived in this country for decades, and who are largely here because of the U.S.’s involvement, is an utter disgrace.”

Young Activists School the U.N. at Climate Summit

KATOWICE, Poland — Close to 15,000 people have descended on Katowice, in the heart of Poland’s coal country, for the annual U.N. climate change summit. This meeting is dubbed “COP24,” for the 24th “Conference of the Parties” to the climate negotiations. The efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions and limit global warming have been ongoing since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. Among those gathered are two young women, from the global North and South, who have decided to devote their lives to reversing humanity’s destructive addiction to fossil fuels, hopefully before it is too late.

“Since our leaders are behaving like children, we will have to take the responsibility they should have taken long ago,” said Greta Thunberg, a 15-year-old climate activist from Sweden, addressing U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres here last week.

Greta first began studying the issue of climate change at the age of 9. She said on the “Democracy Now!” news hour at COP24 that over time she “fell into a depression. I didn’t see any point of living, because everything was just so wrong.” She stopped eating, stopped talking. Her father, an actor, and her mother, a world-famous opera singer, stopped work to stay with her, caring for her through this difficult period, through her recovery. “I thought that I could do so much with my life,” she said. “What is the point of feeling like this, when I could actually do something good?”

Greta has Asperger’s. Because of this, she said, “I work a bit different. I see things black and white. I guess I saw the world from a different perspective.”

Starting last August, Greta began a “school strike,” standing in front of the Swedish Parliament instead of going to school. After Sweden’s elections in September, she resumed school, maintaining her strikes on Fridays.

Renowned climate scientist Kevin Anderson tweeted: “On climate change, Greta Thunberg demonstrates more clarity & leadership in one speech than a quarter of a century of the combined contributions of so called world leaders. Willful ignorance & lies have overseen a 65 percent rise in CO2 since 1990. Time to hand over the baton.”

Nearing midnight on Wednesday at COP24, Greta addressed a plenary session: “Our civilization is being sacrificed for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue making enormous amounts of money. Our biosphere is being sacrificed so that rich people in countries like mine can live in luxury. It is the suffering of the many which pays for the luxuries of the few.”

Joanna Sustento is a 26-year-old climate survivor from the Philippines who knows that suffering too well. “I had a happy life, a good job, great friends and a wonderful loving family. But in a matter of minutes, all of that changed,” Joanna said in a Greenpeace Philippines video, describing November 8, 2013, when Typhoon Haiyan hit her home city of Tacloban.

“Typhoon Haiyan killed more than 10,000 people and left over 14 million people homeless,” she said on “Democracy Now!” in Katowice. “I witnessed my mother, my father, brother, sister-in-law and my 3-year-old nephew being swept away by the storm surge. It left my brother and me to search for our family’s bodies in the aftermath. We never found our father and our nephew. It’s difficult to be the one left behind. We have to deal with all the questions, the grief, the pain and the regrets.”

Joanna then described a first-of-its-kind effort to hold polluting corporations, called the “Carbon Majors,” accountable: “Shell, BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Suncor, Lukoil … those are just some of the 47 companies present in the Philippines. A petition was filed in 2015 by typhoon survivors, fisherfolk, farmers and other environmental organizations at the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines to investigate oil, coal and gas companies for their responsibility for human-rights violations resulting from climate change.”

Like Greta Thunberg, Joanna Sustento is in the struggle for climate justice for the long haul. “I see that there is so much power in the people out there, so much power to pressure our governments, corporations, to change the current system,” she said.

Greta closed her plenary remarks Wednesday night, concluding: “You have run out of excuses and we are running out of time. We have come here to let you know that change is coming whether you like it or not. The real power belongs to the people.”

At COP24, held at a conference center atop an old coal mine, in a part of the world that has witnessed the worst ravages of war, the gathered heads of state and their climate negotiators should listen to the words of these two wise, young women.

Everyday Americans Can Put an End to the Brutal Yemen War

US tax dollars are supporting Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, which has already claimed the lives of some 85,000 children, and 12 million more people are likely on the brink of starvation. As Nicholas Kristof wrote in The New York Times, “the starvation does not seem to be an accidental byproduct of war, but rather a weapon in it.”

The United States has long been a staunch ally of Saudi Arabia, and both the Obama and Trump administrations have provided considerable military support to the Saudi war in Yemen.

But Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s involvement in the torture and murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi has finally spurred both Democrats and Republicans to take steps to end US military involvement in Yemen.

On November 28, the Senate voted 63-to-37 to advance a resolution that would direct the removal of US Armed Forces from hostilities in Yemen. However, S. J. Res. 54 carves out an exception for continued US-supported military measures against “al Qaeda or associated forces” that could be twisted to rationalize nearly any military assistance Donald Trump provides to Saudi Arabia in Yemen.

S. J. Res. 54 Purports to End U.S. Military Involvement in Yemen

Senators plan to debate S. J. Res. 54 this week. The bipartisan resolution, introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) with 18 co-sponsors, invokes the War Powers Resolution. Enacted by Congress in the wake of the Vietnam War, the War Powers Resolution permits the president to introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only after Congress has declared war, or in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces,” or when there is “specific statutory authorization.”

