Conservatives blast Biden for 2020 post criticizing Trump following Yemen air strike: ‘That aged well’
President Biden is coming under fire from conservatives for posts he posted as a presidential candidate in 2020, when he condemned then-President Trump for bombing Iran without congressional approval in light of Thursday’s bombing of Yemen by the Biden administration. “Let’s be clear: Donald Trump does not have the authority to take us into war with Iran without Congressional approval,” Biden posted in January 2020 after Trump launched a strike that killed the commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, Qassem Soleimani. “A president should never take this nation to war without the informed consent of the American people,” Biden added. “As President, I will use military power responsibly and as a last resort. We will not go back to forever wars in the Middle East,” Biden posted in February 2020 with the hashtag “#DemDebate.” IN RARE MOVE TOP REPUBLICANS BACK BIDEN’S AIRSTRIKES ON HOUTHI REBELS IN YEMEN: ‘OVERDUE BUT WELCOME’ On Thursday, the Biden administration announced it launched missile strikes in Yemen in response to attacks by Iran-backed Houthi rebels on ships in the Red Sea. That action, in addition to sparking outrage within the progressive left, prompted conservatives to bring up Biden’s previous posts on social media. “It’s (D)ifferent when Biden does it,” conservative commentator Benny Johnson posted on X. “This aged well,” GOP Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna posted on X. “:) when you’re a democrat they let you do it,” Washington Free Beacon reporter Joe Simonson posted on X. YEMEN’S IRANIAN-BACKED HOUTHIS LAUNCH LARGEST RED SEA DRONE AND MISSILE ATTACK TO DATE “Welp…,” combat veteran and author Sean Parnell posted on X. Several conservatives also pointed out that the Biden administration lifted the terrorist designation for the Houthis in Yemen less than a month after Biden took office in 2021. Omri Ceren, who serves as a national security adviser to Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, posted on X, “They knew they were doing bad things for bad reasons so they lied to the public and reporters about their decision. As the Houthis escalated, they couldn’t respond. They’re still doing it.” Some Democrats took issue with Biden’s post as well, including Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib and progressive activist Nina Turner, who posted on X saying, “Tonight, @JoeBiden dropped bombs on Yemen without Congressional approval.” “[Biden] is violating Article I of the Constitution by carrying out airstrikes in Yemen without congressional approval. The American people are tired of endless war,” Tlaib posted. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately receive a response. President Biden said he had authorized the strikes “in direct response to unprecedented Houthi attacks against international maritime vessels in the Red Sea—including the use of anti-ship ballistic missiles for the first time in history.” These Houthi attacks, Biden said, have endangered U.S. personnel and its allies and have threatened freedom of navigation. “These targeted strikes are a clear message that the United States and our partners will not tolerate attacks on our personnel or allow hostile actors to imperil freedom of navigation in one of the world’s most critical commercial routes,” the president said. “I will not hesitate to direct further measures to protect our people and the free flow of international commerce as necessary.” Fox News Digital’s Bradford Betz contributed to this report
Blue state Republicans move to strike this ‘catastrophic’ drug law they say is wreaking havoc on communities
Oregon House Republicans are sharing their plan to end the state’s voter-approved drug decriminalization experiment at the same time Democratic lawmakers are weighing a more modest re-criminalization proposal. “The citizens of Oregon understand the failures of Measure 110,” Rep. Rick Lewis, one of the chief sponsors of the GOP bill, said in a statement. “We see the results on the streets, in the unacceptable overdose death rate and in the catastrophic consequences to our communities, to public safety and to livability. Change is needed, and we can’t afford to take small steps that fail to adequately address the problem.” ‘ENORMOUS MISTAKE’: BUSINESS LEADERS, RESIDENTS FED UP WITH BLUE STATE DRUG LAWS ISSUE 2024 ULTIMATUM About 58% of Oregon voters passed Measure 110 in 2020, decriminalizing small amounts of all drugs and redirecting much of the state’s marijuana tax revenue to fund grants for addiction services. Since then, addiction and overdose deaths have skyrocketed in Oregon and nationwide as fentanyl swept across the country. Now, three years into the first-of-its-kind law, numerous polls show Oregonians favor re-criminalizing hard drugs and making treatment required, not voluntary, as a jail alternative. The Republican bill would make possession of drugs like fentanyl, heroin and meth a Class A misdemeanor and would require treatment to avoid jail. If convicted, drug users could face up to a year in jail, a $6,250 fine, or both. “Enabling people to live on the streets and poison themselves is not compassionate,” Rep. Tracy Cramer said in a statement. The bill would also ban public drug use and set harsher