LaHood: Time for GOP to "wake up" to avoid "calamity" at airports

Updated at 3:10 p.m. ET

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today warned of the "enormous impact" the looming sequester budget cuts will have on air travel in America, given that his department will have to cut nearly $1 billion from its budget, with more than $600 million coming from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

As the one former Republican congressman in President Obama's cabinet, LaHood put the responsibility squarely on Republicans to step up and work with Democrats to find a way to avert the cuts, slated to kick in on March 1.

"What I'm trying to do is to wake up members of the Congress on the Republican side to the idea that they need to come to the table... so we don't have this kind of calamity in air service in America," he said. "So that we're not just taking a meat axe to one part of FAA."

Play Video

LaHood: GOP must "step up" on sequester to prevent air traffic "calamity"

Play Video

LaHood warns travel delays will anger Americans

Cutting $1 billion from the Transportation Department would affect dozens of programs, LaHood said. For instance, the vast majority of the FAA's nearly 47,000 employees will face furloughs, he said -- and the largest number of FAA employees are air traffic controllers.

The Transportation Department is beginning discussions with unions today to close more than 100 air towers with fewer than 150,000 flight operations a year, such as towers in Hilton Head, S.C., and San Marcos, Texas. It's also discussing eliminating overnight shifts in more than 60 towers.

"We're going to reduce the number of controllers, which will reduce their ability to guide planes in and out of airports," LaHood explained.

Flights to major cities like New York and Chicago could experience delays up to 90 minutes during peak hours, he said. Furthermore, with fewer employees on staff to efficiently deal with issues such as runway repairs, there could be even more delays. Customers would likely see these impacts around April 1 -- 30 days after the cuts go into effect.

"These are harmful cuts with real-world consequences that'll cost jobs and hurt our economy," LaHood said.

Following LaHood's remarks, the National Air Traffic Controllers Association released a statement with even more ominous predictions.

"Once towers are closed, the airports they serve may be next," NATCA president Paul Rinaldi said. "Additionally, we believe the delay estimates provided by the FAA are conservative and the potential for disruptions could be much higher. Every one of these actions by the FAA will have an impact far beyond inconveniencing travelers. Local economies will be diminished, military exercises will be cancelled and jobs will be lost. There's no telling how long these effects will be felt because many of these service reductions may not be reversed."

LaHood stressed today that "obviously, as always safety, is our top priority." That said, he added that he expects customers to be very angry.

"Nobody likes a delay. Nobody likes waiting in line," he said. "If we can't get our hamburger within five minutes... you know what happens. They start calling their member of Congress."

Most members of Congress agree the sequester cuts should be averted, but they've been incapable of agreeing how to do so. Democrats want to replace the cuts with a plan that includes some new tax revenue and spending cuts. Republicans, however, say they refuse to raise any new tax revenue, after agreeing to some new revenues during the "fiscal cliff" debate.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said it's "factually incorrect" to say both parties are unwilling to compromise -- Democrats, he pointed out, are willing to make significant spending cuts while the GOP is obstinately against any new tax revenue.

LaHood, who repeatedly pointed out he served as a Republican in Congress for 14 years, said, "I think Republicans need to step up here... I'm telling them to come to the table and start talking to Democrats to figure out how do we solve this."

He said he's talked to about half a dozen Republican congressional offices about the impact the sequester will have on the Transportation Department, and their response is "not good. They get it."

The secretary said it was "nonsense" to suggest he was exaggerating the impact of the sequester.

"It's going to be very painful for the flying public," he said.

Read More..

Jodi Arias' Friends Believe in Her Innocence

Accused murderer Jodi Arias believes she should be punished, but hopes she will not be sentenced to death, two of her closest friends told ABC News in an exclusive interview.

Ann Campbell and Donavan Bering have been a constant presence for Arias wth at least one of them sitting in the Phoenix, Ariz., courtroom along with Arias' family for almost every day of her murder trial. They befriended Arias after she first arrived in jail and believe in her innocence.

Arias admits killing her ex-boyfriend Travis Alexander and lying for nearly two years about it, but insists she killed Alexander in self defense. She could face the death penalty if convicted of murder.

