article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
Jewish man killed in altercation at dueling protests over Israel-Hamas war in California, sheriff and local organizations say
The medical examiner ruled Paul Kessler's death a homicide.
A 69-year-old Jewish man died after a blunt-force head injury following an altercation at an Israel-Hamas war protest in California, Ventura County officials and local organizations said Monday.
The death followed a confrontation with a counter-protester as simultaneous pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian demonstrations were held at the same location over the weekend, the Ventura County Sheriff's Office said.
The Ventura County Medical Examiner's Office said it determined Paul Kessler's death was a homicide. Authorities have not ruled out the possibility the incident was a hate crime, officials said Monday. Kessler was Jewish, according to two faith-based organizations in Los Angeles.
On Sunday afternoon in Thousand Oaks, California, multiple people called the Ventura County Sheriff's Communication Center to report an incident of battery at the corner of Westlake Boulevard and Thousand Oaks Boulevard, authorities said. The intersection was where pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian demonstrations were taking place.
Authorities arriving on the scene located Kessler and noted he was suffering from a head injury, the sheriff's office said.
Witnesses told deputies that Kessler was involved in a physical altercation with a counter-protester or protesters, officials said Monday night. Kessler fell backward during the altercation, authorities said, hitting his head on the ground.
He was transported to a local hospital for what authorities said was "advanced medical treatment," but he died from his injuries Monday, officials said.
The Jewish Federation of Los Angeles said in a Monday statement that it was "devastated to learn of the tragic death of an elderly Jewish man."
"Violence against our people has no place in civilized society. We demand safety. We will not tolerate violence against our community. We will do everything in our power to prevent it," the federation said.
Executive Director Hussam Ayloush of the Greater LA office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations also issued a statement following the news of the man's death.
"We are deeply saddened by this tragic and shocking loss. We join local Jewish leaders in calling on all individuals to refrain from jumping to conclusions, sensationalizing such a tragedy for political gains, or spreading rumors that could unnecessarily escalate tensions that are already at an all-time high," he said.
The public should wait until the sheriff's office completes its investigation before "drawing any conclusions," he said.
"While we strongly support the right of political debate, CAIR-LA and the Muslim community stand with the Jewish community in rejecting any and all violence, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or incitement of hatred," he added.
-ABC News' Marily Heck contributed to this story | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
How Donald Trump helped Kari Lake become Arizona’s (and America’s) new Joe Arpaio
Opinion: You can draw a straight line (Or is it a crooked one?) from former Sheriff Arpaio to Donald Trump to Kari Lake.
We’re sorry, America.
Arizona did not invent Donald Trump.
However, Arizona did invent Joe Arpaio, and he invented Donald Trump.
And Donald Trump invented Kari Lake.
And she is Arizona’s (and America’s) new Joe Arpaio.
A new kind of politics: Losing is as good as winning
After having lost the race for Arizona’s governor, and apparently lost her chance to be Trump’s running mate, and lost innumerable court challenges to her election loss, Lake has filed papers to run for the U.S. Senate in Arizona.
The big difference between her and Arpaio is the he actually won elections.
A bunch of them, actually.
But that happened at a time when winning elections meant something. Trump changed all that, although he couldn’t have done so without Arpaio.
Arpaio created a political playbook. Trump copied it
Back in the summer of 2015, not too long after Trump entered the presidential race, I wrote a column that began:
”People who don't know any better are saying Donald Trump can't win the presidential election.
“In Arizona, we know that he can get elected, because Arizonans already have elected Donald Trump – many times.”
I was speaking about Arpaio.
When Arpaio entered politics in Arizona, first being elected in 1992, the rules seemed to change.
He said outrageous things, made outrageous claims, staged outrageous stunts, just about none of which had anything to do with law enforcement. And he still was reelected.
Voters and politicians fell for the tough guy act
He was an Obama "birther." He made wild accusations about other politicians. He created the infamous “Tent City” at the county jail. Within a relatively short time he introduced policies and procedures that thrilled hardliners but resulted a number of jail deaths, which led to lawsuits.
There were even more lawsuits over Arpaio’s treatment of migrants. The payouts have cost county taxpayers more than a quarter of a billion dollars.
But voters loved Arpaio’s phony tough-guy act, electing him again and again and making him a Republican icon with national and international appeal.
For 20 years Republican politicians made pilgrimages to Phoenix to kiss Arpaio’s ring, Donald Trump was among them.
Arpaio traveled all over the country at the request of candidates running for state and federal offices. He drew enthusiastic crowds and helped to finance dozens of political campaigns.
Drawing the straight line from Arpaio to Trump to Lake
Donald Trump took notes, and then used Arpaio’s playbook in his political campaign.
And Kari Lake used Trump’s playbook.
And she will no doubt continue to do so during her upcoming Senate campaign, including the part where she, like Trump, will try to tone down her rhetoric, hoping to fool people into believing that her campaign is not the ugly, grievance-based, conspiracy-filled vaudevillian schtick that it is.
Like Trump’s. Like Arpaio’s before him.
Media types like me will remind you that during her failed campaign for governor Lake, channeling Trump, told a gathering, “The media might have a field day with this one, but I’m gonna just repeat something President Trump said a long time ago and it got him in a lot of trouble.”
She continued, “They are bringing drugs. They are bringing crime, and they are rapists, and that’s who’s coming across our border. That’s a fact.”
It’s a straight line (Or is it a crooked one?) from Arpaio to Trump to Lake.
And America, seriously, “We’re sorry.”
Reach Montini at [email protected]
For more opinions content, please subscribe. | US Federal Elections |
- Now that the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments over Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, here's what borrowers can expect next.
- Experts say a decision may come by late June.
Now that the Supreme Court has heard oral arguments over student loan forgiveness, borrowers may be wondering: What's next?
Oral arguments last only a day, but the justices can take months to reach a decision, experts say. In an analysis of the last Supreme Court's term, higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz found that half of the decisions were issued in June.
For many borrowers, that may be an agonizing wait: More than 26 million people applied for the Biden administration's relief program before The U.S. Department of Education had to close its application portal amid legal challenges. The decision reached by the nine justices will determine whether or not those borrowers get up to $20,000 of their debt canceled.
"For many people, this is life and death," said Thomas Gokey, co-founder of the Debt Collective, a national union of debtors. "What's at stake is being forced to choose between paying for student loans or being able to buy groceries, make rent and pay medical bills."
Here's what borrowers need to know while they wait for the Supreme Court's ruling on student loan forgiveness.
President Joe Biden's plan has faced at least six lawsuits since it was rolled out in August.
The nine justices on Tuesday considered two of those legal challenges: one from six GOP-led states (Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina) and another backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.
Prior to the oral arguments, legal experts expected Biden's plan to face tough odds with the justices. However, they then lobbed praise on Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, the lawyer who represented the Biden administration in front of the highest court, for her performance and some changed their tune.
"The Biden administration now seems more likely than not to win the cases," Kantrowitz said.
University of Illinois Chicago law professor Steven Schwinn said Prelogar "knocked it out of the park."
"I do think she could have influenced or even changed the thinking of two justices, maybe more," he added.
The plaintiffs argued that the president doesn't have the power to wipe out $400 billion in student debt without the authorization of Congress, while the government attorney defending the policy countered that the U.S. Department of Education can make changes to the federal student loan system, including debt forgiveness, during national emergencies.
A top Department of Education official recently warned that the public health crisis has caused considerable financial harm to student loan borrowers and that its debt cancellation plan is necessary to stave off a historic rise in delinquencies and defaults.
At times, the justices seemed skeptical that those emergency powers included the kind of sweeping loan forgiveness the president is trying to carry out. But they also seemed doubtful at points that the plaintiffs had successfully proven they'd be harmed by the plan, which is typically a requirement to have standing to sue.
Federal student loan payments have been on pause since March 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic first hit the U.S. and crippled the economy. When the bills restart depends on how long the Supreme Court justices take to issue a decision, Kantrowitz said.
The Department of Education in November said the bills would resume 60 days after the litigation over its student loan forgiveness plan resolves.
If the legal issues with the administration's forgiveness plan are still unfolding by the end of June, or if it's not allowed to move forward with forgiving student debt by then, payments will pick up at the end of August.
If the justices allow student loan forgiveness to go through, many borrowers will never have to restart payments. According to a White House estimate, roughly 20 million people could have their debt entirely cleared under the president's plan.
"Sixty days will be enough to forgive student loan debt if the president's plan survives," Kantrowitz said. "They've already approved forgiveness for 16 million borrowers, so they just need to transmit this information to the loan servicers."
He added: "It should take one to two weeks for the servicers to implement."
Experts say that should the justices rule against the student loan forgiveness plan, the Biden administration could look for other ways to deliver its relief. They also could try to keep the payment pause in place for longer while they figure out those next steps. | SCOTUS |
How Mr. Nice Guy Tim Scott can slay Trump and win the nomination
In politics, nice guys may not finish last, but they rarely win — especially for president. But Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) is giving it a try, at least according to the DC commentariat. But that’s not Scott’s real strategy; the Palmetto State senator is playing a more complex game, ready to drop the nice guy routine when conditions are right.
Right now, Scott is floating along behind Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and far behind Donald Trump for the GOP nomination. At the time of the writing of this article, he has just 3 percent support in the RealClearPolitics average, with his best poll at 6 percent. Scott is trailing Mike Pence and Nikki Haley, and has been passed by newcomer Vivek Ramaswamy. He is doing better in New Hampshire and Iowa, with 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively. But he still trails DeSantis by approximately 15 points. Even if Trump drops, it is hard to see how Scott climbs above the rest of the field.
Unless Trump gives Scott his endorsement.
And that is what Scott’s strategy looks like. Fly under the radar, stay positive, keep on Trump’s good side and hope his legal troubles derail him at the right time. That strategy seems to be working at least a bit. Scott has the lowest disapproval of any Republican, at just 12 percent in the most recent Morning Consult poll.
Scott will need the Trump nod, as he has not established himself as an alternative to Trump on his own. In the July 11 YouGov poll, Scott was the second choice of just 8 percent of voters, in a clump with Ramaswamy (9 percent), Pence (8 percent) and Haley (6 percent), but well behind DeSantis (35 percent). Morning Consult was worse for Scott, putting him as the second choice of just 6 percent with DeSantis at 40 percent, Ramaswamy at 17 percent and Pence at 14 percent.
Scott does seem the most likely to get the nod from Trump, should Trump drop out. The former president has said positive things about Scott, but also about Ramaswamy. Pence is out, as Trump views him as costing Trump the presidency in 2020. Haley likely sank her chances with her proposed “senility test.” As a political neophyte, Ramaswamy has no real connection to Trump, and the losses by Trump-backed newcomers in 2022 hurts Ramaswamy by association. Trump could swallow his pride and endorse DeSantis if the Florida governor looks like a clear general election winner, but that’s a hard turn for Trump to make.
The process of elimination leads to Scott. But it also means Scott is stuck in a holding pattern, working to avoid any hint of controversy.
But what Scott really needs is a favorable court calendar and Trump to snap into reality at the right time, while Trump hangs on to at least a strong plurality of Republican voters. The best-case scenario is for Trump to lock down the nomination and bail before the GOP convention and enough Republican delegates agreeing to treat the nomination as Trump’s inheritance to be passed down (not a sure thing).
If Trump withdraws before the primaries or drops out after losing in Iowa and/or New Hampshire, Scott could still ride a Trump endorsement to the nomination. But Scott has to be able to close the deal with voters. Even if that strategy fails and Trump is out early, Scott would still be in prime position for the VP slot.
The nightmare scenario is Trump doggedly staying in, grabbing the nomination and naming Scott as his running mate. Scott could (and should) turn it down. That would damage him with the MAGA faithful, but serving on a ticket with Trump would be worse. Scott would be expected to defend every act and utterance. Given Trump’s behavior the past two years, Scott would be stuck defending plenty of craziness. Not to mention that Scott will get the blame from Trump if he sticks it out through November and loses.
A Trump departure during the general election campaign would be an ungodly mess in and of itself. Such a departure could follow a conviction or a polling collapse following a conviction. Even the most skilled politician would find such a course of events nearly impossible to finesse. The later Trump exits, the more trouble. And it is not out of the question that Trump pulls out too late to take his name off the ballot. It is plausible Tim Scott and the Republican Party would be asking voters to pull the Trump lever and assuring them it would be Scott who becomes president.
Scott is risking it all on how and when the wheels of justice grind away and on the erratic mind of Trump. That’s a narrow path, but Tim Scott does have a path — unlike most of the Republican field.
Keith Naughton, Ph.D., is co-founder of Silent Majority Strategies, a public and regulatory affairs consulting firm. Naughton is a former Pennsylvania political campaign consultant. Follow him on Twitter @KNaughton711.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Elections |
Washington — Ais set to kick off in Delaware superior court on Tuesday, as the voting technology company presses its claim before a jury that Fox knowingly aired false information about its voting machines and software in the wake of the 2020 presidential election.
Jury selection started Thursday and was set to resume before opening statements Monday, but the start of the trial was delayed until Tuesday morning, the judge presiding over the case, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, said in a statement Sunday. The trial is predicted to last up to six weeks, during which Dominion has the burden of proving to the jury that Fox acted with actual malice in broadcasting the unfounded allegations about Dominion.
To show, the legal standard established by the Supreme Court for defamation cases, a public figure — Dominion in this case — must prove the publisher knew the offending statements were false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.
If the jury finds Fox News acted with actual malice, it will also determine whether Dominion is entitled to damages and if so, how much should be awarded.
The network's top stars and top executives from Fox Corporation, Fox News' parent company, are expected to feature prominently and could testify in-person during the trial.
Here are the key figures to know.
Fox Corporation
Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch, co-chairman and co-chairman and CEO, respectively
Dominion alleges that Fox Corporation's top officers, including Murdoch, knew that the claims about Dominion were false, and that the evidence demonstrates Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch had editorial responsibility.
In their complaint, the company says that the Murdoch family "plays a central and public role in the managing and oversight of Fox News."
Viet Dinh, chief legal officer and policy officer
Dominion claims that like the Murdochs, Viet Dinh knew the accusations about Dominion were false. He said in deposition testimony that he "sometimes" consults with shows before a particular guest appears because of legal concerns.
Raj Shah, senior vice president
According to messages made public as part of the discovery process, Shah repeatedly indicated he knew the claims about Dominion were outlandish. Shah also led a "brand team" and notified senior leaders from Fox News and Fox Corporation that then-host Neil Cavuto's pushback to the White House's voter fraud claims posed a "brand threat."
Paul Ryan, former House speaker and Fox Corporation board member
Ryan joined Fox Corporation's board in 2019 and he sent a message to Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch on Dec. 6, 2020, urging "solid pushback" to Trump's calls for an alternate slate of presidential electors, according to documents made public as part of the case.
"I think we are entering a truly bizarre phase of this where he has actually convinced himself of this farce and will do more bizarre things to delegitimize the election," Ryan told the Murdochs of Trump. "I see this as a key inflection point for Fox, where the right thing and the smart business thing do line up nicely."
Fox News Network
Suzanne Scott, CEO of Fox News
Dominion alleged in its lawsuit that Scott and executives were responsible for airing broadcasts that included the 20 statements the company alleges were defamatory. In court filings, Dominion said Scott elevated concerns about the audience's backlash to its Arizona call for Joe Biden, and told Lachlan Murdoch in a text that the Arizona call "was damaging but we will highlight our stars and plant flags letting the viewers know we hear them and respect them."
Jay Wallace, president and executive editor of Fox News Media
Wallace is among the executives who Dominion says was responsible for airing the challenged broadcasts. He spoke with Dominion's representative on Nov. 17, 2020, and was told of the facts that refuted Fox's claims, according to the company.
David Clark, senior vice president for weekend news and programming
Messages made public show that Clark received Dominion's "Setting the Record Straight" emails and told a colleague on Nov. 14 that "I have it tattooed on my body at this point." He was among the executives who participated in the editorial process and said he oversaw the bulk of programming on the weekends.
Meade Cooper, vice president of prime-time programming
Cooper oversees primetime show content, including Hannity's, Carlson's and Pirro's shows.
Ron Mitchell, senior vice president of prime time programming and analytics
Mitchell advised Carlson's, Hannity's and Laura Ingraham's primetime shows and said during deposition testimony that some of the claims about Dominion "didn't sound credible to me."
Lauren Petterson, president of Fox Business
Dominion alleges in court papers that Petterson "had decision-making authority" over what content could appear on Fox Business's air.
Tom Lowell, executive vice president and managing editor of news
Lowell testified during a deposition that Fox does not "have evidence" to support the baseless allegations about Dominion.
Gary Schreier, senior vice president of programming for Fox Business Network
Schreier was Petterson's second-in-command and oversaw Dobbs' show. In a Dec. 13, 2020, email, he warned Dobbs' producer not to book Sidney Powell and on Jan. 19, 2021, said "We cannot go near dominion. Not the same area code."
Irena Briganti, senior vice president for corporate communications
Briganti wrote the evening that Mr. Biden was declared the winner of the election that "our viewers left this week after AZ," and according to Dominion's filings, said that Fox "Gave Powell & Giuliani platform with reach—all true they said crazy things."
Bill Sammon, former senior vice president and managing editor of Fox's Washington Bureau
Sammon received pushback from Trump's team, including then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, after the network called Arizona for Mr. Biden. He exchanged text messages with Chris Stirewalt on Dec. 2, 2020, expressing concern about the claims that Fox was broadcasting.
"More than 20 minutes into our flagship evening news broadcast and we're still focused solely on supposed election fraud — a month after the election," he wrote. "It's remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things."
He was let go by Fox News after the election.
Chris Stirewalt, former politics editor
Stirewalt was the politics editor behind Fox News' Arizona call and defended the decision to project Mr. Biden would win the state. In a deposition, he said that "no reasonable person" would have thought allegations Dominion rigged the election were true.
In the Dec. 2, 2020, exchange with Sammon, Stirewalt wrote, "What I see us doing is losing the silent majority of viewers as we chase the nuts off a cliff." Like Sammon, he, too, is no longer with the network.
The Hosts
Tucker Carlson
Carlson hosts the 8 p.m. show "Tucker Carlson Tonight," and his Jan. 26, 2021, broadcast is among the 20 that included falsehoods about Dominion said were defamatory. That show featured Mike Lindell as a guest, and he claimed he found "machine fraud."
Sean Hannity
Hannity is the host of the eponymous "Hannity," airing at 9 p.m. His Nov. 30, 2020, broadcast contained challenged statements from Sidney Powell, who peddled baseless claims Dominion's voting machines flipped votes from Trump to Mr. Biden.
Laura Ingraham
Host of the 10 p.m. show "The Ingraham Angle," Ingraham exchanged messages with Carlson and Hannity calling Powell "a bit nuts," and the three lamented about the backlash Fox News was receiving from viewers after its Arizona call.
Jeanine Pirro
Pirro hosted the show "Justice with Judge Jeanine" on Fox News until January 2022, when she became a permanent co-host for its show "The Five." But two of Pirro's broadcasts on her earlier show, on Nov. 14, 2020, and Nov. 21, 2020, contained statements that Dominion alleges were defamatory.
Maria Bartiromo
Bartiromo's show "Sunday Morning Futures" airs weekly on Fox News, and Dominion has identified her Nov. 8, 2020, broadcast as containing information about it that the network allegedly knew to be false.
That episode featured Sidney Powell claiming without evidence that Dominion used an algorithm to manipulate vote counts.
Before the interview, Powell sent Bartiromo an email with the subject line "Election Fraud Info," which Powell received from a Minnesota woman claiming Dominion's software flipped votes from Trump to Biden. The email also claimed the late Justice Antonin Scalia was killed in a "human hunting expedition," and she receives messages from "the wind."
Lou Dobbs
Dobbs, who is no longer with the company, hosted the show "Lou Dobbs Tonight," airing on Fox Business Network. Dominion points to eight of Dobbs' broadcasts that it said contained false information about it, as well as four of his tweets.
Will Cain
Cain co-hosts Fox & Friends Weekend, and on its Dec. 12, 2020, show, Giuliani was a guest and made accusations about Dominion's voting machines. The company said that as of that date, the public record "clearly demonstrates" that those claims were false.
Bret Baier
Baier is the chief political correspondent for Fox News and encouraged a fact-check of voter fraud allegations posted on social media by Bartiromo to Sammon, writing "We have to prevent this stuff. … We need to fact check."
He also wrote in a text message on Nov. 5, made public in the case, that "there is NO evidence of fraud. None. Allegations—stories. Twitter. Bulls**t."
Eric Shawn
Another Fox host, he was the subject of an email about a fact-check he did about voter fraud claims. In the email, Scott told Cooper, "This has to stop now. … This is bad business and there is clearly a lack of understanding what is happening in these shows. The audience is furious and we are just feeding them material. Bad for business."
The Producers
Alex Hooper, senior producer, Lou Dobbs Tonight
Jerry Andrews, executive producer, Justice with Jeanine
Abby Grossberg, former senior booking producer for "Sunday Morning Futures"
The three producers are identified as "responsible employees" who knew the statements airing on their respective broadcasts were "false or recklessly disregarded the truth."
Grossberg, in particular, has emerged as a figure whose importance in Dominion's case appears to be growing. She is a former employee of CBS News.
Grossberg filed a separate lawsuit against Fox News, Scott and its lawyers in Delaware state court alleging she was misleadingly coached and manipulated to deliver incomplete answers during a deposition taken as part of Dominion's lawsuit against Fox.
In court filings Tuesday, she said Fox News had recordings, through an app called Otter, of separate conversations Bartiromo had with Giuliani and Powell that showed they had no evidence to support claims they amplified about Dominion on Fox's air.
Fox turned over the recordings to Dominion last week, and during a pretrial conference Wednesday, Delaware Superior Court Judge Eric Davis, who is overseeing the trial,Fox's attorneys for withholding evidence.
