article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
Suspect in custody in connection with murder of Detroit synagogue president
Samantha Woll was found stabbed to death outside her home on Oct. 21.
A suspect is in custody in connection with the murder of Detroit synagogue president Samantha Woll, police said.
Woll was found stabbed to death outside her home on Oct. 21.
Detroit police said last month that there was no evidence to point to the crime being motivated by antisemitism.
Police did not release the suspect's name.
"The details of the investigation will remain confidential at this time to ensure the integrity of the important steps that remain," Detroit Police Chief James White said in a statement.
Though the arrest "is an encouraging development in our desire to bring closure for Ms. Woll's family, it does not represent the conclusion of our work in this case," he said.
Woll had a long career in local politics and worked with several elected officials over the years, according to her LinkedIn page.
She recently served as the political director for Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel's re-election campaign.
"Sam was as kind a person as I've ever known," Nessel said. "She was driven by her sincere love of her community, state and country. Sam truly used her faith and activism to create a better place for everyone."
Woll also worked as a deputy district director for Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich.
"She did for our team as Deputy District Director what came so naturally to her: helping others & serving constituents," Slotkin said. "Separately, in politics & in the Jewish community, she dedicated her short life to building understanding across faiths, bringing light in the face of darkness." | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Republican officeholders keep saying they don’t want to cut Social Security and Medicare, something even a 64 percent majority of Republican voters oppose. But that doesn’t make it true. President Joe Biden says he doesn’t want to raise Social Security taxes on people earning less than $400,000. But that doesn’t make it smart.
Social Security and Medicare really are going broke. This was entirely foreseen, owing to the demographic bubble known as the Baby Boom. The Old Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund, or OASI, which is what most people mean when they say “Social Security,” will lack sufficient funds to cover full pension benefits starting in 2034. The Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, or H.I., which is what most people mean when they say “Medicare,” will lack sufficient funds to cover full hospital benefits starting even earlier, in 2028. (That’s what the Social Security Administration says. The Congressional Budget Office’s projections are slightly more pessimistic.)
None of this is cause for panic. As the economist Herbert Stein wisely observed in 1989, “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.” Changes will be made to keep Social Security and Medicare, which together constitute about one-third of the federal budget, from going bankrupt. These changes will consist either of benefit cuts, tax increases, or both.
Whatever the solution turns out to be, it won’t likely be executed in any way that pisses off a significant proportion of the elderly people who draw benefits from the plan. That won’t happen because the elderly vote is way too important. The American electorate skews old, thanks to Baby Boom bloat and the familiar phenomenon that the older you get the likelier you’ll vote. In 2018, for example, the median age of the midterm voter—not the eligible midterm voter but the midterm voter who actually roused themself to cast a ballot—was 53. We don’t have good data yet on the 2022 midterms, but Phil Keisling, chairman of the National Vote at Home Institute, figures 54 to be a safe guess. In the 2022 primaries, where, Keisling reminded me, “80 if not 90 percent of all races for state legislature, Congress, etc.” got decided, the median voter age was 62. Even as the press touts growing voter participation by younger voters, the median voting age keeps getting older. As I noted four years ago, these demographics go a long way toward explaining how America became a gerontocracy.
Republicans have more to lose than Democrats from proposing benefit cuts to Social Security and Medicare. That’s because elderly voters tend to favor Republican candidates. In the 2022 midterms, voters over age 65 broke for Republican House candidates 55–43 percent. That’s a wider margin than in the 2020 presidential election, when over-65s favored Trump over Biden 52–47 percent. Trump had endeared himself to elderly voters in 2016 by promising not to cut Medicare or Social Security; over-65s that year went for Trump 53–45 percent. Trump’s slippage four years later may have resulted from his foolish campaign against mail-in-balloting; in 2020, the only age group that ended up casting the majority of its ballots by mail was voters over 65. Alternatively, maybe some elderly voters were simply, like the rest of the country, tired of Trump’s antics.
The point is that the majority of elderly voters these days vote Republican. That explains why House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has taken Social Security and Medicare off the table as congressional Republicans demand spending cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.
And yet Republican politicians persist in wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare. They can’t help themselves! A House Republican Study Committee report for the current fiscal year called for raising the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 67 and raising the Social Security retirement age to 69. A “Commitment to America” that House Republicans campaigned on last fall says Republicans intend to “save and strengthen Social Security and Medicare” without saying how. Former Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who yearned to take an ax to these programs when he was in office, last week said it was a mistake to take Social Security and Medicare off the table in the debt-ceiling talks, and Mike Pence, who’s running for president, says cuts to Medicare and Social Security should be “on the table for the long term.”
The Republican poster child for cutting Social Security and Medicare is Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who until January was chairman of the Senate Republicans’ campaign committee. Scott last year proposed, in the Senate GOP’s campaign blueprint document, to sunset every federal program every five years, including Social Security and Medicare. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell immediately disavowed it. But Scott stood by his plan. Then he stood by it again after Republicans failed to win back a Senate majority in November. Then he stood by it a third time after President Joe Biden tore into it last month in his State of the Union address.
Scott gave a little ground after Biden taunted him in early February about the plan, by name, in his home state of Florida (“so outrageous that you might not even believe it”). OK, fine, Scott said, we’ll require a two-thirds vote to cut Social Security or Medicare. But Scott still insisted Congress would take that vote. By now Scott’s stubbornness had acquired an almost cinematic magnificence, like Paul Newman defying Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke. But one week later Scott broke, exempting Social Security and Medicare from his sunset scheme. Still, who can doubt that, at least figuratively, Scott crossed his fingers behind his back?
Most of the ways Republicans have weighed cutting Social Security and Medicare would be bad policy in addition to bad politics. Certainly, cutting benefits across the board would be disastrous. The average annual OASI benefit is about $21,000, not much higher than the poverty line for a family of two ($19,720). Cutting health benefits for Medicare recipients would be even worse.
What Republicans mostly talk about is raising the age cutoff for Social Security and Medicare. But while it’s certainly true that people live longer than they used to, and remain in better health, the frame of reference for advocates of this idea is the professional class, to which most Americans don’t belong. The average retirement age has risen two years during the past two decades, but it’s still only 61—four years before you become eligible for Medicare, one year before you become eligible for OASI, and nine years before you become eligible for the maximum OASI pension (which you can’t get if you retire earlier). You hear a lot about the aging workforce, but less than 20 percent of all people aged 65 or older still work or seek work. Employers don’t particularly want them.
The only plausible option for cutting Social Security benefits is to taper off benefits for people with high incomes. If you stopped paying Social Security to people earning in excess of $140,000, that would eliminate more than 10 percent of the shortfall. Republicans are reluctant to do that because people earning in excess of $140,000 are a prized Republican constituency. In the midterms, people making $50,000 or more (52 percent) voted Republican about as much as people making less than $50,000 voted Democratic (53 percent). This Republican advantage gets bigger as you set the threshold higher.
Democrats don’t want to apply a means test to Social Security because as soon as it ceased to be universal, Republicans would attack it as a handout to loafers (by which they would mean Blacks, even though most welfare benefits go to whites). In my younger days I scoffed at this fear. But after witnessing Republicans play this vicious game again and again, even after President Bill Clinton eviscerated cash payments to the poor, I came to recognize the fear is well-founded. So however practical means-testing Social Security might look on a spreadsheet, it’s not the solution. Even on paper, it isn’t all that practical because cutting off beneficiaries earning more than $140,000 would still leave 90 percent of the shortfall unaddressed.
A better way to save Social Security? It’s simple: Eliminate the regressive $160,200 cap on payroll taxes.
The payroll tax, known formally as the Federal Insurance Contributions Act, or FICA, tax, is regressive in two ways. It’s a flat tax of about 15 percent, divided evenly between yourself and your employer. (Really, though, you pay both halves because your employer takes payroll tax into account when calculating your salary.) There are additional Medicare charges for high earners, but setting these aside, this is a 15 percent tax on the very first dollar earned. When you work, you pay a 15 percent payroll tax, whether your annual income is $150 or $1,500 or $15,000 or $150,000. That’s regressive.
The other way the payroll tax is regressive is that it’s capped, which is insane. The government quite reasonably sets bottom tax thresholds to exempt the poor, but whoever heard of setting top tax thresholds to exempt the rich? The Social Security Administration, that’s who. There’s a complicated justification for this based on Social Security and Medicare pretending to be some sort of national Christmas Club rather than government benefit programs. That made more sense when the program was founded in 1935 than it does today because incomes were more equal then (it was the Depression!) and only about 54 percent of American males (the workforce back then was overwhelmingly male) were projected at age 21 to live long enough to collect benefits. Today incomes are more unequal, by far, than at any time since the peacetime income tax was created in 1913, and the average American male is projected at age 21 to live to 81. That means most people will take out of Social Security and Medicare far more than they ever put in. So, yeah, they’re government benefit programs.
Democrats have been talking about removing the Social Security cap for decades. Barack Obama proposed it when he was still a senator, but a bipartisan deficit panel he created as president, chaired by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles, adopted in 2010 the more timid alternative of raising the cap. Had the Simpson-Bowles policy been adopted, today the FICA cap would be not $160,000 but around $190,000. That would simply shift upward the outrage of well-off people not paying payroll tax, even as it failed to cover the shortfall. (Simpson and Bowles also proposed various benefit cuts.)
The cap should be eliminated entirely, because any cap is regressive. The Lakers pay LeBron James, the highest-paid NBA player in history, $44.5 million. Why do we exempt $44.3 million of that from the FICA tax? Were LeBron to protest that a 15 percent surtax on 100 percent of his income would be unreasonable, we could politely explain to him that that injustice is already visited on 94 percent of his fellow Americans.
The real problem in imposing a 15 percent FICA tax on all income isn’t that LeBron would pay more. It’s that everybody else would pay the same rate as LeBron. Even without a $160,000 or $190,000 cap, a flat-rate tax is regressive. The best solution is therefore to eliminate the payroll tax entirely and increase income tax rates, which are already progressive and should be made more so, to cover costs for Social Security and Medicare. Would many taxpayers scream? Yes. But it would be very popular with Mitt Romney’s famous 47 percent, which is that slice of the population that doesn’t pay income tax but still has to pay FICA tax. (These days this non-income-tax-paying cohort is closer to 40 percent.) It would also be very popular with the three-quarters of all working Americans who pay more payroll tax than they do income tax.
If scrapping the payroll tax is too much of a political challenge, then second best would be to keep the payroll tax and eliminate the cap. That would more than cover the Social Security and Medicare shortfall. Unfortunately, Democrats have a phobia about taxing the moderately rich. Candidate Joe Biden proposed leaving the cap where it is, then reimposing it for incomes over $400,000. There is no logical reason to do this other than Biden’s pledge not to raise taxes on anybody earning less than $400,000. And anyway, the Urban Institute calculates Biden’s proposal would keep Social Security solvent only five years longer than current projections.
Senator Bernie Sanders met with Biden late last month to urge Biden to reimpose the Social Security tax not at $400,000 but at $250,000, as proposed in Sanders’s own bill. That would, according to the Social Security Administration, keep Social Security fully solvent for the next 75 years. Perhaps that’s why Sanders fixed his threshold there (though I suspect Sanders also had in mind President Barack Obama’s pledge not to raise taxes on anybody earning less than $250,000).
We may have to reconcile ourselves to a rescue for Medicare and Social Security that, weirdly, suspends the payroll tax either for the income range of $160,000–$250,000 or for the income range of $160,000–$400,000 (even though the latter gets us only to 2040). Future historians will pinpoint this income range as the demographic that Democrats most fear. It’s where the professional class dwells, and professionals are the only wealth class that votes Democratic. Republicans could perhaps support this by telling themselves they’re raising taxes only on a bunch of tree-hugging, “critical race theory”–loving liberals.
But sooner or later we’re going to have to raise taxes on affluent professionals too, and not just to cover the Social Security and Medicare shortfalls. Government costs money, and if you earn $160,000, I’m sorry to tell you, you inhabit the top 10 percent in the income distribution, and very nearly the top 5 percent. You may never crack the top 1 percent, but you absolutely can’t deny that, compared to most other Americans, you’re as rich as Croesus. | US Federal Policies |
'We’re facing a defining moment', Biden argued. Will voters agree?Good morning, US politics blog readers. Last night, Joe Biden made a primetime address to warn Americans about the threats to democracy posed by political violence and Republicans who deny the outcome of the 2020 election. It’s a salient message, given that many GOP candidates nationwide have embraced baseless conspiracy theories about the election that brought Biden to power, but there’s a problem: poll after poll has shown most Americans have a sour view of Biden’s time in office, to the point that the president is avoiding many swing states in the final days before the 8 November midterms. Last night’s speech was meant as a reminder to voters of what the stakes are in next week’s elections. We’ll see if they care.Here’s what else is happening today: Biden heads out west, first to deliver remarks on student debt relief at a community college in Albuquerque, New Mexico, then to rally with democratic candidates. After that, he’s in San Diego, California, where he will appear at an event for democratic congressman Mike Levin. Vice-president Kamala Harris will go to New York to rally Democrats. Midterm countdown: we are five days away from Tuesday’s election. Key events18m ago'We’re facing a defining moment', Biden argued. Will voters agree?Show key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this feature | US Federal Elections |
- Alarmingly, as graduate school borrowing increases, wages for those with an advanced degree haven't changed much, a new report by the U.S. Department of Education finds.
- "A closer look at borrowing trends and the outcomes of graduate programs … suggest cause for concern," department economists wrote.
- Those with graduate degrees tend to earn more than those who stopped their education after college.
Alarmingly, as graduate school borrowing increases, wages for those with an advanced degree haven't risen nearly as much.
"A closer look at borrowing trends and the outcomes of graduate programs … suggest cause for concern," department economists wrote.
"There is generally very little correspondence between the amount students borrow to finance their advanced degrees and their labor market outcomes," they said.
In 2006, the Education Department introduced the Grad PLUS loan program, which lets graduate students borrow as much as it costs to attend their program. Meanwhile, the most an undergraduate can borrow in government loans in an academic year is typically $12,500.
In its new report, the department analyzed debt and earning outcomes at about 5,300 graduate programs. It found that between 2000 and 2016, the share of graduate students who borrowed more than $80,000 to pay for their degree was almost 11% in 2016, up from just 1.4% in 2000.
On average, graduate students with debt in 2016 borrowed about $66,000 in total to finance their advanced degree, up from roughly $53,000 in 2000.
"If these trends continue, graduate loan disbursements may exceed undergraduate disbursements in the next few years," the department economists wrote.
Those with graduate degrees tend to earn more than those who stopped their education after college.
In 2022, workers age 25 and older with only a bachelor's degree had median weekly earnings of $1,432, compared with $1,661 for those with a master's degree, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Still, as graduate debt has shot up, "the earnings premium for graduate degrees has stagnated or decreased," said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
The earnings premium is the difference in average income between people with different levels of college education, as well as high school graduates, after adjusting for several variables, including race and location.
The Education Department found that the earnings premium for those with a master's degree has stayed between 55% and 63% over the past several decades, suggesting the "net returns of graduate degrees may have fallen over the past 20 years."
"This is causing more graduate and professional school students to have trouble repaying their student debt," Kantrowitz said. | US Federal Policies |
U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled a Republican stopgap spending measure Saturday, aimed at averting a government shutdown, but the measure quickly ran into opposition from lawmakers from both parties in Congress.
"This two-step continuing resolution is a necessary bill to place House Republicans in the best position to fight for conservative victories," Johnson said in a statement after announcing the plan to House Republicans in a conference call.
The House and Democratic-led Senate must agree on a spending vehicle that President Joe Biden can sign into law by Nov. 17, or risk a fourth partial government shutdown in a decade that would close national parks, disrupt pay for as many as 4 million federal workers and disrupt a swath of activities from financial oversight to scientific research.
Unlike ordinary continuing resolutions, or "CRs," that fund federal agencies for a specific period, the measure announced by Johnson would fund some parts of the government until Jan. 19 and others until Feb. 2. House Republicans hope to pass the measure Tuesday.
The bill surfaced a day after Moody's, the last major credit ratings agency to maintain a top "AAA" rating on the U.S. government, lowered its outlook on the nation's credit to "negative" from "stable," citing political polarization in Congress on spending as a danger to the nation's fiscal health.
Johnson, the top Republican in Congress, appeared to be appealing to two warring House Republican factions: hardliners who wanted legislation with multiple end-dates; and centrists who had called for a "clean" stopgap measure free of spending cuts and conservative policy riders that Democrats reject.
But the plan quickly came under fire from members of both parties.
"My opposition to the clean CR just announced by the Speaker to the @HouseGOP cannot be overstated," Representative Chip Roy, a member of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, said on the social media platform "X," formerly known as Twitter.
"It's a 100% clean. And I 100% oppose," wrote Roy, who had called for the new measure to include spending cuts.
Democratic Senator Brian Schatz called Johnson's measure "super convoluted," adding that "all of this nonsense costs taxpayer money."
"We are going to pass a clean short-term CR. The only question is whether we do it stupidly and catastrophically or we do it like adults," Schatz said on X.
The House Republican stopgap contained no supplemental funding such as aid for Israel and Ukraine.
Johnson's House Republicans have passed a $14.3 billion aid bill for Israel, which would be paid for by cuts to the Internal Revenue Service budget. He has also called for tying Ukraine aid to tighter security at the U.S.-Mexico border. Democrats largely oppose both approaches.
"Separating out the CR from the supplemental funding debates places our conference in the best position to fight for fiscal responsibility, oversight over Ukraine aid, and meaningful policy changes at our Southern border," Johnson's statement said.
If Congress can pass a stopgap measure in time to keep federal agencies afloat, lawmakers are expected to use the time to negotiate spending legislation for the 2024 fiscal year that runs through Sept. 30.
House Republican hardliners have been pushing to cut fiscal 2024 spending below the $1.59 trillion level that Biden and Johnson's predecessor agreed in the May deal that averted default. But even that is a small slice of the overall federal budget, which also includes mandatory outlays for Social Security and Medicare, and topped $6.1 trillion in fiscal 2023.
Johnson, who won the speaker's gavel less than three weeks ago, could put his own political future at risk if his current plan fails to win support for passage and he is forced to go with a standard CR that Democrats can accept.
His predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, was ousted from the job by eight Republican hardliners early last month, after he moved a bipartisan measure to avert a shutdown on Oct. 1, when fiscal 2024 began. McCarthy opted for the bipartisan route after hardliners blocked a Republican stopgap measure with features intended to appease them. | US Congress |
Background
Michigan is one of seven states where “fake electors” signed false electoral certificates claiming that Donald Trump won the 2020 presidential election in their state in an attempt to undermine a free and fair election. This fake electors scheme was part of a multi-pronged effort by Trump and his allies to stop the peaceful transition of power after the 2020 election and, according to the January 6th Select Committee’s Final Report, “led directly” to the violence that occurred on January 6th.
On November 23, 2020, the Michigan Board of State Canvassers certified Joe Biden’s victory in the state. Despite this, 16 individuals covertly met and signed documents falsely asserting that they were the legitimate electors for president and vice president from Michigan, certifying that they had convened at the State Capitol on December 14th, when in fact they had attempted to enter the State Capitol building but were denied entry by the Michigan State Police. They then mailed their fraudulent certificates to the National Archives, the President of the United States Senate, and the Archivist of the United States, as if they were legitimate electoral certificates.
On July 18, 2023, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel announced criminal charges against the 16 individuals who served as fake electors in Michigan. These 16 individuals were local activists, current and former public officials, well-connected GOP operatives (including a Republican National Committee member), a sitting mayor, a town clerk and a school board member. The 16 defendants are set to be arraigned individually over the next several weeks, with two of the defendants already pleading not guilty.
While the fake electors in Michigan may be the first charged for the scheme, they likely will not be the last, as several other jurisdictions are investigating their own fake electors. The charges in Michigan could provide a useful blueprint for seeking accountability in other states.
Charges
Each of the 16 defendants has been charged with the following offenses:
Forgery occurs when a person falsely makes, alters, forges or counterfeits a public record with the intent to defraud. Conspiracy to commit forgery occurs when a person conspires to do that conduct together with one or more persons. Conspiracy to commit forgery is a felony punishable by up to 14 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, and the separate offense of forgery is a felony punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
The forgery and surrounding conspiracy alleged in this case pertains to the fake electors’ agreement to gather together and sign certificates which falsely asserted that they were the “duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Michigan.” The indictment alleges that when the fake electors sent the documents to the National Archives and the President of the Senate, they did so in an attempt to “circumvent the lawfully cast ballots of millions of Michigan voters in a presidential election,” by fraudulently portraying themselves in a government document as the legitimate electors for their state.
The crime of uttering and publishing occurs when a person utters and publishes as true a certain false, forged, altered or counterfeit record, instrument or other writing, with the intent to injure or defraud, knowing said instrument to be false, altered, forged or counterfeit. Conspiracy to commit uttering and publishing occurs when a person conspires to do that conduct together with one or more persons. Conspiracy to commit uttering and publishing is a felony punishable by up to 14 years in prison and a $10,000 fine, and the separate offense of uttering and publishing is a felony punishable by up to 14 years in prison.
A defendant is guilty of the crime of uttering and publishing if they sign their name to one or more of the documents knowing it to be false. In this instance, the defendants signed false electoral certificates despite having no legal authority to act as a duly elected presidential elector in the state of Michigan. Several factors point to the fact that the defendants signed the documents knowing that they were not in fact the legally elected or qualified electors. First and foremost, it is reasonable to assume that the 16 electors were aware of the fact that they were not the duly elected electors, based upon significant media coverage of events surrounding the election. Furthermore, several of the electors filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging voter fraud, which was summarily denied the week before they signed the false electoral certificates. Finally, the signing of the document was done in the confines of the basement of the Republican headquarters in Lansing, with no recording devices or cell phones allowed; the secrecy under which the scheme was conducted by the fake electors speaks to the illicit nature of their activities.
Election law forgery occurs when a person knowingly makes, files or otherwise publishes a false document for any purpose under the Michigan Election Law, with the intent to defraud. Conspiracy to commit election law forgery occurs when a person conspires to do that conduct together with one or more persons. Both conspiracy to commit election law forgery and the separate offense of election law forgery are felonies, each punishable by up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Once the election had been certified by the state board of canvassers and governor in Michigan, the Republican electors no longer had any reasonable expectation that they were the duly elected presidential electors. Despite this fact, the Republican electors covertly gathered at the Michigan Republican Party headquarters and signed fraudulent documents falsely asserting that they were the duly elected and qualified electors. According to the indictment, they then caused the documents to be sent to the National Archives and the President of the Senate as part of “a coordinated effort to award the state’s electoral votes [to Trump], in place of the candidates actually elected by the people of Michigan” and by so doing, attempted to defraud the voters of Michigan of their ability to have their votes counted for their legitimately chosen candidate, Joe Biden.
Legal issues
What do the indictments mean for the defendants who are currently serving as elected officials?
Several of the individuals indicted in the fake electors scheme are currently serving as elected officials in the state of Michigan. This indictment means different things for different elected officials, and any consequences depend on the rules of the office and particular county.
For example, on July 20, 2023, the town clerk of Shelby Township, Stanley Grot, who was one of the 16 fake electors indicted, was informed by the Michigan Bureau of Elections that he is not allowed to administer elections while charges are pending. The position of town clerk in Shelby Township is an elected position and conducting elections is one of the primary duties of the town clerk. According to the letter from the Michigan Bureau of Elections, Grot may continue to serve in his other roles as town clerk, such as preparing agendas and recording meetings, but must recuse himself from any election-related duties.
For Kent Vanderwood, the current mayor of the city of Wyoming, Michigan, the city released a statement saying it was aware of the charges, but that the actions “did not take place in his capacity as a city official” and as such, the legal process should be allowed to play out. Vanderwood was elected to the mayorship in August 2022; prior to this, he served on the Wyoming City Council for 16 years.
Finally, Grand Blanc School Board member Amy Facchinello currently faces a recall effort after she was charged for her role in the fake electors scheme.
What is an elector and how are presidential electors chosen in Michigan?
Under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, each state selects “Electors” who convene at the Electoral College to elect the persons to serve as the President and Vice President. The procedure by which Michigan selects its presidential electors is set out in Chapter IV of the Michigan Election Law (MCL 168.41 – MCL 168.47). As provided by MCL 168.42 the two major political parties select 16 persons to serve as candidates for electors of president and vice-president at their fall state convention. Once the state board of canvassers certifies the results of the election, the governor then certifies the names and addresses of the “duly elected” electors from the party who received the most votes for president in that presidential election.
In Michigan, the Board of State Canvassers met on November 23, 2020 and certified that the Democratic Party nominees Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had received the greatest number of votes for president and vice president, respectively, in the state. That same day, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed and issued an “Amended Certificate of Ascertainment of the Electors of the President and Vice President of the United States,” certifying Joe Biden’s win in the state, and determined that the Democratic electors were the duly elected electors and that the Republican nominees were not the duly elected Presidential electors and had no legal authority to act as duly elected Presidential electors. At that point, the Republican electors had no reasonable expectation to be the duly elected electors from the state of Michigan.
Intent/knowledge requirement
Prosecutors must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fake electors knew they were breaking the law when they signed the fraudulent certificates.
To support this, the prosecution’s affidavit points to a lawsuit filed on November 29, 2020, by three of the fake electors, Timothy King, Marian Sheridan and John Haggard (“the plaintiffs”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging voter fraud. The plaintiffs filed a motion seeking decertification of the election results and a permanent injunction prohibiting the Michigan Governor and Secretary of State from transmitting the certified results of the 2020 presidential election to the Electoral College based on “overwhelming evidence of election tampering” and instead requiring the governor to transmit certified election results that Trump was the winner of Michigan. The court denied the plaintiff’s motion on December 7, 2020, stating that the plaintiffs were asking the court to “ignore the orderly statutory scheme established to challenge elections and to ignore the will of millions of voters.”
It is difficult to conceive that the plaintiffs turned fake electors did not know about this court ruling. Furthermore, Michigan State Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey and Speaker of the House Lee Chatfield announced prior to December 14, 2020 that there was “no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to affect the results of the election, and that the House and Senate would not be taking action to contest the electoral vote.” And, as previously mentioned, the signing of the documents was conducted in relative secrecy; the fake electors gathered in the basement of the Republican headquarters, with no recording devices or cell phones, and no outside parties were allowed to be present—likely demonstrating the fake elector’s knowledge of the illicit nature of their scheme.
What do these indictments mean for other states that had fake electors?
The indictments from Michigan are an important first step in ensuring accountability for those who participated in the fake electors component of the conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. But Michigan is not the only state that had fake electors, and state officials have a critical role to play in pursuing accountability for those who sought to undermine our elections by violating state and federal laws through their participation in these schemes.
Trump and his allies carried out fake elector schemes in other states that Trump also lost including Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. It has been widely reported that Georgia is investigating its own slate of fake electors, as is Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes. Moreover, Trump was recently indicted in the criminal investigation led by special counsel Jack Smith for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including the fake electors’ role in the scheme.
So while Michigan is the first of the seven states to seek accountability, it almost certainly will not be the last. | US Political Corruption |
Ramaswamy, the candidate with no experience in elected office, stood center stage during the debate and was repeatedly at the center of the scrum, trading the most barbs with other candidates, regularly interrupting the moderators, and inserting himself into the conversation. He had the second most speaking time at 11 minutes and 47 seconds, just beneath former Vice President Mike Pence, who clocked in at 12 minutes and 37 seconds.
He repeatedly lodged the most attacks and drew the most heat, with Pence calling him a “rookie” and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie calling him an “amateur” within the first 30 minutes of the debate.
"Now everybody's gotten their memorized preprepared slogans out of the way, we can actually have a real discussion now," Ramaswamy said, coming out swinging.
"Is that one of yours?" Pence shot back.
After ticking off several of his accomplishments as the vice president, Pence slammed Ramaswamy’s lack of political experience.
“I balanced budgets and cut taxes when I was governor. I mean, look, Joe Biden has weakened this country at home and abroad,” Pence said. “Now is not the time for on-the-job training. We don’t need to bring in a rookie,” he said, making the first dig at Ramaswamy.
As the wildcard candidate introduced himself, he borrowed a line from former President Barack Obama, describing himself as “a skinny guy with a funny last name.”
“Who the heck is this skinny guy with a funny last name, and what the heck is he doing in the middle of the debate stage,” Ramaswamy asked rhetorically. “I’ll tell you I’m not a politician. You’re right about that, I’m an entrepreneur.”
Christie called Ramaswamy “the same type of amateur” as Obama, citing his remark as the unknown skinny guy.
“I’ve had enough already tonight of a guy who sounds like ChatGPT, the last person in one of these debates who stood in the middle of the stage and said, ‘What’s a skinny guy with an odd last name doing up here,’ was Barack Obama,” Christie said.
As former President Donald Trump prepares to surrender to authorities in Georgia on Thursday to face charges in the latest case accusing him of attempting to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state, the candidates were asked whether they would support a convicted Donald Trump as the party’s choice. Ramaswamy immediately raised his hand and then criticized Christie, claiming his campaign is based on “vengeance and grievance.”
"Let's just speak the truth. Trump was the best president of the 21st century. Chris Christie, your claim that Donald Trump is motivated by vengeance and grievance would be more credible if your campaign were not based on vengeance and grievance against one man,” Ramaswamy said.
The son of Indian immigrants was able to expertly insert himself into the debate when he was not at the center of the conversation. After candidates were asked whether Pence did the right thing in certifying the elections on January 6, 2021, Ramaswamy pushed Pence on whether he would pardon Trump.
“Well, Mike, why don’t you say this — join me in making a commitment on day one, you would pardon Donald Trump, I’m the only candidate on the stage who has the courage to actually say it,” Ramaswamy said.
Pence said he would consider it but noted it would depend on showing contrition.
“I’ve actually given pardons when I was governor of the state of Indiana. It usually follows a finding of guilt and contrition by the individual who has been convicted,” Pence said. “If I am president of the United States, we will give fair consideration to any pardon requests.”
Early in the debate, the audience booed loudly when the entrepreneur and frequent guest on Fox News called climate change a hoax.
“Climate change is a hoax … The reality is more people are dying of bad climate change policies than they are of actual climate change,” he said.
Former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley fired back at Ramaswamy while also calling for China and India to cut emissions.
“First of all, we do care about clean air, clean water. We want to see that taken care of, but there is a right way to do it. The right way is, first of all, yes, is climate change real? Yes, it is,” Haley said. “But if you want to go and really change the environment, we need to start telling China and India that they have to lower their emissions.”
Ramaswamy also reiterated his view that Washington's support for Ukraine is not in America's best interest, and he vowed not to support more funding for the war.
“I find it offensive that we have professional politicians on this stage who will make a pilgrimage to Kyiv, to their pope, Zelensky, without doing the same thing for the people of Maui or the people on the south side of Chicago,” Ramaswamy said.
Haley criticized her Republican opponent for his lack of foreign policy chops and his support of Russia while abandoning allies.
“He wants to hand Ukraine to Russia, he wants to let China eat Taiwan, he wants to go and stop funding Israel,” Haley said. “You don’t do that to friends. What you do instead is you have the backs of your friends.”
Ramaswamy then criticized Haley by telling her, “I wish you well in your future career on the boards of Lockheed and Raytheon,” leading her to insist she is not on the board of either defense contractor.
“You have no foreign policy experience, and it shows,” she said, earning applause from the crowd.
Ramaswamy was the only candidate on the stage to raise his hand when the candidates were asked who would not keep supporting Ukraine.
The youngest Republican presidential candidate this cycle attempted to make the case that a new generation was better equipped to take control of the White House. His debate preparation included videos he released of himself playing tennis shirtless with college players across the country and videos of him working out and doing burpees.
Ramaswamy’s age and inexperience were front and center during the debate.
"We don't need a president who's too old; we don't need a president who's too young,” Pence said toward the end of the debate.
“I want to address Vice President Pence’s comment; I think we need someone of a different generation to lead this nation,” Ramaswamy said in response.
Ramaswamy's position has been rising in recent days, polling at about 9%, behind Trump and Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) in the Republican field. Recently, he has been attempting to respond to backlash after an interview with the Atlantic, where he seemed to float a 9/11 conspiracy theory, suggesting that police or federal agents could have been on the planes that hit the Twin Towers during the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
In Ramaswamy’s closing statement, he made it clear he would continue to lean into the generational gap between himself and the more experienced candidates on the stage.
“I was born in 1985, and I grew up into a generation where we were taught to celebrate our diversity and our differences so much that we forgot all of the ways we are really just the same as Americans bound by a common set of ideals that set this nation into motion in 1776,” he said. | US Federal Elections |
Presented by CTIA Wireless Foundation
American quantum policy lurched forward this morning when the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology approved a series of amendments to the National Quantum Initiative Act reauthorization, which will set national scientific, economic and security priorities for quantum technology over the next five years.
The original 2018 NQIA, which authorized $1.2 billion for spending on quantum and stood up new federal offices to oversee the government’s approach, expired at the end of September. The new version is a chance to keep pace with global allies and adversaries’ own quantum efforts, while continuing to boost a research field that has made major breakthroughs in the interim.
This was not a particularly rancorous or tension-filled moment in Washington, with the bill and each of today’s amendments enjoying unanimous bipartisan support on the committee.
It still faces a full committee vote after Thanksgiving, and then an anyone’s-guess encounter with Republican leadership before getting to the floor. For now, however, the amendment process offers some insight into how quantum is shaping up as a policy issue in Washington.
If passed, the bill would add a slate of additional provisions to the original, including a new quantum institute at NASA, support for quantum foundries under the Department of Energy and new research centers under the National Institute for Standards and Technology.
It’s also turning into a classic Washington Christmas tree, a $3.6 billion topline with a bunch of pet projects attached. Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.), a former teacher, added language to ensure the inclusion of the Department of Education in quantum issues; former businessman Rep. Mike Collins (R-Ga.) mandated the inclusion of small businesses in strategy conversations.
But broadly speaking, most of the amendments offered today fell under one of three main policy buckets, each of which gives a revealing look into how American lawmakers are starting to view the technology:
China, security, and global competitiveness: The easiest element of quantum policy to recognize right now is the cybersecurity threat posed by quantum computers, the subject of a years-long competition organized by NIST to develop quantum-proof cryptography. To that end, numerous lawmakers today emphasized the need to stay ahead of China on quantum and boost cybersecurity, as in one amendment from Reps. Jeff Jackson (D-N.C.) and Claudia Tenney (D-N.Y.) that orders NIST to develop a strategy to standardize post-quantum cryptography across the government.
“One of the major concerns with quantum technology is that once we achieve it, all of our passwords become obsolete,” Jackson said. “There are a range of organizations that need to begin adopting these standards, and they haven’t done that yet.”
Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.) also introduced an amendment that directs the National Quantum Coordination Office to monitor other countries’ quantum progress, saying “we’re in an arms race right now with China when it comes to quantum capabilities.” Rep. Rick Crawford (R-Ark.) introduced language that mandates the research activity the bill authorizes are subject to the same geopolitical security measures as those in the CHIPS and Science Act.
Commercial development and economic impact: Federal dollars create local spending opportunities, and quantum is no exception. Lawmakers introduced a slew of amendments to the bill to boost quantum development and manufacturing in the U.S., including one from Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio) that encourages public-private partnerships to boost the quantum supply chain.
Rep. Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), speaking in support of her fellow Midwesterner, said the amendment would help “small businesses, new innovators, entrepreneurs,” and, of course, “certainly help make the Midwest shine.”
Other amendments sought to boost commercial quantum development and applications, a dear cause for the nascent quantum industry. Collins’ aforementioned amendment mandates the inclusion of “small and medium-sized businesses and startups” in discussions about federal quantum funding.
Funding research: And of course, with any technology still as largely theoretical as quantum computing, politicians have plenty of ideas about how and where research funding should be directed. Sykes offered an amendment prioritizing quantum research in health care; there was Bowman’s that would include the Department of Education in quantum strategy discussions; Reps. Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.) and Jim Baird (R-Ind.) directed the National Science Foundation to award grants to upgrade quantum research and tools at universities and nonprofits.
Salinas referenced the quantum research network in her home state of Oregon, and invoked the now-familiar litany of transformative use cases to which quantum might apply: “faster drug development, better clean energy technologies and improved climate modeling, helping us tackle some of society’s biggest challenges.”
As we’ve already covered here in DFD, those might be a long way off, if quantum computers even first achieve their goal of consistently outperforming their classical counterparts. But as the speedy, unusually unanimous bipartisan support for more quantum spending — at least in committee — shows, the prospect is already tantalizing enough to make it a very live political issue and target of lawmakers’ attention.
From the “first in Europe” file: Germany’s antitrust chief said today that the country’s regulators won’t review Microsoft’s investments in ChatGPT.
POLITICO’s Edith Hancock reported for Pro subscribers that Andreas Mundt, the head of Germany’s Federal Cartel Office, said his team “concluded that the previous investments and the cooperation between the two companies are not subject to merger control,” which is much stronger there than in the United States — making the decision a potentially bearish indicator for similar enforcement on this side of the pond.
That doesn’t mean, however, that big American tech firms will completely skate by European Union regulators in the AI era. The European Commission’s top antitrust official said last week it’s closely monitoring monopoly concerns, and another official in September said the bloc is looking into Microsoft’s integration of a chatbot into Bing.
A class action lawsuit filed yesterday alleges United Healthcare used an AI system to unrightfully deny seniors’ insurance claims, the latest in a series of similar lawsuits targeting health insurance companies including Cigna.
The lawsuit, brought by Clarkson Law Firm, says that after purchasing a third-party company that uses AI to evaluate insurance claims, the insurer denied coverage for extended care recommended by doctors, causing seniors to rack up massive medical debt. The lawsuit said 90 percent of those who appealed their denials were successful, although only 0.2 percent of those who were denied did so.
The behavior the lawsuit alleges is an almost textbook example of the fears voiced by AI critics who say a lack of transparency around the use of such systems will inevitably lead to discrimination and other harms. In the most high-profile example of such a mistake to date, the European Union’s privacy regulator fined Dutch tax authorities €3.7 million after an AI system wrongly accused tens of thousands of families of welfare fraud.
- The adoption of AI is keeping businesses from cutting down on their cloud costs.
- Microsoft unveiled its first custom AI chip.
- Teenagers are often among those making up the AI data labeling workforce.
- Sam Altman is muscling his company into the “Big Tech” constellation.
- Israel hopes its high technology will help it fight in Hamas’ tunnels.
Stay in touch with the whole team: Ben Schreckinger ([email protected]); Derek Robertson ([email protected]); Mohar Chatterjee ([email protected]); Steve Heuser ([email protected]); Nate Robson ([email protected]) and Daniella Cheslow ([email protected]). | US Federal Policies |
Arizona's fake electors aren't the only ones who should be squirming (let's name names)
Opinion: Arizona's fake electors should be feeling the heat, but they aren't the only Arizonans who were scheming to steal the 2020 election. Let's do a roll call.
Fast and furious. That’s how the excuses are flying these days as prosecutors (finally) turn their eye to fake electors.
Here in Arizona, Attorney General Kris Mayes has escalated a probe into the 11 “patriots” who falsely claimed to be duly elected by the state’s voters to cast the state’s electoral votes for Donald Trump.
But they aren’t the only ones who threw in with the scheme to steal Arizona’s vote. (More on that in a minute.)
The faker electors have mostly been mum.
Fake electors said they were 'duly elected'
Their enablers and supporters insist they were merely a backup plan, casting Arizona’s electoral votes for Trump in the event that lawsuits challenging the election were successful.
Yeah, that might work if we were in Pennsylvania or New Mexico, where the Trump electors added that caveat to their votes.
In New Mexico they signed, “on the understanding that it might later be determined that [they] are the duly elected and qualified Electors”.
The Trump electors in Pennsylvania said their votes for Trump should count only “if, as a result of a final non-appealable court order or other proceeding prescribed by law, we are ultimately recognized as being the duly elected and qualified electors”.
But Arizona’s fake electors offered no such hedge. They signed documents simply declaring themselves “duly elected and qualified electors” and casting their votes for the guy who didn’t win.
This isn't how it went down in Hawaii
Their scheme might even work if they could credibly point to Hawaii circa 1960, but there are key differences.
There, Democrats met on the appointed day to cast the state’s electoral votes for John Kennedy, even though certified results showed Richard Nixon squeaked out a win.
But a recount was underway on the day presidential electors were required to cast their ballots. A recount that Kennedy ultimately won.
There was no recount underway in Arizona on Dec. 14, 2020.
In fact, every pre- and post-election test of Arizona’s equipment, as required by law, turned up no evidence of a problem. And every lawsuit challenging the results had failed.
AZ GOP attorney knew they were fake
Yet there they were at Arizona Republican Party headquarters, declaring Trump the winner.
Among them were Arizona Republican Party Chairwoman Kelli Ward, state Sens. Anthony Kern and Jake Hoffman, and Tyler Bowyer, a top executive with Turning Point USA who also sits on the Republican National Committee.
They were following the template set out in Trump attorney John Eastman’s two-page memo, detailing his step-by-step plan for how Arizona and six other states would submit “dual” sets of electors, allowing then-Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election or at least throw it into Congress, where Republicans could then declare Trump the winner.
Even the Arizona Republican Party’s attorney knew what they were doing was as phony as a $3 bill as he helped Team Trump flesh out the plan.
“We would just be sending in ‘fake’ electoral votes to Pence so that ‘someone’ in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the ‘fake’ votes should be counted,” Phoenix attorney Jack Wilenchik wrote in a Dec. 8, 2020, email to Boris Epshteyn, a Trump adviser who also was working on the plan.
In a follow-up email, Wilenchik wrote that “‘alternative’ votes is probably a better term than ‘fake’ votes.”
Republican lawmakers played their part
Even as the phonies were meeting in Phoenix to cast their non-existent votes for Trump on Dec. 14, 2020, across town a group of Republican legislators were signing a letter to Pence and Congress.
In it they asked, “that the alternate 11 electoral votes be accepted for to Donald J. Trump or to have all electoral votes nullified completely until a full forensic audit can be conducted.”
But there was no audit under way. If nullification was really the goal, then why ask Pence and Congress to accept the phony Trump electors?
Then-Rep. Mark Finchem, one of the state’s loudest stop the stealers, hand carried the lawmakers’ request to Washington on Jan. 5, 2021, putting it into the hands of none other than Rep. Andy Biggs.
Biggs was one of Trump’s strongest acolytes on Capitol Hill.
He, along with Rep. Paul Gosar, attended post-election White House planning sessions to spitball ways to keep Trump in office.
Rep. Biggs wanted more. He didn't get it
In fact, the votes hadn’t even been fully counted when Biggs started pushing the notion of setting aside electors in Arizona and elsewhere.
In a Nov. 6, 2020, text to White House Chief of Staff Mark Mark Meadows, Biggs suggested that state legislatures should appoint electors “in the various states where there’s been shenanigans,” a move he acknowledged would be “highly controversial.”That was a non-starter with Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers.
Another view:Michigan has a roadmap to bust our fake electors
Instead, 29 incoming and outgoing Republican legislators sent their request to Pence and Congress, calling it “A Joint Resolution of the 54th Legislature” and attaching the state seal so it would look official.
On Jan. 5, 2021, Biggs texted Finchem, asking for the letter signed by those legislators — the one urging Congress to accept a Republican slate of presidential electors from Arizona, instead of the Democratic slate chosen by voters.
The next morning, Jan. 6, 2021, Biggs videoconferenced with Bowers, asking if he would sign on and support decertifying Arizona’s electors.Bowers said he wouldn’t.
This was a carefully planned scheme
Biggs and Gosar went forward with the scheme to reject Arizona’s legitimate electors anyway, as did Rep. Debbie Lesko — though the vote, which ultimately failed, had to be delayed a few hours as Trump’s supporters stormed the building.
You begin to understand those reports that Biggs sought a presidential pardon, though he denies it.This wasn’t just 11 rubes who decided on a whim to protest Biden’s win by casting a symbolic electoral vote for Trump.
This was a carefully planned scheme, meticulously coordinated — from the seeds of doubt deeply planted to erode trust in our elections to the fake “electors” who were part of a scheme to steal the vote in Arizona and other swing states to the storming of the Capitol to stop Joe Biden from becoming president.
And certain Arizonans appear to be in on it up to their eyeballs.
Who signed the letter to Congress?
Here are the Republicans who signed the letter urging Pence and Congress to accept the fake electors, along with their status at the time of the signing:
Sen. Kelly Townsend of Mesa, Rep. Bret Roberts of Maricopa, Rep. Kevin Payne of Peoria, Rep. Mark Finchem of Oro Valley, Sen. David Farnsworth of Mesa, Sen. Sonny Borrelli of Lake Havasu City, Rep. Leo Biasiucci, of Lake Havasu City, Rep. Anthony Kern of Glendale, Rep. David Cook of Sierra Vista, Sen. Sylvia Allen of Snowflake, Rep. John Fillmore of Apache Junction, Sen.-elect Nancy Barto of Phoenix, Rep. Travis Grantham of Gilbert, Senate Majority Leader Warren Petersen of Gilbert, Rep. Walter Blackman of Snowflake, Rep. Steve Pierce of Prescott, Rep. Shawnna Bolick of Phoenix, Rep. Tony Rivero of Peoria, Rep. Noel Campbell of Prescott.
Concurring: Sen. David Gowan of Sierra Vista, outgoing Rep. Bob Thorpe of Flagstaff, Rep.-elects Jacqueline Parker of Mesa, Brenda Barton of Payson, Beverly Pingerelli of Peoria, Joseph Chaplik of Scottsdale, Jake Hoffman of Queen Creek, Judy Burges of Sun City West, Quang Nguyen of Prescott Valley and Sen.-elect Wendy Rogers of Flagstaff.
Note: Sen. Paul Boyer of Glendale initially signed an early draft of the letter but said he asked that his name be removed when the wording was changed to request that Congress either accept Trump’s electors or nullify the vote.
Support local journalism: Subscribe to azcentral.com today. | US Political Corruption |
September 11th is the most solemn day on the U.S. calendar. The terrorist attacks that left nearly 3,000 people dead 18 years ago are still fresh in the minds of many, and no occasion calls for a greater show of reverence and respect, especially from the nation’s commander-in-chief. President Trump commemorated the fallen Wednesday by tweeting a picture of himself and Melania.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 11, 2019
The president quickly moved on to bashing recent ABC/Washington Post 2020 polling by showing his popularity floundering among several key demographics, and trailing most of the leading Democratic candidates in head-to-head matchups. “If it weren’t for the never ending Fake News about me, and with all that I have done (more than any other President in the first 2 1/2 years!), I would be leading the “Partners” of the LameStream Media by 20 points,” he wrote. “Sorry, but true!
Trump positioning himself as a victim on 9/11 is nothing new. In 2018, he began the day by watching a DVR’d episode of Lou Dobbs Tonight and tweeting about the Russia investigation.
“We have found nothing to show collusion between President Trump & Russia, absolutely zero, but every day we get more documentation showing collusion between the FBI & DOJ, the Hillary campaign, foreign spies & Russians, incredible.” @SaraCarterDC @LouDobbs
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 11, 2018
A few minutes later, he retweeted a post from White House social media director Dan Scavino about how he signed a letter proclaiming September 11th “Patriots Day 2018,” before quickly returning to his comfort zone. Lou Dobbs was still blaring on the executive television, and half-baked musings about the Russia investigation still needed to be tweeted. In a few minutes, Trump would need to depart for a memorial service in Shanksville, Pennsylvania — where 40 people died on Flight 93 while thwarting a plot to crash into the U.S. Capitol. He snuck in a nod to his legal counsel and one more attack on the Justice Department before departing for the site where the picture of him and Melania he’d tweet a year later would be taken.
This is before he heads to the new memorial to the Shanksville victims to commemorate a horrific day. https://t.co/DRfG10ODxI
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 11, 2018
Trump’s relationship with 9/11 has always been curious, if not outright disrespectful. As a born-and-bred New Yorker whose identity is closely tied to the city, one would think he would make a point of showing the utmost respect for those who lost their lives, but as is the case with Trump’s relationship to just about anything, he hasn’t been able to resist making it about himself whenever possible. During an interview with Bloomberg not even two weeks ago, the president referenced George W. Bush speaking through a bullhorn at ground zero as an annoying blip preventing Trump’s own popularity among Republicans from being the highest ever. “The advantage we have is — I am actually a very popular president, which people don’t like to say, you know,” Trump said. “In fact, I guess the Republican poll came out, there’s one at 92 and one at 93 and one at 90, and they’re the highest numbers that have ever been, with the exception of a tiny period of time with a bullhorn. But that period lasted for about a week.”
The issue was brought into focus during the 2016 campaign, as well, most notably in 2015 when he falsely claimed that he watched “thousands and thousands of people” on rooftops in New Jersey “cheering as that building was coming down.” Trump was using the claim to justify his calls to surveil mosques, noting that New Jersey has a “large Arab population.” A few weeks later, he would call for all Muslim immigrants to be banned from entering the United States.