Jodi Arias Testimony: Prosecution's Cross-Examination Watch Video

Jodi Arias Remains Calm Under Cross-Examination Watch Video

Jodi Arias Doesn't Remember Stabbing Ex-Boyfriend Watch Video

Nevertheless, she is aware of the seriousness of her lies and deceitful behavior.

The women told ABC News that they understand that Arias needs to be punished and Arias understands that too.

"She does know that, you know, she does need to pay for the crime," Campbell said. "But I don't want her to die, and I know that she has so much to give back."

Catching Up on the Trial? Check Out ABC News' Jodi Arias Trial Coverage

The lies that Arias admits she told to police and her family have been devastating to her, Bering said.

""She said to me, 'I wish I didn't have to have lied. That destroyed me,'" Donovan said earlier this week. "Because now when it's so important for her to be believed, she has that doubt. But as she told me on the phone yesterday, she goes, 'I have nothing to lose.' So all she can do is go out there and tell the truth."

During Arias' nine days on the stand she has described in detail the oral, anal and phone sex that she and Alexander allegedly engaged in, despite being Mormons and trying to practice chastity. She also spelled out in excruciating detail what she claimed was Alexander's growing demands for sex, loyalty and subservience along with an increasingly violent temper.

Besides her two friends, Arias' mother and sometimes her father have been sitting in the front row of the courtroom during the testimony. It's been humiliating, Bering said.

"She's horrified. There's not one ounce of her life that's not out there, that's not open to the public. She's ashamed," she said.

Read More..

Would the pope vote be hackable?

The Conclave of Cardinals that will elect a new pope will meet in the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Bruce Schneier: Rules for picking a new pope are very detailed


• He says elaborate precautions are taken to prevent election fraud


• Every step of the election process is observed by people who know each other


• Schneier: Vatican's procedures, centuries in the making, are very secure

Editor's note: Bruce Schneier is a security technologist and author of "Liars and Outliers: Enabling the Trust Society Needs to Survive." In 2005, before the conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI, Schneier wrote a piece on his blog about the process. This essay is an updated version, reflecting new information and analysis.

(CNN) -- As the College of Cardinals prepares to elect a new pope, security people like me wonder about the process. How does it work, and just how hard would it be to hack the vote?

The rules for papal elections are steeped in tradition. John Paul II last codified them in 1996, and Benedict XVI left the rules largely untouched. The "Universi Dominici Gregis on the Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman Pontiff" is surprisingly detailed.

Every cardinal younger than 80 is eligible to vote. We expect 117 to be voting. The election takes place in the Sistine Chapel, directed by the church chamberlain. The ballot is entirely paper-based, and all ballot counting is done by hand. Votes are secret, but everything else is open.

Bruce Schneier

First, there's the "pre-scrutiny" phase.

"At least two or three" paper ballots are given to each cardinal, presumably so that a cardinal has extras in case he makes a mistake. Then nine election officials are randomly selected from the cardinals: three "scrutineers," who count the votes; three "revisers," who verify the results of the scrutineers; and three "infirmarii," who collect the votes from those too sick to be in the chapel. Different sets of officials are chosen randomly for each ballot.

Each cardinal, including the nine officials, writes his selection for pope on a rectangular ballot paper "as far as possible in handwriting that cannot be identified as his." He then folds the paper lengthwise and holds it aloft for everyone to see.

When everyone has written his vote, the "scrutiny" phase of the election begins. The cardinals proceed to the altar one by one. On the altar is a large chalice with a paten -- the shallow metal plate used to hold communion wafers during Mass -- resting on top of it. Each cardinal places his folded ballot on the paten. Then he picks up the paten and slides his ballot into the chalice.

Pope may change rules to allow earlier election

If a cardinal cannot walk to the altar, one of the scrutineers -- in full view of everyone -- does this for him.

If any cardinals are too sick to be in the chapel, the scrutineers give the infirmarii a locked empty box with a slot, and the three infirmarii together collect those votes. If a cardinal is too sick to write, he asks one of the infirmarii to do it for him. The box is opened, and the ballots are placed onto the paten and into the chalice, one at a time.

When all the ballots are in the chalice, the first scrutineer shakes it several times to mix them. Then the third scrutineer transfers the ballots, one by one, from one chalice to another, counting them in the process. If the total number of ballots is not correct, the ballots are burned and everyone votes again.