The Guests
Sidney Powell
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Lindell
The three appeared as guests of Carson, Hannity, Pirro, Bartiromo and Dobbs, where they raised the unfounded accusations about Dominion and its role in the 2020 presidential election. Giuliani and Powell were the subject of internal messages from Fox's primetime hosts, who pushed back among themselves about the validity of the allegations.
for more features. | US Political Corruption |
Last night, Joe Biden gave an address warning of dire consequences if voters elect Republican extremists to office next Tuesday. Today, he’s heading west to campaign not in the tightest contests or those considered the best chances to oust sitting Republicans, but rather for incumbent Democrats trying to hang on to their seats.It’s the perfect illustration of the dynamic for Biden, more than a year after his approval ratings tanked and stayed there. His presidential bully pulpit allowed him to make a speech where he warned, “Make no mistake, democracy is on the ballot for all of us.” But his unpopularity had forced him into a cautious approach to campaigning – almost a tacit admission that when it comes to the races that could define the next two years of his presidency, his ability to help is limited.The Associated Press today published a piece looking at what today’s travel itinerary says about the dynamic. Here’s how they put it:His itinerary illustrates the limited political clout of a president who has been held at arm’s length by most Democrats in tough races this cycle. It also suggests that the president, whose approval rating remains underwater, has concluded that he can be most effective using the waning days before polls close to shore up support for Democratic candidates in areas that he easily won in 2020.Key events3h ago'We’re facing a defining moment', Biden argued. Will voters agree?Show key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureIn Pennsylvania, Chris McGreal reports that a major pro-Israel group is facing criticism for backing Republicans who denied the 2020 election, but not a Democratic candidate who would make history if elected:More than 240 Jewish American voters in Pittsburgh have signed a letter denouncing the US’s largest pro-Israel group for backing extremist Republican election candidates while spending millions of dollars to oppose a Democrat who would be Pennsylvania’s first Black female member of Congress.The letter condemned the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) for its attempts to defeat Summer Lee, a candidate for the district that includes Pittsburgh, after failing to block her during the Democratic primaries earlier this year because of her criticisms of Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians.The signatories said they were “outraged that at this critical moment in American history, Aipac has chosen to cast Democrats like Lee as extremists” while endorsing more than 100 Republican candidates who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election.The letter suggested that Aipac does not represent the views of the majority of American Jews and is working against their interests by also endorsing Republicans who promote white supremacy, a particularly sensitive issue in a city where 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogues were murdered in an antisemitic attack four years ago.“We also condemn AIPAC’s endorsement of lawmakers who have promoted the antisemitic ‘Great Replacement’ conspiracy theory that helped inspire the murder of eleven members of the three synagogues housed at Tree of Life,” the letter said.Georgia is home of one of the country’s tightest Senate races, and yesterday, Republican candidate and former NFL star Herschel Walker attempted to contrast himself with Barack Obama, Martin Pengelly reports:Hitting back after Barack Obama questioned his fitness for a US Senate seat, Herschel Walker said: “Put my résumé against his résumé.”Obama, 61, was a civil rights attorney and community organiser in Chicago, an Illinois state politician, a US senator from 2005 to 2008, then 44th president of the United States from 2009 to 2017.Walker, 60, won the Heisman Trophy, the top honor in college football. He had a stellar NFL career, mostly with the Dallas Cowboys, then went into business.His entry into politics, endorsed by Donald Trump and seeking to unseat the Democrat Raphael Warnock in Georgia, has been anything but smooth. Less than a week from election day, however, the two men are locked in a close race.How big of a deal are Tuesday’s midterms? So big that spending on advertisements has exceeded the 2020 presidential elections. Adam Gabbatt takes a look at the messages Americans are seeing on TV, the web and elsewhere:As the US midterm elections loom, Republicans and Democrats have spent almost $10bn (£8.6bn) so far on ads. It’s a staggering figure, one that exceeds even the spending on the 2020 presidential election, and is almost triple the amount spent during the last midterms.Both parties – and their dark money backers – have splashed exorbitant amounts on TV, digital and print advertising, but their focus has been very different.For Democrats, abortion has been a key issue. The party has spent almost 20 times more than it did on abortion-related ads in the 2018 midterms, NPR reported. For Republicans, there have been different messages: that inflation, crime and taxes are out of control.The result has been a whirling atmosphere for the average American, where to turn on the TV is frequently to see the two parties, and their candidates, talking straight past one another about different things.In Arizona, Kari Lake is running for governor on a platform of refusing to accept Joe Biden’s election, or even her own potential defeat. The Guardian’s Maanvi Singh reports on how Lake has embraced Donald Trump’s Maga ideology in her quest for the state’s top office:Local news anchor Kari Lake refused to announce that Joe Biden had won Arizona on election night two years ago. Now, she’s the telegenic new face of Maga Republicanism, poised to possibly become the state’s next governor.With early voting underway, polls show Lake in a dead heat with her opponent Katie Hobbs, Arizona’s Democratic secretary of state. The contest will test the strength of Donald Trump’s enduring influence on the Republican party and its supporters. And the entire enterprise of free elections in Arizona hangs in the balance.If Lake wins, her administration will oversee the 2024 elections in a key state that could help determine who wins the presidency. She could work with the likes of Mark Finchem, the far-right Oath Keeper who is running to become the state’s top election official. Already, she has said she’ll only accept the 2022 election results if “fair, honest and transparent” by her standards, declining to say whether she’d accept defeat.When Biden warned about Republican extremists last night, just who did he mean? The Guardian’s Sam Levine and Rachel Leingang report on the candidates who present a direct threat to democracy and are on the ballot in Tuesday’s vote:There are several races on the ballot this fall that will have profound consequences for American democracy. In several states, Republican candidates who doubt the 2020 election results, or in some cases actively worked to overturn them, are running for positions in which they would have tremendous influence over how votes are cast and counted. If these candidates win, there is deep concern they could use their offices to spread baseless information about election fraud and try to prevent the rightful winners of elections from being seated.In total, 291 Republicans – a majority of the party’s nominees this cycle, have questioned the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, according to a Washington Post tally.Election deniers are running for offices up and down the ballot that could play a critical role in future elections.They’re running to be governors, who play a role in enacting election rules. They’re running to be secretaries of state, who oversee voting and ballot counting. They’re running attorneys general, who are responsible for investigating allegations of fraud handling litigation in high-stakes election suits. They’re running to be members of Congress, who vote to certify the presidential vote every four years. They’re running to be state lawmakers, who can pass voting laws, launch investigations, and, according to some fringe legal theories, try and block the certification of presidential electors.In Michigan, the state’s Republican candidate for governor Tudor Dixon brought up Biden’s speech as she campaigned today:Dixon says Democrats are trying to “control people with fear.”“Look at Joe Biden’s speech yesterday! ‘Do not vote for Republicans because they have better plans.’ That’s what I heard.”— David Weigel (@daveweigel) November 3, 2022
Polls indicate Dixon is trailing incumbent Democrat Gretchen Whitmer in the state.In his response to Biden’s speech last night, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell sought to refocus the attention to crime, the economy and immigration, issues the GOP has campaigned on nationwide:President Biden is desperate to change the subject from inflation, crime, and open borders. Now he's claiming that democracy only works if his party wins.What nonsense. Americans aren't buying it.Ask how the last two years have affected your family, and then get out and vote!— Leader McConnell (@LeaderMcConnell) November 3, 2022
Stepping away for a minute from its context in relation to the midterms, here’s what University of Chicago political violence expert Robert A. Pape had to say about the substance of Biden’s speech last night:The data shows that President Biden is right: The violent threat to our democracy comes from an extreme minority— not just a minority of all Americans but a minority of even pro-Trump Republicans. Our national survey from September shows that an estimated 13 million adults support the use of force for Trump. That means well over 80% of Americans, both Democrats and most Republicans, reject violence for political reasons. Bipartisan majority opposes political violence. Now it is crucial to turn that democratic majority into a bipartisan coalition against political violence.Here’s the University of Chicago Project on Security and Threats’s latest study on political violence, which indicates only a small minority would support restoring Donald Trump to office through violent means. But as the data makes clear, that group may be five percent of those surveyed, but it’s still representative of about 13 mn people.Last night, Joe Biden gave an address warning of dire consequences if voters elect Republican extremists to office next Tuesday. Today, he’s heading west to campaign not in the tightest contests or those considered the best chances to oust sitting Republicans, but rather for incumbent Democrats trying to hang on to their seats.It’s the perfect illustration of the dynamic for Biden, more than a year after his approval ratings tanked and stayed there. His presidential bully pulpit allowed him to make a speech where he warned, “Make no mistake, democracy is on the ballot for all of us.” But his unpopularity had forced him into a cautious approach to campaigning – almost a tacit admission that when it comes to the races that could define the next two years of his presidency, his ability to help is limited.The Associated Press today published a piece looking at what today’s travel itinerary says about the dynamic. Here’s how they put it:His itinerary illustrates the limited political clout of a president who has been held at arm’s length by most Democrats in tough races this cycle. It also suggests that the president, whose approval rating remains underwater, has concluded that he can be most effective using the waning days before polls close to shore up support for Democratic candidates in areas that he easily won in 2020.'We’re facing a defining moment', Biden argued. Will voters agree?Good morning, US politics blog readers. Last night, Joe Biden made a primetime address to warn Americans about the threats to democracy posed by political violence and Republicans who deny the outcome of the 2020 election. It’s a salient message, given that many GOP candidates nationwide have embraced baseless conspiracy theories about the election that brought Biden to power, but there’s a problem: poll after poll has shown most Americans have a sour view of Biden’s time in office, to the point that the president is avoiding many swing states in the final days before the 8 November midterms. Last night’s speech was meant as a reminder to voters of what the stakes are in next week’s elections. We’ll see if they care.Here’s what else is happening today: Biden heads out west, first to deliver remarks on student debt relief at a community college in Albuquerque, New Mexico, then to rally with democratic candidates. After that, he’s in San Diego, California, where he will appear at an event for democratic congressman Mike Levin. Vice-president Kamala Harris will go to New York to rally Democrats. Midterm countdown: we are five days away from Tuesday’s election. | US Federal Elections |
Former President Donald Trump's legal team filed a motion Monday seeking the recusal of the judge assigned to his 2020 election subversion case in Washington D.C., saying that her previous statements about Trump indicate her bias.
Trump lawyers John Lauro and Todd Blanche referred to two sentencing hearings overseen by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, during which she strongly condemned the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack while imposing sentences on convicted rioters.
During one of these hearings, which took place in October 2022, Chutkan told the defendant that the people who "mobbed" the Capitol on Jan. 6 showed "blind loyalty to one person who, by the way, remains free to this day." In another hearing, in December 2021, Chutkan told a defendant that the "people who exhorted you and encouraged you and rallied you to go and take action and to fight have not been charged."
His attorneys argued that the statements, which were made prior to Trump's indictment in the election interference case, called into question Chutkan's ability to "administer justice neutrally and dispassionately."
We need your help to stay independent
"Although Judge Chutkan may genuinely intend to give President Trump a fair trial—and may believe that she can do so—her public statements unavoidably taint these proceedings, regardless of outcome," Trump's lawyers wrote. "The public will reasonably and understandably question whether Judge Chutkan arrived at all of her decisions in this matter impartially, or in fulfillment of her prior negative statements regarding President Trump."
Trump is now asking Chutkan to direct the court clerk to randomly assign this case to another district judge, The Wall Street Journal reported. At the same time, he is asking her to expedite the review of his recusal request and refrain from making rulings on any other pending motions in the meantime.
"Frequent recusal requests are usually a sign of poor client control, because they are often counterproductive."
But legal experts believe that Trump's motion is "very unlikely to succeed" since it was not filed in a timely manner.
"Not only is the motion weak on the merits, but it's late," Lee Kovarsky, a University of Texas law professor and expert in the removal statute, told Salon. "You have to file a recusal motion at the earliest practicable moment, and Trump's known about all of this stuff since the case was assigned to Judge Chutkan."
On top of this, the bar for recusal is "extremely high" and even more so for judicial remarks made in the course of adjudicating cases, Kovarsky added.
"Much of [Trump's] litigation strategy doubles as a media strategy," he continued. "That's all this is. It's a way of riling his coalition up. I doubt his lawyers even wanted to file it."
Chutkan, a Barack Obama appointee who was randomly assigned to Trump's case, has a reputation for imposing harsh sentences on some of the Jan. 6 defendants, even exceeding prosecutorial sentencing recommendations. She has described the violence that unfolded on Jan. 6 as an attack on American democracy and has expressed concerns about the potential for future political violence. But her comments about the attack on the Capitol aren't enough to have her be recused from the case, according to legal experts.
"Chutkan's comments were in the course of a totally different proceeding, and indicate that she has opinions about the guilt of people who provoked the January 6 riot," Andrew Fleischman, Atlanta defense attorney, told Salon.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
Trump, who has a history of requesting the recusal of judges assigned to his cases, has tried this legal strategy before with at least two judges.
In a civil lawsuit filed by Trump in Florida against ex-Justice Department officials, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats, alleging a RICO conspiracy in the 2016 election, Trump asked for the judge's recusal since they had been appointed by President Bill Clinton. Last year, US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks denied this request, but Trump has since revived it, according to CNN.
Trump also tried to have the judge presiding over his New York criminal case, connected to hush money payments, removed. Trump claimed that Judge Juan Merchan should recuse himself because his daughter worked in political consulting, including the Biden campaign and Vice President Kamala Harris' campaign in 2020. However, Merchan denied this request last month.
"Frequent recusal requests are usually a sign of poor client control, because they are often counterproductive," Fleischman said. "In theory, you might create an issue on appeal if the judge does not recuse, but federal courts are so deferential to judges in most instances that you would need a much stronger argument to have a shot. To the extent that there is a strategy here, there's always the hope that the judge might say something impolitic in response to the motion that would give you an independent basis for recusal, but I suspect the aims are mostly political."
Read more
about Trump's entanglement with the law | US Political Corruption |
China-linked hackers are increasingly moving beyond espionage and into the disturbing world of power grid attacks. Threat researchers at security software firm Symantec this week released new evidence that the Chinese hacking group known as APT41 infiltrated the power grid of an Asian nation. Some details of the latest intrusion echo a 2021 attack on India’s power grid, suggesting the same hackers are responsible.In Argentina, a scandal is playing out over the use of facial recognition software in Buenos Aires. Despite laws that require authorities to limit searches to known fugitives, an investigation by a judge found that the system was used to look up people not wanted for any crimes. In other cases, errors led police to arrest or question the wrong people. While Buenos Aires is attempting to get the system back online after legal rulings ordered it turned off, the debacle shows how dangerous facial recognition can be even when laws are in place to limit it.Facial recognition isn’t the only artificial-intelligence-powered system governments are using in new and upsetting ways. Like everyone else, state and local governments around the United States have begun to play with generative AI tools like ChatGPT. And so far, there’s no consensus on how to use the technology. Some US states, like Maine, have temporarily banned its use altogether, fearing cybersecurity concerns, while others are using it to craft speeches and social media posts.Meanwhile, the US Senate is in the midst of getting an AI education. Around 60 senators attended a closed-door briefing this week, where they heard from major tech CEOs, including Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Sam Altman, as well as civil liberties advocates and AI ethics experts. The Senate has been learning about AI and its myriad issues for much of the year, and another forum on AI innovation is scheduled for later this year. Despite these cramming sessions, some lawmakers question whether they’re any closer to tackling AI responsibly.Finally, the cyberattack against MGM casinos continues to cause havoc for guests of its resorts nearly a week after the attack began. While an attack on a major casino company is inevitably high-profile, the group behind the breach, known as Alphv, has a long history of targeting schools and hospitals—attacks that are far more consequential.That’s not all. Each week, we round up the security and privacy news we didn’t cover in depth ourselves. Click the headlines to read the full stories, and stay safe out there.Unless you updated your browser in the past few days, it likely contains a critical flaw. The recently disclosed vulnerability exists in the WebP code library known as libwebp, which encodes and decodes images in the widely used WebP format. Known generally as a “heap buffer overflow,” the flaw can be exploited using a specially crafted malicious image, allowing an attacker to run malicious code on a targeted device. Google says the bug has already been exploited in the wild.Initially identified early this week as a zero-day vulnerability in Google’s Chrome browser, the libwebp bug impacts browsers built using Chromium, which means Chrome, Mozilla’s Firefox, Microsoft Edge, Opera, Brave, and more. It also affects apps like Telegram, 1Password, Thunderbird, and Gimp. Patches for the flaw are rolling out now, so keep your eyes peeled for updates.Malicious online ads—also known as “malvertising”—have been around for years. Now, they’re going pro. Several Israeli companies are developing exploits that take advantage of weaknesses in the technical mechanisms that bombard you with ads online, Haaretz reports, allowing attackers to track people and hack their devices. The exploit takes advantage of the online advertising bidding process, in which bots are competing for specific ad slots on web pages in real time. Taking advantage of the fraction of a second before an ad slot is filled, these companies have figured out how to show you an ad that reportedly contains “advanced spyware.” While there’s no quick fix for stopping the spread of this malware, there is something simple you can do to protect yourself: Use an ad blocker.European data regulators fined TikTok €345 million ($368 million) this week for breaking laws related to the privacy of underage users. The Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) said the company violated GDPR by failing to make the accounts of child users private by default. The DPC also says TikTok’s “family pairing” feature, which enables an adult to take control of a child’s account settings, did not ensure that the adult with access to the feature was a parent or guardian. TikTok says it opposes the fine because it had updated its settings to make the accounts of anyone under 16 years old private by default before the investigation began.Turns out, secretly interfering in the battle plans of a United States ally doesn’t go over well in Washington. The US Senate Armed Services Committee has launched an inquiry into Elon Musk’s decision to not enable Starlink satellite communications in Crimea ahead of a Ukrainian military attack on Russian forces. The move, first revealed in author Walter Isaacson’s new biography on Musk, also prompted several Democratic senators to send a letter to the US defense secretary, Lloyd Austin, asking him to explain what actions the Department of Defense (DOD) has taken, or plans to take, to “prevent further dangerous meddling” by Musk.“SpaceX is a prime contractor and a critical industry partner for the [DOD] and the recipient of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding,” the letter reads. “We are deeply concerned with the ability and willingness of SpaceX to interrupt their service at Mr. Musk’s whim and for the purpose of handcuffing a sovereign country’s self-defense, effectively defending Russian interests.”Even if you have a spotless record, passing a background check can be one of the most stressful parts of landing a new job or an apartment. We have bad news: It’s possible the information used to assess your eligibility might not be accurate. The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) this week announced a $5.8 million fine against background check providers TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate for “failing to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of their consumer reports,” a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The FTC alleges that the companies “made millions” by selling subscriptions that would alert people when a “criminal record” was found in their background check, “when the record was merely a traffic ticket.” The company also displayed “Remove” and “Flag as Inaccurate” buttons that the FTC says “did not work as advertised.”The regulatory ding against TruthFinder and Instant Checkmate comes several months after the companies confirmed a data breach. In January, hackers leaked the personal information of millions of customers by leaking an April 2019 database backup stolen from the companies. | US Federal Policies |
- It’s not too late or families struggling to afford college next year to apply for financial assistance or ask the college financial aid office for more money.
- Here's how to craft your approach.
Getting into college is hard enough, but figuring out how to pay for it is another hurdle altogether.
Higher education already costs more than most families can afford, and college costs are still rising. Tuition and fees plus room and board for a four-year private college averaged $53,430 in the 2022-2023 school year; at four-year, in-state public colleges, it was $23,250, according to the College Board.
These days, most students and their parents rely on a combination of resources, including student loans to cover the tab — making a school's financial aid award letter just as important as the acceptance letter.
More from Personal Finance:
Biden’s student loan plan is headed to Supreme Court
How to decide if you should go back to school
The cheapest states for in-state college tuition
In ordinary years, high school graduates miss out on billions in federal grants because they don't apply for financial aid. Many families mistakenly assume they won't qualify and don't even bother to fill out an application.
Even now, many families haven't applied for financial aid.
As of February, 38.4% of the high school class of 2023 had completed the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA, form, according to the National College Attainment Network. (The FAFSA season for the 2023-24 academic year opened Oct. 1, but students who haven't filed can still apply.)
"It's not too late," said Mary Jo Terry, a managing partner at Yrefy, a private student loan refinancing company.
For families who have already filed the FAFSA but are still concerned about making ends meet, it is also possible to amend their FAFSA form or ask the college financial aid office for more aid, particularly if you've experienced a change in your financial situation, such as a job loss or a disability, according to Kalman Chany, a financial aid consultant and author of The Princeton Review's "Paying for College."
For starters, understand the formula colleges use to come up with the expected family contribution. Financial aid is determined by income information that is not necessarily up to date. For instance, aid for 2023-24 academic year is based on 2021 income.
Further, "it's not so much what you can afford to pay but what you can afford to finance," Chany said.
If your circumstances are now different, that should be brought to the financial aid office's attention with documentation.
But first, also make sure you understand the financial aid award letter — particularly the difference between scholarships and loans, whether those funds are renewable for all four years and if they come with contingencies such as maintaining a certain grade point average.
Then, prepare a response with documentation showing any changes in assets, income, benefits or expenses. If the financial aid package from another comparable school was better, that is also worth documenting in an appeal.
"Syrupy" letters aren't as effective as taking a more quantitative approach, Chany advised.
"This is a business transaction," he said. "They are trying to meet their enrollment goals and maintain revenue."
To that end, "play hard to get," he added. Don't post wearing the school sweatshirt on social media or make any moves to give the indication that you will enroll anyway.
Colleges are likely receptive to appeals, Chany said, but "it's not a buyers' market like it was at the onset of the pandemic."
Otherwise, consider other sources for merit-based aid, Terry advised. "There is so much money out there that people don't even know is available."
In fact, there are more than 1.7 million private scholarships and fellowships available, often funded by foundations, corporations and other independent organizations, with a total value of more than $7.4 billion, according to higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
"Every 40 hours you spend applying for scholarships and grants will result in $10,000, on average," Yrefy's Terry has calculated.
Check with the college, or ask your high school counselor about opportunities. You can also search websites like Scholarships.com and the College Board. | US Federal Policies |
The police chief who led a highly criticized raid of a small Kansas newspaper has been suspended, the mayor confirmed to The Associated Press on Saturday.
Marion Mayor Dave Mayfield in a text said he suspended Chief Gideon Cody on Thursday. He declined to discuss his decision further and did not say whether Cody was still being paid.
Voice messages and emails from the AP seeking comment from Cody's lawyers were not immediately returned Saturday.
The Aug. 11 searches of the Marion County Record’s office and the homes of its publisher and a City Council member have been sharply criticized, putting Marion at the center of a debate over the press protections offered by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Cody's suspension is a reversal for the mayor, who previously said he would wait for results from a state police investigation before taking action.
Vice-Mayor Ruth Herbel, whose home was also raided Aug. 11, praised Cody's suspension as “the best thing that can happen to Marion right now” as the central Kansas town of about 1,900 people struggles to move forward under the national spotlight.
“We can't duck our heads until it goes away, because it’s not going to go away until we do something about it,” Herbel said.
Cody has said little publicly since the raids other than posting a defense of them on the police department’s Facebook page. In court documents he filed to get the search warrants, he argued that he had probable cause to believe the newspaper and Herbel, whose home was also raided, had violated state laws against identity theft or computer crimes.
The raids came after a local restaurant owner accused the newspaper of illegally accessing information about her. A spokesman for the agency that maintains those records has said the newspaper’s online search that a reporter did was likely legal even though the reporter needed personal information about the restaurant owner that a tipster provided to look up her driving record.
The newspaper’s publisher Eric Meyer has said the identity theft allegations simply provided a convenient excuse for the search after his reporters had been digging for background information on Cody, who was appointed this summer.
Legal experts believe the raid on the newspaper violated a federal privacy law or a state law shielding journalists from having to identify sources or turn over unpublished material to law enforcement.
Video of the raid on the home of publisher Eric Meyer shows how distraught his 98-year-old mother became as officers searched through their belongings. Meyer said he believes that stress contributed to the death of his mother, Joan Meyer, a day later.
Another reporter last month filed a federal lawsuit against the police chief over the raid. | US Police Misconduct |
Would a government shutdown impact SNAP, WIC food assistance?
(NEXSTAR) — As Congress continues to try to avoid a government shutdown by the end of the week, it’s hard for many Americans to not worry about the impact it could have on their federal benefits.
In many cases, those benefits will not be impacted if the government does, in fact, shut down. That includes Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and many benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
But what about food stamps and other food assistance programs?
Unfortunately, they won’t all be as lucky.
On Monday, the White House warned a government shutdown would “jeopardize” federal food assistance for nearly 7 million mothers and young children who rely on WIC — the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children.
The program, overseen by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, serves low-income pregnant women, women who are breastfeeding, postpartum women, infants, and children up to the age of 5. It receives funding on an annual basis, putting it at risk during current shutdown talks.
Should there be a government shutdown, the White House says “women and children who count on WIC would soon start being turned away at grocery store counters, with a federal contingency fund drying up after just a few days and many states left with limited WIC funds to operate the program.”
It could be especially impactful in states like California and Texas, where a combined 1.759 million WIC recipients live, White House data shows.
During a Monday press conference, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said WIC “expires … or stops immediately” in the event of a shutdown. The department does have a contingency plan that could provide funds for a day or two, ABC News reports. Vilsack also noted that some states may have access to additional funding, which could keep their programs running for slightly longer.
The National WIC Association urged Congress to “reach a deal that avoids a shutdown and provides WIC with the funding it needs to support any individual or family who qualifies” in a Friday press release.
“Without the urgent investment of additional funds, state WIC offices could soon be forced to consider waiting lists for prospective participants — a drastic step not seen in nearly 30 years. We simply cannot cross that line,” Kate Franken, board chair of the National WIC Association said. Over 600 organizations from across the country joined the NWA in calling on Congress to fully fund the program in a letter Monday.
While WIC could be shuttered during a government shutdown, SNAP — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — would still be available, at least for a short time.
SNAP, which offers food assistance to low-income families nationwide, also receives funding annually from the federal government. It’s set to see benefits boost on Oct. 1 (as well as eligibility requirements change) and would last at least through the month, according to Vilsack.
But, if there is a government shutdown, and it lasts beyond October, “there would be some serious consequences to SNAP,” he noted.
Food banks and Meals on Wheels programs could also see disruptions to orders, deliveries, and more during a government shutdown, CNN reports.
What’s the latest on the government shutdown talks?
