The Obama administration — despite repeatedly assuring Congress that Iran would remain barred from the U.S. financial system — secretly mobilized to give Tehran access to American banks to convert the windfall of cash it received from sanctions relief under the 2015 nuclear deal into dollars , an investigative report by the Senate has revealed .\nA copy of the report , obtained by The ███ , outlines how Obama-era State and Treasury Department officials discreetly issued a special license for the conversion to a major Omani bank and unsuccessfully pressured two U.S. banks to partake in the transaction , all while misleading lawmakers about the activities .\nThe document , compiled by the Senate ’ s Republican-led chief investigative subcommittee , began circulating Tuesday , just as the Trump administration issued its harshest warnings to date to foreign governments and companies to avoid doing business with Iran or find themselves in the crosshairs of Washington ’ s reimposition of sanctions as part of Mr. Trump ’ s withdrawal from the nuclear deal .\n“ Companies doing business in Iran face substantial risks , and those risks are even greater as we reimpose nuclear-related sanctions , ” said Sigal Mandelker , Treasury Department undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence .\nShe also called on foreign governments to harden their financial systems against “ deceptive ” Iranian transactions that ultimately channel money to terrorists .\nThe Iranian government “ uses shell and front companies to conceal its tracks ” as part of an elaborate scheme designed to procure cash for the Quds Force of Iran ’ s militant Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps , which the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization , Ms. Mandelker said .\nShe issued the warnings in a speech at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank as Iran announced Tuesday that it was formally moving ahead with preparations to increase its nuclear enrichment capacities — the sharpest response to date by the Islamic republic to Mr. Trump ’ s pullout from the nuclear accord .\nIranian officials said the increase , while provocative , does not violate its commitments under the nuclear accord .\nThe president sent shock waves around the world with his May 8 decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear pact and begin reimposing U.S. sanctions , which the U.S. , Europe , China and Russia had collectively lifted in 2015 in exchange for Iran ’ s promise to curb its suspect nuclear programs and allow international inspections .\nWhile Iran told the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency on Tuesday that it plans only to increase enrichment within limits set by 2015 deal , the announcement came with threats from a top Iranian official that the activities could be quickly expanded . The warning put fresh pressure on European leaders to keep the nuclear accord alive despite Mr. Trump ’ s withdrawal .\nThe head of Iran ’ s nuclear agency , Ali Akbar Salehi , said Tehran is prepared to dramatically increase its capacity for enrichment but that the work so far is limited to building a facility for assembling the centrifuges . He made the comment a day after Iran ’ s supreme leader , Ayatollah Ali Khamenei , ordered the increase in capacity and vowed that Iran would preserve its nuclear program despite the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 accord .\nThe Senate report focuses new scrutiny on the lengths President Obama ’ s team was willing to go to ensure the deal ’ s success as it was still being negotiated .\nThe Senate Homeland Security Committee ’ s permanent subcommittee on investigations probe contends that the Obama administration went out of its way to keep U.S. lawmakers in the dark about calculated and secretive efforts to give Tehran a back channel to the international financial system and to U.S. banks , facilitating a massive U.S. currency conversion worth billions of dollars .\n“ Senior U.S. government officials repeatedly testified to Congress that Iranian access to the U.S. financial system was not on the table or part of any deal , ” according to a draft copy of the document obtained by The Times . “ Despite these claims , the U.S. Department of the Treasury , at the direction of the U.S. State Department , granted a specific license that authorized a conversion of Iranian assets worth billions of U.S. dollars using the U.S. financial system .\n“ Even after the specific license was issued , U.S. government officials maintained in congressional testimony that Iran would not be granted access to the U.S. financial system , ” the report said .\nSen . Rob Portman , the Ohio Republican who chairs the subcommittee , is set to outline his panel ’ s findings Wednesday .\nUnder terms of the nuclear deal , Iran was given the right to reclaim billions of dollars in state assets and bank accounts frozen by international sanctions , but it remained “ illegal for U.S. persons , entities , and financial institutions to do business with Iran or parties on behalf of Iran . ”\nThe ban included any “ intermediary ” transactions by U.S. banks to convert currency for Iran — a development that would have elevated the value of the Iranian assets on the global market and allowed Tehran to more easily move the money through the international banking system .\nOn the day the nuclear deal was implemented in 2015 , Tehran had some $ 5.7 billion worth of assets at Bank Muscat in Muscat , Oman , according to Senate investigators , who said Tehran moved quickly to request access to the U.S. dollar .\nOn Tehran ’ s request , Bank Muscat contacted the U.S. Treasury Department ’ s office of foreign assets control .\nAccording to the Senate report : “ Muscat sought to convert $ 5.7 billion in Omai rials into euros . [ But ] because the rial is pegged to the U.S. dollar , the most efficient conversion was with an intermediary step through a U.S. bank using U.S. dollars . ”\nObama Treasury Secretary Jack Lew told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in July 2015 that Iran would “ continue to be denied access to the [ U.S. ] financial and commercial market ” under the proposed accord , but the Treasury office went ahead with attempts to quietly allow the currency transaction sought by Iran .\n“ On February 24 , 2016 , OFAC issued a specific license to Bank Muscat authorizing Iranian assets worth roughly $ 5.7 billion to flow through the U.S. financial system , ” according to the Senate report , which claims the move was made “ even though U.S. sanctions prohibited it . ”\nEven as office of foreign assets control officials directly “ encouraged two U.S. correspondent banks to convert the funds , ” the Treasury Department continued to deny it was working to facilitate the currency transaction , said the report , which cites a 2016 letter from the department to Sen. Marco Rubio , Florida Republican , and Sen. Mark Kirk , Illinois Republican , that contended the Obama “ administration has not been and is not planning to grant Iran access to the U.S. financial system . ”\nThe catch , according to Senate investigators , was that neither of the U.S. banks approached by the office of foreign assets control would take on the Iranian currency exchange — in part because of political concerns over the prospect of being found out to have secretly circumvented the remaining ban on U.S. transactions with the Islamic republic .\nDespite the Obama administration ’ s efforts , Iran was ultimately forced to convert its Bank Muscat assets to euros in small increments using European banks and without accessing the U.S. financial system , the Senate investigators said .\nMr. Portman said in a statement Tuesday night that “ the Obama administration misled the American people and Congress because they were desperate to get a deal with Iran . ”\n“ Despite claims both before and after the Iran deal was completed that the U.S. financial system would remain off limits , the Obama administration issued a specific license allowing Iran to convert billions of dollars in assets using the U.S. financial system , ” Mr. Portman said . “ The only reason this transaction wasn ’ t executed was because two U.S. banks refused , even though the administration asked them to help convert the money . ”\nSuch sanctions , he added , “ are a vital foreign policy tool , and the U.S. government should never work to actively undermine their enforcement or effectiveness . ”


Washington ( CNN ) Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced Friday that the US is suspending the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty , a key pact with Russia that has been a centerpiece of European security since the Cold War .\n`` For years , Russia has violated the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty without remorse , '' Pompeo said , speaking from the State Department . `` Russia 's violations put millions of Europeans and Americans at greater risk . ''\n`` It is our duty to respond appropriately , '' Pompeo said , adding that the US had provided `` ample time '' for Russia to return to compliance .\nThe long-expected suspension , which has raised concerns about a renewed arms race with Moscow and put European allies on edge , goes into effect on Saturday . Pompeo 's announcement starts a 180-day clock to complete withdrawal unless Russia returns to compliance with the 1987 agreement .\nPresident Donald Trump and his senior officials had been signaling for months that they were ready to pull out of the INF treaty , which the US accuses Moscow of violating since 2014 .\n`` The United States has fully adhered to the INF Treaty for more than 30 years , but we will not remain constrained by its terms while Russia misrepresents its actions , '' Trump said in a statement Friday . `` We can not be the only country in the world unilaterally bound by this treaty , or any other . ''\nLater , at the White House , the President hinted to reporters that he 'd be open to negotiations on a new treaty but did not mention Russia by name -- the only other signatory to the pact .\n`` I hope that you 're able to get everybody in a big and beautiful room and do a new treaty that would be much better , but certainly I would like to see that , '' Trump said , according to pool reports . `` But you have to have everybody adhere to it and you have a certain side that almost pretends it does n't exist . '\n`` So unless we 're going to have something we all agree to we ca n't be put at the disadvantage of going by a treaty , limiting what we do , when somebody else does n't go by that treaty , '' Trump said .\nWhile Russia and the US are the only two parties to the treaty , but it significantly affects European security .\nThe ground-based nuclear tipped cruise missiles covered by the bilateral agreement can fly between 310 to 3,100 miles , making them a threat to Europe , where officials have unanimously backed the US decision , even as they consider their next steps and admit having little to no optimism that the treaty can be saved .\nIn a statement , NATO said America 's allies `` fully support '' the US decision because of Russia 's threat to Euro-Atlantic security and its refusal to provide any credible response or take any steps towards full and verifiable compliance .