Chris Hedges's Blog, page 463

A Second Woman Accuses Kavanaugh of Sexual Misconduct

WASHINGTON — Just as negotiators reached agreement on an extraordinary hearing for Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, a second allegation of sexual misconduct by the Supreme Court nominee put the White House and Senate Republicans on the defensive and fueled calls from Democrats to postpone further action on his confirmation.

A dayslong back and forth over the timing and terms of a hearing with Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman accusing him of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers, appeared to end Sunday with the announcement that they would appear separately Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The hearing promised a televised national drama as Ford tells her story of a high school sexual assault before skeptical Republicans, followed by Kavanaugh pleading his innocence and being grilled by Democrats.

Hours later, however, The New Yorker magazine reported online that Senate Democrats were investigating another woman’s accusation of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh, this time dating to the 1983-84 academic year, Kavanaugh’s first at Yale University.

The New Yorker said 53-year-old Deborah Ramirez described the incident in an interview after being contacted by the magazine. Ramirez recalled that Kavanaugh exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away, the magazine reported.

In a statement provided by the White House, Kavanaugh said the event “did not happen” and that the allegation was “a smear, plain and simple.” A White House spokeswoman added in a second statement that the allegation was “designed to tear down a good man.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, called Sunday night for the “immediate postponement” of any further action on Kavanaugh’s nomination. She also asked the committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to have the FBI investigate the allegations of both Ford and Ramirez.

The New Yorker said it contacted Ramirez after learning of a possible involvement in an incident with Kavanaugh and that the allegation came to Democratic senators through a civil rights lawyer. She had been considering speaking to the magazine for at least a week. Meanwhile, Republicans were pressing for a swift hearing and a vote.

The magazine reported that Ramirez was reluctant at first to speak publicly “partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.” She also acknowledged reluctance “to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.”

The magazine reported that after “six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections” to recall the incident.

The Associated Press tried reaching Ramirez at her home in Boulder, Colorado. She posted a sign saying she has no comment on her front door.

Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee said they found out about the Ramirez allegations from The New Yorker article and blamed Democrats for withholding the information. Spokesman Taylor Foy said the panel is looking into it.

The new information came hours after the Senate committee agreed to a date and time for a hearing after nearly a week of uncertainty over whether Ford would appear to tell her story.

The agreement and the latest accusation set the stage for a dramatic showdown as Kavanaugh and Ford each tell their side of the story. The developments could also determine the fate of Kavanaugh’s confirmation, which hangs on the votes of a handful of senators.

It had seemed assured before Ford, a 51-year-old California college professor, went public a week ago with her allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party when they were in high school.

Kavanaugh, 53, an appellate court judge, has denied Ford’s allegation and said he wanted to testify as soon as possible to clear his name.

Michael Avenatti, the attorney representing porn actress Stormy Daniels in her legal fight with President Donald Trump, inserted himself into the maelstrom Sunday night when he claimed to represent a woman with information about high school-era parties attended by Kavanaugh and urged the Senate to investigate. Avenatti told The Associated Press that he will disclose his client’s identity in the coming days and that she is prepared to testify before the committee, as well as provide names of corroborating witnesses.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wrangled with Ford’s lawyers for the last week over the exact terms of her appearance. She made several requests, some of which were accommodated — a Thursday hearing, three days later than originally scheduled, and a smaller hearing room with less press access to avoid a media circus, for example. Grassley’s staff also agreed to let Ford testify without Kavanaugh in the room, for there to be only one camera in the room, “adequate” breaks and a high security presence.

The committee said it would not negotiate on other points, though, including Ford’s desire for additional witnesses and a request to testify after, not before, Kavanaugh.

“As with any witness who comes before the Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee cannot hand over its constitutional duties to attorneys for outside witnesses,” Mike Davis, Grassley’s top nominations counsel, wrote in an email exchange with Ford’s lawyers obtained by The Associated Press. “The committee determines which witnesses to call, how many witnesses to call, in what order to call them, and who will question them. These are non-negotiable.”

Ford’s lawyers said it was still unclear who will ask questions, as Republicans were trying to hire an outside female counsel who could take over the questioning. The 11 senators on the GOP side of the dais are all men, which could send an unwanted message on live television against the backdrop of the #MeToo era. They could also use Republican staff attorneys on the committee.

Democratic senators were expected to ask their own questions.

“We were told no decision has been made on this important issue, even though various senators have been dismissive of her account and should have to shoulder their responsibility to ask her questions,” the attorneys for Ford said in a statement.

As he builds a case for his innocence, Kavanaugh plans to turn over to the committee calendars from the summer of 1982 that don’t show a party consistent with Ford’s description of the gathering in which she says he attacked her, The New York Times reported Sunday. The newspaper reported that it had examined the calendars and noted they list basketball games, movie outings, football workouts, college interviews, and a few parties with names of friends other than those identified by Ford.

A person working on Kavanaugh’s confirmation confirmed the Times account to The Associated Press. The person spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter.

Earlier Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said lawyers for Ford were contesting two GOP conditions — that Ford and Kavanaugh would be the only witnesses and that an independent counsel would ask the questions.

