How the first 100 days became a standard by which new presidents are judged

This was excerpted from the April 28 edition of CNN’s Meanwhile in America, the daily email about US politics for global readers. Click here to read past editions and subscribe.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt might have conquered the Great Depression and won World War II. But he bequeathed a first-term curse for his successors.

FDR’s dizzying pace in 1933 made the first 100 days a standard by which new presidents are judged.

Roosevelt passed 16 major bills and more than 50 other laws that transformed the American economy and society. He funded government jobs to ease unemployment and passed an agriculture law to ease poverty and hunger among farmworkers. Banking regulations staved off an economic collapse.

Joseph Robinette Biden, who took office amid the greatest domestic crisis since Roosevelt, is earning generally favorable reviews as he marks the milestone on Wednesday night with a joint address to Congress. The President honored his word to get vaccine shots in arms and stimulus checks in bank accounts. He passed his Covid-19 rescue plan worth $ 1.9 trillion, rejoined the Paris climate accord and restored White House decorum. His approval rating is above 50% — a level never reached by ex-President Donald Trump — and three-quarters of Americans back his pandemic leadership.

Presidents usually address Congress within weeks of taking office to inject momentum into their programs. But Biden was smart to wait: He can report a job well done to his big TV audience.

With the pandemic beginning to ease in the US, Wednesday night’s speech (0100 GMT Thursday) also marks a pivot point to an ambitious agenda that faces a deeply uncertain future.

Biden has a $ 2 trillion plan to mend and reimagine American infrastructure and has a proposal nearly as big to fund child care, free kindergarten, paid family and medical leave, and other steps to ease the burden on US workers. He’s planning a massive 21st-century low-carbon economy. Democrats are pushing sweeping police and electoral reforms. Biden plans to pay for all this partly by raising taxes on corporations and the richest Americans, who were given big breaks by Trump. It’s potentially the most ambitious rebalancing of US society since President Lyndon Baines Johnson in the 1960s.

Unlike FDR, Biden lacks crushing Democratic majorities in Congress. Even if all Senate Democrats are on board, Vice President Kamala Harris will have to cast deciding votes in the 50-50 chamber. And Republicans can stall much of his program by demanding a 60-vote supermajority.

So whether JRB becomes another FDR or LBJ is still TBD.

‘Madam Speaker, the President of the United States’

US House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi rips up a copy of President Trump’s speech after he delivers the State of the Union address on February 4, 2020.

The sergeant-at-arms will herald a very different kind of presidential address when Biden arrives in the House of Representatives on Wednesday night. Presidents are required by the Constitution from “time to time” to offer a report on the “State of the Union” to lawmakers. That evolved in the 20th century to an annual in-person address by presidents, who love the attention. (The speech is called a State of the Union in most years, but it’s referred to as a joint address to Congress when it’s delivered by a new president.)

The most obvious difference between this and any other year is that Biden will walk into a socially distanced chamber. There will be none of the hugs and back slapping that normally greet POTUS from lawmakers who camp out in aisle seats for hours to get their moments on TV.

Biden, in keeping with his strict adherence to anti-Covid protocols, will wear a mask until he begins to speak. Only 200 lawmakers will be on the House floor. Cabinet members are not expected to attend, and Chief Justice John Roberts will be the sole representative from the Supreme Court.

The most striking and historically important moment of the night will be when Biden speaks directly in front of the first female speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Harris, the first female vice president. But there will be no theatrical standing ovations from massed ranks of Democratic benches. This will dilute the visual effect of the address. But it may also help Biden project a sense of seriousness and will implicitly show Americans the pandemic isn’t over.

“There are only going to be the most senior officials as determined by the parties, and so they are likely to be less partisan and rabble rousing, and so it will be a more respectful audience,” said Aaron Kall, the director of the debate program at the University of Michigan and an expert on presidential rhetoric.

Speaking of respect, there’s one thing we know for sure: There will be no repeat of what happened after Trump’s last State of the Union address, when a disgusted Pelosi brazenly ripped up her copy of the speech in front of the cameras.

