Bloomberg Surveillance TV: June 2, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
18 minutes ago
- Axios
Trump team hurls accusations at Obama over 2016 election interference
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard Wednesday continued to accuse former President Obama's administration of a "manipulation of intelligence" around Russia's interference in the 2016 election. The big picture: Nearly a decade after he won, President Trump remains fixated on disproving the thoroughly investigated and widely held conclusion that Russia interfered to aid his campaign. Back in 2020, the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee — including now-Secretary of State Marco Rubio — concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help Trump win but did not hack election infrastructure to manipulate cast ballots. State of play: Gabbard released a document Wednesday that she alleges undermines previous findings from the Obama-era intelligence community that Russia favored a Trump win in 2016. She wrote that the Obama administration was "promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election." Gabbard released another memo last week, with which she accused the Obama administration of a "treasonous conspiracy" to sabotage Trump's presidency in 2016. Driving the news: During a White House press briefing Wednesday, Gabbard again accused Obama and his national security team of directing "the creation of an intelligence community assessment that they knew was false." She alleged, "They knew it would promote this contrived narrative that Russia interfered in the 2016 election to help President Trump when selling it to the American people as though it were true." White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on the claims, saying, "The truth is that Trump never had anything to do with Russia" and alleging that "the worst part of this is Obama knew that truth." Zoom out: Asked for comment Wednesday, Obama spokesperson Patrick Rodenbush referred Axios to his Tuesday statement where he called the allegations "outrageous" and "bizarre." He said in that statement, "Nothing in the document issued last week undercuts the widely accepted conclusion that Russia worked to influence the 2016 presidential election but did not successfully manipulate any votes." In response that statement, Gabbard said Wednesday that Obama's office is "trying to deflect away from their culpability in what is a historic scandal." Asked if the Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity protects Obama from any possible prosecution, Leavitt said Trump "wants to see all those who perpetuated this fraud against our country, who betrayed our country and the Constitution to be thoroughly investigated and held accountable."
Boston Globe
18 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
UN court rules countries must limit greenhouse emissions
Advertisement The court, based in The Hague and composed of 15 judges, had examined two questions: whether countries are obligated under international law to protect the Earth's climate from greenhouse gases, and what legal consequences nations might face if they fail. In reading out the decision, Judge Yuji Iwasawa painted a sweeping picture of the dangers of climate change, saying it crosses borders and 'imperils all forms of life.' Still, he cautioned that international law could play an 'important but ultimately limited' role. The problem, he said, requires vast political will and wisdom. But for smaller countries that have grown jaded by the world's plodding response to climate change, the court ruling was celebrated as a potential turning point. 'It's a very important course correction,' Vanuatu's climate envoy, Ralph Regenvanu, said on the steps outside the court. Advertisement Vishal Prasad, the director of a Pacific Islands student group that had drawn up the idea of pressing the climate case, said that the 'world's smallest countries have made history. The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities.' The court said that people have a right to a 'clean, healthy, and sustainable environment' under international law. It also specified that countries don't get a pass when emissions come from 'private actors.' It said granting fossil fuel exploration licenses or providing fossil fuel subsidies could qualify as wrongful acts. The court case exposed some of the most sensitive issues dividing heavily emitting industrialized countries and poorer nations, including small islands that bear the direct consequences of rising seas, intensifying heat, and increasingly ferocious storms. During about two weeks of testimony in December, countries including the United States, China, and Saudi Arabia essentially argued for maintaining the status quo. They said the current international system for dealing with climate change, marked by UN-led annual negotiations, was sufficient. Small nations, meanwhile, said that system was failing them and a court case was their last-ditch effort. 