The War Powers Resolution defines the introduction of US Armed Forces to include:

… the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities.

S. J. Res. 54 states, “activities that the United States is conducting in support of the Saudi-led coalition, including aerial refueling and targeting assistance, fall within this definition.”

Trump Denies U.S. Forces Are Engaged in ‘Hostilities'

Donald Trump has pledged to veto the resolution, denying that US forces are involved in “hostilities” for purposes of the War Powers Resolution. On November 28, the Trump administration issued the following Statement of Administrative Policy:

The fundamental premise of S.J. Res. 54 is flawed — United States forces are not engaged in hostilities between the Saudi-led coalition and Houthi forces in Yemen. Since 2015, the United States has provided limited support to member countries of the Emirati and Saudi-led coalition, including intelligence sharing, logistics, and, until recently, aerial refueling…. No United States forces have been introduced into hostilities, or into situations where hostilities are clearly imminent, in connection with ongoing support to the Saudi-led coalition. As a result, this United States support does not implicate the War Powers Resolution.

After stating that US Armed Forces “assist in aerial targeting and help to coordinate military and intelligence activities,” S. J. Res. 54 cites Defense Secretary James Mattis’s December 2017 statement: “We have gone in to be very – to be helpful where we can in identifying how you do target analysis and how you make certain you hit the right thing.” US targeting assistance enables the coalition to kill Yemenis more efficiently.

Nevertheless, tens of thousands of Yemeni civilians have been killed in bombings by the Saudi-led coalition, many using some of the billions of dollars’ worth of US-manufactured weapons. And late last year, a team of US Green Berets secretly arrived at the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia to help in the war.

Loophole in S. J. Res. 54 Actually Authorizes U.S. Military Involvement in Yemen

In S. J. Res. 54, Congress “directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities” in Yemen “except United States Armed forces engaged in operations directed at al Qaeda or associated forces.”

The only US combat troops on the ground in Yemen are allegedly targeting Al Qaeda forces. But, according to the ACLU, “military officials have already claimed they do not know the mission of each Saudi aircraft refueled by the US.”

National Security Adviser John Bolton has a history of skewing intelligence to support his goals.

Moreover, this resolution will not stop US drone strikes in Yemen. Although those strikes were ostensibly aimed at al Qaeda, one-third of Yemenis killed by US drone bombings were civilians, including several children, according to a recent report by the Associated Press.

Thus, under the guise of removing US forces from hostilities in Yemen, S. J. Res. 54 could actually provide congressional justification for continued military involvement under the War Powers Resolution.

S. 3652 Would Suspend U.S. Arms Transfers to Saudi Arabia

Another bipartisan bill pending in the Senate is the “Saudi Arabia Accountability and Yemen Act of 2018.” Introduced by Bob Menendez (D-New Jersey) and five co-sponsors, including Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), S. 3652 would suspend US arms transfers to Saudi Arabia; prohibit US refueling of Saudi coalition aircraft; impose sanctions on anyone hindering the provision of humanitarian assistance, or those involved in the death of Khashoggi, including “any official of the government of Saudi Arabia or member of the royal family”; mandate briefings on US military support to the Saudi-led coalition, including civilian casualties; and require an unclassified written report on the Saudis’ human rights record.

This resolution would prohibit the United States from selling the Saudis arms that could be used for offensive (but not defensive) purposes, including bombs, missiles, aircraft, munitions, tanks and armored vehicles.

The suspension of arms transfers to the Saudis, however, contains a provision allowing a presidential waiver for “national security interests” provided the secretaries of state and defense certify that for the preceding 180 days, the Saudi-led coalition has ceased all air strikes and offensive ground operations “not associated with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or ISIS.” Again, this would create a significant loophole.

But if S. 3652 gains traction, it would go a long way toward ending US military assistance to Saudi Arabia in Yemen, providing accountability for Saudi atrocities and exerting international pressure on the Saudis to end their brutal killing in Yemen.

S. Res. 714 Seeks Crown Prince’s Accountability for Khashoggi Murder

Sen. Graham spearheaded a bipartisan non-binding resolution that expresses “a high level of confidence” that bin Salman was “complicit” in the death of Khashoggi, whom it identifies as an “outspoken critic of Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman.” The resolution calls for bin Salman to be held accountable for his contribution to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

S. Res. 714, co-sponsored by Dianne Feinstein (D-California), Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts), Todd Young (R-Indiana) and Chris Coons (D-Delaware), would express “the sense of the Senate” that the Saudi crown prince:

be held accountable for contributing to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, preventing a resolution to the blockade of Qatar, the jailing and torture of dissidents and activists inside the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the use of force to intimidate rivals, and the abhorrent and unjustified murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

H. Con. Res. 138 Suffers From Similar Flaws as S. J. Res. 54

Meanwhile, H. Con. Res. 138, which directs the president to remove US Armed Forces from hostilities in Yemen, is pending in the House of Representatives. But procedural maneuvers by Republican Congress members have prevented its consideration during this congressional term. It will likely be reintroduced in some form when the Democrats assume control of the House in January.