It wasn’t the only time he used 9/11 as a political tool. “The World Trade Center came down because Bill Clinton didn’t kill Osama bin Laden when he had the chance to kill him,” he said during a debate in February 2016. “And George Bush, by the way, George Bush had the chance, also, and he didn’t listen to the advice of his CIA.” When the audience booed, Trump claimed that he “lost hundreds of friends” in the attacks. A few months later, during a campaign event in Buffalo, New York, he lied about putting himself in harm’s way to help clear rubble.
— Scott Dworkin (@funder) September 11, 2018
Trump’s bizarre relationship with 9/11 predates his presidential run, of course. While speaking before Congress in 2005, Trump defended the use of asbestos in building materials by claiming that if the World Trade Center had been constructed using the toxic substance, they’d still be standing. In 2013, he famously tweeted that he “would like to extend my best wishes to all, even the haters and losers, on this special date, September 11th.” The tweet reportedly disappeared during the 2016 campaign, but a quoted tweet dated September 11th, 2013 remains on Trump’s timeline.
Editor’s picks
“@realDonaldTrump: I would like to extend my best wishes to all, even the haters and losers, on this special date, September 11th.”
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 12, 2013
The most telling example of Trump’s understanding of 9/11, of his total lack of empathy and of his pathological self-centeredness came the morning of the attack. While on the phone with Secaucus, New Jersey’s WWOR, Trump was asked whether his building at 40 Wall Street has sustained any damaged as a result of the attacks. He proceeded to brag about how now that the World Trade Center had fallen, he owned the tallest building in downtown Manhattan. “40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan,” Trump said. “Before the World Trade Center it was the tallest. Then when the built the World Trade Center it become known as the second-tallest, and now it’s the tallest.”
17 years ago, today, Donald Trump bragged about how his building was now the tallest one in downtown Manhattan since the Twin Towers fell. pic.twitter.com/XOQxAVAoL5
— Brian Klaas (@brianklaas) September 11, 2018
To answer the question posed by WWOR’s Rolland Smith, the Trump building at 40 Wall Street did not sustain any damage from the attacks. This didn’t stop Trump from applying for and accepting federal recovery money after it was made available for the area’s small businesses, largely because of lobbying efforts by then-Senator Hillary Clinton. “For many months, I allowed people to stay in the building, use the building and store things in the building,” Trump explained after he was pressed to return the money. “I was happy to do it and to this day I am still being thanked for the many people I helped. The value of what I did was far greater than the money talked about.”
This post has been updated. | US Political Corruption |
(Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
How Can There Be Trust in a US Supreme Court Unbound by Ethical Standards?
Justices Alito and Thomas are pushing back over calls for the nation's highest court to adopt any ethical rules or oversight.
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Justices Alito and Thomas are pushing back over calls for the nation's highest court to adopt any ethical rules or oversight.
As public trust in the Supreme Court drops to a new low, Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas are pushing back against a firestorm of ethics controversies involving payoffs to them by wealthy Republicans.
When Thomas’s annual financial disclosure was released Thursday — revealing another three private jet trips he accepted last year from real estate magnate and GOP megadonor Harlan Crow and amending several “mistakes” from previous years — Thomas’s personal attorney circulated a six-page statement tearing into “left wing” groups that he said had “weaponized” ethics against Thomas.
“No Justice, Justice Thomas included, should be subjected to such political blood sport,” Thomas’s attorney wrote. “It is painfully obvious that these attacks are motivated by hatred for his judicial philosophy, not by any real belief in any ethical lapses.”
Alito, meanwhile, gave an interview to The Wall Street Journal’s conservative-leaning opinion section, calling recent stories about him “nonsense” and lashing out against the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act, which the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced just one week earlier. (It would require that Supreme Court justices comply with ethical standards as demanding as in other branches of government.)
Alito asserted that “no provision of the Constitution gives [Congress] the authority to regulate the Supreme Court — period.”
Ironically, since the constitutionality of that act could eventually come before the court, Alito’s comment about it is itself a breach of judicial ethics.
Meanwhile, his assertion that Congress may not subject the Supreme Court justices to a code of ethics is being used by Republicans to block an inquiry into undisclosed gifts to Alito — another ethical breach, since Alito’s views are impeding a congressional investigation into Alito’s own conduct.
So here's a pair of key questions that must be answered: Should Thomas, Alito, and other justices be subject to binding and enforceable ethics rules? And, if so, how? | SCOTUS |
To properly respond to Donald Trump and the level of extreme danger he represents — especially as he faces multiple criminal prosecutions — requires understanding some specific aspects of Trump's behavior and motivations.
Trump has shown a wide range of pathological behavior over the past seven years or so. He has an unhealthy fascination with violence. He lacks impulse control and empathy. He revels in cruelty. He compulsively lies and exhibits traits of malignant narcissism. He is a confirmed sexual predator and misogynist. He has a tenuous relationship to reality, and increasingly retreats into victimology and a persecution complex. He believes himself to be almost literally superhuman and often behaves like a cult leader.
In my many conversations with mental health experts during the Age of Trump, one of their consistent themes has been the suggestion that if the ex-president was not a rich white man he would likely have been arrested or otherwise removed from normal society decades ago.
Trump's pathological behavior is in no way separate from his role as leader of the neofascist MAGA movement and larger white right. One repeated error made by the mainstream media and the larger political class is to divide Trump's obvious mental health issues from his political behavior and the ascendancy of his movement.
Fascism and other forms of illiberal politics are not "merely" political problems. In reality, such things are a societal force and imaginary that both harness and generate collective mass sociopathy and other forms of physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual and spiritual pathology. Sick societies produce sick leaders; sick leaders have sick followers; in combination, those forces produce sick political movements. Collectively, these are manifestations of a condition of malignant normality that can all too easily end in societal destruction.
After four indictments on a wide variety of charges for which he potentially faces imprisonment, Donald Trump has reacted in entirely predictable fashion, lashing out at many of his perceived enemies, including President Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland, special counsel Jack Smith, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis, the Democratic Party, the FBI and others he views as part of a "deep state" plot against him and his MAGA movement. Consider this recent fundraising email from Trump:
I honestly believe that Joe Biden doesn't love America.
Right now, our once great country is falling apart. Inflation is ravaging our economy. Our border is in complete disarray. Our enemies are openly spying on us and getting away with it. And our justice system has been replaced by a weaponized legal system that criminalizes dissent.
We are a nation in decline.
If I were in the White House right now, I would dedicate every waking hour and every fiber of my being to fix this mess.
But what's Crooked Joe doing as America burns?
… Spending millions and millions of YOUR taxpayer dollars to wrongly indict, arrest, and possibly even JAIL his leading opponent.
The truth is: Crooked Joe doesn't care if our country burns to the ground. He only cares about his own power.
But I trust you know that I truly care about America. Nothing motivates me more than my endless love for our country.
Look, I didn't have to run for president. I didn't have to challenge the Deep State.
I'm not in this battle for fame or fortune. I'm in this battle to save our country and nothing else.
That's just one in a lengthy series of emails on the same theme: Biden and the Democrats and their voters are existential enemies of the nation, and the twice-impeached, four-times-indicted ex-president is the only person who can defeat them.
Rather than mocking or deriding these rants, it is better to understand them as problematic and dangerous. This is classic projection: Trump is projecting his inner views and pathological sense of self-identity outward onto others.
We need your help to stay independent
Trump's projections and his evidently unstable behavior may provide insight and map onto what he and his followers will do next — up to and including potential acts of political violence — in response to his impending criminal trials amid the 2024 presidential campaign. I asked Dr. Marc Goulston, a prominent psychiatrist, former FBI hostage-negotiation trainer and author of the bestsellers "Just Listen" and "Talking to 'Crazy'," for his insights into Trump's inflammatory rhetoric and what it reveals about the ex-president's state of mind. He responded by email:
If we took out the words "Joe" or "Biden" from his rants and asked non-dictator world leaders to choose whom they seemed to describe more accurately, Biden or Trump, I'm guessing most would say it's a better description of Trump and what he is or would do to America.
So even to the untrained eye it is clear that Trump is projecting a lot of negativity on Biden. If that is so, what lies beneath?
One of the things Trump cannot tolerate is feeling powerless or helpless, which triggers something called "impotent rage." That is the rage of powerlessness, and the more powerless and now imperiled he feels, the greater his rage. ...
[T]he more Trump is feeling destroyed by the indictments the more he needs to destroy Biden. Trump is a gambler and not a very effective one, given his real financial dealings from the past several decades. His current gamble is that he will be re-elected so he can pardon himself for everything and create a Justice Department to do his bidding, or that if another Republican is elected they will pardon him for fear of alienating Trump's base.
Or if he believes he didn't lose the 2020 election — a more likely possibility is that he can't believe he lost to Joe Biden — he could convince himself that he isn't paranoid, but that Biden, the Deep State and the Justice Department are truly out to get him, which would justify in his mind his attacking them before they destroy him.
I also asked Dr. Lance Dodes, a retired assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a training and supervising analyst emeritus at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute, for his assessment of Trump's behavior and language. He also responded by email:
Donald Trump has always relied on primitive psychological defenses, including denial of reality, as in his long history of inventing "alternative facts" and fake news. Another of his primitive mechanisms is projection and its more severe form, "projective identification." In the latter case, he reverses identities to claim that those opposed to him have exactly the amoral traits that define himself, for example, calling President Biden "Crooked Joe." This dangerous capacity to project his identity onto another person, in order to shift responsibility and anger away from himself, is common in tyrants and would-be tyrants. For example, they routinely claim that truly democratic leaders are antidemocratic while they, who are actually antidemocratic, seize power for themselves to "restore democracy."
Projective identification can be a surprisingly effective technique, since it simultaneously attacks the honest person while pretending the dishonest one is against the very things he is [himself]. This worked for Trump in 2016, and to the extent he is able to con people into thinking that he is the honorable person being victimized by bad people, he can win again.
In a recent interview with Salon, Dr. Marcel Danesi, author of the new book "Politics, Lies and Conspiracy Theories: A Cognitive Linguistic Perspective," explained how fascists, authoritarians and demagogues use emotions and rhetoric in sophisticated ways to control their followers. I asked Danesi for his analysis of how Trump's attacks on Biden fit into that model:
Trump's strategy has always been to attack back when under threat, or even better to attack first. It is a major tactic of political manipulators throughout history, whereby they blame the blamer, without any proof, denying any wrongdoing and thus deflecting attention away from themselves. Just like a character from an Orwellian dystopia, he uses use words to obscure the truth, including irrelevant responses or feigning offense via denial.
This strategy is right from the Machiavellian playbook. In "The Prince," Machiavelli warned that any admission of wrongdoing is the death knell of the prince's rule and loosens his mind control over people. ... Trump's current attacks on the judiciary are a calculating, Machiavellian strategy of deflection by projection — blaming others for employing his own tactics. Interestingly, in an article Orwell wrote in 1940, he pinpoints the core of this strategy, writing that the manipulator portrays himself as a martyr, a victim, the "self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds." The intent is to portray himself as fighting against an invisible enemy — the same enemy that Trump's followers are purported to be fighting.
Trump's strategy is not new. It has always existed. In ancient Greece, the aristocrat Cleon was elected in 424 B.C., using oratory that resonated with people ... instilling a mistrust of intellectuals and even aristocrats opportunistically, despite the fact that he was an aristocrat himself. He called them liars, responsible for all the ills that were endemic to society.
Trump's attempt to cling on to power and avoid accountability is actually a simple one that has worked from time immemorial — blame the deep state (whatever that may be) as the enemy engaged in a takeover of the "real America." As Machiavelli wrote in various works, never admit any wrongdoing, accuse others of the wrongdoing, and do it over and over, and the prince will enhance his chances to keep people in a mind fog.
Donald Trump's mental health and diseased mind are not likely to improve, given the pressures he now faces. And as goes Trump, so goes the Republican Party, the MAGA cult and the larger white right.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
In total, Donald Trump's poor mental health and aberrant behavior amount to a political, social and legal crisis for America and the world. He must be defeated at the polls and prosecuted in the courts, but even that will not be enough.
To paraphrase historian Timothy Snyder, the Trump era is America's "collective malady." It will take years of collective hard work, grit and determination to get better. | US Political Corruption |
U.S. President Joe Biden sharpened his attacks against Donald Trump on Thursday, delivering his most forceful assertion to date that the former president and Republican front-runner represents an existential threat to the country’s democratic values and institutions.
In a speech in the western state of Arizona, Biden charged that Trump holds the "dangerous notion" that he has unchecked power and is above the law.
"Trump says the Constitution gave him, quote, the right to do whatever he wants as president, end of quote. I've never heard a president say that even in jest," Biden said. "Not guided by the Constitution or by common service and decency toward our fellow Americans, but by vengeance and vindictiveness."
Trump in 2019 said he has such rights under Article II of the Constitution, which describes the powers of the president. In March, he told supporters, "I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution."
"There’s something dangerous happening in America right now," Biden declared in Arizona, adding that American democracy is "still at risk."
The speech is his fourth in a series of presidential addresses that lays out what he sees as the dangers of election denialism and political violence that have loomed over the country since thousands of Trump supporters attacked Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, 2021, seeking to overturn Biden’s electoral victory.
"There is an extremist movement that does not share the basic beliefs in our democracy — the MAGA movement," the president said, referring to his predecessor’s slogan, "Make America Great Again." He warned that their "extreme agenda, if carried out, would fundamentally alter the institutions of American democracy."
"They're not hiding their attacks," Biden said. "They’re openly promoting them, attacking the free press as the enemy of the people. Attacking the rule of law as an impediment. Fomenting voter suppression and election subversion."
Biden has until now avoiding painting mainstream Republicans with the same brush as Trump’s most ardent supporters, whom he describes as MAGA Republicans. But this time Biden suggested that they are complicit.
"Although I don't believe even a majority of Republicans think that, the silence is deafening," he said, pointing to Republican reaction to Trump's recent suggestion that General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs who will soon step down from his post should be executed for allegedly betraying the former president.
Biden’s speech came the same day that House Republicans held their first hearing in a Biden impeachment inquiry, over allegations of corruption in relation to his son Hunter’s business dealings. The Republicans detailed foreign payments to members of the Biden family but did not provide evidence that the president had benefited from the funds.
The White House denies any wrongdoing and dismisses the investigation as politically motivated.
Harshest rhetoric
While Biden has long branded the MAGA movement as an existential threat to democracy, Thursday’s speech contained some of his harshest rhetoric against Trump, who is facing four criminal indictments with a total of 91 charges ranging from falsifying business records to seeking to subvert the 2020 presidential election.
Trump has denied wrongdoing in all charges.
For months, Biden had remained mostly silent about his predecessor, likely to avoid giving credence to Trump’s assertions that the charges against him are evidence that Biden is weaponizing the justice system against a political opponent. The White House denies the allegation.
Biden did not mention any of Trump’s legal troubles in his speech, a sound strategy according to some observers.
"There's plenty about Trump's behavior in office and statements of what he will do if he wins in 2024 that Biden can point toward without having to say, 'Oh, and by the way, he's facing jail time,'" said William Howell, a professor in American politics at the University of Chicago.
Warnings of a threat to democracy posed by Trump’s MAGA movement could resonate in Arizona, a former Republican stronghold that in recent years turned into a swing state and has seen its share of efforts by Trump supporters to discredit 2020 election results.
The White House selected the state as the speech venue precisely for those reasons, as well as to honor the late Arizona Senator John McCain, the 2008 Republican presidential nominee who died in 2018, whom Biden referred to as a "brother."
Biden announced federal funding to construct the McCain Library at Arizona State University, using the American Rescue Plan Act, the $1.9 trillion COVID relief package passed in 2021.
Speaking before Biden, former Ambassador Cindy McCain said Biden and her late husband maintained decades of friendship despite deep political differences.
Biden contrasted McCain’s legacy and the late senator’s principle to "put partisanship aside and put country first," to those espousing political violence.
"Democracy means rejecting and repudiating political violence," he said. "Regardless of party, such violence is never, never, never acceptable in America."
Do Americans care?
As Biden gears up to fight for a second term, his campaign strategists believe that defending democratic institutions and values remains a resonant theme for voters — a reason that the video announcing the president’s reelection run opened with footage of the Jan. 6 attack.
However, polls show the economy is the issue that weighs most on voters’ mind. According to a recent Reuters/Ipsos survey, 49% of Americans say inflation or price increases are the most important issues facing the country; 9% cite unemployment, and 10% cite economic inequality.
Various polls show Biden's public approval rating stagnating below 50% since August 2021, largely due to concerns over his handling of the economy.
Attacks on American democracy may not be the No. 1 concern among voters, Chicago University’s Howell told VOA, but it’s not trivial, either, so it’s no surprise that Biden is homing in on the issue.
"If you think about democracy as a kind of a catchall category, not just for concerns about rising authoritarianism but also just the ability for our country to govern itself, concerns about rising polarization, whether or not we're going to have another government shutdown — these kinds of things ... will resonate with some voters," Howell said.
As Biden spoke, his White House blasted out messages counting down the hours until Oct. 1, the day of a potential partial government shutdown should Congress fail to approve funding for federal agencies. The administration blames the impasse on "extreme House Republicans’ chaos and inability to govern."
Republican front-runner
Despite his legal woes, Trump remains the dominant force in his party. A recent Ipsos/Reuters poll shows the former president is supported by 47% of Republican primary voters, a group that amounts to roughly a third of the American electorate.
Trump’s position with Republican primary voters has only strengthened over the year as various indictments have rolled out, said Chris Jackson, a senior vice president at Ipsos.
"That's happening at the same time that his position with the general public is not necessarily strengthening the same way," Jackson told VOA.
A Reuters/Ipsos poll found that Biden and Trump are tied in a hypothetical November 2024 election, with both receiving 39% of the vote and one in five voters undecided. | US Political Corruption |
"The View" hosts have ripped into Donald Trump's public blunders repeatedly mixing up former President Barack Obama and President Joe Biden on the campaign trail.
On Tuesday's broadcast, Whoopi Goldberg posed the question whether Trump is "cognitively impaired" after a slew of mistakes while talking about Biden and Obama. He even wrongly addressed Sioux City as Sioux Falls. Trump said he is not impaired but the hosts strongly disagree.
Former Trump aide Alyssa Farah Griffin said, "He's not as sharp as he was in 2016. Many of us would argue he wasn't that sharp then. You see a real decline in him."
Sunny Hostin agreed. “We’re seeing a cognitive decline, but we’re also seeing some dog whistles from him." But Goldberg chimed in and asked if Hostin thought Trump's blunders were "purposeful," and Hostin agreed.
"He's having the cognitive decline and when he catches himself make mistakes he says, 'Well Obama is really Biden's boss.' That is a dog whistle to the white supremacists in the country that are like, 'I don't want a Black man in charge again,'" Hostin said.
Joy Behr also echoed the same sentiment saying, "He appeals to that racist section of his base that doesn't want a Black guy to get any kind of credit." Watch the full segment below: | US Political Corruption |
Charging interest on student loan debt is actually a good thing
The student debt forgiveness movement took a major hit when the Supreme Court struck down the Biden Administration’s loan forgiveness plan. But many advocates have pivoted to a new proposal: canceling student loan interest.
A growing number of people from both the right and left have concluded that student loan interest is unnecessary, or even harmful. Critics portray student loan interest as a runaway expense that unfairly sneaks up on borrowers. When compared to outright debt forgiveness, slashing interest rates could sound like a moderate compromise. Congressional Democrats just introduced legislation to cut student loan interest rates to zero percent.
This agenda has already influenced the Biden administration’s changes to income-driven repayment (IDR) programs, which shield low-income borrowers from costly payments and defaults. IDR reduces monthly payments based on a borrower’s income and family size. For some, it cuts their required monthly payment to $0. The Biden administration’s changes will increase the number of people who would make no payments toward their loans. And, crucially, these plans eliminate interest collection beyond the required monthly payments.
But don’t be fooled — cutting interest rates is just another way to accomplish debt forgiveness, this time through the back door. For instance, the Covid pandemic student loan payment pause, during which no interest was collected, cost American taxpayers $230 billion in foregone interest accrual. Besides being incredibly costly, these interest collection reforms would significantly distort the financial system.
Interest rates exist for a few good reasons. First, they help the government recoup losses due to inflation. Without interest, a one-year $1,000 loan taken out in 2022, when the inflation rate was 8%, would result in a repayment worth around $930. This might not seem like a huge loss at the individual level, especially if the inflation rate returns to the Federal Reserve’s desired 2%. However, with 43 million borrowers and more than $1.6 trillion in outstanding federal student loan debt, even a single year of high inflation with no repayment — such as the pandemic payment pause — could cost the government hundreds of billions of dollars.
Second, lenders face an opportunity cost when they lend money. Even if the borrower will repay the money in the future, the lender cannot spend money that is currently lent — the lender faces a liquidity constraint. On the other hand, the borrower receives access to money that they would have only obtained in the future. To compensate the lender for this temporal inconvenience, the borrower pays a fee in the form of interest. In fact, without interest, there would be no incentive to lend money at all.
Finally, lenders use interest to compensate for the risk of default. Student loans have a relatively high default rate, with pre-pandemic rates at 10%. For comparison, pre-pandemic delinquency and charge-off rates for consumer loans were just above 2%. Student loans are also unique in that the government cannot recover any costs through collateral. Since some borrowers will inevitably default, the government must charge a higher interest rate to break even or turn a profit.
Some may say that interest rates on student loans are unjustifiably high. If the interest can’t be eliminated, they argue, it should at least be lowered to help struggling borrowers. But if it were the case that interest rates were too high, the government should turn a profit off of the loans. It doesn’t. Since the late 1990s, the government has lost $200 billion from the student loan program.
Another fashionable policy suggestion is eliminating interest capitalization on student loans. Interest capitalization is the process by which unpaid interest is added to the loan balance, upon which future interest is accrued. Proponents of eliminating interest capitalization misleadingly claim that this is unique to student loans. Yet they ignore why this phenomenon is uncommon with other kinds of loans: Student loan payment plans like IDR allow borrowers to pay an amount so small that it doesn’t even cover the interest. Other loans require the regular payments to cover both the interest and a portion of the principal so the loan can be repaid over time.
We need a student loan system that is both merciful and fair. Allowing borrowers to claim bankruptcy and placing restrictions on loans would achieve this goal. Borrowers who truly struggle to repay their federal student loans should receive the escape hatch of bankruptcy, just like any other loan. At the same time, the government should restrict loan disbursements to those with the best economic returns to prevent such hardship in the first place.
Our current system fixates on mercy, but disregards accountability, thus creating a moral hazard. Even those who oppose student loan interest acknowledge the problems with our excessively liberal lending system. Researchers for a recent Jain Family Institute report admitted that it was “increasingly the case that people who were always going to have low earnings no matter their educational attainment are also overloaded with student debt.” It is abundantly clear that funding every person to attend college isn’t working.
Every suggestion to reform student loan interest will result in massive amounts of government spending. Don’t be tricked by the technical language and the sneaky redefinitions. These reforms are all an attempt to shoehorn loan programs into costly grant programs. Supporters of these policies should have to justify why Americans should further subsidize the already bloated higher education establishment.
Neetu Arnold is a Research Fellow at the National Association of Scholars and a Young Voices contributor. Follow her on Twitter @neetu_arnold.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
The genetic testing company 23andMe confirmed on Friday that data from a subset of its users has been compromised. The company said its systems were not breached and that attackers gathered the data by guessing the login credentials of a group of users and then scraping more people’s information from a feature known as DNA Relatives. Users opt into sharing their information through DNA Relatives for others to see. Hackers posted an initial data sample on the platform BreachForums earlier this week, claiming that it contained 1 million data points exclusively about Ashkenazi Jews. On Wednesday, the actor began selling what it claims are 23andMe profiles for between $1 and $10 per account, depending on the scale of the purchase. The data includes things like a display name, sex, birth year, and some details about genetic ancestry results, like that someone is, say, of “broadly European” or “broadly Arabian” descent. It may also include some more specific geographic ancestry information. The information does not appear to include actual, raw genetic data.The company emphasized in a statement that it does not see evidence that its systems have been breached. It also encouraged users to use strong, unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication to keep attackers from compromising their individual accounts using login credentials exposed in other data breaches.“We were made aware that certain 23andMe customer profile information was compiled through access to individual 23andMe.com accounts,” the company said in a statement. “We believe that the threat actor may have then, in violation of our terms of service, accessed 23andme.com accounts without authorization and obtained information from those accounts.” The company has not been clear on whether it has validated the data the threat actor leaked, noting that its investigation is ongoing and that it currently has “preliminary results.” A spokesperson for the company told WIRED that the leaked information is consistent with a situation in which some user accounts were exposed and then leveraged to scrape data visible in DNA Relatives. But when pressed on the details of whether the data has been validated, the spokesperson said that verifying the data is pending and that the company cannot currently confirm whether the leaked information is real.This point is significant both for everyone whose information may have been compromised and because the data posted by the actor claims to include “celebrities.” Entries for technologists Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Sergey Brin are all visible in the sample data, including “Profile ID,” “Account ID,” name, sex, birth year, current location, and fields known as “ydna” and “ndna.” It is unclear if the data for these entries is legitimate or was inserted. For example, Musk and Brin appear to have the same profile and account IDs in the leak.The technique of using credentials exposed in other data breaches to infiltrate accounts where those logins have been reused is known as “credential stuffing” and is a widely used account compromise technique.“Credential stuffing never really went away and a lot of it just comes down to the fact that humans reuse their passwords—that's what makes it possible,” says Ronnie Tokazowski, a longtime digital scams researcher and principal threat advisor at the cybersecurity firm Cofense. “And the fact that it's claiming to target a Jewish population or celebrities—it’s not shocking. It reflects the underbelly of the internet.”The full picture of why the data was stolen, how much more the attackers have, and whether it is actually focused entirely on Ashkenazim is still unclear.“When data is shared relating to ethic, national, political or other groups, sometimes it's because those groups have been specifically targeted, but sometimes it's because the person sharing the data thinks it'll make reputation-boosting headlines,” says Brett Callow, a threat analyst at security firm Emsisoft. Callow notes that the situation raises broader questions about keeping sensitive genetic information safe and the risks of making it available in services that are designed like social networks to facilitate sharing. With such platforms come all of the data privacy and security issues that have plagued traditional social networks, including issues related to data centralization and scraping.“This incident really highlights the risks associated with DNA databases,” Callow says. “The fact that accounts had reportedly opted into the ‘DNA Relatives’ feature is particularly concerning as it could potentially result in extremely sensitive information becoming public.” | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
U.S. regulators on Monday sued SolarWinds, a Texas-based technology company whose software was breached in a massive 2020 Russian cyberespionage campaign, for fraud for failing to disclose security deficiencies ahead of the stunning hack.
The company’s top security executive was also named in the complaint filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking unspecified civil penalties, reimbursement of “ill-gotten gains” and the executive's removal.
Detected in December 2020, the SolarWinds hack penetrated U.S. government agencies including the Justice and Homeland Security departments, and more than 100 private companies and think tanks. It was a rude wake-up call on the perils of neglecting cybersecurity.
In the 68-page complaint filed in New York federal court, the SEC says SolarWinds and its then vice president of security, Tim Brown, defrauded investors and customers “through misstatements, omissions and schemes” that concealed both the company's “poor cybersecurity practices and its heightened — and increasing — cybersecurity risks.”
In a statement, SolarWinds called the SEC charges unfounded and said it is “deeply concerned this action will put our national security at risk.”
Brown performed his responsibilities “with diligence, integrity, and distinction,” his lawyer, Alec Koch, said in a statement. Koch added that “we look forward to defending his reputation and correcting the inaccuracies in the SEC’s complaint." Brown's current title at SolarWinds is chief information security officer.
The SEC's enforcement division director, Gurbir S. Grewal, said in a statement that SolarWinds and Brown ignored “repeated red flags” for years, painting “a false picture of the company’s cyber controls environment, thereby depriving investors of accurate material information.”
The very month that SolarWinds registered for an initial public offering, October 2018, Brown wrote in an internal presentation that the company's “current state of security leaves us in a very vulnerable state,” the complaint says.
Among the SEC’s damning allegations: An internal SolarWinds presentation shared that year said the company’s network was “not very secure,” meaning it was vulnerable to hacking that could lead to “major reputation and financial loss. Throughout 2019 and 2020, the SEC alleged, multiple communications among SolarWinds employees, including Brown, “questioned the company's ability to protect its critical assets from cyberattacks.”
SolarWinds, which is based in Austin, Texas, provides network-monitoring and other technical services to hundreds of thousands of organizations around the world, including most Fortune 500 companies and government agencies in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
The nearly two-year espionage campaign involved the infection of thousands of customers by seeding malware in the update channel of the company’s network management software. Capitalizing on the supply-chain hack, the Russian cyber operators then stealthily penetrated select targets including about a dozen U.S. government agencies and prominent software and telecommunications providers.
In its statement, SolarWinds called the SEC action an “example of the agency’s overreach (that) should alarm all public companies and committed cybersecurity professionals across the country.”
It did not explain how the SEC's action could put national security at risk, though some in the cybersecurity community have argued that holding corporate information security officers personally responsible for identified vulnerabilities could make them less diligent about uncovering them — and discourage qualified people from aspiring to such positions.
Under the Biden administration, the SEC has been aggressive about holding publicly traded companies to account for cybersecurity lapses and failures to disclose vulnerabilities. In July, it adopted rules requiring them to disclose within four days all cybersecurity breaches that could affect their bottom lines. Delays would be permitted if immediate disclosure poses serious national-security or public-safety risks.
Victims of the SolarWinds hack whose Microsoft email accounts were violated included the New York federal prosecutors’ office, then-acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf and members of the department’s cybersecurity staff, whose jobs included hunting threats from foreign countries. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles! Figures across MSNBC, CNN, and more have begun criticizing Democrats for boosting Trump-backed Republicans as a political gamble with the potential to go very wrong for the party. GOP Maryland gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox handily won the Republican nomination this week following an endorsement from former President Trump. Yet while the group is hardly ideologically in line with him, the Democratic Governors Association (DGA) spent over $1 million in ads to elevate Cox, in what pundits observe as a political trick to pit established Democrats against Trump’s picks they consider easier to beat.But media figures have suggested that the decision by left-leaning groups is hypocritical, given their constant alarm sounding about the state of American democracy, as well as risky. Several pundits have pointed out that Trump, as a polarizing Republican nominee in 2016, and one who Democrats believed had no chance, won because of this same type of political miscalculation. MSNBC host Chris Hayes reacted to the idea last week, calling it an "insane strategy."TRUMP-BACKED KARI LAKE SHARED ANTI-TRUMP 'NOT MY PRESIDENT' MEME ON FACEBOOK DAYS BEFORE 2017 INAUGURATION Republican gubernatorial candidate Dan Cox declares victory over his opponents at his campaign party on primary election night at Vigilant Hose Company Event Hall in Emmitsburg, Md., on Tuesday, July 19, 2022. (Kenneth Lam/The Baltimore Sun via AP) (Baltimore Sun )Other figures appearing on the channel were no less weary and condemnatory of the Democrats’ new tactic. Frequent contributor Jason Johnson ridiculed the party, asserting they should never be funding a "terrorist front," as in the Trump wing of the Republican Party. "One of these [candidates] is going to end up biting the Democratic Party on the nose. I don’t know which of these candidates, maybe it’s Kari Lake [in Arizona], maybe it’s Cox, one of these people’s going to end up winning and everyone’s going to be like ‘how did this happen’ and it’s like, yeah, the blood’s on your hands," Johnson said. During that same panel segment, Democratic strategist Matthew Dowd was also critical of the new political strategy, calling it a "significant risk," and warned Democrats could be inadvertently helping to elect a "MAGA conservative" as governor. THE MEDIA’S NEW ANTI-BIDEN TWIST: DEMOCRATS ARE JOCKEYING TO CHALLENGE HIM US-POLITICS-TRUMP-RALLY Former US President Donald Trump and Kari Lake, speak during a rally at the Canyon Moon Ranch festival grounds in Florence, Arizona, southeast of Phoenix, on January 15, 2022. (Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images)"Why on earth would we elevate candidates and try to diminish other candidates who are the same ones and elevate the crazy ones in the midst of this environment that we’re in today?" Dowd said. It wasn't just liberals making that conclusion. Former special assistant to President George W. Bush Scott Jennings came to a similar conclusion as Dowd and Johnson during a Wednesday appearance on CNN. "Somewhere around the country one of these Democrat-backed election deniers is going to win a race that they—this is going to backfire somewhere, and the only people they’ll have to blame, the Democrats, will be themselves," he said. Jennings also questioned how Democrats can defend spending millions to get someone like Cox for the nomination while also calling Trump-backed Republicans a "threat to democracy."During CNN’s "Inside Politics," guest Leigh Ann Caldwell of the Washington Post called the tactic a "new level of dirty politics." PENCE ENDORSES RIVAL TO TRUMP-BACKED CANDIDATE IN ARIZONA GOP GUBERNATORIAL PRIMARY Republican U.S. Senate candidate Kelly Tshibaka (L) stands on stage with former U.S. President Donald Trump (R) during a "Save America" rally at Alaska Airlines Center on July 09, 2022 in Anchorage, Alaska. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)CNN host S.E. Cupp called the move "complete negligence" during a discussion with John Avlon. Brian Beutler, the editor-in-chief of Crooked Media, wrote a guest essay for the New York Times that a more "balanced approach" may better serve Democrats. "…Adopting a coherent overall strategy by attesting honestly to the state of the Republican field as a whole, rather than singling out a few bad apples and spending millions of dollars to boost them," Beutler wrote. Only time will tell if Trump’s help of Cox in a state the former president lost handily in 2016 and 2020 will spur Cox to victory in November, or if the DGA’s strategy to prop him up will culminate in a Democratic triumph."Trump has had a mixed bag when it comes to gubernatorial races in open primaries. Obviously, he had more success in Maryland, pushing Cox over the finish line," a veteran Republican strategist who asked to remain anonymous told Fox News.CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APPThe earlier victories by Darren Bailey in Illinois and Doug Mastriano in Pennsylvania, as well as the win by Cox on Tuesday, give Trump some bragging rights after the former president suffered setbacks in other high-profile Republican gubernatorial showdowns this primary season. A year and a half removed from the White House, Trump remains a powerful figure in the GOP as he continues to play a kingmaker’s role in party politics and repeatedly teases a 2024 White House run.Fox News’ Paul Steinhauser contributed to this report. Nikolas Lanum is an associate editor for Fox News Digital. | US Federal Elections |
Wisconsin voters back expanding work requirements for welfare benefits. Here's why the vote is mostly symbolic
Wisconsin voters supported in an advisory referendum Tuesday a work requirement for recipients of taxpayer-funded benefits.
The vote had more symbolic meaning than practical effect. Many public benefits in Wisconsin already include such a requirement, and advisory referendums do not by themselves compel changes.
The referendum asked, "Shall able-bodied, childless adults be required to look for work in order to receive taxpayer-funded benefits?"
Under current state law, many unemployed people are already required to search for employment in order to receive welfare benefits.
For instance, in order to receive FoodShare benefits, applicants who are between the ages of 18 and 49 and do not have any children at home need to meet a work requirement if they do not meet any other exemptions such as being mentally or physically disabled.
Likewise, applicants need to search for work four times a week to receive unemployment benefits. Gov. Tony Evers waived these requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, but Republicans reinstated them in 2021.
Wisconsin does not currently enforce work requirements for people on Medicaid because the Biden Administration revoked a policy in 2021 that allowed states to implement these requirements.
Lawmakers can use the results to gauge public opinion on an issue and inform policy decisions, according to state documents. However, referendums have been increasingly used by both political parties, particularly with non-partisan spring elections, which don't usually generate great voter turnout, said Barry Burden, a political science professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"These elections just don't generate the same level of media coverage or public discussion so these gimmicks are one way to get the attention of the voter," Burden said. "The effect on overall turnout probably won't be great, but in Wisconsin, most people assume elections are going to be close, so even a change in the balance of things by a percentage point or two could tip the race and tip the balance of the Supreme Court itself."
If a non-binding marijuana referendum were on the ballot, it might have brought out younger, more liberal voters whereas welfare or bail reform, which was also on the April ballot, could’ve drawn older voters, Burden said.
"(We get to) let our constituents remind us what we do that makes a difference, and that is help people find a job, hold them accountable, give them benefits for as long as necessary, but not longer than required," Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said during a January floor debate. Vos co-sponsored the referendum with Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu.
Republicans who support this referendum said these requirements aren't enforced the way they should be and that this vote could be a jumping-off point for more policies to address worker shortages.
"There is not a place you can go to visit, whether it's a school, a police station, a grocery story, you name the place, where people aren't crying for employees," Rep. Barbara Dittrich (R-Oconomowoc) said.
This referendum question was placed on the ballot over a Democrat-supported advisory referendum that would have asked voters if the state should replace the 1849 abortion ban.
"(Republicans') resolution, simply put, attacks low-income people in the state of Wisconsin, and it's borne out of a consideration to their base for the spring election. They're trying to gin up their voters," Senate Minority Leader Melissa Agard said in a January news conference. "The people are going to advise lawmakers on something that is already the law? That only makes sense if you're looking at the world through a cynical and political lens."
Gov. Tony Evers said that an abortion referendum would have ask voters to weigh in on an issue that is relevant and that many are concerned about.
"For a year now, Republicans have willfully ignored the majority of Wisconsinites who support legal access to abortion," Evers said in a news conference, citing Marquette University Law School polls. "I think [the welfare referendum] is frankly ridiculous, to have an advisory referendum on something that already exists." | US Local Elections |
An Arizona county has decided not to hand-count its ballots in next year's elections, after discovering that it would cost more than a million dollars and leave it with inaccurate results.
The all-Republican Board of Supervisors in Mohave County voted 3-2 against forgoing ballot counting machines in favor of hand-counting in 2024, after months of debate, questions on the legality, and a three-day test run.
"I'm willing to have further conversations about this, but the first thing that we have to do in Mohave County in good conscious is to balance the budget. You can't talk about any other spending when you have 18 — 20 million dollar deficit," said Supervisor Travis Lingenfelter, a Republican, before voting against a proposal to hand count all the ballots in 2024. "That's irresponsible."
Some conservatives, including allies of former President Donald Trump, have pushed hand-counting ballots as a way to ensure the accuracy of election results. But Mohave County's experience punctures that talking point, showing that hand-counting is typically expensive, inaccurate and impractical.
In short, hand-counting ballots isn't as easy as it sounds.
Mohave County, home to an estimated 220,000 people in the northwestern corner of Arizona, is one of a handful of U.S. counties that has considered hand-counting ballots, thanks in part to election conspiracy theories that have driven distrust in ballot tabulators.
After the 2020 election, the Arizona state Senate authorized a controversial hand-count audit of two races. The audit took months and cost millions, and — by its leadership's own account in text messages obtained by The Arizona Republic — failed to result in an accurate count.
But that hasn't quelled interest in Arizona. Earlier this year, the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a measure authorizing hand counts, which was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs.
In June, the Mohave County's Board of Supervisors asked the county elections office to develop a plan for tabulating 2024 results by hand. Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, warned Mohave's county supervisors in a June letter that they risked breaking the law if they chose to opt for hand-counting in a future election. A lawyer for the county told supervisors before they voted that the county's legal team wasn't sure it was legal, either.
The test run took place in late June, when elections workers spent three days hand-counting a batch of 850 test ballots from the 2022 election, bringing in seven part-time staffers eight-hour days of counting and four full-time staffers who monitored the process.
Elections Director Allen Tempert told the Board of Supervisors at a Tuesday meeting that the group was a "dream team" of experienced staffers, but the feasibility study nonetheless went poorly.
There were counting errors in 46 of 30,600 races on the ballots, as the team tallying the results of the election made mistakes. According to a report prepared for the Board of Supervisors, some of the observed errors included: bored and tired staffers who stopped watching the process, messy handwriting in tallies, fast talkers, or staffers who heard or said the wrong candidate's name.
Each ballot took three minutes to count, Tempert said. At that pace, it would take a group of seven staffers at least 657 eight-hour days to count 105,000 ballots, the number of ballots cast in 2020. Mohave County would need to hire at least 245 people to tally results and have counting take place seven days a week, including holidays, for nearly three weeks. That estimate doesn't include the time needed for reconciling mistakes, or counting write-in ballots, Tempert's report added.
Tempert forcefully recommended waiting until Election Day to conduct the hand-count, because he feared results would leak out otherwise. But doing so would leave the county in a time crunch, too: The county would have just 19 days after the election to tally up the ballots, in accordance with state law on canvassing results.
The total cost for the staffing, renting for a large venue for the counting, security cameras, and other associated costs was staggering: $1,108,486.
"That's larger than my budget for the whole year, to run the whole election for the whole year!" Tempert said.
Gowri Ramachandran, an elections expert and attorney from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, said the experiment was notable.
"There actually hasn't been a lot of experimentation with hands counting full ballots — meaning all the contests on a ballot in a jurisdiction where you have a lot of contests on the ballot," she said. Ballots had, on average, 36 races each in the test, according to the report.
But Ramachandran said the cost and time it takes to conduct audits and recounts made the results predictable.
"When you put those experiences together," she said, "it's extremely unsurprising what they found in Mohave County." | US Local Elections |
On Monday, George Santos, who represents New York’s 3rd Congressional District, issued a press release announcing he’ll be running for re-election next year. The release didn’t address claims that the Republican participated in a credit card skimming operation; what his lawyer was doing on and around January 6, 2021; his apparent lies about helping children living with a rare skin disease; allegations that he stole thousands of dollars from a disabled veteran’s dying dog; a job-seeker’s claim that Santos sexually harassed him in his congressional office; or any of the many other colorful scandals of which he’s at the center.
It did, however, quote the congressman referring to himself as a “first-generation American”—meaning, according to common usage, the Census Bureau, and Harvard University’s immigration center, one who was born outside the United States.
Santos, a famously unreliable narrator of his own past, has said that he was born in Sunnyside, Queens to parents who emigrated from Brazil, and a 2013 Brazilian court document describes him as a U.S. national. This isn’t, though, the first time that an official communication from his campaign has contradicted his story; late last year, a statement attributed to his lawyer referred to Santos as an immigrant. And as Patch reported, according to one former coworker, Santos has said he was born in Brazil.
The significance of this is that the Constitution requires members of Congress to have been citizens for seven years. If Santos was born abroad, as his own campaign has now repeatedly said he was, that wouldn’t necessarily disqualify him from office, but it would raise questions about when he became a citizen, as well as why he had claimed to have been born in Queens. This isn’t an entirely academic matter; as VICE News has previously reported, no official body has looked into whether Santos is qualified for office, much less confirmed that he is, as no one is exactly in charge of doing so. (It’s also not exactly clear what would happen if he were found to be constitutionally ineligible, as no one in particular is in charge of enforcing the citizenship requirement.)
Seeking clarity, and aware that an extensive review of Santos’ interminable public access show revealed his propensity for malapropisms, VICE News asked Santos’ campaign press team the following question: “In his statement announcing his re-election campaign, Representative Santos referred to himself as a ‘first-generation American.’ First-generation Americans are those who were born outside the United States and emigrated to the U.S. Is Representative Santos a first-generation American, and if not, why did he refer to himself as one?”
The response was straightforward and unambiguous: “Yes. He is a first generation American.”
In response to a follow-up question asking to whom specifically the claim that Santos was not born in the U.S. could be attributed (this question went unanswered), the press team complicated things.
“Let’s be clear,” the press team wrote. “There are two possible meanings of the adjective ‘first generation’ according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary. First generation can refer to a person born in the U.S. to immigrant parents or a naturalized American citizen. Both types of people are considered to be U.S. citizens.
“Congressman Santos was born in New York to immigrant parents.”
Nasya Woomer, a spokesperson for Santos’ congressional office, declined to comment on the Santos campaign’s apparent confusion over where the congressman was born and on whether he’s eligible to serve in Congress, saying, “Congressional offices do not comment on campaign matters.” (Woomer also did not answer a question about anti-vaccine legislation Santos is reportedly introducing called the Minaj Act, perhaps considering this a campaign matter.)
More questions may be in the offing; according to experts VICE News has consulted, the main venue in which questions of constitutional eligibility in New York State are contested are the courts, where an objector can attempt to prevent a candidate from accessing the ballot by filing a challenge and presenting evidence—such as a campaign’s statements—that they don’t meet the eligibility criteria. | US Congress |
Republican presidential candidate and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie argued during an interview on Tuesday that the House GOP's impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden may be premature, undermining its seriousness.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) announced the impeachment inquiry on Tuesday morning, the same day the House returned from its August recess. However, there won't be a vote on the House floor to open the inquiry, a stance at odds with a previous McCarthy statement. The inquiry is a win for conservative House members who have been calling for a Biden impeachment in exchange for supporting legislation to fund the government before the Sept. 30 deadline.
Yet Christie pushed back against the investigation. "From what I've said is, there is a lot of smoke around the Hunter Biden and Joe Biden business relationships, and we need to have a thorough investigation of it," he said during an MSNBC appearance. "But I don't see evidence yet that would support impeaching Joe Biden. And I think we're cheapening impeachment by doing that kind of thing."
This is the truth. They were wrong to impeach Trump. I said it then, and I’ll say it now.— Chris Christie (@GovChristie) September 12, 2023
Rushing to impeach Biden without the facts doesn’t change the past and doesn’t help our country now.
Follow the facts, don’t cheapen the process. pic.twitter.com/8D5k7fMfSB
The former governor referenced special counsel David Weiss, who has been investigating Hunter Biden's financial dealings. "I hope Congress uses its oversight capability to be able to do those investigations," Christie said. "And I hope that the special counsel, now completely empowered, will do that as well. He needs to reestablish his credibility after the ridiculous deal that he signed off on for Hunter Biden, which he's now backed off of because a judge forced him to back off of it."
The younger Biden had agreed to a plea deal in which he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges and entered into a pretrial diversion agreement to avoid a felony gun charge. Republicans criticized the "sweetheart" deal, but it fell apart in July after U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika raised questions about the details of the deal.
Christie also said it was "important" for the Biden family to be thoroughly investigated after criticizing Democrats for impeaching former President Donald Trump over his Ukraine dealings. "I criticized Democrats for doing that over the Ukraine issue a number of years ago on impeachment, and I don't want my party to fall victim to the same thing," Christie said.
"But I do think it's important for it to be investigated because there are too many connections now, too many inconsistencies in the president's story and what he has said and what others have said who are apparently witnesses to his participation in helping Hunter Biden with his business," he continued. "So we need to get all the facts on that. And then, we can make an intelligent decision about whether the facts exist to move forward to something more serious. But right now, I think what's necessary is investigation both by the Congress and by the Department of Justice." | US Congress |
Cochise County elections director resigns after protecting midterm ballots from Republican officials
Lisa Marra, who refused to cooperate with illegal hand-count plan, describes threatening work environment in letter to county
During last fall’s fights in Cochise County over hand-counting ballots and rejecting the election results, county residents say they were glad there was one person standing up to defend elections.
Elections Director Lisa Marra repeatedly explained — to the supervisors, to reporters, and, finally, to a judge — that she would not break the law and release the ballots from her custody, as two Republican supervisors and the county recorder had ordered her to do.
“I believe that is a felony,” Marra testified during a Nov. 4 court hearing challenging the full hand count. The judge later ruled that the full hand count would be illegal.
Now Marra is leaving her post. Her departure after five years running elections in the rural southern Arizona county leaves many residents there concerned about the accuracy and security of future elections. Marra, also president of the Election Officials of Arizona, is known across the nation as a fierce defender of election integrity.
County Democratic Party Chairwoman Elisabeth Tyndall said it was reassuring that a trusted person such as Marra was running elections during the controversies, as she “wasn’t going to just let the election deniers have their way with our votes or our ballots.”
“It is kind of scary what may happen going forward,” Tyndall said, “without having someone as knowledgeable and brave as Lisa in that office.”
Marra resigned through a letter to the county from her attorney, she confirmed to Votebeat on Tuesday. Marra is to be employed by the county for 15 more days.
Marra’s attorney wrote in the letter that her working environment was threatening, both physically and emotionally, and she was publicly disparaged, according to the Washington Post, which first reported on her resignation and the letter.
Marra said Tuesday night that she couldn’t provide a copy of the letter or details about it, since it’s a human resources claim.
“Sad their actions have come to this,” she said, apparently in reference to the Republican supervisors.
Marra is one of many election officials across the state and country who have left their roles in the face of harassment and pressure to defend themselves and their work against unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud. In the last few years in Arizona, longtime elections directors in Pima, Yavapai, and Pinal counties, as well as recorders in Yavapai and Yuma counties, have stepped down.
