Category Archives: Progress

On Tuesday evening, July 26, the Washington Post broke the news that the Justice Department is investigating the actions of President Donald Trump in connection with its criminal probe into the Jan. 6 insurrection.

According to the Post, in recent days prosecutors have asked witnesses appearing before a grand jury hours of detailed questions about Trumps behavior in the run-up to Jan. 6, including his efforts to pressure Vice President Mike Pence into upending the certification of the electoral vote and the campaign by Trumps associates to create slates of fake electors.

The Post also reported that the Justice Department received phone records of key officials and aides in the Trump administration, including his former chief of staff, Mark Meadowsand, notably, that it obtained those records as early as April, well before the recent flurry of activity around the Jan. 6 committees hearings in Congress.

This story is significant because it confirms for the first time that the Justice Department is interested in the conduct of Trump himselfnot just the rioters present at the Capitol that day and not just the broader circle of individuals around the former president. According to the Post, investigators want to understand, at a minimum, what Trump told his lawyers and senior officials to do.

In an NBC interview aired the same evening that the Post broke its story, Attorney General Merrick Garland commented that, The Justice Department has from the beginning been moving urgently to bring to justice everybody who was criminally responsible for interfering with the peaceful transfer of power.

The Posts reporting, which has been confirmed by the New York Times and other news outlets, casts new light on the ongoing debate over whether the Justice Departments criminal investigation into the insurrection is moving too slowly. Some critics, most notably former Mueller investigation prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, have worried that the department has taken the wrong approach by beginning with individual criminal acts committed by rioters and working upwards, rather than by focusing on the broader network of a potential conspiracy fanning out from Trump. Conversely, others, such as former U.S. attorney Harry Litman, counter that Attorney General Merrick Garland deserves the presumption that, as promised, he is going after insurrectionists at all levels. Or as Barb McQuade, also a former U.S. attorney, put it: Chill, folks.

The four of us have taken different positions in this discussion. Wittes has argued that the Justice Departments probe has been a remarkably quick and aggressive investigation that will only heat up more as the months grind on. Strzok, for his part, recently tweeted that its time for Congress to start asking questions about the departments apparent tardiness when it comes to uncovering certain evidence already obtained by the committee. Jurecic and Orpett have written that, in the absence of visible public movement by the Justice Department, its reasonable for the public to ask questions about the pace and focus of the departments workand its the responsibility of investigators to acknowledge that the challenge it faces is much more than a complex investigation involving hundreds of defendants and complicated facts. It is about how the Justice Department should restore the rule of law in the aftermath of an insurrection.

Last nights news doesnt definitively answer the question of whether or not the Justice Department has been moving quickly enough. In the short term, at least, this debate is probably irresolvable. Theres no real way to determine whether the investigation was active enough, designed optimally, or resourced ideally at the outset. To quote Garland himself, There is a lot of speculation about what the Justice Department is doing, whats it not doing, what our theories are and what our theories arent, and there will continue to be that speculation. And the data can support almost any hypothesis.

Perhaps, for example, the department has been aggressively investigating all along, and its activity only recently became visible because of questioning before the grand jury. Or perhaps investigators received phone records in April but really picked up the pace in recent weeks thanks to new evidence provided by the Jan. 6 committee during its hearings. Reporting from ABC that the Justice Department only recently reached out to the committees star witness Cassidy Hutchinsonafter her blockbuster testimony before Congressmight bolster this theory.

Similarly, imagine that over the next few weeks, Trump and his senior aides all face indictment for a broad range of post-election activitya course that would seem to validate the notion that the investigation had been aggressive all along. There would still be no way to know whether the sudden action in fact reflected a well-designed investigation from the beginning or whether it merely reflected a fire lit under the Justice Department and FBI by the combination of the Jan. 6 Committee investigation and relentless criticism of their performance.

Conversely, imagine that over the next two years, the investigation stagnates and produces continued indictments of people involved in the riot but does not come to meaningfully touch the political echelon at all. This eventuality still wouldnt validate the skeptics anxieties. After all, it would still be possible that the investigation had been aggressive and active from the beginning but that the evidence, for one reason or another, simply didnt support action against all the former presidents men.

While we cannot know who has been right to date, we can, however, lay out a few prospective benchmarks for an evaluation of the investigations future progressparticularly in light of the Posts reporting. What would the investigation look like if it was proceeding over the next few months in an aggressive fashion? What would we expect it to look like if it were sleepy or over-cautious? What are the steps people hoping for appropriate criminal accountability should wish to see? What are the signs that should worry people if they materializeor fail to materializeover the coming months?

Here are eight standards against which you can usefully measure how much confidence you should have in the Justice Departments investigation over the next several months.

First, is there additional movement on the John Eastman and Jeffrey Clark cases? These are the two cases involving the political cadre close to Trump that appear to be the furthest along, at least in connection with conduct during the post-election period. Both men have had search warrants executed against themmeaning that the Justice Department has already argued to a court that it has probable cause of criminal activity.

The investigation will look quite different a few months from now if Eastman and Clark have been indicted and Trumps conduct is described in the indictment than if the cases have not moved forward. Only this week, we learned that senior aides to former Vice President Mike Pence recently testified before a federal grand jury in connection with Eastmans effort to persuade the vice president to unilaterally reject election returns from key states. Now, per the Posts July 26 story, it seems that those aides were questioned specifically about Trumps actions as well.

These investigations into Clark and Eastman are pivotal because, unlike the investigations of the rioters, they directly involve Trumps individual conduct. Eastman, after all, was Trumps lawyer and the conduct at issue is conduct in the course of his purported representation of the clientand directly sanctioned by him. And Clark was an official whom the then-president was actively intending to install as acting attorney general precisely so that Clark could send a letter to Georgia officialsa letter that both men knew or should have known to be false in its essential claims concerning election irregularities.

Progress in these investigations, in other words, is highly probative of an investigation closing in on Trump himself. Significantly, the Post identifies the Justice Departments probe into Trumps pressure on the Justice Department into falsely declaring election irregularities in Georgiaas well as the pressure campaign on the vice presidentas a track of the overall investigation that could ultimately lead to additional scrutiny of Trump.

There is one more reason to follow the progress of the Eastman and Clark cases with particular care. Garland has said that the Justice Department will methodically build a foundation and work its way up from there. If we take seriously this metaphor of working his way up the pyramid, we should not expect any action against Trump himself to precede action in these cases. Rather, we should see Clark and Eastman as canaries in the coal mine of the coterie immediately around the former president. Trump himself is most unlikely to face indictment before they do. Their prosecution is likely a precondition for his.