prison sentences for drug dealers, especially if they sell drugs that result in a person’s death. PORTLAND WOMAN KNOCKED OUT BY ATTACKER BLAMES CITY FOR SLOW POLICE RESPONSE: ‘WE DID THIS TO OURSELVES’ Democrats, who control both chambers of the state legislature, have also signaled a desire to roll back parts of Measure 110 during their upcoming 35-day legislative session. One possibility is making possession a Class C misdemeanor, the lowest crime classification. But reform advocates staunchly oppose re-criminalizing drugs. “Any action by the Oregon legislature that criminalizes addiction would be cruel, harmful, and a failure of leadership,” read a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon, Health Justice Recovery Alliance and other groups supporting Measure 110. “We cannot regress back to the failed war on drug tactics that harm Black, brown, and poor people and make drug addiction, overdose deaths, and homelessness more difficult and expensive to solve,” the statement continued. WATCH MORE FOX NEWS DIGITAL ORIGINALS HERE In Portland, where the effects of Oregon’s drug laws are most stark, city officials have been urging the state to take action. “We need to give tools to our first responders so they can take action,” City Commissioner Dan Ryan told Fox News on Thursday. “If someone is smoking fentanyl in public and it’s causing harm to those who are trying to access the sidewalk, then the police need to be able to respond to that … It’s just common sense.” Portland’s City Council unanimously passed an ordinance banning public drug use in September. But city officials said the law couldn’t go into effect until state lawmakers pass a new law allowing them to enforce it. Senate Majority Leader Kate Lieber told the Capital Chronicle that Democrats are working with Republicans to “put together a proposal that connects people to addiction treatment, gets drugs off our streets, and keeps our communities safe.” “We know we cannot go back to the failed war on drugs, and we cannot continue to allow Oregonians to die of drug overdoses on our streets,” Lieber said in a statement to the outlet. “A policy has not been finalized, but once we do have a proposal to put forward, we look forward to thoroughly vetting the ideas through a public process.” The short session begins Feb. 5. A coalition of political and business leaders in Oregon have also lobbied the legislature to reform Measure 110 and promises to send a ballot measure to the voters if lawmakers don’t take action next month.
Hunter Biden lawyers say they will ‘comply for a hearing or deposition’ if House panels issue new subpoena
FIRST ON FOX: Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell told the House Oversight and House Judiciary Committees on Friday that if a new subpoena is issued under the “duly authorized impeachment inquiry,” the first son “will comply for a hearing or deposition.” The House Oversight and Judiciary Committees this week formally recommended to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress, after he defied congressional subpoenas for a closed-door deposition as part of the House impeachment inquiry against President Biden. HOUSE RULES COMMITTEE TO CONSIDER HUNTER BIDEN CONTEMPT RESOLUTIONS NEXT WEEK, SETTING UP FLOOR VOTE But Lowell penned a letter to the committees on Friday, saying the initial subpoenas were “legally invalid” as they were issued before the full House of Representatives voted to formalize the impeachment inquiry against the president. “If you issue a new proper subpoena, now that there is a duly authorized impeachment inquiry, Mr. Biden will comply for a hearing or deposition,” Lowell wrote. “We will accept such a subpoena on Mr. Biden’s behalf.” Lowell’s offer comes ahead of a House Rules Committee meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 16, where lawmakers will prepare a contempt of Congress resolution. Once prepared, it will set up a full floor vote on whether to recommend the first son for prosecution on the matter. Sources told Fox News Digital a full House vote on the matter could come as early as Wednesday. Lowell, in a footnote, states that “Rep. Glenn Ivey suggested a procedure for a hybrid process-a public deposition; hearing with alternating rounds of questions for Republicans and Democrats, and with similar rules (e.g., role of counsel in questioning), as is done in a closed-door deposition.” HOUSE COMMITTEES FORMALLY RECOMMEND TO HOLD HUNTER BIDEN IN CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS “Four Republicans actually voted in committee in support of this process,” the footnote states. “Perhaps that could be the basis for our discussion.” Hunter Biden made a surprise appearance at the House Oversight Committee markup with his attorneys Abbe Lowell and Kevin Morris. Biden and his attorneys ultimately left the markup session before the vote on the resolution. Hunter Biden, ahead of his subpoenaed deposition on Dec. 13, had offered to testify publicly. