Category: U.S.

Special counsel Robert Mueller’s 448-page report, made public las week in redacted form has had President Trump furious at what those pages have revealed to the public. Nearly half of those pages show how the president reacted to and fumed over the Russia probe, seeking to undermine it, curtail it, and even fire the special counsel himself.

That the contents of the Mueller report diverge so sharply from Barr’s portrayal has long seemed possible, based on his initial summary and subsequent appearance before Congress.

The attorney general Barr has implied that Mueller left that choice to Barr. In truth, the report makes clear that Mueller felt constrained by the Justice Department policy that a sitting president could not be indicted.

Barr was appointed as the nation’s AG after writing a memo casting the Mueller investigation as illegitimate.

Democrats want Robert Mueller, the man who collated the report, to publicly testify before congress about the work he has done.  It comes after a redacted version of the document was released on Thursday.

Democrat congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer in a joint statement said the report painted a “disturbing picture of a president who has been weaving a web of deceit, lies and improper behavior”.

The party has begun moves to try to obtain the full, unredacted document and to have Mueller testify before Congress. There is a growing division in the Party as to impach the President or leave it to the people to decide on the fcate of the President in the next elections in 2020.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted March 25 and March 26 (after the Barr letter summarizing the Mueller findings) found that the Barr summation did not move the needle on public opinion. Forty-eight percent said they believed “Trump or someone from his campaign worked with Russia to influence the 2016 election.” This was down 6 points from the same question asked a week earlier, before the report was sent to the Attorney General.

And 53 percent said “Trump tried to stop investigations into Russian influence on his administration,” down 2 points from the same question asked a week earlier. Responses to the questions fell predictably along party lines, with Democrats believing in the President’s guilt and Republicans believing in his innocence. Barr’s comments today will be greeted as complete vindication by the President’s supporters and as a whitewash by his opponents.

But what everyone, supporters and opponents alike, seem to agree on is that they want to make their own decision. The Quinnipiac poll conducted from March 21-25 found that 84 percent of the general public wanted the Mueller Report made available to the public.

According to the report, Trump reacted to Mueller’s appointment as special counsel in May 2017 as follows: “Oh my God, this is terrible. This is the end of my presidency. I’m fucked.”

Trump’s legal team has said it completely exonerates the president. But while the report does say the Muller Team was unable to prove that president had colluded with the Russians, it did not come to a firm conclusion on the issue of obstruction of justice.

It also reveals several occasions when Trump tried to hinder the investigation itself – including attempting to have Mueller removed.

The 448-page redacted document is the result of a 22-month investigation by Mueller, who was appointed to investigate alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible collusion with the Trump campaign.

There may be something in the redacted report that changes public opinion, but as Trump’s former aid Steve Bannon once noted, the president’s firing of FBI Director James Comey may go down as the biggest mistake in “maybe in modern political history.”

The first section of the Mueller report details Russia’s efforts to upend the 2016 presidential campaign, and scrutinizes the many interactions between Trump associates and Russia. But it’s in the second half, which provides a litany of instances in which Trump may have obstructed justice, that the real bombshells await.

And then, as Mueller lays out in sometimes lurid detail, in at least 10 episodes over the ensuing months Trump sought to block or stop that very investigation. He did so even as Mueller doggedly made public the “sweeping and systematic fashion” in which the Russian government attacked the 2016 presidential election, and brought serious criminal charges—and won guilty pleas—from a half-dozen of the president’s top campaign aides.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” the report says. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgement.

“Accordingly, while this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

The report says that potential obstruction of justice by the president only failed because members of his administration refused to “carry out orders.” Investigators viewed the president’s written responses to their questions as “inadequate” but chose not to pursue a potentially lengthy legal battle to interview him.

Mueller then points to Congress, not the attorney general, as the appropriate body to answer the question of obstruction. As Mueller wrote in what seems to be all but a referral for impeachment proceedings, “The conclusion that Congress may apply the obstruction laws to the president’s corrupt exercise of the powers of office accords with our constitutional system of checks and balances and the principle that no person is above the law.”

Days after US Attorney General William Barr released his four-page summary of special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation report, overwhelming majorities of Americans want the full report made public and believe Barr and Mueller should testify before Congress, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

Only about a third of Americans believe, from what they’ve seen or heard about the Mueller investigation so far, that President Trump is clear of any wrongdoing. But they are split on how far Democrats should go in investigating him going forward.

“People clearly want to see more about the report,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion, which conducted the poll. “They want it released publicly, are eager to see the principals — Mueller and Barr — testify, because they want to see how the sausage was made. They want to see how we got to this point.”

At the same time, 56 percent said Mueller conducted a fair investigation, and 51 percent said they were satisfied with it. That included 52 percent of independents who said they were satisfied with the investigation. It’s one of the rare questions in the first two years of the Trump presidency in which a majority of independents sided with Republicans instead of Democrats on a subject.

The other prominent area where independents have sided with Republicans is on impeachment. An NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll last year found that pushing impeachment would not be a winning issue for Democrats.

The summary “could be somewhat of a blessing in disguise for Democrats,” Miringoff said, “because there’s no massive pressure saying, ‘Look at this report, look at this summary — we have to move forward with impeachment.’ “

 Overall, three-quarters said the full Mueller report should be made public. That included a majority of Republicans (54 percent). Just 18 percent overall said Barr’s summary is enough. Two-thirds (66 percent) also said they want Mueller to testify before Congress, and 64 percent said the same for Barr.

Almost six in 10 (56 percent) said that questions still exist, with just 36 percent saying Trump is clear of any wrongdoing. That latter figure is close to where Trump’s approval rating has been throughout his presidency.

In this poll, Trump’s approval rating is 42 percent. That’s up slightly (but within the margin of error) from January, when it was 39 percent and unchanged from December.

But that doesn’t mean the public wants Democrats to go far down the collusion or obstruction-of-justice rabbit hole of investigations.

On the issue of obstruction, the Mueller report, as summarized by the Barr letter, noted that Mueller did not come to a conclusion on whether charges should be brought against the president. But Mueller said his report did not “exonerate” the president either. Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein decided against charging the president.

The country was split 48 to 46 percent on whether Barr’s decision not to charge the president should stand or if Congress should continue to investigate obstruction of justice by the president.

What’s more, the country was similarly split, 48 to 45 percent, on whether Democrats should hold hearings to further investigate the Mueller report or end their investigations.

“I think they’re on safe footing to want the full report released” and to bring in Barr and Mueller, Miringoff said, adding, “But don’t start saying there’s still collusion, don’t go for obstruction of justice, because then they’re barking up the wrong tree.”

Mueller enjoys an overall positive rating among Americans, with 38 percent favorable, 25 percent unfavorable and roughly a third (37 percent) unsure or never heard of him. That’s a big change from December, when Mueller was viewed more negatively (33 percent) than positively (29 percent).

Overall, views of Trump are generally where they have been. In addition to the consistency of his approval rating, about the same percentage of people compared to last July think he did something either illegal or unethical in his dealings with Russian President Vladimir Putin — 57 percent now compared to 53 percent then.

What’s more, 54 percent of registered voters said they are definitely voting against him in 2020. That is about where it was in January, when 57 percent of registered said so. And, remember, in the 2016 election, 54 percent of people voted for someone other than Trump.

Of Trump’s standing and the political climate, Miringoff put it this way: “Despite the two years of attention, focused on Russia and the convictions and all that, it pretty much is exactly where it was.”

(Courtesy: NPR)

Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III turned in the much anticipated final report of his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election on Friday, March 22^nd to Attorney General William P. Barr, who will decide how much to tell Congress or the public now.

Mueller, nearly two years after he was appointed to look into possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, delivered a full report of his findings and recommendations to the attorney general, as required by Justice Department regulations.

Under Justice Department regulations, Barr can decide that public interest demands full disclosure, or he can hew to rules that protect privacy for people who are investigated and not charged. Although Barr has the authority, President Trump, his lawyers and congressional Democrats will also join the fight over transparency or privacy.