Second, what do we know about the role of the Justice Department Office of Inspector General in conducting the investigations of Clark and Eastman? And how coordinated is that inspector general probe with the Justice Departments other investigatory work on Jan. 6? One of the persistent puzzles when it comes to the Justice Departments work has been the fact that Clark and Eastman are reportedly under investigation by the Justice Departments Office of Inspector General, a component that normally conducts internal probes of potential misconduct within the department. In contrast, the Post reports that other components of the Jan. 6 investigation are being run primarily by the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia, as well as the Criminal Division and the National Security Division at Justice Department headquarters.

The question of why the inspector generals office remains so deeply involved in the Eastman and Clark matters is important for two reasons: first, because it raises questions about whether the investigation is adequately resourcedthe inspector general being a rather puny office compared to the FBIand second because it raises the question of whether the different elements of the probe are being examined as isolated threads or as a whole tapestry.

The inspector generals involvement here is, at a minimum, extremely unusual. Eastmans phone was initially seized, and Clarks house searched, by federal agents acting on behalf of the office. As former Justice Department inspector general Michael Bromwich explained to the New York Times, the offices involvement makes sense to the extent that the inspector general has authority to look into any public corruption crimes committed by Justice Department personnel, in the Timess wordswhich would describe Clark. Presumably, then, there is some kind of link between Clark and Eastman, who was not an employee of the department.

Inspector General Michael Horowitz is certainly capable of conducting an aggressive investigation, as anyone whos paid attention to his recent flayings of the departments handling of the investigations into the Clinton email scandal and Russian election interference can attest. But indications that the Clark and Eastman portion of the departments work is being run through the inspector generals office still offer grounds for concerns. It suggests that the various investigations the public knows about may not be adequately coordinated. If the department were indeed conceptualizing its probe as one of a multi-pronged conspiracya hub-and-spoke investigation, as Weissmann calls itit raises the question of whether anyone has their eye on the whole wheel or whether different spokes are being examined by different investigations out of different components.

The inspector generals centrality is also odd because the inspector general has dramatically fewer resources with which to conduct such an investigation than does the FBI: the office has a staff of roughly 500, compared to the over 35,000 employees of the bureau. The difference here is not only quantitative but also qualitative. The FBI has a stronger investigative cadre on average. Is the inspector generals office really the best-equipped component of the Department of Justice to conduct this probe?

If we learn of close coordination between the inspector generals office and other components of the Justice Department on this investigation, that would be a signal that the department is thinking about the Jan. 6 probe holistically.

Weve seen a few indications of this. On July 27, a court filing by the Justice Department indicated that the U.S. Attorneys Office for D.C. has obtained a warrant to search Eastmans phone, in addition to the inspector generals warrant. The wording of the new warrantthat the cell phone was obtained by an agent not associated with the investigative teamalso raises the intriguing possibility that inspector general agents are being used in some kind of filter capacity to deal with potentially privileged information in the material seized from Eastman and Clark.

Both subjects of the investigation are attorneys, and Justice Department practice would dictate a review and removal of privileged material prior to the seized material being viewed by members of the investigative team. If thats whats happening here, it could be that the use of inspector general agents by the department for this purpose is strategic, which would be greatly reassuring.

Similarly, the Post writes that the Eastman and Clark searches were conducted as part of the same effort that involved a broad slate of subpoenas issued by the grand jury overseen by the U.S. attorneys office in D.C. Still its unclear whether this may be reading too much into the Posts wording, or if it suggests a reassuring degree of coordination and strategy.

If we see indications that the Clark and Eastman probe is continuing along a more or less separate track, a possibility the new warrant does much to diminish, this might suggest that investigators have carved up their work into more isolated unitsa concerning sign for those who want to see the department look at Jan. 6 in an integrated fashion.

Third, is there evidence the Justice Department is investigating committee claims of witness tampering? The Jan. 6 Committee has complained on two occasions of efforts to influence its witnesses. Specifically, Vice Chair Liz Cheney noted that someonelater reported to be an intermediary of Mark Meadowshad told Cassidy Hutchinson before her March 7 deposition that [Mark] wants me to let you know that hes thinking about you. He knows youre loyal, and youre going to do the right thing when you go in for your deposition. At the end of the committees July 12 hearing, Cheney alleged that Trump himself had tried to contact a witnesswho did not take the call and announced that the committee had referred this incident to the Department of Justice.

Evidence of follow-up here from the FBI or the department would be a valuable indicator of interest in a pattern of obstructive conduct with respect to witnesses that dates back at least to the Mueller investigation. This pattern is evident to the naked eye given the detailed accounts in the Mueller report of obstructive conduct and the frequent efforts since then to influence witnesses in any number of proceedings. Yet it has attracted strangely little overt departmental attention. Signs of interest here would be signs that the department perceives the serial abuse of the justice system by the former president as a matter requiring, at some point, a response.

Fourth, is the bottom of the investigative pyramid meaningfully connected to the apex? One of the concerns that animates the anxiety about the departments investigation is that its approach may not ever reach what is apparent criminality in the political echelon. Garland has described a process in which investigating overt actors and crimes generates linkages to less overt ones: flipping the lower-level actors, as the process of convincing a witness to cooperate is known, leads to the higher-level actors. In this vision, prosecutions of the violent criminality of the rioters on the ground on Jan. 6 would lead higher and higher up the chain.

But what if Garlands theory is wrong? What if Trump was running a criminal conspiracy to overturn the election results but that criminal conspiracy was sufficiently unconnected to the violent insurrection of Jan. 6 that no amount of rioters flipping would shed meaningful light on it?

The evidence emerging from the House Select Committees hearings now suggests that Trump incited the insurrection in order to further both the false-elector conspiracy masterminded by Eastman and the closely-related conspiracy to pressure Vice President Pence to refuse to count swing-state elector slates. Trump triggered the riot to both buy time for state legislatures to decertify their elections and to intimidate Republican members of Congress and Vice President Pence not to count swing state electoral slates.