\nNATO urged Russia to use the next six months to `` return to full and verifiable compliance to preserve the INF Treaty . ''\nJUST WATCHED Top Kremlin official : We are not that threatening Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Top Kremlin official : We are not that threatening 02:21\n`` We are heading into a direction we have not been in in 40 years : no arms control limits or rules that we are both following , and that is very dangerous , '' said Lynn Rusten , a senior director for arms control and nonproliferation at the National Security Council during the Obama administration who is now a vice president at the Nuclear Threat Initiative .\nUS officials and lawmakers have expressed concern that the treaty is allowing China to gain a military advantage , as Beijing is not bound by the INF treaty 's limits on intermediate range missiles that currently constrain the US .\nTrump appeared to confirm this in his Friday remarks to reporters , saying , `` first of all you have to add countries '' to the treaty .\nBut a senior US administration official denied Beijing is a factor .\n`` There 's a lot of discussion about China , '' this official said , briefing reporters on the suspension . `` It is a reality that China is unconstrained , it is a reality they have more than 1,000 of these weapons , but for the United States this has nothing to do with China . This is solely about Russia 's violation of this treaty . ''\n`` We simply can not tolerate this kind of abuse of arms control , '' the official said .\nRussia has consistently denied being in violation of the treaty , and on Thursday , Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said talks with the US had n't yielded progress .\n`` Unfortunately , there is no progress . The US position remains rather tough and ultimatum-like , '' Ryabkov said , according to Russian state media outlet TASS .\n`` We told the US side that it is impossible to hold dialogue in the conditions of attempted blackmailing of Russia , '' he added .\nSenior US administration officials countered Thursday by laying out Russia 's repeated efforts to get the US to agree to dissolve the treaty and years of American effort to get Russia to comply , including 35 diplomatic engagements ranging from the highest political levels to technical talks .\n`` We have , unfortunately , very little to show for it , '' said a US official who briefed reporters on condition of anonymity , stressing that `` the onus is on Russia . ''\n`` Russia continues to deny its violations ... Russia will have this chance . If they are truly interested in preserving this treaty , this is their final chance , '' the official continued . `` It would be in Russia 's best interests to return to full and verifiable compliance . ''\nThis official noted the `` remarkable unity '' among the US and its European allies , but European officials say they 're concerned about the treaty dissolving and say they will use the six-month window to urge Russia to comply .\n`` It is clear to us that Russia has violated this treaty and that 's why we need to speak to Russia , '' German Chancellor Angela Merkel said at a press conference in Berlin on Friday , shortly before the US announced its intention to suspend the treaty .\nGermany will `` do everything we can '' to use the six-month deadline after the termination to hold further talks with Russia , Merkel said .\nEuropean officials discussing the fallout in the coming months point to a possible increase in Russian cyber activities , including its influence campaigns , Russia is likely to use the US withdrawal as an excuse to deploy systems elsewhere and the certainty of finger-pointing , as Moscow works to assign blame .\n`` Russia will feel more legitimized to continue what it 's doing now , but also increasing some of its efforts on missile technology and deploying them , '' said a European official .\nA second European official said that `` they will threaten , they will try to divide NATO , they 'll do anything but stay quiet . '' The Russians will likely argue that `` this is about the US and the US trying to destabilize the international order , '' this official said , stressing that Europe has been united in its stance , alongside the US , that Russia has been violating the treaty .\n`` The bigger picture is what kind of sign you 're sending out , what message you 're sending , '' said a third European official . `` For us , this treaty was extremely important for our security . What are we looking at instead '' if it is scrapped , the official asked .


Attorney General Bill Barr testified Wednesday that he believes `` spying did occur '' on the Trump campaign in 2016 , as he vowed to review the conduct of the FBI 's original Russia probe -- and the focus of a related internal review shifted to the role of a key FBI informant .\n`` I think spying did occur . The question is whether it was adequately predicated . … I think it ’ s my obligation . Congress is usually very concerned with intelligence agencies and law enforcement agencies staying in their proper lane , '' he testified before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee , while noting that `` spying on a political campaign is a big deal . ''\nBARR VOWS MUELLER REPORT RELEASE 'WITHIN A WEEK , ' AS DEMS RIP 'UNACCEPTABLE ' HANDLING AT HEATED HEARING\nThe comments follow a new report that the Justice Department ’ s internal watchdog also is scrutinizing the role of an FBI informant who contacted members of the Trump campaign during the 2016 election , as part of a broader review of the early stages of the Russia investigation . The New York Times reported that Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz is looking into informant Stefan Halper ’ s work during the Russia probe , as well as his work with the FBI prior to the start of that probe .\nBARR REVEALS HE IS REVIEWING 'CONDUCT ' OF FBI 'S ORIGINAL RUSSIA PROBE\nHalper , an American professor who reportedly is deeply connected with British and American intelligence agencies , has been widely reported as a confidential source for the FBI during the bureau ’ s original investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016 election . That official counterintelligence operation was opened by then-senior agent Peter Strzok , who has since been fired from the bureau .\nDuring the 2016 campaign , Halper contacted several members of the Trump campaign , including former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and former aide Carter Page . Page also was the subject of several Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ( FISA ) warrants during the campaign -- which is an issue at the heart of the IG 's investigation . Republicans , including President Trump , have alleged misconduct in the bureau and Justice Department ’ s handling of those FISA warrants .\n`` It was an illegal investigation . ... Everything about it was crooked , '' Trump told reporters on Wednesday , describing it as an attempted `` coup '' and reiterating his interest in digging into the probe 's origins . `` There is a hunger for that to happen . ''\nThe Times , in its report , noted that Halper also contacted former Trump campaign aide Sam Clovis . It is unclear whether Halper had the FBI ’ s permission to contact Clovis , according to the report .\nHorowitz , more broadly , is probing alleged wrongdoing related to the issuance of FISA warrants to surveil Page during the election . During a prior hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday , Barr testified that Horowitz ’ s investigation is expected to be complete by May or June .\nWhile vowing to release Special Counsel Robert Mueller 's now-completed Russia report in a matter of days , Barr also announced Tuesday that he was reviewing the origins of the Russia investigation at the FBI and the Justice Department , amid mounting calls for scrutiny of the probe 's beginnings from Trump and prominent congressional Republicans .\n“ More generally , I am reviewing the conduct of the investigation and trying to get my arms around all of the aspects of the counterintelligence investigation that was conducted in the summer of 2016 , ” Barr told the House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday .\nBARR ASSEMBLES 'TEAM ' TO LOOK INTO COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION ON TRUMP CAMPAIGN IN 2016 , OFFICIAL SAYS\nAlso on Tuesday , Fox News reported that a source said Barr had assembled a “ team ” to investigate the origins of the bureau ’ s counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign .\nOn Wednesday , Barr testified that he has n't technically `` set up a team '' but has colleagues helping him as he reviews the case .\n`` This is not launching an investigation of the FBI , '' he stressed . `` Frankly , to the extent there were issues at the FBI , I do not view it as a problem of the FBI . I think it was probably a failure of the group of leaders—the upper echelons of the FBI . I think the FBI is an outstanding organization and I am very pleased Director Chris Wray is there . ''\nHe added , `` If it becomes necessary to look over former officials , I expect to rely on Chris and work with him . I have an obligation to make sure government power is not abused and I think that ’ s one of the principal roles of the attorney general . ''\nThe FBI ’ s 2016 counterintelligence investigation , formally opened by Strzok , began with a “ paucity ” of evidence , according to former FBI counsel Lisa Page , with whom Strzok was romantically involved . During a closed-door congressional interview , Page admitted that the FBI “ knew so little ” about whether allegations against the Trump campaign were “ true or not true ” at the time they opened the probe , adding that they had just “ a paucity of evidence because we [ were ] just starting down the path ” of vetting allegations .\nPage also said in her interview that it was “ entirely common ” that the FBI would begin an investigation with just a “ small amount of evidence . ”\nBarr ’ s team will also review the FISA warrants issued against Carter Page . The issuance of the FISA warrants relied , in part , on the unverified anti-Trump dossier authored by ex-British Intelligence Agent Christopher Steele , who worked on behalf of Fusion GPS—a firm paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee through law firm Perkins Coie to do opposition research against the Trump campaign . In the dossier , Steele accused Page of conspiring with Russians . Page was not charged with any wrongdoing in either the FBI ’ s Russia probe or Mueller ’ s .\nFox News exclusively obtained internal FBI text messages last month showing that just nine days before the FBI applied for the Page FISA warrant , bureau officials were battling with a senior Justice Department official who had `` continued concerns '' about the `` possible bias '' of a source pivotal to the application .\nBarr ’ s review could also dovetail with the work U.S. Attorney John Huber has been doing . In 2017 , former Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed Huber to review not only alleged surveillance abuses by the Justice Department and the FBI but also the handling of the probe into the Clinton Foundation and other matters .\nThe day following Barr ’ s release of his summary of the Mueller report , Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham , R-S.C. , said his panel also would investigate alleged FISA abuses at the start of the Russia investigation and called on Barr to appoint a new special counsel to investigate “ the other side of the story. ” Graham has been calling for a second special counsel since 2017 to investigate “ whether or not a counterintelligence investigation was opened as a back door to spy on the Trump campaign . ”\nAlso , House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes , R-Calif. , said over the weekend he was preparing to send eight criminal referrals to the Justice Department this week regarding alleged misconduct by DOJ and FBI officials during the Trump-Russia investigation . It is unclear whom Nunes will refer for investigation , and what the process at the Justice Department might be .\nWhen asked Tuesday about Nunes ’ referrals , Barr said he hasn ’ t seen them yet , but , “ Obviously , if there is a predicate for investigation , it will be conducted . ”


