Latest News

Lawmakers call on US Secret Service boss to resign

Published

2 years ago

2024/07/23

Priyan

Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle has so far resisted mounting calls to step down [BBC]

Both Democratic and Republican lawmakers called on Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle to step down in the wake of the assassination attempt of Donald Trump.

The demand came during and after a tense House Oversight Committee hearing on Monday that questioned Ms Cheatle about her agency’s security preparations ahead of a 13 July rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, that led to the attempt on Trump’s life.

The shooting left one person dead and three other wounded – including the former president.

Monday’s hearing was bruising for Ms Cheatle, as lawmakers ridiculed her answers and the lack of information the agency had made public, but it was also a rare show of bipartisanship on an increasingly polarised Capitol Hill.

For nearly six hours, members sought to answer lingering questions about the shooting, including how suspect Thomas Matthew Crooks was able to get onto a nearby rooftop and why Trump was allowed to take the stage once a suspicious person was reported.

After the hearing, the leading Republican and Democrat from the committee – Reps James Comer and Jamie Raskin – sent a letter to Ms Cheatle that concretely laid out their belief that she should vacate her office.

“In the middle of a presidential election, the Committee and the American people demand serious institutional accountability and transparency that you are not providing,” the letter says. “We call on you to resign as Director as a first step to allowing new leadership to swiftly address this crisis and rebuild the trust of a truly concerned Congress and the American people.”

While Ms Cheatle took responsibility during the hearing for the security lapses and acknowledged that the Butler incident marks “the most significant operational failure of the Secret Service in decades”, she left many lawmakers frustrated.

Ms Cheatle pushed back on calls to resign and said she remains “the best person to lead the Secret Service at this time”.

The Secret Service director also answered few questions directly – citing the ongoing investigation.

“The American people have questions, and they deserve answers,” Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer told Ms Cheatle during his closing. “You were required to provide answers and, ma’am, you did not.”

At times, the tense hearing on Monday seemed to devolve into fury. Lawmakers used expletives, shouted at the witness and questioned the director’s honesty and competence.

“I’m disgusted by your performance,” Florida Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna said.

Ms Cheatle’s answers seemed to continuously spark the ire of lawmakers on the committee, many of whom said she should be dismissed if she continued to refuse to resign. “It looks like you won’t answer some pretty basic questions,” Ohio Republican Jim Jordan, a Trump ally, said. “And it looks like you cut corners when it comes to protecting one of the most well-known individuals on the planet.”

Throughout the hearing, some Representatives groaned loudly, rolled their eyes, or muttered audibly in response to Cheatle’s comments.

In one of the tensest moments of the hearing, South Carolina Republican Nancy Mace uttered a string of expletives in response to another one of Ms Cheatle’s answers, specifically about how her opening remarks were leaked to US media outlets over the weekend. “You are being dishonest or lying,” Mace said. “You’re just dodging!”

Another Republican, Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene, shouted at Ms Cheatle, referring to her as a “total failure”. “The entire country is demanding you resign,” Ms Greene said.

Ms Cheatle also acknowledged that, to date, no Secret Service officers or employees have been disciplined for what took place in Butler.

According to Ms Cheatle, a preliminary report on the shooting will be released in the next 60 days – a timeline that committee members scoffed at.

Getty Images James Comer, the committee chairman, speaks at a hearing on the Secret Service — *Committee Chairman James Comer said that Ms Cheatle was “required to provide answers and, ma’am, you did not.” [BBC]*

New York’s Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat, said that the delay of such a report during a tense election season was “not acceptable”.

“This is not theatre, this is not about jockeying, this is about the safety of some of the most highly targeted and valued targets internationally and domestically,” Ms Ocasio-Cortez said. There needs to be answers. We need to make policy decisions. Without that, we’re flying blind,” she added.

Despite the relative show of unity regarding Ms Cheatle’s future, there were some points of disagreement between Republicans and Democrats on the committee.

Several Republicans, for example, characterised Ms Cheatle as a “DEI” – diversity, equity and inclusion – hire and questioned, without evidence, whether female agents assigned to Trump’s security detail were able to do the job properly.

Others, such as Colorado’s Lauren Boebert and Ms Luna of Florida, hinted at conspiracy theories that have appeared online.