H. Con. Res. 138 suffers from similar infirmities as its Senate counterpart, S. J. Res. 54. But instead of carving out an exception for al Qaeda and associated forces, H. Con. Res. 138 exempts “United States Armed Forces engaged in operations authorized under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force [AUMF]” from the mandate of the resolution. Unlike S. J. Res. 54, the House resolution fails to define “hostilities” under the War Powers Resolution.

Although Congress, in the 2001 AUMF, authorized the president to use “all necessary and appropriate force” only against individuals and groups responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks, three presidents have relied on it to justify at least 37 military operations in 14 countries, many of them unrelated to 9/11.

In a letter to congressional representatives urging opposition to H. Con. Res. 138, the ACLU noted that the exception in the resolution for the 2001 AUMF “raises serious concerns that the Executive Branch will claim that the Congress is implicitly recognizing and authorizing the United States’ use of force in Yemen under the AUMF.”

The ACLU letter also states, “H. Con. Res. 138 could create a harmful precedent that causes the Executive Branch to claim Congress must pass a resolution of disapproval in order for the War Powers Resolution to be effective in stopping hostilities.”

Toward Ending U.S. Support to Saudis in Yemen

Notwithstanding deeply entrenched US support for Saudi Arabia, outrage over the Saudis’ torturous murder of Khashoggi, as well as campaigns by several progressive groups, have galvanized congressional opposition to US assistance for Saudi killing in Yemen.

In March, a bipartisan Senate bill that would have halted US support to the Saudis in Yemen was defeated 55-44. At the time, Sen. Sanders, who co-sponsored the legislation, stated, “Some will argue on the floor today that we’re really not engaged in hostilities, we’re not exchanging fire. Please tell that to the people of Yemen, whose homes and lives are being destroyed by weapons marked ‘Made in the U.S.A.,’ dropped by planes being refueled by the U.S. military on targets chosen with US assistance.”

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights determined that between March 26, 2015, and August 9, 2018, there were a total of 17,062 civilian casualties in Yemen — 6,592 dead and 10,470 injured. The majority of them — 10,471 — resulted from airstrikes carried out by the Saudi-led Coalition.

“There is a U.S. imprint on every single civilian death inside Yemen,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) recently declared, “because though the bombs that are being dropped may come out of planes that are piloted by Saudis or [United Arab Emirates forces], they are U.S.-made bombs…. It’s unconscionable.”

Congress now has an unprecedented opportunity to pass a resolution that could substantially reduce the widespread killing and humanitarian disaster in Yemen. This would be the first time since its enactment in 1973 that the War Powers Resolution is used to end a US military operation.

The Senate could act this week, but the House will not take up the matter before next year, and Trump has threatened to veto a resolution. There will invariably be amendments to any concurrent resolution in both the House and the Senate. Although the resolutions, as currently drafted, contain loopholes that could authorize US assistance to Saudi military actions against al Qaeda, and contain a clause for presidential waiver, public pressure on members of Congress to close those loopholes may well prove effective. And if sufficient pressure is applied, a resolution could garner enough congressional support to override a presidential veto.

Facing Pressure, McConnell Agrees to Criminal Justice Vote

WASHINGTON — Under pressure from President Donald Trump and many of his Republican colleagues, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he will bring legislation to the floor to overhaul the nation’s federal sentencing laws.

McConnell’s decision comes after more than three years of overtures from a large, bipartisan group of senators who support the criminal justice bill. Trump announced his support for the legislation last month, but McConnell treaded cautiously as a handful of members in his caucus voiced concerns that it would be too soft on violent criminals.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the No. 2 Republican, said Trump’s push for the legislation was “critical to the outcome.”

“Sen. McConnell was always concerned about the small window of time that we have to do all these things we need to do, but the president was insistent that this be included,” he said.

If the legislation passes, it would be a major bipartisan policy achievement for this Congress and the largest sentencing overhaul in decades. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan, said, “The House stands ready to act on the revised Senate criminal justice reform bill.” Ryan has long supported sentencing reform and is retiring at the end of the session.

Most Senate Democrats support the bill, which would revise 1980s and ’90s-era “tough on crime” laws to boost rehabilitation efforts for federal prisoners and give judges more discretion when sentencing nonviolent offenders. It would attempt to focus the toughest sentences on the most violent offenders, lowering mandatory minimum sentences for some nonviolent drug offenses and reducing the life sentence for some drug offenders with three convictions, or “three strikes,” to 25 years.

Supporters say the changes would make the nation’s criminal justice system fairer, reduce overcrowding in federal prisons and save taxpayer dollars. The bill would affect only federal prisoners, who make up roughly 10 percent of the country’s prison population. Several states have passed similar laws that apply to state prisons.

