article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
The woman accused in the May 2022 shooting death of rising professional cyclist Anna Moriah Wilson — known as "Mo" Wilson — has been found guilty of her murder. Jurors reached the verdict forThursday in court at the Blackwell-Thurman Criminal Justice Center in Austin, Texas, that lasted just over two weeks.
Armstrong, 35, had pleaded not guilty to a charge of first-degree murder in Wilson's death. She was also charged with escape causing bodily injury, which is a felony, for allegedlythree weeks before the trial began. Authorities said Armstrong fled from officers as they escorted her to a doctor's appointment on Oct. 11, but only ran for about half a block before they caught up with her.
She could potentially face up to 99 years in prison for the murder conviction, and up to 20 years in prison for the second charge if convicted. There was also an outstanding warrant for Armstrong's arrest on a misdemeanor charge for theft of services when she was questioned by police after Wilson's death.
Wilson was found fatally shot on the floor of a friend's bathroom on May 11, 2022, just days before she was slated to compete in a cycling race that she was also favored to win. The up-and-coming athlete was 25 at the time of her death.
Police have said that Wilson previously dated Armstrong's boyfriend, Colin Strickland, a fellow competitive cyclist, with whom Wilson remained friends after their relationship ended. Wilson and Strickland had gone swimming at a local pool hours before she was killed, according to police. Strickland told them after the murder that he had picked up Wilson earlier in the day on May 11 for the swim, and dropped her off at the friend's house, where Wilson was staying ahead of the race in Austin, that night at around 8:30 p.m.
Armstrong worked as a yoga instructor and real estate agent in Austin, and also owned a business with Strickland. They lived together. During a period of separation in their on-off relationship, Strickland briefly dated Wilson.
Prosecutors alleged that Armstrong had been using the fitness app Strava, since Wilson used the app to manage her workouts. They told the jury during Armstrong's trial that her car, a Jeep, had been seen near the apartment where Wilson was staying with her friend, Caitlin Cash.
Cash testified during the first week of the trial, describing how she arrived back at her home to find Wilson covered in blood, after the cyclist had been shot in the head and chest. In addition to playing a recording of the 911 call from the night of the murder, when Cash tried to revive Wilson after finding her, prosecutors said the jury would be shownwhere Wilson could be heard screaming just before her death.
"The last thing Mo did on this earth was scream in terror. Those screams are followed by 'pow! pow!'" said Travis County Prosecutor Rick Jones in his opening statement at the trial. He said Armstrong shot Wilson again, for the third time, seconds after that.
Armstrong's defense said there were no witnesses to the killing, nor is there video evidence placing Armstrong at the scene of Wilson's death. She was questioned by police and let go after the murder, but a warrant was eventually issued for Armstrong's arrest on May 19. Before the warrant, authorities said that Armstrong sold her Jeep for cash and traveled from Austin to New York City, then from Newark, New Jersey, to Costa Rica, allegedly using her sister's passport as her own for the trip.
Authorities said that Armstrong taught yoga while in Costa Rica and underwent plastic surgery to change her appearance, with prosecutors additionally telling the jury that Armstrong had cut her hair and changed her hair color as well. Her attorney, Geoffrey Puryear, addressed speculation about her time in Costa Rica during the trial, saying, " "She would have no reason to know about any (arrest) warrant. You will hear Kaitlin is passionate about traveling and passionate about yoga," CBS Texas reported.
After, Armstrong was arrested by officers with the U.S. Marshals Service at a hostel on Santa Teresa Beach in Provincia de Puntarenas, and returned back to the U.S.
Strickland also testified at Armstrong's trial, telling the jury about how their relationship began over a dating app in 2019, and continued to date on and off for more than two years. He said Armstrong had access to his communications, the Austin American-Statesman reported, and that he had changed the name of Wilson's contact in his phone to avoid conflict with Armstrong. He called Wilson "an immense talent" while addressing the jury.
In other testimonies, two of Amrstrong's former friends took the stand. One of them, Nicole Mertz, knew Armstrong through the cycling community and said she considered her to be one of her closest friends, CBS affiliate KEYE-TV reported. Mertz recalled once being at an Austin restaurant called The Meteor with Armstrong, where Armstrong had said she was upset because Wilson had come to town and was visiting Strickland, according to the station.
Mertz also said Armstrong became "visibly angry" seeing Wilson enter the restaurant, and, when Mertz asked what Armstrong would do if Strickland started dating someone else, Mertz testified that her former friend responded, "I would kill her," reported KEYE-TV.
– Allison Gualtieri contributed reporting.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Prince Harry has again 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, in New York City.The Duke of Sussex launched a thinly-veiled attack on the Supreme Court's Roe v Wade ruling last month that handed abortion rights back to individual states.The 37-year-old claimed it was part of a 'global assault on democracy and freedom' as he also cited Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine among problems facing the world.The comments, heard by a mostly-empty room at the United Nations on Monday morning, were the latest broadside at US politicians.It comes after his wife Meghan told how the Duke had a 'gutteral' reaction to the Supreme Court's bombshell overturning of Roe v Wade last month.Elsewhere in Harry's speech, he said:A photograph of Princess Diana meeting Nelson Mandela in 1997 remains on his 'wall and his heart';The Duke said that he knew Meghan was his soulmate when they visited Africa together in 2019;Covid and climate change left him feeling 'battered and helpless' after 'a painful year in a painful decade';Fatherhood had made campaigning more important to him after sharing Archie and Lilibet with Meghan.Prince Harry told of his joy of seeing his mothers 'playfulness' in a photograph with Nelson Mandela in Cape Town when he met Desmond Tutu in 2019 Harry and Meghan were seen smiling as they left the UN Assembly in NYC surrounded by security guards as they climbed into an SUV His wife Meghan told Vogue that her 'feminist' husband had a 'guttural' reaction to the overturning of abortion laws last month as he again waded into the row Meghan spoke to members of staff at the building before the couple got into their gas-guzzling SUV The 37-year-old attacked American politics during his keynote speech at the United Nations event in New York City today The couple made a dash for their huge black vehicle as they braced the drizzle in New York, as Meghan grinned at her husband Prince Harry and Meghan Markle held hands as they arrived at the meeting ahead of his keynote speech later on today During his speech, to an empty UN, Prince Harry talked about the Archewell Foundation, which he and his wife launched after stepping back as working royals They clapped as they listened along to the speakers, as two winners of the Nelson Mandela Prize were awarded in person Both the Duke and Duchess of Sussex ignored questions about the impact of Tom Bower's book Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the war between the Windsor'sThe couple got into their black Suburban Chevrolet as they left the UN building, heading further south in the back of the car Meghan Markle watched on as her husband gave his speech at the UN today, after being invited by the Nelson Mandela Foundation It is understood that the couple will also be attending meetings with delegates throughout the day after Prince Harry gave his keynote speechThe Duke of Sussex is also understood to be preparing for to lecture delegates on climate change and poverty Harry and Meghan met with the President of the UN General Assembly Abdulla Ahahid as well as the two winners of the 2020 Nelson Mandela prize Harry says photo of Diana meeting Mandela in 1997 remains on 'his wall and his heart'Prince Harry has said a photograph of Diana meeting Mandela in 1997 remains on his 'wall and his heart'. The Duke also revealed how he 'knew he had found a soulmate' in Meghan Markle, 40, on a visit to Africa.During his speech, he spoke about his love for the continent, which he first visited when he was 13 years old and explained he went there to seek solace following her death. It was then he called Meghan, who he whisked to Botswana on their third date, his 'soulmate'. Prince Harry's mother, Princess Diana, famously met with Mandela in Cape Town in March 1997, just five months before her tragic deathHarry and Meghan arrived hand-in-hand ahead of his speech to delegates on climate change and poverty during the two hour meeting.It is the first time that the couple have been seen in public since jetting to the UK to celebrate the Queen's Platinum Jubilee last month, where they kept a low profile. During his speech, Harry said a photograph of his mother Princess Diana meeting Nelson Mandela remains 'on his wall and his heart'.He said that his mother's 'joy and playfulness' can be seen in the photograph, taken in Cape Town in March 1997, just five months before her tragic death. 'We've also come to know him through the photographs of a person who even when confronting unimaginable cruelty and injustice, almost always had a smile on his face,' said Harry. 'For me, there's one photo in particular that stands out. On my wall, and in my heart everyday, is an image of my mother and Mandela meeting in Cape Town in 1997. Meghan and Harry arrived hand in hand ahead of his speech to delegates on climate change and poverty during the two hour meeting at the UN.It marks the first time the couple have been seen in public since jetting to the UK to celebrate the Queen's Platinum Jubilee last month, where they kept a low profile.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.'It is 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'.Prince Harry went on to say a photograph of his mother Princess Diana meeting Nelson Mandela remains 'on his wall and his heart'.He said his mothers 'joy and playfulness' can be seen in the photograph, taken in Cape Town in March 1997, just five months before her tragic death.Addressing the UN, Harry said: 'For me there is one photo in particular that stands out. On my wall and in my heart everyday is an image of my mother and Mandela meeting in Cape Town in 1987.'It was presented to me by the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu, whose friendship and inspiration were their own treasured gift.'My wife and I had the honor of introducing our four-month-old son to him in 2019. But when I first looked at the photo straight away what jumped out was the joy on my mother's face.'The playfulness, cheekiness even, the pure delight to be in communion with another soul so committed to serving humanity.'Then I looked at Mandela. Here was a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders, asked to heal his country from the wreckage of its past and transform it for the future.'A man who had endured the very worst of humanity – vicious racism and state-sponsored brutality. A man who had lost 27 years with his children and family that he would never get back.' The couple were all smiles and laughing as they were accompanied by members of their team leaving the event on Nelson Mandela Day Meghan beamed as she spoke to other members of the audience as her husband watched on after giving his speech in New York Harry smiled after giving a speech in which he paid tribute to Nelson Mandela and spoke of how his mother's 'cheekiness' while meeting him shone through a photo Members of the UN watched on as the Duke of Sussex gave his speech, with some taking photos and videos as the royal spoke In his speech, Harry said 'this has been a painful year in a painful decade' after describing his mother's 'delight' when meeting Nelson Mandela The couple were deep in conversation ahead of Harry's keynote speech, and they were thanked for their 'consistent advocacy around public service' During the event, which begins at 10am EST, the 2020 UN Nelson Mendela Prize will be awarded to Mrs Marianna V. Vardinoyannis of Greece and Dr Morissanda Kouyaté of Guinea The Desmond & Leah Tutu Legacy Foundation gave the Duke and Duchess of Sussex was set of framed photographs of Princess Diana's meeting with Nelson Mandela in 1997 Harry and Meghan introduced their son Archie, then four months old, to Desmond Tutu when they visited South Africa on a Royal Tour in 2019 President Nelson Mandela shares a moment with Prince Charles as they visited Brixton in South London on the last day of Mandela's four day state visit to the United Kingdom in 1996Harry is giving the keynote and participants including assembly president Abdulla Shahid, UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed, New York Mayor Eric Adams and Guinea´s Foreign Minister Morissanda Kouaté Whilst praising the work of Mandela, President of the UN General Assembly Abdulla Ahahid welcomed the royal couple, adding: 'consistent advocacy around public service' Prince Harry and Meghan meet Graca Machel, the widow of the late Nelson Mandela, in Johannesburg, South Africa, October 2, 2019 This year will see the 77th meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. The first was held in London in 1945 Meghan stunned with her $1500 black Mulberry bag, which she paired with a black Givency short sleeve top and midi-length pencil skirt with pocket detailing at the waist Harry shook hands with New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who also gave a speech at the event - comparing Mandela's struggles to his own dyslexia The couple smiled as they were asked about claims made in Tom Bowers new bombshell books as they arrived for Mandela DayCovid and climate change have left him feeling 'battered and helpless' after 'a painful year in a painful decade' Harry described how Covid and climate change had left him feeling 'battered and helpless' after a 'painful year in a painful decade' - as he revealed how fatherhood had made campaigning more important to him.During a sombre speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Nelson Mandela Day, the Duke of Sussex said Covid is 'continuing to ravage communities in every corner of the globe' and the world is facing 'an endless stream of disasters and devastation'.Invoking Mandela's description of hope as 'like a lifebelt is to a swimmer', Harry said: 'Let's be honest, how many of us are in danger of losing those lifebelts right now?'How many of us feel battered, helpless, in the face of a seemingly endless stream of disasters and devastation. I understand, this has been a painful year in a painful decade.'The prince then referred to the Covid pandemic, and the war in Ukraine - the latter of which he controversially mentioned in the same breath as the overturning of Roe v Wade in the USA. General Assembly spokesperson Paulina Kubiak officially announced the program for Nelson Mandela International Day on Friday.Meghan stunned with her $1500 black Mulberry bag, which she paired with a black Givency short sleeve top and midi-length pencil skirt with pocket detailing at the waist.She slicked back her long dark hair into a sleek ponytail, donning $725 black suede Manolo Blahnik pumps, clutching Prince Harry's hand before they were seen laughing before the meeting got started.Opening up about his love of Africa, after first visiting age 13, Harry added: 'For most of my life, it has been my lifeline, a place where I found peace and healing time and time again.'It's where I felt closest to my mother and sought solace after she died, and where I knew I had found a soulmate in my wife.'Whilst praising the work of Mandela, President of the UN General Assembly Abdulla Ahahid welcomed the royal couple, adding: 'consistent advocacy around public service'. The prince described the world as being 'on fire' due to climate change, with previously rare weather events becoming 'part of our daily lives'.He added: 'And this crisis will only grow worse unless our leaders lead. The right thing to do is not up for debate, and neither is the science.'A moment when multiple converging crises have given way to an endless string of injustices... a moment when people around the world are experiencing extraordinary pain...'Both the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, who were invited by the Nelson Mandela Foundation, ignored questions about the impact of Tom Bower's book Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the war between the Windsor's.They glanced over at UN correspondent for Voice of American Margaret Besheer but quickly turned away. Harry and Meghan's forays into US politics 2020 - During a September video shot for Time 100 before the presidential election, Harry and Meghan called on American voters to 'reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity' in 'the most important election of our life,' which was viewed as a not-so-veiled rebuke of President Donald Trump.Critics of the formerly-royal couple's comments included none other than her majesty's family, who noted the Sussexes vowed that 'everything they do will uphold the values of Her Majesty' - values that are supposed to include not picking sides in political matters. Buckingham Palace was forced to distance itself from Harry's remarks by saying that 'the Duke is not a working member of the royal family' and describing his comments as 'made in a personal capacity'. A Source close to the Sussexes also noted Meghan was keen to keep her American citizenship after she became a royal in case she ever wanted to go into US politics. The source told Vanity Fair's Katie Nicholl that Meghan 'would seriously consider running for president' after she gave up her royal title.2021 - Meghan is revealed to have been calling Republican senators on their personal phones and using her former royal title to urge them to vote in favor of a paid paternal leave legislation. 'This is Meghan, the Duchess of Sussex,' Markle reportedly said to West Virginia senator Moore Capito. She also did the same with Senator Susan Collins of Maine. 'Much to my surprise, she called me on my private line and introduced herself as the Duchess of Sussex, which is kind of ironic' said Collins. 'I was happy to talk with her, but I'm more interested in what people from Maine are telling me about paid leave,' she told Politico.She also submitted a 1,030 word letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in which she made made a plea for the parental legislation. The letter was written on Duchess of Sussex letterhead. In the letter, the former duchess wrote that the US's economic systems were 'past their expiration date' and 'too many Americans are forced to shortchange themselves when it comes to what matters to them.'2022 - In May, Markle chartered a private jet to travel 1,400 miles to Texas where she laid a bouquet of white 'peace' roses at a memorial to the 19 children and two teachers slain at Robb Elementary School by murderous maniac Salvador Ramos. She also made a surprise visit to a blood center with two crates of food and drinks for donors, volunteers revealed, as one admitted: 'I had no idea who she was' and another confused her with a neighbor.Though cameras and news crews surrounded the memorial on Thursday, Markle did not make any remarks to the press. Then in an interview with Vogue following the overturning of Roe v Wade, Meghan also urged men to be 'more vocal' with their anger at the repealing of Roe v Wade and said that Prince Harry's response to the Supreme Court's decision last Friday was 'guttural.''My husband and I talked about that a lot over the past few days. He's a feminist too,' she said, adding 'We have to channel that fear into action. We can start this November in the midterms. We have to vote, every time.'Markle said she was willing to travel to Washington DC to join in on pro choice marches. Conservative Georgia congressman Rep.Buddy Carter chimed in on Markle's comments, saying 'I think Americans made it pretty clear in 1776 that they don't want members of the British Royal Family making decisions for them.' In earlier in the spring, the Sussexes hired Miranda Barbot, a former aide to president Barack Obama who was central to his successful reelection campaign in 2012. Ms Besheer asked: 'Are you worried that Tom Bower's new book is going to widen your rift with the Royal Family?'Harry gave the keynote and participants included UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed, New York Mayor Eric Adams and Guinea´s Foreign Minister Morissanda Kouaté.New York Mayor Eric Adams used his platform at the event to compare Mandela’s 27 years behind bars to his struggles with dyslexia.He said: ‘We must be inspired by the courage of Nelson Mandela. The ongoing crisis of covid, war and crime have imprisoned us in our own Robin Island Prison.‘But these are temporary conditions, not life sentences. 'My own personal story is reflected in that. I was dyslexic and denied support services as a child.‘I was arrested as a youth and felt rejected as a person but I knew it was not the end, not a burial. 'And today I stand before you energized with all that I have endured on my journey too.’The General Assembly established July 18 - Mandela´s birthday - as an international day to honor him not only by celebrating his life and contributions but by carrying out the tradition of participating in a community service activity.During the event the 2020 UN Nelson Mendela Prize was awarded to Mrs Marianna V. Vardinoyannis of Greece and Dr Morissanda Kouyaté of Guinea.This prize is handed out every five years and recognises people who have dedicated their lives to the service of humanity.Harry was accompanied at the U.N. by his wife Meghan. The former actress spoke at a conference at UN headquarters organized by UN Women on International Women´s Day in 2015, before her marriage to the prince.In January 2020, the couple stepped down as senior members of the royal family and moved to the duchess´ native Southern California, where they continue to live with their two children.Harry and Meghan visited South Africa in 2019 with their son, Archie, on their first official tour as a family before they gave up royal duties.They then travelled to Canada for a family holiday, and planned their move away from the Royal Family - stepping down from their roles before moving to the US. Harry´s mother, the late Princess Diana, met Mandela in March 1997, just five months before her death in a car crash in Paris.His speech comes hours after it was revealed in a new bombshell book that his Eton pals called him 'f***ing nuts' for dating Meghan.Tom Bower, journalist and author of 'Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the war between the Windsors' says Harry invited Meghan to join him at Sandringham for his weekend shoot in 2016.Their relationship had only just been publicly revealed, and the Prince reportedly invited 16 friends to join him over the weekend. They mostly included old school pals from Eton, employed by international banks and auction houses, who joined him for dinner, shooting and lunch with the Queen's permission.Bower claims the Duke of Sussex had been excited for a weekend of 'endless banter' with his pals, but Meghan, 40, was less than impressed and 'challenged every guest' who 'contravened her woke values'.Meghan 'lacked any sense of humour' and was a 'dampener on the party', Bower says in his new book, according to The Times newspaper.She also reportedly 'reprimanded them for their jokes about sexism, feminism and transgender people', with Bower writing that Harry had 'not anticipated' Meghan's reaction.He wrote: 'She lacked any sense of humour. Driving home after Sunday lunch, the texts pinged between the cars: 'OMG, what about HER?' said one. 'Harry must be f***ing nuts'.'Bower claims Meghan 'reprimanded guests' if they made the 'slightest inappropriate comment' and 'nobody was exempt'.The claims comes after it was revealed Meghan 'called her PR team in hysterics' after Buckingham Palace reacted with 'fury' to 'her Vanity Fair interview about Prince Harry'.Bower says Meghan was 'ecstatic' when she was asked to appear on the cover of Vanity Fair's September 2017 issue and do an interview with the magazine. New York Mayor Eric Adams used his platform at the event to say that Covid, war and crime have ' imprisoned us in our own Robin Island Prison' The couple listened intently to the speakers, chatting with those around them during the breaks before Harry took to the stage Harry looked calm and relaxed ahead of his keynote speech, listening intently with his wife as they attended the event marking Nelson Mandela dayMeghan 'lacked any sense of humour' and was a 'dampener on the party', Bower says in his new book Tom Bower, journalist and author of 'Revenge: Meghan, Harry and the war between the Windsors' says Harry invited Meghan to join him at Sandringham for his weekend shoot in 2016 - shortly after the pairs relationship was publicly revealed Bower says the Duke of Sussex was 'looking forward' to 'endless banter' with his friends - but Meghan, 40, was less than impressed and 'challenged every guest' who 'contravened her woke values'But when the magazine ran with the headline 'Wild About Harry' on its cover - focusing on Meghan's relationship with the British prince rather than her work as an actor, activist and philanthropist - Bower says the Palace was taken aback.Within hours of the magazine's pre-publication copies being sent to Buckingham Palace, Bower says Meghan phoned her PR firm and 'hysterically' told them of the Palace's fury.Bower reports that Meghan was furious that the piece was not more focused on her philanthropy but says this was due to the fact Vanity Fair researchers were unable to substantiate two key stories she had told about her activism as a young child.After first discussing Meghan's speech at the United Nations and a letter she sent to Procter & Gamble as an 11-year-old requesting that they change a slogan promoting washing-up liquid that was deemed sexist, she was asked about Harry. A bombshell new book claims that the Queen told her closest aides 'thank goodness' that Meghan was not coming to Prince Phillip's funeral in April 2021. Harry and Meghan named their daughter Lilibet - a nickname the Queen was given in her youth Meghan and Harry were not allowed on the balcony during the Queen's Jubilee events last month, but was snapped appearing to shush the royal children as she is seen inside the Major General's Office overlooking Horse Guards Parade in London during Trooping the Colour celebrations The Duke and Duchess of Sussex flew over to the UK in June for the first time Lilibet and her brother Archie (pictured last December) Earlier this year, Princess Diana's biographer Tina Brown claimed that the Duke 'can't stand' Camilla and might deepen his rift with the royal family by 'going after' her and Prince Charles in his upcoming memoirs Nelson Mandela: Anti-apartheid fighter jailed for the cause Prince Charles along with the Spice Girls meeting with Nelson Mandela in 1997Nelson Mandela was arguably the world's most potent symbol of the anti-apartheid struggle against thanks to his courage in the face of persecution. He was known for trying to unite South Africa after its long history of division, and was affectionately known as 'Madiba', his clan name, meaning 'grandfather'.Mr Mandela guided South Africa towards multi-racial democracy, and was imprisoned for nearly three decades for his fight against white minority rule. Upon becoming South Africa's first black president in 1994, he said: 'The time for the healing of the wounds has come. The moment to bridge the chasms that divide us has come. We have, at last, achieved our political emancipation.'A year earlier, Mr Mandela was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, which he shared with F.W. de Klerk, the white Afrikaner leader who freed him from jail. He became a global advocate of human dignity, before officially leaving public life in June 2004, telling his country: 'Don't call me. I'll call you'. Mr Mandela, who defended himself at his own treason trial in 1963, married three times and had more than 30 children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.He wed his first wife Evelyn Mase, who was a cousin of his political mentor Walter Sisulu, aged 26 - and they were married for 13 years, having four children. His romance with second wife Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, who was 16 years his junior, began while he was on trial for treason. However they also separated before Mr Mandela became president following political and personal differences.He then married his third wife Graca Machel - widow of Mozambican president Samora Machel, who died in a plane crash - on his 80th birthday in 1998. She already had six stepchildren and two of her own children, and helped him in his final years but admitted: 'To see him ageing is something that pains you.' Mr Mandela was treated in the 1980s for tuberculosis and had an operation to repair damage to his eyes as well as prostate cancer treatment in 2001.After his departure from politics, Mr Mandela gradually stepped away from the public eye and made his last significant public appearance at the 2010 World Cup in South Africa. His death came on the day the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge attended the London premiere of biopic Long Walk to Freedom, in which Mr Mandela was played by Idris Elba. Mr Mandela died at home in December 2013 aged 95 after a long battle with illness. As reported by Vanity Fair in 2017, Meghan said: 'We're a couple. We're in love.'I'm sure there will be a time when we will have to come forward and present ourselves and have stories to tell, but I hope what people will understand is that this is our time.'This is for us. It's part of what makes it so special, that it's just ours. But we're happy. Personally, I love a great love story.'The Duchess guest-edited the September 2019 issue of British Vogue, which reportedly left the editorial staff in 'silent exasperation' according to Bower.They found her contributions 'superficial', with the former actress coming under fire for mission off the Queen in her list of 15 women that she admired as 'forces for change'.In one telephone conference Bower claims that Meghan announced to the gathered editorial staff 'I want to break the internet.'He wrote: 'They believed most of her contributions were superficial, lacking rhyme or reason. To avoid confrontation she was never asked to explain.'His book also alleges that the Queen said 'thank goodness Meghan is not coming', when she discovered that the Duchess was not attending Prince Philips funeral.The Duchess reportedly did not attend because doctors advised her against flying, as she was seven months pregnant with the couple's daughter Lilibet.However the couple last month jetted off to the UK with their two children for the Queen's Platinum Jubilee – with sources confirming that the Queen had met her granddaughter.Her Majesty, who was nicknamed Lilibet as a child, was reportedly introduced to the little girl in Windsor after a private Royal Family lunch at Buckingham Palace.The Sussexes, who are stayed at their old home Frogmore Cottage in Windsor while visiting from California, were not allowed on the Buckingham Palace balcony yesterday and instead watched proceedings from Horse Guards Parade.The event in June was the couple's first appearance with The Firm since the frosty Commonwealth Service at Westminster Abbey in March 2020 shortly before they officially stepped down as senior royals.It comes after a royal expert claimed that Prince Harry 'doesn't have great respect' for the Duchess of Cornwall and has 'no interest' in 'developing' a relationship with her.Camilla, 75, has been stepmother to the Duke of Sussex, since she married Prince Charles in 2005.However royal expert Ingrid Seward has revealed how the pair's relationship went 'off the boil' and Harry now does not 'have a great deal of warmth for her.'Speaking on the Mirror's Pod Save the Queen podcast, Ingrid said: 'I don't think Harry is interested in developing a relationship with his stepmother at this stage in his life.'I don't think Harry has a great deal of warmth for her, he waxes and wanes with her.Ingrid's comments come after Princess Diana's biographer Tina Brown claimed that the Duke 'can't stand' Camilla and might deepen his rift with the royal family by 'going after' her and Prince Charles in his upcoming memoirs.Speaking in April, Brown said Prince Charles' estranged son is likely to voice his frustration in his memoirs, which are set to be published later this year.Meghan Markle looks perfectly poised in a $1,590 Givenchy pencil skirt as she joins Prince Harry in New York City for his keynote speech to UN General AssemblyBY JESSICA GREENMeghan Markle showed she meant business in a sophisticated pencil skirt and blouse as she stepped out with Prince Harry today in New York City.The Duchess of Sussex, 40, who shares Archie, three, and Lilibet, one, with the Duke of Sussex, 37, donned a $1,590 Givenchy patch pocket skirt when appearing alongside her husband as he featured as a keynote speaker at the UN General Assembly. With her hair pulled back into a ponytail, Meghan looked typically stylish in her statement garment from the French brand, which she teamed with a simple black blouse, Manolo Blahnik heels and a matching Mulberry handbag.Prince Harry is expected to talk about Nelson Mandela's legacy, as well as lecture delegates on climate change and poverty during the two hour meeting. South Africa's UN Mission said Friday his remarks 'will be around the memories and legacy of Mandela and what has been learned from his struggle and his life that can help up face the new challenges in the world today.'With her hair pulled back into a ponytail, Meghan looked typically stylish in her statement garment from the French brand, which she teamed with a simple black blouse, Manolo Blahnik heels and a matching Mulberry handbag Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex attend a celebration of Nelson Mandela International Day at the United Nations Headquarters in New YorkMeghan previously wore the same skirt when visiting Dublin, Ireland on July 10, 2018, but selected a dark green shade rather than the black version she sported today. She kept her look simple, forgoing a necklace and sporting only dainty golden earrings - however, she did opt for several bracelets, a watch and plenty of rings.The mother-of-two completed her look with a smattering of glamorous makeup - including a pink lip, rose blush and a smokey eye. General Assembly spokesperson Paulina Kubiak officially announced the program for Nelson Mandela International Day on Friday.Harry is giving the keynote and participants include assembly president Abdulla Shahid, UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed, New York Mayor Eric Adams and Guinea´s Foreign Minister Morissanda Kouaté.The General Assembly established July 18 - Mandela´s birthday - as an international day to honour him - not only by celebrating his life and contributions but by carrying out the tradition of participating in a community service activity. The General Assembly established July 18 - Mandela´s birthday - as an international day to honour him - not only by celebrating his life and contributions but by carrying out the tradition of participating in a community service activity. Pictured, Meghan and Harry at the event The mother-of-two completed her look with a smattering of glamorous makeup - including a pink lip, rose blush and a smokey eyeDuring the event, which begins at 10am EST, the 2020 UN Nelson Mendela Prize will be awarded to Mrs Marianna V. Vardinoyannis of Greece and Dr Morissanda Kouyaté of Guinea. This prize is handed out every five years and recognises people who have dedicated their lives to the service of humanity.Meghan spoke at a conference at UN headquarters organized by UN Women on International Women´s Day in 2015, before her marriage to the prince.In January 2020, the couple stepped down as senior members of the royal family and moved to the duchess' native Southern California, where they continue to live with their two children.Harry and Meghan visited South Africa in 2019 with their son, Archie, on their first official tour as a family before they gave up their royal duties. Prince Harry's UN speech in full: From rant | SCOTUS |
President Biden and Congress have roughly four months to avoid a self-inflicted economic catastrophe. After reaching the debt limit last week, the federal government can no longer issue any new bonds to pay for spending already approved by lawmakers and presidents. A bipartisan agreement is the most likely and safest outcome. But partisan divides over federal spending and tumult within the GOP House majority make this fight over the debt limit one of the riskiest in recent memory. Here are five ways the federal government can try to keep the U.S. out of default: Biden strikes a deal Despite political bluster and threats of brinkmanship, most Washington policy analysts expect the latest showdown over the debt ceiling to end in typical fashion: a bipartisan deal to lift the debt limit attached to a budget or spending agreement. The 2011 debt ceiling crisis ended with former President Obama and a new GOP House majority agreeing to strict automatic budget cuts in 2013. Another standoff in 2013 led to the creation of a special committee meant to strike a long-term funding agreement. Republicans are once again holding out for spending cuts before agreeing to back a debt ceiling increase, including to Social Security and Medicare. The White House has refused to negotiate, but may feel pressure to yield as a potential default gets closer. “Washington is probably several months away from when the situation will reach a boiling point and Congress has to get serious,” wrote Brian Gardner, chief Washington policy strategist at investment bank Stifel, in an analysis last week. Discharge petition House GOP leaders are opposed to raising the debt ceiling without spending cuts. But House lawmakers could theoretically force the chamber to vote on a clean debt ceiling increase through a “discharge petition.” If House leaders are blocking a bill filed to a committee from reaching the floor, a simple majority of House members may force a vote on the measure by signing a discharge petition. That would allow all House Democrats and a handful of GOP moderates to force a clean debt ceiling hike up to the Senate. Even so, Gardner said there are procedural hurdles and political pressures that make it difficult to avert a default through a discharge petition. Only bills that have been pending before committees for at least 30 legislative days can be discharged through a petition, he explained, and House leadership could still delay a vote. “Discharge petitions are not useful tools in time sensitive situations,” Gardner wrote. Payment prioritization Republican lawmakers have suggested the Treasury Department could limit the harm of defaulting on the national debt by staying on top of certain payments as they come due. Such a process, referred to as payment prioritization, would force the Treasury to choose U.S. bondholders over other expenses. Legal and financial experts, however, believe this is logistically impossible for the Treasury and would still cause serious financial damage if attempted. “It seems unimaginable that bond investors, including many foreign investors, would get their money ahead of American seniors, the military, or even the federal government’s electric bill for long,” wrote Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, in a Monday research note. Invoking the 14th Amendment Some historians and legal experts say Biden can try to invoke a provision of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which dictates that debt owed by the federal government “shall not be questioned,” and force the Treasury Department to override the debt limit. While Biden could attempt to forge a new legal pathway to avoiding a default, Zandi said it would still come at immense financial cost. “Investors would rightly wonder if using the amendment to abrogate the debt limit law would stand up in the courts, and even if it did, what that would mean for our political system’s checks and balances,” he wrote. Minting a $1 trillion coin Both Biden and Obama faced pressure to order the minting of a $1 trillion coin under a 1990s law that gave the Treasury secretary total authority over the issuance, design and assigned value of platinum-based coins. The platinum coin would then be deposited at the Federal Reserve and credited to the Treasury, thus avoiding a default. “The president and the Treasury secretary have a big red button that they could press at any time that could completely end this whole charade,” said Rohan Grey, assistant law professor at Willamette University and a platinum-coin advocate, in a Tuesday interview. Even so, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Sunday called the coin a “gimmick” that the Fed may not accept, making clear she is unlikely to issue one. | US Federal Policies |
DNA testing has led members of the San Diego County Sheriff's Department Homicide Unit to finally identify the body of a woman who was found dead in California in 1986. Now officials say they have a "brand new mystery" to find out who killed her.
The woman's remains were found near campsites on the Los Coyotes Indian Reservation in Warner Springs, a spot on the Pacific Crest Trail, on Feb. 16, 1986. But authorities had been unable to identify the victim until this week.
The sheriff's office announced Tuesday that the remains had been identified as those of Claudette Jean Zebolsky Powers, who was born in Michigan in Jan. 1962. In the early 1980s, she lived with her husband in Washington state until she left him and moved to San Diego in 1983 or 1984, according to family. She was last heard from in Sept. 1984, after her father died. Police said she likely lived in the San Diego area until around Feb. 1986.
While Powers' body has been identified, her killer remains at large, the sheriff's office said. In the news release, they asked members of the public with any information to come forward and said that detectives had been working the case for the decades since Powers' body was found.
Sergeant Tim Chantler told CBS affiliate KFMB-TV that detectives are now putting together a timeline of Powers' life before her death to try to identify her killer.
"It took 37 years to identify who she was, to solve that mystery," Chantler said. "Now we have to reconstruct her whole life. Where she lived, where she worked, and who she knew? Was she dating anybody? Who were her friends? That's where we're starting, a brand new mystery now, as opposed to the one we just solved."
Powers' youngest sister, Laura Freese, asked anyone with information to come forward.
"It's been really hard on our family," Freese said in the news release. "Somebody knows what happened. A neighbor, anybody that knew her knows what happened. If you are still alive and you knew my sister and you knew what happened to her, please come forward. Please, we need closure."
It was only thanks to a technique called investigative genetic genealogy that Powers was identified, the office said. This technique is only used when all other methods, like combing through missing-persons records, have failed, and involves uploading DNA found at a crime scene to consumer genealogy websites to locate family members of victims. The method is also used when searching for suspects.
In Powers' case, DNA information was taken from a sample of her hair and compared to available profiles on the commercial sites. Using this, as well as census records and other public information, detectives were able to build family trees and "track down an indiviudal believed to be a relative of Claudette." Detectives spoke with that relative, and were eventually connected with Powers' daughters, sister and mother.
DNA samples confirmed the match and allowed the remains to be positively identified. Police said that this is the seventh time the department's homicide unit has used investigative genetic genealogy to solve such a case.
A second body was also found near where Powers' body was. This second murder victim, who was found "around the same time and area" according to the sheriff's office, has not been identified. The cases may be connected, police said.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
The finances of about 40 million Americans with college loans are hanging in the balance as borrowers await the Supreme Court's ruling on the legality of President Biden's plan to forgive up to
Borrowers could face a double whammy this summer if a majority of Justices rule against the debt relief plan, as the court's decision is likely to land just before the pause on debt repayment lifts in September. The court is scheduled to release its next decisions on Thursday morning. In the worst case scenario, borrowers will face restarting their loan payments in September without any debt relief, experts note.
The Biden plan, announced last August, could wipe out the student-loan debt of 20 million Americans, while lowering the balances of those among the remaining 20 million who qualify for the relief. But legal challenges claimed President Joe Bidenin developing the debt-forgiveness program, which was halted before it could deliver any relief to student borrowers.
The dispute has placed student borrowers in a bind and raises questions about how they should prepare for both the Supreme Court's ruling as well as the new analysis from the Financial Health Network.. If repayments resume without any debt relief, more than 12 million borrowers could find it difficult to make their payments, according to a
Borrowers "need to protect themselves and be prepared for whatever may come," said Michele Shepard, senior director of college affordability at The Institute for College Access & Success, an advocacy group for affordable higher education. "Be prepared for the worst case scenario if their balance doesn't go down and repayments start in the fall."
Here's what experts advise on how to prepare.
Figure out which servicer has your loan
Student-loan repayments are slated to restart on September 1 under the deal negotiated by the Biden administration and lawmakers, which wasearlier this month.
That comes after repayments were put on hold, and interest rates were set to 0%, starting in March 2020 due to the pandemic. In other words, millions of Americans with student loans haven't had to make a payment in more than three years.
The first step in preparing to resume repayments is to log into your account at the Federal Student Aid website, which will tell you which servicer is handling your loans. Some people may learn that their servicers have changed since March 2020, Shepard said.
Next, make sure you can log into your account with the servicer.
"It's as simple as making sure you have the information to log into your student loan account," she noted. "We are hearing people haven't had to log in for a few years and can't remember how to log in, and then they have to call someone and there is an hour-long hold to reset their password."
Check your balance and payment amount
Next, figure out what your balance is and how much you'll be on the hook for in September. Experts advise planning on having to repay your entire balance, given that the Biden loan-forgiveness plan is currently in limbo.
"Look at your loan status, your interest rate, and see what is your repayment plan. Do that as much as possible in advance," Shepard advised. "You won't regret being prepared."
Consider switching your repayment plan
It might make sense for some borrowers to switch to a different type of repayment plan, depending on their financial situation, Shepard noted.
For instance, an income-driven repayment plan, or IDR, can be helpful because they peg borrowers' payments to their monthly income. About one-third of all borrowers are enrolled in an IDR, according to Pew Research.
Student debt holders can use a loan simulator at the Federal Student Aid site to figure out which plan is best for them.
The most generous plan is called the Revised Pay As You Earn, or REPAYE, program, which was first introduced in 2016. Also, the Biden administration isthe program to add more borrower-friendly terms. However, that overhaul isn't yet complete, Shepard noted. Even so, the REPAYE plan could work for some borrowers.
"The only real downside is because your monthly payments are lower, you could pay more over the life of the loan because your interest will be accruing," she noted.
Be ready to act if the Supreme Court upholds debt forgiveness
Lastly, experts say to be ready to act if the Supreme Court rules in favor of debt forgiveness, as at least some Wall Street analysts speculate it might.
"Biden may win this case on a technicality, which means student loan forgiveness [would] move forward before students must resume repaying their loans starting Sept. 1," Jaret Seiberg of TD Cowen Washington Research Group said in a report.
About 16 million peoplefor Biden's debt forgiveness plan before the program was halted due to the legal challenges. Those people would hopefully see debt relief quickly if the court rules in favor of the program, noted Persis Yu, deputy executive director of the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC), an advocacy group for people with student debt.
Another several million people had also applied but weren't approved before the program was halted, she noted. And millions more have yet to apply. Those people should act quickly if the program is reinstated, especially given that repayments begin on September 1.
"We hear time and time again the devastation that student debt is causing people's lives," Yu said. "Having this debt relief would be life-changing."
for more features. | SCOTUS |
Two strikes, he’s out. Jim Jordan will not attempt a third floor vote to confirm his nomination for the speakership — at least not for a while.
Following two failed votes on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Ohio congressman has determined not to bring his nomination to the floor on Thursday. He will instead back the interim appointment of Speaker Pro Tem Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) as House Speaker through January, according to multiple reports.
Trending
Will Smith Calls Relationship With Jada Pinkett Smith a 'Sloppy Public Experiment in Unconditional Love'
Trump Told Mitt Romney’s Son He Would ‘Drop’ Melania: Book
Kelly Clarkson Thought Leaving 'The Voice' was a 'Horrible Decision,' But She Wanted to Smile Again
Burt Young, Oscar-Nominated ‘Rocky’ Actor, Dead at 83
Jordan insisted on Wednesday that he did not support the push to appoint McHenry, and was reportedly planning as late as Thursday morning to put himself up for a third vote. It’s unclear whether Jordan will try again at a later date.
Despite an intense pressure campaign by Jordan’s allies to convince Republican holdouts to back him, Jordan lost votes on Wednesday’s attempt to secure the gavel, with 22 Republicans opposing him compared to 20 on Tuesday. CNN reported that multiple GOP sources felt the number would increase to as many as 30 if he made another attempt. | US Congress |
A Last-Minute Deal Averting US Government Shutdown Is Unlikely
A late deal to avert a US government shutdown beginning this weekend isn’t likely — with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy making big demands of President Joe Biden and bringing little leverage to the clash.
(Bloomberg) -- A late deal to avert a US government shutdown beginning this weekend isn’t likely — with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy making big demands of President Joe Biden and bringing little leverage to the clash.
The Republican leader counts as one his proudest achievements an agreement on long-term spending cuts he extracted from Biden in last spring’s showdown over a potential US debt default and now he wants to use a shutdown to get more concessions.
“I want to sit down with the president to secure that border,” McCarthy told reporters Wednesday, as he and Republican hardliners demanded a resumption of construction on Donald Trump’s border wall, stricter new asylum and immigration policies, no new aid to Ukraine and deeper federal spending cuts in return for temporarily keeping the government open.
That Oval Office negotiation isn’t materializing for one simple reason: Biden and other Democrats aren’t afraid this time.
For starters, shutdowns don’t carry the risk of immediate financial turmoil that an unprecedented US default on government debt would have. The nation has weathered plenty of previous shutdowns and, despite the disruption to public services and federal employees’ pay, the economic damage is initially mild and builds incrementally.
Read More: US Shutdown’s $1.9 Billion Risk: No Money for Workers or SpaceX
Republicans are also divided this time, on whether to shut down the government as well as what they want to stop it.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who publicly stuck by McCarthy throughout the debt limit battle, this time is backing a bipartisan plan to avoid a shutdown now making its way through the Senate. And he has publicly separated himself and Senate Republicans from House Republicans.
“The Senate and the House are quite different, and I think in the Senate we’re going to continue to try to reach agreement that can pass on a bipartisan basis and hopefully keep the government open,” McConnell said in a press conference Wednesday.
McConnell has also clearly indicated that he shares a widely held view that Republicans will be blamed by the public for a government shutdown and ultimately have to capitulate. On the Senate floor he framed the choice for Republicans as agreement on temporary funding “or we can shut the government down in exchange for zero meaningful progress on policy.”
McCarthy, who won a House vote for a debt-limit increase tied to specific demands well ahead of a potential default, this time can’t get GOP lawmakers to agree on an initial offer.
What to Know About the Looming Government Shutdown: QuickTake
He and his lieutenants want to make the approaching shutdown about the surge of migrants coming across the southern US border, but they have been unable to unite the party on an opening bid. Even a 31-day spending bill with a 27% cut to domestic spending and asylum law changes still lacks the votes to pass the House.
Biden offered hope Wednesday afternoon that a shutdown might be avoided.
“I don’t think anything is inevitable in politics,” Biden told reporters during a meeting with his science and technology council in San Francisco.
But the president and his advisers have made clear they consider the new demands for spending cuts to be reneging on the deal on spending levels that McCarthy made during the default standoff.
“The fact is that I think that the speaker is making a choice between the speakership and American interests,” Biden said at a campaign fundraiser on Wednesday.
Bloomberg economists Anna Wong and Alexander Isakov, citing a presidential-election model, suggest that the longer a lapse in government funding continues “and the further any post-resolution ‘bounce back’ is pushed into 2024 — the better it will be for President Biden’s chances.”
They, add, however, that if the Democrats agree to significant spending cuts, that could well “weigh on the economy next year — something for which voters tend to blame the incumbent party.”
Another Front
The Republican infighting has moderates looking to work with Democrats to end the shutdown by passing a stopgap measure without conservative priorities. They could force the House to vote on such a plan using an arcane rule, but not before the Oct. 1 deadline.
One of the moderates, Mike Lawler of New York, said he has told his colleagues that they have to make an opening offer, that “you can’t win with nothing” and they need to pass a Republican stopgap bill.
“If folks are unwilling to do that by the time we need to act, then I will,” Lawler said.
--With assistance from Jennifer Jacobs.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | US Federal Policies |
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.
Associated Press
Associated Press
Leave your feedback
White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre will hold a news briefing on Tuesday as Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces a far-right effort to oust him from his leadership position, insisting he will not cut a deal with Democrats to remain in power, setting the stage for an extraordinary and unpredictable showdown on the House floor.
The event is scheduled to begin at 1 p.m. ET. Watch in the player above.
McCarthy’s fate is deeply uncertain as he confronts what’s known as a “motion to vacate” from Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, a strident critic. It would take the support of only a handful of Republicans to remove McCarthy as speaker, should Democrats vote in favor alongside the conservative rebels.
Let’s get on with it, McCarthy told his colleagues in a closed-door meeting, according to a Republican in the room granted anonymity to discuss it.
It’s a stunning moment for the embattled McCarthy that serves as the most severe punishment yet — sparked by his weekend decision to work with Democrats to keep the federal government open rather than risk a shutdown. So far, several hard-right Republicans said they are ready to oppose McCarthy, whose faced challenges from the start of his tenure in January with a prolonged battle to gain the gavel.
At the Capitol, both Republicans and Democrats met privately behind closed doors ahead of what would be a historic afternoon vote.
“(Democrats) haven’t asked for anything,” McCarthy said on CNBC before the meeting. “I’m not going to provide anything.”
McCarthy invoked the last Republican speaker, Joseph Cannon, who more than 100 years ago confronted his critics head on by calling their bluff and setting the vote himself on his ouster. Cannon survived that take-down attempt which, until now, was the first time the House had actually voted to consider removing its speaker.
McCarthy received three standing ovations during the private meeting — one when he came to the microphone to speak, again during his remarks and lastly when he was done, the Republican said.
At one point, there was a show of hands in support of McCarthy and it was “overwhelming,” said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., a member of the House Freedom Caucus. He said he would be voting to “table” or set aside the motion against the speaker.
Gaetz was in attendance, but did not address the room.
On the other side of the Capitol, Democrats lined up for a long discussion and unified around one common point: McCarthy cannot be trusted, one of the lawmakers in the room said.
Still, the Democrats are holding their strategy close, leaving to Leader Hakeem Jeffries and his team to decide the move ahead as floor voting is set to begin.
“I think it’s safe to say there’s not a lot of good will in that room for Kevin McCarthy,” said Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass.
Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill., said “McCarthy got himself in this mess. It’s up to McCarthy to get himself out.”
“We are always the adults in the room,” said Democratic Rep. Abigail Spanberger. “McCarthy said he doesn’t need our help,” she said. “He has made his bed.”
Support Provided By:
Learn more | US Congress |
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but in their effort to elect a House speaker, Republicans have taken a more tortured route.
Compared to a straight line, Republicans will follow the path of the "truncated icosidodecahedron rhombus," a monstrous, convex, polygonous shape.
At least the truncated icosidodecahedron rhombus is an actual thing.
The Rube Goldberg-esque approach by House Republicans to the speakership would probably confuse Archimedes, Pythagoras and Euclid.
I’ve always said that the essence of Congress is "the math." The math is rather simple. Republicans need an outright majority of the entire House — voting by name — to elect someone as speaker. But since they can’t balance the equation after nearly three weeks, the House has devolved into a state of unsolvable political algebra.
If nothing else, House Republicans have been consistent about one thing the past few weeks: Whatever the plan is, they will alter the strategy 180 degrees a few hours later.
Everyone has whiplash.
House Republicans tapped House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., as their speaker nominee a week ago Wednesday, but 30 hours later, he dropped out.
Last Friday afternoon, Republicans then anointed House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, as their speaker nominee. But a week later, Republicans voted Jordan off the island after he lost three consecutive votes for speaker on the floor. Jordan hemorrhaged additional ballots each time.
But that doesn’t do justice to the frenzied planning that has become a touchstone of the manic process to tap a new speaker.
Jordan lost consecutive floor votes for speaker on Tuesday and Wednesday. On Thursday morning, the tentative plan was for the House to meet at noon, potentially teeing up a vote for speaker around 1 p.m.
But House Republicans convened one of their labyrinthine "conference" meetings for 11 a.m.
Just as the meeting started, word came that Jordan would not demand a roll call vote that day. Jordan was destined to lose that vote, the same as he had lost on the days before. One GOP source said that the strategy by Jordan's opponents was "escalatory" — a move to prompt more opponents to cast ballots against Jordan on each ballot.