That Trump consciously incited the insurrection is now supported by a range of evidence newly unearthed by the select committee: first, that Trump knew the crowd was heavily armed but urged them to march on the Capitol anyway; second, that Trump made multiple last minute, inflammatory changes to his Ellipse speech that took explicit aim at Pence and that ignored and defied the advice of White House counsel and other advisers; third, that Trump made repeated attempts to accompany the crowd to the Capitol, again in defiance of the advice of White House counsel and other advisers, and was infuriated that his Secret Service detail refused his command; and fourth, that the decision to have the crowd march to the Capitol had been planned for days had been intentionally kept secret, and that many of Trumps advisers, including Meadows, anticipated that the result could well be violent.

In this context, a question that had once seemed urgentwhether the White House was in direct communication with either the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys before the insurrectionhas actually become less so in terms of building an incitement or conspiracy case against Trump with respect to the riot itself.

Similarly, Cassidy Hutchinson told the Jan. 6 Committee that the day before the Capitol attack, Trump directed Chief of Staff Mark Meadows to reach out to Roger Stone and Michael Flynn. This is exactly the sort of connective tissue that could link the bottom of the pyramid to the top.

The point is that if the Justice Department is to connect the bottom of the pyramid to its top, one still needs some sign that it is investigating either the White Houses connections to the alleged seditious conspiracies involving the Oath Keepers or Proud Boys or that it is investigating the pattern of Trumps activities the committee has revealed as a possible conspiracy or incitement of its own. The Post story offers some indication that the department is pursuing this, identifying the portion of the departments investigation centering on seditious conspiracy and conspiracy to obstruct a government proceedingcharges filed against Jan. 6 riotersas the second track that could direct investigators attention toward Trump personally.

But the reporting on this point is not specific. So far, nearly all the indictments have taken place at the base and mid-section of the pyramid. Evidence that these parts of the pyramid have a meaningful connection to the political echelon would go a long way to reassuring people that criminality at the top will not go unexamined because it doesnt link to criminality at the bottom.

Fifth, is all the conduct at issue related to Jan. 6 receiving adequate attention? Even if the different components of the pyramid appear disconnected, it would be reassuring to learn that the department is taking a careful look at the wide range of potential criminality. If one thinks of this as a bottom-up investigation, one wants to see evidence that criminal misconduct isnt escaping investigative scrutiny because its unrelated to the conduct of rioters. Alternatively, if one considers this as a hub-and-spoke investigation, one would want to see indications that all the potential spokes are being looked atthat someone is seeing the whole wheel.

The Posts new reporting provides a bunch of useful details here and some reason for confidence. As noted, we now know that there are investigations into the fake electors scheme as well as into Clark and Eastmans activities in other arenas. And it now seems as well that the department is investigating Trumps efforts to pressure Pence into upending the certification of the electoral vote. As noted above, the Post story also suggests that the seditious conspiracy investigations may be in play here too.

Less clear, however, is whether there is any serious investigation into potential criminal incitement by Trump during his Ellipse speech on Jan. 6. In his opinion finding it more likely than not that Trump and Eastman had committed crimes in relation to the insurrection, Judge David Carter also pointed to potential criminal conduct by Trump under 18 USC 1512(c)(2) (obstruction of an official proceeding) as well as 18 USC 371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States). To what extent is the investigation thinking about these potential violations? And what about that pressure campaign on state legislators? This is far from a definitive list of all the statutes and conduct that could be implicated.

Less discussed but no less important, is the Justice Department considering whether the then-president engaged in a course of conduct intended to result in the death or injury of the vice president? This is not a rhetorical question. Its a legitimate investigative matter predicated by the evidence already public.

Each of these areas involves complicated questions, evidentiary and legal. For example, to the extent the investigation focuses on the former presidents activities while he was in office, the department may be constraining its investigative strategy based on its legal analysis of the so-called clear statement rule, which holds that some criminal statutes do not apply to the president. So we are not certainly suggesting that investigative activity must result in specific charges. But the more evidence emerges that the department has considered or is considering each of the fact patterns specifically, the more confidence people will have that it is leaving no stone unturned.

Sixth, what the heck happened to all those other investigations involving people who might have evidence to give on Jan. 6 matters? News outlets have reported on a number of Justice Department investigations concerning figures with links to the Jan. 6 investigation, even if the investigations themselves are somewhat or entirely separate from Jan. Where do those probes stand?

In the spring of 2021, the FBI executed search warrants on Trumps one-time lawyer Rudy Giuliania central figure in many of the efforts to overturn the electionreportedly in relation to an investigation into Giulianis efforts to find negative information from Ukrainians about the Bidens in the runup to the 2020 election. (Those efforts snowballed into the scandal that ultimately precipitated Trumps first impeachment.)

Later that year, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Columbia issued a subpoena for financial records from fundraising organizations run by Sidney Powellanother one of Trumps lawyers also centrally involved in efforts to keep the former president in power.

More tangentially, Florida Republican Rep. Matt Gaetzwho supported efforts to upend the electoral vote certification on Jan. 6was reportedly under investigation as of May 2021 for possible violations of federal sex trafficking laws.

These investigations are not on point with respect to Jan. 6, but they matter anywayfor three distinct reasons. The first is that the Justice Department will often use potential criminal exposure on unrelated issues as a way to pressure potential witnesses into cooperation on a separate probea tactic used during the Mueller investigation. But if the Giuliani, Powell, and Gaetz investigations have all vanished without a trace, that potential source of leverage is gone.

The second reason involves evidence that may have been seized in these cases that may relate to Jan. 6. Consider Giulianis phones and computers, which were seized on probable cause related to digging dirt on the Bidens from Ukrainian sources. These devices, however, were seized in April 2021, shortly after that insurrectionabout which they likely have significant evidence. Investigators could theoretically seek new warrants to look at this material if the original investigations are not allowed to just die.

The third reason involves ambient public sentiment. The Trump years generated a widespread perception among members of the public that accountability simply never materializes. Evidence that these investigations did not simply go up in smoke, as so many others did, would send a signal that the Justice Department is committed to holding people accountable for wrongdoing, even if those people are politically prominent or if their prosecutions would cause a partisan hubbub.

Seventh, is the Justice Departmentin particular the FBIreceiving adequate resources for the investigation? Garland recently described the Jan. 6 probe as the most wide-ranging investigation in Justice Department history. Such an investigation requires an enormous amount of resources, and there are indications that the department is stressed under the weight of that work. The overwhelming amount of evidence produced by contemporaneous documentation of the riot has left the government struggling to sort through discovery materials quickly enough in ongoing criminal proceedings against insurrectionists.