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, rejected his request, stressing that the first son would not have special treatment and pointed to the dozens of other witnesses who have appeared, as compelled, for their interviews and depositions. Comer and Jordan vowed to release the transcript of Hunter Biden’s deposition. The first son, though, defied the subpoena, ignored the offer and delivered a public statement outside the Capitol. At the time, he said his father “was not financially involved in my business.” Comer said Wednesday that Hunter Biden “blantantly defied two lawful subpoenas.” Comer said “Hunter Biden’s willful refusal to comply with the committees’ subpoenas is a criminal act” that “constitutes contempt of Congress and warrants referral to the appropriate United States Attorney’s Office for prosecution as prescribed by law.” HOUSE GOP SAYS HUNTER BIDEN ‘VIOLATED FEDERAL LAW’ BY DEFYING SUBPOENA, PREPARE CONTEMPT RESOLUTION “We will not provide Hunter Biden with special treatment because of his last name,” Comer said. “All Americans must be treated equally under the law. And that includes the Bidens.” Lowell’s offer also comes after Hunter Biden on Thursday pleaded not guilty to all federal tax charges stemming from Special Counsel David Weiss’s investigation. Hunter Biden also pleaded not guilty in September to all federal gun charges from Weiss’ probe. Meanwhile, the White House refused to answer questions on whether it was told in advance that Hunter Biden would attend the House Oversight’s markup session on Wednesday. “So here’s what I’ll say. And I’ve said this many times before: Hunter, as you all know, as a private citizen, he’s not a member of this White House,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. “He makes his own decisions, like he did today about how to respond to Congress.” She went on to refer “any further questions, any additional questions about this process” to Hunter Biden’s attorneys. When pressed again on whether the White House was informed in advance, Jean-Pierre said, “I don’t have anything — we don’t have anything else to share beyond that.” Last month, Comer and Jordan expanded their investigation to probe whether President Biden was involved in his son’s “scheme” to defy his subpoena for deposition, which, they say, “could constitute an impeachable offense.”
Rand Paul declares he is ‘never Nikki,’ weighs in on 2024 presidential race
Sen. Rand Paul has released a video and launched a website on Friday declaring that he is “never Nikki” Haley in the 2024 presidential race. The Kentucky Republican made the announcement in a clip posted on X, in which he said “I’ve had a long relationship with Donald Trump and there is a lot to like there” and that “I am also a big fan of a lot of the fiscal conservatism of Ron DeSantis.” “I think Vivek Ramaswamy has been an important voice. Also, I’ve listened to and met with the independent Bobby Kennedy,” he continued. “I’m not yet ready to make a decision, but I am ready to make a decision on someone who I cannot support, so I’m announcing this morning that I am never Nikki.” Paul then directed viewers toward the website NeverNikki.net, which outlines his criticisms of the former South Carolina governor and U.N. ambassador. The website features a red line through the name Nikki and says it is “paid for by Rand Paul for US Senate.” HALEY KNOCKS MEDIA OVER EXPECTATIONS BUT PREDICTS ‘BIG SHOWING’ IN IOWA CAUCUSES “I don’t think any informed or knowledgeable libertarian or conservative should support Nikki Haley. I’ve seen her attitude towards our interventions overseas, I’ve seen her involvement in the military industrial complex,” Paul said in the video. “But I’ve also seen her indicate that she thinks you should be registered to use the internet.” “I think she fails to understand our republic was founded upon people like Ben Franklin, Sam Adams, Madison, John Jay and others who posted routinely – for fear of the government – they posted routinely anonymously,” Paul concluded. “And I think her failure to really understand that or to think that you should register through the government somehow for the internet is something that should disqualify her in the minds of all libertarian-leaning conservatives.” Paul elaborated on the website that Haley’s views on the internet “flies in the face of a free American Republic whose founders wrote anonymously the Federalist Papers and routinely posted newspaper articles and pamphlets under Pseudonyms.” CRITICS RIP NIKKI HALEY OVER VOW TO REQUIRE ALL SOCIAL MEDIA USERS BE VERIFIED Haley was ripped by critics in November after she vowed to require all social media users be verified in the name of “national security.” “When I get into office, the first thing we have to do, social media accounts, social media companies, they have to show America their algorithms. Let us see why they’re pushing what they’re pushing. The second thing is every person on social media should be verified by their name,” Haley said during an appearance on Fox News at the time. “First of all, it’s a national security threat. When you do that, all of a sudden people have to stand by what they say. And it gets rid of the Russian bots, the Iranian bots and the Chinese bots. And then you’re going to get some civility when people know their name is next to what they say, and they know their pastor and their family members are going to see it,” she added. Haley later clarified her remarks in an appearance on CNBC, saying “I don’t mind anonymous American people having free speech, what I don’t like is anonymous Russians and Chinese and Iranians having free speech.” Fox News’ Brandon Gillespie contributed to this report.