Before the meeting, Jordan indicated that he would remain a candidate for speaker and remain the official GOP nominee for the job. But he endorsed a plan for the House to formally elect Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., as interim speaker pro tempore. McHenry simply assumed the role once the House bounced former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., from the speakership earlier this month. McHenry is handcuffed in his powers as acting speaker pro tempore, but the House would formally empower McHenry if he were elected speaker pro tempore. That would allow the House to function again and vote on legislation. There is precedent for this. More on that in a moment.
But after four hours, Republicans emerged from the meeting, swerving suddenly toward a divergent plan. Republicans incinerated the idea to elect McHenry and get the House running again — even though Jordan supported it.
Wildly, the plan switched back to holding a floor vote for Jordan later that day, perhaps even in the middle of President Biden’s prime-time address about the Middle East.
Naturally, the vote never came.
The House adjourned early Thursday evening without voting, but, true to form, a new plan emerged. The House would meet at 10 a.m. Friday with a third vote for speaker beginning around 11 a.m.
Holy trapezoid.
"Additional votes are expected throughout the weekend," tweeted Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, a Jordan ally, at 7:23 p.m. Thursday.
But there was a problem with the idea of weekend votes for speaker.
"Additonal votes" would mean that Jordan still hadn’t wrapped up his bid for speaker on Friday. Lawmakers on both sides saw the possibility of an attendance problem over the weekend. They scheduled events in their districts. It was unclear how many would be willing to hang around Washington for another vote that was destined to fail.
However, weekend absences could actually help Jordan. If the right mixture of Members were absent, that could lower the threshold to elect a speaker. Depending on who were gone, there was a possibility that Jordan could actually WIN.
However, any benefit to Jordan would mean a nearly equal risk of losing the speaker's gavel entirely.
If another blend of members were absent, it was possible that Republicans, if they weren’t careful, could elect House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., as speaker.
The magic number to prevail as speaker morphs with each roll call vote. It’s contingent on how many members are there and vote for a candidate by name. The speaker must win an outright majority of the ballots being cast.
That’s why the Jeffries scenario was in play.
As they say in the movies, "You play a dangerous game, Mr. Bond."
But it never got to that point.
At 9:33 p.m. on Thursday, Jordan announced he would hold an 8 a.m. press conference Friday in the Rayburn Room of the U.S. Capitol. It’s rare for any event on Capitol Hill to begin before 9 a.m, but it’s even stranger to announce an event of this magnitude so late the night before.
But Jordan strode in to the Rayburn Room a few moments after 8 a.m. Friday, jacketless, as is his custom.
"Our plan this weekend is to get a speaker elected," said Jordan at 8:11 a.m.
During his remarks, Jordan spoke of how the Wright Brothers built a plane in 1903 that was "barely" airborne.
"Flew like 100 feet. Got a few feet off the ground," said Jordan.
He then added that Chuck Yeager broke the sound barrier in a jet in 1947.
"In 44 years, we go from two guys flying 100 feet to another American breaking the sound barrier in a jet," said Jordan.
Jordan concluded his remarks at 8:12 a.m. He was back in his office in the Rayburn House Office Building by 8:21 a.m. The House began voting shortly after 11 a.m. By 11:26 a.m., the House was only through names beginning with letter "G." But it was clear Jordan had lost another vote for speaker. McHenry gaveled the vote closed at 12:06 p.m. By 1:56 p.m., House Republicans voted by secret ballot to move on from Jordan as their speaker nominee.
Jordan’s campaign for speaker probably traveled further politically than the 120 feet on the maiden voyage of the Wright Brothers' flyer. However, the Wright Brothers kept at it that day in 1903, increasing their flight distance with each sortie. Their fourth flight was aloft for nearly a full minute and flew 852 feet. But unlike the Wright Brothers, Jordan kept losing ground on his subsequent roll call votes. At the rate Jordan was going, it may have taken him 44 years to become speaker — the same amount of time it took Chuck Yeager to break the sound barrier.
Some Republicans took umbrage at what they perceived as strong-arm tactics by Jordan and his allies. Some received death threats. Their family members encountered vulgar messages. Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks, R-Iowa, called her warnings "credible" and reported them to the U.S. Capitol Police. She described Jordan as a "bully."
Rep. Drew Ferguson, R-Ga., said he planned to support Jordan on the second ballot, but he changed his mind after intimidation tactics "ramped up." He also characterized Jordan as a "bully."
Jordan allies rode to his defense.
"Jordan has never pressured anybody," said Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C.
Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., minimized security concerns.
"All of us in Congress receive death threats. I don’t know if that’s a news flash for anybody here," said Perry. "It’s nothing new to a member of Congress. We all know it. That is another red herring."
Never mind that former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., nearly died during a 2011 shooting that also injured future Rep. Ron Barber, D-Ariz. And Scalise nearly perished during the GOP baseball practice shooting in 2017.
A cavalcade of House Republicans entered the speaker sweepstakes Friday following Jordan’s defeat. The House aims to vote again on Tuesday. But it’s anyone’s guess whether the House can elect a speaker then or anytime soon.
One senior Republican source told Fox that it was likely the House had to go at least one more round with a bona fide candidate for speaker before it began to consider the scenario mentioned earlier about empowering McHenry.
The House has done so in the past. House Rule I, Clause 8 allows an elected speaker pro tempore to assume "virtually all the duties, authorities, and prerogatives of the Speaker of the House."
One of the best examples came in 1961. Late House Speaker Sam Rayburn, D-Tex., fell ill over the summer and went back to the Lone Star State to die. The House elected future House Speaker John McCormack, D-Mass., as speaker pro tempore in Rayburn’s absence. The House returned to legislative form, passing a foreign operations spending bill and legislation to create the Peace Corps. The latter was one of the hallmarks of President John F. Kennedy’s legislative agenda.
Rayburn passed away in the fall. The House later elected McCormack as the regular speaker.
It’s far from clear whether the House will ever follow this path to elect a speaker pro tempore if it can’t pick an actual speaker, but one thing is certain: The pathway over the next week remains circuitous. Ellipitical. Contorted. Malformed.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line. That is rarely the case for anything in Congress, but the exercise of electing a speaker is certainly akin to a truncated scosidodecahedron rhombus. | US Congress |
An 83-year-old former reverend has been arrested for allegedly killing an 8-year-old girl in 1975 while she was on her way to his Bible camp, authorities said.
On Aug. 15, 1975, Gretchen Harrington was walking alone to her last day of camp in Marple Township, Pennsylvania, when the suspect, David Zandstra, allegedly drove up to her in his green station wagon, prosecutors said.
Zandstra was a reverend at the camp and a friend of the Harrington family, Delaware County District Attorney Jack Stollsteimer said at a Monday news conference. Zandstra was also the father of one of Gretchen's friends, so the 8-year-old got in his car, Stollsteimer said.
Zandstra confessed to police last week, according to the criminal complaint. Zandstra allegedly told authorities that once he got Gretchen in his car, he drove to a secure location. Zandstra then asked Gretchen to take off her clothes, and when she refused, he allegedly beat her to death with his hands, Stollsteimer said.
Zandstra allegedly disposed of her body and then went back to the church, Stollsteimer said.
"This man is evil," Stollsteimer said.
Zandstra, who later served as a reverend in Texas and Georgia, now lives in Marietta, Georgia, officials said. He is in custody in Georgia on charges including criminal homicide and is fighting extradition, Stollsteimer said.
According to the criminal complaint, multiple witnesses saw Gretchen talking to the driver of a green station wagon, and multiple witnesses, and Zandstra himself, placed Zandstra driving on the road where Gretchen was seen walking to camp.
Zandstra also allegedly gave authorities specific descriptions of Gretchen's clothes, even though he had denied seeing Gretchen that day, according to the criminal complaint.
This January, prosecutors said authorities interviewed a woman who was best friends with Zandstra's daughter when they were children. She told police that at one sleepover at Zandstra's house when she was 10, she was awakened by Zandstra groping her, prosecutors said. When she told Zandstra's daughter, the daughter allegedly replied that her dad "does that sometimes," according to the criminal complaint.
The Harrington family said in a statement released by prosecutors, "We are extremely hopeful that the person who is responsible for the heinous crime that was committed against our Gretchen will be held accountable."
"If you met Gretchen, you were instantly her friend. She exuded kindness to all and was sweet and gentle," the family said. "We are grateful for the continual pursuit of justice by law enforcement and we want to thank the Pennsylvania State Police for never stopping in their constant search for answers. We would not be here today if it was not for them."
ABC News' Cherise Rudy contributed to this report. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Interviews with Donald Trump generate clicks, buzz, and money for news organizations that care more about profits than journalism.
|
|
Listen To This Story
It would be unfair to say that new Meet the Press host Kristen Welker is uniquely unqualified to deal with Donald Trump. Her conversation with the former president on Sunday simply shows that she is just the latest in a long line of mainstream media journalists who are ill-equipped to deal with a man who can overwhelm interviewers with an avalanche of lies and gibberish.
Sadly, none of them appears to have learned the lesson. Or, perhaps more accurately, they don’t care. After all, these interviews generate clicks, buzz, and money for news organizations that are more about profits than journalism.
They don’t seem to care that they are doing a real disservice to the country and to democracy in the process.
If they were, they would stop giving Trump and others like him a platform altogether.
Sunday’s interview was a perfect example of how not to handle an interview with the former president.
To her credit, at times Welker attempted to push back or provide a real-time fact-check when Trump told lies, made up statistics, or failed to provide specifics on anything he plans to do if he were to be elected for a second term next year.
The problem is that this is an impossible task.
Trying to keep Trump from lying is like trying to walk in a hurricane without getting wet.
However, since this isn’t a surprise, why even put him on the air? There is certainly no journalistic purpose, which means it’s for ratings and to stir up controversy. But are those good reasons for normalizing the candidacy of a man who tried to stage a coup and poses the greatest threat to US democracy?
Of course not.
There are only two ways to interview Trump.
One is to be confrontational. This is an approach you can do exactly one time. Instead of allowing Trump to overwhelm the interviewer, it should be the other way around. In this case, that would mean quoting from the four indictments against him, pointing to his many failed election challenges, noting that he has lied thousands of times while in office, and making it clear that he poses a threat to democracy.
None of that is accomplished by letting him launch into his tirades.
A modified version of this is what NBC should have done today. The conversation was taped earlier this week, so NBC had plenty of time to point out every single one of Trump’s lies. They could interrupt the broadcast of the interview every few seconds to point out that he made false statements or prominently fact-check him on screen.
What you cannot do is to note at the end of the interview that a fact-check is available on NBC’s website. That helps nobody.
There is another option that is much more effective in generating real news than what Meet the Press did. And, ironically, that is the approach the right-wing media takes.
Here, the hosts are so deferential to Trump that they just let him ramble on, which is why these interviews are often the ones in which he admits to all kinds of wrongdoing.
And, since she wasn’t going to challenge the former president, this is where Welker committed real journalistic malpractice.
One exchange alone, had she handled it differently, would have made it worth it to grant Trump a network interview (his first since staging the coup).
There was a point in the conversation where the two were talking about the Big Lie. Below is the entire exchange to illustrate how she screwed up (and you should read the entire thing before watching the relevant clip):
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I needed a very small —
KRISTEN WELKER: To win?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I think somebody said 22,000 votes.
KRISTEN WELKER: To win?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Yeah. If you divide it among the states, it was 22,000 votes, something to that effect —
KRISTEN WELKER: To — to win the election?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Yeah. If I would’ve had another 22,000 votes over the whole — but, look. They rigged the election —
KRISTEN WELKER: Is —
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: If you look at Pennsylvania —
KRISTEN WELKER: But Mr. President, you’re saying you needed —
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: If you looked at all the stuff —
KRISTEN WELKER: — more votes to win the election, are you acknowledging you didn’t win?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: Excuse me. If you look at all of the statistics, all of the votes, they say 22,000 votes. Over millions and millions of votes, 22,000 votes. So when they do Twitter Files, or when they have 51 intelligence agents come out and lie that the laptop from hell was Russia disinformation, and now they find out it’s not, but they knew that at the time. They cheated on the election in that way too.
KRISTEN WELKER: I — I just want to be clear, though. Are you saying you needed those votes in order to win? Are you acknowledging you didn’t win?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP: I’m not acknowledging. No. I say I won the election.
As you can see, Welker knew that she was onto something here. Trump’s defense in the coup cases will be that he believed that he won the election, all evidence and lost lawsuits to the contrary. However, here, he talked about how many votes he needed to have won. Never mind that the 22,000 votes figure is wrong; essentially, he was admitting that he lost.
But instead of letting Trump continue down this path, maybe even with questions that got him to talk about it more, Welker foolishly kept throwing him lifelines.
If you watch the clip of that exchange, 16 seconds in, Trump realizes that he screwed up.
WATCH: Former President Trump says he needed ’22,000 votes’ in each state to win in 2020, but falsely claims he still won
KRISTEN WELKER:
When you say you needed one-tenth of a point, you needed one-tenth of a point to win?
FMR. PRES. DONALD TRUMP:
I needed a very small — I… pic.twitter.com/zcLrTvS993
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) September 17, 2023
But he only does so because in those 16 seconds, Welker had already interrupted him three times and tried to get him to explicitly say that he lost, which he wasn’t going to do. After the third time, even an idiot like Trump could figure out what was going on, and he then reverted back to his usual talking points.
That was a huge missed opportunity, and if you aren’t prepared to take advantage of those, then you shouldn’t have the former president on in the first place. | US Political Corruption |
The following is a transcript of an interview with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Republican of California, that aired on "Face the Nation" on Oct. 1, 2023
MARGARET BRENNAN: Good morning and welcome to Face The Nation. Congress has done it once again. They've kicked the proverbial can down the road passing a 45 day funding bill to keep the government running. Now the deadline for getting spending bills passed is November 17th. Joining us this morning, the Speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy. Good morning, you've had a heck of a week.
HOUSE SPEAKER KEVIN MCCARTHY: Yeah.
MARGARET BRENNAN: There is a lot to get to with you. I want to start though, on the news this morning from Congressman Matt Gatez, who says he's going to seek a motion to vacate. He's going to try to oust you as Speaker of the House.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: That's nothing new. He's tried to do that. From the moment I ran for the office. Look--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --Well this time he says he's going to keep going, may not get there before the 15th ballot but it took 15 for Kevin McCarthy. He says he's coming for you, can you survive?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Yes, I'll survive. You know this is personal with Matt. Matt voted against the most conservative ability to protect our border, secure our border. He's more interested in securing TV interviews than doing something, he wanted to push us into a shutdown, even threatening his own district with all the military people there who would not be paid only because he wants to take this motion. So be it, bring it on. Let's get over with it and let's start governing. If he's upset because he tried to push us in a shutdown and I made sure government didn't shut down, then let's have that fight.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You need 218 votes to vacate. Has Hakeem Jeffries, the Democratic leader said that he will--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --No, he hasn't said--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --No what?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: He hasn't said anything about what he's going to do, look--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Will Democrats-Democrats could cross over and follow Gaetz's lead on this--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --Yeah, he he--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --His--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --Look, Gaetz is trying to work with Democrats. He's reached out to Swalwell, to AOC and others. But if that's the way we're going to govern, I don't think America is going to be successful. Look, at the end of the day, think of everything we've been able to accomplish so far. Parents Bill of Rights, we passed the most conservative bill to protect our border, make America energy independent. We've been able to cut $2 trillion, and the debt ceiling, work requirements back in. The hard part we have right now--
MARGARET BRENNAN:--yeah--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --is the Senate has not passed one appropriation bill. Each body is supposed to pass 12. We've passed more than 70% of the discretionary spending already.
MARGARET BRENNAN: --But those--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --I thought it was appropriate--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --Surviving in the Senate and making it into law.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --Well, you said that--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --and we have 45 days to--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --you said that same thing when we, when we stopped the DC from decriminalizing everything. You said the same thing when we said we're going to
MARGARET BRENNAN: --I don't think I ever talked about those things--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --Well no--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --to be honest with you--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: you and, maybe the press would do think, why pass it because the Senate won't take it up and won't sign it. Most in the press probably thought we would have shut down yesterday too. But no, we did not.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Were you confident we wouldn't shut down?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: I was confident I could get something on the floor to make sure the option that we would not--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --But you weren't--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --but our military--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --sure it was going to pass.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Well, well I wasn't sure it was gonna pass. You want to know why? Because the Democrats tried to do everything they can, not to let it pass.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Democrats were the ones who voted for the--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --Did you, did you watch--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --and a large number of Republicans to keep the continuing resolution alive
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --Did you watch the floor yesterday?
MARGARET BRENNAN: Oh. Yes--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Okay then--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --90 Republicans voted against it.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Okay, so let's walk. Let's walk through what actually happened. First of all, the Democrats stood up and did dilatory actions asked to adjourn. So it was that supporting to adjourn? Then they used the Magic Minute. They went as far as pulling the fire alarm not to try to get the bill to come up. Look Democrats stick together, but they did not want the bill. They did not, they were willing to let government shutdown for our military not to be paid. No, I wasn't. We're going to make sure we keep it open while we finish the job we're supposed to do.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You got 45 days?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: That's right.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So–
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --Well, technically 47. But–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, Senator Cornyn said of you last night, you pulled a rabbit out of the hat a couple of times. I mean, he's acknowledging this was tough. Are we going to be staring down another shutdown?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Well it all comes down to the Senate, the Senate hasn't done one thing.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But in the House, are we going to be facing another shutdown November 17?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: No, because the House is doing their work. We've already done more than 70% of it. So compare this to the Senate. The Senate hasn't passed one bill. The Senate didn't pass anything about the shutdown. The Senate hasn't passed anything about securing the border. The Senate hasn't passed anything about $100 a barrel–
MARGARET BRENNAN: --The House hasn't passed anything about the border that could actually could become law–
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --Yes we have--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --not that could become law.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: That's your opinion. The House is its own body. The Senate is his own body. We're not going to surrender to the Senate. We passed what the American people want. I will tell you each and every day- and don't take my word for it. You're going to have the governor of New York on it, who told people to go somewhere else. The New York City Mayor literally says destroying the city--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --Will you have--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: No, let me answer your question since you said we wouldn't do something. Do you know the governor of Massachusetts has declared a state of emergency? This is one of the number one crises
MARGARET BRENNAN: Absolutely.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY:--as far from the border as you can see. This is killing Americans every single day–
MARGARET BRENNAN: There was no border funding in the continuing resolution that passed last night, but let me ask you–
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --No no no, But that's not fair to just say that–
MARGARET BRENNAN: --Well there wasn't.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Okay, well, let's- let's educate the viewers why there wasn't because the day before there was, but Matt Gaetz and others
MARGARET BRENNAN: --yup--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --denied that and voted no. So we could have had border security.
MARGARET BRENNAN: --okay--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --I went all the way through everything we could to the last moment--
MARGARET BRENNAN:--yeah--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: And you know what? We're going to be able to win that.
MARGARET BRENNAN: When will you be able to bring a vote on Ukraine aid? The White House says that you have-are going to do this quickly.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Look, the priority for me is America and our borders. Now, I support being able to make sure Ukraine has the weapons that they need. But I firmly support the border first. So we've got to find a way that we can do this together.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What do you mean the border first, because the White House briefed Congress that 45 days, they don't have enough money–
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: They have more--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --Allow them to get--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: They have more than three, they have more than three billion dollars right now, to be able to help them get through it. If they have some challenge, we can sit down, and we can talk about that. But the American border matters and more--
MARGARET BRENNAN: Of Course.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --more Americans are dying on our border than Americans are dying in Ukraine.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So you are explicitly right now linking any Ukraine aid vote to a border bill--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY:--I'm telling--
MARGARET BRENNAN:--it won't be a stand alone Ukraine bill?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: I'm telling you that the American border matters. And that is our priority to make sure we secure that–
MARGARET BRENNAN: --So that has to move first?--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --I'm going to make sure that the weapons are provided for Ukraine, but they're not going to get some big package if the border is not secure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But you haven't figured out yet the vehicle through which to move that Ukraine aid or a date by which to do it?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: We will work with people in need. But the one thing the White House has to understand, they better be prepared to secure American border.
MARGARET BRENNAN: What does that mean, specifically? What are you looking for there?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Well, the- the bill you think that won't go anywhere could easily do it, H.R. 2. Remain in Mexico, finish the wall. You've got to change asylum to be able to secure this border.
MARGARET BRENNAN: That is the bill, the border bill, that you want passed--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --Yes--
MARGARET BRENNAN: --and you are now--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --not want
MARGARET BRENNAN: --it sounds like attaching it to Ukraine aid--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Not that I- Not that I want it passed. It is passed and the Senate has done nothing. So let's see where the Senate–
MARGARET BRENNAN: --You just said you wanted border first. So you're not talking about holding a new vote in the House on the border. I'm trying to clarify what you're talking about here.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Okay, not to be- but how it works is the House passes a bill, the Senate passes a bill, and you go to conference. The House has already done their job
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: the Senate-and we've done this in Approps. The Senate has done nothing. So what I am saying is when you saw government funding, there is a need for Ukraine. I support being able to provide the weapons to Ukraine
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yup--
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: --but America comes first.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Okay, so you're not sequencing the bills or was- weren't meaning to suggest that in your comments earlier.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Yes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. Okay. I want to make sure I understood that. How much harder did your job get when Donald Trump came out and said that Republicans should shut down if they don't get everything they need? And are you going to endorse him explicitly?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: Look, I think- I think President Trump's going to be our nominee and President Trump's going to win because President Trump's policies made America stronger. We didn't have inflation. We had a secure border–
MARGARET BRENNAN: Are you endorsing him now?
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: We didn't have $100 barrel oil. So what I totally find is the president is going to be our nominee, the president is going to win reelection, President Trump, for the basis that we want to make America stronger. And the other thing too is look what's happening in foreign policy today. You've got five American embassies that had to be evacuated. You've got this new axis of power growing against- you've got a challenge when you- our own allies are now turning towards China. It's a lack of leadership, not just in foreign policy within our border and everywhere else. This president has been in elected office for 50 years. Do you know he has spent more dinners with Hunter Biden's business associates than he has visiting the border? Yeah, don't you think that's important though? One time in 50 years. Do you know how many people will die today from fentanyl coming across our border?
MARGARET BRENNAN: It's a scourge.
SPEAKER MCCARTHY: It's the equivalent of an airliner crashing every single day in America and they refuse to even visit it or do something about it so we are going to make sure this border becomes secure.
MARGARET BRENNAN: We will watch for what that means legislatively. Speaker, thank you very much for your time today.
for more features. | US Congress |
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) recruited former Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) to rip Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) on Monday.
Fetterman paid Santos to film a message for “Bobby from Jersey” on Cameo. Santos has turned to selling personalized videos on the platform following his expulsion last week from Congress after an ethics report accused him of using campaign cash to pay for Botox, content on OnlyFans and more.
“Hey Bobby,” began Santos, who charges circa $200 for a message.
“Uh, look, I don’t think I need to tell you, but these people that want to make you get in trouble and want to kick you out and make you run away, you make them put up or shut up,” he said. “You stand your ground, sir. And don’t get bogged down by all the haters out there. Stay strong. Merry Christmas.”
Watch the video here:
Fetterman, writing on X, formerly Twitter, said he “thought my ethically-challenged colleague @BobMenendezNJ could use some encouragement given his substantial legal problems.”
“So, I approached a seasoned expert on the matter to give ‘Bobby from Jersey’ some advice,” he added.
Fetterman has repeatedly called for Menendez to leave Congress after the New Jersey lawmaker was indicted in September on bribery charges.
“We have a colleague in the Senate that actually does much more sinister and serious kinds of things, Senator Menendez. He needs to go,” Fetterman said on Friday’s broadcast of “The View.”
“If you are going to expel Santos, how can you allow somebody like Menendez to remain in the Senate? And, you know, Santos is kind of, lies were almost, you know, funny,” he added. “And like, you know, he, you know, landed on the moon and that kind of stuff. Whereas, you know, I think, you know, Menendez, I think is really a senator for Egypt. You know, not New Jersey. So I really think he needs to go.”
Santos responded to Fetterman’s commissioning of him to make the clip, saying he loved it. “I wish I knew the Bobby in question! LOL,” he wrote on X. | US Political Corruption |
Trump’s criminal trials prompt GOP political doomsday alarms
GOP strategists and pollsters expect former President Trump’s criminal trials to divide their party, creating a challenge for the Senate and House Republican candidates who will have to walk a fine line on the issue.
Trump’s legal troubles and his escalating battle with the Department of Justice will a become litmus test in GOP primaries next year — just as Trump’s claims that the 2020 election was stolen helped define candidates as MAGA-aligned in 2022, GOP strategists say.
Candidates running in swing states and districts, especially Republicans trying to appeal to independent and college-educated women, will have to keep their distance from Trump’s legal problems, which could become a major liability for the GOP in the general election, they say.
Whit Ayres, a prominent Republican pollster, said Trump “has major problems, particularly with college-educated women.”
“They have basically moved away from the Republican Party at this point and become a core part of the Democratic coalition,” he said. “That doesn’t mean they’re gone for good. With different candidates and a different appeal, I think many of them could come back to the Republicans. But Trump has driven away a great many college-educated women at this point.”
At the same time, Republicans in competitive primaries need to be careful not to alienate Trump’s core supporters, who make up an estimated 30 to 40 percent of the GOP electorate.
“If he is the nominee in 2024, he will be zero help. He’ll be a drag on the ticket, he will be a drag on Republicans, especially down-ballot Republicans,” said Brandon Scholz, a Republican strategist in Wisconsin, where Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D) is up for reelection.
“This is where you divide the Republican Party into two camps,” Scholz said. “One camp says, ‘Let the president figure out his own legal problems. We run on our own. We’re not here to talk about Donald Trump’s legal problems.’
“Then there’s the other half who will just say, ‘It’s a political attack and it’s not deserving and they didn’t do it to Joe Biden,’” he said. “I just don’t think the Republican Party is going to have a consistent message regarding Trump, they’re going to be split.”
Trials vs. primaries
Polls show Trump dominating the GOP field, leading his nearest rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, by an average of 38 percentage points in recent national polls.
He faces as many as four criminal trials and two civil trials over the next 18 months, which means his courtroom dramas will likely coincide with primary election dates, when Trump will be on the ballot in some states along with candidates battling for Senate and House nominations.
For example, in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, four Senate battleground states where there may be competitive GOP primaries, the presidential and down-ballot primaries are scheduled for the same dates: June 4 in Montana, March 19 in Ohio, April 23 in Pennsylvania and May 14 in West Virginia.
“I’ve seen Trump recently made a joke on the trail, ‘One more indictment and I got this thing in the bag,’” said Ohio-based Republican strategist Matt Dole, referring to how Trump’s legal battles have rallied Republican voters behind him.
But he warned that the legal fights could have a different impact on independent and moderate voters in the general election.
“He may have the primary in the bag but it certainly will have an impact on the general election,” he said.
Trump’s trial in Manhattan on 34 felony charges related to his payment of hush money to an adult film actress is scheduled to begin on March 25, while his trial in South Florida on 40 criminal charges related to his handling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago is scheduled for May.
Special counsel Jack Smith has called for a “speedy trial” for Trump in Washington, D.C.’s, district court on four Jan. 6-related criminal charges, prompting speculation the Department of Justice wants to wrap up the trial before the Republican presidential convention scheduled for mid-July in Wisconsin.
Trump also faces the start of a defamation trial involving the writer E. Jean Carroll on Jan. 15 and a lawsuit filed by New York Attorney General Letitia James accusing Trump and his family business of committing loan and insurance fraud. James’s office announced last week its case is “ready for trial.”
Trump faces another criminal trial in Georgia, where Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is preparing to charge him with trying to overturn the results of the state’s 2020 election.
“When you get right down to it, this is going to be a s— show,” Scholz said. “Every trial with Trump, it’s going to be witnesses on the stand, it’s going to be statements. It’s going to be a story to itself. I don’t know when those trials would end, how soon before November 2024, but for every day they get closer to the election the worse it’s going to be.”
Arizona is a worry for the GOP
Some Senate Republican strategists are already writing off their party’s chances of winning the Arizona Senate seat now held by Kyrsten Sinema (I) because former television news anchor Kari Lake, a Trump acolyte who embraced his claims of election fraud, is viewed as a front-runner for the GOP nomination.
A looming question ahead of next year’s primaries is whether some candidates will echo Trump’s attacks on the Department of Justice and broader legal system to ingratiate themselves with Trump’s core supporters.
That’s the strategy that Don Bolduc, a former Army brigadier general, employed in 2022 when he won the Senate Republican nomination in New Hampshire by insisting that Trump had won the 2020 presidential election.
Bolduc tried to reverse course before the November general election by claiming he had “done a lot of research” and came to the “conclusion” the election was not stolen. He wound up losing the race by 9 percentage points to Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.).
Ayres, the GOP strategist and pollster, noted “a great many election-denying candidates won their primaries before getting crushed in the general election.”
He said the criminal charges against Trump for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election will likely play into next year’s races the same way that his claims of election fraud did in the midterms. But he warned that Republicans who take that position could find it comes back to hurt them in the general election.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Political Corruption |
This content comes from the latest installment of our weekly Breaking the Vote newsletter out of VICE News’ D.C. bureau, tracking the ongoing efforts to undermine the democratic process in America. Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Friday.
Government issue
There’s a ton to get to this week, now that America’s leading defendant (I’m actually surprised “DOTUS” hasn’t caught on) is still being arraigned. But first to Ohio, and the defeat of Republicans’ open attempt to further dismantle democracy there.
The abortion question is an important one, and now Ohioans will get to have a straight majority-rule vote in November on whether to protect abortion rights in the state constitution.
Judging from the outcome on “Issue 1” this week, pro-life Republicans are in grave danger of losing that vote. They already knew that, which is why they tried to rig it with a 60% threshold, instead of 50%. Even Kari Lake showed up to campaign for the power grab.
Soon after last summer’s Dobbs decision, it became clear that Republicans’ long-fought victory on abortion was an unpopular political loser. Voters in Kansas, Wisconsin, Michigan, and elsewhere have all voted in favor of abortion rights. The same could not be allowed to happen in Ohio.
A political party with a stake in democratic values would internally debate a compromise; or embrace Dobbs and let the chips fall where they may; or come up with a messaging strategy to win voters over. But the Trumpist GOP is not that party.
The same impulse that led Ohio Republicans to brazenly rig November’s abortion vote also led North Carolina Republicans, tired of sharing power in their evenly divided state, to sue all the way to the Supreme Court to block Democrats from having a say in congressional maps. It gave Donald Trump fertile ground to launch his political career pretending Barack Obama couldn’t possibly be a legitimate president. It incubated the lie that the 2020 election must have been stolen, not lost.
And it animates the decrepit idea, confirmed in polling this week, that Trump is being prosecuted not for crimes against democracy, national security, and the rule of law, but because he’s a persecuted victim just “like me.”
Retired conservative Judge J. Michael Luttig, who advised Mike Pence on the eve of Jan. 6 that he had no power to play functionary in Trump’s coup, declared this week that the GOP is no longer a political party able to function in a democracy. Trump took and maintains control of the GOP for precisely this reason. He embodies the one principle left in the GOP: Power is only legitimate when it’s wielded by Republicans.
Democrats, independents, and more than a few erstwhile Republicans in Ohio—and a lot of other places—seem pretty opposed to that idea.
Don’t forget to sign up your friends for Breaking the Vote!
Correction: Last week I wrote that Stanley Woodward represented Cassidy Hutchinson before she testified in front of the Jan. 6 committee. Wrong! Hutchinson was represented by former White House lawyer Stefan Passantino before she got new counsel.
We’ve finally reached accountability for the people at the top of the attempted coup. Back down at riot level, DOJ released a tally of all the arrests, pleas, and convictions they’ve made since Jan. 6.
But now, so many charges are swirling against Donald Trump and the anti-democratic MAGA faithful that it’s hard to keep track. The cases are starting to intersect and interact in ways that will only get more complicated if co-conspirators get charged in the Jan. 6 indictment, in Georgia, or in other states.
What’s clear already is that Trump’s attacks on the criminal justice system and his opponents are, once again, not a hypothetical danger. They’re fatal. This week, yet another armed militant whose enemies just happened to be all of Trump’s enemies was shot and killed after pointing a gun at federal agents who came to arrest him. The guy was really into threatening Joe Biden, but also Merrick Garland, New York AG Letitia James, Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and others.
While Trump’s calls to protest his arraignments have largely fallen flat, his incitement hasn’t. Recall that a man attacked an FBI field office after Trump railed against agents who executed a search warrant on Mar-a-Lago. He later died in a hail of bullets outside Cincinnati,
Let’s take a quick tour of the latest, even as we’re on the verge of turning up the heat even more on Hot Accountability Summer.
Fulton County
- Racketeer club — More witnesses are due to appear in front of the grand jury next week. Shortly after, DA Fani Willis is expected to bring more than a dozen indictments, likely charging a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. There are two separate grand juries currently seated in Fulton County, one meeting Mondays and Tuesdays, and the other Thursdays and Fridays. So we could hear about indictments either at the beginning or the end of the week.
How do you know we’re on the cusp of charges? Because Trump is spending money to attack the prosecutor in Atlanta, complete with lots of innuendo.
Willis appears to be pursuing racketeering charges under Georgia’s RICO law, though that’s not certain. But if she charges a criminal conspiracy, it’ll be interesting to see who (besides Trump) is at risk of charges in both Atlanta and Washington, D.C. Ostensibly all of Trump’s alleged co-conspirators in the federal case, including Rudy Giuliani, John Eastman, Sidney Powell, and Jeffrey Clark were also active in the effort to overturn Georgia.
Rudy appeared at multiple legislative hearings to spread disinformation about the election and election workers; Eastman had Trump sign a filing about Georgia’s election he knew to be false; Powell recruited the cyber crew who broke into computers in Coffee County; Ken Chesebro formulated and directed the plan to recruit fake electors, some of whom in Georgia have immunity deals; and Clark briefly took over as Attorney General on the promise of lying to Georgia officials about DOJ findings of widespread election fraud.
As for Co-Conspirator #6… stay tuned. Also, Mark Meadows isn’t named in the federal Jan. 6 indictment. If he’s not named in Georgia, well, we got ourselves a flipper.
The federal coup case
- The X foils — When Jack Smith slides into your DMs…
- Happy New Year! — Jack Smith yesterday urged the court to set a trial date for Jan. 2, 2024, telling US District Judge Tanya Chutkan that Trump’s millions of alleged voting victims have as much a right to a speedy trial as the defendant does. If it’s granted, that’ll jump the coup case to the front of the line, making it the first of Trump’s criminal indictments (so far) to go to trial.
- Always use protection — The Special Counsel and Trump’s defense team go before Judge Chutkan this morning to set the ground rules for all the evidence the government is about to hand over. It’s called a protective order, and Trump’s team is gunning for one that gives him free rein to attack witnesses and poison the jury pool. Prosecutors argue that Trump wants to try his case in the press instead of the courtroom, and as such are asking for an order that lets Trump speak publicly about the case, but bars him from discussing evidence, witnesses, or other discovery.
Trump’s already attacked the judge, the Special Counsel, witnesses, and the city where he allegedly committed his four crimes. He’s also said he’ll defy whatever order the judge imposes. It’s fairly obvious that Trump wants to provoke Judge Chutkan into sanctioning him, so he can claim persecution.
- Attorneys, Bernie — Trump may be charged, but the Special Counsel’s Jan. 6 investigation is still chugging. The feds are focused on fundraising and finances post-Election Day, and they’re still conducting interviews, including with longtime Rudy and Trump ally Bernard Kerik.
Who is Bernie Kerik? He rose to fame as NYPD Commissioner on 9/11 but then pleaded guilty to eight felonies, including tax evasion, and served four years in prison. Earlier, he got caught using a Ground Zero apartment intended as a resting place for recovery workers to get his hook-up on, and his nomination to be DHS Secretary imploded. Naturally, Kerik was granted a “best people” full pardon by Trump, and later went on to support his false election claims.
- It’s not easy being Chesebro — Ken Chesebro, aka Co-Conspirator #5, got started on the plan to use fake electors to steal the 2020 election earlier than previously known. The January 6 committee missed it, but NYT got hold of a Dec. 6, 2020 memo where Chesebro first contemplates how to use a nationwide false prospectus to buy time for Trump to bring lawsuits. In a matter of days, Chesebro followed up with a plan for recruiting the fake electors to bring chaos on Jan. 6.
Mar-a-Lago docs case
Come on, Aileen — US District Judge Aileen Cannon has barely gotten hold of the documents case, and she’s already raising red flags. This week, while refusing to grant the government’s routine requests to seal some filings, Cannon ordered prosecutors to justify why a second grand jury in Washington, DC is still investigating the case.
The move alarmed legal experts. Cannon, who has scant experience in criminal procedure, seemed not to know that dual grand juries are completely routine.
But potentially more disturbing: How exactly did Cannon become aware of the issue? Defense lawyers never brought it up. But, the previous night, Fox News did.
More pleas — Both Trump and his valet Walt Nauta pleaded not guilty to the new charges in the superseding indictment… the one alleging a cover-up of the cover-up by way of conspiring to delete surveillance camera footage.
- See you next Tuesday — Newly-minted co-conspirator Carlos De Oliveira (the property manager who allegedly told Employee 4 that “the boss” wanted the security servers deleted), still wasn’t arraigned yesterday, after squeezing a 10-day delay in his initial appearance. Oliveira, just like Nauta, slowed things down by not securing local Florida counsel as required. Delay is the strategy. De Oliveira’s arraignment is now scheduled for next Tuesday.
- No SCIFs, ands, or buts — The highly classified documents that are now evidence in the Mar-a-Lago case can only be viewed in a sensitive compartmented information facility, otherwise known as a SCIF. Trump says that traveling to the federal courthouse in Fort Pierce, Fla. is too inconvenient, so he wants one rebuilt at Mar-a-Lago.
On one hand, Trump’s home already had a SCIF so he could view and discuss classified material when he was president. On the other hand, Mar-a-Lago is literally the scene of the crime, and the crime was grossly mishandling classified information in an environment crawling with people (including imposter foreign nationals) not qualified to see it! You’d think Trump’s personal convenience, as not-president, would have no bearing on the court, but, then again, Cannon. So we’ll see.
Rudy’s World
Co-Conspirator #1 and… just, WT actual F (there’s description of alleged sexual abuse in that link)… Rudy Giuliani is dragging his feet again. Lawyers for voting machine company Smartmatic accused Rudy of failing to produce discovery as required in the company’s $2.7 billion defamation suit against Giuliani and a cast of other MAGA propagandists.
Their brief was pretty magical. “‘The dog ate my homework.’ ‘I have to wash my hair.’ ‘I can’t go out, I’m sick.’ Since the dawn of time, people have made up excuses to avoid doing things they do not want to do. That’s exactly what Giuliani has done here,” the lawyers wrote.
The (not actually) funny thing is that it’s the exact same schtick that got Rudy sanctioned in the ongoing defamation suit brought by former Georgia election workers Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss.
In the Georgia case, he claimed he couldn’t produce timely discovery because he’s strapped for cash. That may or may not explain the former mayor’s luxe Upper East Side apartment going on the market this week.
“Alright, folks. Now, just a note: Newsmax has accepted the election results as legal and final.”
— Newsmax host Eric Bolling, issuing a disclaimer immediately after ending an interview with Donald Trump.
Tenn. count indictment — Fresh off of the Supreme Court’s order for Alabama Republicans to improve Black representation in congressional districts, a group of Tennessee voteris giving it a try. They filed suit in federal court this week, alleging that the GOP breakup of heavily-Black Davidson County violates the Voting Rights Act.
Con-y Appleseed — Read this great profile of chemist Douglas Frank, whose travels all over America sowing distrust in voting systems have earned him the nickname “the Johnny Appleseed of voter fraud.” Frank helped Trumpist GOP officials in Shasta County, Calif., in their quest to get rid of Dominion voting machines. In Colorado, he convinced former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters to let election denialists copy voting machine data, for which she’s been indicted for multiple felonies.
The profile’s money quote, from Frank: “Instead of planting apple seeds, I think I’m going around starting little fires everywhere. And then I come back and I throw gasoline on those fires.”
A guy walks into disbar — John Eastman is the OG coup architect (though, watch out John! Ken Chesebro is being recognized more and more!) But Eastman has problems on both coasts. In Washington, D.C., he’s also known as Co-Conspirator #2 in the Jan. 6 federal indictment. Who knows what Fulton County will bring.
In California, Eastman is still facing potential disbarment in a trial that’s been pending since June. Now Eastman is asking the judge to put his disbarment on hold, citing the fact that he might soon be charged, and that could force him to take the Fifth while trying to keep his law license. Eastman is asking the judge to postpone his disbarment trail until after his potential indictment is resolved. That could be a long time.
FROM POLITICO
FROM PROPUBLICA
FROM THE NEW REPUBLIC | US Political Corruption |
A Los Angeles man who had already been arrested in another shooting investigation has been identified as the suspect in three recent killings of unhoused men, police said Saturday.
The Los Angeles police chief, Michel Moore, said 33-year-old Jerrid Joseph Powell was identified as the suspect in the three killings after authorities determined that a firearm found in the vehicle he had been driving when he was arrested earlier was linked to the shootings.
Powell was arrested this week by Los Angeles sheriff’s deputies for the shooting death and robbery of a 42-year-old man whom he had followed home.
The announcement came a day after authorities said they were searching for a suspect in the shootings, which took place at the end of November during early morning hours while the victims were sleeping or preparing to turn in for the night.
Jose Bolanos, 37, was found dead with a gunshot wound around 3am on 26 November in an alley in south Los Angeles, police said. The following day, Mark Diggs, 62, was shot and killed while pushing a shopping cart around 5 am near downtown, according to officials.
The third shooting occurred on 29 November about 2:30am in the Lincoln Heights area, where the body of a 52-year-old man was found. Police have not identified him pending notification of his family.
Detectives identified Powell’s vehicle through surveillance footage and tracked it to the city of Beverly Hills, where police stopped him and found a firearm inside, authorities said.
“I am grateful that this suspect in this case is in custody and no longer a threat to this community,” Moore told reporters.
It was not immediately possible to identify an attorney for Powell, who is due to appear in court Monday. Online jail records show he was arrested Thursday and is being held on $2m bail.
“Living in the streets is dangerous, and four to five people die in our streets from a range of causes and violence is certainly one of them,” said Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass at a news conference on Friday.
Despite widespread misperceptions that unhoused people are responsible for the majority of big-city crime, research shows that they are more likely to be victims of assault, robbery and homicide than people who are housed. In 2022, unhoused people made up 24% of the city’s homicide victims despite making up just 1% of the population, according to an NBC 4 Los Angeles investigation. And four of the seven people killed in a string of homicides in Stockton in 2022 were unhoused at the time, reported KCRA, Sacramento’s NBC affiliate. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
As Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) adjusts to life in the Senate, he faces the challenge of navigating the world of D.C. politics with lingering hearing problems.
Fetterman suffered a stroke while on the campaign trail in May 2022, causing auditory processing issues and raising concerns about whether the then-lieutenant governor was fit to hold a six-year term in the upper chamber. However, the Pennsylvania Democrat has been granted several accommodations to help ease his transition to the Senate and complete his legislative duties.
In his office, Fetterman has a newly installed monitor that can be adjusted depending on whether he wishes to stand or sit while also providing closed captioning so he can follow along with congressional proceedings. He has a similar setup at the center dais in the Senate chamber for when he must preside over the upper chamber.
Fetterman's neurological impairment hinders him from understanding speech clearly, with the senator saying voices sometimes sound like the undecipherable teacher on the Peanuts cartoon, according to the New York Times.
Soon after Fetterman defeated Republican Mehmet Oz in November, emerging victorious from one of the most competitive midterm elections, the Office of Congressional Accessibility Services began working with the senator-elect to provide any necessary accommodations, according to Time.
As part of these accommodations, the office provided him with technology that would transcribe what people are saying to him in real-time, similar to a closed-captioning system. The Senate sergeant-at-arms installed such programs on computer monitors in Fetterman's office and in the Senate chamber, according to the outlet.
The programs can work without internet access if needed and are powered by the Senate Office Captioning Services's stenotype machines as well as professional broadcast captioners. The monitors allow for live transcription of Senate committee hearings that Fetterman will sit in on, and the sergeant-at-arms office is reportedly planning to expand this access to all Senate hearings in the coming months.
Fetterman's fellow Democrats have lauded him during his first month on the job and insist the accommodations for his impairments are not distracting.
"He answers like you would answer anyone," Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) told the New York Times, referring to Fetterman's use of a tablet to transcribe personal conversations. "It's us that have to get used to it; he's used to it."
Others have pointed to the adjustments as part of a shift in culture that has taken place in recent decades.
"The right attitude has to be consistent with what we hope we learned in the last 30 years or so, that we can provide reasonable accommodations in the workplace," Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) told the outlet. "If we're doing it right, it should not be him adapting to the workplace; it should be senators in both parties adapting and accommodating him. Just like we would anyone."
Fetterman raised new concerns over his health this week after he was hospitalized. The doctors ruled out a second stroke but are monitoring him for signs of a seizure. | US Congress |
WASHINGTON — Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., on Thursday became the first senator to say he supports a vote to expel embattled Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., from the Senate over the federal bribery charges that have rocked Capitol Hill.
Fetterman’s remarks came moments after Menendez defended himself during a closed-door lunch with his fellow Senate Democrats, then defiantly told reporters he would not resign and would "continue to cast votes on behalf of the people of New Jersey" despite mounting calls from his party to step down. Menendez pleaded not guilty to the charges Wednesday.
Fetterman did not attend Menendez's address to colleagues and members of the Ethics Committee, which could open a probe into Menendez, were asked to leave.
“Now that it’s confirmed that he’s not going to go the honorable way, you know, I would like to pursue whatever avenues that are available. ... Whatever way, you know, we can remove him, I hope that that’s pursued,” Fetterman said when asked about the possibility of expulsion.
A privileged expulsion resolution will be among the things his team will look at, Fetterman said. “Of course, we’re going to investigate whatever options are going forward. I would have hoped he would have just chose to do the right thing today.”
Pressed again on backing an expulsion resolution, Fetterman replied: “If that is an option, absolutely. ... I would pursue that and be a part of it."
Expelling a sitting senator is extremely rare, and it’s unlikely Fetterman would be able to secure the two-thirds majority of votes needed to force Menendez out of office. Unlike members of Menendez’s own party, Senate Republicans have not called on the senior senator from New Jersey to resign, saying he deserves to have his day in court.
Other Democrats had no comment about a possible expulsion measure or said they had not considered the matter.
“I haven’t heard any discussion about that,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., who served under Menendez on the Foreign Relations Committee before he stepped down as chairman after his indictment.
“I haven’t even thought about that,” added Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., head of the Senate Democrats’ campaign arm who has called for Mendendez’s resignation.
“I don’t even want to talk about it,” said Sen. Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., another Foreign Relations member who has called for Menendez’s resignation.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri doubted Democrats would vote out one of their own, saying: “Dems wouldn’t vote to expel him. When was the last time a senator got expelled?”
Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution states that each chamber of Congress can “punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member.” But it’s rarely happened.
According to the Senate website, the upper chamber has only expelled 15 members since 1789, 14 of whom were expelled during the Civil War for backing the Confederacy. The last of those 14 were removed from office in 1862, the most recent expulsions. In other cases, senators considered expulsion but dropped their efforts after a targeted colleague resigned, most recently Sen. Bob Packwood, R-Ore., in 1995.
Fetterman’s comments drew praise from at least one member of House Democratic leadership, Rep. Dean Phillips, D-Minn., who has called on Democrats to try to remove Menendez from office.
“I salute @SenFettermanPA for raising the possibility of expelling a fellow senator whose ethical failures are a stain on our Congress and country,” Phillips wrote on the social media site X. “If we Democrats wish to restore faith in government, we must walk the talk and hold our own to account.”
Menendez is already facing a primary challenger, Rep. Andy Kim, D-N.J.
Fetterman says he's supportive of a Democrat challenging Menendez for his seat. "You have our colleagues in tough races right now in my state or Montana or Ohio, and the kind of baggage that he brings to this already makes it already difficult, and now it puts New Jersey in play.
"That’s— that's remarkable to even have this conversation," Fetterman added. | US Political Corruption |
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump moved a lawsuit seeking to bar him from running again for the White House from state to federal court in the first step of what promises to be a tangled legal battle that seems ultimately destined for the U.S. Supreme Court.
The liberal group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed the initial lawsuit on Wednesday in Colorado state court, arguing a Civil War-era clause prohibiting higher office for those who once swore an oath to the Constitution and then engaged in “insurrection” prevents Trump from running in 2024.
Trump’s attorneys on Thursday moved the case to federal court.
“Plaintiffs’ challenge to Colorado’s ability to place Donald Trump on the presidential ballot depends solely on the Fourteenth Amendment,” they wrote. “Trump’s basis for removal of the state court action is federal question jurisdiction under Section 3 of Fourteenth Amendment.”
CREW's case is the first of what's expected to be many challenges filed in various states by the group and Free Speech for People, another liberal nonprofit. Activists in other states have filed lawsuits in which they represent themselves, but legal observers contend the more robust complaints by the nonprofits are more likely to end up at the nation's highest court, which has never ruled on the clause.