Florida Republican Michael Waltz blamed Ms Cheatle for the rumours, arguing that misinformation “flies” in the absence of information. “I would have fired you just by how you handled this,” Mr Waltz said, “because you should have been the first to the mics.”

The hearing ended with Mr Comer acknowledging that the hearing did little to answer the questions that Congress had. “I don’t think we answered too many questions that the American people have,” he said.

Several eyewitnesses to the shooting in Butler told the BBC that Ms Cheatle’s answers left them feeling frustrated and angry.

“She’s trying to pass the buck,” said Jean Vincent, a Butler resident. “I’m actually amazed at how insufficient her answers were. She needs to be held accountable for her total lack of competency… she put our lives at risk and needs to take responsibility.”

Another witness, former US Marine Teresa Wilson, said that while she understands that there are active investigations still taking place, Ms Cheatle was far too “evasive”.

“The only acceptable thing she could have done is take responsibility and step down,” Ms Wilson said. “All the rest is noise.”

[BBC]

All News Advertisement

Latest News

Advisory for Heavy Rain issued for the Central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa provinces and in the Ampara, Batticaloa and Polonnaruwa districts

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

Advisory for Heavy Rain Issued by the Natural Hazards Early Warning Centre at 12.00 noon on 21 February 2026 valid for the period until 08.30 a.m. 22 February 2026

Due to the low level atmospheric disturbance in the vicinity of Sri Lanka, Heavy showers above 100 mm are likely at some places in the Central, Uva and Sabaragamuwa provinces and in the Ampara, Batticaloa and Polonnaruwa districts and fairly heavy showers above 75 mm are likely at some places elsewhere.

Therefore, the general public is advised to take adequate precautions to minimize damages caused by heavy rain, strong winds and lightning during thundershowers.

Latest News

Ranaweera’s four-for leads Sri Lanka to tense win over West Indies

Published

9 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

Inoka Ranaweera returned figures of 4 for 44 [Cricinfo]

Sri Lanka took a 1-0 lead in the ODI series with a tense ten-run win over West Indies, thanks largely to a match-defining performance from Inoka Ranaweera.

After being asked to bat, Sri Lanka posted 240 for 6, built on half-centuries from Hasini Perera (61 off 86) and Harshitha Samarawickrema (66 off 105). Captain Chamari Athapaththu made 27, while useful middle-order contributions from Nilakshika Silva and Kavisha Dilhari kept the innings moving at a controlled rate. A late cameo from Dewmi Vihanga, who struck 14 off six balls, ensured Sri Lanka pushed towards a competitive total in St George’s in Grenada.

But it was Ranaweera who tilted the contest. The experienced left-arm spinner returned figures of 4 for 44 from her ten overs. She removed the No. 3 Shemaine Campbelle cheaply, dismissed Chinelle Henry soon after, and then returned to break the dangerous stand of 89 between Stefanie Taylor and Jannillea Glasgow in the 40th over, just as West Indies were threatening to surge ahead. Ranaweera also accounted for Shawnisha Hector at the death.

Taylor’s 66 off 83 balls and Glasgow’s 50 off 67 had revived West Indies from early setbacks, and with Aaliyah Alleyne in the middle, the chase remained alive deep into the game. West Indies needed 18 from the last two overs, and 12 from the last six balls. However, Sri Lanka’s spinners held firm, with Dilhari finishing with three wickets, including two in the final over, to complement Ranaweera’s starring role.

West Indies were eventually bowled out for 230 in 49.4 overs. Sri Lanka have now won four of their last five ODIs against West Indies since 2017.

Brief scores:
Sri Lanka Women 240 for 6 in 50 overs (Harshitha Samarawickrama 66, Hasini Perera 61; Hayley Matthews 2-46, Karishma Ramharak 2-57) beat West Indies Women 230 in 49.4 overs (Stefanie Taylor 66, Jannillea Glasgow 50; Inoka Ranaweera 4-44, Kavish Dilhari 3-49) by ten runs

[Cricinfo]

Latest News

Trump brings in new 10% tariff as Supreme Court rejects his global import taxes

Published

14 hours ago

2026/02/21

Priyan

US President Donald Trump has imposed a new 10% global tariff to replace ones struck down by the Supreme Court, calling the ruling “terrible” and lambasting the justices who rejected his trade policy as “fools”.

The president unveiled the plan shortly after the justices outlawed most of the global tariffs the White House announced last year.