In March 2022, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco unsuccessfully requested funding for another 131 prosecutors in the Justice Departments annual budget requesta number that would have doubled the current workforce. To what extent is the investigation hampered by a lack of resources?

Congress might be able to play a useful role here in asking both the Justice Department and the FBI about these constraintswhether the agencies need additional resources, and if so, where they could put those resources to use. When it comes to the FBI, its also notable that FBI Director Christopher Wray, unlike Monaco, has not requested additional funding for the bureaus work on the Jan. 6 investigation at all. Is it really the case that the bureau has enough funding here, given how strapped the Justice Department seems to be on the prosecutorial side? And if the bureau has moved sufficient resources to the Jan. 6 investigations, where did those realigned resources come fromand what areas now have potentially far fewer investigators as a result? Congress could usefully direct those questions towards Wray.

Finally, eighth, what is the Justice Department saying publicly? So far, the departments public statements have been less revealing than curious members of the public might hope. This is always the case. Garland said recently that the department must hold accountable every person who is criminally responsible for trying to overturn a legitimate election, and we must do it in a way filled with integrity and professionalism. And thats about as forward-leaning as Justice Department leadership has gotten on the matter.

Garland has insisted that a central tenet of the way in which the Justice Department investigates and a central tenet of the rule of law is that we do not do our investigations in public. That is certainly true. There are real limitations on what the department can say publicly as it continues its workamong them, the legal requirements of grand jury secrecy. That said, we continue to believe that the department could usefully share more than it has.

What would it look like if Garland wanted to say as much as possible? One possible model is FBI Director James Comeys announcement of the Russia investigation in spring 2017. Comey testified before Congress that:

I have been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election and that includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts. As with any counterintelligence investigation, this will also include an assessment of whether any crimes were committed.

Theres no reason why Garland could not say something similar. The following, for example, in light of the Posts reporting, all appears to be true and contains no sensitive information:

I have decided that the public interest is served by making clear that the Department of Justice is investigating efforts to prevent the peaceful transition of power following the 2020 election. This includes whether anyone in the Trump campaign or in government service at that time participated in such efforts. Because this is an open ongoing investigation, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining. But our investigative activity includes, but is not limited to, the hundreds of already-indicted and already-completed criminal cases, other activity investigated and disclosed by Congress and the press, allegations that have surfaced in civil litigation, and matters investigated by publicly-announced internal Justice Department probes.

In other words, the Justice Departments current silence is a choice, not a requirement. Though the department usually does not announce ongoing investigations, its own internal policies explicitly allow for this type of statement in certain limited circumstances. The Justice Manual states that the department may speak on an ongoing investigation when the community needs to be reassured that the appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating a matter, or where release of information is necessary to protect the public safety. The current situation would certainly seem to fit into the former category.

A statement of this type would not reveal anything of consequence, but it would communicate something critical: that the department understands the investigation to encompass not simply the riot of Jan. 6 but the larger post-election effort to impede the peaceful transition of power, and that it understands that matter asat least potentiallya holistic pattern of conduct, not a discrete set of bad acts. That communication would be hugely reassuring.

***

The debate over whether the Justice Department has acted with appropriate aggressiveness in the wake of Jan. 6 will rage for a long time to come. In the long term, resolving it will require historians and major releases of documents that are not going to become public any time soon.

After Watergate, it was historians like Stanley Kutler who rehabilitated the Justice Departments own investigation into Watergate. Kutler wrote in 1990, The perception that the Justice Departments investigation was compromised was not without reason, but both [Special Prosecutor Archibald] Cox and [Select Committee Chairman Sam] Ervin knew better. The U.S. Attorneys office had in fact discovered the cover-up conspiracy and had broken the case by the time Cox took control, and before Senator Ervins committee provided a public venting of what the prosecutors had learned.

This longer-term, historical evaluation will require not just years but Freedom of Information Act requests, congressional pushes for documents to be released, and a decision by the executive branch to make as much information public as possible. In the meantime, it will be less useful to debate whether the department has been sleepy than it is to discuss what type of activity going forward would satisfy the public that justice is actually being done.

Read the original here:

How to Evaluate Progress in the Justice Department's Jan. 6 Investigation - Lawfare

Getty

The Jets drafted Mekhi Becton with the 11th overall selection in 2020 to be their franchise left tackle. Now, hes tasked with being their franchise right tackle.

His absence after only one game last season opened the door for George Fant to win the starting left tackle job.

It dont really matter to me, Becton said, via Brian Costello of The New York Post. Ive just got to change my technique up. As long as Im on the field, it dont really matter to me. I just know I have to do different things on the right side than I do on the left. Im still getting used to that. Its a work in progress.

Becton gained weight while sidelined last season and then skipped the voluntary offseason program for his first childs birth. He reported to minicamp overweight, per Costello, but Becton spent the past few weeks working with the teams medical and training staff.

It is unknown exactly how much weight Becton loss, but he hit his and the teams goal.

He got himself into football shape, coach Robert Saleh said. Hes a gifted athlete. Hes a gifted man, and Im just really excited about the direction hes going.

Now, Becton will spend the rest of the summer learning to play right tackle, though Saleh made clear that the move doesnt mean that Mekhis left tackle days are over.

See the original post:

Mekhi Becton on move to right tackle: Its a work in progress - NBC Sports

William A. Galston writes the weekly Politics & Ideas column in the Wall Street Journal. He holds the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in the Brookings Institutions Governance Studies Program, where he serves as a senior fellow. Before joining Brookings in January 2006, he was Saul Stern Professor and Acting Dean at the School of Public Policy, University of Maryland, director of the Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy, founding director of the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), and executive director of the National Commission on Civic Renewal. A participant in six presidential campaigns, he served from 1993 to 1995 as Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Domestic Policy.

Mr. Galston is the author of 10 books and more than 100 articles in the fields of political theory, public policy, and American politics. His most recent books are The Practice of Liberal Pluralism (Cambridge, 2004), Public Matters (Rowman & Littlefield, 2005), and Anti-Pluralism: The Populist Threat to Liberal Democracy (Yale, 2018). A winner of the American Political Science Associations Hubert H. Humphrey Award, he was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2004.

