Vets group blasts Trump plane crash comments as ‘shameful'
'The president's statements are shameful,' PVA Chief Executive Officer Carl Blake said in a statement Thursday. 'As an Army veteran who spent many nighttime hours in a Blackhawk and who incurred a combat-related spinal cord injury in service to this country, I can speak with authority when I say that veterans and all people with disabilities are dedicated, highly skilled and fully qualified to tackle the most difficult jobs possible.
'The fact that disabled veterans are now being shamed and minimized by this administration is disrespectful to their service and contributions to America's greatness.'
A midair collision between an Army helicopter and a passenger jet near Ronald Reagan National Airport killed 67 people aboard two aircraft on Wednesday. Federal investigators are still trying to determine the reason for the tragedy and whether pilots or air traffic controllers were at fault.
Top Army aviators were on routine flight when helo collided with jet
On Thursday, during a press conference on the tragedy, Trump stated that he believed diversity and inclusion programs within the federal government may have played a role in the accident, despite presenting no evidence to that claim.
'Where you have many, many planes coming into one target, you need a very special talent and a very special genius to be able to do it,' he said. 'Targeted disabilities … they include hearing, vision, missing extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, epilepsy, severe intellectual disability, psychiatric disability and dwarfism. They all qualify for the position of a controller of airplanes. I don't think so. I don't think so. I think it's just the opposite.'
The comments drew immediate condemnation from Democrats on Capitol Hill, who said they were insensitive and misleading.
'It's one thing for internet pundits to spew off conspiracies, it's another for the president of the United States to throw out idle speculation as bodies are still being recovered and families are still being notified,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on Thursday. 'It just turns your stomach.'
PVA officials took exception to 'the implication that veterans with catastrophic disabilities, like amputations and spinal cord injury, are not smart enough, not skilled enough and generally unqualified for these types of positions.'
More than 636,000 veterans worked as federal employees in fiscal 2021, the latest year for which federal hiring data is available. That's about 30% of the total workforce.
Of that group, 53% of the veterans had some level of disability rating, and about one-third had a disability rating of 30% or greater. Veterans made up about 36% of all jobs within the Department of Transportation, which houses the Federal Aviation Administration.
Officials from the military and National Transportation Safety Board have not said when they expect to have a clear idea for the reasons behind the collision.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Well-mannered White House welcome for Ukraine leaves many questions
By Trevor Hunnicutt and Gram Slattery WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump gathered European leaders and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy for a hastily arranged White House meeting on Monday to discuss a path to ending Russia's war in Ukraine. Here are takeaways from the talks: WARM TONE, LITTLE SUBSTANCE Seven European leaders, the Ukrainian president, their motorcades, dozens of Trump administration staff and more than 100 journalists swarmed the White House campus on Monday in anticipation of the unusual meeting. Would Trump and Zelenskiy agree on a path to peace? Or would their latest Oval Office session devolve into a bitter squabble as in February? Neither scenario occurred. Zelenskiy, chided for his appearance and manner in February, adjusted both. Wearing more formal clothing and repeatedly expressing his gratitude to Trump, he was greeted by a far more complimentary U.S. president than in the past. But, despite Trump's vow to assist in Ukraine's security after a hypothetical peace deal, there was no immediate sign that any party had substantially changed position on land swaps, security guarantees or sanctions. Instead, Trump ended with promises to host a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to address the many remaining issues. HEAPING PRAISE "Have you said 'thank you' once?" U.S. Vice President JD Vance asked Zelenskiy in February, accusing him of failing to show sufficient gratitude for U.S. support. On Monday, Zelenskiy