April 19, 2017


News and Views


I BELIEVE MINORITY RIGHTS ARE BEGINNING, SLOWLY, TO TRIUMPH OVER THE “GOOD OLD BOY NETWORK”

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/bill-o-reilly-reportedly-out-fox-news-n748236
BREAKING BUSINESS APR 19 2017, 11:55 AM ET
Bill O’Reilly Officially Out at Fox News Amid Sexual Harassment Claims
by BEN POPKEN


In a stunning and sudden downfall, Bill O'Reilly is out at Fox News.

21st Century Fox, parent company of Fox News, released a statement Wednesday afternoon that read, "After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O'Reilly have agreed that Bill O'Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel."

The future of Fox's reigning ratings superstar had grown uncertain as reports swirled that the network was preparing to sever its relationship with him over multiple claims of sexual harassment, but it appears that Rupert Murdoch, executive chairman of Fox News' parent company 21st Century Fox, has greenlighted the axing of the network's biggest on-air asset.

Play Fox News Is Ready to Drop Bill O'Reilly Facebook Twitter Embed
Fox News Is Ready to Drop Bill O'Reilly 3:21

The news follows reporting by the New York Times that disclosed the influential and incendiary political commentator and 21st Century Fox had settled multiple sexual harassment complaints against him over the years for a total of $13 million.

Rupert Murdoch had initially resisted making a change, New York Magazine reported, citing three internal unnamed sources. O'Reilly's two-decade long running show was not just the most profitable at the network, but across all of cable news.

His sons and successors, James and Lachlan, want a different direction and a modernized workplace. James reportedly argued for O'Reilly to go, with Lachlan originally landing somewhere between his brother and his father.

But Lachlan began to "lean more in his brother James's direction" in the past few days, New York Magazine reporter Gabriel Sherman wrote.

Credible reports surfaced Tuesday night of a decision on the personnel matter that could come by until the end of the week. O'Reilly's reversal of fortune came less than 24 hours later.

An internal memo to employees on Wednesday signed by all three Murdochs noted that, "By ratings standards, Bill O'Reilly is one of the most accomplished TV personalities in the history of cable news. In fact, his success by any measure is indisputable... We have full confidence that the network will continue to be a powerhouse in cable news. Lastly, and most importantly, we want to underscore our consistent commitment to fostering a work environment built on the values of trust and respect."

Tucker Carlson Tonight will fill O'Reilly's 8 p.m. slot, moving from the 9 p.m slot. The Five will take over Carlson's slot.

Now what remains is managing how O'Reilly's departure will unfold.

Protesters had called for the star's resignation, and dozens of advertisers left his show in the ensuing backlash.

Related: New Bill O'Reilly Sex Harassment Accuser Announced as Protesters Hit Fox News HQ

"Bill O'Reilly has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America," said his attorney Marc Kasowitz in a statement released Tuesday night.

"This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations bent on destroying O'Reilly for political and financial reasons. That evidence will be put forth shortly and it is irrefutable."

O'Reilly denied the merits of the claims, according to 21st Century Fox. In a statement, O'Reilly said the settlements were made to "put to rest any controversies to spare my children."

In a stunning and sudden downfall, Bill O'Reilly is out at Fox News.

21st Century Fox, parent company of Fox News, released a statement Wednesday afternoon that read, "After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O'Reilly have agreed that Bill O'Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel."

The future of Fox's reigning ratings superstar had grown uncertain as reports swirled that the network was preparing to sever its relationship with him over multiple claims of sexual harassment, but it appears that Rupert Murdoch, executive chairman of Fox News' parent company 21st Century Fox, has greenlighted the axing of the network's biggest on-air asset.

Play -- Fox News Is Ready to Drop Bill O'Reilly 3:21

The news follows reporting by the New York Times that disclosed the influential and incendiary political commentator and 21st Century Fox had settled multiple sexual harassment complaints against him over the years for a total of $13 million.

Rupert Murdoch had initially resisted making a change, New York Magazine reported, citing three internal unnamed sources. O'Reilly's two-decade long running show was not just the most profitable at the network, but across all of cable news.

His sons and successors, James and Lachlan, want a different direction and a modernized workplace. James reportedly argued for O'Reilly to go, with Lachlan originally landing somewhere between his brother and his father.

But Lachlan began to "lean more in his brother James's direction" in the past few days, New York Magazine reporter Gabriel Sherman wrote.