Marra departs as the supervisors prepare to decide if they should reorganize who is responsible for elections in the county, according to a draft work session agenda obtained by Votebeat. In Arizona, election duties are typically split between recorders, who manage early voting and voter registration, and election directors, who manage most other aspects of election administration.
Republican Supervisor Peggy Judd submitted a request for a Feb. 7 meeting that will discuss, among other election-related topics, “better practices involving possible re-organization of responsible parties.” Judd told Votebeat she was busy and could not immediately talk on Wednesday morning.
Marra has worked for the county since 2012 and has been elections director since 2017.
As the president of the Election Officials of Arizona, after the 2020 election she became an unofficial spokesperson for election administrators, staunchly defending the accuracy of elections during the state Senate’s review of Maricopa County’s ballots led by the Cyber Ninjas.
She’s known in her county for openly taking constituent questions about the process. Tami Birch, a Bisbee resident, said she doesn’t know what she will do without being able to pick up the phone and call Marra. She considers it a loss not just for the county but for the entire state.
“We are losing one of the most dedicated, follow-the-rules, honest, responsive people that I have ever met in the elections system,” Birch said.
Secretary of State Adrian Fontes said Marra’s departure is a “heavy blow to the voters served by the Cochise County Government.”
Bisbee resident Sheri Van Horsen said county residents were stressed when the supervisors pursued the full hand count and were comforted to know Marra was there.
“This is someone who is sanity in a storm of ridiculousness,” Van Horsen said.
County Supervisor Ann English, the only Democrat on the three-member board, complimented Marra and her commitment to following the law when under pressure.
“She never wavered, no matter what the pressure was from outside,” English said.
English said she doesn’t know how the county will find a proper replacement. Birch agrees.
“I don’t know who could take her place, with all her experience, all the strength of putting her foot down, saying, ‘No, I’m following the statute. No, you can’t do that,’” Birch said.
The monthslong saga in Cochise County started more than a month before the midterms, when Republican Supervisors Tom Crosby and Peggy Judd, and Recorder David Stevens, began talking about hand-counting all ballots in the election after the typical machine count, an effort that election experts said would threaten the accuracy of the election and confuse voters.
The county attorney and secretary of state’s office told the supervisors the full hand count would be illegal. State law requires counties to conduct a partial hand count audit of ballots after every election if political parties participate, but does not allow for all ballots to be audited.
As the administrator of elections, Marra is in charge of this statutorily required partial hand count. While the Recorder David Stevens was supportive of expanding that hand count to all ballots cast, Marra and county attorneys said it was illegal. Butthe supervisors to ask Stevens to conduct the full hand count anyway.
Despite the judge ruling that the full hand count would be illegal, the day after the election, Stevens conducted the first step of a full hand count by selecting which ballots would be hand-counted. Under her statutory duty, Marra did as well, and she completed the official, partial hand count a few days later. As concerns spread that Stevens would attempt to do his own hand count as well, Marra reassured the public that the ballots were locked up.
“Security is safe in the ballot cage in warehouse under camera,” Marra told Votebeat at the time. “He does not have access to that building. Access is strictly limited.”
That’s when Crosby and Judd sued her, personally and in her professional role. The lawsuit claimed that Marra had refused to comply with the supervisors’ orders by not conducting the expanded hand count they ordered, not permitting the recorder and his personnel to access the counting center, and not turning over the ballots to the recorder.
Marra was forced to obtain outside legal counsel to defend herself. Shortly after filing that lawsuit, the supervisors withdrew it, saying that they did not want to interfere with an expected statewide recount. But the suit clearly marked a low point.
“No all day court which is great because I’ve lost so many days dealing with this during a major election,” Marra said on Twitter after the supervisors withdrew the lawsuit. “Fact remains elected officials filed a personal lawsuit against a tenured local Gov’t employee with an impeccable record. Not just in official capacity, sued me personally.”
The supervisors then refused to certify the election results, only voting to finalize them after ordered to do so by a court.
Residents have now started a recall petition for Crosby and are working to gather signatures. At the same time, supervisors at the proposed upcoming work session, which has not yet been posted publicly, plan to discuss not only the reorganization of election administration but also hand-counting ballots.
Even after the hand count drama, Marra appeared to remain committed to the job, saying two days after the lawsuit was withdrawn that the reason why election officials didn’t walk out of the job was because “it’s about every voter and every ballot.”
“Honored every single day to get to do this work,” she wrote. “Especially where it’s needed the most. #Arizona.”
“Votebeat is a nonprofit news organization covering local election administration and voting access. Sign up for their newsletters at votebeat.org.” | US Local Elections |
A United States judge has dismissed a lawsuit against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis after the prominent Republican removed an elected official from office over his stance on abortion and transgender rights.
Robert Hinkle, a federal judge for the northern district of Florida, ruled on Friday that DeSantis had violated the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees free speech, as well as the state constitution, when he suspended State Attorney Andrew Warren in August 2022.
But Hinkle ultimately decided that the court lacked the authority to reinstate Hinkle or award “relief” against a state official.
“The suspension would have occurred even had there been no First Amendment violation,” the judge said in his decision.
Still, Hinkle took aim at the grounds DeSantis had used to remove Warren from office.
DeSantis – who is expected to seek the Republican nomination for the 2024 presidential elections – had accused the Democratic state attorney of applying a blanket ban on prosecuting those who violated state abortion laws or sought gender-affirming care for teens.
DeSantis then suspended Warren on the grounds of “dereliction of duty” and other violations.
“The constitution of Florida has vested the veto power in the governor, not individual state attorneys,” DeSantis said in a statement in August when he suspended Warren from office.
“When you flagrantly violate your oath of office, when you make yourself above the law, you have violated your duty.”
Warren filed a federal lawsuit that same month against DeSantis in a bid to get his job as state attorney back. In Friday’s decision, Hinkle wrote that DeSantis’s accusations had misrepresented Warren’s stance.
“The allegation was false,” Hinkle said. “Mr Warren’s well-established policy, followed in every case by every prosecutor in the office, was to exercise prosecutorial discretion at every stage of every case. Any reasonable investigation would have confirmed this.”
Warren had signed a statement of protest on the same day in June 2022 that the US Supreme Court overturned its landmark Roe v Wade decision, ending federal protection of abortion as a constitutional right.
That statement (PDF) – authored by the group Fair and Just Prosecution and signed by more than 80 district and state attorneys – included a commitment to “refrain from prosecuting those who seek, provide or support abortions”.
It also said its signatories would “decline to use our offices’ resources to criminalise reproductive health decisions”. But it underscored the prosecutors’ ability to exercise discretion over individual cases, emphasising the diversity of opinions held on the subject.
Warren has since described the pledge as a “value statement” rather than a binding framework for how he might approach cases.
He pointed out in his lawsuit that Florida’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy had been ruled unconstitutional at the time. The state also did not have a ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors until several months after Warren’s dismissal.
The Florida medical board issued its ban in November, preventing transgender youth from accessing puberty blockers, hormone therapy or surgery to address gender dysphoria.
In his lawsuit, Warren asserted he had a duty to voters to explain his stance on issues and that his elected position gave him discretion over how to allocate resources.
“The governor has attacked our democracy and it should worry everyone,” Warren told reporters in August after his removal from office.
“If the governor’s attempt to unilaterally overturn an election is allowed to stand, it threatens to undermine the integrity and outcome of elections across our state for years to come.”
Warren, a former federal prosecutor, had been a dark-horse candidate in 2016 when he was first elected to the state attorney’s position, beating Republican incumbent Mark Ober to represent Hillsborough County, a populous part of the state that includes the Tampa metropolitan area.
Re-elected in 2020, Warren has sparred with DeSantis and other Florida conservatives over issues including coronavirus restrictions and a bill giving law enforcement broader discretion when policing protests.
Just this week, Warren slammed a recent DeSantis order blocking a new Advanced Placement course on African American studies from being taught in Florida high schools. “It’s a bad sign for democracy when we ban teaching the truth of our own history,” he wrote on Twitter.
DeSantis was himself considered a long-shot candidate when he first ran for the governor’s seat in 2018, narrowly defeating Democrat Andrew Gillum.
He has since become one of the leading voices in the Republican Party, sailing to reelection with double-digit margins in last November’s midterms.
It was the largest margin of victory for any Florida gubernatorial candidate in 40 years, positioning Florida as an increasingly red state in US politics. | US Federal Policies |
Donald Trump’s legal web has grown more tangled than ever. The former president is facing 91 criminal charges across four jurisdictions — Georgia, Florida, New York, and the District of Columbia. He has two trial dates set for 2024 so far. And all this is unfolding as he runs for the presidency again.
The cases — involving allegations of attempted election theft, mishandling classified documents, and hush money payments — have grown so sprawling that it’s tough for anyone but the most die-hard political obsessive to follow them in detail.
But in some, the stakes — for our democracy and for Trump personally — are higher than others.
The two prosecutions about Trump’s efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory (in DC and Georgia) both come with the possibility of serious criminal penalties. They also have enormous implications for the future of American elections, and for whether Trump or someone like him will respect the results next time around.
The classified documents prosecution, in Florida, is also significant in that it involves sensitive intelligence material. However, prosecutors have presented no evidence that this sensitive material leaked out from Trump’s possession. The prosecution is mainly about his efforts to defy the government’s demands that he return the documents.
Then, in the New York case, Trump is charged with falsifying business records related to hush money payments he’d made. The core violation here is, basically, that the Trump Organization logged these payments improperly as “legal expenses.” This is not the highest-stakes issue in the world.
It’s all a lot to keep track of, so in this guide, we’ll walk through the charges and potential sentences in each prosecution in more detail, and we’ve ranked the indictments in order of importance based on the stakes and potential implications of each case.
1) Federal 2020 election case (District of Columbia)
How important is this indictment? Very important. As Vox’s Nicole Narea previously explained, this case “will legally define what a politician is able to do to reverse a defeat.” The outcome of this case could have major implications for the 2024 election and every race that follows: If Trump isn’t held accountable for the actions he took on January 6 and leading up to it, he and others could try to pull the same schemes in the future.
Ultimately, this case has a significant bearing on the future of US democracy.
Number of charges: Four felony counts. They include:
- Charge of conspiracy to defraud the United States, which includes plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election
- Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding, including plotting to prevent the 2020 election certification
- Obstruction of and attempt to obstruct an official proceeding, which includes actually blocking the certification of the 2020 election results
- Conspiracy against rights, which includes a plan to deprive someone of a constitutional right (in this case, that is the ability to vote)
Potential jail time per count (these are maximum sentences that are unlikely to be imposed):
- Conspiracy to defraud the United States: 5 years
- Conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding: 20 years
- Obstructing an official proceeding: 20 years
- Conspiracy against the right to vote: 10 years
2) Georgia election indictment
How important is this indictment? Very important. Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis accused Trump and several of his associates of a sprawling racketeering conspiracy related to their efforts to overturn Biden’s win in the state. In contrast to the federal election indictment, where Trump is the only one charged so far, here 18 others were also charged for participating in this alleged conspiracy. These include famous names like Rudy Giuliani and former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, notorious Trump lawyers like John Eastman and Sidney Powell, and lower-level Georgia players.
Significantly, if Trump wins the presidency again in 2024, he would not be able to thwart this prosecution, since it is being carried out under state law.
Number of charges: 13 felony counts. They are:
- 1 count of violating the Georgia RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act, which is basically a catchall charge for the larger conspiracy to overturn the outcome
- 3 counts of solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer, which are about Trump’s attempts to convince Georgia officials to overturn the results
- 1 count of conspiracy to commit impersonating a public officer
- 2 counts of conspiracy to commit forgery
- 2 counts of conspiracy to commit false statements and writings
- 1 count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents
- 1 count of filing false documents
- 2 counts of making false statements and writings
Most of those counts relate to the Trump campaign’s effort to put together a slate of “alternate” electors from Georgia who would purport to cast electoral votes for Trump rather than the actual winner, Biden.
3) Federal documents case (Florida)
How important is this indictment? Important. This case centers on a president’s ability to endanger the country’s national security by taking and mishandling classified documents after leaving office. Documents that Trump kept addressed everything from US nuclear programs to the country’s defense and weapons capabilities to how America could respond in the face of a possible attack. Additionally, the case looks at how Trump obstructed FBI efforts to take back the documents.
Number of charges: 40 felony counts. They include:
- 32 counts of willful retention of national defense information, which includes keeping classified documents related to military activities and nuclear weapons
- 1 count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, which includes Trump working with an aide to hold on to classified documents and hide them from a grand jury
- 1 count of withholding a document or record from an official proceeding, which included efforts to hide documents from a grand jury
- 1 count of corruptly concealing a document or record from an official proceeding, which included hiding boxes with classified documents
- 1 count of concealing a document in a federal investigation, which included covering up Trump’s ongoing possession of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago
- 1 count of scheming to conceal information the government is seeking, which includes hiding the fact that Trump still possessed classified documents
- 1 count of making false statements, which includes directing his attorneys to lie about returning all the classified documents in his possession
- 2 counts of altering, destroying, or concealing information the government is seeking, which includes plans to delete security footage
Potential jail time per count (these are maximum sentences that are unlikely to be imposed):
- Willful retention of defense information: 10 years
- Conspiracy to obstruct justice: 20 years
- Withholding documents from an official proceeding: 20 years
- Concealing documents from an official proceeding: 20 years
- Concealing documents from federal investigators: 20 years
- Scheme to conceal: 5 years
- Making false statement to the US government: 5 years
- Altering, destroying, or hiding something the government is looking for: 20 years
4) New York state case related to hush money to Stormy Daniels
How important is this indictment? Less important. This case is significant for the ways it addresses alleged wrongdoing by Trump, but it has fewer sweeping implications than the other indictments. It essentially highlights Trump’s recurring lies and falsehoods, but doesn’t really have the same broader democracy or national security stakes that the other cases have. Primarily, it centers on efforts by Trump to conceal hush money that was paid to porn actress Stormy Daniels so she wouldn’t go public about their affair.
Number of charges: 34 felony counts. All counts are centered on falsifying business records, which Trump is accused of doing to cover up the hush money payments to Daniels.
Potential jail time per count (these are maximum sentences that are unlikely to be imposed):
- Falsifying business records: 4 years
All of this leads to two big questions: Will these indictments derail Trump’s presidential bid? And do they mean Trump’s going to jail?
What do the four indictments mean for Trump’s chances of becoming president again?
Amid all this, Trump is running for president again and facing several challengers in the Republican primary. He retains a massive poll lead. These multiple indictments haven’t hurt him just yet; if anything, they’ve helped, as GOP voters have rallied around him.
Currently, Trump’s New York trial is scheduled for March 25, 2024, and his Florida trial is scheduled for May 20, 2024. Unless one of his challengers surges before then, he could have the nomination mostly wrapped up before either trial begins.
Then, even if he’s found guilty, or even if he’s jailed, he technically wouldn’t be disqualified from taking office. If he wins the GOP nomination, he’ll still be on the ballot in the general election. So only the voters can stop Trump from becoming president again.
Will Trump go to prison? How long could his sentence be?
The technical “maximum sentence” Trump could face if convicted of everything he’s been charged with is absurdly high — hundreds of years — but in practice, such high sentences are almost never given. Yet — though we’re a long way off from Trump actually being behind bars — he really is in danger of getting serious time.
His eventual sentence, if he is convicted, will depend on several factors in each jurisdiction, none more important than whether the juries will even convict him. The strength of each case and the politics of each area could well influence this — given political polarization, winning a conviction may well be easier in DC and New York than in the mostly conservative area of Florida where he will be tried. (Recall it only takes one holdout juror to block a conviction.)
Then, if he is convicted, what sentence will the judge hand down? Judges have broad discretion to hand down a sentence they feel is appropriate. Judge Tanya Chutkan of DC will hear the federal case against Trump for trying to steal the 2020 election, and she has been the toughest sentencer for January 6 rioters, suggesting she may lean more toward the maximum if given the chance. Meanwhile, Judge Aileen Cannon of Florida has the documents case, and she is a Trump appointee who has already arguably stretched the law to try and help him out; a conviction in her courtroom could be on the lighter side.
Once he’s sentenced, will higher court judges rescue him on appeal? Some of the cases against him use novel legal reasoning that hasn’t been tested before. So far, the Florida case appears the clearest and best grounded in precedent, while the election cases are more novel (no president has tried to do what Trump did before, after all) and the New York hush money case has been somewhat legally controversial. If Trump is convicted, then, his eventual fate may end up in the Supreme Court.
Finally, any Trump sentence could be scuttled if he wins the presidency. If Trump is back in power, he would likely use executive power to end the federal prosecutions against him (the DC and Florida ones), and perhaps even pardon himself. He could not end the state prosecutions — the Georgia and New York ones — but if he wins the presidency, he could likely put off serving prison time until after his term concludes. So, again, it’s the voters who ultimately have the power to maximize, or minimize, Trump’s chances of going to prison. | US Political Corruption |
USPS Releases Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stamp
The stamp honors the late justice, whom the USPS called 'a judge unafraid to disagree with her colleagues'
Former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been honored with a postage stamp released by the United States Postal Service on Monday.
"She began her career as an activist lawyer fighting gender discrimination. She went on to become a judge who was unafraid to disagree with her colleagues," said USPS in a statement. "Ginsburg gained a reputation as a respected voice for equal justice."
Chief Justice John Roberts praised his late colleague, calling her an "outstanding American and eminent jurist" during remarks at the stamp dedication ceremony.
Ginsburg passed away in September, 2020 after nearly 27 years on the court. She was the second woman and the first Jewish woman to serve as a Supreme Court justice.
- Forever Stamp Prices Are Going Up
- Postal Service Hikes Price of First-Class Stamps for Second Time in 3 Months
- Senate Democrats don’t want a Merrick Garland repeat
- Alec Baldwin to Be Sued for Defamation Again by Family of Slain Marine
- What’s the Story With Rhea Perlman’s Character Ruth in ‘Barbie’?
- Justice Thomas and the Uneven Scales of Scrutiny
- Trump Fundraises After Court Appearance: ‘They Know I’m on the Verge of Winning’Politics
- Ohio GOP Senate Hopeful Bernie Moreno Raises $4M in Third QuarterPolitics
- Lawyer for Unindicted Georgia Co-Conspirator Bernie Kerik Says Client Has Evidence Against Sidney PowellPolitics
- Matt Gaetz’s Father Seeking Return to Florida State SenatePolitics
- Supreme Court Opens New Term With Prison Sentences CasePolitics
- Sen. Lindsey Graham Blasts Trump Fraud Case: ‘A Friggin’ Joke’Politics
- Biden’s Dog Commander ‘Only Has an Appetite for Secret Service Agents’: ReportNews
- Trump Blasts NY AG Letitia James Over Mar-a-Lago Worth: ‘Should be Reprimanded and Sanctioned’Politics
- Manufacturers of 10 Drugs Selected for Medicare Price Negotiation Sign Agreements to Join ProgramPolitics
- Illinois Gov. Pritzker Calls for Help With Migrant Crisis, Hits White House for ‘Lack of Intervention’Politics
- Kevin McCarthy Calls Democratic Leader in Last-Ditch Effort to Save SpeakershipPolitics
- Defense Department Official Charged in Dog Fighting RingPolitics | SCOTUS |
LAS VEGAS, Oct 28 (Reuters) - U.S. Republican presidential candidates including frontrunner Donald Trump touted their unwavering support for Israel wiping out Palestinian Hamas militants, as they campaigned with addresses to major Jewish donors in Las Vegas on Saturday.
The Republican Jewish Coalition's (RJC) weekend donor gathering has taken on heightened importance as Israel prepares a ground invasion of Gaza following a surprise attack by Hamas on Oct. 7 that Israeli authorities say killed more than 1,400 people. Gaza's health authorities say more than 7,000 Palestinians have been killed in retaliatory Israeli air strikes.
Support for Israel is a hallmark of American Republican politics. Still, around 1,500 donors gathered in Las Vegas were seeking firmer expressions of commitment as Israel faces growing criticism from human rights groups for its air strikes in Gaza, a densely populated area.
"The United States will stand with Israel 100% - without hesitation, without qualification and without any apology. We're not going to be apologizing," Trump said to massive cheers, later adding he would sanction Iran and crack down on pro-Palestinian protests on U.S. campuses.
"If you spill a drop of American blood, we will spill a gallon of yours," Trump said.
Candidate Nikki Haley, a former South Carolina governor who has campaigned as a foreign policy hawk, criticized an isolationist trend in the Republican Party. She cited lackluster support for Ukraine from some during its war with Russia.
"Mark my words: Those who would abandon Ukraine today are at risk of abandoning Israel tomorrow," said Haley, who is jostling with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to be the leading Trump alternative.
Haley also notably ratcheted up her criticism of Trump, under whom she served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
"We all know what Trump did in the past. The question is: What will he do in the future?" said Haley. "We cannot have four years of chaos, vendettas and drama."
DeSantis did not go after Trump directly as he also vowed to support Israel. "Israel values life, and Hamas worships death," said DeSantis.
The event was overshadowed by former Vice-President Mike Pence announcing he was ending his cash-strapped presidential campaign. Pence did not endorse anyone.
DONOR RETICENCE
While many establishment Republican donors are opposed to Trump and are seeking an alternative, DeSantis and Haley may struggle to get them to open their wallets. Trump, fueled by small-dollar donors, is the runaway favorite to win the Republican nomination process that kicks off in Iowa on Jan. 15.
Trump was rebuked by Israel and the White House earlier this month after calling the Lebanese Hezbollah, a sworn enemy of Israel, "very smart" and accusing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of being "not prepared" for the Hamas attack.
Trump later said there had been "no better friend or ally of Israel" than when he was U.S. president.
The RJC itself does not endorse in the Republican primary, but it does spend on the general election, when the Republican nominee will likely face off against Democratic President Joe Biden.
"In 2020, we raised and spent in excess of $10 million to help Trump get the largest share of the Jewish vote in history," Washington-based RJC's chief executive officer, Matt Brooks, told Reuters in an interview. "And we plan to do the same, if not more, with our nominee going forward."
Brooks said RJC donors separately spent between $50 million and $60 million on the 2020 election cycle.
Reporting by Alexandra Ulmer; Additional reporting by Moira Warburton; Editing by Ross Colvin, David Gregorio and Daniel Wallis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | US Federal Elections |
With the first Republican primary debate of the 2024 election cycle only days away, candidates will be looking to seize the national spotlight to boost their campaigns. Here are three instances when primary debates helped boost a presidential campaign and a look at which 2024 candidates could benefit from a similar moment in the GOP debates.
1980 Republican primaries
Former California Gov. Ronald Reagan was widely expected to be the runaway candidate in the Republican presidential primaries in 1980 after nearly upsetting then-President Gerald Ford in the GOP nominating contest in 1976. However, the road to the Republican nomination was bumpier than expected for Reagan after losing to former CIA Director George H.W. Bush in the Iowa caucuses.
Ahead of the Republican primary in New Hampshire, a local newspaper, the Nashua Telegraph, had planned for a debate between Reagan and Bush, excluding the other Republican candidates. Because the debate was to exclude the other candidates, a court determined it would have been an illegal campaign contribution to Reagan and Bush by the newspaper, leaving the debate in jeopardy.
Reagan's campaign ended up footing the bill in the newspaper's place but wanted the other candidates included. When the debate was scheduled to begin, the former California governor tried to explain he wanted the other candidates to be allowed to participate in the debate, leading Nashua Telegraph editor Jon Breen, who was moderating the debate, to talk over him.
Breen, having enough of the talking over, demanded the sound technician turn off Reagan's microphone. The request to silence Reagan's microphone left the former governor angry, leading him to say into the microphone, “I’m paying for this microphone, Mr. Green!” The moment garnered cheers from the crowd and was a standout moment for Reagan's lagging campaign.
Reagan would go on to win the Republican nomination and the presidency in 1980 and 1984, both in landslides.
For the Republican primaries in 2024, a candidate who will want to replicate this kind of shining debate moment would be Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL). He was long viewed as the presumptive lead challenger to former President Donald Trump but has had lagging poll numbers, and questions have begun to mount on whether the Florida governor can live up to the hype for his candidacy.
2016 Republican primaries
Donald Trump was an outsider going into the 2016 Republican primaries, but his experience on television and as a celebrity constantly in the public eye helped boost him to the White House and through the 2016 GOP primary.
Trump's sparring matches and nicknames for his fellow 2016 candidates helped him surge in the polls and maintain a strong lead on the field for nearly the entire primary. The exchanges between Trump and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush helped Trump decimate Bush's campaign, which had once been viewed as the favorite to win the nomination.
Unsurprisingly, the candidate who will want to replicate this kind of performance is Trump. His 2016 primary debate performances kept him at the top of the headlines, and his unorthodox style led him to victory over a crowded GOP field. While the former president now has the built-in advantage of being the most recent GOP president, if he debates, he will want to perform similarly to the way he did in 2016 to show voters that he still has 'it.'
2020 Democratic primaries
Then-California Sen. Kamala Harris had a breakout moment during the first Democratic primary debate of the 2020 cycle, where she offered a bruising critique of the front-runner, former Vice President Joe Biden.
Harris hit Biden for his opposition to busing as a means to end racial segregation in schools. She invoked her experience as a black woman, claiming she was personally affected by the policy.
"I will direct this at Vice President Biden, I do not believe you are a racist and I agree with you when you commit yourself to the importance of finding common ground, but I also believe and it’s personal and it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senator who is built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country," Harris said.
"It was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing. There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day. That little girl was me," she continued.
Biden tried to defend himself but committed an unforced error by ending his defense prematurely and saying his time was up.
“I supported the [Equal Rights Amendment] from the very beginning. I’m the guy that extended the Voting Rights Act for 25 years. We got to the place where we got 98 out of 98 votes in the United States Senate doing it. I’ve also argued very strongly that we in fact deal with the notion of denying people access to the ballot box. I agreed that everybody once they — anyway, my time’s up. I’m sorry,” Biden said.
Following the debate, Biden's weak showing had him drop in the polls and Harris's poll numbers jumped. Within days, Harris jumped from fourth place to second place, per the RealClearPolitics polling average.
Despite the surge by Harris, she would have her own debate flub months later and would drop out of the primary before the Iowa caucuses. Harris would later be selected as Biden's running mate for the 2020 election, and they would go on to win the election.
The candidates in the 2024 Republican primary who will want to replicate Harris's debate moment by landing a bruising blow on the front-runner will be former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), or entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy. These candidates are within striking distance of gaining traction, and landing a blow on Trump or DeSantis could help clear a more viable path toward the nomination for their respective campaigns.
The first Republican debate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is scheduled for Wednesday at 9 p.m. and will be televised by Fox News. The Democratic Party is not hosting debates, as incumbent President Joe Biden is seeking reelection.
The Republican National Committee has confirmed that eight candidates have qualified for the debate as of Friday. The candidates who have qualified include Trump, DeSantis, Haley, Scott, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former Vice President Mike Pence, Ramaswamy, and Gov. Doug Burgum (R-ND). Trump has not confirmed if he will attend, but the others are expected to do so. | US Federal Elections |
As the debt ceiling fight heats up on Capitol Hill, House Democrats are eyeing an end-around strategy to bypass Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — and the conservative hawks driving his agenda — to avoid a federal default later in the year.
Democratic leaders have already begun talks about tapping a procedural tool, known as a discharge petition, to force a debt-limit hike to the floor without the accompanying cuts McCarthy is demanding, according to sources familiar with the closed-door discussions. That would align House Democrats with President Biden, who is insisting on a “clean” debt-ceiling increase absent any other budget changes.
“We’ve had some preliminary conversations about that, and we’ll do what we have to do to prevent economic catastrophe,” said a member of Democratic leadership, who spoke anonymously to discuss private talks.
The timing is crucial — and complicated — since the archaic rules governing discharge petitions dictate they can be considered only on certain days of the month, and only after the underlying legislation has sat in committee for at least 30 legislative days. Those eyeing that calendar expect they’ll have to launch the process sometime in March to avoid a default over the summer.
“The question is, if we were to have somebody file something, what’s the best timing to do that in order for it to get ripe at the moment when we need [it]?”
The discharge petition — an obscure mechanism empowering 218 lawmakers to pass bills the Speaker refuses to consider — is almost never successful, because it requires members of the ruling party to defy their own leadership. But this year may be different.
Already, some moderate Republicans are signaling a willingness to join Democrats to force a debt-limit vote if McCarthy, pressured by his right flank, refuses to do so.
“A discharge petition would only take myself and four of my colleagues on the GOP side to sign with Democrats, if that’s necessary,” Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), a co-chairman of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, told CNN earlier in the month.
Congress is not expected to vote on the debt-ceiling until the summer, when the Treasury Department is slated to exhaust its debt-paying options and the country faces an unprecedented federal default. But the debate launches in earnest this week, with a high-stakes meeting on Wednesday between Biden and McCarthy at the White House.
The president has insisted he won’t negotiate on the issue, noting that raising the debt limit merely allows the government to make good on past obligations. And his House allies are backing him up, particularly when it comes to their defense of the major entitlement programs.
“They have said there are cuts they want to make to Social Security and Medicare,” said Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.). “Democrats will never agree to that.”
Heading into the meeting, McCarthy is insisting Republicans are focused elsewhere — “We take Social Security and Medicare off the table,” he said Sunday — but is also amplifying demands for steep cuts to unspecified programs.
“We cannot continue just to spend more money and leverage the debt of the future of America,” he said on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” program. “We’ve got to get to a balanced budget.”
The debate highlights an early consequence of the concessions McCarthy made to his conservative detractors in order to win the Speaker’s gavel earlier this month, which included a vow to keep the debt ceiling off the floor unless it came with efforts to slash federal spending. McCarthy also agreed to empower a single lawmaker to launch the process of ousting the Speaker — a change that’s now looming over the debt ceiling debate.
“Our obligation, to me, is first and foremost: hold in check this bloated, woke, weaponized, wasteful government,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who was among the McCarthy holdouts who forced the changes to weaken the Speakership. “Shrink Washington; grow America.”
The resulting partisan impasse has heightened the fears of a default and elevated the notion that a discharge petition may eventually be the best chance of avoiding one.
“They’re the majority party, they ought to have a bill on the floor that raises the debt ceiling and meets our obligations, period,” Cicilline said. “If they don’t do that, we have to be prepared to do whatever we can to protect the country and the economy of this country.”
Others were even more emphatic. Asked if he’d endorse a discharge petition, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) didn’t hesitate.
“If it’s a clean debt ceiling — in a heartbeat,” he said.
Washington compiles deficits when incoming revenues — largely from tax receipts — fall short of the costs to run the federal government. The current debt, at roughly $31.4 trillion, represents the accumulation of annual deficits registered by administrations of both parties over the course of decades.
Raising the debt limit does not authorize or allocate new federal spending, but simply allows the Treasury to borrow additional funds to cover expenditures already approved by Congress. The vote was once routine — President Reagan raised the limit almost 20 times — but has become controversial more recently as conservatives have sought to leverage their votes to rein in federal spending.
“The people who are in control here make me nostalgic for Newt Gingrich,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.).
Not all Democrats are ready to endorse the discharge petition strategy. Some are demanding that Republicans release a specific budget plan, confident that, once revealed, the proposed cuts would spark such a public backlash that GOP leaders would be forced to abandon them before the debt ceiling vote hits the floor.
“We have to show the American people what they really are about. And hopefully that’s enough,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
Both sides are guilty of some degree of hypocrisy when it comes to the debt limit debate.
While serving as a senator in 2006, Biden had opposed a debt ceiling hike to protest the policies of then-President Bush, which included a series of tax cuts that piled trillions of dollars onto federal deficits.
“My vote against the debt limit increase cannot change the fact that we have incurred this debt already, and will no doubt incur more,” Biden said at the time. “It is a statement that I refuse to be associated with the policies that brought us to this point.”
More recently, GOP leaders raised little protest when President Trump raised the debt limit three times in four years, while adding almost $7.8 trillion to the debt. And in 2021, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) supported the concept of the debt-limit hike, but said he’d vote against it. The responsibility, he said at the time, was that of the party in power.
“The debt ceiling will need to be raised,” he said. “But who does that depends on who the American people elect.”
This year, the minority Democrats are promising a different approach. While Democrats acknowledge that endorsing a discharge petition might bail out McCarthy, the more important consideration, they say, is preventing an economy-shaking default.
“We’re preventing economic failure, and Kevin McCarthy will have been on the side of catastrophe,” said Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.). “So if we bail him out it’s because the country needs us to take action.”
Rep. Bill Pascrell (N.J.) echoed that message.
“It’d be a good time to show him,” Pascrell said, “that there’s something more important than him.”
–Updated at 7:01 a.m. | US Congress |
WASHINGTON, Nov 20 (Reuters) - U.S. appeals court judges on Monday signaled skepticism toward Donald Trump's bid to overturn a gag order imposed on the former president in a federal criminal case in which he is accused of illegally trying to overturn his 2020 election defeat.
As Trump lawyer D. John Sauer argued that the order violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech rights, judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia asked whether Trump's charged rhetoric would threaten the integrity of his upcoming trial.
"I don't hear you giving any weight at all to the interests in a fair trial," Judge Cornelia Pillard told Sauer.
Pillard is one of three judges who heard Trump's appeal of the gag order imposed by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the case, barring him and his lawyers from publicly criticizing prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses.
Chutkan ruled that such statements could influence witnesses and lead to threats against people involved in the case.
"The order is unprecedented, and it sets a terrible precedent on future restrictions on core political speech," Sauer said during the two-hour hearing.
Trump, the frontrunner for the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden in the 2024 U.S. election, has assailed officials involved in the welter of criminal and civil cases he faces. He has called U.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who brought the federal election-related charges, a "deranged lunatic" and a "thug," among other insults.
The gag order has been suspended during Trump's appeal. Trump has pleaded not guilty in the case, as well as all three other criminal cases.
The judges asked Justice Department lawyer Cecil VanDevender whether the order was written too broadly.
"We have to use a careful scalpel here," said Judge Patricia Millett, a Democratic judicial appointee like the other two on the panel.
VanDevender said the order still allows Trump to make broad arguments about the integrity of the case.
"He can say, 'This is a politically motivated prosecution brought by my political opponent,' 'The Department of Justice is corrupt, and, 'I will be vindicated at trial,' - all of that stuff," VanDevender said.
The judges did not indicate when they will rule.
BAN IN SEPARATE TRIAL LIFTED
A similar restriction in a separate civil business fraud case in New York was temporarily lifted by a state appeals court judge last week. Trump promptly resumed his attacks on a court clerk involved in the case.
In social media posts and presidential campaign appearances, Trump has said court officials and others involved in his legal woes are politically biased, leading to fears that they could face physical threats from his supporters.
The Washington case is set to go to trial in March, during what night be the height of the Republican nominating contest.
Trump is charged with conspiring to interfere with the official tally of the 2020 presidential race, which he lost to Biden. Trump has accused Biden's administration of weaponizing the U.S. legal system against him.
The indictment accuses Trump and his allies of promoting false claims the election was rigged, pressuring officials to alter the results and assembling fake slates of electors to try to wrest electoral votes from Biden.
Trump has also pleaded not guilty in three other criminal cases, including a Georgia case that also charges him with unlawfully conspiring to overturn the election.
Reporting by Mike Scarcella; writing by Andy Sullivan; editing by Will Dunham and Jonathan Oatis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | US Circuit and Appeals Courts |
"I've seen those reports. And I think they, for me, they sound consistent with the populist turn of the former president and others in this field," Pence, who served as Trump's running mate in 2016, said in an interview with the Washington Examiner.
In July, the New York Times reported on Trump's intention to expand the White House's authority in another term. Quoting former White House personnel chief John McEntee and former Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell T. Vought, it detailed a multipart endeavor to centralize certain independent parts of the government under the executive branch.
Traditionally independent agencies, such as the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission, would be brought under federal control. Further, plans to investigate Biden, a political rival, if elected, point to an intention of dismissing the past independence of the Department of Justice, which has remained intact since the Watergate scandal.
Trump's administration would also renew the impounding of federal funds, those familiar with policy proposals told the New York Times. The White House would then have the ability to refuse spending money on programs Congress appropriated it for if he disagrees with them. Fund impounding was made illegal by Congress following perceived abuse by former President Richard Nixon.
“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since F.D.R.’s New Deal,” McEntee said.
“Our current executive branch was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul," he said.
Vought added, “What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them.
Asked about Trump's plan for an administration in 2025, Pence said: "I'm not running for president to consolidate power in Washington, D.C., and I intend to make Washington, D.C., smaller."
"We've got a plan to shut down the federal Department of Education, to transfer funding for welfare and healthcare back to the states, to restore federalism," he said of his campaign.
"My aim as a conservative is going to be to offer a vision of not only fiscal responsibility, but reducing the size and scope of the federal government," the Indiana Republican said. "And what, at least what's been reported, seems to be one more example of the former president moving away from our party's historic commitment to limited government and to federalism."
Trump's campaign did not provide comment to the Washington Examiner.
Pence's comments on Trump's intentions come as the former vice president wages a war on populism within the Republican Party, specifically in the 2024 field. Earlier this week, Pence delivered a major speech in New Hampshire, calling for Republicans to reject populism as it grows in prominence within the GOP.
"As I look at this field, including my former running mate and some of his imitators in the primary, I think we're coming to a Republican time for choosing," he said.
According to him, the decision for Republicans is "whether or not we're going to offer the American people an agenda that's grounded in our party's historic commitment to a strong defense, American leadership in the world, free market economics, and fiscal responsibility, traditional values, and the right to life" or be further led astray by populist ideals, which he said are "unmoored to conservative principles."
Now that Labor Day has passed and the primary campaign is coming into focus, Pence said, "it was an important time" to make the choice clear.
Labor Day is thought by some to be when voters begin tuning into election cycles. But Trump has seen a surge in support from his already towering lead in the primary polls. This rise came in the wake of several indictments for the former president and a slip in the polls for rival Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL).
Despite Trump's polling stature, Pence is confident that he can win over Republican voters. Asked how he plans to do so, he said, "we're going to continue to work hard. We were all over the state of Iowa last week, all over New Hampshire this week."
"Labor Day is generally the time that Americans are kind of ending the enjoyment of the summer, getting back to work. So I'm going to focus a little bit more on politics and on decisions," he said. "I'm confident, based on the response that we're getting all across the early states and all across the country, that we're going to be well because I believe this is a conservative party guy."
"At the end of the day, it's not about personalities," Pence said. "Republican primary voters, caucusgoers in Iowa, are looking for a leadership in our party that can really bring America back, that can strengthen our military and ensure our security in an ever more dangerous world, that can revive our economy, put our nation back on the path to a balanced budget, and then can defend our liberties and stand for the right to life."
"The more people come to know us, the more they'll conclude that, as I say with all humility, I'm the most consistent, the most qualified, the most experienced conservative in the field, and I believe the majority of our Republican voters and caucusgoers are looking for just that. And we're going to work our hearts out to earn their support," he said. | US Federal Elections |
DARPA is putting together the Intrinsic Cognitive Security (ICS) research program “to build tactical mixed reality systems that protect against cognitive attacks.”
As the Pentagon sees mixed reality (MR) becoming ubiquitous in future military missions, the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is looking to protect users against cognitive attacks in this hybrid environment.
According to the DARPA ICS program description, such attacks can include:
- Information flooding to increase equipment latency and induce physical illness.
- Planting real-world objects to overwhelm displays.
- Subverting a personal area network to sow confusion.
- Injecting virtual data to distract personnel.
- Using objects to overwhelm a user with confusing false alarms.
- Assessing user status through an eye tracker.
- And other potential attacks.
Apart from military applications, DARPA’s new ICS program could provide us with a glimpse into the future of the commercial metaverse and how bad actors could manipulate mixed reality environments in nefarious ways.
Criminal groups, governments, and corporations could weaponize the metaverse by manipulating mixed reality systems in real-time to be able to see what you see, to know what you are feeling, and to potentially plant deceptive information in order to achieve a desired reaction.
A research paper published in Procedia Computer Science in 2020 lists five types of threats to mixed reality environments:
- Input Protection: Involves challenges towards ensuring the security and privacy of data gathered and inputted to MR platform.
- Example: The MR eye-wear can capture the sensitive information on the user’s desktop screen such as e-mails, chat logs. These necessary protections can be mapped to properties of concealment, unobservability & undetectability, and content awareness.
- Data Protection: A large amount of data collected from the sensors is stored in the database or other forms of data storage. The main threats to data collection are tampering, denial of service, and unauthorized access among others.
- Example: An adversary can tamper MR targets to elicit a different response from the system or to outright deny a service. Aside from security threats, likability, detectability, and identifiability are some of the privacy threats that results from continuous or persistent collection of data.
- Output Protection: After the data is processed, the application sends output to the MR device which is to be displayed. In MR the applications may have access to other application outputs and thus can modify those outputs making them unreliable.
- Example: Output displays are vulnerable to physical inference threats or visual channel exploits such as shoulder-surfing attacks. These are the same threats to user inputs especially when the input and output interfaces are on the same medium or are integrated together.
- User Interaction Protection: MR includes the utilization of other sensing and display interfaces to allow immersive interactions. One of the key prospects is how users can share MR experiences with guarantee of security and privacy of information.
- Example: An adversarial user can potentially tamper, spoof, or repudiate malicious actions during these interactions. As a consequence, genuine users might go through denial of service. Additionally, their personal data might have been compromised, leaked and used.
- Device Protection: The MR interfaces are exposed to malicious and harmful interpretation leading to discovery of input and output display information.
- Example: The head mounted displays (HMDs) display the content through its lenses, which other people can see from outside leading to leakage and external observation. Devices like a camera, which are also categorized as visual capture devices, are used to capture and extract this information which was leaked from the HMDs.
A report by Kaspersky adds, “It is nearly impossible to anonymize VR and AR tracking data because individuals have unique patterns of movement. Using the behavioral and biological information collected in VR headsets, researchers have identified users with a very high degree of accuracy – presenting a real problem if VR systems are hacked.”
For DARPA’s ICS program, the core technical hypothesis is that “formal methods can be extended with cognitive guarantees and models to protect mixed reality users from cognitive attacks.”
As “cognitive models represent aspects of human perception, action, memory, and reasoning,” DARPA’s ICS program will “extend formal methods by explicitly creating and analyzing cognitive and other models as part of MR system development to protect the warfighter from adversary attacks.”
For years, the US Department of Defense (DoD) has been funding research to equip its warfighters with technologies to augment their capabilities.
For example, both DARPA and the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) have been looking to mixed reality and hand-held devices for operators to interact with upwards of 250 autonomous vehicles through a military tactic known as swarming.
In 2018, DARPA launched its OFFensive Swarm-Enabled Tactics (OFFSET) program to leverage augmented and virtual reality, along with voice, gesture, and touch-based technologies, to enable users to interact with potentially hundreds of unmanned platforms simultaneously in real time.
And in March 2021, the DIU was looking for commercial solutions that would allow soldiers to operate multiples types of unmanned air and land vehicles using wearable and handheld controllers.
Now, the Pentagon is looking to protect users from cognitive attacks in those mixed reality environments.
Will solutions coming out DARPA’s ICS program make their way into the commercial sector to protect private citizens in the metaverse?
Could the technology and tactics developed be used for future PSYOPs and influence campaigns in their own right?
The ICS program proposers day will be held on October 20, 2023 in Arlington, Virginia.
Image by rawpixel.com on Freepik | US Federal Policies |
Washington — Legal teams for special counsel Jack Smith and former President Donald Trump are set to face off in a high-stakes appeals court hearing on Monday over a federal judge's ruling limiting certain aspects of Trump's speech in relation to this case, ahead of his criminal trial in Washington, D.C.
Trump asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to overturn or pause District Judge Tanya Chutkan's October— which is currently not in effect — that would bar him from publicly targeting individual prosecutors, court staff, or potential witnesses tied to the 2020 election-related federal prosecution. The special counsel had urged Chutkan to impose on the former president's pretrial speech, alleging his public comments threatened the proper administration of the judicial process and might inspire violence from supporters.
Her order did not go as far as prosecutors had requested, but Chutkan said she was treating the former president like any other defendant by preventing him from publicly speaking out against those who might testify against him at trial.
Trump's public targeting of the prosecution — he hasand weighed in on reports that former White House chief of staff cooperated with the probe — and prosecutors' efforts to curtail him have injected partisan politics into what are at-times mundane pretrial scuffles over a defendant's freedoms.
"This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses," Chutkan said in an October hearing. "This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice." She said that part of her role is to protect the integrity of the judicial process, and freedom-of-speech protections "yield" when those principles are threatened.
The appeals court temporarily put theahead of Monday's hearing at Trump's request, so it is currently not in effect.
Chutkan's order, Trump's attorneys argued in court filings, was "muzzling President Trump's core political speech during an historic Presidential campaign" and was "viewpoint based."
The prosecutors and potential witnesses whom Trump was barred from publicly targeting are high-level government officials, they said, and are thus linked to Trump's political campaign. Any restriction on Trump's speech, his defense attorneys argue, limits his right to campaign freely.
"The district court cannot silence President Trump based solely on the anticipated reaction of his audiences. The district court lacks the authority to muzzle the core political speech of the leading candidate for President at the height of his re-election campaign," Trump's attorneys argued in court filings. "President Trump is entitled to proclaim, and the American public is entitled to hear, his core political messages. The Gag Order should be immediately reversed."
But Smith's team has increasingly worked to tie Trump's public rhetoric to threats of violence, alleging his supporters' reactions to his criticisms could affect the way the trial — currently set for March 2024 — proceeds.
Trump, the special counsel alleged, is aware that his language might inspire others to act and "seeks to use this well-known dynamic to his advantage." Citing threats to Judge Chutkan herself, prosecutors write that the pattern "continued unabated as this case and other unrelated cases involving the defendant have progressed."
Rebutting Trump's claims of First Amendment protection, prosecutors told the appeals court earlier this month, "The defendant does not need to explicitly incite threats or violence in his public statements, because he well knows that, by publicly targeting perceived adversaries with inflammatory language, he can maintain a patina of plausible deniability while ensuring the desired results."
Smith's team argued the former president's current campaign to win the office again is not a sufficient reason to grant him extensive pretrial privileges.
In a filing Friday, Trump's team countered, "The First Amendment does not permit the district court to micromanage President Trump's core political speech" and said Smith's argument in favor of the order was based on, "hearsay media reports as a substitute for evidence."
Trump's motion to stay the gag order received support last week from more than a dozen Republican state attorneys general who echoed his argument that the restrictions on his speech unduly affect voters in primary states.
Spearheaded by Iowa's attorney general, the group – at least six of whom have endorsed Trump – wrote in an amicus brief, "Our citizens have an interest in hearing from major political candidates in that election. The Order threatens the States' interests by infringing on President Trump's free speech rights."
Trump has also found an unlikely ally in the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought scores of legal challenges to Trump's policies while he was in office. In the friend-of-the-court brief the ACLU sought to submit to the district court — the request to file the brief was ultimately denied — the organization said that Chutkan's order is unconstitutionally vague and impermissibly broad.
The panel considering Trump's request comprises Judges Patricia Millett and Cornelia Pillard — both Obama appointees — and Bradley Garcia, a Biden appointee.
for more features. | US Circuit and Appeals Courts |
Federal prosecutors in the case charging Donald Trump with scheming to overturn the 2020 presidential election are seeking an order that would restrict the former president from "inflammatory" and "intimidating" comments about witnesses, lawyers and the judge.
Special counsel Jack Smith's team said in a motion filed Friday that such a "narrow, well-defined" order was necessary to preserve the integrity of the case and to avoid prejudicing potential jurors.
"Since the grand jury returned an indictment in this case, the defendant has repeatedly and widely disseminated public statements attacking the citizens of the District of Columbia, the court, prosecutors and prospective witnesses," prosecutors wrote. "Through his statements, the defendant threatens to undermine the integrity of these proceedings and prejudice the jury pool."
They said Trump's efforts to weaken faith in the court system and the administration of justice mirror his attacks on the 2020 election, which he falsely claimed he had won.
"The defendant is now attempting to do the same thing in this criminal case — to undermine confidence in the criminal justice system and prejudice the jury pool through disparaging and inflammatory attacks on the citizens of this district, the court, prosecutors and prospective witnesses," they wrote.
Among the statements prosecutors cited in their motion is a post on his Truth Social platform days after the indictment in which Trump wrote, in all capital letters, "If you go after me, I'm coming after you!" He has also repeatedly alleged on social media that the case against him is "rigged" and that he cannot receive a fair trial. And he has attacked in personal terms the prosecutors bringing the case — calling Smith "deranged" and his team "thugs" — as well as the judge presiding over the case, Tanya Chutkan.
A Trump spokesperson said in a statement that prosecutors were "corruptly and cynically continuing to attempt to deprive President Trump of his First Amendment rights."
