article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
When Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) revealed Thursday that he’d checked himself into the hospital to receive treatment for clinical depression, his office provided a simple, straightforward explanation: Pennsylvania’s newly elected Democrat is ill and needs medical care before returning to work.
The statement wasn’t dissimilar to those others lawmakers have put out when they’re sick — and that’s the beauty in it, mental health professionals say.
“Our brain is just another part of our body. He’s getting help to heal a part of his brain that needs some additional assistance,” Julie Goldstein Grumet, who oversees the Zero Suicide Institute at the Education Development Center, said of Fetterman. No one has to disclose their health information, but Fetterman’s ”transparency really espouses his ability to be a role model to others,” she continued.
Mental illness is incredibly common, psychotherapist Ashley McGirt noted, and it affects people from all walks of life ― politicians included.
“1 in 5 of us suffer from a mental health related condition,” she wrote to HuffPost. “That includes senators, lawyers, doctors, scientists, construction workers and so many other working professionals. Too often we see labels that many of us hold as an exemption from mental illness.”
“Our brain is just another part of our body. He’s getting help to heal a part of his brain that needs some additional assistance.”
Fetterman won a hard-fought battle for Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate seat last year against TV doctor-turned-Republican candidate Mehmet Oz, whose plethora of fringe medical advice includes discouraging people from common, established treatments for depression. Though some of Fetterman’s political opponents are already using his announcement to cast doubt on his fitness for office, his colleagues in Congress have been largely supportive and praised him for his candor.
Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), who’s been vocal about his own experience being hospitalized with depression 13 years ago, was among them, telling HuffPost on Friday that Fetterman’s announcement is a powerful denouncement of shame around depression.
“I’m a living testament to the life-saving power of psychotherapy and psychiatry, and I would not be alive today were it not for mental health care and the stability it brought to my life in my moment of greatest need,” he told HuffPost on Friday. While running for Congress in 2020, Torres said, “I made a deliberate decision to be honest and open about my own struggles with depression in the hopes of breaking the taboo that often surrounds mental health.”
Torres believes that it’s because, not in spite, of his mental health struggles that he’s a good leader to his constituents.
“I see my battles with mental illness as part of my lived experience that informs what I do as a public servant. Far from weakening, it strengthens me as a public servant,” he reflected. “The most important value that I can have as a public servant is empathy for the plight of the American people, and there are millions of Americans who are struggling mightily with depression.”
Fetterman, a middle-aged white man, belongs to a demographic group with one of the country’s highest rates of suicide, and many like him do not pursue help.
“We know that middle-aged white men tend to be more reluctant to seek treatment, both because of stigma and because of cultural norms that we propagate around strength and bearing pain,” Goldstein Grumet noted, saying she’s hopeful Fetterman’s announcement can help change that.
McGirt, who founded the Therapy Fund Foundation ― an organization providing the Black community with free mental health services ― said she’d like to see Fetterman’s announcement also spark conversations about minorities’ unique mental health experiences.
“Sen. Fetterman is a white male with health insurance and a high paying position that makes treatment readily accessible,” she wrote. “He will also most likely receive treatment from someone who looks like him and shares his same racial ethnicity. This is not the norm for BIPOC community members.”
“I see my battles with mental illness as part of my lived experience that informs what I do as a public servant. Far from weakening, it strengthens me as a public servant.”
People of color, she continued, often struggle to find “culturally appropriate clinicians who represent them” or to pay for basic mental health care, which can cost hundreds of dollars per hour. At inpatient treatment facilities like the one where Fetterman is receiving care, ethnic minorities often cannot access the types of hair and hygiene products they need, as “most treatment facilities cater toward eurocentric bodies,” McGirt wrote.
But those who are optimistic about the impact Fetterman could have on mental health awareness also felt that his announcement reflects the progress that’s already been made.
Loss and isolation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have been a “catastrophe for mental health in America,” Torres said, but have also helped propel an ongoing culture shift around mental health awareness.
“The kind of transparency that we’ve seen from Senator Fetterman about his mental health,” Torres reflected, “would have been unthinkable a decade ago.”
If you or someone you know needs help, dial 988 or call 1-800-273-8255 for the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline. You can also get support via text by visiting suicidepreventionlifeline.org/chat. Outside of the U.S., please visit the International Association for Suicide Prevention for a database of resources. | US Congress |
INDIAN LAND, S.C. — EXCLUSIVE — Former ambassador and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley says her Republican White House campaign has had a "fantastic response" since last Wednesday's first GOP presidential nomination debate.
"I think in the first 72 hours we raised a million dollars. We’ve had thousands of people volunteer. We’ve had a lot of people join the campaign. The phones are still ringing," Haley said on Monday in an exclusive interview with Fox News Digital.
Haley spoke minutes before holding her first event since last week's debate: a jam-packed town hall in Indian Lake, South Carolina. Haley's campaign said that roughly 1,000 people filled the auditorium, balcony and overflow rooms at a community event space in this northern South Carolina town along the border with North Carolina.
Pointing to the support, Haley said, "We’re grateful. We’re absolutely grateful. But it only keeps us more motivated because we have a country to save."
Haley, the only woman among the major candidates running for the Republican nomination, was the first contender on the stage at last week's Fox News-hosted debate in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, to come out swinging, targeting Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and former Vice President Mike Pence early in the debate for supporting legislation that raised the national debt.
And Haley, who served as former President Donald Trump's ambassador to the United Nations, was the first to target Trump over his perceived electability liability, arguing the former president was the "most disliked" politician in the country.
She also heavily criticized another rival, multimillionaire biotech entrepreneur and first-time candidate Vivek Ramaswamy over foreign policy. She repeated those comments at Wednesday's town hall, charging Ramaswamy's proposals were "completely naive"
Asked about the first showdown, Haley said in her interview, "You never know what you’re going to get when you get on a debate stage. You never know what questions you’re going to be asked. You don’t know who’s going to attack or not attack. You don’t know. So it’s all instinct and gut. And it’s about communicating as much as you can, and that’s what we tried to do."
"I think we only had eight and a half minutes in two hours. I would have loved to say more, but you take the most of the time that you’re given to really get the substance, solutions and policy out there, and that’s what I tried to do," she emphasized.
Haley appeared to enjoy a small bounce in some of the initial public opinion surveys conducted following the debate, but she remains in the single digits, and along with the rest of the large field of contenders remains far behind Trump, who remains the commanding front-runner for the nomination.
But Katon Dawson, a former chairman of the South Carolina Republican Party and Haley campaign adviser and surrogate, told Fox News that "what the Fox debate did for us as a campaign was made it all real and start coming together, and I think they [voters] understand the fact that Nikki’s different. … You saw that difference on the debate."
Dawson emphasized that the first debate "put gasoline on the fire, and now we’ve got to continue to keep working." | US Federal Elections |
The House of Representatives voted to expel scandal-plagued Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., on Friday, making him the first House lawmaker to be expelled in more than 20 years.
Expelling a member of Congress takes a two-thirds majority vote. The last time a House lawmaker was expelled was more than two decades ago, when late former Rep. Jim Traficant, D-Ohio, was voted out of Congress in 2002.
Prior to his ousting, Traficant had been convicted of 10 felony counts, including racketeering and taking bribes.
Santos has not been convicted of a crime, but he’s been indicted on 23 counts related to wire fraud, identity theft, falsification of records, credit card fraud, and other charges. He's been accused of using campaign funds on a number of luxury goods and treatments such as botox. He has pleaded not guilty.
Sentiments within the House GOP on whether to expel Santos appeared split when Republicans emerged from a closed-door conference meeting on Friday morning.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a former chairman of the House Oversight Committee, argued to reporters that expelling Santos now would take away the presumption of innocence he is entitled to. He also referenced Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who was recently accused of taking bribes from and acting in the interest of Egyptian officials, and the fact that he is not being removed from the Senate.
"He hasn't been tried either civilly or criminally, and that's what probably gives me the most pause," Issa said. "I've also become aware that the Republicans on the ethics committee wanted to consider a lesser sanction than removing him, and the three Democrats were not willing to consider anything except the expulsion."
The House Ethics Committee declined to comment on the statement.
Meanwhile, others, chiefly the New York Republican delegation Santos is part of, maintained there was more than enough evidence to expel him.
"I believe as I've stated that George Santos has committed crimes. He's defrauded voters, taxpayers and donors. And we have established, through a comprehensive investigation, the standard by which he should be expelled," Rep. Marc Molinaro, R-N.Y., told reporters.
"I just hope that my colleagues see through any distortion and see that we have an individual who is divorced from reality, who has committed crimes, is a con man and will continue to behave in the way he has and has met the threshold not to serve the house."
Santos himself said he expected to be expelled from Congress during a Friday morning interview on "Fox & Friends." | US Congress |
After Hamas’ surprise attack on Oct. 7, Republicans and Democrats in Congress both said they needed to act quickly to help Israel.
But five weeks after Mike Johnson (R-LA) was elected speaker, and nearly eight weeks since the attack, Congress doesn’t appear any closer to passing an aid package—for Israel or for Ukraine, the latter of which has been “weeks” away from running out of weapons for months now.
As Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) told The Daily Beast this week, Ukraine needed an aid package in October.
It’s a similar story on government funding. House Republicans said they needed to get back to work on appropriations bills immediately so they could pass spending measures and pressure Democrats into accepting lower government funding levels.
But it’s now been four weeks since the House passed an appropriations bill—and Republicans don’t actually appear to be solving any of the spending problems that have plagued them all year—with the exception of one.
On Friday, the House finally expelled Rep. George Santos (R-NY). Santos was a constant embarrassment for Republicans in Congress, and yet his removal was still a divisive issue for the House GOP that flummoxed Republican leaders. After an exhaustive Ethics investigation that culminated in a damning 55-page report on Santos’ behavior, Speaker Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA), House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN), and GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik (R-NY) all opposed expelling Santos. Meanwhile, 105 Republicans voted for his removal.
But if that’s all the House GOP has accomplished, it’s not impressing members.
Before lawmakers broke for Thanksgiving, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) took to the House floor to lambaste Republican leadership for failing to accomplish any meaningful conservative policy goals.
“Anybody sitting in the complex, if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me, one meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done,” Roy said at the time.
On Thursday night, he returned to the floor to underscore that point. Roy said his fellow Republicans were frustrated that his tirade handed Democrats a quotable campaign attack.
To his Republican colleagues, he said, “have an answer.”
Without recognition of the underlying issues—namely: the unreasonable expectations that Republicans can coalesce behind a plan and then force Democrats to just accept it—Speaker Johnson and House Republicans are likely to continue spinning their legislative wheels. But it isn’t much better in the Senate, a chamber that’s been hampered by its own sets of unreasonable expectations.
The Senate is working on a sweeping supplemental package that would tie weapons for Ukraine, Israel aid, support for Taiwan, and money for enhanced border security all together. The idea is that, individually, you have priorities with varying degrees of support. But you pack them all together, and every lawmaker would be able to find a reason to justify a yes vote.
The problem is, that cuts the other way, too.
Plenty of House Republicans are adamant that these issues should be separate, and plenty of Democrats aren’t too keen on handing the GOP a win on “border security”—which they interpret as a crackdown on immigration via more border patrol agents and stricter asylum standards—simply because Republicans are reluctant to fund Ukraine.
But again, Republicans are playing hardball, and their leverage is that many in the GOP simply don’t care what happens in Ukraine.
As conservative Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX) put it bluntly, “I’m not giving any money to Ukraine.”
One current offer from the GOP is to tie Ukraine funding to the number of border crossings each month. That doesn’t seem very palatable to Democrats. It’s one thing for Democrats to swallow some border funding to get the rest of their priorities through; it’s a much different thing to fund Ukraine on a short-term basis and directly tie the issue to a completely unrelated, fluctuating measure.
The standoff on those two issues has become a real sticking point, raising the possibility that nothing gets done, and Republicans and Democrats don’t appear very close.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) was emphatic on Wednesday that a direct relationship with border crossings was the only way to get even a temporary commitment on Ukraine.
“We will have to have something that is really tied to really reducing the number of people crossing the border, and this can’t be a small reduction. We need to reduce it the way Trump was able to reduce it,” Scott told Fox News. “The only way we’re going to get a result is if we will not give Ukraine money unless it’s completely tied on a month-to-month basis to a reduction in number of people crossing the border. That’s the only way it’s going to work, and I believe that’s where everybody’s going to be.”
That may seem like an opening offer, but Republicans are resolute that any Ukraine funding must be tied to border security.
“Does any reasonable person think that we’re going to have a vote on the House that is successful that doesn’t include border security as a part of the supplemental?” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), who is involved with the border negotiations, told The Daily Beast this week.
“It’s the only prayer of getting it done. People need to think strategically or recognize it’s really those three have to go together in tandem for us to be able to get to Israel as quickly as possible,” he continued.
The House took a first stab at passing Israel aid last month. Johnson led a vote on $14.3 billion to Israel aid that paired cuts to the Internal Revenue Service to supposedly “offset” the cost. (In reality, the Congressional Budget Office said the IRS cuts would increase the debt by $26.8 billion over the next decade.)
That Israel bill passed the House with some Democratic support but was swiftly dismissed in the Senate as an unserious proposal. And again, weeks later with no resolution, lawmakers are wondering what they’re doing—and why their leadership ever pursued an obviously doomed strategy.
Rep. Max Miller (R-OH) called the idea of tying Israel aid to IRS cuts “fucking dumb” and said it was “a slap in the face to every Jew.”
Due to Johnson’s doomed Israel gambit, House Republicans are stuck in the backseat as the Senate drives border negotiations.
“The House has no say in it,” said conservative Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX).
Crenshaw stopped short of blaming the speaker directly, saying Johnson has “a ton on his plate,” but he did say the Senate leading border talks was “frustrating for me.”
Still, most Republicans are continuing to give Johnson a pass.
The most notable example of the softer expectations is the Freedom Caucus moving on from its stubborn insistence on cutting spending below the numbers that Republican and Democratic leaders agreed on earlier this year during the debt ceiling standoff. Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry (R-PA) acknowledged that most of the House and Senate voted for those numbers, so lawmakers shouldn’t go above those spending levels.
“Let’s write the appropriations bills. Let’s get the spending bills right,” Perry said at a press conference. “Let’s set that as the number, and then when we do that, let’s start conferencing bills.”
Part of the lower standards for Johnson is that conservatives realize another replacement speaker is unlikely to be further to the right than Johnson. Another part is just the broad recognition that, with a narrow and unruly majority, compromise will be necessary.
As Nehls told The Daily Beast, “the Lord Jesus could not manage our conference.”
But Nehls also acknowledged that conservative frustration toward Johnson was brewing. “The honeymoon period has really ended, in many ways,” he said.
Roy told Politico this week that Johnson’s performance rating was “plummeting.” And Miller said Johnson “did a 180 on everything he believed in.”
Johnson’s dwindling stock among the GOP poses problems as he tries to shepherd spending bills through the House, where conservatives have insisted on passing all 12 appropriations bills individually rather than in one massive omnibus bill.
But since Johnson took office, Republican infighting over hard-right policy riders has tanked two of the remaining five bills. Members of the conference have lost confidence that Johnson can navigate his ungovernable conference, especially before a stop-gap spending bill expires next year.
“The spending bills aren’t going to go anywhere,” Crenshaw said. “They’re at an impasse.”
Nehls agreed. “I don’t know if we even get another appropriation bill passed, honestly,” he said.
The clock is ticking for the House to get its act together. Four government funding bills run out Jan. 19, 2024, and the remainder expire on Feb. 2.
The House’s prospects of avoiding an omnibus look grim. The Senate has only passed three appropriations bills in a package known as a “mini-bus.” The other nine are in limbo, as Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has not brought them to the floor.
Senior appropriator Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) said earlier this week that, by not bringing spending bills to the floor, Schumer was “driving this bus straight to an omnibus.”
Asked if this dynamic sets up a shutdown, she responded with an exasperated, “yes ma’am.” Then she pointed out that the second funding government spending deadline falls on Groundhog Day.
“How appropriate,” she told The Daily Beast. “It just seems like this is this ridiculous cycle that we keep putting ourselves in.”
On top of it all, Congress is also staring down messy fights on other must-pass legislation. The National Defense Authorization Act expires at the end of the year, as does the Farm Bill and Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization. With the House slated to be in session for just seven more work days before 2024, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are bracing for a chaotic, and likely unproductive, stretch ahead.
“This is going to be an ugly Congress. It already has been and it could get even uglier,” Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA) told The Daily Beast. | US Congress |
What makes presidential campaigns successful?
Since the 1970s, the most critical factor in American presidential campaigns has not been candidate qualifications, name recognition, financial backing or the burning issues of the day. As important as these may be, the hallmark of successful campaigns over the last 50 years has been effective campaign strategy, usually led by effective campaign managers.
Their skills have helped defeat candidates with superior qualifications and achieve success under unfavorable campaign odds.
Donald Trump offers a rare example of a self-strategized campaign. Prior to his campaign announcement in June 2015, Trump had no public service experience and only about 4 percent approval in popular polls. One month later, he led 16 credentialed Republican candidates.
A flurry of media and academic analyses have sought to explain Trump’s election in 2016 in the face of behaviors that would have derailed any candidate in the past. A 2022 search on “Why Trump won the 2016 election” in Google Scholar yielded 53,000 titles. Writers have focused on a variety of causes such as populist appeals to disaffected working-class whites, alienation against an elitist culture in America, social media and disillusion with a dysfunctional political system. But the role of effective strategy in his campaign has not been highlighted. Trump saw opportunities that the pollsters did not recognize when they predicted a Hillary Clinton win in 2016.
The first campaign in U.S. political history clearly won by superior strategy was that of Abraham Lincoln. It was described in extraordinary detail in an award-wining book by Doris Kearns Goodwin. It was also the first presidential election campaign in which campaign strategy assumed importance. Candidates could travel to various parts of the nation through the rapidly-growing rail network, and by the 1840s to 1850s, speeches could be transmitted by telegraph.
Beginning far behind three other candidates for the Republican nomination, Lincoln travelled and spoke extensively, seeking second preference in states dominated by other candidates. When no candidate won on early ballots, Lincoln gained votes and ultimately swept the nomination. Democrats, concentrated in the less populous pro-slavery South, were soundly defeated in the election of 1860.
From the 1970s, the electronic revolution transformed campaigns. Instant electronic communication increased competition for audience by media. The proportion of the population that was informed about politics, measured by being able to name the three branches of the federal government, reached a low of 25 percent in 2017. These factors added complexity to effective messaging with the voting public.
Jimmy Carter was described by Stephen Phillips as having a “Gentle-Jesus mien”, but also ”ambition, flinty resolve and bulletproof self-assurance.” But Carter would have never risen politically without the political genius of Hamilton Jordan, who at age 26 had managed Carter’s successful campaign for governor of Georgia. In 1972, at age 28, Jordan presented an unconventional, 70-page game plan, which Carter largely followed in his successful candidacy for the Democratic nomination and President Gerald Ford four years later.
Sixteen years after Carter’s election, Bill Clinton was already a sophisticated campaigner in his own right. He was powerfully aided by James Carville in the uphill campaign against incumbent President George H.W. Bush in 1992.
Bush, coming off a wave of popularity due to the successful expulsion of the Iraqi military from Kuwait, seemed unbeatable early on. But Clinton ultimately prevailed in a campaign marked by Carville’s now-famous dictum, “It’s the economy, stupid.” Carville’s role was featured in an Academy Award-nominated film, “The War Room.”
Two years after Clinton acceded to the presidency, Karl Rove played a critical role in electing George W. Bush’s governor of Texas. He would help guide Bush’s policies as governor and then manage Bush’s successful 2000 campaign against Vice President Al Gore (D), and then again against Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.
Bush had an appealing persona, although is presidency is not favorably remembered. In 2008, 61 percent of a group of historians voted him as the worst president in U.S. history, yet effective strategy helped him win two presidential elections. Rove’s unrelenting mastery of detail was demonstrated in the final phase of the 2000 election. Bush gained a narrow lead in Florida, but Democrats claimed potential errors associated with punched card ballots and the notorious “hanging chads”. Rove helped defuse the furor when he observed that the City of Chicago, controlled by the Democratic Party, used the same punch-card system.
In January 2012, polls showed that only 18 percent of the public felt that the country was on the right track. Historical precedents showed steep odds against reelection of President Barack president when the public registered less than a 39 percent “right track” rating. Barack Obama arguably would not have won the election in 2012 without the database concepts and assistance of David Axelrod. Axelrod had become hooked on politics as a teenager, selling buttons for the campaign of Robert F. Kennedy at age 13.
In 2016, Trump became a rare successful architect of his own campaign. With skill in gaging the public mood and generating media coverage, Trump embraced ideologies as opportunities for political advancement.
In a book supporting his aborted campaign as a candidate for the Reform Party in the presidential election of 2000, Trump had espoused a single-payer health system and a 14.25 percent wealth tax on the most affluent. He had also supported Democrats up to 2009 and extolled Barack Obama’s first year in office. He then suddenly switched to a conservative campaign with a book whose subtitle was “Making America #1.” Trump’s final campaign book in 2015 revealed brazen confidence in his ability to exploit the media’s hunger for sensation. He wrote: “I don’t mind being attacked. I use the media as it uses me – to attract attention. Once I have that attention it’s up to me to use it to my advantage.”
In March 2020, Jen O’Malley Dillon, a deputy campaign manager in Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign, assumed charge of campaign management in the Biden campaign after a disastrous New Hampshire primary. She is credited with helping rescue the former vice president’s campaign and striking the moderate tone that gained him the presidency. She subsequently became deputy chief of staff in the new administration.
The conclusion from presidential campaigns since the Ford-Carter campaign of 1976 is that skilled campaign strategies have been a critical factor in successful political campaigns. A key requirement for campaign managers to be effective is the willingness of candidates to accept advice that may be counter to their natural instincts. That was the fatal flaw that doomed Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012.
Frank T. Manheim is affiliate professor at the Schar School of Policy and Government at George Mason University.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Campaigns & Elections |
House Republicans haven’t been terribly successful at many things this year. They struggled to keep the government open and to keep the United States from defaulting on its debt. They’ve even struggled at times on basic votes to keep the chamber functioning. But they have been very good at one thing: regicide.
On Friday, Republicans dethroned Jim Jordan as their designated Speaker, making him the third party leader to be ousted this month. First, there was Kevin McCarthy, who required 15 different ballots to even be elected Speaker and was removed from office by a right-wing rebellion at the beginning of October. Then, after a majority of Republicans voted to make McCarthy’s No. 2, Steve Scalise, his successor, a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would torpedo his candidacy and back Jordan instead. Finally, once Republicans finally turned to Jordan as their candidate, the largest rebellion yet blocked him from becoming Speaker. After losing three successive votes on the floor, the firebrand lost an internal vote to keep his position as Speaker designate on Friday.
After two weeks of Republican chaos, the House is frozen without a leader, imperiling both the prospect of keeping the U.S. government open with a funding deadline less than a month away, and supplying U.S. allies Israel and Ukraine with aid to shore up their defenses. Next week, Republicans will attempt yet again to elect a Speaker, as the party explores new, previously unimaginable levels of division, chaos, and bitterness.
In particular, the fight over Jordan’s candidacy has opened new wounds in a party full of them. Many of the same rebels who held McCarthy hostage in January were also those who helped block Scalise in order to hold the position open for their favored candidate, Jordan. But they soon got a dose of their own medicine from Establishment Republicans outraged over the gambit. This led to a perfect storm for Jordan that united members concerned about his hard-right beliefs with those embittered that the hard right had blackmailed the conference by sinking anyone but Jordan.
“My vote counted less than everyone else’s vote,” said Don Bacon, an anti-Jordan moderate from Nebraska. “In America, all of our votes count the same.” As Pat Fallon of Texas, who backed Jordan on the floor, described it, “If you let 20 people run your conference when there’s 221 members, it gets the other members a little antsy and a little angry.”
The hard feelings got worse after an aggressive lobbying campaign from right-wing influencers that led to a tirade of angry calls and even death threats to members opposed to Jordan’s candidacy. It also didn’t help that his lobbying campaign lacked a certain personal touch. As one person familiar with his efforts to woo dissidents put it, “The more outreach he does, the worse it gets for him.”
“It used to be I was voting for Kevin McCarthy,” said Carlos Gimenez of Florida. “Now I’m not voting for Jim Jordan.”
Unlike many of those who blocked McCarthy’s effort to be Speaker at the start of the year, Jordan’s opponents didn’t want any policy concessions or powerful perches in exchange for their vote. When Jordan held a last-ditch meeting with holdouts on Thursday, it was clear negotiation was impossible. “When he met with a number of us, he asked us what we wanted,” Gimenez said. “We don’t want anything.”
Despite seemingly impossible odds, Jordan was reluctant to drop out. He held a press conference Friday morning, where he told a long anecdote about the Wright Brothers from his native Ohio before yet again losing on the floor of the House. At that point, Republicans assembled yet again in a closed, windowless room to decide his fate. Cell phones were placed outside to prevent leaks, and carts of pizza were wheeled in to stave off hunger. While only 25 Republicans openly voted against Jordan on the floor, 112 cast a secret ballot for him to drop out. They saw no path forward for him. “There’s no more runway,” said Fallon. “We’re at the end of it.”
The mounting problem is not simply that Republicans are unable to elect a Speaker, but also that the House can’t function without one. The chamber’s rules require a Speaker to be elected for even the most basic functions, like voting on legislation. Although Patrick McHenry, a Republican from North Carolina, is currently serving as a placeholder in the role under a post-9/11 provision to ensure continuity of government, he has insisted he has no power to do anything save preside over the election of a permanent Speaker. Proposals to formally empower McHenry until a Speaker is elected have been rejected by Republicans so far.
So, the question is who would be next on the chopping block. “We took our leader out, we took our second-in-command out, we took our grassroots folk hero out,” Kelly Armstrong of North Dakota told reporters before Jordan’s ouster. “Eventually, we’re going to run into an attrition problem. That’s unsustainable.” Already, a host of potential candidates were popping up to mount their own bid next week despite the unpleasant and unstable nature of the position.
Jake Ellzey of Texas consistently voted for his colleague Mike Garcia of California on the floor this week in order to block Jordan — they flew jet fighters together in the Navy. “I’d take a bullet for that guy. I love the guy,” Ellzey said. Why then would he subject such a close friend to such a grim fate? He conceded, “There is a duality there.” | US Congress |
Trump is currently seeking the GOP nomination for president in 2024, with poll after poll giving him a seemingly insurmountable lead over the rest of the candidates, leading many to consider him the inevitable nominee. Last Sunday, The Washington Post published a report outlining Trump's alleged plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on the very first day of his hypothetical second term in the White House, allowing him to use military force to quash protests against his presidency.
Esper served as the secretary of defense under Trump from 2019 to 2020, taking over the role after the resignation of Jim Mattis. He was fired from the position by Trump via a social media post shortly after the 2020 election, with many speculating that he was terminated due to his unwillingness to go along with Trump's plans to contest Joe Biden's victory. Esper later joined all other living former defense secretaries in publishing on op-ed condemning Trump's election denialism.
On Friday, Esper made an appearance on CNN where he discussed the ability that Trump would have to legally suppress dissent if reelected.
"I think if something like [the invocation of the Insurrection Act] were to happen right after an inauguration in January 2025, I guess there would not be a civilian chain of command in place at that point in time, first of all, to push back," Esper explained. "So there would probably be an acting secretary, he or she would then have to decide whether or not to implement that order. Otherwise, the military chain of command would be intact. There's another option too. Most often, people go to the active duty, but there's nothing that prevents the president from asking a governor, a friendly governor, to mobilize his national guard to assist as well."
He continued, stressing that "once the president is signed into office, it is completely legal for him to invoke the Insurrection Act," and noting that such a process is usually initiated with a recommendation from the attorney general. As of the first day, there would likely only be an acting attorney general, complicating the matter further.
During the last months of his presidency, Trump was reportedly told by lawyer Jeffrey Clark that the Insurrection Act could be used to shut down protests if he had attempted to remain in office despite losing to Biden.
Newsweek reached out to Trump's office via email for comment.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
fairness meter
About the writer
Thomas Kika is a Newsweek weekend reporter based in upstate New York. His focus is reporting on crime and national politics. In the past, he has also focused on things like business, technology, and popular culture. Thomas joined Newsweek in 2021 and previously worked at the International Business Times. He is a graduate of the University at Albany. You can get in touch with Thomas by emailing [email protected]. Languages: English.
Thomas Kika is a Newsweek weekend reporter based in upstate New York. His focus is reporting on crime and national... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here. | US Federal Elections |
2024 Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says that the eight Republicans who voted with Democrats to oust Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) from the House speakership should "own" the chaos resulting from the vote.
McCarthy was ousted as House speaker in a historic 216-210 vote, which saw eight Republicans join all present Democrats in the motion to vacate that was spearheaded by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL). Ramaswamy, in a video posted to X, formerly known as Twitter, also questioned whether the chaos is "such a bad thing."
“The point of removing the House speaker was to sow chaos. That’s what the critics of Matt Gaetz and everybody else is saying. And my advice to the people who voted to remove him is own it,” Ramaswamy said.
“Admit it. There was no better plan of action of who’s going to fill that speaker role. So was the point to sow chaos? Yes, it was,” he continued. “But the real question to ask, to get to the bottom of it, is whether chaos is really such a bad thing.”
He conceded that the eight Republicans have no plan on who will fill the vacant speakership but said other issues the country is facing are more important than electing a House speaker.
"We don't have a House speaker, what's the plan to replace the speaker, everybody asks. Here's what I say: who cares. Until we actually have a plan for how to address the deficit in our budget, how to address the $33 trillion in our national debt, how to actually seal our own southern border in our country, how to deal with an epidemic of crime across the United State of America, how to reduce our dependence on our enemy for our modern way of life, that's what I want a plan for," Ramaswamy said.
The House of Representatives cannot conduct any legislative activity on the floor until a speaker is elected.
McCarthy said he would not seek the speakership again, setting up a battle in the House Republican Conference. House Republicans plan on voting for a new House speaker on Oct. 11, meaning the body will be without its constitutionally mandated leader.
Republicans considering taking up the speaker's gavel include House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) and Reps. Kevin Hern (R-OK) and Jim Jordan (R-OH). A candidate forum is scheduled to be held on Oct. 10 for the House GOP, ahead of the conference deciding whom to nominate for speaker. | US Congress |
Tracking down accurate information about Philadelphia's elections on Twitter used to be easy. The account for the city commissioners who run elections, @phillyvotes, was the only one carrying a blue check mark, a sign of authenticity.
But ever since the social media platform overhauled its verification service last month, the check mark has disappeared. That's made it harder to distinguish @phillyvotes from a list of random accounts not run by the elections office but with very similar names.
The election commission applied weeks ago for a gray check mark — Twitter's new symbol to help users identify official government accounts – but has yet to hear back from the Twitter, commission spokesman Nick Custodio said. It's unclear whether @phillyvotes is an eligible government account under Twitter's new rules.
That's troubling, Custodio said, because Pennsylvania has a primary election May 16 and the commission uses its account to share important information with voters in real time. If the account remains unverified, it will be easier to impersonate – and harder for voters to trust – heading into Election Day.
Impostor accounts on social media are among many concerns election security experts have heading into next year's presidential election. Experts have warned that foreign adversaries or others may try to influence the election, either through online disinformation campaigns or by hacking into election infrastructure.
Election administrators across the country have struggled to figure out the best way to respond after Twitter owner Elon Musk threw the platform's verification service into disarray, given that Twitter has been among their most effective tools for communicating with the public.
Some are taking other steps allowed by Twitter, such as buying check marks for their profiles or applying for a special label reserved for government entities, but success has been mixed. Election and security experts say the inconsistency of Twitter's new verification system is a misinformation disaster waiting to happen.
"The lack of clear, at-a-glance verification on Twitter is a ticking time bomb for disinformation," said Rachel Tobac, CEO of the cybersecurity company SocialProof Security. "That will confuse users – especially on important days like election days."
The blue check marks that Twitter once doled out to notable celebrities, public figures, government entities and journalists began disappearing from the platform in April. To replace them, Musk told users that anyone could pay $8 a month for an individual blue check mark or $1,000 a month for a gold check mark as a "verified organization."
The policy change quickly opened the door for pranksters to pose convincingly as celebrities, politicians and government entities, which could no longer be identified as authentic. While some impostor accounts were clear jokes, others created confusion.
Fake accounts posing as Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, the city's Department of Transportation and the Illinois Department of Transportation falsely claimed the city was closing one of its main thoroughfares to private traffic. The fake accounts used the same photos, biographical text and home page links as the real ones. Their posts amassed hundreds of thousands of views before being taken down.
Twitter's new policy invites government agencies and certain affiliated organizations to apply to be labeled as official with a gray check. But at the state and local level, qualifying agencies are limited to "main executive office accounts and main agency accounts overseeing crisis response, public safety, law enforcement, and regulatory issues," the policy says.
The rules do not mention agencies that run elections. So while the main Philadelphia city government account quickly received its gray check mark last month, the local election commission has not heard back.
Election offices in four of the country's five most populous counties — Cook County in Illinois, Harris County in Texas, Maricopa County in Arizona and San Diego County — remain unverified, a Twitter search shows. Maricopa, which includes Phoenix, has been targeted repeatedly by election conspiracy theorists as the most populous and consequential county in one of the most closely divided political battleground states.
Some counties contacted by The Associated Press said they have minimal concerns about impersonation or plan to apply for a gray check later, but others said they already have applied and have not heard back from Twitter.
Even some state election offices are waiting for government labels. Among them is the office of Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows.
In an April 24 email to Bellows' communications director reviewed by The Associated Press, a Twitter representative wrote that there was "nothing to do as we continue to manually process applications from around the world." The representative added in a later email that Twitter stands "ready to swiftly enforce any impersonation, so please don't hesitate to flag any problematic accounts."
An email sent to Twitter's press office and a company safety officer requesting comment was answered only with an autoreply of a poop emoji.
"Our job is to reinforce public confidence," Bellows told the AP. "Even a minor setback, like no longer being able to ensure that our information on Twitter is verified, contributes to an environment that is less predictable and less safe."
Some government accounts, including the one representing Pennsylvania's second-largest county, have purchased blue checks because they were told it was required to continue advertising on the platform.
Allegheny County posts ads for elections and jobs on Twitter, so the blue check mark "was necessary," said Amie Downs, the county's communications director.
When anyone can buy verification and when government accounts are not consistently labeled, the check mark loses its meaning, Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold said.
Griswold's office received a gray check mark to maintain trust with voters, but she told the AP she would not buy verification for her personal Twitter account because "it doesn't carry the same weight" it once did.
Custodio, at the Philadelphia elections commission, said his office would not buy verification either, even if it gets denied a gray check.
"The blue or gold check mark just verifies you as a paid subscriber and does not verify identity," he said.
Experts and advocates tracking election discourse on social media say Twitter's changes do not just incentivize bad actors to run disinformation campaigns — they also make it harder for well-meaning users to know what's safe to share.
"Because Twitter is dropping the ball on verification, the burden will fall on voters to double check that the information they are consuming and sharing is legitimate," said Jill Greene, voting and elections manager for Common Cause Pennsylvania.
That dampens an aspect of Twitter that until now had been seen as one of its strengths – allowing community members to rally together to elevate authoritative information, said Mike Caulfield, a research scientist at the University of Washington's Center for an Informed Public.
"The first rule of a good online community user interface is to 'help the helpers.' This is the opposite of that," Caulfield said. "It takes a community of people who want to help boost good information, and robs them of the tools to make fast, accurate decisions." | US Local Elections |
GENOA, Neb. -- Amid a renewed push for answers, archeologists planned to resume digging Tuesday at the remote site of a former Native American boarding school in central Nebraska, searching for the remains of children who died there decades ago.
The search for a hidden cemetery near the former Genoa Indian Industrial School in Nebraska gained renewed interest after the discovery of hundreds of children’s remains at Native American boarding school sites in the U.S. and Canada since 2021, said Dave Williams, the state's archeologist who's digging at the site with teammates this week.
The team hadn't found any remains by Monday afternoon, but the dig had only just begun.
“Where is the cemetery and how many people are buried there? It's the big question that's hanging in the air,” said Alyce Tejral, a board member of the nearby Genoa U.S. Indian School Foundation Museum.
Genoa was part of a national system of more than 400 Native American boarding schools that attempted to assimilate Indigenous people into white culture by separating children from their families, cutting them off from their heritage and inflicting physical and emotional abuse.
Judi gaiashkibos, the executive director of the Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs, whose mother attended the school in the late 1920s, has been involved in the cemetery effort for years. She said it’s difficult to spend time in the community where many Native Americans suffered, but the vital search can help with healing and bringing the children’s voices to the surface.
Williams, the archeologist, said finding the location of the cemetery and the burials contained within it may provide some peace and comfort to people who have suffered a long period of not knowing exactly what happened to their relatives who were sent to boarding schools and never came home.
The school, about 90 miles (145 kilometers) west of Omaha, opened in 1884 and at its height was home to nearly 600 students from more than 40 tribes across the country. It closed in 1931 and most buildings were long ago demolished.
Newspaper clippings, records and a student’s letter indicate at least 86 students died at the school, usually due to diseases such as tuberculosis and typhoid, but at least one death was blamed on an accidental shooting.
Researchers identified 49 of the children killed but have not been able to find names for 37 students. The bodies of some of those children were returned to their homes but others are believed to have been buried on the school grounds at a location long forgotten.
As part of an effort to find the cemetery, last summer dogs trained to detect the faint odor of decaying remains searched the area and signaled they had found a burial site in a narrow piece of land bordered by a farm field, railroad tracks and a canal.
A team using ground-penetrating radar last November also showed an area that was consistent with graves, but there will be no guarantees until researchers finish digging into the ground, Williams said.
The process is expected to take several days.
If the dig reveals human remains, the State Archeology Office will continue to work with the Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs in deciding what’s next. They could rebury the remains in the field and create a memorial or exhume and return the bodies to tribes.
Last year, the U.S. Interior Department — led by Secretary Deb Haaland, a member of Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico and the first Native American Cabinet secretary — released a first-of-its-kind report that named hundreds of schools the federal government supported to strip Native Americans of their cultures and identities.
At least 500 children died at some of the schools, but that number is expected to reach into the thousands or tens of thousands as research continues.
___
Ahmed reported from Minneapolis. Scott McFetridge contributed from Des Moines, Iowa. | Civil Rights Activism |
As Donald Trump looks increasingly likely to be the 2024 Republican nominee for president, it continues to look more and more plausible that there could be a serious effort to keep him off the ballot entirely.
Following his presidency ending in a bloody battle on Capitol Hill, Mr Trump remains the de facto leader of the Republican Party, at least among its primary voting electorate.
Recent polls show the ex-president supported by as many as six in 10 of GOP primary voters nationally, while he also continues to hold commanding leads in early primary and caucus states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
But winning a primary election is one thing; winning a general election is another. And as Mr Trump consolidates his support within the GOP, some politicians and constitutional law experts alike are growing more vocal about the possibility of simply denying the Republican Party’s candidate from appearing on the ballot next November at all.
The idea centres around the utilisation of a clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, originally intended to keep supporters of the South’s failed cause of secession from being elected to office, which bars those who take part in insurrections or who have “given aid or comfort to the enemies” of the United States government from taking office. The legal effort to disrupt Mr Trump’s ballot access is being waged primarily by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
It’s a bold strategy that would thrust American politics as far into uncharted territory as the Congress found itself in as lawmakers fled for their lives on January 6. But the process itself is fairly simple: legal challenges are filed against any state election officers who ruled that Mr Trump would be listed on 2024 election ballots as a presidential candidate.
Those legal challenges would play out in the courts, with the potential of reaching the US Supreme Court for a final decision.
A handful of left-leaning legal groups, buoyed by donations from liberal groups and other Trump-opposed donors, have pledged to file such challenges. What is still unclear is how successful they will be, and whether Mr Trump will actually be excluded from the ballot in any state. Right now, those lawsuits are playing out in Michigan, Colorado, New Hampshire, Arizona, and Minnesota.
Being excluded from the ballot in even a single state, with the exception of Democratic strongholds where he has no shot of victory, could be devastating to Mr Trump’s re-election bid. In a close election, every electoral college vote matters and an unexpected loss of a single state can be very difficult to make up.
Mr Trump’s inner circle continues to shrug off the possibility of such challenges, calling them far-fetched and not based on serious legal theory.
"The people who are pursuing this absurd conspiracy theory and political attack on President Trump are stretching the law beyond recognition much like the political prosecutors in New York, Georgia, and DC," a Trump campaign spokesperson recently told Axios.
But the truth may be a bit more serious. Much of the pushback from the Trump camp thus far can be summed up by the assertion that none of the January 6 rioters convicted of crimes related to the attack on Congress have been directly charged with engaging in a rebellion or insurrection.
Some, like Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, were convicted of seditious conspiracy, however — and that’s an avenue that could theoretically be used to counter the Trump campaign’s legal defence.
Jonathan Turley, a conservative legal theorist with George Washington University, agrees. He has argued that the attack on Congress was "a protest that became a riot”, dismissing more serious charges filed against militia leaders, and arguing that Mr Trump’s speech on the White House lawn just minutes before the brunt of the violence began did not qualify as incitement.
In a recent Fox News interview, he described the idea as "not simply dubious but dangerous”.
Two other constitutional law experts, professor Lawrence Tribe and former federal judge J Michael Luttig, reject that argument. The duo has recently embarked on a media tour to argue in favour of the plan and defend its basis in law. In interviews, they have argued that the evidence of Mr Trump giving comfort to enemies of the US government is overwhelming, and will be litigated seriously in the courts.
“This is one of the most fundamental questions that could ever be decided under our constitution,” Mr Luttig said during a recent MSNBC interview, adding: “[I]t will be decided by the Supreme Court of the United States sooner rather than later, and most likely before the first primaries.”
One thing remains clear, as the 2024 election nears: The likely Republican nominee will charge into the general election burdened by a staggering and historically unprecedented amount of court-related baggage on his shoulders. With four criminal trials, multiple civil suits and now a campaign to prevent his eligibility underway, Donald Trump has set himself up for the most litigious and expensive campaign season in US history. | US Federal Elections |
Did data from Georgia voting machine breach play role in alleged Michigan election plot?
A drive containing data from voting equipment in Georgia was shipped to an investigator probing the 2020 election who seized five ballot tabulators in Michigan for a pro-Trump lawyer, according to court testimony and documents reviewed by the Free Press.
The court records raise questions about how data from a voting system breach in Georgia cited in the recent indictment of former President Donald Trump and his allies may have assisted experiments carried out on Michigan voting machines as part of an alleged criminal conspiracy. Separate criminal cases alleging voting equipment-related offenses in the two 2020 battleground states may reveal new connections between efforts to scrutinize the machines Americans rely on to count their votes.
Michigan lawyer Stefanie Lambert was "at the center" of an alleged scheme to illegally obtain Michigan voting machines, according to special prosecutor DJ Hilson who convened the grand jury that charged her and others. Lambert has pleaded not guilty.
She coordinated with others − including an individual named Michael Lynch from Royal Oak − to carry out an investigation of the 2020 election, according to prosecutors. Lynch does not face criminal charges related to seizing voting machines. Lynch has been a licensed private investigator since 2008, according to Michigan's Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs.
According to reporting from the Hastings Banner, an individual named Michael Lynch previously worked as a security officer for DTE Energy before Lambert recommended him to Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf to work as a private investigator for Leaf's 2020 election probe. A spokesperson for DTE Energy confirmed that Lynch worked as director and chief security officer and left the company in December 2018.
As part of Lambert's alleged plan targeting voting machines, Lynch traveled across Michigan to obtain five voting machines, according to prosecutors.
A Michigan voting machine journey
In March 2021, Lambert directed Lynch to go to Missaukee and Roscommon counties where he got his hands on four tabulators, according to prosecutors. He obtained a fifth tabulator at an unspecified later date from Barry County.
Lynch brought all five tabulators back to Oakland County where purported technology experts examined and tampered with the machines, prosecutors say. His Royal Oak condominium served as the set for a professional filming of some of the testing on one of the tabulators Lynch illegally obtained, according to prosecutors.
That's where a shipment appearing to contain a data drive from a Coffee County, Georgia breach was sent, according to court records. A federal lawsuit in Georgia uncovered the Coffee County breach before a grand jury in the state brought charges against Misty Hampton, the former elections director in the county indicted for allegedly working with unauthorized individuals to extract data from voting equipment.
Lambert worked as Hampton's lawyer as recently as last November, according to a deposition Hampton gave in the Georgia civil lawsuit.
The shipment from the Peach State to Royal Oak seems to tie together the alleged criminal voting equipment breaches carried out in two key states Trump lost in 2020. Lambert did not respond to questions from the Free Press about a shipment from Georgia and how data from Georgia may have been used to examine Michigan voting machines. Lynch declined to comment.
A FedEx from Georgia to Michigan
Lynch returned the Roscommon County tabulator in early April 2021, but he didn't return the others — including the one filmed in the video recorded at his condo — for months, according to prosecutors. Before he returned the machines, a package that appeared to contain the Georgia data was shipped to his condo.
Court records from the Georgia civil lawsuit reference an email from one of the computer experts who allegedly experimented on the Michigan machines. On April 22, 2021, he emailed a top officer of forensics firm SullivanStrickler that worked with Trump allies after the 2020 election to request a FedEx shipment of "all the forensics material from the Coffee County acquisition to the same address as before," according to a court deposition in the Georgia civil suit.
The officer for SullivanStrickler wrote back, "we will begin the process of copying everything to a drive."