>>>>

Why Republican opposition to the Covid-19 stimulus bill looks like very bad politics

Here’s a remarkable stat for you: A total of zero — yes, zero! — Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the American Rescue Plan, the $ 1.9 trillion stimulus plan aimed at helping the country recover from the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

All 49 Republicans present in the Senate voted no (Sen. Dan Sullivan of Alaska was absent from the final vote because of the death of his father-in-law.) All 210 Republicans in the House voted no.

The goal, politically speaking, was simple: To show that, despite President Joe Biden’s pledges of bipartisanship during the 2020 campaign, this massive piece of domestic spending was not in any way the product of both parties coming together.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) summed up that sentiment in a tweet posted soon after the Senate approved the legislation earlier this month:

“Instead of working together to fight COVID-19, Democrats decided to exploit the crisis by jamming through unrelated liberal policies they couldn’t pass honest. A colossal missed opportunity for the American people.”

The American people appear to disagree.

THE POINT — NOW ON YOUTUBE!

In each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscribe!

A new CNN national poll showed that more than 6 in 10 Americans (61%) approve of the legislation while two-thirds believe it will help the economy and 55% expect it to help them. In a country as deeply divided along purely partisan line as the United States right now, those numbers are pretty dramatic.

Those numbers are also far from an anomaly. A new CBS News poll released Thursday morning showed 75% of Americans approve of Congress passing the Covid-19 stimulus bill — a number that includes 77% of independents and almost half (46%) of self-identified Republicans. And that data echoes a new Pew poll that shows 70% of Americans support the stimulus bill while just 28% oppose it. In that survey, more than 4 in 10 Republicans (41%) approve of the legislation.

The conclusion here is simple: This is a popular bill. And that support, with the American public at least, is bipartisan.

(Sidebar: How do you define something as “bipartisan?” If a decent chunk of people in the party out of power support it? Or only if politicians in the party out of power support it?)

And it’s not just that the overall bill is popular. It’s that many of the individual provisions in the bill are even more popular. This from CNN polling director Jennifer Agiesta on the results of the latest CNN poll is instructive:

“In the new poll, 61% support the $ 1.9 trillion economic relief bill proposed by Biden and expected to pass in the House Wednesday, and several key provisions of the bill are even more popular. A broad majority of Americans (85%) say they support policies in the bill that would provide larger tax credits for families and make them easier for low-income households to claim, including majorities across party lines (95% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans support it). Around three-quarters favor provisions to provide funding to facilitate a return to the classroom for K-12 students (77%), and sending stimulus checks worth up to $ 1,400 per person to most families and individuals (76%). Both of those policies also have majority support across party lines (55% of Republicans support each, among Democrats, support tops 90% for each one).”

If you think about it for a minute, it makes sense. This legislation, that President Biden is expected to sign on Friday, pumps money — lots and lots of money — into the American economy. That includes 90% of Americans who will be eligible for up to as much as $ 1,400 per person in stimulus checks. And money for public schools to help them reopen fully — after an incredibly difficult year of virtual schools for millions of families. And more money for those still unemployed due to the pandemic. And more money for small businesses. And for vaccines and testing.

You get the idea. The vast majority of Americans will benefit in ways small and large from the money approved by Congress in this bill. And — breaking news! — people like getting money. And every single Republican is on the record in opposition to it.

Which, as you might have already figured out, poses a major political problem for GOP elected officials in Washington. A problem that they seem to just be realizing — and inventing creative ways to attempt to wriggle out of.

Witness Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, who, like every other Republican senator, voted against the Covid-19 bill last week.

“Independent restaurant operators have won $ 28.6 billion worth of targeted relief,” he tweeted on Wednesday. “This funding will ensure small businesses can survive the pandemic by helping to adapt their operations and keep their employees on the payroll.”

Er …

Or Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who, after four years of standing by as former President Donald Trump exploded the national debt, decided that now is the time to re-focus on “this out-of-control debt” that has “serious consequences for American families.”

Riiiiight.

Republicans are in a political bind. They stand uniformly opposed to a bill that the American people really like. And they clearly have no real reason for their stance other than the unstated one: They weren’t consulted enough and didn’t want to give Biden a big win in his first 50 days in office.