CREW can move to return the case to state court. It has requested a speedy ruling on the issues before Colorado's Republican primary ballot is finalized on Jan. 5. | SCOTUS |
(The Center Square) – Signs of bipartisanship emerged Wednesday from a House Budget Committee hearing focused on a fiscal commission that would address the nation's deficit.
The House Budget Committee discussed the pros and cons of a bipartisan, bicameral fiscal commission. While Democrats and Republicans have different ideas about how to address the longstanding issue, members of both parties indicated support for such a commission.
U.S. Rep Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, the chairman of the House Budget Committee, said at the least, a fiscal commission would ring bells.
"We've got to sound the alarm because we've been sleepwalking off the fiscal cliff," he said. "When the dominos start falling it is hard to put all the pieces together again."
The nation's growing debt is costing taxpayers. The cost of borrowing money is taking up a larger share of the federal budget, which along with the rising costs of Social Security and Medicare, are driving up the national deficit.
Interest costs on the country's $33 trillion debt increased 23% to $879 billion in fiscal 2023. That's a record high. Interest costs accounted for 14% of total federal spending as of September 2023. The cost of maintaining that debt is expected to grow. The Congressional Budget Office released projections in June that showed interest costs would "exceed all mandatory spending other than that for the major health care programs and Social Security by 2027, all discretionary outlays by 2047, and all spending on Social Security by 2051."
Arrington said a debt commission won't be a panacea, but could help frame the issue and build support for action in Congress.
However, some members remain doubtful that a commission can get anything done. And some past commissions have failed to produce results.
"I am deeply skeptical of a fiscal commission," U.S. Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Ma., said. "First, there is already a bipartisan forum where these kinds of decisions should get made: It's called Congress. And we shouldn't pass the buck to a fiscal commission to do the work that we ourselves don't want to do. If we don't want to do it, maybe we should leave."
Others had more optimism.
"The best thing that we can do to protect Medicare and Social Security is to act now," U.S. Rep. Scott Peters, D-Calif., said. "A commission gives us a fact-driven venue, instead of some waiting-until-the-last-minute, backdoor, 11th-hour deal between party leaders."
U.S. Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who is not seeking another term, told the committee that Congress must act before the nation's debt gets out of hand.
"If we don't fix this mess that our country is in, it is hard for me to imagine a circumstance where America is able to continue to lead the world," Romney said. "If we're spending more on interest than we're spending on defense, then how in the world are we going to keep up with China?"
Romney said he was committed to a commission that would put all options for spending and revenue on the table, but said there's no appetite for cutting Social Security benefits on either side of the aisle.
U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., said tackling the problem will carry political risk.
"We've never been in this position before, we have never come close to this, so we got to figure out how to do this, put the people on that aren't afraid to do something right and I think it will be the most rewarding thing we do for our country," he said.
Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, called Wednesday's hearing welcoming.
"Our country is up against incredibly steep fiscal challenges in the years ahead, and what we need now is the kind of thoughtful and earnest leadership so often missing in Washington. That's what makes today's hearing so refreshing: A bipartisan fiscal commission would allow serious leaders to put everything on the table – taxes, spending, and our critically important trust funds – and do what’s right for our long-term health," she said. "Commissions don’t make everyone happy, but they can help set us on a better fiscal course. We commend lawmakers who stand up in the name of bipartisanship to enact a fiscal commission."
David Walker, former Comptroller General and advisory board member of Main Street Economics, said a fiscal commission is needed.
"It is unrealistic to expect Congress to make the tough fiscal choices needed to restore fiscal sanity without a statutory Fiscal Stability (Debt) Commission that will actively engage the American public and make a package of recommendations that will receive an up or down vote," he said in a statement. "Doing nothing is not an option. We need a Fiscal Stability (Debt) Commission as soon as possible to defuse of federal debt bomb." | US Federal Policies |
WASHINGTON (AP) — The House late Wednesday rejected an effort to censure Democratic Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, scrapping a Republican attempt to condemn the only Palestinian-American in Congress over her recent rhetoric around the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.
A measure to move forward with a censure resolution of Tlaib, a punishment one step below expulsion from the House, was dismissed with broad bipartisan support as both parties raised concerns about violating First Amendment rights.
A Democratic effort to in turn censure Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who had sponsored the Tlaib resolution, was called off in response.
The scheduled votes were among the House's first acts of business after a nearly monthlong gridlock caused by the removal of Republican Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California as speaker.
The agenda of retribution reflects the growing divisiveness of the House, where severe forms of punishment that had long been viewed as an option of last resort, to be triggered only for the most egregious wrongdoing, are quickly becoming routine, often wielded in strikingly partisan ways. While the censure itself carries no practical effect, it leaves a historic footnote that marks a lawmaker’s career.
Greene introduced a censure resolution last week against Tlaib, one of two Muslims in Congress. The resolution accuses Tlaib of “antisemitic activity” after she voiced concern over America's continued role in supplying arms to Israel as it engages in a bloody battle with Hamas following Hamas' deadly Oct. 7 surprise attack.
Greene also falsely accused Tlaib of “leading an insurrection" in the Capitol complex when she participated in a pro-Gaza rally organized by Jewish advocacy groups last month.
Tlaib called Greene's resolution “unhinged” and said it's "deeply Islamophobic and attacks peaceful Jewish anti-war advocates.”
In response to Greene's resolution, House Democrats, led by Rep. Becca Balint of Vermont, introduced a resolution censuring Greene for what they called her record of “racist rhetoric and conspiracy theories." Balint said Greene's resolution to censure Tlaib “is an overt Islamophobic attack on the only Palestinian-American member of Congress.”
Greene has not commented on the resolution to censure her but criticized the dozens of Republicans who voted against moving the Tlaib measure forward.
The vote on Wednesday evening comes as the chamber returns to normal legislative business for the first time in weeks. The abrupt ouster of McCarthy on Oct. 4 brought the House to a standstill, pausing legislative work on the floor, as Republicans struggled over who should replace him.
Now that Speaker Mike Johnson is in charge of the House, following his election to the top position last week, he inherits one of the problems that often afflicted McCarthy: difficulty controlling what happens on the House floor.
Both of the censure resolutions are “privileged,” which is a procedural tool lawmakers can use to bypass leadership and committees and force votes in the House. The stigma around privileged resolutions has eroded, leading more lawmakers to deploy the tactic.
A group of Republicans from New York, for instance, is set to force a separate vote on whether to expel indicted Rep. George Santos from the House. Santos, a fellow New York Republican, is facing federal prosecution on several charges and has pleaded not guilty.
If the resolutions had passed, Greene and Tlaib would have joined a small but growing group of lawmakers who have been censured in the last 20 years.
In June, Republicans voted to censure Democrat Adam Schiff of California for comments he made several years ago about investigations into then-President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia. When the House was under Democratic control, Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona was censured in 2021 for tweeting an animated video that depicted him striking Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York with a sword. And Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York was censured in 2010 over serious financial and campaign misconduct.
The House in recent years has also sought to punish members for their words and actions by removing them from their respective committee assignments.
Earlier this year, the House stripped Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar, who's the other Muslim member of Congress, from her committee assignment on Foreign Affairs for her rhetoric about Israel. And in 2021, Democrats in the majority punished Greene, holding a vote that stripped her of all of her committee assignments for spreading hateful and violent conspiracy theories. | US Congress |
House Republican Marjorie Taylor Greene said that there will be a government shutdown when funding runs out on Sunday, but blamed this on Democrats during an appearance on conservative network Newsmax.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress must agree a new funding bill by the end of Saturday to avoid a government shutdown. This would see millions of federal workers furloughed and many others forced to work without pay.
Currently, there is no indication the two parties are anywhere near an agreement. Speaker Kevin McCarthy failed to get a short-term spending bill through the House on Friday after GOP hardliners joined Democrats to vote it down. Even if passed, it almost certainly would have been rejected by the Democratic-controlled Senate, since it mandated steep government spending cuts.
Appearing on Newsmax's Eric Bolling The Balance on Friday, Greene said: "Yes, there is unfortunately going to be a shutdown, but you know who we can really blame for that? Democrats."
A clip of the remarks was posted on X, formerly Twitter, by the Acyn account where it received more than 161,500 views.
Greene's comments are just the latest contribution to an ongoing war of words over who is responsible for any shutdown, which is likely to intensify if one does go ahead.
The official White House X account has been giving an hourly countdown to the beginning of shutdown, which it blames on "extreme House Republicans."
For example, at 9 a.m. ET, the White House X account posted: "15 hours until Extreme House Republicans shut down the government.
"This shutdown would jeopardize vital nutrition assistance for nearly seven million women and children across the country."
McCarthy has taken a different view, commenting: "I don't have a journalism degree—but why does the media expect the Republican House to just follow the Democrat Senate's lead on government funding?"
As the House failed to put through a stopgap spending bill on Friday, the Senate was pushing its own legislation, which passed a procedural vote earlier this week with a bipartisan split of 76-22.
Another procedural vote is due on Saturday, but it is unlikely the bill will pass the Senate before a shutdown begins. Even if it does go through the upper chamber, it is unlikely to be accepted by many Republicans in the GOP-controlled House.
If McCarthy makes concessions to the Senate, he risks hardline Republicans calling a vote to remove him from the speaker's office. Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz said earlier this month that the House GOP leader must be in "total compliance" to avoid a motion to vacate the chair.
In an interview with ProPublica, due to be published on Sunday, President Joe Biden said: "The speaker has made a terrible bargain. In order to keep the speakership, he's willing to do things that he, I think, knows are inconsistent with constitutional processes, No. 1."
Biden added: "No. 2, I think it says that there is a group of MAGA Republicans who genuinely want to have a fundamental change in the way that the system works. And that's what worries me the most." | US Congress |
A former Utah county clerk is accused of shredding and mishandling 2020 and 2022 ballots
Utah prosecutors have charged a former county clerk for allegedly shredding and otherwise mishandling ballots from the 2020 and 2022 elections
CHEYENNE, Wyo. -- Utah prosecutors have charged a former county clerk with three felonies and other counts for allegedly shredding and otherwise mishandling ballots from the 2020 and 2022 elections.
The alleged misdeeds involved ballots cast by about 5,000 voters in Juab County, a desert area of west-central Utah with about 12,000 residents.
Former Juab County Clerk/Auditor Alaina Lofgran is accused of allowing ballots to be shredded soon after the 2022 election in violation of a law requiring their preservation for at least 22 months. The law is for aiding recounts.
Lofgran also improperly stored ballots from the 2020 election, keeping them in a basement storage room accessible by multiple county employees and easily visible, prosecutors allege in charging documents filed in Utah state court Thursday.
State law requires ballots and election returns to be locked in a safe and secure place.
“These charges are serious and reflect the heavy responsibility of county clerks to uphold election law. Public trust demands accountability of those who swear oaths to fulfill their duties with fidelity and then fail to do so,” Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson said in a statement Friday.
Reached by phone Friday, Lofgran declined to comment but said she would Monday after talking to her attorney.
"I would love to comment then," Lofgran said.
A Republican, Lofgran was Juab County clerk from 2015 to this year. She did not seek reelection in 2022.
The charges followed a 2022 lawsuit against Juab and several other Utah counties seeking 2020 election records. During the lawsuit, a state judge told Lofgran to preserve records from the 2020 election, according to the charging document.
The lawsuit was dismissed but appealed, resulting in a second court order to Lofgran to preserve the 2020 election results.
Soon after the 2022 election, a witness allegedly saw Lofgran put 2022 ballots in a “shred bin” in a large closet near the clerk's office. The ballots had to be taken out of the shred bin for a recount but a deputy clerk allegedly saw Lofgran put them back in later.
The election reports were done and “we don't need them anymore," Lofgran allegedly told the deputy clerk, who is unnamed in the charging document.
A shredding company took away the shred bins. Lofgran allegedly told investigators she knew she had to preserve the ballots and would be prosecuted if she did not, and was aware of the court order to preserve 2020 records due to the pending lawsuit.
In March, investigators searched the county offices and the basement room accessible by multiple county employees. They allegedly found none of the 4,795 ballots cast in the 2022 general election and only some of the 5,932 ballots cast in the 2020 general election.
Lofgran is charged with willful neglect of duty, destroying or concealing ballots and destroying public records, all felonies, as well as two counts of improper disposition of ballots and two counts of unofficial misconduct, which are both misdemeanors.
The charging documents do not allege Lofgran had a political motivation. Clerks elsewhere have landed in trouble for allegedly tampering with voting equipment and technology amid former President Donald Trump's false claims that fraud cost him reelection in 2020.
In Colorado, former clerk Tina Peters faces charges for an alleged effort to breach voting system technology after the 2020 election. In Michigan, Stephanie Scott, a small-town clerk ousted by voters earlier this year, got stripped of her election duties in 2021 amid accusations she improperly handled voting equipment after casting doubt on President Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. | US Local Elections |
JACKSON, Miss. — Seven months of searching for her lost son brought Bettersten Wade to a dirt road leading into the woods, past an empty horse stable and a scrapyard.
The last time she’d seen her middle child, Dexter Wade, 37, was on the night of March 5, as he left home with a friend. She reported him missing, and Jackson police told her they’d been unable to find him, she said.
It wasn’t until 172 excruciating days after his disappearance that Bettersten learned the truth: Dexter had been killed less than an hour after he’d left home, struck by a Jackson police car as he crossed a nearby interstate highway. Police had known Dexter’s name, and hers, but failed to contact her, instead letting his body go unclaimed for months in the county morgue.
Now it was early October, and Bettersten had finally been told where she could find her son.
She pulled up to the gates of the Hinds County penal farm, her sister in the passenger seat. A sheriff’s deputy and two jumpsuited inmates in a pickup told her to follow them.
They bounced down the road and curved into the woods, crawling past clearings where rows of small signs jutted from the earth, each marked with a number.
“Girl, look at this,” Bettersten, 65, said to her sister. “Would you believe they would bury someone out here?”
The caravan came to the end of the road, at another clearing with more markers. The deputy took one of Bettersten’s hands, her daughter the other, and they walked to the mounds of loosely packed dirt. They stopped at grave No. 672.
“Really?” Bettersten said.
She bent over, hands on her knees. She cried out, her voice echoing off the surrounding trees. “I’m sorry, baby. I’m so sorry.”
Growing up in Jackson, Dexter was a “sweet little boy,” sharp with computers, a leader among classmates, a lover of nice clothes, a dreamer who hoped one day to run his own business refurbishing old cars.
That went awry in his teens, when he “got lost” under the influence of older men who stole cars and did drugs, Bettersten said. A single mother of three who worked at night, Bettersten said she wasn’t always around for Dexter. But she always bailed him out of jail, and he always returned home, Bettersten said.
Although Dexter’s boyhood aspirations did not come true, he and a girlfriend, Candice Thomas, had two daughters who remained a bright spot for him, even after the couple’s romantic relationship dissolved, even after Dexter served two stints in prison, one for attempted auto theft and the other for armed robbery, according to the Mississippi Department of Corrections. He was released in 2017.
When he got out, Dexter remained friends with Thomas and was a committed father, she said. Although Thomas had full legal custody, Dexter talked to his daughters often and visited them in Gulfport three hours away. During the summers, they came to stay with him at Bettersten’s home in Jackson.
“He was sweet and loving, especially when it came to the kids,” Thomas said.
But prison had clearly damaged him. “You could look in his eyes and see he wasn’t the same person,” Thomas said. “I could tell he was struggling mentally.”
Dexter was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, Bettersten said. After starting medication, he decreased his illegal drug intake and stayed at home most of the day, cleaning and taking care of the yard. He liked to give homemade ice pops to kids on their street, handed food to people who didn’t have homes and occasionally sold sodas and chips in the neighborhood. He rarely left the house for more than a day or two without calling, Bettersten said. He never showed signs of wanting to hurt himself.
“He didn’t seem like he was in a bad place,” Bettersten said. “But I don’t know what happened that particular day.”
On March 5, Bettersten, a retired Nissan line technician who worked part-time as a home health aide, returned home and found one of her windows broken. She and Dexter argued about it, and around 7:30 p.m. he left with a friend, she said.
Days passed without a word. On March 14, Bettersten called the Jackson Police Department to report him missing.
The decision to call the police was difficult for Bettersten. She did not trust them. In 2019, her 62-year-old brother died after a Jackson officer slammed him to the ground. The officer was convicted of manslaughter but is appealing.
Her family filed a wrongful death lawsuit accusing Jackson officers of excessive force and attempting to cover up their actions, and accusing the city of failing to properly train and supervise the officers. The city has denied the claims and said it isn’t liable for what happened. The officers’ lawyer said they acted responsibly and lawfully. A federal judge dismissed some of Bettersten’s claims; others remain pending in state court.
Bettersten said her mother advised her not to call the police about Dexter.
“My mama told me, ‘They’re not going to do anything,’” Bettersten recalled. “But I had to do something to find Dexter, and I thought that was the best way.”
An investigator came to Bettersten’s house and took a statement, she said. She emailed the investigator a picture of Dexter. He left a card with a case number on it. Two days later, she emailed a different investigator another photo of her son. The original investigator filed an incident report that misspelled Dexter’s name as "Dester."
Bettersten said she kept in regular touch with police, asking for updates and requesting that they put his picture on TV. She did her own search, checking out abandoned homes and driving around her neighborhood asking if anyone had seen him (she never found the friend who left home with him).
Dexter’s teen daughters and their mother grew frantic, calling Bettersten for news. “The girls would ask, ‘Did you hear from my daddy?’” Thomas said. “We just kept praying he was all right.”
Carey Banks, a close friend of Bettersten’s, accompanied her on searches of the neighborhood and watched as stress and desperation wore on her.
“She called someone every week and asked about her child,” Banks said. “She couldn’t get it off her mind. She was crazy about that boy.”
Each time she called, police told her they had no information, Bettersten said.
It turned out that the Jackson Police Department had the answers all along.
The department did not respond to detailed questions and has not commented on or explained how it handled Dexter’s death. This account has been pieced together with interviews with his family and a coroner’s investigator, along with court records and documents provided in response to public records requests: a crash report, incident reports and coroner’s office records. Bettersten also shared personal notes, emails, Dexter’s death certificate, a coroner’s report and case information cards provided to her by police.
Those materials show that just before 8 p.m. on March 5, Dexter was walking across Interstate 55, a six-lane highway, when a Jackson police SUV driven by an off-duty corporal struck him in the southbound lanes.
The corporal, who alerted police to the collision, was not injured. He was not suspected of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and was not given field sobriety tests. Nor was he cited for any traffic violations. The death was ruled accidental.
Dexter suffered severe injuries, including to his head. A toxicology report later noted that Dexter had PCP and methamphetamine in his system.
An investigator from the Hinds County coroner’s office responded to the scene. He did not find identification on Dexter while examining him but found a bottle of prescription medication in his pocket with his name on it.
Three days later, on March 8, the investigator, LaGrand Elliott, contacted the medical facility that had provided the prescription and received Bettersten’s name as Dexter’s next of kin, according to Elliott’s case notes. Elliott said he called the number listed for Bettersten in the facility’s records and left a voicemail but got no response. Bettersten confirmed that the number Elliott said he called was correct, but she doesn’t remember receiving a call from him, and was not able to access her Boost Mobile phone records to check.
Elliott confirmed Dexter’s identification on March 9, when the state crime lab said his fingerprints matched those it had on file for him, according to his notes. Elliott said in an interview that he passed what he’d found — a phone number and an address — to the Jackson Police Department’s accident investigation squad so they could notify Bettersten of Dexter’s death.
“Once we get that information I turn it over to police because it is their jurisdiction so that they can do the proper death notification,” Elliott said.
Bettersten, meanwhile, turned to Facebook, where she posted pictures of Dexter with her phone number, pleading for him or anyone who saw him to call.
On March 15, the day after Bettersten reported Dexter missing, Elliott followed up with Jackson police for updates. “No kin has been located as of yet,” he wrote in his notes.
Elliott made another follow-up call on March 30, and was told there was nothing new.
The following day, the coroner’s office asked the Hinds County Board of Supervisors for approval to bury Dexter’s remains in a pauper’s field at the Hinds County penal farm.
As that request was being filed, Bettersten posted another photo of Dexter on Facebook.
“Have anyone saw my son please please call his mother.”
The Board of Supervisors approved the coroner’s burial request on April 3. Four days later, Elliott called Jackson police again. “No new updates,” he wrote in his notes.
On May 7, Bettersten posted on Facebook: “Dexter if you out there your kids miss you and your family miss you. We love you we always love you.”
Two days after that, Elliott called the police again for an update and was told there was none, according to his notes. He tried one last time in June and got the same response.
June 18 was Father’s Day. On Facebook, Bettersten pleaded to Dexter directly: “I am trying to find you but no one knows what happens to you. I wish someone would have saw you. I love you very much please come home.”
On July 14, with no one claiming Dexter’s body, the county buried him in a field at its penal farm among other unclaimed bodies. Bettersten was still searching. “Dexter your kids miss you I miss you and your Grandma sister auntie cuz friends miss you,” she wrote on Facebook on July 16. "You don’t have to come home just let us know you all right. We love you."
Through the rest of July, Bettersten said, she called missing persons investigators and got no news. The lead investigator told her he was retiring at the end of the month, and a new investigator called her Aug. 13 to say she was taking over the case, Bettersten said.
Less than two weeks later, on Aug. 24, the new investigator called to tell her she had found Dexter and that an officer would come see her in person.
“When she said that, I knew he was dead,” Bettersten recalled.
The officer, a member of the accident investigations unit, met Bettersten at her mother’s house. Bettersten said he told her that Dexter had been hit by a police cruiser while trying to cross the highway.
Bettersten, weeping, asked the investigator for more details. He told her to call the coroner’s office, Bettersten said.
Bettersten found Elliott. He told her that he’d known Dexter’s name since the day he died and had passed the information to police, Bettersten said. And he told her about the pauper’s burial, Bettersten said.
Bettersten couldn’t understand why police told her for months they didn’t have answers — when they had the truth from the start.
“They had me looking for him all that time, and they knew who he was,” Bettersten said.
She wondered if it had anything to do with her brother’s death and her allegations against the police in that case. “Maybe it was a vendetta. Maybe they buried my son to get back at me,” she said.
Thomas said she and her daughters were gutted. “The hardest thing I ever had to do is tell my girls that their dad is never coming back.”
She added: “I just want someone to answer for what happened. I want to know what really happened.”
Bettersten tried to get as close as she could to the spot where Dexter died. She hoped it would help her understand what he was doing on the highway, but walking the area, which is lined with concrete barriers, did not clear anything up.
Bettersten also began to doubt the official timeline: She didn’t see how Dexter could have made it from her house to the scene of the accident in less than a half hour on foot. She wondered if someone gave him a ride.
“I just feel like something else must have happened,” Bettersten said. “It just doesn’t make any sense.”
Bettersten paid the coroner’s office a $250 fee to claim Dexter’s body. It took her several more weeks to figure out where he was buried — and how to find him.
She made the appointment to see his grave on a Tuesday afternoon in early October.
At plot No. 672, Bettersten asked her sister, daughter and Banks, her friend, to join her for a prayer. They clasped hands at the edge of the dirt.
“Dexter, I want to tell you I am so sorry,” she said, voice rising. “I’m so sorry this happened to you. But mama didn’t know. Mama didn’t know.”
She began to sob. “I always loved you and I miss you. Farewell, baby. Farewell.”
They got into their cars. Back on the dirt road, Bettersten began planning the next step in her ordeal: finding the money to get her son out of that hole and into a proper grave, a place where everybody could see his name. | US Police Misconduct |
Banned Twitter accounts including Donald Trump’s will not be reinstated until after the US midterm elections at least, the platform’s new owner, Elon Musk, has said.The Tesla chief executive’s statement came as a study revealed that Twitter had taken down six disinformation networks on the platform linked to China and Iran that had been tweeting about the 8 November elections.Musk said anyone barred from the social media platform for violating content rules would not be allowed back on until a process for doing so has been put in place, which would “take at least a few more weeks”.Twitter’s new owner added that the recently announced Twitter content moderation council, which will adjudicate on reinstatements and content decisions, will include members of the civil rights community and groups who face hate-fuelled violence.Twitter will not allow anyone who was de-platformed for violating Twitter rules back on platform until we have a clear process for doing so, which will take at least a few more weeks— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 2, 2022
Musk said the figures he had spoken to included Jonathan Greenblatt of the Anti-Defamation League, Rashad Robinson of the advocacy group Color of Change and Jessica González of the campaign group Free Press.Those banned from Twitter include Trump, who was removed from the platform after the US Capitol riot on 6 January 2021, the personal account of the Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and the conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.Meanwhile, a report by the Election Integrity Partnership, a coalition of bodies that combats digital election interference, gave details of six networks linked to China and Iran that had attempted to manipulate the Twitter platform in the run-up to the US midterms.All six networks, which have been taken down now by Twitter, were made to appear as if they were operating out of the US. They issued 706,000 tweets, although engagement appeared to be insignificant, with almost 600,000 of those tweets gaining zero likes.Three of the accounts were Iran-linked and focused on progressive leftwing candidates, according to the study, while the three China-linked accounts included content about US politicians’ comments on Taiwan and China.One of the China-linked networks consisted primarily of rightwing accounts that referred to talking points such as the “big lie” – a baseless theory that the 2020 presidential election was rigged. One Iran-backed account also issued endorsements for candidates in down-ballot polls such as county commissioner.One China-linked network tweeted about US politics via accounts that used fake rightwing, pro-Trump American personas, using language familiar deployed by “Maga” online communities including references to rigged elections and the businessman George Soros. The three most-liked tweets on this network, with more than 10,000 likes each, included one congratulating the Republican senate candidate Herschel Walker on his nomination.Another China-linked network, which sent 310,000 tweets, including more than 1,100 on Joe Biden’s position on Taiwan as well as remarks on the president’s age and cognitive abilities. The accounts in the network also downplayed human rights abuses of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. The report added that the network made “scattered” references to the US midterms.One Iran-linked network used accounts that impersonated “resistance” liberals’ opinions with hashtags on their bios including “#Democrat #Resist #antiracist #BLM #LGBTQIA+ #Equality”. Content shared by the accounts focused on issues such as Trump and Palestine.The research was based on data released by Twitter and was carried out by the Digital Forensic Research Lab – part of the Atlantic Council, a US research group – and Stanford University’s Internet Observatory.“Despite the comparatively small number of engagements that these networks achieved, operations such as these reinforce that foreign interference is ongoing, and that platform integrity teams working alongside researchers to find, assess, and disrupt these manipulative operations remains critical to stopping them while they are still small,” the study said.The report was flagged by Twitter’s head of safety and integrity, Yoel Roth, who tweeted: “This is exactly what we (or any company) should be doing in the midst of a corporate transition to reduce opportunities for insider risk. We’re still enforcing our rules at scale.” | US Federal Elections |
Student loan debt: Borrowers brace for Supreme Court decision
President Biden’s student debt forgiveness plan will finally see an end to its months-long limbo in the courts this week.
With repayments set to start again in October after a years-long pandemic-related pause, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling on the legality of Biden’s proposal is the last piece of the student loan puzzle, offering a clearer landscape moving forward.
Many borrowers are fearful as the conservative-majority Supreme Court, which could make its decision known as soon as Tuesday morning, seemed skeptical of Biden’s plan during oral arguments in February.
The justices heard two cases against the forgiveness plan, one brought by two individual student loan borrowers and another from six Republican attorneys general.
The justices first must decide whether the challengers have standing, meaning the right to sue the government over the plan. The plaintiffs must pass this bar to even have the case considered, at which point the court will determine if the government has the power to implement the proposal.
While Democrats have tried to keep an optimistic tone, Biden himself has even shown skepticism at the idea the Supreme Court will rule in his favor.
“I’m confident we’re on the right side of the law. I’m not confident about the outcome of the decision yet,” he said in March.
Advocates found a bit of hope Friday after the court released an 8-1 decision in a case where two Republican states tried to challenge the Biden administration on immigration policy. The high court ruled against the two states, saying they did not have standing to sue.
If the plan is ruled legal, the timeline of events is a bit unclear.
Last year, the Education Department released an easy two-minute form for borrowers to fill out to apply for debt relief: up to $10,000 for most borrowers and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients.
Around 26 million people filled out the form while it was up, and more than 16 million were approved for relief before a court order forced the administration to take down the application.
It is unknown how quickly things would move if the court lets the plan stand, but the department has previously said it is ready to put its application back online and has already sent the information of those approved for relief to their loan servicers.
Advocates will also be pushing for the deadline for the application to be extended since borrowers were supposed to have from last fall to the end of 2023 to apply before the plan got held up in the court system.
If the plan is struck down, borrowers can expect no relief, while interest on their loans restarts Sep. 1 and payments resume Oct. 1.
Republicans have been pushing for this outcome, arguing for months the $400 billion plan is unfair to those who never went to college or who paid off their student loans without assistance.
“Moreover, this administration is bypassing Congress, which is elected by the American people to protect their interests,” Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), the chairwoman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, previously said. “Congress is the only body with the authority to enact sweeping and fundamental changes of this nature, and it is ludicrous for President Biden to assume he can simply bypass the will of the American people.”
The president would find himself in a bind as $10,000 in student debt relief was one of his signature campaign promises and the administration has refused to disclose if a backup plan is in place to deliver on his word.
“Black borrowers are disproportionately impacted by student loan debt and with payments starting back potentially in October, we need to make it very clear that regardless of what happens with this SCOTUS decision we have to make sure student debt cancellation happens because the Black voters, Black borrowers are the ones who are going to benefit the most,” Satra Taylor, director of higher education and workforce policy at Young Invincibles, told The Hill during a rally outside the White House last week.
Regardless of the outcome, borrowers should be preparing for student loan payments to turn back on this fall.
While student loan advocates had been hoping they could push for another extension regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, Biden, as part the bipartisan deal on raising the debt ceiling with Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), locked in payments restarting this fall regardless of the high court outcome.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | SCOTUS |
The widely accepted, overwhelming takeaway from last week’s elections was that the American people want abortion rights, hence blistering losses for Republicans, who want to take those rights away. In Ohio, the right to an abortion was enshrined in the state’s constitution. In Kentucky, voters reelected pro-choice governor Andy Beshear. In Virginia, Democrats took control of the state legislature, preventing the GOP governor from limiting abortion moving forward, which he definitely planned to do. The results were very, very unambiguous.
Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel, however, looks at what happened last Tuesday and thinks the solution for her party going forward is to talk about restricting abortion more. McDaniel declared to NBC, incredibly: “I’m proud to be a pro-life party, but we can win on this message. The American people are where we are, and they want commonsense limitations. They want more access to adoption. We want to make sure that there’s pregnancy crisis centers. These are things we can win on.”
Obviously, Americans are not where Republicans are on abortion, and that was clear even before last week. A Pew Research Center poll conducted earlier this year found that more than 60% of Americans want abortion to be legal in all or most cases. As The New Republic notes:
Of course, while McDaniel’s advice seems comically bad, should Republicans follow it and loudly proclaim about their views on abortion, it could help avert a disaster come 2024. So yeah, shout it from the rooftops!
Kevin McCarthy is considering taking his ball, going home
Here come the “it’s fine to call your opponents vermin” takes
Elsewhere!
The Unvarnished Story of George Santos and His Mother
Vanity Fair • Read More
Detention Camps, “Vermin” Rivals, and a Government Purge: Trump Wants to Go Full Authoritarian
Vanity Fair • Read More
Supreme Court under pressure issues ethics guidelines specific to justices
The Washington Post • Read More
Democrats Shouldn’t Let Up on Abortion Rights
Vanity Fair • Read More
MAGA-dominated state Republican parties are plagued by infighting and money problems
The Washington Post • Read More
What We Know About the Criminal Investigation Into Eric Adams’s Campaign
NYT • Read More
Wisconsin snubs bourbon by elevating the brandy old fashioned to state cocktail status
Associated Press • Read More
The Biggest “Shrinkflation” Scandal Yet: Oreo Fans Think Cookies Have Less Filling
WSJ • Read More | US Federal Elections |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Lisa Mascaro, Associated Press
Lisa Mascaro, Associated Press
Kevin Freking, Associated Press
Kevin Freking, Associated Press
Stephen Groves, Associated Press
Stephen Groves, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
WASHINGTON (AP) — The threat of a federal government shutdown ended late Saturday, hours before a midnight deadline, as Congress approved a temporary funding bill to keep agencies open and sent the measure to President Joe Biden to sign.
The rushed package drops aid to Ukraine, a White House priority opposed by a growing number of GOP lawmakers, but increases federal disaster assistance by $16 billion, meeting Biden’s full request. The bill funds government until Nov. 17.
After whirlwind days of turmoil in the House, Speaker Kevin McCarthy suddenly abandoned demands for steep spending cuts from his right flank and instead relied on Democrats to pass the bill, at risk to his own job. The Senate followed with final passage.
WATCH: Inside McCarthy’s deal with House Democrats to pass 11th-hour funding plan
“We’re going to do our job,” McCarthy, R-Calif., said before the House vote. “We’re going to be adults in the room. And we’re going to keep government open.”
It’s been a head-spinning turn of events in Congress after days of House chaos pushed the government to the brink of a disruptive federal shutdown.
The outcome ends, for now, the threat of a shutdown. If no deal was in place before Sunday, federal workers would have faced furloughs, more than 2 million active-duty and reserve military troops would have had to work without pay and programs and services that Americans rely on from coast to coast would have begun to face shutdown disruptions.
“Americans can breathe a sigh of relief,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.
The package funds government at current 2023 levels until mid-November, setting up another potential crisis if they fail to more fully fund government by then. The package was approved by the House 335-91, with most Republicans and almost all Democrats supporting. Senate passage came by an 88-9 vote.
But the loss of Ukraine aid was devastating for lawmakers of both parties vowing to support President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after his recent Washington visit. The Senate bill included $6 billion for Ukraine, and both chambers came to a standstill Saturday as lawmakers assessed their options.
“The American people deserve better,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, warning in a lengthy floor speech that “extreme” Republicans were risking a shutdown.
For the House package to be approved, McCarthy, R-Calif., was forced to rely on Democrats because the speaker’s hard-right flank has said it will oppose any short-term funding measure, denying him the votes needed from his slim majority. It’s a move that risks his job amid calls for his ouster.
After leaving his right-flank behind, McCarthy is almost certain to be facing a motion to try to remove from office, though it is not at all certain there would be enough votes to topple the speaker. Most Republicans voted for the package Saturday while 90 opposed.
“If somebody wants to remove me because I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try,” McCarthy said of the threat to oust him. “But I think this country is too important.”
The White House was tracking the developments on Capitol Hill and aides were briefing the president, who was spending the weekend in Washington.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who has championed Ukraine aid despite resistance from his own ranks, is expected to keep pursuing U.S. support for Kyiv in the fight against Russia.
“I have agreed to keep fighting for more economic and security aid for Ukraine,” McConnell, R-Ky., said before the vote.
The House’s quick pivot comes after the collapse Friday of McCarthy’s earlier plan to pass a Republican-only bill with steep spending cuts up to 30 percent to most government agencies that the White House and Democrats rejected as too extreme.
“Our options are slipping away every minute,” said one senior Republican, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida.
The federal government was heading straight into a shutdown that posed grave uncertainty for federal workers in states all across America and the people who depend on them — from troops to border control agents to office workers, scientists and others.
Families that rely on Head Start for children, food benefits and countless other programs large and small were confronting potential interruptions or outright closures. At the airports, Transportation Security Administration officers and air traffic controllers are expected to work without pay, but travelers could face delays in updating their U.S. passports or other travel documents.
An earlier McCarthy plan to keep the government open collapsed Friday due to opposition from a faction of 21 hard-right holdouts despite steep spending cuts of nearly 30 percent to many agencies and severe border security provisions.
The White House has brushed aside McCarthy’s overtures to meet with Biden after the speaker walked away from the debt deal they brokered earlier this year that set budget levels.
Catering to his hard-right flank, McCarthy had made multiple concessions including returning to the spending limits the conservatives demanded back in January as part of the deal-making to help him become the House speaker.
But it was not enough as the right flank insisted the House follow regular rules, and debate and approve each of the 12 separate spending bills needed to fund the government agencies, typically a months-long process.
McCarthy’s chief Republican critic, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, has warned he will file a motion calling a vote to oust the speaker.
Some of the Republican holdouts, including Gaetz, are allies of former President Donald Trump, who is Biden’s chief rival in the 2024 race. Trump has been encouraging the Republicans to fight hard for their priorities and even to “shut it down.”
At an early closed-door meeting at the Capitol, several House Republicans, particularly those facing tough reelections next year, urged their colleagues to find a way to prevent a shutdown.
“All of us have a responsibility to lead and to govern,” said Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York.
The lone House Democrat to vote against the package, Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, the co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, called it a victory for Russian President Vladimir Putin and “Putin-sympathizers everywhere.” He said, “Protecting Ukraine is in our national interest.”
Associated Press writers Colleen Long and Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.
Support Provided By:
Learn more | US Congress |
Jim Jordan’s pressure campaign the ‘dumbest thing you can do,’ one House Republican says
Nobody likes a bully, Rep. Dan Crenshaw said.
Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) has some advice for Rep. Jim Jordan as he and his allies attempt to pressure his way to the speakership:
Chill.
“That is the dumbest way to support Jordan,” Crenshaw said Sunday during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“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 told CNN’s Jake Tapper.
The majority of House Republicans backed Jordan, one of the founding members of the House Freedom Caucus, to become speaker during a secret ballot last week, after eight House Republicans voted to remove former Speaker Kevin McCarthy from his position earlier this month.
But 55 members of his caucus were opposed to Jordan’s nomination — far more than the handful he can afford to lose if he hopes to win a vote on the House floor. The Ohio Republican told POLITICO on Saturday that he wants to be able to go to the floor on Tuesday, giving him very little time to earn the support of those hesitant to back him.
Lawmakers close to Jordan, who was endorsed by former President Donald Trump for the role, have blitzed the airwaves and social media, applying public pressure to the holdouts.
It’s a tactic that isn’t likely to earn them any friends — or crucially, supporters, Crenshaw said.
“When I ask people who are taking that tact, I’m like, did that work on you, when you were one of the 20 against McCarthy, and everybody was bashing you?” Crenshaw said Sunday. “Everybody’s got to grow up, get it together. If there’s differences, let’s sort them out.”
“We need to have cool heads prevail,” he added. | US Congress |
For three years in the thirteenth century, there was no pope. The cardinals who gathered in the small Italian town of Viterbo after Clement IV’s death in 1268 could not agree on a successor. A group of French cardinals hoped to elect one of their own to lead the church, while the others feared France’s influence in the Italian peninsula. A deadlock ensued, until the people of Viterbo locked the cardinals into a church, cut their rations, and removed its roof.
Maybe someone should do that to the House of Representatives. The lower house of Congress is no closer to electing a new speaker since a renegade GOP faction ousted Kevin McCarthy earlier this month. If anything, it’s strayed even further away from that goal. Earlier this week, the House Republican caucus internally elected Majority Leader Steve Scalise as the party’s nominee for speaker. Then, unsurprisingly, everything fell apart.
“There are still some people that have their own agendas, and I was very clear: We have to have everybody put their agendas on the side and focus on what this country needs,” Scalise said on Thursday, while announcing his withdrawal from the speakership race. “This country is counting on us to come back together. This House of Representatives needs a speaker, and we need to open up the House again. But clearly, not everybody is there, and there [are] still schisms that have to get resolved.”
His withdrawal was sudden but hardly surprising. The math behind the House leadership race is simple and unyielding. There are 435 seats in the House, meaning any speaker-elect would need 218 votes for a majority. House Republicans only have 221 members in the chamber. Any three House Republicans, in other words, could effectively deny Scalise—or anyone else—the speakership. House Democrats, following the historical practice, would vote for their own leader, Hakeem Jeffries, in speakership races.
Scalise, the most obvious successor to McCarthy, received just 113 votes within the House GOP caucus. Ninety-nine of his colleagues instead voted for Ohio Representative Jim Jordan, a hyperpartisan member (even by today’s standards) of the far-right House Freedom Caucus. To say that Jordan would be a disastrous speaker is an understatement. He has shown no interest in actual governance throughout his 16-year tenure in Congress. His great passion in life appears to be yelling at people in House committee meetings.
A narrow majority isn’t a problem in and of itself. After all, House Democrats have held the chamber with razor-thin margins in recent years and avoided anything close to the leadership crisis facing House Republicans. The House GOP’s problem goes much deeper: a critical mass of their members expect the speaker to refuse to compromise on anything with the Democratic Party—a position that might work well on the campaign trail but is unfeasible in day-to-day governance.
The matters that require some amount of compromise include raising the debt ceiling, an unconstitutional measure that only functions as a gun pointed to the left temple of the American economy, or passing a continuing resolution to keep the government funded and open, which McCarthy did last month. Eight rogue House GOP members used that moment to topple him, and it’s unlikely that anyone who can replace him—if anyone even can—would survive something similar.
“The French have a word for it: ‘clusterfuck,’” Representative Mike Lawler quipped to reporters after a closed-door meeting among House Republicans on Friday morning. Representative Mike Collins posted a meme on Friday that shows two screenshots from a comedy sketch by Eric André. It shows André’s character, labeled “House Republicans,” shooting Hannibal Buress, who is labeled “Republican controlled House,” and then turning to face the camera. “Why is Jeffries the speaker?” André asks.
In theory, House Democrats could throw their weight behind one of the GOP nominees to elect them speaker. But at the moment, they have no political interest in helping Republicans solve their own internal leadership battles. I previously wrote that Democratic lawmakers should make their demands clear for any hypothetical coalition-style government, starting with abolishing the debt ceiling and restoring Covid-era expansion of the child tax credit. If the leadership vacuum goes on long enough, they just might convince a handful of swing-district House Republicans to back them.
House Republicans haven’t made things any easier on themselves by setting one another up to fail. Jordan, who denies that President Joe Biden won the 2020 election, applied that thinking to his own defeat in the speakership race. According to Politico, after Scalise won the caucus vote on Wednesday, he spoke privately with Jordan about the path forward. “You get one ballot,” Jordan reportedly told him. “And when you go down, you will nominate me.” After Scalise noted he had won under the caucus’s rules, Jordan allegedly replied, “America wants me,” and left the room.
To say that America “wants” a Jim Jordan speakership is dubious at best. Americans barely wanted a House Republican majority in the first place. The GOP gained only nine seats in the 2022 midterms and eked out a narrow five-seat majority in the chamber. This was a poor showing by historical standards: The party out of the White House typically gains far more seats in a president’s first midterms, with Barack Obama and Donald Trump seeing the House lost to wave elections in 2010 and 2018, respectively. Had it not been for Republican gerrymandering in key states, Democrats might have even retained the House.
Jordan’s road to the speakership also apparently won’t be uncontested. Georgia Representative Austin Scott, a GOP backbencher and McCarthy ally, announced shortly before Friday’s next caucus vote that he would challenge Jordan for the post. “I have filed to be Speaker of the House,” he wrote on Twitter on Friday. “We are in Washington to legislate, and I want to lead a House that functions in the best interest of the American people.”
Scott, for his part, is far from a high-profile member of the GOP caucus. He holds no leadership positions or committee chairmanships. But he may nonetheless serve as a potent rallying point for disaffected House Republicans who aren’t willing to throw their weight behind Jordan. Axios reported on Friday that Jordan is struggling to gather support from members who supported McCarthy and Scalise, in no small part because of Jordan’s perceived backstab of Scalise after the latter won the previous vote.
When House Republicans gathered on Friday afternoon to vote again, the results were similar. One hundred twenty-four members voted for Jordan for the speakership nominee. Eighty-one of them voted for Scott. While Jordan may be tempted to cast this as consolidating support, it reads like the opposite to an outsider. That Scott, a virtual unknown before the weekend, could get the backing of more than one-third of the caucus for the speakership is a testament to how divided the House GOP remains.
It’s an open question whether Republicans can overcome this and do anything of substance before the next House election, where they face the unenviable task of trying to persuade voters that they deserve another shot. If this country had a more parliamentary system, a snap election would have already been called, and the House GOP may well have lost it. For now, the leadership feud continues until the American people say otherwise—whether by voting for new lawmakers next November or by locking the current ones in and taking the roof off of the building. | US Congress |
Ransomware attack prompts multistate hospital chain to divert some emergency room patients elsewhere
A ransomware attack has prompted a health care chain that operates in six states to divert patients from at least some of its emergency rooms to other hospitals
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- A ransomware attack has prompted a health care chain that operates 30 hospitals in six states to divert patients from at least some of its emergency rooms to other hospitals, while putting certain elective procedures on pause, the company announced.
In a statement Monday, Ardent Health Services said the attack occurred Nov. 23 and the company took its network offline, suspending user access to its information technology applications, including the software used to document patient care.
The Nashville, Tennessee-based company said it cannot yet confirm the extent of any patient health or financial information that has been compromised. Ardent says it reported the issue to law enforcement and retained third-party forensic and threat intelligence advisors, while working with cybersecurity specialists to restore IT functions as quickly as possible. There's no timeline yet on when the problems will be resolved.
Ardent owns and operates 30 hospitals and more than 200 care sites with upwards of 1,300 employees in Oklahoma, Texas, New Jersey, New Mexico, Idaho and Kansas.
All of its hospitals are continuing to provide medical screenings and stabilizing care to patients arriving at emergency rooms, the company said.
“Ardent’s hospitals are currently operating on divert, which means hospitals are asking local ambulance services to transport patients in need of emergency care to other area hospitals,” the company said on its website. “This ensures critically ill patients have immediate access to the most appropriate level of care.”
The company said each hospital is evaluating its ability to safely care for patients at its emergency room, and updates on each hospital's status will be provided as efforts to bring them back online continue.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the attack. Ransomware criminals do not usually admit to an attack unless the victim refuses to pay.
A recent global study by the cybersecurity firm Sophos found nearly two-thirds of health care organizations were hit by ransomware attacks in the year ending in March, double the rate from two years earlier but a slight dip from 2022. Education was the sector most likely to be hit, with attack saturation at 80%.
Increasingly, ransomware gangs steal data before activating data-scrambling malware that paralyzes networks. The threat of making stolen data public is used to extort payments. That data can also be sold online. Sophos found data theft occurred in one in three ransomware attacks on healthcare organizations.
Analyst Brett Callow at the cybersecurity firm Emsisoft said 25 U.S. healthcare systems with 290 hospitals were hit last year while this year the number is 36 with 128 hospitals. “Of course, not all hospitals within the systems may have been impacted and not all may have been impacted equally,” he said. “Also, improved resilience may have improved recovery times.”
“We’re not in a significantly better position than in previous years, and it may actually be worse,” he said.
“We desperately need to find ways to better protect our hospitals. These incidents put patients lives at risk — especially when ambulances need to be diverted — and the fact that nobody appears to have yet died is partly due to luck, and that luck will eventually run out,” Callow added.
Most ransomware syndicates are run by Russian speakers based in former Soviet states, out of reach of U.S. law enforcement, though some “affiliates” who do the grunt work of infecting targets and negotiating ransoms live in the West, using the syndicates’ software infrastructure and tools.
The Kremlin tolerates the global ransomware scourge, in part, because of the chaos and economic damage to the West — and as long its interests remain unaffected, U.S. national security officials say.
While industries across the spectrum have been hit by ransomware, a recent attack on China’s biggest bank that affected U.S. Treasury trading represented a rare attack on a financial institution.
___
Associated Press technology reporter Frank Bajak contributed to this report. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
A Missouri mayor was impeached and removed from office after he allegedly threatened an alderman with a gun, according to reports.
FOX 4 Kansas City reported that Greenwood Mayor Levi Weaver was unanimously voted out of office Tuesday by the Greenwood Board of Aldermen.
The three-member board met at City Hall, where deliberations lasted longer than two hours.
One of the members, Kyron McClure, was the man whom Weaver was accused of threatening with a gun.
"To have to stand here in front of these cameras, it’s just a little disappointing that we got this far," Alderman Ryan Murray said.
In October 2022, the aldermen impeached Weaver on three counts, including brandishing a gun during a conflict, infringing on First Amendment rights by blocking people from the city’s Facebook page, and being loose with business licensing rules and possibly violating Jackson County health codes, the station reported.
Weaver was encouraged by the board to resign, but reportedly would not because he said the allegations against him were not true.
"There was no testimony that he ever brandished a weapon or pointed a weapon or threatened anyone with a weapon," Weaver’s attorney, Aaron Racine, told the station. "Legally, which has completely ignored, it had nothing to do with the discharge of his office as mayor. It was a personal argument between those two."
Racine added that he plans to appeal the decision with the hope a judicial review board will reinstate him to the elected position.
Now that the seat is open, the aldermen will begin working on appointing a replacement mayor to serve for the next seven months, who then decide who to appoint to fill an open seat on the board. | US Local Elections |
Almost two decades after Natalee Holloway vanished in Aruba, the man long suspected of killing the Alabama teen has confessed to her killing, according to a court filing.
“It’s over. Joran van der Sloot is no longer the suspect in my daughter’s murder. He is the killer,”Holloway’s mother, Beth Holloway, said Wednesday.
“He gave a proffer in which he finally confessed to killing Natalee,” Holloway said. “After 18 years, Natalie’s case is solved.”