“If they continue to contest those two things, there won’t be a hearing,” Graham said. “We’re not going to let her determine how many people we call” and on outside counsel. “I hope she comes.”

Graham, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” promised a fair hearing in which both Ford and Kavanaugh “will be challenged” but said “unless there’s something more” to back up her accusation, he indicated he will vote to confirm Kavanaugh. Graham said he’s “not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this.”

One issue that appeared to have been resolved in Sunday’s hourlong phone call between Judiciary staff and Ford’s lawyers was the committee’s refusal to subpoena Mark Judge, the other person Ford alleges was in the room when the assault occurred. Judge has told the committee he does not recall the incident.

The lawyers for Ford want the committee to hear from other witnesses, including a person who conducted a polygraph of Ford earlier this year, the person familiar with the talks said. Ford’s lawyers also want to call on two trauma experts, the person said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat on the committee, said Sunday he believed Ford’s requests have been reasonable and that she deserves a fair hearing to determine whether her allegations are serious enough to vote down Kavanaugh’s nomination.

Durbin acknowledged that lawmakers will “probably not” be able to know the truth of Ford’s decades-old accusation. But Durbin left little doubt that that Democrats will go after Kavanaugh’s drinking history to help shed light on the matter. Ford has alleged Kavanaugh was “stumbling drunk” when it happened.

Durbin told ABC’s “This Week” that some Republicans “reached out to Democratic senators and assured them that they are looking to this as kind of a determination as to how their final vote” on Kavanaugh is cast.

Democrats again called for the FBI to investigate Ford’s claims, a request that was unlikely to be met as Trump and Senate Republicans have said it’s unnecessary. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York and the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, sent a letter to Trump on Sunday saying the FBI has more than enough time to investigate before Ford and Kavanaugh testify on Thursday.

Republicans viewed the demands for an investigation, and Ford’s various requests, as a way to delay voting on Trump’s nominee. They have also cast some doubt on Ford’s allegations, with the Judiciary panel announcing that it had investigated the incident and talked to three other people who Ford has told The Washington Post were at the party — Judge, Patrick J. Smyth and Leland Ingham Keyser. The committee said all three told investigators that they had no recollection of the evening in question.

The Post reported Sunday that Keyser said in a brief interview at her home that she still believes Ford, even if she doesn’t remember the party.

The White House is approaching Ford’s potential testimony with trepidation, nervous that an emotional performance might not just damage Kavanaugh’s chances but could further energize female voters to turn out against Republicans in November.

Moreover, the West Wing aides who had urged Trump to remain muted in his response to the accusations worried about how the president might react to an hourslong, televised hearing. Trump broke his silence to cast doubt on Ford’s story Friday in ways Republicans had been carefully trying to avoid. He said Kavanaugh was “under assault by radical left wing politicians” and suggested Ford should have filed charges as a 15-year-old when she was attacked.

Trump mused to confidants that the “fake” attacks against his nominee were meant to undermine his presidency, according to a White House official and a Republican close to the White House. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private conversations.

___

Associated Press writers Eric Tucker and Hope Yen in Washington and Jonathan Lemire in Bridgewater, New Jersey, contributed to this report.

Stop Brexit? U.K. Labour Party to Debate New Vote

LIVERPOOL, England—Britain’s main opposition Labour Party confirmed Sunday that it will hold a major debate on Brexit at its party conference this week, raising hopes among Labour members hoping to stop the country from leaving the European Union.

With the U.K. and the European Union at an impasse in divorce talks, many Labour members think the left-of-center party has the power—and a duty—to force a new referendum that could reverse Britain’s decision to leave the 28-nation bloc.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has long opposed that idea, but he and other party leaders are under pressure to change their minds. As delegates gathered in Liverpool, one message was emblazoned on hundreds of T-shirts and tote bags: “Love Corbyn, Hate Brexit.”

Ever since Britain voted in 2016 to leave the EU, Labour has said it will respect the result, although it wants a closer relationship with the bloc than the one Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative government is seeking.

Now, with divorce negotiations stuck and Britain due to leave in March, many Labour members think the party must change its course.

“Labour have to come to a decision. The time has gone for sitting on the fence,” said Mike Buckley of Labour for a People’s Vote, a group campaigning for a new Brexit referendum.

To drive home the message, several thousand People’s Vote supporters marched through Liverpool on Sunday, waving blue-and-yellow EU flags alongside Union Jacks and holding signs reading “Exit from Brexit” and a few ruder slogans.

More than 100 local Labour associations submitted motions to the conference urging a public plebiscite, with a choice between leaving on terms agreed upon by the government or staying in the EU.

Party chiefs said Sunday that members and affiliated unions had selected Brexit as one of the priority issues delegates will consider, with a debate scheduled for Tuesday. But what exactly they will vote on has yet to be decided, and will be crucial.

Margaret Mills, a delegate from Orpington in southern England, said her local party had passed a motion calling on Labour to “stop Brexit by any means — well, short of physical violence.”

“I think the time for vagueness is over,” she said.

Corbyn — a veteran socialist who views the EU with suspicion — has long been against holding a second public vote on Brexit, although his opposition appears to be softening.

He said Sunday that he would prefer a general election rather than a referendum, but added: “Let’s see what comes out of conference.”