That’s not a politically defensible position. But its the position Republicans find themselves in at the moment.

>>>>

Biden set to honor the half million US lives lost to coronavirus

President Joe Biden is slated to deliver remarks and participate in a candle-lighting ceremony Monday evening at the White House as the country approaches the grim milestone of 500,000 American lives lost to coronavirus.

Biden is scheduled deliver remarks at 6:00 p.m. ET before he participates in a moment of silence and the ceremony, where he will be joined by first lady Jill Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris and second gentleman Doug Emhoff.

Biden is also ordering that all flags flying over federal buildings to fly at half-staff for five days in remembrance of the deaths, White House press secretary Jen Psaki said on Monday.

“Later today, the President, the first lady, the vice president and the second gentlemen will mark the solemn milestone of 500,000 American lives lost to Covid-19. They will ask all Americans to join in a moment of silence during a candle-lighting ceremony at sundown,” Psaki said during the press briefing. “President Biden will also deliver remarks and order all flags on federal property to be lowered at half-staff for the next five days.”

Psaki said Biden’s remarks will “will highlight the magnitude of loss that this milestone marks for the American people and so many families across the country. He will also speak to the power of the American people to turn the tide on this pandemic by working together, following public health guidelines and getting in line to be vaccinated as soon as they are eligible.”

Biden’s First 100 Days

• Democrats turn to Biden’s agenda after impeachment trial
• Analysis: Biden’s polling is steadier than Trump’s
• Biden administration says 2 million Covid vaccine doses have been delivered after winter storms delay shipments

Biden, Harris and their spouses also participated in a somber ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial ahead of Inauguration Day about a month ago to mark 400,000 American lives lost to Covid-19.

Last week, Psaki said the administration was working on plans so the President could use his “own voice and platform to take a moment to remember the people whose lives have been lost, the families who are still suffering.”

The Biden administration’s approach to the coronavirus marks a stark contrast to how President Donald Trump responded publicly to the pandemic. Trump frequently defended his administration’s response to the pandemic but rarely expressed grief for the victims — once telling “Axios on HBO” in September that the US Covid-19 death toll “is what it is.”

While coronavirus cases are trending down and vaccinations are ticking up, the US is struggling to get a handle on the threat posed by new variants.

Experts — both inside and outside the White House — are still far from certain that America is finally clawing its way out of the pandemic, with Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease specialist, telling CNN Sunday that it’s “possible” Americans will still need to wear masks in 2022 to protect against the coronavirus, even as the US may reach “a significant degree of normality” by the end of this year.

CNN’s Arlette Saenz, Paul LeBlanc and Jason Hoffman contributed to this report.

>>>>

Prince William gets first dose of coronavirus vaccine

William, 38, received his shot at London’s Science Museum, one of the large-scale vaccination centers opened around the country. A photo of the prince receiving his shot was posted on his social media account.

“On Tuesday, I received my first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine,’’ he wrote. “To all those working on the vaccine rollout — thank you for everything you’ve done and continue to do.”

Britain last week opened its national vaccination program to anyone over the age of 34. The program has been gradually expanded to progressively younger age groups since it began in early December.

PRINCE HARRY WILL RELEASE MORE ‘TRUTH BOMBS’ IN ‘VERY PERSONAL’ EPISODE FOR MENTAL HEALTH DOCUSERIES: SOURCES

Other members of the royal family, including Queen Elizabeth II, and Prince Charles, have also received their shots publicly to promote vaccine take-up.

More than 70% of Britain’s adults have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine.

Back in January, the Duke of Cambridge spoke about his grandparents, Queen Elizabeth and the now-late Prince Philip, during a video call with National Health Service staff and volunteers that was released. The medics told William some members of the public are reluctant to get any of the coronavirus vaccines authorized by regulators.

“My grandparents have had the vaccine and I am very proud of them for doing that,’’ William said. “It is really important that everyone gets the vaccine when they are told to.”