There’s pressure from Trump’s presidential rivals and from Congress— the House recently voted unanimously for its release. The president himself has said he favors putting it out. And there’s a long history of government documents, from the Pentagon Papers to the Iran/Contra report and the Starr report, making their way into the public domain through authorized release, congressional dump and just plain old leaking.

President Trump’s near-daily campaign to mock and discredit Robert Mueller’s “witch hunt” has  lasted longer than his campaign for the White House. The NY Times writes, “His shameful, conspiratorial attacks on the “deep state,” and on the integrity of those who have devoted their lives to upholding the rule of law, have damaged the institutions of federal law enforcement and may have gotten him in even deeper trouble.”

While there has been calls from across the spectrum to have the entire report released, Trump also joined a remarkably bipartisan House of Representatives, along with a vast majority of the American public, in calling for the release of Mueller’s report. “Let people see it,” he said on Wednesday. “There was no collusion. There was no obstruction. There was no nothing.”

For the past two years, Trump has kept repeating his mantra of “no collusion” because it’s true. But even if Mueller has found in the end that Trump did not knowingly conspire with Russia — and it is profoundly to be hoped that the report settles that question, one way or the other — that doesn’t mean this inquiry has been a witch hunt.

The fact remains that throughout the 2016 campaign and transition cycle, Trump and many of his top officials and advisers reportedly had more than 100 contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries. These contacts were apparently so unmemorable that many Trump advisers forgot all about them, even when asked under oath.

Mueller has already demonstrated the first way to publicize his findings: by filing charges in federal court. The indictments and pleas have laid out details of what Mueller found involving Russian activity, lies about contacts with Russians and more. The work has led to criminal charges against 34 people, including six former Trump associates and advisers. Mueller’s work has also spawned cases that are being pursued in other jurisdictions.

Several of Trump’s inner circle policy advisors and leaders of his campaign and administration have been charged on multiple counts and are serving or on way to jail sentences.  Michael Flynn, the president’s first national security adviser; Rick Gates, the deputy campaign chairman; George Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser on the campaign; and Michael Cohen, the president’s longtime personal lawyer and fixer, are only some of those charged. Paul Manafort is also accused of lying repeatedly to investigators, but that’s the least of his problems.

Trump’s ties to Russia have been intensely scrutinized. The public and the investigators are aware Trump’s shifting positions in four areas: His relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, his stance on Russian election interference, his knowledge about the 2016 Trump Tower meeting and his business interests in Russia.

“Without an indictment against him, Trump is going to hammer home the waste of time, taxpayer money and resources to prove that he was right all along and that he did nothing wrong,” said Ron Bonjean, a veteran Republican strategist who helped shepherd Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch through the Senate confirmation process.

But without seeing the report, it’s hard to know at this time whether the decision not to prosecute amounts to a vindication for Trump, said former federal prosecutor Joyce White Vance.

Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, for example. They, along with Manafort, met on June 9, 2016 at Trump Tower with Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya and several other Russians. The meeting occurred after Trump Jr. was promised it would yield dirt on Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. That meeting was a focal point of Mueller’s investigation, but the fact that no one has faced charges for it, would it suggest, Mueller’s team didn’t think it amounted to a crime?

“If Mueller declined to prosecute because there was insufficient evidence, that’s hardly exoneration,” she said. “And if he didn’t indict Trump only because of the (Justice Department) policy against indicting a sitting president, that’s as far from a clean bill of health as you can get.”

Justice Department policy also holds that a sitting president cannot be indicted. Evidence about Trump could be included in the confidential report to the attorney general but may not be made public.

No matter what Mr. Mueller’s efforts have turned up, the fact that he is now presenting his findings free of presidential interference is a bit of good news for the rule of law in America. Now all Americans deserve the chance to review those findings and reach their own conclusions.

By the one-time federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, an important overview of the way our justice system works, and why the rule of law is essential to our society. Using case histories, personal experiences and his own inviting writing and teaching style, Preet Bharara in his new book, “Doing Justice” shows the thought process we need to best achieve truth and justice in our daily lives and within our society.

Preet Bharara has spent much of his life examining our legal system, pushing to make it better, and prosecuting those looking to subvert it. Bharara believes in our system and knows it must be protected, but to do so, we must also acknowledge and allow for flaws in the system and in human nature.

The book is divided into four sections: Inquiry, Accusation, Judgment and Punishment. He shows why each step of this process is crucial to the legal system, but he also shows how we all need to think about each stage of the process to achieve truth and justice in our daily lives.

Bharara uses anecdotes and case histories from his legal career–the successes as well as the failures–to illustrate the realities of the legal system, and the consequences of taking action (and in some cases, not taking action, which can be just as essential when trying to achieve a just result).

Much of what Bharara discusses is inspiring–it gives us hope that rational and objective fact-based thinking, combined with compassion, can truly lead us on a path toward truth and justice. Some of what he writes about will be controversial and cause much discussion. Ultimately, it is a thought-provoking, entertaining book about the need to find the humanity in our legal system–and in our society.

Preet Bharara first became well-known for his efforts to curb Wall Street corruption as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. But it was only after he forced President Trump to fire him that he became a rock star. He was dismissed in March 2017 when he refused to provide his resignation, following an about-face by a new Trump administration that had previously asked him to stay on as U.S. attorney.

In his new book, “Doing Justice,” Bharara does not write explicitly about his conversations with Trump. But the president’s shadow hangs over the book, even when Bharara declines to use his name. “It was all a giant, gold-plated charade,” Bharara writes of one fraud defendant – a sentence that can’t help but conjure up visions of Trump Tower.

Bharara positions “Doing Justice” as a treatise on “the rule of law and faith in the rule of law” at a time when both are under threat. The contrast with Trump, and his contempt for the rule of law, is inevitable. Beyond simply rebutting the president, though, Bharara seeks to present the justice system Trump disdains as a source of inspiration for a healthier politics. His reflection on the role of the justice system in America is an effort both to make the inner workings of that system accessible to people unfamiliar with what criminal justice looks like from the perspective of law enforcement, and to suggest how people might apply ideals and habits honed in the courtroom to the patterns of everyday life.

The Southern District of New York has a reputation for thinking highly of itself, which Bharara cheerfully acknowledges and does nothing to dispel. The justice system, as he describes it, rests on discretion, but the nature of the world is such that some discretion will be abused, and even good-faith attempts to do the right thing will sometimes end poorly. “Every element of the law is dependent on the fateful choices of unpredictable and imperfect human beings,” he writes, “from the cops to the lawyers to the judges to the cooperators. It is the human factor that makes the attempt to deliver justice uncertain.”

Bharara wrote “Doing Justice” in part to “help people make sense of what has been happening in America,” he writes in the preface. Nowhere is this clearer than in his description of the criminal trial as a counterintuitive model for how to “search for truth and justice in our society as well”: Trials, he argues, “are object lessons in persuasion, truth, and even civility.”

“Doing Justice” does its best to communicate what Bharara sees as the fundamental good faith of many law enforcement officials. The real interest and innovation of the book, though, is in Bharara’s effort to offer that model of engagement with the world as a political theory for his fellow citizens.

Thousands waved and cheered along the route as funeral train 4141 — for the 41st president — carried George H.W. Bush’s remains toward their final resting place in Texas on Thursday, December 6, 2018, his last journey as a week of national remembrance took on a decidedly personal feel in an emotional home state farewell.

Some people laid coins along the tracks that wound through small town Texas so a 420,000-pound locomotive pulling the nation’s first funeral train in nearly half a century could crunch them into souvenirs. Others snapped pictures or crowded for views so close that police helicopters overhead had to warn them back.

Bush’s final resting place is alongside his wife, Barbara, and Robin Bush, the daughter they lost to leukemia at age 3.

The scenes reminiscent of a bygone era were a far cry from a serious and more somber tone at an earlier funeral service at a Houston church, where Bush’s former secretary of state and confidant for decades, James Baker, addressed him as “jefe,” Spanish for “boss.” At times choking back tears, Baker praised Bush as “a beautiful human being” who had “the courage of a warrior. But when the time came for prudence, he maintained the greater courage of a peacemaker.”