made sure that was not an issue. His opening remarks in the Oval Office included eight thank-yous, mostly for Trump. "Thank you so much, Mr. President ... thank you for your attention. Thank you very much for your efforts, personal efforts to stop killings and stop this war. Thank you," Zelenskiy said. He included the U.S. first lady, who sent a letter to Putin about abducted children in Ukraine. "Using this opportunity, my thanks to your wife," the Ukrainian president said. "And thanks to all our partners and that you supported this format. And after our meeting, we're going to have leaders who are around us, the UK and France, Germany... all partners around Ukraine supporting us. Thanks (to) them. Thank you very much for your invitation." Unlike in February, Vance this time sat largely silent. COMBAT FORMAL The stakes of the meeting could not have been higher. But one of the most-asked questions among diplomats in D.C. could not have been more frivolous: Would the Ukrainian president wear a suit? The answer: kind of. Zelenskiy showed up to the White House in what one European diplomat described as "almost a suit." His black jacket had tiny lapels and jetted chest pockets. He did not wear a tie. His attire, which split the difference between the battlefield and the boardroom, could be described as combat formal. Those sartorial details matter when it comes to dealing with the U.S. president, who was upset that Zelenskiy did not wear a suit for their February meeting. Zelenskiy passed the fashion test this time, however. When one journalist in the Oval Office said Zelenskiy looked "fabulous," Trump chimed in to agree. "I said the same thing," Trump told reporters. DIVIDE OVER CEASEFIRE The assembled European leaders, Zelenskiy included, were careful to paper over policy disagreements with Trump, keeping their comments vague and showering the U.S. president with compliments. But one point of disagreement did bubble to the surface. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told the assembled leaders and media that he wanted to see Putin agree to a ceasefire. Trump had long pushed for a ceasefire in Ukraine. But he largely jettisoned that goal after meeting with Putin last week in Alaska, a shift that was widely seen as a diplomatic defeat for Ukraine. The U.S. president now says he is fine trying to move directly to a peace deal. "To be honest, we all would like to see a ceasefire," Merz said. "I can't imagine that the next meeting would take place without a ceasefire, so let's work on that." Trump pushed back, arguing he has solved many conflicts without first reaching a ceasefire. WHOSE BOOTS ON THE GROUND? One of the great mysteries that hung over the summit was what support the U.S. would give to secure any Russia-Ukraine deal long term. Trump hasn't offered U.S. troops' "boots on the ground" to guarantee Ukraine's security from Russia, reflecting American reticence to commit to military entanglements or a head-to-head confrontation with a nuclear power. Instead, he has offered weapons sales and promised that Americans will do business in Ukraine, assurances that Ukrainians see as far less than a security guarantee. Europeans are preparing for a peacekeeping mission backed by their forces. Yet, asked explicitly whether U.S. security guarantees for Ukraine could include U.S. troops in the country, Trump did not rule it out. Instead, he teased an announcement as soon as Monday on the topic. "We'll let you know that, maybe, later today," Trump said. He said Europe was the "first line of defense" but that "we'll be involved." WHAT'S NEXT Trump said he would call Putin and set up a trilateral meeting with Ukraine at a time and place to be determined. Despite some private misgivings, the assembled leaders agreed that such a meeting was a logical next step. Still, the path forward is more complex than Trump and his allies are letting on. For one, Russia has delayed and obstructed high-level meetings with Ukraine in the past, and it was not immediately clear that Putin would actually sit down with Zelenskiy, who he frequently describes as an illegitimate leader. Additionally, it is unclear how much a principal-level meeting would actually advance the cause of peace. The gulf between the Russian and Ukrainian positions is vast. The Kremlin said on Monday the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine is a non-starter, a stance that would be hard for Ukraine to swallow. Russia is also calling for Ukraine to fork over significant chunks of territory that Kyiv controls, another proposal that Ukraine's leaders are not entertaining.