Court records from that lawsuit reference a shipment addressed to Lambert at a Royal Oak address associated with Lynch, according to a declaration from Kevin Skoglund, an expert for the plaintiffs in the Georgia civil suit. Separate testimony also referenced a shipment from Georgia to Lambert at a Royal Oak address and identified Lynch as a private investigator working for Lambert. The Washington Post first reported on the email exchange.
Who is 'unindicted co-conspirator Individual 30'?
The Georgia grand jury indictment against Trump and his allies appears to mention an email exchange about the shipment.
It references an April 22, 2021 email to SullivanStrickler's chief operations officer requesting the transmission of data copied from voting equipment in Coffee County to an unidentified and "unindicted co-conspirator Individual 30" described only as a lawyer associated with Sidney Powell and the Trump campaign.
Powell and Lambert worked together in a federal lawsuit in Michigan to overturn the election. It is unclear if Lambert had any kind of formal employment relationship with the Trump campaign.
The Georgia grand jury indictment alleges those charged and their unindicted co-conspirators were part of a criminal enterprise operating in Georgia, Michigan and other key states in 2020 that attempted to change the outcome of the election.
Contact Clara Hendrickson at [email protected] or 313-296-5743. Follow her on Twitter @clarajanehen. | US Political Corruption |
House Republicans are making a renewed effort at strengthening American election security just weeks before the 2024 races formally kick off.
The Committee on House Administration is holding a meeting on Thursday to advance seven different bills that touch on elections at the federal, state and local level.
"It's just some commonsense reforms that we have an opportunity to put forward that strengthen the integrity of our elections," committee Chairman Bryan Steil, R-Wis., told Fox News Digital on Tuesday.
Among the set of bills are measures to allow states to require proof of citizenship when someone registers to vote by mail, mandating the Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration communicate information to states to help them verify citizenship of people registered to vote, and a bill to repeal a Washington, D.C., law allowing non-citizens to vote in local elections, as well as others.
Democrats have broadly opposed GOP election security efforts, accusing Republicans of trying to make it harder to vote. But Steil said he believed the D.C. measure in particular should be a bipartisan push.
"When we had a joint hearing with Oversight… we went back and forth, and when we explained what the D.C. law does, that it would allow, you know, foreign nationals working with foreign embassies in D.C. who have been here for 30 days to vote for mayor, even Democrats at the hearing said well… I could agree with you there," he said.
"The idea that we're going to allow non-citizens to vote in our nation's capital for the mayor of Washington, D.C., sounds as ridiculous as it is."
Steil said another of the bills, which would prohibit foreign nationals from making political contributions in elections or on ballot initiatives and public referendums, should be a "no brainer" for Democrats to support.
"There’s effectively what I view as a loophole in the law that bans foreign contributions to federal candidates… federal candidates, you can't accept foreign money… But it's not the case right now for ballot initiatives. And so we're putting that in place to, again, strengthen the integrity of our elections, prevent foreign interference."
The Thursday committee meeting will be about a month and a half before the Jan. 15 Iowa caucus, when Republican voters will participate in the first contest of the 2024 presidential election. Democrats are holding their first primary in South Carolina in early February.
Steil had introduced those bills as part of a larger package called the American Confidence in Elections Act in July. He told Fox News Digital that his committee would now be advancing them as individual bills to give at least part of the package a greater chance of passing – and to get Democrats on the record.
"The standalone legislation, I think, also gives us an opportunity to either, A, put the Dems on the record that they disagree with it, or B, pass it through the House and force the Senate to act on this, because these are issues that are overwhelmingly supported by the American population," Steil said.
However, he would not directly answer whether he believed voter fraud or election insecurity played a significant role in the 2020 and 2022 elections.
"I think we have an opportunity to enhance people's confidence in the election," Steil said instead. "So, I think what we see is people across the country don't have a level of competence that I think we could instill by further strengthening our elections. This is about building confidence, and you build confidence by enhancing election integrity." | US Federal Elections |
The Rhode Island Board of Elections said Tuesday that its review of nomination signatures submitted by the congressional campaign of Lt. Gov. Sabina Matos found "no obvious pattern of fraud," but will continue to investigate to protect the integrity of the democratic process.
The review was conducted after election officials in three communities in the 1st Congressional District asked local police departments to investigate suspected fraudulent signatures on nomination papers submitted by the Matos campaign. The state attorney general and state police then got involved in the investigation.
The nomination papers allegedly included the names of dead people and some from people who said their names were forged.
Despite the alleged fraud, the board confirmed that Matos's campaign had collected more than enough voter signatures to qualify for the Sept. 5 primary ballot to seek the Democratic nomination in the race to succeed former Rep. David Cicilline.
Cicilline stepped down earlier this summer to become the president and CEO of the Rhode Island Foundation.
The board voted to continue investigating and will issue subpoenas to all of the people who collected signatures for Matos, but not until after the primary so as not to influence the outcome of the special election.
"Continuing on this parallel path to the attorney general will lead to some chaos in election," Board Vice Chairman David Sholes said, noting that early voting begins Wednesday.
Matos, one of a dozen Democrats running to replace Cicilline, blamed the questionable signatures on an outside vendor hired by her campaign.
"The Board of Elections has affirmed what my campaign has said all along and what the Secretary of State previously found: despite being the victim of a vendor who lied to my campaign, we submitted more than enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot," Matos said in a statement Tuesday.
Matos was the presumed front-runner and her Democratic opponents used the scandal to attack her.
"It is unfortunate that the guys who are running against me have used this as an opportunity to attempt to smear my reputation and call into question our democratic process," she said.
Matos' campaign has said it is cooperating with the attorney general's investigation. A spokesperson for the attorney general said Tuesday that the investigation is ongoing.
Attorney General Peter Neronha has said his office would examine the nomination forms the Matos campaign submitted in every municipality in the district. | 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.
Farnoush Amiri, Associated Press
Farnoush Amiri, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. House will vote next week on formally authorizing its impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, Speaker Mike Johnson said Tuesday, asserting Republicans have “no choice” but to push ahead as the White House has rebuffed their requests for information.
Johnson and the rest of the Republican leadership team had been contemplating in recent weeks whether to hold a formal vote on their monthslong inquiry into the president, which has centered on the business dealings of other family members. Their investigation so far has yet to produce any direct evidence of wrongdoing by Biden himself.
While some Republicans are wary of holding a vote on the inquiry, Johnson said the House needs to exercise its authority to the fullest amid a standoff with the White House over requests for information related to Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
“The House has no choice if it’s going to follow its constitutional responsibility to formally adopt an impeachment inquiry on the floor so that when the subpoenas are challenged in court, we will be at the apex of our constitutional authority,” Johnson told reporters.
Hunter Biden offers public testimony before Congress in impeachment inquiry
The White House has repeatedly dismissed the inquiry as a “baseless exercise” meant to appease right-wing lawmakers.
Republicans had long said a vote on the impeachment investigation was unnecessary but began to reconsider when White House lawyers used the lack of formal House authorization to argue that the entire investigation lacked “constitutional legitimacy.”
But a vote on the House floor — going into a presidential election cycle — amounts to a major test of party unity, given the GOP’s narrow 221-213 majority. House Democrats for their part have remained unified in their opposition to the impeachment process, saying it is a farce used by the GOP to take attention away from former President Donald Trump and his legal woes.
For the impeachment probe vote to succeed, nearly all House Republicans will have to vote in favor of the inquiry, putting them on record in support of a process that can lead to the ultimate penalty for a president, dismissal from office for what the Constitution describes as “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
For some moderate Republicans, especially those representing districts that Biden won in the 2020 election, it’s a vote that could come with considerable political risk.
Johnson on Tuesday dismissed concerns that he wouldn’t be able to rally his vulnerable members to support moving forward with the inquiry. He emphasized the House is not voting to impeach Biden, only to continue to investigate.
“All the moderates in our conference understand this is not a political decision,” he said. “This is a legal decision. This is a constitutional decision. And whether someone is for or against impeachment is of no import right now.”
He added, “We have to continue our legal responsibility and that is solely what this vote is about.”
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Politics
Sep 28 | US Congress |
Mario Tama/Getty Images
toggle caption
A Clark County Election Department worker sorts ballots on Nov. 9, 2022, in North Las Vegas, Nev. Nearly 60% of the state's county voting officials are new since 2020, according to a new report.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
A Clark County Election Department worker sorts ballots on Nov. 9, 2022, in North Las Vegas, Nev. Nearly 60% of the state's county voting officials are new since 2020, according to a new report.
Mario Tama/Getty Images
Josh Daniels got into running elections by accident.
A Marine veteran and registered Republican, Daniels was recruited in 2019 by a friend who'd been elected clerk in Utah County, Utah, to be her deputy.
Eventually Daniels became clerk himself and grew to love the complex minutiae that went into running an election, and finding creative ways to help vulnerable populations access the ballot.
"It was really rewarding to help improve some really important functions in local government," Daniels said.
But when the time came to decide whether to run for reelection in 2022, Daniels decided against it. Voting conspiracies had become too much to take.
He estimated that he spent hundreds of hours over two years tracking down election concerns that voters got online and brought to his office.
"It was just exhausting," Daniels said. "It really was like The Twilight Zone of government service. Groundhog Day ... every day you wake up and it's the same thing over and over again. It doesn't matter how much information and data you share, it doesn't matter how many concerns you answer. There will just be a new group of critics to again dish out the new conspiracy of the day."
Daniels is part of a large group of voting officials who have decided to leave the profession since 2020 and the tension and pressure that followed Donald Trump's loss in that election.
In some battleground states, more than half of the local election administrators will be new since the last presidential race, according to a new report from the democracy-focused advocacy group Issue One shared exclusively with NPR before its release.
"Local county clerk is not a glamorous job," Daniels said. "We're not paying people in local election administrative jobs enough to be the subject of public scrutiny, particularly when that public scrutiny is often misguided and misinformed."
The Issue One report focused on 11 western states and found that the problem of voting official turnover is particularly acute in the region's swing states, where conspiracies have flourished.
In Nevada, 59% of the state's county voting officials are new since 2020. In Arizona, 55%.
It's not clear how these numbers compare to previous cycles — data on trends in election administration is notoriously hard to come by — but experts have been saying for years that they worried about a mass exodus driven by the polarized environment.
In total, more than 160 chief local election officials — nearly 40% of the region's officials — have left their positions in the 11 states that Issue One tracked. Experts say they expect to see a similar trend in other states as well, as recent polling and NPR's own reporting have indicated many people in these roles fear for their or their colleagues' safety.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, told NPR that he was considering issuing a "declaration of election administration emergency" to shed light on the issue, and on underfunded elections departments.
He added that threats affect Republican and Democratic jurisdictions alike.
"Many of the folks who have been harassed and threatened are Republicans. One former Republican recorder, county recorder here in Arizona, had her dog poisoned," Fontes said. "This is not a partisan issue. This is a question of the survival of our constitutional order."
Since 2020, some states have passed laws aimed at addressing threats to election officials, and the Department of Justice has set up a specific Election Threats Task Force, but intimidating and threatening language from voters often doesn't rise to the level of criminal offense, so election officials note that law enforcement can't solve the issue on its own.
Election brain drain
Practically speaking, the turnover presents a troubling brain drain.
Experts say the job of an election official has grown in complexity in recent years, with county clerks now needing to be well-versed in cybersecurity, the foreign adversary threat landscape and communications, in addition to the normal tasks that go into putting on an election. And in many counties, especially smaller ones, running elections is only part of their job as well.
Kim Wyman, a former local election official and Republican secretary of state of Washington, said the easiest way to learn the job is to do it for a few cycles.
"The biggest challenge right now facing new election officials is just not having that experience of having run a presidential election," said Wyman, now a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center. "It sounds really simple, but it takes months of planning to get there. And without that experience of knowing what to expect and really what to be looking for puts them a little bit at a disadvantage."
Issue One found that the officials who left took with them more than 1,800 years of experience.
Which experts say presents a conundrum: New voting officials make more mistakes than seasoned ones. So the exodus brought on by election conspiracies may beget more conspiracies, as first-time honest mistakes are treated like evidence of malfeasance.
In 2022, a printer issue at some voting centers in Maricopa County, Ariz., became the center of false narratives. In 2020, it was user error by a clerk in Antrim County, Mich. (which was quickly corrected).
"The 2024 election will be even more scrutinized, which means that these government election officials have to be on their game at every turn and with every detail, and there is no room for error," former Utah clerk Daniels said. "And there will be balls that are going to be dropped in the 2024 election because of this lack of expertise." | US Local Elections |
Children, Youth & Families Department/State of New Mexico
toggle caption
Teresa Casados runs New Mexico's Children, Youth & Families Department. She discovered the state had been taking the Social Security checks of children in foster care — children who got the benefits because they were orphaned or disabled.
Children, Youth & Families Department/State of New Mexico
Teresa Casados runs New Mexico's Children, Youth & Families Department. She discovered the state had been taking the Social Security checks of children in foster care — children who got the benefits because they were orphaned or disabled.
Children, Youth & Families Department/State of New Mexico
To Teresa Casados, who runs the department in charge of child welfare in New Mexico, it seemed like an odd question. At a legislative hearing in July, a lawmaker asked her if the state was taking the Social Security checks of kids in foster care — the checks intended for orphans and disabled children.
"My reaction really was: That can't be right," said Casados, who in the spring took over as acting secretary of New Mexico's Children, Youth & Families Department. "That can't be a practice that we're doing."
Casados and her chief legal counsel drove back to the office. "When we got back, we looked into it and found out it was a practice that the agency had for using those benefits — and had been going on for quite some time."
A 2021 investigation by NPR and The Marshall Project found this practice was the rule across the country. The investigation led to calls for reform. Now, 15 states and cities have taken steps to preserve the money of foster youth. Several other state legislatures are considering similar laws.
And last month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Social Security Administration sent a letter to state and local child welfare agencies to encourage these changes.
The NPR/Marshall Project investigation found that in at least 49 states and the District of Columbia, when young people go into foster care child, welfare agencies routinely look for which ones come with Social Security checks. Or, if the children are eligible, agencies sign them up for benefits. Then state agencies cash those checks — usually without telling the child or their family, the investigation found.
States claim the money as reimbursement for the costs of foster care. But governments already have an obligation to pay the costs of foster care under state and federal laws. The result is that only impoverished kids, who receive Social Security benefits because they're orphans or because they're disabled or their parents are disabled, get a bill for their own foster care.
About 10% to 20% of children and youths in foster care are thought to be eligible for Social Security benefits. A child whose mother or father has died is eligible for survivors benefits, intended to replace some of the lost wages of the deceased parent. Another Social Security program, Supplemental Security Income, or SSI, pays a stipend to disabled children and adults.
Just days after that legislative hearing in New Mexico, Casados says her department "sent out a directive to cease using those funds for care and support." It pledged to start putting aside the Social Security benefits checks for foster children to have when they go back to their families or age out of foster care.
Casados says saving that money and teaching youths how to manage it is important: "This could be really life changing for some of these kids," she said.
It matters because most youths leave foster care with little or no money. Few can pay for college. Many end up jobless or homeless.
Helping children save their Social Security money is not simple for child welfare agencies, which need to set up separate accounts, including ones that don't penalize youths who get means-tested benefits.
A recipient of SSI — the maximum amount in 2023 is $914 — is not allowed to accumulate more than $2,000 in assets or savings. The letter to child welfare agencies explained ways to avoid that limit.
"We're, in many ways, setting the stage for folks to really be thinking differently about how to do this," says Rebecca Jones Gaston, the commissioner of the federal Administration on Children, Youth and Families and co-author of the letter. "We want young people transitioning out of foster care to have what they need to move into adulthood successfully."
Some child welfare advocates say the letter from Washington is a good first step, but they're disappointed that it didn't do more.
"The administration missed a leadership opportunity," says Amy Harfeld of the Children's Advocacy Institute, "to clarify once and for all that it is never in a child's best interest for their money and assets to be used by a public agency without their notice for the agency's own gain."
Harfeld says change is coming "from across the political spectrum," most recently in Arizona, Oregon and New Mexico, and in major cities, including New York, Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.
Foster youth are paying attention, too. Justin Kasieta, who is 22 now, was just 13 when his father died and he was thrust into a role looking after his four younger siblings.
"I would walk down to the store and buy food for my siblings occasionally, or whatever other needs we may have had."
Benjamin Levitt
toggle caption
Justin Kasieta, who is 22 now, was just 13 when his father died and he was thrust into a role looking after his four younger siblings. In college, he interned in the state legislature and the U.S. Congress.
Benjamin Levitt
Justin Kasieta, who is 22 now, was just 13 when his father died and he was thrust into a role looking after his four younger siblings. In college, he interned in the state legislature and the U.S. Congress.
Benjamin Levitt
So he knew the family's finances, and that their income came from Social Security — from survivors benefits checks.
It helped them get by in their small town on Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
A couple of years later, Kasieta went into foster care and the state of Michigan took his checks to reimburse the cost of that care.
That didn't seem right to Kasieta.
"The main argument would be that it's not fair to make kids who are orphaned or disabled have to pay for their own foster care," he says. "But then kids who are not orphaned or disabled, they receive taxpayer dollars to cover their foster care?"
Kasieta relied upon scholarships and grants to go to college. He says those Social Security checks could have helped.
Last month, he graduated from the University of Michigan. He has job possibilities in finance and in government.
And he's advocating for a bill in front of the legislature in Michigan — to save Social Security benefits for children and youths in foster care.
"If the goal is to make success stories like mine the rule, instead of the exception, I think that we need to support kids all the way through from the time they are in foster care to the time they exit foster care and even beyond that," he said. | US Federal Policies |
- The Education Department awarded five student-loan companies new contracts, including MOHELA.
- MOHELA is at the center of a lawsuit seeking to permanently block Biden's student-debt relief.
- Rep. Cori Bush told Insider that MOHELA's "dubious record of customer services" demands oversight.
Missouri Rep. Cori Bush wants to be sure a student-loan company central to a lawsuit blocking President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness isn't' getting off easy.
Last week, the Education Department announced it awarded five student-loan companies — Central Research Inc, EdFinancial Services, Maximus Education, Nelnet, and MOHELA — new contracts to improve loan servicing over the next five years for 37 million federal borrowers. As the department noted in its press release, these new contracts are part of its larger plan to overhaul loan-servicing and implement "much-needed improvements to better serve borrowers," like a new income-driven repayment plan.
MOHELA, however, has fallen under scrutiny over the past year, primarily because it is a main focus in a lawsuit filed by six Republican-led states at the end of last year that argued Biden's broad student-debt relief would harm their states' tax revenues, along with Missouri-based MOHELA's revenue. Bush has long called for oversight over MOHELA, and she's keeping it up — even after it renewed its contract.
"The Department of Education must take proactive steps to seamlessly transition borrowers to repayments starting in the coming months. My colleagues and I will be watching the implementation of these new rules closely, particularly for MOHELA, to ensure the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is being administered in a timely and efficient manner," Bush told Insider.
"No company should be profiting from the student debt crisis, especially MOHELA with their dubious record of customer service in the past," she continued. "My office will continue our work to hold student loan servicers accountable for their harm to our communities. Ultimately, there is still much work to be done to provide student debt relief, bolster college affordability, and begin the transition to a world without student debt at all."
After the six GOP-led states filed their lawsuit to block Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for federal borrowers, Bush wrote a letter to MOHELA CEO Scott Giles requesting information on the extent to which the company was involved in the lawsuit. MOHELA later responded to Bush and said it was not involved in the states' decision to sue, but the states' lawyers proceeded to argue on behalf of potential revenue losses MOHELA would suffer from Biden's debt relief during Supreme Court oral arguments in February.
The liberal Supreme Court justices appeared skeptical of the states' standing to involve MOHELA in their case, and a recent analysis from left-leaning think tank Roosevelt Institute and advocacy group Debt Collective, based on Freedom of Information Act requests, said that MOHELA actually would not suffer any financial harm from debt cancellation because it would still profit from managing PSLF.
As Bush referenced, MOHELA is responsible for the whole PSLF portfolio, which forgives student debt for government and nonprofit workers after ten years of qualifying payments. The transition of millions of public servants' accounts over to MOHELA has been far from seamless. A number of borrowers have previously told Insider that they have spent hours on the phone waiting to get simple questions answered from MOHELA regarding their payment status, leaving them in financial limbo.
To be sure, ensuring accountability over servicers and improving customer service largely depends on increased funding from Congress for the Federal Student Aid office. Biden's budget requested $2.7 billion for Federal Student Aid — a $620 million increase over the 2023 spending level — to carry out all of the Education Department's initiatives, an increase the department said is "essential to support students and student loan borrowers."
"Students and their families deserve transparency and accountability from student loan servicers to ensure they can take advantage of the most affordable ways to repay their loans -- and it's critical that the Department of Education hold those servicers to the highest of standards," Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren told Insider. "That's why I'll continue to fight for the increased funding the Student Aid Administration needs to provide quality services and support at-risk borrowers." | US Federal Policies |
(Bloomberg) -- US regulators voted Thursday to reinstate rules aimed at ensuring that everything on the internet is equally accessible — a principle known as net neutrality that has stoked debate and controversy across technology and telecom industries for more than two decades.
Most Read from Bloomberg
The US Federal Communications Commission on a 3-to-2 party-line Democratic-led vote advanced the revival of net neutrality, in essence saying fast internet access is a basic telecom service. The rule needs another vote to become final. That would re-establish the FCC’s authority to police broadband providers for any attempts to block or throttle back internet traffic for some while prioritizing access to others who are willing to pay more.
The debate over government’s role in regulating internet access has raged around the world for years. The US government’s approach has changed dramatically at times depending on the administration. Under former President Donald Trump, net-neutrality rules were gutted. Under President Joe Biden, the administration has made the revival of them a high priority. The proposal that the FCC considered on Thursday, put forth by Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat, would see to that.
The FCC by quashing net neutrality rules in 2017 has been “on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law and the wrong side of the American public,” Rosenworcel said. “Today we begin a process to make this right” with “enforceable right-line rules.”
Read More: Why Trump’s FCC Tossed Obama’s Net Neutrality Rules: QuickTake
Proponents of net-neutrality rules have said fast, reliable broadband service is a basic societal need today that governments must protect on behalf of households and businesses. Rosenworcel’s proposal would bar broadband providers from blocking or slowing internet service and forbid “fast lanes” for favored traffic — for example from business partners who pay for quicker passage.
Critics say the broadband market is working well, and that the FCC’s move heralds a dangerous expansion of administrative power.
“Broadband speeds in the US have increased, prices are down, competition has intensified, and record-breaking new broadband builds have brought millions of Americans across the digital divide,” Commissioner Brendan Carr, the FCC’s senior Republican, said before the vote. “I would encourage the agency to reverse course.”
Read More: Net Neutrality Pendulum Swings Once Again With FCC’s Latest Push
Cable and telephone providers have opposed the new rules. Thursday’s vote will be followed by a comment period extending into the new year before the second vote. Rosenworcel is expected to prevail because she leads a 3-to-2 Democratic majority. A legal challenge is certain to follow.
Michael Powell, the chief executive officer of NCTA-The Internet & Television Association that represents cable providers including Comcast Corp. and Charter Communications Inc., called the proposal a “sweeping command and control framework” and warned that it would dissuade providers from building out networks to hard-to-serve rural areas.
In a call with investors on Thursday, AT&T Chief Executive Officer John Stankey called the rules “an unnecessary partisan issue.” Networks performed well throughout the pandemic, he said, and “no customers are complaining about what’s going on on that front.”
Covid-era lockdowns that deepened isolation for households without broadband actually worked to reaffirm that internet service is a necessity akin to utilities, according to rule proponents. The sight of children using restaurant WiFi signals to do schoolwork in parking lots spurred Congress to massively fund broadband network construction, including through a $42 billion flagship subsidy program.
Read More: Biden’s FCC Aims to Reverse Trump-Era Gutting of Net Neutrality
Rosenworcel has emphasized portions of the proposed rules that extend beyond equal treatment on the internet to address national security and public safety concerns. The FCC needs expanded power to forge updated cybersecurity standards and to deny network access by foreign-owned companies deemed national security threats, the agency said in a statement.
The regulations will face legal challenges. The US Supreme Court has in the past limited the authority that federal agencies have in making major decisions without having been directed by Congress to do so. But the FCC has said the protections pass judicial muster, in part because they’ve been affirmed by judges before.
Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Matthew Schettenhelm gives companies an 80% chance of overturning regulations adopted by the FCC. “If so,” he said in a Sept. 29 note, “only Congress would be able to adopt federal broadband limits.”
Most Read from Bloomberg Businessweek
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | US Federal Policies |
In Florida county, felons vote illegally, ballots cast on behalf of long-dead, whistleblower claims
There were "no apparent changes implemented" by the Orange County Supervisor of Elections office to ensure that felons didn't vote again, alleges Brian Freid.
The Facts Inside Our Reporter’s Notebook
Election issues continue in Orange County, Fla., where, a whistleblower alleges, felons illegally voted, deceased voters requested and received mail-in ballots, voter addresses are changed without the voters requesting it, and multiple ballots are allowed to be dropped off without question.
In a new affidavit filed with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Brian Freid, a whistleblower in the Orange County Supervisor of Elections (SOE) office, alleges that since the SOE was notified last year by the state's Office of Election Crimes and Security that felons illegally voted in the county in the 2020 election, there have been "no apparent changes implemented ... to effectively ensure this does not happen again in the future."
In affidavits previously filed with FDLE, Freid a lifelong Democrat, alleged there is no oversight of the creation and management of ballots at the Orange County SOE, and private voter data was exfiltrated to hundreds of workers, potentially jeopardizing the security of thousands of protected voters.
Freid was fired from his position as the SOE information systems director in October after he called for the firing of another SOE official cited for misconduct by two separate investigations.
Freid also claims that vote-by-mail ballots are being sent to deceased voters years after their deaths, despite their living relatives contacting the Orange County SOE to notify them that they're dead and to stop sending ballots.
In Florida, Freid explained, voters are supposed to be removed from voter rolls after not voting in two presidential elections, which would be about five years. However, mail-in ballots are being sent to deceased voters as long as 10 or 20 years after their deaths, he alleged in an interview on Monday.
"So somebody is voting on their behalf," Freid told Just the News, noting that a voter must request a mail-in ballot to receive it.
Freid notes in his affidavit that the vote-by-mail ballot request form doesn't require the applicant to list their contact information, so there is no follow-up to check that the person requested a ballot.
"It's very easy to commit fraud by requesting a vote-by-mail ballot," Freid told Just the News.
There were also bulk updates to voter addresses without the voters requesting them, causing voters to complain that they hadn't received their sample or vote-by-mail ballots, Freid alleged. When that occurred, another ballot would be sent to the voter, he said, after a ballot was already sent to the changed address.
Freid said that he couldn't find any processes or procedures to audit or check the addresses, "and no one seems to know who" did it or why.
Orange County SOE Bill Cowles has, according to Freid, "stated that the SOE Office is not a law enforcement agency, so the people working at" ballot drop box locations "are not to take any action against anyone who is dropping off multiple ballots."
In Florida, a designated person can only pick up and drop off two ballots that don't belong to them or their immediate family during an election.
Additionally, despite Florida law requiring a voter's signature to match when signing in at a precinct to vote, Cowles' election training instructs workers to reject a signature only if it's "substantially different," Freid alleges in his affidavit, in which he included the poll worker training manual.
Asked about Freid's affidavit, FDLE told Just the News on Monday that the department "received a complaint and investigators are reviewing it."
The Orange County SOE did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.
Cowles, a Democrat who has held office since 1996, announced last month that he won't seek reelection, Fox 35 reported. His term ends on Jan. 6, 2025. | US Local Elections |
Former President Donald Trump's defense team filed papers Sunday night in further support of his request that Judge Tanya Chutkan recuse herself in the federal 2020 election conspiracy case case brought by special counsel Jack Smith in Washington, D.C. In doing so, Trump lawyers met the Sunday deadline set by Chutkan to formally respond to Smith's opposition to the request.
Smith, in a filing Friday,.
Trump's lawyers again argued thathas made disqualifying statements critical of Trump during her handling of the sentencing of two Jan. 6 defendants.
In their latest argument, submitted in D.C. federal court, Trump's defense argued, "These proceedings are indeed historic. The public interest is not in the perception of a rush to judgment or a show trial contaminated by the appearance of a partial presiding judge…"
Trump's attorneys have requested Chutkan's recusal in the former president's election interference case based on previous statements she made in two separate Capitol riot sentencing hearings. They highlighted her comment to one Capitol riot defendant in October 2022 that the violent attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden's election came from "blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day."
They argued that this statement suggests "an apparent prejudgment of guilt."
But government attorneys denied this was the case and said Judge Chutkan's remarks were "factually accurate" and "responsive to arguments presented to the court."
The Trump attorneys also referred to a statement Chutkan made in a hearing about Trump White House records in late-2021, in which she said "A president is not king"… and that Trump "is not President." Trump's defense argued that, "The public must have confidence that President Trump's constitutional rights are being protected by an unbiased judicial officer. No president is a king, but every president is a (US) citizen entitled to the protections and rights guaranteed by the US Constitution."
Trump's lawyers are also seeking a formal hearing on this matter.
Ultimately, it is up to Chutkan to decide whether her past statements create the perception of bias. A new judge would be assigned to the case if she recuses. Trump's attorneys could petition an appeals court to require her to recuse, but such efforts are often not successful. There is no specific timetable for Judge Chutkan to rule on Trump's request.
for more features. | US Political Corruption |
Border crossings closed after vehicle explosion on bridge connecting New York and Canada
A border crossing between the U.S. and Canada has been closed after a vehicle exploded at a checkpoint on a bridge near Niagara Falls
NIAGARA FALLS, N.Y. -- A border crossing between the U.S. and Canada has been closed after a vehicle exploded at a checkpoint on a bridge in Niagara Falls, authorities said.
The blast happened on the U.S. side of the Rainbow Bridge, which connects the two countries across the Niagara River. Three other bridges between western New York and Ontario were quickly closed as a precaution.
Photos and video taken by bystanders and posted on social media showed thick smoke, flames on the pavement and a security booth that had been singed by flames.
Videos showed that the fire was in a U.S. Customs and Border Protection area just east of the main vehicle checkpoint.
The FBI's field office in Buffalo said in a statement that it was investigating the explosion.
Gov. Kathy Hochul said she had been briefed on the incident and was “closely monitoring the situation.”
The Niagara Falls Bridge Commission reported that all four of its crossings — the others are Lewiston, Whirlpool and Peace Bridge — were closed.
Further information wasn't immediately available on the cause of the explosion. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
On Saturday afternoon, roughly 70 people gathered on folding chairs in a sweltering church meeting room in the small town of Douglas, about 200 miles (322km) south-east of Atlanta, Georgia. Less than a week earlier, Donald Trump and 18 of his allies were indicted in Fulton county for efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including allegedly entering the Coffee county elections office less than a mile away and copying the state’s voter software and other data.
County residents at the town hall raised concerns about the lack of accountability for those who played a role in copying software and other data, and said they felt insecure about the safety and integrity of future elections.
“People think, ‘He’s been indicted in Atlanta, so it’s over,’” 80-year-old county resident Jim Hudson said to the room, referring to Trump. “[But] how do we regroup? How do we become a county not referred to as ‘Crooked Coffee’?”
The Rev Bruce Francis read a message from Bishop Reginald T Jackson, who oversees 500 Black churches in Georgia, referring to “troubling improprieties” that had brought this town of about 12,000 residents to the world’s attention.
“The nation is now aware of the travesty that happened in 2020,” he read. “What do we do to make sure it doesn’t happen again?”
The “travesty” was what Marilyn Marks, the town hall’s main speaker, called “the largest voting system breach in US history”. It happened in January 2021, when multiple people working on behalf of Donald Trump allegedly entered the Coffee county elections office and copied software and other digital information from the agency’s computers, gaining access to the entire elections system of the state of Georgia, home to about 7.9 million registered voters.
The digital information obtained is now in an unknown number of hands, meaning that future elections could be affected in Georgia and in other states that use Dominion Voting Systems and other equipment made by partner companies. The breach has been publicly reported for more than a year, but was launched into a global spotlight on 14 August, when the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis, issued indictments to Trump and 18 others. Several people were indicted for their direct role in the Coffee county breach, and nearly half the group had some kind of involvement in the incident, according to Marks.
It wasn’t federal, state or local investigators who turned up evidence of the incidents, but Marks’ nonprofit organization, the Coalition for Good Governance. The group obtained video, text messages and other information about what happened in Douglas as part of a lawsuit against Georgia, now in its sixth year, that seeks to force the state to switch from computers to hand-marked paper ballots in elections, due to vulnerabilities in digital voting systems. Seventy per cent of US voters mark ballots by hand.
The town hall was the first occasion for residents of Douglas to hear a detailed explanation of how events that took place in their own back yard had become headlines, what those events mean for future elections and, perhaps most important, who among their neighbors had not been held accountable, what can be done to change that and how to prevent such a breach from happening again.
Local residents wanted to know whether their personal information was “floating around in cyberspace”, if poll workers in Coffee county would be safe in future elections, and whether “money was exchanged for favors” during any of the visits to the local elections office by Trump’s associates.
Hanging over the room were not just the challenges members of small communities face when their own neighbors are implicated in serious wrongdoing, but, also, the issue of race.
Coffee county is about 68% white, but most of the attendees at the town hall were Black. One white woman said she had urged other white locals to attend, but was met with indifference.
Many were also aware that one of the more prominent locals present – city commissioner of 24 years and voting rights activist Olivia Coley-Pearson – was persecuted for years by the state for helping disabled and illiterate voters, while state election officials have shown little interest in investigating the breach, according to Marks. Coley-Pearson is Black; Trump’s associates involved in the breach here have all been white.
Before Marks began her talk, titled, “What the hack happened in Coffee Co?”, Hudson, a retired lawyer, addressed the room. A thin, soft-spoken man, Hudson told those gathered how, as a seventh-generation Georgian and county resident, he felt had “skin in the game” when it came to the breach. “That’s why, when I discovered what happened, I was so disappointed,” he said.
He lamented there had been “no independent investigation by our officials … [and] almost no local press coverage.”
Hudson suggested there needs to be an independent, local investigation, and a plan for the future – “So this never occurs again in our county,” he said. The first reform, he said, should be that “the elections department office should never be used for a partisan meeting again”. The crowd applauded.
Marks took the stage. “Coffee county is the central foundation for this incredible indictment that the world is watching,” she said. The nonprofit director recounted how Atlanta bail bondsman Scott Hall called her on 7 March 2021 and told her that he and others had been to Douglas and “scanned all the equipment … imaged all the hard drives, scanned every ballot … all the poll pads – everything”.
On Tuesday morning, Hall became the first defendant named in last week’s indictments to surrender to authorities in Fulton county. He was shortly thereafter released on $10,000 bond.
Marks went on to detail how local elections director Misty Hampton – also indicted last week – communicated with people in Trump’s orbit, including Mike Lindell, the MyPillow CEO who has repeatedly backed conspiracy theories about the 2020 election. Later, Hampton’s replacement found the business card of Doug Logan, CEO of Cyber Ninjas, the group that performed a discredited audit of Arizona’s votes, in the county elections office, according to information Marks uncovered. Lindell and Logan remain unindicted.
She pointed the room to “unanswered questions”: what happened to Hampton’s emails and laptop, which state investigators say they haven’t been able to obtain, and when did local election board members and the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, learn of the breach? Also, why did local elections board member Eric Chaney, seen on video obtained by Marks welcoming Scott Hall and others into the elections office, remain on the board until September of last year? Chaney is also unnamed in Willis’s indictments.
“You can’t wait on the state,” Marks told the room. “It’s up to local people to demand accountability.”
Cliff Albright, co-founder of the national group Black Voters Matter, took the stage and told the audience that he knew what it was like to be dealing with political controversy in a small town in the south, “where everybody knows what car you drive, and whether you’ve been at a meeting”.
Albright also reminded the audience what was at stake, pointing to Coley-Pearson, who faced multiple felony charges for allegedly breaking election laws. Coley-Pearson was never found guilty, but has suffered greatly from years of legal battles, she told the Guardian.
“They put all this money and time into investigating one woman?” Albright asked the room, again bringing applause. “And then you’re talking about the largest breach in US history? My message to the secretary of state and the county … is ‘Act like you care about it!’”
Then Coley-Pearson addressed her neighbors. “This is so important,” she said. “This is a threat to our democracy.” She noted that she had invited local elected officials from the county commission, the city commission and the board of elections – and only two came.
Referring to the breach, she said: “They felt like they could come to Coffee county because ain’t nobody gonna get involved except for Olivia and her few folks … [but] we’ve worked too hard … to let them take our rights away!”
Afterward, 70-year-old Alphermease Moore, who is Black and a Coffee county resident, noted that she was part of the local high school’s first integrated graduating class, in 1971.
“I was in Coffee high school’s first integrated group and was hoping, 50 years later, that things would be different. But the same things happening then are happening now,” she said, referring to Coley-Pearson’s prosecution on the one hand, and the lack of accountability for local white officials on the other. “It’s a constant climb.”
Standing outside the church, Hudson was emotional. He had learned about the breach months ago, after reading about it in the national press. “I was stunned. I could not believe it.”
Hudson, a well-known, longtime white resident of Coffee county, has been writing the county commission and board of elections, seeking an independent investigation. He attended an elections board meeting this spring and remarked, “If this was Olivia Coley-Pearson [who breached the elections system], she’d be in jail already.”
Douglas resident Larry Nesmith has been active in local Democratic party politics for 14 years. He said he would have been at the board of elections office on 7 January 2021, when the first visit by Trump’s associates occurred, but Hampton “told me not to come”.
Months later, he said, “I found out what happened on TV. I was shocked to find out. I feel our board of elections tried to cover [it] up. There’s no way they didn’t know.”
“Those responsible need to be held accountable,” he added. “These are people I know. Those who haven’t been indicted need to be. Bring them to justice. Don’t let them walk away!” | US Political Corruption |
A wide-ranging coalition of liberal political groups has a message for President Joe Biden in case he was thinking of making concessions to congressional Republicans to avoid a potential government shutdown: Don’t.
In a Wednesday letter obtained by HuffPost, the group, under the banner ProsperUS, urged Biden to not give in to “extremists in Congress” wanting to undo economic successes that have kept joblessness below 4% and seen the economy post a 4.9% growth rate in the most recent quarter.
“Our coalition, which represents communities across the country fighting for a just and inclusive economy, expects you to reject any funding vehicle that cuts a penny more from the critical programs that enable our economy to thrive,” the groups said.
ProsperUS includes a variety of old-line and newer liberal advocacy groups, including the Center for American Progress, the unions Communications Workers of America and Service Employees International Union, and the Friends Committee on National Legislation, as well as Indivisible, the Working Families Party and Groundwork Collaborative.
A September deal reached by the White House and congressional Republicans to keep the government open only lasts through Nov. 17. A shutdown would start the next day if another stopgap spending measure is not passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by Biden.
But the September deal quickly set off a different shutdown — one in the House of Representatives after a faction of GOP hard-liners challenged the leadership of then-Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), leading to his removal on Oct. 3 and three weeks of paralysis as Republicans struggled to pick his successor.
New Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has yet to settle on a strategy to avoid either a shutdown or the same fate as McCarthy. House Republicans discussed the issue at a party meeting Tuesday but came to no consensus.
“With regard to the funding of the government, we’re working earnestly on that,” Johnson said that day. “We certainly want to avoid a government shutdown.”
He said the meeting included “very deliberate, positive discussions about the many options on the table” but didn’t elaborate.
House Republicans have generally insisted that they want to avoid one massive bill to approve spending for all government agencies, instead aiming to break that up into the regular 12 individual bills or a smaller number of bills that would cover several agencies at once.
But passing the individual bills has proved difficult, with one for the Agriculture Department failing on the floor and one for transportation and housing agencies being pulled before a vote.
In its letter to Biden, the ProsperUS coalition said a separate agreement made in May between the White House and Republicans would already result in cuts to domestic programs that many Americans rely on.
“With another threat of a government shutdown looming, we urge you and members of Congress to brush aside the threats of a small group of extremists and prioritize delivering appropriations bills that invest in workers, families, and communities, and keep this strong, inclusive economy humming,” the coalition wrote. | US Congress |
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
toggle caption
A sticker on a lamp post warns of voter fraud on Nov. 7, 2022, in Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska is part of a bipartisan compact of more than 30 states that shares voting data.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
A sticker on a lamp post warns of voter fraud on Nov. 7, 2022, in Anchorage, Alaska. Alaska is part of a bipartisan compact of more than 30 states that shares voting data.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
The Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, is a multi-state partnership that experts across the political spectrum say is the only reliable, secure way for states to share voter registration data with each other.
But on Monday, three Republican-led states announced they are pulling out of ERIC — leaving questions about the future of a system that up until recently was a bipartisan success story, as well as questions about how these three states will maintain accurate voter lists without such a resource.
"[ERIC] is a godsend," Paul Pate, the GOP secretary of state of Iowa, told NPR in an interview last month.
But state officials in Florida, Missouri and West Virginia have joined a growing number of Republicans who don't see it that way.
The states announced in tandem Monday that they were beginning the process to pull out, after weeks of tense negotiations over potential changes the organization could make to appease GOP members who have been facing constituent pressure about ERIC, in part due to a sustained misinformation campaign from the far-right.
Just last week, ERIC's executive director, Shane Hamlin, put out an open letter to, as he claimed, "set the record straight" amid misinformation about the compact.
In a press release Monday, Florida Secretary of State Cord Byrd, an appointee of Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, said the voting organization didn't do enough to secure data privacy or "eliminate ERIC's partisan tendencies."
Just weeks ago, a January report from the Florida Department of State Office of Election Crimes and Security said it had "used data provided by ERIC to identify" hundreds of voters who appeared to have voted in Florida and in another ERIC member state in the same election.
Hamlin confirmed to NPR that ERIC had received the three states' requests for resignation. "We will continue our work on behalf of our remaining member states in improving the accuracy of America's voter rolls and increasing access to voter registration for all eligible citizens," he added in a statement.
How ERIC came to be
To be clear, for the first 10 or so years it was in existence, ERIC operated in obscurity.
Four of its founding seven state members were Republican-run, and its membership has slowly grown to include more than 30 states and governments across the political spectrum, from the more liberal-minded Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., to the conservative South Carolina and Texas.
The partnership allows states to use and share government data — from election offices as well as the Department of Motor Vehicles and the Social Security Administration — to eliminate dead voters from the rolls, find the few people in every federal election who illegally vote twice, and also register eligible voters when they move to a new place.
"ERIC started with a question to election officials, which is: If you could fix one thing in elections that would make your job better, that would enable you to provide better services to voters, what would it be?" said David Becker, who helped found ERIC while he was working at the Pew Charitable Trusts a decade ago. "Every single election official we asked ... said voter registration."
The Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank, even praises states for joining ERIC.
What changed for ERIC
But early last year, fringe conservative media began to target the organization — and Becker, who has remained involved with the organization as a non-voting board member.
The Gateway Pundit, a far-right publication, published in January 2022 the first of a series of articles painting ERIC as part of a liberal conspiracy to steal elections.
The two main villains at the heart of the conspiracy? The billionaire George Soros and Becker.
Becker now runs a separate nonprofit called the Center for Election Innovation and Research, which helped distribute hundreds of millions of dollars in grants that Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan donated to election officials during the 2020 election cycle amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Some on the right have pointed to that work as evidence that Becker is a liberal activist, though NPR spoke with numerous current and former Republican election officials who say they have worked with Becker over the years and found him to be even-handed in his elections work.
Shortly after the first Gateway Pundit article published in 2022, Louisiana became the first state to begin the process of withdrawing its membership in ERIC, citing "concerns raised by citizens, government watchdog organizations and media reports."
Other conservative media outlets published "investigations" that implied ERIC is a taxpayer-funded voter registration drive to help Democrats, and Cleta Mitchell, the lawyer who helped Donald Trump try to overturn the 2020 election, began focusing on the organization on her podcast, which is influential in election-denier circles.
Butch Dill/AP
toggle caption
A day after being sworn in in January, Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen sent a letter informing the Electronic Registration Information Center of the state's exit after criticizing the program during his campaign.
Butch Dill/AP
In November, Alabama elected a new secretary of state, Wes Allen, who had made pulling out of ERIC one of his key campaign promises. On his first day in office, Allen sent a letter to ERIC's executive director, following through on that promise.
His Republican predecessor had praised ERIC.
In a recent interview with NPR, Allen said his office was "putting a plan together" to keep his state's voter registration list up to date without the data from across the country the state previously received from ERIC.
But election officials from across the political spectrum have told NPR that it is essentially impossible to replicate what ERIC does, and Alabama and Louisiana will now just have less up-to-date voter records.
In their separate announcements on Monday, Florida, West Virginia and Missouri did not explain how they will maintain the accuracy of their voter lists without data from ERIC. | US Federal Elections |
Pa. Democrats aim to appeal to working-class voters with policy, symbolism, and some anger
Still stung by their loss in 2016, Pennsylvania Democrats are trying to channel the populism, and sometimes anger, that many voters feel.
Pennsylvania Democrats are trying to show they can be populists, too.
When Gov. Josh Shapiro took office in January, he sent a symbolic message by using his first executive order to end the four-year college degree requirement for most state government jobs. Sen. John Fetterman campaigned as a Democrat who would fight for “forgotten communities.” And as U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio has started his first term representing a Western Pennsylvania district, he’s delivered sharp criticism of “the incompetence and greed” of “big corporations” such as Norfolk Southern.
