Sen. Kamala Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, visited the key battleground state of Florida on Thursday to court Black and Jewish voters just days after the Democratic vice presidential nominee's first in-person campaign event in Wisconsin.Harris met with Biden campaign surrogate Ana Navarro during a visit to Amaize Latin Flavors, a fast-casual Venezuelan restaurant in Doral. During her stop, Harris greeted diners and staff, took photos and picked up large bags of takeout.Later in the day, Harris held a conversation with community leaders, including fellow members of Alpha Kappa Alpha, the first Black Greek sorority of which Harris is a member, along with past regional president Congresswoman Frederica Wilson and Miami Shores Mayor Crystal Wagar, at Florida Memorial University. The women discussed the challenges that African Americans face in South Florida at the historically Black university in Miami Gardens.Harris took a direct shot at President Donald Trump saying the president acted in his "political self-interest" after a panelist told a story about how her community has suffered great physical and financial loss due to the impact of coronavirus. The California Senator responded to the woman saying, "our country is grieving, the loss of jobs, the loss of life, the loss of normalcy, the loss of consistency and in many cases the loss of hope and Joe and I talk about that all the time." She added, "we need leadership that sees and recognizes the suffering and is prompted then to be guided by truth and fact, and not what is in their political self-interest which is what we have seen in Donald Trump."The California senator was introduced by Wilson, a Bahamian American, who said, "We're so proud of you because Black women have carried this nation, this race, this Democratic Party." Wilson added, "For you to be on the cusp of being the first Black Caribbean vice president -- I'm Bahamian -- it means so much. It means so much to our district. It means so much to all of the people here."Before the discussion, Harris was greeted by Florida Memorial University's marching band, called "The Roar," which played three songs.At the same time as Harris' event, Emhoff, who is Jewish, held a community conversation with Jewish leaders at the Aventura Turnberry Jewish Center in Miami. Emhoff was joined by Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Miami-Dade Commissioner Daniella Levine Cava and several local rabbis to talk about issues important to the Jewish community.Emhoff is not new to campaigning as he was often on the trail during Harris' primary race for the Democratic presidential nomination.In late August, Emhoff took a leave of absence from his law firm, DLA Piper. Since then, Emhoff has headlined several Zoom calls and fundraisers, including a Lawyers for Biden Virtual Conversation with Emhoff and Harris' brother-in-law, Tony West, on Wednesday. That event raised $960,000, according to organizers.Emhoff said if he becomes the "first second gentleman" he will focus on issues involving access to justice, which he became interested in as a young lawyer."When I first went to court, and I would go into the Superior Court in Los Angeles downtown and I was shocked to see just lining the halls, just people ... just tugging at my -- at the time, double-breasted jacket to say you know, 'Help. Help.' It was just so impactful."He added, "So for 30 years this has been sticking with me, how some are able to hire these amazing lawyers and many aren't."While Thursday's events mark the couple's first time campaigning in person in the Sunshine State since joining the Biden campaign, it isn't the first time Harris has targeted Miami. In late August, Harris participated in the launch of the Biden-Harris campaign initiative focused on Latino-owned small businesses dubbed Nuestros Negocios, Nuestro Futuro, which translates to "Our Businesses, Our Future."The virtual bilingual event was a virtual roundtable discussion focused on Miami, with Harris, Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell and local business owners highlighting the difficulties of running a business amid the pandemic and the role of Latino business owners in job creation and boosting the economy. The first of a series of events will also call on business owners to ensure that people in communities they serve are registered to vote.

closeVideoStirewalt on why Kamala Harris failed and who benefits from her dropping outLast January I wrote a Fox News op-ed headlined “Here’s why Kamala Harris is my early bet to win the 2020 Democratic presidential primary.” On Tuesday I lost the bet.A full two months before the first votes are cast in the Iowa caucuses, the senator from California withdrew from the presidential race, joining former Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas on the island of dropouts and unfulfilled expectations.In her parting message, Harris cited a lack of financial resources, saying “I’m not a billionaire” – a not-so-veiled jab at former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and perhaps even her fellow Californian, Tom Steyer.ARNON MISHKIN: KAMALA HARRIS DROPS OUT – HERE ARE 2020 CANDIDATES WHO WILL BENEFIT MOST FROM HER EXITIt is true that campaigns require resources to remain competitive, but running out of money is a symptom – not a cause – of more serious political ailments.As with any other investor, political donors want to contribute to winning causes. No one wants to throw good money after bad. Donors are attracted to candidates with campaign momentum and a path to victory – and Harris didn’t have either one.Harris’ withdrawal from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination was not surprising. Not only was she stalled in the polls -- her political demise was telegraphed in major news outlets in campaign obituaries chock full of juicy staff infighting and finger-pointing.Since her successful campaign launch in January, Harris has struggled to navigate between the choppy lanes of her party’s primary electorate. As a former prosecutor, she was never a natural fit with the far-left Democrats who were drawn to two fellow candidates – Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.At the same time, Harris never made a play for the unabashed support of the Democratic establishment, where former Vice President Joe Biden has placed all his political chips. Harris’ lack of identity was highlighted by her cringe-worthy back-and-forth over the thorny issue of “Medicare-for-all.”Now questions will shift toward her viability as a vice presidential nominee – a natural next step in the 2020 presidential contest, given California’s 55 Electoral College votes and Harris’ still-formidable political profile. But Harris’ addition to the general election ticket would not allow her party to expand its political map.The Golden State has not been competitive in general elections of late, and it’s even further out of reach for Republicans in the era of President Trump. Seven sitting Republican House members from California lost their seats last year as the Democrats flipped control of the chamber. The GOP ranks have been so decimated in California that the number of voters of “no party preference” is now greater than the number Republican voters.But even if she is not the No. 2 on the ticket, there are three reasons we haven’t seen the last of Kamala Harris on the national stage.First, at the age of 55, she has plenty of time to rehab her political reputation. Voters’ memories are famously short, and today’s loser can reemerge as tomorrow’s winner. Harris’ fellow Californian Richard Nixon is perhaps the greatest success story on that front, going from presidential runner-up to gubernatorial loser to leader of the free world during an eight-year span.Second, Harris has a lifelong seat in the Senate if she wants it. As a liberal from California, the only electoral threat Harris will face is from her left. The American people may hold Congress in low regard, but it’s an ideal platform for politicians of all stripes to lick their wounds. For Harris, it provides a safe harbor to find the political identity that eluded her this year.Third, dropping out now not only spares Harris further political embarrassment, it also allows her to focus her attention on the likely impeachment trial of President Trump looming in the Senate.Skewering Trump appointees in Senate hearings is how Harris first shot to national prominence, and now she gets another chance to attack Trump himself. While her former presidential rivals are battling it out in chilly Iowa and New Hampshire, Harris can feed the flames of impeachment in a way that furthers her own political interest.Running for office is difficult; winning is even harder. Making accurate political predictions is also challenging – a lesson I learned the hard way from Kamala Harris. Now back to the drawing board – for both of us.