“Obviously I’m bound by the democracy of our party,” Corbyn told the BBC.

Still, Labour faces a major political dilemma over Brexit. Most of the party’s half a million members voted in 2016 to remain in the EU, but many of its 257 lawmakers represent areas that supported Brexit.

“For Labour to adopt a second referendum policy would spell political disaster in all those Labour seats that voted leave,” said Brendan Chilton of the pro-Brexit group Labour Leave.

Since the 2016 referendum, Labour has stuck to a policy of “constructive ambiguity” in a bid to appeal to both “leave” and “remain” voters. The party opposes May’s “Tory Brexit” plan but not Brexit itself. It calls for Britain to leave the EU but remain in the bloc’s customs union with “full access” to the EU’s huge single market.

Len McCluskey, leader of the Unite trade union, a powerful Labour ally, said British voters had decided to leave the EU and “for us now to enter some kind of campaign that opens up that issue again I think would be wrong.”

Yet Pro-EU Labour members, including many lawmakers, say the party’s ambiguous stance is becoming increasingly untenable as the risk of an economically damaging “hard Brexit” grows.

The Conservative government’s blueprint for future trade ties with the bloc was rejected last week by EU leaders at a summit in Salzburg, Austria. That left May’s leadership under siege and Britain at growing risk of crashing out of the EU on March 29 with no deal in place.

Andrew Adonis, a Labour member of the House of Lords who supports holding a second referendum, said Labour can’t sit on the sidelines while the country staggers toward political and financial chaos.

“This is as big a crisis as I can remember in my lifetime,” Adonis said. “And no one has a clue at the moment what is going to happen.

“That’s why I think we now need to take a stand — we the Labour Party and we the country.”

Brexit is one of several challenges facing Corbyn, who heads a divided party. He has strong support among grassroots members, many of whom have joined since he was elected leader in 2015. But many Labour lawmakers think his old-fashioned socialism is a turnoff for the wider electorate.

Labour has also been roiled by allegations that Corbyn, a long-time critic of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, has allowed anti-Semitism to fester inside the party. He has denied it and condemned anti-Semitism, but the furor has angered many Jewish party members and their supporters.

Labour backed the “remain” side during the 2016 referendum but Corbyn’s support was lukewarm.

“Jeremy Corbyn is a Brexiteer and always has been,” said Chilton of Labour Leave. “More and more people now support us leaving the European Union and getting on with it. … they don’t want to re-fight the referendum.”

Undocumented Immigrants Refuse to Testify in Domestic Abuse Cases

Confirming the fears of legal experts and immigrant rights advocates, undocumented immigrants are declining to testify against their abusers in domestic violence cases, for fear that they will be apprehended and potentially deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents who make arrests at courthouses.

One city attorney, Kristin Bronson of Denver, reported to NBC News that she has been forced to drop at least 30 domestic violence cases since President Donald Trump entered office in January 2017, because victims refuse to appear in court.

“What we’ve found in Denver is people are not showing up because they’re afraid that they might get apprehended in the hallways,” Bronson told NBC News. “It means that abusers are going without consequences. It means that abusers are beginning to feel that they are immune from prosecution, and it’s become, unfortunately, a tool to further victimize women who are the victims of domestic violence.”

NBC’s report offers the latest evidence of the tangible damage Trump’s immigration crackdown is having on immigrant communities. As Common Dreams reported this week, more than 40 immigrants have been arrested by ICE after coming forward to retrieve their unaccompanied family members. Detention centers for children who have crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without parents or guardians are nearly at capacity because fewer children are being released to their families, largely due to family members’ fears of ICE arrests.

Under its “Sensitive Locations” policy, ICE is prohibited from making arrests at schools—although numerous undocumented immigrants have been detained while taking their children to school—as well as hospitals and places of worship.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healy is among the critics who argue that courthouses should also be safe places for undocumented immigrants to appear without fearing arrest, for precisely the reason Bronson has called attention to. The Trump administration officially ordered ICE agents to make arrests at courthouses earlier this year.

Trump’s crackdown on immigration is “undercutting our ability, as law enforcement, to develop the critical trust to keep our communities safe,” Healy said in a statement.

Earlier this week, a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court judge upheld ICE’s right to apprehend immigrants at courthouses, dismaying immigrant rights advocates.

“Our clients—and countless immigrants in Massachusetts and across the country—remain open to unfettered intimidation, harassment, and detention by federal immigration officials. The courthouse doors remain effectively closed to immigrants,” Ivan Espinoza-Madrigal, executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, told the Boston Globe.

Trump Holds Off on Firing Rosenstein. For Now.

BRIDGEWATER, N.J.—As Air Force One streaked across the desert sky and Las Vegas faded in the distance, President Donald Trump began seeking opinions.

The TVs on the plane, tuned as always to Fox News, carried headlines about an explosive new story: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had suggested wearing a wire to secretly record Trump, and raised the idea of using the 25th Amendment to remove the president from office.

Related Articles









Rosenstein Denies That He Proposed Secretly Taping Trump



by

On the flights both to and from a Missouri rally, Trump polled staff on the plane, called his outside network of advisers and kept a careful eye on what his favorite hosts on his favorite network were recommending.

