Man killed in shootout with US Marshals in Baltimore

Christine Condon and Justin Fenton, The Baltimore Sun

BALTIMORE — A man was killed and a member of the U.S. Marshals was injured Thursday morning in an exchange of gunfire in West Baltimore while police were serving an arrest warrant, police said.

U.S Marshals Commander Don Snider said the deputies were trying to arrest a man wanted on charges of attempted murder and armed robbery around 6:45 a.m. when the man opened fire. The deputies shot back, he said, and the fugitive was struck along with one marshal.

Three sources with knowledge of the incident but who were not authorized to speak publicly said the man being sought on the warrant was the grocery store security guard who on Saturday exchanged gunfire with police and was able to get away.

The wounded marshal, who was not identified, was taken to Shock Trauma with serious injuries. The U.S. Marshals office said the marshal was recovering from surgery.

Police Commissioner Michael Harrison and Mayor Brandon Scott were on the scene Thursday morning.

As police gathered outside of the row home where the firefight took place Thursday morning — close to the Gilmor Homes public housing project — a construction crew worked in the rubble of one of the complex’s demolished buildings. Neighbors milled about, some frustrated with the web of caution tape encircling the neighborhood, sealing off parked cars and shops.

Jason Campbell, 39, woke up to head to his job at the Dollar General store Thursday morning, and found caution tape blocking his path.

”I couldn’t go my normal route,” he said.

Word of what had happened descended quickly on an unsettled neighborhood, as passers-by greeted each other in the cold.

”I grew up in this neighborhood. I played in these projects,” said Lynette Mack, 50. “It wasn’t like this when we was coming up.”

Over the years, Mack said she’s grown fearful as a result of gun violence in the neighborhood, which was the site of Freddie Gray’s arrest in 2015. Gray died after he sustained a severe spinal cord injury while in police custody.

”It’s getting to the point where I won’t even let my daughter just walk across to the store by herself,” Mack said.

Inspiring the community’s young people, she said, is the way forward.

”These kids around here have dreams. Some of them have no dreams. We need something more for our kids.”

Thursday’s shooting comes on the heels of two FBI agents in South Florida being shot and killed trying to apprehend an accused child pornographer, a reminder of the dangers of tracking down and trying to catch fugitives wanted for violent crimes.

The shooting also comes one year after two officers attached to the Marshal’s service were shot and wounded in Northeast Baltimore. In that case Michael Marullo, a 33-year-old former Maryland corrections officer, was killed after opening fire on a squad attempting to apprehend him on a warrant for a shooting in Pennsylvania.

The officers, one shot in the abdomen, recovered.

And in November, a Baltimore police officer working on the Warrant Apprehension Task Force fatally shot a suspect while surveilling a fugitive at the intersection of North Ellamont Street and Westwood Avenue. Police say the shooting suspect pulled up at the intersection in a vehicle around that time, got out and fired into the officers’ vehicle, striking one unnamed officer in the upper thigh. The officer returned fire, killing the suspect, police said.

Latest Stories

  • A Kentucky deputy is under investigation after Trump's D.C. rally. The case is dividing his town.

    An officer sparks a debate over Trump, the election results and the public’s trust in law enforcement.

  • Prosecutors don't know where Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse is, want him arrested again