"This is nothing more than blatant election interference because President Trump is by far the leading candidate in this [Republican presidential nomination] race," the spokesperson said.
The issue surfaced last week with the disclosure by the Justice Department that it sought to file a motion related to "daily" public statements by Trump that it said it feared would taint the jury pool. Chutkan on Friday granted permission to prosecutors to file a redacted motion publicly, with names and identifying information of individuals who say they've been harassed as a result of Trump's attacks blacked out.
Also Friday, Smith's team pushed back against the Trump team request to have Chutkan recuse herself from the case. Defense lawyers had cited prior comments from Chutkan that they say cast doubt on her ability to be fair, but prosecutors responded that there was no valid basis for her to step aside. | US Political Corruption |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Casey Kuhn
Casey Kuhn
Nicole Ellis
Nicole Ellis
Leave your feedback
After a three and a half year pause, federal student loans will begin accruing interest again on Sept. 1 for millions of borrowers. As the second biggest consumer debt category, pausing student loan repayments had a major impact on many borrowers’ financial stability, raising concerns that making monthly repayments again may be difficult.
According to Betsy Mayotte, president and founder of the Institute of Student Loan Advisors, borrowers may now struggle to fit that payment back into their budgets for a variety of reasons. “The economy is different than it was three and a half years ago. Things like lettuce and rent are a lot more expensive than they were three and a half years ago. There also could have been a change in income circumstances since prior to COVID,” like job loss, having children and other situations where the money set aside for making loan payments has been otherwise absorbed, she said.
Watch the conversation between Mayotte and PBS NewsHour digital anchor Nicole Ellis in the player above.
Mayotte says the best thing borrowers can do right now is educate themselves about what student loan repayment options exist, understand those different options, how they work and prioritize paying the least amount over time. She warns that it’s easy to get caught up in the possibility of loan forgiveness, as it’s an attractive and popular topic. “For some people, pursuing a loan forgiveness program is the way to pay the least amount over time. But for most other borrowers, it’s going to be paying their loans off as aggressively as possible to reduce total interest costs,” she said.
The Department of Education’s loan simulator tool can be a big help in determining possible payment plans and monthly costs as borrowers budget for the added expense, Mayotte says. The Biden Administration’s Saving on a Valuable Education, or SAVE plan, a new income-based repayment plan, may also help address income disparities among borrowers. While different types of income-based repayment plans have existed for roughly 30 years, SAVE is considered to be the most generous, cutting payment prices almost in half for undergraduate borrowers and providing zero-dollar payment plans for lower income borrowers who qualify. Some borrowers have never had to make repayments because of the freeze, something Mayotte says is also a concern.
Looking ahead, people who may struggle with repayments are those who never finished their degree or certificate and may only owe $10,000 or $20,000. “They’re living paycheck to paycheck and their balance is so low that the income driven plans might not give them a lower payment than what they already had, depending on what their income is,” says Mayotte.
WATCH MORE: Borrowers face tough decisions as resumption of student loan payments approaches
Another group in this category is seniors. Mayotte says, “student loan borrowers are still looked at by most people, voters, policymakers as a young person’s issue.”. But, “half of all student loan borrowers are over the age of 30, a quarter are over 45 and the fastest growing population of borrowers that are struggling and carrying student debt are over 65. And those aren’t people that can anticipate their income going up by a lot over the next ten or 20 years.”
Despite the restart in payments, Mayotte and other experts believe that the Biden administration may try to seek some form of student debt forgiveness through a negotiated rulemaking process, which can take up to a year. If that does not go through, the Education Department can propose another form of student debt forgiveness to give relief to millions of borrowers.
Casey is a producer for NewsHour's digital video team. She has won several awards for her work in broadcast journalism, including a national Edward R. Murrow award.
Nicole Ellis is PBS NewsHour's digital anchor where she hosts pre- and post-shows and breaking news live streams on digital platforms and serves as a correspondent for the nightly broadcast. Ellis joined the NewsHour from The Washington Post, where she was an Emmy nominated on-air reporter and anchor covering social issues and breaking news. In this role, she hosted, produced, and directed original documentaries and breaking news videos for The Post’s website, YouTube, Amazon Prime, Facebook and Twitch, earning a National Outstanding Breaking News Emmy Nomination for her coverage of Hurricane Harvey in 2017. Ellis created and hosted The Post’s first original documentary series, “Should I freeze my eggs?,” in which she explores her own fertility and received the 2019 Digiday Publishers Award. She also created and hosted the Webby Award-winning news literacy series “The New Normal,” the most viewed video series in the history of The Washington Post’s women’s vertical, The Lily.
She is the author of “We Go High,” a non-fiction self-help-by-proxy book on overcoming adversity publishing in 2022, and host of Critical Conversations on BookClub, an author-led book club platform.
Prior to that, Ellis was a part of the production team for the Peabody and Emmy Award-winning series, CNN Heroes. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Anthropology and Human Rights from Columbia University, as well as a Master’s in Journalism from Columbia Journalism School.
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Nation
Aug 23 | US Federal Policies |
A Baton Rouge police deputy chief was placed on leave a week after his son, an officer with the department, was arrested for allegedly tasing and handcuffing a suspect, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Troy Lawrence Sr. was placed on administrative leave while the department looks into the use of force claims against the BRPD, the source said.
The police department faces several lawsuits over the treatment of detainees, including at a now-shuttered police warehouse that officers allegedly called the "brave cave," according to complaints made against the department.
The FBI announced over the weekend they are investigating the Baton Rouge Police Department following allegations that some officers "abused their authority."
The New Orleans FBI Field Office, the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Louisiana have opened the probe, with investigators "reviewing the matter for potential federal violations," the FBI New Orleans said in a statement on Friday, while urging anyone with information on the case to contact them.
The department's police chief reported the allegations of the "brave cave" to the FBI, a source familiar with the investigation said Tuesday.
In a statement to ABC News, the Baton Rouge Police Department said they are "committed to addressing these troubling accusations and have initiated administrative and criminal investigations." | US Police Misconduct |
Middle-Class Just Got Clobbered by Biden’s New Budget and Wage Class Warfare, How To Prepare
Biden has always pretended to pay attention to rebuilding the lop-sided economy of the United States. He has always stuck to the idea of redesigning economic practices to make them...
This story originally appeared on Due
Biden has always pretended to pay attention to rebuilding the lop-sided economy of the United States. He has always stuck to the idea of redesigning economic practices to make them worthy for ordinary Americans. Instead of developing a top-down economy pyramid, Biden claims to turn it bottom-up and middle-out, which reflects in the new budget. According to the President, if the middle class does well, the poor will have a ladder up, and the rich will be able to uplift their financial flourishment.
Biden also says that the economy of the United States could be grown healthily by creating well-paying jobs and lowering costs by promoting workers and investing in people. The President also claims that he wants to reform the tax code to reward work instead of wealth.
However, from the point of reality, Is Biden’s new budget and wage-class welfare truly working? Will they cater to the middle class, or is it another hit on the pocket? How should you prepare for the newly proposed policies? This post answers everything involved!
Prelude
Biden’s first trial to achieve a noteworthy economic victory was the American Rescue Plan Act (2021). This $1.9 trillion coronavirus rescue package aimed to drive the United States to recover from the post-pandemic economic and health turbulence. It’s said to be a part of his Build Back Better Plan, including the American Families Plan and American Jobs Plan. However, the plans couldn’t pass Congress, and some were covered by the Inflation Reduction Act (2022).
Presently, the United States is combating the pandemic and Ukraine war-induced inflation. Though the reported record high in inflation (2022) has declined significantly, high-priced goods and services are still squeezing the wellness of the country’s economy.
Joe Biden’s Updated Policy Goals
The Biden government has proposed to:
- Increase the minimum hourly wage to $15
- Release Covid-19 relief
- Forgive student loan debt and offer free college education for people earning less than $1,25,000/year.
- Design Affordable Care Act and offer 97% of US citizens health insurance coverage.
- Increase the tax revenue (up to an additional amount of $4 trillion) by raising the top tax rate to 39.6%. The capital gains will be taxed at regular rates while the corporate tax rate will rise to 28%.
Understanding the American Rescue Plan and Its Effect on Middle Class
This Covid-19 stimulus plan was introduced on 14th January 2021 and came into effect on 11th March 2021. The plan promised a $1400 stimulus check, a vaccine rollout, extended unemployment benefits, etc. The plan features several primary elements. They include the following.
1. Taxes
The American Rescue Plan proposed to raise approximately $4 trillion in additional revenue over ten years. Households making over $1,70,000 will bear most of the proposed tax increment burden. In contrast, the top 1% will bear a significant tax load in the next quarters.
The changes that kicked in include but are not limited to the following:
- An increased top income rate of 39.6% (2.6% high than the previous rate)
- A closure in the step-up-in-basis loophole
- An elevated corporate tax income of 28%
- Implementation of Social Security Payroll tax for people earning more than $400k a year
- A 15% tax implementation on the record income of giant organizations
2. Direct Aid
This part of ARP is worth $1 trillion. It proposes to include $1400 checks sent to individuals earning less than $75,000 (separate filers – single or married) and $1,50,000 (joint filers). These checks were designed to supplement the previously mailed-out $600 checks.
Furthermore, the direct aid part included additional funding for eviction, emergency rent, emergency assistance for homeless people, mortgage assistance, etc. However, presently the evictions and foreclosures have expired. The rental and mortgage payments are still available. In addition, under direct aid, there is a childcare and food program.
3. Cyber Security Updation
When modifying the economy, Biden realized the importance of safeguarding digital assets and data. Thus, he proposed allocating $9 billion to modernize and secure Federal Information Technology. However, Congress approved around $2 billion.
4. Health Insurance
Biden’s healthcare initiatives proposed the expansion of Obama Care to insure 97% of Americans. The total cost will be $750 billion in the next ten years. Biden wanted to launch a public health insurance alternative like Medicare which doesn’t require any premium, and people who don’t have Medicaid can also access it.
5. Student Loan
Biden wanted to make education free for everyone earning less than $1,25,000. He wanted to fund this plan by repealing the high-income tax cut in the Coronavirus Aid Relief and Economic Security Act (Cares). In addition, Biden also proposed to forgive all student loans from 1st January 2021 to 31st December 2025.
6. Improve America’s Manufacturing and Technological Strength
Though this is not a technical element of ARP, Biden proposed a $700 billion plan in 2020 to elevate America’s manufacturing and technological strength. This included spending $400 billion on US goods and services and $300 billion on research and development.
7. Rural America
To help rural communities that account for 20% of the US population, Biden proposed an investment of $20 billion. The areas include agricultural research, rural broadband infrastructure, farming, health services, medical training programs, etc.
8. Local Community Support
Biden’s plan aims to help governments with revenue shortfalls by keeping frontline public workers on the job. In addition, it will have small business grants and loans. Besides, $20 billion will be allocated to public transit agencies.
9. Infrastructure and Climate
Biden has planned to spend $1.3 trillion for infrastructural development over the next ten years. This will include road repairs, highway and bridge modifications, clean energy research and innovation, electric car battery technology advancement, and transit projects to serve high-poverty areas.
The 2023 Biden Budget
After ARP, the Biden government came up with the 2023 budget. The Biden administration released the budget request on 28th March, which called for $5.8 trillion in federal spending and a $1.2 trillion deficit. In addition, it includes $1.6 trillion in discretionary spending. The key takeaways of the new budget include the following.
1. Deficit Reduction
The Biden administration has appealed to moderate democrats in response to their negotiation on broader social spending. It has proposed to reduce deficit spending by $1 trillion in the next 10 years.
2. Climate Initiatives
The climate initiative proposal of the 2023 federal budget proposed to back $6.5 billion in loans to rural electricity providers. This initiative aims to promote clean energy, support energy storage, and increase the department’s funding for renewable energy development by 150%. In addition, there is a proposal to allocate $5 million for climate adaptation.
3. Health Proposals
The budget has requested a grant of $5 billion. The amount will include investment in cancer and other breakthrough treatment research. Besides, it has proposed an investment of $3.5 billion in mental health treatment.
The Biden administration has proposed to expand enforcement of existing laws requiring insurers to grant equal coverage for mental care as they do for physical care. The government has also asked the US Department of Education to employ more mental health professionals in academic institutions.
4. Domestic Manufacturing
The budget request features an allocation of $372 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) manufacturing programs. This initiative is expected to expand domestic manufacturing and remove supply chain issues. However, the budget proposal does not include new funding for the Ukraine war or Covid 19. It features a deficit-neutral reserve fund that will pay for upcoming fiscal plans, though.
How Biden’s Budget Is Expected to Affect the American Middle Class?
Biden’s campaign’s cornerstone was making the middle class racially inclusive. He says that America hasn’t been built by CEOs, Wall Street bankers, or hedge fund managers. The American middle class developed the country’s economy and society. Research suggests that in 2018, 52% of American adults fell in the middle-income group. Their annual household income was 2/3rds to double the national median ($48,500 – $1,45,500).
Compared with other advanced economies, America houses a proportionally smaller middle class. However, despite the Biden administration’s efforts, the country’s middle-class population has failed to find relief. The income disparity in the different middle-class groups is gradually increasing. Only 20% of the middle-income group in the country has managed to recover from the recession, while the remaining 80% is still struggling to achieve financial freedom.
1. Questionable Credits
While the wage class of the United States was expecting the new budget to help cut down poverty and increase disposable income, the true picture conveys an opposite message. Biden claimed credit for the COVID-19 vaccine and the post-pandemic employment surge, but both were largely attributable to former President Trump’s policies. Biden’s plans couldn’t bring any significant positive changes for the middle-class people. They still need to struggle to secure their financial future.
2. Unfulfilled Commitments
The proposed budget claims that more jobs will be created with the expansion in the manufacturing sector. This will further boost worker employment. In addition, they will be entitled to justified pay and conditions. While Biden expects the initiative to cover the job losses after the pandemic, there are wrenching disconnects in his promises and actions. Using clever wordplay, the Biden administration has expanded the definition of “infrastructure” to encompass many areas.
However, in Washington, “infrastructure” has long been synonymous with “pork,” referring to funds dispersed without a clear definition for political gain. These funds often create temporary, low-skilled jobs, as the Biden administration has emphasized in their push for overall employment numbers.
Typically, local construction firms benefit from this type of spending. What sets the Biden initiative apart is its inclusion of “electric and electronic pork,” which essentially benefits his allies in the tech and alternative energy industries by building networks and energy systems to support their businesses. As a result, even social media giants may reap the benefits and become part of the “middle-class family.”
3. Adverse Effects of Elevated Taxes
Raising taxes to the levels proposed by Biden has previously reduced federal revenues and destroyed private-sector jobs. With many small businesses struggling after the pandemic, these tax increases could severely blow the American job market.
Moreover, the considerable expenditure he envisages will likely propel America’s debt beyond 100% of total GDP, a historical high that may create room for defaulting on American debt. The exponential rise in inflation due to this mounting debt will not permit a stimulus package with zero interest rates similar to that of the Obama era.
Consequently, it would necessitate a substantial hike in interest rates, potentially leading to a market collapse and surging unemployment.
How Middle Class Should Prepare to Adapt to the Biden Budget
Overall, Biden’s spending plans are highly perilous. They appear to be an unrestrained shopping spree throughout the progressive marketplace, which is expected to have a disastrous outcome. The much-touted “Biden Boom” could transform into the “Biden Bust.” There are no chunks of relief on taxes or cost of living, which can elevate the financial burden of the middle class.
Given this scenario, the wage class of the United States should start planning their finances wisely. To manage a shift in the proportion of expenses, it’s important to have a more adaptable investment portfolio. The investments should have the potential to be liquidated to pay off a loan, fund a part of the education cost, or be used as collateral for a low-interest loan.
Furthermore, middle-class households should start optimizing the use of physical assets, which include cars and jewelry, and everything acquired through income. This way, they can equip themselves with an anti-inflation shield, which, in turn, may help the wage class adapt to the proposed Biden Budget.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here are answers to some frequently asked questions about Biden’s approach to combat recession and inflation.
1. What is in the US government budget for 2023?
The United States Federal Budget for 2023 includes several key elements. They include $5.8 trillion in federal spending, a $1.2 trillion deficit, and discretionary spending of $1.6 trillion. In addition, the budget focuses on job creation and infrastructure progress.
2. What does America spend the most money on?
The US federal budget usually spends on social security, healthcare, income security, education, and training. Besides, the economy invests in employment, veteran benefits, social services, and defense. On the other hand, the primary revenue sources include payroll and income taxes.
3. How much is the federal government’s support for health programs and services?
The federal government’s provision of support for health programs and services comes in the form of direct spending on programs and services and tax expenditures. In fiscal year (FY) 2023, the federal government allocated $1.9 trillion out of $6.4 trillion in net federal outlays for domestic and global health programs and services, which represents approximately 29% of the total amount,
4. How is the congressional budget set?
Usually, Congress leverages a ‘budget allocation’ to decide how much money the government should spend and collect in taxes. This plan may also have special instructions called “reconciliation instructions.” The instructions can make budget alteration easier.
The post Middle-Class Just Got Clobbered by Biden’s New Budget and Wage Class Warfare, How To Prepare appeared first on Due. | US Federal Policies |
Key events15m agoDemocrats edge towards Senate majority as counting continuesShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureDemocrats edge towards Senate majority as counting continuesGood morning, US politics blog readers. Ballots are still being counted three days after Tuesday’s midterms, and it seems like Democrats may have a shot at taking control of the Senate again. While the Associated Press hasn’t called the race, there are signs that senator Mark Kelly has won reelection in Arizona, though the fate of Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto is still up in the air. If both triumph, Joe Biden’s allies win control of the chamber for another two years. But if only one does, the run-off election for Georgia’s Senate seat set for 6 December will determine control. And that’s to say nothing of the House, where several key races are yet to be called. What a week.Here’s a look at what’s going on today: Democrats worried they could lose the governor’s mansion in blue-state Oregon amid a backlash over crime, homeless and the state’s unpopular incumbent. Their fears were allayed last night when the Associated Press called the race for Democrat Tina Kotek. Far-right Republican Lauren Boebert is edging closer to reelection despite a surprisingly strong challenge from Democrat Adam Frisch. In Nevada’s Senate race, Democrat Cortez Masto is slowly cutting into her Republican challenger Adam Laxalt’s lead as mail-in ballots are counted. | US Federal Elections |
A Las Vegas, Nevada man was arrested earlier this month and now faces federal charges after he allegedly threatened to kidnap, assault and murder a U.S. senator.
The Department of Justice said according to a criminal complaint, 43-year-old John Anthony Miller left several threatening voicemails for the office of a U.S. senator between Oct. 11 and Oct. 19.
Fox News confirmed voicemails were left for Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., who is Jewish.
The criminal complaint said on Oct. 17, Miller threatened to assault, kidnap, or even murder Rosen – who was not named in the complaint – with intent to impede, intimidate or interfere with her duties as a Senator.
The voicemails are filled with profanity and detailed in the criminal complaint.
For example, Miller said in one of the voicemails, "All these [expletive]ing lies is in your [expletive]ing hands, you [expletive]ing [expletive], and I’m gonna [expletive]ing see you soon, you [expletive]ing sellout [expletive]ing [expletive] [expletive]."
The next day, Miller went to the Lloyd D. George Courthouse in Las Vegas and told officials he was going to see the U.S. senator and refused to cooperate with a court security guard.
Ultimately, he was denied entry into the courthouse, became upset and started yelling and shouting profanities.
On Oct. 19, Miller left more voicemails for Rosen, including one when he asked if the senator had any family members who were Israeli settlers, suggesting if she did, he was pretty sure she would not make it illegal for them to come back to the U.S.
"...450 thousand of ‘em are American and are able to co-commit war crimes and come back and forth. Huh? Yeah, I-I-I pretty sure she is. Pretty sure she is. And she ain’t gon do a damn thing," the criminal complaint claims Miller said. "She lets her own family members kill these Pe-Palestinians in the West Bank. The Christians in the West Bank. Senator, I’m sorry to say, but yah know what, you’re a piece of [expletive] and you’re gonna burn in [expletive]ing [expletive] for your [expletive]ing crimes."
Miller was arrested on Oct. 26, and now faces one count of threatening a federal official.
Miller is expected to appear before U.S. Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on Nov. 13, 2023. | US Federal Policies |
The federal government is closing in on the $31.4 trillion borrowing limit, meaning a high-stakes fight over raising the debt ceiling is fast approaching. An estimate from the Peter G. Peterson Foundation places the nation’s debt at $31.39 trillion and counting on Wednesday, just a hair below the limit set more than a year ago. This doesn’t mean the debt ceiling will have to be lifted this week — or even this month. The Treasury Department can generally use what are known as extraordinary measures to put off an actual debt crisis. But it’s clear the fight is edging closer, putting the White House on a collision course with a new House majority demanding deep discretionary spending cuts in exchange for any increase to the debt ceiling. “I think this is gonna be the defining moment of the year,” Maya MacGuineas, president for the Committee of the Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said, adding it’s “certainly possible that we’ll hit that limit this month, or next month.” The “extraordinary measures” used by Treasury generate cash to help the government pay its debts, which include halting pension fund contributions and prematurely redeeming Treasury bonds, could run out sometime in July, according to an estimate from the CRFB. That means Congress will need to act by mid-summer at the latest to prevent the government from defaulting on its debt. Just getting close to the so-called “X-date” poses risks. After the 2011 debt ceiling fight between Republicans and President Obama, S&P downgraded the nation’s long-term credit rating. Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) promised that any debt ceiling increase would be paired with spending cuts to win over his GOP opponents in last week’s Speakership fight. But Democrats will likely refuse to go along with those cuts, setting up a stalemate. “If you’re going to ask for an increase in the limit, at some point in time, you’ve got to sit down and say why are we hitting the limit? Why are we maxing out the credit card?” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters Tuesday. Experts say that a default on the federal debt could upend the financial system and send the U.S. economy into a recession, in addition to pausing government benefits such as Social Security and Medicare. A 2021 report from Moody’s Analytics found that a default would cost the U.S. roughly 6 million jobs and $15 trillion in household wealth. Damage to the U.S. credit rating would likely cause interest rates for homes and cars to spike. There’s also concern about how it would impact the country’s standing on the global stage. “We borrow a lot of money in world markets, and the U.S. Treasury bond is the single most valuable risk-free security there is,” said David Wessel, director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal & Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. “So, why would we want to put in doubt the possibility that we might not be able to pay our obligations?” A recent report from The Associated Press indicated the government could hit the debt ceiling as soon as this week. The Treasury Department declined to comment on the report to The Hill on Wednesday, but members also stress that point is not so far in the future. Rep. Brendan Boyle (Penn.), top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, told The Hill on Wednesday that the public treasury debt statements reflect that the country is “rapidly approaching the statutory debt limit, which will require the use of extraordinary measures.” Experts are expecting more clarity after tax season heats up in April and the government collects a heap of revenue, which can have a significant impact on when the nation hits the debt ceiling. “That’s where we find out whether it will come in at above or below expectations, and will give us another sense for how long those extraordinary measures combined with incoming revenues will be able to fund the government,” MacGuineas said. Among the concessions some House Republicans have floated in recent months are potential reforms to Social Security, which is on track to insolvency. But some Republicans have also sought to dial down the focus on such proposals since the party took control of the House last week. “What we have been very clear about is, we’re not going to touch the benefits that are going to people relying on the benefits under Social Security and Medicare,” Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said during a recent appearance on CNN. “But we all have to be honest about sitting at the table and figuring out how we’re going to make those work, how we’re going to deal with defense spending and how we’re going to deal with nondefense discretionary spending,” he said. Roy is among the more than a dozen GOP members who voted against McCarthy’s Speakership bid last week until the leader agreed to several key concessions, including new limits on discretionary spending. That attitude has encouraged some budget hawks, though some experts downplay the chances of a significant deal as part of any compromise in a divided Congress. “Congress should decide what do they want to spend more money on, and how do they want to change taxes, and they ought to do that in a way that looks over the next several years decades,” Wessel said, adding “using the debt ceiling to do that is like playing Russian roulette and putting a gun to your head.” | US Federal Policies |
The House of Representatives is gearing up to vote Tuesday afternoon on Speaker Mike Johnson’s plan to avoid a government shutdown – the Louisiana Republican’s first big test just three weeks after taking the top leadership role.
With government funding set to expire on Friday, congressional leaders have acknowledged the need for a short-term extension of last year’s priorities, known as a continuing resolution (CR). Johnson’s new "laddered" approach would set two different funding deadlines for Congress’ 12 individual appropriations bills – a Jan. 19 date for four of the less traditionally controversial bills, and Feb. 2 for the others, including defense spending.
But the bill’s lack of any spending cuts or conservative policy riders – not usually the norm for a CR – has generated significant pushback from the right wing of the House Republican Conference.
The hardline-right House Freedom Caucus released a statement Tuesday morning formally opposing the bill, explaining "it contains no spending reductions, no border security, and not a single meaningful win for the American People."
"Republicans must stop negotiating against ourselves over fears of what the Senate may do with the promise ‘roll over today and we’ll fight tomorrow,’" the statement said. "While we remain committed to working with Speaker Johnson, we need bold change."
Johnson himself defended the bill on "Fox & Friends" Tuesday morning, "It's a paradigm shift, because what it will do... it will prevent the dreaded Christmas omnibus spending bill where thousands of pages are hoisted upon the members at the last moment."
But the growing GOP opposition spurred concerns of the bill failing in a preliminary rule vote before the measure could even get to the House floor.
It forced leadership to switch tactics instead to pass the CR "under suspension," forgoing the initial rule vote to bring the bill straight to the floor. However, passing a bill under suspension requires two-thirds of House support rather than the standard simple majority.
Democrats had been wary of the "laddered" deadlines in the CR, but their leaders in both the House and Senate suggested their party could support Johnson’s plan since it’s only an extension of last year’s funding.
"For now, I am pleased that Speaker Johnson seems to be moving in our direction by advancing a CR that does not include the highly partisan cuts that Democrats have warned against," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on Monday.
"The speaker’s proposal is far from perfect, but the most important thing is that it refrains from making steep cuts, while also extending funding for defense in the second tranche of bills in February, not the first in January."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., told NPR on Tuesday morning, "Our current evaluation of the continuing resolution presented by Speaker Johnson is that it does not include extraneous and extreme right wing policy provisions."
Jeffries told reporters on his way into a closed-door House Democratic Caucus meeting that he and other members of his leadership team were "open-minded" about the proposal.
The House and Senate must agree on some way to fund the government past Nov. 17, or risk a partial shutdown. | US Congress |
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers claim the intelligence community is concealing information about unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) and scuttling attempts to release the information to the public.
The group of congressional leaders led by Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna said the Pentagon and other agencies needed to grant Congress, as well as the American people, more answers to the unidentified objects, some of which have been observed flying in ways that appear impossible with current technology.
"The American people are not stupid, we can handle this information. Other countries have declassified similar information, and it's time that the United States stepped up to the plate and did the same," said Florida Republican Rep. Anna Paulina Luna.
The UAP issue exploded earlier this autumn after whistleblower David Grusch alleged that the intelligence community "has not conducted any audit, inspection, evaluation or review" of supposed programs to investigate the strange flying objects.
"In my short time in office, it has become very clear and evident that there is an apparent attempt to an orchestrated attempt to deny this access, and it appears that that is coming from the intelligence community," Luna said.
Grusch will grant permission for lawmakers to view his report, Luna said Thursday, but lawmakers were still baffled at the secrecy from the government as well as other members of Congress.
"Why are folks who are in charge of committees, whether they are in the House or in the Senate, opposed to this disclosure?" said Rep. Jacob Moskowitz, D-Fla.
"This is not about whether there are aliens or there are not aliens," he added, but the response to questions about the UFOs. "The problem is when we ask those questions, rather than being provided information that would prove it false, they stonewall the information and that is what piques the interest."
An amendment to the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) offered by Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., would create a baseline of transparency and declassification of information regarding UFOs, which some lawmakers view as just a starting point.
"It is insufficient though to seek this transparency from the Department of Defense alone. We have to have cooperation, so that all 50 authorities through the intelligence community are also subject to review [and] the FAA, the NSA, the FBI, even state and local authorities that have information are able to have that cataloged, assessed and then put out before the public," said Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.
"Whether it's little green men, American technology, or worse, technology from the CCP, we need to know. There needs to be better cooperation between agencies, and Congress has a right, an obligation to know. This is about transparency, this is about accountability. The truth is out there, and the American people are ready." | US Congress |
Police investigators in Hoover, Alabama, have put together a timeline of the roughly 50 hours during which Carlethia "Carlee" Nichole Russell, a 25-year-old nursing student, wasafter she called 911 last week from the side of a highway.
"We pretty much know exactly what took place from the time she left work until the 911 call," Hoover Police Chief Nick Derzis said at a news conference Wednesday.
Russell briefly recounted her ordeal to investigatorson the night of Saturday, July 15, two days after being reported missing.
Here's what we know so far.
The days before Russell disappeared
Police on Wednesday listed some "very strange" online searches that Russell made in the days leading up to her disappearance. The search queries included:
July 11, 7:30 a.m. — "Do you have to pay for an Amber alert"
July 13, 1:03 a.m. — "How to take money from a register without being caught"
July 13, 2:13 a.m. — "Birmingham bus station"
July 13, 2:35 a.m. — "One way bus ticket from Birmingham to Nashville" with a departure date of July 13
July 13, 12:10 p.m. — "The movie 'Taken'"
Before her 911 call
Thursday, July 13, 8:20 p.m. — Russell left her workplace in Birmingham, about 10 miles from Hoover, at around 8:20 p.m. local time, Hoover police said.
Russell then ordered food from a nearby business at The Colonnade shopping mall and picked it up, police said. She stopped at a Target on Highway 280 to buy some granola bars and Cheez-Its. She stayed in the parking lot until 9:21 p.m., according to police.
Russell calls 911
Thursday, July 13, 9:34 p.m. — Just after 9:30 p.m., Russell called 911 to report a toddler on the highway, saying she had stopped to check on the boy, police said. While she was on the phone with a dispatcher about the toddler, Russell traveled in her car about 600 yards, the distance of about six football fields, Derzis said.
Russell disappears and is reported missing
Thursday, July 13, 9:36 p.m. — After her 911 call, which lasted less than two minutes, Russell called a family member, police said.
"She went missing during that conversation sometime after 9:36 PM," police wrote on Facebook.
The family member on the phone with Russell "lost contact with" her during the call, "but the line remained open," Hoover police Lt. Daniel Lowe said. Talitha Russell, Carlee's mother, told reporters that her daughter was on the phone with her sister-in-law at the time that her voice dropped out.
Russell's mother then called the police and said Russell had been on the phone with a relative, and that relative had heard Russell scream.
Hoover officers arrived on scene within five minutes of being dispatched, police said. Russell was gone, but officers found her car, cellphone, wig and purse. Her Apple Watch was in the bag. The snacks she had purchased at Target were not in the car or at the scene, police disclosed.
The 49 hours during which Russell was missing
After returning home, Russell gave investigators her account of what happened on the night of July 13. She said a man came out of the woods and mumbled that he was checking on the child, she said, according to police. Russell told officers the man then forced her over a fence and into a car.
Russell said the next thing she remembers is being in the trailer of a truck with the man, who Russell said had orange hair, and was accompanied by a woman. She also said she could hear a baby crying.
Russell told police she escaped, but was recaptured and put into a car and blindfolded. Russell said she was then taken to a house, where she was undressed.
The next day, she said, the woman fed her cheese crackers and played with her hair.
Russell said at some point she was put back into a vehicle. She claims she was able to escape while it was in the West Hoover area, and ran through the woods to get home.
A massive search was launched after Russell was reported missing. The search involved local, state and federal agencies, police said. A large group of volunteers organized by Russell's parents also assisted in the search effort.
On Saturday, Hoover police released a new photo of Russell in an effort drum up more leads, and a reward totaling at least $50,000 was offered for her safe return, which included $20,000 from an anonymous source, $5,000 raised by CrimeStoppers of Metro Alabama, and $25,000 from real estate company Keller Williams, according to CBS Birmingham affiliate WIAT.
Russell is found alive
Saturday, July 15, 10:45 p.m. — Russell returned home on foot, about 49 hours after she went missing. Police received a call at around 10:45 p.m. notifying them of her return. Officers and medics responded and Russell was taken to a hospital for evaluation, Hoover police Capt. Keith Czeskleba said.
"This investigation is not over," Derzis said. "We're still working this case and we're working this case until we uncover every piece of evidence that helps us account for the 49 hours that Carlee Russell was missing."
— Aliza Chasan, Camille C. Knox and Faris Tanyos contributed to reporting.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Former President Trump on Tuesday blasted House Majority Leader Tom Emmer as a "globalist RINO," warning that electing him speaker of the House "would be a tragic mistake."
Emmer won the Republican nomination to be the next speaker of the House on Tuesday. Emmer is the third nominee since the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy earlier this month.
But even as he secured the majority of votes in the House Republican Conference meeting Tuesday, Trump, the 2024 Republican presidential frontrunner, slammed his nomination, and urged Republicans not to vote for him on the House floor.
"I have many wonderful friends wanting to be Speaker of the House, and some are truly great Warriors," Trump posted on his Truth Social Tuesday.
Trump endorsed Jordan, R-Ohio, to serve as speaker of the House earlier this month.
"RINO Tom Emmer, who I do not know well, is not one of them," Trump said. "He never respected the Power of a Trump Endorsement, or the breadth and scope of MAGA—MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"
A "RINO" stands for "Republican In Name Only."
Trump said Emmer "fought me all the way, and actually spent more time defending Ilhan Omar, than he did me."
"He is totally out-of-touch with Republican Voters," Trump said. "I believe he has now learned his lesson, because he is saying that he is Pro-Trump all the way, but who can ever be sure? Has he only changed because that’s what it takes to win?"
Trump warned that the Republican Party "cannot take that chance, because that’s not where the America First Voters are."
"Voting for a Globalist RINO like Tom Emmer would be a tragic mistake!" Trump posted.
Trump's comments come as Emmer's team has been seeking to portray the majority whip as in-line with Trump. Reports say Emmer keeps an autographed photo of himself with the former president in his office.
Emmer reportedly spoke to Trump over the phone this weekend, as he announced his bid for speaker, but so did several of his opponents.
Emmer had led voting Tuesday morning amid multiple votes within the House GOP conference on secret ballots to determine who would be their nominee to pick up the gavel. On the fifth vote, Emmer secured a majority and became the nominee.
Emmer is only able to afford four defections from fellow Republicans when the vote eventually goes to the House floor.
Emmer is the third nominee chosen by the House Republican Conference since McCarthy, R-Calif., was historically voted out of his role.
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Oct. 3, led a motion to vacate. All House Democrats and eight House Republicans, led by Gaetz, voted to remove McCarthy as speaker— a first in U.S. history.
Since then, House Republicans tried to elect Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., and Jordan, but neither were able to secure votes on the House floor, facing significant Republican opposition.
House Republicans also sought to empower Speaker Pro-tempore Patrick McHenry last week, but the effort also failed.
This is the second-longest period the House has ever gone without a speaker. It lacked a speaker for two months in late 1855 and early 1856. | US Congress |
The United States is looking down the barrel of yet another possible self-imposed debt default. House Republicans, now effectively led by the most deranged members of the Freedom Caucus, are openly promising to take America’s full faith and credit hostage to extract massive concessions from President Joe Biden and his fellow Democrats.The dire consequences of a default are well documented. U.S. debt is practically the foundation of the global financial system. If the rest of the world comes to doubt its reliability, a major recession is likely, if not a shattering financial crisis.Without the coin, the president would violate the law one way or another. Yet there is one aspect of the debt limit issue that has gotten little coverage: It would be just as illegal to obey the limit as it would be to ignore it. If Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, they will put the president in a bind: requiring him to spend, but forbidding him from borrowing the necessary money. Biden would have no way out — unless he opts for the platinum coin loophole. Without the coin, the president would violate the law one way or another. It’s hard to see why he would choose the option that causes an economic crisis.Let's review the situation. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said that on Thursday the department will begin on various accounting shuffles to stave off actually breaching the debt ceiling, but the tricks are estimated to run out as soon as June. Republicans have not agreed on a set of demands for ransoming the world economy, but some hard-liners have mentioned one dollar of spending cuts for each new dollar of debt, cutting spending back to 2022 fiscal year levels, repeal of new funding for the IRS, and rollbacks of abortion rights. In the meantime, the House GOP is reportedly working up a payment prioritization plan that would defund everything except interest payments on the national debt, Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits and the military.Basically, they want Democrats to repeal all their hard-won legislation from last year, or to shut off something like a quarter of the government — including “Medicaid, food safety inspections, border control and air traffic control,” per The Washington Post —indefinitely. But any such measures would have to be passed by both Senate Democrats and Biden, both of whom have dismissed any concessions out of hand. Moreover, experts agree that prioritizing payments would be logistically impossible, given the huge volume of payments the government makes every day.On the other side, during the lame-duck session Congress passed a $1.7 trillion spending bill that keeps the government funded through September, which Biden signed into law on Dec. 29. That’s the legal bind: Congress instructed the executive branch to operate the government at specific spending levels through the end of the fiscal year, but now is refusing to grant it the borrowing authority necessary to carry out its own instructions.If the debt ceiling is hit, and the coin is ruled out, then Biden must pick which legal violation he will commit. All this is why the famous platinum coin is Biden’s most legally defensible option, despite how silly it sounds. A 1997 law clearly grants the treasury secretary the ability to mint platinum coins of any denomination, in part with the intended purpose of making profit for the government through seignorage. If Congress says that the president must spend, cannot borrow, but can mint, then the way is clear for a legal stickler. Mint a trillion or two in platinum coins, deposit them at the Federal Reserve, and hey, presto, problem solved. Economically, it would be virtually identical to borrowing the money, and presumably at some point the ceiling could be raised and the coin spending replaced with normal debt.Yet administration lawyers apparently disagree. Yellen has further said the coin is a “gimmick” that “compromises the independence of the Fed, conflating monetary and fiscal policy.” This is a weak argument in context — it’s hard to see why a gimmick that allegedly erodes the (highly overrated) independence of the Fed would be worse than financial Armageddon.But at any rate, it is profoundly odd that both the administration and nearly all mainstream media coverage treat the debt limit as an ironclad legal obstacle — but do not grant the same treatment to the spending law. “Once the government exhausts its extraordinary measures and runs out of cash, it would be unable to issue new debt,” Alan Rappeport wrote at The New York Times, as if it’s an actual physical mechanism that would forcibly prevent new borrowing. Nowhere does he mention that Biden would also be violating the law if he fails to spend as ordered.If the debt ceiling is hit, and the coin is ruled out, then Biden must pick which legal violation he will commit. Surely any sane person would choose the option that doesn’t cause drastic and utterly pointless harm to the global economy. That choice becomes even clearer when one considers that the debt ceiling itself is arguably unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment, which states, “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law … shall not be questioned.” As President Abraham Lincoln argued when Chief Justice Roger B. Taney tried to stop him from locking up a man accused of treason during the Civil War, “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated?”House Republicans, most of whom voted to overturn the 2020 election, are utterly in thrall to QAnon lunatics. They are ignorant and unhinged enough to blow up the world economy either so they can blame it on Biden or simply revel in the resulting chaos and destruction. The idea that it could be a bipartisan vote, as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has advocated, is wishful thinking. Something like the platinum coin will very likely be necessary to stave off disaster. Biden must steel himself to break the debt ceiling forever using his own power.Ryan CooperRyan Cooper is managing editor of The American Prospect. His work has appeared in The Nation, The New Republic and The Washington Post. He is the author of the book "How Are You Going to Pay for That: Smart Answers to the Dumbest Question in Politics." | US Federal Policies |
US Democratic Senator John Fetterman has checked himself into a hospital near Washington DC to receive treatment for severe depression, his office said.
The Pennsylvania lawmaker has faced depression "off and on throughout his life" a statement said.
He was elected in November and suffered a debilitating stroke last year while campaigning for the seat.
Last week, he spent two days in hospital after being admitted. He was reported to be feeling light-headed.
Mr Fetterman, 53, has struggled with depression throughout his life, but it grew more "severe" in recent weeks, his chief of staff Adam Jentleson said in a statement on Thursday.Â
The aide said the senator's decision to seek treatment at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center came after consultation with the acting physician in Congress, Dr Brian Monahan.
"John agreed, and he is receiving treatment on a voluntary basis," Mr Jentleson said.
"After examining John, the doctors at Walter Reed told us that John is getting the care he needs, and will soon be back to himself."Â
Mr Fetterman's wife, Gisele Barreto Fetterman, praised him on social media for seeking treatment.
"After what he's been through in the past year, there's probably no one who wanted to talk about his own health less than John," she tweeted. "I'm so proud of him for asking for help and getting the care he needs."
On Thursday morning, Mr Fetterman was notably absent from a hearing of the Senate Agriculture Committee called to discuss nutrition programmes.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in Congress, tweeted that he is glad that Mr Fetterman "is getting the help he needs and deserves".
"Millions of Americans, like John, struggle with depression each day," he continued, adding that he looks forward to his return to the Senate.
Mr Fetterman was admitted to George Washington University Hospital last week after feeling unwell during a Democratic retreat.
Testing later ruled out the possibility that he had suffered a second stroke.
After a stroke in May 2022, he had to undergo nearly three hours of surgery and spent nine days in hospital.
When he returned to the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, with significant speech impairments, his health came under scrutiny in an increasingly tight race.
But he went on to comfortably defeat his Republican opponent - Mehmet Oz, better known as the celebrity surgeon Dr Oz - in November's midterm election.
Mr Fetterman's victory handed Democrats a wafer-thin majority in the Senate, the upper chamber of Congress. | US Congress |
Donald Trump's 2016 flagship policy was famously "Build the Wall." The early rounds of the 2024 campaign have been dominated by Trump's stranglehold over the competition, as well as his multiple court cases. Underneath the bluster and chaos, the former president has rolled out a significant number of new policy proposals that have gone without scrutiny, until now. This Washington Examiner series, Trumpism 2.0, will take a closer look at this policy, if it's realistic, and if it'll help Trump secure a second term.
Former President Donald Trump is the undisputed frontrunner for the 2024 Republican nomination and is polling competitively against President Joe Biden, but questions remain about who would staff his administration in a second term and how committed they would be to his populist agenda.
Trump and his allies have outlined an ambitious agenda of tariffs, sweeping changes to the federal bureaucracy, and drastic actions to curb crime, but the Washington conventional wisdom is that personnel is policy.
“It’s never really been decided whether personality or populism was the bigger draw for Trump,” said a Republican strategist who requested anonymity to speak candidly about the former president. “Maybe that will be decided next year.”
Those close to Trump believe he now possesses a better understanding of the need to staff an administration with like-minded people. “The federal government isn’t the Trump Organization,” a second veteran GOP operative said. “They are not employees and subordinates in the same way that President Trump is accustomed to.”
Trump has publicly emphasized the need for greater loyalty among his political appointees. He has also acknowledged there was room for improvement in his hiring.
“We had some great people, I had great people,” Trump told Tucker Carlson. “We’ll have even better people if we do this because now I know Washington. Before I didn’t know Washington.”
“But guys like [former Attorney General] Bill Barr were terrible,” Trump continued. “I would say Bushies. I say that with respect to the Bush family, but they were Bushies and it just doesn’t work out for us.”
Even these concessions raise an important question: Is Trump going to define who is a fit in a new administration by policy alignment or by their views on subjects like the 2020 election, which he has continued to maintain was “rigged” and stolen from him?
“There were people loyal to Trump, people who agreed with Trump, and people who were competent,” a veteran of the administration said of Trump’s first-term team. “There weren’t many who were all three.”
When talking about who might be part of a second Trump administration, a few names consistently come up. Stephen Miller, the immigration-focused adviser who came to the White House from Jeff Sessions’s Senate office and who has since founded America First Legal. Russ Vought, a former head of the Trump Office of Management and Budget, similarly started the Center for Renewing America.
These groups, like Brooke Rollins’s America First Policy Institute and the Jim DeMint-founded Conservative Partnership Institute, have been incubators of ideas from which Trump World draws. Even the Heritage Foundation, long a source of policy ammunition for Republican administrations, has moved in a more populist direction under the leadership of Kevin Roberts.
Many loyalists from the first Trump term could be found working for him a second time: social media ace Dan Scavino, body man turned personnel director John McEntee, national security officials Robert O’Brien, Richard Grenell, Kash Patel, and John Ratcliffe would likely be on the list. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi defended Trump during his first impeachment trial and has remained close to him.
But Trump’s legal challenges have ensnared some of those who might have otherwise been enlisted again. This includes former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, trade policy guru Peter Navarro, and former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark. Meadows and Clark have both been indicted along with Trump in the Fulton County Georgia RICO case. Navarro was convicted of contempt of Congress for defying the Jan. 6 select committee’s subpoenas, though he has vowed to appeal.
“Everybody in that frigging White House that I went in with on 2017, January, is facing massive legal bills and possible prison time because these SOBs want to keep Trump out of the White House, Navarro told Newsmax.
The Biden campaign blasts "MAGA Republicans" at every opportunity, including in a speech by the president Thursday denouncing "MAGAnomics." While this messaging originated in a Biden White House focus group, the attacks largely resemble traditional lines about Republicans cutting taxes and entitlement spending with some more novel talk about threats to democracy included.
Personnel was a huge problem in the first Trump administration. There was high turnover and frequent infighting. There were ideological disagreements, with a mix of populists, older-line movement conservatives, and the “Bushies” Trump alluded to in his Carlson interview. Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump were centrists by inclination.
As members of Trump’s family, they outlasted populist Steve Bannon. Economic adviser Gary Cohn was described as being part of a clique of “New York Democrats” inside the White House.Trump broke with Sessions, who roaded-tested a lot of Trumpist policies in the Senate, in the same acrimonious fashion he later did Barr.
The movement conservatives and “Bushies” were often more experienced in government than the populist upstarts, which meant they often won internal fights. There was also a desire to heal rifts from the contentious Republican primaries, which led to the prioritization of policy goals Trump shared with the GOP congressional leadership, like judges and tax cuts, over the border wall or infrastructure.
“Infrastructure Week” became a punchline in the Trump White House while much of the shared GOP agenda was enacted. But in a press conference after announcing his retirement from the Senate, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT) told reporters that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and former House Speaker Paul Ryan deserved credit for the conservative Supreme Court majority and the tax cuts, respectively, rather than Trump.
McConnell and Trump are no longer on a speaking basis. Ryan left Congress and has called himself "Never Again Trump."
Trump’s former Vice President Mike Pence is not only running against him for the 2024 nomination but has increasingly spoken out against Trump-era changes to the GOP. “Today,” Pence said in what was billed as a major speech, “a populist movement is rising in the Republican Party. This growing faction would substitute our faith in limited government and traditional values for an agenda stitched together by little else than personal grievances and performative outrage.”
Some of these disagreements still exist inside Trump’s orbit today. His supply-side allies like Art Laffer and Larry Kudlow are pushing for more and deeper tax cuts rather than tariff hikes. Others may have been alleviated. Kushner and Ivanka are not active in the 2024 Trump campaign, while the more conservative Donald Trump Jr. and daughter-in-law Lara Trump remain fixtures.
What ultimately matters most is who Trump wishes to appoint and how invested he remains in their policy portfolios.
That as much as the 2024 Republican presidential primaries is a process that still may need to play itself out. | US Federal Elections |
The shocking revelation that New York City architect Rex Heuermann had been charged with three murders in connection to women found dead along Long Island's Gilgo Beach provided some answers about the decade-old case. But it also generated just as many new questions.
Heuermann has been charged with the murders of Melissa Barthelemy, Megan Waterman and Amber Costello, and has been called the "prime suspect" in the death of a fourth woman, Maureen Brainard-Barnes. All four women were found in the same area of the beach, bound in the same fashion and with three covered in burlap.
However, six other bodies were found in the same area in late 2010 and early 2011, and police investigators said the investigation into Heuermann is far from over.
Here are some of the biggest questions that remain even after Heuermann's arrest.
What about the other 6 bodies found on Gilgo Beach? Who were the victims?
Heuermann has only been tied to four murders, known colloquially as the Gilgo Four because they were the first four women discovered in December 2010. The four remains were found along the beach about 500 feet from each other, according to police.
In the ensuing months, police found four more sets of remains along the same stretch of beach and two other sets of remains on nearby beaches.
On March 29, 2011, police found the remains of Jessica Taylor, a 20-year-old sex worker who had gone missing in 2003. Other parts of Taylor’s body had been found nearly eight years before in Manorville, New York, in eastern Long Island.