The messages were mixed, but more were in favor of containing the urge to fire Rosenstein, a move that would declare open warfare with the Justice Department and cast doubt on the future of the special counsel’s Russia probe, according to two people familiar with the exchanges but not authorized to publicly discuss private conversations.

Trump, though telling confidants that he felt the moment was another example of the “Deep State” and media conspiring to undermine him, held off dismissing Rosenstein. For now.

But the aftershocks of the story are rattling Washington still.

“He shouldn’t fire Rosenstein unless you believe Rosenstein’s lying. He says he did not do the things alleged,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. on “Fox News Sunday.”

“But there’s a bureaucratic coup against President Trump being discovered here. Before the election, the people in question tried to taint the election, tip it to (Hillary) Clinton’s favor. After the election they’re trying to undermine the president.”

The details of the memos written by a former deputy FBI director, Andrew McCabe, triggered immediate speculation that the information would give Trump the justification to do what he has long desired: dismiss Rosenstein, the Justice Department official overseeing special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The story broke as Trump was in his motorcade heading toward a Department of Veterans Affairs event in North Las Vegas, Nevada, on Friday, though some in the White House had been alerted to the report the day before. Rosenstein immediately put out a statement refuting the story and then, after being summoned to the West Wing that evening by White House chief of staff John Kelly, put out a second, stronger denial.

At the same time, at a rally in Springfield on behalf of Missouri Senate candidate Josh Hawley, Trump made a cryptic remark about removing the “lingering stench” from the FBI and Justice Department but did not explicitly bring up the Rosenstein story.

Later, the president angrily asked confidants, both inside and outside the White House, how to respond. He received mixed messages. Some urged him to fire Rosenstein. Others suggested restraint while seeing if the report was incorrect or if it was planted by some adversary.

Still others believed that firing Rosenstein before the November election would further the Democratic talking point of an administration in disarray and damage the Republicans’ chances of keeping control of Congress.

Trump also received conflicting advice from his other team of counselors: the hosts at Fox News. While Laura Ingraham initially urged Trump to fire Rosenstein, Sean Hannity pleaded with the president not to act.

“It is all a setup,” said Hannity, seeming to directly address Trump. “Under zero circumstances should the president fire anybody.”

And on Saturday, another Trump cable favorite, Jeanine Pirro, took to Twitter to wonder if Rosenstein himself leaked the story “to force” Trump to fire him.

Spending the weekend at his New Jersey golf course, Trump continued to ask allies about the reports and fumed about the involvement of McCabe, whom the president has long believed conspired against him. McCabe was fired this spring not being fully truthful under oath.

But the president’s attention was also divided while at Bedminster, as he was focused on developments in Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings while also being urged by aides to prepare for the upcoming U.N. General Assembly.

Trump, never shy to loudly express disappointment in the Justice Department, has not tweeted about the matter. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

“Rod deserves the right to be heard,” said Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C., on CBS’ “Face the Nation.”

“And I’m sure at some point the president will bring Rod in and say, ‘Rod if you think I am incompetent, if you feel the need to wear a wire when you’re talking to me, then why are you serving in my administration?'”

Democrats urged that Rosenstein be spared.

The report “must not be used as a pretext for the corrupt purpose of firing Rosenstein in order to install an official who will allow the president to interfere with the Special Counsel’s investigation,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer tweeted.

But the reports create even greater uncertainty for Rosenstein in his position at a time when Trump has lambasted the department’s leadership and publicly humiliated both Rosenstein and Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Some of Trump’s fiercest congressional allies had already floated trying to impeach the deputy attorney general.

It’s also the latest revelation that could affect Mueller.

Sessions withdrew from the Russia inquiry soon after he took office, to Trump’s dismay, and Rosenstein later appointed Mueller. Trump has resisted calls from conservative commentators for more than a year to fire both Sessions and Rosenstein and appoint someone who would ride herd more closely on Mueller or dismiss him.

The reported conversation about possibly secretly recording the president took place at a tense May 2017 meeting during the tumultuous period that followed Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey. The White House said that decision, which upset many rank-and-file agents, was based on the Justice Department’s recommendation. The Justice Department issued a statement from one of the participants in the meeting who described the remark as sarcastic.

___

Associated Press writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

Switzerland’s ‘Eternal’ Snow Is Melting Faster

Parts of Europe’s alpine mountain chain are undergoing accelerating melting, as the “eternal” Swiss snow thaws ever faster, threatening both the skiing industry and the nation’s water supply.

Over a period of only 22 years, thousands of satellite images have provided irrefutable evidence that an extra 5,200 square kilometers (2,000 square miles) of the country are now snow-free, compared with the decade 1995-2005.

Researchers from the University of Geneva and the United Nations Environment Programme have used data from four satellites which have been constantly photographing the Earth from space, compiling a record published by the Swiss Data Cube, which uses Earth observations to give a comprehensive picture of the country’s snow cover and much else besides, including crops grown and forest cover.

It is the loss of snow cover that most disturbs the scientists. What they call “the eternal snow zone” still covered 27% of Swiss territory in the years from 1995 to 2005. Ten years later it had fallen to 23% – a loss of 2,100 sq km.