To count the votes, each ballot is opened, and the vote is read by each scrutineer in turn, the third one aloud. Each scrutineer writes the vote on a tally sheet. This is all done in full view of the cardinals.

The total number of votes cast for each person is written on a separate sheet of paper. Ballots with more than one name (overvotes) are void, and I assume the same is true for ballots with no name written on them (undervotes). Illegible or ambiguous ballots are much more likely, and I presume they are discarded as well.

Then there's the "post-scrutiny" phase. The scrutineers tally the votes and determine whether there's a winner. We're not done yet, though.

The revisers verify the entire process: ballots, tallies, everything. And then the ballots are burned. That's where the smoke comes from: white if a pope has been elected, black if not -- the black smoke is created by adding water or a special chemical to the ballots.

Being elected pope requires a two-thirds plus one vote majority. This is where Pope Benedict made a change. Traditionally a two-thirds majority had been required for election. Pope John Paul II changed the rules so that after roughly 12 days of fruitless votes, a simple majority was enough to elect a pope. Benedict reversed this rule.

How hard would this be to hack?

First, the system is entirely manual, making it immune to the sorts of technological attacks that make modern voting systems so risky.

Second, the small group of voters -- all of whom know each other -- makes it impossible for an outsider to affect the voting in any way. The chapel is cleared and locked before voting. No one is going to dress up as a cardinal and sneak into the Sistine Chapel. In short, the voter verification process is about as good as you're ever going to find.

A cardinal can't stuff ballots when he votes. The complicated paten-and-chalice ritual ensures that each cardinal votes once -- his ballot is visible -- and also keeps his hand out of the chalice holding the other votes. Not that they haven't thought about this: The cardinals are in "choir dress" during the voting, which has translucent lace sleeves under a short red cape, making sleight-of-hand tricks much harder. Additionally, the total would be wrong.

The rules anticipate this in another way: "If during the opening of the ballots the scrutineers should discover two ballots folded in such a way that they appear to have been completed by one elector, if these ballots bear the same name, they are counted as one vote; if however they bear two different names, neither vote will be valid; however, in neither of the two cases is the voting session annulled." This surprises me, as if it seems more likely to happen by accident and result in two cardinals' votes not being counted.

Ballots from previous votes are burned, which makes it harder to use one to stuff the ballot box. But there's one wrinkle: "If however a second vote is to take place immediately, the ballots from the first vote will be burned only at the end, together with those from the second vote." I assume that's done so there's only one plume of smoke for the two elections, but it would be more secure to burn each set of ballots before the next round of voting.

The scrutineers are in the best position to modify votes, but it's difficult. The counting is conducted in public, and there are multiple people checking every step. It'd be possible for the first scrutineer, if he were good at sleight of hand, to swap one ballot paper for another before recording it. Or for the third scrutineer to swap ballots during the counting process. Making the ballots large would make these attacks harder. So would controlling the blank ballots better, and only distributing one to each cardinal per vote. Presumably cardinals change their mind more often during the voting process, so distributing extra blank ballots makes sense.

There's so much checking and rechecking that it's just not possible for a scrutineer to misrecord the votes. And since they're chosen randomly for each ballot, the probability of a cabal being selected is extremely low. More interesting would be to try to attack the system of selecting scrutineers, which isn't well-defined in the document. Influencing the selection of scrutineers and revisers seems a necessary first step toward influencing the election.

If there's a weak step, it's the counting of the ballots.

There's no real reason to do a precount, and it gives the scrutineer doing the transfer a chance to swap legitimate ballots with others he previously stuffed up his sleeve. Shaking the chalice to randomize the ballots is smart, but putting the ballots in a wire cage and spinning it around would be more secure -- albeit less reverent.

I would also add some kind of white-glove treatment to prevent a scrutineer from hiding a pencil lead or pen tip under his fingernails. Although the requirement to write out the candidate's name in full provides some resistance against this sort of attack.

Probably the biggest risk is complacency. What might seem beautiful in its tradition and ritual during the first ballot could easily become cumbersome and annoying after the twentieth ballot, and there will be a temptation to cut corners to save time. If the Cardinals do that, the election process becomes more vulnerable.

A 1996 change in the process lets the cardinals go back and forth from the chapel to their dorm rooms, instead of being locked in the chapel the whole time, as was done previously. This makes the process slightly less secure but a lot more comfortable.