'This is not just a legal question; it is a matter of survival,' Antigua and Barbuda Prime Minister Gaston Browne told the court. The decision comes at a moment of flagging political will across the West to address climate change. Governments have pushed back against green measures they view as economically costly. Two years ago, countries pledged to transition away from fossil fuels. Instead, many wealthy nations are leading a drilling boom. The US had presented its oral arguments at the court during the last weeks of the Biden administration. Under President Trump, the US has cut climate research, rolled back regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, and pulled out of the Paris climate agreement. Advertisement The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. All the while, vulnerable countries are running up high debts as they try to recover from climate disasters or fortify infrastructure against future events. Last year, wealthier nations pledged to provide at least $300 billion annually by 2035 to help poorer nations — multiples short of what independent estimates say is needed. Humanity is on track to blow past its goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) compared with preindustrial levels. The 10 hottest years have all come over the past decade. Even five years ago, frustration with the planet's trajectory had been mounting. That's when a group of South Pacific law students drew up an idea with their professor to take the issue of climate change to the UN court. They shared the idea with small island governments and drew interest from Vanuatu, which secured backing from donors, hired a law firm, and spent years drumming up diplomatic support. 'I thought it was a long shot but that it was definitely worth trying,' Regenvanu said. The UN General Assembly asked the court last year for an opinion in a case that was called 'Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change.' Delta Merner, a lead scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the court case 'won't change things overnight,' but it could ultimately 'reshape the political, legal and even the moral landscape' of how to hold polluters to account. Advertisement 'We've been stuck in this notion that climate action is all voluntary,' she said. 'The ICJ reframed the climate crisis as a legal and human rights emergency.'
Politico
19 minutes ago
- Politico
House Dems launch multi-committee Epstein attack on Republicans on last day before recess
Locked out of power, House Democrats are using every opportunity to further divide Republicans over the Jeffrey Epstein saga. In committee markups, hearings and in procedural motions on the House floor, Democrats have sought to force votes that would force Republicans to take positions on whether to release the Epstein files — slowing down legislative business and, in some cases, grinding it to a halt. It's part of a formal, concerted strategy being backed by House Democratic leadership, according to a person granted anonymity to share private party deliberations. And it's already forcing House Republicans to respond. Speaker Mike Johnson already announced the House would leave for August recess a day earlier than scheduled after a clash in the Rules Committee over an Epstein-related amendment prevented some legislation from being considered on the House floor. Republican leaders aren't planning to allow any votes on legislation that would compel, or express support for, the release of the Epstein files after the August recess after the Trump administration moved to release grand jury information related to the case. But hours before the House was scheduled to take its last floor votes for the week before breaking for recess, Democrats were pursuing workarounds to that blockade. The GOP-led House Education and Workforce Committee pulled an entire bill — a measure related to enhancing detection of human trafficking — from consideration during a markup because Democrats were rolling out amendments tying the bill to Epstein. One amendment, from Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), would have required the Department of Labor to include case studies about Epstein's affairs as part of training efforts, while another filed by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.) would have mandated the agency to release all unclassified documents about Epstein and co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell. Bonamici said in an interview former Labor Secretary Alex Acosta was pressured to resign from his post as U.S. Attorney in Florida due to an outcry over his handling of the Epstein case: 'We think people should know what information they have, and if [Republicans] support transparency, they should vote for this amendment to release that information.' During a House Energy and Commerce markup on student athlete legislation, Democrats forced Republicans to take another vote to release materials related to the case against the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender who died in his jail cell by suicide in 2019. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Texas) introduced an amendment during that meeting that would require Trump to publicize Epstein documents related to Larry Nassar, the former Michigan State University and U.S. gymnastics doctor who was charged with sexually assaulting hundreds of girls and women. News reports in 2023 indicated that Epstein had attempted to contact Nassar while the two were both incarcerated for sex crimes. Veasey's amendment also would have tied the purpose of the underlying bill being debated in committee — to codify the public rights of student athletes and provide legal protections to college sports officials — would not go into effect until those materials were released. Republicans voted to table, or kill, the amendment after House Energy and Commerce Chair Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) ruled that it was not germane — a common tactic to swat away proposals from the minority party. Nick Niedzwiadek and Hailey Fuchs contributed to this report.