President Donald Trump’s oldest son tried to make fun of Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), saying her jokes don’t land.He wondered in a tweet (with a typo) why the Democratic presidential candidate is the only one who laughs at her jokes. He called her the “most disingenuous person in politics ... after Hillary.”She shot back at Junior: “You wouldn’t know a joke if one raised you.”You wouldn’t know a joke if one raised you. https://t.co/zUV3MLkmVm— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) October 12, 2019 People on Twitter responded to the burn as you might expect.Don't come for #Kamala if she doesn't send for you! 😂😂😂🔥🔥🔥🔥 pic.twitter.com/gXiMcyP3eI— BlackWomenViews- UNBOSSED & UNBOUGHT (@blackwomenviews) October 12, 2019 HELLO 9-1-1 HELLO I WOULD LIKE TO REPORT A TWITTER MURDER HELLOhttps://t.co/UZdMPOWUGD— darth™ (@darth) October 12, 2019 pic.twitter.com/ciJIq8ZcaG— Eli for Kamala. 🚫 Brocialism (@Eliann_Marie) October 12, 2019 OMG 😮 😂Kamala wins twitter. Everyone can sign off for the weekend. pic.twitter.com/Y44rEyYmlV— Tris Resists (@TrisResists) October 12, 2019 You went high, with a hay-maker! :)— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) October 12, 2019 Trump tried to give back as good as he got, responding with a tweet about Harris’ poll numbers.Based on your tanking poll numbers, what’s definitely a joke is your entire campaign 🤣 Yikes! https://t.co/3vkxo5gUyO pic.twitter.com/oKMCKuscBR— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) October 12, 2019

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) is dropping her presidential bid. She informed her staff on Tuesday. Harris held a call with her team in Iowa on Tuesday, saying that she had made the decision because of financial struggles experienced by the campaign. “I don’t think anyone on my team was expecting this,” said one staffer, who said they were completely shocked by the news. Harris will be going to New York City and Baltimore to inform staff there, and she intends to travel to the four early states where she has a campaign presence to be with her team there as well this week. On Tuesday afternoon, Harris emailed her supporters that she was withdrawing from the presidential race: My campaign for president simply doesn’t have the financial resources we need to continue. I’m not a billionaire. I can’t fund my own campaign. And as the campaign has gone on, it’s become harder and harder to raise the money we need to compete. In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do. So, to you my supporters, it is with deep regret ― but also with deep gratitude ― that I am suspending my campaign today. The news came just as a super PAC reserved airtime in Iowa for an ad blitz, set to begin on Tuesday, meant to bolster the candidate. (It quickly cancelled the spots after Harris’ announcement.) Harris’ team had been upfront about its financial issues and had cut staff in New Hampshire in order to double down on the caucus state. Presidential hopeful and former Vice President Joe Biden, speaking to reporters after a town hall in Iowa, said he was disappointed the California senator had been forced out of the contest. “She’s a first-rate candidate and a real competitor and I have mixed emotions about it because she is really a solid, solid person and loaded with talent,” he said. Harris entered the race as a top-tier candidate, drawing more than 20,000 people to a kickoff rally in Oakland. She faced immediate progressive scrutiny of her record as a prosecutor in California. Throughout the campaign, she struggled to weave together her progressive positioning as a senator and presidential candidate with the more traditional stances she held during her decades as a prosecutor. The high point of her campaign came during the first presidential debate, when she attacked Biden for his stance on desegregation efforts in the 1970s. She skyrocketed in the polls, but was unable to sustain her place in the field as the Biden campaign aggressively fought back and Harris struggled to explain her own views on mandatory busing. As her poll numbers began to sink in the late summer and early fall, her campaign announced a renewed focus on Iowa, ditching a previous strategy of focusing on her delegate-rich home state of California and heavily African-American South Carolina. Harris was spending far more money than she was bringing in, and according to The New York Times, she made the final decision to drop out after a financial audit showed she would have to go into debt in order to stay in the race. Robillard reported from Mason City, Iowa. RELATED COVERAGE Super PAC Swoops In With Ad Buy To Help Kamala Harris In Iowa Kamala Harris Sheds Significant Portion Of Staff In New Hampshire Kamala Harris: 'I Take Full Responsibility' For Decisions I Made As A Prosecutor Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost Voting Made Easy Register to vote and apply for an absentee ballot today Register now

SEATTLE — Tourists in Seattle have a new must-see destination: Amazon Go, the cashierless store the company opened near downtown in January. People who are interested in what is coming next from Amazon, which makes about half of all online retail sales, just need to roam the city. Amazon uses Seattle as a living laboratory, trying out new retail and logistics models. Some trials never leave the city. But others, like the use of independent contractors to deliver packages, have found their ways to the rest of the country and abroad. The pilots point to a company, with ambitions that at times can seem boundless, investing deeply in figuring out its physical footprint and how to provide convenience at a lower cost.“Seattle is great for rolling out tests that haven’t been completely debugged,” said Jeff Shulman, a business professor at the University of Washington who hosts a podcast on the city’s culture. In 2015 when Amazon first tested the Treasure Truck, a decorated vehicle that drives around and sells a daily deal like smart watches or plant-based burger patties, it delayed the public debut at least twice before finally going live. The service has since expanded to more than two dozen cities.As the grunge era in music showed more than two decades ago, “experimentation is embedded in Seattle’s DNA,” Professor Shulman said, so “you can get early feedback on how people use your product, and they will also be fairly forgiving on the hiccups.”Amazon said it employed more than 45,000 people in the city, and its teams turn to them to test new products and services.Here’s a tour of a few places where Amazon toys with new ideas in its backyard. Even after projects have expanded outside the city, the flagship locations remain a home for tweaks. Amazon Go: Two Locations, Two FormatsImageThe second Amazon Go store, in downtown Seattle, is focused on grab-and-go food and drinks.Credit...Eirik Johnson for The New York TimesA second Amazon Go store opened in August, just a mile south of the original, this time in the heart of downtown. Like the original, it uses sensors and cameras to track what customers take off a shelf, so they don’t need to check out. But the store shows how Amazon may adapt the concept to different locations. At 1,450 square feet, it’s smaller than the original, and has a more limited selection, making it feel like a walk-in vending machine selling grab-and-go lunch food and drinks. Unlike the original, it doesn’t sell alcohol, which requires employees to manually check IDs. ImageThe downtown store opened in August and is smaller than the first one, a mile north.Credit...Eirik Johnson for The New York TimesStarting a technology-heavy experiment like Amazon Go in Seattle makes sense because the culture prizes the avant-garde, Professor Shulman said. But success here can give a false sense of optimism that a product might take off, so Amazon pilots some experiments elsewhere. Prime Now, the company’s one-hour delivery service, for example, started in New York. “You will see them go to other cities when looking to test if the market will like it,” and whether it’s worth expanding around the globe, Professor Shulman said.Amazon has big plans for building more Go stores. It opened a third in Seattle, as well as its first in Chicago this month, and has acknowledged plans to expand in New York and San Francisco.Pickup Storefront: A Lot Like a Post OfficeImageAn Amazon storefront in the north end of Seattle lets customers pick up and return packages and has a small delivery warehouse in back.Credit...Eirik Johnson for The New York TimesOn the northern edge of the city, in the Bitter Lake neighborhood, an Amazon storefront stands in a strip mall on a street lined with car-parts stores and known for prostitution. This is where Amazon opened what amounts to a post office. In the front of the store, Amazon customers can pick up and return packages. In the back, workers sort boxes for delivery drivers. Amazon has other pickup locations around the country, usually near college campuses, but most don’t have the integration with a sorting depot.Customers go in, scan a code and then wait for the door on an Amazon locker to quietly pop open and reveal their package, like an automated post office box. The back of the locker is open, providing a glimpse into a small sorting facility used by Amazon Flex, the program piloted in Seattle that pays independent contractors to make deliveries in their own cars. ImageThe pickup location is on a busy street that channels commuters in and out of the city.Credit...Eirik Johnson for The New York TimesThe storefront offers an alternative to customers who don’t want boxes dropped on their doorstep, be it for fear of porch thieves or rain. But it also tests what makes people choose an option that costs Amazon less than having drivers handle the last mile of delivery. Offering reliable, fast delivery has been essential for Amazon’s growth, but that door-to-door delivery is also expensive. Shipping costs ate up 22 percent of Amazon’s online sales in the second quarter, up from 16.5 percent two years earlier. The pickup storefront also provides one more place for Amazon to put ads in front of consumers, a growing business for the company. Last week, signs for Red Bull were displayed on a TV screen and a poster by the front desk.AmazonFresh Pickup: Groceries to GoImageThe company opened two locations in Seattle for grocery pickup just months before it bought Whole Foods.Credit...Eirik Johnson for The New York TimesFor more than a decade, Amazon tried to break into the grocery business, a mecca for recurring consumer spending also known for brutal profit margins. It started AmazonFresh grocery delivery in Seattle in 2007 and worked out kinks for five years before expanding to other markets. But home delivery of perishable goods is tricky and expensive. In Ballard, a neighborhood on the north side, is another experiment: one of two Seattle locations that Amazon opened for customers to pick up groceries ordered online. It feels like pulling into a Sonic Drive-In. After a customer parks under an awning, cameras read the license plate, and an Amazon employee brings out the groceries and puts them in the customer’s trunk. ImageCameras read a car's license plate, and an Amazon employee brings the groceries to the customer’s trunk.Credit...Eirik Johnson for The New York TimesGetting customers to pick up their groceries at a central location can be cheaper than home delivery, and pickup is available to all Prime members, not just those who pay $15 a month for AmazonFresh on top of their $119 annual Prime membership.The pickup locations opened in March 2017, just months before Amazon bought Whole Foods, and are the only stand-alone pickup locations for fresh food straight from Amazon. In August, Whole Foods began rolling out free pickup for Prime members at its locations. Whether the drive-in model takes off remains to be seen. The Ballard location isn’t often packed.Amazon Books: A Return CenterImageThe original Amazon Books store in Seattle was a pilot location for returns of online purchases.Credit...Eirik Johnson for The New York TimesAmazon opened its first physical bookstore in 2015, in an upscale shopping mall near the University of Washington, not far from where a Barnes & Noble used to be. While Amazon has since opened bookstores in at least a dozen other states, the original remains a test site. The Seattle location was one of two sites where Amazon first tried letting customers return items. On a recent afternoon, more people appeared to be returning items than buying books or devices. Now, all Amazon bookstores accept some returns.It’s part of the company’s growing network of return options that don’t depend on the mail. For some customers, going to a store is easier than finding a box and packing tape to ship something back, and for Amazon, it’s most likely far cheaper. Drop-off returns cost retailers about 20 to 30 percent less than returns by mail, said Mark Geller, the chief executive of Happy Returns, which runs drop-off locations for other online retailers. “A big part of the costs is first-mile, last-mile stuff,” Mr. Geller said. “It’s the law of nature that over time people will take the path of least resistance. If they reduce the friction by making more drop-off locations, and in more kinds of places, that is going to become compelling.”