“It’s about building a government that serves everyone, not just the rich and powerful,” said Deluzio, a Navy veteran and Georgetown Law graduate whose congressional bio emphasizes his work helping form a union at the University of Pittsburgh.
As politics in Pennsylvania and nationally have shifted, and Republicans have gained ground with white working-class voters — epitomized by Donald Trump’s crucial victory in the state in 2016 — the GOP has portrayed Democrats as the party of a snobbish elite, attacking liberals as scolds who have lost touch with everyday workers while trying to impose their views on race, gender, guns, and the environment.
“Some of it is just cultural, and the label of the Democratic Party right now just doesn’t appeal to some parts of Pennsylvania that they used to appeal to really well,” said Nick Trainer, a Republican strategist who worked on Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign.
But Democrats argue they’ve always been — and remain — the true party of working people. They say their policies, including support for labor unions, expanded health-care access, and a higher minimum wage, offer tangible help for the working class while Republicans have pushed tax cuts and deregulation that benefit the wealthy and corporations.
But populism — a broad term often used to convey everyday people’s attitudes and anger toward the powerful — isn’t only about policy ideas. It’s often about image and approach.
“We don’t have to overthink it and out-policy the other folks,” said Rebecca Kirszner Katz, Fetterman’s longtime strategist. “We have to be smart and remind people what we stand for and how we’ll fight for them. It’s not that complicated, and we’ve just done a terrible job of explaining it.”
While some on the Democratic side, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), have embraced populism, railing against financial elites, Trump channeled it most emphatically in his 2016 victory. He blended white racial grievances with raw fury at the establishments in both parties, which he said had sold out ordinary workers. It was hugely successful in some culturally conservative parts of Pennsylvania that had lost much of their industry and that finally broke with their Democratic roots.
Despite Trump’s wealth and a business career catering to the upper crust, he made disaffected voters “feel seen,” Katz said. “A lot of Democratic politicians were very clinical.”
Democrats have tried to correct for that, nominating more plain-spoken candidates such as Fetterman and President Joe Biden. And they’ve used suspicion of wealthy elites in their own way, attacking last year’s GOP Senate nominee in Pennsylvania, Mehmet Oz, as a rich out-of-stater, and using a similar approach against David McCormick, a former hedge-fund executive eyeing another Senate bid in 2024.
Pennsylvania has a higher than average share of voters who didn’t attend college, giving much of it a blue-collar culture and worldview.
“You can’t win Pennsylvania if you’re not able to appeal to non-college voters,” said J.J. Balaban, a Democratic strategist based in Philadelphia.
He argues Democrats have always been the party of the working class, but it’s become more important to emphasize as Trump and his imitators have adopted populist rhetoric, if not policies.
“For Democrats, populism is about economics. For Republicans, it’s largely about cultural grievances,” Balaban said.
The Norfolk Southern train derailment near the Pennsylvania-Ohio border presents a prime target for anger at big business.
Shapiro told The Inquirer about a conversation with a woman in Beaver County, which borders East Palestine, Ohio, the site of the crash. Her family had lost several dozen eggs from their family chickens “and this was real money for them and important for their family income.”
Shapiro said that when he met with Norfolk Southern’s top executive, he cited that story as he pushed the railroad to provide aid.
“That kind of stuff happens when you show up, treat people with respect, listen, and then are willing to take on the powerful,” Shapiro said, a theme he came back to several times in a late March interview.
Changing the state’s hiring rules, he said, would expand opportunities for people who didn’t attend college. It tangibly affects only a sliver of jobs, but the fact that Shapiro made that move his first official act illustrates the political imperative of showing working-class appeal.
Fetterman rarely emphasized specific policy ideas during his campaign, but his image as the tattooed mayor of a hard-hit steel town was a powerful marker. Katz said his success came down to something more fundamental.
“He talks to people like they’re on the same level as him,” Katz said. “One of the bigger problems with Democrats in the past is that they have spoken down to voters, and John never spoke down to anyone.”
While Katz worries some Democrats are still too concerned about appealing to wealthy donors, others appear more comfortable channeling anger and frustration, even as their victories in recent elections have depended significantly on voters from affluent suburbs.
“Who we are in Western Pennsylvania, our identity, our history, is wrapped up and tied to the labor movement, and it’s tied to fighting for working people,” said Deluzio, whose district straddles the Pittsburgh suburbs and more blue-collar Beaver County.
His guest at his first State of the Union speech was a mailer on strike from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Many voters, Deluzio said, are right to feel angry about being harmed by businesses and politicians.
“Folks were mad for a reason, one that I think is fair and valid: They saw jobs and factories ripped away,” he said.
Fetterman’s pledge to stand up for “forgotten communities” echoed some of the language that once helped propel Trump.
While the start of his Senate career has been stunted by a hospitalization for depression treatment, Fetterman’s public statements so far have targeted “corporate greed” and accused oil companies of “disgusting” price gouging.
And Biden’s approach toward reelection was on full display in his most recent visit to Philadelphia, where he told a room full of union members, “For too long, working people have been breaking their necks ... while those at the top get away with everything.”
“Going after corporations and the ultrarich is overwhelmingly popular, and the fact that many Democrats don’t do that is political malpractice,” Katz said.
Fetterman’s victory last year over Oz, for example, was driven by a devastating blitz casting Oz as a rich celebrity from New Jersey who couldn’t relate to ordinary Pennsylvanians.
Democrats are already running a similar strategy against McCormick, who ran against Oz last year and is considering another campaign in 2024. They point to his immense wealth, expensive homes, and years leading a hedge fund.
“So much of the attacks that worked on Oz can also work on McCormick,” Katz said.
McCormick has countered by emphasizing his time growing up in rural Pennsylvania, working on his family’s Christmas tree farm, wrestling in high school, and then fighting in the first Iraq War.
As with Trump, populism isn’t always an obvious fit.
Shapiro, for example, is an attorney from one of the state’s wealthiest counties. He has made his career climbing the political ranks and has also won praise from the business community for some of his early steps.
The governor “is always going to read like the corporate lawyer in the boardroom,” said Trainer, the Republican strategist. “You can put him in a polo and a quarter-zip all you want, he’s still not going to be an everyman. He never will be.”
Shapiro says helping working people is less about where you’re from than what you do.
“It’s about your point of view or your state of mind and your focus on taking on the big fights for the people of Pennsylvania,” Shapiro said. “And then being willing for years and years and years to show up in their communities and show them respect ... and then go back and show them the results of your work.” | US Campaigns & Elections |
President Biden addressed the conclusion of a days-long manhunt for a mass shooter in Maine, praising law enforcement and demanding the GOP help to curb gun violence in the U.S.
The president addressed the public after law enforcement discovered Lewiston, Maine, mass shooting suspect Robert Card dead on Friday, ending a manhunt that has captured the nation's attention.
"Numerous brave law enforcement officers have worked around the clock to find this suspect and prevent the loss of more innocent life — all while risking their own. They are the best of us," said Biden in a statement late Friday.
The 40-year-old Card was found dead Friday night from an apparent self-inflicted gunshot wound near a dumpster at a Lisbon, Maine, recycling plant where he once worked. He is the primary suspect in Wednesday's mass shooting in Lewiston at Schemengees Bar and Grille and the Just-In-Time Recreation bowling alley in which 18 people were killed and another 13 were injured.
While Biden praised the police's work, he did not have as kind words for his Republican colleagues, taking the opportunity to demand policy changes.
"Americans should not have to live like this," the president said. "I once again call on Republicans in Congress to fulfill their obligation to keep the American people safe."
He added, "Until that day comes, I will continue to do everything in my power to end this gun violence epidemic. The Lewiston community – and all Americans – deserve nothing less."
Maine State Police found Card Friday night at about 7:45 p.m. His body was found after a 2-day-long manhunt in connection with the mass shootings.
Hundreds of law enforcement officers, including the FBI, SWAT and the BORTAC Border Patrol unit worked to locate Card, who was described by officials as armed and dangerous during the manhunt.
Gov. Janet Mills said in a press conference that she informed the four federal lawmakers representing Maine that the suspect had been located.
"This discovery is entirely thanks to the hundreds of local, county, state and federal law enforcement members from all over and people from other states as well, people who searched tirelessly to arrive at this moment," the governor said.
Fox News Digital's Landon Mion contributed to this report. | US Federal Policies |
A Missouri sheriff and two of his deputies were arrested Thursday and charged in connection with an alleged plot to help a father kidnap his daughter from her mother after an argument last month, charging documents show.
The father, Rick Gaston, 62, was also arrested and faces four felony charges, including attempted parental kidnapping, conspiracy and stalking, and two other misdemeanor charges, according to a criminal complaint.
Iron County Sheriff Jeffery Burkett, 46, is accused of working with the two deputies to find the mother, who was seeking refuge from Gaston, by using her phone records, so that Gaston could take their daughter from her, according to the charging documents obtained by CNN affiliate KSDK.
Burkett and the deputies – Matthew Cozad, 39, and Chase R. Bresnahan, 31 – each face four felony charges, including conspiracy and participating in criminal street gang activities, as well as other misdemeanor charges, the charging documents show. Burkett is also charged with attempted kidnapping.
An investigation into the case was conducted by the Missouri State Highway Patrol, the agency said in a release.
CNN has not been able to determine if Bresnahan, Cozad and Gaston have attorneys.
Burkett’s attorney, Gabe Crocker, called the charges “politically motivated.”
“There has been an ongoing attempt to remove Sheriff Burkett from office before he even took office,” Crocker told CNN.
Iron County is about 90 miles south of St. Louis.
How the alleged plot unfolded
Burkett and the deputies responded to a domestic disturbance call between Gaston and the mother on February 8, the charging documents say.
After the deputies “separated” Gaston and the mother, she took her children, ages 5 and 16, from the home and later sought “safe refuge” in a relative’s home, according to the documents, which indicate one of the children is Gaston’s daughter.
Two days later, Bresnahan submitted an arrest warrant application for the mother to the Iron County Prosecuting Attorney, who declined to issue any charges, the documents say.
That same day, investigators say Sheriff Burkett contacted dispatchers claiming the mother was possibly intoxicated and her child was potentially injured, according to the documents. He then requested the mother’s phone location pings, which require authorities to certify to the cell provider that there is an “immediate danger of death or injury to a person” the documents allege.
Cozad allegedly requested an inquiry into vehicles registered to the mother and asked for officers who encountered her to “stop and hold” the mother, according to the documents.
When Sheriff Burkett believed the mother was traveling to a relative’s house in neighboring Washington County, he allegedly told a 911 dispatcher to send sheriff’s deputies to “just park at the residence” but not enter the property, the documents say.
“Mr. Gaston is going to come up there and try to get his daughter,” Burkett allegedly told the dispatcher, according to the complaint.
At one point, the complaint alleges, the 911 dispatcher informed Burkett the ping locations indicated the mother was likely headed toward her home. Burkett allegedly responded, “I hope like hell she is, because when I catch her, she’s gonna sit in my jail.”
When the dispatcher asked if the mother should be detained, Burkett allegedly replied, “Yeah, once Mr. Gaston has his little girl, then we’ll detain her,” according to the complaint.
An unidentified male could be heard on the phone call communicating with Sheriff Burkett, according to the complaint, and prosecutors say it seemed as if that person was telling Burkett what to say.
The mother was later located at an address in a different county, where a sheriff’s deputy sergeant conducted a welfare check and “found no visible injuries and stated the children were fine,” the complaint says. The sergeant said he did not detain the mother, it says.
All four suspects were being held in Washington County Jail with Burkett’s bond set at $500,000 and bond for the three others set at $400,000. Under their bond conditions, the sheriff and deputies cannot serve in their law enforcement roles while the case is pending.
A statement posted to the sheriff’s office Facebook page last Friday stated that Burkett had just been released from the hospital due to complications from “lingering Covid-19 symptoms.” A booking photo released Thursday showed Burkett wearing an oxygen cannula. | US Police Misconduct |
Former President Donald Trump is asking a court to dismiss several criminal charges against him in the Georgia 2020 election interference case.
His filings on Monday are Trump’s opening salvo of legal arguments to challenge the state-level charges.
Giuliani filed his challenge Friday, asking Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to toss his indictment due to “deficiencies,” his lawyers argued, that render it invalid. Chesebro, the pro-Trump lawyer who devised the “fake electors” scheme, filed a similar challenge last month that argued the indictment “fails to sufficiently set out the charge or any violation of the law.”
Smith, an attorney for Trump’s 2020 campaign in Georgia, filed his extensive motion challenging the indictment also on Monday, arguing that the indictment had “voluminous” defects and that the state failed to meet the racketeering statute.
Motions like these are common at the start of a criminal case, and they are rarely successful.
The former president is asking for the state charges to be tossed even as he has indicated in court filings that he may ask for the case to be moved to federal court, where he can try to invoke protections for federal officials.
Trump faces 13 counts – including racketeering, conspiracy charges and soliciting a public official to violate their oath of office – in the sprawling indictment brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis last month against him and 18 co-defendants for their roles in attempting to reverse Georgia’s 2020 election results. All 19 defendants – including Trump, Giuliani, Chesebro and Smith – have pleaded not guilty in the case.
This story has been updated with additional information.
Jason Morris, Marshall Cohen and Jack Forrest contributed to this report. | US Political Corruption |
This is the big one. It is tempting to say that today's indictment is significant mainly because it is the third time Donald Trump has been indicted — an extraordinary record for a former leader. Some will instead argue that these three indictments are piling on by partisan prosecutors. These are precisely the wrong frames.
Here's why today's indictment is so important: This is the big one because Donald Trump has been criminally charged for attempting to stop the peaceful transfer of power, and the charges come from the very government he tried to take over by force.
Donald Trump committed the ultimate offense against our republican form of government when he attempted to keep himself in power after the American people voted him out, ultimately inciting a violent mob to attack the Capitol to facilitate this plan. Had he succeeded, it would have been effectively the end of our almost two-and-a-half-century experiment in democratic self-governance.
Trump has thus far largely managed to escape real accountability for this historic crime, despite an impeachment and a devastating report and series of hearings from the House select committee that investigated the Jan. 6 uprising. He is free and in charge of his businesses. More importantly, he remains the de facto leader of one of our major political parties and a likely presidential nominee, and he has made the false claim that he won the last election and the denial of the insurrection he incited a central tenet of his political movement. It is hard to contemplate a more significant offense, and this lack of accountability — indeed this celebration of his crime — is untenable.
The charges come from the very government he tried to take over by force.
Each of the indictments of Donald Trump is significant. His lies to cover up a hush-money scheme and his outrageous retention of dangerous classified documents — and obstruction of the subsequent investigation — all demonstrate his pursuit of his own power and whims with no regard for the law. But this one is different.
If Donald Trump were to avoid real consequences for his schemes to keep himself in power, we would risk not only having the criminal attempt to overturn an election be forgotten or normalized, but actually having it become a part of our political identity and a template for future action by a significant segment of our population. We risk endorsing the destruction of our democracy in the near future.
We need your help to stay independent
Today's indictment starts the process of pulling us back from that precipice. It makes clear that Trump's attempt to keep himself in power contrary to the decision of the American people was not a reflection of deeply held beliefs or the start of a political movement, but a criminal act, pure and simple. These charges strengthen the coming litigation to enforce the 14th Amendment's disqualification of Trump from any future office because he engaged in insurrection, one of the key ways of securing our democracy moving forward. And, if validated by a jury — a likely outcome, based on the evidence as we understand it — this indictment can lead to sentences that can help prevent Trump and his closest allies from engaging in future attacks on our democratic system precisely because of their past attacks on that system.
Just as significantly, this is a strong case, charged in a way that will maximize its chance of success. From my experience as a federal corruption prosecutor, I know that juries are deeply skeptical of prosecutions of prominent people that seem like technical charges premised on paperwork and bureaucracy. They don't want to convict leaders even for clear violations of the law unless they see that the conduct involved is wrong, harmful and deserving of punishment.
The stakes are crystal clear in this current indictment. The charges filed by special counsel Jack Smith make clear that Trump is not being charged with minor election or paperwork offenses, but rather with a scheme to install himself as president in violation of the law and the votes of the American people and to overthrow our democracy — a scheme that resulted in at least seven deaths and countless injuries. There could be no more clearly justifiable indictment of a former president.
Challenges remain. A jury pool will surely include many Trump supporters who see the events of the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection through the distorted lens Trump has worked hard to create. They will be skeptical of the indictment and the motivations behind it. The indictment itself is a masterful attempt to push past the propaganda to demonstrate not just the facts, but the stakes. It will be incumbent upon Smith's team to make that case at trial in a way that is incontrovertible even for those who start out skeptical. That is a tall order, but I believe Smith can do it, and today's indictment was a crucial start.
Nothing could be more important for the future of America.
Read more
about Trump's legal predicament | US Political Corruption |
Impatient LockBit says it's leaked 50GB of stolen Boeing files after ransom fails to land
Aerospace titan pores over data to see if dump is legit
The LockBit crew is claiming to have leaked all of the data it stole from Boeing late last month, after the passenger jet giant apparently refused to pay the ransom demand.
The gang dumped the files online early Friday morning. This latest leak includes about 50GB of data in the form of compressed archives and backup files for various systems.
The full release comes after the extortionists uploaded some files said to be related to company finances and marketing activities as well as supplier details.
Screenshots of the stolen info showed several Citrix logs, which has led to some speculation that LockBit exploited Citrix Bleed to break into the defense contractor's systems. Boeing has so far refused to comment on the initial point of entry into its systems.
Neither data dump has been verified by The Register, and Boeing declined to answer specific questions about the incident or the stolen files. A spokesperson sent us this comment via email:
Elements of Boeing's parts and distribution business recently experienced a cybersecurity incident. We are aware that, in connection with this incident, a criminal ransomware actor has released information it alleges to have taken from our systems. We continue to investigate the incident and will remain in contact with law enforcement, regulatory authorities, and potentially impacted parties, as appropriate. We remain confident this incident poses no threat to aircraft or flight safety.
According to security researcher Dominic Alvieri, the files also contained corporate emails.
"I haven't gone over the whole data set but Boeing emails and a few others stand out as useful for those with malicious intent," Alvieri told The Register.
- Boeing acknowledges cyberattack on parts and distribution biz
- 'Mass exploitation' of Citrix Bleed underway as ransomware crews pile in
- China's top bank ICBC hit by ransomware, derailing global trades
- Strangely enough, no one wants to buy a ransomware group that has cops' attention
LockBit first listed the aircraft giant on its dark-web site on October 28, and on November 2 Boeing confirmed to The Register it had suffered an IT intrusion. At the time, a spokesperson said the break-in affected the manufacturer's parts and distribution business.
By then, however, the ransomware crew had removed Boeing from its leaks site and told the malware librarians at VX Underground that it was negotiating with the US corporation. It appears that the negotiations failed — or possibly the multinational determined that the criminals hadn't accessed any sensitive info, and thus it wouldn't pay to pay the extortion demand, or no talks ever actually took place — and Boeing is now back on the LockBit extortion website
Also this week, China's largest bank, ICBC, was hit by a ransomware attack that disrupted financial services systems on Thursday Beijing time. LockBit told VX-Underground that it was was responsible for this break-in, too. ® | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Mike Johnson is the new speaker of the House. The conservative Louisiana lawmaker—a man described by the New York Times as the “most important architect” of congressional Republicans’ attempt to throw out Joe Biden’s 2020 victory—is now second-in-line to the presidency. It’s a win for MAGA extremists. A win for Donald Trump. A win for anyone who thinks that elections should be decided by GOP politicians instead of by voters.
And House Democrats helped make it possible.
Yes, I am aware that this has somehow become a controversial take—as if acknowledging Democratic culpability somehow excuses GOP extremism and the complicity of so-called “moderate” Republicans. But that culpability is real.
Back on October 3, every single Democrat present—all 208 of them—teamed up with eight ultra-conservative Republicans to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy. The GOP rebels, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)—who has always loathed McCarthy—were angry that, after weeks of chaos, McCarthy had averted a government shutdown by working with Democrats to pass a temporary spending bill.
Gaetz and his allies couldn’t have removed the GOP speaker on their own. They needed a lot of help from across the aisle. And the Dems delivered. They offered a lot of reasons—many of them pretty compelling—for refusing to bail out McCarthy: McCarthy had voted to overturn the 2020 election. McCarthy had tried to thwart Congress’ January 6 investigation. McCarthy had launched a partisan impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden. McCarthy couldn’t be trusted. McCarthy refused to make any concessions to Democrats. McCarthy was largely subservient to the Trumpist right. And so on.
Hours before McCarthy’s ouster, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi—who wasn’t in DC for the vote—made her views clear: McCarthy’s fate, she insisted, wasn’t the Democrats’ problem. “The Speaker of the House is chosen by the Majority Party,” she tweeted. “In this Congress, it is the responsibility of House Republicans to choose a nominee & elect the Speaker on the Floor. At this time there is no justification for a departure from this tradition.”
That may well be. But refusing to depart “from this tradition” wasn’t some grand law of nature or principle of democracy that Democrats were compelled to honor. It was a choice. They opted to make what they saw as a principled stand against McCarthy—knowing full well that the end result might be a speaker who is worse. Dems had their chance to stop McCarthy’s far-right detractors from seizing power, but instead, they chose to help Gaetz.
In a widely circulated thread after the October 3 vote, Aaron Fritschner, a Democratic House staffer, laid out the logic behind removing McCarthy. It’s a fascinating insider account and well worth the read. Fritschner makes a strong case. “We did not trust Kevin McCarthy and he gave us no reason to,” Fritschner argues. “He could have done so (and I suspect saved his gavel) through fairly simple actions. He chose not to do that.”
Even after all that happened – January 6th, the debt limit crisis, his vengeance against our members, breaking his word to the President, impeachment, empowering the right wing – there were Democrats who were imho willing to help McCarthy if he had given them a reason. He didn't.
— Aaron Fritschner (@Fritschner) October 4, 2023
“Will the next Speaker be worse?” Fritschner asked. “Nobody can possibly know who it’ll be or what the dynamic will be.”
That wasn’t necessarily wrong. The last three weeks have seen the GOP caucus lurching back and forth between pragmatic conservatives and MAGA diehards like Jim Jordan. Reps. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) and Tom Emmer (R-Minn.)—both of whom voted to certify Biden’s victory—each had a shot at becoming speaker. There was even talk of Republicans cutting deals with Democrats.
But that isn’t where the dice landed. In the end, mainstream Republicans—even the ones who had repeatedly thwarted Jordan’s speakership bid—fell in line behind Johnson. The Louisianan may be less personally obnoxious than his better-known Ohio ally, but he’s still pretty extreme. Like Jordan, Johnson played an indispensable role in Trump’s coup attempt, pressuring his colleagues to sign on to an effort to get the Supreme Court to overturn the election. As the Times reported:
Mr. Johnson drafted a supporting brief that focused on the constitutional argument. As chairman of the Republican Study Committee, he pushed its members to sign the brief, and he also wrote an email to all Republican lawmakers warning in bold red letters that Mr. Trump would be tracking their response. “He said he will be anxiously awaiting the final list to review,” he wrote.
The lawyer for the House Republican leadership told Mr. Johnson that his arguments were unconstitutional, according to three people involved in the conversations, and Ms. Cheney, also a lawyer, called the brief “embarrassing.” Mr. McCarthy, the Republican leader, told members that he refused to sign, the three people said.
Nonetheless, Mr. Johnson pushed ahead and filed the brief on Dec. 10 with 105 lawmakers as co-signers, and within a day he had added 20 more—including Mr. McCarthy.
Even after the court flatly rejected this lawsuit, Johnson pressed on, rallying Republicans to vote on the House floor to throw out the electoral votes of swing states Biden won. According to the Times, three-quarters of the lawmakers who voted in favor of handing the election to Trump justified their actions by citing Johnson’s legal arguments.
McCarthy, of course, was one of those lawmakers. There is no question that McCarthy went along with Trump’s coup attempt. It’s impossible to know whether, in practice, Johnson will really be much different. But Gaetz certainly sees it as a victory. “If you don’t think that moving from Kevin McCarthy to MAGA Mike Johnson shows the ascendance of this movement and where the power in the Republican Party truly lies, then you’re not paying attention,” he told Steve Bannon on Wednesday.
That’s a change that Democrats helped make possible. And they bear at least some of the responsibility for whatever happens next. | US Congress |
A source familiar with the deal told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Attorney Kenneth Chesebro - one of the authors of a plan to use Republican presidential electors to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s victory in Georgia - will receive probation in the agreement. Other details were not immediately available.
Chesebro was originally charged with seven felony counts in the case.
» Watch live proceeedings here.
Chesebro is the third defendant to plead guilty in the case and the second this week. On Thursday attorney Sidney Powell pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor charges for her role in an election data breach in Coffee County. Atlanta bail bondsman Scott Hall previously reached a deal in the same Coffee County incident.
Chesebro and Powell had both asked for speedy trials so their cases were moving faster than those of the other Fulton County defendants.
The deals are a major victory for prosecutors, who charged 19 people - including former President Donald Trump - for their roles in an allegedly illegal scheme to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Chesebro played a key role in the Republican electors plan. He drafted a series of memos suggesting the General Assembly or Congress could name Trump the winner in Georgia and other states Biden won, citing dubious allegations of voting fraud as a pretext. Chesebro sought unsuccessfully to have the memos excluded as evidence in the trial.
Trump’s campaign organized Republican electors in Georgia and six other states Biden won. They met and voted for Trump even as each state’s official electors cast their ballots for Biden.
Fulton County prosecutors charged three of the Republican electors. In addition, they charged Trump, Chesebro, attorneys John Eastman and Rudy Giuliani and others allegedly involved in the plan.
This is a developing story. Check back for more details. | US Political Corruption |
Sen. Mitt Romney said he would vote for a Democrat over former President Trump or businessman Vivek Ramaswamy in a potential 2024 general election matchup.
“I’d be happy to support virtually any one of the Republicans, maybe not Vivek, but the others that are running would be acceptable to me and I’d be happy to vote for them,” Romney said to CBS news host Norah O’Donnell in a clip which resurfaced online Saturday.
“I’d be happy to vote for a number of the Democrats too. I mean, it would be an upgrade from, in my opinion, from Donald Trump and perhaps also from Joe Biden,” Romney added, without specifying which Democrats he had in mind.
The remarks were originally aired a month ago as part of a lengthy discussion between Romney and O’Donnell on a new book about the senator.
“Look, I like President Biden. You know, I find him a very charming, engaging person. There’s some places I agree with him, but most places I disagree with him. I think he’s made all sorts of terrible mistakes, but I would like to see someone else run,” Romney said.
Though Romney is a GOP senator from Utah and the party’s former 2012 nominee for president, he has fallen out with much of the Republican base — and complained to O’Donnell about how “populist” the party had become.
The clip immediately began circulating among pro-Trump die-hards on X, who insisted Trump and Ramaswamy should embrace the criticism.
“Not surprising,” snapped Ramasweamy in a posting he later pinned to the top of his X profile.
Conservative commentator Monica Crowley blasted the senator on X as a “uniparty loser” and noted he is the uncle of Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel — who has also faced heat from the base over the party’s poor performance in several election cycles under her leadership. | US Federal Elections |
In his new book, Jonathan Karl captures Donald Trump gloating. “She said she could never get crowds like that,” the former US president turned de facto Republican presidential nominee is quoted as saying, after a conversation with Angela Merkel, then chancellor of Germany.
“In fact, she told me that there was only one other political leader who ever got crowds as big as mine.”
One Republican congressman, Karl notes, was left wondering whether Trump understood that Merkel was alluding to Adolf Hitler.
Asking: “Which would be more unsettling: that he didn’t or that he did?”, Karl leaves the reader to judge.
When news of the exchange came out, Trump world was quick to push back. A campaign official attacked Karl – chief Washington correspondent for ABC News and author of two previous books on Trump – as “disgraceful and talentless”. The official added: “This filth either belongs in the discount bargain bin in the fiction section of the bookstore or should be repurposed as toilet paper.”
The unnamed aide omitted two other possibilities: placing Karl’s book in your hands or on your bedside table. Tired of Winning is worth reading. It is well-paced, meticulously sourced and amply footnoted. Karl’s third installment on the Trump presidency and aftermath shines a needed light on how the Republican party has been recast and reshaped. Subtitled Donald Trump and the End of the Grand Old Party, it is an all-too-rare case of truth-in-advertising.
Steve Bannon, Trump’s brain and muse, talks on the record, making it clear that as long Trump is alive, the party of Lincoln belongs to him. Confronted by a Republican grandee who suggested Trump play less of a role in the run-up to the 2022 midterms, Bannon remembers unloading: “Have you lost your fucking mind?”
“They don’t understand his psychology,” says Bannon. “Whether you like it or not, it’s a reality you have to deal with.”
So, Karl writes: “I said … it has to be Trump as long as … ”
“‘As long as he can fog a mirror’, Bannon said before I could finish the sentence.”
With Trump and the GOP, it’s ‘til death do us part.
Bannon shares his disdain for Mike Lindell, one of the more pathetic characters in Trump’s orbit. The MyPillow guy and a passel of so-called “prophets” mistakenly claimed Trump would be “reinstated” as president during Joe Biden’s first term. Lindell boasted of holding receipts but never delivered. Bannon played along, until he didn’t.
“‘I knew we had a problem when Kristi Noem [the Republican governor of South Dakota] had a previously scheduled appointment before that cyber symposium in Sioux Falls,” Bannon yucks to Karl, about one of Lindell’s attempts to prove supposed election subversion. “She couldn’t come down and give us 10 minutes?”
Like Lindell – like Trump – Bannon faces legal woes. He awaits sentencing for contempt of Congress and is set to stand trial in 2024 in New York on felony fraud and conspiracy charges. Elsewhere, Karl reminds the reader of Trump’s fondness for defamation and disdain for the truth. In last year’s Georgia US Senate race, for example, he repeatedly counseled Herschel Walker, a protege and one-time college football and NFL star, to falsely label Rev Raphael Warnock, the incumbent Democratic senator, as a “child molester”.
“But I got no evidence of that,” Walker pushed back.
Trump was undeterred.
“Just do it,” he said. “Just call him a child molester.”
Before election day, Walker, who had a documented history of domestic violence, punted on Trump’s advice. The run-off was different. Walker let loose with the garbage furnished by Trump.
“This young man said there was sexual abuse and there was physical abuse,” Walker told a crowd, apparently referring to claims about alleged events at a youth camp. “Who did that? It has to be Senator Raphael Warnock, because he was responsible for it.”
It was a lie. Warnock eked out a narrow win.
This year, a Manhattan jury found Trump defamed and physically abused the writer E Jean Carroll, who said he attacked her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s. Next year, just as the Republican primary gets under way, he will face a second civil suit in the matter.
Karl is anguished by the havoc Trump has wrought.
“All too many people have begun to forget how desperately and madly Donald Trump tried to cling to power and what he was willing to do to avoid being branded a loser,” Karl writes. “Whatever guardrails may have existed before are gone. Trump is more detached from reality than ever and more willing to trash the norms and customs that our system of government needs to survive as a working democracy.”
And yet, in five-of-six electoral battlegrounds, Trump leads Biden in polls. The public views the US president as too old and Kamala Harris, his vice-president, as a lightweight.
Trump vows to weaponize the justice department and the FBI. He embraces the rhetoric of the Confederacy as he vows retribution. He parrots Hitler as he unleashes on the “enemy within” and brands opponents “vermin”.
Americans should be alarmed, but not surprised. More than 30 years ago, Trump’s first wife, Ivana, let it be known that he kept a volume of Hitler’s speeches by the bed. In the White House, Trump reportedly told John Kelly, then his chief of staff, that Hitler “did a lot of good things”.
Once upon a time, Bannon, like Merkel, likened Trump’s public persona to that of the Nazi dictator. In June 2015, when Trump made his history-making escalator ride into the Republican primary, Bannon thought of Triumph of the Will, Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda film. As another author reported: “That’s Hitler, Bannon thought.”
Tired of Winning: Donald Trump and the End of the Grand Old Party is published in the US by Penguin | US Political Corruption |
In an age when absolutely anything can be politicized, perhaps it was inevitable that the attire of John Fetterman would become a cause célèbre in the Republicans’ culture wars. The hulking Democratic senator from Pennsylvania, who suffered a campaign-season stroke during his 2022 race, has since then preferred to wear an unorthodox uniform of baggy gym shorts and hoodies, even in the august halls of the U.S. Senate. After it was revealed this past weekend that Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer had quietly decided he would no longer enforce the chamber’s long-standing but unofficial dress code, thus permitting Fetterman to vote on the floor and even preside over the Senate in his informal getup, numerous hyperventilating op-eds, tweets, and Fox News segments followed. (A sampling: “Fetterman dress code fail begs big question about America’s deep decline”; “Does John Fetterman really want to be a senator?”) Senator Susan Collins, of Maine, threatened to wear a bikini on the Senate floor in protest. Senator Bill Hagerty, of Tennessee, accused Democrats of trying to “transform America.”
Soon enough, Fetterman was selling campaign merchandise making fun of his sanctimonious critics, touting a fifty-dollar “I vote in this hoodie” sweatshirt, among other slouchy apparel. When Ron DeSantis, the Florida governor whose Republican Presidential campaign has been foundering in the polls, attacked Fetterman for “dumbing down” the country, the Pennsylvania senator clapped back: “I dress like he campaigns.” By Wednesday, Fetterman clearly was having too much fun to let the story die. In a tweet seemingly designed for maximum viral impact, Fetterman made an offer: “If those jagoffs in the House stop trying to shut our government down, and fully support Ukraine,” he vowed, “then I will save democracy by wearing a suit on the Senate floor next week.” (A jagoff, according to Dictionary.com, is Pittsburgh slang, used to refer to “a jerk, idiot, or really any kind of irritating or unlikeable person.”)
Putting aside what might be the first known use of the word in an official statement by a U.S. senator, it seems safe to say that Fetterman probably won’t have to put that suit on. But he sure had a point: it’s silly season once again in Washington, as various nihilistic Republicans in the House of Representatives—Fetterman’s jagoffs—careen the country toward a government shutdown when funding runs out at the end of September. Stopping U.S. military aid to Ukraine is one of their central demands, and a twenty-four-billion-dollar supplemental-appropriation request from the Biden Administration to keep the weapons and assistance flowing has now become entangled in the government-shutdown fight.
The feckless House Speaker, Kevin McCarthy, has been trying to thwart them but with such notable ineffectiveness that by midweek the inevitability of a shutdown had become conventional wisdom in Washington, the presumed political costs to Republicans notwithstanding. “We always get the blame,” Representative Mike Simpson of Idaho complained. But there’s no surprise why: it’s Republicans, not Democrats, who have tended to push for government shutdowns ever since Newt Gingrich embraced the tactic in 1995 as a blunt-force instrument to get their way in Washington’s regular spending fights. When, late on Wednesday, McCarthy emerged from a House Republican Conference meeting optimistic about a prospective new plan to win over his hardest-right opponents, a new problem soon emerged: Donald Trump.
Within hours, the ex-President—on whose watch, in 2018 and early 2019, the longest government shutdown in history occurred, ending with Trump having achieved none of the goals he sought—publicly demanded that Republicans flout McCarthy and press ahead. “Republicans in Congress can and must defund all aspects of Crooked Joe Biden’s weaponized Government,” he said. Trump, who is facing two criminal cases brought by the Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith, framed the fight, as he does most things, in explicitly personal terms: “This is also the last chance to defund these political prosecutions against me and other Patriots.” To him, the House Republicans seeking to bring the operations of the U.S. government to a halt are nothing more than an extension of his 2024 campaign to return to office and exact revenge on those who sought to hold him to account—his political Praetorian Guard.
On Thursday, with McCarthy’s would-be breakthrough stymied by his party’s actual leader, his rebel caucus rebelled yet again, joining with Democrats to vote down for the second time a rule to govern floor consideration of the annual defense-appropriations bill. “This is a whole new concept of individuals that just want to burn the whole place down,” the Speaker told reporters afterward. But, shortly after that, reporters for Punchbowl News revealed that McCarthy was considering caving in once more, this time by considering removing any Ukraine-related funding from the defense measure.
Politics is all about contrast. And one of the sharpest contrasts going in Washington has been exposed by the brewing opposition among House Republicans to Ukraine funding. It’s a cause that many of Trump’s loudest adherents on Capitol Hill have taken up with increasing fervor as polls have shown that the initial, strongly bipartisan support for assistance is ebbing and a majority of the G.O.P. electorate is now opposed to continuing to fund the war effort.
President Biden has made backing Ukraine the signature foreign policy of his tenure, securing congressional approval for more than forty-five billion dollars in military aid and rallying NATO allies against Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression on its neighbor. On Tuesday, in his annual speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Biden framed support for Kyiv as a basic test of the international order: “If we allow Ukraine to be carved up,” he said, “is the independence of any nation secure?” On Thursday, he hosted Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, at the White House. “Mr. President, we’re with you, and we’re staying with you,” Biden promised.
Biden’s steadfast defense of Zelensky, commitment to allies, and opposition to Putin are among his strongest claims to international leadership, not to mention the strongest possible contrast with Trump. Have we forgotten so soon Trump’s excruciating meeting with Zelensky in 2019, when the young Ukrainian leader squirmed like a hostage as he sat alongside Trump and awkwardly claimed that “nobody pushed” him to investigate Biden, hours after Trump released the transcript of his infamous phone call with Zelensky showing that he had done just that? When he was President, Trump rarely missed a chance to excoriate the nation’s allies and praise its adversaries and parroted Russian talking points on Ukraine. After the 2022 invasion, he even went so far as to laud Putin’s strategic “genius.” Just a few days ago, Trump revelled once again in praise from Putin, who has all but endorsed the former President’s campaign to return to the White House in 2024.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill this week, McCarthy bowed down to his Trump-inspired anti-Ukraine fringe—seventy House Republicans, or one-third of the G.O.P. conference voted to cut off aid in a vote earlier this summer—and refused to agree to Zelensky’s request to address a joint session of Congress, or to convene a meeting between Zelensky and all House members. McCarthy claimed that the chamber was too busy with spending negotiations, which, given the embarrassing chaos that swirled all day in the House after the defense appropriation rule was defeated, seemed like a particularly lame excuse. Once again, the contrast could not have been starker.
Over on the Senate side of the Capitol, where the Republican leader Mitch McConnell is an outspoken supporter of Ukraine, he and Majority Leader Chuck Schumer hosted Zelensky for a special session in the old Senate chamber, where the Ukrainian President received two standing ovations. According to Schumer, Zelensky summed up the stakes of the present Washington debate with admirable succinctness: “If we don’t get the aid,” he told the senators, “we will lose the war.”
Most of the seasoned Hill watchers I’ve spoken with in recent weeks still believe that support for Ukraine is there, at least for now. The bigger problem is the American political calendar: 2024 looms, and, with it, the prospect of Trump—or another Republican taking his pro-Putin line—returning to power. No wonder the boss in the Kremlin is paying such close attention. ♦ | US Congress |
Politics|Biden to Pick Biotech Executive to Lead New Biomedical Research Agencyhttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/12/us/politics/biden-cancer-arpa-h.htmlPresident Biden has selected Dr. Renee Wegrzyn to lead the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, which is aimed at driving biomedical innovation.Credit...Sarah Silbiger for The New York TimesSept. 12, 2022, 11:33 a.m. ETWASHINGTON — President Biden has selected Dr. Renee Wegrzyn, a Boston biotech executive with government experience, as the director of a new federal agency aimed at driving biomedical innovation, the White House said on Monday.Mr. Biden will announce his intention to appoint Dr. Wegrzyn, along with a series of steps to promote his so-called cancer moonshot initiative, during a speech at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston on the 60th anniversary of the former president’s “moonshot” speech that ushered in an era of space travel.Mr. Biden, whose son Beau died of brain cancer in 2015, has a deep personal commitment to advancing cancer research. He helped create the cancer moonshot when he was vice president and proposed the new biomedical agency this year as part of an effort to reinvigorate the initiative and, he has said, to “end cancer as we know it.”Modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the biomedical research agency is known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health. (In the argot of Washington, where every agency has an acronym, the defense research agency is called DARPA and the health agency is ARPA-H.)Dr. Wegrzyn is currently a vice president of business development at Ginkgo Bioworks and the head of innovation at Concentric by Ginkgo, the company’s initiative to advance coronavirus testing and track the spread of the virus. She also worked at DARPA and its sister agency, the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity.“Some of the problems we face every day — especially in health and disease — are so large they can seem insurmountable,” Dr. Wegrzyn said in a statement provided by the White House. “I have seen firsthand the tremendous expertise and energy the U.S. biomedical and biotechnological enterprise can bring to solve some of the toughest health challenges.”Congress has appropriated $1 billion for ARPA-H, which is housed within the National Institutes of Health. While its director is not a Senate-confirmed position, Mr. Biden may face pushback from Republicans, some of whom have argued that the new agency duplicates the N.I.H.’s efforts.The White House announcement drew praise from Ellen V. Sigal, the chairwoman of Friends of Cancer Research, a nonprofit that works with industry and government to advance new therapies. Ms. Sigal called Dr. Wegrzyn “an inspired choice,” adding, “She is a proven innovator and leader who knows science, knows how to make government work and understands the urgency for patients across the country.”In addition to announcing his intent to appoint Dr. Wegrzyn, Mr. Biden on Monday issued an executive order establishing a biotechnology and biomanufacturing initiative intended to position the United States as a leader in the field and to center drug manufacturing in the country. The coronavirus pandemic exposed critical weaknesses in the supply chain for drugs and live-saving therapies.“The United States has for too long relied heavily on foreign materials for bioproduction,” the White House said in a statement, “and our past offshoring of critical industries, including biotechnology, presents a threat to our ability to access key materials like including the active pharmaceutical ingredients for lifesaving medications.” | US Federal Policies |
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) vociferously defended President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris's record in a one-on-one debate against Republican presidential candidate Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), who repeatedly attacked the Biden administration's failures. Yet Newsom's fierce defenses failed to stop questions about a future presidential run.
From his opening remarks through the end of the debate hosted by Fox News and moderated by anchor Sean Hannity, Newsom sought to convince voters that the Biden administration has been a positive force for the public and focus less on his own future beyond the governor's mansion.
"I'm here to tell the truth about the Biden-Harris record and also compare and contrast Ron DeSantis's record and the Republican Party's record as a point of contrast that's as different as daylight and darkness," Newsom said during his opening remarks Thursday night. "You want to bring us back to a pre-1960s world, America in reverse."
The California governor even gave Biden an "A" grade when Hannity asked both men to rank Biden overall as president.
DeSantis, his sparring partner, concurred that Newsom has emerged as one of Biden's top campaign surrogates and sought to link him to the Biden-Harris administration. "He thinks the economy is working because of their policies for Americans and they are not. And so what California represents is the Biden-Harris agenda on steroids," DeSantis said. "They would love nothing more than to get four more years to be able to take the California model nationally that would be disastrous for working people."
But DeSantis didn't hesitate to knock Newsom over alleged rumors he is prepping for a White House run eventually.
In one heated exchange, the Florida governor taunted Newsom's presidential ambitions in a back-and-forth exchange.
"I thought this guy was running for president of the United States," Newsom said of DeSantis.
"You are too. You just won't admit it," DeSantis countered.
DeSantis once again accused Newsom of running for president later in the debate while hitting at Biden's mental capacity due to his age. "Yes, he's in decline. Yes. It's a danger to the country. He has no business running for president," DeSantis said of Biden. "And, you know, Gavin Newsom agrees with that. He won't say that. That's why he's running his shadow campaign."
However, Newsom had his own stinging rebuke about his and DeSantis's future. "There's one thing, in closing, that we have in common, is neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024," Newsom said.
Hannity also asked Newsom point blank if he was running for president in 2024. "Will you say unequivocally under no circumstances are you running?" asked Hannity.
"Correct," Newsom quickly answered. "I don't know how many times I can say it — just making this stuff up about a shadow campaign."
"Joe Biden will be our nominee in a matter of weeks, and in a matter of weeks, Sean, he'll be endorsing Donald Trump as the nominee for the Republican Party," Newsom said, referencing DeSantis trailing former President Donald Trump in the GOP primary race. "I appreciate and respect the work the president is doing and the vice president, the Biden-Harris campaign."
Newsom also defended the vice president when DeSantis incorrectly pronounced her name. "And by the way, it's not Kam-AH-la Harris. Shame on you," he said. "It's Kama-la Harris, Madame Vice President to you."
Brad Bannon, a Democratic strategist, told the Washington Examiner that Newsom's debate performance indicates positive signs for the Biden campaign. "First of all, looking at the debate, if I was Joe Biden, I would do everything he can to use Newsom as a surrogate and on the campaign trail next year," Bannon said. "He's very good. And secondly, this proves to me that all the talk about Newsom is right. He will be a real player in 2028. I think it shows he'd be a very formidable candidate."
Bannon claimed that despite a debate setup that favored DeSantis, the California governor conducted himself in a successful manner. "I think DeSantis had a clear home-field advantage in this thing. But despite that, I think Newsom handled it very well," he added. "And you can see why he's a rising star because I think he was very good in that format. He's a much smoother and more confident debater than DeSantis is."
However, California GOP Chairwoman Jessica Millan Patterson was not swayed by Newsom, saying he "simply and predictably did not meet the moment."
"What Americans witnessed this evening was typical Gavin Newsom: a slick-talking used-car-salesman-impersonating presidential wannabe spewing word salads to cover up his own incompetence," Patterson said in a statement Thursday night. "No matter how he wants to reimagine these issues, the facts don’t lie: he has driven California to the top of all the wrong lists and somehow thinks those policy failures justify a promotion to the White House. I hope he has enjoyed the national spotlight while he runs his shadow presidential campaign because it’s as close as he’ll ever get to holding our nation’s top office."