    Prosecutors in Kenosha, Wisconsin, sought a new arrest warrant Wednesday for Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager charged with killing two people during an Aug. 25 protest against the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man now paralyzed from the waist down. The prosecutors said Rittenhouse has violated the terms of his $2 million bond by moving without informing the court or providing his new address. After a court filing sent to Rittenhouse was returned as undeliverable Jan. 28, Kenosha detectives visited Rittenhouse's listed address and discovered another man has been living there since mid-December, prosecutors explained. It is "extremely unusual for a defendant facing a charge of first-degree intentional homicide in Kenosha County to post cash bond and be released from custody pending trial," prosecutors said in their motion. "Rarely does our community see accused murderers roaming about freely." Along with Rittenhouse's arrest, they asked the court to increase his bond by $200,000, noting that since his $2 million bond had been paid from a "dubious internet fundraising campaign," Rittenhouse "has no financial stake in the bond" and no incentive to cooperate since "he is already facing the most serious possible criminal charges and life in prison." Rittenhouse's lawyer, Mark Richards, responded Wednesday night, saying his client is in an undisclosed "safe house" due to death threats and "has stayed in constant contact" with his lawyers, if not the courts. He said he had offered to provide prosecutors with the new address if they would keep it secret, and they declined. Rittenhouse, now 18, is accused of fatally shooting Joseph Rosenbaum, 36, and Anthony Huber, 26, and wounding a third man. He says he fired in self-defense. Prosecutors sought to amend the terms of his bail last month after video footage captured him drinking with a group of Proud Boys at a Wisconsin bar and flashing white-power hand signs. It is legal for 18-year-olds to drink in bars in Wisconsin if a parent is present, and Rittenhouse's mom was apparently at the bar with him. More stories from theweek.com5 scathing cartoons about the GOP's Marjorie Taylor Greene problemMarjorie Taylor Greene is getting exactly what she wantsJobless claims remain high but dip to lowest level since November

  • U.S. expels dozens of Haitian asylum seekers to Mexico

    U.S. authorities returned dozens of Haitians to the Mexican border city of Ciudad Juarez from El Paso, Texas, on Wednesday, a move that appeared to contradict a policy agreement in place with Mexico brokered under the previous U.S. administration. Luis Garcia, a director at the Chihuahua state government agency COESPO in Mexico, which oversees attention to migrants, confirmed the return of dozens of Haitians by U.S. immigration authorities.

  • Lauren Boebert: QAnon-supporting Republican claims 38,000 miles worth of gas money on Congress expenses

    In order to justify a reimbursement of such a big amount, Boebert’s distance driven during the campaign has to be 38,712 miles