Baker also provided a contrast with today’s divisive political rhetoric, saying that Bush’s “wish for a kinder, gentler nation was not a cynical political slogan. It came honest and unguarded from his soul.”

“The world became a better place because George Bush occupied the White House for four years,” said Baker.

Bush’s remains were later loaded onto a special train in a car fitted with clear sides so people could catch a glimpse of the casket as it rumbled by. The train traveled about 70 miles in two-plus hours — the first presidential funeral train journey since Dwight D. Eisenhower’s remains went from Washington to his native Kansas 49 years ago — to the family plot on the presidential library grounds at Texas A&M University.

At the funeral service in St. Martin’s Episcopal Church, where Bush and his family regularly worshipped in Houston, the choir sang “This is My Country,” which was also sung at Bush’s presidential inauguration in 1989. Those gathered also heard a prayer stressing the importance of service and selflessness that the president himself offered for the country at the start of his term.

Grandson George P. Bush, the only member of the political dynasty still holding elected office, as Texas land commissioner, used a eulogy to praise the man the younger generations called “gampy.”

“He left a simple, yet profound legacy to his children, to his grandchildren and to his country: service,” George P. Bush said.

Earlier Wednesday, at Washington National Cathedral in the nation’s capital, there was high praise for the last of the presidents to have fought in World War II — and a hefty dose of humor about a man whose speaking delivery was once described as a cross between Mister Rogers and John Wayne. Three other former presidents and Donald Trump watched as George W. Bush eulogized his father as “the brightest of a thousand points of light.”

The cathedral service was a tribute to the patriarch of one of the nation’s most powerful political families — they occupied the White House for a dozen years — and to a faded political era that prized military service and public responsibility. Like Baker’s address Thursday, it included indirect comparisons to Trump but was not consumed by them, as speakers focused on Bush’s public life and character — with plenty of cracks about his goofy side, too.

“He was a man of such great humility,” said Alan Simpson, former Republican senator from Wyoming. Those who travel “the high road of humility in Washington, D.C.,” he added pointedly, “are not bothered by heavy traffic.”

Trump sat Wednesday with his wife, the trio of ex-presidents and their wives, several of them sharp critics of his presidency and one of them, Hillary Clinton, his 2016 Democratic foe. Apart from courteous nods and some handshakes, there was little interaction between Trump and the others.

George W. Bush broke down briefly at the end of his eulogy while invoking the daughter his parents lost in 1953 and his mother, who died in April. He took comfort in knowing “Dad is hugging Robin and holding Mom’s hand again.”

Bush’s death makes Carter, also 94 but more than 100 days younger, the oldest living ex-president.

“I am honored to introduce to you, Tulsi Gabbard, a good friend and one of the most promising and inspiring leaders in the Democratic Party, “ said Dr. Dr. Sampat Shivangi, a leading Indian American, dedicated physician and philanthropist, while introducing Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, as she announced her candidacy for US Presidency in 2020.

Tulsi was the first Hindu ever elected to the US Congress and the first member to take her oath on the Bhagavad Gita, Dr. Shivangi told a select guest of audience, who were invited to the event in Los Angeles, CA last week. “She was also one of the two first female war veterans elected to Congress.”

Tulsi was elected to the Hawaii State legislature in 2002 at the age of 21, making her the youngest woman in the country to be elected to the state legislature. She sacrificed her state house seat in 2004 to voluntarily serve in the army as a Captain in the US army and has served on 2 deployments in the Middle East. She continues to serve as a Major in the Army National Guard.

A veteran and with multiple prestigious awards, Tulsi is the recipient of several awards, including the John F. Kennedy New Frontier Award from the Institute of Politics at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government,

A 37-year-old Iraq War veteran, Tulsi has been a United States Representative for Hawaii’s 2nd Congressional District since 2013 and is now in her 3rd term. She has won all 3 elections by a whopping 80% of the votes polled.

A former vice chairman of the Democratic National Committee, she currently serves on the Armed Services Committee and Committee on Foreign Affairs and is vice chair of the Congressional India Caucus. She has been a fresh voice in the Democratic Party with her support for US-India relations, her opposition to the war in Iraq, her opposition to arms sales to Saudi Arabia and her more recent vigorous opposition to arming the rebels in Syria.

In addition to national security and international issues she has been active on Environmental, Medicare and social issues in Congress.  Amid the clamor of Trump headlines and focus on higher-profile candidates, Tulsi Gabbard has been quietly making the traditional moves of a presidential candidate. She recently visited Iowa, where locals urged her to run for president, according to the Iowa City Press-Citizen. She keynoted a progressive gathering in New Hampshire in September. And she’s writing a book due out this spring titled, “Is Today the Day?: Not Another Political Memoir.”

Tulsi has distinguished herself with an anti-interventionist approach to foreign policy and the Middle East, and a progressive populist economic policy that has earned her praise from the likes of Sanders and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon. She was one of the first members of Congress to endorse Sanders. “There’s a very clear contrast and clear difference when it comes to our two Democratic candidates,” Gabbard said at the time, “and who will exercise good judgment” in matters of war.

Dr. Sampat S. Shivangi is a conservative life long member of the Republican Party and hails from the state of Mississippi. Dr. Shivangi is the National President of the Indian American Forum for Political Education, one the oldest Indian American associations. For the last three decades, he has advocated for Bills in the US congress on behalf of India through his close relationships with US Senators and members of the Congress. Dr. Shivangi has worked enthusiastically in promoting the India Civil Nuclear Treaty and the US-India defense treaty that was passed in the US Congress.

Dr. Shivangi has held high offices in USA including as an advisor to US Health & Human Services appointed by the President George W. Bush, a member of the Mississippi State Board of Health by Governor Haley Barbour, then a Chair of the State Board of Mental Health, now by Governor Phil Bryant. For his significant contributions to strengthening India-US relations, Dr. Shivangi was honored with India’s highest civilian award by the President of India, with the Pravasi Bharathiya Sanman award in 2017. Dr. Shivangi was also honored with Ellis Island Medal of Honor in New York in 2008.

As an admirer and strong supporter of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, Dr. Shivangi told the audience in LA last week, “You may be looking at the next President of the United States in 2010; the fiorst woman ever elected to the Highest Office in the world.”

Dr. Shivangi, who was one of the very first to support and donate to her campaign when Tulsi had made her initial bid to the US Congress in 2012, described Tulsi as “truly a breath of fresh air in politics.”

Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, the first ever Hindu Congresswoman, is considering running for president in 2020, POLITICO reported here last week.

Rania Batrice, an adviser to the progressive congresswoman and deputy campaign manager on Bernie Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign, has been putting out feelers for digital and speechwriting staff for Gabbard, POPLITICO reported. “One person approached about the positions say that 2020 wasn’t mentioned explicitly, but it was heavily implied.”

Batrice reportedly denied that the staffers are being hired for a presidential campaign. She did not dispute, however, that Gabbard is considering joining what’s expected to be a crowded field of Democratic presidential contenders.

“I think everybody is focused on 2018, but we will see what happens after that,” Batrice said in an interview. “Someone like Tulsi, with her experience, is an important voice in the party and the country.” Top aides to Gabbard did not respond to multiple requests for comment, POLITICO wrote.

Amid the clamor of Trump headlines and focus on higher-profile candidates, Gabbard has been quietly making the traditional moves of a presidential candidate. She recently visited Iowa, where locals urged her to run for president, according to the Iowa City Press-Citizen. She keynoted a progressive gathering in New Hampshire in September. And she’s writing a book due out this spring titled, “Is Today the Day?: Not Another Political Memoir.”

A 37-year-old Iraq War veteran, Gabbard won her House seat in 2012 and became the first Hindu to serve in Congress. She has distinguished herself with an anti-interventionist approach to foreign policy and the Middle East, and a progressive populist economic policy that has earned her praise from the likes of Sanders and former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Gabbard has also drawn controversy, which would surely become a factor in any presidential race. In 2017, she came under heavy criticism for meeting with Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and expressing skepticism that he was behind chemical attacks, urging caution over the use of military force. She also raised suspicion among progressives for meeting with president-elect Donald Trump during the presidential transition in 2016.