“It is an opportunity to correct manifest injustices in the system,” said Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who signed on to the legislation last week after supporters agreed to make tweaks to guard against violent criminals being released early. “There are far too many young black men who find themselves incarcerated for years or even decades based on nonviolent drug offenses.”

Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, another supporter, said he thinks the legislation became “a more consensus product” after Cruz’s tweaks were accepted and he announced his support.

“We’re going to have a lot of people on board,” Paul said. “And it’s the right thing to do.”

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey, a leading proponent of the bill, said if the legislation is passed, it will have “a profound effect on thousands of families who have been suffering as a result of this broken system.” He said many of the bill’s beneficiaries would be African-American.

Booker said the bill isn’t “all the way there” in terms of the sentencing reforms that he and other Democrats would have liked, but it would “take a step in the right direction and correct the ills of the last 25, 30 years.”

The bill has been a priority for Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who has worked behind the scenes with supportive Republican senators over the last two years and pushed Trump to support it. It was also a top issue for former President Barack Obama, who had hoped to see the bill become law before he left office.

Supporters have long said that the bill would pass if McConnell would just put it on the floor. But McConnell hesitated as some vocal members of his caucus said the bill would allow the release of violent felons — a charge that GOP supporters denied.

McConnell said he was moving the bill as soon as this week “at the request of the president” and following improvements to the legislation.

The Senate’s most vocal opponent, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, said the revised legislation “still has major problems and allows early release for many categories of serious, violent criminals.” Cotton said he will introduce amendments to the legislation on the floor, suggesting he could delay its passage as senators try to wrap up before Christmas.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, the legislation’s lead sponsor, has not yet released the text of the legislation. Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican who has also been skeptical of the bill, said he was waiting to see it because he wants to “try to figure out how many people they are going to let go.”

While senators have been pressuring McConnell to take up the bill for years, the pressure ramped up in recent weeks as the session neared an end and supporters worried that Democrats taking the House majority in January would want to rewrite the bill. Kushner spoke with senators regularly — daily, in some cases — and appeared on Fox News Channel’s “Hannity” on Monday night, urging McConnell to take it up.

Trump said Tuesday that the bill has “great” support and was “going to be passing, hopefully.”

“Thanks to Leader McConnell for agreeing to bring a Senate vote on Criminal Justice this week!” Trump tweeted. “These historic changes will make communities SAFER and SAVE tremendous taxpayers dollars. It brings much needed hope to many families during the Holiday Season.”

Supporters who have been pushing the bill for years — including many law enforcement organizations, liberal advocacy groups and major GOP donors — praised McConnell’s announcement.

The American Civil Liberties Union encouraged senators to vote for the legislation, saying it “makes modest but important improvements to our criminal justice system.”

Holly Harris, executive director of the advocacy group Justice Action Network, said McConnell’s decision is “an incredibly groundbreaking moment” and emotional for the broad coalition that has been working on it for so long.

“I never doubted the leader would be on the right side of history on this bill,” Harris said.

___

Associated Press writers Lisa Mascaro, Padmananda Rama and Jill Colvin contributed to this report.

Pelosi Agrees to Limit Her Tenure as Speaker to Four Years

WASHINGTON — Rep. Nancy Pelosi all but ensured that she will become House speaker next month, quelling a revolt by disgruntled younger Democrats by agreeing to limit her tenure to no more than four additional years in the chamber’s top post.

Within moments of announcing Wednesday she would restrict her time in the job, seven of her critics distributed a statement promising to back the California Democrat. Democrats widely agreed that the pledge meant Pelosi had clinched a comeback to the post she held from 2007 until January 2011, the last time her party ran the House and the first time the speaker was a woman.

Wednesday’s accord gives Pelosi a clear path to becoming the most powerful Democrat in government and a leading role in confronting President Donald Trump during the upcoming 2020 presidential and congressional campaigns. It moves a 78-year-old white woman to the cusp of steering next year’s diverse crop of House Democrats, with its large number of female, minority and younger members.

The agreement also ends what’s been a distracting, harsh leadership fight among Democrats that has been waged since Election Day, when they gained at least 39 seats and grabbed House control for the next Congress. It was their biggest gain of House seats since the 1974 post-Watergate election.

Democrats have been hoping to train public attention on their 2019 agenda focusing on health care, jobs and wages, and building infrastructure projects. They also envision investigations of Trump, his 2016 presidential campaign and his administration.

To line up support, Pelosi initially resorted to full-court lobbying by congressional allies, outside Democratic luminaries, and liberal and labor organizations. She cut deals with individual lawmakers for committee assignments and roles leading legislative efforts.

But in the end, she had to make concessions about her tenure to make sure she’ll win a majority — likely 218 votes — when the new House convenes Jan. 3. Democrats are likely to have 235 seats, meaning she could spare only 17 defections and still prevail if, as expected, Republicans all oppose her.

Pelosi had described herself as a transitional leader over the last several weeks. But she’d resisted defining how long she would serve as speaker, saying it would lessen her negotiating leverage to declare herself a lame duck.

On Wednesday, she gave in to her opponents’ demands that she limit her service. Under the deal, House Democrats will vote by Feb. 15 to change party rules to limit their top three leaders to no more than four two-year terms, including time they’ve already spent in those jobs.