  • The New Republic ’s Shameful Anti-Catholic Screed

    Why do progressives have a reputation for open hatred of Catholics and Catholicism? Only because they keep publishing things like Peter Hammond Schwartz’s latest essay in The New Republic, entitled “Originalism Is Dead. Long Live Catholic Natural Law.” To get the full flavor, you must begin with the illustration of Justice Amy Coney Barrett as the pope: The forces challenging the modernist ideal in America are now decisively led by conservative Catholics, not evangelical Protestants, with a new focus on claiming influence and power via America’s legal institutions, particularly the federal courts.https://t.co/BuL4LTTctk — The New Republic (@newrepublic) February 3, 2021 There is a long and ugly tradition anti-Catholic writers and cartoonists portraying their enemies in the miter of a pope or bishop, going back to the days of the anti-Catholic Know-Nothings of the 1850s and their heirs in the 1870s and 1880s. This is illustrated by this Thomas Nast classic of the genre from Harper’s Weekly in 1871, portraying the nefarious threat of Catholic schooling: The American River Ganges by Thomas Nast, from the September 30, 1871, edition of Harper’s Weekly. Cartoonist Tony Auth kicked up a controversy with a 2007 cartoon about the Supreme Court’s decision upholding a ban on partial-birth abortion in Gonzales v. Carhart, depicting the five Catholic judges in the majority in miters over the caption “Church & State.” TNR’s editors and illustrator Michelle Rohn — and Schwartz, if he signed off on using the image of Amy Coney Barrett — had to know exactly what card they were playing here. Schwartz complains quite openly that there are too many Catholics in Congress and the courts: Members of Congress are increasingly Catholic, especially in the Republican Party. As of the 2016 election, representation of Catholics in Congress had increased by a remarkable 68 percent since 1960, from 100 to 168, a total in excess of 31 percent of Congress (even as Catholics nationally have declined to 21 percent of the population, fewer than the 23 percent who in 2014 declared “None” as their religious affiliation). Between the 2008 and 2016 elections, the cohort of Catholic House Republicans nearly doubled, from 37 to 70, while the number of Catholic House Democrats fell from 98 to 74. Despite this significant Catholic overrepresentation in Congress, traditionalist Catholics — for whom the nineteenth-century Blaine Amendments, by which states sought to bar public funding of religious education, remain the bloody shirt they cannot stop waving — mewl incessantly about ongoing prejudice and discrimination. Catholics are even more overrepresented in the judiciary. Nearly 30 percent of judges serving on the federal bench are Catholic. Six Catholics presently serve as justices on the Supreme Court, five of whom are Republican-appointed conservatives. A seventh, Neil Gorsuch, is a formerly devout Catholic who now worships as an Episcopalian. Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy, the justices Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh replaced, were also Catholic. Which means nine of the most recent 13 justices have a Catholic background. Yes, Schwartz complains that Catholics “mewl incessantly” and wave “the bloody shirt” of 19th-century laws that were explicitly targeted at Catholics and that the Supreme Court struck down by a 5–4 vote only in June 2020, over the objections of the Court’s liberals and to the horror of progressive commentators. The essay’s atmosphere is full of familiar tropes of the Left. A shady, extreme, well-funded conspiracy is out to impose theocracy on America through the courts: “a 50-year saga of Catholic intellectual and theological penetration of the halls of power.” Naturally, “William F. Buckley, the devout and mystically inclined Catholic” is implicated as part of this “doorway to the medieval past.” Predictably, the Koch brothers are referenced, despite their conspicuously libertarian social views. The chief villains are “the three Leos — nineteenth-century Pope Leo XIII, twentieth-century German-American philosopher Leo Strauss, and twenty-first-century Federalist Society impresario Leonard Leo.” Schwartz uses the language of viral infection to describe the influence of Catholic thought: The intellectual commitments and moral sensibilities of the new natural law have in recent decades penetrated many of the nation’s most significant media, political, legal, and educational institutions. NNL has passed seamlessly into the conservative intellectual bloodstream via organizations closely attached to the Federalist Society. For Leonard Leo — depicted as having “more than a trace of Cardinal Wolsey” of 16th-century England — Schwartz relies on the views of Jeffrey Toobin, if you wanted a particularly vivid mental image of the mood of this essay. The Federalist Society is accused of bearing, for our popularly-ratified Constitution, “an Abrahamic fetish of the text as revelation.” Schwartz portrays natural law as a conspiracy to impose Catholic theology: The moral philosophy of natural law absorbs (from revelation and scripture) and communicates (into public discourse and legal practice) a quite specific understanding of the human individual as the summit of God’s creation, shaped in the image of God himself. Ideas about natural law date back nearly 800 years to the grand synthesis of Aristotle and Augustine in the Summa Theologica of Thomas Aquinas. These ideas assume intrinsic rational capacities of humans to properly perceive and pursue uniquely human goods and to deduce from these goods a system of moral precepts and ethics that become the framework for elucidating and codifying positive law. As Thomas wrote, “This is the first precept of law, that ‘good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.’ All other precepts of the natural law are based upon this: so that whatever the practical reason naturally apprehends as man’s good (or evil) belongs to the precepts of the natural law as something to be done or avoided.” As even Schwartz must concede, of course, the Catholic roots of natural law do not change the fact that it was also the philosophy underlying much of secular Enlightenment political philosophy, most notably the Declaration of Independence and, yes, the United States Constitution. But he sees its modern survival as “sinister.” Naturally, there is a digression on priestly sexual abuse, without even the vaguest effort to address its actual development. In order to understand how elite enthusiasm for 13th-century Catholic philosophy relates to modern American politics, “we need look no further than Fox News,” Schwartz advises. Of course. He warns of “extreme and edgy publications” delivering a “Catholic fundamentalist message,” never mind that the very nature of religious fundamentalism is irreconcilable with the hierarchical and tradition-bound Roman Catholic Church. The fundamental bait-and-switch of Schwartz’s article is his effort to tell the story of the Catholic integralism of Adrian Vermeule, Sohrab Ahmari, and Patrick Deneen as if it is influential on judicial originalists such as Barrett. We are told that “even legal conservatives like Harvard constitutional law professor Adrian Vermeule now concede these obvious failings of originalism.” And this proves that “it turns out that originalism’s real utility is its transactional value as a vehicle for other legal principles,” as if Vermeule is not an open critic and enemy of originalism. Only much later in the article does Schwartz address the conflict between the two camps, while insisting that this is a debate between “two sides of the same coin demarcated in a medieval currency.” What is lost here is the fact that Vermeule is, despite the interest he inspires in some circles, an entirely marginal figure among the sorts of people who staff the federal judiciary and are active in the Federalist Society — in particular, Justice Barrett, whom even Schwartz concedes is a jurisprudential follower of Antonin Scalia, the monumental leader of the originalist camp. Nothing is cited to suggest that Justice Barrett has any jurisprudential sympathy with Vermeule, yet that does not spare her from caricature. Schwartz frames Justice Barrett as “the first justice to receive her law degree from a Catholic university” who “has spent almost her entire life in the ‘flyover’ places of America where ‘gentry liberalism’ is not the dominant fashion.” This ignores the fact that Notre Dame is hardly a cloistered bastion of Catholic orthodoxy (it gave Mario Cuomo an honorary degree in 1984), and that the mayor of Barrett’s city was Pete Buttigieg. The New Republic should be ashamed and embarrassed by this, if its editors are still capable of such a sentiment.