In a proffer, a defendant offers information they know about a crime, often as part of a plea deal.
Van der Sloot, 36, pleaded guilty in federal court Wednesday to extorting and defrauding the Holloway family. He was accused of trying to sell information about the location of Holloway’s remains to her family in exchange for $250,000.
Holloway’s body has never been found. In 2012, an Alabama judge signed an order declaring her legally dead.
But on Wednesday, a federal judge who reviewed van der Sloot’s proffer said there’s a reason why Natalee Holloway’s body would never be found – though she did not elaborate.
But the deaths of Holloway and a Peruvian woman who van der Sloot previously admitted to killing prompted Judge Anna Manasco to sentence van der Sloot to 20 years on the federal charges.
“I have considered your confession to the brutal murder of Natalee Holloway,” the judge said after reading van der Sloot’s proffer.
“You have brutally murdered in separate incidents years apart two beautiful women who refused your sexual advances.”
Van der Sloot had been arrested multiple times in connection with Holloway’s death. He was subsequently released by Aruban authorities who cited a lack of direct evidence.
Van der Sloot is serving a 28-year prison sentence in Peru for the 2010 murder of Stephany Flores. Peruvian officials allowed his temporary release to the US in June to face the extortion and wire fraud charges.
Van der Sloot will return to Peru to finish his murder sentence in the Flores case. Afterward, he will return to the US to start his prison sentence for the federal extortion and wire fraud charges.
18 years of mystery and misery
Holloway was visiting Aruba on a high school graduation trip when she vanished in 2005.
The 18-year-old was last seen leaving a nightclub with van der Sloot and two other men, brothers Deepak and Satish Kalpoe.
The three men were arrested in 2005 but were released due to insufficient evidence.
They were rearrested and charged in 2007 for “involvement in the voluntary manslaughter of Natalee Holloway or causing serious bodily harm to Natalee Holloway, resulting in her death,” Aruban prosecutors said at the time.
But a few weeks later, an Aruban judge ordered van der Sloot’s release, citing a lack of direct evidence that Holloway died from a violent crime or that van der Sloot was involved in such a crime. The Kalpoe brothers were also released.
Why van der Sloot was charged in the US
While US officials don’t have jurisdiction over the criminal investigation in Aruba, a federal grand jury in Alabama indicted van der Sloot for an alleged plot to sell information about Holloway’s remains to her family.
According to the indictment, van der Sloot’s scheme took place between March and May 2010.
He was indicted in June 2010 on charges of extortion and wire fraud.
In the weeks between the alleged extortion and indictment, van der Sloot killed 21-year-old Flores in his hotel room in Peru on May 30, 2010.
CNN’s Jean Casarez and Michelle Watson contributed to this report. | US Circuit and Appeals Courts |
The US House of Representatives voted in favor of a bill that would claw back paused student loan payments and block the president's student debt forgiveness program.
The bill called the Congressional Review Act (CRA) was passed by a 218-203 vote, with at least two Democratic representatives appearing to support the measure.
It would require the Education Department to reverse months of forbearance since September 2022 and waived interest charges that was part of the federal response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It would also prevent the implementation of President Joe Biden’s up to $20,000 cancellation of student debt — regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on the legality of the program.
The measure, which the president has vowed to veto if it passes the Senate, would leave 40 million student loan borrowers with past-due balances on their loans plus new interest charges.
“Voting in favor of CRA is really a pretty extraordinary slap in the face to representatives' constituents,” Abby Shafroth, a senior attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, told Yahoo Finance. “It would not only break a promise the government has already made to constituents to provide them life-changing debt relief, but also increase their student loan balances right now by undoing past months of 0% interest and retroactively charging interest for that time.”
Other advocates worry that the resolution would reinstate debt for borrowers who received debt cancellation under the public service loan forgiveness (PSLF) program.
“Many individuals whose loans were discharged under longstanding forgiveness programs, such as Public Service Loan Forgiveness, could see their debts reinstated," Eden Iscil, public policy manager at National Consumers League, told Yahoo Finance. "This would all be in addition to the dangers of restarting monthly payments during high inflation and without the president’s debt cancellation.”
The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) released a new report Tuesday showing the CRA resolution would cause far greater harm to public service workers with student debt.
“The CRA would impact PSLF, block Biden’s student loan cancellation, and will roll back debt relief already delivered,” Mike Pierce, executive director of the Student Borrowers Protection Center, said in a press conference. “It would strike down an existing set of programs having an immediate impact on borrowers by invalidating student loan policies since 2022.”
Around 268,660 public service workers who received debt cancellation from September 2022 through March 2023 through the public service loan forgiveness program would have $19.5 billion in debt put back in place as a result of the CRA, according to the AFT/SBPC report.
On the other end, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated that if the measure passed, it would reduce deficits by $316 billion through 2033. The public policy nonprofit instead said the administration should "find a bipartisan path forward that truly reforms the system," CRFB President Maya MacGuineas said in a statement.
The back and forth between supporters and critics is mostly moot.
"It is unlikely that the bill would pass in the Senate or survive a presidential veto,” Mark Kantrowitz, author and student loans expert, told Yahoo Finance.
The White House reiterated that stance on Wednesday in a press briefing before the House vote.
“And know this: President Biden won’t stand for it," White House Press Secretary Karen Pierre said. "He will veto this bill.”
Ronda is a personal finance senior reporter for Yahoo Finance and attorney with experience in law, insurance, education, and government. Follow her on Twitter @writesronda. | US Federal Policies |
The federal budget is back on life support after the passage of an 11th-hour continuing resolution holding government spending at par. This measure is the “clean” spending bill that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy had formerly vowed he would never pass. And now that McCarthy has stepped forward as “the adult in the room” to tamp down all the rudderless tantrum-throwing in the caucus he nominally presides over, he’s on schedule to lose his post—just as his predecessors John Boehner and Paul Ryan did in the wake of past shutdown crises. A vote to oust him could come as early as Monday, October 2.
The continuing resolution has omitted aid to Ukraine, which is now left slowly twisting in the wind, as the saying goes. Even putting Ukraine aside, McCarthy and his caucus have no foreseeable consensus on the budget. Something has to give. A new vote to fund Ukraine will come quickly via the Senate. And it will once more force House Republicans who don’t want to be known as nihilists and obstructionists to defy their MAGA comrades and their orange eminence, Trump, and join with Democrats.
The root of this nutty situation is the perverse leadership incentives at the heart of the MAGA-era GOP. As Hunter Thompson famously said, “When the going gets tough, the weird turn pro.” The pros apparently in charge of the Republican agenda of the House of Representatives are as weird as they come, so they have spent the past four weeks pushing us into the crisis of a disabled US government. And the funny thing is that none of this was really about money.
Former shutdown artist Newt Gingrich was quoted saying, “I frankly don’t understand it—I think it’s sort of nuts.” As conservative Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute is saying, it’s the show about nothing.
A disagreement about money is a relatively simple thing, since the number lies along a single dimension—what one party wants vs. what the other one favors. You can always split the difference somewhere in between. What we now have instead is not a debate about numbers but an upsurge of weird identity politics.
The House Republican caucus has been leveraged into all this weirdness by a minority of several dozen Trump-adjacent fanatics. (The others are no bowl of cherries either.) Their identity is to be the party that will smash the State, as we used to say in SDS. Their proposals are what are called “messaging bills”: legislation that nobody expects to be enacted but that makes statements.
The headline statement behind McCarthy’s shutdown crucible is “Oh noes, the national debt”—and the phony magnitude of that rallying cry was made instantly clear once McCarthy cut his deal with the Democrats to keep current spending levels intact.
Like the weather, everyone says they care about the national debt, but nobody ever does anything about it. It just keeps growing, in fair weather and foul. Another funny-strange thing is that people have been screaming about it for decades, but it has not seemed to have any harmful economic consequences. To the contrary, the debt-financed provision of expanded unemployment benefits and the Child Tax Credit in 2021 had wondrous effects on the well-being of the working class. The US economy has emerged from the conniptions of 2020 in relatively good shape. The inflations spike of 2022 is over, and unemployment remains at a rock-bottom 3.9 percent.
Popular
"swipe left below to view more authors"Swipe →
A Modest but Serious Proposal for How to Save the GOP From Trump
A Modest but Serious Proposal for How to Save the GOP From Trump
Stop Arguing Over Elite Schools. Just Make Public Colleges Free.
Stop Arguing Over Elite Schools. Just Make Public Colleges Free.
Supreme Court Preview: This Term, It Can Always Get Worse
Supreme Court Preview: This Term, It Can Always Get Worse
What are the numbers in question now? For the proper perspective, we need a little background about federal spending. In Fiscal Year 2023 (which ended on October 1), total federal spending was projected at $5.792 trillion, $1.154 trillion in excess of revenues. That funding gap adds to the federal debt.
Of that roughly $5.8 trillion, close to 70 percent is devoted in large part to Social Security, Medicare, and other programs known as “mandatory spending” (more loosely, “entitlements”), and interest on debt.
The remaining 30 percent of the federal budget is classified as “discretionary spending.” The funding outlays behind these discretionary programs are up for votes in Congress every year. The mandatory programs run on automatic pilot, for the simple reason that no politician wants to be burdened with voting for the mandatory programs, which everybody knows will roll on—and over anyone raising objections.
About half of discretionary spending—$766 billion—is for defense, which also inexorably increases annually, thanks to the public’s chronic state of national insecurity and the devious machinations of defense contractors. So the grand budget sum at the center of this year’s shutdown crisis was about the remaining non-defense half, roughly $873 billion. If you have been following along, that’s about 15 percent of total spending. Recall that the deficit for 2023 is $1.154 trillion.
While most federal spending consists of checks sent to seniors, health care providers, bondholders, and defense contractors, the other piece funds the actual operations of federal programs, in every field imaginable—law enforcement, public health, infrastructure, health and safety regulation, disaster relief, as well as the bureaucracies that mail the checks. This is the “administrative state” that MAGA thought leaders like Steve Bannon are determined to cut down.
But here we run into a quandary of simple math. Regarding the pretense of any desire to eliminate deficits, and notwithstanding perennial support for tax cuts that increase said deficits, the difficulty of carving $1.154 trillion out of $873 billion should be clear. On Saturday’s vote for the continuing resolution, the Republican House finally passed a budget framework with the messages pared down to one: no help for Ukraine. Otherwise, the messaging has dwelled on immigration, Trump’s ill-fated border wall, and the phantom army of new IRS agents. The real message is still, “We are too uncoordinated to agree on any sort of realistic budget, even just among ourselves.” (Though the measure conveyed another important, if well concealed, ancillary message, in a provision for House members to receive cost-of-living raises: austerity for thee, but not for me.)
Details of other proposed cuts don’t matter. They are dead letters. Moreover, cuts demanded by the House Republicans would contravene the deal struck between their leader McCarthy and Democrats in May of this year. Even the Democrats are not dumb enough to allow somebody to renege on a deal the other party has already bought into.
If the present deal holds beyond its appointed 45-day tenure, it’s important to keep in mind that the larger GOP agenda here is simply an appetite for destruction. We have seen this movie many times before. The contrast this time between the current situation and 2018 is especially stark. In the previous shutdown, the Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. In that case, in other words, the GOP had a clear path to doing all the things they are whining that they’re prevented from doing now. Remember “Infrastructure Week”? I remember the week, but I don’t remember the infrastructure.
It’s equally crucial to bear in mind the real-world costs of a shutdown for ordinary Americans, should we see one take hold around Thanksgiving. The political robustness of the mandatory programs carries with it the retention of their most basic functions, but some services to Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries and civil service pensioners will be curtailed.
Otherwise, billions of dollars in economic damage are in store, as we’ve learned from earlier GOP-inflicted shutdowns. The injury to families whose workers are in precarious circumstances will be palpable. For instance, federal workers and troops may be reimbursed eventually, but employees of the many contractors used by the federal government, folks cleaning floors and running cafeterias, will not. Some school programs will shut, creating nightmares for parents in finding childcare. Portions of the National Institutes of Health may have to turn away patients who don’t have time to spare. The list is endless.
We can suppose that, shorn of the Capitol Hill theatrics that produced the unlikely continuing resolution vote, remains the ultimate Republican objective: torpedo the economy, make a mess, and blame it on “Bidenomics.” Recently Fox hostess Harris Faulkner blamed Biden for the spike in child poverty—even though that grim development was a clear outcome of Republican opposition to extending the increased Child Tax Credit.
In short, the lesson of this near-shutdown is the same bequeathed to us by the long train of other GOP-engineered spending crises: Watch what the Republicans do, not what they say—if you can stand it. | US Federal Policies |
A Washington Post reporter admitted Wednesday to passing along a misquote of Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., from the lawmaker's office that drastically cleaned up his actual remarks.
Economics reporter Jeff Stein took criticism for tweeting that Fetterman had asked Silicon Valley Bank ex-CEO Greg Becker, "Shouldn't you have a working requirement after we bail out your bank? Republicans seen to be more preoccupied with SNAP requirements for hungry people than protecting taxpayers that have to bail out these banks."
However, Fetterman, still suffering speaking and cognitive issues from a stroke he had a year ago, was much less clear in his comments Tuesday that actually left the witness speechless.
The senator said, "The Republicans want to give a work requirement for SNAP. You know, for a uh, uh, uh, a hungry family has to have these, this kind of penalties, or these some kinds of word – working uh, require – Shouldn’t you have a working requirement, after we sail your bank, billions of your bank? Because you seem we were preoccupied, uh when, then SNAP requirements for works, for hungry people, but not about protecting the tax, the tax papers, you know, that will bail them out of whatever does about a bank to crash it."
No one answered Fetterman, who was the last to speak at the hearing, after his comments.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, then remarked, "Thank you, Senator Fetterman. I didn't see an eagerness on the panel to answer your questions." Becker was a witness at the hearing alongside former Signature Bank Chairman and co-founder Scott Shay and former Signature Bank President Eric Howell.
Stein deleted his original tweet, admitting the quote had been provided to him by Fetterman's office and he hadn't checked it against the video. "That was my fault," he wrote. "Though it captured his meaning, I deleted the tweet once some of the words in the quote were inaccurate."
While it's routine for reporters to leave out filler words like "um" and "you know" when transcribing people's remarks in stories, the drastic changes to Fetterman's actual words in the quote Stein tweeted left onlookers flabbergasted.
Stein was praised in some corners for admitting his mistake, while others castigated him for passing along a Democratic office's version of events without verification.
He was hardly alone. Fox News Digital found that other outlets like The New Republic, The Hill and Insider also provided a heavily edited version of Fetterman's remarks.
So did Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett, who also put Fetterman's words in quotes but provided a video of his actual remarks.
Fetterman's health has been under a microscope due to the near-fatal stroke he suffered last year that left him with severe auditory processing issues. After he took office earlier this year, he was hospitalized and treated for depression.
Since returning to work, his speaking difficulties have been clear when he's had to make public remarks like at Tuesday's hearing.
Fetterman squared off in only one debate with his Pennsylvania Senate opponent, Republican Mehmet Oz, in October and struggled to effectively communicate on multiple occasions, using closed captioning due to limited auditory processing capability. His victory was a crucial boon to Democrats holding control of the U.S. Senate, but the New York Times reported this year that he's had to "come to terms with the fact that he may have set himself back permanently by not taking the recommended amount of rest during the campaign."
The mainstream media also came under fire during the Senate campaign for trying to whitewash his clear health problems, with some liberal figures angrily denouncing an NBC reporter who noted Fetterman had trouble understanding her during small talk before an interview.
The senator has also struggled to adjust to life in the Senate, given the challenges of recovering from his stroke and the need for technological tools to help him conduct conversations with staff and colleagues.
Fetterman has to carry around a closed captioning device that types out what is being said to him so that he can have conversations, since he cannot fully understand the spoken word on his own.
Fox News' Audrie Spady contributed to this report. | US Congress |
More than half of Republicans view former President Donald Trump as a person of faith, placing him ahead of vocally religious politicians like former Vice President Mike Pence.
A new national poll conducted by HarrisX for the Deseret News showed. Registered voters were asked whether they believed a list of political figures to be people of faith with the results falling along party lines. Among Republicans, 53% deemed Trump a person of faith, a value greater than that of almost every other figure on the list; Mike Pence was given the consideration by 52% of Republican respondents. President Joe Biden topped the list for Democrats with 63%, while Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, rose to the top for Independents with 42% of them considering him a person of faith.
The former president also vaulted above his other GOP primary opponents with 47% of Republicans indicating they believe that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis is a person of faith, 31% saying the same for Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., 31% for former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, 30% for Vivek Ramaswamy and 22% for former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Twenty-three percent of Republicans, on the other hand, dubbed Biden a person of faith and 12% said the same of Vice President Kamala Harris.
At a June Faith & Freedom gala, Trump — who rarely discusses his own faith compared to Pence, a Christian, and Biden, a Catholic — said he had bolstered policies favored by Christian voters, including appointing conservative justices to the Supreme Court, which later overturned Roe v. Wade. "No president has ever fought for Christians as hard as I have," he said during the event, adding, "I got it done, and nobody thought it was even a possibility."
The poll, which surveyed 1,002 registered voters, was conducted from Sept. 8-11 and has a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points. | US Federal Elections |
White House officials on Tuesday warned that a looming government shutdown would undermine national security by delaying service members’ pay and furloughing hundreds of thousands of civilian Defense Department workers.
Operations of most federal agencies are set to halt on Oct. 1 unless members of Congress can agree to a short-term budget extension or long-term government budget before then. As of Tuesday morning, neither chamber had a plan in place to avoid the budget lapse, though Senate leaders had promised to move some legislation later in the day.
In a statement criticizing “extreme House Republicans” for their public opposition to White House-backed funding plans, administration officials noted that the shutdown could mean delayed paychecks for 1.3 million active-duty troops, including more than 171,000 stationed overseas.
Troops would be required to report for duty in the event of a shutdown, but would not receive paychecks until after a new budget deal is reached.
RELATED
“Hundreds of thousands of their civilian colleagues in the Department of Defense would also be furloughed, affecting the ways in which the department manages its affairs globally, including the vital task of recruiting new members of the military,” the White House statement said. “All of this would prove disruptive to our national security.”
Last week, Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., and GOP Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, offered separate but similar legislation to provide paychecks to military members — including the Coast Guard — in the event of a budget lapse. Congress approved similar legislation in September 2013, just ahead of the last government shutdown affecting most federal departments.
But chamber leaders thus far have not advanced that legislation, instead hoping for a breakthrough on the budget impasse in the coming days to avoid the military pay disruption entirely.
White House officials have blamed the looming shutdown threat on House conservatives backing out on plans negotiated earlier this summer for limited growth in defense and non-defense spending over the next two years. Republican lawmakers have pushed for full-year spending bills rather than short-term extensions.
Defense Department workers are receiving instructions this week from agency heads about what operations and services could be impacted if a shutdown begins on Oct. 1.
Leo covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He has covered Washington, D.C. since 2004, focusing on military personnel and veterans policies. His work has earned numerous honors, including a 2009 Polk award, a 2010 National Headliner Award, the IAVA Leadership in Journalism award and the VFW News Media award. | US Federal Policies |
(Photo by Scott Eisen/Getty Images)
Trump Issues Sinister Threat to 'Root Out' Leftists If Elected in 2024
The former president's description of leftists as "vermin" was right "out of the Nazi playbook," wrote one observer.
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
The former president's description of leftists as "vermin" was right "out of the Nazi playbook," wrote one observer.
Former U.S. President Donald Trump pledged during a Veterans Day speech on Saturday to "root out" those he described as "radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country" if he's elected in 2024, an openly fascistic threat that drew comparisons to Nazi rhetoric.
"We are a failing nation. We are a nation in serious decline," Trump, the current Republican presidential frontrunner, told the crowd gathered in Claremont, New Hampshire. "2024 is our final battle."
The former president vowed to target communists and Marxists—ideological groups that he described as "radical left lunatics"—and "rout the fake news media until they become real."
"The real threat is not from the radical right. The real threat is from the radical left, and it's growing every day—every single day," Trump claimed. "The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within."
David DeWitt, editor-in-chief of the Ohio Capital Journal, characterized Trump's remarks as "rhetoric literally out of the Nazi playbook" and joined others in criticizing The New York Times for initially headlining its coverage of the speech, "Trump Takes Veterans Day Speech in a Very Different Direction."
The former president also said Saturday that his administration would launch the "largest domestic deportation operation in American history," institute "strong and ideological screenings for all immigrants," revive the Muslim ban, further slash taxes, gut regulations, and prioritize the approval of fossil fuel pipelines.
Trump's speech heightened alarm over his authoritarian intentions should he win another term in the White House four years after attempting to overturn the election that removed him from power. The former president is currently facing more than 90 felony charges, many of them stemming from his election subversion efforts and the January 6, 2021 insurrection that he provoked.
The Washington Postreported earlier this month that Trump and his allies "have begun mapping out specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations."
"In public, Trump has vowed to appoint a special prosecutor to 'go after' President Biden and his family. The former president has frequently made corruption accusations against them that are not supported by available evidence," the Post noted. "To facilitate Trump's ability to direct Justice Department actions, his associates have been drafting plans to dispense with 50 years of policy and practice intended to shield criminal prosecutions from political considerations. Critics have called such ideas dangerous and unconstitutional."
Philadelphia Inquirer columnist Will Bunch argued the scheme "would be, in essence, the military coup that [Trump] wasn't quite able to pull off on January 6, 2021."
Pointing to a recent survey that showed Trump leading incumbent President Joe Biden—who is running for reelection—in key battleground states, Bunch warned that "America is on the brink of installing a strongman in the White Housewhose team has been surprisingly open about their plans for an autocratic, 'Red Caesar' rule that would undo constitutional governance."
In response to Trump's threat to "root out" leftists, Bunch wrote on social media, "Looks like someone picked up the book of Hitler speeches on his nightstand recently." | US Federal Elections |
Police say some 70 bullets fired in North Philadelphia shooting that left 2 dead, 5 wounded
Philadelphia police are investigating a shooting that left two men dead and five wounded, but no arrests have been made
PHILADELPHIA -- Philadelphia police on Wednesday identified two men killed in a city shooting a day earlier in which at least 70 rounds were fired and five other men were wounded.
Authorities said no arrests have been made but several guns were recovered from the scene of the shooting that occurred around 8:30 p.m. Tuesday, leaving bullet holes in vehicles and nearby buildings.
Killed in the gunfire were Roger Marquez, 31, and Leon Pierre, 38, both of Philadelphia. They both suffered multiple bullet wounds and were pronounced dead at Temple University Hospital around 9 p.m. Tuesday.
Interim Police Commissioner John Stanford said at the scene on Fairhill Street in North Philadelphia that drugs had also been found, although police were “not really sure of all that has occurred out here.”
“This is a block that has had some narcotics activity,” he said. “It's not a block that we aren't familiar with.”
The other victims, ages 19-30, were being treated for gunshot wounds and considered to be in critical or stable condition, police said Wednesday. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
- The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness plan in late February.
- Federal student loan payments won't resume until the end of August, unless the litigation over the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan is resolved sooner.
- Here's what borrowers need to know about the ongoing payment pause.
It's been nearly three years since most people with federal student loans have had to make a payment on their education debt.
The U.S. Department of Education has repeatedly cited specific dates for when the bills would resume, only to extend the pandemic-era break yet again.
Most recently, amid legal challenges to the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan, the government told borrowers they'd get even more time. But the timing it gave wasn't as straightforward as it was with previous extensions.
Here's what borrowers need to know.
In August 2022, President Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $20,000 of student loan debt for tens of millions of Americans, but Republicans and conservatives quickly filed a number of lawsuits against his plan, forcing the administration to close its application portal in early November.
As a result of those challenges, the Education Department announced another extension of the repayment pause in late November.
It said federal student loan bills will be due again 60 days after the litigation over its student loan forgiveness plan resolves and it's able to start wiping out the debt. But the Department added that if the Biden administration is still defending its policy in the courts by the end of June, or if it's unable to move forward with forgiving student debt by then, the payments will pick up at the end of August.
More from Personal Finance:
64% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck
What is a 'rolling recession' and how does it impact you?
Almost half of Americans think we're already in a recession
The Supreme Court will begin to hear oral arguments over Biden's plan at the end of February.
When payments could resume depends in part on when the justices reach their decision, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
"If the court issues a ruling a few weeks after the Feb. 28 hearing, repayment could restart in May or June," Kantrowitz said. "If they wait until the end of the term, when they go on recess, in June or July, then there would be an August or September restart."
It's a time of uncertainty for the federal student loan system.
With Biden's forgiveness plan up in the air, borrowers may be unsure what they owe. Throughout the pandemic, there have been a lot of changes to the companies that service federal student loans. And then there's the fact that after three years without payments, millions of Americans have simply become accustomed to life without student debt bills.
"These student loan borrowers had the reasonable expectation and belief that they would not have to make additional payments on their federal student loans," Education Department Undersecretary James Kvaal said in a November court filing. "This belief may well stop them from making payments even if the Department is prevented from effectuating debt relief.
"Unless the Department is allowed to provide one-time student loan debt relief," he went on, "we expect this group of borrowers to have higher loan default rates due to the ongoing confusion about what they owe."
Considering that the U.S. Department of Education has already extended the payment pause roughly eight times, it's possible borrowers could get more time still, Kantrowitz said.
"There will always be an excuse if they want a reason for another extension," he said. "The most likely reasons could include a new worrisome Covid-19 mutation or economic distress."
The U.S. government has extraordinary collection powers on federal debts and it can seize borrowers' tax refunds, wages and Social Security checks if they fall behind on their student loans.
During the extended payment pause, however, the Education Department also says it won't resume collection activity.
Borrowers in default on their student loans should also look into the recently announced "Fresh Start" initiative, in which they'll have the opportunity to return to a current status.
With headlines warning of a possible recession and layoffs picking up in some sectors, experts recommend that borrowers try to salt away the money they'd usually put toward their student debt each month.
Certain banks and online savings accounts have been upping their interest rates, and it's worth looking around for the best deal available. Consumers will just want to make sure any account they put their savings in is insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., meaning up to $250,000 of the deposit is protected from loss.
And while interest rates on federal student loans are at zero, it's also a good time to make progress paying down more expensive debt, experts say. | SCOTUS |
The FBI had a busy on Wednesday. As the January 6 committee has publicly aired more and more evidence of Donald Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election result by creating slates of “alternate electors” and trying to get Vice-President Mike Pence to use them to block the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, agents have been executing search warrants and serving subpoenas to Republican officials allegedly involved in the plot.These include the top Republican party official in Nevada, Michael McDonald. Agents seized his phone when they executed a search warrant on Wednesday that 8 News Now said was in connection with his involvement in creating a list of fake electors. The FBI was also looking for the state party’s secretary James DeGraffenreid, the Las Vegas outlet reported. Biden won Nevada, but the state Republican party nonetheless had its electoral college voters create fake, non-legally binding certificates saying Trump won the state, according to 8 News Now.Agents also visited the home of Brad Carver, a lawyer in Georgia who signed a document saying he was a Trump elector, and Thomas Lane, who worked for the former president in Arizona and New Mexico, The Washington Post reported. The Georgia GOP chair, David Shafer, also received a subpoena, as did a group people who claimed to be Trump electors in Michigan, the newspaper reported.Separately, a top justice department official during Trump’s final weeks in office has said that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. “Some argued to the former president and public that the election was corrupt and stolen,” Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general during the attack on the Capitol, said in opening remarks to the January 6 committee obtained by the Associated Press. “That view was wrong then and it is wrong today, and I hope our presence here today helps reaffirm that fact.”Rosen will be a witness during today’s hearing.Nina LakhaniOutside of Congress, people who participated in the January 6 insurrection are facing the music. Nina Lakhani reports on the latest sentencing connected to the attack:A West Virginia lawmaker who participated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol while live-streaming the deadly insurrection has been sentenced to three months in prison.Derrick Evans, 37, was arrested and charged shortly after the attack, in part thanks to self-incriminating video footage he shot of himself leading and egging on rioters who overwhelmed police at the Capitol.He resigned, then pleaded guilty to the felony of committing civil disorder in March, but was given bail and appeared virtually from his home for sentencing on Wednesday.Evans, who had been sworn into the Republican-led legislature less than a month before the attack, is among 21 lawmakers known to have joined the rioters trying to overturn the 2020 election. He is the only one to be prosecuted so far.Hugo LowellWhile the FBI works behind the scenes, the January 6 committee will today hold its fifth public hearing, this time focusing on what was going on at the justice department around the time of the 2020 election. Hugo Lowell takes a look at what to expect:Donald Trump pressured top justice department officials to falsely declare that the 2020 election was corrupt and launch investigations into discredited claims of fraud as part of an effort to return him to office, the House January 6 select committee will say on Thursday.The panel investigating the Capitol attack is expected at its fifth hearing to focus on how Trump abused the power of the presidency to twist the justice department into endorsing false election claims – and potentially how the Republican congressman Scott Perry sought a pardon for his involvement.The finer details of the hearing were outlined to the Guardian by two sources close to the inquiry who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to reveal details ahead of the hearing. They cautioned that the details might still change.The FBI had a busy on Wednesday. As the January 6 committee has publicly aired more and more evidence of Donald Trump’s plot to overturn the 2020 election result by creating slates of “alternate electors” and trying to get Vice-President Mike Pence to use them to block the certification of Joe Biden’s victory, agents have been executing search warrants and serving subpoenas to Republican officials allegedly involved in the plot.These include the top Republican party official in Nevada, Michael McDonald. Agents seized his phone when they executed a search warrant on Wednesday that 8 News Now said was in connection with his involvement in creating a list of fake electors. The FBI was also looking for the state party’s secretary James DeGraffenreid, the Las Vegas outlet reported. Biden won Nevada, but the state Republican party nonetheless had its electoral college voters create fake, non-legally binding certificates saying Trump won the state, according to 8 News Now.Agents also visited the home of Brad Carver, a lawyer in Georgia who signed a document saying he was a Trump elector, and Thomas Lane, who worked for the former president in Arizona and New Mexico, The Washington Post reported. The Georgia GOP chair, David Shafer, also received a subpoena, as did a group people who claimed to be Trump electors in Michigan, the newspaper reported.Separately, a top justice department official during Trump’s final weeks in office has said that there was no fraud in the 2020 election. “Some argued to the former president and public that the election was corrupt and stolen,” Jeffrey Rosen, the acting attorney general during the attack on the Capitol, said in opening remarks to the January 6 committee obtained by the Associated Press. “That view was wrong then and it is wrong today, and I hope our presence here today helps reaffirm that fact.”Rosen will be a witness during today’s hearing.January 6 committee to meet as FBI expands investigation into fake electors plotGood morning, US politics blog readers. Washington will once again start its day on tenterhooks ahead of the supreme court’s release of decisions at 10am eastern time, in which the justices could announce major changes to abortion rights as well as gun and environmental regulations. Then at 3pm eastern will come the January 6 committee’s fifth hearing, in which lawmakers are to explore former president Donald Trump’s efforts to get the justice department to comply with his scheme to overturn the 2020 election.Here’s what else is happening today: Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell testifies before the House financial services committee at 10am eastern time about the central bank’s efforts to fight inflation. Deborah Birx, the White House’s pandemic coordinator under the Trump administration, will make her first appearance before Congress since leaving the position at 10am Eastern, during which she will discuss the former president’s response to Covid-19. The Senate will continue negotiations over a bipartisan gun control compromise, which the chamber’s top Democrat hopes to pass by the end of the week. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre briefs reporters at 3.10pm Eastern, after President Joe Biden yesterday called for a three-month suspension of the federal gas tax to lower pump prices, which has received a dim reception in Congress. | US Political Corruption |
Detective Franz Helmcke had a problem. He'd caught a new case and had very little to go on. Thirty-three-year-old Kassanndra Cantrell had disappeared from her mother's house near Tacoma, Washington, and none of those closest to Kassanndra — her twin brother Rob, her mother Marie Smith and her closest friend Alexandra McNary — had any idea as to her whereabouts.
Once upon a time, Kassanndra's disappearance may have turned into a cold case, but these days digital breadcrumbs are ubiquitous. And so are cameras, as her heartbroken mother Marie pointed out: "The world is so wired, you know, with cameras. So many people have Ring cameras … so many businesses … there is just no way that somebody didn't see something."
Detective Helmcke was all too aware of that, and he also knew how to tap into all the digital material that is omnipresent in our day-to-day lives. Over the course of one month in 2020, he and his fellow investigators used cellphone records, deleted texts, vehicle location data, store receipts, surveillance videos and even an underwater dragnet to find the remains of Kassanndra Cantrell and build what they felt was a strong homicide case against her ex-boyfriend Colin Dudley.
The full story of that successful digital investigation is the subject of an all-new "48 Hours" reported by contributor Natalie Morales. "Kassanndra's Secret," airs Saturday, April 8, 2023 at 10/9c on CBS and streaming on Paramount +.
Helmcke and his fellow investigators were unable to identify a murder weapon, never located any eyewitnesses or obtained a confession. Still, they were able to build a compelling digital case that seemingly tracked Dudley's every move as he tried to cover up his crime.
The trail of evidence began the very day Kassanndra was reported missing. Helmcke canvassed her neighborhood and spotted a neighbor's security camera. That camera provided the first clue — a quick video clip of Kassanndra's white Mazda driving away from her mother's house at 8:25 a.m. on August 25, 2020. There was no video of the car returning.
Helmcke also ordered an emergency trace put on Kassanndra's cellphone to learn its last known location. It showed that her phone had last pinged about two miles south of a cell tower on an island in the Puget Sound.
"One of the first things I did was just get on Google Earth and strike an arc from that tower to see where it lands," Helmcke told Morales. "It showed it landing … around this shoreline at Owen Beach [in] Point Defiance Park."
Days later, the Pierce County Metro Dive Team led by Det. Sgt. Brent Van Dyke assembled at Owen Beach on a busy summer day. The Puget Sound is nearly 100 miles long but at least they knew Kassanndra's cellphone had likely been tossed in the water from Owen Beach.
Thanks to a low tide and some ingenious guesswork, the dive team found Kassanndra's cellphone in the water after a little more than an hour when one member of the team spotted the sparkle from Kassanndra's phone case. The phone was sent to a specialist to see if any information could be recovered.
But even without that information, Det. Ryan Salmon, the cellphone forensics specialist for the Pierce County Sheriff's Department, used phone company records to see when and where Kassandra and Dudley interacted. And they later found texts from Dudley's phone that revealed she was meeting her old boyfriend at his house on the morning she disappeared.
"She said, 'I'm a bit early, is that okay?'" said Det. Salmon.
"And he says?" asked Morales.
"He says, 'yup, come on down.'" And those two messages were both deleted out of his phone," Salmon replied.
"And so, the two phones are then pinpointed in that same location at the house for a couple of hours?" asked Morales.
"Right," the detective said.
Detectives were in possession of Dudley's phone at that point and could see that he had deleted those two texts. They also determined that Kassanndra and Dudley had been in regular contact in the months leading to her disappearance. When asked about her, Dudley told Helmcke that he had not spoken to Kassanndra in years.
Knowing Dudley was lying to him, the detective began looking closely at his movements. Dudley said he had visited a Costco on the morning of Kassanndra's disappearance, so Helmcke subpoenaed store receipts and found that Dudley had bought a box of heavy-duty trash bags around 7 a.m. The store provided video of Dudley buying those bags.
The investigation was moving ahead on several fronts. Police had located Kassanndra's white Mazda with the keys inside on a street near downtown Tacoma. The location was near the city's light rail system, so Helmcke asked security personnel there if they could find any video of the car. Their cameras showed a heavyset man in a black fedora walking away from Kassanndra's car around the day she disappeared.
Helmcke had interviewed Dudley in person and felt certain from the man's gait and build that he was looking at was Colin Dudley. He had also been told that Dudley often wore a fedora and liked to be called "Hat" or "Hat Man."
Helmcke watched as cameras caught the man in the hat going into the Tacoma Dome Station parking garage around 11:40 a.m. that morning. He is then seen on the garage cameras getting into a truck and driving away. In one shot, the truck's license plate is visible, and investigators determined it belonged to Dudley. He and the "Hat Man" were one and the same.
Dudley apparently was carrying Kassanndra's cellphone with him as he left the garage because her phone records show it moving to Owen Beach where investigators believe Dudley threw it into the Puget Sound around 12:45 p.m. on August 25.
At that point, investigators still did not know where Kassanndra's body was located so they raided Dudley's house. They seized several items including a black fedora and Dudley's Chevy Colorado truck. But, after providing his fingerprints and DNA, Dudley was free to go.
"Why can't you arrest him?" Morales asked Helmcke.
"Well … he's guilty of something. But what is he guilty of?" he replied.
That's when Helmcke leaned on digital forensics yet again. He said he knew that nearly all modern cars and trucks have computers within them that contain reams of information that can be extracted. Detectives pulled the so-called black box from Dudley's Chevy truck and sent it out to be analyzed.
A company that specializes in extracting that data sent it back to Helmcke on a flash drive. When downloaded, the data showed that Dudley's truck drove very early in the morning of August 26 — the day after Kassanndra visited his house — to a wooded ravine. Investigators rushed to the scene where they found Kassanndra's remains in and around a garbage can.
In November 2022, Colin Dudley pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and was sentenced to 26 years in prison.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
On a day when it was reported that Rudy Giuliani, in throes of unpaid legal bill woes, lost another attorney, the former New York City mayor and lawyer for former President Donald Trump touted a “major announcement” with “far-reaching implications for justice and the rule of law” outside of the Merrimack County Superior Court in Concord, New Hampshire.
What was that announcement? Rudy Giuliani plans to sue President Joe Biden for calling him a “Russian pawn” during a 2020 debate.
“His own national security adviser told him that what is happening with his buddy — I shouldn’t — actually, I will,” Biden said in October 2020, in response Giuliani’s claims about the contents of Hunter Biden’s laptop and foreign corruption. “His buddy Rudy Giuliani. He’s being used as a Russian pawn. He’s being fed information that is Russian — that is not true.”
“As a result of Joe Biden’s lies people have died,” Giuliani said, before calling the president a “pathological liar.”
During the press conference, Giuliani claimed that he was falsely branded as “a Russian pawn” and a “facilitator of Russian disinformation,” damaging his law practice and consulting business.
“He called me a Russian operative. That is a lie, that is false,” Giuliani said, before adding: “That’s what’s called libel, defamation per se.”
Giuliani bristled that Biden called him a “Russian pawn” in the “middle of the debate, on national television” with some 63 million people watching.
Thereafter, Rudy Giuliani called Hunter Biden a “pawn” and said “the head of the mafia family, the head of the crime family is Joe Biden.”
Why bring the case in New Hampshire? The live feed on Giuliani’s X account cut out when a lawyer he called “Bill” started explaining there were “a lot of reasons” why the jurisdiction made sense.
The New Hampshire Journal clafireid that Giuliani’s lawyer is former state GOP House Speaker Bill O’Brien and that the legal team views suing in New Hampshire as helpful to their efforts to seek damages.
Former @NHGOP House Speaker Bill O’Brien is @RudyGiuliani‘s attorney. Says they filed lawsuit in NH because state’s statute of limitations “allows the recovery of damages … wherever and in whatever jurisdiction the statements were distributed or published.”@NHGOP
— NH Journal (@NewHampJournal) October 4, 2023
Notably, Giuliani at one point during the presser referred to Robert Costello as his lawyer, even though Costello is currently suing him for unpaid legal bills.
After the presser was over, Giuliani posted on X, saying, “I’m suing Joe Biden.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected] | US Political Corruption |
When George Santos first ran for Congress in 2020, he lost by more than 12 points. But even though he was running in a safely blue district, the “red mirage” of Election Day votes lent the false impression of a tight race, and before absentee ballot counting began the following week, Santos seized on a golden fundraising opportunity: a recount fund.
The only catch was, in Santos’ case, there never was a recount. Those 90,000 absentee ballots devoured Santos’ 4,000-vote Election Day lead, swinging the race—which had not even been ranked “competitive” by Cook Political Report—to Democratic opponent Tom Suozzi. Suozzi eventually won by more than 46,000 votes.
State election laws only trigger automatic recounts when the margin is 20 votes or less or 0.5 percent or less, and those laws do not allow candidates to call recounts independently.
But that didn’t stop Santos from creating “Devolder Santos for Congress Recount” (DSCR) less than 24 hours after Election Day—a fundraising committee that raised and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars supposedly in connection with a recount that was never in the cards to begin with.
Saurav Ghosh, director of federal reform at government watchdog Campaign Legal Center, told The Daily Beast that Santos appears to have “abused” one of the “most unregulated areas of campaign finance.”
Essentially, Ghosh said, federal guidelines say candidates can have recount accounts, which allow them to raise money above the usual election contribution limits, “but they don’t really delineate how the money can be spent.”
“Recounts are one of the most unregulated areas of campaign finance. They’ve been around for decades, and I think some of the institutional views of recount funds in general reflect the thought that they’re going to have an impact on elections,” he explained. “However, recount accounts aren’t treated the same way as general election funds—which deal with money raised and spent to influence voters—because essentially recount money is only supposed to be related to post-election recounts or legal fees related to challenging election results.”
The rules around such funds are loose enough that Santos may be able to justify the fundraising, Ghosh said. As for the spending, he said, “Our view is that at a minimum that’s an abuse of what recount funds are supposed to be used for.”
Between Nov. 4 and Dec. 18, while then-President Donald Trump and his allies were raising boatloads of money on false claims of election fraud, DSCR pulled in more than $265,000, according to Federal Election Commission records. It was a huge windfall. For comparison, Santos’ actual campaign only raised around $358,000 for the entire 2020 election, not counting the $81,250 Santos claimed to have loaned from his “personal funds.”
Over the same period, DSCR also reported more than $260,000 in expenses, some of which campaign finance experts flagged as suspicious in discussions with The Daily Beast. (The group still has $5,148.04 in the bank today.)
Those costs were also highlighted in an FEC complaint filed on Jan. 31 by campaign finance reform group End Citizens United.
In a statement provided to The Daily Beast, an ECU spokesperson called the recount committee a “sham.”
“George Santos’ lies and corruption know no bounds. He set up a sham recount fund—for a recount that never happened. Then, he illegally used that money to offset costs for his 2022 campaign,” the statement said. “It’s yet another blatant violation of the law, which is why we’re asking the FEC to begin an investigation and also hand all relevant material to the DOJ for their investigation.”
That complaint highlighted several payments to a group of election observers—with another nearly $4,000 in “housing” expenses—while pointing out there was no recount to observe.
“What is clear from his recount fund activities is that it reinforces the need for federal regulation for these funds,” Ghosh said. “If he was paying for absentee ballot counts, that’s not what recount funds are supposedly for, because that’s election related. But you also have other expenses which may not be related to elections at all. It’s all too unregulated.”
The Daily Beast spoke with three people who got paid by DSCR to be a Board of Elections observer. All three said they observed the counting of absentee ballots in Nassau County, in Santos’ district on Long Island.
“I drove out there and observed the opening and counting of absentee ballots for a couple days,” one person said. “Then George said something outlandish to the press, and I was done.” Santos, who appeared in D.C. at events surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, tweeted “Democracy is dead” on Nov. 7.
Asked how Santos was able to raise so much money after the election, the person who works in New York GOP politics said they didn’t know.
“I knew some stuff was up with the campaign fundraising, that he was trying to make money off campaigns other than his own,” this person said.
Santos indeed appears to have adopted an entirely new fundraising strategy for the recount, and it appears connected to donor lists.
Most of Santos’ recount money came from small “unitemized” donations of $200 or less, FEC records show. Those donations, which don’t trigger disclosure requirements, made up around $203,000 of the total, or about 77 percent. For his campaign, it was the reverse, with unitemized donations comprising just shy of $50,000 of the haul, or around 17 percent.
While Santos isn’t required to disclose those donor names, WinRed—the GOP’s small-dollar online fundraising platform that handled those donations—did disclose them. According to FEC data, DSCR received more than 7,500 separate donations via WinRed in the six weeks after the 2020 election. That’s about 3,100 more individual contributions than WinRed reported for his full 2020 campaign.
The Daily Beast cross-checked the names of more than a dozen of those donors at random, and none of them had given to Santos previously. We reached out to a number of them, but only one went through their financial records to confirm their contribution. When The Daily Beast informed the donor that they had made their recount donation the day after Santos conceded—and that there was never any recount to begin with—the person said she would contact WinRed about getting her money back.
Santos continued to raise money into his recount committee for a full month after he conceded, according to FEC records, with the last donation coming Dec. 18, 2020.
The new fundraising strategy is also reflected on the spending side—specifically, a whopping $139,000 “fundraising commission” payment to The Donor Bureau, a popular Republican fundraising house that specializes in small-dollar fundraising, primarily by renting out donor lists.
But while the Santos campaign itself never paid the Donor Bureau in 2020 or 2022, according to FEC filings, his recount expense stood nearly $110,000 above the next largest amount the firm received from any committee in all of 2020. Only one other committee reported a “fundraising” expense that year—almost all were related to list rentals—and the only group that has ever reported a larger payment is the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a GOP juggernaut.
The payment is so anomalous that it caught the attention of campaign finance experts.
“That is very, very odd, and certainly suggests that the payments may not have been for fundraising as Santos says it was,” Ghosh said.
Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of watchdog group Documented, said that while some of DSCR’s expenses could theoretically be connected to the ballot counters, others, including the Donor Bureau expense, merit scrutiny.
“It’s improper if he did not actually pay as much money to Donor Bureau as he reported and just pocketed the difference, or if Donor Bureau was getting money out of recount work while the campaign was using it for its own fundraising purposes,” Fischer told The Daily Beast. “That expense is really high, and totally inconsistent with the commission Donor Bureau takes with any other candidate or committee.”
A Donor Bureau representative previously declined to discuss Santos on the record. Asked for comment this week, the firm did not reply.
There’s another explanation: the data.
A Santos recount worker told The Daily Beast that Santos was jealous of the money that GOP longshot John Cummings received when he ran against Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2020.
“That was the first big explosion of money coming through outside network people, and George wanted in,” the person said. “George didn’t understand why John was raising so much more money, and he was always trying to get at email lists from John. And then later George got Tina Forte to run for that seat and assumed he could control information on fundraising from the AOC district, whether it was from direct mail or email lists.”
DSCR also spent $2,026.25 at Best Buy for a laptop on Nov. 12, just five days before Santos conceded. His congressional campaign bought a laptop later that month for the exact same price, also from Best Buy. The twin purchases suggest the recount laptop may have been primarily for other uses—including possibly for the 2022 campaign, according to the ECU complaint.
And DSCR also racked up a curious dinner expense at Santos’ favorite Italian restaurant. According to The Washington Post, Santos held a lavish business meeting at Il Bacco in Queens with a prospective investor client eight days after losing the 2020 election—approximately Nov. 11. The next day, the recount committee reported a $400 meal expense at the restaurant.
“If he expensed that dinner, it would clearly be an impermissible use of any campaign funds, but especially for recount funds,” Fischer said. “Based on reporting, that dinner had nothing to do with the campaign or recount or election contests.”
The recount committee also sharpens the focus on Santos’ 2020 campaign finances, which campaign finance experts say have gone overlooked generally, and bear the same marks of sloppiness and possible violations as his 2022 reports, albeit at a smaller scale. But one item seems even more outrageous in 2020—the personal loans Santos claims to have made to his campaign.
“At least on paper, his personal loans to his campaign were even more unexplainable in 2020 than they were in 2022, because in 2022 he at least reported on his disclosures that he had enough money to put into his campaign,” Fischer said. “But he reported no income at all in 2020, and $55,000 the year prior, and somehow he put $80,000 into his 2020 campaign. Given he had no income, where did he get the money to lend to his campaign?”
Ghosh agreed. “That math just doesn’t work out,” he said. Together with the recount committee and other reporting anomalies, he said, the Department of Justice should “absolutely” be targeting Santos’ first bid.
“Our group filed an FEC complaint focused on the ’22 campaign, but the landscape has shifted and keeps shifting, and everything that has been reported about his 2020 campaign—from his poor reporting, the spending, and the recount fund—that should all be in the hands of investigators with the FEC and DOJ,” he said. “And it probably is.” | US Political Corruption |
Democrats celebrated Tuesday’s election of Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Janet Protasiewicz to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, cementing a 4-3 liberal court majority. But another election result fanned speculation that Republicans could topple that new majority by impeaching Protasiewicz.
Rep. Dan Knodl, R-Germantown, won the 8th Senate District special election, giving Republicans a two-thirds majority in the state Senate. That is the threshold for the Senate to remove office holders. An Assembly majority, which Republicans hold, can impeach.
But a legislative effort to oust a justice would steer Wisconsin politics into nearly uncharted waters. Lawmakers have impeached just one judge in state history — in 1853 (and the Senate didn’t convict) — and legal experts call a modern-day removal under the current set of facts unlikely, citing finer details of the process.
Speculation about Republican-led impeachments of Democratic Gov. Tony Evers or other statewide officeholders has run rampant, especially after Knodl said he would be open to removing Milwaukee judicial officials from office, including Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm and possibly Protasiewicz as a circuit court judge. Knodl said he wouldn’t favor removing Evers, because he’s been able to work with him. Knodl hasn’t specified whether he would consider removing Protasiewicz in her Supreme Court capacity.