Credible reports surfaced Tuesday night of a decision on the personnel matter that could come by until the end of the week. O'Reilly's reversal of fortune came less than 24 hours later.

An internal memo to employees on Wednesday signed by all three Murdochs noted that, "By ratings standards, Bill O'Reilly is one of the most accomplished TV personalities in the history of cable news. In fact, his success by any measure is indisputable... We have full confidence that the network will continue to be a powerhouse in cable news. Lastly, and most importantly, we want to underscore our consistent commitment to fostering a work environment built on the values of trust and respect."

Tucker Carlson Tonight will fill O'Reilly's 8 p.m. slot, moving from the 9 p.m slot. The Five will take over Carlson's slot.

Now what remains is managing how O'Reilly's departure will unfold.

Protesters had called for the star's resignation, and dozens of advertisers left his show in the ensuing backlash.

Related: New Bill O'Reilly Sex Harassment Accuser Announced as Protesters Hit Fox News HQ

"Bill O'Reilly has been subjected to a brutal campaign of character assassination that is unprecedented in post-McCarthyist America," said his attorney Marc Kasowitz in a statement released Tuesday night.

"This law firm has uncovered evidence that the smear campaign is being orchestrated by far-left organizations bent on destroying O'Reilly for political and financial reasons. That evidence will be put forth shortly and it is irrefutable."

O'Reilly denied the merits of the claims, according to 21st Century Fox. In a statement, O'Reilly said the settlements were made to "put to rest any controversies to spare my children."

Image: An advertisement for Bill O'Reilly's Fox News show is displayed in the window of the News Corporation headquarters in New York. Spencer Platt / Getty Images

The company has said it "takes matters of workplace behavior very seriously" and that "Mr. O'Reilly is fully committed to supporting our efforts to improve the environment for all our employees at Fox News."

While advertisers fled, his viewership went up after the Times story broke, rising to 3.77 million that week from 3.31 million the week prior, according to data from the Nielsen company.

Related: Roger Ailes Resigns as Head of Fox News

The host has been on a previously scheduled vacation in Italy since April 11, and average viewership declined 21 percent during that time, the Nielsen data shows.

O'Reilly's favorability rating among his viewers was down to 73 percent this week from 80 percent last week, according to an online survey conducted by The Harris Poll which queried 1,000 frequent news consumers, split evenly between Trump and Clinton supporters.

Fox News has been at the center of a storm of controversy that hasn't died down since Fox News Chairman and Chief Executive Roger Ailes resigned last year after he was accused of sexual harassment by several women. Ailes denied all of the allegations.

Related: Just How Influential Are James and Lachlan Murdoch?

Fox News had renewed O'Reilly's contract as the Times story was in the works, but the paper reported it was restructured to give Fox "more leverage over him regarding his behavior." That could now be a factor in O'Reilly's exit negotiations.




http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-arctic-military-base-trefoil-vladimir-putin/
CBS NEWS April 19, 2017, 6:56 AM
Russia's military buildup in Arctic puts U.S. on alert

Photograph -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has never been one to pass up a photo-up, and his latest candids comes from the icy Arctic. He was photographed in March pensively walking among glaciers, reports CBS News’ Jonathan Vigliotti.
Photograph -- ctm-0419-putin-arctic.jpg, Russian President Vladimir Putin on a tour of the Arctic in March 2017. AP

The Kremlin has also previously released video of reindeer-riding Russian soldiers. It’s all part of the unveiling of the country’s crown jewel: Russia’s sprawling Trefoil military base, located just outside the Arctic Circle. It can house 150 troops and warplanes.

Photograph -- ap-17107539676102.jpg, Russia’s Arctic military base on Alexandra Land of the Franz Josef Land Archipelago. AP

While parts of the base remain top secret, the military offered up a virtual tour of the interior of the building. The PR rollout comes as Moscow moves to lay claim to the region’s huge oil and gas reserves believed to be worth as much as $35 trillion.

Russia, the United States, Canada, Denmark and Norway have all been trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the Arctic. Legally it’s still unclear who can lay stake to the territory, but the Kremlin knows how persuasive a good show of force can be.

“We all stand to make money in the Arctic, but of course this will all grind to a halt if we see a new arms race instead,” former Defense Department policy analyst Robert English said.

While the U.S. has a military presence in the Arctic, including airfields and infantry bases, there is concern in Washington that Russia has pushed in recent years to expand its own military capabilities there, its most significant buildup in the region since the end of the Cold War.