  • Army Identifies 3 New York National Guard Pilots Killed in Black Hawk Crash

    They died when their aircraft went down while conducting night-vision goggle proficiency training.

  • Greene was reportedly applauded by GOP lawmakers after apologizing for past inflammatory remarks

    During a GOP caucus meeting on Wednesday night, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) received a round of applause after she apologized for putting her fellow Republicans in a difficult spot due to her past racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-Muslim remarks, The Washington Post reports. Prior to her election in 2020, Greene, a supporter of the QAnon conspiracy, questioned the 9/11 attacks, claimed school shootings were staged, said Jewish space lasers sparked a California wildfire, endorsed the execution of Democratic leaders, and made a variety of racist remarks during podcasts and livestreams. Several Republicans who attended Wednesday night's meeting said Greene offered an apology for some of those earlier comments. Before the meeting, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said he spoke with Greene on Tuesday night, and made it clear that her remarks "do not represent the values or beliefs of the House Republican Conference." More stories from theweek.comProsecutors don't know where Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse is, want him arrested again5 scathing cartoons about the GOP's Marjorie Taylor Greene problemMarjorie Taylor Greene is getting exactly what she wants

  • 3 dead, including gunman, after home invasion in Wisconsin

    Three people are dead, including a man who exchanged gunfire with deputies, following a home invasion in eastern Wisconsin, authorities said. Sheriff's deputies arrived and exchanged gunfire with the man, who then ran away. During a search of nearby properties, SWAT officers found another person who died of an apparent gunshot wound, according to sheriff's officials.

  • 9-year-old boy begs Biden administration to stop his father's deportation to Guatemala

    "They're choosing to keep a parent and child separated that they had already separated before and traumatized," said the attorney for Fernando Ochoa's dad.

  • 27 Best Desk Lamps to Brighten Up 2021

    Let there be lightOriginally Appeared on Architectural Digest

  • Spectacular explosions as Mount Etna erupts

    Bursts of sweltering hot lava shot into the sky at around 9 p.m. (2200gmt).The 3,330-metre-high volcano can burst into spectacular action several times a year, spewing lava and ash high over the Mediterranean island of Sicily.The last major eruption, threatening the small town of Linguaglossa, was in 2002.