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER

The queen has been a fixture of hope for Britains since the pandemic surged in the United Kingdom and around the globe in early 2020. In April of last year, she made a rare televised address to U.K. citizens to lift the spirits of people in the country.

Prince William, Duke of Cambridge and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge at Island Leisure Amusement Arcade to speak to local business owners about the impact of COVID-19 on the tourism sector on August 5, 2020 in Barry, Wales.  (Ben Birchall – WPA Pool/Getty Images)

“I am speaking to you at what I know is an increasingly challenging time,” she shared, “a time of disruption in the life of our country; a disruption that has brought grief to some, financial difficulties to many and enormous changes to the daily lives of us all.”

Last April, the queen’s son, Prince Charles, confirmed that he had contracted COVID-19. The Prince of Wales and his wife, Camilla Parker Bowles, self-isolated in Scotland, where they recovered. It was reported months later that Prince William also contracted the virus.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
 

>>>>

These three presidents skipped their successors’ inaugurations

Thomas Balcerski teaches history at Eastern Connecticut State University. He is the author of “Bosom Friends: The Intimate World of James Buchanan and William Rufus King” (Oxford University Press). He tweets @tbalcerski. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own. View more opinion at CNN.

The presidential election of 2020 is already one for the history books. After a long campaign set against a global pandemic, it appears former Vice President Joe Biden has defeated incumbent President Donald Trump by a wide margin in the popular vote and a decisive count in the Electoral College.

Nevertheless, Trump has so far refused to concede the election, calling into question whether there will be a smooth transition of power from one president to the next. According to the Twentieth Amendment of the US Constitution, the term of an outgoing president expires at noon on January 20. But Trump has not yet indicated if he would attend his successor’s inauguration.

Thomas Balcerski

History provides some indication of what Inauguration Day 2021 may look like. In the past, three outgoing presidents — John Adams in 1801, John Quincy Adams in 1829 and Andrew Johnson in 1869 — refused to attend their successors’ inaugurations. Poor form even then, they all the same provide an apt example for what may follow in today’s divided political climate.

In highly polarized times, in which the results of an election are called into question, an outgoing president’s refusal to attend the new president’s inauguration has yielded surprisingly beneficial results for the country. In all three instances, the incoming president went on to run highly popular administrations and win two terms in office.

All this may bode well for Biden’s political future.

Here’s a look back on the three outgoing presidents who boycotted their successor’s inauguration:

John Adams (1801)

President John Adams

The election of 1800 was one of the most bitter in the nation’s history. Incumbent John Adams sought a second term, but he faced a powerful challenge from his own Vice President, Thomas Jefferson. Worse still for Adams, popular opinion had turned against his championing of the highly divisive Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 that restricted the activities of foreign nationals and limited the freedom of speech and the press.

The voting process itself was equally fraught. Before the passage of the Twelfth Amendment in 1803, which regularized the selection process, electors voted not for a single ticket but instead twice for individuals, with the presidency and vice presidency decided by those receiving the highest and second-highest votes.

The result in 1800? A tie between Jefferson and running mate Aaron Burr, which meant that the election decision next moved to the House of Representatives. In the interim, relations between Adams and Jefferson remained cordial enough. Jefferson dined amicably with John and Abigail Adams at the White House that January.

Would a reconciliation prove possible? “Sir, the event of the election is within your own power,” Jefferson beseeched Adams in early February. But Adams refused to interfere in the House vote. After more than 30 ballots, the House of Representatives finally decided the race for Jefferson.

Adams chose not to attend his successor’s inauguration, departing the nation’s capital at 4 a.m. on March 4, 1801. By avoiding Jefferson’s inauguration, Adams was perhaps motivated by a desire to cool the political temperature in the capital.

The resulting peaceful transfer of power from Adams to Jefferson was ironically dubbed the “Revolution of 1800.” After delivering a conciliatory inaugural address, Jefferson began the now venerable tradition of marching from the Capitol to the White House. He would go on to serve two terms in office.

The period that followed is called the Jeffersonian Era and his followers the Jeffersonian Republicans. The Jeffersonians’ emphasis on agrarian republicanism, limited government and states’ rights reverberate until this day.