The eternal snow line marks the part of Switzerland above which the snow never used to melt in summer or winter. It is also defined as the area where any precipitation year-round has an 80-100% chance of being snow.

Other parts of the country, including the Swiss Plateau (about 30% of Switzerland’s area), the Rhone Valley, the Alps and the Jura mountains are also losing snow cover, adding up to the 5,200 sq km total. These areas, below the eternal snow line, have until now usually had lying snow in the winter.

The study was launched in 2016 on behalf of Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment. Knowing the extent of snow cover and its retreat is essential for developing public policies, the researchers say.

Beyond the economic issues linked to the threat to ski resorts – a familiar area of concern, heightened by this latest research, as many of them now face shortened seasons or outright abandonment – other problems such as flood risk and water supply are coming to the fore. Snow stores water in the winter for release in spring and summer, for both agriculture and drinking water.

Currently the increasing loss of ice from glaciers in the summer is making up for the missing snow, but previous work by scientists has shown that in the future, when glaciers disappear altogether, Switzerland could face a crisis.

The researchers have relied on the information available from the Data Cube to establish what is happening on the peaks. By superimposing repeated pictures of the same place over one another they have been able to observe small changes over time.

Wealth of data

The data was made freely available to researchers. One of them, Grégory Giuliani, said: “We have stored the equivalent of 6,500 images covering 34 years, a feat that only an open data policy has made possible. If we had had to acquire these images at market value, more than 6 million Swiss francs would have been invested.

“Knowing that each pixel of each image corresponds to the observation of a square of 10 by 10 meters, we have 110 billion observations today. It is inestimable wealth for the scientific community.”

Apart from snow cover scientists are worried about many other changes taking place in Switzerland because of climate change. They already know that glaciers are melting at record speeds and plants, birds and insects are heading further up the mountains, but there is much else to be gleaned from the new data base.

The Data Cube offers the possibility of studying vegetation, the evolution and rotation of agricultural areas, urbanisation and even water quality, as satellite images can be used to monitor three essential indicators in lakes and rivers: suspended particles, whether organic or mineral; chlorophyll content; and surface temperature.

The data are freely accessible, not only to scientists worldwide but also to the public, making it easy to compare data for specific areas of the territory at different times. “Our ambition is that everyone should be able to navigate freely in Swiss territory to understand its evolution”, said Grégory Giuliani.

Toxic Coal Ash Leaks Into N. Carolina Rivers in Wake of Florence

Heavy rains from Hurricane Florence have caused a dam breach at a disused power plant, contaminating the Cape Fear River at Wilmington, N.C., with coal ash.

On Sept. 15, Duke Energy said a leak from a landfill of coal ash at its L.V. Sutton Power Station resulted in the release of 2,000 cubic yards of coal ash, which contains contaminants including arsenic, mercury and lead. On Sept. 16, the Environmental Protection Agency . The Duke Energy H.F. Lee Plant in Goldsboro, N.C., also is leaking coal ash, into the Neuse River.

The repercussions of coal ash releases are well documented. In December 2008, a dike burst at the Tennessee Valley Authority’s Kingston Fossil Plant, releasing 5.4 million cubic yards of coal ash. It damaged 42 properties and cost billions in repairs. Lawsuits contend that more than 200 people who worked on the cleanup effort have contracted lung diseases, cancers and skin conditions, and that at least 30 workers died following the spill. One suit contends that a TVA contractor lied to the workers about the dangers of the coal ash and refused to let them use protective gear.

“When new men would come in on the job, they would be healthy like you. After a couple of weeks on the job, it sucked the life out of them. They would start the cough,” a worker, Jeffrey Dwight Brewer, said.

Duke Energy lobbied the Environmental Protection Agency in 2017 and 2018 on “issues related to Clean Water Act regulations in regards to coal ash,” according to federal lobbying records. The electric power holding company has reportedly spent more than $2 million on lobbying this year, according to Federal Election Commission data reviewed by OpenSecrets.

In July, the EPA extended deadlines on coal ash storage regulations by 18 months, allowing areas at risk of leakage to stay open past the date originally set in 2015—although officials in North Carolina said this delay would not affect the state’s cleanup plan.

“These are ongoing spills that will continue until the floodwaters recede,” said attorney Pete Harrison, who works for the nonprofit public interest group Earthjustice. “It’s mind-boggling that these power companies built their toxic waste dumps right next to flood-prone rivers. It means that every time there’s a major flood, downstream communities have to worry about being exposed to toxic coal ash—as if they don’t already have enough to worry about.”

Seventy percent of coal ash dumps are in low-income communities, according to Earthjustice.

High-Stakes Showdown With Kavanaugh, Accuser Set for Thursday

WASHINGTON—Attorneys for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, and the Senate Judiciary Committee have reached agreement for a public hearing Thursday, as talks continued to resolve additional details ahead of the high-stakes showdown.

Ford committed to an “open” hearing after negotiators convened a call on Sunday, her attorneys said in a statement. A spokesman for the committee’s chairman, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, confirmed the hearing would take place at 10 a.m. Thursday.

“We’ve made important progress,” said Ford’s attorneys Debra S. Katz, Lisa J. Banks, and Michael R. Bromwich. “Dr. Ford believes it is important for senators to hear directly from her about the sexual assault committed against her. She has agreed to move forward.”

