Gabbard avoids condemning government secrets leaker Snowden in confirmation hearing
Daniel Heuer/Bloomberg via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle gave director of national intelligence nominee Tulsi Gabbard more than a half-dozen chances to withdraw her past support of Edward Snowden, the prolific leaker of government secrets, in her confirmation hearing Thursday, but she didn’t take them.
Gabbard has in the past called the former NSA contractor a “brave” whistleblower who uncovered damning civil liberties violations by the intelligence community. As a lawmaker, she introduced legislation supporting a grant of clemency.
On Thursday, she has repeatedly refused to withdraw that characterization of him. And she repeatedly refused to call him a “traitor.”
“This is where the rubber hits the road,” Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet boomed inside the hearing room. “This is not a moment for social media, this is not a moment to propagate conspiracy theories … this is when you need to answer the questions of people whose votes you’re asking for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this nation.”
“Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America This is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high,” he continued.
Instead, Gabbard repeated a canned response that his acts were illegal and that she disagreed with his methods.
“Edward Snowden broke the law. I do not agree with or support with all of the information and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did it,” she said.
But she added he “released information that exposed egregious, illegal and unconstitutional programs.”
Bennet concluded with an impassioned call to vote her down.
“Can’t we do better than …. someone who can’t answer whether Snowden is a traitor five times?” … “I’m questioning her judgment.”
Republican Sen. James Lankford presented her with another opportunity to clarify her position: “Was Edward Snowden a traitor?”
Again, Gabbard equivocated.
She did back off her support of a pardon. In an exchange with GOP Sen. Susan Collins, a key vote on the panel, she said the role of DNI does not have a role in advocating for clemency actions.
“My responsibility would be to ensure the security of our nation’s secrets,” Gabbard said. “And would not take actions to advocate for any actions related to Snowden.”
And moments later, Republican Sen. Todd Young, a potential swing vote in the committee, asked Gabbard, “did [Snowden] betray the trust of the American people?”
“Edward Snowden broke the law,” she said, “and he released this information in a way that he should not have.”
(WASHINGTON) — The Biden administration succeeded in blocking a plea deal for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after a federal court issued an administrative stay of a hearing set for Friday.
The alleged 9/11 mastermind was expected to plead guilty as part of a plea agreement worked out by military prosecutors that would have removed the death penalty as a possibility in his case.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — In a sweeping change that could American save consumers time and money — the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) on Tuesday finalized a rule that would ban surprise “junk fees” for live event tickets, hotels and vacation rentals.
The rule would require businesses to disclose total prices upfront, rather than tacking on extra costs like “convenience fees” or “resort fees” when consumers check out online.
“Whatever price you see is the price that you are paying at the end, no more mystery surprise fees at the very end of the process, which really cheat consumers and also punish honest businesses,” FTC Chair Lina Khan said in an exclusive interview with ABC News.
The FTC said the final rule, which takes effect around April of next year, could save consumers 53 million hours in wasted time searching for the total price of live event tickets or short-term lodging — equal to about $11 billion in savings over a decade.
The rule would not stop businesses from charging fees. But they would be required to list prices clearly from the onset and to display the total cost more prominently on a website than any other price.
“This should really provide the American people with just some more clarity and confidence so they don’t feel like they’re getting cheated or having to be bait and switched by all of these deceptive pricing tactics,” Khan said. “This is really about saving people money and saving people time.”
The change is part of a broader push from the administration of President Joe Biden to lower costs as households have been plagued by stubborn inflation. Last week the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced a final rule to curb bank overdraft fees.
In a statement to ABC News, Biden said: “Today’s announcement builds on work across my Administration to ban junk fees and lower costs — saving many families hundreds of dollars each year.”
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has opposed the rule, calling it “nothing more than an attempt to micromanage businesses’ pricing structures, often undermining businesses’ ability to give consumers options at different price points.”
The business lobbying group has already sued the FTC over other regulations, including a rule to ban noncompete agreements for millions of workers.
Asked about the likelihood the junk fee rule would face challenges in court, Khan told ABC News the FTC is on “firm legal grounds.”
“We’ve also seen bipartisan proposals in Congress to take on these junk fees in these in these industries,” Khan said. “I can’t predict the future, but I’d be very surprised if something that’s just common sense was going to be stripped away.”
At the helm of the FTC, Khan has been credited with ushering in a new era of anti-trust regulation, challenging the business models of major corporations in industries ranging from Big Tech to pharmaceuticals. Her aggressive approach quickly made her a prominent target among conservatives and Wall Street investors.
President-elect Trump announced last week he nominated Andrew Ferguson, a current Republican FTC commissioner, to replace Khan.
“These junk fees have really proliferated across the economy, and I would want to make sure that future enforcers and future policy makers were taking on these junk fees across the economy,” Khan told ABC News.
As for her political future, Khan said she’s still laser-focused on her current role.
“I’m just focused on doing my job in the in the days and weeks we have left,” she said. “I’ve just been really thrilled to see the enormous support across the country for a strong and vigorous FTC.”