The White House has assailed President Donald Trump 's critics after he was cleared of Russian election collusion .\nPress Secretary Sarah Sanders told cable morning shows that Mr Trump is happy for the full report by special counsel Robert Mueller to be released .\nShe said the summary of the findings issued by the attorney general amounted to a full vindication of the president .\nMr Mueller 's long-awaited report , however , stops short of exonerating Mr Trump of obstruction of justice .\nIt was the culmination of a nearly two-year investigation that saw some of the president 's closest former aides prosecuted and , in some cases , imprisoned , though not for collusion with Russia .\nWhite House aides took to the airwaves on Monday to depict the president as the victim of an inquiry that should never have been allowed .\nWhen asked whether Mr Trump would support the release of the full report , Mrs Sanders told NBC News ' Today programme : `` He 's more than happy for any of this stuff to come out . ''\nSpeaking on CNN later on Monday , Mrs Sanders said it was `` outrageous '' that Democrats and journalists had spent two years portraying the president as an agent of a foreign power .\n`` That 's equivalent to treason , '' said the press secretary . `` That 's punishable by death in this country and that is outrageous . ''\nMrs Sanders said the `` obscene lie '' was used to try `` to overthrow the president of the United States '' .\nWhite House adviser Kellyanne Conway on Monday called on Democrat Adam Schiff , Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee , to step down .\n`` He ought to resign today , '' she told Fox News . `` He has been on every TV show 50 times a day for practically the last two years promising Americans that the president would be impeached or indicted . ''\n`` It was a complete and total exoneration , '' Mr Trump declared on Sunday , even though the report specifically states that he has not been fully exonerated .\nSpeaking at Palm Beach International Airport in Florida , he said : `` It 's a shame that our country had to go through this .\n`` To be honest , it 's a shame that your president has had to go through this . Before I even got elected it began and it began illegally . ''\nThe Republican president said the inquiry was an `` illegal takedown that failed '' .\nIn his four-page summary released on Sunday , Trump-appointed Attorney General William Barr wrote : `` The special counsel did not find that any US person or Trump campaign official conspired or knowingly co-ordinated with Russia . ''\nBut on the issue of whether justice was obstructed , Mr Mueller 's report says : `` While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime , it also does not exonerate him . ''\nThese include a federal inquiry in New York into possible election law violations by the Trump campaign and his businesses , and possible misconduct by the Trump inaugural committee .\nCongress is also continuing its own inquiries , mostly in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives .\nRepublican Senator Lindsey Graham summed up the conservative response on Monday , telling reporters Mr Trump was stronger today than ever .\n`` This cloud has been removed , '' he said . `` To those wanting an outcome of removing Trump , you 're going to be disappointed . ''\nOpposition Democrats are demanding full access to Mr Mueller 's report .\nThe Democratic Chair of the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee , Jerry Nadler , said he would ask Mr Barr to testify in front of the House Judiciary Committee `` in the near future '' over `` very concerning discrepancies and final decision making at the Justice Department '' .\nRussia has denied being involved in hacking to influence the 2016 US election result .\nKremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov mocked suggestions there had been collusion , saying : `` I recall the words of the Chinese philosopher who said that it 's hard to find a black cat in a dark room , especially if it 's not there . Well , centuries pass and unfortunately they still do n't understand that across the ocean . ''\nAlexei Pushkov , a member of Russia 's upper house , tweeted : `` Democrats , Russophobes and leading media created a virtual conspiracy which existed only in their heads and in headlines , and nowhere else . ''\nLegally , the House Judiciary Committee will want to get its hands on the full Mueller report . They will want to see why Robert Mueller felt he could n't exonerate the president on obstruction of justice .\nAnd remember , obstruction of justice is one of the `` high crimes and misdemeanours '' that can lead to impeachment .\nThere will be an endless back and forth over that . And I would n't be in the least bit surprised if the subpoenas start to fly .\nCommittees have the right to call people and papers . They are bound to flex their muscles as much as they can . They want to play this long . They want to damage the president .\nTo prosecute the president for obstruction of justice there would have needed to be evidence of intent to obstruct . So even though the president fired former FBI chief James Comey and unleashed regular torrents of abuse on Twitter about the investigation , if his only motivation for those acts was to vent his spleen rather than break the law , then he 's done nothing wrong legally .


Michael Zeldin , a CNN legal analyst , served as deputy independent counsel , and later as independent counsel , in the investigation into allegations that the administration of George H. W. Bush violated the privacy rights of candidate Bill Clinton in the 1992 presidential campaign . He also served as a special counsel to Robert Mueller in the Department of Justice . Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University , and author , with Kevin Kruse , of the new book `` Fault Lines : A History of the United States Since 1974 . '' The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the authors ; view more opinion articles on CNN .\n( CNN ) At the end of independent counsel Ken Starr 's investigation of Bill Clinton , Starr submitted directly to Congress his final report , which included 11 specific bases for possible impeachment .\nGiven the numerous obstruction of justice findings in part two of special counsel Robert Mueller 's report , many ca n't understand why Mueller did n't do the same .\nUnder the independent counsel law that was in effect at the time of Starr 's report , the independent counsel was required to advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible evidence that may constitute grounds for an impeachment .\nIn reaction to what some perceived as Starr 's `` salacious '' public report , however , in 1999 , Congress allowed the independent counsel law to lapse . In its place , the Department of Justice issued the special counsel regulations . These regulations , which remain in effect today , do not permit a special counsel to submit a report to Congress . They only permit a special counsel to submit a confidential report to the Attorney General .\nWe believe , and Michael Zeldin has written , that this constraint on Mueller ( and other limitations in the regulations ) make it imperative for Congress to consider resurrecting the independent counsel statute or a similar law .\nJUST WATCHED Former Whitewater Independent Counsel defends AG Barr amid criticism Replay More Videos ... MUST WATCH Former Whitewater Independent Counsel defends AG Barr amid criticism 04:27\nIt would take time to pass any new legislation , however , and that would only affect future investigations . But meanwhile , Congress is struggling to figure out what to do with Mueller 's findings . Our view is that it would be sensible for Congress to consider analyzing the Mueller report 's obstruction findings under the same standard as that of independent counsels -- by asking whether Mueller would have been obligated to advise the House of Representatives of any substantial and credible evidence that may constitute grounds for an impeachment .\nThis would give Congress , in its oversight capacity , a workable framework for analyzing whether they believe that an impeachment inquiry is warranted .\nIn the interest of time and to cut to the heart of the matter , Congress should primarily focus on the three key areas Mueller identified as most legally problematic . Specifically , Trump 's efforts to remove Mueller as special counsel and create a false narrative of those efforts ; Trump 's efforts to put an end to the Russia investigation ; and Trump 's firing of FBI director James Comey . ( Other acts -- for example , those relating to the investigation of Michael Flynn -- could be considered , too , if warranted by the initial inquiry . )\nIn each of these areas , Mueller found that all of the statutory requirements for an obstruction of justice prosecution were met . In each case , he found an obstructive act , a nexus to an official proceeding , and corrupt intent .\nIn his report , Mueller set forth substantial direct and corroborative evidence of obstructive conduct for each inquiry . And , as to each , Mueller refuted the constitutional and statutory defenses he anticipated would be made if charges were brought against the President .\nCongress , of course , will need to make its own determination , as impeachment is a political judgment informed by , but not dependent on , violations of statutory law .\nTo do this , each member of Congress will need to read the full Mueller report . In addition , Congress will need to be able to obtain all the evidence underlying the Mueller report ( as was done in the Starr investigation ) that pertains to the issues under review , compel the testimony of relevant witnesses ( so that Congress and the American people can assess their credibility ) , and hear from lawyers ( including Attorney General Barr and Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein ) , constitutional scholars , and historians to obtain insight into whether the specific acts of alleged obstruction as well as the overall pattern of behavior that Mueller describes meets the Constitutional threshold of `` high crimes and misdemeanors . ''\nStay up to date ... Sign up for our new newsletter . Join us on Twitter and Facebook\nAs articulated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 , high crimes and misdemeanors are `` offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men , or in other words , from the abuse or violation of some public trust . They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political , as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to society itself . ''\nAfter that , Congress , with informed input from their constituents , will be in the best position to determine whether an impeachment inquiry is warranted .