Enlarge this image Andreas Mundt, president of Germany's Federal Cartel Office, says "Facebook obtains very detailed profiles of its users and knows what they are doing online" by merging data from a number of sources. Mundt announced the antitrust watchdog's findings in Bonn, Germany, on Thursday. Wolfgang Rattay/Reuters hide caption toggle caption Wolfgang Rattay/Reuters Andreas Mundt, president of Germany's Federal Cartel Office, says "Facebook obtains very detailed profiles of its users and knows what they are doing online" by merging data from a number of sources. Mundt announced the antitrust watchdog's findings in Bonn, Germany, on Thursday. Wolfgang Rattay/Reuters Germany's antitrust agency is hitting Facebook with "far-reaching restrictions" on the social media network's practice of merging its users' data that was gleaned from WhatsApp, Instagram and millions of third-party websites and apps. The decision can be appealed; if it stands, it would force Facebook to add more ways for its users to protect their privacy."In the authority's assessment, Facebook's conduct represents above all a so-called exploitative abuse," said the Bundeskartellamt, or Federal Cartel Office. Andreas Mundt, the office's president, said on Thursday that Facebook "was able to build a unique database for each individual user and thus to gain market power."Facebook did that, Mundt's office said, by compiling data from its website, apps and Facebook-owned services — along with seemingly any website that has Facebook's "Like" or "Share" buttons, or a Facebook login box built into their pages. Even if a website has no visible signs of a link to Facebook, it could still send user data to the company by using the Facebook Analytics service in the background.People are subject to the data tracking, the German agency says, "even if users have blocked web tracking in their browser or device settings." It adds that the integration of Facebook interfaces also allows the company to track people's online behavior, "even if they are not logged into or registered with Facebook."Through those practices, Facebook has been able to build profiles of its users that are far more complete than if it relied solely on recording their activities within the social network. And it was done, Mundt said, without users providing their voluntary and affirmative consent."German authorities called it an abuse of Facebook's market dominance and ordered the social network to restrict the practice and stop it completely within a year," NPR's Daniel Estrin reports for the Newscast unit from Berlin.The competition watchdog's order stems from a roughly three-year investigation. In response, Facebook says it disagrees with the order and will appeal."Popularity is not dominance," the company said, accusing the Federal Cartel Office of underestimating "the fierce competition we face in Germany" and failing to recognize how Facebook complies with Europe's General Data Protection Regulation, which took effect last spring. All Tech Considered 3 Things You Should Know About Europe's Sweeping New Data Privacy Law The Federal Cartel Office says Facebook's subsidiaries such as WhatsApp and Instagram can continue to collect data, but the information cannot be merged with Facebook users' profiles unless they have given their voluntary consent. It's also calling on Facebook to change its terms of service, calling them overly broad and inappropriate.It is not enough, Mundt said, for Facebook to require that consent as part of its terms of service. Instead, he said, its German users must be allowed to opt out of data collecting and processing while still using Facebook's network and services.In its response, Facebook said that its practice of merging its users' information across platforms and sites allows it both to improve its service and to "protect people's safety." As an example, it cited "identifying abusive behavior and disabling accounts tied to terrorism, child exploitation and election interference across both Facebook and Instagram."The U.S. tech giant has one month to lodge an appeal with the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court. If the Federal Cartel Office's decision stands, Facebook would be required to lay out a plan for implementing the new restrictions.Facebook has been under increasing scrutiny for its approach to user privacy and data collection, from the sharing of information with the Cambridge Analytica data firm in the lead-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election to its refusal to share users' data with competitors.Editor's note on March 1: For the record, Facebook is among NPR's financial supporters.