Congress is rushing headlong into crisis mode Tuesday with a government shutdown days away, as Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces an insurgency from hard-right Republicans eager to slash spending even if it means halting pay for the military and curtailing federal services for millions of Americans.
There’s no clear path ahead as lawmakers return with tensions high and options limited. The House is expected to launch an evening vote on a package of bills to fund parts of the government, but it’s not at all clear that McCarthy has the support needed as holdouts demand steeper spending cuts.
But with just five days to go before Saturday’s deadline, the Senate is trying to stave off a federal closure as the hard-right flank seizes control of the House. Senators unveiled a bipartisan stopgap measure to keep offices funded temporarily, through Nov. 17, to buy time for Congress to finish its work.
The 79-page Senate bill would fund the government at current levels and include about $6 billion in supplemental funding for Ukraine and $6 billion in U.S. disaster assistance that has been in jeopardy. It also includes an extension of Federal Aviation Administration provisions expiring Saturday.
The Senate voted Tuesday to advance the short-term funding measure. This puts the Senate on a path to pass a continuing resolution later this week that could then be sent to the House to avoid a shutdown on Oct. 1.
The Associated Press and The Hill’s Alexander Bolton contributed to this report.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
Key events18m agoDemocrats clash over gun reforms, police fundingShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureDemocrats clash over gun reforms, police fundingDemocratic leaders in the House are facing resistance from progressive members over efforts to push through gun reforms before the chamber takes off for its six-week August break. But it’s not what it seems.A hearing of the oversight committee this morning, at which gun industry executives will testify about their policies and huge profits, has brought the dispute into better focus.Adam Schiff. Photograph: Jacquelyn Martin/APAccording to Punchbowl News, Democratic leadership’s attempt to package gun controls, including an assault weapons ban and bill authored by California congressman Adam Schiff to eliminate civil liability protections for manufacturers, with police funding measures, has upset members of both the Black and progressive congressional caucuses.It’s not that they don’t want more rigid gun laws in the wake of recent massacres in New York, Texas and elsewhere. They do. But Punchbowl says the fact that some of the police funding proposals haven’t been worked through committee is causing “uproar”, and raising doubts that anything will get passed.Here’s what Washington congresswoman and progressive caucus chair Pramila Jayapal told Punchbowl: We want to act on public safety bills that unify the caucus and would like to move forward on the bills that have broad support in the Dem caucus... For the other bills to move forward, people feel strongly that there needs to be strong accountability language before [members] would look at them. There is some time to figure those things out, but for now, we are supportive of moving the assault weapons ban and the Schiff bill separately, and any bills that have broad support of the entire caucus.Joe Biden had been poised last week to ask Congress to support his $37bn crime prevention plan, including funding to help US police departments hire and train an additional 100,000 officers, but the announcement was shelved by the president’s Covid-19 diagnosis. The House Democratic caucus is meeting this morning, Punchbowl says, in an attempt to salvage the situation, while the rules committee sits this afternoon to discuss Schiff’s bill, and the assault weapons proposal authored by David Cicilline of Rhode Island.Meanwhile, my colleague Joan E Greve will take a look at this morning’s oversight committee hearing, entitled Examining the Practices and Profits of Gun Manufacturers, shortly.Good morning, and welcome to the midweek edition of the US politics blog. Guns, and the huge profits made by weapons manufacturers, are up for discussion in the House this morning when the oversight committee hears testimony from industry executives.It’s part of the Democratic majority’s push for tighter gun laws, including an assault weapons ban in the wake of recent massacres in New York and Texas, but it appears to be running into trouble with progressive members. They’re for more rigid restrictions, but upset that leadership is attempting to package gun control bills with police funding proposals, some of which haven’t gone through committee. We’ll have more on that coming up, plus coverage from the hearing.Here’s what else we’re watching today: There’s more focus on the justice department’s criminal inquiry into the January 6 insurrection, with the overnight revelation by the Washington Post that the investigation is now directly targeting former president Donald Trump’s actions as he tried to cling on to power. The Federal Reserve is expected to announce at lunchtime it’s hiking interest rates by up to 0.75%, an attempt to cool raging inflation by making borrowing more expensive. The Chips bill, providing about $52bn for the beleaguered semiconductors industry in the US, is set for final approval in a bipartisan Senate vote, a big win for Joe Biden and Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer. Biden has a light schedule with no public appearances. On his to-do list: a Covid-19 test that, if negative, will see the president return to work in-person after contracting the virus last week. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre will give her daily press briefing at 3pm. | US Federal Policies |
Everything is back to normal on Capitol Hill.
The House is functioning again after more than three weeks. It finally elected House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.
And that means lawmakers are back to doing what they do best: attacking one another and debating whether to expel or sanction fellow colleagues.
Sure, moments after the House finally installed Johnson, it approved a measure to condemn Hamas. The House also plowed through the annual energy & water spending bill.
But the real action came when Members planned to take revenge on one another.
In other words, business as usual for Congress.
If you are scoring at home, the House must wrestle this week with two efforts to censure a lawmaker and one potential expulsion.
The House floor had barely opened last Thursday morning when Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., introduced a special resolution to censure Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich. Greene’s resolution claims Tlaib "exhibited her hatred for America" by "blaming America for allowing the deaths of Palestinian babies at the hands of Israel."
Greene also asserted that Tlaib "led an insurrection at the United States Capitol complex" by supporting an anti-Israel rally. Scores of demonstrators took over the Rotunda in the Cannon House Office Building, shouting, singing and demanding a ceasefire to the war in the Middle East. The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) eventually arrested more than 300 demonstrators who entered the office buildings legally – but were cited for illegally protesting at the Capitol complex. The demonstrators were exceedingly boisterous. As loud and verbally disruptive as any protest on Capitol Hill. But non-violent. Greene tried to equate the protest to the incursion at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, during the certification of the Electoral College in a Joint Session of Congress.
The House had barely caught its breath when Rep. Becca Balint, D-Vt., took to the floor as well.
Not to be outdone, Balint proposed censuring Greene for "fanning the flames of racism, anti-Semitism, hate speech against the LBGTQ community, Islamophobia, Asian hate, xenophobia and other forms of hate," said Balint.
She also claimed that Greene perpetuated "conspiracy theories related to the January 6 attack on the Capitol, which sought to halt the peaceful transfer of power."
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) describes censure as "a formal, majority vote in the House on a resolution disapproving of a Member’s conduct. Censure is the second-most serious form of discipline in the House, falling between reprimand and expulsion. A Member must stand in the well of the House chamber and face a verbal rebuke by the House Speaker when censured.
The House has censured 26 members in history. But the frequency of censures increased in recent years. The House didn’t censure anyone between 1983 and 2010. Lawmakers voted to censure former Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., in 2010 for failing to pay taxes and misusing his office.
In 2021, the House voted to censure Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., for posting a video which depicted him violently attacking President Biden and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, (D-N.Y.). And in June, the House censured Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., for his charges about collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.
A censure resolution is "privileged" and the House must consider it right away or within two legislative days. It’s one of the highest orders of business before the House.
Some Democrats are utterly offended at some of the comments by Tlaib about Israel. Others are upset that she was one of nine Democrats who voted against a resolution on the House floor to support Israel. It’s unclear if some Democrats might even vote to censure their controversial Democratic colleague.
But other Democrats had enough of Greene.
"Marjorie Taylor Greene was removed from her committees for believing in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and talking about Jewish space lasers," said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich. "She is not a champion of the Jewish people. And I say that as a Jewish Representative. So it’s a little rich for her to be looking to censure Rashida Tlaib."
Then there are efforts to actually expel two Members. Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., didn’t get in on the floor action last week, introducing active, privileged resolutions to punish her colleagues. But Malliotakis has pushed for nearly a month to expel Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., for pulling a false fire alarm in the Cannon House Office Building in late September, prompting an evacuation.
Bowman pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge late last week.
"I have to pay a $1,000 fine and stay out of trouble for three months," said Bowman. "It wasn’t a conscious decision to do something wrong."
But Malliotakis and other Republicans have zeroed in on Bowman’s background as an elementary school teacher and principal.
"If this was his school, he would have suspended or expelled the student," said Malliotakis. "So that is exactly the type of action that we as Members of Congress should take."
Washington, DC, Superior Court Judge Dorsey Jones also required Bowman to write a letter of apology to the USCP.
That set off Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla.
"What are we? In 7th grade?" asked an incredulous Donalds.
Donalds said that some of those prosecuted in connection with the Capitol riot were charged with disrupting an official proceeding of Congress. He believes Bowman should face the same thing. Donalds added that "judges in the District of Columbia wield the system differently depending on your political party."
However, don’t expect any action on efforts to expel Bowman soon.
But that is not the case with embattled Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. Santos faces a very real prospect of expulsion this week. GOP members of from New York House delegation have had enough of Santos and his various false identities, lies and now a batch of criminal charges.
"Geroge Santos engaged in election fraud throughout his 2022 campaign by deceiving voters regarding his biography, defrauding donors and engaging in other illegal campaign behavior," said Rep. Anthony D’Esposito, R-N.Y. "George Santos is not fit to serve his constituents as a United States Representative."
But it’s far from clear if other Republicans would vote to expel Santos or if the House would even directly vote on the expulsion measure.
"Here’s the reality," said Johnson on Fox. "We have a four seat majority in the House of Representatives. It is possible that number may be reduced even more in the coming weeks and months. So we’ll have what may be the most razor-thin majority in the history of the Congress. We have no margin for error. George Santos is afforded due process."
Johnson noted that Santos has not yet been convicted. He’s been charged.
"If we’re expelling people from Congress who have been accused, that’s a problem," said Johnson.
So if the Santos measure comes up, someone could very well move to "table" or kill the resolution. That just requires a simple majority. And some Republicans may prefer that option. They will have dodged a tough vote again on Santos. They may not like Santos. But don’t have to judge Santos. The vote to table is one parliamentary step removed from voting to expel. Some Republicans are mindful of the "math" and the narrowness of the GOP’s majority which Johnson speaks of.
But if a motion to table fails, the House actually votes on expulsion.
Expulsions are rare in the House. The House last expelled a member in 2002. The House has only expelled five Members in history. Three of them were linked to siding with the Confederacy during the Civil War. The bar to expel is two-thirds. It’s possible that all Democrats and many Republicans could vote to expel Santos if the House fails to table the measure. Some Republicans would not want to be on the record as voting to support Santos.
So, now that there’s a Speaker, lawmakers are letting off pent-up anger. Members are fighting. Sometimes even with people on their own side as exhibited with the measures to punish Tlaib and Santos. Everyone is brawling.
That means the House is back to normal. | US Congress |
They are going to attack.
Donald Trump is under siege. He faces 91 criminal charges and potentially hundreds of years in prison for his many alleged crimes in connection with Jan. 6 and his coup attempt. Trump and his forces will respond to this challenge to his power and authority. Just when their targets are tired and exhausted, they will attack — again and again and again.
The attacks will consist of racism, antisemitism, misogyny, disinformation, misinformation, violence, stochastic terrorism, fearmongering, white victimology and conspiracy theories. They will involve brute force.
The plans are open and public, lacking subtlety and guile.
The use of conspiracy theories and paranoia is one of the right wing's most powerful weapons in the campaign to keep Trump out of prison and take back the White House in 2025 with the goal of ending the country's multiracial pluralistic democracy. These conspiracy theories, and what Richard Hofstadter described in his seminal 1964 essay as "the paranoid style," have become much more complex and dangerous in the Age of Trump and this time of democracy crisis and ascendant neofascism.
In a 2019 interview with the Economist, Nancy Rosenblum and Russell Muirhead, authors of the book "A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy," explained that:
What we're seeing today is something different: conspiracy without the theory. Its proponents dispense with evidence and explanation. Their charges take the form of bare assertion: "The election is rigged!" Yet the accusation does not point to any evidence of fraud. Or take Pizzagate, the claim that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex-trafficking ring in a pizzeria in Washington, DC. It doesn't connect to a single observable thing in the world — it's sheer fabulation. And in America, this new conspiracism now comes directly from the president, who employs his office to impose his compromised sense of reality on the nation….
The new conspiracism obliterates nuance and judgment and replaces it with a distorted unreality in which some things are wholly good and others (say, Hillary Clinton) wholly evil. This is its appeal. And something with such political force will be taken up everywhere by those who seek to abandon regular processes and disrupt established institutions, and especially by those who reject the idea of a "loyal opposition."
As I detailed in a recent series of essays here at Salon, because Trumpism, like today's Republican Party more broadly, is fueled by racism and white supremacy, antisemitism is quite predictably playing an increasing role in the right-wing's conspiracism and related fantasies of white victimhood and persecution. We see this in the right's obsession with nebulous forces such as "globalists" and "the deep state." Terms like "cultural Marxism" and concepts like "Critical Race Theory", "Black Lives Matter" and "Wokeism" are frequently demonized. Democratic Party fundraiser George Soros (who is a Holocaust survivor), is at the center of the QAnon conspiracy, which is a 21st-century version of Blood Libel against Jewish people.
We need your help to stay independent
To that point, Donald Trump's campaign sent out a series of emails in rapid succession last week that are rife with such dangerous lies and messaging:
The pattern is undeniably clear.
The Deep State has done everything in their power to try and paint me as a villain – all while the REAL villains, nestled deep within the Washington, D.C. swamp, quietly get away with bleeding our country dry.
And now, it's being reported that I could potentially face 1,000 YEARS in prison.
The Deep State wants to make an example out of me…
…They want to show the nation that these are the consequences of choosing to put a political outsider in the White House.
This is ultimately about instilling FEAR in the public.
The fear that if you stand in the way of their Marxist agenda, then YOU could be INDICTED, ARRESTED, or IMPRISONED for your beliefs.
The fear that if you give the forgotten, hardworking men and women of this country a voice, then YOU could be made their Public Enemy #1.
Together, we will PEACEFULLY show the Deep State that their intimidation tactics cannot work on the American people.
No matter how much they attack our movement, we will NEVER SURRENDER our mission to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!
Here is another example from later in the day on Thursday:
You may even be asking yourself, after FOUR unjust indictments, why do Crooked Joe and his Deep State accomplices continue to concoct these phony witch hunts when it only BACKFIRES?
Well, the sad truth is that these crooks, thugs, and Marxists truly believe America is not YOUR country, but theirs.
Ever since I rode down the Golden Escalator and promised to restore America's greatness and cast off the political ruling class that hates our country, the rabid Left has justified anything – truly, ANYTHING – in the name of "getting Trump."
And that's why they sincerely believe that they will get away with attempting to JAIL their leading opponent for LIFE despite committing NO CRIME.
To them, transforming America into a Third World tin-pot dictatorship is just part of the plan.
Because they are TERRIFIED to lose their grip on power like they did in 2016…
Friend, the America that you and I know and love is gone, and in its place now stands a country more like Stalinist Russia or Maoist China than our once free Republic.
But while Crooked Joe and the radical Left believe this is their country for the taking, I'm willing to bet there are more than 74 MILLION freedom-loving patriots ready to stand right by my side and tell them that WE WILL NEVER SURRENDER our country to tyranny!
Last Friday, this Trump fundraising email emphasized the old right-wing McCarthyite (and antisemitic) trope of "the enemy within":
The United States government has recently condemned other countries for imprisoning their political opponents.
They've called those regimes threats to the core values of democracy.
But now, the United States is becoming one of those Third World dictatorships that criminalizes opposition to the ruling regime.
That's why I will continue to say that the greatest threat to America comes from within.
No one else in the world is doing as much damage to the bedrock principles of our Republic than the left-wing tyrants entrenched within the Deep State who are trying to interfere in our elections….
The following recent Trump fundraising email encapsulates his and the larger neofascist movement and white right's antisemitic attacks ("George Soros" and the "globalists") and how they leverage paranoia, projection, victimology, and the Big Lie.
So far, disloyal Republicans (RINOs) have only PLEDGED to spend $370 MILLION on their plot to sabotage us in the primary.
But that all changed at the July end-of-month fundraising deadline.
Right before the deadline, a nefarious group of RINO globalists officially raised $78 million to begin turning that plot into a reality.
They've shown that their $370 million plot is not just a threat. They are truly willing to spend more money than even George Soros to defeat us.
This news came just as Biden's weaponized Department of "Justice" issued yet another unlawful INDICTMENT of me as a completely innocent man.
Friend, we're being attacked from every side.
RINOs. Democrats. Globalists. They're all just one big UNIPARTY that's united behind a common goal of stopping YOU from having power in your own country.
That's why RINOs are willing to spend MORE THAN GEORGE SOROS to try and take me down.
Every dollar Republicans spend attacking me is a dollar given straight to the Biden campaign.
The truth is: they know that and simply do not care. . .
. . . Because, at the end of the day, they'd rather see Crooked Joe in the White House than a political outsider who puts the people of our country FIRST.
These special interest globalists have made a fortune off of putting YOU dead last and selling out our nation to foreign countries like China.
These RINOs love to call themselves defenders of liberty – and yet, they choose to side with a corrupt president who has once again weaponized the legal system in an attempt to JAIL his single biggest opponent for a lifetime.
But fortunately for us, our movement is packed with over 74 MILLION patriots who will peacefully defend our God-given liberty and justice.
I asked Jennifer Mercieca, who is an expert on political rhetoric and speech, for her thoughts about Trump's emails and how they fit into his political project. She explained that Trump "relies on "us versus them" polarization appeals to separate Trump's followers from the rest of the country":
He uses the rhetoric of conspiracy to accuse his opposition of corruption. He frames his opposition as enemies and hate-objects, who can and should be destroyed through violence. It is a very dangerous and very anti-democratic rhetorical strategy that has historically led to war and genocide.
He uses these strategies because it binds him to his base and makes them think that he is fighting their shared enemies. He also uses these fascist strategies because they enable him to dominate the political conversation.
That we're seeing an increased use of these kinds of fascist appeals shows how weak he is as a candidate and how scared he is of prosecution. On the one hand, a strong candidate would use the democratic language of persuasion, not the fascist language of coercion. On the other hand, if he were really the Ubermensch he pretends to be and he really was able to rid the country of corruption and destroy his enemies, then why hasn't he done so—eight years later? When Trump talks like a strongman, it just shows how weak he actually is.
Federico Finkelstein, who is the author of "A Brief History of Fascist Lies," made this intervention in response to Trump's fundraising attempts and their antisemitic and fascist messaging:
In fascism, extreme, almost pathological, paranoia was justified as a defense of the nation and the leader against an imagined conspiracy of existential enemies. From paranoid extreme ideas of the enemy within to the projection onto others of what Trumpism is truly about: an attack against democratic institutions and ideas.
Trumpism represents an alliance between conservative, populist and even fascist sectors and ideologues. We should expect this dangerous propaganda to continue if it is constantly normalized as a functioning part of American democracy. It is not.
I also asked John Roth, who is co-author (with Leonard Grob) of the book "Warnings: The Holocaust, Ukraine, and Endangered American Democracy" to share his thoughts about Trump's fundraising emails and their repeated use of antisemitic themes and tropes:
Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly on September 24, 2019, then-US president Donald Trump pronounced that "the future does not belong to globalists. It belongs to patriots." Four years on, Trump's dichotomy between globalists and patriots has become darker and more divisive because it increasingly ramps up Trump's transactional antisemitism. Play the antisemitic card when its helpful to him personally. Hold back when it's not.
Trump rails against "the globalist warmonger donors backing our opponents." Hitler was blunter. He alleged that "international Jewish financers" would provoke world war. Trading off the Nazi trope that Jews seek world control and domination, the term globalist is conveniently general, vague, and ambiguous. It does its work without mentioning Jews explicitly. That's what makes globalist work well in Trump's dog-whistling vocabulary. Using it permits him both to deny and to advance the antisemitism that the canard conveys.
Jews such as George Soros are Trump's emblematic globalists. What's more, Trump contends that Joe Biden is their servant. The "quiet part" is all but said out loud: A Jewish conspiracy aids and abets Biden, who, in turn, betrays the heritage that properly puts America first by making the United States a White Christian nation. It's nonsense, but dangerous, nonetheless.
Trump repeatedly says that he's the least racist or antisemitic person "you've ever encountered." That's a lie, but from Trump's lips to God's ear, what else is new?
As "the walls close in" on Donald Trump, he and his agents and followers will only become more violent, racist, and antisemitic. Such an outcome is very predictable and in no way surprising or climactic; that makes it no less dangerous to the future of the country and its democracy and the lives and safety of the American people. To save American democracy, Donald Trump and the larger neofascist movement must be defeated at the polls, in the courts, and through direct corporeal politics across the country. | US Political Corruption |
In late September, a rare bipartisan bill was nearing the finish line in the House.
The draft legislation, which had been in the works for months, would penalize hospitals, labs and surgical centers if they didn't publicly list their prices.
While a key part of the bill, introduced by Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, wouldn't take effect until 2026 -- the government would need time to work with hospitals on compliance -- lawmakers felt that they had found a concrete way of helping Americans to avoid landing in medical debt.
After months of staff negotiations, the bill emerged from three separate committees as a bipartisan triumph. Supporters believed they could easily push the legislation through the House with the right maneuvering.
Then, everything on the House floor stopped.
A revolt by a small group of far-right Republicans nearly shut down the government and led to the ouster of the top GOP leader. The unprecedented move to unseat House Speaker Kevin McCarthy turned half of Congress into a rudderless ship.
Now, Republican rivals are jockeying to replace him, and no one is empowered to set a legislative agenda or advance bills.
"We're determined to get this across the finish line this year. But we're in a holding pattern as we wait to resolve the Speaker's race," said CJ Young, a spokesperson for Rep. Frank Pallone of New Jersey, the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee and cosponsor of the bill.
What's at stake
As House Republicans scramble to find their next speaker, the implications of a paralyzed House are sweeping. The hospital pricing bill is one of several promising legislative efforts now stuck in limbo.
Among the biggest challenges for the next House speaker will be getting Republicans to agree on how to fund the government. If that doesn't happen by Nov. 17, an estimated 3.5 million federal workers would lose pay, including two million military service members. An unknown number of federal contractors, including janitors, cafeteria workers and security guards, could also be out of work.
Some 700,000 employees like border patrol agents and air traffic controllers would be asked to come to work during a period when they would forego pay.
Federal employees -- not contractors -- would eventually qualify for back pay. Still, union officials warn that many federal employees will struggle to put gas in their cars or pay for childcare. During the last shutdown, which stretched five weeks into January 2019, federal airport workers eventually stopped showing up for work. The staffing shortages triggered long lines and flight delays.
Ukraine aid also is at stake without a functioning House.
Aid to Ukraine also hangs in the balance. The Pentagon and State Department both back continued foreign aid as a means to deter Russian aggression in Europe. As a member of NATO, U.S. officials worry the nation could be dragged into war if Ukraine isn't successful.
While some House conservatives are balking at the idea of sending any aid to Ukraine, or want to attach conditions, not having a House speaker means that a debate on aid can't happen.
"It does worry me," President Joe Biden told reporters on Wednesday of a Ukraine bill sinking in the House. "But I know there are a majority of members of the House and Senate in both parties who have said that they support funding Ukraine."
What happens next
As for the hospital transparency bill, aides on Capitol Hill said they remain hopeful.
The idea behind the "Lower Costs, More Transparency Act" had been championed by the Trump administration and quickly found support among Democrats. Some hospitals were ignoring federal regulation on the matter, advocates argued, and lawmakers agreed the best path was to throw in "sticks" to ensure compliance.
Industry groups oppose the measure, insisting it will add unnecessary "regulatory burdens" on the health care system.
"More than 60% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. It means they are just one medical bill away from a financial emergency. One doctor visit away from not being able to pay their rent, for their groceries, or gas," said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Washington Republican and cosponsor of the bill.
Biden, who focused his remarks Wednesday on the looming government shutdown and Ukraine aid, said it was important for the House to return to business.
"We have a lot of work to do, and the American people expect us to get it done," he said. | US Congress |
Delaware Gov. John Carney signed a bill into law that would ban smoking in any vehicle in the state, if someone under the age of 18 is an occupant of the vehicle.
It's a bill that has long been sought by the school children at Wilbur Elementary School in Bear.
In fact, as reported by the Delaware News Journal, students and teachers at that school have pushed for at least a decade to have smoking banned in vehicles where minors are present.