DeSantis shuts down ‘numbnuts’ climate protesters at Iowa event, security tackles to ground: ‘I’m doing this’
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis was interrupted several times by climate protesters during an Iowa campaign event, including a protester who was tackled to the ground by security. “Ron DeSantis is a climate criminal!” an environmentalist protester shouted at DeSantis after rushing onto the stage of an event in Ames, Iowa, on Thursday night. While wrestling with security on the ground, the protester yelled, “How much money are you taking from oil companies?” DeSantis told the man, “That is (what’s) wrong with the college system right there. That’s exhibit A.” DESANTIS SLAMS KERRY, OBAMA, BIDEN ON CLIMATE CHANGE DURING DEBATE: ‘GUYS TALK OUT OF ONE SIDE OF THEIR MOUTH’ Ames, Iowa is home to Iowa State University. Moments earlier, another protester had tried to interrupt DeSantis while holding a banner that said, “DESANTIS: CLIMATE CRIMINAL.” COUNTRY MUSIC STAR RELEASES SONG ENDORSING ‘AMERICA’S GOVERNOR’ DESANTIS: ‘NEVER BACK DOWN’ DeSantis sparred with another protester who tried to interrupt the event. “Second thing is second, excuse me, hold on,” DeSantis said. “Excuse me. I’m doing this . . . but you’re interrupting and you’re being rude. Everyone else is listening. And you’re butting in. I don’t care. I know you have an agenda. I know you have an agenda.” “We take questions from folks all the time,” DeSantis told reporters later. “Yeah, I’m not going to let these, these numbnuts rush the stage or do anything like that, but I mean people that ask, you know, normal, respectful questions, we’re happy to do.” DeSantis was also interrupted by climate activists during his Fox News Town Hall on Wednesday night and has mixed it up with protesters on the campaign trail before that, including in June when he mixed it up with a protester who called him a “fascist.” “Those people like that in Florida are the people we beat every single day on policy,” DeSantis said. “We do not let them win. We win all these battles. We’re not letting them indoctrinate our kids, not on our watch.”