John Quincy Adams (1829)

President John Quincy Adams

John Quincy Adams followed in his father’s footsteps in many ways. As secretary of state to the retiring President, James Monroe, he looked to obtain the presidency in his own right in 1824. But he faced multiple challengers, notably from Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay.

Jackson posed the most serious threat. In another parallel to his father’s relationship with Jefferson, Quincy Adams had once been a political ally of Jackson. But relations cooled considerably when the two men found themselves competing for the same prize in 1824.

Jackson won the most popular and electoral votes, but he failed to obtain a majority in either column. With the election at stake, the Clay electors switched their support to Adams, and the House of Representatives voted to make Adams the next president. Later, Jackson declared a “corrupt bargain” had taken place and vowed to run again in 1828.

The election of 1828 featured a contentious rematch between the two men, with Jackson emerging the clear victor this time. Like his father before him, Quincy Adams attempted cordial relations with the incoming president, though to little avail. He offered use of the White House for inaugural festivities, but Jackson declined the proposal.

Instead, Quincy Adams left the White House on the evening of March 3, the day before Jackson’s inauguration. Like his father before him, he purposely chose not to attend the inauguration of his successor.

But Quincy Adams could not stop the wave of popular democracy that followed. In the years ahead, suffrage expanded to nearly all White men. Mass participation in the political culture of the day reignited a second, two-party system of Democrats and Whigs. Jackson served two terms in office and set the tone for Democratic presidents for a generation.

The “Age of Jackson” still echoes in our own times, even as its most detestable features have limited its significance.

Andrew Johnson (1869)

President Andrew Johnson

Vice President Andrew Johnson succeeded to the presidency after the assassination of President Abraham Lincoln in 1865. In turn, the new president committed himself to obstructing the will of the Republican Congress at every step. Popular appeals notwithstanding, he failed to secure the nomination of the Republican Party for president in 1868 and was even impeached by the House of Representatives.

In November 1868, the nation elected Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, Johnson’s nemesis, to the presidency by a wide electoral margin. In the popular vote, Grant owed his slim majority of 300,000 to the votes of nearly a half million freedmen in Southern states.

Despite Grant’s electoral victory, Johnson obstinately refused to attend the inauguration on March 4. He instead remained at the White House to sign legislation. Equally, Grant rejected the idea of riding in the same carriage as Johnson.

The snub did nothing to derail the Grant administration and its policy of vigorous support for Reconstruction in the South. He was easily elected in 1872 to a second term as president. With the exception of Grover Cleveland’s two terms in office, Republicans dominated the White House until 1913.

Grant himself remained a staunch advocate for the civil rights of freed people in the South, even as corruption plagued his administration. In spite of its problems, recent biographies have rehabilitated Grant’s eight years in office. The era of Reconstruction has likewise been reframed as America’s great experiment in democracy.

Get our free weekly newsletter

Sign up for CNN Opinion’s new newsletter.

Join us on Twitter and Facebook

Looking back, these three examples of recalcitrance from presidential incumbents should be taken with a grain of salt, since every other outgoing president whose term expired has attended his successor’s inauguration. But if Trump continues to call into question the results of the presidential election, he ought to follow the example of his long-ago predecessors and just stay home.

Of course, if he does so, he will risk the same fate as prior boycotters of presidential inaugurations. In each instance of these past presidents, the next president moved beyond the snub and steered the nation for not one, but two terms in office. Whether this will mean an “Age of Biden” remains to be seen.

>>>>

Chicago mayor vows to find adults who supplied Adam Toledo, 13, with gun before he was fatally shot by police

“Let’s be clear. An adult put a gun in a child’s hand. A young and impressionable child. And one who should not have been provided with lethal force. A weapon that could and did irreparably change the course of his life,” Lightfoot said at a press conference at New Life Church. “This happens way too often in our city. And it’s way past time for us to say, ‘no more.’”

Toledo was fatally shot around 2:30 a.m. on March 29 by an on-duty police officer responding to a call about shots fired in the Little Village neighborhood, the Chicago Tribune reported. Another individual, 21-year-old Ruben Roman, was arrested at the scene but provided officers with a “phony name,” Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown said Monday. A gun was recovered at the scene, police said. 