MIAMI -- Six American oil executives under house arrest in Venezuela were rounded up by police hours after President Donald Trump met Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro's chief opponent at the White House, according to family members of the men.Alirio Zambrano said early Thursday that the executives of Houston-based Citgo were abruptly taken from their homes last night by the SEBIN intelligence police. Zambrano, the brother of two of the six detained men, said their current whereabouts are unknown.“We demand to know they are safe but more importantly their freedom!” Zambrano said on social media, adding that he was very worried about the detainees.The State Department and Maduro's government have yet to comment.But the move comes two months after the men were granted house arrest and just hours after Trump welcomed opposition leader Juan Guaidó to the White House in a show of support for his flagging, year-old campaign to oust Maduro.In Washington on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood alongside Guaidó and called for the release of the American oil executives.Maduro condemned Trump's embrace of Guaidó while socialist party boss Diosdado Cabello, who is widely seen as the second most powerful person in Venezuela's government, vowed to retaliate for the meeting.“Every time they do something, we're going to turn harder to the left and see who squeals,” Cabello said Wednesday night in his weekly TV program.The six men were hauled away by masked security agents while at a meeting in Caracas just before Thanksgiving in 2017. They had been lured to Venezuela in order to attend a meeting at the headquarters of Citgo’s parent, state-run oil giant PDVSA.The group flew out on a corporate jet. They included Tomeu Vadell, vice president of refining; Gustavo Cardenas, head of strategic shareholder relations as well as government and public affairs; Jorge Toledo, vice president of supply and marketing; Alirio Zambrano, vice president and general manager of Citgo’s Corpus Christi refinery; Jose Luis Zambrano, vice president of shared services; and Jose Angel Pereira, the president of Citgo.In recent weeks, speculation has swirled that Maduro's government may release the men in a bid to mend ties with the Trump administration, which has been aggressively pushing for his removal.The men are awaiting trial on corruption charges stemming from a never executed plan to refinance some $4 billion in Citgo bonds by offering a 50% stake in the company as collateral.Prosecutors accuse the men of maneuvering to benefit from the proposed deal.But many believe the men, five of whom are naturalized U.S. citizens and the other a legal resident, are being held as political bargaining chips as relations between the U.S. and Venezuela have deteriorated. They cite as evidence of irregularities the decisions by Venezuelan Judge Rosvelin Gil to postpone 15 straight times a preliminary hearing.U.S. Vice President Mike Pence in April called for the men’s release after meeting with family members at the White House.“We are going to stand with you until they are free and until Venezuela is free,” he said at the time.It's unclear whether Guaidó discussed the men during his meeting Wednesday with Trump. A senior U.S. official briefing reporters in advance of the visit didn't mention the detention.Family members in the U.S. last spoke to the men Wednesday afternoon, according to a person familiar with the situation who spoke on the condition of anonymity and wasn't authorized to discuss the matter. Shortly after, the men were all rearrested during raids within a short span of one another, the person said.

Vox Sentences is your daily digest for what’s happening in the world. Sign up for the Vox Sentences newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox Monday through Friday, or view the Vox Sentences archive for past editions.Rundown of the Trump-Ukraine scandal so far; the British prime minister sends mixed messages on a Brexit delay. Text messages show top diplomats discussed using the prospect of a White House visit to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Burisma, a company with links to Hunter Biden. Then one diplomat expressed alarm about withholding military aid in exchange for “assistance with a political campaign” before another suggested taking the conversation offline. [Vox / Andrew Prokop] Here’s a full transcript of the texts, which include Kurt Volker, then the special representative to Ukraine, stressing the importance of getting President “Zelensky to say that he will help [the] investigation.” [NYT / Charlie Savage and Josh Williams] There’s a lot that’s damaging in here: References to a quid pro quo, US officials coaching Ukrainians on how to mention an investigation into the Biden case in statements, and phrasing that suggests the diplomats were trying to cover their tracks. [Washington Post / Philip Bump] Meanwhile, US Sen. Ron Johnson said that the US ambassador to the EU told him there was indeed a quid pro quo (and Johnson said he then confronted Trump, who denied it). [Wall Street Journal / Siobhan Hughes and Rebecca Ballhaus] Since Thursday, the scandal has mushroomed even further out of control for Trump. [Vox / Alex Ward] This week brought revelations that the Trump administration asked multiple world leaders to investigate the Bidens, the FBI’s 2016 probe into the Trump campaign and Russia, or both. [Vox / Matthew Yglesias] Trump continues to defend his call with Zelensky. But the scandal is about a lot more than just one call — it’s about the actions of multiple US officials, including Vice President Mike Pence, who was reportedly sent to tell Ukraine that aid was dependent on investigating “corruption.” [Washington Post / Greg Miller, Greg Jaffe, and Ashley Parker] The House impeachment inquiry has also started to bear fruit: The texts were from the first batch of documents the State Department turned over to investigators. [Politico / John Bresnahan] Meanwhile, polls are recording a significant spike in support for Trump’s impeachment, particularly among Democrats. [FiveThirtyEight / Perry Bacon Jr.] In case you’re wondering, here’s why “Zelensky” is spelled with two Ys on Zelensky’s passport but usually is not in English-language media. [Hanna Kozlowska / QZ] The UK government said in court documents it will request an extension from the EU on the Brexit deadline — as Parliament demanded — if an agreement isn’t reached by October 19. But Prime Minister Boris Johnson continues to insist there will be “no delay” on Brexit. [The Guardian / Heather Stewart, Severin Carrell, Daniel Boffey, and Lisa O’Carroll] The current Brexit date of October 31 was already the second extension the EU reluctantly granted to try to make a deal. [Vox / Jen Kirby] Johnson has stated he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than request an extension, even if that means a potentially economy-damaging “no deal” exit from the EU. [BBC] The Brexit countdown began in March 2017 when then-British Prime Minister Theresa May evoked Article 50 of the EU’s Treaty of Lisbon, a provision that allows member states to leave the confederation. [Vox / Jen Kirby] Johnson may have had a change of heart on a Brexit delay, despite his public stance. [Foreign Policy / Owen Matthews] The appearance of black women in Todd Phillips’ film Joker makes a powerful but likely unintentional statement. [HuffPost / Zeba Blay] Who decides when and if a home is historic is surprisingly contentious. [Wall Street Journal / Kris Frieswick] New York district attorneys and the Department of Justice are duking it out over Trump’s taxes. [Politico / Toby Eckert] How one woman demanded accountability during the Kavanaugh hearings and doesn’t regret a thing. [Vox / Ana Maria Archila] Trump brings up the idea of a government broadcast station. [Newsweek / Daniel Moritz-Rabson] “I don’t know if that’s a real request or him just needling the press knowing that you guys are going to get outraged by it.” [Sen. Marco Rubio on President Trump publicly imploring China to look into his 2020 challenger Joe Biden]Learn about why there are more billionaires than ever — and what they do with all that money. Stream Billionaires, Explained now on Netflix.Plus: Our Netflix show, Explained, is back for its second season! Catch new episodes each Thursday.The Hong Kong government tried to ban face masks. Protesters are already defying it.Amazon’s video app should be coming back to Apple. But get ready to see more streaming fights.The economy is slowing down. That’s bad for Trump.

US Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday (Sept. 27) about the sexual misconduct allegations stalling his confirmation process. The nominee has opinions about how such hearings should go.If Kavanaugh is held to the standard he articulated for president Bill Clinton when working for the Office of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr in 1998, during an investigation into the president’s relationship with the intern Monica Lewinsky, the hearings will not be easy. At the time, Kavanaugh authored a memo, entitled “Slack for the President?” The answer to the memo’s titular question was, basically, “No.” Kavanaugh wrote then:After reflecting this evening, I am strongly opposed to giving the President any “break” in the questioning regarding details of the Lewinsky relationship…I have tried hard to bend over backwards and to be fair to him and to think of all reasonable defenses to his pattern of behavior. In the end, I am convinced that there really are none. The idea of going easy on him at the questioning is thus abhorrent to me.Twenty years ago, when Kavanaugh was contemplating Clinton’s affairs, he expressed a desire to get to the bottom of the misconduct and showed little mercy for the president. But he did show remarkable compassion for the young woman involved.“What has especially convinced me of the appropriateness of obtaining his ‘full and complete’ testimony regarding the details of his relationship are the sheer number of his wrongful acts,” Kavanaugh wrote of Clinton. “The President has disgraced his Office, the legal system, and the American people by having sex with a 23-year-old intern and turning her life into a shambles—callous and disgusting behavior that has somehow gotten lost in the shuffle.”Kavanaugh’s insistence in the memo that Clinton speak for his transgressions helped lead (paywall) to Clinton’s impeachment, ultimately. Now Kavanaugh himself is facing serious allegations of nonconsensual sexual misconduct by Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez, and Julie Swetnick, and a fourth anonymous complaint arising from an alleged incident in 1998. These make his previous assessment of the president’s behavior all the more poignant. In 1998 Kavanaugh stated of Clinton:He should be made to account for all of that and to defend his actions. It may not be our job to impose sanctions on him—but it is our job to make his pattern of revolting behavior clear—piece by painful piece…I am mindful of the need for respect…But in my view, given what we know, the Office of the President will best be served by our gathering the full facts regarding the actions of this President so that Congress can decide whether the interests of the Presidency would best be served by having a new President.In other words, Kavanaugh understands as well as anybody why people might be unhappy to see a man retain or attain power without the proper character for a lofty position. As the nominee himself noted two decades ago, “More to the point. Aren’t we failing to fulfill our duty to the American people if we willingly conspire with the President in an effort to conceal the true nature of his acts?”Perhaps then, he can sympathize with the many Americans who are demanding that Kavanaugh be able to live up to the standard he eloquently expressed himself twenty years ago, if he is to become a Supreme Court justice.