A week later, on April 4, 2011, police found the remains of an unidentified woman and a toddler about a mile and a half east of Taylor's remains and a little over 2 miles east of the Gilgo Four. The woman would later be identified as Valerie Mack, whose partial remains had been discovered in Manorville in 2000. Police have suggested there may be a connection to Taylor's remains, some of which were also found in Manorville.
The baby's remains were later discovered through DNA evidence to be the child of a woman whose remains were found on April 11, 2011, in Nassau County, Long Island. Other parts of her remains were found in 1997.
On the same day the woman and young child were discovered, an unidentified Asian male was discovered closer to the remains of the Gilgo Four. The person has never been identified. Authorities said the person was about 17 to 23 years old and had died five to 10 years before being discovered.
The final set of remains often tied to the case were those of an unidentified woman found near Tobay Beach in Nassau County on April 11, 2010. She has also never been identified, and, like the mother of the infant, was not found on Gilgo Beach like the other eight victims.
Is Heuermann tied to any other murders?
While police aren't naming any other victims in connection with Heuermann, they are leaving the door open to the possibility that he was involved in more killings. Investigators spent all weekend going through Heuermann's home in Massapequa Park looking for evidence.
"There's more work to do in this investigation regarding the other victims of the Gilgo Beach bodies," Suffolk County Police Commissioner Rodney Harrison said Friday.
Heuermann's DNA has been entered into a statewide database, and detectives are now checking to see if his DNA or behavior fit unsolved murders and missing persons cases in New York City, an NYPD official told ABC News.
However, investigators have long believed it was possible there was more than one killer because of the different conditions of the victims. Additionally, the wooded stretches along Ocean Parkway were long known as dumping grounds for bodies.
Why were police searching for the bodies and how is Shannan Gilbert connected?
Police discovered the first four women while searching for Shannan Gilbert, a missing sex worker who had called police after fleeing from a home in the area, saying, "They are trying to kill me," according to the family's lawyer, John Ray. Gilbert had gone missing in May 2010, but authorities were unable to locate her or her remains throughout the summer despite several searches.
It wasn't until December that Suffolk County police came across the remains of the Gilgo Four, and then the subsequent other bodies.
Gilbert's remains were finally found in December 2011 in nearby Oak Beach.
In January 2020, then-Suffolk County Police Commissioner Geraldine Hart said Gilbert's death "doesn't match the pattern of the Gilgo Beach homicides." The medical examiner has officially ruled her death as an accidental drowning. Gilbert's family, however, has been steadfast in saying that they believe she was murdered.
Why did it take so long to arrest Rex Heuermann?
Authorities first discovered the bodies of the Gilgo Four in December 2010, but Heuermann wasn't arrested until almost 13 years later.
When announcing the arrest of Heuermann on Friday, Suffolk County District Attorney Ray Tierney credited the formation of a task force dedicated to solving the Gilgo Beach murders in January 2022 as a turning point in cracking the case.
On March 14, 2022, previous evidence led to Heuermann being identified as a suspect to investigators for the first time, according to court records. Shortly before Costello's disappearance, a man matching the description of Heuermann had shown up to her home as a client for her services, only for Costello to pull a ruse that ended up with her taking his money and a man chasing Heuermann from the home. The suspect was driving a Chevy Avalanche truck, as described by a witness interviewed after Costello's disappearance.
When investigators began searching for a man who owned a Chevy Avalanche in the area of Gilgo Beach, they came across Heuermann's name.
Another hindrance to investigators at the time of the discovery of the four bodies were strands of hair that could not be tested by available DNA methods at the time.
A female hair was discovered on a belt used to tie Brainard-Barnes' legs together, while two female hairs were discovered on Waterman -- one on the tape used to bind her body -- and one female hair was found on a piece of tape used to bind Costello's body. By using mitochondrial DNA testing not available in 2010, all of the hairs were determined to be from the same woman -- with more than a 99% match for Heuermann's wife, according to court documents. Police don't believe she was involved, as she was out of the country when the killings occurred, according to cellphone records noted in the court records, but that Heuermann had the hairs on his body.
Mitochondrial DNA testing was also done on a single male hair found on the burlap used to wrap Waterman's body, which was a 99.96% match for Heuermann himself.
What was the motive for the killings?
The biggest remaining question may be why, if the allegations are true, did Heuermann allegedly commit the murders?
The extensive bail application form that outlines how and why Heuermann was arrested makes only hints as to the motive. The court record outlines that Heuermann was regularly searching for "sadistic, torture-related pornography" and showed an interest in searching for other known serial killers, but it doesn't specifically provide a motive.
Harrison provided a simple explanation during Friday's press conference: "Rex Heuermann is a demon that walks among us."
ABC News' Aaron Katersky, Ella Torres and Emily Shapiro contributed to this report. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Newly released emails obtained by the Student Borrower Protection Center reveal employees at a student loan service provider in Missouri expressed confusion over the state’s attorney general placing the provider at the center of a lawsuit filed to block the Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.
The United States supreme court is expected to issue a ruling on a legal challenge to the president’s student debt forgiveness of up to $20,000 in the coming weeks. That challenge – filed by the Missouri attorney general and five other Republican-led states – and another challenge filed by the conservative advocacy organization, Job Creators Network, made it to the supreme court.
The Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority – or Mohela – is at the center of the challenge by the GOP-led states, claiming the loan service provider would lose revenue and face negative impacts over its financial obligations to Missouri. Consumer advocates, meanwhile, have pointed out that Mohela stands to gain revenue from Biden’s cancellation plan.
In court hearings on the challenges earlier this year, US supreme court justices questioned why Mohela did not bring its own legal challenges to Biden’s debt cancellation plan and how the Republican-led states could claim harm on their behalf.
Emails released since establish that Mohela employees expressed similar confusion.
“The [Missouri] state AG needed to claim that our borrowers were harmed for standing, so they’re making us look bad by filing this not only with [Missouri] on it, but especially bad because they filed it in [Missouri],” wrote a Mohela employee in September 2022.
Another Mohela employee asked in an October 2022 email: “just out of curiosity, is MOHELA apart of the lawsuit going on to prevent the loan forgiveness? Are we the bad guys?”
A fellow employee responded, “Mohela isn’t technically a part of that lawsuit, the Missouri AG is suing on their behalf. However, it’s all about the [Family Federal Education Loans] stuff, and since they changed the rules, that lawsuit should be ruled as lacking standing.”
Ella Azoulay, a Student Borrower Protection Center research and policy analyst, argued the emails confirmed the “partisan hack job” of Missouri’s lawsuit to block student debt relief.
The legal challenges have paused Biden’s student debt relief plan announced in August 2022. The relief plan would grant up to $20,000 in student debt relief for Pell grant recipients and up to $10,000 in student debt forgiveness for all other borrowers with annual incomes under $125,000. Nearly 26 million Americans had applied for relief under the plan by November 2022. | SCOTUS |
Elon Musk has fired Twitter's board of directors and appointed himself its sole member - as he tests the waters by asking users if they would pay for verification on the social media platform.According to a company filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, Bret Taylor, former chairman of the board, and Parag Agrawal, former chief executive, are among the nine ousted directors.
Mr Musk completed his $44bn takeover of the social media platform last week after months of legal wrangling.The world's richest man is considering major changes as he embarks on his first week as the company's new chief executive.He is flirting with the idea of asking users to pay for verification - known as the "blue tick" - granted to celebrities, politicians, business leaders and journalists.
Jason Calacanis, a venture capitalist who is working with Mr Musk, tweeted a poll asking users how much they would be willing to pay for the blue tick that Twitter uses to verify higher-profile accounts so others know it is really them. Twitter Due to your consent preferences, you’re not able to view this. Open Privacy Options Mr Musk replied to the poll saying: "Interesting". More on Elon Musk Elon Musk asks Twitter followers if he should bring back Vine Elon Musk denies report he is laying off Twitter workers early to avoid severance payouts Elon Musk tweets - then deletes - link to article with unfounded theory about Paul Pelosi attack In response to a user asking for help getting verified, Musk tweeted on Sunday: "The whole verification process is being revamped right now."On the same day that Mr Musk bought Twitter, the billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin Talal of Saudi Arabia announced that he was rolling over his $1.9bn (£1.7bn) in shares, making him the company's biggest shareholder after Mr Musk. The move prompted concern among some politicians, including US Democrat Senator Chris Murphy.Mr Murphy has since requested the Committee on Foreign Investment to investigate the national security implications of Saudi's investment in Twitter."We should be concerned that the Saudis, who have a clear interest in repressing political speech and impacting US politics, are now the second-largest owner of a major social media platform," Mr Murphy tweeted."There is a clear national security issue at stake and CFIUS should do a review."Another big investment has come from Binance, a cryptocurrency exchange, which has put $500m (£436m) into the takeover.Changpeng Zhao, its chief executive, told CNBC that Mr Musk would transition Twitter into a company supporting cryptocurrency and the concept known as Web3, which many crypto enthusiasts envision as the next generation of the internet."We want to make sure that crypto has a seat at the table when it comes to free speech," he said."And there are more tactical things, like we want to help bring Twitter into Web3 when they're ready."Read more:Ten people Musk could bring back to Twitter - by revoking their permanent bansAfter taking ownership of Twitter, Mr Musk invited a group of tech-world friends and investors to help guide the San Francisco-based company's transformation, which is likely to include a shake-up of its staff.Shortly after closing the $44bn (£38.3bn) deal on Thursday, Mr Musk fired Mr Agrawal and other top executives. It is so far uncertain if and when he could begin larger-scale lay-offs.The Tesla and SpaceX boss has been making a number of pronouncements since early this year about how to fix Twitter, and it remains unclear which proposals he will prioritise. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Musk's first hours as Twitter boss He has promised to cut back some of the platform's content restrictions to promote free speech, but on Friday announced that no major decisions on content or reinstating of banned accounts will be made until a "content moderation council" with diverse viewpoints is put in place.He later qualified that statement, tweeting "anyone suspended for minor & dubious reasons will be freed from Twitter jail".Mr Calacanis said the Twitter team already "has a very comprehensive plan to reduce the number of (and visibility of) bots, spammers, & bad actors on the platform".He also asked in the Twitter poll if users would pay between $5 and $15 a month to "be verified & get a blue check mark" on Twitter.Twitter is free for most users because it depends on advertising for its revenue. | US Federal Policies |
- A federal judge denied a bid by Donald Trump to issue subpoenas for records related to a select House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol riot.
- Trump sought the subpoenas in the criminal case in Washington related to his effort to his reverse his loss in the 2020 presidential election.
- The Capitol riot by Trump supporters began after weeks of false claims by him that President Joe Biden won the election by ballot fraud.
Trump was seeking the subpoenas as part of his defense to criminal charges related to his attempt to reverse his loss in the 2020 presidential election.
The Jan. 6, 2021, riot by Trump supporters began after weeks of false claims by the then-president that ballot fraud was the reason for Joe Biden's election victory.
Judge Tanya Chutkan, in her order denying the subpoenas, suggested that Trump's lawyers were engaged in a "fishing expedition" with their request.
"The broad scope of the records that Defendant seeks, and his vague description of their potential relevance, resemble less 'a good faith effort to obtain identified evidence' than they do 'a general 'fishing expedition' that attempts to use the [Rule 17(c) subpoena] as a discovery device," the judge wrote.
Chutkan wrote that the attorneys failed to meet their burden to justify the subpoenas, which would have been issued to the head of the National Archives, the clerk of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the select House panel, and others.
Trump has pleaded not guilty in the case, which is pending in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.
This is breaking news. Check back for updates. | US Political Corruption |
The House of Representatives will try for the third time Friday to expel Rep. George Santos from Congress amid a slew of accusations against him, including alleged campaign finance abuses.
But some are concerned a successful expulsion of Santos could set an unnecessary precedent.
Santos, R-N.Y., survived the first two efforts to expel him from Congress, but the third time may be the charm for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle who believe Santos is unfit to serve.
"We’re going to allow people to vote their conscience," House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said of the impending vote.
Support for ousting the freshman congressman has grown after an investigation by the House Ethics Committee found that Santos "sought to fraudulently exploit every aspect of his House candidacy for his own personal financial profit."
The committee found Santos "used campaign funds for personal purposes" including spa days and purchases at luxury stores. The committee also found he "engaged in fraudulent conduct," and "engaged in knowing and willful violations of the Ethics in Government Act as it relates to his Financial Disclosure (FD) Statements filed with the House."
That includes $50,000 in campaign donations that were wired to Santos' personal account on Oct. 21, 2022, and allegedly used to, among other things, "pay down personal credit card bills and other debt; make a $4,127.80 purchase at Hermes; and for smaller purchases at OnlyFans; Sephora; and for meals and for parking."
Santos also made a number of false statements, and lied about where he went to school and his employment history.
Santos has denied wrongdoing and accused the committee of "bias," but also announced upon the release of the report that he would not run for re-election.
Santos was indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in October for allegedly filing fraudulent fundraising reports with the Federal Election Commission to obtain financial support for his campaign, among other accusations.
Santos faces 23 federal charges: One count of conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, two counts of wire fraud, two counts of making materially false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), two counts of falsifying records submitted to obstruct the FEC, two counts of aggravated identity theft, and one count of access device fraud, in addition to the seven counts of wire fraud, three counts of money laundering, one count of theft of public funds, and two counts of making materially false statements to the United States House of Representatives.
Santos has pleaded not guilty.
Some Republicans have argued that Santos should have his day in court and enjoy due process before an expulsion vote occurs, which has been House precedent so far. Others believe that some of Santos’ alleged activity are "infractions against the House itself" and that he should be expelled.
"And so what we’ve said as the leadership team is we’re going to allow people to vote their conscience I think is the only appropriate thing we can do," Johnson said this week. "We’ve not whipped the vote and we wouldn’t. I trust that people will make that decision thoughtfully and in good faith."
He added, though, that he "personally" has "real reservations about doing this."
"I’m concerned about a precedent that may be set," he said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. | US Congress |
Donald Trump stepped on the stage in Des Moines, Iowa on Friday night to the ubiquitous GOP rally song "Only in America" just as the lines "one could end up going to prison, one just might be president" were blaring over the loudspeakers. Everyone in that room has probably heard the song a thousand times, Trump included, but never have the words been more relevant.
If the Trump campaign is mad at Gov. Kim Reynolds they shouldn't be. The song was played for every candidate who spoke. It's just that those particular lyrics only apply to one of them.
The crowd cheered lustily for the former president and current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination, as they always do. It's doubtful any of them even heard those lyrics, and if they did they no doubt saw it as more evidence of the massive conspiracy against Trump. We know this because earlier in the evening one lone Republican candidate tried to tell them the truth:
Reporters inside the room said the booing of former Texas congressman Will Hurd was much louder and more energetic. One man reportedly yelled, "Go home you son of a bitch!"
We need your help to stay independent
Hurd said "the truth is hard," but these people don't think so. Here's a typical Trump voter from the next day at Trump's rally in Erie, Pennsylvania:
The scene of those surreal moments with Trump and Hurd was the Iowa Republican Party's Lincoln Day dinner on Friday night. It's where a whole gaggle of candidates appeared to make their pitch to "Real Americans." Trump, for his part, was fairly low-key, mostly sticking to his prepared speech and staying under the allowed 10 minutes. It was low-energy enough to even be noticed by some in the crowd.
As of now, Trump is facing 40 federal felony charges in the Mar-a-Lago stolen documents case and 32 state felony charges in New York in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.
You can understand why. All week long the press had been on indictment watch, waiting for news about the assumed impending charges against Trump in the January 6 investigation but instead, a superseding indictment had been brought against Trump and another conspirator in the Mar-a-Lago stolen documents case. As of now, Trump is facing 40 federal felony charges in the Mar-a-Lago stolen documents case and 32 state felony charges in New York in the Stormy Daniels hush money case. It's enough to make any criminal defendant feel a little bit despondent.
And anyway, Trump hates appearing in venues with other candidates. He feels it lowers him to have to compete head-to-head with people he considers his inferiors. Although he's qualified for the upcoming first debate in Iowa next month he's said he doesn't think he'll bother. I'm not sure why. The crowds loved it back in 2016 when he talked about his penis size and crudely demeaned and insulted his rivals and the moderators.
A spat with Iowa's popular GOP governor over her refusal to endorse Trump — or anyone — in the primary and the not-so-paranoid suspicion that she favors Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis may have affected some inside players in the Iowa Republican Party, at least one of whom switched his allegiance to DeSantis. It's all inside baseball. The GOP base still loves Trump. He's polling 30 points ahead of DeSantis with everyone else in the crowded field still trying to get a foothold. When Trump said, "There's only one candidate — and you know who that candidate is — to get the job done," the crowd went wild.
Clearly, quite a few Republicans who believe he did something wrong are more than happy to vote for him anyway.
It is possible that there has been a slight shift in the national polling in light of all his felony indictments.
According to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist National Poll, only 13% of Republicans believe Trump did something illegal, a number unchanged since the last poll, but they report that "Republicans who say Trump has done nothing wrong dropped 9 points (50% to 41%) since our June poll." And he's dropped six points, from 64% to only 58%, on the question of who Republican voters say they are more likely to back if he stays in the race. Clearly, quite a few Republicans who believe he did something wrong are more than happy to vote for him anyway. Such is the MAGA phenomenon. You can see why the rest of the GOP field is stuck in low numbers. There is no shaking him loose from the top spot.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
So the Republican primary looks like it's going to be a re-run of 2016 at this point. And that's pathetic since back then nobody really knew what to make of Trump. You'd think they would have figured out a different strategy by now. This crop of candidates each has their own reasons for trying it, some more understandable than others, and they probably all figure that they might be the last man (or Nikki Haley) standing in case Trump drops out.
DeSantis clearly thought he was presidential timbre and could go one-on-one with Trump. He has learned otherwise. The spectacle of his floundering campaign is downright pitiful these days and it's illustrated by the fact that he no longer seems to be running against Trump, the frontrunner, and is instead in a race for second place with South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, a media darling who is reportedly starting to get some attention from donors, especially those who are feeling disenchanted with the anti-woke governor as he's rolled out his very expensive and ineffectual campaign. And former vice president Mike Pence persists in believing he has a constituency as does former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. Previously unknown gadfly Vivek Ramaswamy is having his 15 minutes and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is eagerly invited on every cable news show to deliver some zingers against Trump each week.
A few others are pretending to run as well but the strategy is the same as 2016: Don't alienate the Trump vote, challenge the other candidates so they will drop out and you will be Trump's heir apparent when he flames out. It didn't work then and it's highly unlikely it will work now, especially since Trump's minions are changing the rules all over the country to make it harder for second-place finishers to collect delegates.
The Washington Post reports that in California this past weekend Trump operatives finagled a change to the delegate rules giving him a much better chance at securing all of the state's 169 delegates. Similar changes have been engineered in other states after Trump's henchmen set about working the state parties some time back. Whether it's pushing for winner-take-all or caucuses over primaries or any number of other strategies, his operation has fully wired the primaries to Trump's advantage.
Events like that Lincoln dinner, and probably the debates as well, are really just political pageants designed to give the impression that there is a contested primary in the Republican Party. There's a lot of money to go around to line the pockets of media companies and Republican operatives for months, so why not? But unless something catastrophic happens to Trump (and criminal indictments obviously don't count) all indications are that he's going to be the nominee. The rest of these people are just running in place.
Read more
about the Republican candidates for president | US Federal Elections |
EXCLUSIVE: An influential House GOP caucus is urging Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to work with "willing partners" in the Senate on a border security reform deal in a Tuesday morning letter outlining their priorities for the new GOP leader.
The business-minded Main Street Caucus outlined three major points they are calling the speaker’s attention to: Avoiding a government shutdown, establishing a debt commission, and enhancing national security.
"Main Street Republicans stand ready to work with you to continue advancing a pragmatic, conservative agenda during the remainder of the 118th Congress," the letter said.
On national security, the GOP lawmakers specifically called for Johnson’s attention to border security and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
House Republicans’ border security bill H.R. 2, a marquee piece of legislation for the GOP majority, has been declared a non-starter for the Democratically-held Senate and White House. Conservatives’ attempts to attach it to a stopgap spending bill for averting a government shutdown were thwarted by Republican hardliners opposed to any short-term funding.
But Main Street Republicans suggested they would support a watered-down version of the deal if it could pass the upper chamber of Congress.
"While our bill did not pass the House, it was clear there was willingness among many Senators to find solutions to the border crisis," the letter said. "We ask that you prioritize a plan to secure the border with willing partners in the Senate as soon as possible."
On the FISA front, their call to reauthorize it "with input from across the Conference" is likely to cause friction with a few of the more libertarian members of the House GOP.
The lawmakers are also calling on Johnson to avoid a government shutdown "by immediately resuming the appropriations schedule that was interrupted" by ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s removal nearly four weeks ago.
"Funding to pay our troops and [Customs and Border Patrol] agents and officers and to keep government open expires on November 17, and the House is far behind its projected schedule," the letter said.
And if a short-term extension of last year’s funding is needed to buy lawmakers more time, the Main Street Caucus urged Johnson to tack on an extension of the Farm Bill – a must-pass piece of legislation covering a wide range of programs, from rural broadband to urban food assistance.
Johnson has already made clear he will prioritize passing the House GOP’s 12 individual appropriations bills. Hours before he was elected speaker last week, Johnson released a tentative schedule outlining how the remaining bills will get done.
The House passed its fifth spending bill the day after Johnson was elected, and the speaker is aiming to pass three more this week.
The Main Street Caucus’s remaining priority is the establishment of a bipartisan, bicameral commission to study the federal debt – something Johnson also suggested was a goal of his.
The letter is just one set of priorities Johnson will have to deal with as he takes control of the House GOP’s razor-thin majority. He was elected unanimously by the House Republican Conference last week. | US Congress |
Republicans in the House of Representatives removed Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., from his position as speaker because he was viewed as too weak by Donald Trump’s MAGA loyalists. McCarthy’s successor, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., who was unanimously elected by his Republican colleagues – which includes the so-called “moderates” who blocked three other candidates before, is a Trump loyalist. He supported the criminal traitor ex-president’s coup attempt on Jan. 6 and the ongoing attempts to end American democracy by the MAGA movement. So while Trump may not have been elected speaker as some Republicans in the lower chamber had hoped for, he is still effectively their leader.
Ultimately, and much to the consternation of the mainstream news media and respectable political class — which are in a state of willful denial of this reality and its implications for the country — Trump and Trumpism are a symbol and a movement that are much greater than any one person. Trumpism and American neofascism will survive long past whatever may happen to the Dear Leader. Trump is a type of prototype for the future of American fascism.
And as speaker of the House, Mike Johnson will do Trump’s bidding. In his new role, Johnson is not just a “culture warrior," he is a leader. Literally two heartbeats away from the presidency, Johnson is a general in Trump’s and the neofascist movement’s war to end America’s multiracial pluralistic democracy.
The American news media and the country’s other political elites need to discard the “culture war” narrative as it applies to both Mike Johnson, specifically, and American politics, more generally.
The best way to understand Speaker Mike Johnson and what his rise to power represents is to ask some basic questions.
What does Johnson believe?
How has he behaved?
What would life be like in America if Johnson and others of his ilk were to get their way?
We need your help to stay independent
Here are some answers.
Johnson rejects the Constitution’s separation of church and state. He is a “Christian Nationalist” who wants America to be a white Christofascist plutocracy and not a pluralistic democracy. In an excellent interview at Politico, historian Kristin Kobes Du Mez, author of "Jesus and John Wayne: How White Evangelicals Corrupted a Faith and Fractured a Nation", explains how Johnson rejects real democracy in America:
I’ve noticed also in listening to his speeches that he is explicit about describing this country as a republic and not as a democracy. Inside these conservative Christian nationalist spaces, that is par for the course: that this is a republic, and it is a republic, again, founded in this biblical worldview, and that it’s not a democratic free-for-all. And so again, this is Christian supremacy.
If you align with this value system, then yes, you have the authority to shape our laws. If you do not, you have no business shaping our laws. He once said: “We don’t live in a democracy, because democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner.” Meaning, the country is not just majority rule; it’s a constitutional republic. And the founders set that up because they followed the biblical admonition on what a civil society is supposed to look like.
I think that’s really important here: His commitment is not to democracy. He’s not committed to majority rule; he seems to be saying he’s committed to minority rule, if that’s what it takes to ensure that we stay on the Christian foundation that the founders have set up….
For Christian nationalists, this is God’s country, and all authority comes through God. And the only legitimate use of that authority is to further God’s plan for this country. So what that means is any of their political enemies are illegitimate in a sense, and those enemies’ power is illegitimate, and they need to be stripped of that power. And it’s really been kind of shocking for me to have observed these spaces in the last handful of years, where conservative evangelicals are much more comfortable in just making that plain and no longer feeling a need to pay lip service to democracy or voting rights or those sorts of things.
Johnson believes that gays and lesbians are sick monstrous deviants whose humanity and behavior should be criminalized. He is so homophobic that he has convinced himself that “gay sex” somehow destroyed the Roman Empire.
Johnson wants abortion to be banned everywhere in America because women should not have the freedom to make decisions about their own bodies and lives. This conclusion is a function of his belief that women are de facto chattel and the property of their husbands and other men.
Johnson is a biblical literalist who rejects science. He also believes the fiction-lie that America was founded on “biblical principles” as a “Christian Nation”; these beliefs are central to his approach to government, policy, and society.
Johnson has used stochastic terrorism and eliminationist language against Democrats, liberals, and others who do not share his Christofascist ideology, a group he believes are collectively responsible for the ills of American society.
Of course, this is all dangerous bovine scatology.
Johnson also believes there should be a religious test for public office in America, which the United States Constitution expressly forbids. Johnson does not believe in the right to privacy, free speech, and other constitutionally guaranteed civil rights and freedoms.
At Mother Jones, David Corn further explains Johnson's worldview:
The Johnsons are diehard fundamentalists who believe every religion other than their brand of Christianity is false and that whatever is written in the Bible should dictate all conduct, rules, policies, and laws. As I reported earlier, Mike Johnson in 2016 exclaimed, “We’re living in a completely amoral society.” The only way out, according to him and Kelly, is to abide by the Bible.
This is a lot to absorb. We’re often uncomfortable discussing a politician’s faith. But in this case, Johnson acknowledges that his fundamentalism determines his politics and policy positions. As he said during a Fox interview, “I am a Bible-believing Christian. Someone asked me today in the media, they said, ‘It’s curious, people are curious: What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, ‘Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.'”…
This remark came after Kelly and Mike had repeatedly asserted that the Christian fundamentalist worldview—based entirely on what appears in the Old and New Testaments—is the only legitimate worldview.
Johnson was telling the folks in the pews that the only political candidates deserving support are those who share this worldview and who embrace the notion that the United States has been a Christian nation. This smacks of Christian nationalism and appears to be a religious test for politics.
In her newsletter, historian Heather Cox Richardson connects Johnson’s rise to power to the global right, white supremacy, Christofascism, and the American right’s many decades-long project to end social democracy in this country:
Like other adherents of Christian nationalism, Johnson appears to reject the central premise of democracy: that we have a right to be treated equally before the law. And while his wife, Kelly, noted last year on a podcast that only about 4% of Americans “still adhere to a Biblical worldview,” they appear to reject the idea we have the right to a say in our government. In 2021, Johnson was a key player in the congressional attempt to overturn the lawful results of the 2020 presidential election.
In his rejection of democracy, Johnson echoes authoritarian leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, both of whom have the loyal support of America’s far right. Such leaders claim that the multiculturalism at the heart of democracy ruins nations. The welcoming of various races and ethnicities through immigration or affirmative action undermines national purity, they say, while the equality of LGBTQ+ individuals and women undermines morality. Johnson has direct ties to these regimes: his 2018 campaign accepted money from a group of Russian nationals, and he has said he does not support additional funding for Ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression.
The rejection of democracy in favor of Christian authoritarianism at the highest levels of our government is an astonishing outcome of the attempt to prevent another Great Depression by creating a government that worked for ordinary Americans rather than a few wealthy men.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
The American news media and the country’s other political elites need to discard the “culture war” narrative as it applies to both Mike Johnson, specifically, and American politics, more generally, in this moment of democracy crisis and ascendant neofascism. “Culture war” and its related language is imprecise, distracting, diminutive, and in total obfuscates and minimizes the real dangers embodied by the right-wing’s revolutionary plans to end multiracial pluralistic democracy in America.
Instead, the mainstream news media and other political elites need to emphasize in plain and direct terms what will happen to everyday people in America if the Christofascists like Mike Johnson are able to achieve their goals.
In that new American dystopia, the lives of the average American will be shorter, more miserable, less free, even less economically prosperous and more precarious, sicker, and where basic decisions about their private lives and those of their families will be made by a small number of rich white men (and women) who believe that their personal God gave them special superpowers and magical insights that they can use to rule over other people. And if you are a woman, a black or brown person, gay or lesbian or transgender, an atheist, a Jew, a Muslim, or some other faith that is not state-approved, or a member of some other marginalized community life will be even worse as you will basically be made into a second- or third-class citizen – or lower – as your basic civic and human rights are systematically taken away from you.
Ultimately, the world that Johnson and the other Christofascists would like to impose on the American people will be hell for most it will actually be a paradise and heaven for them.
Read more
about Mike Johnson and the GOP
- Mike Johnson's Satanic panic: How evangelical delusions trained Republicans to love Trump's lies
- MAGA and Christian nationalism: Bigger threat to America than Hamas could ever be
- "We have been here before": Heather Cox Richardson on how to save our republic
- Republicans manufactured a "crisis" — now they are ready to exploit it | US Congress |
House Republicans tacked on a pretty unusual addendum to their aid package for Israel: in exchange for $14.3 billion to the U.S. ally, the GOP wants to cut $14.3 billion from the Internal Revenue Service budget.
The spending cut is not just an unusual addition to an emergency aid package, but it will also likely backfire for the party platform as it will very well increase the national deficit. Democrats are expected to reject the bill outright.
The effort, however, underscores exactly how extreme the Republican Party has gotten, particularly under Speaker Mike Johnson’s new leadership.
“We’re going to have to pay for it. We’re not just going to print money and send it overseas,” Johnson told Fox’s Kayleigh McEnany, arguing that standing with the “innocent” in Israel is more aligned with the national interest than “IRS agents.”
As it stands, the bill would gut additional IRS funding allocated in the Inflation Reduction Act. The cuts would target parts of an IRS expansion that include tax enforcement, operations support, free filing for taxpayers, an office of tax policy, and tax court, reported The Washington Post’s Jeff Stein. The Congressional Budget Office has repeatedly warned that cutting IRS funding will encourage tax cheating and increase the deficit. The CBO has also estimated that the Inflation Reduction Act’s $80 billion IRS expansion will actually reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion.
“The IRS has recovered over $100 million in unpaid taxes from the wealthy and well-connected in the last month. Yet, in the chaotic world of my Republican colleagues, they view this funding as a never-ending well to promulgate their whims of ‘fiscal responsibility’, protect billionaires and wealthy corporations, and ultimately, cost taxpayers more,” Representative Richard Neal told Fox News’s Chad Pergram.
Senate leadership also torpedoed the bill, arguing that apart from the unlikely spending cut, Congress should be focusing on passing an all inclusive emergency aid package for U.S. allies around the globe.
“We believe, our Democratic Caucus, we should be doing all of it together: Israel, Ukraine, South Pacific, etc. And obviously a pay-for like that makes it much harder to pass,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, according to Politico. | US Congress |
Third parties selling our personal data is annoying. But for certain sensitive populations like military service members, the selling of that information could quickly become a national security threat. Researchers at Duke University released a study on Monday tracking what measures data brokers have in place to prevent unidentified or potentially malign actors from buying personal data on members of the military. As it turns out, the answer is often few to none — even when the purchaser is actively posing as a foreign agent.
A 2021 Duke study by the same lead researcher revealed that data brokers advertised that they had access to — and were more than happy to sell —information on US military personnel. In this more recent study researchers used wiped computers, VPNs, burner phones bought with cash and other means of identity obfuscation to go undercover. They scraped the websites of data brokers to see which were likely to have available data on servicemembers. Then they attempted to make those purchases, posing as two entities: datamarketresearch.org and dataanalytics.asia. With little-or-no vetting, several of the brokers transferred the requested data not only to the presumptively Chicago-based datamarketresearch, but also to the server of the .asia domain which was located in Singapore. The records only cost between 12 to 32 cents a piece.
The sensitive information included health records and financial information. Location data was also available, although the team at Duke decided not to purchase that — though it's not clear if this was for financial or ethical reasons. “Access to this data could be used by foreign and malicious actors to target active-duty military personnel, veterans, and their families and acquaintances for profiling, blackmail, targeting with information campaigns, and more,” the report cautions. At an individual level, this could also include identity theft or fraud.
This gaping hole in our national security apparatus is due in large part to the absence of comprehensive federal regulations governing either individual data privacy, or much of the business practices engaged in by data brokers. Senators Elizabeth Warren, Bill Cassidy and Marco Rubio introduced the Protecting Military Service Members' Data Act in 2022 to give power to the Federal Trade Commission to prevent data brokers from selling military personnel information to adversarial nations. They reintroduced the bill in March 2023 after it stalled out. Despite bipartisan support, it still hasn’t made it past the introduction phase. | US Federal Policies |
John Locher/AP
toggle caption
People walk by the MGM Grand hotel-casino Wednesday, Sept. 13, 2023, in Las Vegas.
John Locher/AP
People walk by the MGM Grand hotel-casino Wednesday, Sept. 13, 2023, in Las Vegas.
John Locher/AP
LAS VEGAS — Casino company Caesars Entertainment on Thursday joined Las Vegas gambling rival MGM Resorts International in reporting that it was hit by a cyberattack, but added in a report to federal regulators that its casino and online operations were not disrupted.
The Reno-based publicly traded company told the federal Securities and Exchange Commission that it could not guarantee that personal information about tens of millions of customers was secure following a data breach Sept. 7 that may have exposed driver's license and Social Security numbers of loyalty rewards members.
"We have taken steps to ensure that the stolen data is deleted by the unauthorized actor," the company said, "although we cannot guarantee this result."
Brett Callow, threat analyst for the New Zealand-based cybersecurity firm Emsisoft, said it was not clear if a ransom was paid or who was responsible for the intrusion — and for the attack reported Monday by MGM Resorts.
"Unofficially, we saw a group called Scattered Spider claimed responsibility," Callow said. "They appear to be native English speakers under the umbrella of a Russia-based operation called ALPHV or BlackCat."
Scattered Spider also is known as UNC3944, said Charles Carmakal, chief technical officer at cybersecurity firm Mandiant. He called the group "incredibly disruptive and aggressive" in recent targeting of hospitality and entertainment organizations.
"They leverage tradecraft that is challenging for many organizations with mature security programs to defend against," Carmakal said in a statement.
Mandiant said in a blog analysis published Thursday the group uses SMS text phishing and phone calls to help desks to attempt to obtain password resets or multifactor bypass codes.
"This relatively new entrant in the ransomware industry has hit at least 100 organizations, most of them in the U.S. and Canada," Mandiant said.
Caesars is the largest casino owner in the world, with more than 65 million Caesars Rewards members and properties in 18 states and Canada under the Caesars, Harrah's, Horseshoe and Eldorado brands. It also has mobile and online operations and sports betting. Company officials did not respond to emailed questions from The Associated Press.
The company told the SEC that loyalty program customers were being offered credit monitoring and identity theft protection.
There was no evidence the intruder obtained member passwords or bank account and payment card information, the company reported, adding that operations at casinos and online "have not been impacted by this incident and continue without disruption."
The disclosure by Caesars came after MGM Resorts International, the largest casino company in Las Vegas, reported publicly on Monday that a cyberattack that it detected Sunday led it to shut down computer systems at its properties across the U.S. to protect data.
MGM Resorts said reservations and casino floors in Las Vegas and other states were affected. Customers shared stories on social media about not being able to make credit card transactions, obtain money from cash machines or enter hotel rooms. Some video slot machines were dark.
MGM Resorts has has about 40 million loyalty rewards members and tens of thousands of hotel rooms in Las Vegas at properties including the MGM Grand, Bellagio, Aria and Mandalay Bay. It also operates properties in China and Macau.
A company report on Tuesday to the SEC pointed to its Monday news release. The FBI said an investigation was ongoing but offered no additional information.
Some MGM Resorts computer systems were still down Thursday, including hotel reservations and payroll. But company spokesman Brian Ahern said its 75,000 employees in the U.S. and abroad were expected to be paid on time.
Callow, speaking by telephone from British Columbia, Canada, called most media accounts of the incidents speculative because information appeared to be coming from the same entities that claim to have carried out the attacks. He said recovery from cyberattacks can take months.
Callow pointed to reports that he called "plausible" that Caesars Entertainment was asked to pay $30 million for a promise to secure its data and may have paid $15 million. He also noted that the company did not describe in the SEC report the steps taken to ensure that the stolen data was secure.
The highest ransom believed to have been paid to cyber-attackers was $40 million by insurance giant CNA Financial, Callow said, following a data breach in March 2021.
"In these cases, organizations basically pay to get a 'pinky promise,'" he said. "There is no way to actually know that (hackers) do delete (stolen data) or that it won't be used elsewhere." | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
The bizarre legal defence, put forward by the former president’s attorneys, comes in response to a suit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which seeks to have him disqualified from the ballot in the state under the 14th Amendment.
A clause of the amendment, which passed into the Constitution in 1868, bans those who “engaged in insurrection” against the United States from holding any civil, military, or elected office without the approval of two-thirds of the House and Senate.
Mr Trump’s lawyers are arguing that the phrasing of the clause – section three – does not apply to all officers of the United States, “but only those who take an oath ‘to support the US Constitution’”.
“The Presidential oath, which the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment surely knew, requires the President to swear to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution — not to ‘support’ the Constitution," said the filing, obtained by news outlet Law and Crime.
"Because the framers chose to define the group of people subject to Section Three by an oath to ‘support’ the Constitution of the United States, and not by an oath to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ the Constitution, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment never intended for it to apply to the President.
“If they wanted to include in the reach of Section Three, they could have done so by expanding the language of which type of oath would bring an ‘officer’ under the strictures of Section Three.
“They did not do so, and no number of semantical arguments will change this simple fact. As such, Section Three does not apply to President Trump.”
It is not the first time the former president has challenged the US Constitution, having previously called for parts of the hallowed document to be “terminated” following his defeat in the 2020 election.
Writing on his platform TruthSocial in December, Mr Trump said that the result of the election – which he described as “a massive fraud” – should allow for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
“Our great ‘Founders’ did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!” he wrote.
The remarks earned him a rebuke from other members of the Senate and within his own party, with New York representative Mike Lawler saying that it was time to stop focusing on the “grievances of prior elections.”
“The Constitution is set for a reason, to protect the rights of every American,” Lawler said. “I think the former president would be well-advised to focus on the future, if he is going to run for president again.”
Mr Trump is also noted for having questioned the 22nd Amendment – which mandates that a person only be permitted to serve two presidential terms. While in office he is reported to have “joked” about extending his time in office beyond the stipulated timeframe.
According to CNN, in March 2018 at a closed-door speech at Mar-a-Lago, he gave a speech to Republican donors in which he praised Chinese leader Xi Jinping.
“He’s now president for life. President for life. No, he’s great. And look, he was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll have to give that a shot someday,” he reportedly said. | US Federal Elections |
WASHINGTON -- Millions of student loan borrowers could see up to $20,000 of their debt canceled depending on the outcome of Tuesday's US Supreme Court hearing on President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness program.
How and when the justices rule will also determine when payments on federal student loans will resume after a pandemic-related pause that has been in place for nearly three years.
The Biden administration has said that payments will resume 60 days after litigation over the forgiveness program is resolved or at the end of August, whichever comes first.
Biden announced the targeted student loan forgiveness program last August, but the implementation was put on hold by lower courts before any debt forgiveness was granted.
The justices will hear arguments in two cases Tuesday concerning the program, which is estimated to cost $400 billion.
One case was brought by six Republican-led states that say they would be harmed financially if the forgiveness program goes into effect. The other case was brought by two borrowers in Texas who don't fully qualify for debt forgiveness under the program.
Plaintiffs in both lawsuits argue that the administration does not have the authority to cancel the student loan debt under the proposed rules of the program. But the Biden administration argues that a 2003 law grants the executive branch the power to discharge federal student loan debt in the event of a national emergency, including the COVID-19 pandemic.
There are about 43 million borrowers with federal student loans. Here's what they need to know.
When will borrowers know if they'll get loan forgiveness?
It's unclear exactly when the Supreme Court will issue its decision, but typically the justices release their rulings by the end of the current term, which is usually in late June or early July.
If the Supreme Court rules that the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program is legal and allows it to move forward -- or if the court dismisses the challenges due to a lack of "standing," or the legal right to bring the disputes in the first place -- it's possible the government will begin issuing some debt cancellations fairly quickly.
WATCH: Breaking down student loan debt in America
The White House has said that it received 26 million applications before a lower court in Texas put a nationwide block on the program in November, and that 16 million of those applications have been approved for relief.
There could be room for further legal challenges to be filed even after the Supreme Court has ruled.
Who may be eligible for student loan forgiveness?
If Biden's program is allowed to move forward, individual borrowers who earned less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 annually in those years could see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven.
If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness. Pell grants are a key federal aid program that help students from the lowest-income families pay for college.
Federal Direct Loans, including subsidized loans, unsubsidized loans, parent PLUS loans and graduate PLUS loans, would be eligible for the program.
But federal student loans that are guaranteed by the government but held by private lenders, such as some Federal Family Education Loans, are not eligible unless the borrower applied to consolidate those loans into a Direct Loan before September 29, 2022.
What happens if the program is struck down?
If the Supreme Court strikes down Biden's student loan forgiveness program, it could be possible for the administration to make some modifications to the policy and try again -- though that process could take months.
"The ball goes back to the Biden administration," said Luke Herrine, an assistant law professor at the University of Alabama who previously worked on a legal strategy for student debt cancellation.
"The administration could implement some other version of this installation under a different legal authority, but that may well generate its own litigation and we end up in the same place," Herrine added.
The Biden administration is also working on changes to existing federal student loan repayment plans that aim to make it easier for borrowers to pay for college. These changes are not facing legal challenges.
The Department of Education is currently finalizing a new income-driven repayment plan to lower monthly payments as well as the total amount borrowers pay back over time. In contrast to the one-time student loan cancellation program, the new repayment plan could help both current and future borrowers.
Additionally, in July, changes will be made the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which allows certain government and nonprofit employees to seek federal student loan forgiveness after making 10 years of qualifying payments. The changes will make it easier for some borrowers to receive debt forgiveness.
What are the legal arguments at play?
The key legal question in the cases before the Supreme Court Tuesday is whether the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, known as the HEROES Act, grants the executive branch an emergency power to implement Biden's student loan forgiveness program.
The HEROES Act, which was passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, grants the secretary of education the power to "waive or modify" a federal student loan program in order to ensure that individuals "are not placed in a worse position financially" because of "a war or other military operation or national emergency."
Lawyers for the Biden administration argue that this provision gives the secretary of education the authority to cancel federal student loan debt so that borrowers are not made worse off with respect to their loans by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
They cite data that shows borrowers who previously had their payments paused due to an emergency like a hurricane were at a higher risk of default after the pause expired.
But plaintiffs argue the Biden administration is abusing its power and using the pandemic as a pretext for fulfilling the president's campaign pledge to cancel student debt.
Even before ruling on the merits of the cases, the justices must consider whether the suing parties have standing to bring the legal challenges. This means that the parties must show that they have the legal injury necessary to be able to bring the challenge.
Last year, a district court found that the states did not have standing to sue. The states appealed to the 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals, which granted their request for a preliminary injunction.
If the justices decide that none of the parties have standing, the cases will be dismissed and Biden's program will be allowed to move forward.
The-CNN-Wire ™ & © 2023 Cable News Network, Inc., a WarnerMedia Company. All rights reserved. | SCOTUS |
A number of outlets, including the New York Times and CBS, showed Biden trailing Trump both nationally and in a majority of swing states, and White House press secretary was pressed on the data during Tuesday's White House press briefing.
Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that White House staff and the president were aware of the polls but stressed that they must be taken "with a grain of salt" and that it isn't her "job" to "analyze" media coverage of polls.
"We should really be very mindful here, and one of the reasons why is just a year ago, right back in 2022, there was the red wave that never materialized, right? And then back in October of '22, there were multiple stories about how there was going to be a red wave, Democrats were going to be wiped out," she stated. "We're not talking about what we were seeing back in October of 2020, to look — and I'll take it even further — in 2011. This time, in 2011, we saw Sen. Romney himself, Sen. Romney beating President Obama, and that's where those folks were."
Jean-Pierre added: "Our focus, obviously, is going to be doing what the president was elected to do, which is focusing on delivering for the American people, and there's going to be a lot of polls out there. It's a whole cottage industry out there, when it comes to polling, so I'm just not going to get into it. Obviously, we see the reporting just like you all."
You can watch Tuesday's briefing in full below. | US Federal Elections |
President Joe Biden released his annual budget Thursday, outlining his policy priorities for the year ahead.
Make no mistake, the proposed budget has no chance of making it through the Republican-controlled House. But Biden’s plan will frame upcoming political battles on Capitol Hill, where the GOP has yet to unveil its own spending plan.
Biden’s budget comes out after the US hit the debt ceiling, a cap set by Congress, earlier this year. The Treasury Department is now taking extraordinary measures to allow the government to keep paying its bills. But the country could start to default on its obligations over the summer if Congress doesn’t address the debt ceiling before then. Republicans are calling for some spending cuts in exchange for voting to raise the cap, while the White House does not want to negotiate on resolving the debt limit drama.
Many of the provisions in the budget rehash the president’s earlier proposals to expand the social safety net and to pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations. He wants to restore the expanded child tax credit and make permanent enhanced Obamacare subsidies, both enacted in the American Rescue Plan in 2021. And he wants to provide universal free preschool, make college more affordable and establish a national paid family and medical leave program, which did not make it into prior packages when the Democrats controlled Congress over the past two years.
Biden’s spending plan also calls for shoring up Medicare and capping the price of insulin for all Americans.
The administration says these proposed policies will result in a nearly $3 trillion reduction in the deficits – the difference between what the government spends and its revenue – over the next decade.
Here’s what’s in Biden’s budget proposal
Place a minimum tax on billionaires: The budget includes a 25% minimum tax on all the income of the wealthiest .01% of Americans, including their appreciated assets. It would hit those with a net worth of more than $100 million. Prior efforts to add this type of tax were not successful.
Increase the corporate tax rate: Biden wants to increase the corporate tax rate to 28%, up from the 21% rate set by the GOP tax cut package in 2017. The budget would also reduce incentives for multinational businesses to book profits in low-tax jurisdictions and raise the tax rate on their foreign earnings to 21% from 10.5%. And it would hike the stock buybacks tax enacted last year to 4%, from 1%.
Repealing Trump’s tax cuts for the wealthy: Biden’s budget would scrap some tax cuts for certain individuals that were put in place by the Republican’s 2017 tax law.
Biden’s plan would raise the top tax rate to 39.6% from 37%. This would impact single filers making more than $400,000 a year and married couples making more than $450,000 per year, according to the administration.
It also proposes taxing capital gains at the same rate as wage income for those earning more than $1 million, as well as closing the carried interest loophole that allows investment managers to treat much of their compensation as capital gains – thus lowering their tax rate.
The Biden administration has previously had trouble getting support for these provisions from some Democrats.
Restore the enhanced child tax credit: The budget calls for reviving the expanded child tax credit, which was in place for 2021. It would beef up the credit to $3,600 per child for those under age 6 and $3,000 for older children. It would permanently make the credit fully refundable so more low-income families would qualify.
Improve Medicare’s finances: Biden wants to shore up Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund, known as Part A, by raising taxes on those earning more than $400,000 a year and by allowing Medicare to negotiate prices for even more drugs.
Medicare, which covers more than 65 million senior citizens and people with disabilities, will only be able to fully pay scheduled benefits until 2028, according to the most recent forecast by its trustees. Biden’s proposal would extend Medicare’s solvency by 25 years or more, according to the White House.
The plan would increase the net investment income tax rate on earned and unearned income above $400,000 to 5%, up from 3.8%. Also, it would be levied on the owners of certain pass-through firms who include business income on their personal tax returns and aren’t currently subject to the tax.
In addition, the measure would dedicate the revenue from the tax, which was created by the Affordable Care Act, to Medicare’s hospital insurance trust fund.
Also, the proposal would build on the Inflation Reduction Act, which congressional Democrats passed last summer, by allowing Medicare to negotiate the prices of more drugs and bringing drugs into negotiation sooner after they launch. And it would extend the law’s requirement that drug companies pay rebates to Medicare if they increase prices faster than inflation to commercial health insurance.
$35 insulin for all Americans: The budget also calls for capping the price of insulin at $35 a month for everyone. The Inflation Reduction Act limited the price of each insulin prescription to $35 a month for Medicare beneficiaries as of this year.