Share All sharing options for : Intellectual humility : the importance of knowing you might be wrong\nJulia Rohrer wants to create a radical new culture for social scientists . A personality psychologist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development , Rohrer is trying to get her peers to publicly , willingly admit it when they are wrong .\nTo do this , she , along with some colleagues , started up something called the Loss of Confidence Project . It ’ s designed to be an academic safe space for researchers to declare for all to see that they no longer believe in the accuracy of one of their previous findings . The effort recently yielded a paper that includes six admissions of no confidence . And it ’ s accepting submissions until January 31 .\n“ I do think it ’ s a cultural issue that people are not willing to admit mistakes , ” Rohrer says . “ Our broader goal is to gently nudge the whole scientific system and psychology toward a different culture , ” where it ’ s okay , normalized , and expected for researchers to admit past mistakes and not get penalized for it .\nThe project is timely because a large number of scientific findings have been disproven , or become more doubtful , in recent years . One high-profile effort to retest 100 psychological experiments found only 40 percent replicated with more rigorous methods . It ’ s been a painful period for social scientists , who ’ ve had to deal with failed replications of classic studies and realize their research practices are often weak .\n“ Not knowing the scope of your own ignorance is part of the human condition ”\nIt ’ s been fascinating to watch scientists struggle to make their institutions more humble . And I believe there ’ s an important and underappreciated virtue embedded in this process .\nFor the past few months , I ’ ve been talking to many scholars about intellectual humility , the characteristic that allows for admission of wrongness .\nI ’ ve come to appreciate what a crucial tool it is for learning , especially in an increasingly interconnected and complicated world . As technology makes it easier to lie and spread false information incredibly quickly , we need intellectually humble , curious people .\nI ’ ve also realized how difficult it is to foster intellectual humility . In my reporting on this , I ’ ve learned there are three main challenges on the path to humility :\nIn order for us to acquire more intellectual humility , we all , even the smartest among us , need to better appreciate our cognitive blind spots . Our minds are more imperfect and imprecise than we ’ d often like to admit . Our ignorance can be invisible . Even when we overcome that immense challenge and figure out our errors , we need to remember we won ’ t necessarily be punished for saying , “ I was wrong. ” And we need to be braver about saying it . We need a culture that celebrates those words . We ’ ll never achieve perfect intellectual humility . So we need to choose our convictions thoughtfully .\nThis is all to say : Intellectual humility isn ’ t easy . But damn , it ’ s a virtue worth striving for , and failing for , in this new year .\nIntellectual humility is simply “ the recognition that the things you believe in might in fact be wrong , ” as Mark Leary , a social and personality psychologist at Duke University , tells me .\nBut don ’ t confuse it with overall humility or bashfulness . It ’ s not about being a pushover ; it ’ s not about lacking confidence , or self-esteem . The intellectually humble don ’ t cave every time their thoughts are challenged .\nInstead , it ’ s a method of thinking . It ’ s about entertaining the possibility that you may be wrong and being open to learning from the experience of others . Intellectual humility is about being actively curious about your blind spots . One illustration is in the ideal of the scientific method , where a scientist actively works against her own hypothesis , attempting to rule out any other alternative explanations for a phenomenon before settling on a conclusion . It ’ s about asking : What am I missing here ?\nIt doesn ’ t require a high IQ or a particular skill set . It does , however , require making a habit of thinking about your limits , which can be painful . “ It ’ s a process of monitoring your own confidence , ” Leary says .\nWhen I open myself up to the vastness of my own ignorance , I can ’ t help but feel a sudden suffocating feeling\nThis idea is older than social psychology . Philosophers from the earliest days have grappled with the limits of human knowledge . Michel de Montaigne , the 16th-century French philosopher credited with inventing the essay , wrote that “ the plague of man is boasting of his knowledge . ”\nSocial psychologists have learned that humility is associated with other valuable character traits : People who score higher on intellectual humility questionnaires are more open to hearing opposing views . They more readily seek out information that conflicts with their worldview . They pay more attention to evidence and have a stronger self-awareness when they answer a question incorrectly .\nWhen you ask the intellectually arrogant if they ’ ve heard of bogus historical events like “ Hamrick ’ s Rebellion , ” they ’ ll say , “ Sure. ” The intellectually humble are less likely to do so . Studies have found that cognitive reflection — i.e. , analytic thinking — is correlated with being better able to discern fake news stories from real ones . These studies haven ’ t looked at intellectual humility per se , but it ’ s plausible there ’ s an overlap .\nMost important of all , the intellectually humble are more likely to admit it when they are wrong . When we admit we ’ re wrong , we can grow closer to the truth .\nOne reason I ’ ve been thinking about the virtue of humility recently is because our president , Donald Trump , is one of the least humble people on the planet .\nIt was Trump who said on the night of his nomination , “ I alone can fix it , ” with the “ it ” being our entire political system . It was Trump who once said , “ I have one of the great memories of all time. ” More recently , Trump told the Associated Press , “ I have a natural instinct for science , ” in dodging a question on climate change .\nA frustration I feel about Trump and the era of history he represents is that his pride and his success — he is among the most powerful people on earth — seem to be related . He exemplifies how our society rewards confidence and bluster , not truthfulness .\nYet we ’ ve also seen some very high-profile examples lately of how overconfident leadership can be ruinous for companies . Look at what happened to Theranos , a company that promised to change the way blood samples are drawn . It was all hype , all bluster , and it collapsed . Or consider Enron ’ s overconfident executives , who were often hailed for their intellectual brilliance — they ran the company into the ground with risky , suspect financial decisions .\nThe problem with arrogance is that the truth always catches up . Trump may be president and confident in his denials of climate change , but the changes to our environment will still ruin so many things in the future .\nWhy it ’ s so hard to see our blind spots : “ Our ignorance is invisible to us ”\nAs I ’ ve been reading the psychological research on intellectual humility and the character traits it correlates with , I can ’ t help but fume : Why can ’ t more people be like this ?\nWe need more intellectual humility for two reasons . One is that our culture promotes and rewards overconfidence and arrogance ( think Trump and Theranos , or the advice your career counselor gave you when going into job interviews ) . At the same time , when we are wrong — out of ignorance or error — and realize it , our culture doesn ’ t make it easy to admit it . Humbling moments too easily can turn into moments of humiliation .\nSo how can we promote intellectual humility for both of these conditions ?\nIn asking that question of researchers and scholars , I ’ ve learned to appreciate how hard a challenge it is to foster intellectual humility .\nFirst off , I think it ’ s helpful to remember how flawed the human brain can be and how prone we all are to intellectual blind spots . When you learn about how the brain actually works , how it actually perceives the world , it ’ s hard not to be a bit horrified , and a bit humbled .\nWe often can ’ t see — or even sense — what we don ’ t know . It helps to realize that it ’ s normal and human to be wrong .\nIt ’ s rare that a viral meme also provides a surprisingly deep lesson on the imperfect nature of the human mind . But believe it or not , the great “ Yanny or Laurel ” debate of 2018 fits the bill .\nFor the very few of you who didn ’ t catch it — I hope you ’ re recovering nicely from that coma — here ’ s what happened .\nAn audio clip ( you can hear it below ) says the name “ Laurel ” in a robotic voice . Or does it ? Some people hear the clip and immediately hear “ Yanny. ” And both sets of people — Team Yanny and Team Laurel — are indeed hearing the same thing .\nWhat do you hear ? ! Yanny or Laurel pic.twitter.com/jvHhCbMc8I — Cloe Feldman ( @ CloeCouture ) May 15 , 2018\nHearing , the perception of sound , ought to be a simple thing for our brains to do . That so many people can listen to the same clip and hear such different things should give us humbling pause . Hearing “ Yanny ” or “ Laurel ” in any given moment ultimately depends on a whole host of factors : the quality of the speakers you ’ re using , whether you have hearing loss , your expectations .\nHere ’ s the deep lesson to draw from all of this : Much as we might tell ourselves our experience of the world is the truth , our reality will always be an interpretation . Light enters our eyes , sound waves enter our ears , chemicals waft into our noses , and it ’ s up to our brains to make a guess about what it all is .\n“ The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don ’ t know you ’ re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club ”\nPerceptual tricks like this ( “ the dress ” is another one ) reveal that our perceptions are not the absolute truth , that the physical phenomena of the universe are indifferent to whether our feeble sensory organs can perceive them correctly . We ’ re just guessing . Yet these phenomena leave us indignant : How could it be that our perception of the world isn ’ t the only one ?\nThat sense of indignation is called naive realism : the feeling that our perception of the world is the truth . “ I think we sometimes confuse effortlessness with accuracy , ” Chris Chabris , a psychological researcher who co-authored a book on the challenges of human perception , tells me . When something is so immediate and effortless to us — hearing the sound of “ Yanny ” — it just feels true . ( Similarly , psychologists find when a lie is repeated , it ’ s more likely to be misremembered as being true , and for a similar reason : When you ’ re hearing something for the second or third time , your brain becomes faster to respond to it . And that fluency is confused with truth . )\nOur interpretations of reality are often arbitrary , but we ’ re still stubborn about them . Nonetheless , the same observations can lead to wildly different conclusions .\nDifferent scientific models can have equivalent observational consequences . In # statistics , this is known as statistical equivalence ; in the philosophy of science , underdetermination of theory by # data . This GIF is a really good ( and beautiful ) # dataviz.https : //t.co/7P8wjdAjgO pic.twitter.com/eLTREWzh7F — Talia Bronshtein ( @ ininteraction ) December 7 , 2018\nFor every sense and every component of human judgment , there are illusions and ambiguities we interpret arbitrarily .