Marcio Jose Sanchez/ASSOCIATED PRESS Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) at the Power of Our Pride Town Hall on Thursday in Los Angeles. A man who claimed earlier this week that he had been paid for sex by presidential candidate Kamala Harris now says he was hired for an acting role. Oh, and he claims now that he thought Harris was a fictional person, according to an exclusive interview with the Daily Beast. On Wednesday, 26-year-old personal trainer Sean Newaldass participated in a news conference organized by Jacob Wohl and Jack Burkman, two far-right conspiracy theorists who are already known for pushing fraudulent claims. Newaldass read from a fact sheet about his alleged relationship with the California senator, which can be seen here, and claimed he and Harris had a total of 11 “sexual encounters” in hotels in Iowa; Washington, D.C.; and New York City, according to the Daily Dot. Check out this video of the news conference ― which is hilarious in its ineptness. On Friday, Newaldass told a much different story than the one he told on Wednesday. He said Wohl and Burkman hired him after he answered a CraigsList ad seeking a “male actor” for “performance art in DC.” Newaldass said he believed the news conference was actually an audition for a Spike TV show that no longer exists. In fact, he had no clue Harris was a politician, much less a potential presidential candidate. “I thought I was acting for a role in a movie, like a role in a TV series,” Newaldass told the Daily Beast. “I thought everything was staged, I’m thinking everyone is an actor.” Even more important: “I’m completely oblivious to who [Harris] is,” Newaldass told the Daily Beast. Later in the interview, Newaldass admitted he’s researched Harris since the news conference and now says he plans to vote for her. However, Newaldass said he regrets his part in the attempted smear because, like Harris, he is of mixed Indian and Caribbean ancestry. “That’s what’s hurtful, because I’m hurting my own ethnicity,” Newaldass said. Newaldass said he was supposed to receive $500 for his services but hasn’t yet. When the Daily Beast reached out to Wohl for his reaction, he responded cryptically with a laughing crying face emoji. HuffPost reached out to Wohl, but he didn’t immediately respond. The smear against Harris was the latest to backfire for Wohl and Burkman. Earlier this month, the two dirty tricksters attempted to smear Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as a “cougar” by holding a news conference with a former Marine in his mid-20s who claimed he had a paid sexual affair with Warren, 70, that included bondage. Warren got the last laugh with a witty response that embraced her “cougar” past, telling the world it made her who she is. It's always a good day to be reminded that I got where I am because a great education was available for $50 a semester at the University of Houston (go Cougars!). We need to cancel student debt and make college free for everyone who wants it. pic.twitter.com/fHasLm0j9P— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) October 3, 2019 Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost Voting Made Easy Register to vote and apply for an absentee ballot today Register now

Jimmy Fallon loved his pun about Donald Trump dissing Kamala Harris so much that he danced to celebrate it. “The Tonight Show” host showed a clip Wednesday of the president’s North Carolina rally speech in which he said it would be an “insult to our country” if Harris, the California senator who’s the first Black vice presidential nominee for a major party, ever became the first woman president. “I wonder what Trump thinks is so insulting about Kamala Harris?” Fallon asked. “I feel like the answer is white in front of me.” Oof. The comedian received a rim shot from the band, then busted a move. Fallon launched plenty of other choice zingers at Trump. Watch his whole monologue above, or fast forward to the pun at 3:30. Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost Voting Made Easy Register to vote and apply for an absentee ballot today Register now