Should Newsom decide to run, if not for the 2024 race but in 2028, he will likely have to contend with a wide field of rising Democratic stars, including Harris, another Californian who Newsom claims is Biden's natural successor. | US Federal Elections |
The House of Representatives will hold a vote on Tuesday to elect the next speaker, exactly two weeks after former Speaker Kevin McCarthy was unceremoniously booted from that post by a cadre of hard-right Republicans in his own conference, along with every Democratic representative. The latest GOP nominee for speaker, Representative Jim Jordan—a conservative firebrand once infamous for antagonizing party leadership—has spent the days before the vote locking down support from the other members of his caucus. By Monday, several Republican holdouts announced their support for Jordan, indicating that he’d made considerable progress assembling the needed majority of members.
But even if every Republican votes to elect Jordan speaker on Tuesday, it remains to be seen whether the House as an institution has been permanently altered by the weeks of political chaos. In the immediate term, there are pressing concerns to which the House will immediately return, including ensuring that the basic functioning of government continues apace.
It was over this hurdle that McCarthy stumbled. Congress narrowly averted a government shutdown at the end of September, passing a six-week stopgap measure to keep the government running, but it’s unclear how another such crisis can be avoided next month. House Republicans had hoped to pass the necessary 12 appropriations bills before mid-November, rather than pass another continuing resolution to keep the government funded temporarily, but there has been no progress on approving those measures—all of which would be dead on arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate anyway.
“Whoever the next speaker is—and it’s looking more and more like it’s gonna be Jordan—will have to deal with the funding issue immediately,” a House Republican aide told me. Another question mark is whether Congress can provide aid to Israel promptly, which has bipartisan support. “The conference is pretty unified on Israel, so that’s a bill that’ll be ready to go as soon as we have a speaker. Funding the government won’t be so easy to find a consensus,” the aide continued.
Michael Thorning, director of structural democracy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, argued that a government shutdown would do more to shake public confidence in Congress than its current speakerless state of existence. It could also harm international trust in the United States if Congress is unable to approve additional aid for Ukraine or send support to Israel, both of which are priorities for the Biden administration.
“If we go on [without a speaker for] a month, and no additional support for Israel has been provided and it becomes much clearer that that is tied up in a dysfunctional Congress, then I think it’s possible that the international community starts to reconsider what America’s future role in the world will be,” Thorning said.
If resolved this week, however, Thorning predicted that the situation in the House would not immediately dampen the public’s already cracked faith in Congress as an institution. “I think in the long run, this will be a very short and forgotten chapter in most people’s minds of how Congress does or does not function,” Thorning said. “Most people do not follow politics enough that this is a concern for them.”
If there is a lasting change wrought by the interregnum, it could involve reform to House rules. Under a rule established after the September 11 terrorist attacks, an acting speaker pro tempore is chosen to ensure continuity if a speaker needs to be replaced midway through the congressional term. Members on both sides of the aisle have largely concluded that this position is primarily ministerial, its greatest function to preside over the vote to choose the next speaker.
But if Jordan’s bid founders on Tuesday, creating further delays in selecting a speaker, representatives will need to think about empowering the current Acting Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry in order to ensure the smooth functioning of government. Should the sun set on Tuesday with a newly minted Speaker Jordan, there’s a real possibility that situation would prompt a rule change to redefine the pro tempore role.
“It’s fine to have a ministerial speaker program. But if there’s a true emergency at the Capitol, I think the House would be much better served to have a much more empowered speaker pro tem,” argued Matthew Glassman, a senior fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. “I don’t think it makes any sense to have this pseudo-emergency provision that essentially doesn’t do you any better than putting the clerk in the chair.”
The House’s leadership crisis may also convince future speakers to change the rules on how many members must sign on to trigger the so-called “motion to vacate,” the procedural maneuver that ultimately resulted in McCarthy’s ouster. In order to obtain the necessary votes to become speaker in January, McCarthy appeased the hard-line faction of the GOP conference with several concessions, including one that would permit just one member to trigger a vote of no confidence in the speaker. This allowed Representative Matt Gaetz to call for a vote on the motion to vacate. McCarthy could then only lose four Republican votes to remain speaker; eight GOP representatives voted against him. All Democrats voted to oust McCarthy as well, their hands forced by the motion to vacate.
The purpose of the motion to vacate is to eject a speaker who no longer controls the majority, allowing a new majority to wrest that power, said Glassman. But there was no alternative speaker waiting in the wings to step in once McCarthy was removed; Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has the support of all Democrats, but that is only a plurality of the House. Glassman suggested replacing the motion to vacate with another procedure, such as a discharge petition, which would require 218 signatures to call for a vote.
“That would allow a different majority that forms when there’s no majority and speaker anymore to take the speakership. But it wouldn’t allow eight people to force this on the minority party,” Glassman said. “That sort of reform … might be in the interest of any majority party that doesn’t want a small faction of their party being able to force these sorts of issues just by hijacking the minority’s need to participate.”
It’s still unclear whether the ousting of a speaker for purely political reasons will become a regular occurrence. That depends not only on whether the House changes the rules on the motion to vacate, but also on the size of a party’s majority. Perhaps the most significant lesson—especially for the Republican Party, which has members increasingly willing to challenge party leadership to extreme ends—is that any future speaker must be ready to contend with a tenuous grip on power.
“If there is another short-lived majority in the next 14 months, the House will really have to reckon with its own rules and procedures,” said Thorning. “I think everyone should be expecting that we have very small majorities and competitive [speaker] elections in the near future.” | US Congress |
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who shattered glass ceilings during her more than three decades in the U.S. Senate, has died, two sources confirmed to CBS News. She was 90.
Feinstein was the longest-serving woman in the Senate, as well as the longest-serving senator from California. But in recent months and years, questions about her health have clouded her governing profile.
She was absent from the Senate for about three months earlier this year because of a difficult bout with shingles and complications related to the virus. Feinsteinin mid-May, appearing in public for the first time since February. She was wheeled into the Capitol, looking frail and with one eye nearly closed. She said in a statement that she'd made "significant progress" but was "still experiencing some side effects from the shingles virus."
A few days later, her office said thatthan had been previously disclosed. The 89-year-old Democrat was suffering from encephalitis, or swelling of the brain, and a condition known as .
A conversation with reporters suggested she was not aware she had been absent for months. "I haven't been gone," she said, according to the Los Angeles Times and Slate. When asked whether she had been working from home, Feinstein said, "No, I've been here. I've been voting."
Her lengthy absence from Washingtonhad become a point of contention for Democrats, as confirmations of President Biden's judicial nominees slowed without her presence on the Judiciary Committee. Democrats needed all the votes they could get in a narrowly divided Senate, prompting some in her own party to .
She was alsoin early August for a fall at her San Francisco home.
In recent years, Feinstein's advancing age and apparent memory lapsesabout how much longer she could serve. She announced in early 2023 that for another term, setting up a political battle for her seat in 2024.
She was the first woman to chair the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the latter of which she ran for six years. Feinstein served as the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and was also the first woman to serve in that role, from 2017 to 2021.
In the Senate since 1992, Feinstein fought for what she called "sensible gun laws," worked to preserve the environment and improve her state's water infrastructure, and she championed LGBTQ+ rights and the legalization of same-sex marriage.
Feinstein authored and helped pass the federal assault weapons ban in 1994. The law expired in 2004, and along with other Democrats, including President Joe Biden, Feinstein advocated to reinstate it.
The California senator also helped establish the nationwide Amber Alert network to alert the public to missing children.
In 2014, Feinstein, as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, released a controversial and much disputedon the interrogation methods used by the CIA after the 9/11 terror attacks. The report, which took five years to complete and publish, found that the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques did not lead to the collection of critical intelligence that disrupted a plot; that the CIA provided inaccurate information about the program and its effectiveness; and that it was far more brutal than the CIA led lawmakers and the public to believe once it was revealed in 2006.
President Obama ended the practices portrayed within it early in his administration. But Feinstein'swas that the harsh light it shone on the CIA's practices in the early years after the 9/11 attacks would help ensure that those practices remained in the past. Asked by CBS News at the time whether it was fair to revisit what was done, given that the techniques are no longer used, she responded, "Read the report, and you tell me if you think this is how you want the country to behave."
Born in San Francisco on June 22, 1933, she was the daughter of a former model and a doctor. She graduated from Stanford University with a bachelor's degree in 1955.
She served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors in the 1970s and rose to national prominence at a moment of crisis in the city — when Mayor George Moscone and fellow Supervisor Harvey Milk were shot and killed at City Hall by a disgruntled former colleague on Nov. 28, 1978. Feinstein heard the gunshots and saw the gunman leaving the supervisors' offices.
"He whisked by, everybody disappeared. I walked down the line of supervisors' offices. I walked into one and found Harvey Milk – put my finger in a bullet hole trying to get a pulse," she told CNN in an interview in 2017. "But you know, it was the first person I'd ever seen shot to death, and you know when they're dead."
It was Feinstein who announced the news of the tragedy to the public.
Feinstein succeeded Moscone as mayor and went on to hold the office for a decade. She lost a race for governor in 1990 before winning a special election for the Senate seat in 1992 — an election cycle that became known as the "Year of the Woman" for the record number of female candidates elected to Congress.
for more features. | US Congress |
Liz Cheney, whose opposition to Donald Trump’s presidency alienated her from her fellow Republicans, has said she would prefer Democrats to win in the 2024 elections over members of her own party because she feared the US was “sleepwalking into dictatorship”.
In an interview with CBS on Sunday, Cheney suggested a Republican congressional majority that would be subservient to another Trump White House presented a tangible “threat” to American democracy.
“I believe very strongly in those principles and ideals that have defined the Republican party, but the Republican party of today has made a choice, and they haven’t chosen the constitution,” the former Wyoming congresswoman said when asked if she was rooting for Democratic victories in the 2024 election cycle. “And so I do think it presents a threat if the Republicans are in the majority in January 2025.”
She went on to say that the US was “sort of sleepwalking into dictatorship” with Trump emerging as the clear favorite for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, notwithstanding the fact that he faces more than 90 criminal charges, including some for attempting to overturn his defeat in the 2020 election against his Democratic rival Joe Biden.
Polls also suggest it would be a competitive race if Biden is rematched with Trump, who has been running on promises to use federal authorities to crush his enemies and to dramatically expand the immigration crackdown that his White House oversaw after his 2016 victory.
“The tools that he is using are tools that we’ve seen used by authoritarians, fascists, tyrants around the world,” said Cheney, the daughter of the ex-congressman, defense secretary and vice-president Dick Cheney. “The things that he has said and done, in some ways, are so outrageous that we have become numb to them
“What I believe is the cause of our time is that we not become numb, that we understand the warning signs, that we understand the danger, and that we ignore partisan politics to stop him.”
Cheney served as the vice-chairwoman of the US House committee which investigated the deadly Capitol attack staged by Trump supporters on 6 January 2021 in a desperate but failed attempt to prevent the certification of Biden’s victory in the election weeks earlier.
Cheney and her colleagues recommended that the justice department file criminal charges against Trump in connection with the Capitol attack, portending the four indictments obtained against the former president this year.
In her remarks on Sunday, Cheney asserted that the Republican US House speaker, Mike Johnson, was “absolutely” a collaborator in Trump’s attempt to remain in office after his 2020 defeat.
Johnson voiced conspiracy theories about Biden’s victory; authored a supreme court brief as Texas sought to have key state results invalidated; and was among more than 147 Republicans who unsuccessfully objected to certifying the outcome of the 2020 election even after the Trump mob’s attack on the Capitol had been foiled.
“What Mike was doing was taking steps that he knew to be wrong, doing things that he knew to have no basis in fact or law or the constitution … in order to attempt to do Donald Trump’s bidding,” Cheney said, echoing comments she has made in prior interviews and in her new book Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning.
Cheney said Johnson “can’t be” US House speaker when the new Congress takes its oath of office in early January 2025 and begins grappling with certifying the outcome of a presidential election the previous fall.
“We’re facing a situation with respect to the 2024 election where it’s an existential crisis,” Cheney said. “We have to ensure that we don’t have a situation where an election that might be thrown into the House of Representatives is overseen by a Republican majority.”
Cheney left office in January. She lost her bid to be re-elected to Wyoming’s sole House seat – which she had held since 2017 – after a Trump-supported challenger, Harriet Hageman, ran against her in a Republican primary.
Hageman subsequently won a general election and succeeded Cheney in the House.
Cheney’s thoughts do not seem to be her party’s mainstream position, if comments from the prominent US Republican senator Lindsey Graham are any indication.
During an appearance on CNN, Graham – who has endorsed Trump – told Cheney that the former president “was far better” than Biden “in terms of actions and results”.
“I think Liz’s hatred of Trump is real,” Graham said. | US Federal Elections |
The former president on Monday toured the Palmetto State Armory store in Summerville, where authorities say Ryan Palmeter purchased an AR-15 assault rifle that he used to shoot dead three Black people almost exactly one month earlier on 26 August.
Mr Trump posed with a Glock handgun with his face engraved on the grip, and was heard bragging “I want one” in a video posted to social media by his campaign manager Steven Cheung.
Mr Cheung wrote in a since-deleted post on X that Mr Trump had purchased the gun, before backtracking after the Trump campaign was informed by media that it would be a felony to purchase a firearm while under criminal indictment.
Mr Trump, who is facing 91 counts across four separate criminal indictments, toured the store with South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson and Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene.
“These are actually great sellers for us, they come like this from Glock,” a store owner is heard telling Mr Trump in the video as they examine the gold-plated handgun with “Trump 45” inscribed on the barrel and the ex-president’s face on the grip.
“Wow, and they sell a lot. They like me,” Mr Trump replies.
Federal statutes prohibit firearm sales to any person who is under felony indictment, and lying on a transaction form to determine eligibility could also include additional criminal charges.
Mr Cheung later clarified that Mr Trump had not purchased the firearm.
Mr Trump later spoke at a campaign rally where he boasted he could design a better fighter jet than the military could, and attacked former South Carolina governor and GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley as a “birdbrain”.
Last month, authorities in Florida said that Ryan Palmeter armed himself with an AR-15-style rifle and a Glock handgun and wore a tactical vest and face mask to carry out the deadly shooting at the Jacksonville Dollar General store.
He was able to purchase the weapons legally, despite having been taken into state care after suffering a mental health episode, Jacksonville Sheriff TK Waters said.
A photo shared by the sheriff’s office showed a close-up of one of the guns with at least two swastikas marked on it.
The AR-15-style weapon had “Palmetto State Armory” and “PA-15” engraved on it, with the manufacturer’s website describing the PA-15 model as “our interpretation of the legendary AR-15 rifle that you have grown to love”.
The Independent has sought comment from Palmetto State Armory. | US Political Corruption |
No surprise from a guy who took the lead defending Donald Trump's attempted coup, but the newly appointed Speaker of the House, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., moved quickly to abuse his power in an effort to spread lies and disinformation. He's pretending to do so under the guise of "transparency," by releasing over 40,000 hours of security footage from the January 6 insurrection online this week. Of course, Johnson does not actually expect people to watch the footage, especially as pretty much every American already knows what happened that day: attempted murder, vandalism, bashing cops, and limitless jackassery from people dumb enough to listen to Donald Trump. But of course, the MAGA movement — now indistinguishable from the Republican Party — wants to rewrite history in gaslight, claiming that our lying eyes deceived us and that the Capitol riot was merely a tickle.
The purpose of this release is not subtle. Propagandists can soon cherry-pick a few moments where rioters were not beating up cops, and pretend that somehow negates the rest of the time that they were beating up cops. As I noted in Tuesday's newsletter, the tactic is familiar to anyone who has survived a trash boyfriend, the kind who whined, "Why don't you talk about all the days I didn't cheat on you?"
Relitigating a day that makes Republicans look like fascists and cowards doesn't seem like the smartest electoral strategy. But the GOP now is primarily composed of professional trolls who cannot turn down an opportunity to spew noxious gases online. Sure enough, some of the most annoying people in Congress tweeted conspiracy theories about the footage in language so fevered you could practically hear them panting as they typed. Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, a man who is only spared from being the biggest dweeb in the Senate by Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, retweeted an image of a Capitol rioter with captions falsely implying he was an undercover FBI agent. "I can’t wait to ask FBI Director Christopher Wray about this at our next oversight hearing," Lee wrote, with a junior high student's enthusiasm for being annoying to adults.
Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.
And, of course, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., repeated the same obviously silly story, because the woman never met a conspiracy theory she doesn't like.
In the end, they may have wished they'd pushed it down the memory hole, instead of constantly reminding people what happened that day.
NBC News reporter Ryan Reilly immediately debunked the lie.
In a shocking twist, this managed to embarrass Greene just enough that she deleted the screenshot and rewrote the tweet to erase the mention of a badge. (The above tweet is her original draft.) Of course, she's still shameless enough to continue pushing the flat-out falsehood that January 6 was anything but the Trump-inspired effort to overthrow an election it was. But Lee was able to do what was previously unthinkable, and exhibit more brazen dishonesty than Greene, by doubling down and bickering with former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., when she correctly noted he's a "nutball conspiracy theorist."
What's crucial to understand here is that there is almost no chance that Lee believes a single word of the conspiracy theory. Nor do most, if any, of his followers. The person who originally tweeted the image, after all, is another convicted rioter, Derrick Evans. We can say with certainty that the convicted rioters know they are not, in fact, secret FBI agents. Nor did Lee apologize when confronted with irrefutable evidence that the man in the photo is Kevin Lyons, who has admitted his guilt and is sitting in prison for his crime. Instead, a spokesperson for Lee reiterated the implication that there's an FBI conspiracy afoot.
But mostly, we know Lee is lying because, while Lee may not be the smartest man, almost no one is stupid enough to believe this "FBI did it" conspiracy theory. This isn't like those conspiracy theories of old, where people actually believed it, like claims about the moon landing being fake or JFK being murdered by the mob 60 years ago today. MAGA conspiracy theories are, more often than not, a collective exercise in knowing B.S. The point of these conspiracy theories is not to believe them, but to sucker liberals into go-nowhere arguments with disingenuous actors. The end game is to overwhelm their opposition with so many lies and bizarre digressions that people eventually just get exhausted and give up.
Taking advantage of people's goodwill and presumption of good faith is a tactic that reactionary forces have used forever. Jean-Paul Sartre famously wrote in 1945 about how fascists would bait decent people into faux-debates with similar tactics, noting that they "know that their remarks are frivolous" so they "seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." The hope is that you, the well-meaning liberal, will take at face value their claim to sincerely believe the FBI did January 6. And that you, in your earnest desire for a better level of discourse, will provide time and energy to trying to reason with the unreasonable. But of course, people like Lee don't believe their own words and are simply playing games. The end goal is to "win" the argument by wearing everyone else down into submission.
We need your help to stay independent
The good news is that it doesn't seem to be working. It's hard to measure these things, but the online reaction showed that folks seemed aware that arguing with Lee is beneath their dignity. Some, like Reilly, offered the correcting facts, but mostly people avoided getting sucked into "debates" over whether or not things like photographic evidence, court records, and the insurrectionist's own confession count as evidence. Most importantly, the tone and tenor of the response showed that people grasp that Lee is not confused, but rather lying. So the focus was mostly on calling out what he's doing, and indicating that no one is fooled.
This matters, because the trolling tactics that Sartre identified nearly eight decades ago only have power if people give in to them. This isn't an "ignore the trolls and they go away" argument, as we know that never works. But one can choose not to argue on a troll's turf. It's not up for "debate" whether January 6 happened or why it happened. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar. By keeping these realities in mind, the public discussion can shift away from disingenuous rabbit holes and back to what matters: How people like Lee and Greene are actively fighting to destroy American democracy. If people can stick with it, there's a strong chance the effort to relitigate January 6 will backfire on Republicans. In the end, they may have wished they'd pushed it down the memory hole, instead of constantly reminding people what happened that day.
As an added bonus, there's one group of people who may actually bother to watch the Capitol footage, a group Johnson probably didn't consider when he elected to release the tapes: The sedition hunters.
A community of online sleuths has spent the past couple of years combing through the publicly available photos and videos of the riot and using social media profiles and facial recognition software to figure out the identities of the insurrectionists. As Reilly wrote in his book on the subject, their all-volunteer work has already led to hundreds of arrests by the FBI. Still, the work isn't done and there are many rioters that the sedition hunters haven't yet been able to identify. Being handed a ton more footage will probably aid them in digging up more names and addresses. So for the short-term goal of making noise on Twitter, MAGA leaders likely just ensured that the news will have a regular injection of stories reminding voters of Jan. 6 and how bad it gets when Donald Trump is in charge.
Read more
about the GOP's struggle against democracy | US Political Corruption |
NEW YORK -- Outside a Harlem subway station, Yusef Salaam, a candidate for New York City Council, hurriedly greeted voters streaming out along Malcolm X Boulevard. For some, no introductions were necessary. They knew his face, his name and his life story.
But to the unfamiliar, Salaam needed only to introduce himself as one of the Central Park Five — one of the Black or Brown teenagers, ages 14 to 16, wrongly accused, convicted and imprisoned for the rape and beating of a white woman jogging in Central Park on April 19, 1989.
Now 49, Salaam is hoping to join the power structure of a city that once worked to put him behind bars.
“I’ve often said that those who have been close to the pain should have a seat at the table,” Salaam said during an interview at his campaign office.
Salaam is one of three candidates in a competitive June 27 Democratic primary almost certain to decide who will represent a Harlem district unlikely to elect a Republican in November’s general election. With early voting already begun, he faces two seasoned political veterans: New York Assembly members Al Taylor, 65, and Inez Dickens, 73, who previously represented Harlem on the City Council.
The incumbent, democratic socialist Kristin Richard Jordan, dropped out of the race in May following a rocky first term.
Now known to some as the “Exonerated Five,” Salaam and the four others — Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana and Korey Wise — served between five and 12 years in prison for the 1989 rape before a reexamination of the case led to their convictions being vacated in 2002.
DNA evidence linked another man, a serial rapist, to the attack. The city ultimately agreed in a legal settlement to pay the exonerated men $41 million.
Salaam, who was arrested at age 15, served nearly seven years behind bars.
“When people look at me and they they know my story, they resonate with it,” said Salaam, the father of 10 children. “But now here we are 34 years later, and I’m able to use that platform that I have and repurpose the pain, help people as we as we climb out of despair.”
Those pain points are many in a district that has some of the city’s most entrenched poverty and highest rent burdens.
Poverty in Central Harlem is about 10 points higher than the citywide rate of 18%, according to data compiled by New York University’s Furman Center. More than a fourth of Harlem’s residents pay more than half of their income on rent. And the district has some of the city’s highest rates of homelessness for children.
Salaam said he's eager to address those crises and more. His opponents say he doesn’t know enough about how local government works to do so.
“No one should go through what my opponent went through, especially as a child. Years later, after he returns to New York, Harlem is in crisis. We don’t have time for a freshman to learn the job, learn the issues and re-learn the community he left behind for Stockbridge, Georgia,” Dickens said, referring to Salaam’s decision to leave the city after his release from prison. He returned to New York in December.
Taylor knows that Salaam’s celebrity is an advantage in the race.
“I think that folks will identify with him and the horrendous scenario that he and his colleagues underwent for a number of years in a prison system that treated him unfairly and unjustly,” Taylor said.
“But his is one of a thousand in this city that we are aware of,” Taylor added. "It’s the Black reality.”
Harlem voter Raynard Gadson, 40, is cognizant of that factor.
“As a Black man myself, I know exactly what’s at stake,” Gadson said. “I don’t think there’s anybody more passionate about challenging systemic issues on the local level in the name of justice because of what he went through,” he said of Salaam.
During a recent debate televised by Spectrum News, Salaam repeatedly mentioned his arrest, prompting Taylor to exclaim that he, too, had been arrested: At age 16, he was caught carrying a machete — a charge later dismissed by a judge willing to give him a second chance.
“We all want affordable housing, we all want safe streets, we all want smarter policing, we all want jobs, we all need education,” Salaam said of the candidates' common goals. What he offers, he said, is a new voice that can speak about his community's struggles.
“I have no track record in politics,” he conceded. “I have a great track record in the 34 years of the Central Park jogger case in fighting for freedom, justice and equality.”
All three have received key endorsements. Black activist Cornell West has backed Salaam. Dickens has the backing of New York City Mayor Eric Adams and former New York U.S. Rep. Charlie Rangel. Taylor is being supported by the Carpenter's Union.
Rangel recalled at a campaign rally that Salaam had called to let him know he was entering the race. Rangel then quipped that Salaam had a “foreign name." Salaam responded pointedly on social media.
“I am a son of Harlem named Yusef Salaam. I went to prison because my name is Yusef Salaam," he tweeted. "I am proud to be named Yusef Salaam. I am born here, raised here & of here — but even if I wasn’t, we all belong in New York City.”
Rangel later apologized.
Salaam also would like an apology from Donald Trump, who in 1989 placed ads in four newspapers before the group went on trial with the blaring headline, “Bring back the death penalty.”
When asked by a reporter in 2019 if he would ever apologize, Trump said there were “people on both sides” of the matter.
“They admitted their guilt,” Trump had said, of the Central Park Five, referring to what the men said were coerced confessions. “Some of the prosecutors," Trump added "think the city should never have settled that case. So, we’ll leave it at that.”
When Trump was indicted in New York in April on charges of falsifying business records, Salaam mocked him with his own ad on social media that visually mimicked Trump’s from long ago.
“Over 30 years ago, Donald Trump took out full page ads calling for my execution,” Salaam tweeted above the ad, headlined: “Bring Back Justice & Fairness." | US Local Elections |
Trump knocks ’60 Minutes’ after Biden interview: ‘Each question contained the answer’
Former President Trump tore into CBS’s “60 Minutes” after the program’s interview with President Biden, which aired late Sunday and focused largely on the growing conflict in the Middle East.
In a post on his Truth Social website, Trump said the long-running Sunday evening news and feature story program “should be ashamed of themselves,” for leading Biden “along like a lost child.”
“Each question contained the answer, and was so weakly and apologetically asked that it was a JOKE which should be considered a campaign contribution to the Democrat Party,” Trump wrote.
“Why should CBS get free public airwaves for this highly partisan ‘show,'” he added. “They are protecting Biden even though he is the most corrupt and incompetent President in the history of the United States.”
Trump has grown increasingly critical of media outlets that he perceives to be boosting his political rivals or covering his various legal and political controversies unfairly.
The former president for months has railed against Fox News over its coverage of the rest of the 2024 GOP primary field. He also recently suggested Comcast be investigated over the content broadcast on NBC News and MSNBC.
During the wide-ranging interview with “60 Minutes,” Biden told journalist Scott Pelley that it would be a “big mistake” if Israel were to occupy Gaza as it fights the militant group Hamas following an attack the group launched last week.
Pelley also pressed Biden on if he believes the elimination of Hamas, which the White House has labeled a terrorist organization, should be a priority.
“Yes, I do. But there needs to be a Palestinian Authority. There needs to be a path to a Palestinian state,” Biden responded.
Trump has sat for interviews with “60 Minutes” on a number of occasions during his decades in the public spotlight, cutting an interview short with journalist Leslie Stahl in 2020 and calling their conversation “fake” and “biased.”
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Political Corruption |
Welcome to Fox News’ Politics newsletter with the latest political news from Washington D.C. and updates from the 2024 campaign trail.
What's happening:
-Fauci set to be grilled for the first time by a Republican House Majority for the first time…
-Grand Central Station shut down by Pro-Palestinian protests…
Kissinger: Divisive legacy
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger died at his home in Connecticut on Wednesday. He was 100.
The German-born American served as a diplomat, academic and presidential adviser, and continued to impact American politics in the private sector after leaving office. His stamp on U.S. foreign policy spanned decades and he was responsible – for better or worse – for systematically changing the standing of the U.S., China, Russia and others.
After the news of his death broke, dignitaries from around the world commented on his life and legacy. White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby called Kissinger's death a "huge loss."
But not everyone spoke well of the deceased diplomat. Virginia Democratic Rep. Gerry Connolly said it was time to reassess Kissinger's legacy. "His indifference to human suffering will forever tarnish his name and shape his legacy," Connolly posted on X.
‘GOOD RIDDANCE’: Rolling Stone, other liberal outlets jubilant over Kissinger's death …Read more
Capitol Hill
BACK IN THE SPOTLIGHT: Fauci set to be grilled by House GOP majority for first time …Read more
'THIS WILL HAUNT THEM': Santos torches Dems ahead of House expulsion vote, teases call to remove progressive House member …Read more
GETTING SCHOOLED: Jim Banks blasts college professors who criticized him over antisemitism letter …Read more
‘CHERRY PICKING’: Expert blows up left's favorite narrative on guns after tense Senate floor exchange …Read more
FINGERPRINTS: GOP bill would mandate fingerprinting for kids crossing the border illegally …Read more
FULL STEAM AHEAD: House GOP to huddle Friday discussing vote on formalizing Biden impeachment inquiry: Sources …Read more
Tales from the Campaign Trail
GAGGED: Appeals court reinstates order restricting Trump during NY fraud trial …Read more
NO MORE 'DRAMA': Nikki Haley's first campaign ad calls for 'moral clarity,' leaving behind past 'chaos' …Read more
PRIME-TIME SHOWDOWN: What DeSantis, Newsom aim to gain from 'Hannity' debate …Read more
‘IF NECESSARY’: Kamala Harris reveals she would 'of course' inform the American public if there was a 'problem' with Biden …Read more
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID: Democratic strategist declares voters are 'wrong' for not giving Biden enough credit on the economy …Read more
Across America
PRO-LIFE LEGISLATION: Ohio Secretary of State consulted anti-abortion groups while drafting Issue 1 ballot language …Read more
'YOU CAN'T HIDE': Pro-Palestinian demonstrators shout at Hillary Clinton outside Columbia class …Read more
ELECTION INDICTMENT: Arizona Republican officials charged over delayed certification of 2022 election results …Read more
‘EXCITING PLANS’: Top American university hosts controversial official who praised CCP …Read more
WHICH IS IT: CBS says economy 'better' than government thought after reporting people need 'extra $11,400' to afford basics …Read more
TRAIN DOWN: Grand Central Station shut down due to Palestinian protests …Read more | US Federal Elections |
The prospect of Donald Trump finally facing justice for the most serious of his many alleged crimes – conspiring to subvert the 2020 US presidential election – is cheering. Unfortunately, it has taken more than two and a half years to call the disgraced former president to account for his actions after his loss to Joe Biden. This delay has enabled Trump and his supporters to link last week’s criminal indictment to the 2024 election campaign. They denounce it as a politically motivated bid to torpedo the Republican frontrunner’s attempted comeback.
Like so much of what Trump says, this is a blatant lie – though sadly, many Americans believe it. Biden has scrupulously distanced himself from the multiple investigations into his predecessor’s conduct. For too long, the attorney general, Merrick Garland, whose justice department operates independently of the White House, failed to act – hoping, perhaps, that the Trump-Maga phenomenon would fade. That did not happen. Even so, special counsel Jack Smith was not appointed until last November.
Smith alleges, in sum, that Trump conspired to steal the election by obstructing Congress’s certification of electoral college votes on 6 January 2021, defrauding the government he led and denying the American people’s right to have their votes counted. The underlying premise linking these charges is nothing short of extraordinary. For the first time in history, a sitting president tried to overturn the basic constitutional principle on which the American republic was founded. Trump tried to murder democracy.
Smith’s decision not to charge him with outright insurrection, as recommended by Congress’s separate 6 January inquiry, reflects continuing caution.
The indictment details concerted efforts, directed by Trump, to intimidate state and local election officials, create bogus slates of electors, pursue meritless lawsuits, pressure his vice-president, Mike Pence, to hobble Congress and knowingly propagate numerous, dishonest claims of voter fraud.
“These claims were false, and the defendant knew that they were false,” Smith stated. Their aim was to “create an intense national atmosphere of mistrust and anger and erode public faith in the administration of the election”. And it worked. For the record, Biden won in 2020 by more than seven million votes. He swept the electoral college by 306 to 232. Trump was told Biden had won fair and square by Pence, his lawyers, cabinet members and intelligence chiefs and by Republican party officials around the country. Not a single court challenge succeeded. And yet he persisted in peddling his “big lie” that Biden had cheated.
Immense damage has been done to the credibility of US democracy as a result. Trust in the federal government has been shredded, sparking loose talk of civil war. US global authority and focus at a time of rising authoritarianism has been weakened. Yet according to recent polling, almost one third of Americans, and nearly 70% of Republican voters, still believe Trump’s twisted, mendacious fantasy. In truth, only insurrection and rebellion accurately describe such treacherous behaviour.
The apparent reluctance to throw the book at Trump – a charge of sedition arising from the Capitol Hill riot he incited and failed to quell has also been shelved – suggests a degree of official uncertainty about this plunge into legally uncharted waters. Sympathetic analysts insist that Smith did the smart thing in settling on four less dramatic but mutually reinforcing felony charges carrying long jail terms.
Only a fool would underestimate the difficulty of the looming courtroom showdown.
Trump’s many-layered defence is already taking shape. After pleading not guilty, he repeated his earlier assertion that he is the victim of political persecution. “Prosecutorial misconduct” will be a recurring theme. Another will be his insistence that his first amendment right to free speech legitimised all the lies he told about the election, on the grounds that he genuinely believed them to be true.
This is patently absurd. Trump is a notorious liar. During four years in office, he made over 30,000 false or misleading claims, averaging 21 a day, the Washington Post fact checkers calculated. The indictment persuasively claims he knew full well the untruth of what he said, and used “unlawful means” to advance his personal opinions. The right to speak freely is balanced by the responsibility not to infringe the rights of others. Trump did so, deliberately and repeatedly, for selfish ends. That said, proving malign intent beyond reasonable doubt will be challenging.
However it plays out legally – and with appeals, it could take years – this trial will settle little politically. It may divide Americans more deeply; many already distrust their governing system. Trump is not the sole cause, merely an ugly symptom. He has no monopoly on lies. But his arrogance is exceptional. Ignoring the judge’s warning, he immediately resumed his intimidatory tactics last week, threatening vengeance like a mafia capo on those who testify against him.
Perhaps this prognosis is too gloomy. Perhaps Republican leaders, rediscovering a moral backbone, will ultimately reject him. Perhaps non-Maga voters, appalled by the undignified sight of a former commander-in-chief wriggling and squealing to save his skin, will vote Democrat in even greater numbers than in 2020. Perhaps Biden can overcome low approval ratings, stay on his feet, and win a nation-saving victory.
America’s friends and allies will sincerely hope so. Whether run from the Oval Office, San Quentin or Guantánamo Bay, a second Trump term, with the inevitable accompanying international rows, domestic chaos and score-settling, hardly bears thinking about. Rarely has it been so important that justice be done – and be seen to be done, impartially and objectively, without fear or favour. | US Political Corruption |
The five Republican presidential candidates who participated in Wednesday's debate all agreed about the threats posed by China, even though they argued over each other's records regarding the United States's primary competitor.
Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley have questioned each other's track record with Beijing during their tenures and reiterated those sentiments on the debate stage in Miami.
“She welcomed them into South Carolina, gave them land near a military base, wrote the Chinese ambassador a love letter, saying what a great friend they were. That was like their No. 1 way to do economic development,” DeSantis claimed. “In Florida, I banned China from buying land in the state. ... We kicked the Confucius institutes out of our universities. We've recognized the threat, and we've acted swiftly and decisively.”
The former U.N. ambassador wasn't given the chance to respond to the claim immediately, though she later attacked DeSantis through the Florida Economic Development Agency.
Entrepreneur-turned-politician Vivek Ramaswamy sided with Desantis in the argument.
“You do have to recognize that Ron DeSantis was correct about acknowledging Nikki Haley's tough talk when she was ambassador to the U.N., calling China ‘our great friend,’ bringing the CCP to South Carolina. When you left out, though, Ron, and be honest about it, there was a lobbying-based exemption in that bill that allowed Chinese nationals to buy land within a 20-mile radius of a military base lobbied for by one of your donors,” Ramaswamy said. “So I think we have to call a spade a spade. We need politicians who are independent of the forces that increase our dependence on China.”
President Joe Biden is set to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping next week in a highly anticipated meeting in which the U.S. commander in chief will look to recalibrate their deteriorated relationship. | US Federal Elections |
- Former President Donald Trump lashed out at Jamie Dimon as an "overrated Globalist" after the JPMorgan CEO praised rival Republican Nikki Haley.
- Dimon has publicly urged business leaders to help Haley's presidential campaign.
Former President Donald Trump on Thursday ripped Jamie Dimon as an "overrated Globalist" after the JPMorgan CEO praised rival Republican Nikki Haley and urged business leaders to help her presidential bid.
Dimon "is quietly pushing another non-MAGA person, Nikki Haley, for President," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
"I've never been a big Jamie Dimon fan, but had to live with this guy when he came begging to the White House," wrote Trump, the current frontrunner in the 2024 GOP presidential primary.
"I guess I don't have to live with him anymore, and that's a really good thing!" he added.
JPMorgan did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Trump's post.
Dimon lauded Haley during Wednesday's New York Times DealBook conference in New York. "Even if you're a very liberal Democrat, I urge you, help Nikki Haley, too," the CEO told the crowd, which included several business leaders. "Get a choice on the Republican side that might be better than Trump."
When asked what he thought about the two frontrunners from each major party, Trump and President Joe Biden, Dimon let out an exasperated "Oh God."
This is breaking news. Please check back for updates. | US Federal Elections |
A story has been bouncing around on TikTok lately about a guy who went to a McDonald’s in Idaho in late 2022 and his meal came to $16.10. He posted the receipt, which went viral, and of course as the topic roared across the various social media platforms, a culprit was fingered. Beef producers? Nope. Potato growers? Hardly. McDonald’s itself? Are you kidding?
No, it was all the fault of Joe Biden. Why? It makes no earthly sense, but in today’s America it makes all kinds of sense, because in today’s America all bad economic news is the fault of Joe Biden. The Washington Post reported on McDonald’s-gate last week, noting that the White House Office of Digital Strategy had to spend time fending off allegations that Biden himself had all but ordered the scandalous increase.
This is just preposterous craziness for so many reasons.
First of all, $16 doesn’t strike me as insane for a hamburger, a huge order of French fries, and a massive soda. I haven’t been to a McDonald’s in decades, but back when I did go a lot, which was roughly around the time when most of America was first learning the name Bruce Springsteen, I recall a then-new Quarter Pounder, fries, and a soda costing a little under $2. The government’s online inflation calculator tells me that would equal around $14 today—less than, but hardly out of line with, $16.10. And today’s diner is getting tons more food and drink. That’s a decidedly mixed blessing given the amounts of fat, salt, sugar, and calories therein, but still it’s a fact that the order sizes of fries and sodas have ballooned.
I do eat some fast food (never, ever close, Long John Silver’s!), so yes, I’m aware that you can generally get out of such a place for under $10. But it’s also the case that prices for selected menu items at the leading fast-food chains have indeed gone up in the last two years. But Joe Biden didn’t raise them—the chains themselves did.
Now you might say sure, but they’re just responding to market conditions. And fine, maybe they are. But Joe Biden didn’t create those conditions. According to one article I read, for example, McDonald’s is quietly bumping up wages to something near $15 an hour. Well, good for them. But that’s pandemic-related, because of the low-wage worker shortage. And that shortage started while Donald Trump was president. Other articles cited inflation, but inflation was far worse 18 months ago than it is today, and these dramatic price hikes have mostly happened this year.
Corporations always say they’re responding to market forces, and often they are. The price of bacon shot up during the worst of the inflation, so naturally, the cost of sandwiches with bacon went up too. But that isn’t Biden’s fault either. And besides, the higher prices of certain items don’t just occur naturally according to the mysterious laws of economics. They were manufactured by greedy producers.
You may have missed this, since it happened right before Thanksgiving, but a jury found that a farming company owned by the family of an Indiana Republican Senate candidate participated in a broad plot to fix egg prices by keeping the supply low. Rose Acre Farms and three other producers “unlawfully agreed to and did engage in a conspiracy to control supply and artificially maintain and increase the price of eggs,” according to a lawsuit brought by food-producing giants like Kellogg’s and Kraft.
Did Biden force the four firms to price-fix? Producers of certain goods have held back supply during inflationary spirals since the beginning of time. I guarantee you this happened in ancient Rome, the Medieval Ottoman Empire, and any other society you can name. It did not suddenly dawn on producers to do this because Joe Biden was imposing socialism on the country.
I get it. Presidents get blamed for a lot of stuff that happens on their watch. It comes with the job and always has. But this is new and different, and there are three culprits: Fox News, social media, and, in the longer term, the way free-market neoliberal economic presumptions have oozed into our brains over the last 40 years.
Fox blames everything bad on Biden. If you watch it for five minutes, you don’t even need the sound on. It’s all in the chyrons, which are relentlessly negative about Biden and the economy. Here’s one little look at how the network does it: In early February 2022, news broke that 467,000 jobs were created in January—a monster number that even Fox couldn’t criticize. The chyron? “Biden Touts Jobs Report Amid Multiple Crises.” It never, ever stops.
Relatedly, the idea that the economy is horrible and that it’s all Biden’s fault has taken firm hold on social media. That Washington Post piece I linked to above about the McDonald’s TikTok story cited a consultant who tracks these things as observing that chatter on the site around #economycollapsing went berserk over the past month and generated tens of millions of views. This is what passes for “news” these days to most people. It makes me long for the days when there were three channels and Americans got their news from one elitist pipe-puffing man—and believed what he said.
And with respect to neoliberalism … well, as I noted, presidents get blamed for a lot of stuff. But I remember a time in this country when, if a restaurant chain raised its prices dramatically, people wouldn’t get mad at the president. They’d get mad at the chain. I suppose a lot of people still do, but everything is so politicized these days, especially by right-wing news outlets set on rejiggering facts to make a Democratic president look inept, far more people will buy the political explanation than the real economic one. And they’ll do that because our brains have been trained for so long to think that the market is great and wondrous, and the government is corrupt and incapable of doing good.
Of course, some of this is the Democrats’ fault. Did the Senate hold hearings on price-gouging in the egg industry? If it did, it must have done so in one of those famous Capitol secret hideaway offices. And if it didn’t, why not? Subpoena the heads of the four major egg producers and make them answer questions under oath. Eggs are pretty important to Americans! Googling around, the only action I see any reporting on was a letter to the producers written by Elizabeth Warren and Katie Porter back in February. Good for them. But why no hearings? Oh, Democrats…
I realize columnists are supposed to conclude such columns with advice about how the pol in question, in this case Biden, can address this problem. But I don’t know. When people are getting their “news” from a propaganda network that would comfortably exist in North Korea and a bunch of people who probably know very little about economics posting 15-second rants on social media, a solution is pretty hard to see. I do still believe that most people aren’t either fascists or idiots, and that actual facts arranged in an optimistic yet plausible narrative can persuade them. But I believe it less than I did a year ago. | US Federal Policies |
Kevin McCarthy has been ousted in a right-wing revolt - the first time ever that a US House of Representatives Speaker has lost a no-confidence vote.
The final tally was 216-210 to remove the California congressman as leader of the Republican majority in the lower chamber of Congress.
Ultra-conservatives mutinied after he struck a deal on Saturday with Senate Democrats to fund government agencies.
There is no obvious successor to oversee the House Republican majority.
Florida Republican Matt Gaetz, a Trump ally, filed a rarely used procedural tool known as a motion to vacate on Monday night to oust Mr McCarthy.
He accused the Speaker of making a secret deal with the White House to continue funding for Ukraine, which Mr McCarthy denies.
At a private meeting of Republican lawmakers on Tuesday evening, Mr McCarthy told his colleagues he does not plan to run for Speaker again.
He later took aim at his political nemesis, Mr Gaetz, accusing him of attention-seeking.
"You know it was personal," Mr McCarthy told a news conference, "it had nothing to do with spending."
He said fundraising emails sent by Mr Gaetz amid the infighting were "not becoming of a member of Congress".
The hardliners who ousted him "are not conservatives", Mr McCarthy added.
He only became Speaker in January after a gruelling 15 rounds of voting in the chamber as Mr Gaetz and other right-wingers refused to support him.
Eight Republicans voted to oust Mr McCarthy in Tuesday's vote. Another 210 - all Republicans - voted to keep Mr McCarthy in the role.
But Democrats joined with the Speaker's Republican critics to topple him.
Democratic House Leader Hakeem Jeffries had said in a letter to colleagues that he would not provide the votes needed to rescue Mr McCarthy.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, a left-wing Democrat from the north-western US state of Washington, told reporters before the vote: "Let them wallow in their pigsty of incompetence."
After the vote, two Democratic lawmakers laughed about the Republican feuding.
"Let the civil war begin," one of them quipped in a lift.
The packed chamber - which Republicans control by a narrow 221-212 majority - was mostly silent as members awaited the result of the roll call vote.
"The office of Speaker of the House is hereby declared vacant," declared Arkansas Republican Steve Womack with a bang of his gavel, to audible gasps.
Ahead of the vote former US President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform, Truth Social, that the party should be "fighting the Radical Left Democrats" instead of each other.
During Tuesday's debate, all of the next three top-ranking members rose to speak in Mr McCarthy's defence.
House Republican Conference chairwoman Elise Stefanik praised Mr McCarthy as "a happy warrior".
One vote against Mr McCarthy that surprised many observers came from a moderate Republican, Nancy Mace.