“I am comfortable with the proposal and it is my intention to abide by it whether it passes or not,” Pelosi said in her statement.

Pelosi’s opponents have argued it was time for younger leaders to command the party. They also said her demonization as an out-of-touch radical in tens of millions of dollars’ worth of Republican television ads was costing Democrats seats.

While some Democrats are still certain to vote against Pelosi — especially incoming freshmen who promised to do so during their campaigns — most Democrats have remained solidly behind her. She’s been a strong fundraiser and unrelenting liberal who doesn’t shy from political combat, and her backers complained that her opponents were mostly white men who were largely more moderate than most House Democrats.

Pressure to back Pelosi seemed to grow after she calmly went toe-to-toe with Trump at a nationally televised verbal brawl in the Oval Office on Tuesday over his demands for congressional approval of $5 billion for his proposed border wall with Mexico.

“We are proud that our agreement will make lasting institutional change that will strengthen our caucus and will help develop the next generation of Democratic leaders,” the rebellious lawmakers said in a written statement.

To be nominated to a fourth term under the agreement, Pelosi would need to garner a two-thirds majority of House Democrats. Several aides said they believed restlessness by younger members to move up in leadership would make that difficult for her to achieve.

The limits would also apply to Pelosi’s top lieutenants, No. 2 leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland and No. 3 leader James Clyburn of South Carolina. Both are also in their late 70s.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., was among 16 Democrats who had signed a letter demanding new leadership but who ultimately helped negotiate the deal with Pelosi.

Joining Perlmutter in saying they would now back her were Democratic Reps. Seth Moulton of Massachusetts; Tim Ryan of Ohio; Bill Foster of Illinois; Linda Sanchez and Rep.-elect Gil Cisernos, both of California; and Filemon Vela of Texas.

U.K.’s May Wins No-Confidence Vote by MPs Unhappy Over Brexit

LONDON — British Prime Minister Theresa May survived a political crisis over her Brexit deal Wednesday, winning a no-confidence vote by Conservative lawmakers that would have ended her leadership of party and country.

But the margin of victory — 200 votes to 117 — leaves May a weakened leader who has lost the support of a big chunk of her party over her handling of Britain’s exit from the European Union. It also came at a steep price as she promised not to run for re-election in 2022. Britain’s Brexit problem, meanwhile, remains unsolved as May seeks changes to her EU divorce deal in order to make it more palatable to Parliament.

May said she was “pleased to have received the backing of my colleagues” but acknowledged that “a significant number” had voted against her in Wednesday evening’s secret ballot.

“I have listened to what they said,” May promised as she stood in a darkened Downing St. after what she called a “long and challenging day.”

The threat to May had been building as pro-Brexit Conservative lawmakers grew increasingly frustrated with the prime minister’s handling of Brexit. Many supporters of Brexit say May’s deal, a compromise that retains close economic ties with the EU, fails to deliver on the clean break with the bloc that they want.

The balloting came after May’s Conservative opponents, who circled the beleaguered prime minister for weeks hoping to spark a no-confidence vote, finally got the numbers they needed to call one.

The vote was triggered when at least 48 lawmakers —15 percent of Conservative legislators — wrote letters asking for a no-confidence ballot.

On Monday, May postponed a vote to approve the divorce deal to avoid all-but-certain defeat. She has until Jan. 21 to bring it back to Parliament after— she hopes — winning concessions from the EU.

The result of the vote was announced to loud cheers from lawmakers gathered in a stuffy, ornately wallpapered room in the House of Commons. Under party rules, May cannot be challenged again by fellow Conservatives for a year.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling, an ally, said the result showed that May “has the support of her party.”

“This is a clear statement by the parliamentary party they want her to go forward, they want her to lead us through Brexit,” he told Sky News.

But pro-Brexit lawmaker Mark Francois said the result was “devastating” for May, who has lost the support of a third of her party in Parliament.

“If I were her, I wouldn’t be pleased with this at all,” Francois said. “I think she needs to think very carefully about what to do now.”

Before the vote Wednesday, May had vowed to fight for the leadership of her party and the country “with everything I’ve got,” and spent the day holed up in the House of Commons trying to win over enough lawmakers to secure victory.

In a bid to win over wavering lawmakers, May indicated she would step down before the next election, due in 2022.

Solicitor-General Robert Buckland said May told lawmakers at a meeting that “it is not her intention to lead the party in the 2022 general election.”

May’s victory is a reprieve but does not lay to rest uncertainty about Britain’s EU departure, due on March 29.

Opposition lawmakers expressed astonishment and outrage at the Conservative civil war erupting in the middle of the fraught Brexit process.

“This government is a farce, the Tory party is in chaos, the prime minister is a disgrace,” Scottish National Party leader Ian Blackford said during a pugnacious Prime Minister’s Questions session in the House of Commons.

British business figures expressed exasperation at the continuing political uncertainty.