CHICAGO WEEKEND CRIME: 8 PEOPLE MURDERED, 30 SHOOTINGS REPORTED CITYWIDE 

Lightfoot said she directed the police superintendent and the chief of detectives “to use every resource to track down the origins of this gun – through tracing, fingerprinting and DNA and any other means – and to find the person responsible for giving it to Adam.”

“I want to bring that person or persons responsible for putting that gun in Adam’s hands to justice,” the mayor said. “Gangs are preying on our most vulnerable, corrupting these young minds with promises of familia and lucre. Like good shepherds, we have to better tend to our flocks to keep the wolves at bay. And when the wolves dare try to take one of ours, we must hit them hard with the staff of a community united against the evils that threaten our youth.”

Explaining why the police department did not identify Toledo until three days after the shooting, Brown said Toledo’s mother, Elizabeth Toledo, walked into the Ogden District Station to report him missing on March 26.

A police detective followed up the next day, and when the woman said her son had returned home, his name was removed from police department records as being missing, Brown said. After the 13-year-old was killed, Brown said police took his fingerprints three times but found no records for him. Investigators also looked into both active and inactive missing persons reports.

Two days after the shooting, police contacted Elizabeth Toledo at about 1 p.m. on Wednesday and told her a description of her son matched that of an unidentified person at the Cook County Medical Examiner’s Office, Brown said. She identified him at 3:30 p.m. that day.

“My hope is that these gang members aren’t foolish enough to do something. But, I am determined. We will find the person who put this gun in Adam’s hand. We will not be deterred by threats from gang members,” Lightfoot said, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

“An adult must be [held] responsible for putting a gun in a child’s hand,” the mayor continued. “We have an obligation to his family, to this community and all over our city to say to gang members and others, ‘We will not tolerate you using our children as pawns and setting them up for a life of misery.’ That’s what’s happening in way too many communities. And here’s where we must, must draw the line.”

Lightfoot also directed Brown to draft a new foot pursuit policy before the anticipated summer surge in violence – reforms that still have not been put in place four years after the Justice Department recommended that the Chicago Police Department develop a new policy given how “poor police practices” make for “tactically unsound foot pursuits” that pose a danger to both officers and public.

“It is one of the most dangerous things that they engage in. They often get separated from their partners. Communication is difficult. You’re running through a dense, urban environment. An alley, a street, a backyard,” Lightfoot said. “It’s way past time that we reckon with this reality that happens literally multiple times every day across many neighborhoods in our city, hundreds of times a year.”

>>>>

Russia’s doping ban reduced to two years, Court of Arbitration for Sport rules

Russia’s ban from major international sporting events has been halved by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), but the country will still not be represented at next year’s Olympics or the 2022 FIFA World Cup.

The original ban by the World Anti-Doping Agency for doping non-compliance was announced last year. An appeal to CAS has resulted in the ban being reduced to two years, it was announced Thursday.

The verdict means Russian athletes are unable to compete under their country’s name, flag and national anthem at major international sporting events until December 16, 2022.

Russia to appeal against four-year doping ban

“WADA is pleased to have won this landmark case,” said WADA President Witold Banka in a statement.

“We left no stone unturned in investigating this very complex matter and in presenting our case before CAS.

“The panel has clearly upheld our findings that the Russian authorities brazenly and illegally manipulated the Moscow Laboratory data in an effort to cover up an institutionalized doping scheme.

“In the face of continual resistance and denial from Russia, we clearly proved our case, in accordance with due process. In that regard, this ruling is an important moment for clean sport and athletes all over the world.”

Russia has not commented on the action and has not responded to inquiries by CNN.

Russia’s punishment relates to inconsistencies in data retrieved by WADA in January 2019 from the Moscow lab at the center of the 2016 McLaren report, which uncovered a widespread and sophisticated state-sponsored doping network.

The Russian Anti-doping Agency (RUSADA) was deemed non-compliant after the publication of the report, which found that the Russian state had conspired with athletes and sporting officials to undertake a doping program that was unprecedented in its scale and ambition.