The rest is here:

Surprise: A Divided Congress Is Making Bipartisan Progress - The Wall Street Journal

Country

United States of AmericaUS Virgin IslandsUnited States Minor Outlying IslandsCanadaMexico, United Mexican StatesBahamas, Commonwealth of theCuba, Republic ofDominican RepublicHaiti, Republic ofJamaicaAfghanistanAlbania, People's Socialist Republic ofAlgeria, People's Democratic Republic ofAmerican SamoaAndorra, Principality ofAngola, Republic ofAnguillaAntarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S)Antigua and BarbudaArgentina, Argentine RepublicArmeniaArubaAustralia, Commonwealth ofAustria, Republic ofAzerbaijan, Republic ofBahrain, Kingdom ofBangladesh, People's Republic ofBarbadosBelarusBelgium, Kingdom ofBelizeBenin, People's Republic ofBermudaBhutan, Kingdom ofBolivia, Republic ofBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswana, Republic ofBouvet Island (Bouvetoya)Brazil, Federative Republic ofBritish Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago)British Virgin IslandsBrunei DarussalamBulgaria, People's Republic ofBurkina FasoBurundi, Republic ofCambodia, Kingdom ofCameroon, United Republic ofCape Verde, Republic ofCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChad, Republic ofChile, Republic ofChina, People's Republic ofChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombia, Republic ofComoros, Union of theCongo, Democratic Republic ofCongo, People's Republic ofCook IslandsCosta Rica, Republic ofCote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of theCyprus, Republic ofCzech RepublicDenmark, Kingdom ofDjibouti, Republic ofDominica, Commonwealth ofEcuador, Republic ofEgypt, Arab Republic ofEl Salvador, Republic ofEquatorial Guinea, Republic ofEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFaeroe IslandsFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Fiji, Republic of the Fiji IslandsFinland, Republic ofFrance, French RepublicFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabon, Gabonese RepublicGambia, Republic of theGeorgiaGermanyGhana, Republic ofGibraltarGreece, Hellenic RepublicGreenlandGrenadaGuadaloupeGuamGuatemala, Republic ofGuinea, RevolutionaryPeople's Rep'c ofGuinea-Bissau, Republic ofGuyana, Republic ofHeard and McDonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)Honduras, Republic ofHong Kong, Special Administrative Region of ChinaHrvatska (Croatia)Hungary, Hungarian People's RepublicIceland, Republic ofIndia, Republic ofIndonesia, Republic ofIran, Islamic Republic ofIraq, Republic ofIrelandIsrael, State ofItaly, Italian RepublicJapanJordan, Hashemite Kingdom ofKazakhstan, Republic ofKenya, Republic ofKiribati, Republic ofKorea, Democratic People's Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwait, State ofKyrgyz RepublicLao People's Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanon, Lebanese RepublicLesotho, Kingdom ofLiberia, Republic ofLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtenstein, Principality ofLithuaniaLuxembourg, Grand Duchy ofMacao, Special Administrative Region of ChinaMacedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascar, Republic ofMalawi, Republic ofMalaysiaMaldives, Republic ofMali, Republic ofMalta, Republic ofMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritania, Islamic Republic ofMauritiusMayotteMicronesia, Federated States ofMoldova, Republic ofMonaco, Principality ofMongolia, Mongolian People's RepublicMontserratMorocco, Kingdom ofMozambique, People's Republic ofMyanmarNamibiaNauru, Republic ofNepal, Kingdom ofNetherlands AntillesNetherlands, Kingdom of theNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaragua, Republic ofNiger, Republic of theNigeria, Federal Republic ofNiue, Republic ofNorfolk IslandNorthern Mariana IslandsNorway, Kingdom ofOman, Sultanate ofPakistan, Islamic Republic ofPalauPalestinian Territory, OccupiedPanama, Republic ofPapua New GuineaParaguay, Republic ofPeru, Republic ofPhilippines, Republic of thePitcairn IslandPoland, Polish People's RepublicPortugal, Portuguese RepublicPuerto RicoQatar, State ofReunionRomania, Socialist Republic ofRussian FederationRwanda, Rwandese RepublicSamoa, Independent State ofSan Marino, Republic ofSao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic ofSaudi Arabia, Kingdom ofSenegal, Republic ofSerbia and MontenegroSeychelles, Republic ofSierra Leone, Republic ofSingapore, Republic ofSlovakia (Slovak Republic)SloveniaSolomon IslandsSomalia, Somali RepublicSouth Africa, Republic ofSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSpain, Spanish StateSri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic ofSt. HelenaSt. Kitts and NevisSt. LuciaSt. Pierre and MiquelonSt. Vincent and the GrenadinesSudan, Democratic Republic of theSuriname, Republic ofSvalbard & Jan Mayen IslandsSwaziland, Kingdom ofSweden, Kingdom ofSwitzerland, Swiss ConfederationSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwan, Province of ChinaTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailand, Kingdom ofTimor-Leste, Democratic Republic ofTogo, Togolese RepublicTokelau (Tokelau Islands)Tonga, Kingdom ofTrinidad and Tobago, Republic ofTunisia, Republic ofTurkey, Republic ofTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUganda, Republic ofUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited Kingdom of Great Britain & N. IrelandUruguay, Eastern Republic ofUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofViet Nam, Socialist Republic ofWallis and Futuna IslandsWestern SaharaYemenZambia, Republic ofZimbabwe

Continue reading here:

Construction projects making progress throughout city | News - Southernminn.com

Columbia Sportswear Company isnt just saying it cares; its demonstrating it.

Last year, the global maker of apparel, outerwear and footwear, whose products sell extensively in the promo products industry, partnered with the Planet Water Foundation to build two new water towers in supply chain locations in order to bring clean water to the employees of its manufacturing partners and their children.

Overall, Columbia has now built 24 water towers for such humane purposes.

The construction of the towers was just one of the highlights from Columbias just released 2021 Environmental, Social and Governance Report (ESG). The document details progress CSC has made on further building the three main pillars of its corporate responsibility strategy empowering people, sustaining places and responsible practices.

We are committed to responsible practices throughout our business, said Peter Bragdon, CSCs executive vice president, chief administrative officer and general counsel.

Other highlights of the ESG report include that CSC finalized one Carbon Leadership Project program and one Clean by Design program with two cohorts of manufacturing partners at the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels to help the partners reduce their environmental impact.

Reduction in emissions by the companys manufacturing vendors will help CSC to meet its target of a 30% reduction in manufacturing emissions by 2030, as compared to a 2019 baseline.