Defense Secretary James Mattis addressed the issue during his confirmation hearings.

“The U.S. must ensure that Russia doesn’t expand those efforts to dominate the region,” Mattis said.

For now, Russia’s flag seems firmly planted on the top of the world.


DEMOCRAT OSSOFF DIDN’T WIN, BUT PRODUCED A RUNOFF IN JUNE. THAT’S OKAY. DEEP SOUTH STATES ARE USUALLY RED STATES.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/jon-ossoff-democrat-leads-in-georgia-special-election-but-runoff-still-likely/
Democrat Jon Ossoff comes up short in Ga. special election, runoff set for June
CBS NEWS April 19, 2017, 12:27 AM

Democrat Jon Ossoff and Republican Karen Handel will meet in a runoff for a greater Atlanta congressional seat in a race with national implications.

Ossoff harnessed opposition to President Trump to lead an 18-candidate field in the typically conservative district, but he fell short of the majority needed to win outright.

Handel finished second as the top Republican vote-getter. She was Georgia’s first Republican secretary of state and has also run unsuccessfully to be Georgia’s U.S. senator and also to be its governor. She’s pitching herself as a common-sense conservative.

On Wednesday, President Trump called Handel -- she tweeted a thank you afterwards.

Follow
Karen Handel ✔ @karenhandel
.@realDonaldTrump thank you for the call this morning. #ga6
7:40 AM - 19 Apr 2017
598 598 Retweets 1,456 1,456 likes

Earlier, he was taking credit for helping nudge the district toward the June runoff:

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Despite major outside money, FAKE media support and eleven Republican candidates, BIG "R" win with runoff in Georgia. Glad to be of help!
12:09 AM - 19 Apr 2017
12,886 12,886 Retweets 59,548 59,548 likes

Democrats were hoping Ossoff would be able to garner the 50 percent necessary to avoid a runoff and capture the seat. The special election was a “jungle primary,” meaning the top two contenders – regardless of party – would face off if no one could capture a majority of the vote in the first round.

Democrats push for momentum in Georgia special election
Play VIDEO
Democrats push for momentum in Georgia special election

Ossoff, 30, ran as a pragmatic centrist in the district, which has been represented by a Republican since Newt Gingrich won it in 1978. In November, the district easily re-elected Rep. Tom Price, a staunch conservative, but only narrowly went for Mr. Trump. The seat then became vacant when Price was appointed Secretary of Health and Human Services by Mr. Trump earlier this year.

There were big differences between the early vote and the Election Day vote. Ossoff did well in that early vote and jumped out to an initial lead as those ballots were counted, perhaps reflecting the Democratic enthusiasm that marked his rise. But the Election Day vote was very heavily Republican, and it pushed Ossoff back under the 50 percent level.

CBS News etimates showed up to twenty-point gaps between the early and Election Day votes as the county reports came in – perhaps reflecting a late surge in Republican interest in the race and what appears to have been strong, late turnout efforts from the GOP.

Overall, turnout was high for a Special Election and, with a few more precincts left to count early Wednesday, it appeared Ossoff would end up with about the same percent Hillary Clinton got in the district in November.

Given the partisan leanings of the district, Republican Handel is likely to be favored heading into the runoff.

Mr. Trump’s perceived weakness in the district, along with its changing demographics, convinced Democrats to pour millions of dollars into the race. Ossoff raked in an astonishing $8.3 million in the last few months, with most of it coming from donors giving less than $200. However, Republicans were quick to point out that the vast majority of that cash came from out of state.

Republicans countered with millions in outside group spending in an effort to damage Ossoff and keep him below 50 percent. For his part, Mr. Trump recorded a robocall encouraging voters to support the Republican candidates, and tweeted about the race several times. The crowded primary featured 11 Republican candidates splitting the conservative vote. That didn’t prove to be enough to put Ossoff over the top, and Republicans can now be expected to coalesce their support around Handel.

Nonetheless, Ossoff issued a statement early Wednesday saying, ““This is already a remarkable victory. We defied the odds, shattered expectations, and now are ready to fight on and win in June. They said it couldn’t be done. And when they realized we were ahead, they threw millions of dollars against us. But no amount of dark super-PAC money can overcome real grassroots energy.”

Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel said in a statement that, “Georgia voters made it clear they want to keep conservative values in the 6th District. ... These liberal Democrats failed to inspire voters with a candidate who ... received 97 percent of his donations from outside the district, and consistently lied about his own weak resume.”