Tensions have been running on overdrive since Ford, now a 51-year-old California college professor, went public last week with her allegation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a party when they were in high school. Kavanaugh, 53, an appellate court judge, denied the allegation and said he wanted to testify as soon as possible to clear his name.

A final accord could bring to a close days of brinkmanship that have roiled Washington ahead of midterm elections and threatened to jeopardize Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the court, even as some Republicans say the additional hearings may do little to change their support for him.

Some terms of Ford’s and Kavanaugh’s appearances are still being negotiated, but several details have been resolved.

Ford agreed that she will testify ahead of Kavanaugh, rather than her preference to appear after him, according to a source familiar with the talks who spoke on condition of anonymity, lacking authorization to discuss the talks publicly.

But who will be asking the questions remains unresolved, the lawyers said.

Republicans were trying to hire an outside female counsel who could take over the questioning. The 11 senators on the GOP side of the dais are all men, which could send an unwanted message on live television against the backdrop of the #MeToo era. They could also use Republican staff attorneys on the committee.

“We were told no decision has been made on this important issue, even though various senators have been dismissive of her account and should have to shoulder their responsibility to ask her questions,” the attorneys for Ford said.

Ford’s attorneys said they did not know when they would have answers to the unresolved issues.

Earlier Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said lawyers for Ford are contesting two GOP conditions — that Ford and Kavanaugh will be the only witnesses and that an independent counsel will ask the questions.

Graham, speaking on “Fox News Sunday,” promised a fair hearing in which both Ford and Kavanaugh “will be challenged” but said “unless there’s something more” to back up her accusation, then he’s “not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this.”

“I want to listen to her, but I’m being honest with you and everybody else. …What am I supposed to do?” Graham asked, explaining his dilemma over an allegation of a 1980s incident that is past the statute of limitations for criminal charges. “But she should come forward. She should have her say.”

One issue that appears to have been resolved in Sunday’s hour-long phone call is the committee’s refusal to subpoena Mark Judge, the other person Ford alleges was in the room when the assault occurred. Judge has told the committee he does not recall the incident.

The lawyers for Ford want the committee to hear from other witnesses, including the person who conducted a polygraph of Ford, the person familiar with the talks said. Ford’s lawyers also want to call on two trauma experts, the source said.

Sen. Dick Durbin, a Democrat on the committee, said Sunday he believed Ford’s requests have been “reasonable” and that she deserves a fair hearing to determine whether her allegations are “serious” enough to vote down Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination.

He acknowledged that lawmakers will “probably not” be able to know the truth of Ford’s decades-old accusation that Kavanaugh assaulted her at a house party when they were teenagers. But Durbin left little doubt that that Democrats will go after Kavanaugh’s drinking history to help shed light on the matter. Ford has alleged Kavanaugh was “stumbling drunk” when it happened.

Durbin told ABC’s “This Week” that some Republicans “reached out to Democratic senators and assured them that they are looking to this as kind of a determination as to how their final vote” on Kavanaugh is cast.

Republicans viewed the weeklong back-and-forth negotiations on Ford’s various requests as a way to delay voting on President Donald Trump’s nominee.

The White House is approaching Ford’s potential testimony with trepidation, nervous that an emotional performance might not just damage Kavanaugh’s chances but could further energize female voters to turn out against Republicans in November.

Moreover, the West Wing aides who had urged Trump to remain muted in his response to the accusations worried about how the president might react to an hourslong, televised hearing. Trump broke his silence to cast doubt on Ford’s story Friday in ways Republicans had been carefully trying to avoid.

Trump mused to confidants that the “fake” attacks against his nominee were meant to undermine his presidency, according to a White House official and a Republican close to the White House. Both spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private conversations.

___

Lemire reported from Bridgewater, New Jersey. Associated Press writers Eric Tucker and Hope Yen in Washington contributed to this report.

Iran Fears Plot by U.S. and Its Gulf Allies

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates—On the same day Arab separatists killed at least 25 people in an attack targeting a military parade in southwestern Iran, President Donald Trump’s lawyer mounted a stage in New York to declare that the government would be toppled.

“I don’t know when we’re going to overthrow them. It could be in a few days, months or a couple of years, but it’s going to happen,” former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said Saturday. “They are going to be overthrown. The people of Iran obviously have had enough.”

For Iran’s Shiite theocracy, comments like these only fuel fears that America and its Gulf Arab allies are plotting to tear the Islamic Republic apart.

Those threats so far haven’t led to a military confrontation or violence, but the risk is rising.

“Undoubtedly the Islamic Republic of Iran will not ignore this crime. It is absolutely clear for us who did that, what group they are and with whom they are affiliated,” Iranian President Hassan Rouhani warned before leaving for New York for the United Nations General Assembly. “All of those small mercenary countries that we see in this region are backed by America. It is Americans who instigate them and provide them with necessary means to commit these crimes.”

Rouhani is a relative moderate who was elected twice on promises to improve relations with West, and who signed the 2015 nuclear agreement. At the U.N. General Assembly that year, he declared that “a new chapter had started in Iran’s relations with the world.”