A long-awaited report from top Democratic congressional lawmakers about the dominance of the four biggest tech giants had a clear message on Tuesday: Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google engage in a range of anti-competitive behavior, and US antitrust laws need an overhaul to allow for more competition in the US internet economy. “To put it simply, companies that once were scrappy, underdog startups that challenged the status quo have become the kinds of monopolies we last saw in the era of oil barons and railroad tycoons,” the report’s introduction states.The 400-plus page report, written by the majority staff of the Democratic members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, is the result of a 16-month investigation into whether these corporate giants abuse their power, and whether the country’s antitrust laws need to be reworked to rein them in. The report released Tuesday cites numerous examples of each tech titan engaging in acts that the lawmakers believe have hurt innovation and impede competition. While the anti-competitive behaviors cited vary from company to company, they are all linked by the allegation that the four giants abuse their gatekeeper status in various internet industries to secure and grow their market power in those sectors and others. So what’s the solution? The report recommends creating new laws that would potentially break up tech companies and make it harder for them to pursue acquisitions; it also calls for clarifying existing antitrust laws with the goal of making them easier to enforce, particularly for tech companies. For now, the report’s recommendations are only high-level guidance to Congress for potential future legislation; it won’t lead to immediate action against these companies.The release of the report was complicated on Tuesday by news that the Republican lawmakers in the House Antitrust Committee refused at the last minute to sign the report with their Democratic colleagues. Instead, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) and Jim Jordan (R-OH) each plan to release their own reports. Buck’s report, a draft of which Politico published on Monday, largely agrees with the Democrats’ conclusion that the big four tech firms have amassed too much power. But he disagrees with Democrats on how to fix the problem: Instead of creating new laws, Buck’s memo calls on Congress to fund and empower regulatory agencies and government departments like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) to go after Big Tech under existing laws. Jordan’s report hasn’t yet been released, but Reuters coverage indicates it will focus on so-far unproven claims of tech companies’ supposed anti-conservative bias, which he has shouted over his colleagues about in previous hearings.These partisan divides are somewhat besides the point: Regardless of the specifics of how they advise to go after Big Tech, the fact that Republicans and Democrats agree that these companies pose a threat to the free market is significant.“This is the first time since the 1970s that a congressional committee has devoted this kind of attention to dominant firms … and changing the structure of a major American industry,” said William Kovacic, the Republican former chairman of the FTC.Here’s a breakdown of some of the key claims the report makes about each of the four major tech giants:With Amazon accounting for nearly 40 percent of all e-commerce sales in the US — making it more than seven times larger in this arena than No. 2 Walmart — the Democrats’ report argues that the tech giant has used its powerful position in anti-competitive ways. (The report also alleges that Amazon’s US e-commerce market share is closer to 50 percent or more in the country, rather than the near-40 percent figure commonly cited based on estimates from the research firm eMarketer). The report argues that the company unfairly gleans data and information from its third-party sellers that it uses to strengthen the retail side of its business, including favoring its own product brands over those of competitors, giving this merchandise exclusive merchandising space on its virtual shelves, and prioritizing it in search results. Another criticism is that Amazon can charge sellers ever-increasing fees because of its dominant position, and that most sellers and brands have practically no negotiating power due to their reliance on the Amazon sales channel. Amazon also penalizes sellers for selling their merchandise for lower prices on other retail sites.Amazon released a company blog post in response to Tuesday’s report, calling it “flawed thinking” that Amazon is engaging in anti-competitive business practices, and that antitrust regulatory action “would have the primary effect of forcing millions of independent retailers out of online stores.”“All large organizations attract the attention of regulators, and we welcome that scrutiny. But large companies are not dominant by definition, and the presumption that success can only be the result of anti-competitive behavior is simply wrong,” reads the post.Tuesday’s report argues that Facebook has expanded its monopolistic power in the social media industry by using a “copy, acquire, kill” strategy against its competitors, and by unfairly hurting rival companies like Instagram (which the company purchased in 2012). Specifically, the report argues that Facebook’s acquisition of Instagram was a blatant attempt to “neutralize a nascent competitive threat.” The report alleges that after Facebook bought Instagram, it intentionally stymied the photo-sharing app’s success so that it wouldn’t compete with Facebook internally. The report cites a slew of internal emails, memos, and testimony from senior-level Facebook employees, including CEO Mark Zuckerberg, which support the argument that Facebook crushed Instagram by exerting monopoly power.In one email, Zuckerberg told Facebook’s former CTO that “ that he had “been thinking about ... how much [Facebook] should be willing to pay to acquire mobile app companies like Instagram ... that are building networks that are competitive with our own.” The report argues this proves that Zuckerberg had anti-competitive interests from the beginning.The report also cites a former senior-level Instagram employee who told Congress that Zuckerberg oversaw “brutal infighting between Instagram and Facebook” after the acquisition, with Zuckerberg slowing down Instagram’s natural growth to benefit Facebook proper. The Instagram whistleblower went so far as to call it “collusion, but within an internal monopoly. … It’s unclear to me why this should not be illegal.” As part of their investigation, the subcommittee found an internal Facebook document called “The Cunningham Memo,” written in 2018 by Thomas Cunningham, a senior data scientist and economist at Facebook, which allegedly shows that Facebook has knowingly “tipped” its company toward becoming a monopoly, acknowledging that social media apps have tipping points where “either everyone uses them, or no-one uses them,” according to the memo. This memo was a key part of Zuckerberg’s acquisition strategy ahead of the Instagram purchase, according to internal documents and an interview the subcommittee conducted with a former Facebook employee involved with the project. In a statement to Recode on Tuesday, Christopher Sgro, a spokesperson for Facebook, disagreed with the report’s conclusions. “Facebook is an American success story. We compete with a wide variety of services with millions, even billions, of people using them. Acquisitions are part of every industry, and just one way we innovate new technologies to deliver more value to people. Instagram and WhatsApp have reached new heights of success because Facebook has invested billions in those businesses. A strongly competitive landscape existed at the time of both acquisitions and exists today. Regulators thoroughly reviewed each deal and rightly did not see any reason to stop them at the time,” Sgro wrote.The Democrats’ report argues that Google has a monopoly in the online search and marketing industry, creating an “ecosystem of interlocking monopolies” — which it has maintained through anti-competitive practices in two key ways.The first is by launching an “aggressive campaign to undermine” what the report calls “vertical search providers” — which are search engines for specific topics, such as Yelp for restaurants, or Expedia for travel. The report says Google uses its dominance to “boost Google’s own inferior” content over some of these other companies’ content in its search results.The second major way that Google has demonstrated anti-competitive behavior, the report argues, is through “a series of anti competitive contracts” that pushed people to rely on Google search when using phones with the Android operating system (Google purchased Android in 2005).“Documents show that Google required smartphone manufacturers to pre-install and give default status to Google’s own apps,” the report states.Unsurprisingly, Google told Recode it disagreed with Tuesday’s reports, saying they “feature outdated and inaccurate allegations from commercial rivals about Search and other services.”Americans simply don’t want Congress to break Google’s products or harm the free services they use every day,” read a statement in part from Julie McAlister, a spokesperson for Google.According to Tuesday’s report, Apple exerts monopoly power through its oversight of software that’s downloaded on half of all mobile phones in the US. That’s a direct reference to Apple’s App Store — if you have an iPhone, you can only use apps that you download from the company’s tightly controlled store. The subcommittee staff investigating Apple say in the report that the company has exploited its dominance to exclude some rivals from its store, unfairly favor its own apps, and charge fees that some app developers told the subcommittee are “exorbitantly high.”Such a battle between Apple and developers over in-app fees exploded into public spotlight earlier this year when the maker of Fortnite, Epic Games, told its users they could buy the game’s virtual currency directly from Epic rather than through the Apple iOS version of the app. The reason? Epic wanted to avoid the 30 percent fee Apple charges for such in-app purchases. Dueling lawsuits ensued, and Apple even banned the game from the App Store. This is just one example of many cases like this that the report cites.Apple, of course, refuted the conclusions in Democrats’ report, telling Recode in a statement, “Our company does not have a dominant market share in any category where we do business. ... Last year in the United States alone, the App Store facilitated $138 billion in commerce with over 85% of that amount accruing solely to third-party developers. Apple’s commission rates are firmly in the mainstream of those charged by other app stores and gaming marketplaces.” Depending on the results of the November election, Democrats may not need Republicans’ support on antitrust legislation — if Democrats sweep Congress and win the White House. (The latest polls show Democrats and Biden currently have an edge, but poll-based predictions are far from certain.)If Joe Biden does win the presidency, “this [report] is a roadmap for how you would tackle this under a President Joe Biden … administration,” a staff member for a Democratic member of the subcommittee told Recode.Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), a member of the subcommittee, told Recode in an interview on Tuesday, “I do anticipate ... that we will have signed pieces of legislation pass the House of Representatives next year.” The bipartisan subcommittee will meet later this year to debate and potentially amend the report.Tuesday’s congressional reports are just the beginning of upcoming antitrust regulatory proceedings against Big Tech. The DOJ is imminently expected to file a lawsuit against Google for anti-competitive business practices, which several state attorneys general may sign on to. Separately, the FTC is also investigating the business practices of the tech giants over antitrust concerns. Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what’s happening in the news, from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is, quite possibly, the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes. Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment: to empower you through understanding. But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources. Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers, your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work. If you have already contributed, thank you. If you haven’t, please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world: Contribute today from as little as $3.

Legislation to protect special counsel Robert Mueller from being fired advanced through a Senate committee on Thursday.By a vote of 14-7, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved legislation to make it more difficult for Donald Trump to fire the special counsel. All 10 Democrats on the panel joined with four Republicans to approve the legislation. The four Republicans who supported it were the committee’s chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The latter two Republicans cosponsored the legislation with Democrats Cory Booker of New Jersey and Chris Coons of Delaware.The bill would delay the firing of a special counsel by ten days and allow an ousted special counsel to have a panel of federal judges review the decision. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has said he feels legislation to protect Mueller is unnecessary. He told reporters earlier in April: “I haven’t seen a clear indication yet that we needed to pass something to keep him from being removed because I don’t think that’s going to happen, and that remains my view.” However the Kentucky Republican added: “It’s still my view that Mueller should be allowed to finish his job, I think that’s the view of most people in Congress. And it remains my view that I don’t think he’s going to be removed from this office. He shouldn’t be removed from the office. He should be allowed to finish his job.”Earlier Thursday, Trump told Fox News that although he wasn’t interfering with the investigation that he reserved the right to do so. “I’ve taken the position – and I don’t have to take this position and maybe I’ll change – that I will not be involved with the justice department. I will wait until this is over,” said Trump.Trump has reportedly mused about firing Mueller and has tweeted that he is “conflicted” in his role as special counsel. The New York Times reported in April that Trump had demanded Mueller’s firing as recently as December but was talked out of doing so. Topics Robert Mueller US Senate Donald Trump Trump-Russia investigation news