As a feminist, what I wish for in 2024 is criminal justice reform
If I could have one wish for the new year, it would be for Britain’s criminal justice system to be reformed in a way that would ensure the arrest, prosecution and conviction of every single rapist in the country. I do not mean, of course, any man accused of rape, but every man who has actually committed rape. One of the most prevalent and persuasive myths about rape and sexual assault is that a large number of allegations are false and men who have been publicly accused of rape but could not be convicted in a court of law are the victims of grave miscarriages of justice. According to the United Nations, “globally, an estimated 736 million women – almost one in three – have been subjected to physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual violence, or both at least once in their life.” Despite such shockingly high figures, there is still a presumption that many women make false allegations about male violence – in particular, rape. In the United Kingdom, the government estimates that false allegations and cases of mistaken identity make up just 2 to 4 percent of reported rapes – a figure believed to be broadly accurate across countries. Of course, men’s rights activists and other anti-feminists never mention this figure in their unhinged rants about how women routinely lie about being sexually assaulted and raped. Currently, in England and Wales, the conviction rate for rape is at an all-time low. Of those reported to police, known to be just small a minority of sexual assaults actually committed, only 1 percent end in a conviction. That means, if we also take into account the small percentage of false allegations, well over 90 percent of rapists get away with their crimes. These men are bound to be emboldened by their ability to evade justice and will almost certainly do it again. Given the terrible, devastating impact that rape often has on women subjected to it – resulting in chaotic lifestyles, drug and alcohol abuse, and other actions fuelled by trauma – victims of rape are more likely to end up in prison than their rapists. The biggest obstacles to securing rape convictions in the UK are prejudiced jurors and the reluctance in every level of the justice system to prosecute “difficult” cases – such as those involving women in prostitution, drug and alcohol users, and teenage girls, all of whom are often seen as unreliable witnesses. Contrary to what is often said in defence of the low number of cases getting to court, there is no such thing as a sex crime prosecution that is “too difficult to prosecute”. In the UK, the Crown Prosecution Service only takes sex crime cases to court if it believes there is at least a 50 percent chance of a conviction. This often means that the more complicated cases, or those involving victims who are considered imperfect, are dropped. The advantage of the system in the United States is that prosecutors in Special Victims Units work exclusively on sex crimes and receive intensive and ongoing training from experts. These prosecutors play a pivotal role from the moment a rape is reported, working with police to investigate the case and developing an intimate understanding of the details of the crime. This gives them an obvious advantage when it comes to presenting their case clearly and persuasively in court. By comparison, in the UK, the first time the complainant will meet the prosecutor is at the trial. This is why I advocate for the use of specialised prosecutors in sex crime cases in the UK too. The UK does have prosecutors trained in rape and serious sexual offences, but all that is required is to have attended a training course. These prosecutors also take on a range of other cases, and their “expertise” is, therefore, limited. What we need is a type of super-lawyer, highly trained in every detail and aspect of sex crimes. This would include legislation, forensic science and victim/jury psychology, equipping them, for instance, to explain to jurors that if a complainant laughs or appears bored or distracted in the witness box, this could be the result of trauma. Prevailing rape myths, such as “She was asking for it,” “He’s handsome and does not ‘need’ to rape” and “If she didn’t want it, she would close her legs,” can poison the mind of a juror against the complainant, whatever the evidence against the defendant. Women and girls are routinely blamed for being raped – which means the perpetrator, even when it is abundantly clear that he is guilty, is too often absolved. This is how patriarchy works: Keep women and girls in constant fear of male violence, and then when it happens, put the responsibility for it firmly on their shoulders. Another potential reform put forward by feminists is the abolition of the jury system when it comes to rape and sexual assault trials. When we make this suggestion, however, we are often countered with the argument “Our jury system, the bedrock of a fair trial, is under threat as it is.” While that may well be the case, if we are to ensure victims of rape and sexual assault are to find justice, we need to take drastic measures. Rape myths are entrenched in society. Not only those working in the justice system, from police to prosecutors and judges, but also all potential jurors carry these myths with them into courtrooms. While those actively working the system can be trained to look beyond their prejudices, such training can hardly be extended to jurors. Thus, it may be beneficial to women for rape and sexual assault trials to not involve jurors. Currently, the justice system in the UK is designed to help perpetrators of rape and sexual assault at every step of the way. For example, police routinely try to access the counselling and therapy notes of rape victims, which can then be read by them as well as
Who are the Houthis? A simple guide to the Yemeni group