Of course, one of the infirmarii could do what he wanted when transcribing the vote of an infirm cardinal. There's no way to prevent that. If the infirm cardinal were concerned about that but not privacy, he could ask all three infirmarii to witness the ballot.

There are also enormous social -- religious, actually -- disincentives to hacking the vote. The election takes place in a chapel and at an altar. The cardinals swear an oath as they are casting their ballot -- further discouragement. The chalice and paten are the implements used to celebrate the Eucharist, the holiest act of the Catholic Church. And the scrutineers are explicitly exhorted not to form any sort of cabal or make any plans to sway the election, under pain of excommunication.

The other major security risk in the process is eavesdropping from the outside world. The election is supposed to be a completely closed process, with nothing communicated to the world except a winner. In today's high-tech world, this is very difficult. The rules explicitly state that the chapel is to be checked for recording and transmission devices "with the help of trustworthy individuals of proven technical ability." That was a lot easier in 2005 than it will be in 2013.

What are the lessons here?

First, open systems conducted within a known group make voting fraud much harder. Every step of the election process is observed by everyone, and everyone knows everyone, which makes it harder for someone to get away with anything.

Second, small and simple elections are easier to secure. This kind of process works to elect a pope or a club president, but quickly becomes unwieldy for a large-scale election. The only way manual systems could work for a larger group would be through a pyramid-like mechanism, with small groups reporting their manually obtained results up the chain to more central tabulating authorities.

And third: When an election process is left to develop over the course of a couple of thousand years, you end up with something surprisingly good.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Bruce Schneier.

Read More..

Oil falls again on poor economic data, weak US crude demand

NEW YORK: Global oil prices fell more than $2 a barrel Thursday as traders worried over poor economic data, a potential end to US stimulus measures and signs of weaker-than-expected US crude demand.

A barrel of West Texas Intermediate crude for delivery in April dropped $2.38 to $92.84.

European benchmark Brent oil slid $2.07 to $113.53 a barrel.

It was the second day in a row in which crude prices fell sharply. Analysts said there was a general sense that the oil market has become too buoyant given the brittle state of the economy.

"The market had some vertigo at these high levels, and the market is now correcting," said Andy Lebow, senior vice president for energy futures at Jefferies Bache.

Fresh economic data suggested weaker economic conditions that could result in lower demand for petroleum. The US Labour Department said initial jobless claims rose to 362,000 in the week ending February 16, more than the analyst estimate of 358,000.

Meanwhile, a Markit report on the eurozone business activity showed its purchasing managers index hit a two-month low at 47.3 in February, down from 48.6 the previous month.

Lebow said the oil market was also watching the Federal Reserve for any potential shift in policy. Minutes released Wednesday by the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee showed a vigorous debate on whether to continue a bond-buying program that many analysts believe has supported higher oil prices.

The US government's Department of Energy (DoE) Thursday announced that American crude inventories rose by 4.1 million barrels in the week ending February 15.

That was more than double market expectations for a gain of 1.7 million barrels, according to analysts polled by Dow Jones Newswires.

- AFP/fa

Read More..

Gunfire, crash kill 3 in Vegas

By CNN Staff

updated 1:58 PM EST, Thu February 21, 2013

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Casino visitor to KLAS: I "could see the fireball" out my window


• A gunman in an SUV shoots at a car on the Las Vegas strip, causing a multivehicle crash


• Three were dead following the shooting and crash at Las Vegas Boulevard and Flamingo Road


• Police are looking for a black Range Rover Sport with large black rims

(CNN) -- Three people were dead and at least three others injured after a shooting and fiery six-vehicle crash along the Las Vegas Strip in Nevada early Thursday, police said.

The incident began about 4:20 a.m. when someone in an SUV -- stopped at a stoplight on Las Vegas Boulevard near Caesars Palace and a number of other casinos -- fired into a Maserati that also had stopped at the light, Las Vegas police said.

The Maserati moved into the intersection with Flamingo Road and collided with a taxi, starting a chain of crashes that involved four other vehicles, police said.

Fire swept through the taxi, where the driver and a passenger were trapped. The taxi's two occupants and the Maserati's driver died, Las Vegas Police spokesman Jose Hernandez said.