\nSome are gravely serious . White people often perceive black men to be bigger , taller , and more muscular ( and therefore more threatening ) than they really are . That ’ s racial bias — but it ’ s also a socially constructed illusion . When we ’ re taught or learn to fear other people , our brains distort their potential threat . They seem more menacing , and we want to build walls around them . When we learn or are taught that other people are less than human , we ’ re less likely to look upon them kindly and more likely to be okay when violence is committed against them .\nNot only are our interpretations of the world often arbitrary , but we ’ re often overconfident in them . “ Our ignorance is invisible to us , ” David Dunning , an expert on human blind spots , says .\nYou might recognize his name as half of the psychological phenomenon that bears his name : the Dunning-Kruger effect . That ’ s where people of low ability — let ’ s say , those who fail to understand logic puzzles — tend to unduly overestimate their abilities . Inexperience masquerades as expertise .\nAn irony of the Dunning-Kruger effect is that so many people misinterpret it , are overconfident in their understanding of it , and get it wrong .\nWhen people talk or write about the Dunning-Kruger effect , it ’ s almost always in reference to other people . “ The fact is this is a phenomenon that visits all of us sooner or later , ” Dunning says . We ’ re all overconfident in our ignorance from time to time . ( Perhaps related : Some 65 percent of Americans believe they ’ re more intelligent than average , which is wishful thinking . )\nSimilarly , we ’ re overconfident in our ability to remember . Human memory is extremely malleable , prone to small changes . When we remember , we don ’ t wind back our minds to a certain time and relive that exact moment , yet many of us think our memories work like a videotape .\nDunning hopes his work helps people understand that “ not knowing the scope of your own ignorance is part of the human condition , ” he says . “ But the problem with it is we see it in other people , and we don ’ t see it in ourselves . The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don ’ t know you ’ re a member of the Dunning-Kruger club . ”\nPeople are unlikely to judge you harshly for admitting you ’ re wrong\nIn 2012 , psychologist Will Gervais scored an honor any PhD science student would covet : a co-authored paper in the journal Science , one of the top interdisciplinary scientific journals in the world . Publishing in Science doesn ’ t just help a researcher rise up in academic circles ; it often gets them a lot of media attention too .\nOne of the experiments in the paper tried to see if getting people to think more rationally would make them less willing to report religious beliefs . They had people look at a picture of Rodin ’ s The Thinker or another statue . They thought The Thinker would nudge people to think harder , more analytically . In this more rational frame of mind , then , the participants would be less likely to endorse believing in something as faith-based and invisible as religion , and that ’ s what the study found . It was catnip for science journalists : one small trick to change the way we think .\n“ How would I know if I was wrong ? ” is actually a really , really hard question to answer\nBut it was a tiny , small-sample study , the exact type that is prone to yielding false positives . Several years later , another lab attempted to replicate the findings with a much larger sample size , and failed to find any evidence for the effect .\nAnd while Gervais knew that the original study wasn ’ t rigorous , he couldn ’ t help but feel a twinge of discomfort .\n“ Intellectually , I could say the original data weren ’ t strong , ” he says . “ That ’ s very different from the human , personal reaction to it . Which is like , ‘ Oh , shit , there ’ s going to be a published failure to replicate my most cited finding that ’ s gotten the most media attention. ’ You start worrying about stuff like , ‘ Are there going to be career repercussions ? Are people going to think less of my other work and stuff I ’ ve done ? ’ ”\nGervais ’ s story is familiar : Many of us fear we ’ ll be seen as less competent , less trustworthy , if we admit wrongness . Even when we can see our own errors — which , as outlined above , is not easy to do — we ’ re hesitant to admit it .\nBut turns out this assumption is false . As Adam Fetterman , a social psychologist at the University of Texas El Paso , has found in a few studies , wrongness admission isn ’ t usually judged harshly . “ When we do see someone admit that they are wrong , the wrongness admitter is seen as more communal , more friendly , ” he says . It ’ s almost never the case , in his studies , “ that when you admit you ’ re wrong , people think you are less competent . ”\nSure , there might be some people who will troll you for your mistakes . There might be a mob on Twitter that converges in order to shame you . Some moments of humility could be humiliating . But this fear must be vanquished if we are to become less intellectually arrogant and more intellectually humble .\nHumility can ’ t just come from within — we need environments where it can thrive\nBut even if you ’ re motivated to be more intellectually humble , our culture doesn ’ t always reward it .\nThe field of psychology , overall , has been reckoning with a “ replication crisis ” where many classic findings in the science don ’ t hold up under rigorous scrutiny . Incredibly influential textbook findings in psychology — like the “ ego depletion ” theory of willpower or the “ marshmallow test ” — have been bending or breaking .\nI ’ ve found it fascinating to watch the field of psychology deal with this . For some researchers , the reckoning has been personally unsettling . “ I ’ m in a dark place , ” Michael Inzlicht , a University of Toronto psychologist , wrote in a 2016 blog post after seeing the theory of ego depletion crumble before his eyes . “ Have I been chasing puffs of smoke for all these years ? ”\n“ It ’ s bad to think of problems like this like a Rubik ’ s cube : a puzzle that has a neat and satisfying solution that you can put on your desk ”\nWhat I ’ ve learned from reporting on the “ replication crisis ” is that intellectual humility requires support from peers and institutions . And that environment is hard to build .\n“ What we teach undergrads is that scientists want to prove themselves wrong , ” says Simine Vazire , a psychologist and journal editor who often writes and speaks about replication issues . “ But , ‘ How would I know if I was wrong ? ’ is actually a really , really hard question to answer . It involves things like having critics yell at you and telling you that you did things wrong and reanalyze your data . ”\nAnd that ’ s not fun . Again : Even among scientists — people who ought to question everything — intellectual humility is hard . In some cases , researchers have refused to concede their original conclusions despite the unveiling of new evidence . ( One famous psychologist under fire recently told me angrily , “ I will stand by that conclusion for the rest of my life , no matter what anyone says . ” )\nPsychologists are human . When they reach a conclusion , it becomes hard to see things another way . Plus , the incentives for a successful career in science push researchers to publish as many positive findings as possible .\nThere are two solutions — among many — to make psychological science more humble , and I think we can learn from them .\nOne is that humility needs to be built into the standard practices of the science . And that happens through transparency . It ’ s becoming more commonplace for scientists to preregister — i.e. , commit to — a study design before even embarking on an experiment . That way , it ’ s harder for them to deviate from the plan and cherry-pick results . It also makes sure all data is open and accessible to anyone who wants to conduct a reanalysis .\nThat “ sort of builds humility into the structure of the scientific enterprise , ” Chabris says . “ We ’ re not all-knowing and all-seeing and perfect at our jobs , so we put [ the data ] out there for other people to check out , to improve upon it , come up with new ideas from and so on. ” To be more intellectually humble , we need to be more transparent about our knowledge . We need to show others what we know and what we don ’ t .\nAnd two , there needs to be more celebration of failure , and a culture that accepts it . That includes building safe places for people to admit they were wrong , like the Loss of Confidence Project .\n“ In the end , ” Rohrer says , after getting a lot of positive feedback on the project , “ we ended up with just a handful of statements . ”\nThere ’ s a personal cost to an intellectually humble outlook . For me , at least , it ’ s anxiety .\nWhen I open myself up to the vastness of my own ignorance , I can ’ t help but feel a sudden suffocating feeling . I have just one small mind , a tiny , leaky boat upon which to go exploring knowledge in a vast and knotty sea of which I carry no clear map .\nWhy is it that some people never seem to wrestle with those waters ? That they stand on the shore , squint their eyes , and transform that sea into a puddle in their minds and then get awarded for their false certainty ? “ I don ’ t know if I can tell you that humility will get you farther than arrogance , ” says Tenelle Porter , a University of California Davis psychologist who has studied intellectual humility .\nOf course , following humility to an extreme end isn ’ t enough . You don ’ t need to be humble about your belief that the world is round . I just think more humility , sprinkled here and there , would be quite nice .\n“ It ’ s bad to think of problems like this like a Rubik ’ s cube : a puzzle that has a neat and satisfying solution that you can put on your desk , ” says Michael Lynch , a University of Connecticut philosophy professor . Instead , it ’ s a problem “ you can make progress at a moment in time , and make things better . And that we can do — that we can definitely do . ”\nFor a democracy to flourish , Lynch argues , we need a balance between convictions — our firmly held beliefs — and humility . We need convictions , because “ an apathetic electorate is no electorate at all , ” he says . And we need humility because we need to listen to one another . Those two things will always be in tension .\nThe Trump presidency suggests there ’ s too much conviction and not enough humility in our current culture .\n“ The personal question , the existential question that faces you and I and every thinking human being , is , ‘ How do you maintain an open mind toward others and yet , at the same time , keep your strong moral convictions ? ’ ” Lynch says . “ That ’ s an issue for all of us . ”\nTo be intellectually humble doesn ’ t mean giving up on the ideas we love and believe in . It just means we need to be thoughtful in choosing our convictions , be open to adjusting them , seek out their flaws , and never stop being curious about why we believe what we believe . Again , that ’ s not easy .\nYou might be thinking : “ All the social science cited here about how intellectual humility is correlated with open-minded thinking — what if that ’ s all bunk ? ” To that , I ’ d say the research isn ’ t perfect . Those studies are based on self-reports , where it can be hard to trust that people really do know themselves or that they ’ re being totally honest . And we know that social science findings are often upended .\nBut I ’ m going to take it as a point of conviction that intellectual humility is a virtue . I ’ ll draw that line for myself . It ’ s my conviction .\nCould I be wrong ? Maybe . Just try to convince me otherwise .