Boston Globe
5 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Republican bid to help Trump move past Epstein falls flat
On Monday, Representative James Comer, Republican from Kentucky, the chair of the House Oversight Committee, said the Justice Department would begin sharing its Epstein records with his panel by Friday. He also suggested the release of the documents would take some time, all but ensuring that questions about the Epstein affair will drag on for weeks. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up At the same time, Democrats, in some cases with the help of Republicans, have laid a series of procedural traps that will make it all but impossible for the GOP to avoid confronting the issue again when Congress reconvenes in September. 'We're going to keep the pressure up — 100 percent,' Senator Ruben Gallego, Democrat from Arizona, said at an event in Iowa this month. 'As often as we can, until we know exactly what happened, why it happened.' Advertisement Even with Congress in recess, the Epstein case continues to generate attention in Washington. On Monday, William Barr, who was President Trump's attorney general when Epstein died, testified in a closed-door deposition for the Oversight Committee. Lawmakers of both parties concede the Trump administration could quiet the furor over the Epstein files on Capitol Hill and nationwide by simply releasing them to the public. Comer's statement on Monday was the only public indication to date that it might do so. All the while, several efforts connected to Epstein, a disgraced financier who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019, have been percolating and threaten to disrupt a busy month in which Congress also faces a Sept. 30 deadline to fund the government and avert a shutdown. Chief among them may be a maneuver led by Representive Thomas Massie, Republican fron Kentucky, who is a frequent Trump critic, to try to force a floor vote on the release of the files. Such a vote would thrust Republicans into a politically thorny position between Trump and constituents who are unhappy with the administration's handling of the case. Before leaving Washington, Massie and Representative Ro Khanna, a California Democrat, filed what is known as a discharge petition, which allows any member of the House to force legislation to the floor if a majority of members — 218 — sign on. Because of arcane procedural rules, the pair cannot start collecting signatures until they return in September, but they appear to have more than enough support to succeed. The timing all but guaranteed that the issue would hang over lawmakers throughout the August recess and that Republican leaders would be forced to address it when they returned. While they could try to table the effort, several rank-and-file Republicans earlier this year blocked a similar attempt to circumvent a measure that had majority support. Advertisement So far, 43 other lawmakers, 11 of them Republicans, have signed on to Massie and Khanna's initiative. Last week, the pair announced plans for a news conference with victims of Epstein and his longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell, to be held outside the Capitol on lawmakers' second day back from their break. Democrats on the powerful House Rules Committee, a panel controlled by the speaker that determines which legislation reaches the floor, also plan to continue pressuring Republicans over the issue. Republican leaders never found a solution to the committee's impasse, which led them to send the House home a day ahead of schedule. But they seemed to take solace in the Trump administration's request that federal judges release transcripts of grand jury testimony in three cases related to Epstein and Maxwell. Both House Speaker Mike Johnson and Representative Steve Scalise, the number two Republican, suggested such a move might help alleviate concerns, adding that the House could not address the Epstein files while the courts were weighing in. 'That process is underway right now,' Johnson said last month. 'Now, we've got to zealously guard that and protect it and make sure it's happening. And if it doesn't, then we'll take appropriate action when everybody returns here.' Yet so far, federal judges in two of those three cases have denied the government's requests. A judge overseeing Maxwell's case said that the Justice Department's suggestion that grand jury testimony 'would bring to light meaningful new information' was 'demonstrably false.' A third judge, who oversaw Epstein's 2019 case, is still considering whether to unseal grand jury materials connected to that prosecution. Advertisement And Republicans and Democrats alike have argued that the grand jury testimony falls far short of the promise that Attorney General Pam Bondi and other top officials had made. Instead, they have turned to legal maneuvers meant to force the Justice Department to provide the Epstein files to Congress. This month, the Oversight Committee issued a subpoena to Bondi asking the Justice Department to give the committee its files related to Epstein and Maxwell by Tuesday. Comer, a staunch Trump ally, was forced to send the subpoena after a small group of Republicans joined Democrats in voting to approve it at a subcommittee meeting last month. On Monday, he told reporters he was confident that 'we're going to get the documents,' citing 'productive' conversations with the Justice Department. Senate Democrats have already started to pressure Republicans over the matter using a little-known and infrequently tested maneuver to try to force Bondi to turn over the Epstein files. Under a provision of federal law, government agencies are required to hand over relevant information if any five members of the Senate's chief oversight committee requests it. Senator Chuck Schumer, Democrat from New York, the minority leader, and seven other Democrats had asked the Justice Department to give them Epstein-related materials by Aug. 15. They also asked that a briefing be held for the committee's staff before the end of the month. So far, the committee has not received any material, and the briefing has not been scheduled, according to two people familiar with the matter who said they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. Advertisement Schumer has said Democrats are prepared to seek legal recourse if the Trump administration does not meet the letter's deadlines. On Friday, he began publicly pressuring Senator John Thune, Republican from South Dakota, the majority leader, to appoint a lawyer who would defend the Senate's legal authority for congressional oversight. 'If he chooses complicity — we'll take them to court ourselves,' Schumer wrote in a social media post. This article originally appeared in .