A passenger in the Maserati suffered gunshot wounds and was being treated at a hospital, police said. At least two other people in the other crashed vehicles suffered light to moderate injuries, they said.

John Lamb, who was inside Caesars Palace, told CNN affiliate KLAS he heard the commotion and saw the taxi on fire from a window.

"There was a loud bang, and I hear two other booms. I looked out my window at Caesars Palace ... and could see the fireball," he told KLAS.

Police are looking for the occupants of the SUV, described as a black Range Rover Sport with tinted windows, large black rims and a dealer license plate not from Nevada, said Las Vegas Police Sgt. John Sheahan.

Hernandez said he didn't have information on what led to the shooting. The names of the dead and the injured were not immediately released.

Man kills 3, himself in Southern California shooting

CNN's Carol Costello, Jason Hanna and Deanna Hackney contributed to this report.

Read More..

Movement in budget cuts battle?

Play Video

Sequestration poses threat to government agency budgets

For the first time since the waning days of the "fiscal cliff" battle in late December, President Obama reached out to congressional Republican leaders to talk about next week's impending budget cuts known as the sequester.

"He placed calls earlier today to [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell and [House] Speaker [John] Boehner," White House spokesman Jay Carney announced today. "Had good conversations, but I have no further readout of those calls for you."

Both Boehner's and McConnell's offices confirmed the calls took place but neither would give details about what was discussed. An aide to Boehner said "the last substantive conversation" he had with the president was on Dec. 28; McConnell's office told CBS News it was Mr. Obama's first outreach to McConnell since New Year's Eve.

Today on Rev. Al Sharpton's radio show, Mr. Obama said, "We continue to reach out to the Republicans and say 'this is not going to be good for the economy and it's not going to be good for ordinary people,' but I don't know if they're going to move. And that's what we're going to have to try to keep pushing over the next seven, eight days."

"Whether or not we can move Republicans at this point to do the right thing is what we're still trying to gauge," Mr. Obama said.

The calls come a day after Boehner wrote an op-ed criticizing the president charging that the public "might not realize from Mr. Obama's statements is that [the sequester] is a product of the president's own failed leadership."

The $1.2 trillion sequester cuts, which were initially set to kick in on Jan. 1, emerged out of Congress' 2011 budget negotiations. Congress agreed that if a congressional "supercommittee" couldn't come up with an acceptable deficit reduction plan, Congress would just slash $1.2 trillion from the budget over 10 years -- half coming from defense spending and half from non-defense. Nearly everyone in Washington agrees that indiscriminately slashing $1.2 trillion would damage the economy, but lawmakers can't agree on a deficit reduction package with which to replace the cuts.

Given the economic damage the sequester would inflict, Congress this year stalled the cuts for two months -- which is why they're set to go into effect on March 1. Unless Congress acts before then, $85 billion in across-the-board cuts will kick in this year.

Read More..

Las Vegas Hotel Fight Led to Attack on Maserati

Police believe an altercation at a Las Vegas hotel led to a deadly drive-by shooting on the occupants of a Maserati sports car on the city's glitzy strip early this morning that left three people dead, including two who died when their taxi was struck by the careening sports car and exploded into flames.

The occupants of a Range Rover SUV shot at two people in the Maserati, which caused a multi-car accident. Police have not released the model of the Maserati, but the price of a new Maserati ranges from $123,000 to $142,000.

When asked if authorities knew any more about the altercation that led to the shooting, Officer Bill Cassell of the Las Vegas Metropolitan police said, "We believe we do at this point, but we are not putting that information out."

Cassell could not yet say which hotel the altercation took place at. He said police are planning on releasing more information later today.

Steve Marcus/Las Vegas Sun/AP Photo

California Man's Carjacking Spree Takes 3 Victims Watch Video

Chicago Teen Killed Day of Obama's Anti-Violence Speech Watch Video

Dallas Courthouse Shooting Manhunt Intensify Watch Video

Police said that they believe a group of men riding in a black Range Rover Sport SUV pulled up alongside the Maserati around 4:20 a.m. today and fired shots into the car, striking the driver and passenger, according to Officer Jose Hernandez of the Las Vegas Metropolitan police department.

The Maserati then swerved through an intersection, hitting at least four other cars. One car that was struck, a taxi with a driver and passenger in it, caught on fire and burst into flames, trapping both occupants, Hernandez said.