Gabbard, the first Hindu lawmaker to serve in Congress, was first elected in 2012 and later became a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee. She resigned that position in 2016 amid her endorsement of Sanders’s presidential campaign.

She was one of the first members of Congress to endorse Sanders. “There’s a very clear contrast and clear difference when it comes to our two Democratic candidates,” Gabbard said at the time, “and who will exercise good judgment” in matters of war.

The four Indian-American Congressmen from the Democratic Party have been re-elected to the US House of Representatives and more than a dozen others won various other races across the country in the highly polarized 2018 midterm elections held on November 6th.

Dr. Ami Bera, a three-term Congressman, was re-elected for a record fourth consecutive term from the 7th Congressional District of California. Unlike the previous three elections, Bera did not have to wait for weeks for recounting of votes. He defeated Andrew Grant of the Republican Party by a 5% margin.

In the Silicon Valley, Indian-American Ro Khanna defeated Ron Cohen of the Republican Party with a massive 44 percentage point in the 17th Congressional District of California. “Tonight was a great night for our campaign and for Democrats across the country. I’m grateful to the voters of #CA17 for giving me the opportunity to continue to represent you in Congress. This has been the honor of my life,” Khanna said. “With Democrats in control of the House, we will push for economic and foreign policy populism,” he said.

In the 8th Congressional District of Illinois, Raja Krishnamoorthi was re-elected for the second term by a comfortable margin of more than 30 percentage points. He defeated his Indian American Republican opponent J D Diganvker.

Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, the only Indian-American woman lawmaker in the House of Representatives, defeated her GOP rival Craig Keller by a massive 66 percentage points. “The American people voted to put the Democrats back in control of the US House of Representatives. Now, we are primed to restore the balance of power between the branches of government and push back even more strongly against the Trump administration’s deeply destructive policies. Our communities are sick and tired of the corruption and injustice,” Jayapal said in her victory speech in Seattle.

While nearly two dozen Indian American won elections to state and local bodies across the nation, several candidates seeking to be elected to the US Congress did not make it to the US Congress. For the first time, more than 100 Indian-Americans had entered the race in this mid-term elections, of which over 50 were on the ballot on Tuesday. Among them 12, including four incumbents, were running for the House and one for the Senate – a record in itself.

None of the more than half a dozen new Indian Americans candidates, many of whom caught national attention by giving tough fight to their opponents and outraising them in the fund raisers, could make it to the House of Representatives.

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) had high hopes in Aftab Pureval in Ohio, Sri Preston Kulkarni in Texas and Dr. Hiral Tipirneni in Arizona by including them in its “Red to Blue” list – and additional boosts had come from major endorsements and results of recent polls. Democratic Party activists had hoped for seven Indian-Americans in Congress.

The Indian American Impact Project and its affiliate the Indian American Impact Fund have been raising funds for the candidates and also getting out high profile party members like Sen. Kamala Devi Harris and former U.S. Ambassador to India Rich Verma. Volunteers and other supporters were on the ground in the districts in Ohio, Texas, and Arizona where Pureval, Kulkarni and Tipirneni were running.

Raj Goyle, co-founder of the Indian American Impact Project, and a former Kansas state legislator, had stated, “Between the high stakes atmosphere and the sheer numbers of candidates who ran for office, this is perhaps the most competitive election cycle we’ve seen in decades. He said that more than 100 Indian-American candidates were on the ballot throughout the year and more than half are on the Nov. 6 ballot. We will see many new elected officials who are fresh faces and represent the best of our community,” he had said.

The Impact Project’s executive director, Gautam Raghavan, an ex-senior Obama administration official, said, “For the first time in history, three Indian-Americans are on the DCCC ‘Red to Blue’ list. Just ask Congressman Ami Bera — that designation can be a game-changer. We were happy when Aftab Pureval was named to the list earlier this year, and thrilled when Sri Kulkarni and Hiral Tipirneni were added earlier this month.”

“Impact Fund is proud to have contributed directly to these candidates, help them raise funds, raise their visibility nationally, and arrange for community leaders like Senator Kamala Harris and Ambassador Rich Verma to hit the campaign trail for them,” Raghavan said.

On Oct. 12, Sen. Kamala Devi Harris (D-Calif.) traveled to Arizona to keynote a joint event for Tipirneni and Malik,and continued to send emails encouraging supporters and donors on their behalf.

“I believe in these two talented Indian-American women,” she said. “I need these women in Congress with me. My constituents in California, and Indian Americans across the country, need these women in Congress. What happens in these races on Election Day will affect not only Arizona, but the entire nation.”

Indian-American of Tibetan descent Aftab Pureval, 35, lost to GOP incumbent Steve Chabot. He was the first Democrat to get elected as the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts in more than 100 years.  Indian-American woman Anita Malik lost to her Republican incumbent in the sixth District of Arizona, while Hiral Tipirneni was defeated by GOP rival Debbie Lesko.

Indian-Americans picked up more seats in the State assemblies. The community sent its member Ram Villivalam for the first time to the Illinois Senate and also elected a Muslim Indian-American Mujtaba Mohammed to the North Carolina State Senate. Chicago-born Villivalam, elected unopposed, became the first Asian-American State Senator and the first South Asian-American member of Illinois General Assembly ever.

Former state department diplomat Sri Preston Kulkarni lost to his GOP incumbent Pete Olson from the 22nd Congressional District of Texas. A five-time incumbent, Rep Olson defeated his Indian-American Democratic challenger in the most heated 22nd Congressional District that the opposition had hoped to flip due to a large Asian-American population.

The 40-year-old relied heavily on his ability to connect with the district’s diverse population to give Democrats hope that he could pull off an upset in the district. About 20 per cent of the population in the district is of Asian heritage – more than any other district in Texas.

Sanjay Patel, who runs a successful consulting business, lost to Republican Congressman Bill Posey, who has been winning the eighth Congressional District of Florida continuously since 2009.

In the first Congressional District of Arkansas, Democratic Chintan Desai lost to Republican incumbent Rick Crawford, while Republican Harry Arora lost to incumbent Jim Himes in the fourth Congressional District of Connecticut.

Shiva Ayyadurai, a successful entrepreneur, who fought the Massachusetts Senate race as an independent, came a distant third. Democratic leader Elizabeth Warren registered a comprehensive win over her Republican rival Geoff Diehl to re-enter the US Senate.

Democratic Nima Kulkarni defeated Joshua Neubert from the GOP to make her maiden entry into the Kentucky Assembly from State District 40. A practicing and recognized lawyer, she owns Indus Law Firm specialising in immigration, employment and business law.

Mujtaba Mohammed entered the North Carolina State Senate from the Senate District 38. A former staff attorney at the Council for Children’s Rights and assistant public defender, Mohammed defeated Richard Rivette.

Incumbent Jay Chaudhuri, an accomplished entrepreneur, was re-elected to North Carolina Senate from the State Senate District 15. Republican Niraj Atani, 27, registered his third consecutive electoral victory from Ohio House 42nd District. He is the youngest Indian-American elected official in the US. He is also the second Indian-American state elected official in Ohio history, and the first Indian-American Republican.

“Representing the community in which I was born and raised is an incredible honor. I work hard every day to make it achievable for all Ohioans to have the opportunity to make their American Dream a reality,” Atani said in a statement.

In Washington State, Manka Dhingra and Vandana Slatter were re-elected for the State Senate. Among others re-elected at the State level are Sabi Kumar in Tennessee and Ash Kalra (California).

Sayu Bhojwani, the executive director of New American Leaders and author of “People Like Us: The New Wave of Candidates Knocking at Democracy’s Door,” stated, “Indian-American women across the country are donating money, writing texts and postcards, making calls and knocking on doors. We, Indian American women are leading the way in this groundbreaking election,” she said. “We have only begun to witness the power and energy we have together.”

The emergence of a large number of young Indian-Americans candidates reflects the growing desire of this small ethnic community comprising just one per cent of the US population of 325 million people in the greatest democracy in the world.