“For the first time, two sides rather than negotiating peace after war, engaged in dialogue and understanding before the eruption of conflict.”

An eruption now seems more likely. What changed in the meantime seems to be the politics of the region and the U.S. While America’s Sunni Gulf Arab allies in the region criticized the nuclear deal, many later acknowledged that it did what it was designed to do.

Iran limited its enrichment of uranium, making it virtually impossible for it to quickly develop nuclear weapons, something the government insists it has never sought. In exchange, some international sanctions were lifted, allowing Iran to rejoin the global financial system and sell its crude oil to American allies.

Over time, however, Gulf states adopted an increasingly harder tone with Iran. Officials in Tehran point to comments by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, now next in line to the throne in Iran’s Mideast archrival.

“We know we are a main target of Iran,” Prince Mohammed said in a 2017 interview, shortly before becoming crown prince. “We are not waiting until there becomes a battle in Saudi Arabia, so we will work so that it becomes a battle for them in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia.”

He did not elaborate, though the kingdom and its allies were mired then as they are now — in a war in Yemen against Iran-aligned Shiite rebels. While Iran denies arming the rebels, known as Houthis, U.N. investigators, analysts and Western nations all say Tehran supplies weapons ranging from assault rifles to the ballistic missiles, which have been fired deep into Saudi territory.

After Prince Mohammed’s comments last year, Saudi-aligned satellite news channels began playing up stories about Iranian opposition and exile groups. They also began publicizing the nighttime pipeline attacks by Arab separatists in Khuzestan, Iran’s oil-rich southwestern province, which Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein tried to seize in his 1980s war with Iran.

Those separatists claimed responsibility for Saturday’s attack in Ahvaz, Khuzestan’s capital, which struck one of many parades in the country marking the start of the 1980s war. Iranian officials, who blame the separatists for the attack, say the militants wore military uniforms and hid their weapons along the parade route ahead of time — showing a level of sophistication previously unseen by the separatists.

There has been no direct evidence linking the separatists to Saudi Arabia. However, Iranian officials have seized on the fact the separatists immediately made their claim of responsibility on a Saudi-linked, Farsi-language satellite news channel based in Britain.

The United States has meanwhile been ramping up pressure on Iran since Trump withdrew from the nuclear agreement in May, restoring crippling sanctions and voicing support for anti-government protests fueled by economic woes.

The Trump administration has said its actions aren’t aimed at toppling Iran’s government. But in the meantime, Giuliani has continued speaking before meetings of an exiled Iranian opposition group. Before being appointed national security adviser earlier this year, John Bolton gave impassioned speeches calling for regime change.

“The declared policy of the United States of America should be the overthrow of the mullahs’ regime in Tehran,” Bolton told Iranian exiles in July 2017. “The behavior and the objectives of the regime are not going to change, and therefore, the only solution is to change the regime itself.

He added, to cheers: “And that’s why before 2019, we here will celebrate in Tehran.”

Farmers Worry That Aid Won’t Offset Damage From Tariffs

WASHINGTON—Farmers across the United States will soon begin receiving government checks as part of a billion-dollar bailout to buoy growers experiencing financial strain from President Donald Trump’s trade disputes with China.

But even those poised for big payouts worry it won’t be enough. And while support for Trump is near unwavering in the heartland, some growers say that with the November election nearing, such disappointing aid outcomes could potentially affect their vote.

“It’s pretty obvious that the rural agriculture communities helped elect this administration, but the way things are going I believe farmers are going to have to vote with their checkbook when it comes time,” said Kevin Skunes, a corn and soybean grower from Arthur, North Dakota and president of the National Corn Growers Association.

Corn farmers get the smallest slice of the aid pie. Corn groups estimate a loss of 44 cents per bushel, but they’re poised to receive just a single penny per bushel.

“If these issues haven’t been resolved, there could be a change in the way farmers vote,” Skunes said. “A person has to consider all things.”

Farmers are already feeling the impact of Trump’s trade tiffs with China and other countries. China has hit back hard, responding with its own set of tariffs on U.S. agricultural products and other goods.

The Trump administration is providing up to $12 billion in emergency relief funds for American farmers, with roughly $6 billion in an initial round. The three-pronged plan includes $4.7 billion in payments to corn, cotton, soybean, dairy, pork and sorghum farmers. The rest is for developing new foreign markets for American-grown commodities and purchasing more than two dozen select products, including certain fresh fruits and vegetables, nuts, meat and dairy.

Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue announced last month that soybean growers will get the largest checks, at $1.65 per bushel for a total of $3.6 billion. China is the world’s leading buyer of American soybeans, purchasing roughly 60 percent of the U.S. crop. But since Beijing imposed a 25 percent tariff on soybean, imports prices have plunged.

The lack of initial detail about how the calculations were made left farmers scratching their heads.

Asked about the confusion, Rob Johansson, the Agriculture Department’s chief economist, responded that the USDA took into account a number of factors “including the share of production that is exported and the value of trade directly affected by the retaliatory tariffs.”

“The level of damage is not the same for each commodity,” he said in a written response to questions submitted by The Associated Press.

He estimated that there would be more than 784,000 applications for relief.

The USDA has since released a detailed analysis of how the department made its calculations.