The South Carolina lawmaker said after the vote: "I am looking for a Speaker who will tell the truth to the American people, who will be honest and trustworthy with Congress, with both parties."
After ousting Mr McCarthy, Mr Gaetz sounded unconcerned when asked whether his colleagues might attempt to remove him.
He told reporters outside the Capitol: "If they want to expel me let me know when they have the votes."
North Carolina Republican Patrick McHenry, who supported Mr McCarthy, is now the Speaker pro tempore, or interim Speaker. He gavelled the House into recess.
It is unclear if the temporary Speaker will have the full powers of the office, or merely administrative powers and the ability to supervise a new election.
The rules do not state how long a person could fill in as an interim Speaker, though a vote on a new speaker is planned for 11 October.
It is not clear who will replace Mr McCarthy, but Louisiana Republican Steve Scalise and Minnesota Republican Tom Emmer have been mentioned as contenders - though they have not expressed any interest in the role.
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement that President Joe Biden "hopes the House will quickly elect a Speaker", noting that the "challenges facing our nation will not wait".
The Speaker is second in the line of succession for the presidency after the US vice-president. He or she sets the lower house of Congress's legislative priorities, controls committee assignments, and can make or break the White House's agenda.
The last two Republican Speakers - Paul Ryan and John Boehner - left Congress after repeated tangles with their more conservative colleagues.
The so-called motion to vacate had only previously been used twice in the past century to remove a Speaker - in 2015 and 2010 - though never successfully until Tuesday.
(With additional reporting from Kayla Epstein and Max Matza) | US Congress |
Hunter Biden's legal team filed a lawsuit Wednesday against former Trump White House aide, Garrett Ziegler, over the publication of private photos, emails and other materials that came from a hard drive allegedly belonging to Hunter Biden.
The lawsuit is the latest in a strategy Biden's lawyers telegraphed earlier this year, which involved an aggressive push to pursue court action against those they viewed as instigating unwarranted and invasive attacks on Biden, the son of President Joe Biden.
Ziegler has been a particularly notable figure in the effort to bring attention to Hunter Biden's past — largely mined from the now-infamous laptop. Ziegler, a former aide to Trump White House trade adviser Peter Navarro, has operated a website dedicated in part to exposing elements of Hunter Biden's past. The website includes links to a range of photos, text messages, emails and other documents purported to be from the president's son.
The 13-page lawsuit alleges that Ziegler and others violated federal and California privacy laws by "accessing, tampering with, manipulating, altering, copying and damaging computer data" gathered from Hunter Biden's purported laptop and iPhone cloud storage without consent.
The lawsuit details how Ziegler and unnamed defendants allegedly obtained sensitive materials by hacking into encrypted data on Hunter Biden's devices and uploading them to Ziegler's website, where it remains public. In the lawsuit, Hunter Biden's lawyers assert that the defendants had refused requests to "cease their unlawful activity" and return private data belonging to the president's son.
"I nor the nonprofit, Marco Polo, have been served with a lawsuit — but the one I read this morning out of the Central District of California should embarrass Winston & Strawn LLP. It's not worth the paper it's written on" Ziegler told CBS News in a statement. "Apart from the numerous state and federal laws and regulations which protect authors like me and the publishing that Marco Polo does, it's not lost on us that Joe's son filed this SLAPP one day after a so-called Impeachment Inquiry into his father was announced. The president's son is a disgrace to our great nation."
The reference to a SLAPP suit (a strategic lawsuit against public participation) alludes to a California law providing penalties for filing a lawsuit intended to chill the exercise of the rights to petition and free speech.
Earlier this year,, a Delaware-based computer repairman for invasion of privacy for allegedly accessing and distributing Biden's private computer data in 2019. Attorneys for Biden also requested that the Justice Department investigate Isaac, Ziegler and others for allegedly violating Delaware laws by distributing data from Biden's personal device.
Mac Isaac has said he obtained the information from Biden'slegally and has said that Biden himself dropped it off in April 2019 and never returned to claim it. Mac Isaac has said he waited 90 days and then considered it abandoned.
In this recent suit, Hunter Biden is seeking a jury trial, damages, an injunction that would prevent access or tampering with Biden's data and the return of any materials obtained unlawfully.
for more features. | US Political Corruption |
Iowa surrenders, falls back to Super Tuesday for Democrats in 2024
Iowa Democrats say they will compete for an earlier nominating contest in future years.
ST. LOUIS — Iowa Democrats will surrender their first-in-the-nation caucuses next year, party officials said Friday, while Democrats in New Hampshire — still fighting with the Democratic National Committee — moved closer to holding a rogue primary.
Iowa’s influential perch within the Democratic Party formally came to an end in a windowless hotel ballroom here, where members of the Democratic National Committee voted to accept Iowa’s plan to release its presidential preference numbers on March 5, Super Tuesday. Iowa officials said they will lobby for an earlier nominating contest in 2028.
But New Hampshire, as expected, is still not budging on its early primary, and DNC members officially declared it “not compliant.”
“We’ve made our decision about the sequence of these early states and we’re going to stick to that sequence,” said Elaine Kamarck, a DNC member.
The votes out of the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws meeting on Friday cap off more than a year of internal party machinations over how to retool the party’s presidential nominating calendar, prioritizing battleground states with more diverse populations over Iowa, long the party’s first-in-the-nation caucus state.
Following a plan blessed by President Joe Biden, next year’s nominating calendar will kick off with South Carolina on Feb. 3, followed by Nevada on Feb. 6 and Michigan on Feb. 27. Georgia, which was initially elevated to a top slot, wasn’t able to change its date, due to its Republican-controlled legislature and governor’s mansion. That means Iowa is effectively eliminated from the early-state process in the 2024 cycle.
The initial DNC schedule placed New Hampshire on Feb. 6, sharing the date with Nevada.
But New Hampshire has a law that says the state must hold its primary a week before any similar contest. With Republicans who control state government refusing to change the rule, New Hampshire Democrats say they have no choice but to hold their primary when the secretary of state sets it. And New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu, a Republican, has said the state will go first “no matter what.”
Earlier this year, New Hampshire was granted an extension to mid-October to comply with the DNC’s rules. By declaring the state “non-compliant” on Friday, New Hampshire Democrats have another 30 days to “come into compliance.” But if they don’t, the DNC will consider sanctions against the state.
“We believe the president’s name won’t be on the ballot. We don’t know who will be filing on the ballot,” New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Ray Buckley told DNC members. “What we’re determined is to not allow any of those people to claim they have won the New Hampshire primary.”
Democrats led by former state party chair and DNC member Kathy Sullivan and veteran Democratic operative Jim Demers “are going to conduct a write-in effort to ensure the president receives the strong support,” Buckley said. Neither Sullivan nor Demers could immediately be reached for comment. Both previously told POLITICO informal conversations about a write-in campaign have been underway among New Hampshire Democrats for some time.
Based on party rules, if New Hampshire still holds its primary, the state would automatically lose half its delegates. The DNC has also broadly empowered the national party chair to take any other “appropriate steps” to enforce the early window.
“In 2024, I’m pretty sure that Joe Biden will not put his name on the New Hampshire primary ballot,” Kamarck said, discussing potential sanctions for states that ignore the DNC’s directives. “If he did, this would look really weird, since he was the one who said he wanted to have South Carolina first.”
New Hampshire Democrats could consider holding a party-run primary, going around the state’s Republican-controlled government — a strategy deployed by other states. Buckley has rejected that idea, calling it a logistical nightmare.
“Absolutely impossible,” he told POLITICO in May. “Where would I rent 2,000 voting machines? Hire 1,500 people to run the polls? Rent 300 accessible voting locations? Hire security? Print 500,000 ballots. Process 30,000 absentee ballots.”
Iowa’s demise — at least for 2024 — is clearer cut. State Democrats came under fire from the national party for their handling of the 2020 Democratic presidential caucuses, when they failed to declare a winner for several days. The state also faced stiff criticism for its predominantly white population, which Democratic Party leaders said wasn’t representative of the party as a whole.
But for Iowa Democrats, this is a long game. In a letter to the DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Rita Hart said she’d received “repeated reassurance from the co-chairs and this committee” that Iowa will “compete strongly for a significant voice” in future early nominating contests.
Republicans are still expected to hold their first nominating contest of 2024 in Iowa, on Jan. 15.
Democrats in the state said they will mail presidential preference cards on Jan. 12, while holding their in-person precinct caucuses on Jan. 15, timed with the Republican presidential primary caucuses. But to comply with the DNC — and minimize the significance of the contest — the Iowa Democratic Party plans to accept preference cards postmarked any time on or before March 5, Super Tuesday, and won’t release the results of their mail-in caucus until then. | US Federal Elections |
A police chief with a £2.5million property portfolio quipped he would wear a 'floral dress and a blonde wig' as a disguise in order to meet with a suspected crooked developer, a misconduct panel has been told.
Chief Inspector Stephen Rice joked he held 'secretive' meetings with a developer who had sold him several large rental properties between 2012 and 2016, partly funded by large unsecured loans from the same man, despite him being a suspect in a major criminal probe.
The 24-year veteran of Merseyside Police is accused of misconduct for his years-long business relationship with the suspect, who can only be referred to as 'Mr A' for legal reasons and has links to actor-turned-drug dealer Desmond Bayliss.
He has also been accused of using the police database to snoop on Bayliss and one of his associates without 'proper policing purpose', as well as paying a company to write his dissertation for him so he could pass his Master's degree.
Chief Insp. Rice, who is not accused of criminal wrongdoing and denies the offences, railed against the charges when giving evidence at the misconduct hearing yesterday, claiming he had been 'singled out' and treated 'like a criminal' with 'no evidence whatsoever'.
The misconduct allegations mainly span around a criminal investigation called Operation Benadir, conducted by Merseyside Police's Economic Crime Team into large-scale property fraud in which Mr A, a financial adviser referred to as 'Mr B' and a solicitor referred to as 'Mr C' were charged.
Merseyside Police accuse Chief Insp. Rice of failing to disclose thousands of pounds of debt to Mr A, which he disputes, and lying about continuing to contact the developer even after he learned of his arrest, although he was never charged with any criminal offences.
On Wednesday the married dad-of-three, supported at Merseyside Police HQ during the public hearing by his wife, denied ever being deliberately dishonest and claimed he had been 'singled out', 'targeted' and 'ostracised' by the force.
He described the period between 2017 and the present as 'hellish' and spoke of his anger at being accused of criminal offences (which were later dropped) and then gross misconduct, the Liverpool Echo reports.
James Berry, representing Merseyside Police at the hearing, said 'serendipitously' Mr A's phone had ended up in the possession of the police in August, 2019, after he was stabbed and seriously wounded.
Messages on the phone revealed a number of meetings with Chief Inspector Rice including one in Calderstones Park, the day before he was interviewed under criminal caution on March 28 that year.
In that interview he falsely said he 'no longer had any contact' with Mr A, although the officer claimed he had simply forgotten about the meeting.
The panel heard how in February 2018, Chief Insp. Rice and Mr A made jokes which Mr Berry suggested showed they knew it was 'inappropriate' for them to meet. In one text, Mr A asked if he should wear a 'moustache, hat and gloves' to which the officer replied: 'no I'm wearing the floral dress and blonde wig'.
Chief Insp. Rice dismissed the messages as 'banter' and told the panel it was a reference to him being investigated at work. He claimed he had simply forgotten to mention the meetings with Mr A because they were 'totally irrelevant to me'.
The misconduct panel had previously been told that Chief Insp. Rice had bought a number of properties, including the Roklis Building - a large commercial property comprising flats and retail units in Liscard Road, Wallasey, for £570,000 - and two further properties, both on Alpass Road in Aigburth.
Earlier the panel heard how in 2016, Chief Insp. Rice also bought an annexe at the back of a large Victorian property, on Linnet Lane in Aigburth, for £570,000, from Mr A. However in early 2017, Chief Inspector Rice received a phone call from a woman based in the Middle East, who said her name was Bella.
Mr Berry said: 'She said she was representing a Saudi property developer who had bought the whole of Linnet Lane including the annexe, she thinks there has been fraud that you are involved in and she is going to contact the City of London Police.'
The panel heard that Chief Insp. Rice checked the Land Registry and realised the property was not in his name, despite the fact he had obtained a mortgage from Lloyds Bank and agreed to borrow £180,000 from Mr A to cover the deposit.
Mr Berry said: 'This must have been shocking to you, it is not every day that you, a senior police officer, are accused of a criminal offence. But you reported none of this to Merseyside Police?'
Chief Insp. Rice said he contacted Mr A and spoke to his bank manager at Lloyds, who both reassured him that it was likely a delay in splitting the deeds for the two sides of the property which had not yet shown up on the Land Registry website.
Mr Berry pointed out that he had also been messaging a woman referred to as Ms D, who was connected to Mr A, and who told him the businessman had been doing 'dodgy deals with the Saudis' in relation to a number of properties.
Chief Insp. Rice said he felt that he could trust Mr A, having been introduced to him in 2012 by his own cousin and having completed successful property deals with him before.
However he did become suspicious of a law firm, referred to in the hearing as 'Firm 1', which employed Mr C and had handled the property deals.
Chief Insp. Rice told the panel that shortly after the call from Bella, he instructed a separate firm of solicitors to get to the bottom of the issue, but they 'got nowhere' trying to get information from Firm 1.
That dispute dragged into a years long lawsuit against Firm 1. Chief Insp. Rice told the panel he lost any ownership of Linnet Lane and the civil case drained much of his time and energy, although it recently ended with a ruling in his favour and a 'substantial pay-out'.
As the issue with Linnet Lane was dragging on, Chief Insp. Rice received an email from an Economic Crime Team detective asking to speak with him. He met the team on December 19, 2017, where they discussed Linnet Lane and his relationship with Mr A, and they told him they were conducting Operation Benadir.
Chief Insp. Rice denied he had been specifically informed during that meeting that Mr A and Mr C were under investigation for fraud, telling the panel: 'They didn't make it clear to me'. However the detectives who met with him that day all gave statements claiming he was directly told who was being investigated.
The fraud investigation continued, but Chief Insp. Rice and Mr A continued to meet and even discussed further business opportunities, including purchasing two apart-hotels and a carpark in the city centre, although those deals never came off.
The pressure increased on March, 2019, when Chief Insp. Rice was given a notice that he was under criminal investigation. He was interviewed under criminal caution on March 28, and told detectives that he was no longer in contact with Mr A and was aware he was a suspect in Operation Benadir.
One of the key disputed issues in the case is whether in October, 2020, when being interviewed over misconduct allegations, Chief Insp. Rice 'accepted he had lied' in his criminal interview the previous year when confronted with evidence of regular meetings with Mr A.
Chief Insp. Rice claimed he did not express himself clearly in that misconduct interview and did not have a transcript of the previous interview in front of him.
Under questioning from his barrister, Sarah Barlow, he told the panel: 'I didn't remember what I had for dinner yesterday. I had been treated as a criminal and interviewed criminally with no evidence whatsoever.
'I had been accused of fraud and money laundering, accused of numerous different allegations by [professional standards] that I wasn't even interviewed over and they were dropped.
'I was taken out of my role, I was ostracised and put into a role in an office that was a total waste of time to me. I was prevented from doing my work, what I had done for 20 odd years.
'I was stopped from doing my projects and operations, I was being questioned and questioned talking about the same stuff over and over again. If I didn't remember what was said in an interview 20 months ago then I apologise.'
Elsewhere in the hearing:
Chief Insp. Rice denied he had searched police intelligence databases for a convicted drug dealer called Desmond Bayliss in 2016 due to concerns over his relationship with Mr A, although he said he could not remember the policing purpose of the search
He denied paying a company called UK Essays £3,300 for a dissertation when doing a Master's degree at Liverpool Hope University in 2015, claiming he 'did not get on' with his tutor and was paying for guidance and tutorship due to lack of support
He denied attempting to mislead detectives about a text suggesting Mr A or Mr C were 'running with the Ungis', a reference to a 'prominent organised crime group'. | US Police Misconduct |
Donald Trump said this week that he was within his rights to continue attempting to thwart Joe Biden from becoming president after his own advisers told him that his claims of election fraud were false, explaining that he did not respect his own attorneys’ legal opinions.
The ex-president was speaking with Kristin Welker, new host of NBC’s flagship Sunday programme Meet the Press, when he was questioned about why he went through with efforts to interfere in the certification of the 2020 election after his court challenges failed and his White House attorneys advised him against doing so.
“I didn’t respect them as lawyers,” Mr Trump explained.
“You’d hired them,” Welker pointed out.
“ Sure. But that doesn't mean - you hire them, you never met these people. You get a recommendation. They turn out to be RINOs, or they turn out to be not so good. In many cases, I didn't respect them. But I did respect others. I respected many others that said the election was rigged,” he responded.
Those attorneys he did seek advice from would go on to face serious repercussions for charting that course. A number are charged alongside him with multiple felony counts in Georgia; some have also faced professional consequences, such as the suspensions of law licenses.
Many of Mr Trump’s former legal advisers and administration officials are now in the awkward spot of begging for money from Trump supporters as their legal fees mount and they have become drawn in to a wide range of civil and criminal cases.
Mr Trump himself is now under indictment in relation to four criminal investigations, and faces a total of 91 felony counts.
The ex-president has denied guilt in the matters, calling them an attempt to prevent him from becoming president once more. But two of the cases stem from his attempts to overturn the 2020 election, which is not in dispute; Mr Trump instead argues that he was within the law when he spent weeks pressuring state officials to change vote totals, launch investigations to delay the process and support slates of false electors after his bids to overturn the election in the courts failed.
He continues to insist that he was the rightful winner of the 2020 election, even though every state, local and federal authority with the purview of examining election fraud have said that the election results are valid and his team has been wholly unsuccessful in producing evidence to convince them otherwise. Many expect him to contest the results of the 2024 election should he win the GOP nomination and be defeated in November.
Numerous experts appointed personally by Mr Trump to his various administrative positions under his presidency have come out against his claims of election fraud, including former Attorney General Bill Barr. | US Federal Elections |
filed suit against the IRS on Monday, claiming the agency is behind "unlawful disclosure of Mr. Biden's " to the media.
The complaint, which cites IRS supervisor Gary Shapley's interview on CBS News as well as subsequent interviews, alleges their lawsuit is about "the decision by IRS employees, their representatives, and others to disregard their obligations and repeatedly and intentionally publicly disclose and disseminate Mr. Biden's protected tax return information outside the exceptions for making disclosures in the law." The IRS has not commented on the lawsuit.
The lawsuit cites "more than 20 nationally televised interviews" by Shapley and another whistleblower, Joseph Ziegler, who was the tax agency's lead case agent in the federal investigation into Hunter Biden, President Biden's son.
There are strict laws governing the need for confidentiality in how IRS employees treat taxpayer information. At the time of his first CBS News interview in May, both Shapley and his attorneys told CBS News he was taking great care in how he navigated his decision to speak publicly.
Shapley told CBS News he made the decision to speak publicly because he was so concerned about prosecutors' handling of "a high profile, controversial" investigation that he felt duty-bound to sound alarms.
Shapley said he "saw deviations from the normal process" while supervising the investigation, but declined to publicly "confirm or deny the subject of this investigation."
In the lawsuit, Biden alleges he is "the victim" of an effort by Shapley, Ziegler, and their legal teams, who "sought to embarrass Mr. Biden via public statements to the media in which they…disclosed confidential information about a private citizen's tax matters."
Some of the attorneys for the agents have past ties to GOP politics and have helped the whistleblowers navigate their efforts to raise objections. Shapley was asked during the interview about allegations made by Hunter Biden's legal team that he had broken the law in disclosing information about the Biden case – even to his own lawyer.
"Yeah, I can't speak to that," Shapley replied.
Attorneys for Shapley called the lawsuit "frivolous" in a statement to CBS News.
"Neither IRS SSA Gary Shapley nor his attorneys have ever released any confidential taxpayer information except through whistleblower disclosures authorized by statute," they said. "Once Congress released that testimony, like every American citizen, he has a right to discuss that public information."
Shapley and Ziegler brought their concerns to the House Ways and Means Committee this spring. They testified about what they said was the slow pace of the yearslong investigation and claimed that Delaware U.S. Attorney David Weiss, who leads the investigation, had said he would not be the one to decide on whether charges were brought.
The New York Times first reported on Sept. 15 that in three other closed door interviews this month, witnesses from the FBI and IRS raised doubts about those claims. They reportedly put forward a description of events in which they alleged the pace of investigation was slowed by bureaucratic processes, as opposed to politics. And they said they could not recall Weiss saying he lacked the authority to move the case forward on his own.
The back-and-forth allegations between Hunter Biden and the IRS agents have played out even after the investigation seemingly came to a head this summer, wheninvolving misdemeanor tax offenses and a felony firearm offense. But the during a July court hearing, when a federal judge questioned provisions that would have allowed Hunter Biden to avoid prison time and further charges related to the investigation. He pleaded not guilty to three charges.
On Sept. 14, a federal grand jury indicted Hunter Biden on charges related to his purchase of a firearm in October 2018, while he was a drug user, according to court filings.
Abbe Lowell, an attorney for Hunter Biden, said Weiss — who is now special counsel overseeing the probe — was "bending to political pressure." Lowell said he believed the charges were barred by the terms of the original plea agreement.
Jason Foster, one of the attorneys with the whistleblower advocacy group Empower Oversight went on social media after the lawsuit was filed to deride the decision.
"Hunter Biden suing the IRS because its career law enforcement officers felt compelled to blow the whistle on the kid-glove treatment his very expensive lawyers managed to get for him is peak White House privilege in action," Foster wrote.
Last week, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden, claiming "credible" allegations that Mr. Biden profited off his son's business dealings.
Investigations mounted by House Republicans have yet to uncover direct evidence of wrongdoing by the president. Mr. Biden has denied any involvement in his son's foreign work.
for more features. | US Political Corruption |
It's a moment those with student loans have been dreading -- payments are one step closer to resuming.
After a three-year pause on federal student loan payments, Friday will mark the first significant step toward restarting the process: borrowers will once again see interest accrue on their loan balances.
The milestone comes one month ahead of the next major date for millions of American borrowers, Oct. 1, when payments will be due.
The two-step approach to restarting the student loan system is meant to give borrowers -- and servicers -- a slower on-ramp to dust off the cobwebs on a process that's long been stalled because of the pandemic.
But the circumstances for restarting payments are far from what the Biden administration intended.
President Joe Biden's debt cancellation policy was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this summer.
The administration has still attempted to create a softer landing by giving a yearlong grace period to borrowers, during which no one will default on their loans if they miss a payment, and rolling out a new payment plan that could lower monthly payments for people, depending on their incomes.
"We recognize that the return to repayment mandated by Congress may cause significant financial challenges for many borrowers, many of whose lives may have changed since the last time they made a student loan payment, or this may be the very first time making a payment," a spokesperson from the Department of Education told ABC News.
"We are committed to making that process as smooth as possible by providing support and resources based on borrowers' unique financial situation so each borrower can make the repayment decision that is right for them," the spokesperson added.
Here's what to look for starting Friday:
What does it mean that interest will start accruing again?
A federal policy that has kept interest rates on student loans frozen at 0% for more than three years is officially ending Friday.
As of Sept. 1, the Department of Education says that borrowers will once again be charged the interest rate they were paying before March 2020.
Interest rates on student loans range from an average of between 4.99% to 7.54%, according to the Education Data Initiative, an organization that gathers educational data and statistics. Interest rates often have a big impact on how much a borrower ultimately pays back.
For example, an average interest rate of 5.8% means the average American, with a student loan balance of $37,338, would spend about $24,833 in interest over the total life of his or her loan, according to Bankrate, a company focused on consumer financial services.
Ahead of Sept. 1 and the impending payment dates in October, borrowers can check their balances and interest rates through their servicers, and if they don't know their servicer, they can check that through the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA).
When do borrowers have to start paying back their loans?
Broadly, the pause on payments ends in October -- but the exact date that many borrowers will have to start paying off their loans again varies based on their loan servicers.
Borrowers should get a bill with a payment amount and due date at least 21 days before their due date, according to FSA. If they haven't, the office recommends updating the contact information they have filed with both their servicer and FSA.
But borrowers should also be assured that the restart to payments will be a soft launch. The Biden administration has instituted a yearlong grace period as the ball gets rolling again, where late or missed payments will not be reported to credit agencies.
It's not a pause, borrowers should be aware, as interest will continue to add up and payments will still be due, but it also spares the "worst consequences," FSA says on its website.
"We will not report you as delinquent during the on-ramp, but we do not control how credit scoring companies factor in missed or delayed payments," FSA says.
What else is the administration doing?
The administration is still fighting for debt cancellation on a broad scale, attempting a different path through the Higher Education Act of 1965 -- which provides government-backed student loans and grants the U.S. Education Department the ability to "compromise, waive or release loans" – after the Supreme Court overturned the first policy. Yet it’s unclear who might receive debt relief through that new debt cancellation plan and when.
A more concrete change for borrowers is the new payment plan rolled out by the Department of Education this month, which intends to lower monthly payments and shorten the time people are required to pay on them.
It's an income-driven repayment plan, which the department already offers in multiple forms, but the new plan, called SAVE, is the "most affordable plan ever created," a Department of Education spokesperson said.
Under the SAVE Plan, a higher percentage of peoples' discretionary income -- the money leftover after basic necessities such as rent and food -- will be shielded from loan payments, resulting in lower monthly bills.
And as is the case with other income-driven plans, once a borrower makes good on those payments for a set amount of time, usually between 20 and 25 years, the remaining loan is forgiven.
The new way that those payments are calculated under the SAVE Plan means that people earning less than $15 an hour will not owe loan payments, while borrowers earning more than that will save around $1,000 a year compared to the current income-driven repayment plans.
The plan also will bring major change to how interest accumulates for borrowers.
The SAVE Plan clears interest if a borrower is able to pay the monthly bill on the principal loan amount — eliminating the risk of a loan balance growing due to unpaid interest.
For example, FSA says, if a borrower has a $30 payment, but a balance of $50 including interest – when that $30 payment is made, the remaining $20 will be erased.
Each of those changes will take effect this summer, while two more changes will be implemented next summer. One will further reduce monthly payments, while another will decrease the payment period for people with smaller initial loans down to 10 years. | US Federal Policies |
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Saturday said that California Gov. Gavin Newsom, with whom he engaged in a feisty debate on "Hannity" this week, is "obviously preparing" to run for president — despite denials from his Democrat rival.
DeSantis was in Sioux City, Iowa and took aim at what he said were the "failed" policies in the liberal California state, as he had done at the televised debate between him and Newsom on Thursday night.
"It's the policies. It's the policies that are driving people out. This is ultimately the choice for the country: Are we going to embrace freedom like Florida has or are we going to embrace failure? The same policies that have failed in Illinois and California and New York aren't all of a sudden going to work well nationally," he said.
"What they've done in California is the petri dish for what I think the Democrats would want to do nationally," he said, before speculating as to which potential president that would be under.
"Maybe that's a [President] Biden second term. Maybe that's [Vice-President] Harris, Maybe it's Newsom," he said. "He's obviously preparing to potentially go in. I think America saw, though, that what he's selling is not something that is very appetizing."
Newsom has been the subject of significant speculation about a potential presidential run, but has repeatedly denied that he is gearing up for a White House run. DeSantis, meanwhile, is running for the Republican nomination in 2024, although polls show him significantly behind former President Donald Trump.
Newsom took a jab at DeSantis over his standing in the polls in the debate on Thursday night.
"There are profound differences tonight, and I look forward to engaging them. But there's one thing…that we have in common, is neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024," he said.
DeSantis later accused Newsom of wanting to run for president: "You just won't admit it," he said. | US Federal Elections |
A Georgia judge said Wednesday he will issue a protective order barring the public release of evidence exchanged between prosecutors and lawyers representing former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants in their election interference criminal cases in that state.
"Until we decide what's going to be relevant and admissible, this case should be tried and not in the court of public opinion," said Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee at a hearing on the proposed order.
The order was sought by prosecutors, and agreed to by most of the defense teams on Wednesday, after the recent leak to a media outlet of videos containing confidential interviews two co-defendants, Jenna Ellis and Sidney Powell, gave prosecutors as part of their agreements to plead guilty.
At Wednesday's hearing, the attorney Jonathan Miller, who is representing the defendant Misty Hampton, told McAfee that he gave the videos to "one media outlet."
Miller said the public had the right to know what Ellis and Powell had told the Fulton County District Attorney's Office, arguing that the statements they made "help my client."
Tom Clyde, a lawyer for a group of media companies, argued against the protective order, saying it was not justified by Georgia law.
Clyde said that a key issue in the case — the legitimacy of the 2020 election — is "extremely significant in public importance," and that evidence related to it should not be subject to an order automatically barring its release to the public.
This is breaking news. Please check back for updates. | US Political Corruption |
In the year before Donald Trump was first elected president, now-House Speaker Mike Johnson said he lacked “virtue and decency,” arguing in a Facebook post that Trump didn’t have the “character and the moral center” needed to be president. “I am afraid he would break more things than he fixes. He is a hot head by nature, and that is a dangerous trait to have in a Commander in Chief,” Johnson wrote in the replies of an Aug. 7, 2015 Facebook post, The New York Times reported. “I just don’t think he has the demeanor to be President. What bothered me most was watching the face of my exceptional 10 yr old son, Jack, at one point when he looked over at me with a sort of confused disappointment, as the leader of all polls boasted about calling a woman a ‘fat pig.’” In response to the Times report, Johnson formally endorsed Trump’s 2024 campaign and said in a statement: “During his 2016 campaign, President Trump quickly won me and millions of my fellow Republicans over.”
CHEAT SHEET
TOP 10 RIGHT NOW
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10 | US Federal Elections |
As Ohio Representative Jim Jordan rushes to secure the necessary votes in advance of a Tuesday vote for Speaker of the House, he and his allies are activating a public pressure campaign, attempting to rally the GOP base into strong-arming wavering lawmakers who are either ideologically opposed to the far-right congressman or soured by his faction’s responsibility for sending the House into unprecedented turmoil over the past two weeks.
Jordan allies are hoping that when House members return to Capitol Hill after the weekend recess, it will generate local pressure from the GOP base for the party to rally around the Ohio congressman, who has forged close ties with former President Donald Trump. “Everybody’s going to go home, listen to their constituents, and make a decision,” said Tennessee Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee. “Honestly, the grassroots, there’s nobody stronger” than Jordan.
Several GOP representatives and conservative activists are working to fan public support for Jordan, taking to social media to browbeat likely “no” votes into supporting the Ohio politician. “You want to explain to your voters why you blocked Jordan?” Florida Representative Anna Paulina Luna wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter, late Friday evening. “Then bring it.”
Several Jordan supporters have posted the phone numbers of House members considered likely holdouts, encouraging constituents to flood their representatives with pro-Jordan calls, reports The New York Times.
It’s a controversial strategy that Texas Representative Dan Crenshaw, a Jordan supporter, called “the dumbest thing you can do” in a Sunday interview with CNN’s Jake Tapper.
“I’m supporting Jordan. I’m going to vote for Jordan. As someone who wants Jim Jordan, the dumbest thing you can do is to continue pissing off those people,” Crenshaw said. “When I ask people who are taking that tack, I’m like, ‘Did that work on you, when you were one of the 20 against McCarthy, and everybody was bashing you?’” he added. “Everybody’s got to grow up, get it together. If there’s differences, let’s sort them out.”
It’s been clear that Jordan will face an uphill battle since his nomination on Friday, after which a second private vote revealed that 55 members were opposed to his speakership. Jordan can only afford four GOP defections in the likely scenario in which the Democrats vote unanimously against him.
An anonymous senior GOP House member told CNN Sunday that there are roughly 40 “no” votes within the caucus, and that he’d personally heard from 20 members who have pledged to block Jordan’s path to the top House job if he forces a vote on the floor Tuesday. “The approximately 20 I’ve talked to know we must be prepared,” the representative said. “We cannot let the small group dictate to the whole group. They want a minority of the majority to dictate, and as a red-blooded American, I refuse to be a victim.”
But some close to Jordan believe he can capitalize on moderate Republicans’ allergic reaction to the public revolts and political brinkmanship that have typified the GOP’s hard-right flank. “These 60 members are not voting against Jordan on the floor,” Russell Vought, a Jordan ally and president of the Center for Renewing America, a pro-Trump think tank, wrote on X. “Take it to the floor & call their bluff.” | US Congress |
The Department of Justice submitted a court filing on Thanksgiving arguing that a gag order against the former president must remain while pointing to documents filed as part of the $250 million civil fraud trial in New York.
On Thursday, November 23, Cecil Vandevender, an assistant special counsel for the Department of Justice, notified the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals of a document which said that a gag order needs to be reinstated against Trump during the civil proceedings in New York, where state Attorney General Letitia James has accused the former president of fraudulently inflating the value of his properties in financial statements.
The government's court filings pointed the appeals court to one section in particular, in which an employee at the New York State Unified Court System details the "hundreds of threatening and harassing voicemail messages" which had been sent to Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing the civil trial, as well as the judge's law clerk Allison Greenfield. Engoron fined Trump twice in October for violating his gag order after the former president failed to remove a Truth Social post targeting Greenfield from his website more than two weeks after the judge ordered it be deleted, and then a second time after the former president described Greenfield as a "very partisan" individual to reporters outside the New York courtroom.
The appeals court in D.C. is considering limiting the scope of the gag order imposed by Judge Tanya Chutkan against Trump in the federal election case, which prohibits the former president from attacking prosecutors such as Special Counsel Jack Smith or any potential witness ahead of next year's federal trial.
Trump and his lawyers have argued that any gag order against a presidential candidate is a violation of his First Amendment rights. A judge paused the gag order in New York which Engoron imposed to stop Trump attacking court staff during the proceedings in social media posts and public statements to consider the constitutional arguments.
The D.C. appeals court previously requested that the DOJ provide evidence of "ongoing threats and harassment" surrounding Trump regarding the discussions to keep the gag order in the federal case. Vandevender then submitted the evidence cited in New York on Thanksgiving in order to bolster their arguments that the gag order imposed by Chutkan should remain in place.
Trump's legal team has been contacted for comment via email.
According to an affidavit cited by the DOJ from Charles Hollon, who works in the Public Safety Department's Judicial Threats Assessment Unit, there are 275 single space pages worth of transcribed threatening messages and voicemails which have been left for Engoron and his court staff since early October.
Several of the "threatening, harassing, disparaging and antisemitic" which were left on Engoron's chamber's voicemail were cited in the New York affidavit. One of the messages to Engoron states: "Trust me. Trust me when I say this. I will come for you. I don't care. Ain't nobody gonna stop me either."
A second transcript of the message calls Engoron a "dirty, treasonous piece of trash snake," and warns "we are coming to remove you permanently."
Hollon argued that the "deluge" of messages which threaten the safety of court staff is the type of "countervailing interest" which warrants the reintroduction of the gag order.
"The messages received by Justice Engoron and his staff every day has created an ongoing security risk for the judge, his staff and his family," Hollon said.
"The implementation of the limited gag orders resulted in a decrease in the number of threats, harassment, and disparaging messages that the judge and his staff received. However, when Mr. Trump violated the gag orders, the number of threatening, harassing and disparaging messages increased."
In a November 17 statement, Trump's office attacked the gag order imposed on him by Chutkan as an attempt to restrict what he can say during his 2024 presidential campaign. Trump, the frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary, has denied all wrongdoing as in the 2020 election interference and New York civil fraud cases, and accuses both of them of being politically motivated "witch hunts" which aim to prevent him winning the 2024 election.
"The Gag Order appoints an unelected federal judge to censor what the leading candidate for President of the United States may say to all Americans, just weeks before the Iowa caucuses," the statement said.
"No court has ever upheld a gag order on core political speech at the height of a campaign. Just yesterday, the New York Appellate Division stayed a similar gag order against President Trump's core political speech. The unconstitutional Gag Order in the DC case should be speedily reversed."
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
fairness meter
About the writer
Ewan Palmer is a Newsweek News Reporter based in London, U.K. His focus is reporting on US politics, domestic policy and the courts. He joined Newsweek in February 2018 after spending several years working at the International Business Times U.K., where he predominantly reported on crime, politics and current affairs. Prior to this, he worked as a freelance copywriter after graduating from the University of Sunderland in 2010. Languages: English.
You can get in touch with Ewan by emailing [email protected].
Ewan Palmer is a Newsweek News Reporter based in London, U.K. His focus is reporting on US politics, domestic policy... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here. | US Federal Policies |
A Tennessee woman allegedly paid to hire a hitman to kill the wife of a man she met on a dating site, according to a criminal complaint.
Melody Sasser was arrested May 18 and is being held in custody on probable cause that she allegedly attempted murder for hire. She is accused of transferring about $10,000 in bitcoin to a site named "Online Killers Market" in exchange for the murder of the wife of the man she met on the dating site, federal agents said in the complaint dated May 11.
Sasser and the man she met on Match.com had become hiking friends, according to the complaint. But when Sasser's match revealed he was moving out of state with the woman he planned to marry, Sasser allegedly turned to the dark web, the complaint said. Under the pseudonym "cattree," Sasser allegedly posted her hit order on the website, authorities said.
"It needs to seem random or [an] accident. Or plant drugs, do not want a long investigation," Sasser posted on Jan. 11, authorities alleged in the complaint.
Sasser's defense attorney, M. Jeffrey Whitt, declined ABC News' request for comment.
Sasser had showed up unannounced at the couple's new home in Alabama in the fall of 2022, authorities said. "I hope you both fall off a cliff and die," Sasser allegedly told the pair, after learning of their plans to wed, according to the complaint.
Around that time, the soon-to-be-wife of the man she had matched with reported that both sides of her car had been "gashed" by an unknown perpetrator, the complaint said. The woman also began receiving threatening calls from untraceable numbers, authorities added.
Sasser allegedly provided a would-be killer with detailed information about her match's wife, which included where she lived, where she worked and what car she drove, authorities said. She also purportedly passed along specific information about the intended victim's whereabouts, according to the complaint. Authorities said she found that information from the fitness tracking application Strava, which connects to Garmin fitness watches and shares location data.
"Yesterday she worked from home and went for a 2 mile walk by herself," Sasser allegedly wrote to the murder-for-hire website in March, according to the complaint. Authorities said they later confirmed, via the hiking app, that the information Sasser provided to "Online Killers Market" was accurate.
ABC News' has reached out to Strava for comment.
By late March, as her apparent target remained alive, Sasser grew impatient, authorities wrote in the complaint, and she allegedly took to "cattree" again to message the administrator of the dark web site to check on the status of her murder request.
"I have waited for two months and 11 days and the job is not completed... What is the delay. When will it be done," she allegedly wrote.
On May 18, Sasser was arrested on probable cause that she allegedly attempted to hire a hitman to commit murder.
She is due to appear in federal court on Thursday. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Baltimore police have said they are responding to the scene of an active shooter.
"BPD is on scene of an active shooter situation in the 1700 block of Argonne Drive," police shared on Twitter. "We’re asking everyone to shelter in place and avoid the area."
Argonne Drive borders Morgan State University.
Baltimore police were being supported by Baltimore Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agents.
"ATF Special Agents are responding to assist our @BaltimorePolice partners at the scene of an active shooter situation, 1700 block of Argonne Drive. Please avoid the area. Those nearby should shelter in place," the ATF wrote on X.
Morgan State University has asked students, via a post on X, to "shelter in place."
"Please Note: An active investigation is currently underway related to a report of shots being fired on or near campus. Please stay clear of the area surrounding Thurgood Marshall Hall and the Murphy Fine Arts Center and shelter in place," their tweet read.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Friday that he believes his opponents among the House's GOP can still be converted to supporters ahead of what will likely be another losing vote for his speaker bid.
“Look, there’s been multiple rounds of votes for speaker before. We all know that. I just know that we need to get a speaker as soon as possible so we can get to work for the American people,” Jordan told reporters at a Friday morning press conference, referencing former Speaker Kevin McCarthy's, R-Calif., 15-vote series to secure the speaker's gavel in January. “We stayed the same. We picked up a few, we lost a few. I think the ones we lost can come back,” Jordan added.
Later in the press conference, Jordan was asked whether the 2020 election was stolen from former President Donald Trump. "Yeah, there were all kinds of problems with the 2020 election," Jordan said.
House Republicans, who have repeatedly failed to unite behind Jordan, don't appear to have been moved by the press conference.
In fact, both supporters and opponents of the Ohio Republican were "completely befuddled" by it, Punchbowl News' Jake Sherman reports, adding that he received a number of "what-is-he-doing-calls" after the event.
"Fox & Friends'" Lawrence Jones told his co-hosts after it concluded he wasn't "sure what the purpose of the press conference was."
twitter.com/atrupar/status/1715341153053155832
We need your help to stay independent
During the Friday edition of "CNN This Morning" host Poppy Harlow asked, according to RawStory, "What was the goal there? Did he say anything different than he has been saying?"
Shortly after, panelist and former GOP congressman Charlie Dent asserted that Jordan's morning effort to garner support fell flat as many of those Republicans voting against him are "immovable objects" on the matter.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
Asked whether he was able to sway any holdouts at a caucus meeting on Thursday, Jordan claimed that he had good conversations with the group. But sources told Politico's Olivia Beavers that the meeting was "brutal" and holdouts urged Jordan to drop out and "do the right thing and that they won't be backing down."
twitter.com/Olivia_Beavers/status/1715351198855778572
A source similarly told Sherman that it was a "direct, precise meeting in which Jordan was told he will never be speaker. This group doesn't want anything. They want Jordan to understand he will not be speaker."
Read more
about Jim Jordan's speaker bid
- Jordan tries to back out of vote after GOP opponents face "death threats" and "intimidation": report
- Jim Jordan and Donald Trump's embarrassing week reminds us: MAGA "tough guys" are cowards at heart
- GOP tries to blame Dems after Jordan loses more votes — but Republican warns "it's gonna get worse"
- "They're harassing our spouses": Top Jordan ally admits he's losing support as Republicans rage
- Nancy Pelosi buries Jim Jordan’s speaker bid as GOPer admits “bullying” spectacularly “backfired” | US Congress |
Several House Republicans in a key bipartisan group have said they could soon see a mass exodus over their Democratic counterparts’ role in Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s ouster this week.
"I’m really thinking strongly about leaving the Problem Solvers Caucus," Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., told Fox News Digital. "I think there's a lot of Republicans who are disenchanted with the Democratic members of the Problem Solvers Caucus."
McCarthy, R-Calif., became the first speaker of the House in U.S. history to be booted from the job after eight hardliners within his party joined with every Democrat to vote him out of it.
"I'm very frustrated that none of the members who claim to be centrist… would work with us to defeat this motion to vacate," Malliotakis said. "If their whole purpose is to bring good governance and make sure that we can continue our work to get through this appropriations process in the next 40 days, they should have done the right thing here, which would have been to… keep Congress working."
Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, R-N.Y., said when asked if he and other Republicans wanted to leave the group, "I don't want to speak for them, but I know I am definitely not happy, and I've… spoken to others who feel similar."
A source familiar with discussions told Fox News Digital that senior Republicans in the Problem Solvers Caucus were under the impression that several Democratic lawmakers would shield McCarthy.
"Republican leaders in the Problem Solvers Caucus made last-ditch efforts up until the vote to get Democrats to help save McCarthy’s speakership. They viewed it as an opportunity for a bipartisan effort to save the institution after Speaker McCarthy put a bipartisan bill to avert a government shutdown on the floor," the source said.
"Before the House Dem meeting, a few Dem members had indicated that they would likely help save McCarthy and then flipped and joined [Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla.] in ousting the speaker."
Democrats would not have necessarily had to vote for McCarthy to save him. If enough lawmakers voted "present" it would have given him a lower threshold needed to reach a simple majority – though the effect would have been the same.
Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said when asked about Republicans leaving the Problem Solvers Caucus, "I think a number of my colleagues have certainly raised that."
"I have not yet. I think that, you know, I want to let cooler heads prevail a little bit before having that conversation," Lawler said. "But, you know, I think this was a problem to be solved, and folks failed to meet the moment."
Problem Solvers Caucus co-chair Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, R-Pa., said on CNBC on Thursday, "There are a lot of us that are very upset… This was a golden opportunity for us to come together and actually oppose a move by the extremists in Congress, and the whole institution fell short."
Malliotakis accused Democrats of acting hypocritically in voting the same way as Gaetz and other GOP hardliners.
"You can't have it both ways," she said. "You can't say reject the extremists and then go out of your way to work with them."
D’Esposito called it "the most extreme legislative action" he had seen on the House floor.
"Many Democrats wrongly slander their Republican colleagues as alleged ‘extremists,’ but when push came to shove, those same Democrats entered into an unholy alliance with Matt Gaetz and his crew of misfits to paralyze the government," he said.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Problem Solvers Caucus for comment but did not immediately hear back. | US Congress |
August 28 was the 60th anniversary of the iconic 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Justice, where Dr. Martin Luther King gave his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech about the struggle to create a real multiracial democracy and humane society in the United States. On that same Saturday this year, a 21-year-old white supremacist murdered 3 black people at a Dollar General Store in Jacksonville, Florida. The killer's AR-15 rifle was marked with swastikas. He also wrote a manifesto where he detailed his desire(s) to kill black people and start a "race war." In his manifesto, the white supremacist killer reportedly praised Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, who is black, for being "The rare principled conservative, interprets laws based the Constitution instead of doing f—y activist shit like the last half-century's worth of Supreme Court justices."
That horrible coincidence of dates is a reminder of how far America is very from being a real multiracial democracy as the country continues to struggle against ascendant neofascism and the Age of Trump.