“It is time we come to recognize fully the contributions of the Indian-American community. Indian-Americans are tremendously important and we hope they would be increasingly visible not only in the government, but also in all parts of American life,” said Maya Kassandra Soetoro-Ng, maternal half-sister of President Obama, adding that President Obama was very proud of the community. “It is certainly a reflection of how important India is and how important Indian-Americans are to the fabric of the nation. I would just like to celebrate all of the contribution artistic, political and so much more of the community.”

To quote former Congressman and Co-Chair of the Congressional India Caucus,  Joe Crowley, “I think it is wonderful for the Indian-American community. It is coming of age, politically for them.”

In a closely watched midterm election, Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives, effectively ending one-party rule in Washington — although the GOP increased its advantage in the Senate.

Democrats earned sweeping victories across the map, easily picking up the 23 seats they needed to regain control. With a number of races too close to call, Democrats could win up to 35 seats and open a significant margin in the chamber, setting up a two-year period that will likely feature multiple clashes between President Donald Trump and the House.

Progressive candidates won House seats in a number of districts that voted for Trump in 2016. Abigail Spanberger defeated incumbent U.S. Rep Dave Brat in the historically conservative Virginia 7th district and Lauren Underwood earned an upset win in Illinois’ 14th district.

The comeback of the Democrats to power is expected to end President Trump’s legislative agenda, while giving them the power to investigate his corruption. Democrats did so with a runaway win in the national popular vote — likely by about seven percentage points.

By Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union

Over 30 years ago, President Ronald Reagan and I signed in Washington the United States-Soviet Treaty on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. For the first time in history, two classes of nuclear weapons were to be eliminated and destroyed.

This was a first step. It was followed in 1991 by the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which the Soviet Union signed with President George H.W. Bush, our agreement on radical cuts in tactical nuclear arms, and the New Start Treaty, signed by the presidents of Russia and the United States in 2010.

There are still too many nuclear weapons in the world, but the American and Russian arsenals are now a fraction of what they were during the Cold War. At the Nuclear Nonproliferation Review Conference in 2015, Russia and the United States reported to the international community that 85 percent of those arsenals had been decommissioned and, for the most part, destroyed.

Today, this tremendous accomplishment, of which our two nations can be rightfully proud, is in jeopardy. President Trump announced last week the United States’ plan to withdraw from the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty and his country’s intention to build up nuclear arms.

ADVERTISEMENT

I am being asked whether I feel bitter watching the demise of what I worked so hard to achieve. But this is not a personal matter. Much more is at stake.

A new arms race has been announced. The I.N.F. Treaty is not the first victim of the militarization of world affairs. In 2002, the United States withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty; this year, from the Iran nuclear deal. Military expenditures have soared to astronomical levels and keep rising.

As a pretext for the withdrawal from the I.N.F. Treaty, the United States invoked Russia’s alleged violations of some of the treaty’s provisions. Russia has raised similar concerns regarding American compliance, at the same time proposing to discuss the issues at the negotiating table to find a mutually acceptable solution. But over the past few years, the United States has been avoiding such discussion. I think it is now clear why.

With enough political will, any problems of compliance with the existing treaties could be resolved. But as we have seen during the past two years, the president of the United States has a very different purpose in mind. It is to release the United States from any obligations, any constraints, and not just regarding nuclear missiles.

The United States has in effect taken the initiative in destroying the entire system of international treaties and accords that served as the underlying foundation for peace and security following World War II.

Yet I am convinced that those who hope to benefit from a global free-for-all are deeply mistaken. There will be no winner in a “war of all against all” — particularly if it ends in a nuclear war. And that is a possibility that cannot be ruled out. An unrelenting arms race, international tensions, hostility and universal mistrust will only increase the risk.

Is it too late to return to dialogue and negotiations? I don’t want to lose hope. I hope that Russia will take a firm but balanced stand. I hope that America’s allies will, upon sober reflection, refuse to be launchpads for new American missiles. I hope the United Nations, and particularly members of its Security Council, vested by the United Nations Charter with primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, will take responsible action. Faced with this dire threat to peace, we are not helpless. We must not resign, we must not surrender.

(Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union. This article was translated by Pavel Palazhchenko from the Russian.)

United States ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki R. Haley, said on October 9, 2018 that she would resign at the end of the year, marking a high-profile departure of one of the few women in the president’s cabinet.

Ms. Haley, a former governor of South Carolina, had been an early and frequent critic of Mr. Trump; when he named her to the United Nations job weeks after his election in November 2016, the appointment was seen as an olive branch. As ambassador, Ms. Haley has been an outspoken and often forceful envoy — someone whom foreign diplomats looked to for guidance from an administration known for haphazard and inconsistent policy positions.

“It was a blessing to go into the U.N. with body armor every day and defend America,” Ms. Haley, seated next to Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, told reporters. “I’ll never truly step aside from fighting for our country. But I will tell you that I think it’s time.”

“I think you have to be selfless enough to know when you step aside and allow someone else to do the job,” she added.

White House staffers were caught off guard by the announcement, which Ms. Haley and Mr. Trump had kept closely under wraps. But the president said Ms. Haley had informed him roughly six months ago that she wanted to take a break after finishing two years with the administration. He said he hoped Ms. Haley would return in a different role, and would name her successor within the next two or three weeks.

“She’s done a fantastic job and we’ve done a fantastic job together,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re all happy for you in one way, but we hate to lose you.”

Ms. Haley, the first cabinet-level United Nations ambassador for a Republican administration since the end of the Cold War, quickly made clear she saw the position as a steppingstone to a higher political office — a possibility that Mr. Trump may have resented.She became a far more visible face of American foreign policy than her first boss at the State Department, former Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson. Mike Pompeo, Mr. Tillerson’s replacement, has recently reasserted the secretary of state’s traditional role.

Time magazine celebrated Ms. Haley’s ascendance by putting her on a cover as one of the women who are “changing the world.”

But Ms. Haley, who has long been seen as a potential presidential candidate, said on Tuesday she had no intention of running for president in 2020, as has been speculated. Instead, she said, she plans to campaign for Mr. Trump’s re-election.

Stepping away now could be a logical end point if Ms. Haley wants to preserve her own political future. But in the short term, people familiar with her thinking said that she is likely to work in the private sector and make some money.

For the moment, few Republican strategists believe that Ms. Haley is inclined to challenge Mr. Trump in 2020. But those who know her believe that she is likely to run, whether in 2024, or even in 2020 — should the president not run again.

”An open presidential race is a better chance to show off her incredible political skills, rather than some quixotic primary effort,” said Matt Moore, who was the Republican Party chair in South Carolina when Ms. Haley was governor there.

The daughter of immigrants from India, Ms. Haley favored free markets and global trade and earned international attention when she was governor for speaking out against the Confederate battle flag in the aftermath of the 2015 massacre at a black church in Charleston. During Mr. Trump’s presidential campaign, she sharply criticized his demeanor and warned what it might mean for American diplomacy — even suggesting that his tendency to lash out at critics could cause a world war.

As ambassador, Ms. Haley acknowledged her policy disagreements with the president in an op-ed in the Washington Post last month when she criticized an anonymous senior administration official who penned an opinion piece in The New York Times, describing a chaotic administration in which many of the president’s aides disagreed with their boss.

Possible successors include Dina Powell, a former deputy national security adviser to the president, and Richard A. Grenell. Mr. Grenell, the American ambassador to Germany, served as spokesman for John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, when he was ambassador to the United Nation under former President George W. Bush.

On September 25, 2018, President Trump delivered his second address to the United Nations General Assembly. The speech was highly anticipated in light of President Trump’s often skeptical view of international institutions and multilateral cooperation, as well as recent tensions over U.S.-China trade, the future of the Iran nuclear deal and talks with North Korea, rhetorical spars with U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere, and more.

“We will never surrender America’s sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable, global bureaucracy,” U.S. President Donald Trump declared this week in his second UN General Assembly speech on September 25th. “America is governed by Americans.”

“We reject globalism and embrace the doctrine of patriotism,” Trump said in a clear rejection of the half-century old international institutions that emerged from the devastation of World War II. It was a declaration of the supremacy of sovereignty, and the idea that all nations should embrace their own versions of his “America First” foreign policy approach.

