CNN's Drew Griffin investigates claims of distortion and lies by SPCA International's "Baghdad Pups" program.
President Obama announces a shift in immigration policy. Anderson Cooper looks at his previous stance on the issue.
Jerry Sandusky's defense claims his behavior toward his accusers is typical of a histrionic personality disorder.
Egyptians protest after Egypt's Supreme Constitutional Court ruled that Parliament must be dissolved before the presidential election.
The war on foul mouths in one town lands on our RidicuList.
Paul Begala, Ana Navarro and Alice Stewart discuss the strategy behind President Obama's immigration plan and Mitt Romney's response.
Randi Kaye reports on a father who killed his daughter's attacker. Jeffrey Toobin explains how the law applies to the case.
Egypt is preparing for its first presidential election since Hosni Mubarak was removed from power, ousted by a revolution. But back-to-back rulings by the country’s highest court, run by the military, threaten to jeopardize what was already a shaky progression toward democracy.
The Supreme Constitutional Court dissolved the country’s parliament and will allow former Prime Minister Ahmed Shafiq to participate in a presidential runoff election. Shafiq is closely associated with Mubarak, making the ruling a defeat for revolutionaries and factions like the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s a sign that the powerful military is taking back control and reversing hard-fought change. Critics call it a coup.
On the eve of the election, Anderson talks to Senior International Correspondent Ben Wedeman and The New York Times' David Kirkpatrick. They explain what protesters are demanding and what is expected to happen tomorrow. Tune in at 8 and 10 p.m. ET.
Reporter's Note: President Obama once, long ago, asked the public for advice on how to run the country. I can’t imagine that any of my advice would be worth a nickel, but doing my duty I write each day…sometimes with answers, sometimes with just more questions.
Dear Mr. President,
Well, you certainly sprayed some gasoline on the barbeque today! This new provision of yours to stop deporting the children of illegal immigrants under certain conditions has created a regular firestorm on Capitol Hill.
Of course some Hispanic activists and Dems are very happy; of course some conservatives and Republicans are very unhappy; and I suspect a good many Americans are a bit confused. Not about your policy. They can probably sort that out well enough and then render their opinion for or against it. No, I imagine what has them puzzled is the mechanism by which you are taking this action, and to be frank, I’m not sure I understand it myself.
Let me make this clear to begin with: I’m not questioning the intent or effect of the action; that is a philosophical debate that has more than enough combatants on both sides eager to take it on.
I just honestly don’t quite grasp how and when any administration, Democratic or Republican, gets to say, “Ok, we’re going to enforce law A, but we will not enforce law B.” I always thought that Presidents were pretty much required to uphold all the laws of the land, whether they agreed with them or not. Sure, a chief executive has every right (perhaps even a duty) to vigorously contest such laws in Congress, trying to overturn them, derail them, defang them; but I thought once Congress acted, the law was…well, the law.
Again, please believe me when I say I am truly just puzzled by how you (and other recent Presidents) have approached these matters. After all, if Presidents are going to simply ignore the laws passed by Congress whenever they don’t like them, what do we have a Congress for? And what does that say about the broader scope of representative government?
I know that your supporters are probably thrilled by your action today, in no small part because it is a thumb in the eye of Republicans who have blocked similar measures in Congress. But will they be as happy when one day, as inevitably will happen, they are in the minority and another president slams through a policy they hate over the objections of Congress, defending it with a terse, “President Obama did it!”
Give me a call if you have a moment to chat this over. I’d love your take on it.
A plan to build electric charging stations in the city of Chicago using public funds is on hold while the company in charge faces a possible investigation.
350Green signed a deal with Chicago last year to build 280 electric charging stations throughout the city. Besides $1.9 million in taxpayer money, the deal called for 350Green to provide another $6 million in private funds to complete the project. One hundred sixty-eight stations are up and running; the rest are waiting to be finished. Some locations are partially complete but have been sitting idle for more than two months.
The company, according to several sources, owes hundreds of thousands of dollars to a handful of contractors who've done work but haven't been paid.
Brian Haug is with Continental Electric Construction Company in Chicago. Haug said his company has been installing chargers for 350Green since last summer. "At first they were good, but recently they've been long on their payments," he said.
Haug says Continental and other companies stopped doing work for 350Green in April. Haug declined to say how much his company is owed but says it’s thousands of dollars. He said "it's a concern" whether or not they'll ever get paid.
The city of Chicago used state and federal money to fund the deal with 350Green. Eighty percent of that money has been paid to the company. The city has halted payments to 350Green and is concerned that the company may have violated the law.