Ultimately, the Confederacy and the Southern slavocracy, and Jim and Jane Crow were never truly banished from America. Instead, they laid dormant and are now being reborn in the form of today's Republican Party and the larger white right. Public opinion polls and other research shows that tens of millions of white Americans are willing to trade democracy for authoritarianism if it means that white people like them did not have to share power with non-whites. The world they and Trump and the Republican fascists and "conservative" movement are trying to (re)create would be a new American Apartheid.
In an attempt to make better sense of these resurgent politics of white backlash and white supremacy, DeSantis's war on "Woke" and "the Critical Race Theory Mind Virus" and the real history of Black America, and how the color line intersects America's ongoing democracy crisis more broadly, I recently spoke with Tim Wise. He is one of the nation's leading anti-racism activists and the author of numerous books, including "Dear White America: Letter to a New Minority" and "Under the Affluence: Shaming the Poor, Praising the Rich and Sacrificing the Future of America."
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Trumpism continues. There was a white supremacist mass murder in Jacksonville a few weeks ago – on the same day as the 60th anniversary of the March on Washington. King's dream is still very much unfulfilled and extremely imperiled. How is your hope tank doing? How full or empty is it?
I am obviously horrified and concerned that we're going to see more white racist terror attacks and hate crimes. When they figure out they can't win legitimately at the ballot box, they're going to turn to the bullet.
They certainly have a lot of guns, and they have a lot of rage. I don't mean that in a prophetic way; it is pretty obvious.
There are some reasons to be hopeful, even in these dark times.
We need your help to stay independent
Ron DeSantis in Florida has overplayed his hand dramatically with the war on "wokeness". That's not catapulting him to the forefront of the Republican primaries.
They thought that attacking wokeness and critical race theory attacking LGBTQ Folk was going to allow them to just, you know, just run the board. Those attacks do work, let's never underestimate the power of bigotry and hatred.
We know it works politically on the right, but it's also creating and generating a certain degree of pushback.
The "Critical Race Theory" bogeyman and "Woke" monster didn't go into that Dollar General store and murder three black people.
It never does. No one commits a mass shooting and then writes a manifesto where they footnote Derrick Bell or Kim Crenshaw, bell hooks, Audrey Lorde or other CRT scholars and thinkers and mainstream liberal antiracists more generally.
It is one thing to have a disagreement about an issue a policy issue, such as immigration or affirmative action or policing.
But if that disagreement is made into a question of existential threat, such as "you're taking our country from us!" which the likes of Tucker Carlson and other right-wing personalities do over and over again, or that "those people", black and brown people, the Other, want to hurt "people like you" then you are creating and us vs. them dichotomy. That encourages violence.
Although most people won't respond to that right-wing narrative in the same way as those racial terrorists have done, some of the public on the right will. There are real connections between hateful rhetoric and political violence.
Thankfully the white right is not as smart as they need to be to get all the things done that they want. The question is, can we stop them before they get smart and really figure out how to play the game?
"The reality is there's something horribly dysfunctional and pathological in white culture right now."
Because I think at this point, they still are just so overzealous about their reactionary beliefs that they end up alienating the large numbers of supporters they need to create a broad coalition. I don't want to keep gambling on that.
Nonetheless, I clearly recognize the threat that is represented by the right-wing and their willingness to burn it all down for the sake of getting and keeping power.
Help me work through this given your decades of experience. There are any number of things I could have written about the recent white supremacist killing of three black people in Florida. I chose not to. Ultimately, what is there left to say about white racial terrorism? How have you navigated the pressure and expectation to always have something to say about "race issues"?
I definitely don't try to say something every time there is that type of hate crime or racial terrorism. What could I say that would really be different from what we know and has already been said so many times already?
What I've learned over the years is that I don't have to always be the first voice. I most certainly don't have to be the loudest voice on these "race stories." We all need to be able to take a little breath here and here and there.
But here is something for folks like you and me to consider. What is so utterly obvious to us doesn't make it any less horrific. This is America after all. We know the history and present of this country and the color line. We are experts on it. But to other people this may be shocking and amazing somehow. Given the efforts by Republicans and Trumpists to whitewash the country's history it is important for people like us to explain those connections of the past to the present and not take it for granted that people know that history and the facts.
How do we make sense of what is obvious to you and me and others who have studied the real history (and present) of this country and translate that for others who are willing to listen and learn?
The media's problem – and this is true of the average white American – is that they don't spend much time seriously thinking about race and politics and larger issues of justice and equality like you and I and other experts do. That isn't meant as a criticism of those people, being ignorant of these things may actually be a bit healthier for them emotionally and physically. We know the cost of doing what we do has been for us.
In terms of fascism and racial authoritarianism like we are seeing with Trumpism and today's Republican Party and conservatives, many Americans really believe that "it can't happen here." That America is so exceptional and unique. They really believe it. That is true on the left and right and center, across the spectrum. Biden believes in American Exceptionalism. Obama certainly believes in it.
If you really believe that America is so exceptional and that fascism can't happen here then you look at Trump or DeSantis and then it is much easier to say, "Oh, they just don't even know what they're doing, they're just so stupid". Or "Look how ridiculous they are!"
Too many people are so desperate to find the good in people and have convinced themselves that America can't produce evil leaders – or followers of an evil movement – that they just deny what they are seeing with fascism right here at home.
Now, of course, if you're black in this country or indigenous you most certainly know about the evil things that America and Americans have done.
"The right-wing also has a backup plan, which is if we can't stop the country from becoming more diverse, then we're going to at least make sure that we control the story they learn."
Baldwin observed that black people have never had the luxury of living with the myths that white people depended upon.
White Americans really believe we could never do those evil things, in spite of the fact that white people as a group have done such evil things before in this country. Why is it so hard for white people to see the truth about America? Well, it's so hard because we want to maintain that image of a shining city on a hill. If that is not true and revealed to be a lie, then we white folks would have to rethink our entire worldview.
There's really nothing about our history that says we're inherently better than countries such as Germany or South Africa with all of the objectively evil things they did. A triumphalist and American Exceptionalism view of history blinds too many people to those uncomfortable realities.
None of what DeSantis and the other Republicans are trying to do with whitewashing American history is new. The Lost Cause ideology was a similar effort to lie about history to make white people look like they were innocent or even more absurdly victims in the civil war and the struggle to end slavery.
But the right-wing also has a backup plan, which is if we can't stop the country from becoming more diverse, then we're going to at least make sure that we control the story they learn. We're going to control the nation's narrative and literally whitewash it. Then we are going to go farther and try to indoctrinate black and brown people in these white supremacist narratives as well. We are seeing that with prominent black and brown Trump MAGA types.
To state the obvious because it needs to be stated, if black or brown folks were committing hate crimes and mass murders and other racially and politically motivated violence as seen in Jacksonville, Buffalo, El Paso, Allen, TX, etc. — and never mind the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by Trump's followers — there would be a "national conversation" about what is "wrong" with "the black family" and in the "black community" and "black culture". There would also be demands that "Black leadership" and/or "Muslim leaders" denounce such crimes and speak out against it and otherwise be held accountable. When a white person commits such acts of terrorism and violence, no such parallel conversation takes place.
It's critical for us to ask that question in exactly the same way and spirit that the right-wing has always asked it about black folks.
It's always about what's wrong with the black family, what's wrong with the black community? What's wrong with black culture?
The reality is there's something horribly dysfunctional and pathological in white culture right now. And I don't even know what "white culture" means, necessarily. It's very hard to define.
The white family and white communities are losing their sh*t right now and have been throughout the Age of Trump and in the years before. That is tied to white privilege.
Privilege has always been a double-edged sword where even if you live in a society where people like you have always been privileged and you are on top of the hierarchy then any level of even perceived threat or challenge in your life causes a type of self-destruction reaction.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
If you're used to getting your butt kicked, and you're used to being on the bottom of the pile, and having to scrape for everything, and for any recognition, even your own humanity, then you learn how to do that as a matter of survival. Because if you don't learn how to struggle, if you don't learn how to deal with setbacks, you don't survive. But if you haven't had to do that the least little discomfort becomes amplified and multiplied to the nth degree.
It is no coincidence then that the reason that we are seeing such disproportionate rates of opioid abuse, suicide, heavy drinking and the so-called deaths of despair among "working class" and "poor whites", but especially white men, is from a perceived threat to their privilege and social status. There are other changes to American society with technology and the extreme economic precarity and insecurity caused by late-stage capitalism and globalization that are impacting Americans across the board, but white people as a group are experiencing this as an acute threat to white privilege and white entitlement.
Instead of interrogating how the expectations of whiteness and white privilege and the cultural tropes and narratives of whiteness and its lies have hurt them, many white people are lashing out at the wrong people.
We need to ask these questions in a compassionate way. What is wrong with White America? What is wrong with the white family? Why are they increasingly dysfunctional? Why are they as a group increasingly unable to deal with the world as it is?
It's a very humanistic thing to say, how do how do we save these people from themselves so they can stop hurting other people too? If we can't figure out how to help white families, and white people and white communities, a lot of black and brown folk are going to die first.
What should "white leadership" be doing in response to Trumpism and the MAGA movement, neofascism, racial authoritarianism, and the rise in hate crimes and other antisocial behavior committed by white people against nonwhites and other targeted groups in the Age of Trump?
I think it's important for them to not only condemn white supremacy, as Biden has done, obviously.
It is also critically important to point out that if black people, Muslims, Latinos, or any other "minority group" was engaging in this behavior that there would questions asked about family, culture, leadership, etc
There is an obvious element of hypocrisy at work here: white pathology is usually not considered racialized pathology. Many people can't even conceptualize it in those terms because to be "white" is by definition to be "normal" in America.
When white folks commit violence, it's seen as an American problem.
When white folks have a disproportionate opioid crisis, it's an American problem.
When the jobs start to leave the heartland and the rust belt in these white communities, it's an American problem.
Whereas when those things happen in black and brown spaces, it's a very specific racialized problem. And we need politicians who are willing to call that out and to say, "Listen, the reality is that there are some very specific dysfunctions and pathologies that are taking place in the white middle class and above. These problems are not exclusive to Appalachia.
These are not problems and challenges that are just impacting poor white people and the "white working class" who live in trailer parks.
Also, it is not poor white people who are going out and buying assault rifles and building an arsenal who then commit mass shootings at schools or Walmart of Dollar General or wherever. We need to be asking why it is a certain cohort of white people who are engaging in these types of destructive behaviors.
Read more
about the GOP's war against multiracial democracy | Civil Rights Activism |
Blowing up the government is a standard Republican talking point. And not just a talking point; the headlong rush to a government shutdown has been embraced by a number of House radical Republicans, who are driving the strategy—believing, against all experience, that Americans will be perfectly happy to go without the intrusive government programs oppressing them.
The congressional extremists may not be in the majority, even if they are driving the House train. But it is in the crowded Republican presidential field where blowing up the government is a common core theme, and there, Vivek Ramaswamy is taking it to another level in his bid to get attention through shocking proposals. None is more shocking than his pledge to slash a million civil servants in his first year as president—and by 75 percent in his first term. He also wants to shutter five federal agencies: the Department of Education, the FBI, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Food and Nutrition Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
“When you have a bureaucracy that runs the state,” he charged, “they find things to do that they shouldn’t have been doing in the first place.” The big question, he asked, is this: “Do we want incremental reform? No. Or do we want a revolution?”
Ramaswamy wants a revolution that is Donald Trump’s “Schedule F” executive order on steroids. Instead of pushing perhaps 50,000 career federal civil servants out of their jobs to be replaced by political appointments, as Trump attempted, Ramaswamy is going all the way, with a proposal to convert all 2.2 million feds into at-will workers who could be fired for any reason, including personal disloyalty. That outflanks Trump on the right.
Ron DeSantis has proposed eliminating the Departments of Education, Commerce, and Energy, along with the IRS. Ramaswamy’s plan makes DeSantis look like a raging moderate by comparison.
The Republicans are in an arms race to see who can seize the headlines by coming up with the most extreme assault on the federal government. To be sure, these plans are unworkable and outside the bounds of legal and constitutional realities. And they have absolutely nothing to do with what it takes to deliver the things that people want and expect the federal government to do. But they are still deeply dangerous and destructive.
Over the last generation, the war against government has become core Republican orthodoxy. The more radical the proposals get, the further the party has drifted from the realities of governance. But that’s only fueled the arms race to see who can come up with the most flabbergasting ideas, with Ramaswamy in the lead—at least for now.
Conservative attacks on government are not new. Ronald Reagan tried mightily to abolish the Departments of Energy and Education. In his presidential run, Rick Perry pledged to abolish three departments but, on the debate stage, he couldn’t remember what that third one was. In his first campaign, Donald Trump promised to “drain the swamp” and then, toward the end of his administration, signed that Schedule F executive order to give his political appointees the power to dig disloyalists out of the federal bureaucracy. Joe Biden repealed that executive order on his third day in office, but the Republicans are eager to reinstate it and get out the axes.
Leading in rhetoric, however, doesn’t match the reality of governing, for four reasons.
First, as much as Ramaswamy might want to cut government with the stroke of a pen, he just wouldn’t have the power to do so. As president of his pharmaceutical company, he might have been able to fire employees as he liked, but the president isn’t an all-powerful CEO, with a pliant Congress as the government’s board of directors.
In fact, the executive branch is the creation of Congress, not the president. Its structure, programs, people, and budget are all what Congress decides they ought to be. Presidents have great power, but they can’t simply overturn what Congress does or ignore the laws that Congress has enacted.
Second, although Ramaswamy says he can slash the workforce through reductions in force and government reorganizations, he doesn’t have the legal power to do so. He can propose, but Congress must dispose. He says he will rescind regulations that he believes are unconstitutional, but he’d find himself in court by nightfall.
Third, the public certainly believes that the government is too big, but surveys show that the desire to reduce its size collapses as soon as you get to specifics. A 2023 AP-NORC poll found that 60 percent of those surveyed think that the government spends too much. But among 16 different policy areas, ranging from the environment to education, there was only one area—assistance to other countries—where the survey’s respondents thought the government was spending too much. And foreign aid amounts to a whopping 1 percent of the budget.
In fact, a majority of those polled said that the government ought to spend more on health care, drug rehabilitation, education, assistance for the poor, infrastructure, Social Security, Medicare, assistance for childcare, and border security. Social Security, Medicare, and other health care programs are already blowing a hole in the budget.
Fourth, getting those things done requires people to do them. Without federal workers, important government functions from airport security to caring for veterans to protecting the borders to managing Medicare simply won’t get done. And nothing would please Vladimir Putin, XI Jinping, and our other adversaries, including domestic terrorists, more than to abolish the FBI and eviscerate our diplomatic corps.
For 140 years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus that supports a professional, nonpartisan civil service. And it’s scarcely the case that this bureaucracy has ballooned in size. As the Partnership for Public Service has pointed out, the absolute size of the federal workforce is slightly smaller now than it was 50 years ago, even as the population is two-thirds larger.
It’s easy to ridicule unrealistic and bombastic pledges to cut the government by 75 percent. But candidates are pushing the arms race into very dangerous territory as they search for radical ideas to regain the spotlight.
Attacking government has been a surefire Republican applause line since Reagan said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” But further undermining the government’s ability to serve citizens will only further stoke their distrust in government, making it that much more difficult to govern. And, as Ramaswamy has said, it may be that pliant radical-right judges and justices might let him get away with at least some of it.
Legal, constitutional, practical or not, Ramaswamy’s plan could begin to return us to a corrupt spoils system and create havoc in carrying out the president’s oath to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
And that’s fueling an arms race that no one would win. But a lot of Americans would lose when key and popular government services that protect public safety, public health, national security, along with economic prosperity and well-being, collapse or are damaged and diluted. | US Federal Policies |
Government funding runs out next week, House Republicans keep tanking their own appropriations bills, and the Speaker of the House is weighing whether he can get away with a stopgap spending solution.
Republicans are hoping Johnson will somehow deliver a solution to all of their legislative woes. But without a recognition that the House GOP isn’t going to magically come to agreement about a host of issues—like overall spending levels, individual policies in appropriations bills, or the fact that the Democratic Senate and the Democratic President aren’t just going to swallow Republican bills—a solution doesn’t appear in the offing.
“It’s the same. It’s the same set of issues. Again, the same tectonic plates,” said Rep. John Duarte (R-CA). “New speaker, nothing’s changed.”
Eight conservative rebels deposed McCarthy after he dared to keep the government funded with a 47-day spending bill, known as a continuing resolution. A month later, Johnson faces similar political and legislative realities that ended McCarthy’s reign.
The clock is ticking for the new speaker to come up with a solution as government funding is set to expire Nov. 17. and Johnson still hasn’t presented his plan.
At the beginning of his speakership, Johnson roadmapped an effort to advance the remaining individual spending bills to a floor vote. That initial process appeared to be going well for Johnson with the House passing three appropriations bills—energy and water development, interior and environment, and a legislative branch bill.
But this week, that momentum screeched to a halt as Republicans reignited their internal bickering. Johnson was forced to yank two spending bills after Republicans failed to get on the same page. (GOP leaders pulled a transportation and housing spending bill on Tuesday over Amtrak cuts, and on Thursday, Republicans withdrew their financial services and government spending bill over contentious abortion and FBI-related provisions.)
“We are in a difficult position right now. I thought we were going to show the speaker a little bit of grace. He was placed in a very difficult position. He was given a soup sandwich,” said House Freedom Caucus member Troy Nehls (R-TX).
“It is looking like we’re still confused, and we are not united,” he continued.
With Johnson’s hopes to pass each spending bill individually in tatters, some kind of stopgap spending plan seems inevitable. But it’s unclear what that bill could look like. Rather than proposing legislation this week, Johnson polled his GOP conference for their ideas and got back a host of different ideas.
Among the options under consideration is a so-called “laddered” continuing resolution—a novel idea in which certain spending bills would expire sooner than others, though many Republicans are nervous that procedural gambit would just cause more shutdown scares.
But conservatives—like Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)—are framing a continuing resolution as an unacceptable extension of budget and policies passed when Democrats controlled the chamber. Instead, Roy has called for spending cuts and using the spending negotiations as leverage for border reform.
Several House Republicans are also wary of a continuing resolution that only lasts a few weeks into December, which ups the likelihood that the Senate advances a huge spending package before the holidays, and then the House just accepts the legislation so lawmakers can go home.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), one of the eight members who voted to remove McCarthy, said he would like to see the “laddered” approach addressed. But as far as moving legislation forward, Burchett suggested leadership will have to first allay right-wing anxieties.
“They just need to address some concerns, some conservative concerns that we've had,” Burchett said. “And that would be a good signal to us. The fact that we are here, and were not going anywhere, and those issues need to be addressed.”
As Burchett said, the government is “$33 trillion in debt and we just keep doing it.”
But, in a positive omen for Johnson, Burchett said he doesn’t think the new speaker is falling into the same traps with conservatives that led to McCarthy’s ouster.
“Mike Johnson is an honest, honorable man and over half the country believes that we did the right thing,” he said.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a conservative debt hawk, is advocating for a lengthy, one-year stopgap resolution that would fund the government until September. While a short-term measure appears to be gaining traction, Massie said a long-term extension would help protect Johnson from being eaten alive by his own conference.
“Everybody is facing that same state of play. That's why I’m in favor of a one-year CR that goes to September 30,” Massie said. “Every time something expires, the speaker is putting his head in the lion’s mouth, and I would advise not to do that any more than you need to.”
(Members of the Appropriations Committee, who write the spending bills, would be fiercely opposed to Massie’s solution—not to mention Democrats.)
Still, Republicans have pointed to a few reasons Johnson may fare better at handling a looming shutdown than McCarthy. For one, the House Republican conference is fed up with the rebels responsible for stripping McCarthy from the speakership.
“Any of the eight who ousted McCarthy are on thin ice,” as Massie said. “There may be another eight that get upset, but I think those eight have already used their power.”
Rep. Dan Meuser (R-PA), a member of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, also suggested that Johnson may be insulated from right-wing attacks over a continuing resolution if lawmakers instead scapegoat McCarthy. Meuser said that sentiment could help Johnson secure Republican votes for a continuing resolution.
“We’d have enough votes, because, as one member put it, ‘The backup quarterback that comes in, you can’t blame him for what occurred the first three quarters of the game, right?’” Meuser said.
Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) acknowledged Johnson faces the same uphill climb as McCarthy on appropriations given “the only thing that has changed is the speaker.” But he said—from his perspective—Johnson is still in the conference’s good graces.
“The new speaker has new runway. So as long as the Republican caucus gets behind him. Then we’ll move forward,” Zinke said.
Zinke compared the situation to putting new wheels on an old wagon stuck in the mud—it will still take collective effort from House Republicans to unstick the wagon.
“And if everyone pushes together, we’ll get through. But if people decide to push different ways, then those wheels are gonna come off, and we’re gonna go right back into the mud.”
Even if Johnson is able to unite his fractured conference, he still has to contend with the Senate where Democrats have reportedly pushed for a short-term spending measure until early December. And if Johnson inserts hard-right priorities into a stopgap proposal to win over conservatives, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) suggested it would be dead in the water.
Meanwhile, Democrats in the House are getting antsy without a plan from Johnson and are agitated that the House GOP’s dysfunction is just increasing the chances of a shutdown.
“These Republicans are not fit to govern,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) told the Daily Beast. “This is ridiculous, putting the country through this trauma every few weeks and you know, all the internal strife within the Republican conference. It’s just exhausting.”
Even with a new speaker, McGovern said, “It’s basically the same menu but a different waiter.”
House Democrats also aren’t looking to bail Republicans out if they can’t unite their conference around a plan. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said Democrats are opposed to the laddered approach.
A visibly frustrated Nehls railed against that party drama as he left the Capitol Thursday smoking a cigar. Despite Republicans having just tanked one of their own spending bills, he said he doesn’t think “anybody in the Republican Party truly wants to shut down the government.”
“I’m hoping we don’t get there,” Nehls said of a shutdown. “I hope we can do something and unite behind Mike Johnson, that has an impossible job. It’s impossible.” | US Congress |
Several conservatives told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that they don’t expect any votes on the House’s remaining appropriations bills until the new year — a move they’re concerned will cost Republicans valuable time in negotiations.
"I guess we'll take it up in January. We punted. I hate that we did it the way we did it," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., a member of the hardline-right House Freedom Caucus, told Fox News Digital. "This body is good — Republicans and Democrats are good at spending taxpayers' money, and they’re not good at cutting anything."
Lawmakers returned on Tuesday from a Thanksgiving break and will recess again until January on Dec. 15.
Just before leaving, Congress passed a temporary extension of last year’s government funding levels, but with two separate deadlines: passing appropriations bills concerning military construction and Veterans Affairs; Agriculture; Energy and Water; Transportation; and Housing and Urban Development by Jan. 19, while the remaining eight appropriations bills must be worked out by Feb. 2.
While the measure, known as a continuing resolution (CR), allowed Congress to avoid a government shutdown over the holidays, Rep. Keith Self, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital he believed it also dampened the urgency for Congress to make a deal.
"All we've done with these two CRs is kick the can down the road. We still have a tough road ahead of us. We’ve got to get on with our business," Self said. "We took the pressure off with the CRs. This town needs a deadline. When you moved the deadline out, it takes pressure off. This town responds to pressure. Otherwise, we're happy to just let things go."
He said the House should be "pushing hard" on its remaining spending bills or "sitting down with the Senate daily" to discuss a deal.
The House has passed seven of 12 individual appropriations bills it has pledged to fund the government in the next fiscal year. Before that, the Senate passed its own three spending bills in a joint "minibus" and is potentially weighing a similar effort with the other nine.
"We need to start discussing this stuff. You know, we’re following that same old trap where we get down, and then leadership comes from on high and tells us what we're going to do," Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., told Fox News Digital. "I would hope they start listening to us on some of these spending measures."
But the government funding fight has been fraught with intra-GOP divisions for months. Before the CR passed, House leaders were forced to pull spending bills from the vote schedule multiple times over objections from both moderates and conservatives.
One senior GOP aide said those disagreements were the reason for the apparent slowdown.
"I think people are worn out. I think they have to discuss behind the scenes if we can un-jam any of the ones that we have that are jammed up," the aide told Fox News Digital. "We threw everything at the wall trying to get these appropriations bills passed. We couldn't. So I just don't think there's going to be a breakthrough at the moment."
A GOP lawmaker who spoke with Fox News Digital said conversations between the top appropriators in the House and Senate were "ongoing" and downplayed the public delay.
"I don't know that there's a clear benefit to moving them at this point. I mean, the rules of the House indicate that our official negotiating position can be set when something's passed out of appropriations or passed out of the rules… We’ve got our marching orders for all 12 bills, we're in a position to be able to negotiate with the Senate, we should go negotiate with Senate," the lawmaker said. | US Congress |
Investigators have recovered the vehicle used to help four jail inmates — including a murder suspect — Bibb County Sheriff's Office announced on Saturday.last week, the
A criminal intelligence unit and special response team with the sheriff's office found the blue Dodge Challenger in the parking lot of a Biomat USA — a blood and plasma donation center — in Macon, a city about 80 miles southeast of Atlanta where the jail is located. Authorities followed leads to locate the car, and Bibb County Sheriff David Davis said in a statement that he "appreciates the tips and every lead that we have received and is being followed up on."
Earlier, the sheriff's office raised the rewards for information leading to the arrests of the escaped inmates. Rewards of $1,000 per arrest were offered initially, but on Wednesday, law enforcement said the combined reward stood at $73,000, with the sheriff offering rewards of up to $20,000 for information leading to the inmates' captures and additional compensation from the Federal Bureau of Investigations, Macon Regional Crime Stoppers and the U.S. Marshals Service.
The Bibb County Sheriff's Office and the U.S. Marshals Service have each promised $5,000 to anyone who can provide tips leading to a single arrest. Macon Regional Crime Stoppers is offering another $2,000 per arrest. Meanwhile, the FBI has offered $10,000 for the capture of one of the escaped inmates, 37-year-old Johnifer Barnwell, who was convicted earlier in October on federal drug trafficking charges and is expected to receive a significant prison sentence, the sheriff's office said. The office previously said Barnwell was being detained for the U.S. Marshals Service.
The FBI has also offered up to $5,000 for the arrests of the other three inmates who escaped: 52-year-old Joey Fournier, who is charged with murder; 29-year-old Chavis Stokes, who was detained for possession of a firearm and drug trafficking; and 25-year-old Marc K. Anderson, who was being held at the jail for aggravated assault.
The four inmates fled from the Bibb County Detention Center in the early morning hours on Oct. 16, by climbing through a damaged window in a day room and subsequently slipping past a cut fence, Bibb County authorities said. A blue Dodge Challenger then drove up and proceeded to help all four of them escape at about 3 a.m. ET.
Anyone with information about the inmates' possible location has been asked to report what they know to the FBI's and U.S. Marshals Service's respective tip lines at 1-800-CALL-FBI and 1-877-WANTED2. People can also submit tips online through the FBI's website or the U.S. Marshals Service's app.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Every December seemingly has a deadline on Capitol Hill.
To fund the government.
To avoid the fiscal cliff.
To raise the debt ceiling.
To approve a payroll tax cut.
To pass tax reform.
To allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
To undo Obamacare.
But things are a little different around Capitol Hill this December.
There’s no single, sweeping issue that is consuming Congress. Sure, there are lots of things to do. In fact, big things — which we’ll outline shortly. But the feeling this Christmas at the Capitol is different. No government shutdown is looming (talk to us about that in January and February). And while Congress has faced concrete deadlines before, there is no absolute, drop-dead date to complete anything.
Except there is a cutoff point. It’s the same as every other year: December 25th.
Lawmakers have three weeks to handle lots of things.
But it’s unclear if they’ll crank through them. And that’s why there’s the potential for Congress to linger in Washington and maybe — just maybe — still slam into the December 25th deadline.
Let’s start with impeachment.
No, the House is not going to impeach President Biden before Christmas. You might remember that December is kind of "impeachment month" on Capitol Hill. The House impeached President Clinton on Dec. 19, 1998, for obstructing justice and lying after his affair with Monica Lewinsky. The House impeached former President Trump — the first time — on Dec. 18, 2019, for abusing his power and obstructing justice as it pertained to Ukraine.
Notice a pattern?
While those votes were actual resolutions to impeach the President, House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is just pushing a plan to formalize an impeachment inquiry. FOX is told the goal is to pass the impeachment probe resolution next week.
House Republicans have nibbled around the edges of impeachment for months. But the House never adopted a measure officially authorizing impeachment.
"Now we're being stonewalled by the White House because they're preventing at least two to three DOJ witnesses from coming forward," said Johnson on FOX. "So a formal impeachment inquiry vote on the floor will allow us to take it to the next necessary step. And I think it's something we have to do at this juncture."
Plus, Johnson needs to notch a political and legislative win.
Johnson hasn’t had much to crow about since he first clasped the Speaker’s gavel in October. He quickly passed a bill to boost Israel in its fight against Hamas. But since then, Johnson has presided over a House majority that encountered multiple stumbles in efforts to pass their own spending bills. The highlight of Johnson’s short tenure may have been the expulsion of former Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. — which Johnson and other GOP leaders opposed.
But impeachment could boost the GOP — especially as Congress stares at the possibility of dual government shutdowns over the winter.
"If it goes to the floor, we're going to pass it. There's no question," said House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., about an impeachment inquiry vote.
It’s about the math.
Republicans can only lose three votes on their side and prevail and still open an impeachment investigation. For months, moderates resisted an impeachment vote. Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., initiated an impeachment inquiry — without an official vote — because he never had the votes. Moreover, McCarthy needed to do something to move the needle on his side of the aisle when GOP spending bills began stalling on the floor and conservatives grew restless over his debt ceiling pact with President Biden.
But votes to potentially launch an impeachment inquiry began to fall into place over the past few weeks. House Republicans believe things changed over Thanksgiving — after lawmakers were marooned in Washington for nearly 11 consecutive weeks since late summer.
"They met people in Walmart and people on Main Street, and they're like, ‘What in the world did the Bidens do to receive millions and millions of dollars from our enemies around the world? And did they not pay taxes on it?’ So they heard from their constituents," said House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky.
Democrats accuse Republicans of a political diversion ahead of an election year.
"This is all part of a phony effort by extreme MAGA Republicans to distract the American people because they have no track record of accomplishment," said House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.
But impeachment isn’t what is most vexing to many on Capitol Hill this December.
Major issues loom over passing the annual defense policy bill. But it faces a dispute over declassifying some information related to Unidentified Aeriel Phenomena (UAPs). Renewing the foreign surveillance counter-terrorism program known as "FISA." And then there is the big one: President Biden’s international aid package for Israel, Ukraine and Taiwan. The status of that bill is much harder to read because there’s no hard deadline — except Christmas. And the end of the year. And then when the focus pivots in January to averting a government shutdown.
To some, it would be hard to see Congress leaving town before the holiday without addressing Israel and Ukraine. Republicans insist that Democrats attach a robust border security plan to the package. However, Republicans aren’t even in agreement on what those border provisions might look like. But, if the plan blows up, Republicans hope to blame Democrats who are getting hammered politically for not tackling the border.
White House Budget Director Shalanda Young sent an urgent letter to lawmakers Monday, saying Congress was about to "kneecap" Ukraine by not passing the aid.
Talks over the border went sideways in recent days, perhaps scuttling the supplemental spending plan.
And if Congress doesn’t pass the international aid bill?
"You can bet Vladimir Putin is watching. Hamas is watching. Iran, President Xi, North Korea, all of our adversaries. They’re watching closely," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "If Congress fails to defend democracy in its hour of need because of border policies inspired by Donald Trump or Stephen Miller, the judgment of history will be harsh indeed."
But Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., lashed his colleagues across the aisle.
"Democrats appear to be hell-bent on exhausting every half-baked idea before they get serious about actually fixing our border," said McConnell. "Senate Republicans know that national security begins with border security. And we’ve made it crystal clear that in order to pass the Senate, any measure we take up in the coming days must include serious policy changes designed to get the Biden Administration’s border crisis under control."
So it’s unclear if the fight over the border and the international aid package could keep Congress here close to Christmas this year — entering the special legislative pantheon of five-alarm fires which have screwed up other holiday seasons on Capitol Hill.
But things are a little different around the Capitol this December.
And even if Congress abandons Washington without finishing everything, no one will be celebrating. | US Congress |
Democrats, for very good reason, have been in a poll-induced panic for weeks now. Despite a relatively successful presidency and a booming economy, President Joe Biden is falling behind Donald Trump in the polls, often by downright startling margins. Biden is behind Trump in national polls by over 2 points. And a recent New York Times poll left people who oppose fascism traumatized, showing Trump ahead in 5 out of 6 swing states. It's enough to make a person want to walk into the sea. How can Americans be so stupid? Do they not care about democracy? Decency? Basic self-preservation?
The debate, of course, has been raging about how seriously to take a poll a whole year out. The swing voters tend to be the lowest-information voters, people who aren't paying attention and who often refuse to believe either Biden or Trump will be the nominee. (Both are near-inevitable, informed political watchers understand.) Give it a few months for the campaigns to actually begin in earnest and for people to start tuning in, and it could change. Or not. Hell, there's a not-small chance Americans really are that dumb, and unable to learn our lessons until it's too late. We wouldn't be the first nation to shoot ourselves in the face, after all.
Trump is doubling down on the Big Lie as a campaign strategy.
But this week, a small ray of hope has opened up, because Trump has indicated that he plans to run an incredibly stupid campaign, focused on two of his least popular political views: the Big Lie and his wish to strip health care away from millions of Americans. Even better, his approach to these two toxic issues suggests that, despite his team's efforts to normalize Trump, his psychotic levels of narcissism will always drag the campaign straight back to his ego obsessions, reminding voters what they most dislike about Trump.
Want more Amanda Marcotte on politics? Subscribe to her newsletter Standing Room Only.
On Saturday morning, Trump took to Truth Social to whine about how he's tried to "terminate" Obamacare in 2017, but failed because "a couple of Republican Senators" refused to go along. "It was a low point for the Republican Party, but we should never give up!” he added, making clear that he still considers it a priority to dismantle a law that has insured millions and lowered costs for countless others.
"It’s hard to think of a more wrongheaded campaign promise than this, on both political and policy grounds," Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post wrote Tuesday. She notes that Trump's first attempt to repeal Obamacare scared "voters straight about what losing it would mean," resulting in a surge of popularity for the legislation, as well as electoral wins for Democrats who ran on safeguarding the bill.
Trump's words were a gift to the Biden campaign, which has been looking for ways to highlight the president's under-covered efforts to drive down health care costs, from capping the cost of insulin at $35 to tweaking Obamacare to make it easier to get health insurance. But while getting the uninsured rate down to a record 8% is a major achievement, it also flies under the media radar, since it's a bureaucratic news story without much conflict to draw attention to it. But with the Trump vs. Biden angle, the massive difference between the two candidates on health care policy might actually get some coverage.
In an unrelated but similarly unpopular move, Trump's team also signaled this week that their candidate is fully committed to running on the Big Lie, i.e. that he is the "real" winner of the 2020 election and Biden "stole" it with conspiracies that have been disproved over and over and over again. Despite losing the dozens of frivolous lawsuits filed in 2020 alleging election fraud, Trump's legal team is still at it, making legal motions meant to shore up false claims of a stolen election, even though they know they are doomed to fail.
On Monday, the Washington Post reports, "Trump’s legal team sought permission to compel prosecutors to turn over information" about the FBI and a half dozen other government agencies "in what appeared to be an attempt to resuscitate his unfounded allegation that President Biden’s election victory was 'stolen.'” On Tuesday, federal judge Tanya Chutkan shot down a similar legal demand to subpoena records and materials from people who worked with the House committee investigating January 6.
In both cases, the legal filings are vague and baseless, and certain to lead nowhere. Trump's legal team is not really trying to get "proof" of a stolen election, because they know there is none. As the January 6 committee repeatedly showed, Trump is well aware he lost the election, and all claims there is evidence otherwise are lies. The only real reason for such legal time-wasting is to create the illusion that Trump "believes" in the stolen election and is "still fighting." In other words, Trump is doubling down on the Big Lie as a campaign strategy.
We need your help to stay independent
This was already looking like the case when it came to Trump's various rallies. He often rants that the election was "stolen" and the rallies feature music and pageantry celebrating the Capitol rioters who tried to steal the election for Trump as heroes. As a primary tactic, this makes some sense, since the GOP loves to hear lies about the 2020 election. But creating this paper trail of court filings reasserting the Big Lie suggests Trump isn't winding this down any time soon. So far, he is only escalating his efforts to relitigate the attempted coup as a noble effort to right some grievous wrong.
In this, he'll probably cost himself some votes. As Democratic campaign strategist Dan Pfeiffer noted in his recent Message Box newsletter, election denial drives down support for Republican candidates by a small but decisive margin in tight races. "Pushing that absurd lie makes one seem like an extremist kook to a broad segment of the electorate," he adds.
These two issues resonate with voters in a way few others do, in no small part because they threaten people's sense of safety and stability. But it also points to a larger issue with Trump, one that will start to get louder as more voters actually tune into the election coverage: He cannot help but put his ego ahead of what's smart politically.
With the Big Lie, that's crystal clear. So Trump would be wise to shut up about the Big Lie, allowing voters to forget how bad things got and convince themselves it's okay to roll the dice with him as president again. His narcissism won't let him, however, so he will just keep whining about it and reminding people that he's a direct threat to democracy.
It's the same story with Obamacare. As Rampell notes, "Most Republican politicians have now figured out that talking about health care is a political liability, so they’ve shut up about it." But Trump can't get over perceived slights to his ego, such as when he lost on his repeal bill. He's also hella racist, and cannot stop expressing his ongoing, obsessive anger that Barack Obama ever became president. It's why he keeps forgetting it's Biden who is president, not Obama. Erasing the Black president's signature achievement is a manifestation of this racist fixation.
It's certainly depressing to contemplate that such a terrible person as Trump could even exist, much less have as much power as he's accumulated. As a long list of psychologists explained to Thomas Edsall of the New York Times, Trump's main character traits are "rageful, grandiose, vengeful, impulsive, devoid of empathy, boastful, inciting of violence and thin-skinned." His behavior suggests both that he's a textbook psychopath and a grandiose narcissist, according to experts who have now spent plenty of years observing Trump.
The problem is that there are a lot of people, including in the mainstream press, who wish to downplay Trump's obvious mental deficiencies as the imaginings of liberal hysteria. That narrative allows swing voters to suppress their doubts about Trump long enough to vote for him, but only if they aren't reminded of what an off-the-charts jackass he is. But Trump's impulsivity and narcissism are such that he can't help but rant and rave about his imaginary grievances, helpfully reminding people that he is, without exaggeration, the worst. So, as gross as it is, let's hope Trump keeps talking up the Big Lie and how he wants to end Obamacare, long and loud enough so it gets on the radar of people whose memory needs jogging.
Read more
about Trump, Biden and the 2024 election | US Federal Elections |
FOX News senior congressional correspondent Chad Pergram reports on the division in Congress over Speaker Johnson’s plan to avert a government shutdown on ‘Special Report.’
House Republican and Democratic leadership are working to see how many votes each side can provide to adopt a two-step interim spending bill offered by Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) that would avoid a government shutdown.
Fox News Digital is told that the "rule," which the House must first adopt to put the underlying stopgap spending plan on the floor, is in serious trouble.
If the House can’t approve the rule, it can not even begin debate, let alone pass, the bill itself.
It is also unclear if a bipartisan cocktail of Republicans and Democrats could come together to bypass the "rule" process and put the bill on the floor as a "suspension."
DEMOCRAT SUPPORT CRITICAL FOR JOHNSON'S PLAN TO AVOID SHUTDOWN AMID GROWING GOP OPPOSITION
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, R-La., leaves the chamber just after the House approved a nearly $14.5 billion military aid package for Israel, but without humanitarian assistance for Gaza, at the Capitol in Washington, Friday, Nov. 3, 2023. Democrats say that approach would only delay help for Israel. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has warned that the "stunningly unserious" bill has no chances in the Senate. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
However, the House does not need to go to the Rules Committee for the rule. It instead limits debate time for the legislation on the floor, but it will require a two-thirds supermajority to pass.
The House is currently at 434 members.
To pass the bill, it would need 290 votes to pass the bill and a broad bipartisan buy-in.
HOUSE REPUBLICANS EYE PRIME OPPORTUNITY IN VIRGINIA AFTER DEMOCRAT ANNOUNCES RUN FOR GOVERNOR
WASHINGTON, DC - OCTOBER 25: U.S. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) (L) hugs Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) after Johnson was elected as the new Speaker of the House at the U.S. Capitol on October 25, 2023, in Washington, DC. After a contentious nominating period that has seen four candidates over a three-week period, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) was voted in to succeed former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was ousted on October 4 in a move led by a small group of conservative members of his own party. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Fox News Digital is told that the Democratic leadership team is trying to determine where its members stand.
The endorsement of the bill by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) helped ease some fears of many Democrats, Fox News Digital was told.
HOUSE GOP CAMPAIGN ARM LAUNCHES AD BLASTING ALASKA DEMOCRAT FOR VOTING AGAINST MILITARY PAY RAISE
Members of the House of Representatives voting on a Speaker. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
However, Democrats believe Johnson’s bill left out some key priorities, which includes a renewal of FISA, the foreign intelligence collection program.
Another major factor for Democrats is WIC, the supplemental food assistance program for low-income women, infants and children.
DEMOCRATS BLOCK EFFORT TO IMPEACH DHS SECRETARY MAYORKAS WITH REPUBLICAN SUPPORT
Members of the House of Representatives participate in the vote for Speaker on the first day of the 118th Congress in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 03, 2023, in Washington, DC. (Win McNamee/Getty Images)
Fox News Digital is told that another concern from Democrats is the precedent of Johnson’s "laddered" approach.
According to sources, the Democrats do not like the idea of having one deadline in January for one set of spending bills and another deadline in February for a second set.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Representative Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, who was voted to become Vice Conference Chair, speaks to reporters following the House Republican caucus leadership elections at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2022. House Republicans reelected McCarthy as their leader on Tuesday, but dissent among conservatives remains a hurdle for him claiming the speaker's gavel when the GOP takes charge of the chamber next year as expected. (Sarah Silbiger/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Fox News Digital is told that Democrats will need to hash some of these concerns out at their morning caucus meeting. | US Congress |
'He NEEDS a decent haircut!' Prince Harry's 'scruffy' mop, 'nasty' beard and 'crumpled' clothing during his UN speech in New York leaves royal fans stunnedPrince Harry's appearance for UN speech during visit to New York shocked fansMany were stunned by his 'scruffy' hair and 'crumpled' suit during the outingDuke of Sussex was joined by Meghan Markle for event in the city yesterday Published: 05:03 EDT, 19 July 2022 | Updated: 09:56 EDT, 19 July 2022 Royal fans begged the Duke of Sussex to 'get a haircut' after many were left stunned by his 'scruffy' mop and 'fuzzy' beard during his appearance at the UN in New York yesterday. Prince Harry, 37, who is currently living in his $14 million mansion in California having stepped back from royal duty, waded into US politics as he blasted the 'rolling back of constitutional rights' during his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly for Nelson Mandela Day.However it was his appearance which shocked many royal fans, who were critical of his messy ginger locks and lengthy facial hair. Posting on Twitter, one commented: 'I wish Harry would have a decent haircut, he always looks scruffy. Royal fans begged the Duke of Sussex, 37, to 'get a haircut' after many were left stunned by his 'scruffy' mop and 'fuzzy' beard during his appearance at the UN in New York yesterday Prince Harry's unkempt hair and crumpled outfit caught the attraction of many followers yesterday at the UN 'I find Meghan's dress sense very up and down, but she looked very elegant today and this was a good look for her.' Meanwhile another wrote: 'Harry's looking thrilled again. Why does he always look crumpled and scruffy?'A third added: 'I think Harry's largest offense is that haircut. Who's he trying to fool? 'Shave your head, dude, regardless of whatever you have to say, no one is going to take you seriously looking like a homeless clown.' Many royal fans took to Twitter to beg the Duke of Sussex to 'get a decent haircut' and 'a beard trim' Another commented: 'Harry needs a professional haircut and beard trim. Better yet, shave off all that nasty fuzz.' One added: 'No one looks happy and Harry looks scruffy.'It's 90 degrees and humid in NYC but naturally Meghan Markle is dressed for the wrong season. Wonder if she paid for her shoes.' The Duke's relaxed appearance was a stark contrast to his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly in which he blasted the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a 'global assault on democracy and freedom.' The Duke's relaxed appearance was a stark contrast to his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly in which he blasted the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a 'global assault on democracy and freedom'Despite the event meant to be in celebration of Nelson Mandela Day, the Prince launched an attack on American politics during his keynote speech.He said: 'This has been a painful year in a painful decade. We are living through a pandemic that continues to ravage communities in every corner of the globe.'Climate change wreaking havoc on our planet with most vulnerable suffering most of all. The few weaponizing lies and disinformation at the expense of the many.'And from the horrific war in Ukraine to the rolling back of constitutional right in the US we are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom the cause of Mandela's life.' The couple seemed in good spirits at the event, with Meghan smiling from ear to at her husband Harry also the blasted the 'rolling back of constitutional rights' and criticized SCOTUS for its decision to remove federal abortion protections.The comments, heard by a mostly-empty room at the United Nations on Monday morning, were the latest broadside at US politicians.They followed recent remarks by Meghan to Vogue magazine in which she, alongside famous feminist icon Gloria Steinem, urged men to be 'more vocal' with their anger about the decision to overturn Roe.Steinem, who was spotted with the Duchess earlier Monday, has recruited Meghan in her fight to get Congress to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment - a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex.Despite the event meant to be in celebration of Nelson Mandela Day, the Prince launched an attack on American politics during his keynote speech Monday was not the first time the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have waded into American politics, finding themselves in hot water after commenting on the US election.During a Time 100 video in September 2020 they called on American voters to 'reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity' in 'the most important election of our life.'Members of the royal family are supposed to be politically neutral, when they stepped back from their roles the Sussex's vowed that 'everything they do will uphold the values of Her Majesty'. Advertisement | SCOTUS |
Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio has testified in court in Washington, DC, in the corruption trial of former Fugee Prakazrel "Pras" Michel.