Trump was hardly the first U.S. president to make the point. George H. W. Bush put it positively in his 1991 address to the General Assembly, seeing international institutions as an asset in service of an international order “in which no nation must surrender one iota of its own sovereignty.” George W. Bush had a UN ambassador—John Bolton, now Trump’s national security adviser—famous for his fierce defense of sovereignty.

Trump’s speech went around the globe reprimanding ungrateful allies, lambasting so called bad trade deals and criticizing other agreements that enabled the world to take advantage of America. “The U.S. will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control and domination,” he said, defending his Administration’s retreat from U.N. organizations like the International Criminal Court, Human Rights Council and a global compact on migration.

Two weeks earlier, when John Bolton announced that Washington would “use any means necessary” to push back against the International Criminal Court, the body mandated by most of the international community to prosecute genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It was initially intended to act as a “court of last resort,” to step in when nations’ legal systems fail. To Bolton, and now Trump, the court is a challenge to its constitutional authority.

In another shake-up from longstanding U.S. policy, and one that appeals to Bolton, Trump said his Administration intends to take a “hard look” at U.S. foreign assistance, particularly to nations that don’t act in U.S. interests. “Moving forward, we are only going to give foreign aid to those who respect us and, frankly, are our friends,” he said. “And we expect other countries to pay their fair share for the cost of their defense.”

Trump believes that international collaboration has resulted in the U.S. being swindled. For decades, he said, the United States opened its economy with few conditions, allowing foreign goods from all over the world to flow freely across U.S. borders. Other countries did not grant that same access.

“We will no longer allow our workers to be victimized, our companies to be cheated and our wealth to be plundered and transferred,” Trump said, detailing his rationale to slap China with another $200 billion in import tariffs with a promise to implement more, should Beijing retaliate. “The United States will not be taken advantage of any longer.”

Western allies have not embraced the message of sovereignty, which has traditionally been pushed by states like Russia, China, Iran and North Korea as a self-defense tactic. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, called on the international community to come together to help repair the broken trust. “Our future rests on solidarity,” he said. “We must reinvigorate our multilateral project.”

In less than two months, as the mid-term elections come to a close, the official launch of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary season will begin. Over a dozen prospective candidates will start making moves or even launching campaigns to challenge President Donald Trump.

According to a CNN report published on September 13th, Kamala Harris, the Senator from California ranks 2nd among the 10 potential aspirants to the White House among the Democrats. She comes after Sen. Elizabeth warren of MA among the 10 ranked by CNN. In June this year, The Washington Post ranked the Indian Origin Senator from the Golden State 3rd after Sen. Warren and Sen. Bernie sanders of Vermont.

The popular FiveThirtyEight.com wrote recently, “Sen. Kamala Harris has not officially said she is running in 2020, but she hasn’t denied it, either, and she’s showing many of the signs of someone who is preparing for a run, including campaigning for her Democratic colleagues in key races and signing a deal to write a book.”

Harris recently told MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt that she’s “not ruling out” a 2020 presidential run. But her actions may speak louder than her words. She was the first lawmaker to call for Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to resign over the Trump administration’s family-separation policy. She has also somewhat recently written off accepting money from corporate PACs.

According to CNN, “ Harris clearly saw the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings as a chance to showcase her prosecutorial mettle. And like Booker, what you took from Harris’ performance during the hearings is likely determined by what you thought of her before the hearings. But if you are looking at what the 2018 primaries have taught us, it’s that a candidate with a profile like Harris’ — liberal record, the first Indian-American in the Senate and first black senator from California — could be just what Democratic primary voters are looking for.”

In 2017, Kamala D. Harris was sworn in as a United States Senator for California, the second African-American woman and first South Asian-American senator in history. She serves on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committee on the Judiciary, and the Committee on the Budget.

Kamala has spent her life fighting injustice. It’s a passion that was first inspired by her mother, Shyamala, an Indian-American immigrant, activist, and breast cancer researcher.

Growing up in Oakland, Kamala had a stroller-eye view of the Civil Rights movement. Through the example of courageous leaders like Thurgood Marshall, Constance Baker Motley, and Charles Hamilton Houston, Kamala learned the kind of character it requires to stand up to the powerful, and resolved to spend her life advocating for those who could not defend themselves.

After earning an undergraduate degree from Howard University and a law degree from the University of California, Hastings, she began her career in the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.

In 2003, Kamala became the District Attorney of the City and County of San Francisco. Among her achievements as District Attorney, Harris started a program that gives first-time drug offenders the chance to earn a high school diploma and find employment.

Having completed two terms as the District Attorney of San Francisco, Kamala was elected as the first African-American and first woman to serve as California’s Attorney General. In this role, she worked tirelessly to hold corporations accountable and protect the state’s most vulnerable people.

Over the course of her nearly two terms in office, Kamala won a $25-billion settlement for California homeowners hit by the foreclosure crisis, defended California’s landmark climate change law, protected the Affordable Care Act, helped win marriage equality for all Californians, and prosecuted transnational gangs that trafficked in guns, drugs, and human beings.

In the United States Senate, Kamala’s mission remains unchanged: fighting for the rights of all communities in California. Since taking office, she has introduced and cosponsored legislation to raise wages for working people, reform our broken criminal justice system, make healthcare a right for all Americans, address the epidemic of substance abuse, support veterans and military families, and expand access to childcare for working parents.

An anonymous senior Trump administration official assailed President Donald Trump’s “amorality” and reckless decision-making in a New York Times op-ed published on  September 5^th and said he or she is part of a “resistance” working to thwart Trump’s worst impulses.

“The dilemma — which (Trump) does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations,” the Times piece reads. “I would know. I am one of them.”

The Times said disclosing the name of the official, who is known to the publication, would jeopardize the official’s job, and that publishing the piece anonymously was the only way to deliver an important perspective to readers. Major newspapers almost never publish unnamed op-ed pieces. At The New York Times, it is very rare, but not entirely unprecedented.

The op-ed amplified the sense of paranoia inside the West Wing and resurrected the feeling that the White House is under assault from within, as per reports. Trump administration officials, struggling to mount a defense to Woodward’s tell-all book, were stunned when the op-ed was published Wednesday afternoon, left guessing and quietly pointing fingers at other officials as they tried to figure out who wrote it, even texting reporters possible guesses.

Speculation rose that it could be someone in the vice president’s office given the op-ed’s inclusion of the word “lodestar” and several speeches Mike Pence gave using the unusual term.

Pence’s deputy chief of staff and communications director Jarrod Agen denied that Pence or anyone from their office authored the New York Times op-ed.

The op-ed came on the heels of reports based on a damning book about Trump’s presidency by veteran journalist Bob Woodward and amplified the sense that top advisers to the President have serious concerns about his conduct in office and leadership abilities. And it is likely to compound Trump’s sense of paranoia that he is surrounded by advisers who may be duplicitous and untrustworthy.

Trump quickly lashed out, dismissing the op-ed as “really a disgrace” and “gutless” and assailing the author and The New York Times for publishing the anonymous opinion piece. “We have somebody in what I call the failing New York Times that’s talking about he’s part of the resistance inside the Trump administration,” Trump said. “This is what we have to deal with. And you know the dishonest media … But it’s really a disgrace.”

He then pivoted to his accomplishments, claiming that “nobody has done what this administration has done in terms of getting things passed and getting things through.”

Trump later tweeted a pointed and unsubstantiated attack on the Times, questioning if the author of the op-ed exists. If the author does exist, the organization should publicly identify the individual, Trump said.

“Does the so-called ‘Senior Administration Official’ really exist, or is it just the Failing New York Times with another phony source?” Trump tweeted. “If the GUTLESS anonymous person does indeed exist, the Times must, for National Security purposes, turn him/her over to government at once!”

The op-ed offers a firsthand account that corroborates key themes of Woodward’s book: that some of the President’s top advisers have a dim view of the commander in chief and are quietly working to thwart Trump’s most reckless and impulsive decisions from becoming a reality.