Meanwhile, CSC noted that shipping boxes across all its brands contain 100% recycled content. CSC also became a member of the Leather Working Group, which works to minimize the environmental impact of leather production.

Now, more than ever, we have to do our part to ensure the outdoors is for everyone, said Abel Navarrete, CSCs vice president of sustainability and community impact. Thats why we, together with our employees, community partners, customers and the wider industry, are leading initiatives to make sure people feel safe and welcomed in the outdoors.

Corporate responsibility initiatives that aim to reduce environmental impact, ensure humane and equitable treatment of workers throughout a companys supply chain, and deliver products made with more sustainable materials are gaining steam across a spectrum of industries, including apparel and the promotional products market. ASI Media has been documenting the evolution, particularly as it pertains to the branded merchandise industry, through Promo for the Planet.

The CSC report bears further evidence of the movement, which promo executives believe will accelerate in the space, driven in part by end-buyer demand. Getting greener is growing as both an operational focus and product material priority, they say.

We get asked more than ever for products with a sustainability component or a giveback component, Tammy Cernuska Hoth of Cotton Candy Global Marketing (asi/169186) said during a panel discussion at the recent ASI Show Chicago.

Based in Portland, OR, Columbia Sportswear Company said it generated $3.1 billion in total global revenue across all its brands and business channels.

Promo for the Planet is your destination for the latest news, biggest trends and best ideas to help build a more sustainable and socially-responsible industry.

Read more:

Columbia Sportswear Reports Progress on ESG Initiatives - Advertising Specialty Institute

Diversity and inclusion are a key part of what makes our newsroom part of the communities it serves. Change starts at home, and here at the Courier-Post we continue to make change so we can grow.

We are sharing our 2022 diversity census, which shows the makeup of our newsroom. Our priority now, and in the future, is to focus on diversity and inclusion in the newsroom and how we cover our communities. Last year I made a pledge to do better with diversity and inclusion in our newsroom. I acknowledged that our newsroom didnt look like our communities and that we would do better. Im pleased to report that we made progress. We hired Isabel Koyama, Community Storytelling reporter, to write stories about the people and places in South Jersey.

We will continue to cover community-focused issues including education, healthcare and business. We will address the issues in our communities by talking to the people that live and work there. We will remain transparent and engage with the communities we cover and hear from different voices with different views on a wide range of topics.

As the leader of my newsrooms, it is my responsibility to ensure we cover stories fairly and with an open mind. I lead by example and open up communication to the staff and talk about the issues inside and outside of our newsrooms.

Providing diversity and inclusion training to our staff has also been an important part of our commitment. All staff members, including myself, have mandatory inclusion and diversity training and access to other related training tools throughout the year.

We have also transitioned our police and courts coverage away from daily crime coverage to more of a community-based look at the impact of crime on a community. When crime occurs in any neighborhood, we talk to those that are impacted and look at solutions. I am part of a company-wide committee to raise the level of crime reporting across all news sites in Gannett. We've seen positive progress in how we cover crime and will continue to address those areas that need improvement.

A diverse and inclusive workforce helps us better connect and serve you, our readers and our community partners. As we continue to move forward, we recognize that we still have work to do. It will take time, but we are committed to succeeding.

Audrey Harvin is the Executive Editor of the Courier-Post, Burlington County Times and Daily Journal. Contact her at aharvin@gannett.com.

Originally posted here:

How the Courier-Post is making progress in newsroom diversity - Courier Post

The Jets still are still a few days away from putting on the pads for the first time. But even without contact, things are starting to intensify at training camp.

That was clear Friday at the end of the Jets third camp practice when the trash talking from the defense and celebrating by the offense which found the end zone on back-to-back plays to end the day could be heard more than 100 yards away.

Anytime you can get into a competitive nature, they love it and coaches love it, Jets coach Robert Saleh said. You always want that purpose. But it gets heated, especially when it goes the fourth day in a row. You get sick of seeing each other, its going to get heated, its going to get competitive, which is fine.

BUY JETS TICKETS: STUBHUB, VIVID SEATS, TICKETSMARTER, TICKETMASTER

Things will only get more intense Saturday when fans return to Florham Park for the first open practice of the summer. And everyone is looking forward to Monday when the Jets are scheduled to put on the pads and start hitting each other for the first time.

But Friday was still an eventful day, on the field and in the interview area. Heres everything that stood out.

Sauce must earn it

It still seems very likely that Sauce Gardner, the No. 4 overall pick in Aprils NFL Draft, will be starting at cornerback when the Jets open the season against the Ravens on Sept. 11. But the early days of training camp have shown that the Jets arent going to allow him to coast into that role.

Gardner has been splitting first-team reps with cornerback Bryce Hall. After practice, Saleh was asked after practice when he would know that Gardner is ready to be a starter.

Thats a good question. I think its one of those, youll know when you know, Saleh said. But him and Bryce are alternating days in terms of getting the reps and getting a feel going against different receivers, and theyre both getting those opportunities so both are doing a really nice job competing and helping one another out. So hes doing a good job and well know when we know.

And Saleh made it clear that after a few days of training camp, there are still way too many unknowns commit to Gardner as the starter at this point.

He is a rookie, Saleh said. It is mental. There [are] a lot of things [we want to see]. You still want to see him in pads. You still want to see how he holds up when the back hits the corner. First game against Baltimore theyre not going to be shy looking for a corner and contact. So theres a lot of things that weve got to see that are different than the college game where its more spread out, throw the ball.

With several weeks of training camp remaining and three preseason games remaining there is plenty of time for Gardner to show those things. And given his accomplishments in college and his physical tools, there is every reason to believe he will pass the eye test before Week 1 the rookie had a nice breakup of a Wilson pass on Friday. But it sure sounds like the job wont be his until he does.

Fant nearing return, but what about a contract?

Starting left tackle George Fant has watched team drills from the sideline to start training camp as he recovers from a knee injury. But Saleh said Friday that Fant should be practicing fully in the very near future.

Well see, Saleh said. Its day by day. Im not going to put a number on it. Hopefully sometime next week. Once we get pads on, [well] start mixing him in there a little bit. He looks good, hes going through everything, hes getting treatment and hes doing basically everything except for the team stuff which will come.

Fant was activated from the physically unable to perform list before Wednesdays opening practice and after going through individual drills Friday he spent time working with a trainer on a side field.

Im feeling good, man, Fant said after practice. Just working back. Just moving, getting there every day.