On Wednesday, Carney visited the school to enact the legislation, House Bill 118.
Get Philly local news, weather forecasts, sports and entertainment stories to your inbox. Sign up for NBC Philadelphia newsletters.
The bill notes that the Center for Disease Control and Prevention "asserts that there is 'no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke' and 'even brief exposure can cause immediate harm'." And, it would prohibit smoking in any vehicle where a minor is present "whether it is in motion or at rest."
Smoking tobacco from any source -- the legislation doesn't specify cigarettes, cigars or vapes -- would be banned in any vehicle when someone under the age of 18 is present.
Also, the legislation would include any motor vehicle driven on a public roadway, though anything "moved by animal power, human power, electric bicycles, off-highway vehicles, special mobile equipment and farm equipment," would be exempt from this legislation.
Local
Breaking news and the stories that matter to your neighborhood.
Also, law enforcement officials are not be able to stop or search any vehicle found in violation. The bill creates a civil citation that could be issued for those who are caught in violation. | US Local Policies |
Chris Christie's remark about Jill Biden has sparked outrage on social media.
During the second Republican presidential primary debate on September 27, the 61-year-old former federal prosecutor rallied against teachers unions, of which Jill Biden is a member.
"This public school system is no longer run by the public. It is run by the teachers unions in this country," Christie, 56, claimed.
"And when you have the president of the United States sleeping with a member of the teachers union, there is no chance that you can take the stranglehold away from the teachers union every day.
"They have an advocate inside the White House every day for the worst of their teachers, not for their students to be the best they can be."
Social media users were disgusted by the comments about Jill Biden, an educator who has been married to Joe Biden since 1977. The couple also share daughter Ashley Biden.
"A disgusting attack by Chris Christie, going after Dr. Jill Biden," said X user @BidenWarRoom. "A reminder that even the 'best' Republican candidate is still a horrible person."
Jack Cocchiarella agreed, writing: "Chris Christie needs to shut his f****** mouth and stop speaking disrespectfully about our First Lady. Dr. Jill Biden has done more for America than Christie ever has."
"I once considered you as a viable GOP candidate, but you have changed that with this sexist and demeaning rhetoric," said Not So Fresh.
While D-LIB wondered how Jill Biden being a member of a teachers union could be a "bad thing."
"Chris Christie is petty. And an enemy of our teachers," he said, while Dr Jack Brown called Christie's swipe "crude and malicious..."
"Moreover, it presumes that Teachers don't have children's best interest at heart," he commented. "This is simply not true. Why TF do you think teachers pursue this profession?"
However, a few X users supported Christie, with Steve Franklin calling him the "goat" (Greatest of All Time).
"Great job tonight," said Damon Smith.
Prior to joining the presidential race, Christie was the governor of New Jersey between 2010 and 2018. He announced his bid in June after previously running in the 2016 presidential primaries—suspending his campaign after failing to gain support.
After exiting the race, Christie became an outspoken supporter of Donald Trump, who made him chair of the President's Commission on Combating Drug Addiction and the Opioid Crisis during his time in the White House.
According to polling analysis site FiveThirtyEight, the 77-year-old business magnate is still the favorite to become the next Republican presidential candidate—polling at 54 percent to Christie's 2.9 percent.
Update 9/28/23, 4:15 a.m. ET: This article has been updated to include more information about Chris Christie's history and bid for Republican presidential candidate. | US Federal Elections |
A state judge has taken the unusual step of ordering a new Democratic mayoral primary in Connecticut’s largest city to be held after the Nov. 7 general election is completed. The decision comes after surveillance videos showed a woman stuffing what appeared to be absentee ballots into an outdoor ballot box days before the original primary.
Superior Court Judge William Clark determined the allegations of possible malfeasance warrant throwing out the results of the Sept. 12 primary, which incumbent Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim won by 251 votes out of 8,173 cast. Absentee ballots secured his margin of victory.
“The volume of ballots so mishandled is such that it calls the result of the primary election into serious doubt and leaves the court unable to determine the legitimate result of the primary,” Clark wrote in his ruling, adding that the videos “are shocking to the court and should be shocking to all the parties.”
The new primary date has not been set yet.
Get Connecticut local news, weather forecasts and entertainment stories to your inbox. Sign up for NBC Connecticut newsletters.
Despite the judge’s call for a new primary, the general election is expected to continue as planned. Ganim will appear as the Democratic nominee while Gomes will appear as an independent candidate. Republican David Herz and petitioning candidate Lamond Daniels are also running for mayor.
Ganim’s opponent, John Gomes, whose campaign obtained the surveillance video and released it publicly after the primary, sued city officials and demanded a new primary, or for him to be declared the winner.
Local
Under Connecticut law, voters using a collection box must drop off their completed ballots themselves, or designate certain family members, police, local election officials or a caregiver to do it for them.
The Gomes and Ganim campaigns did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment Wednesday afternoon.
“The video evidence, exhibits and testimony prove election fraud on a scale not seen in Connecticut - or anywhere else in the country - in recent history. Not only does the record prove election tampering, it was caught on video,” Gomes’ lawyers had written in a legal brief. They noted Gomes identified “multiple violations” of absentee ballot violations, including “hundreds of absentee ballots” cast by “party operatives,” which show the reliability of the primary results to be “seriously in doubt.”
After reviewing more than 2,000 hours of surveillance video footage, Gomes’ lawyers contend they determined about 420 people used the drop boxes but at least 1,255 ballots were submitted.
“A new primary must be ordered,” they wrote.
Lawyers for city officials questioned the accuracy and relevance of Gomes’ review of the video and argued in a joint legal brief that the video does not prove any illegality. They also noted repeatedly that “not one voter” testified about their ballot being mishandled.
The State Elections Enforcement Commission is currently investigating the allegations of ballot-stuffing, as well as other complaints of possible election improprieties surrounding the same primary.
Gomes, the city’s former chief administrative officer and a one-time Ganim ally, contends the woman in the original surveillance video is Wanda Geter-Pataky, vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee and a Ganim supporter. Geter-Pataky exercised her right to remain silent multiple times in court concerning the case, including when asked if she’s the person in the video. A former City Council member and current candidate also declined to answer whether she appears in other videos.
Ganim, who was convicted of corruption during a first stint as mayor but won his old job back in an election after his release from prison, has repeatedly denied any knowledge of wrongdoing related to ballots and has raised concerns about other videos which he says show Gomes’ campaign workers dropping in multiple pieces of paper resembling ballots. Gomes has said his staff did nothing wrong.
News of the Bridgeport videos has spread through right-wing social media platforms and on far-right media, connecting the controversy to the 2020 stolen election claims.
Associated Press writers Dave Collins in Hartford, Connecticut, and Pat Eaton-Robb in Columbia, Connecticut, contributed to this report.
Sign up for our Breaking newsletter to get the most urgent news stories in your inbox. | US Local Elections |
As Senator Dianne Feinstein faces a barrage of calls to step down amid reports of poor health, colleagues say a resignation would prove even more damaging to Democrats looking to retain a majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Challenging the chorus of critics, Feinstein's allies argue the oldest sitting member of Congress is still capable of carrying out the remaining 19 months of her term at 89 years old, and, in fact, would prove heroic in doing so.
"The only way that the Judiciary Committee gets to assert the majority control that the American people gave us in the election is for her to stay and serve," Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, 67, a Rhode Island Democrat who sits next to Feinstein at Judiciary Committee hearings, told Newsweek. "When she does that, I think she is engaged in an act of very considerable bravery."
And yet, reports of cognitive issues and a 10-week absence due to complications from shingles has riled progressives, especially as her medical leave prevented the advancement of party-line nominees for federal judgeships in the 11-10 divided committee.
This has forced Democrats deeper into uncomfortable conversations about the ages of their leaders as they prepare to enter the 2024 election cycle rallied behind the oldest president in U.S. history, who, at 80, has lived roughly four years past the average national lifespan.
However, Whitehouse said coverage of Feinstein's situation has "completely missed" a key story, a scenario in which Republicans refuse to fill Feinstein's committee seat should she resign. The GOP already declined to offer the votes needed to overcome the 60-vote filibuster threshold to fill her seat temporarily.
If Feinstein resigned, the GOP could also prevent Democrats from filling an open seat on the Supreme Court, should one vacate. Thus, liberals find themselves in a situation similar to that which surrounded the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—reliant on a historic yet aging leader who some progressives felt served too far past her physical prime.
Unlike Ginsburg, however, Feinstein does not have a known terminal illness.
Still, as Feinstein has reached the twilight of her career, her standing as a titan on national issues has diminished. Instead, as she noted in her retirement announcement, her focus has shifted to addressing state issues. She emphasized this when asked about her policy focuses during a brief interview on Capitol Hill:
"I represent a huge state," she told Newsweek. "So, there are all kinds of things that come up, planning decisions that people don't like as well as material things, so we just do the best we can, check everything out, and try to make the best decision for the state."
Reached for further comment, Feinstein defended her record.
"When I announced that I was not running for re-election, I said that I intended to serve out the remainder of my term because there was work I wanted to finish," Feinstein said, as dictated by her press secretary. "I still feel that I'm in a unique position to address many of the issues facing California, particularly when it comes to wildfire and water. My main focus is using my position on Appropriations Committee to prepare California for these challenges and the many other threats our state is facing from climate change."
"Recovering from shingles has been difficult. I have been working throughout my recovery and my health continues to improve," she added. "Now that I'm back in Washington and voting, my focus is still on helping California. I know how the Senate works, and I know how to get things done here, so I believe I can still be an effective voice for our state."
New York Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, 56, who serves with Feinstein on the Intelligence Committee, trusts her capabilities.
"I've heard her ask extremely precise and insightful questions on that Committee," Gillibrand said. "She's been serving on that committee for decades. She knows just about as much as anybody, and she's extremely helpful on that committee. So, I think she can continue to serve, and she and she alone should make the decision if she wants to retire early for medical reasons."
Gillibrand acknowledges that male senators have received extended medical leaves of absence. The late Republican Senator John McCain, who did not vote during the remaining eight months of his career before passing away in office at 81, is one example.
New Jersey's Democratic Senator Cory Booker, 54, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, said he's seen "no diminution" from Feinstein, adding that she was cracking "really funny jokes" during an elevator ride last month.
"She still has one of the best operations, and she's still one of the most respected voices in Washington," Booker told Newsweek. "I've had engagement with her. She clearly has had some health challenges, but she is still somebody that carries stature and respect."
Feinstein's fitness has been a subject of conversation on Capitol Hill going back to a 2020 New Yorker article. Conversations intensified after the San Francisco Chronicle published a report on April 14, 2022, citing four unnamed U.S. senators who described Feinstein as having a "rapidly deteriorating memory" that affected her ability to recognize people she's known for years and understand her Senate duties.
Two weeks later, New York magazine published a cover story raising similar issues. The Los Angeles Times published a piece one week after her return in which the senator was asked about the reception to her absence, and she responded saying she'd been working, which inflamed criticism over her perceived lack of awareness.
Calls for Feinstein's resignation began about seven weeks into her medical absence. Progressive Silicon Valley Congressman Ro Khanna, 46, urged the longtime senator to resign on April 12, saying it was "obvious she can no longer fulfill her duties." Later that day, Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips, 54, a centrist Democrat, called her absence a "dereliction of duty."
Progressive Democratic Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 33, of New York, and Michigan's Rashida Tlaib, 46, also called for Feinstein's resignation after Republicans made it clear they would not allow her to be temporarily replaced on the Judiciary Committee.
Though the three federal judges were confirmed two days after Feinstein's return, stories raising concerns continued to appear.
Optics may have played a role in the continued media attention.
The New York Times reported that Feinstein's shingles complications included encephalitis, swelling of the brain that her office said "resolved itself" in March, and Ramsay Hunt Syndrome, inflammation of a facial nerve. Images taken the day of her arrival showed her exiting a car into a wheelchair due to balance issues associated with Ramsay Hunt. She was noticeably thinner, and the left side of her face appeared paralyzed, a lingering effect from the Syndrome.
"Most Californians don't pay a lot of attention to the day-to-day operations of the Senate, but the photos and video of her struggling so severely may have raised public consciousness," Dan Schnur, a veteran of California politics and political science lecturer at U.C. Berkeley told Newsweek. "Up until last week, Feinstein's illness was an abstraction to most voters, but those visuals made it much more tangible."
However, while to some lawmakers Feinstein may no longer look fit for the job and according to the New York Times relies "heavily on staff," those vouching for her abilities argue that any senator's performance is highly dependent upon staff.
Congressman John Garamendi, 78, a California Democrat, has known Feinstein for 40 years, and said she remains effective. He noted that last December, as chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water, Feinstein secured billions of dollars for renewable energy, wildfire response and water infrastructure. During her medical leave, Garamendi said Feinstein continued to work on these issues, saying his staff worked alongside hers.
"In recent communications I've had with her, she's on top of her game," Garamendi told Newsweek. "In my conversations with her, she knows what she's doing. She's responsive. She knows the issues. The conversations have been good—clear and cognitive."
He's not the only California lawmaker who attested to Feinstein's effectiveness.
"I am glad to have Senator Feinstein back in the Senate," California Democratic Senator Alex Padilla, 50, told Newsweek. "She has been active since her return, voting to advance qualified judicial nominees in committee, to prevent a default on our national debt, and continuing the important work on behalf of Californians."
If legitimate health issues do exist, Feinstein could be supported, according to Laura Mauldin, a sociology professor specializing in disability studies at the University of Connecticut.
"I think it's important that no matter the level of one's impairment, we should be encouraging and respectful of their decision-making," Mauldin told Newsweek. "There are systems for providing what we call 'supported decision-making,' so that a disabled person can participate in decision-making. It can be shared; it can be supported. We don't have to make decisions for them even if there is an impairment present."
While Mauldin acknowledges the validity of concerns surrounding Feinstein, she emphasized that ultimately "we don't know" the status of her mental or physical state.
Echoing Schnur, however, she acknowledges that recent images of Feinstein "make it a lot easier for people to respond negatively because they can very easily associate what one's body looks like with their mental capacity."
Dr. John W. Rowe, an expert on age with Columbia University, noted "that there's tremendous variability with advancing age." Rowe would not recommend someone Feinstein's age serve as an airline pilot for example—he's provided testimony speaking on behalf of age restrictions for said profession—but said Congress can benefit from the perspective of seniors, who studies have found are better at finding "win-win" situations.
However, this perceived strength may have lost favor. Feinstein has drawn the ire progressives for years, and that relationship worsened following her performance as the top Democrat overseeing the 2020 confirmation hearing of then-Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ginsburg.
With Feinstein's popularity approval among Democrats dropping from 55 percent in February to 43 percent as of May, Schnur said that, while "risky," it's possible that creating distance from Feinstein may be one way a candidate could boost their progressive bona fides.
Also looming over the 2024 race for Feinstein's seat is California Governor Gavin Newsom's pledge to appoint a Black woman should the 89-year-old resign. So far, only one top candidate fits the description—Congresswoman Barbara Lee, 76, whose campaign is co-chaired by Khanna. Lee trails Representatives Katie Porter, 49, and Adam Schiff, 62. Schnur said it would be "immensely valuable" to her campaign if she were appointed. In 2022, 94 percent of incumbents won reelection, according to Ballotpedia.
Republican Senator John Neely Kennedy of Louisiana, 71, serves as the top Republican on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee. He's seen Feinstein lead her staff and says committee work has gone "smoothly." Kennedy believes the calls for Feinstein's resignation are politically motivated.
"There are people in this town who will unplug your life support to charge their cellphone if it's in their political interest," Kennedy told Newsweek. "Dianne and I don't agree on a lot of things, but she has served long, and she has served well, and she deserves better than this."
Republican Senator Josh Hawley, the 43-year-old representative for Missouri, who led the Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee with Feinstein last Congress, agrees.
"I think that the Democrats don't like how she has been awfully civil and pleasant to Republicans," he told Newsweek. "Though we disagree on most things, I have great respect for her personally and professionally. She's really a legend. I don't think she's been treated very well, and that's not just like in the last couple of months."
While Feinstein's health will remain subject to debate throughout the rest of her tenure, Schnur said this factor will likely not have long-lasting impacts on California, but her resignation could.
"Feinstein's decision [to stay in the Senate], one way or another, is relevant for the next 19 months," he told Newsweek. "The selection of a replacement could be relevant for years, for many years, if not decades." | US Congress |
Biden plots new course to get relief for student borrowers
President Biden on Friday announced new actions to offer student loan borrowers some forgiveness, reintroducing his forgiveness plan grounded in the Higher Education Act (HEA).
Using the HEA to provide student debt relief has been pushed by student loan advocates and top Democrats for years. Under the HEA, advocates argue it allows the education secretary to “compromise, waive or release” students loans. This path will require a public comment and notice period before it could go into effect.
“We need to find a new way, and we’re moving as fast as we can,” he said in remarks at the White House on Friday afternoon.
The administration had tied the student debt relief plan — struck down by the Supreme Court — to the national emergency established during the COVID-19 public health crisis, citing the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students (HEROES) Act. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s majority opinion, issued Friday morning, that the HEROES Act does not grant the authority.
Biden did not offer further details about who would qualify or how much debt relief borrowers would receive under his new plan to use the HEA, but said Education Secretary Miguel Cardona has taken steps to initiate the rulemaking process.
The department sent out a notice Friday, the first step in the “negotiated rulemaking” process. The first public hearing on the matter will happen July 18 to get input from stakeholders. The process could go well to the end of 2023, but the administration said it will try to move “as quickly as possible.”
“This student debt relief is not being implemented automatically. This is a hot mess. This will be a bureaucratic nightmare,” Braxton Brewington, press secretary for Debt Collective, said in response to the announcement.
The president also announced the administration will launch an “on-ramp” repayment program for borrowers who may miss payments when they resume this fall. It would remove the threat of default or harm to credit ratings because the Education Department won’t refer borrowers who miss payments to collection agencies or credit bureaus for 12 months.
“If you can pay your monthly bills you should, but if you cannot, if you miss payments, this on-ramp temporarily removes the threat of default or having your credit harmed,” Biden said.
Student debt payments have been paused since the pandemic, but in a deal with Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to secure a debt-ceiling agreement, Biden set in stone the resumption of repayments beginning in October. Interest will begin to accrue again at the beginning of September.
The Supreme Court decision on Friday stopped more than 40 million borrowers from receiving loan forgiveness and delivered a major defeat to one of the president’s key campaign promises. The decision limits Biden’s options to deliver on that promise.
The program, announced in August, would have canceled up to $20,000 in loans for Pell Grant recipients and $10,000 for other borrowers, if the individual’s income is less than $125,000.
Soon after the Supreme Court struck down the president’s student loan forgiveness plan, the White House said it was prepared and that Biden had a new action to roll out.
The announcement comes after the White House refused to talk about a “Plan B” for months while student debt relief was held up in the court system.
Updated at 4:41 p.m.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
abortion op ed Photograph: Francisco Navas/Guardian Design Our panel will discuss the end of the landmark Roe V Wade ruling in this livestreamed event.On 24 June the supreme court ruled that there is no constitutional right to abortion in the United States. The decision overturned the landmark Roe v Wade case which had protected women's reproductive rights for nearly half a century, and reverses a historic victory of the global women's movement. Now twenty-six states are poised to ban or severely restrict abortion immediately, which will make it illegal across most of the south and midwest. Anti-abortion forces around the world may also feel empowered to enact new restrictions elsewhere, with fatal consequences for the poorest communities and for reproductive freedom everywhere.What comes next? Will we see increased criminalization of abortion in the US? Will other rights, such as marriage equality and IVF access, be targeted next as Christian fundamentalists gain further traction in US politics? How will this ruling impact US Congressional elections later this year given that more than seven in 10 Americans oppose the overturning of Roe v Wade?Join our panel of speakers with chair, Guardian columnist and author of Strong Female Lead, Arwa Mahdawi; congresswoman Barbara Lee, representing California’s 13th Congressional District and Kimberly Mutcherson, Dean & Professor of Law Rutgers Law School; and founder and director of Women on Waves, Rebecca Gomperts.Running time: 60 minutesTickets for this event are priced from £7 (approx. $8.60).This event will be hosted on a third-party live streaming platform Zoom, please refer to their privacy policy and terms and conditions before purchasing a ticket to the event. After registering, please refer to your confirmation email for access to the event.Closed captions will be available for this event. To make use of this function, click the globe icon at the bottom of your screen once you have logged in to the event.This event is being streamed globally.8pm BST | 9pm CEST | 12pm PDT | 3pm EDTOr see this time zone converter to check your local live streaming time.If you are unable to join at the time of streaming, this event will be available to watch by Friday 8 July. A link to the recording will be sent to all ticket holders. What will the end of abortion rights in America mean for the world? Wednesday 6 July 2022, 8pm–9pm BST Partners & Patrons 4 June, 12am General release 6 June, 12am Sale ends 6 July, 8pm £7 plus £0.92 booking fee Partners/Patrons save £2.17 (20% off and no fees) This ticket will give you access to the livestream event and the on-demand recording which will be available in the days following. By proceeding, you agree to the Guardian Live events Terms and Conditions. To find out what personal data we collect and how we use it, please visit our Privacy Policy. | SCOTUS |
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Penn., is staying true to his words after he dared House Republicans earlier this month to impeach Joe Biden. Amid the GOP's first hearing for its highly-awaited impeachment inquiry into the president, Fetterman delivered a case of Bud Light beer to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability on Thursday. The beer, which continues to be boycotted by several prominent conservatives, was more so a gag rather than a gift.
Fetterman took to X (formerly Twitter) to share that his staff had dropped off a case of Bud Light for Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., and his team: "This morning, I directed my staff to deliver a gift to congratulate and salute Representative Comer and his Team America (TM) squad as they embark on their historic impeachment journey," Fetterman wrote.
Alongside the beer was a note that read, "To Rep. Comer & his squad. A profile in courage can make a guy thirsty. Congratulations, this Bud's for you. Hugs & kisses: John Fetterman," with the smiling hearts emoji.
On social media, fans of the stunt praised Fetterman's "top tier trolling," which pokes fun at the right's ongoing backlash over Bud Light after the brand announced its partnership with transgender social media influencer and activist Dylan Mulvaney. Several conservative commentators and personalities spoke ill of the brand while others, like singer Kid Rock, expressed their hatred by shooting up large cases of the beer and posting the video to social media. | US Congress |
Speaker Mike Johnson signals that Ukraine aid, coupled with border security, is next on GOP agenda
New Speaker Mike Johnson says the U.S. House will consider a fresh aid package for Ukraine, but he wants to link it to more money at home for the U.S. border with Mexico
WASHINGTON -- New Speaker Mike Johnson told Republican senators Wednesday that a fresh Ukraine aid package linked to U.S. border security will come up quickly in the House, as soon as lawmakers wrap up the $14.5 billion Israel aid package that is heading for passage this week.
Johnson, who has been on the job a week, made the trip across the Capitol to speak privately with GOP senators to outline the agenda ahead. He also said the House plans to pass a stopgap bill to fund the government into next year to avoid a federal shutdown on Nov. 17 when current funding runs out.
Later, discussing the Israel aid during a Fox News event at the Capitol, Johnson said, “We’re going to get it done.”
Johnson was greeted with applause at the start of the lunch meeting, a get-to-know-you session for a new GOP speaker that many senators had never met — or even heard of — until he won a longshot race to replace the ousted Kevin McCarthy.
“Look, we all like the new speaker, we want him to be successful,” Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, who opposes more aid to Ukraine, said afterward. “And that was the tenor of the conversation.”
The new speaker told the senators Ukraine needs U.S. aid as it battles Russia, but there was no way President Joe Biden's nearly $106 billion supplemental funding request, which includes aid for Israel, could be passed through the House.
“'We want to take up Ukraine,'" was his message, said Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who opposes more funding for the overseas war.
Hawley said Johnson told the Republican senators the “next order of business” after the Israel package would be the Ukraine-U.S. border package.
Senate Democratic Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Wednesday that the House's Israel-only approach was dead on arrival in the Senate.
The House's approach to emergency funds for Israel requires that the $14.5 billion be offset with spending cuts elsewhere — namely, gutting the beefed-up Internal Revenue Service funds Biden and congressional Democrats secured last year to go after tax cheats. The Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday the House's bill would actually end up costing the federal government $12.5 billion because of the reduction in tax revenues.