Dylann Roof, a white supremacist responsible for the 2015 massacre of nine black church members in South Carolina, appealed his convictions and death sentence on Tuesday, arguing that he was suffering from schizophrenia and other psychological disorders when he represented himself at his capital trial.In a legal brief filed with the fourth US circuit court of appeals in Richmond, Roof’s lawyers said that when a judge allowed him to represent himself during the penalty phase of his federal trial, he was a 22-year-old ninth-grade dropout “who believed his sentence didn’t matter because white nationalists would free him from prison after an impending race war”.Roof’s appellate lawyers said Roof fired his trial lawyers to prevent evidence of his mental illness from being presented to the jury. They argued that because of the court’s “rush to move the case along”, the jury never heard any mitigating evidence.“Roof’s crime was tragic, but this court can have no confidence in the jury’s verdict,” Roof’s attorneys argued.Roof became the first person to be ordered executed for a federal hate crime when he was sentenced to death for fatally shooting nine black church members at Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina, on 17 June 2015.Prosecutors said he specifically chose Emanuel AME, the South’s oldest black church, to carry out the massacre. After he was arrested, Roof told FBI agents that he wanted the shootings to bring back segregation or perhaps start a race war.The jury’s verdict came after a trial in which Roof, an avowed white supremacist, did not show remorse or attempt to fight for his life. Roof served as his own attorney during the sentencing phase and never explained why he committed the massacre.Roof’s legal advisers repeatedly expressed frustration that Roof would not allow them to introduce mental health evidence that could possibly spare his life.Roof asked jurors to forget anything they’d heard from his legal team about his mental state, declaring, “there’s nothing wrong with me psychologically”.“I still feel like I had to do it,” Roof said in his closing argument. “Anyone who hates anything in their mind has a good reason for it.”After the trial, documents unsealed in federal court included a psychiatrist’s finding that Roof showed signs of social anxiety, schizoid personality and possible autism spectrum disorders.Prosecutors told the jury that Roof walked into the church and sat with the Bible study group for about 45 minutes, then opened fire during the final prayer, when everyone’s eyes were closed.The jury convicted Roof of 33 federal charges, including hate crimes.The massacre prompted South Carolina to remove the Confederate flag from its statehouse for the first time in more than half a century. Roof had posed with the flag in photos.The dead included the Rev Clementa Pinckney, the church’s pastor and a state senator; a high school track coach; the church sexton; a librarian; and an aspiring poet. Topics Charleston shooting The far right South Carolina Gun crime Race US crime news

“What’s troubling is the 4,500 people Amazon was going to put in the building, they’re now considering elsewhere, and I don’t think it’s elsewhere in Seattle,” Mr. Johnson said.Seattle had a tax on hours worked by employees in the city starting in 2008, though it was phased out after several years. States typically grant the authority to tax at the local level, and 13 states allow some form of local income tax, according to Bill Fox, a professor at the University of Tennessee who specializes in state and local taxation issues. Other cities with booming tech economies, like San Francisco, are also seeing housing prices soar because of intense local resistance to allowing more development. In Seattle, people unable to keep up with the costs live in their cars or in tents by the sides of freeways. Those who are better off park recreational vehicles in industrial neighborhoods.In 2017, the Seattle area had the third largest homeless population in the country after New York and Los Angeles, according to an annual report to Congress by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.After years of criticism for being disengaged from the civic life of its hometown, Amazon has in recent years attempted to show a more compassionate side in Seattle. It has agreed to allow a homeless shelter for families, Mary’s Place, to occupy space rent-free in another building that it is putting up. That is one of several buildings that Amazon still intends to complete.Still, even within Amazon itself, there are haves and have-nots. While it is common for employees at its headquarters in Seattle earn $100,000 to $200,000 a year, workers at its fulfillment centers are paid only a tiny fraction of that. The company recently disclosed that median pay at Amazon last year was $28,446.

HONG KONG—Huawei Technologies Co. is using the U.K.’s decision allowing the Chinese company to build parts of its 5G networks to push Australia to rethink its ban, as the tech giant steps up efforts to sway U.S. intelligence allies from the Trump administration’s warnings.Australia took the lead in blocking Huawei from participating in its 5G network rollout in restrictions announced in 2018. Officials said then that vulnerabilities introduced in superfast 5G networks meant Huawei couldn’t be trusted to build those networks....

closeVideoSean Spicer: Yang struggling in 2020 Dem field because he's being 'pragmatic', not impeachment-mindedPresidential hopeful Andrew Yang took aim at one of his rivals, former Vice President Joe Biden, after the 2020 front-runner suggested that displaced coal miners should learn to code.On Wednesday, without saying his name, the tech businessman took a clear swipe at the Democrat juggernaut."Let them do the kind of work they actually want to do, instead of saying to a group of people that you all need to become coders. Like, what is that about?" Yang said at a campaign event in New Hampshire. "You know, maybe Americans don’t all want to learn how to code.”At a recent campaign event, Biden spoke about coal mining jobs that are in peril in his home state of Pennsylvania, and how American workers may have to evolve their skill sets in order to survive in a modern economy."I come from a family and an area where it's coal mining in Scranton," Biden told the crowd. "Anybody who can go down 300 to 3,000 feet in a mine sure as hell can learn to program, as well, but we don't think of it that way."He later added: "My liberal friends were saying, 'You can't expect them to be able to do that.' Give me a break! Anybody who can throw coal into a furnace can learn how to program, for God's sake."RON HOWARD TRASHES TRUMP ON TWITTER, CALLS HIM A 'MORALLY BANKRUPT EGO MANIAC'At a recent Democrat primary debate, Biden faced criticism over his willingness to displace potentially "hundreds of thousands of blue-collar workers" in order to pursue "a greener economy.""Three consecutive presidents have enjoyed stints of economic growth due to a boom in oil and natural gas production. As president, would you be willing to sacrifice some of that growth even knowing that it potentially could displace thousands, maybe hundreds [of thousands] of blue-collar workers in the interest of transitioning to that greener economy?" Politico reporter Tim Alberta asked."The answer is yes," Biden had responded.