The author writes the resistance inside the Trump administration is not the same “resistance” of the left against the President and said they and like-minded colleagues working to thwart some of Trump’s actions “want the administration to succeed … But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.”

“That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.”

The result, the official writes, has been a “two-track presidency” in which Trump’s own worldview — uttered both in public and private — diverges from some key actions taken by the administration, like those involving additional sanctions against Russia.

A dramatic alternative to the quiet effort to thwart some of Trump’s more concerning actions was, however, considered, the official said: invoking the 25th Amendment.

The official alleges there were “early whispers within” Trump’s Cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would require a majority of Cabinet officials to declare to Congress they believe the President is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” Explaining the “resistance” effort, the senior administration official offers a damning portrait of Trump’s character and leadership ability.

The author argues the “root of the problem is the President’s amorality” and assails Trump’s “reckless decisions,” “erratic behavior” and what the official describes as the President’s “impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective” leadership style.

“The root of the problem is the President’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making,” the official writes. “Although he was elected as a Republican, the President shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people.” Trump officials react

It’s impossible to know in the moment when a presidency begins to dissolve. But after a devastating 48 hours, it’s already clear that Donald Trump’s will never be the same. These statements and those behind this “resistance movement” warn that the President of the United States is not only unfit to be the most powerful man in the world, but is a venal mix of ignorance and ego, pettiness, malignancy and recklessness that is putting the republic and the world itself at risk.

John S. McCain, the proud naval aviator who climbed from depths of despair as a prisoner of war in Vietnam to pinnacles of power as a Republican congressman and senator from Arizona and a two-time contender for the presidency, died on Saturday at his home in Arizona. He was 81.

According to a statement from his office, Mr. McCain died at 4:28 p.m. local time. He had suffered from a malignant brain tumor, called a glioblastoma, for which he had been treated periodically with radiation and chemotherapy since its discovery in 2017.

Despite his grave condition, he soon made a dramatic appearance in the Senate to cast a thumbs-down vote against his party’s drive to repeal the Affordable Care Act. But while he was unable to be in the Senate for a vote on the Republican tax bill in December, his endorsement was crucial, though not decisive, in the Trump administration’s lone legislative triumph of the year.

A son and grandson of four-star admirals who were his larger-than-life heroes, Mr. McCain carried his renowned name into battle and into political fights for more than a half-century. It was an odyssey driven by raw ambition, the conservative instincts of a shrewd military man, a rebelliousness evident since childhood and a temper that sometimes bordered on explosiveness.

Nowhere were those traits more manifest than in Vietnam, where he was stripped of all but his character. He boiled over in foul curses at his captors. Because his father was the commander of all American forces in the Pacific during most of his five and a half years of captivity, Mr. McCain, a Navy lieutenant commander, became the most famous prisoner of the war, a victim of horrendous torture and a tool of enemy propagandists.

Shot down over Hanoi, suffering broken arms and a shattered leg, he was subjected to solitary confinement for two years and beaten frequently. Often he was suspended by ropes lashing his arms behind him. He attempted suicide twice. His weight fell to 105 pounds. He rejected early release to keep his honor and to avoid an enemy propaganda coup or risk demoralizing his fellow prisoners.

He finally cracked under torture and signed a “confession.” No one believed it, although he felt the burden of betraying his country. To millions of Americans, Mr. McCain was the embodiment of courage: a war hero who came home on crutches, psychologically scarred and broken in body, but not in spirit. He underwent long medical treatments and rehabilitation, but was left permanently disabled, unable to raise his arms over his head. Someone had to comb his hair.

(From Reports by Aziz Haniffa at India Abroad)

The clout and influence of the Indian diaspora is evident in the nation’s capital, as evidenced by so many Indian-American groups in the metropolitan area, said Sen. Tim Kaine (D.-Va.). The former vice presidential candidate made his remarks at the India Independence Day celebrations on Aug. 19, which drew more than 300 to the Falls Church Marriott Fairview Park.

“This is an important community and that’s why you have so many officials who are here because we value so much the Indian American community in Virginia and nationally,” he said. “When I was governor and I had assembled my entire cabinet, a newspaper in India pointed out to me that three of my cabinet members were Indian-American, and I wasn’t even aware of it. They were in my cabinet because they were so fantastic. Many of you know and remember the team that I assembled and you see that in a bipartisan way across the Commonwealth.”

Kaine said it was the linkages between both countries – sharing common values, diversity and pluralism – that makes it imperative that this relationship has always been celebrated in the U.S.

Kaine, the ranking Democrat on both the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, recalled a 2015 visit he made to India as member of both committees to the Mazagon Docks in Mumbai. The Mazagon Dock Shipbuilders Limited, is India’s prime shipyard and is where the country’s warships and submarines are manufactured for the Indian Navy.

He said that he and the congressional delegation wanted to see India’s shipbuilding industry because his own state of Virginia is central in U.S. shipbuilding. “I’ll never forget the pride of India’s shipbuilders showing off the Mazagon Docks,” he said. He said upon his return to the U.S. he spoke to the secretary of the Navy telling him Indian naval officials needed to come visit U.S. shipbuilders in Newport News, Virginia and on the Gulf Coast.

Kaine said the Pentagon insisted “we don’t like to take people from foreign nations to our shipyards because of concerns about security and secrecy.” He said he pointed out that “our Indian colleagues and the Indian military does more joint exercises with the United States military than they do with any other nation in the world, and they were so proud and so welcoming to show us their shipbuilding industry, and so the least we can do is have that same relationship with them.”

Within a year, the Pentagon hosted a delegation of India’s key naval officials, he said. They visited Virginia’s shipyards and many others, he said, where some of the most sophisticated U.S. warships and submarines were being assembled. “This is just the tip of the iceberg of the cooperation that we can do together,” he said. “We are now so connected, and that’s what tonight is all about.”

Indian Ambassador to the U.S. Navtej Sarna, in a message to the gathering, noted: “India’s relationship with the United States is substantive and wide-ranging and is set to grow further in strategic and economic spheres. The contribution of the Indian-American community to this relationship has been critical.” Sarna and other embassy officials who had been slated to attend the event were not present as the government of India observed a weeklong period of mourning after the death of former Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

Raj Shah was honored with a Distinguished Service Award at India’s 72nd birthday celebration hosted by a coalition of Indian-American organizations under the aegis of the National Council of Asian American Associations. The gathering of about 300 attendees was held at the Falls Church Marriott Fairview Park and also celebrated Shah’s work for what the keynote speaker called “a commitment to our nation.”

“I believe in the future of Connecticut. As Treasurer, I will execute strong and sound fiscal policy to benefit our great state and residents,” says Dita Bhargava, an Indian American running to win the nomination for State Treasurer in Connecticut, representing the Democratic Party in the upcoming state primaries on August 14^th. “I’ll work with businesses, colleges, and government on solutions that lead us to thrive together and make our state stronger and fairer. I want to improve our fiscal situation such that we can invite new businesses that will invest responsibly in our state, and ensure that our college graduates can find the right opportunities here at home.”

Dita Bhargava had initially wanted to run to be state’s Governor, but abandoned the run and chose to be the next Treasurer of the Constitution state. Her reason for switching from gubernatorial to treasurer candidate is because she believes her financial background is better suited to the state’s treasurer post, she told the publication.

Dita Bhargava was elected as vice chairwoman of the Connecticut Democratic State Central Committee (DSCC) and has been seen as rising star in the state Democratic Party. “Dita Bhargava is an excellent choice to serve as state party vice chairwoman,” said U.S. Rep. Jim Himes. “I have gotten to know her as a community leader in Greenwich, and I can tell you from experience that she has the leadership skills to be highly effective in her new role. ”

“I want to thank the DSCC for entrusting me with this incredible opportunity and responsibility,” said Bhargava. “Connecticut Democrats are already working tirelessly to build a grassroots organization and expand our ranks with new voices and faces that ensure we are ready to compete in 2017 and 2018. We will hold the Connecticut Republicans supporting the Trump administration’s extreme agenda accountable. I look forward to getting right to work.”