Democrats had hoped to extend the provision to those with private insurance as part of last year’s package, but congressional Republicans blocked the measure.
Reduce prescription drug costs for seniors: The budget proposes to limit Medicare beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket costs for generic drugs used for certain chronic conditions to no more than $2. Seniors’ costs would also drop if Medicare expanded its drug price negotiations.
Make enhanced Obamacare subsidies permanent: Biden wants to continue the more generous Affordable Care Act subsidies, which are set to expire after 2025. The temporary enhancement has beefed up the premium subsidy and allowed more middle-class folks to qualify. The proposal would also provide Medicaid-like coverage to those in states that have not expanded the public health insurance program for low-income Americans.
Increase food security: The budget would provide more than $15 billion to allow more states and schools to provide free school meals to an additional 9 million children.
Reduce maternal mortality: Biden would provide $471 million to reduce maternal mortality rates and expand maternal health initiatives in rural communities. It would also require all states to provide continuous Medicaid postpartum coverage for 12 months, instead of 60 days.
Lower Medicaid spending: The budget would require private insurance companies that provide Medicaid coverage to pay back some money when they charge the program far more than they actually spend on patient care. And it would give the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to negotiate additional, supplemental Medicaid drug rebates on behalf of states.
Make college more affordable: The spending plan calls for a $500 increase to the maximum Pell grant, which is awarded to roughly 7 million college students from the lowest-income families annually. Currently, the maximum Pell grant is $7,395 for the 2023-2024 school year. Congress has increased the maximum amount by $900 over the past two years, but the grant historically covered a larger share of the cost of college than it does now.
Biden’s budget would also provide $500 million for a new grant program to help make two years of community college free. And it asks Congress for a $620 million increase in funding for the Office of Federal Student Aid, which processes financial aid forms and helps service student loans. The office did not receive a funding increase this year, despite likely having to support borrowers with restarting payment this summer after a three-year pause.
Universal preschool and affordable child care: The budget would provide funding for a new federal-state partnership program that would provide universal, free preschool. The spending plan would also increase funding for existing federal early care and education programs.
Provide paid family and medical leave: Biden’s budget would establish a national paid family and medical leave program. It would provide 12 weeks of leave for eligible employees to take time off to care for and bond with a new child, care for a seriously ill loved one, heal from their own serious illness, address circumstances arising from a loved one’s military deployment, or find safety from domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, according to the administration.
Congress provided for some paid sick leave during the Covid-19 pandemic, but lawmakers let the benefit expire in 2021.
Address climate change: The spending plan calls for billions of dollars of investment to help address climate change.
For example, money would go toward creating clean-energy jobs and cutting energy bills for families, funding climate research and helping communities become strengthen their infrastructure to withstand floods, wildfires, storms and drought brought on by climate change.
The investments would also help achieve Biden’s goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50%-52% by 2030.
Military defense and support for Ukraine: The proposed budget would provide the US Department of Defense with a 3.2% increase in funding over this year’s level, with an emphasis on countering China and assisting Ukraine.
It would also deliver more than $6 billion, through both the Departments of Defense and State, to Ukraine and other European allies to help fight against Russian aggression.
This story has been updated with additional information.
CNN’s Oren Liebermann contributed to this report. | US Federal Policies |
Some House Democrats celebrated the motion to vacate Speaker Kevin McCarthy from the House, while others described it as a "solemn" day in America.
All 208 House Democrats who were present voted to oust McCarthy Tuesday afternoon. Five Republican votes were needed to boot McCarthy, and eight ultimately voted with Democrats to put the nail in the coffin.
"This is a solemn day in the U.S. House of Representatives," Democratic Whip Katherine Clark said in a statement Tuesday. "Through his duplicitous misuse of power, profound disregard for the needs of the American people, and disloyalty to anyone but himself, Kevin McCarthy has proven unworthy of presiding over the House."
She added: "But the Republican civil war is bigger than one man. Right-wing MAGA extremism has enveloped the Republican Party and taken over the business of the People’s House."
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., echoed the sentiment, deeming the vote a "solemn" moment in America.
"House Democrats will continue to put people over politics and work together in a bipartisan way to make life better for everyday Americans. It is our hope that traditional Republicans will walk away from MAGA extremism and join us in partnership for the good of the country," he said.
"Republicans, you’re welcome to join us and vote for Hakeem Jeffries for Speaker of the House," Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., a progressive "squad" member said on X.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., another member of the squad, called McCarthy a "threat to our democracy" in a lengthy statement posted to X.
"He literally voted to overturn the 2020 election results, overthrow the duly elected President, and did nothing to discourage his Members from doing the same," Omar said of McCarthy.
Omar added McCarthy is a "weak politician."
Rep. Chuey Garcia, D-Chicago, also said on X he has "no interest in bailing out Team Extreme."
Hardline conservatives and progressive Democrats locked arms across the aisle to seal the deal on Tuesday, as the vote to vacate commenced after an hour of passionate debate with McCarthy supporters and dissenters.
Both parties pointed fingers at McCarthy, as Gaetz introduced a motion to vacate on Monday night, accusing him of breaking the promises he made to win the speaker's gavel in January. Meanwhile, Democrats condemned his "lack of interest in bipartisanship" and Republicans jabbing his failure to pass a government spending patch with additional border security provisions and not enough budget cuts.
Democrat Rep. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey said McCarthy "empowered right wing extremists" and "consistently broke his word."
"Instead, Mr. McCarthy empowered right-wing extremists at every turn - bringing us to the brink of defaults and shutdowns, failing to uphold the debt-ceiling agreement he made with the President, relentlessly attacking women's reproductive freedom, blocking votes to prevent gun violence, and launching a baseless impeachment inquiry built on lies and conspiracy theories," she said.
Democrats signaled early on Tuesday that they would not be inclined to help McCarthy. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said before the vote: "Democrats are ready to find bipartisan common ground. Our extreme colleagues have shown no willingness to do the same. They must find a way to end the House Republican Civil War."
In January, it took 15 rounds of voting until McCarthy was elected.
McCarthy angered hardliners over the weekend when he passed a short-term spending bill known as a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the government open for 45 days, in order to avert a government shutdown and give lawmakers more time to cobble together 12 individual spending bills.
Fox News' Liz Elkind contributed to this report. | US Congress |
DENVER -- Attorneys for former President Donald Trump argue that an attempt to bar him from the 2024 ballot under a rarely used “insurrection” clause of the Constitution should be dismissed as a violation of his freedom of speech.
The lawyers made the argument in a filing posted Monday by a Colorado court in the most significant of a series of challenges to Trump's candidacy under the Civil War-era clause in the 14th Amendment. The challenges rest on Trump's attempts to overturn his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden and his role leading up to the violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.
“At no time do Petitioners argue that President Trump did anything other than engage in either speaking or refusing to speak for their argument that he engaged in the purported insurrection,” wrote attorney Geoffrey Blue.
Trump also will argue that the clause doesn't apply to him because “the Fourteenth Amendment applies to one who ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion,’ not one who only ‘instigated’ any action,” Blue wrote.
The former president's lawyers also said the challenge should be dismissed because he is not yet a candidate under the meaning of Colorado election law, which they contend isn't intended to settle constitutional disputes.
The motion under Colorado's anti-SLAPP law, which shields people from lawsuits that harass them for behavior protected by the First Amendment, will be the first of the 14th Amendment challenges filed in multiple states to be considered in open court. It was filed late Friday and posted by the court Monday.
Denver District Judge Sarah B. Wallace has scheduled a hearing on the motion for Oct. 13. A hearing on the constitutional issues will come on Oct. 30.
Whatever Wallace rules, the issue is likely to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, which has never heard a case on the provision of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868, three years after the Civil War ended. The clause has only been used a handful of times.
Section Three of the amendment bars from office anyone who once took an oath to uphold the Constitution but then “engaged” in “insurrection or rebellion” against it. Its initial intent was to prevent former Confederate officials from becoming members of Congress and taking over the government.
Trump's contention that he is protected by freedom of speech mirrors his defense in criminal cases charging him for his role in the Jan. 6 attack. There, too, he argues he was simply trying to bring attention to what he believed was an improper election — even though dozens of lawsuits challenging the results had already been rejected.
Prosecutors in those cases and some legal experts have noted that Trump's offenses go beyond speech, to acts such as trying to organize slates of fake electors that Congress could have recognized to make him president again.
The criminal cases have already bled into the 14th Amendment challenge in Colorado. On Friday, Wallace issued an order barring threats and intimidation in the case after the plaintiffs noted that Trump has targeted lawyers and witnesses in the criminal proceedings against him. | SCOTUS |
The midterm elections explained US politics can be a little confusing at times. If you're not sure what the midterm elections mean and how voting is carried out, read more here. What is being voted on exactly?All 435 seats in America's House of Representatives are up for grabs, as here politicians only serve two-year terms. The Democrats narrowly control the House at the moment, but the Republicans only need a net gain of five seats to take the majority. In the Senate - which is made up of 100 seats - only 35 seats are being contested. The Democrats currently have control of this as Vice President Kamala Harris has a tie-breaking vote, although the Republicans only need a net gain of a single seat to take over control. Meanwhile, there are 36 governorship contests and other lower positions up for grabs - and there are also ballot initiatives on issues including abortion access and gun control. What would a Republican win mean? A big night for the Republicans would mean an influx of politicians who have spread Donald Trump's false claims that the 2020 election was stolen or rigged. It would also mean Kevin McCarthy - who has not ruled out attempting to impeach Joe Biden - would become Republican Speaker. The Republicans will likely open a series of investigations into the Democrats, on everything from the withdrawal from Afghanistan to the origins of COVID-19.What would a Democrat win mean? This would give Mr Biden a boost as he contemplates whether to run for reelection in 2024.It would also give him a chance to build on his social, health and climate change legislation, as well as to balance out Supreme Court judges with liberal picks. History says the Republicans should win the House - but this is no normal election By Mark Stone, US correspondent"Will the Democrats win the House?" President Joe Biden was asked last night as he arrived back at the White House."I think it's going to be tough, but I think we can. I think we'll win the Senate. I think the House is tougher," he said. It will certainly be tough. Here's the historical context...Mr Biden's Democrats currently have a 220-212 advantage in the House of Representatives.The Republicans need a net gain of just five seats. A number of representatives are retiring this year, which gives the Republicans an advantage.But here's the crux: on average since the Truman era, the White House incumbent has lost more than 29 seats in their first midterm election. Remember, the Republicans only need to win a net of five to take the House back.On the seven occasions since 1945 where the president's approval rating has been below 50%, he lost an average of 43 seats. Mr Biden's approval rating is definitely below 50% whichever poll you look at.But against this, there are suggestions that this is no normal midterm election. Abortion has played strong for the Democrats, energising their base who are pro-choice. We'll see the extent to which this could buck the trend outlined above.The Trump factor is also at play. He is no normal politician and that plays both ways. Some love that, others loathe it. Again, it could buck the trend. Louisiana polling place moved after bomb threat A polling station in Louisiana was moved from one school to another after a bomb threat, according to John Tobler, the deputy secretary of communications and outreach at the Louisiana Department of State.Mr Tobler said the threat was made against Kenner Discovery, a school located about 20 minutes outside New Orleans. The new polling location is an elementary school in the same precinct called Audubon Elementary. A representative of the Kenner Police Department said that Kenner Discovery also received a bomb threat five days ago. Middle school and high school students were evacuated that day and local police and fire departments searched the campus.This report is from our US sister NBC News. 'I just don't understand': Voter questions why people support Trump Our US correspondent James Matthews has been out in Baltimore speaking with voters - and this one has made pretty clear which side he is on. David Smith, who was at Double T Diner, said he could not understand why people would vote for Donald Trump. "He cares nothing about anything but himself and his money," he said. Polling day problems in Arizona By Joe Pike, political correspondentElection officials in Arizona have played down the significance of technical problems at polling stations, as Trump-backed candidates have used concerns to try and drive turnout."Everyone is still being able to vote," said Maricopa County official Bill Gates. "No one is being disenfranchised. None of this indicates any fraud."As well as long queues, there have been problems with the tabulators in electronic voting machines in around 20% of polling stations. "We're trying to fix this problem," Mr Gates said.Maricopa County recorder Stephen Richer added: "While this is obviously not how the system is designed, this is a fail-safe that functions the exact same way as early voting, which as you know we have been going through the past 26 days."Almost 44,000 people have already voted in the state today at 223 locations.Trump-backed Republican candidate for governor Kari Lake responded to reports of these problems by tweeting: "I am getting flooded with calls and text messages from people who are having trouble voting all over Maricopa County. This is why we must reform our elections." Donald Trump predicts 'very big night' for Republicans as he casts vote The former president has been seen in Palm Beach, Florida, alongside his wife Melania Trump.Stopping to speak with reporters, he said he expected a "very big night" for the Republicans and that it would be "very exciting to watch".Asked about his message for undecided voters, he said: "You have to make up your mind, you have to go out and vote."He added: "This is going to be a very important election and hopefully the right thing will happen."As for what the Republicans would focus on, he said the key issues would be crime and keeping taxes low.But he kept quiet on whether he would be announcing a 2024 presidential campaign, despite teasing repeatedly that he would run again. Mr Trump has been at the forefront of the Republicans' midterms campaign, and a victory for them would be seen as a win for Trumpism - making a comeback for the former president ever more likely. Last night he told people to expect an announcement next Tuesday. Why Democrats could feel more optimistic - regardless of the outcome Most analysts say the Republicans have a good chance of taking the House of Representatives (one of two houses of Congress - and they also have a chance of taking the other, the Senate) in these midterms.The prospect has prompted fears among Democrats and left-leaning observers that progress on issues such as climate policy could be blocked. But the director of E3G's Washington DC office, Claire Healy, says there are "reasons to be more pragmatic and optimistic". Speaking to Sky News, she says three big bills passed by Congress are now laws and can't be undone. When it comes to future progress, she says that "regardless of the outcome, we can still make progress over the next two years". Many Republicans could be "obstructionist", she says, but they also have three reasons to be pragmatic. 1. The Republicans have warmed up to a more industrial policy and they can see building the clean energy economy makes the US more competitive with China.2. The powerful tax incentives introduced by the Inflation Reduction Act go largely to red states, and this has proved largely popular. 3. For longer-term election success, the Republicans will have to consider that Americans want more climate action - and therefore the climate will need to be part of their platform. 'No credible threats' to voting, officials say American officials have so far not seen any credible threats targeting voting machines or poll books, a senior federal cybersecurity official has said. "We see no specific or credible threat to disrupt election infrastructure," they told reporters, speaking on condition of anonymity. They added there could be some hiccups for other reasons, but that these would not affect a person's ability to vote.US officials have made election security a top priority after it emerged that Russia interfered in the 2016 US presidential election campaign. Why has Joe Biden become more unpopular? As we've been reporting, Democrats are concerned about Joe Biden's record-low approval rating. His is the lowest of any president ahead of their first midterm elections, sitting at 40%.While most presidents see some loss of support within their first two years, his ratings have fallen lower than his recent predecessors - so what is behind this?It's impossible to point to just one issue, but dissatisfaction with the economy seems to be among one of the biggest contributors. Not all of this was in Mr Biden's control, as countries are dealing with the aftermath of the pandemic and a spike in gas prices caused by the war in Ukraine. Asked about this previously, former White House press secretary Jen Psaki offered a similar explanation. "People are fatigued across the country. It's impacting how they live, how they work. There are worries about their kids, their ability to experience joyful things in life like concerts and going to restaurants and seeing friends," she said, describing the impact of the pandemic and rising costs. But other factors are at play too. Mr Biden has also seen slipping support among young voters angry about inaction on climate change, healthcare and student debt. Meanwhile, black voters have been disappointed by a lack of progress on voting rights and police reform. Then there was the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Although a majority of Americans supported withdrawing US troops, the desperate scenes in Kabul undercut Mr Biden's authority as a foreign policy expert. | US Federal Elections |
Former President Donald Trump’s estranged niece, Mary Trump, once told VICE News that her uncle was the only person she’d ever met who could “gaslight himself” — and actually believe his own lies.
Now, Trump’s freedom may depend on convincing a jury he did just that.
Trump’s legal team is signaling plans to argue that the former president really believed all his wild falsehoods about fraud in the last presidential election, as a defense strategy in his latest criminal case over his attempts to reverse his campaign’s defeat.
The idea essentially amounts to arguing that Trump is no crook, but just a guy divorced from reality. Normally, of course, that would be a remarkable claim from a guy who used to have the nuclear codes and is presently the frontrunner to become the GOP presidential nominee. But, of course, this is the Trump era. Nothing really surprises anymore.
Trump pleaded not guilty during an arraignment in a federal courthouse in Washington D.C. on his third round of criminal and charges Thursday, in a case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith. The case revolves around Trump’s attempt to secure a second term, despite losing the election, by whipping up his followers with fallacies about dead voters and “fake ballots” and other debunked claims.
The new indictment specifies that Trump knew he was lying when he claimed that he would have won the election if not for all this supposedly rampant fraud.
“These claims were false, and the defendant knew they were false,” Smith’s team of prosecutors wrote.
The document lists several moments when Trump was told that his statements didn’t match reality. It cites an email, reportedly written by Trump advisor Jason Miller, that dismissed the Trump team’s wild-eyed fraud claims: “It’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.”
But Trump lawyer John Lauro argued on Tuesday night that there’s no way to know what Trump was really thinking.
“I would like [the prosecutors] to try to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Donald Trump believed that these allegations were false,” Lauro told Fox News.
And some people who know Trump have said he’s able to convince himself of his own bogus nonsense, when doing so makes him feel better.
“He’s the only person I’ve ever met who can gaslight himself,” Mary Trump, a clinical psychologist and critic of her uncle, told VICE News in November 2020, shortly after Trump lost the election and began falsely claiming he didn’t. “I don’t think he’s ever accepted the truth of the loss. I don't think he’s psychologically or emotionally capable of that.”
Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney who spent 15 years at Trump’s elbow, told VICE News at the time that he agreed with Mary.
“It’s the difference between a bullshit artist and a sociopath,” Cohen told VICE News. “Donald Trump is a sociopath, because he does believe his own bullshit.”
Regardless, the opinions of Mary Trump and Michael Cohen aren’t what will determine Trump’s fate.
A jury in Washington D.C. will do that. | US Political Corruption |
A clown came to Marlene Warren's door on a May morning in 1990, handed her carnations and balloons, and then shot her dead in front of her son. On Tuesday, her husband's alleged mistress and future wife finally pleaded guilty to being the killer — even though she still insists she is not — closing a even by Florida standards.
Long suspected of being the shooter, Keen-Warren has been jailed awaiting trial for first-degree murder since 2017, when Palm Beach County Sheriff's investigators said improvements in DNA technology proved that a hair found in the clown's getaway car came from her.
Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg said in a statement that the plea deal "obtained a measure of justice" for Marlene Warren and her son. No public notice was given for Tuesday's plea hearing in West Palm Beach, which otherwise would have drawn a throng of reporters and spectators. Instead, it was handled quietly during Circuit Judge Scott Suskauer's lunch break from another murder trial.
"Sheila Keen Warren has finally been forced to admit that she was the one who dressed as a clown and took the life of an innocent victim. She will be a convicted murderer for the rest of her days," Aronberg said.
Her attorney, Greg Rosenfeld, told The Associated Press in a phone interview that "this is an incredible win for Ms. Keen-Warren," still insisting she is not the killer.
The deal calls for a 12-year sentence, but Keen-Warren has already served six years awaiting trial. Also, Florida law in 1990 allowed significant time off for good behavior, so Rosenfeld expects her to be released early next year. Her trial was set to start next month, and if convicted she would have received a life sentence. Originally, prosecutors sought a death sentence but eventually dropped that.
"The state of Florida originally wanted to execute her, but now she is going home in 10 months," Rosenfeld said. "While it was difficult to plead guilty to a crime she did not commit, it was kind of a no-brainer when there is a guarantee that you will be home with your family."
Marlene Warren's son, Joseph Ahrens, watched the proceeding online. Only 21 when he saw his mother murdered, and now in his 50s, his only message to the court and Keen-Warren was, may God be with her.
At the time of the shooting, Keen-Warren was an employee of Marlene Warren's husband, Michael, at his used car lot. Since 2002, she has been his wife — they eventually moved to Abington, Virginia, where they ran a restaurant just across the Tennessee border.
Witnesses had told investigators in 1990 that Sheila Warren and Michael Warren were having an affair, though both denied it.
Over the years, detectives said, costume shop employees identified Sheila Warren as the woman who had bought a clown suit a few days before the killing.
And one of the two balloons — a silver one that read, "You're the Greatest" — was sold at only one store, a Publix supermarket near her home. Employees told detectives a woman who looked like Warren had bought the balloons an hour before the shooting.
The presumed getaway car was found abandoned with orange, hair-like fibers inside. The white Chrysler convertible had been reported stolen from Michael Warren's car lot a month before the shooting. Sheila Warren and her then-husband repossessed cars for him.
Relatives told The Palm Beach Post in 2000 that Marlene Warren, who was 40 when she died, suspected her husband was having an affair and wanted to leave him. But the car lot and other properties were in her name, and she feared what might happen if she did.
She allegedly told her mother, "If anything happens to me, Mike done it."
But Rosenfeld said the state's case was falling apart. One DNA sample somehow showed both male and female genes, and the other could have come from one out of every 20 women — even Marlene Warren, he said.
And even if that hair did come from Keen-Warren, it could have been deposited before the car was reported stolen. He said Ahrens and another witness also told detectives that the car they found wasn't the killer's, though investigators insisted it was.
Aronberg, in his statement, conceded that there were holes in the case, saying they were caused by three decades it took to get it to trial, including the death of key witnesses.
Michael Warren was convicted in 1994 of grand theft, racketeering and odometer tampering. He served almost four years in prison — a punishment his then-attorneys said was disproportionately long because of suspicions he was involved in his wife's death. He has never been charged in her murder.
In January of 2019, "48 Hours" correspondent Peter Van Sant
Warren didn't open his front door, but he did talk to Van Sant for more than seven minutes through the door glass. When Van Sant asked, "Did you have anything to do with planning the murder of your wife, Marlene?" Warren replied, "I did not." When asked again, answered "Definitely not."
Van Sant also asked Warren if he'd suggested Sheila dress up like a clown. Warren replied "Who says she even did that?"
He went on to say, "I don't think she had anything to do with this. If I thought she had something to do with this, I wouldn't have been with her."
Warren did not return a call Tuesday seeking comment from the Associated Press.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
A man has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of stealing a pair of ruby red slippers worn by Judy Garland in “The Wizard of Oz,” federal prosecutors in North Dakota say. The shoes were stolen in 2005 and recovered by a 2018 FBI sting operation, but no arrests were made at the time.
Terry Martin was indicted Tuesday with one count of theft of a major artwork, prosecutors announced Wednesday. The indictment did not provide any further information about Martin and online records do not list an attorney for him.
Garland wore several pairs of the ruby slippers during production of the 1939 musical, but only four authentic pairs remain. When they were stolen, the slippers were insured from $1 million but the current market value is about $3.5 million, federal prosecutors said in a news release.
The slippers were on loan to the Judy Garland Museum in the late actor's hometown of Grand Rapids, Minnesota, when someone climbed through a window and broke the display case, prosecutors said when they were recovered.
Over the years, several enticing rewards were offered in hopes that the slippers would turn up. Law enforcement offered $250,000 early in the case, and an anonymous donor from Arizona put up $1 million in 2015.
The road to the missing slippers began when a man told the shoes’ insurer in 2017 that he could help get them back. After a nearly year-long investigation, the FBI nabbed the shoes in Minneapolis in July 2018. At the time, the bureau said no one has been arrested or charged in the case.
On Wednesday, a summons was issued for Martin. An initial court appearance was set for June 1, and it will be via video. Terry Van Horn, spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department in North Dakota, said he could not provide any information beyond what was included in the indictment.
The shoes are famously associated with one of the iconic lines in “The Wizard of Oz,” as Garland's character Dorothy clicks her heels and repeats the phrase, “There’s no place like home.”
The shoes are made from about a dozen different materials, including wood pulp, silk thread, gelatin, plastic and glass. Most of the ruby color comes from sequins but the bows of the shoes contain red glass beads.
When they were stolen, the slippers were on loan from Hollywood memorabilia collector Michael Shaw. The three remaining pairs Garland wore in the movie were held by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, the Smithsonian, and a private collector. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
The Biden administration is expected to send the Senate an emergency supplemental funding request for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan by the end of the week, Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Thursday.
"When the Senate receives this request, we spring into action and move it as soon as we can," Schumer said on the floor Thursday morning.
Schumer said the upper chamber would pass a bipartisan resolution to affirm that the chamber stands in support of Israel. The resolution was cosponsored by 99 Democrat and Republican lawmakers.
"Our resolution has overwhelming, nearly unanimous support in the Senate on both sides, and we're working with the few who have some problems to solve their problems so we can get this done," Schumer said. "And by the end of the week, the president will send the Senate a supplemental request to provide Israel the military intelligence, diplomatic and humanitarian aid it needs."
According to sources familiar with the talks, Republican lawmakers in the upper chamber are negotiating which border security provisions they should ask the White House to include in the package.
In a call last week, the White House floated adding border security in the emergency package, but some Republican lawmakers are skeptical it will include what they want — much stricter border policies to quell the influx of migrants at the border.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Tuesday during the first Senate GOP press conference since Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7 that the White House will need to draft a "broad" spending bill for aid to Israel that includes "credible" solutions to the border crisis.
"There's a connection between all of this, and I am not surprised, frankly, that the administration seems to be inclined to send up a broad package," McConnell said after telling reporters that the attack on Israel is "interconnected" with other attacks by North Korea, Iran, Russia and China on democratic nations.
"As my colleagues have pointed out, the border part of it needs to be credible," the GOP leader said. "Not just some reference to it, but credible dealing with the problem."
According to a GOP aide, there is more bipartisan support for aid to Israel in both chambers compared to those who are supportive of sending more aid to the Eastern European nation. Ukraine has already received upward of $100 billion from the federal government to aid in its defense against the Russian invasion that began in February 2022.
"People are going to grumble, but they're going to vote for it," a source familiar with the negotiations said.
The administration will be considering upward of $100 billion for the supplemental request, according to lawmakers. In August, President Biden requested that Congress allocate $24 billion for aid to Ukraine. By Sept. 30, Congress passed a temporary spending patch for most government programs – set to expire Nov. 17 – without any additional aid to Ukraine.
Fox News reported this week that Customs and Border Protection has encountered thousands of "special interest aliens" since 2021. Special interest aliens are people from countries identified by the U.S. government as having conditions that promote or protect terrorism or potentially pose some sort of national security threat to the U.S.
Biden is expected to address the nation in a foreign policy speech at 8 p.m. ET on Thursday night.
Fox News' Bill Melugin contributed to this report. | US Federal Policies |
It's not everyday that roughly the entire population of a U.S. state gets their data stolen by online thieves.
But, according to the state of Maine, that's what happened this year.
In a new notice posted on Maine's official state government website, 1.3 million residents have had their data stolen as part of a ransomware attack that was first discovered on May 31 of this year. Again, 1.3 million individuals are affected in this data breach. Maine has over 1.3 million residents according to the 2022 U.S. Census.
According to the notice, the ransomware attack occurred between May 28 and May 29 of this year. Cyber criminals took advantage of a "software vulnerability" in a third-party file transfer tool known as MOVEit. The state says that this tool is "used by thousands of entities worldwide to send and receive data." During that period, an exploit in the tool was weaponized by a cybercriminal group which was able to download swaths of data from multiple state government agencies.
Just how much data was scooped up in this ransomware attack is a major cause for concern. It appears that these cybercriminals have access to many Maine residents' sensitive personal data. Exactly how each individual is affected is dependent on that person and their "association with the state." For example, if a specific person has provided certain data as part of a specific program connected to an agency, that data has potentially been breached.
Maine has confirmed that some points of data that the cybercriminals could potentially have on an individual includes their name, Social Security number, date of birth, driver’s license or state ID number, and taxpayer ID number. Medical information as well has health insurance information may also have been affected.
Officials in Maine dealt with the issue by shutting off access to MOVEit as soon as the breach was discovered. However, significant amounts of data had already been accessed. It's unclear exactly who was behind the breach, although it is believed to be a cybercriminal group known as Clop. However, as of today, that data has still yet to be released by the ransomware group.
The state says that individuals should reach out to the state for more information as to how they've potentially been affected. Maine has set up a website with details for residents here.
Topics Cybersecurity | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
A lot of people are talking about the long piece Robert Kagan wrote in The Washington Post on Thursday about how, as the headline put it, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.”
They’re talking about it, I think, for two main reasons. One, it’s interesting coming from Kagan, an influential neocon who has spent his career promoting a hard-line foreign policy. He hasn’t written regularly on such domestic topics as presidential elections, although people this week seem to have forgotten that he’s been a Donald Trump foe since 2016, when he endorsed Hillary Clinton and wrote a Post column warning, “This is how fascism comes to America.”
The second reason is that the piece is gripping, dark, and alarming. The sections on what a second Trump term would look like are terrifying (even if other liberal columnists, including me, have been saying similar things for years). But I want to draw attention to a different section of the piece, where he recounts the cowardice and indifference that enabled Trump’s rise and lays out how the deck is stacked in Trump’s favor as we hurtle toward the 2024 election.
I think Kagan tells a pretty one-sided story with respect to the stacked deck. But at the same time, he’s right about the complacency and shoulder-shrugging indifference that put Trump in the White House. And what’s shocking to me, what I puzzle over for at least a couple of hours every day, is this: After all we’ve seen from that man, how can it possibly be the case that we’re going to shrug our shoulders again? And yet, all signs suggest we are.
With respect to the stacked deck, Kagan writes that Trump “will enter the general-election campaign early next year with momentum, backed by growing political and financial resources, and an increasingly unified party,” and that the criminal proceedings will be a strength rather weakness: “He is going to use the trials to display his power.” No doubt Trump will try. But it’s hardly clear that this will work. If he’s convicted of at least one serious crime before Election Day, sure, that will galvanize his base, but will it really help him with swing voters? In a number of polls I’ve seen, Trump is under 50 percent among Republican-leaning independents. There’s also the question of Trump’s mental decline, which is becoming increasingly obvious and which the media will eventually cotton on to (and has, a bit). These and other facts don’t fit into the doomsday narratives, but they’re real. So there are a lot of balls that could bounce Joe Biden’s way that Kagan doesn’t mention.
Still, this much is dead-on true: “Throughout these years, an understandable if fatal psychology has been at work,” Kagan writes of the time since Trump’s rise. “At each stage, stopping Trump would have required extraordinary action by certain people, whether politicians or voters or donors, actions that did not align with their immediate interests or even merely their preferences.” And not enough people took such action. They “behaved normally,” as Kagan put it, either on the assumption (early on) that Trump would fade, or in the naïve faith that he couldn’t really be that bad, or out of sheer cowardice, or out of literal physical fear for their families (as Mitt Romney recently articulated to McKay Coppins).
The incredible thing to me is how it’s all happening again. Here are six culprits who seem to think this is just another election.
Republican donors and corporate titans: Maybe that’s two categories, but I’d call them 1A and 1B. Most of these people can’t possibly want Trump to return to the White House. They know who he is; they know what he’ll do. And yet, they really want their tax cuts. They really hate Biden’s love of unions and how his administration is trying to bust up monopolies and oligopolies. Is that more important to them than democracy? I fear the answer is a pretty unequivocal yes.
Middle-of-the-road voters: This is the chunk of the electorate that is not liberal but also not MAGA. From everything I can see, these voters just aren’t alarmed by Trump at all. I think they’re so cynical (and, let’s face it, not well informed in a lot of cases) that they think all politicians have some Trump in them; they all just want to make a buck, and so on. I understand their concerns about inflation and, more generally, just how hard their lives are (a topic for another column that I should write soon). But how they can see Trump as just another pol, albeit maybe a little more so, is something I can’t figure out.
No Labels: It looks like they’re forging ahead. The group’s leaders repeatedly insist that they don’t want to help Trump. And maybe they’ll put forward a candidate who might take votes from Trump—insider betting seems to be moving from Democrat Joe Manchin as the group’s standard-bearer to former Maryland GOP Governor Larry Hogan. But the No Labels scenario for victory is a total fantasy, as No Labels CEO Nancy Jacobson surely knows, and this is no time for fantasy.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: Who knows what to say about this crackpot? Recent polls show him breaking 20 percent in a three-way presidential race. They also suggest he may take more from Trump than from Biden, which is fine. But he’s a highly unstable presence in a general election contest. Imagine him on a debate stage next October. Who is he going to go after harder, Trump or Biden?
Cornel West: His may be the most irresponsible candidacy of all, because as he well knows, the only impact he can possibly have on this race is to win the votes of a few thousand young voters in a handful of states and thus help Trump win those states.
Jill Stein: She formally announced her Green Party candidacy recently. We shouldn’t expect more from Vladimir Putin’s dinner guest. She already helped put Trump in the White House once, so why shouldn’t she do it again?
In sum, here’s where we are. One of two people, and only two people, is going to be president on January 20, 2025. You can wish Biden had stood down. Nearly a year ago, I wrote a strong endorsement of him running again. But he has aged in that year. I might now say that on balance, he should have stood down at some point in the summer.
But he didn’t. And that’s that. He may not be fully up to the job by 2027 or whatever, but here are some things he won’t do: He won’t appoint lackeys based on loyalty. He won’t bomb Mexico. He won’t arrest political opponents. He won’t invoke the Insurrection Act to have protesters arrested. He won’t give Putin Ukraine. And we can know to a certainty that he won’t try to make himself president for life.
Donald Trump might do all those things and a whole lot more. And yet, all six of those people and groups I listed above think this is a fine time to ignore all this and/or run a pipe-dream candidacy for president.
I can almost understand in retrospect how Trump got elected in 2016. He was an outsider then, moderate voters had been instructed for 25 years to hate Hillary, and he drew a narrow inside straight. But now, eight years and multiple offenses against democracy later, we’re really going to sleepwalk our way to a Trump presidency again?
To borrow from Kagan, we need people to do extraordinary things. If now is not the time, when will be? | US Federal Elections |
ATLANTA -- Lawmakers in several Republican-led states have been looking to exert more authority over state and local election offices, claiming new powers that Democrats warn could be used to target left-leaning counties in future elections.
The moves range from requiring legislative approval of court settlements in election-related lawsuits to creating paths for taking over local election offices.
In North Carolina, a Republican proposal working its way through the General Assembly would change the composition of state and county election boards and give lawmakers sole authority to appoint board members.
Republican lawmakers in Texas recently approved legislation that not only eliminates the top election official in the Democratic stronghold of Harris County, which includes Houston, but also permits the state’s chief election official — the secretary of state — to take over the county’s election office. The secretary is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, both now in Republican hands.
Election observers say it’s imperative for public trust that elections remain free of partisan manipulation and they say they worry about lawmakers deciding to assert their new powers for political gain.
“There are ways that states can intervene and help local election officials,” said David Levine, a former local election official in Idaho who is now a senior fellow with the German Marshall Fund’s Alliance for Securing Democracy. “Instead, we are seeing states that are enacting laws that could introduce new challenges to the conduct of U.S. elections.”
Attempts by Republican legislatures to expand their power over how elections are run have soared since the 2020 presidential election, spurred by former President Donald Trump’s false claims of widespread fraud. Republican lawmakers characterize the moves as necessary oversight aimed at improving elections, while Democrats criticize them as power grabs that could be used to interfere in voting or ballot counting.
The offices that oversee elections at the state or local level are primarily filled by people who win partisan elections or are appointed in a process that involves partisan officials. But those in the jobs have typically worked to maintain a nonpartisan approach to running elections. Since the 2020 presidential election, a few of these positions have been taken by people who rejected the results, raising doubts about how they will run their office.
Some of the legislation passed during that time by Republican lawmakers has led to additional concerns about partisan interference. Lawmakers in 13 mostly GOP-controlled states have passed an estimated 15 bills that either expanded lawmakers' authority over elections or took some action to interfere with local election administrators, according to data collected by the Voting Rights Lab, which tracks voting-related legislation in the states and advocates for expanded voter access.
In Texas, laws just passed by Republican lawmakers and signed into law by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott will abolish the elections administrator’s office in heavily Democratic Harris County, which includes Houston and has more than 2 million voters. The laws also provide a way for the state to take oversight of the county’s election office in the future.
The rush by the Texas GOP to shake up elections in the nation’s third-largest county — and one with large numbers of Hispanic and Black voters — followed limited problems in November’s elections that included a shortage of paper ballots and some polling locations opening late. Previous stumbles also have put Harris County elections under scrutiny by Republicans, including 10,000 mail ballots that weren’t counted the day of the 2022 primary.
“This is about performance, not politics,” said state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Houston Republican.
Leaders in Harris County have accused Republicans of using the issues as an excuse to take greater control of elections in a place that is increasingly tilting toward Democrats. A lawsuit is expected.
The county was virtually split in the 2012 presidential race. By 2020, Democrat Joe Biden easily won Harris County by double digits.
“This has been a big saga of the state deciding that they don’t like the way Harris County residents vote, so instead they’re going to take control of the Harris County elections apparatus,” said Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo, a Democrat and the county’s top elected official.
In North Carolina, where Republicans control the legislature, lawmakers are making another attempt to take power away from the governor, a Democrat, in deciding who serves on election boards. The moves come after Republicans were thwarted in previous years by the courts and by voters, who opposed a 2018 constitutional amendment.
Republicans, who now hold veto-proof majorities, envision an eight-person State Board of Elections that likely would be comprised of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, appointed by legislative leaders of both political parties. It would replace the current five-person model, with appointees of Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper based on lists of candidates provided by the two parties. Under current state law, no more than three members of the board can be of the same political party.
Republicans have pointed to a legal settlement reached over mail ballot deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic between the Democratic-controlled board and a union-affiliated group as proof of partisan mischief.
“Those actions were enabled by a board that circumvented the legislative process and caused North Carolinians to lose trust in the election process,” said Senate leader Phil Berger, a Republican. “Now we will take the necessary steps to begin rebuilding that trust.”
The elections bill, which passed the Senate this past week, also would reduce the size of county election boards from five members to four. Legislative leaders of both parties would appoint the members, rather than the current model in which the governor has one appointment and the State Board of Elections fills the rest of the seats. Democrats see the change as a recipe for stalemate.
“This is going to result in uncertified election results, uncertainty and endless litigation,” said Minority Leader Dan Blue, a Democrat.
Fears of a takeover did not come to pass in Georgia after the GOP-controlled legislature passed a bill in 2021 that gave the State Election Board the power to intervene in county election offices and remove local election officials. After its review clause was triggered by Republican lawmakers, the board launched an examination of Fulton County, which includes much of Atlanta and has had a history of election troubles.
After the review found the heavily Democratic county had shown considerable improvement, the board recently decided against taking over its election office. Matt Mashburn, a Republican appointee to the board, said the “talking heads were wrong” when they suggested the law would be used to meddle in local elections.
“I think the process has been very good and thorough, and everybody took their time,” he said.
In Wisconsin, state election commissioners are scheduled to meet this coming week to consider whether Meagan Wolfe, the state’s nonpartisan election administrator, should serve another term. It's one of the relatively few examples of nonpartisan election administration in the United States.
Commissioners are weighing the chances of Wolfe surviving confirmation in the Republican-led Senate, where some lawmakers have pledged not to support her despite numerous reviews in the state affirming there was no evidence of widespread fraud or wrongdoing with the state’s elections in 2020. Republicans in the state have made various efforts in recent years to weaken the bipartisan election commission, which has an equal number of Democrats and Republicans.
Kathy Bernier, a former Republican state senator and county election official who has spoken out against false claims of widespread fraud, said commissioners face a tough vote.
“The difficulty with both Republicans and Democrats right now is they don’t trust anyone as nonpartisan," she said. "So whoever they pick, one side or the other is probably going to have a complaint or two.”
___
Associated Press writers Jeff Amy in Atlanta; Gary Robertson in Raleigh, North Carolina; Paul Weber in Austin, Texas; and Harm Venhuizen in Madison, Wisconsin, contributed to this report. | US Federal Elections |
- Morgan Stanley will pay a $6.5 million fine to six states after a probe found the financial services company compromised the personal data of millions of customers.
- The settlement comes several years after Morgan Stanley notified the states about two data security incidents.
- “No one should have their personal information auctioned off without their knowledge because a company failed to take basic steps to erase it before selling their old computers,” said New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Morgan Stanley agreed to pay a fine of $6.5 million to a coalition of six states for compromising the personal data of millions of customers while decommissioning computers at the financial services giant, New York's attorney general said Thursday.
Morgan Stanley as part of the settlement agreed to adopt provisions "that better protects the personal information of its consumers going forward," New York AG Letitia James' office said.
The settlement comes more than three years after Morgan Stanley notified the states' attorneys general of two incidents involving data security.
In the first incident, involving the closure of two company data centers in 2016, Morgan Stanley contracted with a vendor to remove data from the computers that were set to be decommissioned, but later learned that the vendor subcontracted certain services to an unauthorized provider, according to the agreement.
Some computers then ended up being auctioned off "while still containing consumers' personal information, including data belonging to 1.1 million New Yorkers," according to James' office.
"In a second incident, Morgan Stanley discovered during a decommissioning process that 42 servers, all potentially containing unencrypted customer information, were missing," James' office said in a statement. "During this process, the company learned that the local devices being decommissioned may have contained unencrypted data due to a manufacturer flaw in the encryption software."
An investigation found that Morgan Stanley failed to maintain proper controls for vendors and hardware inventory.
"Had these controls been in place, both data security events could have been prevented," James' office said.
James, in a statement, said, "No one should have their personal information auctioned off without their knowledge because a company failed to take basic steps to erase it before selling their old computers."
New York will receive $1.66 million in the settlement, and the rest of the fine will be split between the other states: Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, New Jersey and Vermont.
A Morgan Stanley spokesperson, in a statement to CNBC, said, "We have previously notified all potentially impacted clients regarding these matters, which occurred several years ago, and are pleased to have resolved this related investigation."
Since the incidents were discovered, the company has not detected unauthorized access or misuse of client information, and it has made significant changes to how it handles data destruction and vendors. | US Federal Policies |
Congressional Republicans are railing against President Joe Biden’s environmental agenda as lawmakers from both parties prepare to join world leaders later this week at the annual U.N. climate summit in the United Arab Emirates.
GOP lawmakers rolled out statements and warning shots over the weekend around EPA’s new methane rule and Vice President Kamala Harris’ commitment to a multibillion-dollar infusion into the Green Climate Fund.
“The Biden administration has piled on another massive regulatory burden designed to encumber and even shut down American energy production,” said Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) following the announcement of EPA’s final rulemaking to dramatically curb emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
“There’s never a good time for a terrible rule,” Cramer said, “but this seems like a crude joke in the wake of heightened geopolitical tensions and global oil instability.”
The highly anticipated rule would put more of the burden on individual companies to control methane emissions, including by requiring producers to upgrade equipment and to actually search for existing leaks rather than relying on preexisting estimates.
Separately, at the U.N. summit this weekend, 50 oil and gas companies pledged to eliminate methane emissions almost entirely by 2030, though environmental groups have doubts about enforcement.
Meanwhile, Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart (R-Fla.) put the Biden administration on notice that Harris’ promise at COP28 to send $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund — which aims to help countries adapt to climate change and reduce emissions — is dead on arrival on Capitol Hill.
“I am appalled that the Biden administration will pledge billions more of taxpayer dollars, money that Congress has not even provided, to yet another bloated, mismanaged and ineffective slush fund that will do nothing to change the temperature of the planet,” said Díaz-Balart, the chair of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over international climate spending.
“Given our national debt of more than $33.8 trillion, in addition to the numerous pressing and grave foreign policy challenges that we are facing, there simply is no justification for spending billions more on a failing, inflated and economically harmful climate change agenda led by clueless bureaucrats at the United Nations,” Díaz-Balart continued.
The GOP criticism is not surprising. It could, however, further heighten existing tensions among members of a House delegation planning to travel to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, at the week’s end, when a small number of Democrats are expected to participate alongside perhaps three times as many Republicans.
The delegation, co-led by House Energy and Commerce Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and ranking member Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), will mark the first time the number of Republicans will outnumber Democrats at a COP gathering.
Democrats are suspicious that Republicans are heading to COP to undermine the negotiations rather than support global emissions reduction goals.
Republicans have made no secret of the fact they’re interested in going to COP with the primary purpose of celebrating U.S. energy dominance and leadership — an objective Democrats consider counterproductive to the summit’s entire mission.
“It’s a really long flight to be on the periphery of a meeting,” said Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), regarding the House Republicans. “It’d be like if I showed up at the Koch brothers confab and held a sign. No one’s going to pay attention.”
Schatz is attending COP with a delegation of senators. All are expected to be Democrats, with the exception of Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
Glimpses of bipartisanship
The Republican-led Energy and Commerce Committee this week will also hold its second hearing in two weeks to preview its message at COP, further cementing the party’s position going into the high-stakes gathering.
The first hearing, convened last week by the Subcommittee on Environment, Manufacturing and Critical Minerals, was titled, “America Leads the Way: Our History as the Global Leader in Reducing Emissions.”
The second hearing, to be led Tuesday by the Energy, Climate and Grid Security Subcommittee, has been dubbed, “America’s Future: Leading a New Era of Energy Dominance, Security and Environmental Stewardship.”
It’s not clear how the two hearings will be demonstrably different from each other, or if there’s any chance the two parties will be able to break through their political and ideological differences ahead of the delegation’s departure a few days later.
Pallone, despite his overall skepticism about the GOP’s ambitions for the climate summit, conceded after last week’s hearing that at least Republicans were “[acknowledging] the importance of reducing emissions.”
He explained that “they were saying the U.S. is doing more to reduce emissions than any other country … it shows, at least, they think we should reduce emissions. So maybe, in an optimistic way, we can make them agree to further emissions reductions on a bipartisan basis.”
Rep. John Curtis (R-Utah), the chair of the Conservative Climate Caucus and a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, likewise attempted to focus on where the two parties could find common ground rather than where they split sharply apart on climate policy.
At one point during last week’s hearing, Curtis said he heard Democrats and Republicans in agreement on three principles: “affordability matters … reliability matters … clean matters.”
Curtis himself plans at COP to work across the aisle with his frequent legislative collaborator, Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), to pitch the international community on legislation that would require the Energy Department to study the carbon intensity of certain industrial goods.
The “Providing Reliable, Objective, Verifiable Emissions Intensity and Transparency (PROVE IT) Act,” S. 1863, which has already been introduced in the Senate by Cramer and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), is being touted as a precursor to a carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which would impose tariffs on carbon-intensive goods.
Curtis and Peters have said they will soon introduce a companion to the “PROVE IT Act” in the House, with some changes to the Senate product, though they have not yet clarified what changes they’re looking at and when to expect formal introduction.
The bipartisan House Climate Solutions Caucus will also be attending COP with the goal of bridging partisan divides around how to thwart the worst effects of global warming.
Just as the group is evenly split on Capitol Hill, the COP delegation will be equally divided between Democrats and Republicans, too, confirmed co-Chair Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.).
The caucus’s plan, said Garbarino, is to tour energy facilities and meet with foreign leaders and industry representatives “to see what they’re doing, what’s working, what’s not working” in the realm of climate action.
“It’s a really good place to learn,” he said.
Schedule: The hearing is Tuesday, Dec. 5, at 10 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn and via webcast.
Witnesses: TBA. | US Federal Policies |
Eight Republican presidential candidates squared off at the first Republican debate of the presidential primary cycle on Thursday in Milwaukee, where they made the case for their candidacies before their largest audience to date.
The candidates sparred over a variety of issues ranging from abortion and the economy to Ukraine and education. But the most contentious exchanges came when the discussion turned to former President Donald Trump, who skipped the debate and was the "elephant not in the room," as Fox News anchor and moderator Bret Baier put it.
The eight Republicans were asked whether they would support Trump as the party's nominee even if he was convicted of a crime. All but two said they would.
The candidates that participated in Thursday's debate were:
- Florida Gov.
- North Dakota Gov.
- Former New Jersey Gov.
- Former U.N. Ambassador
- Former Arkansas Gov.
- Former Vice President
- Entrepreneur
- Sen. of South Carolina
Trump insteadwith Tucker Carlson, which was released to coincide with the debate. A released Sunday showed Trump with a wide lead over the rest of the field, earning the support of 62% of likely Republican primary voters. DeSantis was a distant second, earning 16% support.
In Milwaukee, many candidates took aim at Ramaswamy, a 38-year-old entrepreneur and political newcomer who has been ascending in the polls in recent weeks. In one notable line, Pence called him a "rookie" who would need "on-the-job training" in the White House.