Rapper Mr Michel, 50, is accused of taking money from a Malaysian tycoon, Jho Low, to carry out a political influence campaign in the US.
He denies charges including conspiracy and witness tampering.
Mr DiCaprio, 48, is not accused of wrongdoing and is appearing as a witness.
Mr Low - who is currently a fugitive and believed to be in China - is a co-defendant in the case. Authorities believe the financier used his vast resources to curry favour among celebrities including Mr DiCaprio and model Miranda Kerr.
In court on Monday, a soft-spoken, bearded Mr DiCaprio - who described himself simply as "an actor" - told jurors that he first met Mr Low at a party in Las Vegas in 2010.
In subsequent years, he attended "a multitude of lavish parties" on yachts and nightclubs at Mr Low's invitation alongside other celebrities, actors and musicians.
On one occasion, Mr DiCaprio attended a New Year's Eve party in Australia with Mr Low, after which partygoers were flown to the US in an effort to celebrate New Year's twice.
The actor's 2013 film Wolf of Wall Street was partially funded by a firm tied to Mr Low.
"I understood him to be a huge businessman with many connections," Mr DiCaprio said in court. "He was a prodigy in the business world."
Bloomberg previously reported that Mr Low was "especially generous" with Mr DiCaprio and donated a $3.2m (£2.5m) work of art by Picasso to his charity, in addition to a $9.2m piece from Jean-Michel Basquiat.
Mr DiCaprio reportedly later turned those items and others received from Mr Low over to authorities.
On Monday, the actor said that Mr Low also actively participated in auctions held by Mr DiCaprio in St. Tropez "to bring in funds" for his environmentally-focused foundation.
Later in their relationship, Mr DiCaprio said that the two men began discussing US politics, with Mr Low expressing an interest in making a "significant contribution" of between $20m and $30m to the Democratic Party ahead of 2012 presidential election.
"I basically said 'wow, that's a lot of money'," Mr DiCaprio said.
In 2019 Mr DiCaprio reportedly testified before a grand jury in Washington DC as part of the justice department's investigation into the 1MDB scheme, the biggest embezzlement case in history. It saw Mr Low accused of stealing billions of dollars from Malaysia's sovereign wealth fund.
Mr DiCaprio told jurors that he lost contact with Mr Low around 2015 after being informed that he was under investigation for his financial dealings.
The Oscar-winner may not be the only celebrity to testify in Pras Michel's trial.
During jury selection, attorneys named actors including Jim Carrey, Jamie Foxx and Mark Wahlberg as possible witnesses, in addition to director Martin Scorsese, according to CNN.
The sprawling case could also see testimony from former high-level US government officials and political insiders, including Donald Trump's former chief strategist Steve Bannon, and Rudy Giuliani, former mayor of New York and previously a lawyer for Mr Trump. | US Political Corruption |
Nathan Howard/Getty Images
toggle caption
The Senate has approved a short-term spending bill to extend government funding into early next year.
Nathan Howard/Getty Images
The Senate has approved a short-term spending bill to extend government funding into early next year.
Nathan Howard/Getty Images
The Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve a stopgap spending bill ahead of a Friday deadline. The final vote was 87-11.
The House-passed bill now heads to President Biden for his signature.
The unusual legislation funds four federal agencies until Jan. 19, 2024 and the rest until Feb 2, 2024. The goal is to give Congress more time to negotiate long-term spending bills. If that doesn't happen an across the board spending cut of 1 percent hits all agencies in April. So far the House has passed seven and the Senate has approved three.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., chose the approach to appease a group of House conservatives who hoped to use the rolling deadlines to force spending concessions. But those same conservatives that proposed the plan voted against the bill in the House earlier this week because the stop-gap failed to cut spending.
House Republicans have been badly split on spending and their internal bickering is already threatening to derail Johnson's promise to pass full-year spending bills next year. So far, Republicans have been unable to pass several of their own, entirely partisan spending bills in the past several weeks. | US Congress |
With the pandemic officially over, leftover coronavirus relief money for vaccines, public health initiatives and other programs has become a target as negotiators try to reach a budget deal to raise the nation's debt limit.
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $30 billion of pandemic-related spending could be canceled. That's just a tiny fraction of the $4.6 trillion authorized under a series of pandemic relief laws enacted under Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden.
What’s in jeopardy is the COVID relief money that hasn’t yet been committed — or obligated in government parlance — to specific recipients. House Republicans voted last month to rescind those funds as part of their debt limit bill, which has served as their starting point for talks with the White House.
The potential cuts would spare one of the more prominent portions of the 2021 American Rescue Plan. That's because the Treasury Department already has distributed nearly all of the $350 billion of flexible aid for states, territories and local governments.
Several smaller programs contained in that same law — including one that helps schools and libraries connect people to the internet — could lose funds that have not yet been committed to particular projects.
COVID RELIEF LAWS
Republican debt-limit proposals to trim federal spending target six coronavirus relief laws passed by Congress in 2020 and 2021. Collectively, those laws provided about $4.6 trillion for pandemic response and recovery efforts. Some of that went to things directly associated with the virus outbreak, such as vaccines, COVID-19 test kits, public health expenses and stockpiles of masks and other personal protective equipment.
Other funds went to offset the economic and social effects of the pandemic, including aid to the unemployed and homeless and assistance for schools that had to shift to online instruction or take extra classroom precautions. Still other funds were designated for state and local governments to offset their lost revenues or finance programs, services and projects.
With the expiration of the nation's public health emergency, Republicans contend it's time to claw back leftover pandemic-era funds. Biden appears likely to go along with that.
“If the money was authorized to fight the pandemic but was not spent during the pandemic, it should not be spent after the pandemic is over," House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said while introducing the GOP's debt-limit package last month.
HOW MUCH IS AT STAKE
The Congressional Budget Office estimates that halting the use of unobligated pandemic relief funds would result in a net spending reduction of $30 billion over the next decade.
The CBO said much of the reduction could come from public health, infrastructure, rental assistance, community development and disaster relief programs. But it did not provide estimates of how much could be lost for specific programs.
Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee provided their own estimates of pandemic relief funds that could be cut, including billions of unobligated dollars for vaccines, health care providers and public health initiatives.
One program that could face cuts is the Emergency Communications Fund run by the Federal Communications Commission. The nearly $7.2 billion program provides money for schools and libraries to buy laptop or tablet computers, wi-fi hotspots, modems, routers and broadband connection services for use by students, school staff and library patrons.
Data provided by the FCC indicates that about $6.7 billion had been committed to projects as of May. If the remaining funds are pulled back, additional applications might not be approved.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
Some local government officials initially had concerns that debt-limit spending cuts could claw back billions of unspent dollars authorized under the American Rescue Plan. Governments of all sizes — from the tiniest villages to largest states — got a share of $350 billion to use as they choose for dozens of potential purposes, including to cover public health costs, plug budget holes or finance water, sewer and high-speed internet projects.
Treasury Department rules require recipients to obligate those funds for particular purposes by the end of 2024 and to spend the money by the end of 2026.
Though the Treasury has already distributed the money, many state and local officials are still deciding what to do with it.
States and territories had obligated $111 billion of their total $200 billion as of the end of 2022, according to an Associated Press analysis of the most recent data available from the Treasury. Counties and cities that received at least $10 million had obligated about 45% of their cumulative $100 billion as of the end of last year, the AP found. Similar data was not available for smaller local governments.
The National League of Cities warned last month that rescinding unobligated funds could jeopardize local investments in public safety, infrastructure and other community priorities. But legislative director Mike Gleeson said the league no longer has concerns, because federal officials confirmed that funds already distributed by the Treasury cannot be taken back. | US Federal Policies |
GOP splits as House passes temporary spending plan to lower the odds of a disastrous government shutdown
WASHINGTON — The House approved a temporary measure to fund the government and avert a catastrophic shutdown Tuesday, kicking the can down the road once again for Congress to pass a longer-term deal to keep the government’s doors open for Americans.
The stopgap bill led by newly installed House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., – referred to as a continuing resolution – passed the lower chamber by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 336-95.
Johnson and House Republican leaders have touted the continuing resolution as a conservative victory, but the bill, which was Johnson’s first major test of his speakership, didn’t sail through the House without heartache from its hard-right members, who were adamant that any funding plan include spending cuts or conservative policy priorities.
Leading up to and after the House passed the measure, ultraconservative GOP lawmakers expressed intense frustration at Johnson for pushing what is considered a “clean” continuing resolution because it maintains government funding at current levels.
The disappointment from those members revealed the deep divisions that still run through the House Republican conference, even after Johnson’s election as the lower chamber’s new speaker. The disagreements could signal more tumultuous times ahead for the House as it works to pass the 12 appropriation bills needed to fund the government on a long-term basis.
A government shutdown would have upended the lives of hundreds of thousands of federal employees, threatening furloughs and other slowdowns in government services.
Republicans split on spending push
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a loose coalition of the House’s most conservative members, said the continuing resolution “sure doesn’t make it any easier,” for the House to pass future appropriation bills.
Another member of the Freedom Caucus, Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., admitted he couldn’t see the future but said it was entirely possible for conservative frustrations to bleed into future discussions on a slate of spending bills.
Responding to concerns from Freedom Caucus members, Johnson likened himself to the conference’s right flank and said he was “one of the archconservatives” at a weekly press conference.
“I want to cut spending right now and I would like to put policy riders on this,” Johnson said. At the same time however, the Louisiana Republican conceded that the GOP’s razor-thin majority prevented them from advancing conservative priorities. The immediate priority for the House, he said, was avoiding a government shutdown “because that would unduly harm the American people.”
The funding plan “allows us as conservatives to go into the fight in the next stages of this,” to tackle the migrant crisis at the southern border, push for more transparency in U.S. aid to Ukraine and pass funding for Israel among other issues, Johnson said. He also vowed to take “stringent fights on principle and philosophy,” in the near future.
The legislation now moves to the Senate, where it's expected to easily clear the upper chamber and move to President Joe Biden’s desk for his signature. Democratic and Republican Senate leaders praised Johnson’s proposal, and Biden left the door open on Monday to supporting it. Government funding expires on Nov. 17.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., applauded Johnson's leadership, saying "It's nice to see us working together to end a government shutdown."
Winners and losers from the government shutdown fight?
Johnson’s funding proposal still faced much stiffer opposition from his fellow conservatives, with hard-right members threatening to tank the rule vote for the bill, a procedural vote that has traditionally passed along party lines no matter the support or opposition it has.
Conservative hardliners however, have broken that precedent multiple times this year, tanking several GOP-backed bills for failing to meet their demands.
Their threats to tank the continuing resolution forced leadership to put the bill on the floor under suspension, a maneuver that requires the bill to earn two-thirds support to pass the House, rather than the simple majority that most legislation needs. Considering the bill under suspension meant that it needed heavy Democratic support in the first place if GOP leaders had any hopes of funding the government.
House Democrats insisted leading up to Tuesday that any continuing resolution retain government funding at current levels and a clean continuing resolution appeared to be the only funding plan that could pass the Democratic-controlled Senate and White House.
Even the progressive wing of the House Democratic Caucus appeared to embrace Johnson’s continuing resolution. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., and chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called it a “very big win.”
Republicans however, still say they can take home a victory from the stopgap for its novel two-phased approach that funds part of the government – including public health, military construction, housing, transportation, agriculture and energy programs – until Jan. 19, with the rest funded through Feb. 2.
The approach deters Congress from passing massive spending legislation referred to as an “omnibus” that funds all parts of the governments in one bill, a prospect that Johnson and House Republicans have railed against. In past funding fights, Congress has passed omnibus bills under the pressure of the holidays and members’ desire to return home.
“So that’s a good thing, we’re not gonna have an omnibus,” Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, said, though he was still disappointed that House Republicans were unable to secure spending cuts or changes to border policy. “That’s one win and we are getting (appropriation) bills passed slowly but surely.”
Some Republican members couldn’t help but notice that Johnson was doing exactly what former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., got ousted for last month: Relying on Democratic votes to pass a clean continuing resolution.
Eight GOP lawmakers, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., voted with all House Democrats in October to remove McCarthy from the speakership, resulting in three weeks of bitter infighting within the House Republican conference as it searched for a new speaker until it decided on Johnson as its new leader.
“They’re the ones who created this whole problem, so I’ve got issues with that,” Rep. John Rutherford, R-Fla., said.
Rep. Eli Crane, R-Ariz., one of the conservative rebels who removed McCarthy, voted against the clean continuing resolution but acknowledged that Johnson inherited a “tough spot.”
The freshman hardliner, who admitted there were “lots of things I don’t know on here,” had a succinct answer when asked if ousting McCarthy only to end up with another clean continuing resolution was worth it.
“Absolutely.” | US Congress |
In May 2023, the Biden administration will end the COVID pandemic’s status as both a national and a public health emergency, which were declared three years ago. The move revamps the federal pandemic response in ways that could limit Americans’ access to lifesaving treatments, tests, and other COVID-related healthcare.
Most people will still have free access to COVID vaccines, including boosters, even after the public health emergency status is gone.
However, you may have to pay for all or a portion of your COVID tests and treatments, depending on whether you’re insured and the type of coverage you have.
Even with some protections in place, you could still experience issues accessing COVID vaccines, tests, and treatments because the government will no longer control the supplies. So if your pharmacy doesn’t order sufficient supplies — or if the manufacturers don’t produce enough — you may have to wait until the stock replenishes, which for some people could be life-threatening.
People who are not insured will lose virtually all guaranteed access to COVID tests, vaccines, and treatments.
The Biden administration’s decision, effective May 11, comes just three days after House Republicans announced they will vote on immediately ending both emergency declarations, which the president said “would be a grave disservice to the American people.”
An abrupt end to the declarations could strip tens of millions of people in the US of their health insurance and remove billions of dollars in state Medicaid funding, the administration’s Office of Management and Budget said in a Jan. 30 statement. (Medicaid provides medical coverage via federal and state funding to individuals and families with low incomes.)
“In December, Congress enacted an orderly wind-down of these rules to ensure that patients did not lose access to care unpredictably and that state budgets don’t face a radical cliff,” the administration said. “If the PHE were suddenly terminated, it would sow confusion and chaos into this critical wind-down.”
The sudden change could also lead to disruptions in care and payment delays as hospitals and nursing homes that relied on the flexibilities offered by the emergency declarations will have to quickly create new billing processes. People who use telehealth could lose access to clinical services and medications too, the administration said.
This is why the Biden administration scheduled the declarations’ expiration in May, to allow time for people and healthcare systems to adjust.
Still, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise said it’s not worth waiting until May to end the declarations, adding that “the vast majority of Americans have returned to work and resumed their lives months ago.”
“House Republicans are making it clear that the days of the Biden Administration being able to hide behind COVID to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on their unrelated, radical agenda are over,” Scalise said in a statement posted Monday.
COVID continues to kill about 500 people in the US every day, especially older and immunocompromised adults, even as cases and hospitalizations have decreased in recent weeks. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of people are experiencing lingering symptoms after infection known as long COVID, and those with weakened immune systems are forced to find ways to protect themselves as most COVID precautions have been lifted.
You may have to pay for COVID tests
The current public health emergency status requires private insurance companies to cover up to eight at-home COVID tests per month per person, as well as any test (PCR or rapid) a doctor or clinic gives you, regardless of whether it’s in network — with some minor exceptions and only after a rather tedious reimbursement process.
But after May, you might have to pay part of or the full price for COVID tests, depending on how your insurer decides to cover them.
For example, your insurance company may choose to cover just one test a month and you’ll be responsible for paying for part or all of additional tests; it may decide to cover your tests only at in-network providers or pharmacies; it can implement copays for tests or charge deductibles; or it can continue to cover all of your tests at no cost to you — “but that seems unlikely,” according to Cynthia Cox, vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit focusing on national health issues.
That’s why it’s going to be extra important to communicate with your insurance company.
“Call ahead and find out what the cost is at each place you plan to take a test at because we've seen some cases where the price of a COVID test could be hundreds of dollars and other cases tens of dollars,” said Cox, who conducts economic and policy research on the Affordable Care Act and its effects on private insurers. “Understand your coverage, understand what your insurer is doing, and then possibly shop around if you're not sure how much it's going to cost you.”
Medicare — federal health insurance for people aged 65 and older — will no longer cover the full cost of at-home COVID tests, which the AARP cites as a main reason why it opposes ending the public health emergency status. (Tests issued by medical providers will be covered.)
“The PHE should continue until cases have been reduced and there is an orderly transition in place to ensure all Americans can get the care they need,” the association said in a statement sent to Congress on Tuesday. “Older Americans rely on programs and flexibilities authorized under the PHE to keep them safe, such as Medicare coverage of at-home COVID tests and coverage of certain treatments. Their health and well-being should be valued as much as Americans of any other age group.”
If you’re enrolled in Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, your COVID tests will still be covered, including at-home tests, until around May 2024, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. After that, you may have to pay some of the costs.
If you don’t have health insurance, you will no longer be able to access free COVID tests via the “Medicaid eligibility pathway” that the public health emergency introduced.
Reduced access to COVID tests could mean fewer tests are taken even as the coronavirus continues to spread, and also may prevent people from getting needed treatment. (Paxlovid, for instance, must be taken as soon after a COVID diagnosis and within five days after symptoms started.)
Testing your child every day to ensure their infection is over before sending them back to school can protect other kids from getting sick, Cox said. But if you had to pay a lot of money for each test, some parents may not want or be able to take those precautions.
The same thinking applies to accessing treatment, Cox added. “If people are not able to access the tests that they need to determine if they have COVID and then start Paxlovid quickly, then they might not be able to get that treatment, which could lead to a worse health outcome or need for hospitalization that they otherwise wouldn't have had — and then be stuck with even greater costs,” she said.
You may have to cover treatment costs, too
When it comes to COVID treatments, people with Medicare or no insurance at all will face the biggest changes after May, according to Cox.
Medicare enrollees currently pay nothing for COVID treatments, including monoclonal antibody infusions and oral antivirals like Paxlovid. (Technically, no one has to pay for Paxlovid because there are still federally purchased doses available for free.) After May, that will no longer be the case. Some people with Medicare might have to pay a portion of their treatment costs once the federal supply runs out.
If you don’t have insurance, you will have to pay for any COVID treatments you may need (if you weren’t already paying for them because of the Medicaid eligibility pathway) when federal supplies run out.
If you have Medicaid, your COVID treatment services will still be covered until around May 2024 (then you may face cost-sharing). However, if at that point some treatments like Paxlovid are still under emergency use authorization, which experts don’t believe will be the case, then each state will have to decide if they will cover the costs or not.
Americans with private insurance who need COVID treatment will be responsible for paying for whatever their insurer doesn’t cover, but they can still get free treatments as long as the supplies purchased by the federal government last.
Vaccines are still free for everyone…for now
All COVID vaccines and boosters administered so far have been purchased by the federal government, so they’ve been free for everyone, regardless of insurance — and this will continue to be the case even after the public health emergency expires.
That is until the free doses run out, but Cox said she doesn’t think that’s going to happen anytime soon because Americans have been slow to roll up their sleeves; about 69% of the population has been vaccinated with two doses and just 15.5% with the updated bivalent booster.
Pfizer said that consumers could pay anywhere between $110 and $130 per dose of its vaccine. Moderna said it would charge between $64 and $100 per dose. That’s three to four times more expensive than what the government paid and not particularly good news for the uninsured, given the FDA suggested most people should receive one COVID shot a year, similar to flu vaccination.
If you have private insurance, you could expect to pay for a portion of any COVID vaccine you receive and any administration fees once the free doses run dry.
If you are on a Medicaid or CHIP program, your COVID shot and administration is considered a mandatory benefit that will be covered.
Medicare will also pay for your vaccine and administration after the free doses run out.
If you don’t have insurance, you may be able to find a free COVID vaccine through a community health center. Otherwise, you’ll have to pay full price.
Telemedicine will be limited for some people
The public health emergency introduced many telemedicine flexibilities during the pandemic, most of which have been extended until the end of next year, but some will expire after May.
Some providers will no longer be able to prescribe controlled substances like pain medications through a telemedicine appointment, according to Cox. After May, some patients may have to see their provider in person first.
And depending on the state you live in, you may not be able to meet with a specific medical provider via telemedicine if they practice in a different state after the public health emergency expires. | US Federal Policies |
- Donald Trump has picked a terrible political fight.
- The former president is still hellbent on repealing Obamacare.
- Biden and Democrats could not be more delighted by his choice.
Former President Donald Trump just couldn't help himself. All it took was a less-than 600-word editorial to set him off. Trump has never had a reputation for self-control, but this time his detour may end up being one of the dumbest moves during an otherwise dominating primary campaign.
Because once again, we are talking about repealing Obamacare.
"I don't want to terminate Obamacare, I want to REPLACE IT with MUCH BETTER HEALTHCARE. Obamacare Sucks!!!" Trump wrote on Truth, his social media platform, early Wednesday morning.
The former president's initial revival of the debate was in response to a Wall Street Journal editorial.
As a result, Trump has handed President Joe Biden a potent gift at a critical time.
Polls show Americans think the current president is too old. They aren't happy with the economy. Biden's handling of Israel's war against Hamas has angered key demographics in his base. And while it's too early, voters in key swing states show Biden has serious work to do.
In reigniting the debate, Trump has picked a fight on the worst ground he could have possibly chosen. A September NBC poll found Americans trust Democrats on health care by a more than 2 to 1 margin. In comparison, Republicans hold massive advantages on the economy, crime, and border security.
The Biden campaign wasted little time in highlighting Trump's comments. They already have a minute-long TV ad airing nationally.
"I don't want to go back," a nurse from Nevada named Jody says during the ad. "I can't go back."
Unlike the rest of his party, Trump appears unable to learn the lesson that three Supreme Court decisions, a government shutdown, and an embarrassing failure on the Senate floor hammered into everyone else. Republicans still have gripes about the law. Many have just accepted they can do little about it.
This moment is a departure from a near-perfect primary campaign. Trump might be facing 91 felony counts in multiple jurisdictions, but he and his allies have annihilated his once best-positioned primary foe in Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. Even attacking Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds hasn't hurt the former president. Trump would need a historic-level collapse to not reclaim the GOP nomination.
Trump still hasn't solved the problem that bedeviled the GOP the last time. Despite over a decade of promises of "repealing and replacing" Obamacare, Republicans have never agreed on how to replace the law. Trump's own White House rather infamously promised his plan was "two weeks" away. It never came. An unnamed Republican close to the Trump campaign told Politico, "there's not a real 'there' there. No one's working on this."
In reigniting the repeal debate, Trump has also opened up the playbook for the Biden White House. Historically, unpopular presidents manage to hang on by nuking their lesser-known opponents. Trump, of course, is not unknown. And yet, the former president has now handed his successor another way to remind voters that Biden is not "the alternative."
Besides Trump already had his victory. After their embarrassing debacle, Republicans axed the individual mandate that levied a federal penalty for not having health insurance as part of Trump's larger tax cut plan. There was also that party in the Rose Garden.
The former president has avoided political pitfalls before. Unlike typical Republicans, Trump professes an aversion to cutting Social Security and Medicare (even if the actual reality isn't the same.)
This time he created the trap. Trump could still win the White House. But for no apparent reason, the former president has made his path that much harder. | US Federal Policies |
Parts of nine days.
That’s how long the House of Representatives has gone without a House Speaker.
This is augmented by the fact that the Middle East is ablaze. And the House can’t even adopt a simple, non-binding resolution just to say it stands with Israel.
"This is bad," said one senior House Republican leadership source. "I didn’t think it would get this bad."
The problem is that Republicans nominated House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) for Speaker. He won behind closed doors in the House GOP Conference. But a chasm stands between Scalise and the votes necessary to secure the Speakership.
This is about the math. There may be no available route for Scalise to pluck off the necessary votes to win.
GOP House Members and aides were dumbfounded at how much resistance they found to Scalise among rank-and-file Members. In particular, Fox was directed to House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Turner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Lloyd Smucker (R-Pa.) who aren’t supporting Scalise.
"He may never get there," said one source of Scalise’s steep climb to the Speakership.
Scalise met with House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) who he vanquished in the secret ballot vote. Jordan pledged to nominate Scalise on the floor and throw his weight behind the Louisiana Republican. Yet many Jordan acolytes were unmoved and remain pledged to Jordan.
One would be hard-pressed to say the House has never found itself in such a twisted position.
So what happens next?
It’s doubtful there will be any vote until the math works for Scalise – or anyone else.
Lurking in the wings is former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.). But it’s unclear that McCarthy could return to the leadership ranks.
Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) is also an "in case of emergency, break glass" possibility. But it’s unclear if McHenry is viable.
The House could ELECT McHenry Speaker Pro Tempore. That would allow McHenry to perform practically all duties as the Speaker. It would also enable the House to function.
Also, McHenry could also start to just perform the routine tasks of the Speakership. However, such a scenario would almost certainly elicit a motion to vacate the chair of the Speaker Pro Tempore – offered by Democrats and Republicans.
Or, the House could start to look somewhere else.
It is unclear if the House could find a Speaker among the ranks who would marshal the votes of a coalition of 217 Members – likely Republicans and Democrats. Such a candidate would leave the extremists on both sides on the outside and maneuver somewhere in the middle. But when FOX inquired as to who that lawmaker could be, everyone was at a loss for words.
This is the worst case scenario: the House continues in a stasis as a government shutdown looms in mid-November. | US Congress |
The United States and Britain on Thursday sanctioned 11 people who are part of the Russia-based Trickbot cybercrime hacking group, accusing it of targeting critical government infrastructure and businesses, along with hospitals, during the coronavirus pandemic.
A U.S. Treasury statement said the blacklisted targets included “key actors involved in management and procurement” for Trickbot, which it said has ties to Russian intelligence services.
Treasury undersecretary Brian Nelson said in a statement, “The United States is resolute in our efforts to combat ransomware and respond to disruptions of our critical infrastructure.”
Ransomware refers to the demand for payments to unlock computer services that cybercriminals have frozen.
British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly said the sanctions are an attempt to disrupt Trickbot’s business model and strip officials of their anonymity.
"We know who they are and what they are doing," he said in a statement.
British officials said the Trickbot group had extorted at least $180 million from people around the world to restore their computer services.
In conjunction with the sanctions, which block any assets the Trickbot officials have in the United States and Britain, the U.S. Justice Department unsealed indictments against nine individuals in the gang.
The U.S. said that in one instance, the Trickbot group used ransomware against three medical facilities in the midwestern state of Minnesota, “disrupting their computer networks and telephones, and causing a diversion of ambulances.”
The U.S. said Trickbot workers “publicly gloated over the ease of targeting the medical facilities and the speed in which ransoms had been paid to the group.” | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Tenn. (WTVF) — The Montgomery County Sheriff's Office has stopped posting mugshots, a move Sheriff John Fuson said was influenced by his own family experience.
"I have heard from citizens who have shared their stories and concerns with this practice, and how it has and continues to negatively impact them and their families," Fuson wrote in a statement Wednesday.
The controversy here is not so much about the decision to stop posting booking photos, but the timing of the decision.
Many are claiming Sheriff Fuson made this decision because a member of his own family is about to face a potential criminal charge and receive a booking photo.
NewsChannel 5 talked to Sheriff Fuson by phone this afternoon to ask him if that was true.
"Anybody can be accused of anything at any time. My daughter has not been arrested," he said.
But the sheriff did not deny that his daughter is under investigation or could be facing some legal trouble, and he said that possibility did help to influence his decision to pull the mugshot feature from the sheriff's website.
"If you had that perspective — if your child or your mother or your uncle or aunt was being accused of something and an investigation ensues what would you do to protect that person? I know that a normal person would do anything in their power to do."
NewsChannel 5 has learned at the request of District Attorney General Robert Nash, TBI special agents are investigating the actions of Sarah Fuson, Sherrif Fuson's daughter.
They said it's in relation to a reported instance of suspected child abuse that occurred at her place of employment, a daycare center in Montgomery County. The investigation remains active and ongoing.
Montgomery County Commissioner Jason Knight for District 2 thinks regardless of the reason, it's the right thing to do.
“If people have evidence that proves it then it’s possible that he should come out and say something to kind of alleviate problems issues and rumors," Knight said.
The sheriff says he's been considering pulling the mugshots for quite some time now.
But he did admit to NewsChannel 5 that whatever situation his daughter is facing did influence his decision now.
"Your eyes are opened more. It hurts me that I didn't have that deeper more personal connection to how those families felt earlier. They've asked me what would I do if it was my daughter. And I told them I know my kids. I know we would do anything to protect our kids. If my daughter was in a situation like that it brings more perspective to it, a more personal perspective."
The sheriff indicated to NewsChannel 5 that whatever he's dealing with in his family has given him more empathy for what others have faced when it comes to booking photos made public.
Would he have still removed the mugshot if there was no personal connection?
Sheriff Fuson says yes — it was going to happen.
Knight has been pushing for the removal of the mugshots for several years.
"They may have made a mistake in their life and who knows maybe they will want to change down the line. They’ll have that hanging over their head for the rest of their life essentially," Knight said. | US Police Misconduct |
Wisconsin’s top elections official suffered another blow on Thursday when the Republican-controlled state senate voted to fire her by a party line vote of 22 to 11. Meagan Wolfe’s status as elections administrator will now likely be determined in court.
Legal experts and the Wisconsin attorney general have disputed the move by Republican senators to remove Wolfe, a respected and accomplished non-partisan leader. Her removal would affect the administration of elections in 2024 and illustrates the increasingly wide reach of election deniers and rightwing conspiracy theorists in Wisconsin politics.
Before she became a lightning rod for conspiracy theories and criticism surrounding the 2020 election, Wolfe enjoyed wide support from Republicans in the state legislature. Appointed to head the Wisconsin elections commission in 2018, she was confirmed by a unanimous vote in the state senate in 2019.
When the Covid-19 virus pummeled Wisconsin, disrupting elections, an attorney representing the Republican assembly speaker, Robin Vos, and the former senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald wrote in a letter that they “wholeheartedly support” many protocols outlined by the statewide commission.
Crucially, Wolfe, who provides expertise and recommendations to the commission, serves at their direction – and not the other way around.
One pandemic-era policy that has come under fire by Republicans, creating temporary adjustments to nursing home voting, was issued by a unanimous vote of the three Democratic and three Republican commissioners.
“Meagan is being blamed for the decisions of her commission,” said Claire Woodall-Vogg, executive director of Milwaukee’s election commission. “It’s really unfortunate that she’s being used as the scapegoat when she was not the person responsible for making any decisions that they’re punishing her for.”
It was only after the 2020 election, which Donald Trump lost to president Joe Biden by just over 20,000 votes in Wisconsin, that complaints about the nonpartisan administrator began to circulate. Groups and individuals that spread falsehoods about widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election have obsessed over Wolfe, publishing missives in Gateway Pundit, a site that peddles misinformation, and earning a warning from state capitol police for allegedly stalking her.
State lawmakers, largely focusing their criticisms on pandemic-related policies like the expanded use of ballot drop boxes and the guidance for nursing home voting, joined the chorus calling for Wolfe’s ouster.
When Wolfe’s term ended in June, Democrats on the bipartisan commission blocked a vote to send a recommendation for her reappointment to the state senate, anticipating the senate would in turn vote to fire her. The commissioners relied on precedent from a 2022 Wisconsin supreme court ruling that found a Republican member of the state’s natural resources board who declined to put himself forward for reappointment in 2021 could not be removed from office.
Still, Republicans moved forward with reappointment proceedings for Wolfe, holding a 29 August hearing where election deniers and conspiracy theorists from around the state gathered to air their grievances about Wisconsin elections. In a letter, the Democratic attorney general, Josh Kaul, wrote that the state senate had “no current authority to confirm or reject the appointment of a WEC administrator”, an opinion that was echoed by the legislature’s own nonpartisan attorneys.
Jeff Smith, a Democratic state senator on the shared revenue, elections and consumer protection committee who abstained from a committee vote on Wolfe’s reappointment, said in a statement that the vote was “not properly before the Senate or its committees”, adding that he has “full confidence in Administrator Wolfe and the work that she has done for the people of Wisconsin”.
Devin LeMahieu, the Republican state senate majority leader who voted against Wolfe’s reappointment, previously accused the administrator of “mishandling” the 2020 election. LeMahieu’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
During the floor session on Thursday, the Democratic senate minority leader, Melissa Agard, described the move to oust Wolfe as one of many “shameless continued attacks on our elections”.
Democrats in the state senate objected to the vote repeatedly. Mark Spreitzer, a Democratic member of the senate’s shared revenue, elections and consumer protection committee, called the nomination “fake” and accused Republicans in the senate of indulging conspiracy theorists.
Senators opposing the vote noted the wide-ranging implications of Wolfe’s disputed reappointment process.
“Disenfranchisement was real,” said the Democratic state senator Lena Taylor, describing the long lines that plagued polling places in Milwaukee during the spring 2020 election. Taylor argued that the vote – which she described as a “sham process” – would delegitimate sincere elections concerns in favor of falsehoods and conspiracy theories.
LeMahieu disputed Democrats’ opposition to the process, instead blaming Democrats on the elections commission for blocking the commission from advancing Wolfe’s nomination to the senate. The Thursday vote, LeMahieu said, “represents the lack of faith” in Wisconsin elections, sidestepping claims that the process would embolden conspiracy theorists.
Elections officials in Wisconsin worry the ongoing proceedings will fuel more misinformation about elections and say their work will be negatively impacted if Wolfe leaves her position or is removed from office.
“We’re already dealing with extra public records requests that are coming through in regards to elections,” said Kaci Lundgren, a Douglas county clerk. “Laws change all the time in regards to elections, so to have that experience and that knowledge gone, it would be disconcerting, it would be difficult. Frustrating.”
Woodall-Vogg agreed, describing the possible vacancy as “a major blow”. The Milwaukee official added that a disruption in leadership would likely impact the staff of the elections commission, who provide technical assistance to clerks across the state. “I think what is most disappointing is that they’re bringing a nonpartisan election official and making her position very political.”
Shortly after the vote Thursday, Kaul announced he had filed a lawsuit against Republican leaders, seeking to keep Wolfe in her job.
“The story today is not what the senate has purported to do with its vote,” he said in a press release. “It’s that the senate has blatantly disregarded state law in order to put its full stamp of approval on the ongoing baseless attacks on our democracy.”
Addressing reporters Thursday afternoon, Wolfe said she would remain in her position until a court said otherwise. She said Republicans sought to oust her because “I will not bend to political pressure”.
“The senate’s vote today to remove me is not a referendum on the job I do, but rather a reaction to not achieving the political outcome they desire,” she said. “The political outcome they desired, I believe is to get rid of me. The reason they want to get rid of me for political purposes is because I will not bend to political pressure.”
She also expressed some disbelief that many of the claims that her office had repeatedly debunked continued to circulate in front of the legislature and were relied on as a basis for trying to remove her.
“It is sometimes hard to wrap my head around how we still are here,” she said.
Join us for a live event on 26 September in Chicago, Democracy and Distrust: Overcoming threats to the 2024 election. | US Local Elections |
WASHINGTON, Oct 24 (Reuters) - A former lawyer for Donald Trump, Jenna Ellis, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to helping the then-U.S. president's efforts to overturn his 2020 election defeat in the state of Georgia and agreed to testify against Trump if called upon.
Ellis is the third member of Trump's legal team to reach a plea deal since Thursday, following Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, and the fourth of the 19 people charged in the sweeping racketeering indictment brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis to agree to testify.
Ellis, her voice cracking at times, told an Atlanta court that she "failed to do my due diligence" in vetting claims about voter fraud from other Trump attorneys. She said she regretted representing Trump after the election.
"What I did not do and should have done, your honor, was to make sure that the facts the other lawyers alleged to be true were in fact true," Ellis told Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee. "I look back on this whole experience with deep remorse."
The case is one of four that Trump, who has pleaded not guilty, faces as he runs for president as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2024, and one of two that relate to his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
The guilty pleas mark significant progress for Willis in securing testimony that could implicate Trump and other more high-profile defendants in a scheme to illegally interfere in the election.
"What prosecutors tend to do is offer attractive plea deals to all the people at the bottom in order to flip on the people at the top," said Jay Abt, a Georgia criminal defense lawyer who has been involved in racketeering cases.
Ellis, 38, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting false statements and writings.
Prosecutors said she attended a meeting with Georgia lawmakers where Trump personal lawyer and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani made false claims about voting irregularities. The meeting was part of an unsuccessful effort to persuade lawmakers to refuse to certify Biden's narrow victory in the state, prosecutors said.
Ellis frequently appeared alongside Giuliani in the weeks after the election, members of what Ellis called "an elite strike force" to challenge the results on Trump's behalf.
The plea agreement calls for her to be sentenced to five years of probation and $5,000 in restitution.
AVOIDING JAIL TIME
All defendants who have pleaded guilty so far have avoided jail time, a signal that prosecutors are willing to offer more lenient treatment to lower-level defendants to gain their cooperation, legal experts and attorneys said.
"My expectation is: in the cosmic scheme of things, these folks have offered something unique and helpful to the prosecution," said Amy Lee Copeland, a criminal defense lawyer and former government appellate attorney in Georgia.
It is unclear what Powell, Chesebro and Ellis have told prosecutors or how broad their testimony could be. Both Powell and Ellis are known to have had direct communication with Trump as he sought to hold onto power.
Chesebro is the only defendant to plead guilty in a scheme that prosecutors directly tied to Trump. He admitted to plotting to file false documents as part of an effort to put forward fraudulent slates of electors pledged to vote for Trump in states won by Biden.
A lawyer for Chesebro told MSNBC on Saturday that Trump should not be concerned about Chesebro's potential testimony.
Powell admitted to tampering with election machines in what prosecutors said was an effort to gain evidence for discredited vote-rigging claims.
Legal experts said the recent flurry of plea deals could put pressure on other lower-level defendants to negotiate with prosecutors in a bid for more favorable treatment.
"There's going to come a day when the state is not willing to negotiate to the extent they have in these plea deals," Copeland said.
Reporting by Andrew Goudsward, additional reporting by David Ljunggren and Doina Chiacu; Editing by Scott Malone and Jonathan Oatis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | US Political Corruption |
House Republicans unveiled their latest nominee for speaker on Tuesday night ― and there are some things they absolutely do not want to talk about.
Specifically, Donald Trump’s attempts to undermine democracy, overturn the results of the 2020 election and remain in power despite losing the vote.
Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) was a key player in Congress in those efforts, with The New York Times calling him “the most important architect of the Electoral College objections.”
But when ABC’s Rachel Scott tried asking about it, she was shouted down.
As she began her question, Johnson shook his head, and the Republican lawmakers surrounding him booed, jeered and laughed.
“Shut up! Shut up!” screamed Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.).
Foxx told her to “go away” in response to another question.
Scott described the moment:
The House has been without a speaker since a far-right revolt within the party led to the toppling of Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who lasted just nine months in the role.
But so far, no one has been able to unite the fractious GOP conference and win the job, with Johnson now the fourth candidate in three weeks to be nominated for the position.
Critics put the GOP lawmakers on blast for their behavior when unveiling their latest candidate for speaker: | US Congress |
WASHINGTON — Potential jurors in former President Donald Trump's federal election interference trial may know they are in the pool now.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has sent prospective jurors a "pre-screening" form asking about their availability to appear in person Feb. 9 to fill out a written questionnaire for use in the jury selection process for a March 4 trial. A resident in Washington, D.C., who received one of the forms in the mail Monday shared an image of it with NBC News.
Though the form does not name or refer to the defendant directly, the court had earlier set those dates for the questionnaire and the start of Trump's trial. The form advises potential jurors that their trial "may last approximately three months after jury selection is completed," which is consistent with estimates of the timetable for Trump's trial.
Recipients were also notified that the in-person written questionnaire is different from the online version, which is often the only one used in federal trials.
“The date’s public and the length is suspicious,” said the person who received the form and requested anonymity to avoid attracting unwanted attention related to the trial. “You can easily infer what it’s regarding.”
Special counsel Jack Smith’s office, two Trump lawyers and the spokesperson for the U.S. District Court did not reply to requests to confirm the authenticity of the form.
The election interference case, in which Trump is charged with four counts related to efforts to overturn his 2020 defeat, is one of four trials he faces in federal and state courts. He has also been charged in a federal classified documents case, in a New York City case involving hush money payments to a pornographic film star and in a Georgia case centered on efforts to overturn the state’s results in the 2020 presidential election.
The timeline for the federal election interference case could mean a verdict is reached before the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, from July 15 to 18, when the party will nominate its candidate for the general election. Polls indicate that Trump is the far-and-away front-runner for the GOP nomination.
On Friday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump's trial in the nation's capital, rejected two of his motions to dismiss the case. On the first motion, she ruled that the former president is not immune from prosecution under the Constitution.
"Whatever immunities a sitting President may enjoy, the United States has only one Chief Executive at a time, and that position does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass,” Chutkan wrote.
In rejecting Trump's assertion that his free speech rights were violated when he was indicted, Chutkan ruled that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is "an instrument of a crime." | US Federal Elections |
Maricopa County Republicans want party to run its presidential preference election
Arizona Republicans may end up canceling the state's normal presidential preference election and holding their own vote as the Maricopa County Republican Committee pushes for the state party to run its own primary with in-person voting and hand counting.
Usually, state and county officials run primary elections on the taxpayer's dime on behalf of the state's recognized political parties. Those elections use paper ballots and allow voters to cast ballots in person or by mail. Results are counted by tabulators, machines that are used to tally votes. Election officials also perform a hand count audit of 2% of Election Day ballots and 1% of early ballots, as required by state law.
Craig Berland, chair of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, recently took to social media to call on state party officials to vote to abandon that model by Sept. 1.
He and other county party leaders adopted a resolution calling for a presidential nominee to be chosen “on paper ballots, in a one-day, one-vote election, hand-counted at the precinct level.” The resolution echoed election conspiracies that have repeatedly been proven false and play into unfounded fears of illegitimate elections.
"The actions taken by the MCRC are in solidarity with President Donald J. Trump, who has been persecuted, arrested and indicted for taking the very same positions," said Berland in a video posted to X, formerly known as Twitter, on Monday.
In a statement, Arizona Republican Party Chairman Jeff DeWit called Berland's efforts "a publicity stunt."
"Many Republicans have questioned the MCRC's rationale for wanting to allocate over ten million dollars to conduct the presidential primary independently, instead of investing that money into winning the general election," DeWit said. "While the MCRC is demanding the AZGOP to spend this money, they've not committed to even a single dollar themselves."
Still, DeWit said he would convene a meeting of the state GOP's executive committee "as soon as possible" so that county party officials could pitch the plan.
Can the Arizona Republican Party afford its own primary?
If the Maricopa County Republican Committee's idea were to be approved by the Arizona Republican Party, it would mean that state party officials would be responsible for everything from finding polling places to reporting election results.
They'd also need to foot the bill. That could be a problem for the Arizona GOP, which has been cash-strapped in recent months and has lagged on contributions compared to Arizona Democrats.
The Arizona Republican Party took in only $3 million in contributions last year — a far cry from the $10 million DeWit estimates the presidential primary would cost. Still, Berland told The Arizona Republic that he believes the idea is financially possible.
"The worker and financial requirements are drastically less than what a general election would require," Berland said. "The ballot will obviously have only one office on it, making for a very easy and fast counting process."
Certain factors could impact the total price tag. If the state party holds an election as described in the county party leaders' resolution, it would save on the cost of postage and processing early ballots.
But the resolution also calls for a hand count of ballots, even though trials have shown that hand counting is less accurate, more expensive and far slower than counting with tabulators.
Therefore, the state party would need to shell out money to pay workers to hand count results unless it could secure enough volunteers to quickly tally hundreds of thousands of ballots. In the 2016 presidential preference election, more than 370,000 Republicans cast ballots in Maricopa County.
"I believe that election integrity has become a very high priority for the vast majority of Arizona voters, and given the choice, they will happily donate their time and fortune in support of fair and transparent elections," Berland said.
Sasha Hupka covers county government and election administration for The Arizona Republic. Do you have a tip to share on elections or voting? Reach her at [email protected]. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter: @SashaHupka. Follow her on Instagram or Threads: @sashahupkasnaps. | US Local Elections |
ATLANTA -- A federal judge who rejected efforts by former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his charges in the Georgia election subversion case to federal court is set to hear arguments Monday from former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark on the same issue.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has accused Clark and Meadows, along with former President Donald Trump and 16 others, of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to overturn Democrat Joe Biden's presidential election victory and keep Trump in power. The 41-count indictment includes charges under the state's anti-racketeering law. All 19 defendants have pleaded not guilty.
Clark is one of five defendants seeking to move his case to federal court. U.S. District Judge Steve Jones, who will preside over Monday's hearing, rejected Meadows' attempt for removal earlier this month, saying the actions outlined in the indictment were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign and were not part of his official duties. While the ruling could signal an uphill battle for Clark and the others, Jones made clear he would assess each case individually.