How WADA’s doping ban hits Russia and Vladimir Putin where it hurts

The report’s findings led to sanctions, which included no Russian team being represented at the 2018 Winter Olympics.

Under the current sanctions, Russian athletes will still be able to compete at major international events under a neutral flag if they can prove they have no link to the doping scheme.

On top of Russia being excluded from next year’s Olympics in Tokyo and the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, it will also miss the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing.

The ban reduction does mean Russia will still be able to host the 2023 Ice Hockey World Championship in St. Petersburg but will be prohibited from hosting other world championship level events while the ban is ongoing.

Travis Tygart, CEO of the US Anti-Doping Agency slammed what he called a “devastating” decision by CAS.

He said in a statement: “At this stage in this sordid Russian state-sponsored doping affair, now spanning close to a decade, there is no consolation in this weak, watered-down outcome.

“To once again escape a meaningful consequence proportional to the crimes, much less a real ban, is a catastrophic blow to clean athletes, the integrity of sport, and the rule of law.”

CAS said its sentence was a reflection of constraints in international law: “The consequences which the panel has decided to impose are not as extensive as those sought by WADA. This should not, however, be read as any validation of the conduct of RUSADA or the Russian authorities. In making its orders, the panel is limited by the powers granted under the applicable law, in particular the WADC and the ISCCS.”

Jim Walden, the lawyer representing whistleblower Grigory Rodchenkov who was instrumental in exposing Russia’s initial cover-up, also criticized CAS’ decision as “nonsensical and undeserved.”

“Despite overwhelming proof of corruption, doping fraud and obstruction of justice, including a brazen attempt to falsely incriminate Dr. Rodchenkov through fabricated evidence, CAS has once again proven itself unwilling and unable to meaningfully deal with systematic and long-standing criminality by Russia,” Walden said in a statement.

“To the millions of clean athletes who were or will be cheated by dirty Russian athletes as a result of today’s ruling, please know that stronger angels have emerged and that the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act now gives the US Department of Justice the power to step in to fill the void left by CAS, which consistently trivializes the longstanding and deeply rooted corruption by the Russian Federation.”

>>>>

A California town is paying its homeless to clean their encampment sites

A pilot project in a California town is paying homeless residents to tidy up their living areas, and it’s changing the culture of the city.

The idea stemmed from a conversation with one of the city’s police sergeants, said Sarah Bontrager, the housing and public services manager for Elk Grove, a city of 174,000 people located 15 miles south of Sacramento.

“We got together to talk about homelessness, and from my prospective I wanted to build better relationships with people who were experience homelessness, and he wanted to address some of the complaints that come to his officers,” Bontrager told CNN.

The number one complaint surrounding homelessness was the amount of trash.

“Our public works staff were previously doing cleanups out at encampment sites … and just spending a lot of time and money doing it. We also wanted a way to reduce interactions at the early stages of Covid,” she said.

So they came up with the idea to offer an incentive to those who live in the homeless encampments to clean up their area so staff could spend less time picking up trash.

“We distribute trash bags, and we go out every two weeks to pick up the trash, and if they have it bagged, they are eligible for up to $ 20 in gift cards to a grocery store,” Bontrager said.

The recipients can use the gift cards on anything but cigarettes and alcohol. Bontrager said that they usually use them for food or hygiene items. Many of the homeless residents have expressed how thankful they are to be able to go pick out items themselves instead of relying on shelters or other charitable organizations, she said.

Bontrager said that the program has significantly improved the relationship between city officials, like police officers, and the homeless community. They have even been able to find housing for some of the participants.

Besides the social benefit, it saves the city a lot of money for the same work. In almost a year, Bontrager said the program has used only $ 10,000 of its $ 15,000 budget. She said the city’s efforts cost at least $ 1,000 every time the city cleaned up an encampment.

“It would cost easily $ 1,000 in staff and equipment, so we are saving thousands of dollars to them put back into other city projects,” she said.

Overall, Bontrager said that what sets their program apart from some others that have similar structures, is that theirs is the only one she knows of that gives incentive for taking care of their own space.