“If there are some that are out there that are corrupt, that are failing at their tasks, then we have the opportunity to hold them accountable,” Knodl told WISN-TV’s UpFront last month.
But impeachment isn’t supposed to be exercised for political differences or poor performance.
“The Assembly may impeach an elected official by a majority vote based on specific reasons: corrupt conduct in office or for the commission of a crime or misdemeanor,” according to a Wisconsin Legislative Council memo.
Senate Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, acknowledged that threshold in an interview with WISN-TV on Wednesday saying, “we’re not going to use impeachments to overturn elections or anything like that.”
“To impeach someone they would need to do something very serious, so no, we are not looking to start the impeachment process as a regular occurring event in Wisconsin,” he said.
Other method has lower removal standard, but higher vote threshold
There is another method for removing judges and justices specifically under the state constitution, known as “address,” which does not require a trial before the Legislature.
A 1971 state law specifies that reasons for removing judges and justices through the address process must relate to “misconduct” or because they are “not physically or mentally qualified to exercise the judicial functions of the office.”
State law defines misconduct as “willful violation of a rule of the code of judicial ethics; willful or persistent failure to perform official duties; habitual intemperance, due to consumption of intoxicating beverages or use of dangerous drugs, which interferes with the proper performance of judicial duties; or conviction of a felony.”
If Republicans want to remove Protasiewicz, they might wait to see if she rules on cases in which she had shown some kind of bias — a potential violation of judicial ethics rules — said Daniel Suhr, a Cedarburg lawyer who previously served in Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s administration.
“Rather than saying her entire campaign approach was flawed to the point of impeachable, I think an alternative approach is to say, on this particular case, this particular topic, you cannot be impartial, or you certainly cannot appear impartial, which is the standard that the law sets,” Suhr said.
While Assembly Republicans hold the simple majority needed to impeach civil officers for corruption or crimes, they lack the two-thirds majority required for removal under the address process, which covers misconduct issues such as judicial ethics.
The fact that the address process has a lower standard for removal, but a higher vote threshold than impeachment is significant, said Chad Oldfather, a Marquette University Law School professor.
“It’s absurd to suggest that Protasiewicz has engaged in ‘corrupt conduct in office’ when she hasn’t even taken office yet,” Oldfather said. “ ‘Corrupt conduct,’ especially in the era when the Wisconsin Constitution was adopted, was mostly understood to be about people using public office for personal gain — not policy or legal disagreements, but self-dealing. That’s consistent with the longstanding American norm that judges are not to be impeached simply because the authority with impeachment power doesn’t like the judges’ decisions.”
What if there were a dispute over the Legislature’s handling of an impeachment? Then the Wisconsin Supreme Court would decide, as it has in other states, said Miriam Seifter, a University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School professor.
“An impeachment that immediately follows a free and fair election is not a sign of a healthy democracy,” Seifter said. “Absent allegations of corruption or crime, impeaching a judge who just won a resounding electoral victory would show a troubling disregard for the will of the voters.”
Trial of Levi Hubbell
Only one judge in Wisconsin history has faced an impeachment trial: Levi Hubbell, according to a Wisconsin Court System biography.
Hubbell’s story and 1853 trial provides background on the impeachment process and foreshadows today’s debate surrounding the role of partisanship in Wisconsin’s judicial elections.
Four years after arriving in Milwaukee from New York, Hubbell — an opportunistic politician who drew the suspicions of Milwaukee’s political establishment by successfully courting German Catholic and the Irish votes — was elected circuit court judge in 1848, the same year Wisconsin became a state, according to a 1998 Marquette Law Review essay by historian Ellen Langill.
Commentators at the time decried how the state’s first supposedly nonpartisan race had become “clandestinely partisan,” Langill wrote.
Hubbell served on the first Wisconsin Supreme Court as part of his circuit court duties. He became chief justice in 1851 before the separately constituted Supreme Court was established in 1853.
That same year he was accused of a variety of charges, including handing out arbitrary sentences, misusing funds, accepting bribes and hearing cases in circuit court for which he had a financial interest. Some discussion unfolded about removing Hubbell through the address process, which would not require a trial, but Hubbell asked for a Senate trial.
The Assembly impeached him, but the Senate ultimately acquitted him.
“The vote to acquit Hubbell sent shock waves across the Second Circuit,” Langill wrote. “Many of his partisans and Democrats rejoiced at the news, while many judges and attorneys reacted with dismay and disbelief.”
The nonprofit Wisconsin Watch (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with WPR, PBS Wisconsin, other news media and the University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication. All works created, published, posted or disseminated by Wisconsin Watch do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates. | US Local Elections |
An alternative mental health court to compel treatment for people with severe mental illness has received more than 100 petitions since launching in seven California counties in October, state officials said Friday.
The state believes between 7,000 and 12,000 people statewide will eventually be eligible for "CARE Court," which launched on a limited basis before Los Angeles County became the latest and largest county to start the program on Friday.
"This is exactly where we want to be," said Dr. Mark Ghaly, secretary of the California Health and Human Services Agency.
Ghaly told reporters he's optimistic about the early results and that the number of referrals reflects the small population eligible until now. Only those who are at least 18 years old and have schizophrenia or a related disorder would qualify. Severe depression, bipolar disorder and addiction by itself do not qualify.
"We’re in good shape. We’re providing the time to our local partners to create the ability to manage the referrals to make sure that they’re doing all they can," Ghaly said at a news briefing Friday. "In many ways, we see the snowball, if you will, building up little by little."
The civil court process, created by Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, is part of a massive push to address the homelessness crisis in California. It empowers family members and first responders to file a petition on behalf of an adult they believe "is unlikely to survive safely" without supervision and whose condition is rapidly deteriorating. They also can file if an adult needs services and support to prevent relapse or deterioration that would likely result in "grave disability or serious harm" to themselves or others.
A special civil court in each county reviews each petition to determine eligibility before asking the individual to participate in a voluntary plan that includes housing, medication, counseling and other social services. If all parties cannot agree to a voluntary plan, the statute says the court will order they work on a plan. Among the ongoing petitions, some have entered the court process and are working on creating their care plans, while other referrals are still being reviewed, Ghaly said. Some cases have also been dismissed, the Los Angeles Times reported.
Lawmakers hoped the program could get people with severe mental illnesses, many of whom are homeless, the help they need and off the streets. California is home to more than 171,000 homeless people — about 30% of the nation’s homeless population. But critics worried the program will be ineffective and punitive because it could coerce people into treatment.
The administration didn't give specific data on the number of petitions submitted in each county. San Francisco, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Glenn counties launched the court Oct. 1, with Los Angeles County beginning its program Friday. The rest of the state has until December 2024 to establish mental health courts.
Counties are trying different approaches to implementation. San Diego County is integrating CARE Court with its conservatorship system to help divert people off of conservatorships, while Orange County is moving the mental health court away from the typical courtrooms and into community spaces, Ghaly said.
"I’m pretty pleased with the level of engagement, the level of partnership, the level of, you know, belief and optimism that’s growing in our counties," he said.
Representatives from Disability Rights California, a nonprofit that sued the state arguing the program would violate due process and equal protection rights under the state constitution, said CARE Court could result in unintended consequences.
"While officials express optimism, the rushed implementation may overlook critical aspects of community engagement and careful consideration," said community organizer Vanessa Ramos said.
Newsom signed a law in October to expand the definition of "gravely disabled" to include people who are unable to provide themselves basic needs such as food and shelter due to an untreated mental illness or unhealthy drugs and alcohol use, which makes it easier for authorities to compel treatment.
Newsom is also pushing a plan to reform the state’s mental health system. Newsom’s proposal, which would overhaul how counties pay for mental and behavioral health programs and borrow $6.3 billion to pay for 10,000 new mental health treatment beds, will go before voters next March. | US Local Policies |
What is LockBit, the cybercrime gang hacking some of the world's largest organizations?
While ransomware incidents have been occurring for more than 30 years, only in the last decade has the term "ransomware" appeared regularly in popular media. Ransomware is a type of malicious software that blocks access to computer systems or encrypts files until a ransom is paid.
Cybercriminal gangs have adopted ransomware as a get-rich-quick scheme. Now, in the era of "ransomware as a service," this has become a prolific and highly profitable tactic. Providing ransomware as a service means groups benefit from affiliate schemes where commission is paid for successful ransom demands.
Although only one of the many gangs operating, LockBit has been increasingly visible, with several high-profile victims recently appearing on the group's website.
So what is LockBit? Who has fallen victim to them? And how can we protect ourselves from them?
What, or who, is LockBit?
To make things confusing, the term LockBit refers to both the malicious software (malware) and to the group that created it.
LockBit first gained attention in 2019. It's a form of malware deliberately designed to be secretly deployed inside organizations, to find valuable data and steal it.
But rather than simply stealing the data, LockBit is a form of ransomware. Once the data has been copied, it is encrypted, rendering it inaccessible to the legitimate users. This data is then held to ransom—pay up, or you'll never see your data again.
To add further incentive for the victim, if the ransom is not paid, they are threatened with publication of the stolen data (often described as double extortion). This threat is reinforced with a countdown timer on LockBit's blog on the dark web.
Little is known about the LockBit group. Based on their website, the group doesn't have a specific political allegiance. Unlike some other groups, they also don't limit the number of affiliates:
"We are located in the Netherlands, completely apolitical and only interested in money. We always have an unlimited amount of affiliates, enough space for all professionals. It does not matter what country you live in, what types of language you speak, what age you are, what religion you believe in, anyone on the planet can work with us at any time of the year."
Notably, LockBit have rules for their affiliates. Examples of forbidden targets (victims) include:
- critical infrastructure
- institutions where damage to the files could lead to death (such as hospitals)
- post-Soviet countries such as Armenia, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and Uzbekistan.
Other ransomware providers have also claimed they won't target institutions like hospitals—but this doesn't guarantee victim immunity. Earlier this year a Canadian hospital was a victim of LockBit, triggering the group behind LockBit to post an apology, offer free decryption tools and allegedly expel the affiliate who hacked the hospital.
While rules may be in place, there is always potential for rogue users to target forbidden organizations.
The final rule in the list above is an interesting exception. According to the group, these countries are off limits because a high proportion of the group's members were "born and grew up in the Soviet Union," despite now being "located in the Netherlands."
Who's been hacked by LockBit?
High-profile victims include the United Kingdom's Royal Mail and Ministry of Defense, and Japanese cycling component manufacturer Shimano. Data stolen from aerospace company Boeing was leaked just this week after the company refused to pay ransom to LockBit.
While not yet confirmed, the recent ransomware incident experienced by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China has been claimed by LockBit.
Since appearing on the cybercrime scene, LockBit has been linked to almost 2,000 victims in the United States alone.
From the list of victims seen below, LockBit is clearly being used in a scatter-gun approach, with a wide variety of victims. This is not a series of planned, targeted attacks. Instead, it shows LockBit software is being used by a diverse range of criminals in a service model.
How we can protect ourselves
In recent years, ransomware as a service (RaaS for short) has become popular.
Just as organizations use software-as-a-service providers—such as licensing for office tools like Microsoft 365, or accounting software for payroll—malicious services are providing tools for cybercriminals.
Ransomware as a service enables an inexperienced criminal to deliver a ransomware campaign to multiple targets quickly and efficiently—often at minimal cost and usually on a profit-sharing basis.
The RaaS platform handles the malware management, data extraction, victim negotiation and payment handling, effectively outsourcing criminal activities.
The process is so well developed, such groups even provide guidelines on how to become an affiliate, and what benefits one will gain. With a 20% commission of the ransom being paid to LockBit, this system can generate significant revenue for the group—including the deposit of 1 Bitcoin (approximately A$58,000) required from new users.
While ransomware is a growing concern around the globe, good cybersecurity practices can help. Updating and patching our systems, good password and account management, network monitoring and reacting to unusual activity can all help to minimize the likelihood of any compromise—or at least limit its extent.
For now, whether or not to pay a ransom is a matter of preference and ethics for each organization. But if we can make it more difficult to get in, criminal groups will simply shift to easier targets. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
I want to return to this revelatory interview with coconspirator John Eastman, the last portion of which was published Thursday by Tom Klingenstein, the Chairman of the Trumpite Claremont Institute and then highlighted by our Josh Kovensky. There’s a lot of atmospherics in this interview, a lot of bookshelf-lined tweedy gentility mixed with complaints about OSHA regulations and Drag Queen story hours. But the central bit comes just over half way through the interview when Eastman gets into the core justification and purpose for trying to overturn the results of the 2020 election and overthrow the constitutional order itself. He invokes the Declaration of Independence and says quite clearly that yes, we were trying to overthrow the government and argues that they were justified because of the sheer existential threat America was under because of the election of Joe Biden.
Jan 6th conspirators have spent more than two years claiming either that nothing really happened at all in the weeks leading up to January 6th or that it was just a peaceful protest that got a bit out of hand or that they were just making a good faith effort to follow the legal process. Eastman cuts through all of this and makes clear they were trying to overthrow (“abolish”) the government; they were justified in doing so; and the warrant for their actions is none other than the Declaration of Independence itself.
“Our Founders lay this case out,” says Eastman. “There’s actually a provision in the Declaration of Independence that a people will suffer abuses while they remain sufferable, tolerable while they remain tolerable. At some point abuses become so intolerable that it becomes not only their right but their duty to alter or abolish the existing government.”
“So that’s the question,” he tells Klingenstein. “Have the abuses or the threat of abuses become so intolerable that we have to be willing to push back?”
The answer for Eastman is clearly yes and that’s his justification for his and his associates extraordinary actions.
Let’s dig in for a moment to what this means because it’s a framework of thought or discourse that was central to many controversies in the first decades of the American Republic. The Declaration of Independence has no legal force under American law. It’s not a legal document. It’s a public explanation of a political decision: to break the colonies’ allegiance to Great Britain and form a new country. But it contains a number of claims and principles that became and remain central to American political life.
The one Eastman invokes here is the right to overthrow governments. The claim is that governments have no legitimacy or authority beyond their ability to serve the governed. Governments shouldn’t be overthrown over minor or transitory concerns. But when they become truly oppressive people have a right to get rid of them and start over. This may seem commonsensical to us. But that’s because we live a couple centuries downstream of these events and ideas. Governments at least in theory are justified by how they serve their populations rather than countries being essentially owned by the kings or nobilities which rule them.
But this is a highly protean idea. Who gets to decide? Indeed this question came up again and again over the next century each time the young republic faced a major political crisis, whether it was in the late 1790s, toward the end of the War of 1812, in 1832-33 or finally during the American Civil War. If one side didn’t get its way and wanted out what better authority to cite than the Declaration of Independence? There is an obvious difference but American political leaders needed a language to describe it. What they came up with is straightforward. It’s the difference between a constitutional or legal right and a revolutionary one. Abraham Lincoln was doing no more than stating a commonplace when he said this on the eve of the Civil War in his first inaugural address (emphasis added): “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
In other words, yes, you have a revolutionary right to overthrow the government if you really think its abuses have gotten that intractable and grave. But the government has an equal right to stop you, to defend itself or, as we see today, put you on trial if you fail. The American revolutionaries of 1776 knew full well that they were committing treason against the British monarchy. If they lost they would all hang. They accepted that. They didn’t claim that George III had no choice but to let them go.
From the beginning the Trump/Eastman coup plotters have tried to wrap their efforts in legal processes and procedures. It was their dissimulating shield to hide the reality of their coup plot and if needed give them legal immunity from the consequences. The leaders of the secession movement tried the same thing in 1861.
In a way I admire Eastman for coming clean. I don’t know whether he sees the writing on the wall and figures he might as well lay his argument out there or whether his grad school political theory pretensions and pride got the better of him and led him to state openly this indefensible truth. Either way he’s done it and not in any way that’s retrievable as a slip of the tongue. They knew it was a coup and they justified it to themselves in those terms. He just told us. They believed they were justified in trying to overthrow the government, whether because of OSHA chair size regulations or drag queens or, more broadly, because the common herd of us don’t understand the country’s “founding principles” the way Eastman and his weirdo clique do. But they did it. He just admitted it. And now they’re going to face the consequences. | US Political Corruption |
Michael Noble Jr. for NPR
toggle caption
Army veteran Raymond Queen stands with his wife Rebecca Queen outside their home in Bartlesville, Okla.
Michael Noble Jr. for NPR
Army veteran Raymond Queen stands with his wife Rebecca Queen outside their home in Bartlesville, Okla.
Michael Noble Jr. for NPR
A group of U.S. senators is asking the Department of Veterans Affairs to put an immediate stop to foreclosures on the homes of veterans and service members.
The senators cited an investigation by NPR that found thousands of veterans who took what's called a COVID forbearance – a program that allowed them to defer paying their mortgages and keep their homes during the pandemic – are now at risk of losing their homes through no fault of their own.
"Without this pause, thousands of veterans and servicemembers could needlessly lose their homes," Sens. Sherrod Brown, Jon Tester, Jack Reed, and Tim Kaine, all Democrats, wrote in a letter to VA Secretary Denis McDonough. "This was never the intent of Congress."
The forbearance program was set up by Congress after the pandemic hit in order to let people who suffered a loss of income skip mortgage payments for 6 or 12 months, and then have an affordable way to start paying their mortgage again.
But in October 2022, the VA ended the part of the program that allowed homeowners an affordable way to get current on their loans again, which has left many veterans facing foreclosure. The VA has a new program to replace it, but says it will take four or five months to implement.
That's too late to help many of the 6,000 people with VA loans who had COVID forbearances and are currently in the foreclosure process. 34,000 more are delinquent according to the data firm ICE Mortgage Technology.
"In the meantime, tens of thousands of veterans and servicemembers are left with no viable options to get back on track with payments and save their homes," the senators wrote.
The group of senators includes Tester, who chairs the Veterans' Affairs Committee, and Brown who chairs the Banking Committee. They asked the VA, "to implement an immediate pause on all VA loan foreclosures where borrowers are likely to be eligible for VA's new...program until it is available and borrowers can be evaluated to see if they qualify."
The heart of the problem is that many homeowners were told before they entered into a mortgage forbearance that the missed payments would be moved to the back end of their loan term, so they wouldn't get stuck owing them in a big lump sum. They were told they'd be able to simply return to making their regular monthly mortgage payment when they got back on their feet financially.
Homeowners with loans backed by FHA or the government sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac all still have ways to do that. But not homeowners with VA Loans because the VA ended its program that enabled them to resume paying their original mortgage again.
With interest rates dramatically higher now compared to during the pandemic, both consumer and industry groups say these homeowners have no affordable path to get back on track. Many are being told they either need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to catch up, or refinance into a loan at today's high interest rates – neither of which they can afford. So they are being forced either to sell their house or lose it to foreclosure.
The VA did not have an immediate response to the letter from the lawmakers. But John Bell, the head of the VA's loan program, previously told NPR that the VA is "exploring all options at this point in time."
"We owe it to our veterans to make sure that we're giving them every opportunity to be able to stay in the home," Bell said.
The senators, in their letter, commended the VA on its efforts to come up with a new program. "We appreciate the significant work that VA has undertaken and the dedication of VA staff," they wrote. But until that program is up and running, they want the VA to stop the foreclosures.
"With each additional day that passes, risks mount for borrowers who are facing foreclosure while they wait for a solution from VA."
Meanwhile, NPR has heard from veterans around the country who feel misled, embarrassed, angry, or scared to be facing bankruptcy or foreclosure for the first time in their lives.
Halting the foreclosures sounds like a good idea to Army veteran Ray Queen in Bartlesville, Okla. who was wounded in Iraq. "Let us keep paying towards our regular mortgage between now and then," he previously told NPR. "Then once the VA has that fixed we can come back and address the situation. That seems like the adult, mature thing to do, not put a family through hell." | US Federal Policies |
Geoff Robins/AFP via Getty Images
toggle caption
All four international border crossings between the United States and Canada in Western New York were closed Wednesday due to a "vehicle explosion" at the Rainbow Bridge. Here, drivers wait in line at the Rainbow Bridge on Aug. 9, 2021.
Geoff Robins/AFP via Getty Images
All four international border crossings between the United States and Canada in Western New York were closed Wednesday due to a "vehicle explosion" at the Rainbow Bridge. Here, drivers wait in line at the Rainbow Bridge on Aug. 9, 2021.
Geoff Robins/AFP via Getty Images
The Rainbow Bridge, which connects the United States and Canada at Niagara Falls, N.Y., has been closed after a vehicle exploded at a checkpoint on a bridge, authorities said Wednesday.
In a post on X (formerly known as Twitter), the FBI said it is investigating a "vehicle explosion at the Rainbow Bridge" and that the agency is coordinating with local, state and federal law enforcement partners. The FBI added that situation "is very fluid," but it did not include any further details.
In a posting on its website, the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission said it has closed down several bridges linking the United States and Canada at Niagara Falls.
The closures include the Lewiston-Queenston, Whirlpool and Peace Bridges, and the Rainbow Bridge — where the vehicle explosion happened.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said on X that she's closely monitoring the situation and that state agencies are on the scene and ready to assist.
This is a breaking news story and will be updated once more information becomes available. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
ATLANTA -- Georgia is offering a new bargain to some adults without health insurance beginning Saturday: Go to work or school and the state will cover you.
But advocates decry the plan, which will insure far fewer people than a full expansion of the state-federal Medicaid program, as needlessly restrictive and expensive.
The program is likely to be closely watched as Republicans in Congress push to let states require work from some current Medicaid enrollees.
Madeline Guth, a senior policy analyst with the Kaiser Family Foundation, said Democratic President Joe Biden's administration is unlikely to approve work requirements, but a future Republican president could.
“I think there will be a lot of eyes on Georgia," Guth said.
Georgia is one of 10 remaining states that hasn’t expanded Medicaid eligibility to include individuals and families earning up to 138% of the federal poverty line, or $20,120 annually for a single person and $41,400 for a family of four.
Instead, Kemp is limiting expanded coverage to adults earning up to 100% of the poverty line — $14,580 for a single person or $30,000 for a family of four. And coverage is only available if able-bodied adults document they are working, volunteering, studying or in vocational rehabilitation for 80 hours per month.
It fits Kemp’s argument, as he tries to drag his party away from former President Donald Trump, that the GOP needs to show tangible conservative achievements for everyday people
“In our state, we want more people to be covered at a lower cost with more options for patients,” Kemp said in his State of the State speech in January.
Those who earn more will remain eligible for subsidized coverage, often with no premium cost, on the federal marketplace. Kemp’s administration argues commercial coverage is better because it pays providers more than state-set Medicaid rates.
The Trump administration ultimately gave permission to 13 states to impose work requirements on some Medicaid recipients. The Biden administration revoked all those waivers in 2021, ruling work isn't a primary purpose of Medicaid. But Kemp’s administration won a federal court fight last year to preserve Georgia’s plan, in part because it applies to new enrollees and not current Medicaid recipients.
Caylee Noggle, commissioner of the Department of Community Health, told The Associated Press this week that Pathways to Coverage is a "Georgia-specific approach" that could insure up to 100,000 people in its first year.
But 100,000 is far less than the nearly 450,000 uninsured Georgians that the Urban Institute estimates could gain coverage with a full Medicaid expansion.
Others say the nearly $118 million in state money, combined with another $229 million in federal money, isn't nearly enough to reach that goal. The liberal-leaning Georgia Budget & Policy Institute estimates the funds will cover fewer than 50,000 people.
And state taxpayers will pay much more per person. Partly at the behest of Democratic Georgia Sen. Raphael Warnock, the federal government is offering to pay 95% of any Medicaid expansion for two years and 90% afterward. Instead, refusing federal largesse, Georgia will continuing paying the same 34.2% share the state foots for its existing Medicaid program and spurn extra federal funding that has been pledged.
“The inappropriately named ‘Pathways to Coverage’ will cost Georgia more money and cover fewer people than if the state simply joined 40 other states in expanding Medicaid,” Warnock said in a statement to the AP.
“While state politicians continue playing games with people’s lives, Georgians are dying because they can’t afford the health care they need,” he said.
Noggle and other Georgia officials say working, studying or volunteering leads to improved health, a key argument for why those requirements should be part of a health insurance program.
But those who treat uninsured people say many can’t work because they are in poor health.
“The reason they have their challenges, that they can’t work, is because they’ve got a mental illness or they’ve got a medical illness that is affecting their ability to do that," said Dr. Reed Pitre, an addiction psychiatrist and interim chief medical officer at Mercy Care, a federally subsidized nonprofit in Atlanta.
Enrolling people in the new program is a priority for Mercy Care, Pitre said, while noting that no one will qualify until a month after they establish compliance with the work requirement.
The Kemp administration anticipates the program will serve people in low-wage jobs who can't afford employer insurance, as well as students. The state also is redetermining eligibility for 2.4 million adults and children now covered by Medicaid.
Georgia has delayed decisions on people it thinks are ineligible for regular Medicaid but could transfer to the Pathways program, Noggle said.
Either way, once on the new program, people will have to meet activity requirements or lose coverage beginning the following month, which could impact thousands. When Arkansas imposed work requirements in 2018 for some adults, more than 18,000 people lost coverage in less than a year.
Georgia will be different, Noggle argued, saying recipients will only have to certify for the first three months of the year.
“I think we are going to make it as easy as possible as we can for our members to verify their eligibility,” she said.
But only time will tell. Kemp's expansion plan in Georgia could provide a blueprint for other states and other Republicans looking to require more from those on Medicaid. | US Federal Policies |
Sen. Robert Menendez, charged last week with secretly aiding the Egyptian government in exchange for bribes, singlehandedly blocked passage of bipartisan legislation in 2020 that would have strengthened the law regulating foreign influence and lobbying in Washington, Senate records show.
The proposed Foreign Agents Disclosure and Registration Enhancement Act grew out of widespread concerns that the current law regulating foreign lobbying had seldom been enforced, and that foreign influence campaigns had successfully infiltrated American politics. Strengthening the law had drawn support from Democrats and Republicans on key committees.
In December 2020, after a Republican senator asked for unanimous consent to bring the bill to the Senate floor for a vote, Menendez stood and objected. The New Jersey Democrat argued that while enforcement of foreign lobbying rules needed to be strengthened, more thought needed to be put into exactly how to do it.
“It seems shortsighted to provide additional enforcement tools before we have figured out what that regime should look like,” Menendez said on the Senate floor. “The disturbing rise of foreign influence campaigns that use a variety of measures to mask who is the ultimate source or beneficiary should serve as an alarm bell for all of us."
The senator added, "So, before this body passes any tweaks or new tools and adds to the current patchwork of FARA regulations and exemptions, I think we should take a step back and take a comprehensive look, and we have not done that.”
Two congressional aides told NBC News it was clear that Menendez was objecting for himself, not for another senator. They also said that the bill had significant support from key Democrats, including Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, then the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, the top Democrat on the judiciary committee.
Menendez’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Three years later, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, known as FARA, has not been updated. Senators at the time said it was a huge missed opportunity.
Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who had asked for the unanimous consent, noted that the bill had drawn support from a bipartisan group of senators, and appeared surprised that Menendez had objected.
“It took a lot of work to put together the bill that I asked unanimous consent on,” Grassley said then. “To work out the differences with several different approaches, and I thought that we had taken everything into consideration, particularly bringing together people from the Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee.”
The existing Foreign Agents Registration Act, which was enacted in 1938 and last updated in 1966, requires agents of foreign entities to register with the Justice Department and file detailed public disclosures detailing their lobbying and influence campaigns. Failure to register is a crime, but prosecutions have been rare.
According to a detailed analysis of the text by a law firm, the bill Menendez blocked would have:
- Increased the criminal penalties for willful violations and material misstatements to $200,000 from $10,000.
- Created a new criminal offense for meeting with a member of Congress or staff without disclosing that an individual is a registered foreign agent.
- Required the Department of Justice to develop a comprehensive strategy for FARA enforcement, including an examination of all of the registration exemptions contained in the statute. The bill also would require various reviews by the Department’s Inspector General, reports by the Attorney General, and audits by the Government Accountability Office.
- Give the Attorney General the authority to issue civil investigative demands to require the production of documents.
NBC News reported Tuesday that in addition to the criminal allegations against Menendez, the FBI is conducting a counterintelligence investigation into whether Egyptian intelligence agencies were involved in efforts to influence the senator, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which supervised billions of dollars in American aid to Egypt. Investigators want to know whether Egyptian intelligence officials or their associates tried to gain access to Menendez through his wife, Nadine, sources familiar with the matter told NBC News.
Menendez and his wife pleaded not guilty in federal court in Manhattan on Wednesday to a three-count indictment alleging they were part of a bribery scheme. Among the allegations were that the senator accepted bribes from an Egyptian American businessman with ties to the Egyptian government. The indictment says Menendez passed on sensitive U.S. government information to Egyptian officials. | US Political Corruption |
Former soldier accused of threatening to kill military personnel
Christian Beyer is an Army veteran who was court martialed in 2021 for assault.
Federal prosecutors in Southern California have announced charges against 41-year-old Christian Beyer of Petaluma, California, who is accused of posting a YouTube video in which he threatened to kill military personnel who he believed had done him wrong at Fort Irwin in Southern California.
Beyer is an Army veteran who was court martialed in 2021 for assault and had been stationed at Fort Irwin.
In one YouTube video, prosecutors allege, he said “I had a great life and will die for what I believe in. If you come to get me and you have a uniform on you’re an enemy and I will not look at you as anything else.”
The military was worried that Beyer knew how to access Fort Irwin through means other than main gates.
Beyer was arrested Wednesday at his father’s home in Sonoma County.
On Oct. 30, he also allegedly got into a fight with a group of elderly people and reportedly pulled out a knife before driving his car toward the group and fleeing the scene.
A subsequent manhunt was launched for the suspect leading to Beyer's arrest.
The FBI is part of the YouTube threats case as is its Joint Terrorism Task Force. Beyer has been charged with interstate threats which could bring a sentence of five years in federal prison.
Beyer is currently being held without bond and the investigation continues. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Sidney Powell has agreed to a plea deal with Futon County, Georgia, prosecutors over charges brought against her in a sprawling RICO case in which former President Donald Trump and 17 others have also been charged for allegedly meddling in the state’s 2020 election results.
The plea deal comes just one day before Powell’s trial, which she had requested take place separately from that of the other defendants. The deal reduced Powell’s charges and carried a sentence to six years probation, payment of $2,700 in fines, an apology letter to the citizens of Georgia, and a requirement to testify truthfully against other defendants in the case. This means Powell could wind up testifying against Trump.
Powell is the second Trump co-defendant to enter a guilty plea. Scott Hall, a bail bondsman accused of participating in a breach of voting machines in Coffee County, Georgia, accepted a plea deal in September.
In August, Powell, Trump, and 17 others were charged with violating Georgia’s racketeering laws and attempting to meddle with the 2020 election results in the state. Powell was accused of aiding Trump in spreading conspiracy theories about the election and participating in efforts to tamper with voting machines. She initially pleaded not guilty to the charges against her.
Powell’s involvement in the former president’s efforts to meddle with election results extends far beyond Georgia. The attorney was reportedly present at a December 2020 meeting in the Oval Office during which the Trump administration’s legal advisers sparred with the crackpot team of election conspiracy theorists he assembled to challenge the election. Powell, along with Rudy Giuliani and former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, pushed a plan to seize voting machines in various states over the objections of former White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and others.
A plea deal doesn’t necessarily mean Powell is out of legal jeopardy. As previously reported by Rolling Stone, sources close to Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal investigation of Trump’s election meddling have zeroed in on Powell. Several witnesses have been grilled on her involvement in post-election scheming, her contact with lawmakers, and her claims about Dominion Voting Systems.
Trending
Will Smith Calls Relationship With Jada Pinkett Smith a 'Sloppy Public Experiment in Unconditional Love'
Trump Told Mitt Romney’s Son He Would ‘Drop’ Melania: Book
Kelly Clarkson Thought Leaving 'The Voice' was a 'Horrible Decision,' But She Wanted to Smile Again
Burt Young, Oscar-Nominated ‘Rocky’ Actor, Dead at 83
Charges are not off the table. As one source put it: “Sidney’s fucked.”
This is a breaking news story and will be updated. | US Political Corruption |
WASHINGTON, Oct 26 (Reuters) - Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday were debating their next move on how to avert a partial government shutdown next month, with one prominent lawmaker saying they needed to agree quickly on a "path forward."
Newly installed Speaker Mike Johnson was floating the possibility of extending funding through mid-January or mid-April to give lawmakers more time to negotiate 12 separate bills funding the government through the fiscal year that ends Sept. 30, 2024.
Multiple Republicans agreed they wanted to avert the risk of a partial government shutdown on Nov. 17, after party infighting brought the U.S. to the brink of that early this month, headed off only by a bipartisan deal that led to the ouster of Johnson's predecessor, Kevin McCarthy, which left the chamber leaderless for three weeks.
"We need a path forward," said Representative Steve Womack, a senior Republican member of the House Appropriations Committee. He said he would like to see the House go straight into government funding negotiations with the Democratic-majority Senate as a way to expedite the appropriations process, avoiding last-minute brinkmanship.
"I would like for us to be able to avoid that by dealing with it now, rather than at the last hour," Womack said.
Democratic President Joe Biden is also pushing for $106 billion in new spending to aid Israel and Ukraine, and beef up enforcement at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Meanwhile, the House and Senate must deal -- in one fashion or another -- with the 12 regular spending bills funding government activities for the fiscal year.
Fights over money have occupied most of Congress' time for the past year. Partisan disputes brought the federal government to the brink of defaulting on its then-$31.4 trillion in debt in May, an event that would have shaken the world financial system.
Less than a month ago, intra-party fighting among Republicans brought the federal government within hours of a partial shutdown, with hardline Republicans rejecting a $1.59 trillion discretionary spending limit Biden and Johnson's predecessor Kevin McCarthy had agreed on, instead calling for an additional $120 billion in cuts.
Notably, Johnson on Sept. 30 voted against the temporary spending bill that averted an Oct. 1 shutdown.
Representative Thomas Massie, a conservative firebrand, meanwhile told reporters that he backs a one-year extension of current spending, arguing, "There's no real leverage in it for us to have this (government) shutdown impending."
For months, many Republicans had opposed such a measure, arguing it simply enshrines spending priorities written last year by Democrats, who controlled the House, Senate and White House.
But under a law enacted on June 3, a year-long extension of spending would trigger across-the-board spending cuts of 1% from the last fiscal year's appropriations. That could trouble many lawmakers who would not want to see indiscriminate cuts to social programs or the Defense Department at a time of wars in Ukraine and Israel.
The intense debates over spending come amid high interest rates that have pushed up the government's cost of borrowing and for the federal Social Security and Medicare programs, driving Washington to a $1.7 trillion deficit for the fiscal year ended Sept. 30. It also comes amid falling tax revenues.
SENATE PROGRESS
The Senate, following long delays imposed by a few Republicans, moved ahead with three of its 12 bipartisan funding bills. By next week it hopes to pass appropriations for farm programs, transportation and housing and veterans.
Difficult negotiations by Congress over Biden's request for aid to Ukraine and more money for border security were anticipated.
Top Senate Democrat Chuck Schumer urged the House to follow his chamber's bipartisan model.
"In a divided government, the only way we'll fund the government ... is bipartisanship," Schumer said. "Speaker Johnson will not be able to ignore the need for bipartisanship."
Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries sounded a similar note, saying, "It's important that my House Republican colleagues take a government shutdown off the table."
The disagreements between Republicans that have slowed past dealmaking also remained.
"I don't even want to think of something lasting until January or April. That would be folly in my opinion," said Representative Andy Biggs, a prominent hardliner, voicing opposition to the stopgap funding measures known as continuing resolutions. "If you’re going to do a CR, it needs to be super short. Why? Because a CR is cruise-control."
Reporting by Richard Cowan and David Morgan; Editing by Scott Malone, Richard Chang and Daniel Wallis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | US Congress |
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:
- The House prepares to vote Wednesday on disciplinary measures of three controversial members…
- Donald Trump Jr. takes the stand in the Manhattan civil fraud trial against the Trump Org…
- House Republican Rep. Ken Buck criticizes GOP in his retirement announcement…
House Floor Fight
The House of Representatives is expected to start dealing with controversial plans to either discipline or expel some of the most controversial members of Congress …Read more
Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. — Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene introduced a resolution to censure Tlaib last week for her antisemitic statements and for supporting what Greene called an "insurrection" — a protest and demonstration at Capitol Hill office buildings.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. — After the censure against Tlaib, Democratic Rep. Becca Balint brought her censure resolution against Greene, which calls Greene out for "[fanning] the flames of racism, antisemitism, LGBTQ hate speech, Islamophobia, anti-Asian hate, xenophobia, and other forms of hatred.
Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. — Santos has faced calls to resign from his own Republican colleagues from New York, and now many want him expelled from the chamber. He faces several federal criminal charges and a House Ethics investigation for his lies on the campaign trail about his resume. Expulsion of a House lawmaker requires two thirds of the majority.
The House could vote to "table" each resolution. If a motion to table fail in the vote, the House will begin debate on each resolution itself.
Israel at War
'EXTREMIST': AOC accuses pro-Israel PAC of destabilizing American democracy …Read more
TOO MUCH?: Rep. Massie argues over $14 billion aid package to Israel …Read more
NOT REALITY: Speaker Johnson hits back at Senate Dem attacks on Israel aid bill …Read more
DARK MONEY: Ohio abortion amendment bankrolled by same left-wing groups bankrolling anti-Israel groups …Read more
Capitol Hill
BORDER CRISIS: Dem, GOP lawmakers urge funding for first responders dealing with migrant influx …Read more
FOLLOW THE MONEY: Top Dem committee took thousands from Menendez on day bribery charges were unveiled …Read more
'DETRIMENTAL': Vance, Senate banking Republicans sound alarm at Biden admin directive on lending to illegal immigrants …Read more
HEATED HEARING: Hawley grills Mayorkas over DHS employee who celebrated Hamas terror attack …Read more
'ABSURD': Mike Johnson responds to attacks from Bill Maher, Jen Psaki: 'Not surprised' …Read more
'WHOLLY INADEQUATE': House Homeland chairman subpoenas Mayorkas for records on vetting of Afghan evacuees …Read more
'LAUNDERED CHINA MONEY': Comer says Biden received $40K from his brother after China deal …Read more
Campaign Trail
POWER RANKINGS: Trump freezes his lead as Haley rises in a narrow field …Read more
MONTANA CHALLENGER: Combat veteran enters race for seat held by Matt Rosendale …Read more
OUT OF HAND: Size of Trump's hands at center of Supreme Court case …Read more
PUSHING BACK: Biden's primary challenger strikes back at criticism from black leaders …Read more
Across the Nation
'BIDENOMICS IN ACTION': Two major green energy projects abruptly axed in crippling blow to Biden climate agenda …Read more
'WEAPONIZED' MIGRATION: Caravan leader claims Latin American countries are 'conspiring against the US' …Read more
STRENGTHENED RELATIONS: Biden will meet Xi Jinping face-to-face in San Francisco, White House says …Read more
Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more on FoxNews.com. | US Congress |
Former President Trump said Wednesday he would "absolutely" take the stand to defend himself in his impending trials, saying he looks "forward" to doing so.
The former president and 2024 Republican front-runner appeared on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show Wednesday morning.
Trump is the first former president of the United States history to face criminal charges. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges in all three jurisdictions.
On Wednesday, Trump was asked if he would testify in his own defense at any of the trials stemming from the four separate indictments he faces.
"Oh yes, absolutely," Trump said.
When asked if he would take the stand, Trump replied: "That, I would do—that, I look forward to . . . At trial, I’ll testify."
"Because that’s just like Russia, Russia, Russia," Trump said, referring back to the FBI’s original 2016 investigation into whether the Trump campaign was colluding with Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election.
That probe eventually spun into a special counsel investigation led by Robert Mueller. After two years, Mueller’s investigation yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russian officials during the 2016 presidential election.
"Remember when the dossier came out and everyone said oh, that’s so terrible, that’s so terrible, and then it turned out to be it was a political report put out by Hillary Clinton and the DNC?" Trump said. "They paid millions for it, They gave it to Christopher Steele, They paid millions and millions of dollars for it, and it was all fake."
The dossier contained allegations of purported coordination between Trump and the Russian government. It was authored by Christopher Steele, an ex-British intelligence officer.
The Clinton campaign and the DNC funded the dossier through the law firm Perkins Coie.
Trump was first indicted out of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's years-long investigation related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 presidential campaign.
Bragg alleged that Trump "repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal criminal conduct that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election."
Trump pleaded not guilty to all 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in the first degree in New York.
A trial date has not yet been set.
Next, Special Counsel Jack Smith indicted Trump on charges stemming from his investigation into the former president's alleged improper retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all 37 felony charges out of that probe. The charges include willful retention of national defense information, conspiracy to obstruct justice and false statements.
Last month, on July 27, Trump was charged with an additional three counts as part of a superseding indictment out of Smith’s investigation — an additional count of willful retention of national defense information and two additional obstruction counts.
That trial date is being discussed for May 2024-- ahead of the final GOP primaries and the Republican convention.
Smith was also investigating whether Trump was involved in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, and any alleged interference in the 2020 election result.
On Aug. 1, Trump was indicted on four federal charges out of Smith's Jan. 6 probe.
That trial is set to begin on March 4, 2024--the day before the Super Tuesday primaries.
Last month, Fulton County, Ga. District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 18 others out of her investigation into his alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in the state.
Willis charged Trump with one count of violation of the Georgia RICO Act, three counts of criminal solicitation, six counts of criminal conspiracy, one count of filing false documents and two counts of making false statements.
Trump pleaded not guilty to all charges.
Willis is pushing for an October 2023 trial date, which Trump attorneys are seeking to delay. | US Political Corruption |
Jim Jordan falls short in vote for House speaker
The House on Tuesday failed to elect Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan as its next speaker, extending the uncertainty that followed the historic ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy earlier this month.
Jordan, a Republican, fell short of the majority he needed to secure the top post, with 20 members of his own party voting against him.
Another vote is possible Tuesday. It is unclear if the tally will remain the same.
California Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-Richvale), who voted against Jordan, said afterward that he would support Jordan the next time around. He told reporters his first vote against Jordan was to protest McCarthy’s ouster. “What happened to him was wrong,” LaMalfa said.
In the meantime, House votes on other legislative matters remains stalled. Ahead of the floor vote, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who is currently serving as speaker pro tempore, told reporters he opposes expanding his powers, signaling he would not work with Democrats to get the House running again.
The failed Jordan vote comes less than a week after Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise fell short in his own bid to become speaker. Scalise pulled out as nominee after it became clear he would not have enough votes to get the gavel in a floor vote.
Most of those Republicans voting against Jordan were GOP centrists or those who viewed Jordan as too far right to lead the House. Most voted either for McCarthy or Scalise, or a handful of other establishment Republicans like Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Rep. Tom Emmer (R-Minn.).
Conversely, those who voted against Scalise last week believed he was too establishment or not conservative enough for their tastes.
Because the GOP House majority is so narrow, even a handful of votes can make all the difference.
Jordan, who has never served in party leadership, is a darling on the right and was endorsed by former President Trump.
He is a fixture on conservative talk shows, frequently blasting Democrats and liberals in power. The rhetoric earned him notice from party leaders, who in 2019 named him the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee and in 2020 to the House Judiciary Committee. Both committees tend to be a space for rabble-rousers, not for deal-makers. So is the far-right House Freedom Caucus, which Jordan co-founded in 2015, serving as the inaugural chair.
During a Friday news conference, Democratic leader Jeffries noted that Jordan during his 16-year tenure in Congress “hasn’t passed a single bill... because his focus has not been on the American people.”
The Ohioan has been a vocal critic of President Biden, frequently declining to vote on Biden-backed legislation.
Jordan cemented his loyalty to Trump in the wake of the 2020 presidential election when he cast doubt on the results. He “was a significant player” in Trump’s efforts to overturn the election, the House select committee’s Jan. 6 report noted.
When Jordan won the GOP nomination for speaker on Friday, a wave of Republicans indicated they would not back him. Over the weekend, however, he and others worked behind the scenes and on social media to pressure them to back him for the speakership.
Their lobbying campaign initially angered a faction of moderates, who said they planned to challenge Jordan in a floor vote.
The GOP struggle to agree on a leader has crippled the House.
Though McCarthy managed in January to secure the support he needed to become speaker after an unprecedented 15 votes, conservatives in his party grew frustrated in recent months after he reached deals with Democrats to avoid a debt default and government shutdown.
He would also need to confront the escalating conflict in and around the Gaza Strip. The assault launched by Hamas militants earlier this month prompted calls for additional military aid for Israel. The House, lacking a permanent speaker, has been unable to approve new aid or declare its position on the conflict.
The Biden administration would also be reliant on Jordan as speaker to call a floor vote to get legislation for additional military assistance to help Ukraine fend off Russian invaders. Though additional funding for the war-torn nation remains bipartisan lawmakers, an increasing number of rank-and-file Republicans have grown skeptical of continuing American investment and expressed an unwillingness to send more military aid.
The Pentagon has pressed House Republicans to approve further funding, warning that Russia could win the war if U.S. support for Ukraine dries up.
Get our Essential Politics newsletter
The latest news, analysis and insights from our politics team.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times. | US Congress |
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and other Republican lawmakers held their first impeachment hearing on Thursday, which Democrats said failed to produce any direct evidence implicating President Joe Biden.
Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor called to testify by Republicans, said on Thursday he believes it is a "best practice" to hold a floor vote on opening an impeachment inquiry.
"House Republicans tried to plow ahead with their debunked conspiracy theories — even when confronted by their own witnesses conceding there isn't evidence to warrant impeachment — and, in the process, revealed just how divorced from reality this partisan stunt is. Don't just take it from us — Comer's hearing got widely panned by everyone from Fox News anchors to fact-checkers to Republican lawmakers and more," White House spokeswoman Sharon Yang countered Friday morning.
Yang's statement cited negative news coverage of the House hearing from 16 news outlets, including Fox News, fact-checking assertions made by some of the Republican lawmakers.
"Perhaps Comer should spend less time on Fox and Newsmax falsely asserting that the 'evidence is overwhelming' that the 'president is compromised' and 'should be treated like a criminal' and more time focusing on issues that actually matter to the American people," Yang added. | US Congress |
Steve Scalise, the Louisiana Republican whom some in his party reportedly want to elect as speaker of the US House of Representatives after the stunning and historic removal of Kevin McCarthy, was once reported to have called himself “David Duke without the baggage”.
Duke, 73, is a former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, an avowed white supremacist who ran for Louisiana governor, the US House and Senate, and for president, and who in 2003 was sentenced to 15 months in jail for mail and tax fraud.
Scalise, now 57, was elected to Congress in 2008. He became Republican House whip in 2014 and was elected majority leader in 2022, as a hardline conservative acceptable to the far right of his party, which has now successfully rebelled against McCarthy.
Ahead of McCarthy’s removal, Scalise implored his fellow Republicans “to keep doing this work that we were sent to do” rather than focus on ejecting the speaker.
“This isn’t the time to slow that process down,” said Scalise, denying interest in the speakership.
Immediately after the vote to remove McCarthy, however, the ringleader of the motion to vacate, Matt Gaetz of Florida, used his first remarks to say Scalise would be “a phenomenal speaker”.
Gaetz also said Tom Emmer of Minnesota, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, Jody Arrington of Texas and Kevin Hearn of Oklahoma might be good choices.
But the speakership may offer Scalise a tempting prize: if he is elevated into the role, he will become the highest-ranking member of Congress ever to come from Louisiana.
Politico’s Olivia Beavers reported later Tuesday that Scalise had started to “reach out to [House] members” ahead of launching a bid for the speakership. CNN’s Melanie Zanona added that “a number of Republicans have already pledged their support”.
“He’s getting good support already,” Zanona quoted one Republican House member whom she didn’t name as saying.
Duke, Scalise’s fellow Louisianan, last made national headlines when he supported Donald Trump for president in 2016 – support Trump was slow to disavow.
Two years before that, Scalise ran into controversy, and his remark about Duke surfaced, after a blogger revealed Scalise’s attendance at a white supremacist conference organised by Duke in 2002.
Scalise, whose district includes a large suburban area of New Orleans, said he had been seeking “support for legislation that focused on cutting wasteful state spending, eliminating government corruption and stopping tax hikes”, but “wholeheartedly condemn[ed]” the views of the group concerned.
He also said attending the conference “was a mistake I regret”, as he “emphatically oppose[d] the divisive racial and religious views that groups like these hold”.
Citing his Catholicism, Scalise said “these groups hold views that are vehemently opposed to my own personal faith, and I reject that kind of hateful bigotry. Those who know me best know I have always been passionate about helping, serving and fighting for every family that I represent. And I will continue to do so.”
Duke, however, told the Washington Post: “Scalise would communicate a lot with my campaign manager, Kenny Knight. That is why he was invited and why he would come. Kenny knew Scalise, Scalise knew Kenny. They were friendly.”
That wasn’t the end of it. The controversy deepened when Stephanie Grace, a Louisiana politics reporter and columnist, told the New York Times that at the start of Scalise’s legislative career, while “explaining his politics”, he told her “he was like David Duke without the baggage”.