“I’m proud to call Connecticut my home,” Bhargava says. “I believe in our great state and my vision is for Connecticut to be a place where all have a chance for success.  We must create thriving cities, empower our middle class families and make revitalizing Connecticut a top priority. With my private sector experience, I know what it takes to find solutions, navigate and negotiate the complicated issues our state faces, and get things done.”

As the Treasurer, Bhargava, an young and energetic Indian American leader, is committed to  work “to enhance the livelihood of our families, strengthen our economy, and restore the state’s fiscal solvency. A strong and fair Connecticut is a goal we all share, and we will deliver it together.”

“Democrats are fired up and ready to go,” said Bhargava, a former Wall Street portfolio manager from Greenwich. “What better way to tap into that energy than a series of debates that drive to the heart of the issues that they care about?” Bhargava suggested one debate in each of Connecticut’s five Congressional district, the same format that candidates for attorney general are planning for their forums.

Bhargava received an overwhelming number of votes in support of her campaign at the Democratic State Convention this Spring. “I’m excited to continue this incredible journey with you all. Now, it’s time to dig in, dig deep, and set our sights on Election Day. There is much work to be done in Connecticut, and I look forward to winning this race and getting to work to put our state back on a path of fiscal and economic prosperity.”

“This fall and winter, as I explored running for statewide office, I visited more than 60 towns across Connecticut to learn about the challenges facing our state. I heard the concerns you voiced over rising living costs and college tuition, escalating taxes, increasing budget deficits, our exodus of young workers, and the future of our pension system, among many other issues,” Bhargava said in the statement.

“Hearing these stories has emboldened my commitment to public service and helped strengthen the fiscal and economic foundations of our state. It’s also led me to reconsider how I can best harness my strengths, knowledge, and experiences in ways that best serve our citizens,” she added.

In order to succeed in her efforts to make the state successful for everyone, the talented and visionary leader, says, “It will require new ideas and strong executive leadership in Hartford. We cannot afford to keep governing the same way and expect a better outcome. That’s why I’m running for State Treasurer.”

Bhargava is an active volunteer and supporter of the Clinton Foundation, Robin Hood Foundation and Inspirica Women’s Shelter and in January of 2017, she was unanimously elected Vice Chair of the Connecticut State Democratic Party, according to her website.

Bhargava said that the state will need to be steered in a new direction as Denise Nappier completes her 20-year tenure as state Treasurer. “During her tenure, Denise has expanded the discussion on corporate governance to include an awareness of businesses’ social and environmental impact.  She has been a tireless advocate for better financial literacy in our state, where we lag behind our peers. The next Treasurer should have an appreciation for these issues, as well as a comprehensive knowledge of finance, investing, and the economy,” Bhargava stated, adding that her upbringing, professional experience in the financial sector and her progressive vision “are what Connecticut needs in our next Treasurer.”

Bhargava also mentioned in the statement that she wants to find solutions for the middle- and working-class families of Connecticut and she believes she can do so since she has that financial experience on Wall Street as well as in the nonprofit area where she “spent many years helping underserved communities and advocating for family-friendly policies such as paid family leave and equal pay for equal work.”

Lauding the great contributions of the Indian American community, which has excelled in almost every field, Bhargava, a second generation Indian American has urgedthe need for Indian Americans to come together, stand united and work for the greater good of the larger American society. She appealed to the fast growing Indian American community in the US to join her as “we work together to make Connecticut a prosperous state.”

“I’m fully prepared to steer Connecticut’s financial future in these challenging times. We’re already in a prolonged budgetary crisis, and Donald Trump’s federal tax plan—and the large deficits it will incur—may threaten Connecticut’s fiscal stability and its pension portfolio, already hard-pressed to match liabilities. The people of our state – retirees, workers, students, and the most vulnerable—need and deserve protection. I feel confident that with my experience, vision, and dedication, I’m the candidate most qualified and best equipped to lead our state back to fiscal and economic stability,” Bhargava stated.

Brett M. Kavanaugh, 53, has been chosen to replace Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, by President Trump.  If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh, who is expected to be a reliable conservative, would replace Justice Kennedy, a Reagan appointee who often voted with the court’s liberal wing on social issues like abortion and gay rights. Judge Kavanaugh is estimated to be more conservative than 66 percent of all other current and former federal judges nominated since 1980.

Before joining the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Judge Kavanaugh held several posts in the administration of George W. Bush, ultimately serving as his staff secretary. He also worked under Kenneth W. Starr, the independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton. Judge Kavanaugh sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the most influential circuit court) and is reportedly commanding wide and deep respect among scholars, lawyers and jurists.

In an opinion piece in a major daily, Akhil Reed Amar, an Indian American professor at Yale Law School, has hailed the nomination. “The nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice is President Trump’s finest hour, his classiest move,” Prof. Amar wrote.

Judge Kavanaugh has already helped decide hundreds of cases concerning a broad range of difficult issues. Good appellate judges faithfully follow the Supreme Court; great ones influence and help steer it. Several of Judge Kavanaugh’s most important ideas and arguments — such as his powerful defense of presidential authority to oversee federal bureaucrats and his skepticism about newfangled attacks on the property rights of criminal defendants — have found their way into Supreme Court opinions.

According to Prof. Amar, Judge Kavanaugh has taught courses at leading law schools and published notable law review articles. More important, he is an avid consumer of legal scholarship. He reads and learns. And he reads scholars from across the political spectrum. (

Prof. Amar, who was one of Judge Kavanaugh’s professors when he was a student at Yale Law School, wrote, “This studiousness is especially important for a jurist like Judge Kavanaugh, who prioritizes the Constitution’s original meaning. A judge who seeks merely to follow precedent can simply read previous judicial opinions. But an “originalist” judge — who also cares about what the Constitution meant when its words were ratified in 1788 or when amendments were enacted — cannot do all the historical and conceptual legwork on his or her own.

“Judge Kavanaugh seems to appreciate this fact, whereas Justice Antonin Scalia, a fellow originalist, did not read enough history and was especially weak on the history of the Reconstruction amendments and the 20th-century amendments. A great judge also admits and learns from past mistakes. Here, too, Judge Kavanaugh has already shown flashes of greatness, admirably confessing that some of the views he held 20 years ago as a young lawyer — including his crabbed understandings of the presidency when he was working for the Whitewater independent counsel, Kenneth Starr — were erroneous.

“Judge Kavanaugh is, again, a superb nominee. Judge Kavanaugh could be confirmed with the ninety something Senate votes he deserves, rather than the fifty something votes he is likely to get,” Prof. Amar wrote.

The Democratic National Committee has tapped Seema Nanda to serve as its new CEO and handle day-to-day operations, the committee announced last week. As midterm elections continue and the 2020 election draws closer, hiring the management-oriented Nanda is a move away from more explicitly political executives who have led the troubled party in the past.

“I’m beyond excited that Seema is bringing her talent and brilliance to the DNC,” DNC Chair Tom Perez said in a statement. “She is a seasoned manager who has a proven track record of success.”

“People are hurting all across our country. I believe that Democrats are offering the positive solutions so desperately-needed right now – solutions forged by the strength of our diversity, the rigor of our ideas and the decency of our values,” Nanda said in a statement. “I am grateful to chairman [Tom] Perez and Mary Beth for selecting me, and I look forward to joining my new DNC colleagues in the fight for our nation’s values and future.”

Nanda previously worked as Perez’s chief of staff at the U.S. Department of Labor. She replaces interim CEO Mary Beth Cahill, who took the helm of the DNC in February after replacing Jess O’Connell, a seasoned operative who left after less than a year on the job.

Nanda also worked on the DNC transition team for Perez, which “took a fresh look” at the committee’s operations after the 2016 election, according to a DNC statement. She has a background in labor and employment law, and has worked in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.

“As we head toward a crucial election, I’m one hundred percent certain that Seema’s leadership will help the DNC capitalize on the unprecedented grassroots energy and enthusiasm surging throughout the country,” Perez said in a statement

According to an article in Glamour, Nanda is stepping in as the Democrats try to build on primary successes that have given women of color a chance at making history in November.