Barack Obama coming to Connecticut this spring

HARTFORD, Conn. (WTNH) — Former president Barack Obama is coming to Connecticut this spring to speak at The Connecticut Forum.
The event, called An Evening with President Barack Obama, is part of a partnership with the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving.
Obama is anticipated to speak at The Bushnell Performing Arts Center on June 17 at 7:30 p.m.
'We are honored to host President Barack Obama at The Connecticut Forum,' Mana Zarinejad, executive director of The Connecticut Forum, said in a written statement. 'For more than three decades, The Forum has served a critical role in Connecticut – bringing people together to consider the great challenges and opportunities of our time through thoughtful discussions. In so doing, we hope to bridge the divides that exist between individuals and communities. We cannot think of a better bridgebuilder and leading global statesman to join the Forum stage than President Obama.'
During the event, the former president will 'touch upon' his presidency and work with the Obama Foundation. He will also discuss his future outlook and current challenges.
For ticket information and to learn more, click here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

6 hours ago

• Boston Globe

With military strike his predecessors avoided, Trump takes a huge gamble

The prime target was the deeply buried enrichment center at Fordo, which Israel was incapable of reaching. Advertisement For Trump, the decision to attack the nuclear infrastructure of a hostile nation represents the biggest -- and potentially most dangerous -- gamble of his second term. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up He is betting that the United States can repel whatever retaliation Iran's leadership orders against more than 40,000 U.S. troops spread over bases throughout the region. All are within range of Tehran's missile fleet, even after eight days of relentless attacks by Israel. And he is betting that he can deter a vastly debilitated Iran from using its familiar techniques -- terrorism, hostage-taking and cyberattacks -- as a more indirect line of attack to wreak revenge. Most importantly, he is betting that he has destroyed Iran's chances of ever reconstituting its nuclear program. That is an ambitious goal: Iran has made clear that, if attacked, it would exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and take its vast program underground. That is why Trump focused so much attention on destroying Fordo, the facility Iran built in secret that was publicly exposed by President Barack Obama in 2009. That is where Iran was producing almost all of the near-bomb-grade fuel that most alarmed the United States and its allies. Advertisement Trump's aides were telling those allies Saturday night that Washington's sole mission was to destroy the nuclear program. They described the complex strike as a limited, contained operation akin to the special operation that killed Osama bin Laden in 2011. 'They explicitly said this was not a declaration of war,' one senior European diplomat said late Saturday, describing his conversation with a high-ranking administration official. But, the diplomat added, bin Laden had killed 3,000 Americans. Iran had yet to build a bomb. In short, the administration is arguing that it was engaged in an act of preemption, seeking to terminate a threat, not the Iranian regime. But it is far from clear that the Iranians will perceive it that way. In a brief address from the White House on Saturday night, flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Trump threatened Iran with more destruction if it does not bend to his demands. 'Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace,' he said. 'If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.' 'There will be either peace,' he added, 'or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left.' He promised that if Iran did not relent, he would go after them 'with precision, speed and skill.' Advertisement In essence, Trump was threatening to broaden his military partnership with Israel, which has spent the last eight days systematically targeting Iran's top military and nuclear leadership, killing them in their beds, their laboratories and their bunkers. The United States initially separated itself from that operation. In the Trump administration's first public statement about those strikes, Rubio emphasized that Israel took 'unilateral action against Iran,' adding that the United States was 'not involved.' But then, a few days ago, Trump mused on his social media platform about the ability of the United States to kill Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, anytime he wanted. And Saturday night, he made clear that the United States was all in, and that contrary to Rubio's statement, the country was now deeply involved. Now, having set back Iran's enrichment capability, Trump is clearly hoping that he can seize on a remarkable moment of weakness -- the weakness that allowed the American B-2 bombers to fly in and out of Iranian territory with little resistance. After Israel's fierce retaliation for the Oct. 7, 2023, terror attacks that killed over 1,000 Israeli civilians, Iran is suddenly bereft of its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. Its closest ally, Syria's Bashar Assad, had to flee the country. And Russia and China, which formed a partnership of convenience with Iran, were nowhere to be seen after Israel attacked the country. That left only the nuclear program as Iran's ultimate defense. It was always more than just a scientific project -- it was the symbol of Iranian resistance to the West, and the core of the leadership's plan to hold on to power. Advertisement Along with the repression of dissent, the program had become the ultimate means of defense for the inheritors of the Iranian revolution that began in 1979. If the taking of 52 American hostages was Iran's way of standing up to a far larger, far more powerful adversary in 1979, the nuclear program has been the symbol of resistance for the last two decades. One day historians may well draw a line from those images of blindfolded Americans, who were held for 444 days, to the dropping of GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs on the mountainous redoubt called Fordo. They will likely ask whether the United States, its allies or the Iranians themselves could have played this differently. And they will almost certainly ask whether Trump's gamble paid off. His critics in Congress were already questioning his approach. Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had acted 'without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community' that Iran had made no decision to take the final steps to a bomb. If Iran finds itself unable to respond effectively, if the ayatollah's hold on power is now loosened, or if the country gives up its long-running nuclear ambitions, Trump will doubtless claim that only he was willing to use America's military reach to achieve a goal his last four predecessors deemed too risky. But there is another possibility. Iran could slowly recover, its surviving nuclear scientists could take their skills underground and the country could follow the pathway lit by North Korea, with a race to build a bomb. Today, North Korea has 60 or more nuclear weapons by some intelligence estimates, an arsenal that likely makes it too powerful to attack. Advertisement That, Iran may conclude, is the only pathway to keep larger, hostile powers at bay, and to prevent the United States and Israel from carrying out an operation like the one that lit up the Iranian skies Sunday morning. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Fox News