Grace said she thought Scalise had “meant he supported the same policy ideas as David Duke, but he wasn’t David Duke, that he didn’t have the same feelings about certain people as David Duke did”.
Scalise did not comment on Grace’s remarks. But Chuck Kleckley, the Republican speaker of the Louisiana state house at the time, told the paper comparisons between Scalise and the Klan leader were “not fair to Steve at all”.
Nonetheless, the Duke controversy has followed Scalise throughout a career in Republican leadership, which has seen him survive being seriously wounded in a mass shooting at congressional baseball practice, in 2017; become one of five Louisiana Congress members to vote against certifying some election results hours after the deadly Capitol attack of 6 January 2021; become majority leader in 2022; and, in August this year, announce a cancer diagnosis.
The 2017 shooting was an assassination attempt. The gunman, a leftist extremist who was killed by law enforcement, legally bought the rifle used to shoot Scalise and three others despite a history of run-ins with police.
Despite that, through legislation he has sponsored and co-sponsored, Scalise has staunchly advocated to keep guns as accessible to the public as possible, citing the right to bear arms enshrined in the US constitution’s second amendment.
In the aftermath of his own shooting, Scalise told reporters: “I was a strong supporter of the second amendment before the shooting and, frankly, as ardent as ever after the shooting in part because I was saved by people who had guns.”
Last month, discussing his recent diagnosis of multiple myeloma, Scalise said aggressive treatment meant his outlook was improving.
Should Scalise eventually secure the speaker’s gavel, he will surpass the New Orleans Democrat Hale Boggs as the most powerful member of Congress ever to come from the state. Boggs was House majority leader before his plane disappeared over Alaska in 1972.
This article was amended on 3 October 2023 to correct who Matt Gaetz said might be good choices for House Speaker. | US Congress |
Donald Trump's hour-plus appearance on a cable news town hall forum on Wednesday night was barely over when his political rivals - both announced and prospective - began firing out tweets, statements and press releases attacking the Republican front-runner for next year's White House election.
The forum, hosted by CNN's Kaitlan Collins, was a combative spectacle, with topics ranging from abortion to foreign policy to Mr Trump's unfounded claims of 2020 election fraud and sympathy for those arrested for the 6 January 2021 US Capitol attack.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who is expected to launch his presidential campaign soon, honed in on the quarrelsome nature of the forum and his focus on relitigating the 2020 vote. A committee supporting his prospective bid released a statement calling the town hall an "hour of nonsense that proved Trump is stuck in the past".
It went on to highlight his sometimes muddled answers on abortion and gun control - two issues of high importance to Republican primary voters.
"How does that make America great again?" the statement asked.
For Republican voters who aren't solidly in the Trump camp at this point, the former president's fixation with the 2020 election results - expressed early and often during the town hall - has proven to be a point of concern.
Winning presidential campaigns typically present a candidate's vision for the future (Barack Obama's "hope and change" and Mr Trump's own 2016 "make American great again"), but Mr Trump's 2024 bid often begins and ends with relitigating his electoral defeat.
Other Trump rivals found another target to attack. Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who ran for president against Mr Trump in 2016, but became one of the first establishment politicians to endorse him, spotlighted the former president's refusal to say who he wanted to win the war in Ukraine.
"Donald Trump says he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours tonight on CNN," the possible 2024 candidate tweeted. "Despite how ridiculous that is to say, I suspect he would try to do it by turning Ukraine over to Putin and Russia. #Putin'sPuppet."
Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson, who recently launched his own presidential campaign, also targeted Mr Trump's Ukraine position.
"Trump reminded everyone tonight of his support of Russia and his willingness to sell out Ukraine," he tweeted. "A weak position that will not win the war."
Highlighting Ukraine is an interesting choice, however, given that polls show a growing number of Republican voters are sceptical of continued US support for the war effort. Mr Trump may be more in step with the Republican base on this issue than these two critics.
If Mr DeSantis' side viewed the whole event as nonsense, a number of media analysists and commentators agreed, although they placed the blame squarely on CNN for the format and setting of the event.
"Here's what CNN did tonight: They produced a global television event for an unhinged pathological liar in front of an audience of sycophants and called it 'news'," former Republican strategist and vocal Trump critic Steve Schmidt tweeted. "It was an abomination."
That was a view echoed by Democrat congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who wrote that CNN should "be ashamed of itself".
Other Democratic Party officials monitoring the proceedings responded with barely concealed glee, however, promising to use clips of the former president's performance in future attack ads. They also highlighted his abortion answer - taking credit for ending Roe v Wade's abortion rights - as particularly damaging.
"That was a disaster for Trump," a senior Democrat told CBS News. "The American people were just reintroduced to a wildly extreme and dangerous man who said he was honoured to overturn Roe. That's the clip of the night."
Mr Biden, responding on Twitter after the forum, kept it short.
"Do you want four more years of that?" Mr Biden asked. "If you don't, pitch in to our campaign."
For their part, however, Mr Trump's campaign team claimed the evening was a success. Their candidate had more than an hour of prime-time attention before a crowd that gave him a standing ovation upon arrival, laughed at his jokes and applauded as he sparred with Ms Collins.
"At the end of the day I thought it was a win for the president," Bryan Lanza, an adviser to Mr Trump, told the BBC. "He went into what was supposed to be a hostile environment, and he survived. I suspect that this town hall is going to make him stronger." | US Federal Elections |
Republican Kevin McCarthy has been elected as the new US Speaker after winning the 15th vote following chaotic scenes in Congress. Mr McCarthy's party had taken control of the House – the US lower chamber – following the midterm elections in the autumn, with a slim 222-212 majority.
Usually, election of the Speaker follows seamlessly, as a formality, with the leader of the largest party a shoo-in for the job.However, recent splits in the Republican party meant that did not happen until the 15th round of voting.In the 14th ballot, Mr McCarthy received 216 votes - one shy of the number needed for a victory - as a small faction of right-wing hardliners held out.
He won at last on a margin of 216-211.He was elected with the votes of fewer than half the House members only because five in his own party withheld their votes – not backing Mr McCarthy as leader, but also not voting for another contender. More from US Boy, 6, shoots teacher during 'altercation' inside classroom in Virginia, US American football star Damar Hamlin making 'remarkable' recovery and able to talk DeuxMoi: The rise of Instagram's anonymous celebrity gossip sharer with 1.7 million followers US President Joe Biden congratulated him on his success and said he is "prepared to work with Republicans" when he can.'Stay civil' After the 14th round, a tense exchange ensued, with Mr McCarthy seen walking to the back of the chamber to confront Rep. Matt Gaetz, who did not vote for him.Mr Gaetz was one of the six remaining Republican holdouts, and voted "present" in the 14th and 15th round.This essentially meant he registered that he was in the House for the vote, but did not back anyone as the next speaker. Image: Rep. Kevin McCarthy (L) talks with Rep. Matt Gaetz. Pic: AP A hostile back and forth took place after Mr McCarthy approached him, while a number of Republican lawmakers began to crowd them.Rep. Mike Rogers, who did back Mr McCarthy in the vote, appeared to lunge in the direction of where Mr Gaetz was sitting, but was held back by other members. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player Tempers flare in Congress vote "Stay civil," someone was heard shouting.Rep. Richard Hudson – another Mr McCarthy supporter – was also seen grabbing Mr Rogers around the mouth, but it was unclear what the argument was about. Image: Members of the House of Representatives get physical with each other as Rep. Andy Harris pushes back Rep. Mike Rogers McCarthy's extensive concessionsA handful of far-right Republicans had felt Mr McCarthy was not conservative enough for the job, despite him agreeing to many of the detractors' demands.One of the most difficult requests that Mr McCarthy has agreed to is the reinstatement of a longstanding House rule that would allow any single member to call a vote to oust him from office.That will sharply cut the power he will hold when trying to pass legislation on critical issues including funding the government, addressing the nation's looming debt ceiling and other crises that may arise.The Speaker is one of the most powerful positions in US politics, and this week's failed votes marked the highest number of ballots for the speakership since 1859.Sessions to decide on the person for the job had rumbled on for hours in the chamber this week – one even topping eight hours. | US Congress |
It's that time of year again: the temperature is starting to drop just a bit, the leaves are starting to change colors, and political ads are starting to litter the commercial breaks.
It's election season in the DMV.
While the 2024 general election looms the largest — between the race for U.S. president and those in the U.S. Senate and House — in Virginia, every year is an election year. The commonwealth is already gearing up for important statewide elections on Nov. 7.
Here's what to know if you're preparing to vote in Virginia.
We're making it easier for you to find stories that matter with our new newsletter — The 4Front. Sign up here and get news that is important for you to your inbox.
2023 Virginia election deadlines
Here's a quick timeline, according to the Virginia Department of Elections:
Sept. 22: The first day of early in-person voting. You can find a list of early voting locations by county and city here.
Decision 2023
Coverage of the 2023 primary and general elections in Virginia
Oct. 16: Voter registration deadline to vote in the 2023 election. You can still register after this date, through Election Day, and vote using a provisional ballot. Read more about provisional ballots, and how to register to vote in Virginia, below.
Oct. 27: Deadline to apply by mail, by fax and online for an absentee ballot to be mailed to you. Read on to learn how to apply for absentee (mail-in) ballots.
Nov. 4: Last day of early in-person voting, which ends at 5 p.m. Deadline to apply for an absentee ballot in-person. (This is also the last day a voter can request a replacement absentee ballot if there's an issue.)
Nov. 6: Last day a voter can request an emergency absentee ballot.
Nov. 7: Election Day.
What are the races in this fall's Virginia election?
All seats in the Virginia House of Delegates and the Virginia Senate are up for election this November.
That means this election decides control of both houses in the General Assembly — which could have a huge impact on certain partisan flashpoint issues in a purple state, like abortion access.
Right now, Republicans control the House by a narrow margin, while Democrats lead in the Senate -- meaning each party is campaigning hard to win a majority of the 100 seats in the House and 40 seats in the Senate.
A key example is the 31st District, which includes parts of Loudoun County. It's quickly becoming one of the most expensive races in Virginia -- and on the first day of early voting, county election officials said turnout is already high.
"Things are great," said Richard Keech, deputy director of the Loudoun County Office of Elections and Voter Registration. "We’ve had over 400 voters today. Last year on the first day of early voting we had 297, so we’ve already blown that out of the water."
Check below for positions outside the state House and Senate up for election this fall, by county and city.
City of Alexandria: No local elections in 2023; only members of the Virginia General Assembly.
City of Fairfax: Court Clerk, Commonwealth's Attorney and Sheriff.
City of Falls Church: Court Clerk, Commonwealth's Attorney, a School Board member and a City Council member.
Arlington County: Court Clerk, Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff, Commissioner of Revenue, Treasurer, a County Board member and a School Board member.
Fairfax County: Court Clerk, Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff, County Supervisor positions and School Board members.
Loudoun County: Court Clerk, Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff, Commissioner of Revenue, Treasurer, County Supervisor positions, School Board members and the Soil and Water Conservation Director.
There are also ballot measures related to school district construction projects, parks and recreation projects, and transportation projects.
Prince William County: Court Clerk, Commonwealth's Attorney, Sheriff, County Supervisor positions, School Board members and the Soil and Water Conservation Director.
How to register to vote in Virginia
To vote in the 2023 election, Virginia residents need to be registered to vote. The deadline to register is Oct. 16.
Here are the requirements to register to vote in Virginia:
- Have a valid Virginia DMV driver's license or state ID card.
- Be a citizen of the United States.
- Be a resident of Virginia.
- Be 18 years old on or before the next general election. (If you are 17, you can still register and vote in elections if you will be 18 on or before the next general election.)
- Not currently convicted of a felony or judged as mentally incapacitated and disqualified to vote.
- If you're at least 16, but will not be 18 on or before the next general election, you can qualify to preregister to vote. (Preregistered individuals cannot vote — they're just setting up registration so that they can automatically vote in the first general election after they turn 18.)
To register to vote, go here to visit the Virginia Department of Elections' citizen portal. The website will walk you through the process after you click the green "Register to Vote" button. (Make sure you know your Social Security number and have your driver's license or state ID with you for the process.)
According to the Virginia Department of Elections, you can register after Oct. 16 and still vote in the state's general election by using a provisional ballot.
Provisional ballots allow someone to vote if their ability to vote is in question -- for example, if they are not in the database of registered voters or if they decided to vote in-person after requesting a mail-in ballot.
Provisional ballots are evaluated when all other votes are counted. If a voter is indeed eligible to vote, their provisional ballot is included in the tally. You can learn more about provisional ballots here.
How to find your polling place and sample ballots in Virginia
Once you're registered to vote, the easiest way to find your polling place — and see what candidates are on the ballot for your district — is to visit this Virginia Department of Elections website.
You can type in your Virginia address to see your Election Day voting site, as well as a list of early voting locations in your district. Those early voting locations also serve as ballot drop-off sites if you want to vote via absentee ballot but can't mail it back by the deadline.
The same search results include a tab with a preview of candidates on the ballot in your district. Click "Ballot Info" to see names of candidates running for each position up for election.
How to apply for a mail-in ballot in Virginia
At the same Virginia Department of Elections website where you can register to vote, you can also apply for an absentee ballot.
Voters no longer need to meet specific requirements to vote absentee. Any registered voter can get a mail-in ballot for the 2023 election, as long as they apply before the deadline of Oct. 27 by mail, fax or online.
Voters that apply in-person at the general registrar's office by Nov. 4 can still get an absentee ballot before the general election.
Click the green "Apply to Vote Absentee by Mail" button and follow the on-screen instructions to fill in your personal information. You'll need your Social Security number and driver's license or state ID with you.
Registered Virginia voters can also now choose to join the Virginia permanent absentee voter list. That option will send the voter ballots by mail, sent to the address on their Virginia voter registration record, for all future elections in which they're eligible to vote.
You have to go hunting for the option — it's difficult to find on the Virginia Department of Elections Website, until you're in the process of signing up for an absentee ballot.
Then you can choose to either get your mail-in ballot for the upcoming election or click the option that reads, "I would like to join the Virginia permanent absentee voter list. I will receive ballots for all future elections by mail to the address on my Virginia voter registration record. I will only receive ballots for elections in which I am eligible to vote."
Once you get your mail-in ballot, you can fill out your ballot and then either mail it back to the registrar's office or drop off the sealed envelope at any of the early voting locations in your district.
Your absentee ballot has to be postmarked by the date of the election, or a date before then, "and received by your general registrar's office by noon on the third day following the election," for your vote to be counted, according to the Virginia Department of Elections.
How to vote early in-person in Virginia
Early voting for the 2023 election begins Sept. 22 in Virginia and will continue until Nov. 4. (That's the Saturday before the election on Nov. 7.)
If you're registered to vote, all you need to do to vote early in person is to show up at an early voting location in your district.
You don't need any specific reason to vote early, and you don't need to fill out an application to do so.
You do need to bring an acceptable form of ID or sign an ID Confirmation Statement, and share your name and address.
If you request an absentee ballot and then decide to vote in-person instead, you'll need to turn in your blank absentee ballot at the polling place. If you don't, you'll need to fill out a provisional ballot instead. | US Local Elections |
House Republicans are once again meeting behind closed doors on Friday morning after Majority Leader Steve Scalise’s stunning exit from the speakership race on Thursday night.
GOP lawmakers are meeting at 10 a.m. and will have to check cellphones at the door, according to an invitation obtained by Fox News Digital.
They are going to be considering four amendments to the House Republican Conference Rules that would raise the threshold needed to select a candidate for speaker before that person is nominated on the House floor.
Three of them would mandate that a speaker-elect has the support of a House-wide majority before getting a floor vote. That is almost guaranteed to lead to hourslong debates behind closed doors — a lawmaker can only lose four GOP backers to still win without Democratic votes.
Amendments offered by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, and Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Mich., would mandate a Q&A session between the candidate and the conference if the person failed to get 217 votes on the first round of a secret ballot vote.
Roy’s amendment would give candidates a maximum of three chances at a secret ballot vote, and if they fail to get to 217, others will be considered.
The amendment offered by Huizenga punishes members who blindside their House Republican colleagues — lawmakers would lose their committee assignments if they declare themselves in support of a speaker designate within the GOP conference meeting but then vote against them on the House floor.
Rep. William Timmons, R-S.C., offered an amendment to raise the threshold to 218 votes which also calls for a Q&A portion. The Timmons amendment does not offer a set number of voting rounds.
The fourth, by Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla., would require a speaker designate to win 80% of the conference vote behind closed doors.
It comes after Scalise was elected the House GOP’s candidate for speaker with a simple majority on Wednesday. Some lawmakers had speculated at the time that a full-floor vote could be held that same day, but it became clear that Scalise and his allies had underestimated the broad cross-section of opposition he was facing.
House Republicans could vote on a new candidate today, but as of early on Friday morning, no one has declared yet.
All eyes are on House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who won 99 ballots to Scalise’s 113 earlier this week. House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, R-Minn., and Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., are other names that have been floated — though neither have them have expressed interest in the gavel themselves. | US Congress |
The Justice Department has opened a civil rights investigation into claims that the police department for Baton Rouge, Louisiana, abused and tortured suspects, the FBI announced Friday.
Numerous lawsuits allege that the Street Crimes Unit of the Baton Rouge Police Departmentdrug suspects at a recently shuttered narcotics processing center — an unmarked warehouse nicknamed the "Brave Cave."
The FBI said experienced prosecutors and agents are "reviewing allegations that members of the department may have abused their authority."
Baton Rouge police said in a statement that its chief, Murphy Paul "met with FBI officials and requested their assistance to ensure an independent review of these complaints."
In late August, Baton Rouge Mayor-President Sharon Weston Broome announced that the "Brave Cave" was being permanently closed, and that the Street Crimes Unit was also being disbanded.
This comes as a federal lawsuit filed earlier this week by Ternell Brown, a grandmother, alleges that police officers conducted an unlawful strip-search on her.
The lawsuit alleges that officers pulled over Brown while she was driving with her husband near her Baton Rouge neighborhood in a black Dodge Charger in June. Police officers ordered the couple out of the car and searched the vehicle, finding pills in a container, court documents said. Brown said the pills were prescription and she was in "lawful possession" of the medication. Police officers became suspicious when they found she was carrying two different types of prescription pills in one container, the complaint said.
Officers then, without Brown's consent or a warrant, the complaint states, took her to the unit's "Brave Cave." The Street Crimes Unit used the warehouse as its "home base," the lawsuit alleged, to conduct unlawful strip searches.
Police held Brown for two hours, the lawsuit reads, during which she was told to strip, and after an invasive search, "she was released from the facility without being charged with a crime."
"What occurred to Mrs. Brown is unconscionable and should never happen in America," her attorney, Ryan Keith Thompson, said in a statement to CBS News.
Baton Rouge police said in its statement Friday that it was "committed to addressing these troubling accusations," adding that it has "initiated administrative and criminal investigations."
The Justice Department said its investigation is being conducted by the FBI, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division, and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Louisiana.
for more features. | US Police Misconduct |
Ryan, appearing on CNN on Monday, said he is "worried" about Biden's electoral chances against former President Donald Trump after a New York Times-Siena College poll showed Biden trailing Trump in five of six swing states a year out from the election. The former congressman called on Biden to forgo running and said the same for Trump.
"I don’t think Trump should run. I don’t think President Biden should run. We have talent in the Democratic Party. There are some leaders in the Republican Party who are willing to take on the insurrectionists and take on Trump, and I think those candidates should be considered as well, but the whole country wants to move on," Ryan said.
"I think that it would be the right thing to do for the president to not run, for him to focus on what’s going on in the Middle East, focus on what’s going on in Ukraine. He's doing a good job. Focus on the inequality, focus on inflation, but spend the next 14 months focusing on that and let new candidates emerge in the Democratic Party," he added.
The former congressman then discussed how the poll showed a generic Democrat would have an 8-point advantage over Trump. He also said Trump is a "disaster" and that the poor poll numbers are an indictment on "the Democratic Party brand."
“The guy’s getting indicted in four different states on 90-something different counts! He led an insurrection against the country to overturn our democracy, free and fair elections. He's a disaster,” Ryan said.
“For it to even be this close ... just shows how bad the Democratic Party brand is and how unfortunately, people are looking at President Biden not quite connecting to them on the issues that are important to them,” he added.
In the RealClearPolitics national polling average, Trump has a 0.9% advantage over Biden. Trump also has a significant lead in the Republican presidential primary, according to outlet's national polling average. | US Federal Elections |
According to the memo from the FBI and department of homeland security, the federal agencies have identified an increase in threats “occurring primarily online and across multiple platforms” including social media.They specifically link the increase to the August 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, a strong sign of yet more legal trouble to come for the former president.“The FBI and DHS have observed an increase in violent threats posted on social media against federal officials and facilities, including a threat to place a so-called dirty bomb in front of FBI Headquarters and issuing general calls for ‘civil war’ and ‘armed rebellion,’” the agencies wrote.Far-right Republican lawmakers in the House have joined in the attacks on federal law enforcement, including Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene:Impeach Merrick Garland and Defund the corrupt FBI!End political persecution and hold those accountable that abuse their positions of power to persecute their political enemies, while ruining our country.This shouldn’t happen in America.Republicans must force it to stop!— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) August 15, 2022
She was joined by Arizona’s Paul Gosar:It is crucial that we hold our Department of Justice accountable after the obvious political persecution of opposition to the Biden Regime.The "national security state" that works against America must be dismantled.— Rep. Paul Gosar, DDS (@RepGosar) August 14, 2022
Yet there seems to be an awareness among Republicans that the attacks don’t match the message of a party that attempts to cast itself as supporters of law enforcement. “We cannot say that whenever they went in and did that search, that they were not doing their job as law enforcement officers,” Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson said of the FBI in a Sunday interview on CNN:Key events17m agoFears of violence grow following FBI search of Trump's resortShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureFears of violence grow following FBI search of Trump's resortGood morning, US politics blog readers. Supporters of former president Donald Trump have reacted to last week’s FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago resort with both threats of violence and at least one real attack so far. Over the weekend, reports emerged that the bureau and the department of homeland security had put out a memo warning that the search inflamed extremists across the United States. An incident outside the US Capitol early Sunday morning in which a man drove his car into a barricade before shooting himself underscored the tense atmosphere.Here’s a look at what we can expect today: Today is the first anniversary of the Taliban taking power in Afghanistan following the US withdrawal, which is seen as one of the catalysts for the steady drop in Joe Biden’s approval rating over the past year. Another congressional delegation is in Taiwan. House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit earlier this month was met with fury by China, which responded with military drills around the island. Congress is finally on vacation after the House of Representatives on Friday passed the Democrats’ inflation reduction act to lower health care costs and fight climate change. Biden, who is also on vacation, is expected to sign it soon. | US Political Corruption |
Donald Trump, the former U.S. President, is currently navigating a complex array of legal challenges. These include his ongoing civil fraud case trial in New York and the forthcoming trial concerning classified documents, all amidst his plans to run in the 2024 Presidential Elections. Despite these hurdles, Trump maintains an optimistic outlook.
Trump, recognized for his successful business ventures and investments, as well as his notable educational background, has made some bold claims about himself, particularly regarding his intelligence. These assertions have sometimes been met with skepticism from critics who question the validity of his self-proclaimed “High IQ.”
Trump’s tendency to attract attention with his statements is evident in his claims about having a higher IQ than notable figures like former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, comedian Jon Stewart, and ‘The Apprentice’ star Lord Sugar. These claims, as reported by the BBC in 2013, have sparked reactions from critics on social media.
A discussion on Quora about Trump’s IQ garnered varied responses. One user, ‘Robert Sterling,’ referenced an incident reported by Bloomberg where Trump challenged his then-Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, to an IQ test after Tillerson allegedly called him a “moron.” Mensa International offered to conduct the test, but Trump reportedly backed out.
Another user, ‘Bob Trent,’ pointed out that Trump has not disclosed his IQ scores or high school transcripts and has allegedly threatened legal action against anyone attempting to release them. Trent highlighted Trump’s claims of being a “very stable genius” and his assertions about his intelligence and wisdom.
A third critic, ‘Kevin Meares,’ acknowledged Trump’s economics degree from Wharton University but noted that Trump refuses to release his academic transcripts, leading to speculation about his academic performance. Meares suggested that Trump’s grades were likely just passing, casting doubt on his claims of being a genius.
The debate over Trump’s true IQ and academic achievements continues, with no definitive proof provided by Trump himself regarding his educational transcripts or an authentic IQ test result. | US Federal Elections |
When I first heard Prince Harry was making a speech to honour Nelson Mandela Day, my first, and indeed only, thought was this: why?Of all the eight billion people on Planet Earth, is there anyone less qualified to invoke the memory of one of the greatest men in history?Mandela was fiercely intelligent, remarkably resilient, astoundingly courageous, devoted to his family and country, genuinely humble, highly principled, incredibly inspiring, and lit up any room he entered with a smile that warmed the world.Harry, by contrast, is as dumb as a rock, breathtakingly arrogant, woefully hypocritical, deserted his family and country, is a permanently miserable whiny mood-hoover, doesn’t inspire me to open a crisp packet, and wouldn’t understand a principle if it slapped him round his haughty woke-ravaged chops.It takes a special kind of brazen brass neck to stand up at the United Nations in New York, as he did today, and lecture the world about climate change when you constantly use luxury gas-guzzling private jets like a taxi service.As Mandela’s grandson Ndaba told me in an exclusive interview for tonight’s Piers Morgan Uncensored, Harry should practice what he preaches just as Nelson always did to such powerful effect."Every year we have the World Economic Forum," Ndaba said, "and you have all these heads of state coming in on their private jets, talking about climate change and yet they can easily do regional travel!"I think it’s time we hold our leaders accountable and really put their money where their mouth is and say if they truly believed in climate change, whether it be Prince Harry or a head of state… they have to lead by example."But Harry can’t do that because his whole life since meeting the equally disingenuous and virtue-signalling Meghan Markle, whose manipulative, controlling and cynically social-climbing streak is so comprehensively exposed in Tom Bower’s new book ‘Revenge’, has become a ridiculously two-faced sham.There’s nothing he loves more, in his new capacity as renegade duty-devoid runaway royal, than getting up on his public preaching pulpit in front of the media he despises, but uses for constant self-promotion, to tell us how we should do the complete opposite to what he does.But never has he quite plunged the laughable depths he did today when using Nelson Mandela’s name 20 times in one short speech to basically compare their lives as if they were in any way comparable - given that Mandela spent 27 years incarcerated in a 6ft-by-6ft prison cell before becoming South Africa’s first black president.Wanging on in that dreary humourless monotone voice about what a ‘painful’ year it’s been, Harry beseeched: ‘How many of us feel battered, helpless, in the face of a seemingly endless stream of disasters and devastation?’Then he paused and added for full dramatic effect: ‘I understand.’DO you, Your Royal Highness?I don’t think you have any understanding of what real suffering is, or what it really means to be a victim.You live in an $11 million mansion in California, from where you and your wife trash your families on TV, and ruthlessly exploit your royal titles – given to you by the institution you say is cruel and racist – for tens of millions of dollars.Invoking Mandela's prison description of hope as 'like a lifebelt is to a swimmer', the deluded Duke said: 'Let's be honest, how many of us are in danger of losing those lifebelts right now?’US?You have to laugh, as, I’m sure, would Nelson Mandela himself who I met in 2003 in London when there was another war raging (Iraq) and another killer virus wreaking havoc (HIV), and whose passion was only matched by his great sense of humour.And as did his grandson when I told him the recent semi-authorised book about the Sussexes was called Finding Freedom, and asked, my tongue firmly in cheek, if he saw any parallels between their journey and that of his grandfather whose autobiography was called Long Walk to Freedom.‘Of course not!’ Ndaba chuckled, incredulously.‘There are no parallels at all, Piers. Because one is obviously fighting for the dignity of black people against a vicious tyrant like apartheid, as opposed to one finding their identity outside of a said institution.'Obviously, they are very different things… obviously, they were two worlds apart. They cannot be compared on any level for sure.’No, they can’t, but that didn’t stop Harry trying very hard.‘We can find meaning and purpose in the struggle,’ he whimpered.‘We can wear our principles as armour.’What struggle? What principles?Harry talked of ‘a few weaponizing lies and disinformation at the expense of the many’ without any self-awareness about the devastating damage his and Meghan’s still-unsubstantiated racism and mental health tirades about the royals have done to the reputation of the Monarchy.And once again, he poked his unwanted nose into US politics, declaring: ‘From the horrific war in Ukraine to the rolling back of constitutional rights here in the United States, we are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom, the cause of Mandela's life.’Throughout his speech, Harry remained resolutely grim-faced.He said Mandela ‘almost always had a smile on his face.’Yet Harry never seems to smile much anymore.The once hugely popular party-loving prince has become a lost, tormented soul who genuinely seems to think he’s some kind of modern-day Nelson Mandela here to save the world.But when it comes to integrity, or surviving a genuine struggle, he’s not fit to sew one of Mandela’s brightly coloured shirts. | US Federal Policies |
Suspect in custody in Long Island’s Gilgo Beach serial killings, sources say
MASSAPEQUA PARK, N.Y. (WPIX) — A suspect in the decade-old Gilgo Beach serial killer case on Long Island, New York, was taken into custody Friday morning in Massapequa Park, a senior law enforcement source told WPIX.
The remains of at least 10 bodies were discovered in the underbrush along a 3-mile stretch of Ocean Parkway near Gilgo Beach between December 2010 and April 2011, sparking a long-standing investigation into the serial killer case. The earliest victims could date back to at least 1996.
The accused killer is a man in his 50s or 60s, the police source said. He will be transported to Riverhead Criminal Court, where an indictment will be unsealed later Friday. The suspect’s name was not immediately released.
On Dec. 11, 2010, Suffolk County police officer John Malia and his cadaver dog made a startling discovery in the brush off Ocean Parkway in Gilgo Beach, Long Island.
They found the skeletal remains of Melissa Barthelemy, an escort who had disappeared from the Bronx the year before. Her body was wrapped in burlap.
Two days later, the bodies of three more sex workers were found and the Long Island Serial Killer (LISK) investigation was born.
By April 2011, six more sets of remains were found along Ocean Parkway, in the Gilgo/Oak/Jones beaches area, roughly 35 miles east of Manhattan. Some of the remains were tied to female torsos discovered in Manorville — 40 miles to the east — in 2000 and 2003.
The Gilgo Beach investigation might never have happened if a search hadn’t been launched for Shannan Gilbert, a CraigsList escort who disappeared on May 1, 2010. Police were looking for Gilbert on that December night when they found Barthelemy instead.
Dominick Varrone, who was chief of detectives when the discoveries were made, and other investigators think a frantic Gilbert ran screaming from a john’s house on May 1, 2010, and ended up trapped in an Oak Beach marsh, where she succumbed to the elements. Her body wasn’t discovered until a year after the first Gilgo victims were found.
But Gilbert’s late mother and family attorney, John Ray, believed that Gilbert was being targeted by the serial killer when she started banging on doors in Oak Beach in the early hours of May 1, 2010.
“They’re trying to kill me,” she’s heard screaming in a 911 call that was never released publicly.
But retired Chief Varrone has said the circumstances surrounding Shannan Gilbert’s hire by a client in Oak Beach don’t match what happened with the other victims.
News of a suspect being taken into custody comes a day after state police found skeletal remains in a wooded area off the Southern State Parkway in Islip. It wasn’t immediately clear if those remains were linked to the Gilgo Beach case.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
In October 2016, a malware tool named Mirai took down some of the biggest sites and services on the web, including Netflix, Spotify, Twitter, PayPal, and Slack. The blackout affected most of the East Coast of the United States, and the size and scope of the outage alarmed the cybersecurity researchers and law enforcement agencies tasked with thwarting such attacks. The code that caused this meltdown was created by three individuals, all in their teens or early 20s. The trio had built a tool that took control of internet-connected smart home devices and used them—like a massive zombie army—to knock the internet’s most vital servers offline. Now, years later, Mirai’s three creators have told their story.This week, we talk to WIRED senior writer Andy Greenberg about Mirai’s creation, how the code did its damage, and how the three hackers were eventually caught.Show NotesRead Andy’s epic feature story titled “The Mirai Confessions: Three Young Hackers Who Built a Web-Killing Monster Finally Tell Their Story.” The story also graces the cover of the next issue of WIRED magazine.RecommendationsAndy recommends the book Your Face Belongs to Us by Kashmir Hill. Mike recommends getting a wreath for Christmas instead of chopping down a tree. Lauren recommends Okinawan sweet potato haupia pie bars.Andy Greenberg can be found on X as @a_greenberg and @agreenberg elsewhere. Lauren Goode is @LaurenGoode. Michael Calore is @snackfight. Bling the main hotline at @GadgetLab. The show is produced by Boone Ashworth (@booneashworth). Our theme music is by Solar Keys.How to ListenYou can always listen to this week's podcast through the audio player on this page, but if you want to subscribe for free to get every episode, here's how:If you're on an iPhone or iPad, open the app called Podcasts, or just tap this link. You can also download an app like Overcast or Pocket Casts, and search for Gadget Lab. If you use Android, you can find us in the Google Podcasts app just by tapping here. We’re on Spotify too. And in case you really need it, here's the RSS feed. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Judy Woodruff
Judy Woodruff
Frank Carlson
Frank Carlson
Leave your feedback
Judy Woodruff recently examined how the loss of thousands of local newspapers across the country is depriving communities of some of the glue that holds them together and fueling division. She now looks at how some news outlets are managing to hang on and whether what they’re doing is sustainable. It’s part of her series, America at a Crossroads.
Geoff Bennett:
In a recent report, Judy Woodruff examined how the loss of thousands of local newspapers across the country is depriving communities of some of the glue that holds them together.
Tonight, she looks at how some news outlets are managing to hang on, and whether what they're doing is sustainable. It's part of her ongoing series America at a Crossroads.
Judy Woodruff:
Just after dawn most Thursdays, Anne Adams takes to the winding mountain roads of Western Virginia, delivering a local newspaper, The Recorder, to small stores and coffee shops.
Anne Adams, Editor and Publisher, The Recorder: I will set one aside when I get back over to the office.
But Adams isn't just the delivery person. She is also the owner, editor and publisher of this paper that covers three counties, including two of the most sparsely populated in the state.
And like many local news editors, she's closely connected to the community.
Anne Adams:
Folks need to know what's going on. They need to know their neighbors. They need to know what what's happening, how their money is being spent.
The paper's Highland County office is nestled in the midst of the Allegheny Mountains in Monterey, Virginia, a small one-stoplight town of about 160 residents.
Adams says people in this tight-knit community not only suggest story ideas, but also hold her to account.
You can be shopping, and dropping the kids off at school, and they're like, we think you crossed the line there or not sure that was the right way to put it.
For much of the country's history, local newspapers played a key role in uniting communities, highlighting common challenges and events that tie people together, like high school sports and local political races.
We have always had a really good — got a grapevine gossip network here. But, well, we will dig into it and find out what's really going on, what's really happening and report that. And then it settles down.
Without a newspaper to do that, I just feel like folks would not have the right information. I think they would be less engaged, less apt to vote, less apt to care.
But that's become the reality for many Americans over the last two decades. About 2,500 local newspapers, a quarter of the total, have folded since 2005, according to Northwestern University's Medill School of Journalism.
In that same period, newspaper revenue has plunged from $50 billion to 20 billion. News organizations that have been able to survive are operating on razor-thin margins. One-fifth of U.S. residents now live in news deserts, where residents have very limited access to credible and comprehensive news and information.
So they did scrub a times past look-back, even in the '30s. And that's a feature that we still publish today.
That you still do today.
Yes.
Adams, who is only the 10th publisher of the paper, took over in 2007.
But look at these tiny little headlines. Graphic designers today would go crazy.
The Recorder has helped hold this community with its long, proud history together for 146 years. It's done so mainly by selling ads and subscriptions at a time when so many local newspapers across the country have collapsed.
But it may not be financially sustainable in the long run.
The cost of printing has gone up. The cost of paper has gone up. The cost of postage has gone up.
So, can you venture a guess, an educated guess as to how long you can keep this model going?
Well, as long as I'm alive and doing this. I mean, I always say, we're not going to kill it off on my watch. We will do whatever we have to do.
In 2017, Adams gambled and more than doubled the newsstand price from $2 to $5. And it was just five issues away from folding during the pandemic, when its readers stepped in with donations to keep the printing presses going.
All this has paid off, most visibly in The Recorder breaking the news in 2014 of the proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline, a 600-mile natural gas line that would have cut through three states and potentially had huge environmental impacts.
I remember everybody kept saying, why are you bothering? You can't fight a company like Dominion, especially not in Virginia.
We just kept hammering away at them. And we got the privilege of being the first to report when they shut the project down.
But many local newspapers lack the manpower to do that kind of reporting. Newsroom employment has been slashed by 60 percent since 2005, turning many small publications into ghost newspapers.
In Jackson, Mississippi, staff at The Clarion-Ledger, owned by the Gannett chain, has suffered repeated rounds of cuts in the last 15 years.
Mary Margaret White, CEO, Mississippi Today:
And there really was just a lack of Statehouse reporting.
Mary Margaret White is the CEO of Mississippi Today, a nonprofit digital news source launched in 2016 that's run by donations and grants.
Mary Margaret White:
Some big issues were coming through the legislature, and there was no one there to cover them. And that was really the early days of Mississippi Today.
It's become an exemplar of now rapid growth in these alternative news outlets.
In early days, making a case for journalism as philanthropy was really a long and hard conversation. It was just so new to so many people that you would give philanthropically to the press, to media.
And now six, seven years later, people are really beginning to understand the value of journalism to our democracy, the value of it to local communities, and that it is a worthwhile cause to support.
Last year, I'm so proud, we brought in more than $400,000.
My gosh. Wow.
And that's from everyday people.
Mississippi Today publishes the names of its donors online, and is partially funded by a venture philanthropy, the American Journalism Project based in Washington, D.C.
Sarabeth Berman, CEO, American Journalism Project:
We think we're at the front end of building a new generation of news organizations.
The project was established four years ago, and now helps support 41 newsrooms across the country.
Sarabeth Berman is the CEO.
Sarabeth Berman:
We have seen over the last several years new digital nonprofit news organizations that are really fundamentally reimagining how we finance local news.
We used to use advertising to finance local news. That has largely disappeared. About 80 percent of advertising revenue has disappeared in the last two decades. And these organizations are really thinking of their financial structure in the same way we think of other organizations that are really essential to our communities, like libraries and museums and other institutions that stitch us together.
Man:
If you're trying to register to vote, can't do it.
Mississippi Today's reporters cover policy and politics, which are livelier than usual in this, a statewide election year.
Because I want to see our election system change in our state.
Last month, we caught up with their small team of reporters covering the candidates at the Neshoba County Fair.
And we spoke with residents who say they have grown to rely on Mississippi Today's digital-only platform.
Will Simmons, Mississippi Resident:
And I don't agree with everything they write, but it is — I mean, a lot of it is — it seems like they're — it's just pretty straight facts, a lot of what they do.
Now one of the largest newsrooms in the state, Mississippi Today won a Pulitzer Prize earlier this year.
Reporter Anna Wolfe's investigation "The Backchannel" exposed the state's diversion of millions of federal welfare dollars intended to help some of the poorest people in the country instead directed to political supporters, such as former football star Brett Favre to build a volleyball stadium at his alma mater.
Anna Wolfe, Mississippi Today:
I think I'm probably on that story up to at least 100 public records requests.
Wolfe estimated she worked on the story on and off for five years.
Anna Wolfe:
So you think about the time that it takes to draft those and see them through the process of actually being able to get your hands on those records, and people might not realize how long it takes, and then might not realize the investment that is required to do that kind of work.
At times, the news outlet's reporting has angered Republican leadership.
Just last month, former Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant sued the news outlet, charging its employees defamed him in public comments. The lawsuit does not appear to challenge the veracity of the reporting. While Mississippi Today has focused heavily on state House and investigative reporting, Sarabeth Berman acknowledges that new nonprofit newsrooms also need to build up trust in their communities.
Mississippi Today, last year during the Jackson water crisis, was out there providing people with just the basic tools that they need to be able to navigate this crisis, information about how to get water and what to do if you if you don't have access to good water.
And by providing people with that kind of information, you begin to build trust with them that you are there and you're on their side.
Well, the nonprofit model is showing promise in urban settings, economic realities persist for small local newspapers that still depend on subscriptions and advertising, like The Recorder in Virginia.
Penny Abernathy, Northwestern University:
The traditional news model has just vanished.
Northwestern University's Penny Abernathy has done extensive research on local journalism. She posits that more than 90 percent of all news organizations are still commercially based and news organizations benefiting from nonprofit dollars are geographically uneven.
Penny Abernathy:
It leaves smaller communities kind of at a loss as to how do you go about getting that initial ignition that brings people together and helps them understand that they can do this, that they can raise that money to support local news operations.
She says one solution might be using public dollars to help local newsrooms survive, subsidies for hiring reporters and for local businesses that advertise in the local paper.
There just isn't sufficient subscriber revenue to pay the bills. And, of course, there's not sufficient philanthropic dollars to lift them up over the profit margin.
The challenges ahead are great, and the stakes are very high.
Increasingly, I'm worried that we're evolving into a nation of journalistic haves and have-nots. That has huge implications for not only our democracy, but for our society.
How do we come together around a common set of facts to solve the issues that are confronting us in the 21st century?
For the "PBS NewsHour," I'm Judy Woodruff in Jackson, Mississippi, and Monterey, Virginia.
Watch the Full Episode
Judy Woodruff is a senior correspondent and the former anchor and managing editor of the PBS NewsHour. She has covered politics and other news for five decades at NBC, CNN and PBS.
Support Provided By:
Learn more | US Local Policies |
- GOP lawmakers filed briefs at the Supreme Court, asking the justices to block Biden's historic student loan forgiveness plan.
- More than half of House Republicans, or 128 congressmembers, and 40 GOP senators, among them Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, oppose the debt relief policy.
- The Biden administration insists that it's acting within the law.
Dozens of Republican members of Congress have filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan should be ruled unlawful.
"Congress authorized the forgiveness of federal student loan debt only in specific, narrow circumstances," argued the brief filed by more than 40 GOP senators, among them Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "This is not one of them."
The Republican senators wrote that the plan threatens "to deprive the Nation of nearly half a trillion dollars, and offend the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution."
More from Personal Finance:
64% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck
What is a 'rolling recession' and how does it impact you?
Almost half of Americans think we're already in a recession
More than half of House Republicans, or 128 congressmembers, also filed a brief with the country's highest court, making a similar argument. They say that "petitioners' assertion of power to forgive every
federal student loan in the country, potentially even a decade after the Covid-19 pandemic ends, raises significant separation of powers concerns."
The briefs were filed this month, as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments, scheduled for Feb. 28, on the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan.
In response to request for comment, a Biden administration official said that "the only thing notable about this brief is that, if these Republican lawmakers get their way, millions of their own constituents will be denied debt relief."
Looking at the briefs filed with the Supreme Court so far over President Joe Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for tens of millions of Americans, it's clear that this is a highly partisan issue, said higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
"The opposition to the president's plan is almost entirely Republican," Kantrowitz said.
GOP-led states and conservative groups have brought at least six lawsuits against the sweeping loan forgiveness policy, and the Supreme Court has agreed to take two of those cases. For now, the legal troubles have stopped the Biden administration from starting to cancel any student debt, though it had planned to start doing so within months of its August announcement.
The Biden administration has insisted that it's acting within the law, pointing out that the Heroes Act of 2003 grants the U.S. education secretary the authority to make changes to the federal student loan system during national emergencies. The nation has been operating under an emergency declaration since March 2020 because of the Covid pandemic.
The law is a product of the 9/11 terrorist attacks more than two decades ago, and an earlier version of it had provided relief to federal student loan borrowers who'd been impacted by those events.
The Republican senators, in their brief, counter that that law "permits only modest measures to prevent certain individuals from losing ground on their loans due to hardships induced by a war or national emergency."
However, the Biden administration argues that the pandemic financially set back federal student loan borrowers, many of whom were struggling even before the public health crisis began.
Only about half of borrowers were in repayment in 2019, according to an estimate by Kantrowitz. A quarter — or more than 10 million people — were in delinquency or default, and the rest had applied for temporary relief measures, such as deferments or forbearances, for struggling borrowers.
U.S. Department of Education Undersecretary James Kvaal said in a recent court filing that if the government isn't allowed to provide debt relief for federal student loan borrowers, there could be a "historically large increase in the amount of federal student loan delinquency and defaults as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic." | SCOTUS |
In early October, Beverly Sharp addressed a table of poll workers, elections officials and activists gathered in rural Adams Township, Michigan, with a prayer.
“Father, we thank you for this opportunity to meet together to discuss things, and to agree if we agree, and if we disagree, [to be] friendly,” said the longtime poll worker.
It was a plea lodged in earnest ahead of an unprecedented election year.
Hillsdale county – where Adams is located – has been roiled by election conspiracy theories since the 2020 election, and officials say a growing rightwing movement is now stoking fears of political violence ahead of the 2024 election.
Across the county, where 73% of voters supported Donald Trump in 2020, questions of election denialism and far-right politics have split the community. A faction of the Hillsdale county GOP, dubbed the “America First Republicans”, split off from more traditional conservatives following the January 6 Capitol riot, when Trump and his allies tried to overturn his election loss.
In October, the group appointed a new chair: David Stone, the former leader of the Michigan-based Christian Hutaree Militia.
“The [election] next year will be really bad,” said Adams Township clerk Suzy Roberts, who is tasked with running the town’s elections.
Roberts took office in May, ousting a conspiracy theory-touting clerk in a recall election that also removed a far-right supervisor from the township board in hopes of bringing stability to the politically fractious community following a series of alarming incidents.
A former member of America First Republicans told the Guardian in April that she had faced slurs, harassment, and threats after she left the group – prompting her to file a police report.
Sharp, who is 93 and campaigned for the May recall, described a harrowing encounter at a township meeting with a member of the America First Republicans in 2020. “He shouted, ‘You stupid F-ing women,’” said Sharp, and followed her and another longtime poll worker “all the way out into the parking lot”.
The chair of the far-right group, Stone, said he opposed harassment and was unaware of threatening behavior by members. When asked about his past involvement with the Hutaree Militia – and community members concerned about militia activity in general – Stone pointed to his acquittal in a federal sedition case in 2012.
“Anybody who’s got a problem with Hutaree Militia, why don’t you sit down and look and see what an acquittal means,” said Stone. “We’re 11 years past that, and people are still trying to drag this out.” The case followed an FBI sting which the prosecution claimed had found evidence the Hutaree were planning an armed revolt. Citing insufficient evidence of a concrete plan, a federal judge dismissed the sedition and conspiracy charges, leaving Stone with a weapons violation.
The threat to elections in Hillsdale county is now twofold. While tensions in the community devolved into open hostility following the last presidential election, the infrastructure for elections administration has also been crumbling for years.
Stephanie Scott, the election clerk who Roberts was elected to replace, spent much of her time in office casting doubts on the results of the 2020 election. She was stripped of her right to administer elections by Michigan’s secretary of state after she refused to submit voting machines for routine maintenance.
Scott’s actions in office earned her national attention and support from conspiracy theorists like former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne, who was part of Trump’s inner circle and peddled the president’s false claims about the 2020 election. Scott’s attorney, Stefanie Lambert, faces charges in connection with an alleged effort by Trump allies to illegally access voting machines in 2020.
Voters in the conservative town – many of whom themselves questioned the 2020 election results – became exasperated with the divisive politics on the township board, and voted by 406-214 to oust Scott in May. In the same election they also removed township supervisor Mark Nichols, who supported Scott’s actions, and replaced him with township supervisor Randy Johnson. (Scott did not agree to an interview and did not answer questions for this story.)
Since Roberts took over, things have gotten better.
“We have a clerk that we can work with now,” said Abe Dane, the Hillsdale county chief deputy clerk whose office was temporarily tasked with running Adams Township elections after the state stripped Scott of her duties. “From that standpoint, it’s been a great improvement.”
But the transition has its own challenges. Roberts is rushing to learn and implement new statewide elections policies ahead of 2024 while continuing to push back against false conspiracy theories. Videos have circulated on a local YouTube channel, alleging fraudsters in state government are sabotaging elections, while voting machines communicate with foreign countries on the internet.
To run local elections, new clerks must learn to work with Michigan’s voter rolls and become fluent in policies governing voter registration, overseas voters, and absentee voting. On top of that, Michigan recently passed a constitutional amendment creating an early voting period and allowing people to permanently vote absentee – a move that will expand voting access but has administrators scrambling to implement the new rules.
To make matters more complicated, Roberts said that parts of her office’s budget were in disarray when she came onboard. At a 9 October township meeting, Roberts alleged Scott was responsible for the “mess,” saying: “It has caused a lot of turmoil.” (Scott denied that the issues came from her tenure as clerk).
Even basic logistical questions such as how to run early voting have become the source of controversy and misinformation, officials said.
The Adams Township board agreed to have local voters cast their early ballots at a single county-wide location shared with other towns rather than open up a separate voting location to limit extra work. But Scott loudly objected in a speech that a local rightwing group posted to YouTube, claiming the measure would compromise the security of elections.