Mr. Trump tweeted early Tuesday urging Republicans in the district to get to the polls:

Follow
Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
Just learned that Jon @Ossoff, who is running for Congress in Georgia, doesn't even live in the district. Republicans, get out and vote!
4:38 PM - 18 Apr 2017
15,176 15,176 Retweets 55,341 55,341 likes

The district, although still Republican-leaning, has been trending more Democratic in recent years, and provides Democrats with their best shot this year of picking up one of the 24 seats they’ll need to reclaim the House. Mitt Romney carried the district by 23 points in 2012, a margin that shrank to less than 2 points when Mr. Trump won it in November.

The district is one of the best educated in the country, with 58 percent of residents having a bachelor’s degree or higher. That’s seen as a warning sign for Republicans, as Mr. Trump struggled to win college-educated whites in the last election. Since the 1990s, the district has also seen its share of white residents decline from 90 percent to 70 percent, in large part due to an influx of Hispanics and Asian-Americans.

Ossoff, a former Capitol Hill staffer who lives just outside the district, now has one last shot to use these factors to his advantage. But it will be an uphill climb, as Republicans still outnumber Democrats in the district and the GOP finally has a single candidate the party can rally behind.


ATHLETES ARE NOT BACKING DOWN IN THEIR POLITICAL STATEMENTS. THAT’S GOOD.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/did-donald-trump-purposely-not-191752125.html
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS April 19, 2017, 10:22 AM
Tom Brady not visiting White House event honoring Patriots

New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady will not be attending Wednesday’s ceremony at the White House to celebrate their championship win, he said in a statement.

“In light of some recent developments, I am unable to attend today’s ceremony, as I am attending to some personal family matters. Hopefully, if we accomplish the goal of winning a championship in the future years, we will back on the South Lawn again soon,” Brady said.

Six other Patriots players are also skipping the event, according to CBS Sports. Martellus Bennett, Dont’a Hightower, Chris Long, LeGarrette Blount, and Devin McCourty are skipping for political reasons, and Alan Branch said that he’s skipping because of the “Access Hollywood” tape.

The president is scheduled to welcome the team to the White House around 2:30 p.m.

Brady’s announcement comes after former Patriots star and convicted killer Aaron Hernandez was found dead after killing himself in prison overnight, according to authorities.

It’s unclear whether Brady voted for Mr. Trump for president, though Brady said during the 2016 race that the then-GOP presidential hopeful was a “good friend.”



I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED, EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF EMINENT ATTACK.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-challenges-in-asking-congress-for-authorization-for-use-of-military-force/
By REBECCA SHABAD CBS NEWS April 19, 2017, 6:00 AM
Trump's challenges in asking Congress for authorization for use of military force

President Trump’s recent decision to authorize missile strikes on April 7 against the Syrian regime in retaliation for a deadly chemical attack has provoked the debate over a new authorization for the use of military force (AUMF) to resurface in Congress.

The debate is far from clear-cut because there are lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who appear to believe Mr. Trump had the legal authority to take such action, while others think he should have sought congressional approval. Some hold murkier positions on the issue.

In the post-World War II era, lawmakers have typically approved authorizations for most military conflicts, including the Vietnam war, the Persian Gulf war, the Iraq war and the invasion into Afghanistan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 2001 AUMF that authorized the U.S.-led invasion into Afghanistan contained broad language that provided leeway taken by President Obama in the war against terror.

U.S. missiles hit Syria air base behind chemical attack
Play VIDEO
U.S. missiles hit Syria air base behind chemical attack

In 2013, Obama wrestled with striking Syria after a deadly chemical attack outside of Damascus. Initially, he threatened a military strike against the Assad regime and suggested there was a legal basis for acting unilaterally, but then he shifted and sought congressional approval. Before a House and Senate vote could take place, though, Russia stepped in and helped facilitate an agreement seeking to rid Syria of its chemical weapons stockpile.

Defense and foreign policy experts say the precedent that Obama set for unilateral action might be why the uproar among lawmakers after the latest strikes hasn’t been as pronounced as four years ago.

“I think there’s one other aspect to this -- what are we doing when we strike this way?” said Elliott Abrams, who served as deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush. “We are enforcing international law, we are enforcing the chemical weapons convention. We’re acting, as Secretary Tillerson put it, ‘on behalf of the international community,’ and I think a lot of Democrats are surprised to see President Trump doing that and are happy to see him doing that.”