“With news that the prime minister remains in place, business communities will hope that these political games can finally be put to bed,” said Adam Marshall, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce.

“Westminster must now focus all its energy on urgently giving businesses clarity on the future and avoiding a messy or disorderly Brexit.”

The vote confirms May’s reputation as a dogged, determined political survivor. But on Thursday she will head to an EU summit in Brussels facing another difficult task. She is seeking changes to the withdrawal agreement that can win support in Britain’s Parliament. But EU leaders say the legally binding text won’t be reopened, and the best they can offer are “clarifications.”

May said she would “be seeking legal and political assurances that will assuage the concerns” of lawmakers.

Among EU leaders there is sympathy for May’s predicament — but also exasperation at Britain’s political mess.

The European Parliament’s Brexit point man, Guy Verhofstadt, could not contain a note of annoyance, tweeting: “Once again, the fate of EU-U.K. relations, the prosperity of businesses & citizens’ rights are consumed by an internal Conservative party catfight over Europe.”

On the streets of London, some felt sympathy for the embattled leader.

“It’s embarrassing for a start to the rest of the world and I feel really sorry for Theresa May — she’s being battered by everybody,” said Abby Handbridge, who was selling Christmas cards and wrapping paper at a London street market.

“I hope she stays in power and sorts it out.”

Health Care Sign-Ups Lag as Saturday Deadline Looms

WASHINGTON — With just days left to enroll, fewer people are signing up for the Affordable Care Act, even though premiums are stable, more plans are available and millions of uninsured people can still get financial help.

Barring an enrollment surge, the nation’s uninsured rate could edge up again after a yearslong coverage expansion that has seen about 20 million people obtain health insurance.

A status report Wednesday from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services showed nearly 20 percent fewer new people signed up than at about the same time last year. New sign-ups drive the growth of the HealthCare.gov marketplaces, helping keep premiums in check.

The sign-up deadline in most states is this Saturday, for coverage beginning Jan. 1. A few states that run their own health care websites have later deadlines.

Trying to encourage enrollment, former President Barack Obama posted a whimsical video on social media Monday encouraging young adults to sign up for his signature program. That same day, a crush of people tried to enroll in what was the highest traffic this open enrollment season.

Disappointing sign-ups will add to the long-running political blame game over health care. Democrats accuse the Trump administration of “sabotage” on the health law. Republicans counter that pricey Obama-law premiums are too high for solid middle-class people who don’t qualify for taxpayer-financed subsidies.

The Trump administration said in a statement this week “our primary goal is to provide a seamless open enrollment experience for HealthCare.gov consumers and ensure that those who want coverage offered through the (program) can enroll in a plan.” Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar also posted his own straightforward video pitch on Twitter.

The new numbers suggest there may be less demand for government-subsidized insurance during a time of strong economic growth. But interviews with current and former officials, consumer organizations and independent experts also revealed several factors that appear to be cutting into enrollment.

—Lack of a strategy for expanding HealthCare.gov, the federal insurance marketplace.

The Trump administration didn’t set sign-up targets for the health overhaul, according to a report this summer from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office. Such targets are a standard management tool for government agencies.

“Marketing does matter,” said Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, a state-run insurance marketplace. “Not doing active promotion millions of Americans are not going to find their way to HealthCare.gov.”

The administration has been using targeted emails and social media messaging , but that’s nowhere near the effort expended in the Obama years. Administration officials say they are focused on providing a smooth sign-up experience for consumers who want coverage.

—No penalty for being uninsured.

The GOP-led Congress repealed the fine for being uninsured, effective this Jan. 1. The tax penalty was the most unpopular part of Obama’s law.

“The really big change taking effect for this open enrollment period is repeal of the individual mandate penalty, so that is very likely a major factor,” said Larry Levitt of the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

The administration also increased access to lower-cost plans that provide less coverage than the more comprehensive insurance offered under the overhaul.

Short-term health insurance plans don’t have to offer basic benefits such as prescription drugs, and insurers can turn down people with medical conditions. But such plans may appeal to healthy people looking for a measure of financial protection against an unexpected illness.

—Immigration fears.

Organizations working to enroll low-income workers report heightened concerns among immigrants that applying for health insurance could have negative consequences due to the administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration. Only legal immigrants and citizens can get coverage through HealthCare.gov, but that hasn’t calmed the fears.

“We’ve had a lot of green card holders coming in because they think they might be affected,” said Kori Hattemer of Foundation Communities, a nonprofit organization in Austin, Texas, that helps enroll people for coverage. “Pretty much every day we have someone asking us about it.”

Hattemer says their enrollment numbers are about 9 percent below the same time last year.

Last year about 11.8 million people signed up for subsidized private health insurance during the ACA’s open enrollment period. Some 10 million are still enrolled. Current customers who don’t want to make any changes will get coverage automatically renewed for 2019.

Separately, another 12 million low-income people are covered through the health law’s Medicaid expansion.

A former Republican Senate health care staffer who launched Rhode Island’s health marketplace said ongoing consumer education is needed to grow enrollment. Christine Ferguson said many healthy people don’t realize the value of coverage until something bad happens to them.