“You guys just sold out Adams Township,” she said.
Scott has continued to attend township meetings, and she and her allies have decried “centralized elections”, invoking a conspiracy theory that state officials want to have fewer elections hubs so they can more easily rig the elections and accusing local officials of aiding that scheme.
And those meetings have continued to be fraught.
Gail McClanahan, who organized the recall campaign, said she was confronted by a handful of rightwing activists after a recent township board meeting. As she tried to leave, McClanahan said the group blocked her path threateningly. “They all four stood there, and I had to go out around,” said McClanahan, adding that they were “mouthing off” at her.
McClanahan’s experience prompted Johnson, the new town supervisor, to warn attendees at the next township meeting to stay civil.
“I would like to bring up a topic that really should never even have to be spoken,” he said in early October. “This is a public meeting. You should be able to come here, and be able to just listen to what’s said, voice your opinion, and when you leave that door you should be able to go home in peace.”
While new policies are a hassle for elections officials and poll worker, the specter of violence is what keeps them up at night.
Roberts said that currently the only safety net for her and the female poll workers she’s responsible for is if their husbands show up. She’s hoping the township will make more concrete security arrangements ahead of the 2024 elections.
Until then, some officials are taking matters into their own hands.
Dane, the Hillsdale county chief deputy clerk, has already developed an ad-hoc system for safety. He keeps a video call with law enforcement open throughout the day and carries an 800 megahertz radio while visiting municipal polling places in case he needs to immediately reach the police while in the field. And he’s sent along an emergency response document to the precincts for local poll workers.
But the emergency protocols cover things like “inclement weather and power outages”, said Dane – nothing for if people “come in and unplug tabulators or threaten poll workers”.
In May, Johnson told the Guardian he had received an anonymous call from someone who called him “dirty words” and told him he knew where he lived. Since then, Johnson’s wife Kitty says, they regularly receive threats. She didn’t want to get into detail, but called them “weird, crazy, scary calls”.
“I said, ‘Randy, you know, you’re out of town a lot, and I’m getting a little bit worried about being here alone,’” she said. The couple installed a fortified fence around their property. | US Political Corruption |
There was chatter among Congressional reporters about wandering over to The Monocle for a drink last Wednesday night. The Monocle is an old-school Capitol Hill watering hole located next to U.S. Capitol Police Headquarters and across the parking lot from the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Senators sometimes hang out there while they wait for the body to get its business together for late night votes.
It was pushing 9 p.m. last Wednesday and the Senate was mired in a vote which began at 2:26 p.m. Senators struggled to work out a deal to finish up its work before Thanksgiving. The only reason reporters still lingered at the Capitol at that hour was because the Senate was slated to vote later to align with the House and avert a government shutdown. There would have been drama surrounding a potential government funding cliff just a few days earlier. But not now. The question was not if the Senate would pass the stopgap spending package – but when. And since there wasn’t an agreement over a pending defense policy bill, the Senate forestalled closing the roll call vote until everything was settled.
That’s when word came from the Capitol Police that all the office buildings on the House side of the Congressional complex were locked down. No one could come or go.
A massive, pro-Palestinian demonstration descended on the Democratic National Committee Headquarters just steps from the House office buildings. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., Minority Whip Kathleen Clark, D-Mass., Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., and other Democratic members were at the DNC for an event. Democrats huddled throughout the day at the DNC with campaign operatives and Democratic candidates ahead of the 2024 election cycle.
The protesters encircled the building, demanding a Middle East ceasefire, blocking anyone from entering or leaving the DNC.
The Capitol Police moved in.
Jeffries and Clark have USCP security details due to their leadership positions. The protesters fired tear gas at the Capitol Police. The USCP then began clearing the way to evacuate members from the crowd. USCP arrested one man for assaulting officers.
The protesters injured a total of six officers.
"Last night’s group was not peaceful," said the USCP in a statement the next day. "When demonstrations cross the line into illegal activity, it is our responsibility to maintain order."
Democrats holed up in the DNC and let loose on the protesters.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., who is Jewish, characterized them as "pro-Hamas" and "pro-terrorist." He added that demonstrators "want Republicans" to win in 2024.
Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., is also Jewish and was trapped in the DNC as well.
"When you engage in tactics that are intimidating and certainly blocking access or exit from a building, I think that crosses a line," said Wasserman Schultz. "It was a very troubling, disturbing situation."
"We were rescued by armed officers who did not know the protesters intent," said Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., on Twitter.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., tweeted that she was stuck in her office in the Longworth House Office Building with her newborn baby during the raucous demonstration.
Democrats have a problem.
There is a tear in their party over the Middle East. Progressive, left-wing activists – fueled by college campus outrage – are fracturing the party over calls for a ceasefire and Israel’s assertion to defend itself. That’s to say nothing of controversial comments by Squad members like Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., for a ceasefire and criticism of pro-Israeli groups like AIPAC (the American Israel Political Action Committee).
"I don’t think the Democratic Socialists of America, the Justice Democrats, et cetera, are part of the Democratic coalition," said Rep. Brad Schneider, D-Ill.
Schneider has long aligned with AIPAC. He voted to sanction Tlaib on the House floor for pushing the trope "from the river to the sea," which calls for the elimination of Israel.
"What we need is people of good conscience and moral clarity to stand united and say Israel was attacked by a terrorist organization seeking to destroy the country," said Schneider.
AIPAC is now prepared to run candidates against Democrats who oppose its goals.
Progressive groups warned Jeffries last week that he and Democratic Congressional Committee Chairwoman (DCCC) and Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., need to keep AIPAC out of Democratic primaries.
Republicans have plenty of schisms on their side – between "Reagan" Republicans, the MAGA crowd, the Freedom Caucus and those who just want to lay a blowtorch to everything. That is radioactive. But the political, radioisotopes over the Middle East cauterize like no other issues.
That’s why some on the left now refer to President Biden as "Genocide Joe."
The New York chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America faced criticism after it included a watermelon on a flyer pushing for a protest of Jeffries. Jeffries is Black. Racists have long used a watermelon to emphasize anti-Black views. The watermelon is also an icon of Palestinians who view Israel as occupiers.
A reporter asked Jeffries last week about the accusation by Rep. Summer Lee, D-Penn., that he shared the stage with Pastor John Hageee at a pro-Israel rally on the National Mall. Lee termed Hagee "an antisemitic bigot," adding "this must be condemned."
Jeffries replied that he appeared on stage at the rally alongside House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa.
"I have no idea what she’s talking about," responded Jeffries to Lee’s accusation.
Republicans might not face the same internecine sniping as Democrats over the Middle East conflict. The GOP is more unified when it comes to standing behind Israel and approving legislation to assist the Jewish state financially and militarily. But there are Republicans who are tired of U.S. involvement in "foreign wars" and the spending which accompanies that. Look no further than the GOP divide over Ukraine. A potential Republican split hasn’t materialized yet over Israel. But it’s something to watch.
Democrats like Rep. Dan Goldman, D-N.Y., and Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., are now the victims of anti-Israel graffiti and vandalism at their district and state offices.
The rift over the Middle East is more pronounced on the Democratic side as evidenced by the protest at the DNC last week. Republicans certainly have their own special level of chaos after the Speaker debacle and struggles to pass their own spending bills.
But nothing is as volatile as the Middle East. It poses a special level of political problems for the Democratic Party.
That’s why the lockdown of the House office buildings and the tense protest outside the DNC last week was so important. It’s liberals attacking liberals. There’s division among Democratic members as mentioned earlier with the Squad and others. Democrats will struggle to highlight internal Republican dissent over government funding and even threats of violence between lawmakers when members of their own party are clashing over something as flammable as the Middle East. | US Political Corruption |
Donald Trump is at risk of being jailed if he continues to share "incendiary" attacks on social media, according to former White House lawyer Ty Cobb.
The former president has frequently been criticized for his online rhetoric and public statements, and was imposed with gag orders by judges overseeing his civil fraud trial in New York and the federal case into his alleged criminal attempt to overturn the 2020 election results.
Recently, Trump shared a Truth Social post from another user discussing a "fantasy" scenario where Judge Arthur Engoron and New York Attorney General Letitia James, who are both involved in the $250 million civil fraud trial in New York, are placed under citizen's arrest for "blatant election interference and harassment."
Trump, the front-runner in the 2024 GOP presidential primary, has denied all wrongdoing in connection to the fraud civil trial, and accused the case of being a politically motivated "witch hunt" which aims to hinder his chances of winning the next election.
Engoron, who is overseeing the civil fraud trial brought on by James' lawsuit, has already fined Trump on two occasions for violating a gag order preventing him from attacking court staff during proceedings. Trump is free to attack the judge and the case against him under the order.
Reacting to the citizen's arrest post, Ty Cobb, a former White House in the Trump administration, told CNN that they are the "types of incendiary attacks that do lead to violence" which Trump may be punished for.
"He's specifically asked people to conduct a citizen's arrest. Detention of either James or Engoron would be a crime if committed by any individual who was so motivated by the president's remarks. It's much like what he did on January 6, he continues to be off the rails in terms of the extent to which his invective infects these proceedings and is the potential in them to intimidate witnesses," Cobb said.
"Comments like this will result in Trump not only being sanctioned, which will probably be the first order of business, but at some point, these types of comments will result in him being put in jail pending some of these trials."
Newsweek reached out to Trump's legal team via email for comment.
On October 20, Engoron fined Trump $5,000 for violating the gag order by not removing a Truth Social post from his site which attacked Engoron's longtime law clerk Allison Greenfield more than two weeks after the judge ordered its deletion. Engoron warned at the time that any further transgressions could bring "far more severe" sanctions against the former president, including "possibly imprisoning him."
Trump was later fined a further $10,000 after he described Greenfield as a "very partisan" individual to reporters outside the New York courtroom. "Don't do it again or it will be worse," Engoron warned Trump on October 25.
It remains to be seen if the judge will take the unprecedented step of jailing a former president who is currently taking part in another White House campaign.
Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said that Trump sharing the citizen's arrest post was "incredibly reckless" and could have real life consequences.
"Someone could take violent action in response," McQuade told Newsweek.
McQuade added that the post may prompt Engoron to expand the gag order imposed against the former president.
Engoron has already widened his gag order to include the former president's lawyer to stop them discussing "confidential communications" between the judge and his staff during the civil trial.
Palm Beach State Attorney Dave Aronberg suggested that it is unlikely that Trump will face any major punishment if he violates Engoron's gag order unless it is expanded.
"Trump continues his barrage of attacks against judges and lawyers, but the gag order in New York doesn't go beyond court staff, so I don't expect any sanctions for this until that changes," Aronberg told Newsweek.
"If any other defendant did this, they would face real punishment. As a former president running for the White House again, Trump has been given extra deference for his inflammatory words."
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 Political Corruption |
As gerrymandered legislatures have resulted in supermajorities across several states, all but eliminating the power of the minority party, ballot measures have become an increasingly common method for voters to exert their influence. But a new report indicates that some state governments are actively seeking to undermine the ballot initiative process in an effort to prevent certain measures from making it onto the ballot for voters to work their will.
An analysis released by the Fairness Project, an advocacy group that supports progressive citizen-sponsored ballot measures, argues that “direct democracy is facing a coordinated attack from extremist politicians who are either unresponsive to or intent on silencing the voices of their constituents.” The report, which was first obtained by The New Republic, finds that several Republican-led states have attempted over the past decade to limit initiatives through methods such as increasing the threshold to pass a measure and implementing stringent signature requirements.
“The breadth of these attacks is overwhelming,” said Kelly Hall, the executive director of the Fairness Project. “In the same way that we’re seeing broad attacks across states on voting rights generally and how people access the ballot box, we are also seeing a broad set of attacks on what people get to vote on once they make it to the ballot box.”
The efforts to stymie citizen-led ballot measures were the result of a multistep process, argued Hall. She cited increased polarization in state legislatures resulting in gerrymandered districts, as well as the success of recent ballot measures in red states on issues such as Medicaid expansion, raising the minimum wage, and marijuana access. (After Missouri legalized recreational marijuana via ballot measure, the state Senate majority leader said its success “maybe indicates it’s a little too easy to get things through initiative petition.”) Hall continued that the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the fact that the “abortion rights position won everywhere [it was] on the ballot” in 2022 are “accelerating this trend.”
The report particularly highlights an upcoming vote in Ohio on a measure that would increase the threshold for adding an amendment to the state constitution to 60 percent. As I’ve previously reported, that vote will occur next month, despite a move by the state legislature last year to all but eliminate August special elections, with the oblique purpose of preventing the passage of an amendment that would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution.
A recent poll by USA Today/Suffolk University found that 58 percent of Ohioans would support an amendment to protect abortion rights and other reproductive services. If the threshold for passing an amendment were raised to 60 percent, it would make it that much more likely that such an amendment would fail.
But Ohio is not the only state using such tactics to hinder citizens’ ability to sponsor initiatives, according to the Fairness Project report. In addition to the Buckeye State, states such as North Dakota, Missouri, Arkansas, Arizona, and Florida “have either passed, attempted to pass, or are currently working to pass” measures increasing the threshold to pass ballot initiatives. (The report identifies Idaho, Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, and Florida as “key battlegrounds for ballot measure access.”)
Onerous signature collection requirements are another hurdle, with several states seeking to “increase either the number of counties from which a campaign must collect signatures, the number of congressional districts … or the percent of the population within a county/congressional district from which a campaign must collect signatures.” Then there are the requirements for petition circulators: According to the report, 18 states require circulators to swear under oath they witnessed the collection of every signature.
South Dakota places particular onus on petition circulators, who must verify each petition sheet in the presence of a notary, as well as undergo a special registration process and wear a specific ID while collecting signatures. Signatures must also be collected on a single page in 14-point font, creating a so-called “beach towel effect,” which describes how the ballot measure petitions themselves can become several feet wide and long once unfolded. (South Dakotans voted down a measure to increase the threshold to 60 percent last year.) The compounding of requirements leads to what Hall considers to be a “death by a thousand cuts” effect on getting measures on the ballot.
“You can figure out how to fold up a beach-towel-sized piece of paper and overcome it. But then also managing that with the notary, also managing that with registering each of these volunteers with the state—one thing on top of the other is what then ultimately makes it such a problem,” Hall said.
The Fairness Project report also highlights “attempted post-passage sabotage” in order to “slow-roll or block” the implementation of ballot measures. For example, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and the Republican legislature undermined a citizen-passed initiative that allowed most people with prior felony convictions to vote by requiring that these people pay off all fines and fees before that right is restored. In Mississippi, the state Supreme Court struck down a ballot measure legalizing medical marijuana on a technicality and then delegated the responsibility to reset the petition process to the state legislature, which has thus far not taken any action.
Even seemingly minor technical changes could undermine the citizen initiative process, the report argues. For example, 17 states now have a “single-subject” rule requiring a ballot measure to pertain to one topic, which the Fairness Project contends “enables judges to decide what constitutes a ‘subject,’ leading to partisan judicial decisions.” Such a requirement has been passed in Arizona and South Dakota and is under consideration in North Dakota.
Citizen-led ballot measures are not foolproof methods for enacting the will of the people; for example, California’s notoriously powerful initiative process has occasionally led to the consideration of dueling measures, amendments with confusing wording, and an influx of campaign spending. But such measures allow for direct democracy in states dominated by one-party rule. The lawmakers elected to supermajorities by their constituents could thus dilute the political power of their own supporters.
Moreover, measures that raise the thresholds for public participation permit a minority of voters to dictate policy for the rest of the state—for example, 41 percent of Ohioans could potentially determine that abortion should not be a state constitutional right over the wishes of a broader majority of citizens. If the mechanics of direct democracy are undermined, it could make it more difficult for the will of the people to be heard and enacted.
“Lawmakers, particularly in conservative states, are realizing that their own voters are not with them, [and] that if they don’t change the rules of the game, they won’t win,” argued Hall. “Lawmakers should be trying to act in accordance with the views of their constituents and the folks who sent them to office, and instead they are trying to quiet those voices.” | US Local Policies |
Senate Republicans are demanding answers from the Justice Department amid revelations that the agency "engaged in a campaign of covert surveillance" of congressional staffers, calling the move "a true attack on our democracy."
Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa; Ted Cruz of Texas; and Mike Lee of Utah penned a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland after a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Empower Oversight revealed that the Department of Justice had subpoenaed a Senate staffer's private phone and email logs as both House and Senate lawmakers investigated the origins of the Trump-Russia probe during the Trump administration.
"We write to express deep concern regarding recent revelations that the Department of Justice engaged in a campaign of covert surveillance of the personal communications of attorneys advising congressional oversight committees," they wrote. "The decision by unelected government bureaucrats to investigate the elected congressional representatives and congressional staff trying to hold them accountable is a true attack on our democracy."
The FOIA request revealed that the Department of Justice had subpoenaed Google for all telephone connection records and text message logs for the chief investigative counsel to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jason Foster. At the time, Grassley was the chairman of the panel and was investigating DOJ misconduct.
The senators also pointed out that further records indicated that the personal records of a House staffer working on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence were additionally "targeted as part of this vendetta campaign."
"Notably, in January 2018, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein threatened to subpoena HSPCI staff personal records during a confrontation over the Justice Department’s failure to comply with the committee’s compulsory process," they wrote. "But even so, the targets of the Department and FBI were not limited to Republican staffers."
The senators noted that Democrats in Congress have also called for investigations into the targeting of their private communications.
The senators said that Empower Oversight had submitted a FOIA request for all relevant documents, including grand-jury subpoenas, communications between various offices and correspondence with the press, but stressed that "additional measures must be taken to ensure openness and accountability."
"Notwithstanding the investigation by the Department’s Inspector General, Congress is entitled to conduct its own parallel review of this important matter," they wrote.
Grassley, Cruz and Lee are demanding the DOJ provide all names of all DOJ officials who "drafted, supervised, or approved the issuance of the grand jury subpoenas in question or otherwise related to the consolidated leaks case."
They also requested the names of all people employed in both the Senate and House who received subpoenas, and the names of all people in the Senate and House for which subpoenas were sought.
The senators requested the "specific predicate, criteria or evidence that justified" the DOJ seeking those grand jury subpoenas for personal records belonging to members of Congress and their staffers and families.
Grassley, Cruz and Lee are also demanding information on "all other means" the DOJ used to search for information, including specific databases and use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
They also are seeking information regarding former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein’s involvement in the approval or issuance of the subpoenas, or information to prove that they were executed "without his knowledge or consent."
The senators requested that the DOJ identify all organizations subpoenaed, such as Google, Verizon, Apple AT&T and others, as part of the leaks case for information on members of Congress, their staffers and their families.
"This extensive and far-reaching effort to use grand jury subpoenas and perhaps other means to gather the personal communications records of congressional staffers and their families with little or no legitimate predicate is absolutely unacceptable," they wrote. "The executive branch overreach and gross violation of separation of powers apparent in this case no doubt shocks the conscience and shakes public confidence in our justice system to its core."
They added: "The public deserves answers."
The senators gave the Department of Justice a deadline of November 22 to respond.
The DOJ did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment. | US Political Corruption |
The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump’s classified documents case on Friday denied the former president’s request to delay the trial.
U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, seemed poised last week to hand Trump a massive win when she indicated she might delay proceedings. But Friday’s ruling means that the trial will kick off on May 20 as initially determined.
Trump initially tried to delay the trial until after the 2024 election, in part due to the many other legal cases he is facing. In her order Friday, Cannon wrote that Trump’s request to delay the trial is “premature.”
Trump was charged in Florida with keeping national defense secrets, making false statements, and conspiracy to obstruct justice, among other things, for hoarding classified materials at Mar-a-Lago. His body man Walt Nauta and a Mar-a-Lago employee Carlos De Oliveira have also been charged. All three men are accused of trying to destroy evidence, including attempting to delete security footage off a server.
Cannon received nationwide scrutiny at the start of the investigation into Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. Following the FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago, and upset with how things were going, Trump filed a made-up motion titled a “Motion for Judicial Oversight and Additional Relief.”
Cannon agreed to hear the motion, despite having no jurisdiction to do so, and ultimately assigned a “special master” to review all of the material the FBI found at Mar-a-Lago before the investigation could proceed—a victory for Team Trump.
The Justice Department appealed the decision, and the Eleventh Circuit Court ultimately ruled that neither Cannon nor Trump had had any legal right for their actions. The appeals court threw Cannon’s decision out entirely.
This story has been updated. | US Federal Policies |
Americans with family overseas who hope to visit the United States may soon face an increased risk of being surveilled by their own government.
Support in Congress is growing for intensified vetting procedures at the US border, which would see immigrants and foreign visitors subjected to the same levels of scrutiny as suspected terrorists and spies. A bill introduced last week by members of the Senate Intelligence Committee (SSCI) and forthcoming legislation from its House counterpart both aim to expand the use of a key foreign intelligence program—Section 702—for screening and vetting visitors to the US.
The House bill, which has yet to be introduced, would additionally target asylum seekers and those applying for nonimmigrant visas and green cards, according to a memo released by the House Intelligence Committee (HPSCI) last month.
In an interview with CBS on Sunday, US Representative Mike Turner, Republican from Ohio and HPSCI chair, said he had gained the support of his Democratic counterpart, Jim Himes, in advancing legislation that would include the enhanced vetting procedures.
The 702 program allows the government to force US companies to wiretap the communications of foreigners who are presumed to be overseas—even when they’re communicating with people inside the US. Billions of calls, texts, and emails are intercepted under the program and committed to a searchable database accessible by four US intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).
A warrant is not required to conduct searches of the database, and its targets need not be suspected threats to the country. While ostensibly for defense, the 702 program selects targets based on whether they’re expected to possess or receive “foreign intelligence information.” In May, the US State Department said the program was “essential to advancing and promoting US interests around the world,” citing its value as a diplomatic tool.
In a declassified report released this year, a presidential oversight board said the calls and messages of Americans intercepted under Section 702 are “highly personal and sensitive,” detailing exchanges between “loved ones, friends, medical providers, academic advisors, lawyers, or religious leaders.” These communications, according to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board (PCLOB), a federal civil liberties watchdog, may provide “great insight into an individual’s whereabouts, both in a given moment and in patterns over time.”
Public knowledge of this surveillance, the board concluded, “can have a chilling effect on speech.”
The 702 program is slated to expire on January 1, 2024. Lawmakers in the House and Senate are rushing to find a solution that would enable the program to continue despite growing mistrust from lawmakers and the public following years of unauthorized use. Abuses of 702 data have included the targeting of racial justice protesters, political activists, and immigrants. Other misused searches of the database for information related to a sitting US congressperson, a US senator, and members of a local political party. | US Federal Policies |
Have you been watching America’s messiest reality show? The latest episodes have featured backstabbing, power struggles, post-divorce histrionics, salacious gossip, cattiness, and bitchy, self-righteous to-camera monologues. No, I’m not talking about the new season of The Real Housewives of New York. I’m talking about Congress.
In the words of an erstwhile Hill denizen, “Congress has always been a little stupid.”
There was a 2001 congressional hearing where a Louisiana Republican alleged that Popeye cartoons incited his son to violence.
Or the time that then-House Speaker (and future convicted child molester) Dennis Hastert delivered a press conference—in front of a graveyard—where he defended his mishandling of allegations of sexual misconduct between then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-MA) and congressional pages.
There have been cane fights and brawls, like the 1858 all-out melee over a proposed pro-slavery constitution for the prospective state of Kansas, which involved two anti-slavery Republicans from Wisconsin ripping the hairpiece off of a pro-slavery Democrat from Mississippi.
I don’t think everybody in Congress should be friends with each other, or even act like they like each other. As a voter, I want my representatives to express themselves in a way that is straightforward, honest, and even, if the situation calls for it, a little bit unkind.
But it’s one thing to dispense with the DiFi-embracing-Lindsay Graham civility that makes elected officials seem offensively removed from the consequences of their actions. It’s another when members of Congress act like they lack the capacity for emotional regulation. Like fucking children.
Never in memory has Congress seemed quite this stupid or this childish. Even as the average age of a member of the lower chamber has hovered around 58 years old, sophomoric and emotionally immature behavior from members of Congress continues to blow past precedent. And it’s much more noticeable from one side of the aisle.
The most recent and obvious example is the ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Eight members of the House Republican caucus, angry that McCarthy worked with Democrats to pass a continuing budget resolution to keep the government open until mid-November, relied on the support of Democrats to oust McCarthy.
Bitchy, if not a little hypocritical.
The runup to the fateful vacancy vote was characterized by shouty Republican infighting worthy of a rowdy primary school cafeteria. If there had been meatloaf present, I have a feeling Jim Jordan would have gotten some stuck on his forehead and not noticed for several hours.
That rigamarole was initiated by Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who has never liked McCarthy on account of the fact that McCarthy often gets more attention than he does and also, to be fair, embodies the sort of soulless empty suit power-seeking D.C. archetype that people who voted for Matt Gaetz dislike.
McCarthy didn’t seem to like Gaetz either, on account of the fact that Gaetz is a career attention whore turned political arsonist willing to burn everything down if it will get him a hit on Fox News. (Besides, everybody in Washington knows, firelight is more flattering to the complexion than a Ring Light.)
And now, in true Real Housewives of Capitol Hill fashion, the gossip has started. Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) just threw it out there in an interview with CNN’s Manu Raju that he and many of his colleagues were personally familiar with photographic evidence of Gaetz’s taste for underage girls, and that Gaetz bragged about taking boner pills and Red Bull so that he could boink into the wee hours. “That was obviously before he got married,” added Mullin. (Of course, Senator. A congressman cheating on his wife? Would never happen.)
Though the Justice Department did not move forward with charges against Gaetz, a congressional ethics investigation regarding the incredibly Floridian scandal is ongoing.
Gaetz responded snidely, saying he hadn’t even spoken 20 words to Mullin in his life, and offered “thoughts and prayers” to Kevin McCarthy’s political career. The congressional equivalent of Mariah Carey’s, “I don’t know her.”
This could all lead to the end of Gaetz’s career in Congress, if his fellow Republicans are irritated enough with Gaetz to throw him out. But Gaetz has already won. He’s gotten attention, like a little boy pooping his pants so that he doesn’t have to go to church.
It’s not just Gaetz.
It’s Rep. Lauren Boebart (R-CO) dressing up like she was going clubbing to attend a Sunday night performance of a touring musical and initiating an over-the-pants handie with her date, and then trying to spin the story like it’s a funny thing that anybody would a free night in Denver and a fondness for Michael Keaton might do.
That’s behavior befitting a high school sophomore who sneaked out of the house to go to the movies, not a 36-year-old grandma-to-be.
It’s Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) dressing like Cruella de Ville and acting at the State of the Union in a manner that would be unacceptable at a youth hockey game.
It’s Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), who introduced a resolution to expel Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) from the House after Bowman pulled the fire alarm in the Capitol last weekend. This seems childish considering Malliotakis’ previous approach to Capitol security; in the wake of the attack on the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, she voted to invalidate Biden’s win and later against investigating the attack.
It’s Kevin McCarthy opening an impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, with such thin evidence that it would be laughed out of a real court, where adults work.
Republicans lack the skill necessary to govern. But they also are too lazy to do it—because they don’t actually care about the well-being of their constituents, and they know they don’t need to successfully perform the tough work of governance to get a show on Fox News. They just need to be the sort of person who would get cast as the villain on The Golden Bachelor (which, by the way, is a much more serious and emotionally resonant show than C-Span these days)
Congress is rotten with adults who act like children, and while that’s funny to an extent, eventually the antics need to stop and some actual governing should take place. That’s why Congress exists. Not to make viral clips, not to raise money. Not to get in petty slap fights. To govern. | US Congress |
Senators flummoxed, ‘horrified’ by House leadership vacuum
Senators return to Washington this week feeling completely flummoxed by the turmoil in the House and with no clear idea of whether House Republicans will elect a Speaker anytime soon.
Republican senators have called on their House colleagues to unify behind a Speaker as quickly as possible, but that plea has fallen flat.
Instead, House conservatives immediately undermined House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) after he secured the House GOP conference’s nomination with 113 votes.
The House GOP on Friday selected the man initially defeated by Scalise, House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), as its new Speaker-designate. But dozens of Republicans say they’ll oppose his nomination on the floor, some of them embittered at the treatment of Scalise.
Senate aides and strategists say the leadership vacuum raises doubts about Congress’s ability to pass aid for Israel or Ukraine or to keep the government funded beyond Nov. 17.
And Senate Republicans fear the ongoing chaos in the House could hurt their chances of taking back the Senate and White House by raising questions about their ability to govern.
Vin Weber, a GOP strategist and former member of the House leadership, said Scalise’s inability to secure 218 votes to become Speaker after winning the nomination behind closed-doors is “a real ominous sign for the conference.” In previous elections, once a majority of House Republicans backed a Speaker candidate, they would bring the nomination to the floor and generally back it.
“I definitely think this on the verge of really hurting Republicans’ reputation in terms of our ability to run the House of Representatives and to govern,” he said.
A Senate GOP aide said senators are rattled by the train wreck on the other side of the Capitol.
“They’re so glad they’re not in the House,” the source quipped.
“It’s not good. It’s not helpful,” the aide said. “Now more than ever we all need to be strong and put on a united front for Israel and to protect our allies. The sooner the House can handle its business, the better for everybody.”
Congress’s consideration of spending bills has been put on hold until the House sorts out its leadership structure.
“I think Republican senators are horrified with what’s going on in the House because the House leadership fight has ground all work to a halt. If you’re a senator in leadership, looking at the House leadership, you’re feeling pretty good about yourself right now because the Senate doesn’t have anywhere near the same problems getting things done,” said Brian Darling, a GOP strategist and former Senate aide. “The House doesn’t have a functioning leadership right now.
“There’s no end in sight,” he added. “There’s just no endgame. How do you get out of this situation?”
Senate Democrats aren’t eager to take a bunch of politically tough votes on amendments to spending bills when they don’t have the faintest idea who will be leading the year-end spending negotiations for the House.
Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) helped clear the final Republican holds on a Senate-drafted mini-bus appropriations package before the recess but the Senate is scheduled to vote on nominees instead when it reconvenes on Monday.
GOP senators predicted before the recess that McCarthy’s ouster would be a blip as long as House Republicans replaced him quickly. But the paralysis in the House threatens to last a while longer, putting the spotlight on deep divisions in their party.
Senators are usually loath to give their colleagues in the House political advice, knowing that House lawmakers don’t appreciate the upper chamber sticking its nose into their business.
But Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) emphasized before the Columbus Day recess that the House GOP needed to find a successor to McCarthy as soon as possible.
“We need to get a Speaker and hopefully we’ll get one by next week,” he told reporters on Oct. 4.
More than 10 days later, the House doesn’t appear any closer to finding someone who can win the 218 votes needed on the floor.
Former President Donald Trump threw a wrench into Scalise’s bid to become leader by questioning his fitness for the job while he undergoes treatment for blood cancer.
“Steve is a man that is in serious trouble from the standpoint of his cancer. I mean, he’s got to get better for himself. I’m not talking about even country now. I’m saying got to get better. And this is tremendous stress,” Trump told Fox News Radio.
Darling, GOP strategist and former aide, said that gave political cover for House lawmakers to oppose him.
“That really hurt Scalise’s chances because it give cover to many of the opponents to Scalise to vote against him and to continue to oppose his Speakership,” he said.
McConnell warned after the 2022 midterm elections that Republicans candidates underperformed among independents and among moderate Republicans because they “looked at us and concluded [there was] too much chaos, too much negativity.”
Weber said Republican senators know the infighting in the House could impact their odds of regaining the Senate majority.
“First of all, they’re glad they have Mitch McConnell and, second of all, they worry because they know the damage to the Republican Party’s reputation is not likely to be limited to the House of Representatives,” he said.
“It’s going to hurt the whole party and that includes the Senate and their chances of taking back the majority, which ought to be excellent,” he said, alluding to the favorable electoral map in 2024, when Democrats will have to defend 23 Senate seats.
A CNN/SSRS poll published Thursday showed that the public’s views of the Republican Party and its congressional leaders have deteriorated since conservative rebels voted to fire McCarthy.
Only 26 percent of Americans, according to the poll, approve of the way Republican leaders in Congress are handling their jobs — a six-point drop compared to January when 32 percent of Americans said they approved of the way GOP leaders in Congress were doing their work.
The poll of 1,255 respondents conducted from Oct. 4 to Oct. 9 found that 35 percent of the public approve of the way Democratic leaders in Congress are handling their jobs.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Congress |
House Republicans have floated launching an impeachment inquiry against President Biden amid newly surfaced allegations that suggest his involvement in the business dealings his son, Hunter. But can congressional lawmakers initiate the use of that constitutional tool for alleged treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors that transpired before holding the office of the presidency?
"The answer is clear," Harvard Law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz told Fox News Digital. "No one knows."
Article II, Section 4, of the U.S. Constitution states: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
But it doesn’t specify whether those alleged actions need to take place during the time the official holds the office.
"The crucial impeachment language in the Constitution is not limited to ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ committed while ‘in office,’" senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation Hans A. von Spakovsky told Fox News Digital. "That language is not there."
Fox News contributor Andy McCarthy noted that "impeachment is a political process, not a legal one."
"When you ask lawyers these questions, what they tend to try to suggest is this is controlled by legal rules and, therefore, they propose that the abuse of power that rises to the level of ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ has to occur when the person is president – it has to be an abuse of presidential power," McCarthy said. "The fact of the matter, though, is that impeachment is not controlled by legal rules but political rules."
Quoting then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford in 1970, McCarthy said, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history."
"The Constitution specifically assigns to Congress the determination of whether impeachable offenses were found, and, under separation of powers, the court stays out of it," McCarthy continued. "Politically speaking, it is whatever Congress says it is."
Former Whitewater prosecutor Robert Ray agreed that "the answer to the question is ultimately up to the House to decide . . . the rule being – to paraphrase former President Ford – an impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives says it is."
But Ray said he personally believes the abuse has to take place when a president is in office.
Republicans currently hold the majority in the House of Representatives. The House Oversight Committee, led by Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., has been investigating the Biden family’s allegedly corrupt foreign business dealings for months and whether President Biden, while serving as vice president or after, had been involved.
The president has fallen directly at the center of that investigation in recent weeks as an unclassified FBI document – an FD-1023 form – was released, containing allegations that Joe Biden and Hunter Biden "coerced" the CEO of Burisma Holdings to pay them millions of dollars in exchange for their help in getting the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating the company fired.
That FD-1023 form is part of an ongoing federal investigation, law enforcement sources told Fox News Digital.
Since then, Republican leaders have suggested the possibility of an impeachment inquiry, saying the American people "have a right to know" if the criminal bribery scheme allegations are true and whether Biden was tangled up in his son’s business dealings.
As for the criminal bribery allegations, McCarthy told Fox News Digital that the framers of the Constitution were "most animated" by "maladministration" but also by "the possibility that a president could be controlled by foreign powers."
"The founders were concerned if a foreign power had corrupted the president," McCarthy said. "It just seems to me that the possibility that a president could be purchased, or a person who occupies the office of the presidency could be purchased, by a corrupt foreign government is not limited to his time in power."
McCarthy added, "If I bribe you with $10 million three years before you’re president, I still own you when you’re president."
He said there is "nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says a high crime and misdemeanor has to be an abuse of power by the incumbent."
But Ray and Laurence Tribe, professor of constitutional law emeritus at Harvard University, interpret that the alleged abuse should take place while the president is in office.
"It has to be an abuse of office – there is just no question about that much," Tribe said, adding that impeachment is "about abuse of power" and warned that, in the future, we are "bound to have presidents who use the presidency for personal benefits rather than benefits of the people."
Tribe told Fox News Digital that an official "can be impeached for treason, bribery or other high crimes, but it always meant abuses of office."
"And you can’t abuse an office you don’t hold," he told Fox News Digital.
"If we fire this gun too often when it has too many blanks in it, I think we will lose the only tool we have to hold presidents in account while they are in office," Tribe told Fox News Digital, referring to the frequent use of impeachment.
"This isn’t even a close case," he continued. "There are a lot of close cases in history, but talking about allegations of family misdeeds where the evidence of alleged misdeeds just hasn’t turned up and where it is before someone became president is crazy."
Tribe said the discussion "discredits the impeachment process."
"And when we really need it, it’s not going to make sense," he said. "It’s like the boy who cried wolf."
Tribe said the impeachments of former President Donald Trump were "the heartland of what impeachment is all about – about abuse of power."
The House voted to impeach Trump in December 2019 on two counts, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, related to his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which he pressed Zelenskyy to launch investigations into the Biden family’s actions and business dealings in Ukraine – specifically Hunter Biden’s ventures with Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. The president’s request came after millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which Democrats and some witnesses have cited as a quid pro quo arrangement.
Hunter Biden at the time was, and still is, under federal criminal investigation for his tax affairs, prompted by suspicious foreign transactions.
The Senate voted for Trump's acquittal in February 2020.
Later, the House of Representatives impeached Trump on a charge of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be impeached, and ultimately acquitted, twice in history.
Tribe, though, warned Republicans of their slim majority in the House, and he suggested that threats of impeachment are being used as "some kind of game."
"You indict our guy, we impeach your guy," Tribe said, referring to DOJ indictments of Trump. "The stakes are pretty serious."
He added, "The democracy isn’t going to preserve itself if we take all the tools to protect it and play with them like they are some kind of video game." | US Political Corruption |
Can you trademark a joke about the former president’s dick? This critical constitutional question may soon be decided by the Supreme Court.
On Wednesday, the honorable justices of the highest court in the land will hear arguments in the case of Steve Elster, an attorney and activist, who attempted to trademark the phrase “Trump Too Small” in 2018 to sell t-shirts featuring the slogan and was denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
The phrase is a reference to an infamous beef between former President Donald Trump, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) during the 2016 Republican primaries. “Have you seen his hands? And you know what they say about men with small hands,” Rubio joked during a campaign event.
The comment rubbed Trump the wrong way, and he responded during a Republican debate by assuring the nation that there was no problem in his pants. “Look at those hands. Are they small hands?” Trump said. “If they’re small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee it.”
Elster’s design for a shirt referencing the spat featured the slogan “Trump Too Small” and a hand with fingers pinched as if they’re measuring something tiny, and on the back a list of the then president’s underwhelming proposal “package.” The U.S. Patent Office told Elster that he would need permission from Trump himself to trademark the slogan, a request the former president is not likely to grant.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Elsther’s favor. The court determined that the Patent Office’s rejection of Elster’s trademark “unconstitutionally restricts free speech in violation of the First Amendment.” The court ruled that since Trump was a public figure and Esther’s shirt was a criticism of his politics (even if a bit crude) “the government has no valid publicity interest that could overcome the First Amendment protections afforded to the political criticism embodied in Elster’s mark.”
Trending
As noted by Politico, since Trump’s departure from office the court has repeatedly rejected the former president’s efforts to have it intervene in his favor — despite him having appointed three of the judges currently on the bench. The rejections include challenges to his 2020 election loss, his efforts to undermine Special Counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into his hoarding of classified documents, and his plea to prevent the Jan. 6 Committee from reviewing troves of material from his last days in office.
While Trump insists that he is not “too small,” he has far bigger concerns looming over him. The former president is facing a mountain of criminal and legal cases, several of which are expected to go to trial in the coming year. Trump is expected to file constitutional challenges in some of these cases, challenges that may make their way to the Supreme Court. | SCOTUS |
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
toggle caption
Republicans are discussing a plan to empower Speaker Pro Tem Patrick McHenry, R-NC, to allow the House to complete basic functions while the race for Speaker continues.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Republicans are discussing a plan to empower Speaker Pro Tem Patrick McHenry, R-NC, to allow the House to complete basic functions while the race for Speaker continues.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
House Republicans are considering giving additional powers to Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., as the conference remains unable to elect a permanent speaker while a government funding deadline approaches.
House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, will not call for a third vote on his nomination to be Speaker of the House after losing in two rounds of voting earlier this week. But he is not dropping out of the race. He plans to remain the party's designated nominee, according to a source familiar with his plans.
Republicans are now debating a plan to vote on a resolution to empower McHenry to bring legislation to the floor until January. Members have not yet agreed on the details but supports of the plan hope McHenry could over see votes on spending bills or a short-term funding measure to avoid a government shutdown. Current government funding expires on Nov. 17.
While Jordan has thrown his support behind the general idea of temporarily empowering McHenry, a number of his supporters have voiced strong opposition. That means the measure would likely need significant Democratic support in order to pass.
Some Democrats have signaled they would be open to an arrangement, if McHenry made some commitments. In a letter obtained by NPR, four Democrats in the moderate Problem Solvers Caucus proposed McHenry could be empowered to pass a continuing resolution to avoid a shutdown, supplemental aid funding for Ukraine and Israel, and government funding bills only.
Rep. Jim Banks, R-Ind., said the proposal would be "handing our majority back over to the Democrats by going along with a power sharing agreement."
"It's the biggest FU to Republican voters I've ever seen," Banks told reporters. "That is a historic betrayal to our Republican voters if we go along with it. It's a big mistake."
Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., said he was leaning toward opposing the plan.
"We need a speaker," he said. "I do believe there are other folks in the room there that can get 217 [votes]."
Rep. Mario Diaz Balart, R-Fla., who has voted against Jordan for speaker, said he has not seen specific details of a proposal, but called the idea of empowering McHenry "very, very interesting."
"Generally speaking, I think it's important to get our agenda back on track. It's pretty clear that we have an impasse right now with the speaker race....so I think we need to find a temporary way to move our agenda forward," he told reporters. | US Congress |
New Report from Senator Warren: Millions of Americans at Risk of Financial Distress if Supreme Court Blocks Student Debt Cancellation
Report Finds Student Loan Burden Disproportionately Impacts Black, Latino, and Low-Income Borrowers.
“If the Supreme Court upholds the spurious challenges to President Biden’s cancellation plan, millions of Americans will remain crushed by student debt.”
Washington, D.C. – United States Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) released a new report today: Hanging in the Balance: Millions at Risk if the Court Denies Student Debt Cancellation. In January, Senator Warren opened an investigation seeking information about how the efforts by Republican officials and special interests to block the President’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt would affect Americans. The new 21-page report is based on information from leading higher education, consumer advocacy, and economic justice groups. The report centers the stories of those most impacted by cancellation and emphasizes the fact that working families and borrowers of color would be disproportionately harmed if the Supreme Court upholds challenges to the President’s student debt relief plan, and emphasizes the significant uncertainty that legal challenges to the debt cancellation plan are causing for vulnerable borrowers.
The key findings of the report include:
- The President has clear authority to cancel student debt under the HEROES Act of 2003, which, “by its plain language, authorizes the Administration “to waive or modify” any federal student loan obligations.”
- President Biden’s student debt cancellation plan will provide targeted relief to low- and middle-income borrowers and offer financial freedom from crushing student loan burdens. Cancellation is particularly helpful for borrowers who struggle the most with repaying, including Black borrowers, borrowers who didn’t get a degree, and those who have defaulted on their student loans.
- Spurious legal challenges to President Biden’s student debt cancellation plan are causing financial anxiety and uncertainty among vulnerable borrowers, as borrowers are left in a “perilous limbo,” not knowing if or when to expect the relief they deserve.
- Denying student debt cancellation would cause financial disaster for millions of Americans, and monthly costs will rise significantly for millions of Americans when student loan repayments resume. Reducing debt burdens through cancellation will help avoid defaults and delinquencies payments resume and ensure borrowers do not face financial ruin as the economy continues its recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic.
- Student loan cancellation is the necessary first step to repair the broken higher education system. By eliminating student debt for tens of millions of families, cancellation will make the student loan portfolio more manageable as the Biden Administration works to reform the higher education system and ensure that no family is trapped in a broken student loan system. .
Senator Warren’s report is the culmination of an in-depth investigation into the benefits of student debt cancellation for borrowers and its role in advancing racial and economic justice. Its release comes as the Supreme Court prepares to hear arguments from Republican officials and special interests that are attempting to permanently block President Biden’s plan to cancel student loan debt for millions of Americans.
“Over 40 million borrowers have their financial futures at stake as the Supreme Court hears the debt relief case, and the ones carrying the heaviest burden are those from low-income backgrounds, Black and Latino borrowers, and public service workers like teachers and nurses,” concluded the report. “If the Supreme Court upholds the spurious challenges to President Biden’s cancellation plan, millions of Americans will remain crushed by student debt.”
“Lifting this burden would help our communities build generational wealth, bolster the economic strength of our country, and live a life of dignity,” said UNIDOS, the nation’s largest Hispanic civil rights organization. “It would help put food on the table, pay rent, buy a home. It would keep parents in the workforce by helping pay for childcare or elder care. It would allow us to have a stake in the communities we call home.”
Senator Warren is an outspoken advocate on student debt relief, and is leading the fight to hold loan servicers and for-profit colleges accountable to fix the broken student loan system:
- In October 2022, Senator Warren and U.S. Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) visited communities across Massachusetts to celebrate the Biden administration’s student debt cancellation plan and help residents sign up for student loan relief.
- In September 2022, Senator Warren and Representative Pressley sent a letter to federal student loan servicers to inquire about the steps they are taking to ensure borrowers are receiving timely information about President Biden’s debt cancellation plan.
- In September 2022, Senator Warren sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) urging DOJ to issue and implement updated student debt bankruptcy guidance without delay following the Biden-Harris administration’s historic decision to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for up to 43 million borrowers and overhaul the student loan system.
- Senator Warren, along with Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), and U.S. Representatives Pramila Jaypal (D-Wash.) and Mark Takano (D-Calif.), urged Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona, urging the Department of Education (ED) to swiftly discharge the loans of borrowers defrauded by predatory for-profit colleges and universities, including those operated by Corinthian College.
- Senator Warren, along with Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Representatives Jayapal, Pressley, Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Katie Porter (D-Calif.) led more than 80 colleagues in a bicameral letter to the Department of Education calling for it to release the memo outlining the Biden administration’s legal authority to cancel federal student loan debt and immediately cancel up to $50,000 of debt for Federal student loan borrowers.
- Senator Warren, along with Senate Majority Leader Schumer and Representative Pressley released new analysis showing that resuming student loan payments would strip $85 billion every year from the economy.
- Senator Warren, along with Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Smith (D-Minn.), sent letters to four federal loan servicers, requesting information on their plans to support borrowers when student loan payments resume.
- Senator Warren, along with Senators Brown, Blumenthal, Smith, and Van Hollen sent a letter to Maximus, the company that is assuming Navient’s federal student loans servicing contract, questioning its troubling history and seeking assurances that borrowers will receive appropriate services and protections during the transition.
- Senator Warren, along with Senators Brown, Blumenthal, Smith, Van Hollen, Cory A. Booker (D-N.J.), Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) sent a letter to the Department of Education urging Secretary Cardona to use his authority to automatically remove all student loan borrowers in default.
- Senator Warren, along with Senators Van Hollen, Blumenthal, Brown, Smith, Markey, and Robert Menendez (D- N.J.) sent letters to the heads of Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency, Granite State, and Navient calling on them to correct past errors with borrowers’ accounts and address growing concerns over their preparedness to transfer millions of borrowers to new servicers.
- Senator Warren, along with Senator Markey and Representative Pressley, released a report that detailed the ongoing failures of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program for public servants in Massachusetts.
- At a hearing in July 2021, Senator Warren pushed for borrower protections after a major student loan servicing shakeup.
- In July 2021, Senator Warren released a statement regarding the end of the Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency's (PHEAA) contract servicing student loans with the Department of Education.
- In June 24, 2021, Senators Warren and John Kennedy (R-La.) called on PHEAA CEO to address concerns about false and misleading statements made during a subcommittee hearing on student loans, which was chaired by Senator Warren.
- In May 2021, Senator Warren led her colleagues in sending a letter requesting information about the steps the Department of Education and the Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) are taking to help transition millions of federal student loan borrowers back into repayment ahead of the scheduled end to the pause on student loan payments and interest in September.
- In April 2021, Senators Warren and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) led a group of colleagues in a letter to Education Secretary Miguel Cardona urging the Department of Education to take swift action to automatically remove all federally-held student loan borrowers from default.
- That same month at her first hearing as chair of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee's Subcommittee on Economic Policy, Senator Warren called out PHEAA for its mismanagement of the Public Student Loan Forgiveness Program.
- Senator Warren also questioned Jack Remondi, CEO of Navient, on the company's long history of abusive and misleading behavior towards borrowers and their profiting off the broken student loan system.
- In March 2021, Senators Warren and Menendez applauded the passage of their Student Loan Tax Relief Act as part of the American Rescue Plan.
- Last Congress, Senator Warren introduced the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act and in 2019, co-led the Student Borrower Bankruptcy Relief Act with Senator Durbin (D-Ill.) to make student loans dischargeable through bankruptcy.
###
Next Article Previous Article | SCOTUS |
A man suspected of sending a woman a Facebook message that said, "So I raped you," remains on the run two years after charges were filed over the former Gettysburg College student's 2013 campus sexual assault. Shannon Keeler, 28, and her attorneys question howhas avoided capture in an age when people are tracked by their cellphones, internet connections, security cameras and credit card purchases.
Investigators, led by the U.S. Marshals Service, believe the 30-year-old from Silicon Valley is likely overseas and on the move.