>>>>

Biden announces slate of gun control actions, claims ‘public health crisis’

The administration aims to “confront not just the gun crisis but what is actually a public health crisis,” Biden said in his remarks in the Rose Garden. He was joined by Vice President Kamala Harris.

“Nothing I’m about to recommend in any impinges on the Second Amendment,” Biden said. “These are phony arguments suggesting that these are Second Amendment rights at stake from what we’re talking about.”

Continuing, Biden said: “But no amendment to the Constitution is absolute … From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning, the Second Amendment existed certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons. So the idea is just bizarre to suggest that some of the things we’re recommending are contrary to the Constitution.”

BIDEN TO TARGET ‘GHOST GUNS,’ STABILIZING BRACES IN NEW GUN CONTROL ACTIONS

In attendance were several high-profile gun control activists, including Brady United President Kris Brown, former Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Arz., and Fred Guttenberg. 

An administration official detailed the actions to reporters on Wednesday. Among them, Biden is asking the Justice Department (DOJ), within a month, propose a rule to stop “ghost guns,” which are “kits” people can buy legally then fully assemble to create a functioning firearm that does not have a serial number. 

Biden is also asking the DOJ within 60 days to propose a rule on braces used for handguns, which make them more accurate; proposing action on “community violence intervention”; asking the DOJ to publish suggestions for “red flag” legislation; and having his administration issue a report on gun trafficking. 

Biden also formally announced David Chipman as the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). 

A senior administration official Wednesday said that Chipman will respect the Second Amendment while he enforces gun laws. 

President Joe Biden speaks about the economy in the State Dinning Room of the White House, Friday, Feb. 5, 2021, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) (AP)

BIDEN TO NOMINATE GUN CONTROL BACKER DAVID CHIPMAN TO HEAD ATF: WH OFFICIAL

“I’ve seen with my own two lives what a bullet can do to the human body … and I’ve fought my entire career to fight this violence and to pass reasonable gun safety” measures,” Harris said as she introduced Biden. 

“What are we waiting for? Cause we aren’t waiting or a tragedy… We’ve had more tragedy than we can bear,” she said. “The solutions exist… people on both sides of the aisle want action, real people … so all that is left is the will and the courage to act.”

The Biden administration is also expected to throw its weight behind gun control proposals in Congress. 

Brady United, one of the highest-profile gun control groups in the U.S., billed Biden and Harris as “the strongest gun safety ticket in history” at an event last fall. 

“President Biden’s actions are historic and they will have an immediate impact. These are tangible and powerful policies that will save lives,” Brady United President Kris Brown said of the president’s executive actions in a statement Wednesday. 

Vice President Harris Meets Virtually With Community Leaders On Covid-19 Public Education Efforts U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris listens while meeting virtually with community leaders on Covid-19 public education efforts in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, April 1, 2021 (Photographer: Leigh Vogel/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Republicans, meanwhile, have expressed their suspicion of Biden’s agenda, which goes much further than the actions he is announcing Thursday. The president has said he supports an assaualt weapons ban, voluntary buybacks of assault weapons, wants to repeal a law that prevents gun manufacturers from being sued for crimes people commit with guns, and much more.

“By appointing the anti-gun Merrick Garland as attorney general and nominating David Chipman — formerly a senior staffer at the leading gun control lobby —  to head ATF, Biden has made clear his sights are set on restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners while ignoring criminals and foregoing substantive measures that will actually keep Americans safe,” the National Rifle Association (NRA) said in a statement.

“Further, the proposals Biden announced tonight could require law-abiding citizens to surrender lawful property and enable states to expand gun confiscation orders. The NRA will fight this nomination and ill-conceived executive actions,” the NRA also said. 

Added House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy: “President Biden plans to announce his attempts to trample over our constitutional 2A rights by executive fiat. He is soft on crime, but infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens. I won’t stand for it. And neither will House Republicans. Follow the Constitution!”

Fox News’ Brittany De Lea, Sally Persons and Kristina Biddle contributed to this report. 

>>>>