8 hours ago

• Fox News

JONATHAN TURLEY: Dems suddenly outraged over presidential war powers

Democrats in Washington are again talking impeachment. Politicians and pundits are expressing outrage over President Donald Trump attacking Iran without a prior authorization of Congress. It is the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law where politicians are "shocked, shocked" that Trump is using the authority that they accepted in Democratic predecessors. Fourteen years ago this week, I was in court litigating that very issue when President Barack Obama attacked Libya. Most Democrats supported or were silent on the action. Nevertheless, Democratic members are now calling for impeachment, while others are declaring the attacks unconstitutional. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is particularly shocked that Trump took the action and is calling for a vote under the War Powers Act. Schumer insisted that "no president should be allowed to unilaterally march this nation into something as consequential as war with erratic threats and no strategy." House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has issued a similar statement. Schumer is the same politician who was silent or supportive in earlier unilateral attacks by Democratic presidents. In 2011, Obama approved a massive military campaign against Libya. I represented a bipartisan group of members of Congress challenging that action. We were unsuccessful, as were such prior challenges. I have long criticized the abandonment of the clear language of the Constitution on the declaration of wars. Only eleven such declarations have been made in our history. That has not happened since World War II in 1942. Over 125 military campaigns have spanned from Korea to Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. It is not a rule honored solely in the breach. Democrats were supportive when Clinton launched cruise missile attacks under Operation Infinite Reach on two continents on August 20, 1998. He ordered attacks in locations in Khartoum, Sudan, and Khost Province, Afghanistan. The War Powers Act has always been controversial and largely ineffectual. Presidents have long asserted the inherent powers to conduct such attacks under their Article II authority as the designated Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The WPA requires the President to inform Congress within 48 hours in a written notice to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate of the action. The WPA further bars the use of armed forces in such a conflict for more than 60 days without congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. There is a further 30-day withdrawal period. President Trump reportedly did immediately notify Congress after the attack under the WPA. Presidents have long maintained their right to deploy military assets unilaterally without congressional approval to address imminent threats. President Thomas Jefferson did so when he went to war with the Barbary Pirates at the start of the Nineteenth Century. Presidents have also routinely ignored the WPA when it limited their ability to conduct foreign military operations. In 1999, Clinton ignored the 60-day deadline and continued to bomb forces in Kosovo. His actions were also challenged, but the court in Campbell v. Clinton just shrugged off the violation and said it was a non-justiciable political question. In responding to the current demands, Trump could look to a curious ally: Hillary Clinton. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton pushed for unilateral attacks during the Obama Administration. She dismissed the need to consult, let alone secure authorization, from Congress. In March 2011, Clinton testified that there was no need for such consultation and declared that the Administration would ignore a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions. Obama also defied the War Powers resolution on Syria. He actually did ask for congressional authorization to take military action in that country in 2013, but Congress refused to approve it. He did it anyway. Despite Congress expressly denying "authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces," both Obama and Trump did precisely that. Trump was wise to notify Congress and is currently in compliance with the Act. However, what occurs after that is anyone's guess. The WPA and the AUMF have been paper tigers for decades and most in Congress wanted it that way. Politicians long ago abandoned their responsibilities to declare war. What remains has been little more than political theater. Even under the WPA, Trump would have 60 days to prosecute this war and another 30 days to draw down forces without congressional approval. The court, in Campbell v. Clinton, noted that even if Clinton violated the WPA by continuing operations after the 60-day period, he was technically in compliance by withdrawing forces before the end of the 90-day period. Trump could likely prosecute this campaign in 90 days. Indeed, if it goes beyond 90 days, we will likely be facing a potential global war with retaliatory strikes on both sides. In such an environment, it is very unlikely that Congress would withhold support for our ongoing operations. In the meantime, the calls for impeachment are absurd given the prior actions of presidents in using this very authority. Once again, some Democrats appear intent on applying a different set of rules for impeaching Trump than any of his predecessors. Trump can cite both history and case law in allowing presidents to take such actions. At most, the line over war powers is murky. The Framers wanted impeachments to be based on bright-line rules in establishing high crimes and misdemeanors. This is all part of the Claude Rains School of Constitutional Law. Members will once again express their shock and disgust at the use of the same authority that they once accepted from prior presidents. Trump has a great number of risks in this action from global military and economic consequences. The War Powers Act is not one of them if history is any measure.