The SUV then fled the scene, according to cops.

The driver of the Maserati died from his gunshot wounds at University Medical Center shortly after the shooting, according to Sgt. John Sheahan.

The driver and passenger of the taxi both died in the car fire.

At least three individuals, including the passenger of the Maserati, were injured during the shooting and car crashes and are being treated at UMC hospital.

Police are scouring surveillance video from the area, including from the strip's major casinos, to try and identify the Range Rover and its occupants, according to police.

They do not yet know why the Range Rovers' occupants fired shots at the Maserati or whether the cars had local plates or were from out of state.

No bystanders were hit by gunfire, Hernandez said.

"We're currently looking for a black Range Rover Sport, with large black rims and some sort of dealership advertising or advertisement plates," Hernandez said. "This is an armed and dangerous vehicle."

The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority had no immediate comment about the safety of tourists in the wake of the shooting today.

Read More..

Obama can't kick his legacy down road

President Obama has a small window of opportunity to get Congress to act on his priorities, Gloria Borger says.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Gloria Borger: Prospect of deep budget cuts was designed to compel compromise


• She says the "unthinkable" cuts now have many supporters


• The likelihood that cuts may happen shows new level of D.C. dysfunction, she says


• Borger: President may want a 2014 House victory, but action needed now

(CNN) -- So let's try to recount why we are where we are. In August 2011, Washington was trying to figure out how to raise the debt ceiling -- so the US might continue to pay its bills -- when a stunt was hatched: Kick the can down the road.

And not only kick it down the road, but do it in a way that would eventually force Washington to do its job: Invent a punishment.

Gloria Borger

If the politicians failed to come up with some kind of budget deal, the blunt instrument of across-the-board cuts in every area would await.

Unthinkable! Untenable!

Until now.

In fact, something designed to be worse than any conceivable agreement is now completely acceptable to many.

And not only are these forced budget cuts considered acceptable, they're even applauded. Some Republicans figure they'll never find a way to get 5% across-the-board domestic spending cuts like this again, so go for it. And some liberal Democrats likewise say 8% cuts in military spending are better than anything we might get on our own, so go for it.

Opinion: Forced budget cuts a disaster for military

The result: A draconian plan designed to force the two sides to get together has now turned out to be too weak to do that.

And what does that tell us? More about the collapse of the political process than it does about the merits of any budget cuts. Official Washington has completely abdicated responsibility, taking its dysfunction to a new level -- which is really saying something.

We've learned since the election that the second-term president is feeling chipper. With re-election came the power to force Republicans to raise taxes on the wealthy in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and good for him. Americans voted, and said that's what they wanted, and so it happened. Even the most sullen Republicans knew that tax fight had been lost.

Points on the board for the White House.

Now the evil "sequester" -- the forced budget cuts -- looms. And the president proposes what he calls a "balanced" approach: closing tax loopholes on the rich and budget cuts. It's something he knows Republicans will never go for. They raised taxes six weeks ago, and they're not going to do it again now. They already gave at the office. And Republicans also say, with some merit, that taxes were never meant to be a part of the discussion of across-the-board cuts. It's about spending.

Politics: Obama more emotional on spending cuts

Here's the problem: The election is over. Obama won, and he doesn't really have to keep telling us -- or showing us, via staged campaign-style events like the one Tuesday in which he used police officers as props while he opposed the forced spending cuts.

What we're waiting for is the plan to translate victory into effective governance.

Sure, there's no doubt the president has the upper hand. He's right to believe that GOP calls for austerity do not constitute a cohesive party platform. He knows that the GOP has no singular, effective leader, and that its message is unformed. And he's probably hoping that the next two years can be used effectively to further undermine the GOP and win back a Democratic majority in the House.

Slight problem: There's plenty of real work to be done, on the budget, on tax reform, on immigration, climate change and guns. A second-term president has a small window of opportunity. And a presidential legacy is not something that can be kicked down the road.

Follow @CNNOpinion on Twitter.

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Gloria Borger.

Read More..

Cycling: Armstrong refuses to cooperate with USADA

WASHINGTON: Lance Armstrong said Wednesday that he will not cooperate with a US Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) investigation into dope cheats in cycling but would be willing to help other anti-doping inquiries.