In the last few years of the Obama administration, the conversation on Capitol Hill over a new AUMF focused on U.S. military operations targeting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Without a congressional green light, the U.S. military began airstrikes over Iraq in August 2014 and expanded to strikes against ISIS in Syria two months later.

At first, Obama had said he had the proper authority to launch those strikes, but the White House later sent a proposed AUMF to Congress in February 2015. Lawmakers tried to tackle the issue, but internal divisions within both parties prevented them from reaching a consensus.

“If Congress believes, as I do, that we are at war with [ISIS], it should go ahead and vote to authorize the continued use of military force against these terrorists,” Obama said in a televised address to the nation in December 2015. “For over a year, I have ordered our military to take thousands of airstrikes against [ISIS] targets. I think it’s time for Congress to vote to demonstrate that the American people are united and committed to this fight.”

The failure to reach a consensus is because lawmakers are split into multiple camps. First, there seem to be those who believe that an update to the 2001 AUMF is not needed, while others think a new one is necessary because the 2001 version is outdated and irrelevant due to its focus on al Qaeda.

But within that latter camp, there are lawmakers from both parties who want to dramatically limit the scope of the president’s authority and by contrast, those who are more hawkish and want to ensure broad, expanded authority.

“I do think it’s a mistake that Congress has chosen to ignore for decades or well over a decade, some would say for many decades, the declaration of war power,” Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said on CNN ahead of the missile strikes against Syria. “We need to pass a declaration of war or at least an explicit authorization for the use of military force.”

After the strikes, Rep. Karen Bass, D-California, said on MSNBC, “[Mr. Trump] also won’t tell us what he plans to do next if there would be another strike. To me, that’s exactly why it’s so important for us to have the AUMF -- the authorization of the use of military force. This needs to be discussed and debated in Congress because we just simply don’t know what he’s going to do.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said at a press conference ahead of Congress’ two-week recess, “I’d be interested in taking a look at an AUMF if the president feels like he needs it.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, unsuccessfully urged Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, to call the House back into session during the current recess, which ends Friday.

Article I of the Constitution grants the power to declare war to Congress, but there have been few instances in the nation’s 200-plus-year history in which the legislative branch has embraced that authority.

“Of all the wars and all of the military actions that presidents have undertaken, that our country has been engaged in, there have been only 11 total declarations of war,” said Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center.

Those wars include the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the Spanish-American War and then declarations against specific countries in World War I and World War II.

“Most of the wars in contemporary times have been fought without declarations and that doesn’t even get to...the kind of military action that the president took last week,” Perry added.

After the Syria missile strikes, 55 lawmakers sent a bipartisan letter to Mr. Trump saying that they’ve heard reports about the administration actively considering direct support for the anti-Houthi coalition of militaries led by Saudi Arabia in Yemen. They said that the 2001 AUMF would not justify taking that action.

“Engaging our military against Yemen’s Houthis when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers clearly delineated in the Constitution,” they wrote, adding that they request the Office of Legal Counsel to provide legal justification that the administration would cite if the U.S. decides to engage in direct hostilities against Yemen’s Houthis.

Given the missile strikes against the Syrian regime, this concern over Yemen and possible U.S. military action against North Korea has made the AUMF debate even more complicated than just crafting one against ISIS.

Obama, GOP clash on the fight against ISIS
Play VIDEO
Obama, GOP clash on the fight against ISIS

To break through the stalemate in Congress, an updated AUMF “will be driven by circumstances,” said David Adams, chief legislative adviser to Hillary Clinton when she served as secretary of State, who now serves as a principal at the Podesta Group.

The president, for example, could potentially launch additional strikes in Syria and put more U.S. troops on the ground there, said Adams, who added that that has also been an uptick in drone strikes against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in Yemen.

“I think what members will be looking at is where is the president going on both of those conflicts and is the temple of operations in both instances such that the members feel like they need to step in and get a handle on what’s going on here,” he said. “I think that, more than anything else, will drive the conversation up there in terms of getting to ‘yes’ on an AUMF.”

Abrams said he doesn’t know how likely a new authorization is, but worries that it’s much harder to achieve now.

“There was a good deal of talk about updating the AUMF in the last couple of years of the Obama administration. I’m sorry it wasn’t done then,” he said. “I think it would have been easier to do then and the partisan hostility was not quite as great then so I just don’t know now.”