  • Biden to pursue arms control, seeks to engage China, U.S. envoy says

    The Biden administration views the New Start Treaty clinched with Russia this week as the beginning of engagement on strategic issues including multilateral arms control, a U.S. envoy said on Thursday. Robert Wood, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in Geneva, called in a speech to the U.N.-sponsored Conference on Disarmament for a new arms control drive that "covers more weapons, and eventually more countries".

  • With the People’s Republic of China, Don’t Trust, Because You Can’t Verify

    In the Time magazine list of the Top 100 Most Influential People for 2017, People’s Republic of China (PRC) President Xi Jinping was described as “forever the iconoclast breaking the mold.” The write-up pointed out “the potential that one day we might look back and say that Xi’s time at the helm marked the inflection point for his country and his people.” The essay’s author was former secretary of state John Kerry, now back in government as the Biden administration climate czar. (More on that later.) Kerry was right in his assessment of Xi, if perhaps not in the way he intended. The Xi era has been “an inflection point” in that it has ushered in a clear consensus that — contrary to the prevailing view prior to Xi — China will not become freer as it becomes richer. There is growing general acceptance in both public and elite opinion that the PRC is a competitor and adversary. The hope that China, as it developed economically, would glide into democratic-capitalist norms guided the policy of every U.S. administration since President Carter granted U.S. diplomatic recognition to the PRC in 1979. The approach was based on the belief that Deng Xiaoping, who had consolidated his power by 1978, at heart was a market-driven reformer and that political liberalization would follow market liberalization. That has not happened. That this approach was erroneous is now accepted by Democrats and Republicans, by elected officials on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and by U.S. allies across Asia and Europe. Even more remarkable than the acknowledgement that the policy was wrong — something policy-makers and politicians don’t like to admit, even in hindsight — is the increasingly popular view that not only were assumptions about Communist China and regime intent wrong, but also that there was enough evidence for successive administrations after Carter’s to have known at the time that they were on the wrong track. There were certainly American analysts and policy-makers whose service in earlier administrations reflected a more accurate assessment of Beijing’s true intentions. But the typical reaction to that minority view tended to be derision at the “failure” of those analysts to understand the more nuanced, artful statecraft of the people executing the broader policy. But today, there is broader acceptance of the view that Deng and his successors prior to Xi weren’t reformers, and that we had ample evidence of this then. Of course, Deng showed this as early as 1989, in the Tiananmen massacre. But there were other signals. Over time, as China emerged from its economic and political isolation, increasingly the world observed opaqueness in defense spending, the involvement of the People’s Liberation Army in every aspect of the Chinese economy, ever more aggressive subversion of democratic Taiwan, a growing global network of propaganda and influence operations, and deliberate undermining of international institutions including the WTO, the World Health Organization, and others. These actions are not the inventions of the Xi regime; they were on display with increasing clarity over many years during previous regimes. Even so, there is no time for recriminations about “who lost China?” The point is that Communist China was never “winnable.” That there is agreement about this now is sound basis for current and future policy. What is most important is that we not let the self-delusion happen again. Of course, Xi makes it easier to avoid that because his intentions are so obvious. What is hard to understand about a million Chinese Muslims in concentration camps? About the militarization of man-made islands dotting the South China Sea and violating the sovereignty of multiple neighboring countries? About military incursions into Taiwan’s internationally recognized air-defense zones? About arresting democratic politicians and journalists in Hong Kong? And yet there is still a tendency to simply take the Communist regime at its word in its intentions and declarations. Media and others tend to blithely accept, for instance, China’s obviously cooked books concerning economic growth. Time reported with confidence in January that “China’s Economy Grew in 2020 Amid the Global Pandemic as U.S. and Others Floundered.” The PRC claims the economy grew 2.3 percent even as the U.S., Japan, and the major economies of Europe likely all shrank. Derek Scissors, chief economist of the authoritative China Beige Book, has concluded that China’s economy also probably shrank in 2020. In a paper for the American Enterprise Institute, Scissors writes that it is China’s own data in other areas that give the lie to its fantastic claims of economic growth in a pandemic-seized global economy that was one of the worst in history. Scissors points to double-digit declines in fixed investment, retail sales, net exports, and other accounts in first-quarter 2020, yet GDP decline was a mere 3.3 percent. He concludes that the positive “GDP figure only made sense if the rest didn’t.” His analysis points to several other hard-to-reconcile apparent facts to bolster his conclusion about the full year. Despite such analysis, the financial press, Wall Street analysts, and elected officials simply repeat what the government in Beijing wants them to believe: that China grew in 2020. The same is true about China’s role in the pandemic itself. Much like financial reporting of dubious economic-growth statistics, China’s reported pandemic case counts deserve scrutiny. The Johns Hopkins COVID-19 tracker has the PRC, with a population of 1.4 billion, having experienced 100,000 cases, fewer than Bahrain, with 1/1,000th the population. At 4,800 deaths, the PRC — where the virus originated — reportedly has experienced fewer deaths than in the