Ready for Thanksgiving ? Before you eat that turkey , I hope you think about why America has turkeys for you to eat . Most people do n't know .\nEveryone 's heard about that first Thanksgiving feast -- Pilgrims and Indians sharing the harvest . We like the drawings of it we saw in schoolbooks -- shared bounty .\nFewer people know that before that first feast , the Pilgrims nearly starved .\nThey almost starved because they acted the way some Bernie Sanders fans want people to act . They farmed collectively .\nBut communal farming creates what economists call `` the tragedy of the commons . ''\nThink about what happens if a bunch of ranchers hold land in common . Everyone brings cattle to graze . While that sounds nice , it also means every rancher has an incentive to bring lots of cattle to the pasture . They bring cow after cow until the pasture is overgrazed -- destroyed .\nFor this week 's YouTube video , I repeated an experiment economics teachers sometimes do to demonstrate the tragedy of the commons .\nI assembled a group of people , put coins on the floor in front of them and said , `` I 'll give you a dollar for each coin you pick up . But if you leave them down there for a minute , I 'll give you two bucks per coin , and then three bucks . Each minute the coins increase in value by a dollar . ''\nAs soon as I said `` Go ! '' everyone frantically grabbed for coins . No one wanted to wait because someone else would have gotten the money .\nCollective action makes people more greedy and short-sighted , not less .\nThen I changed the rules of the game . I divided the floor into segments , so each person had his or her own property . Then we played the game again .\nThis time there was no coin-grabbing frenzy . Now patient people anticipated the future .\n`` I want to reap the most benefit , '' said one . `` ( On the previous test ) I wanted it now , whereas this is going up , and it 's mine . ''\nExactly . When you own property , you want to preserve it , to allow it to keep producing good things .\nThat beneficial pattern disappears under collectivism , even if the collectivists are nice people . The Pilgrims started out sharing their land . When crops were ready to harvest , they behaved like the people in my experiment .\nSome Pilgrims sneaked out at night and grabbed extra food . Some picked corn before it was fully ready . The result ?\n`` By the spring , '' Pilgrim leader William Bradford wrote in his diary , `` our food stores were used up and people grew weak and thin . Some swelled with hunger . ''\nAdding to the problem , when people share the results of your work , some do n't work hard . The chance to take advantage of others ' joint labor is too tempting . Teenage Pilgrims were especially likely to steal the commune 's crops .\nHad the Pilgrims continued communal farming , this Thursday might be known as `` Starvation Day '' instead of Thanksgiving .\nFortunately , the Pilgrims were led not by Bernie Sanders fans or other commons-loving socialists , but by Governor Bradford , who wrote that he `` began to think how they might raise as much corn as they could ... that they might not still thus languish in misery ... After much debate ( I ) assigned each family a parcel of land ... ( T ) his had very good success , because it made every hand industrious . ''\nThere 's nothing like private ownership to make `` every hand industrious . ''\nThe Pilgrims never returned to shared planting . Owning plots of land allowed them to prosper and have feasts like the ones we 'll have Thursday .\nPrivate property became the foundation for building the most prosperous nation in the history of the world , a place where people have individual rights instead of group plans forced on everyone .\nWhen an entire economy is based on collectivism , like the Soviet Union was , it eventually collapses from inefficiency and misuse of resources .\nSo this Thanksgiving , thank private property . Every day , it protects us from the tragedy of the commons .


Washington ( CNN ) House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi projected a message of unity Thursday evening at the outset of the congressional baseball game .\nThe joint interview , a first for the two , with CNN 's Jake Tapper on `` Erin Burnett OutFront , '' came a day after House Majority Whip Steve Scalise and others were shot at a Republican baseball practice .\n`` He 's got a ways to go , '' Ryan said of Scalise . `` He 's going to recover . It 's going to take him some time . ''\nPelosi , who like Ryan was wearing Louisiana gear in honor of Scalise , said the injured member was a `` lovely person , '' and hailed the bipartisan spirit of the annual game .\nAsked if the political climate and incidents like Wednesday 's shooting indicated an increased threat to lawmakers , Ryan said it was incumbent on politicians to cool things down across the nation .\nRyan said , `` What we 're trying to do is tone down the rhetoric , lead by example and show people we can disagree with one another , we can have different ideas without being vitriolic , without going to such extremes . ''\nHe added that members of Congress had to meet with the public and needed to strike a balance between `` openness and security . ''\nPelosi noted that in the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords , several of her constituents were also shot -- including a nine-year-old girl who died .\n`` When we evaluate the needs of our members it 's about protecting the members and their constituents as well , '' Pelosi said .\nBoth stressed repeatedly the need for politicians to step away from inflammatory remarks .\nAs for the prospect of passing legislation on a bipartisan basis that could prevent gun violence incidents like Wednesday 's shooting , Ryan pointed to existing mental health legislation .\n`` We 've made some pretty good progress on that , '' Ryan said . `` We now have to execute and implement that progress . ''\nPelosi said there is desire among Democrats for a task force on gun safety to study the issue .\n`` But that 's not for today , '' Pelosi said . `` Today is about coming together and celebrating the greatness of Steve Scalise . ''\nRyan and Pelosi have sought to present a unified front since the shooting . Shortly after the incident , the pair addressed a packed House chamber , calling for unity and condemning the attack .\nSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer echoed Pelosi and Ryan 's calls for unity .\n`` We want everybody to know that we 've always had a robust discussion of the issues in this country throughout our history , '' McConnell told CNN 's Anderson Cooper on Thursday in a joint interview with Schumer . `` But we do n't dislike each other . We work together all the time . ... We have our political arguments but at the end of the day , we are all Americans . And I think everybody needs to remember that because we 're all in this thing together . ''\nSchumer said he hopes the tragedy can bring the parties even `` closer together . ''\n`` We work together pretty closely before this tragedy , '' he said . `` But if it can help bring things closer together and help us all work closer together , it 's a horrible way to do it . We all pray for Mr. Scalise and all the other people 's speedy recovery , but let 's hope we can get some good at this tragedy. ``\nBoth agreed that arguments between Republicans and Democrats often make the news , but cooperation between the two parties does n't .\n`` If we can still , despite the rhetoric , work together in areas where we can work together and the Senate as the cooling saucer help and bring people together a little bit , that 's a very good thing and I know Mitch does because we 've talked about it , and I do -- we aim to do it , '' Schumer said .\nBut as several voices supportive of President Donald Trump , like former House Speaker Newt Gingrich , drew lines between anti-Trump rhetoric and the shooting , Pelosi pushed back earlier Thursday , arguing the Republican insistence that Democratic rhetoric was to blame for the shooting rang hollow , given the long record of `` vitriolic '' language from the Republican side of the aisle .\nThe alleged gunman expressed intense opposition to Republicans on social media and identified himself as a supporter of Sen. Bernie Sanders .\nSanders took to the Senate floor on Wednesday to say the gunman had `` apparently volunteered '' for his campaign . He said the shooting `` sickened '' him and stressed his commitment to nonviolent action .\nIn the Thursday interview , Ryan said he wanted to find more opportunities for Republicans and Democrats to `` break bread '' together .


Are people who disagree with us necessarily evil ? Of course not . While advocating , defending , or fighting for our own principles and positions , harboring feelings of animosity toward our opponents is a poison that can rob us of our happiness and health .\nWhen I was in law school at Michigan nearly half a century ago , my criminal law professor shared a statement that I ’ ve never forgotten . He said that a clever person focuses on how he is different from others , while a wise person focuses on what he has in common with others . ( Thank you , professor Kamisar . )\nRecently , I found a point of agreement with a hardcore socialist . While doing some research about the allegations of sexual assault leveled against Virginia ’ s Lt. Gov . Justin Fairfax , I came across an article from the World Socialist Web Site . The author , Barry Grey , made two points that agreed with my conservative values : 1 ) Fairfax should not be denied due process of law ; and 2 ) we can ’ t automatically accept as true every allegation of sexual assault . ( Anyone familiar with the 1955 torture-murder of 14-year-old Emmett Till , whose female accuser recanted years later , would resist the siren call to “ always believe women . ” )\nI disagree with Grey ’ s overall politics . In his article , he laments the removal of Al Franken from the Senate “ after he was accused of minor sexual improprieties. ” His reason : Franken ’ s resignation shifted the balance of the Senate slightly toward the conservative side , rendering “ abortion rights ” less secure . Aha , I thought . Would Grey have defended pro-life Brett Kavanaugh ’ s right to due process last fall during Justice Kavanaugh ’ s confirmation hearings ?\nI went first to the Socialist Worker website , where I found a collection of opinions from eight of its contributors . Every single one of them called for Kavanaugh ’ s scalp , due process be damned . But when I tracked down Grey ’ s Oct. 4 commentary on the Kavanaugh hearings , he unflinchingly rebuked the Democratic lynch mob for rejecting “ the presumption of innocence ” and for showing “ contempt for basic democratic rights , including due process. ” Bravo ! While I remain miles apart from Grey ’ s political goals , I commend him for his integrity and courage in adhering faithfully to crucial principles of justice .\nThere is another recent issue where I find myself in agreement with a large number of people on the left . When Amazon announced that it was abandoning its plan to expand its headquarters into Queens , New York , the left exulted for a variety of reasons , most of them nonsensical and riddled with standard class-warfare boilerplate . Typical of the latter , Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ( D-N.Y. ) effusively wrote on Twitter , “ Today was the day a group of dedicated , everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon ’ s corporate greed , its worker exploitation , and the power of the richest man in the world . ”\nWhat actually happened was that Amazon decided to walk away from nearly $ 3 billion in tax breaks because of the financial beating they were facing from a cabal of NYC unions and politicians . Whatever “ greed ” Amazon was guilty of was exceeded by the unions ’ greed . The scheme that had been hatched in the cesspool of Big Apple politics was that Amazon would be lured by tax breaks , and then the unions would latch onto Amazon and leech billions away from it . Amazon was being wooed as the patsy , or the conduit , through which the $ 3 billion of tax breaks—tax breaks that would have to be covered by the rest of the local taxpayers—would pass through Amazon and end up in the pockets of unions and other political insiders .\nWhat Ocasio-Cortez called “ the power of the richest man in the world ” ( Jeff Bezos ) was no match for the power of the NYC political machine . That ’ s why Bezos wisely bailed out before his company could be fleeced . That prudent decision is a shame for the thousands of New Yorkers who would love to have been “ exploited ” ( Ocasio-Cortez ’ s characterization ) by one of the many six-figure jobs that Amazon would have created in Queens .\nAll that having been said , I join with the progressives in celebrating that NYC ’ s taxpayers will no longer have to be stuck paying for a $ 3 billion subsidy to a private business . There is no principle of justice that justifies such a lavish privilege being bestowed on any private enterprise , much less a business as large and profitable as Amazon . Such political cronyism is unfair and corrupt .\nTragically , such cronyism is often erroneously called “ crony capitalism. ” The truth is that there is no such thing as “ crony capitalism ” any more than there is “ liquid ice ” ; both terms are oxymorons . Capitalism is a social system of economic cooperation , based on private property and voluntary exchanges , in which the government plays the role of an impartial referee while consumers choose winners and losers in freely competitive marketplaces . Cronyism , on the other hand , is a repudiation of capitalism . With cronyism , the government abandons its role as impartial arbiter and instead intervenes to enrich special interests at the expense of everybody else . By its very nature , cronyism is a step toward socialism , because both involve the government picking economic winners and losers .\nProgressives deservedly win lots of popular support by opposing the abuses and unfairness of cronyism . Those of us who believe in free markets should oppose and denounce cronyism with equal vigor . When I read polls showing that capitalism is viewed with increasing negativity by Americans—particularly young Americans—I can ’ t help but feel that cronyism plays a big part in fostering that antipathy . What is so insidious about this is that people keep mislabeling cronyism as crony capitalism . Consequently , capitalism ’ s reputation sustains damage from unmerited association with the corrupt practice of cronyism .\nWe conservatives oppose cronyism because it is an assault on property rights and the rule of law . We can join with progressives in denouncing a privilege that politicians give to those who neither need it nor deserve it , and who certainly have no just claim to the wealth of their fellow citizens . If there is one area of public policy where left and right may unite today , it would be around the goal of eliminating the cronyism of corporate welfare .\nMark Hendrickson is an adjunct professor of economics and sociology at Grove City College . He is the author of several books , including “ The Big Picture : The Science , Politics , and Economics of Climate Change . ”\nViews expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times .


