Featured

Following last month’s development of American-based Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance, the CIA has concluded that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the assassination in Istanbul, contrary to what the Saudi government has claimed, which originally stated they were not involved in the incident. The most definitive report to come out about the mysterious occurrence may complicate President Donald Trump’s efforts in maintaining a good relationship with a close U.S. ally.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported that the CIA’s conclusions remarked on 15 Saudi agents that flew to Istanbul on government aircraft in October before they met to kill Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate. The reporter was there to retrieve documentation in order to fulfill his planned marriage to a Turkish woman. Also, Khashoggi resided in Virginia and was a contributor to The Washington Post.

Initial reports after the October 2 assassination include claims that Khashoggi was allegedly “cut into pieces” then moved out of the consulate, with some saying it was recorded to prove the mission had been completed. CIA Director Gina Haspel reportedly listened to an audio recording from a “listening device” the Turkish government had inside the consulate, detailing that Khashoggi was killed within moments of entering, leading to the conclusion of the case. The CIA, however, has been unable to locate the journalist’s remains.

U.S. intelligence officials also obtained communications and discovered, days before Khashoggi’s death, his life was in danger, possibly being lured back to Riyadh to his death. Regardless, the journalist was never a person of interest, and since he was living in Virginia, it shielded him from intelligence gathering, the report stated.

Considering the assassination was a government-sponsored undertaking, Crown Prince Salman, the country’s de facto leader, was named by the CIA as one with a top role in Khashoggi’s killing.

Although this may put a slight damper on the crown prince, he is unlikely to lose his status within the Saudi royal family.

“The CIA sees Mohammed as a ‘good technocrat,’ one U.S. official said, but volatile and arrogant, someone who ‘goes from zero to 60, doesn’t seem to understand that there are some things you can’t do.”

Khashoggi was a prominent critic of the royal family, which posed a potential foreign policy crisis for Crown Prince bin Salman. Many believe it is a retribution killing used to dissuade others in the country from speaking ill of the Saudi government and its dealings.

One theory behind the journalist killing is that Mohammed bin Salman believed Khashoggi was, in fact, an ally of the Muslim Brotherhood. On the domestic sociopolitical front in Saudi Arabia, the crown prince has been working to craft a more religiously-moderate country for the future, battling against Wahhabism, the official state-sponsored religious doctrine for the nation’s leadership. Highly critical of Iran’s 1979 revolution and its attempts to spread sharia law across the Middle East, bin Salman is trying to attract outside investors and make Saudi Arabia a better country to do business with and visit to transform its economy.

Nevertheless, the worldwide coverage of the Khashoggi killing will undoubtedly negatively affect such plans.

This week, the Treasury Department sanctioned 17 individuals that are said to have been involved in Khashoggi’s death, including some key Saudi government officials. Nevertheless, President Trump explains that he would like the crown prince to remain in power because of the geopolitical pressure Saudi Arabia places on neighboring Iran.

A federal judge in Washington has ruled that the White House must grant CNN reporter Jim Acosta him his “hard pass” after having it suspended following last week’s incident between himself and President Donald Trump at a post-midterm election press conference. U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, announced his decision Friday morning on Fifth Amendment grounds, with Acosta making an appearance this Friday morning in the press room after the White House said it would “temporarily reinstate” the reporters credentials.

Hours after the Democrats took back the House of Representatives on Election Day, the President and Acosta were at odds over question asked about immigration, specifically the migrant caravan in Mexico heading towards the U.S. Tempers flaring between the two, a White House staffer moved in to take the microphone away from Acosta, Trump walked out from behind the podium and engaged in an exchange with the reporter, causing a small fracas live on television.

President Trump promptly ordered the suspension of Acosta’s White House press pass after the ending the press conference.

CNN filed a First Amendment lawsuit on the grounds that the reporter’s right to the freedom of speech is being violated from having his credentials revoked. Furthermore, they argue that President Trump must publicly declare that the revocation was unconstitutional, seeking a declaration from the judge for that issuance.

Nevertheless, Judge Kelly granted CNN‘s request for a temporary restraining order with relief on Fifth Amendment grounds, stating that the White House violated Acosta’s due process rights when suspending his press pass. Soon thereafter, the Trump Administration announced that there would be forthcoming “rules” to the press corps. The federal judge also said in his ruling that, in the future, the White House could seek to revoke a certain press pass if it provided an individual with due process.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee-Sanders said this afternoon that the Trump Administration will develop guidelines to ensure equality and order in official press conferences. Trump reiterated later that people must “behave.”

While reporters may not be accustomed to rules with reporting within the White House, or even on 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they could, in fact, protect other reporters from retaliation.

A new way of picking candidates in elections is getting off the ground in Utah, where the state’s Lieutenant Governor’s Office recently implemented rules for a new pilot project to allow “ranked choice voting” across cities in Utah ahead of their 2019 elections. Experts and advocates for the program claim it will increase voter participation among the public, provide a better variety of candidates for elected office, and reduce levels of political tribalism.

This preferential style voting is different than traditional “winner takes all” ballots. Maine has also implemented ranked choice voting in general elections. Some localities in Colorado, California, and Minnesota have enacted the process in smaller elections.

According to Ballotpedia:

“A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. This system is sometimes referred to as an instant runoff voting system.”

For example, Democratic congressional candidate Jared Golden defeated Republican Congress Bruce Poliquin (ME-2) on Thursday in the nation’s first use of ranked choice voting for a congressional race, according to Roll Call. The Democrat won just over 50 percent of the vote in the first round, meaning thus far, eight days after Election Day, Democrats have picked up 35 seats in the House of Representatives.

Regardless, what is the deal with ranked choice voting?

There are certain situations, like in current times, where the two major party candidates – Republican and Democrat – appear to be disappointing, even solely unlikable. One upside to ranked choice voting would be that voters could express their dissatisfaction with particular candidates without nullifying the numerical value of their vote. On the other side of that, candidates would have to perform in a different manner, appealing to the largest portion of the electorate as would be feasible.

In 2017, there was an attempt to institute the preferential voting practices in the Commonwealth. House Bill 2315, introduced by Delegate Nick Freitas (R-Culpeper) would have enacted RCV in all statewide elections for the U.S. Senate, House of Representatives, and the General Assembly.

The bill read:

“With instant runoff voting, voters rank the candidates for each office in order of choice, and only the candidate receiving a majority of the votes for such office is declared the winner. Ballots are initially counted as one vote for the first-choice candidate on the ballot; if no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, additional rounds of ballot counting are required. In subsequent rounds of counting, each ballot is counted as one vote for that ballot’s highest-ranked advancing candidate and the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated, until one candidate receives a majority of the valid votes in a round.”

The legislation, however, was left in the Privileges and Elections Committee.

As the topics of gerrymandering, election security, and voter turnout begin to dominate conversations of how the future of elections may play out, there is some interest in Virginia, with all beginning to watch Utah to see if the system works well for all Americans.