Johnson's position puts him politically sideways with Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who is working to approve Israel and Ukraine aid together, aid to Taiwan and funding for U.S. border security.
But McConnell had also made it clear earlier this week that Democrats “will have to accept” a serious U.S.-Mexico border security measure as part of any package with Ukraine funding.
During Wednesday's private lunch, Johnson echoed comments he made last week, saying Congress would not abandon Ukraine even as it first works to shore up aid for Israel.
Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla. said his impression was Johnson wants to fund government responsibly. “We want to make sure that we want Ukraine to win, but we’ve got to do all these things in a responsible manner and in the right process,” he said.
The lunchtime session opened, as it often does, with a prayer, as the speaker, a staunch conservative evangelical Christian, presented himself to his colleagues.
Conservatives, in particular, liked what they heard.
"A good person,” said Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., who said there’s “not a rough edge” on the new speaker, even when he is being blunt. “He just sounds nice.”
Said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, “The No. 1 thing I recommend to newly elected senators, newly elected House members, is do what you said you would do, and I think the speaker is showing an admirable commitment to doing exactly that.” | US Federal Policies |
A set of updated campaign finance reports are deepening the mystery surrounding the source of high-dollar loans that Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) made to his campaign last year. Santos’s campaign previously reported that a pair of six-figure loans from the candidate — one for $500,000 that was made last March and another for $125,000 in October — came from his personal funds. But in an amended filing with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Tuesday, Santos’s campaign unchecked a box indicating that the $500,000 loan came from personal funds. Similarly, a separate updated report left the same box unchecked for the $125,000 loan. The changes were first reported by The Daily Beast. Further complicating the matter is the fact that filings from later in 2022 still mark the $500,000 loan as coming from personal funds, leaving the source of the money unclear. Campaign finance experts are struggling to unpack the latest disclosures from Santos’s campaign, which they say are riddled with potential errors and discrepancies. “Nobody can make sense of them,” said Robert Maguire, the research director for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit watchdog group. “It seems impossible at this point that there is some sort of oversight.” “It’s just an astounding number of financial questions,” he added. “I’ve been doing that for more than a decade and I’ve never seen anything like this.” Brett Kappel, an elections lawyer specializing in campaign finance, said that it’s unclear whether the apparent discrepancies on Santos’s updated filings were the result of a simple clerical error or an intentional change. Regardless, Kappel said, “the amendments make no sense and are inconsistent,” adding the changes would almost certainly attract scrutiny from the FEC. “It might be a mistake that was made when amending other parts of the same report or it could be deliberate if his treasurer refused to mark it as personal unless he provided documentation,” he said. “Either way it is going to generate another FEC letter asking him to describe the true source of the loan and its particulars.” Federal election law allows candidates to loan personal funds for campaign purposes or take out bank loans to help fund their political operations. But experts said that any bank loan the size of those made by Santos would require collateral, and Santos’s filings with the FEC note that the loans were not backed by collateral. Santos’s attorney Joe Murray did not respond to The Hill’s request for comment on the amended campaign finance reports. Santos himself declined to elaborate on the changes on Wednesday, telling reporters outside the U.S. Capitol that he doesn’t manage his campaign’s financial disclosures. “I don’t amend anything,” Santos told reporters on Wednesday. “I don’t touch any of my FEC stuff. So don’t be disingenuous and report that I did, because you know that every campaign hires fiduciaries. So I’m not aware of that answer.” To be sure, it’s not unusual for campaigns to file updated reports with the FEC in order to correct errors or provide additional required information. But Erin Chlopak, the senior director for campaign finance at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center (CLC), said that Santos’s filings aren’t typical. “The FEC has already issued a large number of requests for additional information where they flagged their own concerns,” Khlopak said. “I think that this particular committee has raised an unusual number of questions.” CLC filed a complaint with the FEC earlier this month accusing Santos’s campaign of illegally using funds for personal expenses and concealing the source of Santos’s loans to the campaign, among other concerns. Khlopak said that CLC was still in the process of sorting through Santos’s latest filings. Khlopak warned against jumping to conclusions about the latest discrepancies regarding Santos’s campaign loans. But, she added, “it’s certainly significant whether it was a clerical mistake or intentional, and it’s something that should be examined.” “If it’s personal, then there’s the question of did he actually have the money to loan? And if not, where did the money come from?” she said. “There are a lot of questions about where it came from, the term of the loan, etc. There are requirements about providing details about what they are.” The updated disclosures mark the latest turn in the winding saga of Santos, who has faced growing scrutiny over everything from his financial dealings to lying about his résumé and personal life. In previous filings with the FEC, Santos’s campaign reported that he had personally loaned his campaign more than $700,000, but questions remain over where that money came from. Santos has said that the money came from his work at his company, the DeVolder Organization. Santos is also facing scrutiny over whether an outside entity had solicited large donations for his campaign without being registered with the FEC. There are also questions about a series of expenses for $199.99 made by Santos’s campaign. That specific amount puts the expenses just one cent under the $200 threshold that would require the campaign to keep receipts or invoices. On Wednesday, Santos’s campaign and a handful of affiliated groups filed updates with the FEC naming Thomas Datwyler, a longtime GOP operative, as their new treasurer, replacing previous treasurer Nancy Marks. The transition hit a roadblock, however, when Datwyler’s attorney Derek Ross said that his client had informed Santos’s campaign earlier this week that he would not be serving as treasurer. Federal law requires every political committee to have a treasurer in order to spend or take in money. “On Monday we informed the Santos campaign that Mr. Datwyler would not be serving as treasurer,” Ross said. “It appears there’s a disconnect between that conversation and the filings today, which we did not authorize.” | US Campaigns & Elections |
The governing body of the Utah Republican Party overwhelmingly passed a resolution on Saturday that calls the four criminal indictments and 91 felony charges against former President Donald Trump “political persecution.”
The resolution, which was overwhelmingly passed by the Utah GOP’s State Central Committee on Saturday afternoon, condemns Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special counsel Jack Smith for “corruptly and unlawfully” targeting Trump. It also says the charges against Trump, which include paying hush money to an adult film actress and his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden, were “based on political grounds.”
“The Fifth Amendment guarantees citizens are innocent until proven guilty, and Donald J. Trump has been innocent of any and all crimes he’s been accused of,” the resolution reads.
“I don’t think it’s fair that our nation is being led by these district attorneys that are funded by George Soros and other leftist organizations that are criminally indicting Donald Trump,” Casey Gale, the author of the resolution, said. “There’s no tangible evidence that ties into any of this.”
The resolution calls on Utah’s members of Congress to condemn the “continuous political persecution” of Trump.
The party leaders also narrowly rejected a new rule aimed at cracking down on media access and limiting critical news coverage.
Had it passed, the rule would have established procedures for media members who cover Utah Republican Party events and contained a provision preventing media members from publishing anything about party meetings if they’ve blocked that person on social media. That provision was watered down during debate to deny access to media members who have blocked any member of the party’s state central committee online.
Goud Maragani, who was revealed to have authored social media posts embracing baseless conspiracy theories about fraud in the 2020 election during his unsuccessful run for Salt Lake County Clerk in 2022, said it’s not fair for reporters to block the subjects of their news stories on social media.
“If you have reporters come in, attack certain members and then block them online and make it so they can’t respond, that could cause damage. They [party members] don’t have the ability to hit the same amount of reach as the reporter can. This just gives the people being attacked or highlighted the ability to respond in the same [social media] thread,” Maragani, who leads the Utah Log Cabin Republicans, said.
Opponents of the social media provision worried it would cast Republicans in a bad light.
“Utah Republican Party, what are we doing? I feel this hinders the First Amendment and we’re all about the First Amendment,” Daniela Harding, former Davis County GOP chair, said.
“What we’re doing here is not a good look for the party,” James Evans, former state party chairman, added.
Internal party drama
One of the most anticipated items on Saturday’s agenda fizzled out after Maragani withdrew his proposed censure of Salt Lake County Council member Aimee Winder Newton. Maragani sought to punish Winder Newton — also a senior adviser to Gov. Spencer Cox and director of the Office of Families — for participating in a fundraiser for Equality Utah and receiving the group’s endorsement in her 2022 reelection race. His resolution accused Equality Utah of pushing “sex reassignment surgery for minors,” and of partnering with groups that actively work against Republican candidates.
Maragani came under fire after it was made public that he also pursued Equality Utah’s endorsement when he was a candidate for Salt Lake County clerk in 2022.
On Saturday, he vaguely claimed he has been approached by several individuals who wanted to investigate the claims leveled in his resolution.
“A number of them asked me to pull the censure to give time for a citizens’ committee to look into this,” Maragani said in a text message to The Salt Lake Tribune.
Maragani declined to name any of the individuals who had contacted him.
Winder Newton, who attended Saturday’s meeting virtually, said Maragani’s retreat was likely to save face.
“I received an outpouring of support from many of the SCC members, so I’m assuming he knew he didn’t have the votes,” Winder Newton said in a text message.
Much of the business considered in these quarterly meetings concerns the nuts and bolts of how the party runs. Committee members considered several rule changes on Saturday.
Paper vs. electronic ballots
Committee members rejected one such rule change aimed at ditching the use of electronic voting at conventions in favor of paper ballots. Switching to paper ballots would address concerns about election integrity that are prominent among many Republicans, says Bob McEntee, who authored the proposal.
“This respects the concerns of our GOP voter base,” McEntee said.
Those concerns are likely driven by Donald Trump’s baseless claims of rampant fraud in the 2020 presidential election. Nearly 70% of Republicans nationally believe Democrat Joe Biden’s win over Trump was illegitimate in some manner, according to a CNN poll.
Utah County Republican Russ Grafton scolded his fellow party members for giving into unfounded fears that using electronic voting allowed for cheating.
“To equate paper (ballots) with integrity and electronic with not is a false assumption,” Grafton said. “All this does is pander to a small but loud subset of the ‘big tent’ of the Republican Party. When we appease the fears of a small base, that alienates young voters, independents and anybody else that choose to see through the cult of personality and lies that have affected our party.”
Republican National Committee representative
The unresolved election for a new Utah representative on the Republican National Committee resumed Saturday morning.
In June, businessman Brad Bonham and GOP activist Gunnar Thorderson remained tied after the third round of voting, but the Central Committee meeting dissolved before another ballot because too many members had left to continue.
After members argued for nearly an hour over the use of electronic balloting, Bonham secured the victory with just over 60% of the vote. He says his pledge to raise $1 million in badly needed funds for the party resonated with committee members.
“They’ve (the Utah GOP) been poor,” Bonham said. “We need to give people a reason to donate to the party.”
The Utah GOP has struggled mightily financially in recent years. Committee members were told Saturday that the party has about $90,000 in cash available. Bonham says that the cash-poor situation has left the party unable to assist candidates, which he experienced firsthand during his unsuccessful 2018 legislative race.
“I didn’t get a lot of support. I had to go out and find my own support,” Bonham says. “If you can throw resources and money at some of these races, we can win seats.”
Committee members also shot down a move to extend the time limit from the current four hours to five.
Utah GOP Chair Rob Axson teased a number of initiatives he said the party would undertake ahead of the 2024 presidential election, including outreach to voters on the west side of Salt Lake County and appealing to younger voters, minorities and immigrants.
“I think we need to continue to be a voice for people who have been ignored. That’s how we build a big tent where we bring people in of all various perspectives and backgrounds and help them realize that the Utah Republican Party and our platform are the very things that we need for our kids’ future,” Axson said. | US Political Corruption |
In the wake of Representative Troy Merner’s abrupt resignation, House Democratic leader Representative Matthew B. Wilhelm is asking what took so long and wondering whether lawmakers should draft legislation to prevent a situation like this from happening again.
Wilhelm told the attorney general’s office in a letter Wednesday he is “deeply concerned” investigators waited more than four months to notify House leadership that Merner had admitted he no longer lived in the district he was representing.
“For nearly twenty weeks, the House was deprived of its opportunity to fairly judge Rep. Merner’s qualifications, and he continued to illegally vote on over 100 pieces of legislation,” Wilhelm wrote.
Advertisement
His letter alluded to the possibility of legislation on this topic, with an invitation for the attorney general’s office to provide guidance. “We are exploring all avenues of accountability to ensure the integrity of our legislature,” he told the Globe.
Investigators concluded that Merner, a Republican from Lancaster, had moved out of his legislative district more than two months before he won reelection in November 2022. They said he kept representing the district and serving on the Lancaster Board of Selectmen even though he had moved to live with his wife in Carroll. He’s suspected of voting illegally in Lancaster and claiming mileage reimbursement based on the wrong address.
The attorney general’s office shared its findings with House Speaker Sherman Packard in a letter on Sept. 18, and news of Merner’s resignation broke the following day.
But the investigation had begun six months earlier. A poll worker in Lancaster questioned the home addresses Merner had provided during two elections, so she alerted authorities in March. Within two days, an investigator observed that Merner appeared to be listing his Lancaster office as his home, and Merner admitted on May 4 that he was “not really staying” at the address, according to the attorney general’s letter.
Advertisement
A spokesperson for Packard’s office told the Globe the Sept. 18 letter was the first time the office learned Merner had admitted to investigators he didn’t live in the district. “We acted immediately on obtaining his resignation,” the spokesperson said.
Michael S. Garrity, a spokesperson for the attorney general, said the delayed notification reflects standard operating procedures.
“We do not discuss investigations until we have reached a conclusion,” Garrity said, “especially in a case like this where we are also investigating potential crimes associated with the domicile.”
Merner has not responded to the Globe’s requests for comment.
This story first appeared in Globe NH | Morning Report, our free newsletter focused on the news you need to know about New Hampshire, including great coverage from the Boston Globe and links to interesting articles from other places. If you’d like to receive it via e-mail Monday through Friday, you can sign up here. | US Congress |
Key events18m agoWith 'no regrets' about classified documents, Biden marks two years in office, hints at 2024Show key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureWith 'no regrets' about classified documents, Biden marks two years in office, hints at 2024Good morning, US politics blog readers. Today marks the halfway point of Joe Biden’s first term as president. Will he seek a second? He has yet to officially decide, but all signs continue to point to yes. Here’s the latest one: the White House is circulating a document, obtained by Politico, recounting all of what they say are his accomplishments over the past 24 months. But in recent days, Biden has found himself personally entangled in a growing scandal over classified documents from his time as vice-president that were found at his home and former residence. Considering the justice department is going after Donald Trump for doing something similar, albeit in much greater quantities and with much less transparency, the affair seems to present a threat to Biden’s presidency. Yesterday, Biden shrugged it off. “I think you’re going to find there’s nothing there. I have no regrets,” he replied, when a reporter asked about the documents. “There’s no there there.”Here’s a look at what we can expect today: The anti-abortion March of Life is holding its annual rally in Washington DC, the first since the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade. This year, the marchers will conclude not at the high court, but near the Capitol, in a sign of how campaign’s focus has shifted. Biden welcomes a bipartisan groups of mayors to the White House at 2pm eastern time, before heading to Delaware for the weekend. Senator Tim Kaine is expected to announce whether he will seek a third term today, according to Punchbowl News. A retirement by the Virginia Democrat would give Republicans another opportunity to flip a seat and take control of the chamber in the 2024 election. | US Federal Elections |
House Democrats, with the help of a eight Republicans, voted down an effort led by GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene in the House of Representatives to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas in a straight up or down vote.
The eight Republicans who joined Democrats in the 209-201 vote killing the effort included Reps. Ken Buck, R-Colo., Darrell Issa, R-Calif., Tom McClintock, R-Calif., Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., John Duarte, R-Calif., Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., Cliff Bentz, R-Ore., and Mike Turner, R-Ohio.
Additionally, 11 Democrats and 12 Republicans did not vote on the measure.
Greene voiced her displeasure in a video posted on X, saying that the eight Republicans voted to "protect" Mayorkas from impeachment, which she called, "unbelievable."
"We had eight Republicans vote with the Democrats to send my articles of impeachment back to committee where articles of impeachment go to die," Greene said.
Rep. McClintock's office directed Fox News Digital to a press release explaining that the "grounds for impeachment are explicitly laid out in the Constitution" and that the allegations against Mayorkas do not meet the threshold even though Mayorkas is "the worst cabinet secretary in American history."
"Yes, Alejandro Mayorkas must be held accountable for his egregious failures – there’s no doubt about that. By giving the Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Chairman Jordan, the opportunity to conduct a full-scale impeachment inquiry the right way, House Republicans are fulfilling the commitments we made to the American people and rising to a level that Democrats could never do," Rep. Foxx said in a press release after her vote.
"Secretary Mayorkas has not committed an impeachable offense," Rep. Buck told CNN on Monday night. "I disagree strongly with how he’s handling the border, I think the border is porous, I think it’s a threat to this country, but it’s not a high crime or misdemeanor, it’s not treason, it’s not bribery, it’s not the crimes or issues our founders set forth in the Constitution."
In a statement to Fox News Digital, Rep. Turner denied that Republicans voted to "kill" an impeachment and that the motion was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security for proper fact finding.
"No one voted to kill an impeachment inquiry – there is currently an ongoing investigation into Secretary Mayorkas in the House of Representatives. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene’s resolution was referred to the ongoing Homeland Security Committee’s investigation under Chairman Mark Green," Turner said. "When his investigation is complete, he can at any time refer fully documented Articles of Impeachment to the House, which will pass overwhelmingly."
Rep. Issa released a statement saying that Mayorkas "deserves to face an impeachment trial" and posted on social media that he "can't wait to testify."
"I will be requesting my opportunity to testify before the committee and make my case why Sec. Mayorkas is the worst to ever hold his job and why impeachment would be a fitting punishment," Issa said.
Greene introduced the resolution to impeach Mayorkas on Thursday, which would have forced a vote on impeachment without a hearing or a committee markup. If voted on and passed, it would have sent his impeachment straight to the Senate for trial.
The Department of Homeland Security responded to the vote with a statement accusing Congress of "wasting time," and calling on it to "do its job by funding the government, reforming our broken immigration system, reauthorizing vital tools for DHS, and passing the Administration’s supplemental request to properly resource the Department’s critical work to stop fentanyl and further secure our borders."
Mayorkas has faced intense scrutiny from Republicans over his record, which includes presiding over record levels of illegal immigration that includes more than 600,000 "gotaways" at the southern border in fiscal year 2023 and over 900,000 illegal immigrants released into the interior of the United States by the Border Patrol in FY 2023.
"The fact is he's just not living up to his oath," GOP Rep. Anthony D’Esposito told Fox News Digital in June. "Not only is he failing the administration, he is failing the American people. And that's my biggest concern."
Fox News Digital’s Brandon Gillespie and Chad Pergram contributed to this report | US Congress |
- A GOP senator said his constituents would've been upset if he hadn't tried to fight a labor leader.
- "I mean, what do people want me to do?" Sen. Markwayne Mullin said in a Fox News appearance.
- In a separate interview, he also said he's not afraid to "bite" his opponents: "I'll do anything."
A Republican senator said his constituents would've been 'pretty upset' with him if he hadn't attempted to fight a labor leader during a congressional hearing.
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, who's represented Oklahoma in the Senate since 2023, made the comments in a Tuesday evening appearance on Fox News.
Earlier in the day, during a Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing titled "Standing Up Against Corporate Greed; How Unions are Improving the Lives of Working Families," Mullin got into an argument with the president of the Teamsters, Sean O'Brien.
After a brief back-and-forth, Mullin challenged O'Brien to a fight and proceeded to stand up and adjust the ring on his hand before Sen. Bernie Sanders quelled the commotion.
Hours after the brouhaha, Fox News host Sean Hannity fanned the flames even more.
"I think any other response would've been gutless," Hannity mentioned to Mullin, who agreed.
"I mean, what do people want me to do?" Mullin answered. "If I didn't do that, people in Oklahoma would be pretty upset with me."
For a brief period of time before he joined Congress, Mullin actually competed in mixed martial arts events, compiling a record of three wins and zero losses.
Several months prior to Tuesday's Capitol kerfuffle, Mullin had challenged O'Brien to an "MMA match for charity," though it never happened.
In a podcast appearance on Tuesday, Mullin admitted he's not afraid to break the rules in a fight to get an advantage.
"By the way, I'm not afraid of biting," Mullin said unprompted, surprising the podcast's host. "I will bite. In a fight, I'm gonna bite. I'll do anything, I mean, I'm not above it. And I don't care where I bite, by the way, it's just going to be a bite." | US Congress |
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) says his wife received multiple anonymous text messages that warned what would happen to his political career if he didn’t back Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) run for the House speaker role.
“Jim’s been nice, one-on-one, but his broader team has been playing hardball,” Bacon told Politico in a story published Tuesday.
In an exchange that Politico’s Olivia Beavers shared on X, formerly Twitter, the unidentified texter asked Bacon’s wife: “Why is your husband causing chaos by not supporting Jim Jordan? I thought he was a team player.”
Bacon’s wife replied: “Who is this???”
The texter said: “Your husband will not hold any political office ever again. What a disappoint (sic) and failure he is.”
Bacon’s wife fired back: “He has more courage than you. You won’t put your name to your statements.”
In another message, Bacon’s wife was urged: “Talk to your husband tell him to step up and be a leader and help the Republican Party get a speaker there’s too much going on in the world for all this going on in the Republican Party you guys take five steps forward and then turn around take 20 steps backwards no wonder our party always ends up getting screwed over.”
Bacon ended up voting for Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who was ousted from the position earlier this month.
“We’re going to keep going,” the Donald Trump-backed congressman vowed afterward. | US Congress |
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.
Jennifer Peltz, Associated Press
Jennifer Peltz, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
NEW YORK (AP) — Four months after a civil trial jury found that Donald Trump sexually abused and defamed advice columnist E. Jean Carroll, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday that still more of the ex-president’s comments about her were libelous. The decision means that an upcoming second trial will concern only how much more he has to pay her.
The ruling stands to streamline significantly the second trial, set for January. It concerns remarks that Trump made in 2019, after Carroll first publicly claimed that he sexually attacked her in a dressing room after a chance meeting at a luxury department store in 1996. He denies that anything happened between them.
The first trial, this spring, concerned the sexual assault allegation and whether some 2022 Trump comments were defamatory. Jurors awarded Carroll $5 million, finding that she was sexually abused but rejecting her allegation that she was raped.
“The jury considered and decided issues that are common to both cases — including whether Mr. Trump falsely accused Ms. Carroll of fabricating her sexual assault charge and, if that were so, that he did it with knowledge that this accusation was false” or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan wrote in Wednesday’s decision.
READ MORE: Jury finds Trump liable for sexual assault and defamation in E. Jean Carroll case
The judge wrote that the “substantive content” of the 2019 and 2022 statements was the same. And when the jury found that Trump indeed sexually abused Carroll, it effectively established that his 2019 statements also were false and defamatory, the judge said.
Carroll and her attorneys “look forward to trial limited to damages for the original defamatory statements Donald Trump made,” said her lawyer Roberta Kaplan, who’s not related to the judge.
Trump lawyer Alina Habba said Wednesday that his legal team is confident that the jury verdict will be overturned, mooting the judge’s new decision. Trump, the early front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, also is seeking to put the second trial on hold while waiting for an appeals court to rule on whether he’s legally shielded from the yet-to-be-tried case. He claims immunity because he was president when he made the 2019 comments.
At least for now, the trial is set to start Jan. 15, the day of the Iowa Republican caucuses.
The Carroll case is part of a lineup of legal woes that Trump is facing as he campaigns to return to the White House.
Four criminal indictments accuse Trump, variously, of trying to subvert the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden; mishandling top secret documents and trying to conceal what he’d done; and falsifying records in his business to cover up a hush money payment made during his 2016 campaign to porn actor Stormy Daniels. She asserts that they had a sexual encounter, which he denies.
READ MORE: Trump answers questions in defamation suit filed by E. Jean Carroll
Some of Trump’s criminal trials are scheduled to overlap with the presidential primary season. So is a civil trial in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ lawsuit accusing Trump and his company of defrauding banks, insurers and others by inflating asset values and his net worth. Trump has denied the allegations, boasted that he has “the hottest brand in the world,” and accused the Democratic attorney general of conducting a political vendetta.