Fant was named the starting left tackle earlier this week and Mekhi Becton was shifted to right. Fant said there has been no awkwardness between the two players, theyre both just excited for the opportunity to be back on the field after their respective injuries. Fant also said he was excited and grateful for the chance to continue playing at left tackle because its where he feels most comfortable.

His position is established for the season, but theres still one issue that could hang over the remainder of camp for Fant: his contract situation. Fant is due to make $11.1 million this season on the final year of his contract. He reiterated Friday that hes going to let his agent handle any potential negotiations.

Im staying out of that, man, Fant said. My job is to play football at a high level. And thats what Im going to do.

But Fant was a little more revealing when he was asked if it had crossed his mind earlier this week when he was named the starter that it pays better to play left tackle.

No, not really, Fant said. " I just want to be taken care of. And thats about it.

How Zach Wilson fared

It was an up-and-down day for Zach Wilson, who seemed more comfortable dealing with pressure from the defensive line than he did on Thursday. Wion completed 10-of-13 passes during 11-on-11 drills, and he also showed notable improvement in the red zone where he struggled on the first day of practice.

The problem was that two of his three incompletions were interceptions. Wilsons first throw of practice was picked off by Hall on a pass that was way off the mark.

Want to bet on the NFL?

See the best NJ Sports Betting sites

Wilson bounced back with a strong third-down period on the next set of reps. And in the next set of reps, a red-zone 11-on-11 drill, he threw an impressive touchdown pass to Corey Davis. Wilson recognized that he had time, got through his reads and fired a well-placed bullet pass through a tight window. Davis made a nice diving catch to secure the touchdown in the back of the end zone.

Wilson nearly ended practice with a thud: on the final drill, another red-zone 11-on-11, he threw a bad interception. There appeared to be some sort of miscommunication because Wilson lofted the ball into traffic without a receiver looking for it and safety Jordan Whitehead came down with an easy interception. On the next play, Wilson nearly threw a pick trying to find Corey Davis.

But Wilson ended practice with two touchdown passes. He made the right read and found rookie Garrett Wilson open on the far right side of the end zone with a perfect pass, and then he connected with Cory Davis to set off a celebration for the offense. It was a finish that surely made his lunch taste a little better.

Also of note

- Corey Davis had a strong practice, catching two touchdown passes in the red zone drills and another long-gainer from Wilson over the middle during third down drills. It wasnt a perfect practice though, because late in the session he hauled in a long pass from backup quarterback Joe Flacco and had it punched out of his hand. It looked more like a fumble than a drop, but either way it was bad and Davis put his hands on his helmet. But thats probably the only bad moment in camp for Davis, who is off to a strong start.

- It appears that Carl Lawson will be on the field when the Jets practice in pads next week. Lawson, who ruptured his Achilles last August, has participated in team drills in each of the first three practices. And the early returns are good.

He looks good, Saleh said. Excited for pads. Hes stout. Hes powerful. Hes got all his movement. I think hes got full confidence in his lower half. Hes Carl.

Although, not everything has gone exactly how Lawson would have liked it to in practice as the Jets have been watching his workload carefully.

We reeled it back a little bit today for him, which he was not happy about, Saleh said with a grin. But he looks good.

- Mekhi Becton is still getting his wind back as he returns to the field for the first time in nearly a year, but Saleh said hes been impressed with the big left tackle so far.

He looks good, Saleh said. [Friday] was a really good day for him. We just had a small talk as we were walking off [the field] and its not getting easier, hes just getting stronger. Hes just got to continue to strain himself and push himself to the brink of exhaustion and trust that that discomfort is whats going to help him get better.

- Saleh said that returner/receiver Braxton Berrios could be a full participant in practice as early as next week as he deals with an undisclosed issue. Saleh didnt reveal what was keeping Berrios off the field during team drills but the backup slot receiver was working on a side field with a sleeve on his left leg Friday.

- Rookie tight end Jeremy Ruckert could be making his practice debut soon. Saleh said the training staff was pleased with his progress after a mini-breakthrough this week.

He is getting closer, Saleh said. So well see how things progress through the remainder of the weekend.

Thank you for relying on us to provide the journalism you can trust. Please consider supporting us with a subscription.

Andy Vasquez may be reached at avasquez@njadvancemedia.com.

More here:

Jets training camp observations, Day 3: Sauce Gardner making progress, George Fant nearing a return and Zach - NJ.com

On Sunday, Helsinkis Olympic Stadium will feel several dimensions away. It was there that, in 2009, England and Germany first met in a Womens European Championship final. On paper it might have appeared a clash of the titans but England were not quite there yet: Germany began as overwhelming favourites and duly beat Hope Powells side 6-2, reasserting themselves as continental heavyweights. Birgit Prinz and company put on a masterclass but only 15,000 people were present in the storied venue to witness it.

When this years England crop beat a weakened German side 3-1 at Molineux in February, it was only the second time this fixture had fallen the Lionesses way. That tells nothing of how the gap has closed. What reveals rather more is the fact that, however often the 2022 final is played in the head, it feels impossible to pick a clear winner. The outcome may well be on a knife edge and, with an audience up to six times higher than the crowd that rattled around in Finland, the atmosphere should ensure things feel that way immediately.

A once-in-a lifetime experience was how the excellent Germany goalkeeper, Merle Frohms, referred to the prospect of Sunday. You couldnt have dreamed of a better final, to be facing the host nation in their own stadium. The organisers will be pinching themselves too. There is no other way of putting it: this is a classic final, an event whose history needs no explaining but is perfectly capable of standing on its own feet when measured on skill, bravery and sheer sporting excellence too.

Another four-goal margin of victory for either side seems unthinkable although both have made light of similar predictions in the past three weeks. England were expected to face trouble against Norway but cruised home with bemusing ease and emphasis; they then overwhelmed Sweden despite riding their luck in the first half.

Germany, having done their best to cast themselves as dark horses before the tournament, showed up at Brentford and promptly demolished the much-fancied Denmark 4-0. That is what these teams can do: they can outwit, outplay and eventually overwhelm. When they face one another, all bets will be off.

Determined, modest, successful was how the German newspaper Zeit described Martina Voss-Tecklenburgs team after the win over France. Those words are apt: there is a humility about Germanys work, an ability to balance flair with fastidiousness, perhaps best exemplified by the perfectly reasonable argument that their best player in these championships has been the 20-year-old holding midfielder Lena Oberdorf.