(WASHINGTON) — Concern over dangers to children from increasingly easy access to hardcore pornography online dominated U.S. Supreme Court arguments on Wednesday in a high-profile dispute over a growing number of state laws requiring adult websites to verify the age of users.
The justices heard an appeal from an adult entertainment industry trade group challenging a 2023 Texas mandate that sites with more than a third of content containing “sexual material harmful to minors” must receive electronic proof that a patron is 18 or older.
In all, 18 other states have similar age-verification measures as a means to limit access by minors.
Allowing the Texas measure to stand, industry attorney Derek Shaffer told the justices, “could open the door to an emerging wave of regulations that imperil free speech online.” Many members of the court seemed inclined to support the law nonetheless.
While all states have long made it illegal for brick-and-mortar sellers of pornography to serve underage buyers, the industry alleges Texas’ online verification law uniquely threatens individual privacy and data security for millions of adults who otherwise have a First Amendment right to view the material.
The law requires users to provide digital ID, government-issued ID or other commercially reasonable verification methods, such as a facial scan or credit card transaction data.
“You should have confidentiality that is legally assured,” said Shaffer.
A federal district court sided with the industry and blocked the law; the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, finding that it served a legitimate government interest notwithstanding any imposition on the rights of adult consumers.
“Age verification today is simple, safe, and common, including non-identifying means,” said Texas Solicitor General Aaron Nielson.
Many of the justices seemed eager to find a way to allow the Texas law to remain in force in the interest of protecting children, but also to clarify the strong constitutional protection for free speech that prevents states from excessively infringing on free speech rights.
“Technological access to pornography, obviously, has exploded, right?” observed Chief Justice John Roberts. “It was very difficult for 15-year-olds to get access to the type of things that are available with a push of a button today. And the nature of the pornography, I think, has also changed.”
Roberts implied that the court may need to revisit its precedents that have offered sweeping protection to adult content creators and the adults who consume the material.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a mother of seven, said she knew firsthand how pernicious the dangers of online pornography have become.
“Kids can get online porn through gaming systems, tablets, phones, computers. Let me just say that content-filtering for all those different 25 devices, I can say from personal experience, is difficult to keep up with,” Barrett said. “I think that the explosion of addiction to online porn has shown that content-filtering isn’t working.”
Justice Brett Kavanagh, a father of two teenage daughters, pressed Shaffer over the harms that he suggested states must be able to protect against.
“Do you dispute the societal problems that are created both short term and long term from the rampant access to pornography for children?” Kavanaugh asked.
“That is a complicated question that I don’t know that I can speak to definitively,” Shaffer replied.
Justice Samuel Alito bluntly expressed skepticism of the industry’s claim that less-restrictive alternatives exist to protect kids online, such as parental controls and content-filtering software.
“Come on, be real,” Alito chided Shaffer. “There’s a huge volume of evidence that filtering doesn’t work.”
Several justices, while vocally supportive in principle of the need to prevent children from viewing porn, voiced concern that the means states like Texas were using put too much burden on the content creators and adult consumers.
“It’s not clear to me that just the fact that we have new technology is running in favor of allowing this law to stand as is,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a mother of two teenage girls.
“We appreciate the state’s interest in protecting children,” Jackson told Nielson, “but we’re not going to let the state, you know, impose, like, a thousand things that would make it really, really hard for adults when there are other alternatives to protect children.”
Justice Clarence Thomas echoed that sentiment: “Assuming we agree with you, and I think most people do, that kids are to be protected, how much of a burden is permissible on adults’ First Amendment rights?” he asked Nielson.
“One of the important parts of modern age verification technology is that you can do it without identification at all,” the Texas attorney replied. “In other words, there’s no ID or anything like that. It’s just a face scan.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested the rights of adults to engage in free speech — and free consumption of sexually explicit content — needed guarantees.
“This law … says you can’t retain this information. The other side in its brief argues that that doesn’t mean you can’t sell it or give it away,” she pointed out to Neilson.
“I don’t know if that’s even technologically possible,” he replied.
The case, Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, pits a growing nationwide effort to strengthen protections for minors online against a booming multi-billion dollar adult entertainment industry.
“More people watch porn and view porn each year than vote and read the newspaper,” said Lisa Blatt, a veteran Supreme Court litigator with Williams & Connolly LLP.
A 2016 study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine found that up to 70% of men and 40% of women have consumed pornography within the past year in the U.S.
American teenagers have reported similar levels of exposure to pornography a number of studies conducted over the past three years show. Public health experts say young people who view sexually explicit content are more likely to start having sex earlier, engage in unsafe sex, and have multiple partners.
Twenty years ago in a remarkably similar case — Ashcroft v. ACLU — the high court struck down federal legislation that would have required age verification to view sexually explicit material. The decision instead put the onus on parents and technology companies to utilize less burdensome content-filtering software.
The court could choose to rethink that decision and other precedents on these issues, or return the case to a lower court for further consideration under a clarification of existing law.
A decision is expected in the case by the end of June.