But boosting sign-ups “was not a priority” for the Trump administration, said Ferguson, now a consultant. President Donald Trump failed to outright repeal the ACA last year.

The AP’s VoteCast survey during this year’s elections showed that 59 percent of voters want the government to ensure coverage for all Americans. But voters had mixed views of the ACA, with about half saying it should be repealed totally or in part. About a third said it should be expanded.

Trump Comments Upend U.S. Approach to Huawei, Trade Talks

WASHINGTON — The United States and China have taken pains this week to emphasize that their trade talks are entirely separate from the U.S. case against a top Chinese technology executive. But with a few words, President Donald Trump obliterated the distinction.

Trump said Tuesday he’d wade into the case against Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of telecommunications giant Huawei, if it would help produce a trade agreement with China.

“If I think it’s good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made — which is a very important thing — what’s good for national security — I would certainly intervene if I thought it was necessary,” Trump told Reuters in an interview.

The comment suggests Meng could be a political pawn in negotiations and makes things more awkward for Canada, which arrested her on America’s behalf during a Dec. 1 layover at the Vancouver airport.

Responding to Trump’s comment, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Wednesday: “Regardless of what goes on in other countries, Canada is, and will always remain, a country of the rule of law.”

“Are we now saying: ‘You violated U.S. law but if you’re willing to buy more U.S. soybeans we can look the other way?’ ” asked Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator who is now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute.

A Canadian court on Tuesday released Meng on bail, confining her to Vancouver and its suburbs while she awaits possible extradition to the United States. The U.S. accuses Huawei, the biggest global supplier of network gear for phone and internet companies, of using a Hong Kong shell company to do business with Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions.

In what appears to be retaliation against Canada for arresting Meng, Chinese authorities on Monday detained a former Canadian diplomat, Michael Kovrig, in Beijing.

“Trump’s comments were very unfortunate and probably did not reflect a great deal of thought,” said Roland Paris, a former foreign policy adviser to Trudeau. “We have a judicial process under way and it will take its course. … Canada is paying a significant price for doing the right thing by upholding the rule of law and discharging its treaty obligations. President Trump should be aware of that.”

A senior Canadian government official told reporters that China informed the Canadian government on Wednesday that Kovrig was in the custody of Beijing state security, but did not say why he was detained or where he was being held. Hours earlier, China’s foreign ministry denied any knowledge of the detention.

Canada has also asked China for extra security at its embassy because of protests and anti-Canadian sentiment and has advised foreign service staff to “be prudent” and take precautions, another official said.

Meng’s arrest came the same day that Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping agreed over dinner in Buenos Aires to a 90-day cease-fire in a trade war that has shaken global financial markets and raised worries about the impact on the world economy.

The truce was meant to buy time for more substantive talks over U.S. allegations that China steals U.S. technology and forces American companies to hand over trade secrets in exchange for access to the Chinese market.

U.S. officials have insisted the sanctions case against Meng had nothing to do with the ongoing trade talks. Top White House economic adviser Larry Kudlow told “Fox News Sunday” that “there’s a trade lane … and there is the law enforcement lane. They are different.”

Still, there is precedent for Trump intervening on behalf of a Chinese company accused of violating U.S. sanctions.

Trump drew fire from Capitol Hill in June when he reached a deal that spared another Chinese telecommunications company, ZTE, from U.S. sanctions that probably would have put it out of business after it was accused of selling equipment to Iran and North Korea. U.S. regulators planned to bar it from receiving U.S. components that it depended on, effectively a corporate death sentence.

But Trump issued a reprieve, perhaps partly because U.S. tech companies, major suppliers to ZTE, would also have been scorched. ZTE agreed to pay a $1 billion fine, change its board and management, and let American regulators monitor its operations.

Speaking outside the White House Wednesday, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross urged reporters not to jump to the conclusion that Trump will actually intervene in Meng’s case.

“Let’s see what he actually decides,” Ross said. “Let’s see where we go from there.”

Philip Levy, senior fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and an economic adviser in President George W. Bush’s White House, noted that “there’s a real value to keeping these things separate.”

“Do we want China to seize an (American) executive when they want to get a concession on trade talks in the future?” he asked.

___

Gillies reported from Toronto. Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this report.

Will the Supreme Court Come to Trump and Manafort’s Rescue?

This piece originally appeared on The Progressive.

In all likelihood, Terance Martez Gamble never thought he’d become a party in a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, let alone one on “double jeopardy”—the principle, inscribed in the Fifth Amendment, that prohibits criminal defendants from being tried and convicted twice for the same offense.

Yet that’s exactly what has happened to Gamble, a twenty-nine-year-old Alabama man with an eleventh-grade education, who is doing time in federal prison after being separately prosecuted by state and federal authorities for the same 2015 gun-possession crime. He is the petitioner in a case now before the U.S. Supreme Court called, Gamble vs. The United States of America.