Like England, they have been kept honest for all their rampaging forward play. While the hosts came within minutes of crashing out in the quarter-finals before salvaging what had been a listless performance against Spain, Die Nationalelf rode their luck at times when they met Austria in the last eight and could have come unstuck against France on Wednesday before Alexandra Popps supremely taken winner. Both finalists have known what it is to purr through games and take delight in one anothers talents, but both have cause to feel battle-hardened too.

If anything should make the Germans feel particularly ill at ease, it is Englands capacity to grow stronger as the minutes tick on, spurred by the wealth of options Sarina Wiegman can call upon from the bench. France and Austria faded in the latter stages of their knockout ties, even if the former kept aiming balls into Frohms box until the end; England are less likely to go away and the sharpness of an Alessia Russo or Ella Toone from the bench is something Germany have not been required to contend with so far.

On the flipside Popp, who would be many onlookers player of the tournament both for her potency and the sheer romance of her return from career-threatening injury, started the group stage among the substitutes and might have struggled for as much game time had Lea Schller not tested positive for Covid-19 after the Denmark game.

Likewise, Germany did not miss the similarly indisposed Klara Bhl, the best winger of a pleasing number this summer, too much against France even though her absence also caused Svenja Huth to switch position. Schller and Bhl may be ready to play a part in the final. The point is that depth and flexibility are as important to both England and Germany as what happens from the start: it would not be outlandish to suggest that the most significant events at Wembley will be shaped by decisions made after the interval.

Were happy with what we achieved, but not satisfied with what we achieved, said Powell after the defeat 13 years ago had sunk in. It will make them stronger next time and one day it will be our day.

That looks a safe assertion now, and Englands task is to make sure the moment comes on an evening that will showcase their sport like never before. Pubs will do brisk business, big screens will be set up, squares may even fill. If England and Germany produce anything like the spectacle both have promised, the progress womens football and this competition have made since Helsinki will hardly have been clearer.

Follow this link:

England and Germany set to show 13 years of progress in Euros final - The Guardian

With General Manager Leo Havener absent, the Idyllwild Water District (IWD) directors monthly meeting finished up in about a half-hour Wednesday, July 20.A special meeting had been called for Tuesday, July 12, to discuss the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) progress but was canceled because of illnesses.Instead, Director Peter Szabadi, at the July 20 meeting, told the other four directors that progress on replacing the WWTP was not sufficient and thats why the special meeting that was canceled was called.In Haveners report, he wrote that the map for the proposed WWTP project was received and that property negotiations with Idyllwild Arts Foundation (IAF) is the next step. Last year, he told the board that IAF is cooperating on selling some of its property to the district to expand the facility.Szabadi said Havener is working on remedying the WWTP progress issues. In the meantime, he asked each director to write down questions they would like answered about the WWTP progress. President Dr. Charles Schelly named some of his questions, including, Why did the costs go up?The directors discussed making every employee at-will, meaning they can be fired at the will of a supervisor. However, Szabadi said some employees had been hired under contracts. We cant change that on certain employees, he said.Schelly asked that at each meeting, the board review a district policy to keep us abreast of what our policies are.In response to a question from the audience, Chief Financial Officer Hosny Shouman said IWD has one of the cheapest connection fees on the Hill.The connection fee for a 1-inch meter is $6,954. When asked later if this includes the installation fee and capitalization charge, Shouman wrote, It is including the capital asset cost not the installation fee. The installation fee varies. The customer makes a deposit for the installation fee for $2,000 and it depends on how big or the small of the job is for installation fee.In comparison, Pine Cove Water District charges $14,042 for a 1-inch meter connection and installation is not included. Basic installation starts at $740.Fern Valley Water District charges $5,790 for a 1-inch meter plus $790 for installation and $5,000 for capitalization.All the districts also offer -inch meters, as well as meters above 1 inch.

Follow this link:

IWD concerned about wastewater treatment plant progress Idyllwild Town Crier - Idyllwild Town Cier

Firefighters mop up hot spots while battling the Oak Fire in the Jerseydale community of Mariposa County, Calif., on Monday. Noah Berger/AP hide caption

Firefighters mop up hot spots while battling the Oak Fire in the Jerseydale community of Mariposa County, Calif., on Monday.

JERSEYDALE, Calif. Firefighters continue to make progress against a huge California forest fire that forced evacuations for thousands of people and destroyed 41 homes and other buildings near Yosemite National Park, officials said Tuesday.

Crews battling the Oak Fire in Mariposa County got a break from increased humidity levels as monsoonal moisture moved through the Sierra Nevada foothills, said a Tuesday morning report by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire.

After minimal growth Monday and overnight, the blaze had consumed more than 28 square miles (72 square km) of forest land, with 26% containment on Tuesday, Cal Fire said. The cause was under investigation.

"Fire crews continue providing structure defense, extinguishing hot spots, and building and improving direct fire lines," the report said.

About 6,000 residents from mountain communities were still under evacuation orders while heavy smoke from the fire drifted more than 200 miles (322 kilometers), reaching Lake Tahoe, parts of Nevada and the San Francisco Bay Area, officials said.

Nearly 3,000 firefighters with aircraft support were battling the blaze that erupted last Friday southwest of the park, near the town of Midpines. It exploded in size on Saturday as flames churned through tinder-dry brush and trees amid the worst drought in decades.

An air tanker drops retardant while trying to stop the Oak Fire from reaching the Lushmeadows community in Mariposa County, Calif., on Sunday. Noah Berger/AP hide caption

An air tanker drops retardant while trying to stop the Oak Fire from reaching the Lushmeadows community in Mariposa County, Calif., on Sunday.

Numerous roads were closed, including a stretch of State Route 140 that's one of the main routes into Yosemite.

California has experienced increasingly larger and deadlier wildfires in recent years as climate change has made the West much warmer and drier over the past 30 years. Scientists have said weather will continue to be more extreme and wildfires more frequent, destructive and unpredictable.

The Oak Fire burned as firefighters also made progress against an earlier blaze that burned to the edge of a grove of giant sequoias in the southernmost part of Yosemite. The Washburn Fire, spanning a 7.6-square-mile (19-square-km) area, was 87% contained on Tuesday after burning for more than two weeks and moving into the Sierra National Forest.

View original post here:

Crews are making progress against a destructive forest fire near Yosemite - NPR