Fast Company
5 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Newsmax agrees to pay $67 million in defamation case over false 2020 election claims
The conservative network Newsmax will pay $67 million to settle a lawsuit accusing it of defaming a voting equipment company by spreading lies about President Donald Trump's 2020 election loss, according to documents filed Monday. The settlement comes after Fox News Channel paid $787.5 million to settle a similar lawsuit in 2023 and Newsmax paid what court papers describe as $40 million to settle a libel lawsuit from a different voting machine manufacturer, Smartmatic, which also was a target of pro-Trump conspiracy theories on the network. Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis had ruled earlier that Newsmax did indeed defame Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems by airing false information about the company and its equipment. But Davis left it to a jury to eventually decide whether that was done with malice, and, if so, how much Dominion deserved from Newsmax in damages. Newsmax and Dominion reached the settlement before the trial could take place. The settlement was disclosed by Newsmax on Monday in a new filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. It said the deal was reached Friday. A spokesperson for Dominion said the company was pleased to have settled the lawsuit. The disclosure came as Trump, who lost his 2020 reelection bid to Democrat Joe Biden, vowed in a social media post Monday to eliminate mail-in ballots and voting machines such as those supplied by Dominion and other companies. It was unclear how the Republican president could achieve that. The same judge also handled the Dominion-Fox News case and made a similar ruling that the network repeated numerous lies by Trump's allies about his 2020 loss despite internal communications showing Fox officials knew the claims were bogus. At the time, Davis found it was 'CRYSTAL clear' that none of the allegations was true. Internal correspondence from Newsmax officials likewise shows they knew the claims were baseless. 'How long are we going to play along with election fraud?' Newsmax host Bob Sellers said two days after the 2020 election was called for Biden, according to internal documents revealed as part of the case. Newsmax took pride that it was not calling the election for Biden and, the internal documents show, saw a business opportunity in catering to viewers who believed Trump won. Private communications that surfaced as part of Dominion's earlier defamation case against Fox News also revealed how the network's business interests intersected with decisions it made related to coverage of Trump's 2020 election claims. At Newsmax, employees repeatedly warned against false allegations from pro-Trump guests such as attorney Sidney Powell, according to documents in the lawsuit. In one text, even Newsmax owner Chris Ruddy, a Trump ally, said he found it 'scary' that Trump was meeting with Powell. Dominion was at the heart of many of the wild claims aired by guests on Newsmax and elsewhere, who promoted a conspiracy theory involving deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to rig the machines for Biden. Though Trump has insisted his fraud claims are real, there's no evidence they were, and the lawsuits in the Fox and Newsmax cases show how some of the president's biggest supporters knew they were false at the time. Trump's then-attorney general, William Barr, said there was no evidence of widespread fraud. Trump and his backers lost dozens of lawsuits alleging fraud, some before Trump-appointed judges. Numerous recounts, reviews and audits of the election results, including some run by Republicans, turned up no signs of significant wrongdoing or error and affirmed Biden's win. After returning to office, Trump pardoned those who tried to halt the transfer of power during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol and directed his Department of Justice to investigate Chris Krebs, a former Trump cybersecurity appointee who had vouched for the security and accuracy of the 2020 election. As an initial trial date approached in the Dominion case earlier this year, Trump issued an executive order attacking the law firm that litigated it and the Fox case, Susman Godfrey. The order, part of a series targeting law firms Trump has tussled with, cited Susman Godfrey's work on elections and said the government would not do business with any of its clients or permit any of its staff in federal buildings. A federal judge put that action on hold, saying the framers would view it as 'a shocking abuse of power. '