U.S. state of Connecticut (3.56 million population). Of course, the truth is impossible to know, so we simply report implausible Chinese official data. It has been well-documented by citizen-journalists and others that China seriously repressed reporting about the virus in November and December 2019, well before the world was aware of the problem. Doctors were censored in filing reports about a new and uncertain flu-like virus they were seeing in patients. It has now been established that the official statistics the country released well into 2020 were off by as much as 100 percent. If the Communist government were confident in its current reporting, why has it strong-armed attempts by the World Health Organization and countries in that body to seek transparency about the origin and handling of the outbreak? Foreign journalists have limited access, and citizen-journalists continue to be harassed. In December 2020, Zhang Zahn drew a four-year prison sentence after a three-hour trial for her reporting about what was happening in Wuhan around the time of the outbreak, which was not the model of public health or virus eradication that the Communist government had presented to the rest of the world. Zhang was convicted for “picking quarrels and provoking trouble.” There obviously is ample indication that — despite the world’s apparent belief that “the China model” has dealt with the virus — the truth on the ground is quite different. Which brings us back to the Biden administration, now the steward of U.S. China policy in the era of “we know what we got wrong, so let’s not repeat that.” The administration assumes office as the PRC continues to obfuscate about the global pandemic, and against a backdrop that we now understand how prevailing beliefs about the PRC were wrong for most of the past 40 years. Resisting China’s outlandish claims in every area of engagement is important in setting the right basis for the engagement the administration says it wants with the PRC. The Biden team is off to a good start by recognizing the challenge, as expressed in the declarations of its foreign-policy team and as has been reported in these pages by Jimmy Quinn. In his Senate confirmation hearing, Secretary of State Antony Blinken seemed to acknowledge how wrong the foreign-policy community got the PRC over many preceding decades. He also indicated that he recognizes how China projects a façade of strength when, as he put it, “my own conviction is that there are many apparent weaknesses that China continues to hide when projecting its model.” Blinken rightly believes that “China poses no doubt the most significant challenge of any nation state to the U.S.” He said it is his intention, as the chief architect of the Biden foreign policy, to approach the U.S.–China relationship from a position of strength. To do so, he should proceed on the basis of the following precepts: 1) Xi and his Communist Party cohorts will repeat the boldest of lies for as long as the world repeats them. 2) Everything the foreign-policy establishment believed about China for 40 years turned out to be wrong, and that was knowable at the time. So let’s not do that again. Blinken should appreciate each of these premises from firsthand experience. He was a senior Obama foreign-policy official at the National Security Council and State Department when, to take just one example, Xi Jinping was lying to President Obama about his pledge never to militarize the man-made islands in the South China Sea — which, of course, are now Chinese military installations. Still, the administration will want much from China. Whether it is the most immediate priority, it is clear that climate change will be a first-tier platform for China engagement in the Biden administration. John Kerry will work hard for China’s cooperation in helping move the world toward the Paris Climate Accord target of net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050. Here, too, we see on full display the PRC tendency to promise everything because the West will believe anything. The green world swooned last September when Xi declared at the U.N. General Assembly that the PRC would be “carbon-neutral” by 2060. In an analysis by The Economist, the claim seems to be of a piece with China’s claims about GDP growth, about COVID eradication, and much else. Beijing seems to believe that it can get by with its customary mix of opacity, Western gullibility, lack of verifiable data, and outright falsehoods When it comes to emissions reductions, The Economist compares the experience in the EU, which is on path to nearly halving its emissions by 2030 from their peak level in 1990. China would have to double that rate of reduction in just 30 years to meet its declared goal — though the PRC last year built 60 percent of the world’s coal-fired power plants. Just like Beijing’s economic-growth statistics, the numbers don’t add up, and they never will. If Kerry and his team think they will be getting honesty and straight talk from the PRC, particularly if it involves trade-offs in other areas — U.S. support for Taiwan or ignoring the PRCs human-rights atrocities — then we will soon find ourselves on the path to repeating our mistake of believing China when we know in real time that we should not. The Biden team seems to believe that it can maintain a relatively hard line on China and at the same time “engage” Beijing to reach mutually agreeable goals. It remains to be seen if that can be done. Ronald Reagan, when faced with a determined adversary that declared it was going to reform according to market forces, said that the United States would “trust but verify” Gorbachav’s perestroika policies. But the Cold War was quite different from what we face today. Much of U.S.–USSR interactions were based on state-to-state treaties that codified the standoff and permitted intrusive verification. Those mechanisms are unavailable to Biden and his team as they seek to engage the Communist government in Beijing. To sift through Beijing’s bogus claims in everything from economic growth to pandemic response and climate talks, the Biden mantra should be “distrust, because you can’t verify.” Doing so will help prevent analysts 40 years from now from concluding that not only were the policies of today wrong, but also that those making the policies knew they were wrong the whole time.