The breakdown has stunned corn and wheat farmers who say the payments are uneven and won’t do much of anything to help keep struggling farms afloat.

A lobbying group that represents wheat growers is challenging the way the administration determined payments for wheat farmers, who are set to receive 14 cents a bushel. Chandler Goule, CEO of the National Association of Wheat Growers, said the USDA assumed U.S. wheat would be sold to China this year when it made its calculations. But the assumption was flawed, he said.

China typically makes its requests for American wheat between March and June. U.S. wheat farmers have sold, on average, 20 million bushels of wheat to China over the past three years. But none came this year, Goule said, as Trump escalated his threatening rhetoric on trade with Beijing. He hopes the per-bushel rate for wheat goes up if there’s a second round of payments.

“I am very certain that we will not sell any wheat to China this year,” Goule said. “The window we sell in has come and gone.”

The response among farmers has been mixed. While some are grateful for the help, most are eager for the trade disputes to be quickly resolved.

“Nobody wants to have an aid package. I mean, if you’re a farmer you’re in the business of producing a crop. We just want a fair price for it,” said Joel Schreurs, a soybean and corn producer near Tyler in southwestern Minnesota who sits on the board of both the American Soybean Association and the Minnesota Soybean Growers Association.

His personal operation is about 1,000 acres. He farms an additional 500 acres with his son-in-law and other relatives. He estimates that the tariffs would cost him $40,000 to $50,000 in lost income and that he would get $16,000 to $20,000 in emergency aid.

Schreurs worries that it will be hard for farmers to get back the buyers they’ll lose as a result of the trade wars. “And in the short term we have to find another home for those beans, otherwise they’re going to pile up and it will keep prices depressed,” he said.

In the Midwest, growers typically farm both corn and soybeans. Those farmers would get payments for both under the program, which began sign-ups Sept. 4.

Perdue said checks could start going out as soon as the end of September for crops that have already been harvested; payouts are based on yield.

In a recent C-SPAN interview, Perdue said he understands growers’ frustrations.

“Farmers always live in unpredictable times,” he said. “They’re very resilient, but obviously the longer trade issues go on the longer it bears on them regarding what is the future.”

Jack Maloney says corn farmers will be getting so little in bailout aid that for roughly 200,000 bushels of corn a farmer would get only about $2,000 for their losses.

“That’s not even beer money,” said the Brownsburg, Indiana, corn and soybean grower.

Maloney, 62, began farming full time in 1978 and now has two employees. He said some fellow farmers are angry and upset.

“Agriculture has always been the butt of all the trade wars,” he said, adding that this isn’t the first time he’s seen trade disruptions affect the agricultural markets.

Maloney said he had already cut back on expenses during the past three years and hasn’t taken a paycheck from his farm for more than a year because of tough times before the trade war began. He said the recent tumult has dashed hopes for stabilizing agricultural markets anytime soon.

“We were seeing a little light at the end of the tunnel — the markets were improving a little,” he said, “and then this tariff thing happened and this trade war.”

Daniel Weinand worries the market downturn could be the death knell for his farm. Weinand, 30, grows corn, canola and yellow peas on 900 acres of rented land near Hazen, North Dakota. He said he expects to reap about 30,000 bushels of corn, and to receive about $300 in aid.

“A penny a bushel on corn, it’s not that it’s entirely worthless. But it almost is,” he said. “I don’t know how many more years I can weather.”

___

Associated Press writers Richard Lardner in Washington, Rick Callahan in Indianapolis and Steve Karnowski in Minneapolis contributed to this report.

Feds Seek to Deny Green Cards to Many Who Get Public Benefits

SAN DIEGO — The Trump administration has proposed rules that could deny green cards to immigrants if they use Medicaid, food stamps, housing vouchers and other forms of public assistance.

Federal law already requires those seeking green cards to prove they will not be a burden — or “public charge” — but the new rules detail a broad range of programs that could disqualify them.

The Department of Homeland Security said Saturday that current and past receipt of certain public benefits above thresholds would be considered “a heavily weighed negative factor” in granting green cards as well as temporary stays.

The proposal “will clearly define long-standing law to ensure that those seeking to enter and remain in the United States either temporarily or permanently can support themselves financially and will not be reliant on public benefits,” the department said.

The 447-page proposal published on the department’s website will appear in the Federal Register “in the coming weeks,” triggering a 60-day public comment period before it takes effect.

Coming less than seven weeks before midterm elections, the announcement could help galvanize voters who have backed or opposed Trump’s broad crackdown on legal and illegal immigration.

Immigrant advocacy groups said people may avoid or withdraw from public aid programs even at the risk of losing shelter and suffering deteriorating health because they worry they will be denied visas.

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said the proposal was “an inhumane attack on the health and wellbeing of so many families and communities across the country.”

“How you contribute to your community — and not what you look like or the contents of your wallet — should be what matters most,” she said. “This proposed rule does the opposite and makes clear that the Trump administration continues to prioritize money over family unity by ensuring that only the wealthiest can afford to build a future in this country.”

Potentially disqualifying benefits include Medicare Part D prescription drugs, Medicaid with some exceptions for emergency services and disability services related to education, food stamps and Section 8 housing vouchers.