Following weeks of Houthi-led attacks on vessels in the Red Sea, the United States and United Kingdom have launched military strikes in Yemen in response, which the Houthis have described as “barbaric”. The Houthis are an Iran-aligned group based in Yemen and have said their attacks are a response to Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, and the international community’s failure to put an end to it. The Houthis have primarily targeted Israel-linked ships and in December, the US formed a multilateral coalition to safeguard commercial traffic from attacks. The force now has more than 20 countries, according to the Pentagon. But who are the Yemeni fighters at the heart of this escalation? Who are the Houthis? The Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah (supporters of God), are an armed group that control most parts of Yemen, including the capital, Sanaa, and some of the western and northern areas close to Saudi Arabia. The Houthis emerged in the 1990s but rose to prominence in 2014, when the group rebelled against Yemen’s government, causing it to step down and sparking a crippling humanitarian crisis. The group then spent years, with Iran’s backing, fighting a military coalition led by Saudi Arabia. The two warring sides have also repeatedly tried to hold peace talks. However, analysts say the Shia group should not be seen as an Iranian proxy. It has its own base, its own interests – and its own ambitions. What’s the status of Yemen’s civil war? Yemen has been in a decade-long civil war as the Houthis maintain control of parts of the country. The group has been in ceasefire talks with Saudi Arabia while Yemen’s official government is based in Aden and led by President Rashad al-Alimi. Al-Alimi came into office in 2022 after the country’s exiled president Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi ceded power to him. Relations between Hadi and the Houthis were especially fraught. Yemen’s civil war has plunged the country into what the United Nations called “the world’s worst humanitarian crisis”, in March 2023. An estimated 21.6 million people or two-thirds of Yemen’s population are “in dire need of humanitarian assistance and protection services”, according to the UN. Fighting between Houthis and the military coalition, however, largely subsided last year. In 2023, the Yemeni rebels and government forces also exchanged about 800 prisoners over three days. The Houthis have been engaging in Omani-mediated talks with Saudi officials to negotiate a permanent ceasefire. Saudi Arabia also restored relations with Iran in 2023, raising hopes for the Yemen peace process. Why are the Houthis attacking Red Sea ships? The Houthis say their attacks on commercial and military ships with potential Israeli links are primarily aimed at pressuring Tel Aviv to end its war on Gaza. On November 18, the group took over a cargo ship called the Galaxy Leader, which they have since turned into a tourist attraction for Yemenis. “We have emphasised to everyone that [the Houthi] operations are to support the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, and that we cannot stand idly by in the face of the aggression and siege,” Houthi chief negotiator and spokesperson Mohammed Abdulsalam told Al Jazeera in December. The Houthis have also said they will continue to attack Israel-linked ships even after the strikes on Yemen by the US and UK on Thursday. “They were wrong if they thought that they would deter Yemen from supporting Palestine and Gaza,” Abdulsalam wrote online. The group’s “targeting will continue to affect Israeli ships or those heading to the ports of occupied Palestine,” he wrote. The group has also been demanding that Israel allow increased humanitarian aid into Gaza. But analysts also say that attacks help the Houthis in other ways. Domestically in Yemen, the group has seen a sharp uptick in recruitment, riding on popular support for the people of Gaza. The attacks, and the response from major powers like the US, also force other countries and governments to negotiate with them, giving them de facto legitimacy at a time when they are not officially recognised internationally as Yemen’s government. The Red Sea and Suez Canal account for 30 percent of the world’s container ship traffic and since the onset of attacks, several shipping companies have said they will divert ships across Africa instead. Will the latest escalation affect Yemen’s fragile peace? Analysts say that the Houthis attacks on Red Sea ships could threaten peace within Yemen, particularly as ceasefire talks after a decade-long war appear to be gathering momentum. The UN announced in late December that serious progress was made in negotiations, but experts warned that Houthi activity in the Red Sea could derail a final deal. They explained that attacks could trigger a US military response that could in turn “unravel the fragile ceasefire conditions”. Some analysts also fear that the Houthis could be tempted to use their bolstered numbers – because of increased recruitment – to expand their ambitions. In recent weeks the Houthis have deployed 50,000 troops around Marib, the internationally recognised Yemeni government’s last stronghold. But other analysts point out that the Houthis might also seek closer relations with Saudi Arabia, a factor that could hold them back from any actions that escalate tensions within Yemen. Adblock test (Why?)
‘Saho Mat, Daro Mat’: Congress releases anthem for Rahul Gandhi’s Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra
The “anthem” was shared on all the social media handles of the party with a video that features protesting women wrestlers, glimpses from Rahul Gandhi’s Kanyakumari-to-Kashmir Bharat Jodo Yatra and the Congress leader’s interactions with farmers and labourers.
J-K: Terrorist attack on Army in Poonch, search operations launched
This is the second terror attack on the Army in the region in the past few weeks.
Texas Tribune spring fellows start the year full of promise
Fellows play critical roles in and in support of our newsroom.