A group of US environmental activists engaged in non-violent civil disobedience targeting the oil industry have been listed in internal Department of Homeland Security documents as “extremists” and some of its members listed alongside white nationalists and mass killers, documents obtained by the Guardian reveal.The group have been dubbed the Valve Turners, after closing the valves on pipelines in four states carrying crude oil from Canada’s tar sands on 11 October 2016 which accounted for about 15% of US daily consumption. It was described as the largest coordinated action of its kind and for a few hours the oil stopped flowing.The five climate activists, members of Climate Direct Action, cut their way through fencing and turned the valves. The activists notified the energy companies whose pipelines were being disrupted and posted videos of their protest online and waited patiently to be arrested.They have since been dubbed the “Valve Turners”, profiled in the New York Times magazine and featured in a recent documentary titled The Reluctant Radical. Their trials have also tested the willingness of courts to allow climate activists to make use of the necessity defense – the idea that a criminal action is justified if it helps to prevent greater future harm – as part of a legal strategy.But the group’s actions attracted the attention of the DHS.In a recent intelligence bulletin evaluating domestic terrorism threats between 2018 and 2020, the department included the Valve Turners and described the group as “suspected environmental rights extremists”.The document also listed two of the group’s members alongside violent white supremacists and other extremists who have engaged in mass killings, including the man behind the racist 2015 slaying of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina.The document obtained by the not-for-profit Property of the People through a Foia request defines domestic terrorism as “any act of violence that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources” and that is intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government body. The assessment is directed at departmental leadership and is based on a review of roughly 80 violent incidents between 2014 and 2017, according to the document.The document points to an uptick in “sabotage attacks” conducted by anarchist extremists, environmental rights and animal rights extremists against the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 at the height of the pipeline protest. Nearly 800 activists have been tried on a variety of North Dakota state charges, in relation to the pipeline protests, according to Water Protector Legal Collective, a legal support organization.This activity was met with heavy law enforcement presence, FBI and DHS surveillance, and aggressive military style tactics deployed by pipeline security contractors. In addition to providing an overview of domestic terrorism threats the document includes an appendix summarizing select incidents over the past few years. Two of the Valve Turners are listed alongside violent white supremacists such as Dylann Roof and James Fields, who have both been convicted of murdering innocent civilians. Roof killed nine black churchgoers in a rampage in South Carolina. Fields drove his car into a group of activists protesting a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one and injuring at least 19 others.The document also states that “racial and environmentally themed ideologies” were among the primary drivers of terrorist attacks in the United States during this time.Mike German, a former FBI agent who is now a fellow with the Brennan Center for Justice, wrote in an email that the DHS framing was “highly misleading because white supremacists are responsible for the bulk of this violence and almost all of the fatalities that result”. “There is little evidence,” he added, “that environmentalists have engaged in the types of deadly violence that would meet the statutory definition of domestic terrorism, as codified by Congress”.The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to multiple requests for comment.Sam Jessup, one of the activists named in the document, said the bulletin shed light on the role law enforcement and intelligence agencies have played in suppressing dissent.“Equating mass murder by white supremacists with what Michael and I did is totally obscene,” Jessup said in an email. “This whole infrastructure of so-called security has done little more than secure the future of the fossil fuel industry by terrorizing people into silence.”Jessup, 34, served as a driver and videographer, live-streaming the action in North Dakota. Michael Foster, a former family therapist who lives in Seattle, turned the valve.Foster said even though the action involved a high level of legal risk, it was a small price to pay in light of the cascading impacts of climate change.“The only way to force society to change fast enough is to refuse to participate and fill the jails,” Foster said.Both he and Jessup were convicted on felony conspiracy charges and Foster spent six months in jail. During closing arguments the prosecutor compared Foster to the Unabomber and the 9/11 hijackers. He is now on probation and barred from engaging in direct action protest for another two years.In the more than three years since the action , several states have passed legislation making it a crime to trespass on property containing critical infrastructure.The Trump administration has advocated for stiffer penalties against activists who engage in non-violent direct action targeting fossil fuel infrastructure.Carl Williams, executive director of the Water Protector Legal Collective, which has defended a number of DAPL protesters, says the push to criminalize dissent is part of a larger rightwing strategy that has also targeted the BDS movement and Black Lives Matter.“I think there is a strategy that rightwing forces are using to criminalize dissent,” Williams said. “This bulletin shows that dirty hand.”But Williams also says it shows that these same movements are making inroads. “Liberation movements know that this is happening and we’re fighting against it,” he said. “They’re doing this because they’re afraid of the power of these movements.”Adam Federman is a reporting fellow with Type Investigations.

Entrepreneur Andrew Yang has had unexpected staying power in the Democratic presidential primary thanks in part to the enthusiasm for his plan to provide every American with a basic income of $1,000 a month. But the boldness of his signature idea only serves to underscore the unambitiousness of the health care plan he released earlier this month. In fact, Yang’s health plan, which he bills as an iteration of the left’s preferred “Medicare for All” policy, is more conservative than proposals introduced by the candidates typically identified as moderate. Former Vice President Joe Biden, South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota all at least call for the creation of a public health insurance option that would be available to every American. (Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts favor Medicare for All, which would move all Americans on to one government-run insurance plan ― though the two senators disagree on the timeline for implementing the idea.) In terms of expanding health insurance coverage, Yang says on his website merely that he would “explore” allowing the employees of companies that already provide health insurance the chance to buy into Medicare. “We need to give more choice to employers and employees in a way that removes barriers for businesses to grow,” Yang writes. Under Yang’s plan, people employed by businesses that do not provide insurance, or who are self-employed, would continue to purchase coverage on the exchanges created by former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act. The decision not to focus on expanding coverage distinguishes Yang dramatically from his competitors. And in the foreword to his plan, he explains that that is a deliberate choice, since enacting single-payer health care is “not a realistic strategy.” “We are spending too much time fighting over the differences between Medicare for All, ‘Medicare for All Who Want It,’ and ACA expansion when we should be focusing on the biggest problems that are driving up costs and taking lives,” he writes. “We need to be laser focused on how to bring the costs of coverage down by solving the root problems plaguing the American healthcare system.” FREDERIC J. BROWN/Getty Images Entrepreneur Andrew Yang at the Democratic presidential debate in Los Angeles on Dec. 19 has outlasted many of his more experienced rivals. When asked about how Yang plans to expand health insurance coverage ― 27 million Americans remain entirely uninsured and millions more have insurance that is so threadbare they do not use it ― Yang’s campaign referred HuffPost to his website. Yang would increase health care access through reforms designed to reduce the health care system’s underlying costs, according to his campaign. On his website, he divides those reforms into six categories: bringing down the cost of prescription drugs through bulk negotiation; investing in waste-saving health care technologies; realigning medical providers’ “incentives” away from waste and abuse; increasing investment in preventive and end-of-life health care; making the provision of health care more “comprehensive”; and reducing the influence of lobbyists on the political system. Yang implies that his rivals have sacrificed cost control in the name of expanding coverage. But when it comes to the specifics, Yang’s competitors have already gotten behind many of the ideas he is proposing ― and sometimes take them a step further. For example, Buttigieg has a provision in his health care plan that would prohibit “surprise billing” ― the practice of providing unwitting patients with a large bill after a medical procedure when a doctor who performed it is not in the hospital’s insurance network. Yang does not mention the practice in his health care plan. When it comes to the specifics, Yang’s competitors have already gotten behind many of the ideas he is proposing ― and sometimes take them a step further. One provision of Yang’s plan that genuinely sets him apart is his plan to encourage the replacement of the fee-for-service billing model for doctors with salaries. The latter model is supposed to cut back on duplicative practices and foster more holistic care. Other elements of his plan, such as “incentivizing” gym memberships, healthy eating and bike commuting as a form of preventive health care, have drawn eye rolls from leftists who regard the ideas as paternalistic. First and foremost, though, many progressives are likely to find fault with Yang’s plan, because they consider his use of the term “Medicare for All” misleading. For months on the campaign trail, Yang claimed that he supported Medicare for All, though not the provision of Sanders’ bill ― and its companion in the House ― requiring people with private insurance to enroll in an expanded Medicare program. He even aired a television ad casting his commitment to the policy as a reflection of his experience as the father of a special needs child. Yang says on his campaign website that he is still firmly committed to the “spirit” of Medicare for All. But now that he has introduced a plan of his own, that claim is harder to defend. Yet the Yang campaign is plowing full-steam ahead with its appropriation of the term in a new 30-second ad, “Caring.” “If my husband, Andrew Yang, is president, he’ll fight for Medicare for All with mental health coverage,” Yang’s wife, Evelyn, says in the ad. The Yang campaign estimated to HuffPost that it is spending upwards of $500,000 to air the spot in Iowa and New Hampshire. CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story inaccurately claimed that Yang’s prescription drug plan did not leverage the threats of patent confiscation and generic drug production by the government. Download Calling all HuffPost superfans! Sign up for membership to become a founding member and help shape HuffPost's next chapter Join HuffPost Voting Made Easy Register to vote and apply for an absentee ballot today Register now