The move greatly diminishes Armstrong's chances of having his life ban from World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)-sanctioned sport reduced even as it forces USADA to move ahead without his help in looking into others involved in doping.

"For several reasons, Lance will not participate in USADA's efforts to selectively conduct American prosecutions that only demonize selected individuals while failing to address the 95 percent of the sport over which USADA has no jurisdiction," Armstrong said in a statement released through attorney Tim Herman.

Armstrong was stripped of his seven Tour de France titles after a USADA probe uncovered overwhelming evidence he was at the heart of a major doping conspiracy, including testimony from 26 witnesses, was released last October.

After admitting in a television interview last month that the titles he won from 1999-2005 were helped by performance-enhancing substances, Armstrong said he would cooperate with anti-doping officials.

He repeated that offer on Wednesday even as he made it clear he would not go through USADA to do so.

"Lance is willing to cooperate fully and has been very clear: He will be the first man through the door, and once inside will answer every question, at an international tribunal formed to comprehensively address pro cycling, an almost exclusively European sport," the statement said.

"We remain hopeful that an international effort will be mounted, and we will do everything we can to facilitate that result."

USADA chief executive Travis T. Tygart had given Armstrong a February 6 deadline to testify under oath on what he knew about such subjects as cycling team manager Johan Bruyneel's role in the conspiracy, details of how the scheme unfolded or if International Cycling Union (UCI) officials knew about it.

Armstrong said he would not be able to meet that deadline so Tygart extended the deadline to Wednesday, only to learn Armstrong would not be coming when the disgraced cyclist released his statement to the media.

"Today we learned from the media that Mr. Armstrong is choosing not to come in and be truthful and that he will not take the opportunity to work toward righting his wrongs in sport," Tygart said in a statement.

"At this time we are moving forward with our investigation without him and we will continue to work closely with WADA and other appropriate and responsible international authorities to fulfill our promise to clean athletes to protect their right to compete on a drug free playing field."

Failing to cooperate with USADA all-but dooms Armstrong's chance of reducing his life ban to an eight-year ban, only a possibility for providing substantial assistance to anti-doping authorities under WADA's code.

"We have provided Mr. Armstrong several opportunities to assist in our ongoing efforts to clean up the sport of cycling," Tygart said.

"Following his recent television interview, we again invited him to come in and provide honest information and he was informed in writing by WADA that this was the appropriate avenue for him if he wanted to be part of the solution.

"Over the last few weeks he has led us to believe that he wanted to come in and assist USADA, but was worried of potential criminal and civil liability if he did so."

Armstrong, 41, faces two major lawsuits that could be impacted by any testimony he gives under oath.

A Texas insurance firm sued Armstrong on February 7 seeking $12 million for bonus money paid to Armstrong for the Tour de France triumphs that are now null and void.

Former Armstrong teammate Floyd Landis, himself an admitted dope cheat who lost the 2006 Tour de France crown because of doping, is suing Armstrong on grounds that Armstrong deceived sponsors US Postal Service by claiming to be winning his titles without using performance-enhancing drugs.

In his television confessional to Oprah Winfrey last month, Armstrong contradicted several parts of USADA's investigation, saying he had stopped doping after 2005 and was not a ringleader in the doping programme.

Tygart, in a later television interview, said Armstrong had lied to Winfrey because USADA evidence showed he was doping when he rode in the Tour de France two final times in 2009 and 2010.

According to Tygart, expert reports based on the variation of Armstrong's blood values make it a "one to a million chance that it was due to something other than doping."

-AFP/ac

Read More..

Jesse Jackson Jr.: 'Guilty, your honor'

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: Sandra Jackson pleads guilty to filing false tax returns


• Jesse Jackson Jr. dabs at his eyes as he admits guilt in court


• Jackson will have to forfeit $750,000 in misused funds


• The former congressman acknowledges he has been under psychiatric care

Washington (CNN) -- Dabbing at his eyes with a handkerchief, former U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. pleaded guilty on Wednesday to one federal charge related to years of using campaign funds for personal expenses that included purchases of Michael Jackson memorabilia and a Rolex watch.

"Guilty, your honor," Jackson responded to U.S. District Judge Robert Wilkins after looking back at family members in the courtroom, including his father, civil rights activist Jesse Jackson.