The practical effects of moving to federal court would be a jury pool that includes a broader area than just overwhelmingly Democratic Fulton County and a trial that would not be photographed or televised, as cameras are not allowed inside federal courtrooms. But it would not open the door for Trump, if he’s reelected in 2024, or another president to issue pardons because any conviction would still happen under state law.
The indictment says Clark wrote a letter after the November 2020 election that said the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia” and asked top department officials to sign it and send it to Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and state legislative leaders. Clark knew at the time that that statement was false, the indictment alleges.
In a court filing seeking to move the charges against him to federal court from Fulton County Superior Court, lawyers for Clark argued that the actions outlined in the indictment “relate directly to his work at the Justice Department as well as with the former President of the United States.” Clark was the assistant attorney general overseeing the environment and natural resources division and was the acting assistant attorney general over the civil division at the time.
“Indeed, the State has no authority whatsoever to criminalize advice given to the President by a senior Justice Department official concerning U.S. Department of Justice law enforcement policy based on a County District Attorney's disagreement with the substance or development of that advice,” Clark's lawyers wrote.
They accused Willis, a Democrat, of persecuting political rivals: “It is not a good-faith prosecution; it is a political ‘hit job’ stretched out across 98 pages to convey the false impression that it has heft and gravity."
Prosecutors argued that Clark's two roles gave him no authority over elections or criminal investigations.
He was told by top department officials that the central claim in his letter was false, that he didn't have authority to make that claim and that it was outside the department's role, prosecutors wrote in their response. Richard Donoghue, the acting deputy attorney general, told him the letter “amounted to ‘nothing less than the Department meddling in the outcome of a presidential election.'"
The law allowing federal officers to move a case to federal court “is designed to protect legitimate federal authority from state and local interference, not to afford a federal forum to individuals who blatantly sought to misuse the weight of federal authority to interfere with matters of state control,” prosecutors wrote.
Meadows, who is appealing Jones' ruling, took the stand and testified for nearly four hours last month, answering questions from his own lawyer, a prosecutor and the judge. He talked about his duties as Trump's last chief of staff and sometimes struggled to recall the details of the two months following the election.
It's unclear whether Clark will also choose to testify. His lawyers on Thursday filed a 10-page sworn statement from Clark outlining his service in the Justice Department, perhaps as a substitute for having him testify and subject himself to questioning by prosecutors.
Clark was also identified as one of six unnamed co-conspirators in an indictment filed by special counsel Jack Smith charging Trump with seeking to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 election and block the peaceful transfer of power to Biden. He has not been charged in that case.
Federal agents searched Clark’s Virginia home in the summer of 2022, and video emerged of him standing in his driveway, handcuffed and wearing no pants. | US Political Corruption |
Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, one of Donald Trump's rivals in the 2024 race and one of the former president's biggest defenders on the trail, said Sunday that while he would have made different judgments than Trump regarding Jan. 6 and the handling of classified documents -- those decisions shouldn't be grounds for prosecution.
"I do draw a distinction, George, between bad behavior and illegal behavior," Ramaswamy said in an interview with ABC "This Week" anchor George Stephanopoulos. "And once we start conflating those two things, I think we're in a long, downward slide as a country."
Ramaswamy was repeatedly pressed by Stephanopoulos about disagreeing with some of Trump's conduct -- and which actions in particular he disagred with -- while still backing the former president.
Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur and commentator, has been thrust into the spotlight since entering the race for the White House early this year. He has defined his platform by promising to embrace and expand Trump's policies.
He has also committed to pardoning Trump if he is elected president and quickly raised his hand during the first GOP primary debate when asked if he would vote for Trump if Trump is convicted.
"Can you just explain why you would vote for a convicted felon for president?" Stephanopoulos asked on Sunday.
"I expect to be the next nominee, and that's why I'm running for president. But I also intend to keep the [loyalty] pledge that I made," Ramaswamy responded.
When Stephanopoulos followed up, Ramaswamy sought to dismiss the indictments against Trump as "outright, downright politicized persecutions," which prosecutors reject.
Trump is charged in four cases and has pleaded not guilty in each.
"I'm in this race because I believe I can lead us forward and reunite this country. But if it's not me as the nominee, I still expect that Donald Trump or whoever the Republican nominee will be better than the alternative," Ramaswamy said.
Stephanopoulos asked about when Ramaswamy in 2021 described Trump's actions around Jan. 6 as "abhorrent" and what particular decisions he was criticizing.
Ramaswamy initially pivoted his answer, maintaining that "systematic censorship was the true cause of what happened that day" and citing other issues including COVID-19 restrictions and Hunter Biden's scandals.
When Stephanopoulos drilled down, Ramaswamy said he wouldn't have urged supporters to march to the U.S. Capitol, as Trump did two years ago -- though Ramaswamy also noted Trump at one point called for peaceful demonstrations -- and he wouldn't have endorsed competing but unauthorized slates of electors before Congress, an alleged criminal scheme detailed in two of Trump's indictments.
"I disagree with a lot of what he did that day. I said so at the time," Ramaswamy said, adding, "But that is still different for saying that he should be prosecuted for it, which I think sets a dangerous precedent."
On Trump's other federal indictment, for allegedly mishandling and refusing to return government secrets while out of office, Ramaswamy again said that he would have acted differently but didn't believe anything illegal was done.
"I'll come back to a simple theme, and I hope I can make this clear for you: There's a difference between a bad judgment and a crime," he said.
"It would be easier for me if Donald Trump were eliminated from competition. That is why it's particularly important for me to state with clarity that on principle, I'm still against seeing him eliminated that way," Ramaswamy said. "And that's why I have been so vocal about this."
Stephanopoulos followed up to say: "You find his actions abhorrent around Jan. 6, you said he was wrong to take the classified information, you said you would not do that yourself. But you still say you would vote for him for president. That's what I don't get."
Ramaswamy responded that "I said what every Republican nominee said to make it on that debate stage, that we will actually support the Republican nominee from our party."
More broadly, he insisted that his focus is on the future and on delivering Republican priorities, including "go[ing] further than Trump in advancing that America first agenda."
Ramaswamy also argued that there was an "obsession," in culture and in the media, with "looking backwards" at one person -- at Trump -- "as opposed to talking about what we need to talk about." He called that a hindrance to moving the country forward to national unity.
Stephanopoulos pushed back: "Sir, that man is the front-runner for the Republican nomination right now. He's a former president of the United States. He's leading you by 40 points [in the polls]. Yet you still say you would vote for him despite what you say about his behavior. That's the question I am asking. It's not an obsession."
Ramaswamy said he planned to vote for Trump "just as I expect him to vote for me when I'm the nominee."
"If I'm expecting and deciding between the nominee, even though I disagree with many of my rivals in the Republican Party on a lot of issues, I think any of them will be better than Joe Biden or Kamala Harris to move this nation forward," he said.
He continued: "That is my arbitrator when I cast my vote for who the next president is -- who's going to serve the interests of the American people?"
Pressed on Trump's conduct, Ramaswamy argues: 'Bad judgment' is not 'a crime' originally appeared on abcnews.go.com | US Federal Elections |
There is a phenomenon in politics whereby if someone is old and infirm but remains alive for a while in a diminished state, they can almost persuade people that they are immune to death.
So it was with John McCain, who died at 81 from a vicious brain cancer that left no hope of recovery, but whose actual death still sent a deep shudder through the political world. So, too, was it with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, whose death at 87 after multiple battles with cancer shattered her admirers and pitched the Supreme Court rightward.
And so it was this week with Dianne Feinstein, the 90-year-old California senator who suffered from shingles, injuries from a tumble at home and apparent memory loss, but whose death still managed to startle much of Washington. There is nothing truly surprising about life coming to an end for someone in her frail condition, except maybe that it did not happen sooner.
Feinstein’s death should be more than startling. It should be a warning to the people in both parties who believe they can bend their own mortality to an electoral calendar or a personal timeline for legacy-building.
This delusion has never been more common or more potentially disruptive in the United States than it is today.
With the great probability that Joe Biden and Donald Trump will be nominated for president next year, it is not a leap to say that it is likelier now than at any other point in recent memory that the next American president will expire before his term does.
Biden’s age is a constant topic of conversation, but it is typically addressed in terms of electoral implications: Are voters really prepared to accept a president who would be 86 upon leaving office? Embedded in the question is a daring presumption about Biden’s lifespan.
The same could be said of Trump, the 77-year-old former president whose personal health is largely a question mark, and of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, the 81-year-old Republican who suffered a fall earlier this year and has frozen up twice on camera since July. McConnell has declined to answer detailed questions about his condition, explaining away his obvious struggles as a function of lightheadedness.
All these men seem to resent being reminded of their own mortality. The White House staff responds with snark and brittleness to coverage of the president’s age. McConnell is not an expressive man, but his irritation at being questioned about his health is readily apparent.
Trump has blustered his way through the age issue so far, but he has never given an honest accounting of his physical state. His struggle with a dire coronavirus infection at the end of the 2020 campaign — and his attempt to obscure the gravity of that illness — should be a cautionary tale for anyone who believes they can make a confident assessment of his physical robustness.
These are not cheap-shot political jibes. American politics is littered with examples of death intruding abruptly on our political leadership, changing the course of history in the process. Presidential assassinations to be sure, but also plane crashes and car wrecks and illnesses and other shootings.
Feinstein’s life was a prime example of this: She became mayor of San Francisco not by the ballot but by the bullet, after the murder of George Moscone in 1978. There is a painful irony now that someone else will ascend to high office not by choice of California voters but because Feinstein, too, has left a sudden vacancy for someone to fill.
Electoral politics is a contingent business and mortality is the ultimate contingency. The only mystery is how few senior statesmen and stateswomen seem to grasp this.
One person who must understand it is Biden, whose long life has been convulsed over and over by searing tragedy. If anyone in American politics knows that death keeps its own calendar, it is him. The president cannot be oblivious to the actuarial risks involved in seeking a second term — risks to himself, his party and the country.
But this is also part of why so many politicians cling to their positions well past the point that it is medically advisable. If leaving office means accepting the inevitability of death, then you can start to see the appeal of running again. And again. And again. | US Congress |
Former President Trump will not visit Capitol Hill Tuesday to meet with congressional Republicans as they consider a next speaker of the House, a source familiar with the 2024 GOP front-runner's plans told Fox News Digital.
The former president told Fox News Digital last Thursday that he would visit Washington, D.C., and Capitol Hill to take part in a House Republican Conference as members considered who would become the next speaker of the House, following the ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.
A source familiar, though, told Fox News Digital on Monday that the president's plans had changed, and he will no longer visit Washington or Capitol Hill to take part in those discussions or the House GOP candidate forum set to begin Tuesday evening.
Trump, early Friday morning, endorsed Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, to serve as House speaker.
Jordan, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is up against House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., for the role.
Meanwhile, Trump, last week, said he would accept a short-term role as speaker of the House of Representatives to serve as a "unifier" for the Republican Party until lawmakers reach a decision on who should take on the post.
McCarthy was removed as speaker of the House last Tuesday after Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., introduced a measure against him known as a motion to vacate, accusing him of breaking promises he made to win the speaker's gavel in January.
"I have been asked to speak as a unifier because I have so many friends in Congress," Trump told Fox News Digital. "If they don’t get the vote, they have asked me if I would consider taking the speakership until they get somebody longer term, because I am running for president."
"They have asked me if I would take it for a short period of time for the party, until they come to a conclusion – I’m not doing it because I want to – I will do it if necessary, should they not be able to make their decision," Trump said.
Trump did not specify who had asked him, although a number of GOP lawmakers have said he is their preference for speaker.
Trump stressed that if Republicans cannot come to a consensus, he would take the speakership for a short "30, 60 or 90-day period."
"I would only do it for the party," he said, emphasizing that his focus is on his presidential campaign.
Back in January, as the House considered who should become the speaker after Republicans took the majority in the chamber, Gaetz opted not to vote for McCarthy or Rep. Byron Donalds of Florida, who was floated as an option, but voted instead for the former president.
When Gaetz’s name was called during the seventh round of voting, he responded: "Donald John Trump." | US Congress |
The most underreported story in Boston right now is the fact that over the weekend first responders were called to a public housing complex in South Boston for a man in cardiac arrest and found a horrifying scene filled with men in drag and at least 5 children between the ages of 5-10. From the Boston Herald:
Four children living in squalid conditions while being hidden from first responders were found in an apartment filled with “alcohol, drugs, sex toys” and a dead man, according to an incident report and outraged officials.
“This is sickening,” said At-Large City Councilor Michael Flaherty. “I was informed by people at the scene that there were drugs, alcohol, sex toys all around the apartment as well as a dead body on the floor.”
That fire department report, obtained by the Herald and confirmed by police response, states that a BFD crew was sent to Old Colony Avenue Saturday morning for a call that a man had gone into cardiac arrest and required medical attention. That address is the Mary Ellen McCormack Housing complex run by the city. However, according to the incident report, firefighters found more than just a routine medical emergency.
“The apartment was in extremely unsanitary conditions. Approximately 6 adults, who appeared to be males, were seen in the apartment,” they wrote, saying they subsequently found “four children in the back bedroom being hidden by an adult male from first responders.”
According to the incident report the children ranged from ages 5 to 10.
“All of the adult parties were being uncooperative and did not provide helpful information. All adults present denied having children inside the apartment,” they wrote.
Fire crews say they filed a “51A form with the appropriate state agency.”
The fire crews, according to the incident report, performed CPR on the person in cardiac arrest, who apparently died. The Boston Police Department is investigating. A fire department spokesman confirmed a call came in for that address.
“At about 11:11 AM, on Saturday, June 17th, officers responded to the area of 381 Old Colony Avenue for a death investigation. District Detectives handling, not suspicious, no further information,” a BPD spokesperson told the Herald.
It is unclear whether the children were relatives of the people the fire department described as “appearing to be male” or if they lived in the apartment.
Flaherty, Public Safety chairman on the council, told the Herald Monday night the dead body found on the floor was “from an apparent overdose” and that “a man wearing a wig claiming to be the father” of the kids was found in a back bedroom.
Multiple sources tell the Herald some of the adults were dressed as women when first responders arrived at the scene.
Happy Pride month! Perhaps City Councilor Julia Mejia should do something about the fact that pedos are using public housing to have drug fueled parties with children, instead of suing award winning journalists for asking questions about alleged police coverups.
How is this not front page news? A government subsidized apartment filled with sex toys, drugs, a dead body, possible pedophiles who demand you call them women, AND FOUR children! We know that they’re hiding something since they refused to cooperate with first responders and initially tried to hide the children in a back room. Yet we don’t know who lives in the apartment, and somehow no one has been arrested? I’ve put in a records request for the incident report, but the City of Boston routinely violates public records laws by not responding for months, so I won’t hold my breath.
The Herald’s reporting is also confusing. First it says that all parties in the apartment denied being the parents of the children, then later on it says that a man in a wig claimed to be the father of all of them. If that was the case then why wouldn’t he get the hell out of there before first responders arrived? Ya know, because the cops were about to find a dead BLT-123 next to a bunch of dildos and discarded needles, and it’s gonna be tough to explain your presence there with your children.
Meanwhile, why are only 2 City Councilors speaking out about this? Mayor Wu had plenty of time to tweet about how “we” need to repair all the harm that “we’ve” done to black people.
But not much time to acknowledge her concern over the project pedo parties in South Boston.
Julia Mejia was also celebrating Juneteenth and embracing “our history,” despite not even being remotely close to qualifying as a black person.
Hope Julia doesn’t sue me for pointing out her non-concern for the constituency she caters to (men who claim to be women) hosting a kids and dildos party in public housing.
If you have any more information on this please feel free to reach out to us at [email protected] or message Clarence Woods Emerson on Facebook. A house full of pedos, drugs, sex toys, dead bodies, and children is a story that the public should be made fully aware of.
Editor’s Note: There’s an update to this story. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Judge refuses to move prosecution of Mark Meadows to federal court
“The Court concludes that Meadows has not shown that the actions that triggered the State’s prosecution related to his federal office,” U.S. District Court Judge Steve Jones wrote.
The prosecution of former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows for attempting to overturn the 2020 election will remain in state court, a federal judge ruled Friday as he turned down Meadows’ bid to move the case to federal court.
The decision, which Meadows is likely to appeal, is a victory for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ drive to bring former President Donald Trump, Meadows and 17 other defendants to trial under the state’s broad criminal racketeering statute for their roles in trying to help Trump cling to power. | US Political Corruption |
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy is not ruling out another bid for the job from which he was, telling reporters Monday, "I'll let the conference see who unites them."
His remarks came during a news conference Monday about the atttacks on Israel by Hamas that began over the weekend and have so far resulted in.
McCarthy was asked multiple times whether he'd seek the speakership again. He did not rule out the idea, but repeated that it would be up to the GOP conference. But he also suggested that Republicans would have to take action to prevent the the next speaker from being ousted by such a small percentage of the conference. Eight of the 221 Republicans currently in the House joined all 212 Democrats to remove McCarthy.
"Is our conference just gonna select somebody," he said, "only to try to throw them out in another 35 days if eight people don't get 100% of what they want and the other 96% does?"
The question, he said, is "whether you want to be a conservative who will govern."
Currently, it just takes one member to bring a motion to vacate the chair, which enabled Rep. Matt Gaetz tolast week. Under McCarthy's predecessor as speaker, , a motion to vacate could be offered on the House floor only if a majority of either party agreed to it.
"The idea you'd allow eight people to do that with no consequences — no one's gonna be successful." McCarthy said. He also told reporters, "If this conference, regardless of who's gonna be speaker, if it allows a few individuals that love a camera more than they love the American public, we are not gonna govern."
After he was removed as speaker, McCarthy initially said he would not run. But more rank-and-file Republicans have been publicly calling for him to be restored to the office, beginning with Rep. Tom McClintock, of California, last week.
Arguing that no other candidate is likely to win more than 96% of the vote of the GOP conference, McClintock said in a statement, "The only workable outcome is to restore Kevin McCarthy as Speaker under party rules that respect and enforce the right of the majority party to elect him." He called on several of the eight lawmakers who voted McCarthy out "to disenthrall themselves from their decision and to repair the damage before it is too late."
On Monday, Rep. Carlos Gimenez, of Florida told CBS News he'd support Kevin McCarthy as speaker: "If he's willing to fight, I'm willing to fight with him."
Rep. Marc Molinaro, of New York said, "I've made no secret of supporting Kevin McCarthy. He earned my trust, and I'd welcome his return."
Rep. Brandon Williams, of New York, included McCarthy in the group of members running for speaker as a candidate whom he'd support if he can win the votes. "I want a Republican that can get 218 votes on the House floor. Steve (Scalise), Jim (Jordan), or Kevin (McCarthy) are all excellent candidates and I would support any one of them who can get to 218," he told CBS News. "The world is dramatically different today than it was just one week ago."
Rep. Mike Lawler, of New York, also thinks McCarthy should be reinstated. Asked whether he expects someone to nominate McCarthy again, he responded, "We'll see."
After the attacks on Israel began, Rep. John Duarte, Republican of California told Politico, "A short window is all we need in the House to reinstate Kevin McCarthy and change the rule."
McCarthy has also blamed Democratic House members for not giving him enough support to overcome the eight members of his own party who voted to remove him. But the former House speaker was extremely critical of President Biden, whom he accused of weakening the U.S. and embracing a policy of appeasement that emboldened and strengthened Iran, which has provided broad support for Hamas. He called on the U.S. government to rescue American hostages, resupply Israel, increase pressure on Iran with more sanctions and focus on the U.S.' own intelligence failures. He also claimed Democrats were not doing enough to confront anti-Semitism in their own ranks.
for more features. | US Congress |
Cornel West is the Dietrich Bonhoeffer Professor of Philosophy and Christian Practice at Union Theological Seminary in New York City and the author of 20 books, from Prophesy Deliverance! (1982) to Race Matters (1993) to Black Prophetic Fire (2014). He’s also, more controversially, a candidate for president of the United States on the 2024 Green Party ticket. Whatever one thinks of his decision to run a third-party challenge (see The Nation’s editorial), as a founding member of Democratic Socialists of America and perhaps the leading Christian thinker on the American left, West brings both a public intellectual’s depth and a long personal history of radical politics to this unprecedented moment for American democracy.
I interviewed West on March 30—for a Nation feature (appearing in the current issue) about the Christian left and resistance to white Christian nationalism—before he announced his candidacy. Now that he has, West’s thoughts on the relationship of Christianity to American politics resonate a bit differently. It’s often said that the Christian and broader religious left in this country is too small and ineffectual to have any real influence on the course of our national elections. That conventional wisdom is about to be put to the test.
The following interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity
—Wen Stephenson
Wen Stephenson: I want to ask you, Dr. West, what would you say is an authentically prophetic Christian response to the situation we’re in as a country? What does that look like?
Cornel West: Well, the first thing is to acknowledge the depth of the spiritual decay in the American empire. And that includes acknowledging that decay within one’s own soul, because as much as we fight against the empire, we’re still in the empire, and so we’re deeply affected. So the first thing is just to unflinchingly acknowledge, candidly recognize, just how deep the spiritual decay is—and to recognize it both in oneself and in one’s own church. Have a certain sense of humility about the situation
The second move, though, is then to keep track of the prophetic tradition, past and present, which builds on that acknowledgment of the depths of the spiritual decay, but comes back and says, “No, we need a spiritual awakening.” And that has to do with looking at the world through the lens of the cross, which is to say, looking at the world through the lens of the suffering of poor people, vulnerable people, no matter what color, gender, sexual orientation, or national identity. So already, you know, you shatter a certain kind of narrow identity politics, because you’re looking at people’s humanity, no matter what.
And then the third is just to live it, to speak in such a way that their suffering is highly visible. And to be parts of organizations or movements, whether it is around housing, a living wage—and in the electoral political system it would have something to do with either Bernie Sanders or somebody who’s concerned about the organized greed at the top, Wall Street, the Pentagon, Silicon Valley, and so forth.
Popular
"swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe →
Cornel West: The Christian Socialist Running for President
Cornel West: The Christian Socialist Running for President
After a Century of Delays, the Senate Finally Votes to Outlaw Lynching
After a Century of Delays, the Senate Finally Votes to Outlaw Lynching
The Teamsters’ Proposed Agreement With UPS Is a Great Victory by and for the Workers
The Teamsters’ Proposed Agreement With UPS Is a Great Victory by and for the Workers
Those are the three moves that I think are very important. This is nothing new. If we were to go back to Fannie Lou Hamer, Martin King, and Rabbi [Abraham] Heschel, in 1965, they had to acknowledge the depth of the spiritual decay—Heschel called it “spiritual blackout,” Martin called it a “sick society,” and so forth—and then they said: “But we’re not going to stay there, we’re not going to just remain cynical and fatalistic.” They said: “No, let’s look at the prophetic tradition, past and present,” and they spoke, in their critiques of Vietnam, in their calls for the Poor People’s Campaign, in their struggles against American apartheid in the South, with Jim Crow, or the patriarchy—these days, especially, not losing site of the precious humanity of our trans and gay and lesbian fellow human beings.
I mean, the more extreme formulation would be Brother Berrigan’s, when he said, “Every Christian ought to look good on wood.”
WS: I don’t remember that one.
CW: That’s Berrigan, brother. You know, “There’s a cross for everyone, there’s a cross for me.” Or, it’s Bonhoeffer’s cross—of discipleship. Jesus says, “Come and die.” Brother King used to say, “The cross is not something that you talk about; it’s something that you die on.”
So that’s what Christian discipleship is, if you really want to follow this Palestinian Jew named Jesus, in all of our fallibility, all of our finitude, all of our fallenness, then you got to really look good on wood. Which is to say, you got to be able to know there’s a cross for you to bear.
WS: What do you see today in white Christian nationalism, or Christian nationalism in its various forms?
CW: Well, those Christians who have accommodated themselves to empire, or accommodated themselves to the status quo, became Constantinian Christians. I mean, my fellow Christians who are Christian nationalists, white supremacist Christians, male supremacist Christians, anti-Jewish, anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-gay, and so forth, they’re contemporary extensions of Constantinian Christianity—the dominant form of Christianity since 312. That’s just how fallen we are. In some ways, we should never be surprised, because it’s always a critical minority who constitute the prophetic ones, who want to be genuine disciples of Jesus—I mean, look what happened to him. They’re going to Calvary, not the Yellow Brick Road, you know?
WS: I went back and looked at your first book, Prophecy Deliverance!, from 1982.
CW: Oh, I appreciate that.
WS: And I’m reminded of this passage in your preface to the 20th anniversary edition, where you write: “For me, to be a Christian is not to opt for some cheap grace, trite comfort, or childish consolation but rather to confront the darker sides, and the human plights, of societies and souls with the weak armor of compassion and justice.” And then you go on to marvel at this mystery—this “fundamental human mystery,” as you say—of “how and why love so thoroughly crushed by evil forces is not fully extinguished.” I feel like that’s a message that we need to hear right now, you know?
CW: Absolutely. This is one of the reasons why the best of the Black interpretation of the Christian tradition is so badly needed. Because the Black experience brings a blues-like sensibility—because the blues is catastrophe lyrically expressed—and so it brings catastrophe with it. You see, we come from enslavement, and we come from the lynching trees, and we come from Jim Crow, we come from being hated, terrorized and traumatized, and yet we produce, at our best, these love warriors, freedom fighters, and wounded healers. That’s Fannie Lou. That’s Irene B. West, my mom. That’s Martin King. That’s John Coltrane. That’s Count Basie, out of Calvary Baptist Church, and on and on. Sarah Vaughn out of Mt. Zion Baptist Church, in Newark. These folks, they bring a catastrophic sensibility. But in the face of all of these evil forces—these hounds of hell—is precisely this mystery, which gives them access to a tradition that chooses love, that chooses compassion, that chooses joy, that chooses community.
And the best of that is to empathize with other people undergoing catastrophic situations, too. I mean, with many of our fellow citizens who are now Christian right-wingers, and moving into Christian neofascism with Trump, many are dealing with catastrophic situations. They’ve lost their jobs, they’re wrestling with wage stagnation. It’s just that they interpret it through replacement theory, right-wing style, rather than identify with other people. And we have to identify with their catastrophic circumstances. And they’re wounded. Deeply wounded. They’re choosing to be wounded hurters rather than wounded healers. But we can’t lose sight of their economic circumstances, their spiritual circumstances, in terms of drugs and violence in their households, breakdowns, and a whole host of things that the white working class and the white poor have had to deal with in the history of America.
WS: Let me ask you about the separation of church and state. Would you like to see elected officials, say, in the Democratic Party, who are committed Christians—and since we’re talking about King, I can’t help but think about Raphael Warnock [who holds King’s pulpit in Atlanta]—to be more outspoken about their faith, their faith commitments, in pushing back against a corrupted version of Christianity? Or does that somehow cross a line? Because for a lot of people it crosses a line, people on the left especially.
CW: I have no trouble [with it] at all. The trouble, though, is not so much what they would say but what they would do. Brother Raphael falls far short of Brother Martin. And I have great respect for Raphael. He’s a Union Theological Seminary brother and an Abyssinian Baptist Church brother. But he’s still in many ways a neoliberal politician. Which is to say, he goes with a political party that is captive to corporate interests, and captive to militarism. How does he vote when the Pentagon wants 10 more billion dollars, and it gets 10 more billion dollars that it doesn’t even want? Why does he vote for that?
You see, that’s not King at all. That’s what got King killed, coming out against Vietnam. It was not just a moral stance, it was a critique of militarism. So, on the one hand, Raphael is so much better than the conservative Republican candidate that many of us still have a critical support of him in that sense. But he falls so far short, because part of the spiritual decadence is in neoliberalism itself—in which you use prophetic language but have no intention of engaging in prophetic witness. We saw that with Obama, who could give one of the most lovely speeches in the world about peace, and have six wars going on at the same time and dropping 546 drones, killing innocent people. Those are war crimes. You see, you can’t give a pretty speech about peace and commit war crimes, and expect anybody to say you’re continuing the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. That’s a lie. It’s just not true.
So, what has happened, we’re in a moment now where, in electoral politics, Obama and Raphael are nearly the best we can do. Bernie was better, but Bernie is an exception. That’s the best the Democratic Party can do. And Bernie’s not a member of the Democratic Party. That says the best the Democratic Party can do is Barack Obama, is Raphael Warnock. You say, wait a minute, these folks are tied to militarism; they’re tied to Wall Street. You have a choice of bailing Wall Street out or bailing out homeowners, you go automatically to Wall Street, with Larry Summers counseling you.
WS: The polling group PRRI [Public Religion Research Institute] published a survey on Christian nationalism in February that tried to measure how many of these folks there are. They had a set of five statements that they asked respondents to agree or disagree with. One of statements was, “U.S. laws should be based on Christian values.” I had stop and think about that one. So, if I agree with that, does it mean I fall somewhere on the spectrum of Christian nationalism? I mean, I think MLK would have agreed with that.
CW: Yes, exactly. Right.
WS: And he was the opposite of a Christian nationalist. You know, what about love of neighbor, compassion, mercy, justice? So the question is, whose Christian values?
CW: I think that’s a very, very legitimate question. You see, Christianity is way of life. It’s not just a commitment to a dogma or a doctrine, and it’s not just a certain attachment to values in the abstract. It cuts so much deeper than that. A way of life is a highly complicated, variegated structure of feelings, and a structure of virtues even before values. Virtues have much more gravitas than values do. For Christians, you see, love is not a value, it’s part of the three virtues [faith, hope, and love], that have a unity of virtue—that are intertwined with the hope, intertwined with the faith—that generates a very concrete, fleshified way of following a God manifest in space and time who was not a value, but a person, Jesus—“I am the truth”—the fleshification, the concretization of truth-talk, right?
So you say, “Oh, I can see you got ‘Christian values.’” No, I’m following this cat. I’m following this mother-hucker—[Laughter]—who I believe was the son of God.
You can imagine, by the time you get to social scientific surveys of this stuff, things have become so flattened out that it’s just almost deodorizing the Christian funk. If you need a survey and a questionnaire, and so forth, then all of a sudden Martin King gonna sound like the Klan. The Klan wants Christian values. Martin Luther King does too. So they’re both Christian nationalists? Well, at that point, what are we really talking about? Good God almighty!
WS: You’ve been a member of Democratic Socialists of America since the beginning. And I was interested to learn that there has always been a “Religion and Socialism” working group within DSA.
CW: Oh, my God, yes. John Cort. Brother John, absolutely.
WS: Do you think there’s space today for something like a revival of Christian socialism?
CW: Oh, absolutely. It would take new forms; it would never ever take the form of what it was in the past. And it may take place within deeply religious contexts rather than within DSA. But the impact of DSA, the influence of DSA, can take on some very, very important religious socialist forms. There’s no doubt about it. We might not even call it socialism in the end. The word socialism might be too scary for people. But that’s what we’d be doing. Just call it intense democracy, or whatever.
WS: I’ve talked with David Bentley Hart at Notre Dame—he published a new translation of the New Testament with Yale University Press a few years ago—and he’s also a democratic socialist. He told me that he doesn’t really see any choice, if you look at who Jesus was and what he taught and what the early church was all about, but to be some sort of socialist.
CW: I think at the normative level that’s absolutely right. But in the end, one could argue that it doesn’t have to be connected to any particular ism. Christianity already has the wherewithal to get us there. | US Federal Elections |
Trump's fake electors charged by Michigan AG in alleged 2020 election scheme
Attorney General Dana Nessel announced felony charges Tuesday against the group of Michigan Republicans who allegedly participated in a scheme to try to award the state's Electoral College votes to former President Donald Trump with a phony certificate in the 2020 election despite his 154,188-vote loss in the state.
Those criminally charged include a former leader of the Michigan GOP, a former Michigan Republican National Committeewoman and other ardent Trump advocates:
- Meshawn Maddock: Republicans chose Maddock to serve as Michigan GOP co-chair after the 2020 election.
- Kathy Berden: In 2015, the state committee of the Michigan GOP elected Berden as the party's national committeewoman. The fake certificate of electors lists Berden as "Chairperson, Electoral College of Michigan."
- Mayra Rodriguez: Rodriguez is a Michigan lawyer facing a complaint from the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission filed with the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board recommending disciplinary action against her. The fake certificate of electors lists Rodriguez as "Secretary."
- Timothy King: King was the lead plaintiff in a legal effort led by Trump ally Sidney Powell to overturn the 2020 election in Michigan.
- John Haggard: Haggard served as a Republican elector in 2016. He was one of the plaintiffs who brought a lawsuit in the wake of the 2020 election to try to name Trump the winner.
- Stanley Grot: Grot serves as Macomb County's Shelby Township clerk.
- William "Hank" Choate: Choate previously served as the chair of the Jackson County Republican Party and chair of the Michigan GOP's 7th District.
- Amy Facchinello: Facchinello was elected to serve as a board member of Grand Blanc Community Schools in 2020.
- Clifford Frost: Frost previously ran for office and served on the Michigan GOP state committee.
- Mari-Ann Henry: A previous webpage for the Greater Oakland Republican Club showed Henry was involved with the group.
- Michele Lundgren: Lundgren ran as a Republican in 2022 seeking to represent part of Detroit in the Michigan House of Representatives. She lost her election to incumbent state Rep. Abraham Aiyash, D-Hamtramck.
- James Renner: Renner was one of two names that appear on the fake certificate of electors who was not originally nominated by the state's Republican Party to serve as an elector in the event of a Trump victory.
- Ken Thompson: Thompson is the second individual whose name appears on the fake certificate of electors who was not originally nominated by the state's Republican Party to serve as an elector in the event of a Trump victory.
- Rose Rook: Rook has held various local leadership positions with the Republican Party.
- Marian Sheridan: Sheridan currently serves as the Michigan GOP's grassroots vice-chair. She was also a plaintiff in the federal election lawsuit to try to award Michigan's Electoral College votes to Trump.
- Kent Vanderwood: Vanderwood currently serves as mayor of the city of Wyoming.
The document they signed states that the group of 16 were "...the duly elected and qualified Electors for President and Vice President of the United States of America from the State of Michigan," according to a news release from Nessel's office. "That was a lie," Nessel said in a video announcing the charges brought by her office.
Complaints provided by Nessel's office show each defendant faces eight felony counts each, including forgery-related charges each punishable by up to 14 years in prison and election law forgery charges each punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Those were filed in the 54-A District Court in Ingham County, according to Nessel's office
President Joe Biden won Michigan in 2020, but Trump and his supporters embraced conspiracy theories to level baseless claims that the election was stolen. The news of the criminal charges in Michigan comes the same day Trump announced he is a target of the federal criminal investigation into the deadly Jan. 6 assault on the U.S. Capitol.
Nessel accused the Trump electors in Michigan of intentionally trying to interfere in the 2020 election to reject the will of voters in the state and ensure their preferred candidate would win.
"This plan — to reject the will of the voters and undermine democracy — was fraudulent and legally baseless," Nessel said in videotaped statement.
Ahead of the 2022 midterm election, Nessel referred her office's probe into the group of Michigan Republicans whose names appear on the fake certificate of electors to federal authorities.
At the time, she said there was no question the Republicans acted illegally when they signed documents to give Trump Michigan's Electoral College votes and attempted to enter the Capitol in Lansing on the same day the state's legitimate electors cast their votes for Biden. But Nessel said that the effort in Michigan appeared to be part of a larger conspiracy that may be better suited for a federal investigation.
Nessel later reversed course. At the start of the year, she announced her decision to reopen a criminal investigation into the group of fake electors after inaction from the federal government. Nessel — Michigan's top law enforcement official — said that the investigation by her office in the alleged effort to interfere in the election remains ongoing and did not rule out future charges against other individuals.
In anticipation of attacks for bringing the criminal charges, Nessel tried to preempt claims of bias. "Undoubtedly, there will be those who will claim these charges are political in nature. But where there is overwhelming evidence of guilt in respect to multiple crimes, the most political act I could engage in as a prosecutor would be to take no action at all," she said.
The U.S. House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 attack heard testimony about the fake electors in Michigan, including revelations of a suggestion by Trump allies to have Republicans sneak into the Michigan State Capitol the night before the actual electors were to meet the next day and cast their votes for Biden.
The committee found that Trump allies pressured state officials in several key swing states, including Michigan, to try to interfere in the election, including by attempting to seat slates of Republican electors. Current Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel also told the committee that Trump called her about the effort to seat Republican electors, though she framed it as more of an effort to seat those slates if any of the ongoing court challenges to the election at the time succeeded.
None did.
Former Michigan GOP Chair Laura Cox, meanwhile, detailed to the congressional committee one plan Trump allies discussed with her proposing an attempt to seat fake electors by entering the state Capitol the night before the Electoral College vote. Michigan election law specifically requires the state's presidential electors convene in the Michigan Senate chamber at 2 p.m. EST the day they are supposed to cast the state's votes for president and vice president.
Cox called the idea "insane and inappropriate" in a video of testimony she gave the committee after she was subpoenaed. She said the plan for Republicans to hide overnight in the state Capitol never occurred.
But some Republican lawmakers still joined members of the group of fake Trump electors in an attempt to enter the Michigan State Capitol in December 2020. They were denied access.
But according to Nessel's office, they allegedly met in the basement of the Michigan GOP headquarters on Dec. 14 and signed fake certificates falsely claiming the Republican slate was the legitimate set of delegates to the Electoral College. Those documents were sent to the U.S. Senate and National Archives.
An affidavit in support of the criminal charges against the group of Republicans provided by Nessel's office states that an investigator with the attorney general's office interviewed several Michigan GOP employees who confirmed that the meeting of the Republican electors at the party's building in Lansing was organized by Cox and the Republican National Committee.
Two Republicans refused to participate in the effort to hand Trump a victory in Michigan by transmitting a false certificate of electors. Former Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land and Gerald Wall were nominated by the state's Republican Party in 2020 to serve as presidential electors if Trump won, but their names do not appear on the fake certificate.
Each defendant, or their attorneys, have been notified of the charges and the court will provide each with a date to appear before the 54-A District Court in Ingham County for arraignment, according to the release from Nessel's office. No dates have been set yet for the proceedings.
Free Press staff writers Dave Boucher and Todd Spangler contributed to this report
Contact Clara Hendrickson: [email protected] or 313-296-5743. Follow her on Twitter @clarajanehen. | US Political Corruption |
New speaker's Israel funding showdown with Biden, Democrats -- and Senate Republicans
The House bill does not include Ukraine aid and slashes IRS funding.
New House Speaker Mike Johnson, as one of his first moves, is forcing a showdown over emergency aid to Israel.
He's pushing a vote Thursday on a bill that would provide more than $14 billion to the American ally -- but not include $61 billion in aid to Ukraine as President Joe Biden, House and Senate Democrats -- and even many Senate Republicans -- want tied to the same measure.
The bill House Republicans released Mondaywould pay for the Israel aid by slashing the same amount from the Internal Revenue Service, which critics say could affect some taxpayer services and hurt enforcement actions against tax cheaters.
Johnson has set up the showdown as making a choice between what's considered more important.
White House: Bill is 'nonstarter'
The White House is bashing the House GOP bill, calling it a "nonstarter" for tying aid to Israel to cuts in IRS funding -- money already passed under Biden's Inflation Reduction Act.
"Demanding offsets for meeting core national security needs of the United States -- like supporting Israel and defending Ukraine from atrocities and Russian imperialism -- would be a break with the normal, bipartisan process and could have devastating implications for our safety and alliances in the years ahead," White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said in a statement.
She said what she called "political games" would set an "unacceptable precedent" for current and future funding and call the U.S. commitment to Israel "into question."
"Threatening to undermine American national security unless House Republicans can help the wealthy and big corporations cheat on their taxes -- which would increase the deficit -- is the definition of backwards," Jean-Pierre wrote.
Senate leaders agree: Israel and Ukraine aid 'intertwined'
Just after House Republicans unveiled the Israel aid bill, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer took to the Senate floor to reassert the importance of passing Biden's supplemental aid package that, in addition to aid for Israel and Ukraine, also includes money for Taiwan and southern border security.
"All of these challenges share one thing in common: they directly impact America's national security, America's democratic values, and the international world order that has allowed democracy to take root," Schumer said. "The way forward is exceptionally clear: we must pass the presidents supplemental request."
Schumer slammed the bill as a "partisan and woefully inadequate package" that includes "poison pills" that help tax cheats.
"The House GOP bill is woefully inadequate and has the hard-right's fingerprints all over it," Schumer said, referring to growing opposition among House Republicans to more Ukraine aid, especially without conditions.
"It's insulting that the hard right is openly trying to exploit the crisis in Israel to try and reward the ultra-rich. The new speaker knows perfectly well that if you want to support Israel, you can't propose legislation that is full of poison pills," he said..
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke next on the floor Tuesday, and he largely echoed Schumer's message, calling the conflicts in Israel and Ukraine "intertwined" and demanding a comprehensive U.S. response.
"So, at the risk of repeating myself, the threats facing America and our allies are serious and they're intertwined. If we ignore that fact, we do so at our own peril," McConnell said.
"I had for a brief moment hoped that the House might be getting their act back together," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said of the package. "But that sounds disastrous to me."
Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden, who as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee played an essential role in crafting the IRS enforcement portion of the Inflation Reduction Act, said using the IRS funds to pay for Israel relief could actually cost the country money by decreasing tax revenue.
"This new proposal is, I think, just horrifying, it's a non-starter, and I'm going to fight it. I'm going to use every tool I have as chairman of the Finance Committee," Wyden said.
House Democrats, and even some Republicans, oppose
At least two House Republicans -- Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Thomas Massie of Kentucky -- said they will not vote for aid to Israel, reducing the already slim number of House GOP votes Johnson can afford to lose and still get the bill passed.
"If Congress sends $14.5 billion to Israel, on average we'll be taking about $100 from every working person in the United States. This will be extracted through inflation and taxes. I'm against it," Massie posted on X.
"I'm voting NO as well. We are $33 TRILLION in debt and our wide-open border is a national security crisis," Greene posted to X.
During a local radio interview Monday, GOP Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said while he supports helping Israel, he argues that the U.S. should not "write another blank check to anyone, including ourselves."
"I support Israel. But I am not going to continue to go down this road where we bankrupt our country and undermine our very ability to defend ourselves, much less our allies, by continuing to write blank checks," Roy said.
Some House Democrats don't like the proposal, either.
Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida said in a statement, "Support for defending Israel should not come with conditions, be it cutting foreign military financing by 30% or offsetting aid in a time of crucial need. I am deeply disturbed by Speaker Johnson playing political games with Israeli emergency funding, something our nation has never done in a time of crisis."
"We cannot afford to politicize the battle against Hamas and Iran, giving ammunition to anti-Israel extremists around the world," she added.
Johnson: Israel aid is an 'immediate and urgent need'
Speaker Johnson said his plan addresses the "immediate and urgent need" for aid to Israel, he told Fox News' Outnumbered co-host Kayleigh McEnany. The interview, which aired Tuesday, was recorded Monday before the bill text was released.
"My intention and my desire in the first draft of this bill is to take some of the money that has been set aside for building and bulking up the IRS right now," he said to McEnany.
"They have about $67 billion in that fund and we'll try to take the $14.5 [billion] necessary for this immediate and urgent need," Johnson said.
When asked if offsetting the bill will drive Senate Democrats away, Johnson said, "it may, but my intention is to call Leader Schumer over there and have a very direct and thoughtful conversation about this."
"I understand their priority is to bulk up the IRS. But I think, if you put this to the American people, and they weigh the two needs, I think they're going to say standing with Israel and protecting the innocent over there is in our national interest and is a more immediate need than IRS agents," Johnson said.
ABC News' Sarah Beth Hensley contributed to this report. | US Federal Policies |
Greene a ‘hard no’ on two spending bills after McCarthy flips on Ukraine aid
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) said Sunday she is a “hard no” on two spending bills after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said Ukraine aid would be included in the legislation despite opposition from the Georgia Republican.
McCarthy said over the weekend he will keep Ukraine aid in the Pentagon funding bill, a reversal from his announcement a day earlier that he would strip the money out after Greene joined conservatives last week in blocking the legislation from advancing.
Greene responded to that decision in a series of posts on X, formerly known as Twitter, complaining that House leadership had broken its promise by preparing to move an appropriations bill with Ukraine funding in the House Rules Committee.
“The rule is the first step of advancing this blood money in Congress,” she wrote.
“Unfortunately it looks like some of the House’s strongest conservatives are going to vote for the rule to help along..the ‘process.’ Voting yes on the rule means more money for Ukraine. It’s that simple. No one who wants peace should vote yes on the rule to advance the bills. That’s why I’m a HARD NO on the rules package and a blank check for Ukraine!”
McCarthy said he decided to keep the $300 billion of Ukraine aid after recognizing another spending measure set to come up this week, one that funds the State Department and foreign operations, also includes money for the embattled country. The Speaker argued eliminating the Ukraine aid out of the State Department measure “becomes more difficult to do.”
GOP leaders pulled a planned vote on a short-term stopgap bill, known as a continuing resolution (CR), last week amid conservative opposition in the narrow GOP majority. Government funding will run out at the end of the month unless a stopgap measure is passed this week.
Republicans are also working to pass individual spending bills, including the defense and foreign operations measures, in the hopes progress on those measures will build enough goodwill with conservative holdouts to make another attempt at a short-term funding bill.
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) told The Hill the House may vote on amendments to strike the Ukraine aid from the Pentagon and State Department spending bills.
Greene’s stance will not be a shock to McCarthy, who told reporters over the weekend he expects her to oppose the procedural vote on the four bills due to the Ukraine funding.
Last week, a group of House conservatives went against the GOP majority and twice blocked the Pentagon funding bill from moving forward to debate and a vote on the House floor.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Congress |
Subsets and Splits