"How is he financially supporting himself? How is he able to travel abroad without detection? Has he assumed a false identity?" asked Andrea Levy, legal director of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, who represents Keeler. "Who's helping him?"
Keeler was sexually assaulted on a snowy December night in her dorm room. She texted friends for help even before her assailant fled, and went to police the same day.
For years, local officials declined her pleas to file charges, even after she showed them the startling Facebook messages she discovered in 2020. They reversed course weeks after she went public in an Associated Press story that examined the reluctance of local agencies to prosecute campus sexual assaults.
For Keeler, the years of limbo have been painful, even as she moves forward with her life and career. She works for a software company and is getting married this fall. But she remains on high alert for an arrest that could come at any time, knowing a trial could disrupt her life for months or even years.
"She's had to push and push and put herself out there … and then he's just literally gone on with his life. It's hard to measure that impact on her as a human being, (and on) her family, her partner," Levy said. "There's a cost. There's a real human cost. It's someone's life."
After leaving Gettysburg, Cleary, 30, graduated from Santa Clara University, near a family home in Saratoga, California, worked for Tesla, then moved to France for several years, according to his website, which describes his self-published medieval fiction.
Adams County District Attorney Brian Sinnett, who filed the arrest warrant on June 29, 2021, called the duration of the search "somewhat frustrating."
"I just have to think this person is accessing resources from somewhere," Sinnett said.
Neither Cleary's father in California, a marketing executive who has served as a professor and trustee at Santa Clara, nor his mother in Baltimore returned messages this month seeking comment.
U.S. marshals said the search remains active. An Interpol Red Notice has been issued, asking police agencies worldwide to detain Cleary, although he is not yet listed in the public database, which includes a few dozen rape and sexual assault cases.
"We put a lot of work and effort into it," said Deputy U.S. Marshal Phil Lewis, warrant supervisor for the office in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. "Any crimes against women and children, we take seriously and we make those types of cases a priority."
As the #MeToo movement continues to shape society — and some adults, including accusers ofand , use the courts to seek monetary damages if it's too late for criminal charges — college students are also seeking accountability.
In California, students are lobbying for campus health centers to keep rape kits on hand, or pay for victims in the throes of trauma to travel to a hospital for an exam. More states are requiring colleges to survey students on the climate around sexual assault, and groups such as End Rape on Campus are working on tools to make school data more accessible.
And some law enforcement agencies have shown sustained commitment, including police who stayed on top of advances in DNA science to make an arrest this year in a 2000 knifepoint rape on a Penn State golf course.
In 2004, they matched the DNA to an unsolved 1999 golf course rape in Michigan. In 2011, they filed a "John Doe" arrest warrant, identifying the subject only by his DNA before the 12-year statute of limitations in Pennsylvania expired. Using genetic genealogy, they identified the suspect this year as Michigan business owner, and matched the DNA samples to a coffee cup he discarded at a Lexus dealership before charging him in both cases.
"The police so often get beat up for doing the wrong thing. Here, it's pretty impressive, they were on the ball," said lawyer Conor Lamb, who sued Rillema last month on behalf of the Penn State accuser, a 42-year-old woman in suburban Philadelphia.
Rilemma's lawyers plan to challenge the privacy issues raised by the genetic sleuthing, especially the way his DNA from the coffee cup was obtained without a warrant.
"Everybody wants to solve old crimes, but the process is so invasive, and when it's done without a warrant, people ought to think about that. It's creepy and scary," said defense lawyer Deanna Kelley of suburban Detroit.
In Gettysburg, meanwhile, a small town known for its Civil War history, Sinnett said there is now more coordination between campus and local police, in the hope that more college rape victims can have their day in court.
Keeler is still waiting for that day, nearly a decade after she reported the attack and Cleary left school, ending the college's Title IX investigation.
"Since then, he has again run away from facing this felony charge," she said, while she tries to "to finally close this never-ending, painful chapter of my life."
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
- On Friday, 128 of the 222 House Republicans signed onto an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block student-debt relief.
- It came alongside a separate brief filed by 43 GOP senators opposing the relief.
- They both argued that Biden doesn't have the authority to cancel student debt using the HEROES Act of 2003.
Conservatives have been flooding the Supreme Court docket urging it to block President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness — and hundreds of GOP lawmakers just joined the cause.
On Friday, 128 House Republicans signed onto an amicus curiae brief urging the nation's highest court to block Biden's plan to forgive up to $20,000 in student debt for federal borrowers. That's just over half of the GOP composition in the House, with 222 Republicans holding a slim majority in that chamber.
Signers also included 25 Republican lawmakers on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, led by Chair Virginia Foxx, who has been a vocal opponent of broad student-loan forgiveness. She said in a statement alongside the brief that the "administration is bypassing Congress, which is elected by the American people to protect their interests."
"Congress is the only body with the authority to enact sweeping and fundamental changes of this nature, and it is ludicrous for President Biden to assume he can simply bypass the will of the American people," Foxx said.
Notably, Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy did not sign onto the brief, but Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Majority Whip Tom Emmer were among the signatories.
Biden's plan to cancel student debt was put on pause late last year due to two conservative-backed lawsuits that are seeking to permanently block the relief. The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments to both cases on February 28, and it will consider whether Biden's path to use the HEROES Act of 2003, which gives the Education Secretary the ability to waive or modify student-loan balances in connection with a national emergency, is legal.
That authority has been hotly contested not only within those lawsuits, but by other conservative groups and the GOP lawmakers who signed onto the brief. Alongside the House Republicans, 43 GOP senators signed onto a separate amicus brief filed on Friday opposing the relief, led by Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn.
"The statutory question in this case is simple: Does the HEROES Act empower the Secretary to cancel nearly half a trillion dollars in debt owed by millions of willing borrowers, many of whom suffered no financial hardship from the COVID-19 pandemic? The answer is clearly no," the senators wrote in the brief.
Both of the briefs argued that the HEROES Act does not allow for broad loan forgiveness, which a series of other conservative groups reiterated in their own briefs filed to the Supreme Court this week. Still, Biden's administration, Democratic lawmakers, and advocates have stood strongly behind its authority — a White House official previously told Insider in a statement the HEROES Act is intended to help borrowers recover from the economic impacts of the pandemic, which are long lasting.
"Let me make one thing clear. Despite Republican officials' attempts to block student debt relief, my Administration is confident in our legal authority to carry out our plan," Biden wrote on Twitter last month. "We'll keep fighting to get millions of Americans the relief they need." | SCOTUS |
Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) checked Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) after she brought up the removal of a Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee statue while going to bat for an amendment barring the use of funds to remove national monuments.
Greene – who cited George Orwell’s “1984” while rambling about “Communist Democrats” erasing the past – touched on the removal of Confederate symbols in 2020 before noting the recent melting of a Lee statue previously taken down in Charlottesville, the site of the 2017 “Unite the Right” rally.
“This is the Democrats’ and the Biden administration’s effort to erase our history, just as they have done to the statue of Robert E. Lee. This is an outrage,” said Greene, who has stood up for Confederate monuments in the past and was once subject to criticism from Lee’s relative.
Greene’s comments arrived after Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Mont.) – amid debate – said the amendment “only pertains to monuments” recognizing the Founding Fathers, Mediaite reported. It led to Pingree citing the amendment’s provision where “none of the funds made available” by the act “may be used to remove any monument” on land under the Department of Interior’s jurisdiction.
Greene replied by declaring that there should be no funds allocated to remove “any monument” before Pingree hit back with a history lesson.
“Just to clear up a couple of things, my colleague mentioned the Founding Fathers. Robert E. Lee was not actually one of the Founding Fathers, he was a general of the Confederacy. That was the city of Charlottesville, that wasn’t a national monument when that statue was removed,” she said.
“And I just have to say I find it rich that the party that has supported book banning in our libraries, rewriting curriculum, not talking about our history over and over again, is the very one that is saying that we have to often keep painful monuments in places where they do damage, where they interfere with people’s ability to enjoy the particular area that they’re in.” | US Federal Policies |
Rep. Rosa DeLauro gave Marjorie Taylor Greene what she called "a basic level lesson in civics" in the House on Tuesday after the Republican suggested the 80-year-old Democrat had forgotten the chamber had just voted to pass another funding bill, which she linked to her age.
On Tuesday the House passed legislation backed by Speaker Mike Johnson extending government funding beyond Friday, preventing a partial government shutdown, despite 93 GOP lawmakers rebelling and voting against.
Johnson proposed a "clean" continuing resolution, extending five spending bills until January 19, and another seven until February 2, without any clauses requiring a cut in government expenditure as had been demanded by some Republicans.
Greene hit out at DeLauro after the Connecticut Democrat discussed the possibility of a government shutdown after the motion had passed.
She said: "My Democrat colleague across the aisle, who's 80 years old and has been here over 30 years, just said we're on the verge of a shutdown.
"She probably just forgot that a few hours ago, she voted for the continuing resolution that will extend the budget and we are not on the verge of a shutdown. So, I just wanted to note that for the record."
DeLauro fired back by explaining the legislation has yet to pass the Senate or be approved by the president.
Referring to Greene she commented: "It may be that the gentlelady doesn't know that there is another body attached to the U.S. Congress called the United States Senate, and they have to vote on the continuing resolution. And when they vote on it, we'll find out what it is that they do with regard to this continuing resolution passed by the House, which, quite frankly, is flawed to a fare-thee-well in meeting our obligations, both domestic and international.
"And by the way, it isn't a law of the land until the president of the United States signs it. That may be a basic-level lesson in civics. There is the House, there is the Senate, and there is the president[...]It's the law of the land, which my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have dismissed, walked away from, and quite frankly, don't understand the process of government."
Newsweek has contacted Rep. Greene for comment by telephone and voicemail message.
The House on Tuesday blocked Greene's bid to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, with eight Republicans voting with Democrats to torpedo the resolution.
Posting on X, formerly Twitter, Greene later commented: "Shame on the eight Republicans who voted with Democrats to kill my articles of impeachment against Secretary Mayorkas. They have shown they care more about protecting a Biden cabinet member than securing our border and protecting Americans."
Tuesday also saw two other confrontations, including one alleged physical assault, involving Republican lawmakers.
GOP Sen. Markwayne Mullin challenged Teamsters General President Sean O'Brien to a fight during a Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee hearing before Bernie Sanders, the chair, intervened to control the situation.
Separately Rep. Tim Burchett said he had been "elbowed" in a corridor by Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the former speaker and a fellow Republican. Burchett was one of eight rebel Republicans who voted to oust McCarthy from office in October. Speaking about the incident to CNN, McCarthy said: "I didn't shove or elbow him. It's a tight hallway."
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
James Bickerton is a Newsweek U.S. News reporter based in London, U.K. His focus is covering U.S. politics and world politics. He has covered the intersection between politics and emerging technology, such as artificial intelligence. James joined Newsweek in July 2022 from LBC, and previously worked for the Daily Express. He is a graduate of Oxford University. Languages: English. Twitter: @JBickertonUK.
You can get in touch with James by emailing [email protected]
James Bickerton is a Newsweek U.S. News reporter based in London, U.K. His focus is covering U.S. politics and world... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here. | US Congress |
The House will take up Republicans' standalone Israel aid bill Thursday afternoon, with Democrats firmly opposed to passing aid for Israel in a measure separate from aid to Ukraine and other national security interests.
House Speaker Mike Johnson said he'll bring the bill to the floor on Tuesday. The supplemental aid package for Israel would offer $14.3 billion in aid for its fight against Hamas, a sum that would be taken from IRS funding. But the Congressional Budget Office says this would in fact increase the deficit because that IRS funding was designated for enforcement actions against tax cheats.
"Israel doesn't need a ceasefire," Johnson told reporters Thursday. "It needs its allies to cease with the politics and deliver support now. And that's what we're doing." President Biden had said Wednesday he thought there should be a humanitarian "pause" in, after his campaign speech was interrupted by a protester calling for a ceasefire. "I think we need a pause," which he said would "give time to get the prisoners out."
Meanwhile, House Democratic leaders sent a notice to their caucus Tuesday recommending that members vote "no" on the Israel supplemental bill.
They told their caucus that the bill "breaks from longstanding bipartisan precedent by offsetting the appropriated funds by rescinding $14.3 billion previously appropriated by the Inflation Reduction Act to the Internal Revenue Service."
Democrats expressed concern that approving the GOP's bill could set a precedent that would raise "unnecessary barriers to future aid in the event of a security emergency."
Senate Democrats have also been, and if it passes the House, the measure unlikely to receive a vote in the upper chamber. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has more than once called the House bill a "joke."
"Speaker Johnson and House Republicans released a totally unserious and woefully inadequate package that omitted aid to Ukraine, omitted humanitarian assistance to Gaza, no funding for the Indo-Pacific, and made funding for Israel conditional on hard-right, never-going-to-pass proposals," Schumer said on the Senate floor Wednesday.
President Biden has also threatened to veto the House bill. The White House asked Congress for athat included funding for Israel, Ukraine and other national security-related issues.
"If the president were presented with this bill, he would veto it," the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement of administration policy.
Rep. Elise Stefanik, the GOP conference chair, blasted Mr. Biden over the veto threat.
"We proudly stand with Israel instead of Joe Biden's army of IRS agents and shame on Joe Biden for threatening to veto this critical Israel aid package," she said Thursday.
The House is expected to vote late Thursday afternoon.
Ellis Kim contributed to this report
for more features. | US Congress |
Republicans shared their thoughts on the violent protests outside the Democratic National Committee (DNC) on Wednesday night that saw U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) officers pepper sprayed by protesters.
The Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C., saw fireworks on Wednesday night when pro-Palestinian protesters clashed with police in front of the DNC.
Republicans weighed in on the protests online, with Florida Rep. Kat Cammack posting a video of the protest while she was on Capitol Hill.
"I am on Capitol Hill right now and it’s on lockdown," Cammack wrote. "No getting in or out of our offices."
"We have officers that were pepper sprayed by pro-Hamas protestors with a lot of people attempting to break into the Democratic HQ," she continued. "Anyone else notice how violent the so-called ‘ceasefire’ crowd is?"
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs, a Republican, posted that the "nation's capital is under siege."
"Last week, it was the White House," Biggs wrote. "This week, it's the DNC."
"These left-wing lunatics have to be held accountable," he added.
"Thank you [USCP] for keeping Democrats safe from their own terrorist loving supporters," Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., posted. "Stay safe out there."
National Republican Congressional Committee communications director Jack Pandol said in a statement that sometimes "saying nothing says everything."
"Multiple officers injured in the line of duty and Democrats can't even offer a simple thank you – let alone condemn the antisemitic riot," Pandol said.
"The glaring truth is, these pro-Hamas rioters represent Democrats' base of support and they are terrified to offend them," he continued.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the DNC for comment.
The USCP released a statement on Thursday regarding Wednesday night's protests after "approximately 200 people" gathered to protest Israel's war with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas.
"We have handled hundreds of peaceful protests, but last night’s group was not peaceful," the USCP wrote. "The crowd failed to obey our lawful orders to move back from the DNC, where Members of Congress were in the building."
"When the group moved dumpsters in front of the exits, pepper sprayed our officers and attempted to pick up the bike rack, our teams quickly introduced consequences – pulling people off the building, pushing them back, and clearing them from the area, so we could safely evacuate the Members and staff."
"Six officers were treated for injuries, from minor cuts to being pepper sprayed to being punched," the USCP said.
USCP revealed that "24-year old Ruben Arthur Camacho of Woodbridge, NY, was arrested for Assault on a Police Officer after an officer witnessed Camacho slam another officer into a garage door and then punch the female officer in the face."
"Last night our team was quick, decisive, courageous and in control," the Capitol Police wrote.
"When demonstrations cross the line into illegal activity it is our responsibility to maintain order and ensure people’s safety," they concluded.
Fox News Digital's Chad Pergram contributed reporting. | US Political Corruption |
Woman believed to be girlfriend of suspect in Colorado property shooting is also arrested
A woman believed to be the girlfriend of a man supected of killing three people and wounding a fourth in a property dispute in rural Colorado is also being held in connection with the shooting
DENVER -- A woman believed to be the girlfriend of a man suspected of killing three people and wounding a fourth in a property dispute in rural Colorado is also being held in connection with the shooting.
The arrest of Nancy Rae Medina-Kochis, 50, in New Mexico was announced Thursday by the Custer County Sheriff's Office in Colorado. It said she is suspected of being an accessory to a crime, pending the continued investigation into Monday's shooting, which killed Robert Geers, 63, his wife Beth Wade Geers, 73, and James Daulton, 58, near Westcliffe, Colorado, about 77 miles (124 kilometers) southwest of Colorado Springs. Daulton's wife, Patty Daulton, was also wounded.
According to court documents, their neighbor, Hanme Clark, yelled about trespassing and then started shooting while Robert Geers was talking to a surveyor.
Clark was arrested on Tuesday near Albuquerque, New Mexico, after about 25 hours on the run. Medina-Kochis was with him at the time and is believed to be his girlfriend, sheriff's office spokesperson Reggie Foster said Friday.
A telephone message left for the 11th District Judicial District Attorney's office on whether prosecutors have filed charges against Clark or Medina-Kochis was not immediately returned Friday.
It is not known if either Clark or Medina-Kochis have lawyers representing them.
Other neighbors not involved in the shooting have accused Clark of harassing them, denying them court-ordered use of part of his property to access their property, and posting signs saying he was armed, court records said. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Justice department expected to submit redactions to Mar-a-Lago search affidavit todayThe justice department will probably submit today their proposed redactions to the affidavit that justified the FBI’s search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, US media report.The redactions are likely to be filed under seal, meaning they won’t be available to the public, and come after news organizations and others sought the release of the affidavit that outlines the justice department’s reasons in asking for the warrant authorizing the FBI’s search, according to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The justice department has until noon eastern time to submit its proposal.A federal judge is weighing how much, if anything, of the affidavit can be made public, which could offer further details into what the justice department is looking into, and how involved the former president might be.Here’s more from the Times on what the document’s release could mean:The submission by the Justice Department is a significant legal milepost in an investigation that has swiftly emerged as a major threat to Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have offered a confused and at times stumbling response. But it is also an inflection point for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who is trying to balance protecting the prosecutorial process by keeping secret details of the investigation, and providing enough information to defend his decision to request a search unlike any other in history. “There are clearly opposed poles here,” said Daniel C. Richman, a former federal prosecutor and a law professor at Columbia University, who said it might be difficult, even impossible, for Mr. Garland to strike the right balance. Last week, Bruce E. Reinhart, a federal magistrate judge in Florida, surprised prosecutors by saying he was inclined to release portions of the affidavit at the request of news organizations, including The New York Times, after the government proposed redactions. Disclosing even a partial version of the affidavit would be highly unusual: Such documents, which typically include evidence gathered to justify the search, like information provided by witnesses, are almost never unsealed before the government files criminal charges. There is no indication the Justice Department plans to file charges anytime soon. Judge Reinhart reiterated this week that he might agree to extensive redactions, acknowledging that they could be severe enough to render release of the final document “meaningless.” “I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the government,” he wrote in an order issued on Monday.Key events1h agoJustice department expected to submit redactions to Mar-a-Lago search affidavit today2h agoWhite House plans to issue immigration regulation to protect 'dreamers'3h agoTrump to answer judge's questions over Mar-a-Lago lawsuitShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureIt appears the justice department has filed its proposed redactions to the affidavit in the Mar-a-Lago search, the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reports:Just in: New entry on the Trump Mar-a-Lago docket — under seal — appears to indicate the Justice Dept has now filed proposed redactions for the FBI affidavit— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) August 25, 2022
Another lawyer for Donald Trump who assisted in his attempt to overturn the result of the 2020 election has filed a court motion resisting a subpoena for his appearance before a special grand jury in Georgia, Politico reports.The panel in Fulton county is looking into election meddling in the state two years ago, and has already heard from testimony Rudy Giuliani, who was informed he is a target of its investigation.Republican senator Lindsey Graham has also been subpoenaed by the grand jury, but is currently fighting it in court.As midterm election campaigns hit the home stretch over the next two months, voters may start seeing a familiar Democratic face: Barack Obama.Axios reports that the former president is scheduled to appear at two upcoming fundraisers for the party, one of which is focused on Democrats’ campaign to maintain their majority in the Senate, which they seem slightly favored to do.Justice department expected to submit redactions to Mar-a-Lago search affidavit todayThe justice department will probably submit today their proposed redactions to the affidavit that justified the FBI’s search of Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, US media report.The redactions are likely to be filed under seal, meaning they won’t be available to the public, and come after news organizations and others sought the release of the affidavit that outlines the justice department’s reasons in asking for the warrant authorizing the FBI’s search, according to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. The justice department has until noon eastern time to submit its proposal.A federal judge is weighing how much, if anything, of the affidavit can be made public, which could offer further details into what the justice department is looking into, and how involved the former president might be.Here’s more from the Times on what the document’s release could mean:The submission by the Justice Department is a significant legal milepost in an investigation that has swiftly emerged as a major threat to Mr. Trump, whose lawyers have offered a confused and at times stumbling response. But it is also an inflection point for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, who is trying to balance protecting the prosecutorial process by keeping secret details of the investigation, and providing enough information to defend his decision to request a search unlike any other in history. “There are clearly opposed poles here,” said Daniel C. Richman, a former federal prosecutor and a law professor at Columbia University, who said it might be difficult, even impossible, for Mr. Garland to strike the right balance. Last week, Bruce E. Reinhart, a federal magistrate judge in Florida, surprised prosecutors by saying he was inclined to release portions of the affidavit at the request of news organizations, including The New York Times, after the government proposed redactions. Disclosing even a partial version of the affidavit would be highly unusual: Such documents, which typically include evidence gathered to justify the search, like information provided by witnesses, are almost never unsealed before the government files criminal charges. There is no indication the Justice Department plans to file charges anytime soon. Judge Reinhart reiterated this week that he might agree to extensive redactions, acknowledging that they could be severe enough to render release of the final document “meaningless.” “I cannot say at this point that partial redactions will be so extensive that they will result in a meaningless disclosure, but I may ultimately reach that conclusion after hearing further from the government,” he wrote in an order issued on Monday.While many in the party cheered Biden’s student debt relief plan, some lawmakers who are in tough re-election fights expressed hesitancy towards it.Colorado senator Michael Bennet argued that it should have been more narrowly targeted:Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto, who is among the most vulnerable Democratic senators, said she opposed it, according to the Nevada Independent. “I don’t agree with today’s executive action because it doesn’t address the root problems that make college unaffordable,” she said. “We should be focusing on passing my legislation to expand Pell Grants for lower income students, target loan forgiveness to those in need, and actually make college more affordable for working families.”House Democrat Tim Ryan, who is vying for the open Senate seat in Ohio, was also critical:Biden’s measures announced yesterday provide a reprieve for student borrowers, but may not be enough to address racial inequities when it comes to college debt, the Guardian’s Edwin Rios reports:As Joe Biden announced the details of his plan to help those with student loan debt, Kat Welbeck wrestled with the idea. For millions of Americans, the unprecedented relief would be “life-changing”, especially for low-income and Black and Latino Americans, who are disproportionately saddled with decades-long debt, she said.But the plans’ income cap on who can receive cancellation, and its unclear bureaucratic process for Americans seeking debt relief could perpetuate the inequities that underpin the nation’s student loan system, Welbeck, director of advocacy and civil rights counsel for the Student Borrower Protection Center, said.“While a $10,000 cancellation is so meaningful for millions of student loan borrowers, there’s a lot that’s still to be done to fix this student debt crisis,” Welbeck says.Meanwhile outside the White House, a brass band has appeared at a rally to thank Joe Biden for his student debt relief measures announced yesterday.White House plans to issue immigration regulation to protect 'dreamers'The Biden administration will soon issue a federal rule to protect from deportation “dreamers”, the undocumented immigrants who arrived in the United States as children, CBS News reports.The proposal would formalize Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca), in an attempt to protect it from court challenges, which it has already faced from Republican officials. According to CBS, “The regulation will maintain the longstanding eligibility rules for DACA, which include requirements that applicants prove they arrived in the U.S. by age 16 and before June 2007; studied in a U.S. school or served in the military; and lack any serious criminal record.”The new regulation would satisfy a judge’s opinion that Daca should have been created via the federal government’s official rule-making process, rather than by the 2012 memo under which it currently operates, CBS reports. Last year, a judge in Texas blocked the program from taking on more applicants.However, the new regulation is not immune from being sued over, according to CBS:U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen, who closed DACA to first-time applicants in July 2021, ruled that the policy itself violates federal immigration law, as Texas and other Republican-led states have argued in a lawsuit. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held a hearing in July on the Biden administration’s appeal of Hanen’s ruling, is expected to issue an opinion on DACA’s legality later this year. The conservative-leaning appeals court is expected to side with Republican state officials who argue that DACA is unlawful. The Biden administration could appeal such a ruling to the Supreme Court. The ongoing litigation could keep DACA closed to new applicants and even lead to its complete termination, a scenario that would bar the program’s beneficiaries from working in the U.S. legally and render them eligible for deportation, though they would likely not be prioritized for arrest under the Biden administration.Last week, Florida governor and potential aspirant for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024 Ron DeSantis announced charges against 19 people over election fraud. But as Sam Levine reports, there may be less to the cases than it initially appeared:Several Floridians facing criminal voter fraud charges, loudly trumpeted by Governor Ron DeSantis last week, believed they were eligible to vote, and in some cases said they were advised by government officials that they could cast ballots.Court and election documents reviewed by the Guardian raise questions about whether the 19 people charged last week knowingly committed fraud or whether they were confused about their eligibility. All those charged have prior murder or sexual offense convictions, which means they cannot vote in Florida unless they receive clemency. All of the defendants also submitted voter registration applications, which were approved by local election officials, ahead of the 2020 election, and several said they had received voter registration cards in the mail, which they took as a signal that they were eligible to vote.Jared Kushner’s memoir of his time in the White House was critically panned but has one famous reader: Donald Trump. Martin Pengelly reports:Donald Trump was notoriously averse to reading his briefing papers as president but according to Jared Kushner he has started reading Breaking History, his son-in-law and former adviser’s 500-page White House memoir.Speaking to the Fox News host Brian Kilmeade on Wednesday, Kushner said: “When I gave it to him, he said, ‘Look, this is a very important book. I’m glad somebody wrote a book that’s really going to talk about what actually happened in the room.’ And he says, ‘I’m going to read it.’“So he started reading and he’s given me some compliments on it so far. And again, I hope he’s proud of it. I don’t know if he’ll like anything [in it].”Critics have not liked much in Kushner’s book. For the Guardian, Lloyd Green called it “a mixture of news and cringe” which “selectively parcels out dirt”. In the New York Times, Dwight Garner called the book “earnest and soulless”, saying “Kushner looks like a mannequin, and he writes like one. “Kushner’s fealty to Trump remains absolute. Reading this book reminded me of watching a cat lick a dog’s eye goo,” he wrote.Donald Trump’s latest legal salvo following the FBI’s search of his Mar-a-Lago resort may have inadvertently tipped his hand.As the Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reported earlier this week, the former president appeared to concede in a court filing that some of the documents agents found at Mar-a-Lago could be subject to executive privilege – meaning they should have been turned over to the National Archives when he left the White House, rather than kept.“If he’s acknowledging that he’s in possession of documents that would have any colorable claim of executive privilege, those are by definition presidential records and belong at the National Archives,” Asha Rangappa, a former FBI agent and former associate dean at Yale Law School, said of the matter.“And so it’s not clear that executive privilege would even be relevant to the particular crime he’s being investigated for and yet in this filing, he basically admits that he is in possession of them, which is what the government is trying to establish.”Whether a federal judge agrees could be made apparent in the days and weeks to come. But the government secrets investigation isn’t the only one the former president faces - indeed, he’s caught up in array of lawsuits and inquiries. Fortunately, Reuters has a good explainer that briefly summarizes each one.Trump to answer judge's questions over Mar-a-Lago lawsuitGood morning, US politics blog readers. Answers could come today from Donald Trump, after a federal judge he appointed during his time in office asked him to explain a recently filed lawsuit that seeks to block the FBI from reviewing documents taken from Mar-a-Lago. The response from the former president’s lawyers could give a sense of his legal strategy against the investigation into whether he took government secrets with him when he left the White House.Here’s what else is going on today: President Joe Biden will hold a rally in suburban Maryland at 7pm eastern time, where he’ll no doubt promote his recent legislative accomplishments as well as yesterday’s move to cancel some student debt. The White House cheered a court ruling blocking Idaho’s abortion ban in cases of medical emergencies. Tennessee’s strict abortion ban, which has no exceptions for rape or incest, comes into effect today. | US Political Corruption |
A new proposal by the Biden administration would dramatically cut monthly payments in half, with monthly payments as low as zero for many borrowers, while completely wiping out the remaining balance for some borrowers after 10 years of payments.Unlike the administration’s previous plan granting selective student-debt forgiveness, this is merely a generous reworking of the Revised Pay As You Earn (REPAYE) plan, a type of income-driven repayment plan for federal student loans. Thus, it is less likely to make its way to the Supreme Court, which will hold hearings at the end of February on the legality of Biden’s original $10,000 forgiveness plan.Here are some of the specifics:Current programs base payments on 10% or 15% of the borrower’s discretionary after-tax income. The new program would lower that calculation to 5% of the borrower’s discretionary income. In effect, that would at least cut payments in half for most borrowers.Currently, borrowers who earn less than 150% of the federal poverty level (around $21,900) qualify for the REPAYE plan. Under the new proposal, borrowers wouldn’t need to make payments until income earned hit 225% of the federal poverty guideline, or about $32,800.Anyone earning less than that $32,800 level would have a zero monthly payment.But according to student loan expert Mark Kantrowitz, even those with much higher incomes will save under the new formula. He explains that someone earning more than $90,000 and currently paying $568 per month would see her monthly payment drop to $238.And a borrower earning $40,000 could see a monthly payment drop from the current $151 per month to as low as $30 per month!As in the current programs, if you successfully make 20 years of these new lower payments, the balance will be forgiven. And for those who have loans initially totaling less than $12,000, and who make regular payments under this plan, the loan will be forgiven after 10 years of payments. For every $1,000 of initial additional borrowings, the time until forgiveness is extended by one year.There are some other important features of the program:As long as the payments are made on time, no unpaid interest will be added to the balance, eliminating the “snowball effect” of interest-on-interest adding to outstanding balances.Previously, family income was used to calculate the required payments in these income-driven plans. Now, only the income from the actual borrower will be counted — a relief to many young married couples.As it is written, this new program does not apply to PLUS loans that parents of students take out.It hasn’t been determined whether federal income taxes apply on the amount forgiven, which is the current case until 2025. And states can make their own tax determinations.What would all of this cost the government? Estimates range as high as $200 billion over 10 years. But that pales in comparison to the $1.5 trillion in student loans outstanding — many of them still carrying their original interest rate of 7% or higher, with interest compounding.Many borrowers are stuck not only with the high interest rates but also with the compounding of debt — which means they may have paid off their original borrowings but still owe twice as much in unpaid interest!Kantrowitz says: “By ending the capitalization of accrued but unpaid interest, the new income-driven repayment plan will prevent the loan balance from increasing. This has been a major source of stress for many borrowers, even though they know that the remaining debt will be forgiven in the end.”And Rae Kaplan, a Chicago attorney who specializes in guiding borrowers to choose the best repayment plans, says if the proposal goes into effect, many borrowers will still need guidance in consolidating their loans to take best advantage of this deal. The details are yet to be released.This new proposal is not scheduled to go into effect until at earliest July 2024 — if it manages to make its way through legal and political challenges. In the meantime, the current student loan forbearance, which requires no payments, will stay in effect until June 1, 2023 — or two months after the expected Supreme Court ruling on the initial forgiveness program.The government has been able to refinance its debt to lower costs. Now it’s time to adjust the burden of student loans. And that’s The Savage Truth.(Terry Savage is a registered investment adviser and the author of four best-selling books, including “The Savage Truth on Money.” Terry responds to questions on her blog at TerrySavage.com.) | US Federal Policies |
Federal prosecutors have charged seven people in an alleged nationwide network that trafficked stolen human body parts and remains taken from Harvard Medical School and an Arkansas mortuary—a "heinous crime" that involved the desecration of stillborn babies, faces, brains, hearts, skin, genitalia, bones, and other body parts in exchanges that netted defendants thousands of dollars.Key figures in the alleged network are: Cedric Lodge, 55, of Goffstown, New Hampshire, who managed the morgue for the Anatomical Gifts Program at Harvard Medical School; and Candace Chapman Scott, 36, of Little Rock, Arkansas, who worked at a local mortuary and crematorium.
According to US Attorney Gerard Karam, between 2018 and 2022, Lodge stole organs and other parts from cadavers donated for medical research and education before their scheduled cremation. At times, Lodge allegedly allowed buyers to enter the morgue and look through cadavers, essentially shopping for the body parts they wanted to purchase. Shoppers sometimes bought them directly, transporting them out of the state on their own. At other times, Lodge shipped them or brought them to his home in New Hampshire, where he had help selling them from his wife, Denise Lodge, 63, who is also charged.
Two of Lodge's alleged buyers charged along with him are Katrina MacLean, age 44, of Salem, Massachusetts, and Joshua Taylor, age 46, of West Lawn, Pennsylvania. MacLean and Taylor allegedly got to do in-person remains shopping at the Harvard morgue.
MacLean is the owner of "Kat's Creepy Creations" in Peabody, Massachusetts. An artist's Facebook page with that name contained images of human skulls and morbid dolls. The description reads: "I am an artist of horror, macabre, oddities, and everything creepy. I love creating things that shoc[sic]." An Instagram account with the same name appeared to have been removed Thursday. According to the indictment, MacLean paid Lodge $600 for two dissected faces in 2020—she picked up her purchases directly at the morgue.
Taylor also bought items from Lodge, with records indicating 39 payments via PayPal to Lodge's wife, Denise, between September 2018 and July 2021. A memo for one of the purchases made in May 2019 and worth $1,000 read "head number 7." Another from November 2020 for $200 read "braiiiiiins." The total for the 39 purchases was over $37,000.
“So disturbing”
After purchasing stolen remains from Lodge, Taylor and MacLean interacted with another member of the vile network: Jeremy Pauley, age 41, of Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania—a central figure in the scheme. MacLean and Taylor resold their ill-gotten remains to Pauley. Records indicate Pauley made 25 payments to Taylor totaling $40,000. Meanwhile, in June or July 2021, MacLean shipped Pauley human skin and requested Pauley tan it to create leather. Pauley subsequently sent her a picture of the leather, and MacLean agreed to pay Pauley not with money but with more human skin. On July 30, 2021, MacLean messaged Lodge that she needed more human skin to pay the "dude I sent the chest piece to tan." Lodge agreed to look out for more skin.Pauley is the link to the other part of the network, which stems from Candace Chapman Scott, the former morgue worker in Little Rock. Scott was charged with 12 criminal counts in April for allegedly selling 20 boxes of stolen body parts to Pauley, whom she met through Facebook. Scott allegedly sold brains, hearts, lungs, genitalia, large pieces of skin, and other body parts to Pauley, as well as the corpses of two stillborn babies. The babies were supposed to be cremated, but according to The Washington Post, at least one of the grieving families received fake ashes after the real remains were sold to Pauley, who then shipped them to Minnesota in exchange for five human skulls. Scott has pleaded not guilty.
Pauley was connected to the seventh person in the ring, Mathew Lampi, age 52, of East Bethel, Minnesota. Pauley and Lampi apparently bought and sold from each other for an extended time, with exchanges totaling over $100,000.
“Some crimes defy understanding,” US Attorney Karam said in a statement. “The theft and trafficking of human remains strikes at the very essence of what makes us human. It is particularly egregious that so many of the victims here volunteered to allow their remains to be used to educate medical professionals and advance the interests of science and healing. For them and their families to be taken advantage of in the name of profit is appalling. With these charges, we are seeking to secure some measure of justice for all these victims.
In a message to the Harvard community, Harvard Dean of the Faculty of Medicine Edward M. Hundert called news of the indictments an "abhorrent betrayal."
"We are appalled to learn that something so disturbing could happen on our campus—a community dedicated to healing and serving others," he wrote. "The reported incidents are a betrayal of HMS and, most importantly, each of the individuals who altruistically chose to will their bodies to HMS through the Anatomical Gift Program to advance medical education and research." | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
House GOP floats telework restrictions, drastic spending cuts as Congress weighs options to avert shutdown
House and Senate have diverging plans to temporarily keep agencies afloat as Republicans propose budget rescissions and civilian job reductions.
House Republicans on Thursday hit another snag toward passing fiscal 2024 funding bills, pulling a measure that would have funded the Internal Revenue Service, Office of Personnel Management and other agencies after determining they lacked the requisite votes.
That marked the second time in a week that Republicans had to pull a funding measure off the floor over insufficient support, doing the same for a measure providing appropriations to the departments of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development. And in the more immediate term, lawmakers are barreling toward a shutdown if they cannot pass a stopgap measure by Nov 17.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., over the weekend unveiled his short-term plan for averting a funding lapse, proposing the division of government funding into two buckets. The first bucket would fund the departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Veterans Affairs and Agriculture and would run through Jan. 19. The second measure would fund the rest of government through Feb. 2. It does not include any spending cuts or policy provisions related to the border, as Johnson had also floated, but still takes an approach that Democratic leadership and some Republicans have derided.
"This two-step continuing resolution is a necessary bill to place House Republicans in the best position to fight for conservative victories," Johnson said. "The bill will stop the absurd holiday-season omnibus tradition of massive, loaded up spending bills introduced right before the Christmas recess."
The House has passed seven of the 12 annual appropriations bills that Congress must approve each year. It is considering bills at far lower funding levels than those agreed to in the debt limit deal it struck with President Biden earlier this year and is passing them along party-line votes. The Senate has passed three of the fiscal 2024 bills, lumped into one package, but did so with broad, bipartisan support and in alignment with the Fiscal Responsibility Act's spending caps.
Leaders in both chambers have sought to prioritize passing individual spending bills or "minibus" packages of them to avoid lumping all 12 annual appropriations bills into one omnibus, as it has done for most years in recent memory. A stopgap CR would buy more time to pass their bills and go to a conference to negotiate final packages, though the delays and hurdles to approving bills even along partisan lines has complicated progress.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Thursday took the first legislative step to put forward a vehicle the chamber can use to pass its own CR.
“Over the next few days Democrats will continue talking to Republicans about finding a path forward on avoiding a shutdown that both sides support, and I earnestly hope we can reach agreement sooner rather than later,” Schumer said, emphasizing the path forward must be bipartisan. “Hard-right proposals, hard-right slashing cuts, hard-right poison pills that have zero support from Democrats will only make a shutdown more likely. I hope they don’t go down that path in the week to come.”
Johnson has said he favors a CR into January to avoid a holiday crunch, though Senate Democrats have discussed an earlier deadline. Once they eventually pivot to bicameral negotiations over full-year appropriations, Republicans will look to use their passed bills as a starting point. While the Senate versions keep agencies largely flat-funded, the House iterations contain significant cuts and policy changes. Here is a look at some of those proposals:
- Clawing back previous funding: Most of the House backed bills have included recissions from the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrats’ signature climate, health care and tax law, as well as some cuts from the bipartisan infrastructure law. The various measures would claw back $9 billion from the Environmental Protection Agency, $6 billion from the Energy Department and $300 million from the Homeland Security Department. Under the currently scrapped Financial Services and General Government bill, Republicans had sought to rescind funding for clean federal buildings and $29 billion from the IRS. Lawmakers said the measure would ensure IRS hiring—leading to a “supercharged army of IRS agents”—would not take place.
- Banning diversity efforts: Most of the Republicans’ bills would prohibit any funds going toward President Biden’s executive order on diversity, equity and inclusion in the federal workforce. The order is pushing agencies to improve recruitment, retention and professional development of underserved communities, including providing more comprehensive health coverage to LGBTQ+ federal workers, boosting protections for feds with disabilities and pushing agencies to transition from unpaid to paid internship.
- Pentagon civilian cuts: The House-backed bill to fund the Defense Department would boost funding overall by 3.5%, but cut $1 billion from Biden’s request for the civilian workforce. The measure would require a review of how Defense can shift functions away from civilians in favor of technological solutions, while also mandating a reassessment of the roles and individuals required for core missions, tasks and functions.
- Severe reductions at State: Republicans boasted their State Department funding measure would zero out nine accounts and terminate 18 programs. It would bring 31 accounts to fiscal 2019 levels as part of an overall 14% cut compared to fiscal 2023.
- EPA slashed: In addition to the IRA rescission, EPA would see a whopping 39% cut in the House-backed bill that funds the agency. The Interior Department would fare better with a cut of just 5%, though the Bureau of Land Management’s funding would be reduced by 18% and the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service would see cuts of 13%. The Forest Service would see an overall increase of 13% to support wildfire management efforts.
- Reducing telework: If Republicans are able to pass their FSGG bill, it would require federal employees to work in the office at least as much as they did before the COVID-19 pandemic. “Instead of ‘leading by example’ in the construction of sustainable buildings, [the General Services Administration] should lead by example by bringing their employees back to the office, like the private sector,” Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., the bill’s author, said on the House floor on Wednesday. “We must hold the federal workforce accountable for the quality of their work and the service they provide to the American people.”
- Increases, mostly, at DHS: The Homeland Security Department would see an overall 3% funding increase. That would fund 22,000 Border Patrol agents, providing nearly $500 million to up the staff from its current level of just more than 19,000. Biden has similarly sought a significant hiring surge for Border Patrol. Republicans also included $2 billion for wall construction along the U.S.-Mexico border. Most components would receive funding above the president’s request, though not all of DHS would fare as well: the measure would zero out funding for electric vehicles at the department and give U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services just $122 million. That represents a 55% cut compared to its current funding level and is dramatically shy of Biden’s request for nearly $750 million.
- USPS crime and turnover: Also part of the “general government” bill that Republicans have struggled to pass was a provision requiring the U.S. Postal Service to report on its actions to protect employees from robberies and assaults in recent years and what it will do going forward. They also requested a report on employee turnover and how the agency is addressing it. Postal management has put forward plans to confront both challenges.
NEXT STORY: How Greenbelt won the FBI’s new headquarters | US Federal Policies |
The unprecedented ousting of former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy created many unknowns, chief among them whether the next speaker, who has the power to decide which bills the House considers, will support bringing a vote on Ukraine aid to the floor.
Congressman Jim Jordan, who's announced a bid for speaker, has made his opposition to offering continued aid clear. The Ohio Republican told reporters on Wednesday that there are more "pressing issues" that the American people are concerned about, such as the "border situation," which has been pushed further into the core of American politics following news that President Joe Biden's administration will resume construction of portions of the border wall it once denounced.
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been vocal in his support for Ukraine, has spoken about the problems facing it and the border concurrently, saying in his Wednesday floor speech that "we'll also need to make progress on supplemental resources—for safeguarding America's direct interests in Ukraine's defense ... and restoring security and sanity to our southern border."
Other members of the Senate have voiced similar sentiments, saying that addressing the two issues simultaneously could place more pressure on a future speaker to bring a bill providing funding to Ukraine to the House floor, where it would likely receive majority support.
"I think that would make [Ukraine aid] more palatable, each side gets something that they feel is important," Utah Senator Mitt Romney, a top Republican deal-maker and supporter of Ukraine, told Newsweek.
"But you'd have to have something that really made a difference at the border, as opposed to just a stopgap Band-Aid," he added. "I know that we have a number of folks working on that, and hopefully they'll be successful."
When it was still uncertain whether House Republicans would support a stopgap bill to avert a government shutdown due to Senate insistence at the time on the inclusion of Ukraine funding, independent Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona reached out to Republicans to negotiate a potential border funding deal.
Oklahoma Senator James Lankford, who serves as the top Republican alongside Sinema on the Senate Homeland Security Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management, has been a part of border funding talks.
He said previous conversations were focused more on spending as opposed to policy. While the border has traditionally been one of the thorniest partisan subjects, Lankford said he's seeing an increasing amount of Democratic interest as the number of reported migrant encounters remains at historic levels.
"There's such a huge national security risk," Lankford told Newsweek. "The individuals that are coming across the border at great speed are not being vetted. We don't know, they're coming from literally all over the world, and the national security risk continues to rise. There are some Democrats who are willing to sit down and say, 'Hey, I want to incentivize legal, not illegal [immigration]."
Democratic Senators Mark Kelly of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia previously told Newsweek that they support working across the aisle to reach a border security agreement. Whether such a deal can be reached in the Senate, however, will require satisfying enough progressives and conservatives, something Congress has not been able to make happen for decades.
"I've been here a while, and we've been talking about this for a long time," Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas said when asked by Newsweek whether he thought the Senate could build off of prior border talks. "It's time to quit talking and start actually doing something."
"I'm willing to keep trying, and maybe there's an opportunity here, because I think more Democrats are realizing, people like [New York] Mayor [Eric] Adams and the governor of New York, the governor of Massachusetts, the governor of Illinois, they're saying this is affecting us," he said.
"These are blue states, not red states," Cornyn added, "and maybe they can help get some attention. We certainly have some good ideas on how to how to address the problem." | US Congress |
- Medical debt is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.
- 100 million Americans have amassed almost as much medical debt as the size of Greece’s economy
- The financial burden has pushed many patients to skip needed health care, cut grocery budgets, take another mortgage
Cindy Powers was driven into bankruptcy by 19 life-saving abdominal operations. Medical debt started stacking up for Lindsey Vance after she crashed her skateboard and had to get nine stitches in her chin. And for Misty Castaneda, open heart surgery for a disease she'd had since birth saddled her with $200,000 in bills.
These are three of an estimated 100 million Americans who have amassed nearly $200 billion in collective medical debt — almost the size of Greece’s economy — according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Now lawmakers in at least a dozen states and the U.S. Congress have pushed legislation to curtail the financial burden that’s pushed many into untenable situations: forgoing needed care for fear of added debt, taking a second mortgage to pay for cancer treatment or slashing grocery budgets to keep up with payments.
Some of the bills would create medical debt relief programs or protect personal property from collections, while others would lower interest rates, keep medical debt from tanking credit scores or require greater transparency in the costs of care.
In Colorado, House lawmakers approved a measure Wednesday that would lower the maximum interest rate for medical debt to 3%, require greater transparency in costs of treatment and prohibit debt collection during an appeals process.
If it became law, Colorado would join Arizona in having one of the lowest medical debt interest rates in the country. North Carolina lawmakers have also started mulling a 5% interest ceiling.
But there are opponents. Colorado Republican state Sen. Janice Rich said she worried that the proposal could "constrain hospitals’ debt collecting ability and hurt their cash flow."
For patients, medical debt has become a leading cause of personal bankruptcy, with an estimated $88 billion of that debt in collections nationwide, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Roughly 530,000 people reported falling into bankruptcy annually due partly to medical bills and time away from work, according to a 2019 study from the American Journal of Public Health.
Powers’ family ended up owing $250,000 for the 19 life-saving abdominal surgeries. They declared bankruptcy in 2009, then the bank foreclosed on their home.
"Only recently have we begun to pick up the pieces," said James Powers, Cindy’s husband, during his February testimony in favor of Colorado's bill.
In Pennsylvania and Arizona, lawmakers are considering medical debt relief programs that would use state funds to help eradicate debt for residents. A New Jersey proposal would use federal funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to achieve the same end.
Bills in Florida and Massachusetts would protect some personal property — such as a car that is needed for work — from medical debt collections and force providers to be more transparent about costs. Florida’s legislation received unanimous approval in House and Senate committees on its way to votes in both chambers.
In Colorado, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and the U.S. Congress lawmakers are contemplating bills that would bar medical debt from being included on consumer reports, thereby protecting debtors' credit scores.
Castaneda, who was born with a congenital heart defect, found herself $200,000 in debt when she was 23 and had to have surgery. The debt tanked her credit score and, she said, forced her to rely on her emotionally abusive husband's credit.
For over a decade Castaneda wanted out of the relationship, but everything they owned was in her husband's name, making it nearly impossible to break away. She finally divorced her husband in 2017.
"I’m trying to play catch-up for the last 20 years," said Castaneda, 45, a hairstylist from Grand Junction on Colorado's Western Slope.
Medical debt isn't a strong indicator of people's credit-worthiness, said Isabel Cruz, policy director at the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative.
While buying a car beyond your means or overspending on vacation can partly be chalked up to poor decision making, medical debt often comes from short, acute-care treatments that are unexpected — leaving patients with hefty bills that exceed their budgets.
For both Colorado bills — to limit interest rates and remove medical debt from consumer reports — a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said the governor will "review these policies with a lens towards saving people money on health care."
While neither bill garnered stiff political opposition, a spokesperson for the Colorado Hospital Association said the organization is working with sponsors to amend the interest rate bill "to align the legislation with the multitude of existing protections."
The association did not provide further details.
To Vance, protecting her credit score early could have had a major impact. Vance’s medical debt began at age 19 from the skateboard crash, and then was compounded when she broke her arm soon after. Now 39, she has never been able to qualify for a credit card or car loan. Her in-laws cosigned for her Colorado apartment.
"My credit identity was medical debt," she said, "and that set the tone for my life." | US Federal Policies |
Subsets and Splits