Here are the highlights from the first GOP presidential debate, which aired on Fox News and lasted about two hours:
Nikki Haley criticizes Trump and other Republicans over government spending
Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, came out swinging against several of her Republican opponents over the nation's fiscal state, singling out DeSantis, Scott and Pence for voting on legislation that raised the national debt. She also took aim directly at Trump for adding $8 trillion to the debt during his only term.
"Our kids are never going to forgive us for this," said Haley, who served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the Trump administration.
She pointed the finger at Republicans for approving a $2.2 trillion COVID relief bill during Trump's presidency and for bringing back earmarks. In the 2024 budget, Republicans requested $7.4 billion in earmarks compared to Democrats' $2.8 billion.
"You tell me, who are the big spenders?" Haley said. "I think it's time for an accountant in the White House."
Haley has a bachelor's degree in accounting and served as the chief financial officer of her family's clothing business.
Pence takes aim at Ramaswamy: "We don't need to bring in a rookie"
Pence was the first to target Ramaswamy early in the debate, calling him a "rookie" who lacks experience to be president.
"I was the first person in this race to say that we've got to deal with the long term national debt issues. You've got people on this stage that won't even talk about issues like Social Security and Medicare. Vivek, you recently said a president can't do everything. Well, I've got news for you, Vivek. I've been in the hallway. I've been in the West Wing. The president of the United States has to confront every crisis facing America."
Ramaswamy fired back that solving the country's economic issues "isn't that complicated" and listed off a number of his solutions.
"I'm not sure I exactly understood Mike Pence, his comment, but I'll let you all parse that out," he said.
"I'll go slower this time," Pence said.
"You know, I sometimes struggle with reading comprehension," Ramaswamy quipped.
Pence added: "Now is not the time for on-the-job training. We don't need to bring in a rookie. We don't need to bring in people without experience"
Candidates debate federal ban on abortion
The presidential hopefuls sparred for theand whether there should be a federal law banning abortion, an issue that is likely to be key in the 2024 general election. Among likely Republican voters, though, candidates' plans to stop abortion ranked the lowest in importance of any policy goals that were included in a .
Haley began by characterizing herself as "unapologetically pro-life," but said the issue of abortion is personal. She urged her fellow Republican candidates to be honest with the American people about the prospects of a federal abortion ban passing the House and Senate, given that in the upper chamber, 60 votes are needed for legislation to advance.
"Don't make women feel like they have to decide on this issue when you know we don't have 60 Senate votes," Haley said.
The former governor of South Carolina — where the legislature passed a law outlawing most abortions once embryonic cardiac activity is detected — said lawmakers need to find consensus on abortion-related measures, including banning late-term abortions, encouraging adoptions, making contraception available and ensuring women who get an abortion are not punished for doing so.
DeSantis, who signed Florida's bill banning abortions after six weeks in April, said he was proud to sign that measure into law and said he believes "in a culture of life."
Asked whether he would sign a federal law that outlawed abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, DeSantis said he would "stand on the side of life," but said he understands a state like Wisconsin is going to approach the issue of abortion differently than Texas.
"I will support the cause of life as governor and as president," the Florida governor said.
Scott reiterated his support for a nationwide 15-week limit, while Pence, too, said a ban on abortions after 15 weeks is "an idea whose time has come."
Burgum, who signed a near-total ban on abortion in North Dakota, renewed his opposition to a federal law outlawing abortion, as he believes the issue should be left to each state.
"We need to get back to freedom and liberty for the people," he said.
All candidates except Christie and Hutchinson say they would support Trump if he's convicted
Baier, the moderator, brought up what he called the "elephant not in the room," and asked the candidates to raise their hands if they would still support Trump as the Republican presidential nominee even if he is convicted of a crime. The former president faces dozens of felony charges across two state cases and two federal cases.
All candidates on stage except Hutchinson and Christie ultimately raised their hands. Pence was the last candidate to do so. (Christie appeared to raise his finger to get the attention of the moderators.)
"Someone has got to stop normalizing this conduct," said Christie, the most vocal Trump critic among the field. "Whether or not you believe the criminal charges are right or wrong, the conduct is beneath the office of the president of the United States."
Christie and Ramaswamy got into a row over support for Trump, and Christie blasted Trump for saying it would be OK to suspend the Constitution.
"I will always stand up for our Constitution, regardless of the political pressure," Christie said.
On the topic of Jan. 6, 2021, Scott said Pence did the right thing by allowing for the certification of votes. But Scott said one of his first actions as president would be to fire Attorney General Merrick Garland.
"We need lady justice to wear a blindfold," Scott said.
Haley explained her answer by saying, "I trust the American people. Let them vote, let them decide." But she said the reality of the polling is, Trump is the most "disliked" politician in America, and the American people believe it's time to move on.
Ramaswamy posed a question of his own, asking Pence if he would pardon Trump on day one. Pence asked Ramswamy why he would assume Trump would be convicted of any crimes.
"If I'm president of the United States, we'll give fair consideration to any pardon request," Pence said.
Candidates answer whether they believe Pence did right thing on Jan. 6
A majority of the candidates said they believed Pence did the right thing on Jan. 6, 2021, by refusing to overturn Joe Biden's election victory as he presided over the ceremonial certification of the results at the U.S. Capitol.
Christie, Scott, Hutchinson and Burgum all said the former vice president did the right thing.
"Mike Pence stood for the Constitution, and he deserves not grudging credit — he deserves our thanks as Americans for putting his oath of office and the Constitution of the United States before personal, political and unfair pressure. And the argument that we need to have in this party before we can move on to the issues … is, we have to dispense with the person who said we need to suspend the Constitution to put forward his political career," Christie said. "Mike Pence said no, and he deserves credit for it."
DeSantis declined to give a straight answer after repeated pressing from the debate moderators.
"Mike did his duty and I've got no beef with him," DeSantis said.
Ramaswamy was not asked the question, but jumped in to defend Trump and reiterated that he would pardon Trump if he is elected president.
Ramaswamy, DeSantis say they would not support an increase in aid to Ukraine
Asked which of the eight candidates would not support an increase of funding to Ukraine, Ramaswamy and DeSantis were the only two to raise their hands.
"I would have Europe step up and do their job," DeSantis said, adding that U.S. support for Ukraine as it defends itself from Russia's aggression should be contingent on Europe boosting its assistance.
Both DeSantis and Ramaswamy said more American resources should be sent to the U.S.-Mexico border instead of Kyiv.
Ramaswamy took veiled swipes at Christie and Pence for visiting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, calling him his GOP opponents' "pope."
In response, Christie said he visited the country to see the impact of Russian President Vladimir Putin's war on the Ukrainian people, and Pence suggested Ramaswamy lacks the foreign policy experience needed to serve as the commander in chief.
"If we do the giveaway that you want to give to Putin, to give him this land, it's not going to be too long before he rolls across a NATO border," Pence said, adding that U.S. troops will then be sent to defend NATO allies. "We achieve peace through strength, and America needs to stand for freedom."
Haley lambasted Ramaswamy for his opposition to more assistance to Ukraine, saying he is "choosing a murderer over a pro-American country."
"He will make America less safe," she said of Ramaswamy. "Under your watch, you will make America less safe."
Haley noted that 3.5% of the U.S. defense budget has been given to Ukraine, which she called a "pro-America country that was invaded by a thug," Putin.
Christie scoffs at question about UFOs
During the closing "lightning round," moderator Martha MacCallum said she had a question that was "a little out of this world" for Christie: "Do you believe that the recent spike in UFO encounters —"
"I get the UFO question? Come on, man," Christie interrupted, drawing laughter from the crowd.
MacCallum pointed to aabout UAPs, the government's formal name for UFOs, and said "people are taking this a lot more seriously, and we're hearing that there are things going on that people aren't aware of."
If Christie was president, MacCallum continued, "would you level with the American people about what the government knows about these possible encounters?"
"I think it's horrible that just because I'm from New Jersey, you ask me about unidentified flying objects and Martians," Christie joked. "The job of the president of the United States is to level with the American people about everything. The job of the president of the United States is to stand for truth. The job of the president of the United States is to be a role model for our children and grandchildren." | US Federal Elections |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Steve Karnowski, Associated Press
Steve Karnowski, Associated Press
Nicholas Riccardi, Associated Press
Nicholas Riccardi, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit seeking to bar former President Donald Trump from the 2024 primary ballot under a constitutional provision that forbids those who “engaged in insurrection” from holding office.
The state’s high court declined to become the first in history to use Section Three of the 14th Amendment to prevent someone from running for the presidency. However, it said in its ruling the decision applied only to the state’s primary and left open the possibility that plaintiffs could try again to knock Trump off the general election ballot in November.
The ruling is the first to come in a series of lawsuits filed by liberal groups that are seeking to use Section Three to end the candidacy of the frontrunner in the Republican presidential primary by citing his role in the violent Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol that was intended to halt certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory.
EXPLAINER: Here’s how to watch the 3rd GOP presidential debate
Trump has attacked the lawsuits as “frivolous” attempts by “radical Democrat dark money groups” to short-circuit democracy by interfering with his attempt to regain the White House.
The provision at issue bars from office anyone who swore an oath to the constitution and then “engaged in insurrection” against it. It was mainly used to prevent former Confederates from taking over state and federal government positions after the Civil War.
The plaintiffs in the cases contend that Section Three is simply another qualification for the presidency, just like the Constitution’s requirement that a president be at least 35 years old. They filed in Minnesota because the state has a quick process to challenge ballot qualifications, with the case heard directly by the state’s highest court.
Trump’s attorneys argued that Section Three has no power without Congress laying out the criteria and procedures for applying it, that the Jan. 6 attack doesn’t meet the definition of insurrection and that the former president was simply using his free speech rights. They also argued that the clause doesn’t apply to the office of the presidency, which is not mentioned in the text.
Parallel cases are being heard in other states, including Colorado, where a state judge has scheduled closing arguments for next week.
Associated Press
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Politics
Nov 07 | SCOTUS |
23andMe is investigating reports of a new data leak involving millions of user records. On Wednesday, TechCrunch reported that a hacker claims to have leaked 4 million genetic profiles belonging to people in Great Britain, along with “the wealthiest people living in the U.S. and Western Europe.”
The hacker, who goes by “Golem,” is the same one that stole 1 million lines of genetic data from 23andMe earlier this month, according to TechCrunch. Golem posted this latest round of data on the hacking site BreachForums.
Katie Watson, the vice president of communications at 23andMe, tells The Verge the company was “made aware” that the same hacker claims to have leaked another trove of what they claim is customer information. “We are currently reviewing the data to determine if it is legitimate,” Watson says. “Our investigation is ongoing and if we learn that a customer’s data has been accessed without their authorization, we will notify them directly with more information.”
In a blog post published on October 6th, 23andMe confirmed that the data included in the previous leak was legitimate and affected the platform’s DNA Relatives feature, which lets users match with other potential genetic relatives on 23andMe. At the time, 23andMe said it found no sign of a security incident within its systems, adding that the hacker was able to access users’ accounts using “recycled” login credentials that were exposed in other hacks.
This most recent leak involves the DNA Relatives feature as well, potentially enabling the hacker to scrape the information belonging to the relatives that an account has matched with. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Kate Brumback, Associated Press
Kate Brumback, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
ATLANTA (AP) — Three of the Georgia Republicans who signed a certificate falsely claiming that then-President Donald Trump won the state in 2020 were not fake electors, their lawyers argued Wednesday, but instead were a “contingent” slate in case the original election results were tossed out by a court.
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones heard arguments on why David Shafer, Shawn Still and Cathy Latham believe the case against them should be tried in federal court rather than in Fulton County Superior Court. They, along with Trump and 15 other people, have pleaded not guilty to charges accusing them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to keep the Republican president in power after Democrat Joe Biden won Georgia.
Lawyers for Shafer, Still and Latham argued their status as electors means they were acting as federal officials and were performing the duties required by federal law. The three defendants were not in court Wednesday.
“By federal law, these people were not fake, sham or impersonators,” said Craig Gillen, an attorney for Shafer. “They were contingent federal electors when they went and did their duty on Dec. 14, 2020.”
READ FULL: Georgia grand jury report that recommended more indictments in the 2020 election case
Prosecutors rejected that notion, alleging that Shafer, Still, Latham — and the other Georgia Republicans who participated in the plan — “falsely impersonated” electors. Related state charges against them include impersonating a public officer, forgery, false statements and writings, and attempting to file false documents.
“These private parties did not transform themselves into public actors by a criminal act,” prosecutor Anna Cross said.
Part of the overarching scheme, the indictment alleges, was the casting of false Electoral College votes by 16 Georgia Republicans and the transfer of documentation of those votes to the president of the U.S. Senate, the National Archives, the Georgia secretary of state and the chief judge of the federal court in Atlanta. Those documents were meant to “disrupt and delay” the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021, in order to “unlawfully change the outcome” of the election, the indictment says.
Republicans in six other battleground states that Trump lost also met and signed similar certificates. Michigan’s attorney general in July brought criminal charges against the group there.
Lawyers for Shafer, Still and Latham argued in court that a challenge to the state’s election results was pending at the time and that lawyers told the gathered Republicans that it was necessary to have an alternate slate of GOP electors in case the challenge was successful.
The lawyers asserted that that pending legal challenge meant the state had failed to meet the “safe harbor deadline,” which dictates that states can protect their electoral votes against challenges in Congress by completing certification of the results and any state court legal challenges by that date.
READ MORE: Georgia district attorney in 2020 election case against Trump and others seeks protections for jurors
The failure to do so meant that both the Republican and Democratic elector slates were “contingent” and that it was up to Congress to determine which should be counted, the lawyers said.
Prosecutor Donald Wakeford argued that meeting the safe harbor deadline was “a super shield or protection” for a state and rejected the claim that the Republican slate of electors was equal to the Democratic slate that was certified by the governor.
“The distinction is not obliterated because the safe harbor deadline is not met,” he said.
Lawyers for Shafer, Still and Latham cited the example of the 1960 presidential election when Republican Richard Nixon was initially certified as the winner in Hawaii. Supporters of Democrat John F. Kennedy filed a legal challenge that was still pending on the day the state’s presidential electors were to meet.
That day, the certified electors for Nixon and uncertified elector nominees for Kennedy met at the state Capitol to cast votes for their candidates and sent them to Congress as required by the Electoral Count Act. Kennedy ultimately won the challenge and was certified the winner, and Congress counted the votes of the Kennedy electors.
Cross argued that the Hawaii case was different “for a lot of reasons” and noted that the slate of electors that was chosen for Hawaii was the one that had most recently been certified by the state’s governor. Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, a Republican, certified the Democratic slate, not the GOP slate.
Even if the Trump campaign’s legal challenge to the election results had been successful, Cross argued, the only solution a court could impose would be a new election, not a substitution of the Republican slate. Holly Pierson, another attorney for Shafer, argued that the law does allow a judge to declare someone elected after hearing the allegations and evidence in an election challenge.
At the time of the actions alleged in the indictment, Shafer was the chair of the Georgia Republican Party, Latham was the chair of the Coffee County Republican Party and Still was the finance chair for the state Republican Party. Still was elected to the state Senate last year and represents a district in Atlanta’s suburbs.
The judge asked Cross whether performing a federal function makes someone a federal official. She said it does not. She also argued that the Republicans who signed the certificate were acting in their own personal interest and in the interest of Trump’s losing campaign.
“They were fake electors. They were impersonating electors,” she said, adding that there was no evidence they believed Trump had actually won.
Asked by Judge Jones at what point they should have known Trump had lost, Cross said they should have known “at every point.”
Pierson contended that it was up to Congress: “We know who won when Congress tells us and not a moment before.”
Jones already rejected an effort by Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his case to federal court. Meadows has appealed that ruling. Jones held a hearing Monday on a similar bid by former U.S. Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark and has yet to rule.
If any of the cases are moved to federal court, a jury would be drawn from a broader and potentially less Democratic pool than in Fulton County alone.
In addition to the charges related to the fake elector plan, Shafer is accused of lying to investigators for the Fulton County district attorney’s office. Latham is accused of participating in a breach of election equipment in Coffee County by a computer forensics team hired by Trump allies.
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Politics
Sep 18 | US Political Corruption |
Former congressman Adam Kinzinger, one of only a handful of Republicans who voted to impeach former President Donald Trump over the events of January 6, 2021, and one of only two GOP lawmakers to have served on the select committee investigating the same event, denounced Republicans for their hypocrisy in removing disgraced former congressman George Santos (R-New York) from office while still clinging to Trump.
In a missive he wrote on Substack earlier this month, Kinzinger compared the two former lawmakers, noting that a sizable portion of House Republicans who have recognized that Santos is unfit for office have refused to do so for the former president.
“A liar, fraud, money launderer, indicted, hanger on-er is expelled from Congress, while a liar, fraud, money launderer, indicted, hanger on-er is leading the GOP race for President,” Kinzinger wrote in the first paragraph of his post, which was entitled, “Santos Expelled for Being Donald Trump.”
“This conundrum is not a conundrum at all. In fact, it’s a feature of today’s GOP,” he said.
Kinzinger didn’t delve into details of Santos’s illegal actions, because, as he put it, “who cares” about the specifics. What actually mattered, he said, was that Santos “was following the Trump playbook” by engaging in corrupt acts, denying any wrongdoing, bragging about his actions and attacking Democrats and supposed RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).
As a result of that behavior, Santos was expelled from the House late last week, becoming only the sixth member of that chamber to be expelled in U.S. history. Kinzinger noted that credit was due to some Republicans for joining with Democrats to oust him, but condemned GOP leaders in the House who voted against Santos’s expulsion.
Yet, even though Trump engages in the same types of behavior that Santos did (if not worse), it works for him, Kinzinger said, offering a basic explanation as for why: The GOP is “a cult, focused on one man and devoid of any principles,” he wrote, adding that the GOP’s refusal to take action against Trump “is dangerous.”
Kinzinger emphasized the importance of placing public pressure on Republicans over the issue.
“GOP officials need to be asked, over and over, what the difference was between the two? Maybe that is why leadership voted against expelling Santos, to avoid those awkward questions. That isn’t leadership, it’s pure cowardice,” Kinzinger concluded.
Kinzinger left Congress after it became clear that winning another term would be near impossible due to a likely GOP primary challenge in 2022 against a pro-Trump opponent.
As one of only two GOP members of the January 6 Committee, Kinzinger helped to showcase evidence to the U.S. populace that demonstrated Trump’s role in the attack on the Capitol building by a mob of his loyalists. In an interview with CNN in December 2022 — one month before his departure from Congress — Kinzinger said he believed Trump was “guilty of a crime.”
“He knew what he did. We’ve made that clear. He knew what was happening prior to January 6,” he said at the time.
Trump’s illicit activities went beyond the Capitol breach, he added.
“He pressured the Justice Department officials to say, ‘Hey, just say the election was stolen and leave the rest to me.’ And then the Republicans all need to put the stamp of approval on it,” Kinzinger said in the same interview.
The stakes have never been higher (and our need for your support has never been greater).
For over two decades, Truthout’s journalists have worked tirelessly to give our readers the news they need to understand and take action in an increasingly complex world. At a time when we should be reaching even more people, big tech has suppressed independent news in their algorithms and drastically reduced our traffic. Less traffic this year has meant a sharp decline in donations.
The fact that you’re reading this message gives us hope for Truthout’s future and the future of democracy. As we cover the news of today and look to the near and distant future we need your help to keep our journalists writing.
Please do what you can today to help us keep working for the coming months and beyond. | US Political Corruption |
A national nonprofit organization is offering a $50,000 reward for information that will help solve the mystery surrounding the death of a 25-year-old Black Mississippi man.
Rasheem Carter was reported missing last October and was last seen in Laurel, Mississippi. His mother, Tiffany Carter, said her son warned her and the police that he was being targeted by white men in the community. "Three truckloads of white guys" were trying to kill him, Rasheem Carter told his mother before his disappearance.
Last Saturday, Carter's family and community members protested his death, demanding transparency in the investigation. A fourth set of remains were identified as Carter's on April 30, according to attorneys.
"This has really been a struggle for our family, but we're going to do the best we can to fight," Tiffany Carter said during the protest. "We're going to do what we gotta do to get the justice that we deserve to have."
You Are The Power, the nonprofit offering the $50,000 award, has been searching for leads in the Carter case.
"When Rasheem Carter needed help, police refused," the nonprofit said in an Instagram post. "But we can help bring justice to Rasheem's killer(s), and closure to his loved ones."
According to its website, the organization has over 50 million social media followers and has relationships with activists and organizations across all 50 states.
"Our purpose is to use localized, grassroots, single-issue activism to empower people to work together to set our communities free, restore individual rights, and take the power away from government and put it back in your hands, where it belongs," according to You Are The Power's site.
On Nov. 2, the first set of Rasheem Carter's remains were found in a wooded area south of Taylorsville. His head was severed from his body, with his spinal cord recovered in an area separate from his head, according to family attorney Ben Crump.
The medical examiner ruled that the cause and manner of death were undetermined.
The Smith County Police Department originally ruled out foul play in the case. According to Crump, officials later recanted their statement.
"From the beginning of this case, the family has been misled," Crump said.
The Smith County Sheriff's Office has not returned ABC News' request for comment.
Crump, along with his co-counsel Carlos Moore, is calling for the U.S. Department of Justice to open a federal investigation into Carter's death. | Civil Rights Activism |
Prosecutors in Kansas City, Missouri, have filed felony charges against the homeowner accused of, a Black teenager who was shot when he went to the wrong house to pick up his siblings last week.
At a news conference Monday evening, Clay County Prosecutor Zachary Thompson announced two felony charges against the suspect, Andrew D. Lester, whom he described as a White man who is 85 years old. The charges are one count of assault in the first degree, with a potential punishment of up to life in prison, and one count of armed criminal action.
"My heart goes out to the child and family involved in this case," Thompson said. He said the victim was shot twice, struck in the head and arm.
"The probable cause statement indicates the rounds were fired through a glass door," Thompson said, adding that it also indicated "the victim in the case did not cross the threshold."
He also said, "As the prosecutor of Clay County, I can tell you there was a racial component to the case," though he did not elaborate. The
Thompson said the suspect was not yet in custody but a warrant had been issued for his arrest, with bond set at $200,000.
A short time before the announcement, Kansas City police said a case file had been submitted to the Clay County Prosecutors Office "for their review and determination of charges" in the matter.
"Our office worked closely with the Kansas City Police Department on this case, and we would not be here today but for their hard work," Thompson said. "We understand how frustrating this has been, but I can assure you the criminal justice system is working and will continue to work."
The shooting prompted protests in Kansas City and aon social media, where lawmakers, activists and celebrities called attention to the case.
Yarl, who is 16 years old, was seriously injured in the shooting Thursday night. Yarl's father tells CBS Kansas City affiliate KCTV that the teen has now been released from the hospital and is recovering at home.
Yarl was meant to pick up his brothers from a friend's house on 115th Terrace, but he ended up ringing the doorbell at a home on 115th Street instead, Faith Spoonmore, the teen's aunt, wrote online.
She said a man opened the door, saw Yarl and shot him in the head, and when Yarl fell to the ground, the man shot him again. Yarl got up and ran from the property, but he had to ask at three different homes before someone helped him, Spoonmore wrote.
Kansas City police said they responded at around 10 p.m.
Police Chief Stacey Graves said Sunday that the homeowner was taken into custody Thursday and placed on a 24-hour hold, but was then released, in consultation with the county prosecutor's office, while the investigation continued.
The Associated Press contributed reporting.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
The next US election could see a flood of AI-generated campaigning posters after candidates in Argentina used it to promote themselves and attack their opponent.
Sergio Massa and Javier Milei are battling for the presidency and are harnessing the power of artificial intelligence in hopes of one-upping the other.
Massa recreated himself in several scenes where he sports military metals, surrounded by hundreds of people looking up at him in hope while pushing out a video showing Javier as a character in the film Clockwork Orange.
But the far-right libertarian economist did not sit back quietly - he used AI to create Massa in the form of a Chinese communist leader.
Argentina's digital posters follow those created by US officials this year, such as a video from Ron DeSantis of Florida's campaign circulated a video showing Donald Trump embracing.
The New York Times reported that Massa's campaign fed a system with specific prompts in the promotional posters.
'Sovietic Political propaganda poster illustration by Gustav Klutsis featuring a leader, Massa, standing firmly,' according to NYT.
'Symbols of unity and power fill the environment,' the prompt continued. 'The image exudes authority and determination.'
Massa has several AI-generated posters, some with a crowd cheering around him and others of him standing alone while staring out into the distance.
One image shows Massa wearing a light blue shirt with military-like metals pinned above pockets.
He is standing among a sea of solemn-looking people, staring at him while he points to the blue sky above.
Massa took the opportunity to cast his opponent in a bad light, focusing on Milei's outbursts along the campaign trail.
Milei, who is also a TV personality, collapsed on live television on October 29 during an interview where the public said he looked 'unhinged, exhibiting erratic behavior and using unusual hand gestures.'
The incident involving Milei's on-air breakdown sparked widespread concern among the public and has raised questions about his mental stability, with citizens concerned that his emotional state might be how he leads the country.
With such incidents, Massa used AI to put Milei's face on movie characters in Clockwork Orange and Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas to depict him as unstable.
While most people will determine the imagery is fake, Massa took his plan one step further with a deepfake video where Milei is shown discussing the concept of a human organ market, which he would legalize the sale of organs if elected.
Massa told NYT: 'We asked an AI to assist Javier in explaining the organ-selling business, and this was the result.'
In a TV interview, Massa expressed that he was taken aback by the technology's abilities, saying, 'I wasn't mentally prepared for the world I'm entering. It's a significant challenge. We're riding a horse whose tricks we're still learning.'
The campaign stated that 'its AI usage aims to entertain and make political points, not to mislead. But this is very dangerous behavior. '
In June, DeSantis, who is running for US president, used AI-generated images of former President Trump hugging Fauci.
AFP reported that three images in the 44-second attack ad were fakes.
Those images show Trump hugging and kissing Fauci, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, who became synonymous with the U.S.'s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The ad shows Apprentice-era Trump firing a number of individuals but then refusing to ax Fauci, whom conservatives blamed for COVID lockdowns, school closures and masking.
As audio of Trump explaining why he never fired Fauci plays, a collage of six images of the two men together is shown - with three real pictures and three deep fakes.
The words 'Real Life Trump' were placed over the collage.
'It was sneaky to intermix what appears to be authentic photos with fake photos, but these three images are almost certainly AI-generated,' Hany Farid, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and expert in digital forensics, misinformation and image analysis, told AFP.
President Joe Biden has also been used in deepfakes.
In May, a video was released showing him dressed as trans star Dylan Mulvaney promoting Bud Light.
Trump was also included in the scheme - a clip showed him teaching tax evasion inside a quiet Albuquerque nail salon, showing that not even the nation's most powerful figures are safe from AI identity theft.
Experts say that it is relatively easy today to spot these fakes, but it will be impossible in the coming years because technology is advancing quickly. | US Federal Elections |
Biden’s Israel-Palestine Policy Could Cost Him the Election
The president’s blank-check support of Israel’s war on Gaza is alienating many of the Black and brown voters he needs to win reelection.
I am neither Israeli or Palestinian, nor am I an expert on Middle Eastern geopolitics, terrorism, security, or colonization. I am an expert in American constitutional law, which, in this situation, is as useful as being an expert in sand-castle construction during a tsunami. As such, I have little to add to the current international conflagration and the foreign policy discourse around it. Instead, I have tried to read, listen, learn, and generally not say anything that could be used by the most morally bankrupt people to justify the murder of children.
However, I am an American, a Black one, who has a lot of experience listening to actual people of color even as their voices are drowned out or dismissed by the prevailing white media. As such, I believe it is in my remit to warn white readers that Joe Biden’s unwaveringly pro-Israeli stance has the potential to do significant harm to his prospects for reelection among voters he needs: young Black and brown people.
I know many people will not want to think about American political realities so soon after a terrorist attack—while Israel continues to pummel Gaza with air strikes, and Hamas continues to hold Israeli hostages. But, as a person who desperately wants to stop the antidemocratic tide of MAGA-style fascism in my own country, I cannot help but be concerned.
Biden risks labeling himself as a president who is in favor of colonization, and one who will turn a blind eye to ethnic cleansing and war crimes—and those are tough labels to shake once they take hold in communities of color. Voters of color are strategic, and willing to swallow a lot of nonsense and vote for the lesser evil. But there are some who will simply not pull the lever for any president, in any party, who stands aside while an oppressed people is besieged, starved, and bombed into oblivion. Even if you don’t think Israel is a colonial power, or don’t think the Israeli government is violating the human rights of Palestinians as they wage war against Hamas, the Americans who do think those things are voters Biden is losing right now. Those are the kinds of voters who, once lost, Biden will never win back.
Separate and apart from Israel’s legitimate efforts to secure the release of its citizens taken as hostages, and secure itself from terrorist threats, there are those in and around the Israeli government who have used plainly genocidal language to describe the conflict, calling Palestinians “human animals,” denying that Palestinian “civilians” have any rights because Hamas is their elected leadership (elected in 2006, by the way, and Hamas has not allowed those civilians to hold an election since), or saying that the war is between “the children of the light and the children of the dark.” Biden has not condemned this language nor has he issued public warnings to Israel that the United States will not stand for human rights violations, nor has he stood shoulder to shoulder, “in solidarity,” with any Palestinian American (or any Muslim American, or any Arab American, or any non-white American) calling for a basic respect for human rights.
Instead, his State Department warned diplomats not to use the words or phrases “de-escalation,” “ceasefire,” “end to violence,” and even “restoring calm.” His press secretary said calls from Democratic Congresspeople calling for de-escalation and peace were “repugnant” and “disgraceful.”
Current Issue
Biden’s refusal to publicly call for peace or even restraint could be doing irreparable harm to him (to say nothing, obviously, of the harm it’s doing to millions of people in the region). There is scant polling data on the issue so far, but what there is suggests a huge generational divide, and a racial one. An NPR/PBS poll taken last week showed that while 65 percent of Americans overall think the country should publicly support Israel, including 86 percent of baby boomers, that number drops to 48 percent in the case of Gen Z Americans. The racial divide is also dramatic, with 72 percent of white Americans favoring US support for Israel, compared to just 51 percent of what the pollsters call “nonwhite” Americans.
Beyond these numbers, it doesn’t take a degree in political science to know that Biden already has a problem with young voters and especially young voters of color. Recent polls taken even before Biden’s response to the Israel-Gaza war have shown Biden losing to Donald Trump among voters under 30. And there have already been significant warning signs that Biden is slipping with Black voters.
Does anybody really think that giving a foreign government free rein to bomb areas of land as densely packed as the island of Manhattan is helping Biden with young voters and people of color? Or did everybody just not think about that in their zeal to make sure college students who support Palestine can never get a job?
People should remember that Biden’s age is already a turnoff to young people, and his domestic policy agenda has largely been frustrated by Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, Republican control of the House, and the Supreme Court. The issues Biden is running on in communities of color are, essentially, democracy and the rejection of racism. He’s running against the MAGA brand of nativism and fascism. He’s running on his own personal decency.
Biden can, entirely appropriately, call terrorist attacks against Israelis “pure evil,” but he can’t seem to fix his mouth to say “turn on the water to civilians living in a desert.” He can say that Palestinian people deserve dignity and respect, but can’t unequivocally say “cutting off electricity to civilians is a human rights violation.” I’m sorry, but it’s hard to see Biden’s personal decency when he can’t speak up for the thirsty. Biden is asking Black and brown voters to trust that he values all lives equally, but that becomes almost impossible to believe when he endorses the treatment of Palestinians as collateral damage to a counterterrorism campaign.
There are signs that Biden’s posture is causing rifts within his own administration. Last week, State Department official Josh Paul quit. Paul was responsible for processing arms sales to foreign nations. In his resignation letter, he said Biden’s “blind support for one side” were “shortsighted, destructive, unjust and contradictory to the very values we publicly espouse.” When the guy who oversees arms deals is essentially saying “this is too violent for me,” we may have a problem. More worrying, there has been a lot of private griping from Muslim Americans within the Biden administration, with some threatening to resign en masse.
Popular“swipe left below to view more authors”Swipe →
-
-
Biden’s Zombie Foreign Policy Lurches Blindly Along Biden’s Zombie Foreign Policy Lurches Blindly Along
-
The Latin School Teacher Who Made Classics Popular The Latin School Teacher Who Made Classics Popular
-
Western Journalists Have Palestinian Blood on Their Hands Western Journalists Have Palestinian Blood on Their Hands
When I read or listen to white people in the media talking about Biden’s approach to this crisis—I’ve heard pundits call Biden’s trip to Israel his “finest hour”—I’m left with the impression that they just don’t know or haven’t considered how electorally disastrous it could be for Biden to lose Muslim and Arab American support. There are over 200,000 Muslims living in Virginia; there are 150,000 Arab Americans; in 2020, Biden won that state by around only 500,000 votes. In Michigan, there are over 350,000 Muslims; 200,000 Arab Americans live in the state; Biden won that state by around only 150,000 votes. Any significant weakening of this support puts Virginia in play, and makes Michigan functionally unwinnable for Biden. And I shouldn’t have to tell you that there is simply no path to Biden’s Electoral College success without Virginia and Michigan.
If we broaden things out beyond the Muslim and Arab American populations, there are other dangers. If young, college-age people of color sour on Biden and stay home, Biden has problems across the upper Midwest. And anything less than overwhelming and enthusiastic support from African American voters costs Biden Georgia and Pennsylvania.
Perhaps in response to this basic electoral math, Biden has in recent days appeared to soften his tone. In an address to the nation from the Oval Office on Thursday night, Biden tried to express empathy for both Israelis and Palestinians. He denounced anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. He said that we “can’t ignore the humanity of the Palestinian people,” and said that Israel would follow the “laws of war” and protect Palestinian civilians “as best they can.” During his visit to Israel last week, Biden said that Israel should not make the same mistakes this country made after 9/11, an extraordinary statement both because American presidents don’t often admit to war mistakes, particularly on foreign soil, and because this particular American president was, in fact, a cheerleader for our post-9/11 wars of vengeance.
The president used nice words, but it escaped no one’s notice that he was saying all of these appropriate words regarding the dignity and humanity of the Palestinian people while justifying his request to send billions of dollars in military aid and weapons to Israel. Biden did not call for a cease-fire, did not call for a de-escalation, and did not even call for “peace.”
I know that some people, establishment politicians especially, want this speech to be enough. They want to acknowledge the humanity of Palestinians, while treating the government actively denying them human rights as a passive force without alternative choices. But that frame simply isn’t working on voters of color who know all too well how powerful governments justify killing us. From where I sit, his speech did nothing to instill confidence in voters of color that Biden will take a stand against war crimes. His “bear-hug Bibi” strategy (which is to say, the idea that Biden should get close enough to the Israeli government that he can use soft power to restrain it) might play well in diplomatic circles and among voters who are inclined to give Biden the benefit of the doubt, but, on the street, all people are seeing is the blank check Biden appears to be giving to Israel, and none of the restraint. This isn’t a “messaging” problem for the Biden administration. The problem is that Biden’s actions scream to the world that he values an Israeli child more than a Palestinian one.
It also must be said that Biden’s lack of support for Palestinians is being viewed in the context of his enthusiastic support for Ukraine. The situations are far from analogous, but Biden literally linked his support for Ukraine and support for Israel together in his Oval Office address. It’s a politically tone-deaf comparison for Biden to make, because linking the two doesn’t work in his favor. It’s simply not lost on voters of color that when a white country was invaded, Biden sent guns and missiles and money, while all he seems to have for Palestinians is some bottles of water chucked at them from Egypt, and the hard-won pronouncement that not every single one of them is a terrorist who should be deleted from existence.
Remember too that, whenever the Republican House of Representatives stops beclowning itself as comic relief for the rest of the world, the very first thing they’re going to do is pass a massive aid package, at Biden’s request, that sends literal billions of dollars to Ukraine and Israel. I can tell you right now, that package is going to go over like a bag of bricks among Black voters. While Biden is functionally making it rain on foreign allies, the child poverty rate—which disproportionately affects Black families—has doubled. Is it fair to blame Biden for Manchin’s inconceivable decision to let American kids go hungry? No. Is it easy to explain to a struggling Black family why we have money to aid Ukraine and Israel but not Detroit and Philadelphia? No, it is not.
Let me first say that, as a Black person, I am getting really sick of white liberals using Trump as a specter who will emerge from white people’s closets to punish Black people for anything less than full-throated support of Biden. Just ask Jim Jordan how threatening people you need to vote for you works out.
Moreover, I feel like white commentators too easily forget that we live in a country where Trump is a looming threat only because a significant majority of their own cousins and uncles and spouses are set, once again, to vote for a raving orange clown, no matter how many times he gets indicted for crimes. White folks are the ones threatening the future of American democracy: To save it, Democrats need supermajorities of Latino, Asian American, Pacific Islander, and Arab American voters, and they need Black people to continue supporting Democrats by well over 80 percent margins, and they need all those groups to turn out. So, just maybe, the white anti-Trump crowd could listen to voters of color with some respect when they try to tell you what’s wrong with their political approach.
In any event, the “Trump would be worse” argument, while unquestionably true, isn’t the slam-dunk white Democrats want it to be. At least not now, when Biden is the one in charge, and Biden is the one standing with a hard-right foreign regime that is perceived as denying political participation, freedom, and basic human rights to an oppressed population.
Of course “now” is an important word when discussing the politics of the moment. A reasonable defense of Biden’s political calculus is, perhaps, not that his position is defensible to voters of color but that in 13 months many of those voters won’t care about his indefensible positions. I’ve certainly noticed that at least some of the people who are suddenly concerned about a free Palestine couldn’t have found the Gaza Strip on a map before Hamas killed over a thousand Israelis. People who didn’t care about the intolerable conditions in Gaza three weeks ago might well not care about the situation there 13 months from now. If there is one thing I know for a locked fact about the American electorate, white, Black, brown, or other, it’s that we are a fickle, ill-informed, deeply unserious people.
And yet, the fact is that this war has scarcely begun. Israel is preparing for a ground invasion (one that Biden has given his “private backing” to, of course), and when it invades, its soldiers will be fighting an urban war against a terrorist group using guerrilla tactics. It will not be quick. It will not be pretty. Civilians will die. Pictures of the dead will be shared on the Internet. And even if the war does somehow, remarkably, end soon, the larger situation will remain far from resolved.
I don’t think Biden or his administration knows how bad it has been for him with his non-white base over the past few weeks. I know that while some people have tried to get the message through privately, many of the people, like me, who would normally be raising the alarm publicly have been terrified of saying anything. Speaking for myself, I’m worried that anything less than full-throated support for the Biden administration and the Israeli government will be amplified by anti-Semites to justify the slaughter of Jews, and I’m also worried that anything less than full-throated support for the Biden administration and the Israeli government—literally any sympathy for the plight of Palestinians—will be twisted in such a way as to label me a terrorist sympathizer who stands with Hamas. For the first time in my life, I’d rather be writing about Clarence Thomas.
But I write because I want Biden to get reelected, and that simply cannot happen without the overwhelming support of young people and people of color. I write because the Arab American activist who has to go door to door in their community to drum up votes for Biden in Michigan is getting no help from the administration. I write because the Black voter registration volunteer who is trying to get people excited to vote for Biden is getting laughed out of the apocryphal barber shop. I write because Biden is losing, and if he continues to only listen to white media pundits who go on Fox News to laud his speeches, he will spend 2025 working on his presidential library from Delaware.
If you see Biden running around next October playing defense in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, you’ll know that he got this message too late. Democrats have a nasty habit of listening to non-white voters for only six weeks every four years. If Biden tries that strategy this time, Black and brown voters might stay home, and white people will elect Trump to unleash Armageddon. | US Federal Elections |
A shooting at a Florida auto shop that killed two men was triggered by a former customer's dissatisfaction with work done on his car two years ago, police said Thursday.
The Largo Police Department said Eugene Frank Becker, 78, arrived at Stout's Automotive in a rental car Wednesday and sought out business owner Jodie Stout, 52. Investigators say Becker pulled out a handgun and shot Stout, who returned fire with his own gun, striking Becker multiple times.
"The two exchanged multiple rounds of gunfire, during which time both Becker and Stout suffered life-threatening injuries," police said.
Both men later died at a hospital. The shooting brought dozens of police officers to the scene.
Police said that evidence and witnesses indicate Becker felt he was overcharged when he brought a vehicle to Stout's for service in 2021.
Earlier this month, Becker was involved in a car crash in Pinellas Park, which "resulted in a hospitalization and the total loss of his current vehicle," police said. A family member told police that Becker has been depressed and frustrated since the crash, police said, and he went to the shop Wednesday "with the intent to shoot the victim in retaliation for the perceived wrong."
Largo is located just west of Tampa.
This marks at least the third time this month in Florida that a seemingly minor dispute ended in a deadly shooting.
On Saturday night, a man in Jacksonville fatally shot two adults and a toddler during an argument over the sale of a dog, CBS affiliate WTSP reported. And earlier this month, a 78-year-old man in DeLeon Springs allegedly who was trimming trees over his property line.
In another incident last week, a former assistant attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office stabbed a man on a Tampa Bay highway after the man crashed into his car, according to CBS affiliate WTSP. The victim was taken to a local hospital with injuries authorities described as serious but not life-threatening.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Mary Altaffer/AP
toggle caption
Residents of Brooklyn's Flatbush neighborhood register to vote at a voter registration event on Sept. 29, 2021.
Mary Altaffer/AP
Residents of Brooklyn's Flatbush neighborhood register to vote at a voter registration event on Sept. 29, 2021.
Mary Altaffer/AP
Young voters have historically had the lowest voter registration and participation rates of any age group in the United States.
But in recent years, more states have adopted policies aimed at increasing voter registration, including among U.S. citizens newly of voting age.
Minnesota's Democratic governor, Tim Walz, signed a voting bill into law about three months ago that would make it easier for young people to register to vote — even before they turn 18.
"Because the issues impacting them — from access to medical care, to the climate, to other things — makes them understand the ballot is the most powerful thing we have," he said. "Your voice is in your ballot. And if you don't have access to that or it's made more difficult, your voice is stifled."
The hurdles for young people to register to vote
Compared with others, people coming of voting age face significant barriers to registering to vote, says Charlotte Hill, director of the Democracy Policy Initiative at UC Berkeley. Most young people aren't in the habit of interacting with the government by the time they are 18, and Hill notes young people move a lot.
"You can think back to being 18. You probably left your parents' house, you might have gone to college or started a new job somewhere," she said. "So even if you had been registered right when you turn 18 you have to register again just a handful of months later just to update that address."
Estrella Torres has spent a lot of time registering mostly young voters in Brownsville, Texas, for a group called Texas Rising. She says a lot of new voters are confused about what to do when it comes time to register to vote — which, Torres says, is why many of them don't register until years after they become eligible.
"Some do feel some sort of embarrassment like, 'Oh you know, I'm already like 20 or 21 and I've never done this before and I just felt like I didn't know where to turn to, like where the office is, or what forms I am supposed to do,' " she said.
Eric Gay/AP
toggle caption
A voter registration table is seen at a political event on Aug. 17, 2022, in Fredericksburg, Texas.
Eric Gay/AP
Torres says she spends a lot of her time reassuring people that it's not their fault they are confused or overwhelmed with the process of registering to vote. She says states like Texas could make it easier. For example, Texas is one of only a handful of states without online voter registration.
"And the younger generation, you know, these old systems, they are just not satisfied with it anymore," Torres said. "Lawmakers need to get with the times and understand that you cannot keep an old system in place that is not making that demographic happy anymore."
Not everyone is on board with broad steps to try to increase youth voter registration. Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, for instance, wants to raise the voting age to 25, with earlier ballot access allowed for people who serve their communities or pass a civics test.
Automatic voter registration
But for those who do want to lower the barriers for youth voter registration, Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, the Newhouse director at CIRCLE at Tufts University, says some of the most helpful policies simplify the process on the voter's end.
"It's really important that the process of voting registration becomes almost invisible to young people," she said. "That's really how you get as many people as possible."
A good example of that is automatic voter registration, which is a policy currently in about half of states. Despite its name, AVR is not exactly automatic. How it typically works is when someone is getting a driver's license they are registered to vote using the information they gave the DMV.
David Becker, the founder and executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation and Research, says this is one of the most efficient ways to get citizens coming of voting age onto the voter rolls.
"When so many of them are going into government agencies at or before the time they turn 18, and giving accurate information under penalty of perjury to a government agency, what states have found is that is the best time to get the vast majority of students registered," Becker said.
Some Republicans claim that automatic voter registration could make it easier for ineligible people to get on a state's voter rolls, which is one reason there has been pushback from some GOP lawmakers across the country.
But Becker points out that one of the most successful AVR programs recently implemented is in Georgia. Republicans in that state created a system several years ago that registers people to vote every time they interact with the DMV.
"And what they have found is, whereas in most states, young voters register at much lower rates than the rest of voters, they are starting to achieve parity," Becker said. "They are starting to get very close to young voters comprising the same share of the registered voter population as of the electorate. And that is a remarkable thing."
Pre-registration before age 18
And automatic voter registration is even more effective when paired with pre-registration, says Tufts' Kawashima-Ginsberg. She says allowing 16- or 17-year-olds to register automatically when they get their driver's license could make the process even easier.
"A vast majority of young people are still at home with their family or caregivers at that age," she said. "So, when we have a big burden of voter registration, at least you have a supporter who has probably already done this and knows where your papers are and is able to support young people to register to vote."
About 20 states in the U.S., including Minnesota, currently offer pre-registration to people under 18. Wendy Underhill, the director of elections at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said "that number has been going up slowly but surely over the last 20 years."
She says it's been a slow trend in part because these kinds of programs can be a big undertaking for officials.
"Each state that wants to consider this has to review, do they have the tech and the relationship with the DMV to be able to do this link?" Underhill said. "And do it in such a way that the voter doesn't mistakenly get any voter papers until they hit 18."
Besides pre-registration and automatic registration, experts say same-day registration during elections has also been proven to increase voter registration and participation rates among 18-year-olds.
Online voter registration
And experts say of course one of the most common ways to make sure young people register to vote is for a state to have online registration.
Few states, at this point, don't have online registration. Among those that don't, some explicitly require a so-called wet signature on a paper voter registration form.
Emily Eby French, a staff attorney at the Texas Civil Rights Project, says she and her colleagues hear a lot of frustration in Texas, where a law like this has been on the books for a while.
"I get to talk to college kids all the time in this job," she said. "They don't understand why we don't have voter registration online because everything else you can do is online now."
Vote.org is currently suing Texas over this law. Andrea Hailey, the group's CEO, says its mission is to make it easy for people to register to vote. The organization has a mobile app that on average takes people two minutes to register.
But wet signature laws require people to take extra steps, like printing a form and signing it and then mailing it, which she says takes many young people out of the electoral process.
"When things get more and more difficult for people, that's when you start to disincentivize and exhaust people," Hailey said. "And that is the point."
This is why Hill, of UC Berkeley, says states should be thinking about how their voter registration process could be a burden to voters who are coming of age.
She says young people often take the blame for their lower participation rate in American democracy.
"You can look at that as a personal failure, or you can step back and recognize that our system does not serve young people," Hill said. "It hasn't been built to serve voters who are new."
Hill says easing the burden of registering to vote for young people also has the added benefit of making it easier for all voters.
And registration rates are rising due to policies like automatic voter registration. Last year the share of U.S. citizens who were registered to vote was the highest in a midterm election in at least the past two decades. | US Federal Policies |
Former President Donald Trump made his first motion to dismiss his federal election interference case Thursday, citing what his lawyers claim is his "absolute immunity" from prosecution for actions taken while serving in the nation's highest office.
"Breaking 234 years of precedent, the incumbent administration has charged President Trump for acts that lie not just within the 'outer perimeter,' but at the heart of his official responsibilities as President," Trump's attorneys say in their filing. "In doing so, the prosecution does not, and cannot, argue that President Trump's efforts to ensure election integrity, and to advocate for the same, were outside the scope of his duties."
The filing is the first in a series of anticipated motions to dismiss the case against Trump brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith that charged him with four counts related to his alleged plot to overturn the 2020 election.
Trump in August pleaded not guilty to charges of undertaking a "criminal scheme" to overturn the results of the 2020 election by enlisting a slate of so-called "fake electors," using the Justice Department to conduct "sham election crime investigations," trying to enlist the vice president to "alter the election results," and promoting false claims of a stolen election as the Jan. 6 riot raged -- all in an effort to subvert democracy and remain in power.
The former president has denied all wrongdoing and denounced the charges as "a persecution of a political opponent."
While Smith's indictment specifically alleged Trump clearly acted outside the scope of his office while engaging in an unlawful conspiracy to obstruct the peaceful transfer of power, Trump's attorneys on Thursday contended that Smith "falsely claims President Trump's motives were impure" and that he "knew" reports of fraud in the election were untrue.