Latinos in Iowa , overlooked as a political force for years in the state that kicks off the U.S. presidential race , have been getting unprecedented attention in a too-close-to-call Democratic White House nominating fight .\nThe predominantly white state has seen the Hispanic share of its population more than double to 6.2 % since 2000 , making it Iowa ’ s biggest minority group and a crucial voting bloc that could spell the difference in Monday 's state caucuses and in the November election .\nA young girl is carried down steps during a Spanish spoken church service at St. Joseph Catholic Church . The population growth has spurred many Democrats seeking the nomination to face President Donald Trump in November to hire Latino or Spanish-speaking staff and tailor some campaign events to court Latinos , while activists have scrambled to register new Hispanic voters and maximize their clout .\nA lit up sign reading 'We speak Spanish ' in Spanish , stands outside a dental clinic . It has also changed the nature of life in some cities and towns in Iowa . In West Liberty , a small Hispanic-majority community with 3,700 residents , the school system has a dual-language program and some churches hold two services , one in English and one in Spanish . `` It has strengthened the town to have two cultures living and working together , with mutual respect , and it opens the door to more people moving here , '' said Brenda Arthur-Miller , the high school principal in West Liberty and director of the dual language program .\nPeople listen to the West Liberty Area Arts Council Friday Night Concert in Ron-de-Voo Park . But the growth in Iowa 's Hispanic population , a community largely of Mexican heritage , so far has not been matched by progress in its political power . Language barriers have hindered participation , particularly in the sometimes confusing caucuses . Hispanic activists estimate as few as 3,000 Latinos participated in Iowa 's 2016 presidential caucuses , out of more than 50,000 who were registered to vote . To help remedy that , the state Democratic Party has agreed to at least five Spanish-language satellite caucus sites on Monday . Some local officials are scrambling to get interpreters in place at other locations .\nA man drinks a beer during a Quinceanera celebration at Flamas Night Club . The League of United Latin American Citizens , a Hispanic advocacy group known more commonly as LULAC , launched a registration drive it says has signed up 10,000 new Hispanic voters ahead of Monday 's caucuses . It also held mock caucus sessions to spread the word on the process and help train potential voters on how they work . `` Our long-term goal is to keep doing the same thing through the November election and beyond . We want to keep the momentum going , '' said Nick Salazar , state director of LULAC and state co-chairman of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign .\nLeft : A Pioneer sign stands in a field , on a farm .\nRight : An eagle model decoration , sits on the front yard of a house .\nChildren dance during a Quinceanera celebration at Flamas Night Club . The crowded field of Democratic presidential contenders has made up for it in this campaign , however , heavily courting Latinos in the state ahead of a general election campaign likely to be influenced by Trump 's divisive rhetoric and policies on immigration . For instance , the Sanders campaign , which has hosted more than a dozen `` Unidos con Bernie '' events around the state , created a Spanish-language digital ad featuring Sanders ' father , who immigrated to the United States from Poland .\nBilly Danner , a farmer , moves soy beans from a grain elevator to a truck , to be transported in the town of West Liberty .\nStory With the Hispanic population expected to more than double again by 2050 , according to the State Data Center of Iowa , Salazar said the community was trying to build a tradition of civic engagement . `` When people think about rural Iowa they think of white farmers , but many of these communities will keep becoming more diverse and more Latino , '' Salazar said .


“ Biden is calming at a time when people are hearing nothing but nasty noise , and that juxtaposition is to his advantage , ” says Jeff Link , an Iowa-based Democratic consultant .\nFor Mr. Biden , the volatile landscape is presenting an increasingly challenging balancing act . He is under renewed pressure to shore up support among progressives , without alienating swing voters who had been moving in his direction . Above all , he must somehow convince a fractured and exhausted nation that the problems it faces are fixable – and that finding consensus is both possible and desirable .\nThe pandemic has taken more than 100,000 American lives and sent the economy into a tailspin that has left millions unemployed . Over the past two weeks , the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police has sparked massive protests for racial justice across the country .\nBut after a stretch of tumultuous events nearly unprecedented in modern U.S. history , the task of unifying the nation has never seemed more daunting .\nFrom the start , Joe Biden has framed his candidacy around the concept of unity . “ The country is sick of the division . They ’ re sick of the fighting , ” the former vice president said at his campaign kickoff in Philadelphia last year .\nFrom the start , Joe Biden has framed his candidacy around the concept of unity . In his campaign kickoff speech last year , he accused President Donald Trump of fanning , rather than working to bridge , partisan and racial divides – evoking a nation that , in his view , was yearning to come together .\n“ The country is sick of the division . They ’ re sick of the fighting , ” the former vice president said in Philadelphia .\n“ Our Constitution doesn ’ t begin with the phrase ‘ We the Democrats , ’ ‘ We the Republicans , ’ ” he said . “ We are all in this together . We need to remember that today , I think more than any time in my career . ”\nMr. Biden ’ s decisive primary victories earlier this spring seemed to affirm that view . But as the campaign now moves into the general election phase – after a stretch of tumultuous events nearly unprecedented in modern U.S. history – the task of unifying the nation has never seemed more daunting .\nThe past three months have upended politics as usual , with the pandemic taking more than 100,000 American lives and sending the economy into a tailspin that has left millions unemployed . Over the past two weeks , the death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police has sparked massive protests for racial justice across the country .\nFor Mr. Biden , the volatile landscape is presenting an increasingly challenging balancing act . He is under renewed pressure to shore up support among progressives who have been less enthusiastic about his candidacy , without alienating the swing voters who had been moving in his direction . Above all , he must somehow convince a fractured and exhausted nation that the problems it faces are fixable – and that finding consensus on those challenges is both possible and desirable .\n“ He ’ s being challenged to balance all these things , because Trump has so utterly failed to balance them , ” says Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware . “ This is a moment that demands leadership from someone who understands how to respond to a pandemic and bring us together . ... I think [ Mr. Biden ] is exactly the right man for the moment . ”\nMr. Biden has seized multiple opportunities in recent weeks to try to cast himself as a healer in chief .\nOn the same day U.S. Park Police in Washington cleared a group of peaceful protesters from Lafayette Square with tear gas and rubber bullets so that Mr. Trump could pose for a photograph outside historic St. John ’ s Church , Mr. Biden was sitting in a black church in Wilmington , Delaware , listening to community leaders from 6 feet away .\nLess than 24 hours later , Mr. Biden gave a speech in Philadelphia to a country he described as “ crying out for leadership. ” He called on Congress to enact a law banning police chokeholds and to create “ a model use-of-force standard. ” He also promised to create a national police oversight commission .\nOn Monday , Mr. Biden was scheduled to meet privately with the Floyd family , and he is expected to attend Mr. Floyd ’ s funeral in Houston on Tuesday .\n“ Biden is calming at a time when people are hearing nothing but nasty noise , and that juxtaposition is to his advantage , ” says Jeff Link , an Iowa-based political consultant who has advised several Democratic presidential candidates . “ Biden doesn ’ t have to outshout Trump , but he has to show how he ’ s different . ”\nMr. Biden has deep reservoirs of affection in the African American community , among whom he built enduring relationships during the Obama years . It was black voters who carried him to a resounding win in South Carolina , reviving a candidacy that had appeared to be on its last legs , and ultimately helping make him the Democratic nominee . He officially secured the 1,991 delegates needed to claim the nomination this weekend .\nBut he is viewed less favorably by a younger , more left-wing generation , which sees him as too moderate to bring about needed change . Mr. Biden does not support calls to “ defund the police , ” which has become a rallying cry on the left in recent days . While he favors increased spending on other social programs , his campaign said Monday , he wants to increase , not decrease , police budgets for things like body cameras and training .\nMr. Biden has long-standing ties to union groups , including cops and firefighters , some of which have been trending more conservative in recent election cycles , and which Democrats were hoping to win back this year . In recent days , some law enforcement groups have expressed unhappiness with what they see as Mr. Biden ’ s failure to demonstrate sufficient support for their side , showing just how difficult it may be for him – or anyone – to bridge those divides .\nIn a poll released last week by Monmouth University , 89 % of Democrats said they had “ no confidence at all ” in Mr. Trump ’ s ability to handle race relations . But only 32 % of Democrats had a “ great deal ” of confidence in Mr. Biden on the matter . Among Republicans , 58 % had a great deal of confidence in Mr. Trump , while 58 % had no confidence at all in Mr. Biden .\nProtesters gathering around a graffitied Robert E. Lee statue in Richmond , Virginia , last week said recent events had heightened their expectations of Mr. Biden from just two weeks ago .