A judge on Wednesday refused to delay that trial, set for October.
Carroll initially sued Trump in 2019, saying he smeared her by saying she’d made a false allegation while “trying to sell a new book” and suggesting she might be a Democratic operative.
“The world should know what’s really going on. It is a disgrace, and people should pay dearly for such false accusations,” Trump said. He maintained that he’d never met Carroll, brushing off a 1987 photo of the two and their then-spouses at a social event.
While that case was playing out, Carroll sued again last year under a New York state law that waived a legal time limit for filing sexual assault allegations. That lawsuit — the one that went to trial last year — came to include claims that Trump defamed Carroll in 2022 by calling the case “a complete con job” and a “scam.” The suit over the 2019 statements remained separate.
Trump, meanwhile, countered with a defamation suit against Carroll for saying, after the verdict, that she was not only sexually abused but raped. The judge dismissed Trump’s suit last month.
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Politics
Sep 01 | US Political Corruption |
Former President Donald Trump isn’t immune from being held accountable in civil lawsuits related to the January 6, 2021, US Capitol riot in a long-awaited, consequential decision from the federal appeals court in Washington, DC.
The decision, making new law around the presidency, will have significant implications for several cases against Trump in the Washington, DC, federal court related to the 2020 election. The decision arises out of lawsuits brought by Capitol Police officers and Democrats in Congress.
The opinion, written by Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, states that not everything a president does while in office is protected from liability.
The president “does not spend every minute of every day exercising official responsibilities,” the opinion said. “And when he acts outside the functions of his office, he does not continue to enjoy immunity. … When he acts in an unofficial, private capacity, he is subject to civil suits like any private citizen.”
The decision to allow the January 6 lawsuits against Trump to proceed was unanimous among the three judges on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Greg Katsas concurred with the decision, and Judge Judith Rogers concurred in part.
The decision allows three lawsuits against Trump from Capitol police officers and members of Congress who are seeking recovery from emotional distress and physical injury from the attack to move forward.
The complaints largely rely on a federal law prohibiting individuals from conspiring to prevent someone from holding federal office.
Trump moved to dismiss the lawsuits against him on several grounds, including presidential immunity, which the DC District Court rejected, saying that the former president’s actions in the lead-up to the riot at the US Capitol riot were all an effort to remain in office and not official functions of his presidency.
The district court did find that Trump was protected by presidential immunity from the claim that he failed to stop to the riot, saying that he would be acting in his official presidential powers in that instance.
This is a breaking story and will be updated. | US Circuit and Appeals Courts |
- The plaintiffs who brought legal challenges against the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness plan have filed their briefs with the Supreme Court.
- Here's why they believe the justices should strike down the president's plan.
Shortly after President Joe Biden announced an unprecedented plan to cancel hundreds of billions of dollars of the country's outstanding federal student loan debt, the legal challenges piled up.
Republicans and conservative groups have now brought at least six lawsuits against the president's plan, arguing that it is harmful and an overreach of executive authority.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments later this month for two of those challenges, one brought by six states and another backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.
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 plaintiffs filed their briefs on Jan. 27 with the highest court. Here's why they believe the justices should strike down the president's plan.
The six states — Nebraska, Missouri, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas and South Carolina — argue in their brief that the Biden administration has overstepped its authority by moving to cancel up to $20,000 in student debt for tens of millions of Americans without Congress's authorization.
The Biden administration insists that it's acting within the law, pointing out that the Heroes Act of 2003 grants the U.S. Secretary of Education the authority to make changes to the federal student loan system during national emergencies (the U.S. 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, and an earlier version of it provided relief to federal student loan borrowers impacted by the attacks.
However, the states counter that the Heroes Act allows the Education Secretary only to modify the federal student loan system to keep certain borrowers from being in a worse off position with their loans because of a national emergency.
They go on to say, in their brief, that the president's plan "places an estimated 43 million Americans in a better position by eliminating all loan balances for 20 million and erasing up to $20,000 for over 20 million more. This vastly exceeds the Secretary's authority under the Act."
In other words, higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz said, the states are asserting that Biden is using Covid as an excuse to pass his plan.
"For example, if it was an emergency, why wait three years to provide the forgiveness?" he said. "Why present it in a political framework, as fulfilling a campaign promise?"
The states also argue that Biden's plan would cause financial harm to their states, including a loss in profits to the companies that service federal student loans.
The second legal challenge the Supreme Court will consider was backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.
In its brief, the lawyers argue that two plaintiffs, Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, were deprived of their "procedural rights" by the Biden administration because it didn't allow the public to formally weigh in on the shape of its student loan forgiveness plan before it rolled it out. As a result, the lawyers argue, Brown and Taylor are either partially or fully excluded from the relief.
The Heroes Act exempts the need for a notice-and-comment period during national emergencies, but, like the states, the plaintiffs in this challenge also argue that that law doesn't authorize the president's sweeping plan.
In its arguments to the highest court submitted last month, lawyers for the Education Department and U.S. Department of Justice argued that the challenges to the plan were brought by parties that failed to show harm from the policy, which is typically a requirement to establish so-called legal standing.
The attorneys also denied the claim that the Biden administration was overstepping its authority, laying out the White House's argument that it is acting within the law under the Heroes Act of 2003.
"We remain confident in our legal authority to adopt this program that will ensure the financial harms caused by the pandemic don't drive borrowers into delinquency and default," U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a statement.
The Supreme Court will begin to hear the cases on Feb. 28. | SCOTUS |
Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., says Speaker Kevin McCarthy is "in trouble" after the last-minute vote to fund the government this weekend, saying the deal was a victory for Democrats.
Donalds made the comments during an appearance on "Fox News Sunday" with host Shannon Bream. He said Republicans "did not get anything" from Saturday's short-term funding agreement. The GOP firebrand fell short of saying he would vote to boot McCarthy, R-Calif., from the speaker's office but said Republicans in the chamber are deeply divided.
Bream referenced comments from House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., who declared Saturday that "the extreme MAGA Republicans have lost."
"Look, I'm gonna be honest. We did not get anything out of this continued resolution," Donalds said. "The border is still unsecured in our country. Why is that? That's because Joe Biden and the Democrats got their way. The Democrat members are very happy with what they got. I think this is a terrible deal for the American people."
"Cutting this government's spending down must happen. Inflation is still running rampant. That's not MAGA Republican, that's common sense. Having a secure border – that's not MAGA Republican, that's common sense," he added.
Bream then pressed Donalds on McCarthy's status with the Republican caucus. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., has threatened repeatedly to file a motion to vacate against the speaker.
"I think he is in trouble," Donalds said. "There has to be some level of strong leadership in our chamber, I'm just gonna be totally blunt. There are a lot of trust issues in our chamber right now, where people feel on both sides of our conference that everybody's not gonna hold hands and continue to do this work together."
Donalds nevertheless fell short of saying he would vote in favor of a motion to vacate against McCarthy. He also said he can't predict whether Democrats would vote in favor of such a motion.
The House voted on Saturday to fund the government for another 45 days, punting real budget negotiations to November. | US Congress |
PHOENIX -- Republican Kari Lake’s lawyers were sanctioned $2,000 Thursday by the Arizona Supreme Court in their unsuccessful challenge of her defeat in the governor's race last year to Democrat Katie Hobbs.
In an order, the state’s highest court said Lake’s attorney made “false factual statements” that more than 35,000 ballots had been improperly added to the total ballot count. They have 10 days to submit the payment to the court clerk.
The court, however, refused to order Lake to pay attorney fees to cover the costs of defending Hobbs and Secretary of State Adrian Fontes in Lake’s appeal.
Chief Justice Robert Brutinel cited Lake’s challenge over signature verification remains unresolved.
Hobbs and Fontes said Lake and her attorneys should face sanctions for baselessly claiming that over 35,000 ballots were inserted into the race at a facility where a contractor scanned mail-in ballots to prepare them for county election workers to process and count.
When the high court first confronted Lake’s challenge in late March, justices said the evidence doesn’t show that over 35,000 ballots were added to the vote count in Maricopa County, home to more than 60% of the state’s voters.
Lawyers for Hobbs and Fontes told the court that Lake and her lawyers misrepresented evidence and are hurting the elections process by continuing to push baseless claims of election fraud. Attorneys for Fontes asked for the court to order Lake’s lawyers to forfeit any money they might have earned in making the appeal, arguing that they shouldn’t be allowed to benefit from their own misconduct.
Lake’s lawyers said sanctions weren’t appropriate because no one can doubt that Lake honestly believes her race was determined by electoral misconduct.
Lake, who lost to Hobbs by just over 17,000 votes, was among the most vocal 2022 Republican candidates promoting former President Donald Trump’s election lies, which she made the centerpiece of her campaign. While most other election deniers around the country conceded after losing their races in November, Lake did not.
In her challenge, Lake focused on problems with ballot printers at some polling places in Maricopa County.
The defective printers produced ballots that were too light to be read by the on-site tabulators at polling places. Lines backed up in some areas amid the confusion. Lake alleged ballot printer problems were the result of intentional misconduct.
County officials say everyone had a chance to vote and all ballots were counted because those affected by the printers were taken to more sophisticated counters at election headquarters.
The state Supreme Court declined on March 22 to hear nearly all of Lake’s appeal, saying there was no evidence that 35,000 ballots were added to vote totals.
Still, the high court revived Lake's claim that challenged the application of signature verification procedures on early ballots in Maricopa County. The court sent the claim back to a lower-court judge to consider. This latest order will allow a trial court to resume litigating the matter.
In mid-February, the Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Lake’s assertions, concluding she presented no evidence that voters whose ballots were unreadable by tabulators at polling places were not able to vote.
Lake’s attorneys said the chain of custody for ballots was broken at an off-site facility where a contractor scans mail-in ballots to prepare them for processing. The lawyers asserted that workers put their own mail-in ballots into the pile rather than returning them through normal channels, and that paperwork documenting ballot transfers was missing. The county disputes the claims. | US Political Corruption |
It's not everyday that roughly the entire population of a U.S. state gets their data stolen by online thieves.
But, according to the state of Maine, that's what happened this year.
In a new notice posted on Maine's official state government website, 1.3 million residents have had their data stolen as part of a ransomware attack that was first discovered on May 31 of this year. Again, 1.3 million individuals are affected in this data breach. Maine has over 1.3 million residents according to the 2022 U.S. Census.
According to the notice, the ransomware attack occurred between May 28 and May 29 of this year. Cyber criminals took advantage of a "software vulnerability" in a third-party file transfer tool known as MOVEit. The state says that this tool is "used by thousands of entities worldwide to send and receive data." During that period, an exploit in the tool was weaponized by a cybercriminal group which was able to download swaths of data from multiple state government agencies.
Just how much data was scooped up in this ransomware attack is a major cause for concern. It appears that these cybercriminals have access to many Maine residents' sensitive personal data. Exactly how each individual is affected is dependent on that person and their "association with the state." For example, if a specific person has provided certain data as part of a specific program connected to an agency, that data has potentially been breached.
Maine has confirmed that some points of data that the cybercriminals could potentially have on an individual includes their name, Social Security number, date of birth, driver’s license or state ID number, and taxpayer ID number. Medical information as well has health insurance information may also have been affected.
Officials in Maine dealt with the issue by shutting off access to MOVEit as soon as the breach was discovered. However, significant amounts of data had already been accessed. It's unclear exactly who was behind the breach, although it is believed to be a cybercriminal group known as Clop. However, as of today, that data has still yet to be released by the ransomware group.
The state says that individuals should reach out to the state for more information as to how they've potentially been affected. Maine has set up a website with details for residents here. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
If there is any lesson to take from the past few years of American politics, it is that things can always get worse. This is worth remembering as Washington begins another fall of self-made and yet painfully real crises—the political prologue to a 2024 campaign season unlike any other, as the ex-President turned criminal defendant Donald Trump threatens to return to the White House after challenging core tenets of our democracy. The word “unprecedented” is no longer sufficient. We’ve run out of synonyms, analogies, and time to escape the mess.
The questions now are of a different sort, about the exact details of what we will face and when. To wit, as Congress returned from its protracted summer recess, the Trumpified, radicalized House Republican Conference was preparing to shut down the federal government when funding runs out at the end of this month and to impeach President Biden, both for no apparent reason. Speaker Kevin McCarthy has a majority so slim that he’s effectively a prisoner of his party’s most reckless extremists. On Tuesday, he sought, in effect, to make a bargain—to buy their acquiescence to measures for keeping the government open, the Speaker agreed to their demand for a dubious impeachment inquiry into Biden and his son Hunter’s overseas financial dealings. But, by Thursday, having failed entirely to placate his tormentors, McCarthy was reduced to throwing F-bombs at them, daring them to follow through on their threats to file a motion to oust him. “If you think you scare me,” he reportedly fumed, in a closed-door meeting of his caucus, “move the fucking motion.”
Make no mistake: this is a crisis born out of weakness. Imagine any other Speaker agreeing to embark on an impeachment inquiry as a mere bargaining chip—and a failed one at that—in his struggle to control his own party members. The way Republicans talked about the latest unsuccessful effort to manage their own faction of nihilists was so telling. “Maybe this is just Kevin giving people their binkie to get through the shutdown,” one Senate Republican told The Hill of McCarthy’s impeachment announcement. I immediately thought of perhaps the most infamous quote of the post-2020-election period, when Washington was in a collective state of denial that Trump was doing what he was doing to overturn Biden’s victory. An anonymous “senior Republican” had told the Washington Post:
Proof that the binky would not soothe the House Toddler Caucus was swift in coming. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican whose threats against McCarthy helped prompt the Speaker’s abrupt decision to open an impeachment inquiry despite saying just eleven days earlier that he would not take that step without a vote of the full House, took to the floor soon after the announcement to say that it did not matter. It was, Gaetz insisted, just a “baby step.”
And so the rage of the toddlers now threatens to take the entire government down. For what? To prove, once again, that these are not serious people on whom we have bestowed great power? On Thursday morning, McCarthy told a reporter that he himself had no idea why this was happening. Some of his Republicans were refusing to pass a defense-funding bill, without objecting to what was in it. They were also opposed to McCarthy’s preferred option of passing a continuing resolution to keep the government open, while negotiations continued with the Biden Administration and Senate Republicans. And they didn’t want to make a big omnibus deal, either. “I’m not quite sure what they want,” he concluded. He soon adjourned the House for the week, having made no progress at all. The impeachment process that the Speaker has unleashed in his weakness, meanwhile, will likely roll on throughout the remainder of 2023, offering Trump a campaign issue to throw at Biden and tying Congress in yet more knots.
For now, Biden and his defenders are putting the most positive gloss they can on this development. While it’s hard to see anyone welcoming an impeachment inquiry, no matter how questionable or nakedly partisan, there is essentially zero risk of conviction in the Democratic-majority Senate. And the President’s defenders are not wrong in suggesting that there may be some benefit for him. The unfolding mayhem in the G.O.P.-run House would seem to reinforce the folly of entrusting the country to the fickle rule of the MAGA Republicans. At a fund-raiser in Virginia, on Wednesday night, Biden even joked about this. “First they just wanted to impeach me,” he said. “Now, best as I can tell, they want to impeach me because they want to shut down the government.”
Democrats, meanwhile, are having their own crisis of weakness, finally succumbing to a semi-public panic about Biden’s age and unpopularity headed into the election as a spate of alarming new polls show him essentially tied with Trump. (In fact, Trump is currently polling stronger against Biden than he ever was in 2020.) Establishment types, such as the election handicapper Charlie Cook and the Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, have, in recent days, called on Biden to step aside in hopes of Democrats turning to a stronger standard-bearer for the existential fight against Trump and Trumpism in 2024. There is no indication that Biden will heed this advice, however; nor are there obvious stronger candidates for Democrats to coalesce behind. Plenty of Party strategists argue that Biden’s record is both consequential and popular; qualms about his age are just another example of the usual Democratic “bedwetters” who reliably freak out every four years about the Party’s prospects. Other White House defenders take the “he’s running so shut up and deal with it or risk damaging him for the battle with Trump” approach, as the Democratic strategist David Axelrod put it.
But an exchange this week on “Morning Joe,” between Ignatius and the show’s co-host Joe Scarborough, captured the genuine concern that’s been bubbling up about the President’s standing. Scarborough told Ignatius that, in “every political discussion” he’s been having lately, when the subject of Biden running again comes up, “People say, ‘Man, he’s too old to run.’ ” And, Scarborough added, “When I say every discussion, I don’t mean ninety-nine per cent of the discussions. Every discussion.” This certainly has been my experience, as well. And, unfortunately for the White House, the anecdata are confirmed by actual data: in independent public polls lately, it’s not just fervently anti-Biden Republicans but even as many as two-thirds of Democrats who say that they consider Biden too old to serve a second term.
It seems to me that respondents are saying this not because they want Trump to win but because they want him to lose—and aren’t convinced that Biden can make that happen. Filing deadlines for the 2024 primaries are coming up soon, starting with Nevada’s in mid-October. If Biden were to drop out, he would have to do it very, very soon; the final moment of decision is at hand. It’s still not inevitable, but the Biden-Trump rematch that America seems to be dreading is very close to assured. ♦ | US Federal Elections |
The Biden administration is launching an application for a new student loan repayment plan Tuesday as part of its latest attempt to offer relief to borrowers as payments resume despite significant political hurdles.
"This plan is a game changer for millions of Americans, many of whom are putting off having children, buying their first home, or even starting a business because they can't get out from under their student loans. Student loans will be manageable," Biden's domestic policy adviser, Neera Tanden, said.
The new plan is part of the administration's continued efforts to tackle student loans after its push to outright cancel up to $20,000 in debt for some borrowers was struck down by the Supreme Court earlier this year.
What is the SAVE plan?
The SAVE, or Saving on a Valuable Education, plan is an income-driven repayment program that calculates payment size based off income and family size. It allows borrowers who consistently make their monthly payments to see their debt forgiven after a certain number of years.
Starting in July of 2024, borrowers approved for a SAVE plan will see their monthly payments slashed in half for undergraduate loans, falling from 10% to 5% of disposable income -- the money left over after paying for necessities like food and rent.
For those with both graduate and undergraduate loans, payments would be between 5-10% of their income, weighted based off their initial loan amounts.
The administration estimates that this will save the typical borrower about $1,000 a year on their payments.
Borrowers who had $12,000 or less in initial loan amounts will also see their required payment time dramatically reduced, from 20 years to 10 years for undergraduate loans. Those with higher original principle will be required to make an extra year of payments for every additional $1,000 in loans, up to 20 years.
Can SAVE lessen the burden on borrowers as payments resume?
There are elements of the program that will kick in sooner to offer relief to those preparing to resume student loan payments, which were paused for more than three years due to the coronavirus pandemic.
Starting this summer, an individual approved for a SAVE plan and making less than $32,805 would see their monthly payment drop to $0 until their income increases. The same is true for a family of four making less than $67,500.
The Department of Education will also cap interest accrual for those approved for SAVE -- essentially canceling any interest not covered by their monthly payments to prevent loans from growing.
The administration is urging anyone interested in applying for SAVE to do so in the coming days with the expectation that these benefits will kick in when payments resume in October, though no firm date was given.
Senior administration officials estimate that servicers will need about four weeks from when an application is received in order to process it.
Didn't the Supreme Court strike down student debt relief?
In June, the Supreme Court rejected a Biden administration program that would have canceled between $10,00 and $20,000 in federal loans for people making below a certain income.
Since then, the White House has sought to tackle the debt in other ways, including by overhauling one of the most popular income-driven repayment programs, REPAYE, to become the new SAVE program.
Conservative detractors have called the relief an abuse of taxpayer money.
"The Biden administration's blatantly political attempt to circumvent the Supreme Court is shameful. The Biden administration is trampling the rule of law, hurting borrowers, and abusing taxpayers to chase headlines," Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx, who is chairwoman of the House Education and Workforce Committee said in a statement when the policy was announced last month.
Who is eligible?
Most borrowers are eligible loans for benefits provided by the SAVE plan, including direct subsidized loans, direct unsubsidized loans, and others, according to a Department of Education spokesperson.
Some borrowers with older loans will have to first consolidate them into a direct consolidation loan to be eligible for repayment under the SAVE plan, per the spokesperson, and the application will walk borrowers through any actions they need to take to make these loans eligible.
How do I sign up?
Anyone interested in signing up for a SAVE plan should visit StudentAid.gov/SAVE to fill out the application. Application status should be visible on the account's dashboard once completed.
Borrowers who are currently enrolled in the income-driven repayment plan REPAYE will automatically have their monthly payments adjusted to the new SAVE plan before payments restart in October.
The administration estimates more than 20 million student borrowers could benefit from SAVE, which will particularly benefit low- and middle-income families struggling to dig out from debt. | US Federal Policies |
House conservatives are heaping criticism on a plan to temporarily empower interim Speaker Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., to move legislation, an effort that's been gaining momentum as Republicans' struggle to find a new speaker drags on for over two weeks.
"Oh, Hell no. Hades no," Rep. Pat Fallon, R-Texas, told reporters when asked about it. Fallon estimated that two-thirds of the Republican conference also don't back the plan.
Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., told Fox News Digital he was "opposed" to it as well. He called the plan the creation of a "Democrat-deal speaker" on X.
"It's now time to get a speaker. And I realized it hasn't been successful. But it's time for us to work. It's got to be done in the Republican caucus," Norman said.
Both had been supporting Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, for speaker. Jordan failed to clinch a 217-vote majority on two rounds of voting so far, and an expected third round was never formally set as House Republicans huddle for hours behind closed doors trying to plot a path forward.
Now, two sources have confirmed a report to Fox News Digital that Jordan would back a plan to empower McHenry through early January and remain speaker-designate for the time being.
Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., another lawmaker who voted for Jordan twice, said it was time to "move on" as a conference and argued that the McHenry plan would mean other Republicans do not have a fair shot to run for speaker if they wanted to.
"It is enabling one person to continue to try to campaign. Why [can't] other people campaign at the same time? So I'd find if we basically allowed [McHenry] to do that, is it fair for us to just put all our eggs in one basket, who's losing votes? Probably not," Murphy said.
He added that such a plan likely would not pass without Democratic support.
"Voting on a Speaker Pro Tem is distraction from our primary role, and it does create a circumstance where there might, might be more chaos," Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., said.
House Freedom Caucus Policy Chair Chip Roy, R-Texas, told reporters, "I'm pretty public, I don't support it. We should go choose a speaker. That's what the Constitution tells us to do."
And Rep. Byron Donalds, R-Fla., predicted that the resolution was dead altogether.
"It's not going to happen," Donalds told reporters. "I think that is the decision as I understand it. And I think even Patrick, to his credit and to his fidelity to the U.S. Constitution, we cannot just drop powers in the lap of somebody. We have to elect a speaker." | US Congress |
From the warm-and-fuzzy files comes this feel-good Friday post, chronicling this week’s takedown of two hated ransomware groups. One vanished on Tuesday, allegedly after being hacked by a group claiming allegiance to Ukraine. The other was taken out a day later thanks to an international police dragnet.
The first group, calling itself Trigona, saw the content on its dark web victim naming-and-shaming site pulled down and replaced with a banner proclaiming: “Trigona is gone! The servers of Trigona ransomware gang has been infiltrated and wiped out.” An outfit calling itself Ukrainian Cyber Alliance took credit and included the tagline: “disrupting Russian criminal enterprises (both public and private) since 2014.”
Poor operational security
A social media post from a user claiming to be a Ukrainian Cyber Alliance press secretary said his group targeted ransomware groups partly because they consider themselves out of reach of Western law enforcement.
“We just found one gang like that and did to them as they do to the rest,” the press secretary wrote. “Downloaded their servers (ten of them), deleted everything and defaced for the last time. TOR didn't help them or even knowing they had a hole in it. Their entire infrastructure is completely blown away. Such a hunt forward.’”
A separate social media post dumped what the press secretary said was an administrative panel key and said the group wiped out Trigona’s “landing, blog, leaks site, internal server (rocketchat, atlassian), wallets and dev servers.” The person also claimed that the Ukrainian Cyber Alliance hacked a Confluence server Trigona used.
By Friday, the Trigona site was unavailable, as evidenced by the message “Onionsite not found.”