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the president had overstepped his powers.

The decision was a major victory for businesses and US states that had challenged the duties, opening the door to potentially billions of dollars in tariff refunds, while also injecting new uncertainty into the global trade landscape.

Speaking from the White House on Friday, Trump indicated that refunds would not come without a legal battle, saying he expected the matter to be tied up in court for years.

He also said he would turn to other laws to press ahead with his tariffs, which he has argued encourage investment and manufacturing in the US.

“We have alternatives – great alternatives and we’ll be a lot stronger for it,” he said.

The court battle was focused on import taxes that Trump unveiled last year on goods from nearly every country in the world.

The tariffs initially targeted Mexico, Canada and China, before expanding dramatically to dozens of trade partners on what the president billed as “Liberation Day” last April.

The White House had cited a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), which gives the president power to “regulate” trade in response to an emergency.

But the measures sparked outcry at home and abroad from firms facing an abrupt rise in taxes on shipments entering the US, and fuelled worries that the levies would lead to higher prices.

Arguing before the court last year, lawyers for the challenging states and small businesses said that the law used by the president to impose the levies made no mention of the word “tariffs”.

They said that Congress did not intend to hand off its power to tax or give the president an “open-ended power to junk” other existing trade deals and tariff rules.

In his opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, sided with that view.

“When Congress has delegated its tariff powers, it has done so in explicit terms and subject to strict limits,” he wrote.

“Had Congress intended to convey the distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs, it would have done so expressly, as it consistently has in other tariff statutes.”

The decision to strike down the tariffs was joined by the court’s three liberal justices, as well as two justices nominated by Trump: Amy Coney Barrett and Neil Gorsuch.

Three conservative justices, Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito, dissented.

At the White House, Trump said he was “absolutely ashamed” of the Republican appointees on the court who voted against his trade policy.

He said they were “just being fools and lap dogs” and were “very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution”.

Shares on Wall Street rose after the announcement, with the S&P 500 closing up about 0.7%, as businesses across the US cautiously welcomed the ruling.

“I feel… like a thousand-pound weight has been lifted off my chest,” said Beth Benike, the owner of Busy Baby products in Minnesota, which manufactures products in China.

Nik Holm, chief executive of Terry Precision Cycling, one of the small businesses involved in the case, called the ruling a “relief”.

“Though it will be many months before our supply chain is back up and running as normal, we look forward to the government’s refund of these improperly-collected duties,” he said.

The anticipated refunds and relief from tariff costs may prove elusive, however.

On Friday, Trump imposed the new 10% tariff under a never-used law known as Section 122, which gives the power to put in place tariffs up to 15% for 150 days, at which point Congress must step in.

Analysts expect the White House to consider other tools, such as Section 232 and Section 301, which allow import taxes to address national security risks and unfair trade practices.

Trump has previously used those tools for tariffs, including some announced last year on sectors such as steel, aluminium and cars. Those were untouched by the court ruling.

A White House official said countries that struck trade deals with the US, including the UK, India and the EU, will now face the global 10% tariff under Section 122 rather than the tariff rate they had previously negotiated.

The Trump administration expects those countries to keep abiding by the concessions they had agreed to under the trade deals, the official added.

“Things have only gotten more complicated and more messy today,” said Geoffrey Gertz, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington.

Reaction by major trade partners was relatively muted.

“We take note of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and are analysing it carefully,” European Commission spokesman Olof Gill wrote on social media.

The US has already collected at least $130bn in tariffs using the IEEPA law, according to the most recent government data.

In recent weeks, hundreds of firms, including retailer Costco, aluminium giant Alcoa and food importers like tuna fish brand Bumble Bee, have filed lawsuits contesting the tariffs, in a bid to get in line for a refund.

But the decision by the majority does not directly mention refunds, likely handing back the question of how that process might work to the Court of International Trade.

In his dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh warned the situation would be a “mess”.

Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG US, warned that the cost of litigation could make recouping funds difficult for smaller firms.

“Unfortunately, I’d say curb your enthusiasm, although I understand the desire for relief,” she said.

Steve Becker, head of the law firm Pillsbury, said the “best thing” for businesses would be if the government created a procedure that did not require filing a lawsuit.

[BBC]

“I think companies can be fairly confident that they’ll get their money back eventually,” he added. “How long it will take really is up to the government.”