"...[As] the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and hundreds of years of history and tradition all make clear, the President's motivations are not for the prosecution or this Court to decide," they argue. "Rather, where, as here, the President's actions are within the ambit of his office, he is absolutely immune from prosecution."
Trump's attorneys hinge at least part of their argument of Trump's immunity on his acquittal by the Senate following his impeachment in the wake of the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.
"The Impeachment Clauses provide that the President may be charged by indictment only in cases where the President has been impeached and convicted by trial in the Senate," they say. "Here, President Trump was acquitted by the Senate for the same course of conduct... The Special Counsel cannot second-guess the judgment of the duly elected United States Senate."
And rather than take the position that the actions taken by Trump leading up to the Jan. 6 attack fell within the "outer perimeter" of his duties -- including his pressure campaign against state officials to overturn his election losses, his alleged efforts to recruit the Justice Department to falsely declare the election was rife with fraud, and his push for then-Vice President Mike Pence to reject electors -- they instead make the case that such acts fell at the "heart of his constitutional duties" to ensure the election was conducted with integrity.
Judge Tanya Chutkan will likely order a briefing schedule laying out deadlines for the government to issue its response to the motion to dismiss. | US Federal Elections |
January 10, 2023 11:17 AM The U.S. Department of Education unveiled a new regulatory proposal Tuesday that makes significant changes to a federal program designed to accommodate the financial situations of student loan borrowers with low incomes. The proposed regulations, which now enter a 30-day period of public comment, modify the rules governing the Federal Student Aid office's income-driven repayment program. Under the proposal, borrowers with an annual income of less than $30,600 will not have to make any monthly payments. FAITH-BASED SCHOOLS SHOULD BE 'VERY CONCERNED' ABOUT BIDEN ACCREDITATION PLANS For all other borrowers on an income-driven repayment plan, the new regulations would reduce their monthly payments from 10% of their monthly income above the poverty line to 5%. The regulation would also prevent the excess accumulation of unpaid interest so borrowers on income-driven repayment plans would no longer see their balances increase even as they continue to make monthly payments. "Today, the Biden-Harris administration is proposing historic changes that would make student loan repayment more affordable and manageable than ever before," Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement. "We cannot return to the same broken system we had before the pandemic, when a million borrowers defaulted on their loans a year and snowballing interest left millions owing more than they initially borrowed. These proposed regulations will cut monthly payments for undergraduate borrowers in half and create faster pathways to forgiveness, so borrowers can better manage repayment, avoid delinquency and default, and focus on building brighter futures for themselves and their families." Under the current rules, borrowers on an income-driven repayment plan can ultimately see their balance forgiven after 20-25 years of consistent payments. The new proposal lowers the forgiveness threshold to 10 years for individuals who borrowed $12,000 or less, while every additional $1,000 borrowed adds one month to the limit before the loan is forgiven. The proposed regulations are the latest effort by the Biden administration to make changes to the federal student loan system. In August, the administration announced it would forgive $20,000 in student loans for borrowers making less than $125,000 and had received a Pell grant. Borrowers who did not receive a Pell grant but did not surpass the income threshold were eligible for $10,000 in forgiveness. But legal challenges have put the forgiveness plan on hold. The U.S. Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments for and against the program next month. A decision is expected sometime in June. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), the chairwoman of the House Education and Workforce committee, blasted the new proposal in a statement, calling it "a repeat of the same playbook that got us into this college affordability crisis in the first place." "Expansions of already generous repayment options, institutional shame lists, and other failed policies of the past won’t lower the cost of college for students and families. It does, however, turn the federal loan program into an untargeted grant with complete disregard for the taxpayers that fund it," Foxx said. “Without real, comprehensive reform to our postsecondary financing and accountability systems, we will be left with ineffective and expensive policies by an administration dead set on bankrupting our country.” | US Federal Policies |
A teenager was killed after another teen stabbed him on a New York City public bus in what is believed to be a gang-related altercation, police said.
The incident occurred around 2:30 p.m. ET Friday on Staten Island, according to NYPD Chief of Patrol John Chell. The two male teens got into a confrontation on an MTA bus, Chell said.
"Witnesses state there's an argument on a bus, a knife is produced and gang signs were being shown back and forth," Chell told reporters during a press briefing Friday.
One of the teens stabbed the other in the chest, then fled the bus, according to Chell.
The suspect ran about three blocks, before a good samaritan, a retired NYPD sergeant and a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation officer helped pursue and apprehend him, Chell said.
The 13-year-old victim suffered multiple stab wounds, police said. He was transported to a local hospital in critical condition and later pronounced dead, police said.
"Tragic, tragic homicide today," Chell said. "We believe this motive is possibly gang-related."
Demetrius Crichlow, Senior Vice President NYC Transit Department of Subways, said he responded to the scene and spoke to the bus driver.
"He's visibly broken up about what transpired but was able to maintain his calm," Crichlow told reporters, adding the driver contacted police immediately and "did a fantastic job in trying to maintain calm on the bus."
Anthony Esemplare told ABC New York station WABC that he saw children run off the bus following the stabbing.
"It was very tragic to see how frightened all the kids were coming off the bus," he said. "When you send your kids to school in the morning and you think they'll going to come home on the bus, you shouldn't have to worry about them in a manner like this." | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
With negotiations on raising the debt ceilingon Friday, the U.S. may be less than two weeks from defaulting on its debt, an that government officials have variously described as "unthinkable" and potentially " ."
A default would mean the U.S. government fails to pay some of its obligations because the Congress failed to raise the debt ceiling to authorize borrowing more money to fund spending it already passed. Its impact would be felt by anyone expecting, whether a Social Security check, SNAP payment, a government bond payout or — in the case of federal employees — a paycheck.
"Most state economies will be hit hard if there is a debt limit breach, although the economic pain varies," economists at Moody's Analytics said in a report analyzing the possibility of a default.
Public sector takes a hit
Washington, D.C., where 1 in 4 jobs are tied to the federal government, would be hardest hit, becoming the "poster child" for a financial disaster, they said. States with large federal facilities, such as national laboratories or military bases, would be next in line. That includes Hawaii, which is home to the United States Pacific Command and to 11 military bases; Alaska, with vast federal land holdings; and New Mexico, home to Los Alamos National Laboratory.
"While the public sector typically serves as a stabilizing force, in the case of a breach it supercharges its economic fallout," wrote Moody's Analytics economists Mark Zandi, Adam Kamins and Bernard Yaros.
Also vulnerable are regions that rely heavily on federal spending, including those with defense contractors. "Professional services firms suffer, hurting white-collar support firms in and around the Beltway, particularly Northern Virginia," Moody's said. "Aerospace is also hurt, impacting states including Connecticut, Kansas and Washington."
Even a short debt ceiling breach, in which the government defaults for less than a week before lawmakers raise the government's borrowing limit, would likely push the economy into a recession, according to Moody's. In this scenario, 1.5 million people would lose their jobs, pushing unemployment from its current rate of 3.4% to 5%, while nation's gross domestic product would shrink by 0.7%.
Federal employee may go unpaid
As Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen noted, federal employees and contractors may show up to work not knowing if they'll get paid. That creates a precarious situation in Washington, D.C., where more that a quarter of employees work for the federal government.
But it also would have reverberations across the nation. That includes many small rural counties, which where many local residents are employed by the federal government in agencies such as the U.S. Forest Service.
The top 20 counties with high numbers of federal employees represent a large swath of the nation, including states in the South, West and Midwest. There are 45 counties where at least 1 in 20 residents is a federal employee.
Moody's also assesses the potential damage from a default lasting several months, an outcome it said would be "cataclysmic." The federal government would have no option but to slash its spending by about $150 billion. "As these cuts work through the economy, the hit to growth would be overwhelming," Moody's said.
"The economic downturn that would ensue would be comparable to that suffered during the global financial crisis," with nearly 8 million jobs lost and the unemployment rate rising to 8%, according to the financial research firm. In this scenario, several states would suffer disproportionately, with Moody's estimating that unemployment would top 9% in Alabama, Illinois, Ohio and Mississippi, while shooting up to nearly 11% in Michigan.
The turmoil would also likely depress stock prices by nearly 20%, vaporizing $10 trillion in household wealth held in 401(k) plans, pension funds and brokerage accounts, according to Moody's. The cost of borrowing for households and businesses would soar.
Because of the enormous economic fallout of a debt default, it's worth noting that Moody's considers such an outcome highly unlikely. And if there is a breach, it's likely to be short.
"But even a lengthy standoff no longer has a zero probability," the analysts said. "What once seemed unimaginable now seems a real threat."
for more features. | US Federal Policies |
- A federal judge has temporarily blocked enforcement of a new election law in Florida.
- The law imposed new limits on voter registration and get-out-the-vote operations.
- The judge said those provisions likely violate the US Constitution.
Calling it Florida's "latest assault on the right to vote," a federal judge on Monday put a temporary hold on a new election law that would have imposed more limits on voter registration efforts.
In May, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed SB 7050, a package of Republican-sponsored reforms to Florida's election system, including a ban on non-citizen immigrants from helping to register voters. Groups that retained certain voter registration information, such as for get-out-the-vote operations, could under the law also face felony prosecution.
In a blistering decision, US Judge Mark Walker of the Northern District of Florida, agreed with plaintiffs that such provisions are likely illegal.
"Florida may, of course, regulate elections, including the voter registration process," Walker, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote in the 58-page ruling. "Here, however, the challenged provisions exemplify something Florida has struggled within recent years; namely, governing within the bounds set by the United States Constitution."
The Florida chapter of the NAACP, one of the groups that sued over the law, had argued that the ban on retaining any voter information violated the First Amendment right to free speech by preventing them from sharing a "pro-voting message." Critics also argued that the limit on non-citizen participation on registration drives violated the right to equal protection under federal law.
The office of Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, named as a defendant in the case, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Walker, in his ruling, noted that the decision is not final. But he nonetheless framed the ruling in grand, patriotic terms, noting it came a day before the country recognizes its independence. In particular, he highlighted one plaintiff, Veronica Herrera-Lucha, an immigrant from El Salvador who has permanent residency in the US and works as the the Florida field director for a voter registration group, Mi Vecino.
"Herrera-Lucha, a noncitizen who, herself, lacks the right to vote, has spent years registering and encouraging citizens to exercise that solemn right," Walker wrote. "She may, at least for now, continue to do so and add more voices to the millions of others signing a more perfect Union into existence."
Have a news tip? Email this reporter: [email protected] | US Federal Elections |
When a handful of House Republicans decided to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Democrats refused to save him. Now, after more than two weeks of Republicans trying and failing to fill the leadership vacuum, Democrats are considering putting their support behind the lawmaker many view as the best bad option: Patrick McHenry.
As Rep. Jim Jordan, a firebrand conservative from Ohio, lost a second speakership vote on the House floor Wednesday, members of both parties seemed more amenable to granting more powers to McHenry, a bowtie-wearing North Carolina Republican who has served as an interim Speaker since McCarthy’s removal.
On Tuesday, Rep. Mike Kelly, a Pennsylvania Republican, introduced a resolution to elect McHenry as Speaker Pro Tempore until a new speaker is elected or until November 17, the day government funding is set to expire. Rep. David Joyce, an Ohio Republican, announced plans to introduce a similar resolution Wednesday.
McHenry, who was first elected to Congress in 2004, has effectively served for most of October as the House's caretaker, overseeing the chamber but with little power to do much but facilitate votes to elect a new Speaker. He secured the post as a close ally of McCarthy, who wrote his name on a secret succession list.
“That’s not something I’m seeking, I’m not asking for it right now,” he said Wednesday according to CNN when asked about the plan to grant him more power.
Asked if he’d take the role, he replied, “If, there’s always if.”
Though Democrats are hesitant to talk specifically about a McHenry candidacy, they appear open to the plan.
“All options on the table,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries told reporters outside the House floor when asked Wednesday morning about the possibility of empowering McHenry. “We have two objectives: Stop Jim Jordan, who is a clear and present danger to our democracy, and reopen the government in a bipartisan way with reasonable people in charge.”
Asked what timeline he would support if there is a Speaker Pro Tem, Jeffries replied, “We'll have to evaluate that.”
Democrats who spoke to TIME on Wednesday deferred to Jeffries on strategy, echoing his commitment to a “bipartisan path.” They were neutral to positive in their attitudes toward McHenry.
“I hear that he will be a listener,” says Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas when asked about McHenry, though she emphasized that she’s still pushing for Jeffries to become Speaker.
Rep. Ro Khanna of California, like Jeffries, says he is open to all possibilities. He also thinks well of McHenry.
“I have a good relationship,” Khanna says. “He’s reasonable in engaging the other side and cordial.”
McHenry got an early start in politics, winning a Republican primary for a North Carolina House seat while still in college. Though he lost the general election, he was eventually elected to the state House. After working on the Bush campaign and in the Department of Labor, he became the youngest member of Congress nearly twenty years ago.
He started out as “a conservative bomb thrower,” according to the Raleigh News & Observer, slamming Democrats and drawing criticism for posting footage of a visit to Iraq, for getting into fights over procedure with Democratic former Rep. Barney Frank of Massachusetts, and for accusing Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts of lying in a committee hearing. But he mellowed out over time.
“I was able to get more done when I slowed down and had respect for others,” McHenry told the paper in 2017. “That took me three years of really making mistakes in order to figure out the better way to get things done.”
McHenry, now chair of the Financial Services Committee, previously served in Leadership as House Republican Chief Deputy Whip. On January 6, 2021, he declined to side with former President Donald Trump and most members of his party to overturn the 2020 election. That is a decision that separates McHenry from McCarthy, as well as the two leading candidates for Speaker, Jordan and Steve Scalise, all three of whom were among the 147 Republicans in Congress who voted to overturn election results that day in support of Trump’s false claims that he had won.
There are few specifics available about exactly what powers McHenry would have if members opted to elect him Speaker Pro Tempore. But some members of Congress are getting anxious as a House without a Speaker is unable to take up pressing matters, including aid for Israel and Ukraine that the Biden administration is expected to propose as part of a larger funding measure in the coming days.
Republicans don’t appear to have another viable option. Though Jordan was able to win over some members on Wednesday who had voted against him a day earlier, he lost more, with 22 members of his own party voting for other candidates. Several of the holdouts dug in their heels Wednesday afternoon.
“Steve Scalise is an honorable man and has earned my vote for Speaker,” wrote Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, the chairwoman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, in a post on X, the site formerly known as Twitter. “This was a vote of conscience and I stayed true to my principles. Intimidation and threats will not change my position.”
After the failed Jordan vote on Wednesday, House Republicans had no plans to hold a conference meeting and no additional votes were expected that day. That left Democrats stuck in a holding pattern.
“We've told our caucus to stay tuned, we may have to reconvene to have a discussion,” Jeffries told reporters Wednesday afternoon.
Jordan and his team signaled he would continue to pursue the Speakership, though his bid looked increasingly doomed. According to Axios, Jordan also wanted to hold a vote on the McHenry resolution Wednesday morning while simultaneously whipping members against it, a claim his spokesperson denied.
Unfortunately for Jordan, support for the McHenry resolution among the GOP is growing.
“As we work within the Republican Conference to elect a permanent Speaker, I support empowering Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry on an interim basis,” wrote Rep. Marc Molinaro of New York in a statement posted on X after voting for Jordan. “Time is a luxury we do not have and this will allow us to get back to governing.”
More Must-Reads From TIME
- The Families of Israelis Held Hostage By Hamas Speak Out
- A Photographer Captures Grief in Gaza
- Bed Bugs Aren't Just a Problem in Paris. Here's Why
- One Year Later, Where's the Adderall?
- For Many, India's Coal Damage Is Done
- The Human Toll of Poland’s Strict Abortion Laws
- The 100 Best Mystery and Thriller Books of All Time
- Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time
Write to Mini Racker at [email protected] | US Congress |
Supreme Court Rejects Republican-Led Appeal of Biden Administration Climate Estimates
The high court did not provide an explanation or publish a dissent as to why they made the ruling
The United States Supreme Court has rejected an appeal led by 12 Republicans to challenge the Biden Administration's use of estimates to determine the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions in order to issue regulations.
In the case of Missouri v. Biden, by refusing to allow the GOP challenge the administration can continue their use of methods to calculate the costs and benefits of new projects and proposals that can affect the climate.
The high court did not provide an explanation or publish a dissent as to why they made the ruling, leaving a federal appeals court ruling from Missouri intact.
- Supreme Court Rejects Alabama’s Appeal In Ongoing Congressional Map Dispute
- Senate Republicans Reject Democrats’ Supreme Court Ethics Reform
- Biden Administration Asks Supreme Court to Maintain Broad Access to Medical Abortion Pill
- Supreme Court Votes to Uphold Biden Immigration Policy, Rejecting Texas and Louisiana Challenges
- Alabama Attorney General to Appeal Redistricting Decision to Supreme Court
- Supreme Court Rejects Attempt to Limit State Courts’ Ability to Review Election Laws
- Chuck Schumer Ends Senate Trip to Asia Early to Address Israel-Gaza WarPolitics
- Jordan vs. Scalise: Aspiring Speakers To Go Head to Head at House GOP Candidate ForumPolitics
- Supreme Court Declines to Revisit Landmark First Amendment Ruling, Clarence Thomas Calls for Decision to Be ReconsideredPolitics
- RFK Jr. PAC Announces $11 Million In Donations After 2024 Independent AnnouncementPolitics
- Watch Live: Georgia Hearing on Efforts by Pro-Trump Attorneys to Dismiss ChargesPolitics
- Utah Gov. Spencer Cox Announces Lawsuit Against TikTokPolitics
- Jack Smith: Trump Must Formally Declare Legal Strategy His Lawyers Keep Talking About on TVPolitics
- Two of Trump’s Co-Defendants Plan to Waive Their Rights to Speedy Georgia Trial on RICO ChargesPolitics
- Biden, Trump Are Neck-And-Neck In Nevada PollPolitics
- WATCH LIVE: National Secretary Advisor Jake Sullivan Joins White House Press BriefingPolitics
- Ex-Trump Org CFO Allen Weisselberg Draws a Blank on More Than 90 Questions Before Lunch in Civil Fraud TrialPolitics
- Larry Hogan Leaves the Door Open on Presidential RunPolitics | SCOTUS |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Lisa Mascaro, Associated Press
Lisa Mascaro, Associated Press
Stephen Groves, Associated Press
Stephen Groves, Associated Press
Farnoush Amiri, Associated Press
Farnoush Amiri, Associated Press
Kevin Freking, Associated Press
Kevin Freking, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans chose Rep. Mike Johnson as their latest nominee for House speaker desperate to unite their fractious majority and end the chaos, just hours after an earlier pick abruptly withdrew in the face of opposition from Donald Trump.
Johnson of Louisiana, a lower-ranked member of the House GOP leadership team, becomes the fourth Republican nominee in what has become an almost absurd cycle of political infighting since Kevin McCarthy’s ouster as GOP factions jockey for power.
WATCH: GOP loses 3rd House speaker nominee after pushback from Trump dooms Emmer’s bid
When the House convenes at noon Wednesday ahead of a floor vote, Johnson, who won the majority behind closed doors, will need almost all Republicans in the public roll call to win the gavel.
“Mike! Mike! Mike!” lawmakers chanted at a press conference late Tuesday night, surrounding Johnson and posing for selfies in a show of support.
Three weeks on, the Republicans have been frittering away their majority status — a maddening embarrassment to some, democracy in action to others, but not at all how the House is expected to function.
Refusing to unify, far-right members won’t accept a more traditional speaker and moderate conservatives don’t want a hardliner. While Johnson had no opponents during the private roll call, some two dozen Republicans did not vote, more than enough to sink his nomination.
Anxious and exhausted, Republican lawmakers are desperately trying to move on. “Pretty sad commentary on governance right now,” said Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark. “Maybe on the fourth or fifth or sixth or 10th try, we’ll get this thing right.”
After he withdrew Tuesday afternoon, Rep. Tom Emmer briskly left the building where he had been meeting privately with Republicans. He said later at the Capitol that Trump’s opposition did not affect his decision to bow out.
“I made my decision based on my relationship with the conference,” he said, referring to the GOP majority. Emmer said he would support whomever emerges as the new nominee. “We’ll get it done.”
Trump, speaking as he left the courtroom in New York where he faces business fraud charges, said his “un-endorsement” must have had an impact on Emmer’s bid.
“He wasn’t MAGA,” said Trump, the party’s front-runner for the 2024 presidential election, referring to his Make America Great Again campaign slogan.
House Republicans returned behind closed doors, where they spend much of their time, desperately searching for a leader who can unite the factions, reopen the House and get the U.S. Congress working again.
READ MORE: Tom Emmer withdraws bid for House speaker hours after GOP nomination
Attention quickly turned to Johnson, 51, who was the second highest vote-getter on Tuesday morning’s internal ballots.
A lawyer specializing in constitutional issues, Johnson had rallied Republicans around Trump’s legal effort to overturn the 2020 election results.
Elevating Johnson to speaker would giving Louisianans two high-ranking GOP leaders, putting him above Majority Leader Steve Scalise, who was rejected by hardliners in his own bid as speaker.
But hardliners swiftly resisted Johnson’s bid and a new list of candidates emerged. Among them was Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida, a Trump ally who ran third on the morning ballot, and a few others.
In the end, Johnson won 128 votes on the evening ballot, more than any other candidate. McCarthy, who was not on the ballot, won a surprising 43 votes.
“Democracy is messy sometimes, but it is our system,” Johnson said afterward, Scalise standing behind him. “We’re going to restore your trust in what we do here.”
One idea circulating, first reported by NBC News, was to reinstall McCarthy as speaker with hardline Rep. Jim Jordan in a new leadership role.
READ MORE: It’s Day 20 with no House speaker, and lower-level Republicans are now reaching for the gavel
It was being pitched as a way to unite the conference, lawmakers said, but many said it would not fly.
“I think sometimes it’s good to have fresh ideas and fresh people,” said Rep. Victoria Spartz, R-Ind.
While Emmer won a simple majority in a morning roll call behind closed doors — 117 votes — he lost more than two dozen Republicans, leaving him far short of what will be needed during a House floor tally ahead.
With Republicans controlling the House 221-212 over Democrats, any GOP nominee can afford just a few detractors to win the gavel.
Trump allies, including the influential hard-right instigator Steve Bannon, have been critical of Emmer. Some point to his support of a same-sex marriage initiative and perceived criticisms of the former president. Among the far-right groups pressuring lawmakers over the speaker’s vote, some quickly attacked Emmer.
Having rejected the top replacements, Scalise and the Trump-backed Jordan, there is no longer any obvious choice for the job.
“We’re in the same cul-de-sac,” said Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., the chairman of the far-right House Freedom Caucus.
Yet Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., one of the hardliners, said, “This is what democracy looks like.”
Republicans have been flailing all month, unable to conduct routine business as they fight amongst themselves with daunting challenges ahead.
The federal government risks a shutdown in a matter of weeks if Congress fails to pass funding legislation by a Nov. 17 deadline to keep services and offices running. More immediately, President Joe Biden has asked Congress to provide $105 billion in aid — to help Israel and Ukraine amid their wars and to shore up the U.S. border with Mexico. Federal aviation and farming programs face expiration without action.
Many hardliners have been resisting a leader who voted for the budget deal that McCarthy struck with Biden earlier this year, which set federal spending levels that far-right Republicans don’t agree with and now want to undo. They are pursuing steeper cuts to federal programs and services with next month’s funding deadline.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia said she wanted assurances the candidates would pursue impeachment inquiries into Biden and other top Cabinet officials.
During the turmoil, the House is now led by a nominal interim speaker pro tempore, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., the bow tie-wearing chairman of the Financial Services Committee. His main job is to elect a more permanent speaker.
Some Republicans — and Democrats — would like to simply give McHenry more power to get on with the routine business of governing. But McHenry, the first person to be in the position that was created in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks as an emergency measure, has declined to back those overtures.
Associated Press writer Jill Colvin in New York contributed to this report.
Support Provided By:
Learn more | US Congress |
With a government shutdown four days away, thanks largely to House Republicans’ inability to stop fighting amongst themselves, far-right Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert thought it important to focus on their pet grievances on Wednesday.
Greene successfully used the Holman rule to attach an amendment to a short-term defense spending bill to reduce Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s yearly salary to $1. Austin, the first African American Secretary of Defense, was “destroying our military” and had allowed recruitment to fall to “crisis levels,” Greene huffed.
The move was purely a stunt: She previously said she’d vote against the defense bill anyway because she objected to its inclusion of aid for Ukraine.
Not to be outdone, Boebert successfully inserted an amendment to reduce the annual salary for Assistant Secretary of Defense for Readiness Shawn Skelly, who is transgender, to $1.
In a transphobic rant, she accused Skelly of espousing “wokeism” that had caused “significant harm to our military readiness and troops’ morale.”
Democrats didn’t bother asking for a roll call vote on Greene’s amendment, which is almost certainly dead on arrival in the Senate. She still predictably gloated about it on social media afterwards.
While House Republicans managed to advance the defense bill on Tuesday night, as well as three other spending bills—part of ultraconservative members’ demands to consider 12 individual funding bills rather than one sweeping continuing resolution to keep the government open—House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) has made zero progress on thwarting a shutdown.
He is reportedly planning to bring a short-term funding bill to the floor on Friday that cuts spending and includes border security measures—but at least eight hardline Republicans are still vowing to kill it. According to Politico, they are Reps. Andy Biggs (AZ), Eli Crane (AZ), Cory Mills (FL), Matt Gaetz (FL), Tim Burchett (TN), Andy Ogles (TN), Wesley Hunt (TX) and Matt Rosendale (MT). Boebert is also likely to join them.
“We are going to pass 12 appropriations bills before I will consider a [continuing resolution],” Ogles said. | US Congress |
Barring Trump from office could bring closure for Jan. 6 riots, former officer says
Former U.S. Capitol Police Sergeant Aquilino Gonell said he thinks former President Trump being barred from office could bring closure for the Jan. 6 riots.
“What is closure for me? I don’t know,” Gonell told Dean Obeidallah in an interview on SiriusXM.
“It could be that [Trump] gets barred from political office and never set a foot in the White House. It could be that he [goes] to jail,” he continued. “It could be that he lose[s] everything he had because he put everybody else’s lives at risk.”
The former President is currently facing multiple lawsuits in different states that are attempting to ban him from the ballot in the 2024 presidential election. Lawyers say Trump violated Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which states that someone can’t hold office if they have engaged in an insurrection or rebellion against the government.
Gonell, the author of the upcoming book, “American Shield: The Immigrant Sergeant Who Defended Democracy,” said he thinks Trump is responsible for the attack on the Capitol, as he was President of the United States.
Gonell has previously said Trump betrayed his oath to the Constitution.
With President Biden not yet sworn into office, Gonell said the insurrection was an attack on Trump’s own government. He added that with several high-ranking members of Congress fearing for their lives, it was a threat to national security.
“I don’t get it why people continue to make excuses for him,” said Gonell, who received a Congressional Gold Medal for his role in defending the Capitol against the rioters.
Gonell has previously said he can no longer perform the physical component of his role due to injuries he sustained on Jan. 6. Prosecutors said rioter Kyle Fitzsimons, a professional butcher from Maine, delivered a “career-ending and life-altering” shoulder injury to Gonell.
Gonell reported that he feared for his life during the attack and was very close to using lethal force on Fitzsimons when he was injured.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Political Corruption |
The bodies of seven people, including two missing teens and a convicted sex offender, were discovered in rural Oklahoma on Monday, officials confirmed.
Authorities found the bodies on a property near Henryetta, a town of about 6,000 located about 90 miles (145km) east of Oklahoma City, where the sex offender, Jesse McFadden, lived. They had been searching for Ivy Webster, 14, and Brittany Brewer, 16, after officials issued an Amber alert earlier Monday.
Officials say they think they found the bodies of Ivy and Brittany and that the others likely included McFadden and members of his family, said Eddy Rice, the Okmulgee county sheriff. He cautioned that none of the victims had yet been formally identified by the county medical examiner but that authorities were no longer searching for the missing teens or McFadden.
“We’ve had our share of troubles and woes, but this one is pretty bad,” Rice told reporters.
Rice declined to confirm where the bodies were found or any details about weapons that may have been discovered on the property.
“We believe there’s no other threat to the community,” he added.
Officials had issued a missing and endangered person advisory earlier Monday for Ivy and Brittany . The Oklahoma Highway Patrol canceled the advisory Monday afternoon.
The teens were reportedly seen traveling with Jesse McFadden, who was on the state’s sex offender registry. McFadden was convicted of first-degree rape in 2003 and released in October 2020, according to Oklahoma Department of Corrections prison records.
Court records show McFadden was scheduled to appear in court Monday for the start of a jury trial on charges of soliciting sexual conduct with a minor and possession of child pornography.
Brittany’s father told KOTV in Tulsa that one of the bodies discovered was his daughter.
“Brittany was an outgoing person. She was actually selected to be Miss Henryetta … coming up in July for this Miss National Miss pageant in Tulsa. And now she ain’t gonna make it because she’s dead. She’s gone,” Nathan Brewer said.
Brittany had gone to spend the weekend with the McFadden family, her father told KOTV. She was supposed to have returned home Sunday night but never arrived. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Kevin McCarthy’s protracted battle to win election as speaker of the House had far-reaching consequences. His decision to release a massive trove of surveillance footage from January 6 to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson is one of them.
It was lawmakers on the GOP’s right wing who held up McCarthy’s election as speaker for days last month, resulting in an unheard-of 15 rounds of balloting. McCarthy only won their support by making a number of promises – and releasing the January 6 footage was apparently among them.
“I promised,” McCarthy told the New York Times, when asked why he gave Carlson the footage. “I was asked in the press about these tapes, and I said they do belong to the American public. I think sunshine lets everybody make their own judgment.”
The speaker said he wanted to ensure Carlson, who has claimed the insurrection was a “false flag” attack and generally tried to downplay it, without evidence, “exclusive” access to the footage, but could release it to other outlets later. As for Carlson, he told the Times he was taking the footage “very seriously” and had a large team reviewing it.
To get an idea of what Tucker Carlson may do with the January 6 footage given to him by House speaker Kevin McCarthy, let’s tune into the Twitter feed of Donald Trump Jr.
The former president’s son has unsurprisingly worked to downplay the deadly event his father played a crucial role in. Just yesterday, he posted what appears to be body camera footage from a police officer on the scene, which shows an officer from the Washington DC police department repeating “they set us up”. Who might he be referring to? The clip doesn’t make that clear, but the officer appears to be complaining about how and when Washington’s police force was deployed to the Capitol.
This is the strategy Trump’s allies have adopted practically since the insurrection happened – throw various photos or video clips to the public and argue they contradict the well-documented evidence of Trump’s pivotal role in making the insurrection happen. Don’t be surprised if Carlson does more of the same with the footage McCarthy gave him.
The January 6 committee might have finished its work, but the legal wrangling over the insurrection is far from over. The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports on former Mike Pence’s strategy to beat a subpoena from the special counsel tasked with investigating the attack:
Mike Pence is expected to fight his grand jury subpoena as part of the January 6 criminal investigation with the “speech or debate” protection – a move that could prevent the special counsel from obtaining his testimony about key conversations with Donald Trump and members of Congress.
The special counsel overseeing the Trump investigations recently issued a subpoena to Pence – a key witness with unique insight into a number of conversations with the former president and the efforts to stop the congressional certification of the 2020 presidential election.
Pence spoke to Trump one-on-one on 6 January 2021, when Trump was imploring him to unlawfully reject electoral college votes for Biden at the joint session of Congress, and was at a December 2021 meeting at the White House with Republican lawmakers who discussed objections to Biden’s win.
Needless to say, Democrats are howling over the release of the January 6 footage, saying it risks Congress’s safety.
“The apparent transfer of video footage represents an egregious security breach that endangers the hardworking women and men of the United States Capitol Police, who valiantly defended our democracy with their lives at risk on that fateful day,” leader of the House Democrats Hakeem Jeffries wrote in a letter to colleagues earlier this week.
He noted that the January 6 committee had access to the footage McCarthy released, and was “able to diligently review (it)… with numerous protocols in place to protect the safety of the Members, police officers and staff who were targeted during the violent insurrection. There is no indication that these same precautionary measures have been taken in connection with the transmission of the video footage at issue. Unfortunately, the apparent disclosure of sensitive video material is yet another example of the grave threat to the security of the American people represented by the extreme MAGA Republican majority.”
Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said much the same in his letter to colleagues yesterday. “The speaker is needlessly exposing the Capitol complex to one of the worst security risks since 9/11,” he wrote. He said the footage shows where cameras are located in the Capitol and other details of the complex’s security arrangements.
“Giving someone as disingenuous as Tucker Carlson exclusive access to this type of sensitive information is a grave mistake by Speaker McCarthy that will only embolden supporters of the Big Lie and weaken faith in our democracy,” Schumer said.
Kevin McCarthy’s protracted battle to win election as speaker of the House had far-reaching consequences. His decision to release a massive trove of surveillance footage from January 6 to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson is one of them.
It was lawmakers on the GOP’s right wing who held up McCarthy’s election as speaker for days last month, resulting in an unheard-of 15 rounds of balloting. McCarthy only won their support by making a number of promises – and releasing the January 6 footage was apparently among them.
“I promised,” McCarthy told the New York Times, when asked why he gave Carlson the footage. “I was asked in the press about these tapes, and I said they do belong to the American public. I think sunshine lets everybody make their own judgment.”
The speaker said he wanted to ensure Carlson, who has claimed the insurrection was a “false flag” attack and generally tried to downplay it, without evidence, “exclusive” access to the footage, but could release it to other outlets later. As for Carlson, he told the Times he was taking the footage “very seriously” and had a large team reviewing it.
Democrats cry foul after McCarthy releases January 6 footage to Tucker Carlson
Good morning, US politics blog readers. You would think Republicans would like to put the January 6 insurrection – where a mob of Donald Trump’s supporters ransacked the Capitol – behind them. Apparently not. In keeping with a pledge he says he made in his lengthy-but-successful quest to be elected speaker of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy has handed over more than 40,000 hours of surveillance footage from the insurrection to Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, a conservative mouthpiece who has consistently downplayed the attack on his show, which is one of the most watched on television.
Top Democrats are fuming over the move, including Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer, who warned colleagues McCarthy’s decision “poses grave security risks”. We’ll get into why McCarthy did this, and what Carlson’s doing with the footage, on this blog later on.
Here’s what we expect to happen today:
Transportation secretary Pete Buttigieg is visiting East Palestine, Ohio, where a train derailment spilled toxic chemicals earlier this month. He arrives a day after Trump made an appearance in the village, where he criticized the Biden administration’s response.
January 6 committee investigators will discuss the continued threat posed by violent extremism in an event at the Georgetown Law Center at 3.30pm eastern time.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre holds her briefing at 1.30pm. | US Congress |
Trump — Love Him or Hate Him — Looms Over Jury Selection in Georgia, Defense Lawyer Warns
A defense lawyer for pro-Trump attorney Kenneth Chesebro requested more time for jury selection for a trial set to begin later this month in Georgia, citing considerations including strong partisan feelings about former President Donald Trump
ATLANTA – Citing strong feelings in the community about Donald Trump, a defense attorney for one of the former president's co-defendants in the sweeping Georgia election racketeering case on Wednesday pleaded for more time for jury selection once the first trial gets going next week.
At the conclusion of a two-hour hearing on other matters, Scott Grubman, attorney for former Trump election attorney Kenneth Chesebro, stood before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to raise concerns with the anticipated pace of the jury selection process in the case.
Jury selection is set to begin Oct. 20 for Chesebro and fellow Trump election attorney Sidney Powell after the two requested expedited proceedings under Georgia's Speedy Trial Act. Both have pleaded not guilty to all charges. The trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 23.
"I understand that we elected a speedy trial," Grubman said Wednesday. "With all due respect, your honor, we can’t be punished for it. And I know that’s not your intent. I know that. I think you’ve been an excellent judge. But I think we are being punished for it. Because speedy trial is a statutory right that defendants have in this state. And due process and the right to a fair and impartial jury are other rights that defendants have in this state.”
Grubman told McAfee the jury selection process will be difficult due to partisan passions surrounding Trump. The former president has pleaded not guilty to all charges in the Georgia case, and a trial date has not been set for the defendants other than Powell and Chesebro.
"There’s not going to be one person who hasn’t heard of Donald Trump," Grubman said. "And here’s the thing about Donald Trump–and I don’t see this in a good or a bad way, very neutral. There’s no one who doesn’t feel strongly about President Trump. You either love Donald Trump and you’re willing to go into battle with him, or you strongly dislike him. I won’t use the ‘H’ word. And the state might stand up and say ‘Well, but Donald Trump isn’t at the table.’ But he is."
Grubman pointed to the 10-month jury selection process for the Fulton County racketeering trial involving the rapper Young Thug, arguing that it has been lengthy “because it’s lasted as long as necessary to ensure a fair and impartial jury. And amen to that. That’s what we need here. And your honor, with all due respect – and you know this judge – this is the case of the century. This is, in some way the case of the millennium for the way it’s been charged."
- Jury Selection for Pro-Trump Lawyers to Start Oct. 20 in Georgia RICO Election Case
- Georgia Grand Jury to Decide Trump Charges Being Selected Tuesday
- Pro-Trump Lawyer Kenneth Chesebro Asks Georgia Judge to Give Him More Chances to Nix Potential Jurors
- Trump Replaces Top Lawyer Ahead of Georgia Arraignment: Report
- Former Trump Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham Says He ‘Selects Vulnerable People to Surround Him’
- Georgia Judge Lets Pro-Trump Lawyers’ Defense Teams Question Grand Jurors
In brief remarks in response, McAfee said that he expects both the defense and the prosecution to have one hour each to question panels of 14 potential jurors at a time. This is twice as long as they would have in a federal trial, he said.
"There are competing values here," he said. "But the idea, though, I don’t think, should be that one can invoke a speedy trial and then run out the clock. Which is, I don’t think what you want to do. But I do think is something I have to be mindful of. What I’m saying is we’ll see how it goes."
This is a developing story and will be updated.
- Trump Lawyers Tell Judge They Are Now Getting Security Clearances in Jan. 6 Criminal CasePolitics
- Pro-Trump Lawyers Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell Try — Again — To Dismiss Georgia RICO Charges Against ThemPolitics
- Transgender 9-Year-Old Sues North CarolinaPolitics
- Newsom Mocks DeSantis for Weak Condemnation of Trump’s Dinner With Holocaust DenierPolitics
- Democratic Rep. Raskin: ‘I Haven’t Seen Any’ Anti-Israel Comments From ColleaguesPolitics
- Prince William and Kate Middleton Speak Out About Israel and HamasEntertainment
- Who is Steve Scalise? From Conservative Back Bencher to Brink of SpeakershipPolitics
- Nevada Sen. Cortez Masto Joins Call to Freeze Iranian AssetsPolitics
- House GOP Speaker Nominee Scalise Searches for Votes to Win on House FloorPolitics
- White House in ‘Active Conversations’ with Congress About Additional Israel, Ukraine AidPolitics
- Florida Congresswoman Is the Latest to Sign Bipartisan Letter Urging State Department to Evacuate Americans Stuck in IsraelPolitics
- Vulnerable Dem Senator Facing Reelection Battle Calls for $6 Billion in Iranian Funds to Be FrozenPolitics | US Political Corruption |
BISBEE, Ariz. (AP) — James Knox was glad to get out of the big city.
Part of a network of activists who believe U.S. elections are unreliable, Knox has unsuccessfully tried to convince supervisors in Maricopa County, Arizona’s most populous county and home to Phoenix, that they should throw out elections that Republicans lost and get rid of voting machines.
So earlier this past week, Knox went somewhere more hospitable to his project — nearly 200 miles south of his home in the Phoenix exurb of Queen Creek to Cochise County. During last year’s elections, the county’s conservative-majority Board of Supervisors tried to count all ballots by hand — until a judge blocked that — and then refused to certify the results until a judge ordered them to do so.
“Here, it’s a little bit easier to be heard by the board,” Knox said before the latest supervisors’ meeting, where members discussed replacing the respected elections director, who resigned after objecting to the board’s decisions.
Last year was a tough one for the election denial movement in Arizona. Its candidates for U.S. Senate, governor, secretary of state and attorney general all lost. But it’s still thriving in rural Cochise County, a vivid example of how paranoia about elections fanned by former President Donald Trump maintains a stubborn grip in rural parts of the country.
Trump last year backed a slate of candidates for top state election positions in Arizona and elsewhere who parroted his lie about losing the 2020 presidential election due to voter fraud. Every one of those candidates lost in the battleground states that typically decide the presidency. But the election conspiracy movement maintains a firm hold in beet-red rural spots such as Cochise County, a swath of the Sonoran Desert dotted with ranches, small towns and U.S.-Mexico border communities that encompasses an area larger than Rhode Island and Connecticut combined.
The county’s respected, nonpartisan elections director, Lisa Marra, who had opposed the board’s voting moves, recently resigned after five years in the job. The two Republicans on the three-member board are seeking to replace her with the elected county recorder, David Stevens, another Republican.
Stevens is a friend of former GOP state Rep. Mark Finchem, who attended Trump’s rally in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, that preceded the Capitol riot and who ran unsuccessfully last year for secretary of state, Arizona’s top election post. Finchem had said he would not have certified President Joe Biden’s 2020 win in Arizona.
Stevens was prepared to oversee Cochise County’s hand count when Marra objected last year, and only stopped once a judge ruled that it violated state law. Stevens has appealed that ruling and recently joined a nonprofit founded by Finchem to focus on election “integrity.”
In Arizona, elected recorders such as Stevens already play a part in elections. They register voters, distribute mail ballots and verify signatures on the ones sent back, while the nonpartisan election director handles the counting. Stevens said he has always been a fair broker in elections and that in 2020, he spoke more to Democratic groups about voting than Republican ones.
Still, many residents are furious at Stevens’ new role.
“Recorder Stevens has proven he’s part of the crazy conspiracy crowd,” said Jennifer Druckman, a retiree who was one of dozens who spoke out against Stevens getting expanded responsibilities to oversee elections in the county.
Cochise is staunchly conservative — Trump won the county by 20 percentage points in 2020 even as Biden took the state. But the backlash to the election chaos has been palpable.
Activists are circulating petitions to recall Supervisor Tom Crosby, one of the two Republicans who voted for the hand count in October. Crosby also refused to certify the county’s vote tallies as a way to stop the state from finalizing election results in December after Democrat Katie Hobbs defeated Republican Kari Lake for governor.
After a judge ordered the Cochise County board to certify the election, Crosby skipped the next meeting, leaving fellow Republican Peggy Judd and Democrat Ann English to take the vote. It was a dramatic example of how the once-routine task of formalizing election results became charged with politics as Trump allies in scattered rural counties in the West targeted certification as a way to disrupt elections.
In an interview after this past week’s meeting, Crosby scoffed at speakers’ claims that he represents a threat to democracy.
“The ‘Big Lie’ is that checking voting machines is subverting democracy,” Crosby said. “My constituents feel like, if we can’t check ‘em, we don’t want ‘em.”
Election officials, including in Cochise County, check the accuracy of their machines by comparing their tabulations with paper ballot receipts, but Crosby said he still had broader suspicions. Crosby also dismissed the recall effort.
“If it’s leftists bashing me or patriots saying I’m wonderful, the message is the same,” he said.
But not everyone upset at Crosby is a leftist. Greg Lamberth, a retired engineer and lifelong Republican, is one of the people circulating petitions to recall the supervisor.
“I don’t see Mr. Crosby as acting in a way that gives us a functional government in Cochise County,” Lamberth said in an interview, noting the county has already spent more than $100,000 in legal fees related to its election adventures.
A former Marine, Lamberth is also disappointed in Stevens, a onetime military information technology specialist.
“He knows damn well that a hand count is less accurate than a machine count,” Lamberth said.
That’s why election officials decades ago largely turned away from hand counts and used tabulators to tally up ballots. Trump and his allies have attacked those devices, making unsupported allegations they were rigged against him in 2020, sometimes insinuating that foreign powers such as Venezuela were behind it. Those allegations triggered pushes for hand counts in a few rural counties in Nevada and New Mexico.
Stevens said in an interview that last October, a small group of conservative citizens approached him and asked whether the county could tally all ballots by hand rather than rely on machines. Stevens said he told them no — it was too close to the election to change procedure.
But Stevens suggested the county conduct a parallel hand count to check the machines’ accuracy. Other election officials were alarmed, warning it could fan misinformation about the true tally in statewide races. A judge ruled the county didn’t have discretion to pursue a full hand count; the county is appealing.
Stevens stressed that none of this was his idea or that of the supervisors.
“All this comes from the grassroots,” he said in an interview in his office in the county building, where a pockmarked target from a shooting range hung from the wall and assembled Lego Star Wars sets sat on his coffee table.
While Stevens knocked down some prominent Arizona election conspiracy theories, saying most were a product of people not understanding the complexity of the elections process, he said he didn’t want to dismiss the value of a hand count.
“I try not to have preconceived notions — let’s find out,” Stevens said.
Elisabeth Tyndall, the chairwoman of the county’s Democratic Party, said the problem is that Cochise’s Republican power structure simply cannot say “no” to its base.
“We have had Republican leadership pretty much forever,” Tyndall said. “They haven’t held their fellow Republicans accountable for nonsense.”
Despite their overwhelming numerical advantages at the ballot box, many Cochise Republicans still see themselves as an aggrieved minority that needs to get more aggressive.
Bob McCormick, 82, a retired real estate agent, was a member of the small group that initially met with Stevens. He said their numbers are now more than 100.
Still, McCormick knew as he waited to enter the supervisors meeting that he was outnumbered by angry Democrats wanting to vent at the Republican supervisors and Stevens.
“For every 10 of them, one of us shows up,” McCormick said of Democrats. “We really don’t fight. Until we change the whole system, we’re going to be in trouble.”
___
Associated Press coverage of democracy receives support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content. | US Political Corruption |
New results from a U.S. Census Bureau simulation suggests a significant number of noncitizens were missed in the 2020 census, a national head count during which the Trump administration tried but failed to prevent people in the country illegally from being tallied.
A simulated head count by the statistical agency utilized 31 types of administrative records from government agencies and third-party sources to produce estimates of the U.S. population on April 1, 2020 that could be compared to the survey-like responses used in the last official tally of every U.S. resident. The simulation was an experiment which doesn't change the results of the once-a-decade count of every U.S. resident that helps determine political power and the distribution of $1.5 trillion in federal funding in the U.S.
Almost a fifth of noncitizens found in the administrative records had addresses that couldn’t be matched in the 2020 census, suggesting that "a significant fraction of noncitizens" were missed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau report released Friday. By comparison, that same figure was 5.4% for citizens.
Using administrative records from government agencies that have records on immigration, welfare programs, motor vehicle registrations and other data, the test tallied 2.3% more people than in the actual census in 2020 that produced a head count of 331 million U.S. residents, primarily because the simulation captured more noncitizens residing in the U.S., the report said.
The simulation was a test to see how good a job administrative records perform in counting historically undercounted groups like racial and ethnic minorities, renters and young children. Its results actually bumped up the numbers for Hispanic and Black residents, two groups who were undercounted in the 2020 census, respectively, by 8.3 million people and 2.8 million people, the report said.
The administrative records census produced estimates of 11.6 million people in the U.S. with an unknown legal status.
Opponents have said Trump administration policies in 2019 and 2020 created a chilling effect which likely deterred immigrants, Hispanics and others from participating in the 2020 census.
In 2019, the Trump administration attempted to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census questionnaire, but the U.S. Supreme Court blocked it. In the middle of the 2020 census, President Donald Trump directed the Census Bureau to exclude people in the country illegally from numbers used for divvying up congressional seats among the states. An influential GOP adviser had advocated excluding them from the apportionment process in order to favor Republicans and non-Hispanic Whites. Trump's memo was rescinded when President Joe Biden arrived at the White House in January 2021, before the census figures were released.
Using administrative records produced lower population estimates in rural areas, mainly because of the more common use of post office boxes and rural route addresses rather than physical addresses, according to the simulation results. Counts from administrative records also were lower than the 2020 census figures for people between ages 65 and 74, Asians and people who identified as being two or more races. Among the reasons is that these populations were more likely to be double counted in the 2020 census.
Along with noncitizens, Blacks and Hispanics, the administrative records produced higher counts for males, working-age adults, children under age 15 and non-Hispanic Whites.
At the state level, Minnesota and several other Midwestern states had the highest match rates between a person identified in an administrative record and a 2020 census record, while Hawaii had the lowest. Minnesota also had the highest rate of residents who answered the census questionnaire on their own without needing prompting from a census taker visiting their home. | US Federal Policies |
Subsets and Splits