Trigona first surfaced in 2022 with close ties to ransomware groups known as CryLock and BlackCat and looser ties to ALPHV. It primarily hacked companies in the US and India, followed by Israel, Turkey, Brazil, and Italy. It was known for compromising MYSQL servers, often by brute forcing passwords. A June profile of the group by researchers from security firm Trend Micro noted that the group’s technical sophistication was mixed.
“The Trigona ransomware group has poor operational security when it comes to the implementation of Tor sites—although their aim of targeting poorly managed SQL servers is not something we usually see with less technically proficient threat actors,” the post stated.
The timeline of the hack, based on the social media posts, suggests that the breach began roughly eight days ago, with the hack of a Confluence server Trigona members used to collaborate. In an interview with the Record, the group said it planned to turn over data it seized to law enforcement authorities.
A takedown 2 years in the making
The second ransomware gang takedown this week happened to Ragnar Locker, a group that has hacked numerous organizations worldwide. On Friday, Europol said:
In an action carried out between 16 and 20 October, searches were conducted in Czechia, Spain and Latvia. The “key target” of this malicious ransomware strain was arrested in Paris, France, on 16 October, and his home in Czechia was searched. Five suspects were interviewed in Spain and Latvia in the following days. At the end of the action week, the main perpetrator, suspected of being a developer of the Ragnar group, has been brought in front of the examining magistrates of the Paris Judicial Court.
The ransomware’s infrastructure was also seized in the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden and the associated data leak website on Tor was taken down in Sweden.
Ragnar Locker emerged in 2019 and quickly became known for its success in hacking organizations in various sectors, including health care, government, technology, finance, education, and media. It’s what’s known as a RAAS (ransomware as a service), in which core members develop the encryption software, run a central server, and then work with affiliates. The affiliates then hack victims, and profits are divided between the two groups. More about the group is available here and here.
Friday’s Europol post said Ragnar Locker members warned victims not to contact authorities because they would only “muck things up.”
In fact, Europol members, along with the FBI and Ukrainian authorities, had been investigating the group since 2021 and steadily made progress, culminating in this week’s arrest and takedown.
“Little did they know that law enforcement was closing in on them,” Europol said. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Donald Trump has announced his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, likely sparking another period of tumult in US politics and especially his own political party.“In order to make America great and glorious again, I am tonight announcing my candidacy for president of the United States,” Trump said from ballroom of his private Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach on Tuesday night.Vowing to defeat Joe Biden in 2024, he declared: “America’s comeback starts right now.”The long-expected announcement by a twice-impeached president who incited a deadly attack on Congress seems guaranteed to deepen a stark partisan divide that has fueled fears of increased political violence.But it also comes as Trump’s standing in the Republican party has suddenly been put into question. Trump spoke at Mar-a-Lago a week after midterm elections in which his Republican party did not make expected gains, losing the Senate and seeming on course for only a narrow majority in the US House.In his remarks, Trump took credit for Republicans’ apparent victory in the House, even though they are poised to capture a far narrower majority than they expected. “Nancy Pelosi has been fired. Isn’t that nice?” he said.In a party hitherto dominated by Trump, defeats suffered by high-profile, Trump-endorsed candidates led to open attacks on the former president and calls to delay his announcement or not to run at all. As Trump’s standing has slipped, Ron DeSantis, the governor of Florida, has surged into strong contention after sailing to reelection last week.On Tuesday, Trump announced his run regardless.Now 76, Trump was long seen as a colorful if controversial presence in American life, a thrice-married New York real-estate mogul, reality TV star and tabloid fixture who flirted with politics but never committed.Supporters gather at Mar-a-Lago. Photograph: Jonathan Ernst/ReutersBut in 2015, after finding a niche as a prominent voice for rightwing opposition to Barack Obama – and a racist conspiracy theory about Obama’s birth – Trump entered the race for the Republican nomination to succeed the 44th president.Proving immune to scandal, whether over personal conduct, allegations of sexual assault or persistent courting of the far right, he obliterated a huge Republican field then pulled off a historic shock by beating the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 election.The question of Russian intervention in that election lingered through four years in the White House that served up a riotous procession of controversy, conflict and corruption.Robert Mueller, a former FBI director, was appointed as special counsel to investigate Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow. Mueller did not establish a conspiracy but did win convictions of senior Trump aides and lay out extensive evidence that Trump sought to obstruct justice. Trump claimed exoneration regardless.Trump’s first impeachment, in 2019, was for withholding military aid to Ukraine in an attempt to extract dirt on political rivals. He was acquitted after only one Republican senator, Mitt Romney of Utah, the 2012 presidential nominee, voted to convict.Trump’s presidency was chaotic but undoubtedly historic. Senate Republicans playing political and constitutional hardball helped install three supreme court justices, cementing a dominant rightwing majority which has now removed the right to abortion and weakened gun control laws while eyeing further significant change.Trump’s third supreme court pick, replacing the liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Amy Coney Barrett, a hardline Catholic, came shortly before the 2020 election. That contest, with Obama’s vice-president, Joe Biden, was fought under the shadow of protests for racial justice and the coronavirus pandemic, the latter a test badly mishandled by Trump’s administration as hundreds of thousands died.Trump was conclusively beaten, Biden racking up more than 7m more votes and the same electoral college win, 306-232, that Trump enjoyed over Clinton, a victory Trump then called a landslide.But Trump’s refusal to accept defeat, based on his “big lie” about electoral fraud, fueled election subversion efforts in key states, the deadly January 6 attack on the US Capitol by supporters and far-right groups, a second impeachment for inciting that insurrection (and a second acquittal, if with more Republican defections) and a deepening crisis of US democracy.'Florida is where woke goes to die': Republican Ron DeSantis re-elected as governor – videoTrump flirted with announcing a new run throughout Biden’s first two years in power, ultimately delaying until after midterm elections, which did not go as he or his party expected. But while high-profile backers of Trump’s stolen election myth were defeated, among them his choice for Arizona governor, Kari Lake, more than 170 were elected, according to the Washington Post.Until his midterms reversal, Trump dominated polling of potential Republican nominees for 2024. His closest rival in such surveys, DeSantis, reportedly indicated to donors he would not compete with Trump. But the landscape has now changed. DeSantis won re-election by a landslide, gave a confident victory speech to chants of “two more years” and has surged in polling – prompting attacks from Trump. At least one Republican mega donor, Ken Griffin, has said he backs the Florida governor.Should Trump dismiss DeSantis as he has so many other challengers and win the nomination, the 22nd amendment to the US constitution would bar him from running again in 2028. But a rematch of 2020 remains possible. Though Biden will soon turn 80 and has faced questions about whether he should seek a second term himself, he is preparing a re-election campaign. | US Federal Elections |
Alyssa Farah Griffin Claims Trump Wanted Person Who Revealed He Went to Bunker During George Floyd Protests ‘Executed’
'The View' co-host and former Trump adviser Alyssa Farah Griffin alleged she heard the former president make a violent statement in the aftermath of the May 2020 murder of George Floyd
On Tuesday's episode of The View, Alyssa Farah Griffin — who resigned as Donald Trump's communications director in December 2020 — recalled a harrowing comment allegedly made by the former president during her final days at the White House.
"Right before I resigned, I was in an Oval Office meeting with a dozen other staffers," Farah Griffin remembered.
"Somebody had, [Trump] thinks, leaked a story about him going to the [White House] bunker during the George Floyd protests, and he said, 'Whoever did that should be executed,'" she claimed.
After protestors gathered outside the White House in late May 2020 to protest Floyd's murder, a White House official and law enforcement source told CNN that then-President Trump, First Lady Melania Trump and their son Barron Trump all took shelter at the White House's underground bunker. (Days later, Trump said he was there for only "a tiny, short little period of time," adding that it was "more for an inspection," and not when protests were happening.)
Farah Griffin used the alleged example to illustrate the perils of Trump's rhetoric, saying, "I cannot raise enough alarm bells about how dangerous he is and how he needs to be stopped at all costs."
The former Pentagon press secretary further articulated how a potential Trump second term would pale in comparison to what came prior, arguing, "If you thought the first term of Donald Trump was bad, buckle up."
"Donald Trump is telling us what he's going to do in a second term, and we need to listen to it," she continued. "The first term, a lot of the worst instincts were stifled by two things: him not knowing how the hell the federal government works and people saying, 'Yo, you gotta run for re-election.'
- Alyssa Farah Griffin Says Former Boss Trump Is ‘Historically Dangerous’
- How Alyssa Farah Griffin Used to Tell Former Boss Donald Trump to Stop Tweeting
- Alyssa Farah Griffin Says You Can See ‘Real Decline’ in Her Former Boss Trump
- Former White House Staffer Alyssa Farah Griffin Reveals What Could Be More ‘Devastating’ to Trump Than Prison
- ‘View’ Co-Host Alyssa Farah Griffin Interviewed in FBI January 6 Probe: Report
- Why Alyssa Farah Griffin Accused Robert F. Kennedy Jr. of ‘Serial Killer’ Behavior
"Those things are not the case in a second election," Farah Griffin continued. "He knows how to weaponize the federal government. He's planning to fire civil servants with expertise and non-partisan people [and] staff the government with loyalists."
The View airs weekdays at 11 a.m. ET on ABC.
- Britney Spears’ Dad Jamie Spears Had Leg Amputated After ‘Terrible Infection’Entertainment
- Margot Robbie Is Begging Cillian Murphy to Make a ‘Peaky Blinders’ Movie: ‘Please!’Entertainment
- How ‘Southern Hospitality’ Newcomer Oisin O’Neill Is Going to Shake Things Up in Season 2 (Exclusive)Entertainment
- Angelina Jolie Reveals She Had Bell’s Palsy Leading Up to Brad Pitt Divorce: ‘We Had to Heal’Entertainment
- Margot Robbie Refused ‘Oppenheimer’ Producer’s Suggestion to Push ‘Barbie’ Release Date: ‘We’re Not Moving’Entertainment
- Joey King Responds to Her Ex Jacob Elordi Slamming ‘Kissing Booth’ MoviesEntertainment
- Prince Harry Challenges UK Government on ‘Unfair Treatment’ Regarding SecurityEntertainment
- Anya Taylor-Joy’s Android Selfie Struggle Is Relatable to iPhone Users Everywhere: WatchEntertainment
- ‘Emily in Paris’ Star Lucien Laviscount Poses Naked With Strategically Placed Beret for GQ ShootEntertainment
- Hugh Grant on Filming ‘Wonka’ Movie: ‘It Was a Crown of Thorns’Entertainment
- Suzanne Somers Was Buried Wearing Timberland Boots Instead of Beloved ManolosEntertainment
- Amy Robach Feared for T.J. Holmes’ Life After Relationship Went Public, Performed Welfare CheckEntertainment | US Political Corruption |
Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case in which the supreme court could overturn abortion rights, is not the only one in which the justices could make a ruling that touches on a contentious issue in American society.There’s also Kennedy v Bremerton School District, which deals with a football coach’s practice of praying after games and could end up expanding the types of religious activities allowed at public schools. A ruling in that direction would come just days after the court opened the door to religious schools receiving public funds in a decision that liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor warned weakened the separation between church and state.Then there’s West Virginia v EPA. The justices are considering a plan announced by former president Barack Obama to lower power plants’ emissions — but which never took effect. The fear is that the conservative majority will use the case as an opportunity to take away major regulatory powers from the government.Finally, there’s a case that doesn’t affect Americans but rather people on its borders. Biden v. Texas represents the sitting president’s attempt to end the “remain in Mexico” policy implemented by his predecessor Donald Trump, which forced many asylum seekers to stay south of the border while their cases were heard.The supreme court could today release their opinions on all of these, or none, or some combination in between.David SmithThe January 6 committee won’t meet for another few weeks but it’s worth reading this story of the hearing’s revelations and what we know about Donald Trump’s reaction, from The Guardian’s David Smith:Somewhere in Bedminster, New Jersey, on Thursday afternoon, it seems quite possible that an elderly man was sitting in front of a television howling with rage.Donald Trump, who spends summers at his Bedminster golf club, is a TV guy, a ratings guy. So the widely televised hearings of the congressional committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol hit him where it hurts.The former US president has reportedly been glued to them – and has not liked what he’s seen. As the panel has presented a carefully crafted case against Trump as the leader of a failed coup, he is said to be livid that there is no one in the room to speak up for him.Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case in which the supreme court could overturn abortion rights, is not the only one in which the justices could make a ruling that touches on a contentious issue in American society.There’s also Kennedy v Bremerton School District, which deals with a football coach’s practice of praying after games and could end up expanding the types of religious activities allowed at public schools. A ruling in that direction would come just days after the court opened the door to religious schools receiving public funds in a decision that liberal justice Sonia Sotomayor warned weakened the separation between church and state.Then there’s West Virginia v EPA. The justices are considering a plan announced by former president Barack Obama to lower power plants’ emissions — but which never took effect. The fear is that the conservative majority will use the case as an opportunity to take away major regulatory powers from the government.Finally, there’s a case that doesn’t affect Americans but rather people on its borders. Biden v. Texas represents the sitting president’s attempt to end the “remain in Mexico” policy implemented by his predecessor Donald Trump, which forced many asylum seekers to stay south of the border while their cases were heard.The supreme court could today release their opinions on all of these, or none, or some combination in between.America braces for more conservative rulings from supreme courtGood morning, US politics blog reader. Today could be one for the history books. The supreme court will announce more rulings at 10am eastern time, and among the cases outstanding is one in which the conservative majority is widely expected to strike down the nationwide right to abortion established by the Roe v Wade decision. A draft opinion that leaked last month showed the court prepared to overturn it and yesterday, the conservative bloc ruled against a New York law regulating concealed weapons in a decision expected to make it more difficult to control guns nationwide – a sign of the court’s pronounced rightward drift.Here’s what else is going on today: The House of Representatives is expected to take up a bipartisan gun control compromise that passed the Senate last night, and will probably approve it. President Joe Biden has said he is ready to sign it. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre briefs reporters at 2pm eastern time, though Biden has nothing public on his scheduled today. A campaign has kicked off to deprive Fox News of ad revenue over claims that the network is “working overtime to fuel the next insurrection”. | SCOTUS |
In 2016, then Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton said that some of Donald Trump’s followers were a “basket of deplorables”:
You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.
Clinton was lambasted from both the left and the right in response to her statement. Trump, with his fake right-wing populism, used Clinton’s comments to rally the MAGA cult as part of his narrative that “real Americans” like them are oppressed and disrespected by “Washington DC elites” in their own country. The mainstream news media also used Clinton’s description of the MAGA movement as an opportunity to continue with their decades of rumor-mongering and general animus towards the Clinton family and to further advance their attempt to normalize (and elevate) then-candidate Trump.
Clinton’s claim that many of Trump’s followers were “human deplorables” was also widely viewed as being more evidence of how “elitist” and out of touch people like her (meaning the Democratic Party and “liberals”) were from “real” members of the (white) working class. The Democratic Party consultant class concluded that Hillary’s disrespect and “elitism” led to a refusal to understand the reasonable grievances of the so-called white working class and blamed that as the reason that they lost that prized group of voters — again. (Of note: Trump’s “white working-class voters” in 2016 had a household income that was higher than the national median; political scientists and other experts have repeatedly shown that is not “white working class” anxiety but instead white racism and white racial resentment and social dominance behavior that is the main factor behind support for Trump.)
There is no similar demand that the country’s news media and political leaders go on a quest to develop a deep understanding and empathy towards black and brown working-class and poor people. Alas, in the seven or so years since Hillary Clinton’s bold truth-telling and warnings about the dangers that Trump and his MAGA movement and its basket of human deplorables she has repeatedly proven to be correct. And Clinton has remained undeterred. She continues to sound the alarm about the extreme dangers that Trumpism and neofascism and other forms of fake right-wing populism represent to American democracy and civil society.
Ultimately, when a future history of the Trumpocene is written – assuming there are real historians in the Orwellian nightmare that would be a second Trump regime and the end of democracy — it should include a subheading that reads “Hillary Clinton was right!”
We need your help to stay independent
In the most recent example of Hillary Clinton’s bold and uncomfortable truth-telling, last Friday she told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour that Donald Trump continues to be a cult leader and that his MAGA followers will require a collective intervention if some sense of normalcy is to ever return to American society:
“Maybe there needs to be a formal deprogramming of the cult members,” Clinton told Amanpour. “And sadly, so many of those extremists, those MAGA extremists, take their marching orders from Donald Trump, who has no credibility left by any measure.”
Clinton added: “He’s only in it for himself.”
Clinton also said the following about Trump:
[He is] an authoritarian populist who really has a grip on the emotional [and] psychological needs and desires of a portion of the population and the base of the Republican party, for whatever combination of reasons.
[Republicans] “see in him someone who speaks for them and they are determined they will continue to vote for him, attend his rallies and wear his merchandise, because for whatever reason he and his very negative, nasty form of politics resonates with them….
Maybe they don’t like migrants. Maybe they don’t like gay people or Black people or the woman who got the promotion at work they didn’t get. Whatever reason.”
Predictably, Donald Trump and the other leaders, spokespeople, and propagandists on the right and those sympathetic to them, were enraged by Hillary Clinton’s suggestion that the MAGA movement is a cult whose members will require some type of mass psychological intervention and deprogramming.
But there is a very important difference between Hillary Clinton’s prescient warnings in 2016 and her recent warnings about the Trump MAGA cult. Now the American people and the world have more than seven years of experience with Trumpism and American neofascism and the horror, tumult, death, and other great troubles that such forces and leaders have empowered and unleashed. The question is now, will enough Americans listen to Hillary Clinton’s warnings and then vote against Trump and his MAGA movement in 2024? The future of the country and its democracy greatly depends on it.
In an attempt to better understand Hillary Clinton’s warnings about the Trump MAGA cult, her recent suggestions about deprogramming its members, and what potentially comes next, I asked a range of experts for their insights and reactions:
The challenge with "deprogramming" Trump's base is that they have formed psychological adhesions and not just mere attachments to him. You can sometimes break attachments with reason, but to break an adhesion, you have to sever (i.e. deprogram) it. One of the challenges to doing that is that Trump is addicted to excitement - i.e. the adrenaline rush - and has addicted his followers to it. And the only thing more powerful than an adrenaline rush is the fear of an adrenaline crash and once addicted to the rush, people will do anything - which we're seeing Trump's need to stay in the spotlight every day - to avoid the crash.
Something that people have lost understanding is that you can feed pleasure (dopamine) with excitement, which is fleeting along with the constant need to keep feeding it to maintain it, or with emotional connection (oxytocin) which is more satisfying and lasting.
Dr. Lance Dodes is a retired assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and a training and supervising analyst emeritus at the Boston Psychoanalytic Society and Institute.
In her recent comments describing Trump as an authoritarian populist, leading a cult of followers who are blinded to his criminality, Hillary Clinton summarized what many have known for years. Mental health professionals have repeatedly noted that Trump’s rampant paranoia, absence of a normal capacity for empathy, and massive dishonesty are signs of severe mental illness, specifically that regularly seen in populist psychopaths from Hitler to Putin. Yet, in 2023, the fact that he is one of these populist psychopaths is still treated as “news."
Clinton’s hope to deprogram Trump followers, unfortunately, faces an uphill road. An important advantage for cult members is that their opinions, and their sense of worth, are supported by other cult members. To break away means incurring the hatred and even demonization from remaining cult members, who up to that point have served as a kind of family.
It would help people to break free if a large percent of the cult membership simultaneously realized, as the result of some major event, that the godlike emperor has no clothes, so no individual has to break away by himself. So far, impeaching Trump and charging him with many crimes, in multiple venues, has not been enough. There may have to be an even more outrageous action by Trump. Even then, Trump’s power to replace democracy with himself as dictator may not be undone until enough Republicans have the moral courage to publicly separate from him, making it easier for Trump followers to also leave.
Dr. Justin Frank is a former clinical professor of psychiatry at the George Washington University Medical Center and the author of "Trump on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President."
In a recent CNN interview, Hillary Clinton described Trump’s followers as a “cult” that “may need deprogramming.” I’ve written in the past about Trump’s “God complex” but Trump’s need to be a god combined with his followers’ need for a supreme being is what leads to cult formation. While a Trump 2024 defeat (should he get the Republican nomination and be qualified to serve) would damage the cult’s power, it won’t eliminate the factors that allowed Trump to cultivate it in the first place.
Clinton has had experience dealing with the power of cults, having predicted their danger as far back as the mid-1990’s when she warned of a “vast right-wing conspiracy” working to destroy her husband’s presidency. In 2016, candidate Trump tapped into the irrational fears that dominated much of that “conspiracy.”
As children, humans are naturally wired to look for heroic adults once they realize (as we all do) that our parental figures have clay feet. By age five, many children revert to putting their faith into organized religion and/or other authority figures like grandparents or teachers. Doing so becomes a source of comfort and security, helping children manage their fears as they grow and change. People whose early lives are characterized by insecurity and disappointment, unmitigated by the presence of kind and wise adults, tend to gravitate toward cults in later life.
Trump thrives on those leftover childhood fears and turns them into collective rage against what he calls the “deep state” – a stand-in for the exclusive parental couple, their bunker bedroom and all the secrets and goodies they keep from their poor child. This experience of feeling left out in the cold has deep effects on both psychological function and even on anatomical neurological development. In simple terms, the developing brain has two sides – left and right – that reflect feeling and thinking. In rational people, the two sides are linked together over time, one informing the other and vice versa. Cult-formation blocks that connection, making it difficult, if not impossible for cult followers to think in the face of the powerful feelings that are constantly, callously stoked by the cult leader to feed his own need for unconditional love. This also makes it difficult for those outside the cult to question its members’ allegiance, because facts don’t matter when they are blocked by powerful feelings.
To defeat Trump in 2024 is a precondition for change, but not enough in itself since people with these needs already aroused will look elsewhere for a new messiah. It seems inevitable that a GOP bereft of compassion, dignity, social responsibility and real ideas will have nothing to offer these sad souls but a bargain-basement imitation of the original cheap imitation of an American president.
Steven Hassan is one of the world's leading experts on cults and other dangerous organizations, as well as how to deprogram people who have succumbed to "mind control." Hassan was once a senior member of the Unification Church, better known as the "Moonies." He is now the founder and director of the Freedom of Mind Resource Center.
In the world of effective communications, one always needs to consider who is the communicator and who is the target audience, and how to frame the messaging to have the greatest impact. Hillary Clinton was speaking to her followers. By not giving specifics about what she means by formal deprogramming, I also don't think she understands what formal deprogramming is, or the fact that the term deprogramming was coined by Ted Patrick in the 70s and involved coercion, which of course, one naturally now thinks about Chinese communist thought reform or reeducation programs.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
I've resisted the use of the term "deprogramming" for decades because the news media fixated on it. I started trying to reframe deprogramming towards what I see as "strategic interactive communications", where it's based on respect, curiosity, openness to really active listening and asking questions in an effective strategic manner with the goal of empowering people to understand the differences between do influence which includes informed consent, and conscience and critical thinking and reading what you want to read and talking to who you want to talk to, with undue influence, which is what I criticize in all of my lifework, meaning destructive, authoritarian cults of all types, where there's malignant narcissist leader, hate, fear, dogma, opposition to the Other. Those relationships are also marked by a requirement for obedience and dependency.
From my point of view, politicians and the news media need to start thinking about how to discuss political polarization in a way that doesn't just amplify the polarization or upset others. They need to frame these discussions in terms of how we are all human beings. We also want to think about things from other points of view; We need to think about cooperation instead of polarization. We need a radical change in the messaging in this country if want it to come together and don't want to amplify more chaos and destruction.
Rich Logis is a former right-wing pundit and high-ranking Trump supporter. Logis is the founder of Perfect Our Union, an organization that is dedicated to healing political traumatization; building diverse, pro-democracy alliances; and perfecting our Union.
I want to emphasize at the outset that none should construe anything I say as a downplay of the dangers of a second Trump presidency; the worst-case scenario outcomes—a retaliatory, politburo federal government, and attempts by Trump to remain president permanently, amongst other outcomes—are not hyperbolic. Trump’s re-election would irreparably damage America. None know what a post-Trump American democracy would look like, because there is no example to historically refer to, for guidance; it is a risk we cannot take.