  • Daughter of executed man wants DNA to prove his innocence

    The daughter of a Tennessee man executed 14 years ago for murder wants to test DNA evidence to prove his innocence. Attorneys for April Alley presented arguments before the state appeals court on Wednesday. Alley confessed to the crime, but later said the confession was coerced.

  • Fox News blasted for coverage of Capitol police officer memorial

    CNN, CSpan, and MSNBC all carried rolling live coverage as respect was paid to Officer Brian Sicknick

  • Political bloodbath behind closed doors in Germany as tempers fray over vaccine fiasco

    The political fall-out in Germany from the European Union vaccine debacle appears to be more serious than previously thought, as details of explosive rows emerge. Olaf Scholz, the finance minister and a pivotal figure in Angela Merkel’s coalition, reportedly lost his temper at a cabinet meeting this week, launching an expletive-laden rant against Ursula von der Leyen and the European Commission until Mrs Merkel stepped in to stop him. Other senior ministers have been frantically briefing in an attempt to escape any blame for a fiasco that has left Germany, the country where the first Western vaccine was developed, facing shortages. Mrs von der Leyen is fast running out of friends in Berlin. According to local media reports, she has been lobbying party colleagues in Mrs Merkel’s Christian Democrats (CDU) for public support, but she is now seen as so toxic no one in German politics wants to be associated with her. German politics has also fastened on another fall guy in the form of Stella Kyriakides, the EU’s health commissioner who was in charge of vaccine orders. Bild, Germany’s highest-selling newspaper, on Thursday published a picture of Ms Kyriakides unwisely posted on her Instagram account in September showing her feet up on a balcony with the caption: “Enjoying a moment at the end of busy week”.