"I used monies that should have been used for campaign purposes," Jackson acknowledged to the judge. When Wilkins asked if Jackson realized that the guilty plea meant giving up the right to a trial, he responded: "I have no interest in wasting the taxpayers' time or money."

Wilkins set sentencing for June 28.

At a separate hearing later Wednesday, Jackson's wife, former Chicago Alderman Sandra Stevens Jackson, pleaded guilty to filing false tax returns in connection with the misuse of her husband's campaign funds.

She could receive up to three years in prison and a maximum $250,000 fine when sentenced on July 1.

Wednesday's hearings completed the fall of the once politically powerful Chicago couple. Jackson won won re-election to Congress last year despite personal problems, including a mood disorder, that caused him to drop out of sight for months during the campaign.

That was also the time that he was under investigation for the campaign fund irregularities that dated back several years.

He resigned a few weeks after the election, while his wife resigned her position as a Chicago alderman in January.

At Jackson's hearing in the morning, he responded to standard legal questions about his soundness of mind by acknowledging his treatment by a psychiatrist.

The treatment was not for alcohol or drug abuse, Jackson said, adding that he had a beer on Tuesday night but "I have never been more clear in my life than I am now."

"I fully understand the consequences of my actions," he said.

Jackson pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, mail fraud and false statements.

That charge carries a maximum of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine, but Wilkins noted that prosecutors and defense attorneys said sentencing guidelines indicated an appropriate sentence of 46 to 57 months in prison and a fine of between $10,000 and $100,000.

However, Wilkins said he was not bound by sentencing guidelines, telling Jackson: "The bottom line is, I don't know what sentence you're going to get and you don't know what sentence you're going to get."

Jackson's lawyer, Reid Weingarten, told reporters after the hearing that he would mount a strong legal case for a fair sentence, noting his client is the father of two young children and has the health problems mentioned in court.

"It turns out that Jesse has serious health issues," Weingarten said. "... We are going to talk about them extensively with the court and those health issues are directly related to his present predicament. That is not an excuse. That is just a fact. And Jesse has turned a corner there as well."

Neither Jackson nor his wife spoke to reporters when they arrived at the courthouse in Washington on Wednesday morning, or after the hearings concluded in the afternoon.

Last week, prosecutors filed charges against the couple in separate criminal informations, which are used when parties strike plea agreements.

The documents say the former Democratic congressman from Illinois misused about $750,000 in campaign funds from August 2005 through approximately July 2012.

According to court documents, Jackson's campaign credit cards were used for $582,772 in personal expenditures. Jackson's purchases included a gold-plated men's Rolex watch costing more than $43,000 and almost $10,000 in children's furniture.

As part of the plea agreement Jackson, 47, will have to forfeit the $750,000 in improperly used funds and assorted memorabilia that prosecutors said he bought with campaign cash.

The items include two hats belonging to the late singer Michael Jackson costing more than $8,000; a $5,000 football signed by U.S. presidents; and memorabilia involving the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X and martial artist Bruce Lee.

Another expenses incurred using the campaign credit card were a five-day stay at Martha's Vineyard Holistic Retreat in 2008 for $5,687.75, and a $4,272.78 charge in 2006 for on-board cruise expenses to Navigator of the Sea, according to court documents.

Jackson issued a statement through his attorneys on Friday that said, in part: "I offer no excuses for my conduct and I fully accept my responsibility for the improper decisions and mistakes I have made."

Jackson's wife is not mentioned by name in the document outlining misuse of campaign funds.

But there are references to her as "Co-Conspirator 1," a former consultant and later the manager of Jackson's re-election campaign. According to the court documents, "Co-Conspirator 1" bought $5,150 worth of fur capes and parkas and had them shipped from Beverly Hills, California, to Washington.

Jesse Jackson Jr. had served in Congress since 1995. His name came up during the investigation of former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, linked to allegations that Blagojevich attempted to sell the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama when he became president.

No charges were filed against Jackson, but the House Ethics Committee decided to look into whether Jackson or an associate offered to raise a large amount of money for Blagojevich in exchange for Jackson getting the Senate seat.

Jackson dropped out of sight last spring and his office later said he was being treated at the Mayo Clinic for a mood disorder, depression and gastrointestinal problems. He was re-elected in November but resigned a few weeks later.

His father recently said his son was "taking his medication and handling his challenges."

Read More..