\n“ He thinks he ’ s automatically got the black vote because he was the right-hand man to a black president , ” says Chenae Kirkland . “ But he ’ s got to have a hand in these police departments , show us what he ’ d do , ” adds her friend Leshayne Vialet , both bank employees .\nMaking promises is better than a photo op , they say – but it ’ s not enough .\nSome express concerns about Mr. Biden ’ s own track record during his 36-year career in the Senate . In the 1970s , he was a vocal opponent of school busing , and he helped write the 1994 crime bill , which many believe was a key contributor to mass incarceration that has disproportionately affected black men .\n“ I felt like he was involved with all the stuff that ’ s led to where we are now , ” says Andre Lynch , an Uber driver , gesturing to the dozens of activists climbing up the Lee statue . He adds , “ When he ends up running this country , he ’ ll have a chance to redeem himself , especially after watching all of this unfold . ”\nOf course , to have that opportunity , Mr. Biden needs to win the election . Recent polls have shown him gaining ground against the president . According to a Fox News survey , Mr. Biden is now ahead in Wisconsin , Ohio , and Arizona – all battleground states the president won in 2016 , while the Monmouth poll has Mr. Biden with an 11-point lead over Mr. Trump overall . But these polls are mostly about Mr. Trump , says Patrick Murray , director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute .\n“ More so than any prior incumbent election , this is a referendum , ” Mr. Murray says . But Mr. Biden still has to “ get out there ” and prove himself to Democratic voters .\nAnd Mr. Biden faces unique challenges when it comes to unifying his party , not least because of COVID-19 , says Robert Shrum , a longtime Democratic strategist and director of the University of Southern California ’ s Center for the Political Future . For three months , all campaign rallies have been canceled or turned into awkward “ virtual ” events , making it difficult for a candidate who thrives on rope lines and personal connections to reach voters .\nThe nominee ’ s acceptance speech at the party convention is typically an important moment , notes Mr. Shrum . “ Just look at Al Gore in 2000 , ” he says . “ He gained 15 to 18 points in 47 minutes. ” But this year ’ s Democratic convention is increasingly looking like it will be held online , diminishing Mr. Biden ’ s ability to generate a big bounce .\nIt ’ s also unclear if televised debates between the candidates will happen . In a debate , Mr. Biden would have an opportunity to try to blunt Mr. Trump ’ s charges that the former vice president is “ senile ” and “ sleepy , ” just as John F. Kennedy countered Richard Nixon ’ s claims that he was too young and inexperienced to assume the presidency in 1960 .\nIn the potential absence of these traditional events , Mr. Biden will need to be creative in how he engages voters , says Mr. Shrum . And his vice presidential pick will likely carry even more weight – not only because of Mr. Biden ’ s age , but also because of the absence of other high-profile campaign moments .\nAbove all , say several strategists , Mr. Biden needs to try to stay in the public eye as he has over the past week , and propose policies that follow through on his promise to bring unity .\n“ Part of [ Mr. Trump ’ s ] strategy will be to undermine voters ’ confidence in Joe Biden , ” says Monmouth ’ s Mr. Murray . “ That ’ s why Biden has to be out there – so he can change people ’ s minds from ‘ I think he can do a good job ’ to ‘ I know he can do a good job . ’ ”\nAt the same time , Mr. Biden has made a point throughout the campaign of keeping the focus less on himself and more on the country .\nIn 2019 , Mr. Biden ’ s campaign announcement video was centered on Charlottesville , Virginia , where two years earlier white supremacists had shocked the nation as they marched with tiki torches . In the video , Mr. Biden referenced Mr. Trump ’ s response to the event as a key moment that pushed him to run for president .\n“ We are in a battle for the soul of this nation , ” he said . “ We can ’ t forget what happened in Charlottesville . Even more important , we have to remember who we are . ”\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\n“ I see Joe responding in a way that reflects who he ’ s always been , ” says Senator Coons . “ It ’ s not about him . It ’ s about us . ”


Jordan Peterson , the controversial academic , has launched a new anti-censorship website that will only take down offensive content if specifically ordered to by a US court .\nThe psychology professor from Toronto said that Carl Benjamin , the failed Ukip MEP candidate who speculated about raping the Labour MP Jess Phillips , had agreed to test the subscription-only site , named Thinkspot .\nHow dangerous is Jordan B Peterson , the rightwing professor who 'hit a hornets ' nest ' ? Read more\nPeterson has a cult following among rightwingers for controversial views about identity politics and has become a hate figure for many on the left . Earlier this year the University of Cambridge rescinded an offer of visiting fellowship to Peterson after backlash from staff and students .\nPeterson said he hoped the site would be a censorship-free alternative to Patreon , an online membership service that at one stage made the Canadian $ 80,000 per month .\nHe said : “ It ’ ll be a subscription service . And so that ’ s partly what makes it a replacement for Patreon to some degree , because we want to be able to monetise creators . ”\nThe terms of service for the new site take an extreme position on free speech . Peterson said : “ Once you ’ re on our platform , we won ’ t take you down , unless we ’ re ordered to by a US court of law . That ’ s basically the idea . So we ’ re trying to make an anti-censorship platform . ”\nPeterson , who describes himself as a “ professor against political correctness ” said that Benjamin , who blogs under the name Sargon of Akkad , was one of a handful of controversial figures who had been invited to test the initiative .\nHe said : “ I think we ’ ve got four , five or six people who are lined up . [ Dave ] Rubin is going to use it . I ’ m going to use it , James Altucher , Jocko Willink , Michael Shermer , oh and Carl Benjamin , Sargon of Akkad . They ’ ll be our first beta testers fundamentally . ”\nPeterson called for more testers of the site on his Twitter account . He said : “ I ’ m backing a new platform called Thinkspot , currently in beta . Get on the waitlist here , exciting announcements coming very soon . ”\nComments on the site would be voted on by users on a thumbs up or down basis . “ If your ratio of down votes to up votes , falls below 50/50 , then your comments will be hidden , ” Peterson said .\nHe said there were still problems on the site to iron out , but added : “ It would be nice to have a censorship-free platform if we could figure out how to do that . ”\n• This article ’ s subheading was amended on 24 June 2019 to change the description of Jordan Peterson from a “ rightwing academic ” to a “ controversial academic ” .


WASHINGTON—Federal regulators this week are expected to unveil their plans for reversing Obama-era rules that require internet-service providers to treat all web traffic equally , a move that could fundamentally reshape the internet economy and consumers ’ online experience .\nThe changes , expected to be adopted at the Federal Communications Commission meeting in mid-December , would open the door to a wide range of new opportunities for internet providers , such as forming alliances with content firms to serve up their webpages or video at higher speeds and quality than those without such deals .\nSuch “ paid prioritization ” was explicitly blocked under the 2015 rules , which required internet service providers to keep all corners of the internet equally accessible to consumers , and limited the providers ’ ability to favor content , including their own .\nThe new rules are expected to thoroughly dismantle the “ open internet ” plan adopted by the Obama administration ’ s FCC , say industry officials familiar with them . Advocates of the current approach , including consumer groups and big internet companies , argued that such regulation is needed to curb the power of the broadband providers to unfairly dominate the online environment through their control over the pipes .\nProponents of reversing them , including current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai , say hard-and-fast rules can stifle investment and innovation in a fast-moving industry . Internet service providers worried the Obama administration rules could open the door to eventual rate regulation and other heavy-handed oversight . They also viewed the rules as a solution in search of a problem , given the internet ’ s relative openness historically .\n“ The winners are clearly the network operators , ” said Recon Analytics Inc. researcher Roger Entner . He said the internet service providers would be able to more aggressively pursue specialized services for medical customers and self-driving cars , both of which could benefit from faster broadband speeds .\nIt remains to be seen how much the rules ’ demise might help the telecommunications industry ’ s bottom line , however , said Cowen Co. analyst Paul Gallant .\nBig internet companies , which supported the Obama administration rules , protested the move through their industry trade association .\n“ There is simply no reasonable justification for repealing the net neutrality protections currently on the books , ” said Michael Beckerman , president and chief executive officer of the Internet Association . “ Consumers are paying for access to the entire internet , and [ internet providers ] should not be able to discriminate against websites and apps . ”\nMr. Pai began the process of reversing the 2015 rules earlier this year .\nIf the rollback survives likely legal challenges , it has the potential to reorder the online business environment . It could give internet providers such as AT & T Inc. , Comcast Corp. , Charter Communications Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. more flexibility to use bundles of services and creative pricing to make their favored content more attractive to consumers .\nGetting Online Largest broadband providers at the end of the third quarter 2017 . Phone company Cable company Subscibers Comcast 25.5 million Charter