  • Manchin will support Democrats' reconciliation bill, allowing COVID relief to move forward without GOP

    Democrats are all set to move forward with their COVID-19 relief bill, leaving Republicans in the dust. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Monday introduced a budget resolution bill that would allow them to pass President Biden's $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus with just a simple majority in both chambers. And on Tuesday, they got the final vote they needed to solidify that majority, as holdout Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) indicated he'd support the resolution. Schumer and Pelosi filed a joint budget resolution for the 2021 Fiscal Year on Monday, taking the first step needed to introduce a Budget Reconciliation bill and pass the stimulus with just 50 votes in the Senate. Manchin seemed to complicate their plans, indicating he wanted a more targeted distribution of stimulus checks instead of a flat $1,400 sent to all Americans. But "because of the urgency of the COVID-19 crisis," Manchin said in a Tuesday statement he'd vote for the budget. He'd like Biden to focus on "Americans who have been impacted most by this pandemic" in the future, and said he "remains hopeful that we can have bipartisan support moving forward." Democrat @Sen_JoeManchin says he'll support moving forward procedurally to tee up doing a new Covid aid package with only Democrat votes, but notes that Biden "remains hopeful that we can have bipartisan support moving forward." pic.twitter.com/xFPDS2ZIgd — Josh Wingrove (@josh_wingrove) February 2, 2021 Manchin's change of heart comes after West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice (R), a strong supporter of former President Donald Trump and adversary of Manchin, indicated his support for the $1.9 trillion bill on Monday. A group of 10 centrist Republican senators presented Biden with a $618 billion stimulus proposal on Monday that includes smaller stimulus checks, and leaves out local government funding. Pelosi and Schumer's move seems to indicate their plan is bust. More stories from theweek.comMarjorie Taylor Greene is getting exactly what she wantsDemocrats may only have one chance to stop America from becoming a one-party stateGOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger mocks GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz after House GOP votes to keep Liz Cheney in leadership

  • Palestinian cave-dwellers worry over Israeli settler incursions

    Home for Palestinian Barakat Mour is a hillside cave in the West Bank, which he says is often under threat from Israeli settlers in the occupied territory. "You'll be sitting with your wife in the cave and the settlers will raid it without any notice," Mour, 60, told Reuters about his family's dwelling near the West Bank city of Hebron. The Israeli military said that in recent weeks "there have been several reports of friction between settlers and Palestinians in caves near the village of (At-Tuwani)" and that troops worked to "separate the participants and restore order".

  • Mother died protecting daughter from hitmen allegedly hired by her brother

    Police said Beaux Cormier hired two of his friends to kill his niece to stop her from testifying in a rape trial against him.

  • The pandemic is getting better all across the U.S.

    Data: The COVID Tracking Project, state health departments; Map: Andrew Witherspoon/AxiosNew coronavirus infections slowed by nearly 16% over the past week, continuing a trend of rapid improvement.The big picture: The U.S. still has a ton of coronavirus, and there’s still the potential for dark days ahead. But this is progress, and the improvement is significant. If this trend keeps going, the country will be in a far better and safer position as vaccines continue to roll out.Be smart: sign up FREE for the most influential newsletter in America.By the numbers: Nationwide, the U.S. is averaging about 139,000 new cases per day — a 16% improvement over last week, which was a 16% improvement over the week before. * The number of new hospitalizations was also down last week, by just over 26%. * And deaths fell by about 6%, to an average of 3,097 deaths per day.Between the lines: 139,000 cases and 3,000 deaths per day is still a very bad pandemic, but at least the numbers are headed in the right direction. * The U.S. is back at about the same caseload we were experiencing shortly before Thanksgiving. * The number of new daily cases fell over the past week in 42 states, and held steady in the remaining eight states. No state got worse — another sign that this improvement could be sustainable.Yes, but: Experts warn that a more contagious variant of the virus is quickly becoming the dominant strain within the U.S. * As it gains more ground, each infected person is more likely to infect others. And because the U.S. still has so many infected people, that could cause cases to spike again. * But the best protection against another surge in cases, hospitalizations and deaths is to get cases down and keep them there — and that’s what we’re doing.Each week, Axios tracks the change in new infections in each state. We use a seven-day average to minimize the effects of day-to-day discrepancies in states’ reporting.Get smarter, faster with the news CEOs, entrepreneurs and top politicians read. Sign up for Axios Newsletters here.