Yahoo

11 hours ago

• Yahoo

A divided Congress mulls war powers as Trump considers strike in Iran

WASHINGTON – Lawmakers in the House and Senate are divided on how and whether to act on President Donald Trump's suggestion that he may authorize a U.S. strike on Iran amid missile attacks between Iran and Israel. Congress is the only branch of government that has the power to declare war, according to the U.S. Constitution, but presidents have stretched their own powers to engage in foreign conflicts in recent decades because the president can authorize strikes in defensive cases. As Israel and Iran trade blows in an escalating aerial war, Israel is aiming to take out Iran's nuclear facilities with the possibility of the U.S. military's help. Trump said on June 18 his decision is imminent and that he wasn't concerned about upsetting parts of his core MAGA political base that are publicly warning against the United States being entangled in another foreign conflict. Trump first ran for president in 2016 as an ardent critic of the war in Iraq. Once in the White House, he ordered a drone strike on an Iranian military commander, Qassem Soleimani, without telling Congress. Former President Barack Obama argued George W. Bush-era war authorizations from the early 2000s covered drone strikes in Yemen. And former President Bill Clinton conducted missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998 without explicit Congressional approval. Some lawmakers of both parties say they want a say in whether the U.S. gets involved in the conflict between Iran and Israel, which began on June 13 when Israel struck Iran. Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Kentucky, and Ro Khanna, D-California, introduced a resolution to block U.S. involvement in the conflict without Congressional approval. "This is not our war," Massie wrote on X. "Even if it were, Congress must decide such matters according to our Constitution." Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, introduced a similar measure in the Senate. Both the resolutions in the House and Senate are privileged, which means the chambers will be forced to vote on them as soon as next week, Kaine said. "It is not in our national security interest to get into a war with Iran unless that war is absolutely necessary to defend the United States," Kaine said in a statement. "I am deeply concerned that the recent escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran could quickly pull the United States into another endless conflict." But support for the resolutions may not fall neatly along party lines. Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pennsylvania, has said he will vote against Kaine's push because he wants to ensure Trump can destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities. And Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said the Constitution is "pretty clear" that the president can't take the country to war without Congressional approval. "You can't have a president just beginning a war on his own," Paul said. "So if that decision should be made, he should come to Congress and ask for permission." However, many Republicans in the Senate say Trump is well within his rights to move unilaterally for a single strike. "A single bombing run, historically, has not been understood to require congressional authorization," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. "To engage in sustained hostility, to engage in continued warfare, does require congressional coming to the floor.' Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told CBS News on June 15 that "the worst possible outcome" would be the survival of the Iranian nuclear program. Destroying it through diplomacy would be preferred, he said. But "if diplomacy is not successful, and we left with the option of force, I would urge President Trump to go all in to make sure that when this operation is over, there's nothing left standing in Iran regarding their nuclear program," he said. "If that means providing bombs, provide bombs... If it means flying with Israel, fly with Israel." Others are keeping their powder dry until Trump makes his plan clear. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, told reporters on June 17 that Trump is "perfectly within his right to do what he's done so far." Asked whether he would consider allowing a War Powers resolution to come to the floor to authorize force in the case it's needed, Thune said: "We're getting the cart ahead of the horse here." "Clearly if this thing were to extend for some period of time there could be a more fulsome discussion about what the role of Congress should be, and whether or not we need to take action," Thune said. "Right now, let's hope and pray for the best outcome, the best solution. In my view, that would be Iran coming to the negotiating table and agreeing to end their nuclear program." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Congress mulls war powers as Trump considers strike in Iran