Gamble’s lawyers maintain that his dual prosecutions run afoul of double jeopardy and the Fifth Amendment. The high court on December 6 heard oral argument on his appeal in an eighty-minute session, a sign of the heightened importance of the issues raised. Normally, the court devotes only an hour to oral argument.

The case, which has divided civil rights lawyers and civil liberties groups, could impact Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe and affect President Donald Trump’s ability to pardon such targets of the probe as Paul Manafort, who are potentially exposed to both federal and state criminal liability.

Gamble’s legal troubles date back to 2008, when he was convicted in an Alabama court of second-degree robbery. Seven years later, his difficulties multiplied when was pulled over late at night by a police officer in Mobile, Alabama, for driving his black Dodge Charger with a broken headlight.

Upon approaching the car, the officer smelled marijuana coming from the passenger compartment. The officer ordered Gamble out of the vehicle and conducted a search, which disclosed a loaded 9mm handgun, a digital scale, and two baggies of marijuana.

Gamble was prosecuted in an Alabama court for violating state drug laws and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He was convicted and sentenced to a year in state prison, which he finished serving in May 2017.

While his state prosecution was pending, Gamble was indicted by a federal grand jury for illegally possessing the 9mm pistol under a federal statute that prohibits felons from possessing firearms. Gamble moved to dismiss the indictment on double-jeopardy grounds, but the presiding judge upheld the prosecution, citing long-standing Supreme Court precedent that has recognized a “separate-sovereigns” exception to the double-jeopardy rule. The exception permits successive state and federal prosecutions, even when based on the same facts.

Reserving the right to appeal his sentence, Gamble subsequently pleaded guilty and received a forty-six-month federal prison term. With credit for time spent in state custody, he is scheduled for release in February 2020.

Gamble is represented on a pro bono basis by Louis Chaiten, a partner with the powerful Jones Day law firm, which has offices across the country and in Europe and Asia. A former law clerk of the late Antonin Scalia, Chaiten urged the court on December 6 to overturn the separate-sovereigns doctrine, insisting the rule “is inconsistent with the text and original meaning of the double jeopardy clause.”

A formidable collection of civil-liberties groups—some from the right and some from the left—supported Chaiten and Gamble in briefs lodged in the case as amicus curiae, or “friends of the court.” In a rare joint submission, the ACLU and the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center teamed with the conservative Cato Institute in arguing that double jeopardy principles should have prevented Gamble from being punished twice for the same crime. The liberty interests protected by the double jeopardy clause, they reasoned, demand the same result for defendants who can be charged for the same offenses under both state and federal law.

Arguing against Chaiten was Eric Feigin, an Assistant Solicitor General, with the U.S. Department of Justice, who noted that the Supreme Court initially endorsed the concept in 1852. Feigin contended there was no compelling reason for invalidating such an age-old policy. He also asserted that the rule was entirely consistent with the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, who saw the states and the newly minted federal government as political equals that were free to punish wrongdoing as they saw fit.

Feigin’s position was echoed by a number of other amicus curiae, including one from the National Indigenous Women’s Resource Center, which pointed out in its filing that Native American women sometimes seek to go beyond unfavorable tribal court judgments to prosecute perpetrators of domestic violence in the federal system. A politically diverse group of thirty-six states, including Texas and Alabama as well as New York and California, also supported Feigin in a lengthy brief.

Still another notable amicus—the Thurgood Marshall Civil Rights Center of Howard University—implored the court to proceed with caution. The center reminded the justices of Rodney King, whose 1991 beating by Los Angeles police went unpunished at the state level, spurring a successful federal prosecution. It expressed concern that scuttling the separate-sovereigns doctrine could prevent federal civil rights prosecutions from being instituted following acquittals in state-court police misconduct trials.

During the December 6 oral argument, the court appeared as divided as the litigants and the amici, but not along the usual ideological lines. Liberal stalwart Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg referred to the separate-sovereigns doctrine disparagingly as a “double whammy.” By contrast, two other liberal justices—Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer—voiced approval of the principle.

Among the panel’s conservatives, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also seemed inclined to uphold the doctrine, while Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked on the merits of each side’s views.

Should the court end up keeping the separate-sovereigns precedent intact, the biggest losers in the case, apart from Gamble, could be Trump and Manafort, the President’s former campaign manager, who has been convicted of federal offenses for bank fraud and tax evasion that arguably also violate the laws of several states.

In a November 28 interview with the New York Post, Trump declined to take the possibility of a pardon for Manafort “off the table.” If the court upholds the separate-sovereigns doctrine, however, Manafort and other vulnerable Trump aides and associates—think Roger Stone, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump Jr.—could in theory be charged for any overlapping state offenses, as could even Trump himself. Presidential pardons would be of little benefit as they do not affect state prosecutions.

A ruling the other way, dismantling the separate-sovereigns framework, would bolster Trump’s pardon power and perhaps hand Manafort an early get-out-of-jail card.

We’ll get the Supreme Court’s verdict by the end of June, when its current term concludes. Until then, Trump will have his hands full dealing with the Mueller probe, and Manafort will continue to languish in an orange jumpsuit behind bars.