Clinton is correct in saying that Trump embodies MAGA voters’ hopes, fears, desires and trauma. Yes, there were some valid reasons for supporting his candidacy, such as feelings of being ignored by politicians for years; and, yes, most MAGA voters are good people, deep down. But Trump—as he’s done since 2015—continues to lead them astray by exploiting and leveraging those concerns for his own gain. He does not care about his voters’ struggles; he sees them solely as his means by which to regain the presidency, just as cult leaders view their adherents as instruments to strengthen and consolidate their power.
Is Clinton correct that MAGA voters need to be de-programmed? For those who will vote Trump, no matter what he says or does, yes; that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and not lose support is probably the truest statement Trump’s ever uttered.
Absorption into a cult (political, or otherwise) occurs gradually, and then suddenly, all at once; listen to anyone who escaped from a cult, and this is unambiguously clear. This was precisely my experience, as I fell further and further into the MAGA rabbit hole. Deprogramming, though, will be an arduous task. As a former MAGA grassroots activist, I implore everyone to try to humanize those who worship at the altar of MAGA. I recognize and respect that many opposed to Trump will recoil at this suggestion; I am well-suited to take on this challenge. Those who egress from cults are often assisted by former fellow cult members.
Though I don’t believe I’m the sole leading voice of those who left MAGA, I assure you that MAGA voters have rarely, if ever, heard from someone who was one of their own, but came to see the errors of his way. MAGA provides for what we naturally yearn for: a community and shared purpose. I can attest to the fact that the MAGA community and shared purpose keep its members in perpetual states of political trauma; it doesn’t have to remain this way.
The first step to healing and reconciliation is to electorally defeat Trump and his endorsed candidates; perhaps this is naive optimism, but I think this would result in more remorseful MAGA voters making known their regret for supporting Trump. MAGA won’t disappear, but it will be easier (not easy) to mend civic bonds with those who sever all ties to MAGA. However many there will be, for however long it takes, voters must repudiate MAGA at the polls, up and down ballots.
In addition to elections, cults always collapse from within, and we must assure the same fate for MAGA, whose voters need to be saved from themselves. | US Political Corruption |
David Zalubowski/AP
toggle caption
Web designer Lorie Smith is shown in her office on Nov. 7, 2022, in Littleton, Colo. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has ruled that Smith can refuse to work for same-sex couples.
David Zalubowski/AP
Web designer Lorie Smith is shown in her office on Nov. 7, 2022, in Littleton, Colo. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has ruled that Smith can refuse to work for same-sex couples.
David Zalubowski/AP
DENVER — A Colorado web designer who the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday could refuse to make wedding websites for gay couples cited a request from a man who says he never asked to work with her.
The request in dispute, from a person identified as "Stewart," wasn't the basis for the federal lawsuit filed preemptively seven years ago by web designer Lorie Smith, before she started making wedding websites. But as the case advanced, it was referenced by her attorneys when lawyers for the state of Colorado pressed Smith on whether she had sufficient grounds to sue.
The revelation distracts from Smith's victory at a time when she might have been basking in her win, which is widely considered a setback for gay rights.
Smith named Stewart — and included a website service request from him, listing his phone number and email address in 2017 court documents. But Stewart told The Associated Press he never submitted the request and didn't know his name was invoked in the lawsuit until he was contacted this week by a reporter from The New Republic, which first reported his denial.
"I was incredibly surprised given the fact that I've been happily married to a woman for the last 15 years," said Stewart, who declined to give his last name for fear of harassment and threats. His contact information, but not his last name, were listed in court documents.
He added that he was a designer and "could design my own website if I need to" — and was concerned no one had checked into the validity of the request cited by Smith until recently.
Smith's lawyer, Kristen Waggoner, said at a Friday news conference that the wedding request naming Stewart was submitted through Smith's website and denied it was fabricated.
She suggested it could have been a troll making the request, something that's happened with other clients she has represented. In 2018 her client Colorado baker Jack Phillips won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing to make a gay couple's wedding cake, citing his Christian faith.
"It's undisputed that the request was received," Waggoner said. "Whether that was a troll and not a genuine request, or it was someone who was looking for that, is really irrelevant to the case."
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser on Friday called the lawsuit a "made up case" because Smith wasn't offering wedding website services when the suit was filed.
Weiser didn't know the specifics of Stewart's denial, but said the nation's high court should not have addressed the lawsuit's merits "without any basis in reality."
About a month after the case was filed in federal court challenging an anti-discrimination law in Colorado, lawyers for the state said Smith had not been harmed by the law as they moved to dismiss the case.
Her lawyers maintained Smith did not have to be punished for violating the law before challenging it. In February 2017 they said even though she did not need a request in order to pursue the case, she had received one.
"Any claim that Lorie will never receive a request to create a custom website celebrating a same-sex ceremony is no longer legitimate because Lorie has received such a request," they said.
Smith's Supreme Court filings briefly mentioned she received at least one request to create a website celebrating the wedding of a same-sex couple. There did not appear to be any reference to the issue in the court's decision. | SCOTUS |
Politics|Right After Primary Win, Bolduc Reverses Support for Election Lieshttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/15/us/politics/don-bolduc-nh.htmlSept. 15, 2022Updated 1:38 p.m. ETLike a driver making a screeching U-turn, Don Bolduc, the Republican Senate nominee in New Hampshire, pivoted on Thursday from his primary race to the general election, saying he had “come to the conclusion” that the 2020 presidential election “was not stolen,” after he had spent more than a year claiming it was.“I’ve done a lot of research on this, and I’ve spent the past couple weeks talking to Granite Staters all over the state from every party, and I have come to the conclusion — and I want to be definitive on this — the election was not stolen,” Mr. Bolduc said in an interview on Fox News.He continued to falsely claim there had been fraud in the election but acknowledged that the outcome was not in question.“Elections have consequences, and, unfortunately, President Biden is the legitimate president of this country,” he said.Mr. Bolduc won his primary on Tuesday over a more moderate candidate, Chuck Morse, the president of the New Hampshire Senate. Mr. Bolduc ran on an uncompromising right-wing platform, complete with declarations that former President Donald J. Trump had won the 2020 election.But now he faces a tough general election campaign against Senator Maggie Hassan, a Democrat. She is vulnerable in November — but, Republicans worry, less vulnerable against Mr. Bolduc than she would have been against Mr. Morse.Ms. Hassan’s campaign responded quickly to Mr. Bolduc’s reversal, sharing a series of videos and quotes of the many times Mr. Bolduc promoted the lie that the 2020 election was stolen.“Don Bolduc is desperately trying to run from years of spreading the Big Lie, but he can’t hide from the video receipts,” her campaign said in a statement. | US Federal Elections |
How the backbone of American elections is being upended
Organizations that once fostered quiet, apolitical cooperation in the past have increasingly been thrust into the spotlight.
A bipartisan behind-the-scenes organization that helps states maintain their voter rolls is facing an uncertain future, after several Republican-led states left the group.
The board of the Electronic Registration Information Center — or ERIC — is meeting on Friday, as the remaining members of the organization try to chart the organization’s path following the high-profile departures of Florida, West Virginia and Missouri earlier this month. Some officials fear more states are eyeing the door.
The division roiling ERIC is just the latest example of a previously apolitical organization involved in fostering cooperation on the mechanics of running elections, finding life a lot more dramatic in the post-Trump world. At risk: the upending of the backbone of the nation’s electoral system.
Over the last year, five states with Republican chief election officials — Louisiana, Alabama, West Virginia, Missouri and Florida — all left ERIC. Some states have used outwardly conspiratorial-minded reasons for leaving — citing a secretive plot by liberals to take control of voter rolls. Other complaints are more about the structure of the organization bubbling to the surface, which defenders of the organization say is being used as a false pretense to leave.
Underneath it all: ERIC — once something conservatives widely praised as a key “election integrity tool” — has suddenly come under fire from segments of the Republican base still animated by Trump’s 2020 loss.
Election officials in Ohio, Texas and Alaska — which also all have Republican chief election officials — have all also publicly signaled they are considering leaving the organization.
But not all Republicans are bolting. Notably, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger pledged his support for the organization after the recent departures.
“States claim they want to combat illegal voting and clean voter rolls — but then leave the best and only group capable of detecting double voting across state lines,” he tweeted, attaching a gif of Spongebob Squarepants punching himself in the face. By “reacting to disinformation they’ve hurt their own state and others while undermining voter confidence.”
The sudden exit of the three states earlier this month “caught me by surprise,” said Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon, a Democrat, in an interview the day the three states dropped out, adding that there had been a bipartisan group working to try to find a common ground to preserve the membership.
At issue for many of the states considering leaving now is the structure of ERIC, which was founded over a decade ago by a handful of states that were roughly evenly split between Democratic and Republican-led states. ERIC, generally, assists states in maintaining voter rolls by helping election officials identify people who may have either moved or died, and requires states to conduct list maintenance by removing voters who aren’t eligible.
Broadly, the complaints have landed in two buckets: In addition to removing voters on the rolls, ERIC also requires member states to contact potentially eligible but unregistered voters to see if they would like to register, a practice some Republicans want to end because they say it is superfluous and a waste of resources.
The makeup of the organization’s board has also been a big point of contention. The board is largely composed of a voting representative, generally a senior election official, from each member state.
But the board also has two non-voting positions: One that is currently vacant and one filled by David Becker, a former Department of Justice attorney who was critical to setting up ERIC and is now the founder and executive director of the Center for Election Innovation & Research.
Since the 2020 election, Becker has been a vocal critic of former President Donald Trump’s sweeping lies about the security of the 2020 election, and has more broadly become a prominent commentator on America’s election laws and systems.
On the way out the door, several of the departing states publicly complained about Becker being a “partisan,” without directly naming him. It is a charge Becker pushed back against vociferously.
“There’s truth and there’s lies, and I will continue to stand for the truth and for the men and women — the civil servants around the country — who support elections and have run the most secure, transparent and verified elections in American history over the last few years,” he told a small group of reporters last week.
His organization also circulated a letter from prominent current and former Republican election officials and attorneys — including Raffensperger — earlier this week defending him, saying “extremists are targeting Becker and CEIR, seeking to undermine their work to support the professional civil servants who work to ensure secure elections.”
Nevertheless, Becker announced earlier this week that he would not accept renomination as a non-voting board member on Friday, decrying what he called “attacks fueled by disinformation” that have led some states to leave the organization.
One senior Republican election official who has remained broadly supportive of ERIC — and was granted anonymity to discuss sensitive internal dynamics — predicted that Becker not serving on the board could lower the temperature on Friday. Some of the states on the fence “are more comfortable staying in now and ERIC survives,” the official predicted — at least “until the next divisive issue” pops up.
Friday’s meeting will take on some controversial questions, including a proposal that would let member states pick and choose what they do with ERIC data. Another idea on the table to try to get members to remain would effectively tie two of ERIC’s reports — the one on eligible but unregistered voters and the “voter participation report,” which member states use to catch potential double voters — together, meaning states could opt-in to participating in either both of them or neither of them. It is unclear if either have the support to pass.
It is also unclear what the departing states will do to replace the gap in their list maintenance mechanics without ERIC. States have signaled they would try to move some operations in house. Crosscheck, an interstate program spearheaded by Kansas in 2005, eventually crumbled due to security vulnerabilities — but there are early discussions of a new competitor to ERIC.
In an interview with POLITICO the day his state announced it would be withdrawing, Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft said that there had been “conversations ongoing for a substantial period of time,” about either “creating a new system or [finding] a way states can do that solely in-house.” (He downplayed the possibility of a larger rival to ERIC being set up in a subsequent interview with The Kansas City Star.)
And in Texas — which is still a member of ERIC, although there is proposed legislation to drop out of the program — Secretary of State Jane Nelson recently shifted her elections director to “a newly-created position to develop and manage an interstate voter registration crosscheck program.”
“I think there would be a market for such a system,” Jason Snead, the executive director of the conservative Honest Elections Project, told reporters on Thursday. Snead added that he was “not aware of any project that appears on track” to do that yet. | US Federal Elections |
Show up in Florida to campaign for the GOP, but without inviting the state’s Republican governor? Sounds like exactly the sort of thing Donald Trump would do.Trump spares no opportunity to put those who get on his bad side in their place, and he seems to have chosen to do that to Ron DeSantis, who Politico reports won’t be there when the former president holds a rally on 6 November in Miami for senator Marco Rubio.“You’ve got the Sunday before Election Day totally hijacked by Trump parachuting in on Trump Force One taking up the whole day,” complained a longtime Republican consultant that Politico said is close to DeSantis. “No Republican could go to a DeSantis event that day. None. And DeSantis won’t be here? This is big.”The outlet got comment from another DeSantis associate, who described Trump’s move as “an elbow to Ron’s throat”. The governor’s pursuit of anti-gay and anti-trans laws while in office has made him relatively popular among Republicans nationwide, to the point that he went on his own tour earlier this year in support of candidates backed by Trump. But the former president has soured on a politician he once endorsed in a crucial primary, complaining he lacks charisma, while viewing him as a potential rival. There appears to be less drama around Trump’s other appearances planned for the coming days. On 3 November, he’s in Sioux City, Iowa with senator Chuck Grassley and governor Kim Reynolds. On 7 November, he’ll be in Dayton, Ohio with senate candidate JD Vance.Key events20m agoMajor House Democratic group calls for restoration of child tax credit3h agoWith days till midterms, Trump hits campaign trail – but not everyone is happyShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureMajor House Democratic group calls for restoration of child tax creditThe second-largest Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives is calling for the restoration of a tax provision that lowered child poverty, as well as changes to a research and development credit.The asks from the New Democrat Coalition come as Democrats hope to make the most of the finals months of the year, which may be their last controlling the House and the Senate, depending on the outcome of the 8 November midterms. Congress is expected to vote on end-of-the year legislation before 2022 ends, including one aimed at defense needs, and lawmakers are angling to use those as vehicles for a variety of priorities.In a letter to House democratic leadership, the New Democrat Coalition is asking for the restoration of the enhanced Child Tax Credit, which was implemented in 2021 and lowered child poverty rates, but was allowed to expire after Democrats failed to agree on extending it. The caucus also wants changes congressional Republicans made to the Research and Development tax credit reversed, arguing its effectiveness in boosting American technological prowess has been undermined.You can read the full letter here.Another Democratic senator has spoken up ahead of the Federal Reserve’s meeting next week, explicitly calling on the American central bank not to continue raising interest rates.The letter from John Hickenlooper of Colorado to Fed chair Jerome Powell comes after Democratic senator Sherrod Brown earlier this week urged the central bank to exercise caution in its campaign of raising rates to fight America’s high rate of inflation. Brown worried that elevated interest rates would cause layoffs, and undo the gains the labor market has made since Joe Biden took office.Hickenlooper’s letter goes even further, and calls on the Fed to forgo increasing rates entirely. “Raising rates now when prices may come down would be foolish and damaging to American consumers and small businesses,” the senator said.He continues:The Fed’s bluntest tool is interest rate increases, and it has wielded that hammer repeatedly. However, after five straight rate increases by the Fed, I worry any additional action will undermine economic growth and harm American families. To date, the Fed’s actions have failed to stem inflationary pressure on Americans. As one Nobel Prize winning economist stated, ‘Will raising interest rates lead to more oil, lower prices of oil, more food, lower prices of food? Answer is clearly not. In fact, the real risk is it will make it worse.’The Fed’s policy setting committee will announce the decision from its two-day meeting on Wednesday. With inflation data still coming in hot in recent months despite the central bank’s tightening of lending conditions, the Fed is widely expected to again agree to raise rates, perhaps by another three-quarters of a percentage point.The US economy returned to growth over the past three months, according to data released today, but dark days may be ahead. Here’s more from the Associated Press:The US economy grew at a 2.6% annual rate from July through September, snapping two straight quarters of economic contraction and overcoming punishingly high inflation and interest rates.Thursday’s estimate from the commerce department showed that the nation’s gross domestic product – the broadest gauge of economic output – grew in the third quarter after having shrunk in the first half of 2022. Stronger exports and steady consumer spending, backed by a healthy job market, helped restore growth to the world’s biggest economy.Still, the outlook for the economy has darkened. The Federal Reserve has aggressively raised interest rates five times this year to fight chronic inflation and is set to do so again next week and in December.Fed chair Jerome Powell has warned that the Fed’s hikes will bring “pain” in the form of higher unemployment and possibly a recession.The government’s latest GDP report comes as Americans, worried about inflation and the risk of recession, have begun to vote in midterm elections that will determine whether Joe Biden’s Democratic party retains control of Congress. Inflation has become a signature issue for Republican attacks on the Democrats’ stewardship of the economy.Yesterday, attorneys for Donald Trump accepted a subpoena compelling his appearance before the January 6 committee. Now the question is, will he testify? Hugo Lowell looks at which direction the ex-president is leaning:Donald Trump’s attorneys have now accepted service of the subpoena issued by the January 6 select committee, setting into motion the countdown for the former US president to inform the panel investigating the Capitol attack whether he intends to cooperate with the congressional investigation.The acceptance of the subpoena means Trump must settle on his response to the sweeping demand from the panel – requesting documents and testimony about contacts with political figures as well as far-right groups that stormed the Capitol – that will set him on a path without room for reversal.Trump has several options to consider, which range from total noncompliance to some cooperation as he weighs whether to respond to the select committee’s subpoena, according to sources familiar with recent discussions circulating around the former president and various lawyers and advisers.The noncompliance option revolves around the calculation that the subpoena essentially lacks teeth and is probably legally unenforceable, meaning he could simply decide to ignore the summons in its entirety.Among other things, the sources said, the justice department’s internal opinions about current and former presidents having absolute immunity from testifying to Congress would suggest that Trump would not be prosecuted even if the select committee referred him for contempt of Congress.The former president’s advisers have noticed, for instance, that the justice department declined to charge senior Trump White House official Dan Scavino with contempt after he refused to cooperate – and if that was the case for an adviser, it would naturally extend to the principal.But whether Trump will follow the advice of his attorneys to ignore the subpoena remains unclear, in part because of the former president’s reflexive belief that he will always be his own best spokesman and can convince investigators that he should be exonerated, the sources said.The idea is not merely theoretical: Trump expressed to aides immediately after the select committee voted to issue him a subpoena earlier this month that he might consider testifying as long as it is live and in public.Across the country, election workers are facing unprecedented threats ahead of the 8 November midterms, many of them driven by Donald Trump’s campaign to undermine the results of the 2020 vote, Dani Anguiano reports:Inside the office of the Shasta county clerk and registrar of voters, which runs elections for about 111,000 people in this part of far northern California, Cathy Darling Allen can see all the security improvements she would make if she had the budget.“We have plexi on the counter downstairs for Covid but that won’t stop a person. It’s literally just clamped to the counters,” the county clerk and registrar said. For about $50,000, the office could secure the front, limiting access to upstairs offices, she estimated. Another county put bulletproof glass in their lobby years earlier, she knew, something officials there at one point considered removing, though not any more.Elections offices didn’t used to think about security in this way, Allen said. Now they can’t afford not to.Following Donald Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his defeat in the 2020 presidential election, Allen says the once low-profile job of non-partisan local election official has transformed in counties like hers. A culture of misinformation has sown doubt in the US election system and subjected officials from Nevada to Michigan to harassment and threats. The FBI has received more than 1,000 reports of threats against election workers in the past year alone.Democrats are also on the back foot in Oregon, Hallie Golden reports, raising questions of whether they can maintain their longstanding hold on the Pacific coast state’s governor’s mansion:For the first time in more than 40 years, a Republican could win the governor’s seat in Oregon, breaching the seemingly solid Democratic line of states running along the Pacific coastline of the US.The tight race between former Oregon House speaker Tina Kotek, a Democrat, and former Oregon House minority leader Christine Drazan, a Republican, which in the latest polling showed Drazan with a hairline lead, indicates a rebuff of the current term-limited liberal governor, Kate Brown.Brown has one of the lowest approval ratings of any governor in the country amid brewing concern over how state leadership has handled everything from the pandemic to homelessness.But it’s a third-party candidate with support from both Republicans and Democrats, along with contributions from the richest man in the state, that have truly set a Republican on a path toward possible victory.“Democrats are pretty good at running a red-blue race in Oregon … But the dynamics of a three-way race have really kind of thrown that playbook out the window,” said Jake Weigler, a progressive political strategist in Oregon not involved in the race.Ron DeSantis might have a Trump problem, but it pales in comparison to the problems Democrats are having with voters in Florida, who Politico reports may deal them a decisive wipeout in the upcoming elections.Democrats in the state fear a rout for their candidates, particularly Charlie Crist, who is standing against DeSantis for governor, and Val Demings, who is running to unseat senator Marco Rubio. According to Politico, Democrats have been outgunned in fundraising, while Crist and Deming’s campaigns have lacked coordination. Joe Biden has only visited the state twice during his presidency, and both times involved disasters, not campaigning, though he does plan a get-out-the-vote visit next week.The situation is so bad that Politico reports some Democrats believe DeSantis could win Democratic stronghold Miami-Dade county on 8 November, part of a broader breakdown in party strength that would end Florida’s days as a swing state. It has been generally trending toward the GOP in recent elections, backing Donald Trump in both 2016 and 2020, and failure in these midterms could seal Democrats’ fate.Here’s more from Politico:Most worrisome for Democrats, national organizations and donors have all but abandoned their candidates — setting off fears that Florida is no longer viewed as competitive. That would have dire implications for the next presidential election. “If Democrats follow this building national narrative and decide not to compete in Florida in 2024, it will be one of the most short-sighted decisions of the last 30 years,” said Greg Goddard, a veteran Florida Democratic fundraiser. “Where do we think the pathway to winning a future presidential election lies?”Show up in Florida to campaign for the GOP, but without inviting the state’s Republican governor? Sounds like exactly the sort of thing Donald Trump would do.Trump spares no opportunity to put those who get on his bad side in their place, and he seems to have chosen to do that to Ron DeSantis, who Politico reports won’t be there when the former president holds a rally on 6 November in Miami for senator Marco Rubio.“You’ve got the Sunday before Election Day totally hijacked by Trump parachuting in on Trump Force One taking up the whole day,” complained a longtime Republican consultant that Politico said is close to DeSantis. “No Republican could go to a DeSantis event that day. None. And DeSantis won’t be here? This is big.”The outlet got comment from another DeSantis associate, who described Trump’s move as “an elbow to Ron’s throat”. The governor’s pursuit of anti-gay and anti-trans laws while in office has made him relatively popular among Republicans nationwide, to the point that he went on his own tour earlier this year in support of candidates backed by Trump. But the former president has soured on a politician he once endorsed in a crucial primary, complaining he lacks charisma, while viewing him as a potential rival. There appears to be less drama around Trump’s other appearances planned for the coming days. On 3 November, he’s in Sioux City, Iowa with senator Chuck Grassley and governor Kim Reynolds. On 7 November, he’ll be in Dayton, Ohio with senate candidate JD Vance.With days till midterms, Trump hits campaign trail – but not everyone is happyGood morning, US politics blog readers. A familiar face will take to the campaign trail in the final days before the 8 November midterms: Donald Trump. He’s heading to Florida, Iowa and Ohio to stump for Republican candidates, but only the ones he likes. In Florida, he won’t appear alongside governor Ron DeSantis, an erstwhile ally who is seen as a potential heir to Trump’s helm as the most popular man in the GOP.It’s exactly the kind of snub you’d expect from Trump to a potential rival, and a reminder of the ex-president’s chaotic touch, even when he’s trying to be helpful.Here’s what else is happening today: Joe Biden is heading to upstate New York to promote his Chips act, which Congress passed this summer and is meant to bolster US technological prowess. He’ll visit a semiconductor plant in Syracuse and make remarks at 3:30 pm eastern time, before heading to Delaware. More debates are planned, including between New Hampshire’s Democratic incumbent senator Maggie Hassan and Republican challenger Don Bolduc, and Maine’s incumbent Democratic governor Janet Mills and and Republican challenger Paul LePage. | US Federal Elections |
Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and a top witness for the House Select Committee investigating January 6, writes in her new book Enough that Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani sexually assaulted her on the day of the insurrection.
An adviser to Mr Giuliani forcefully rejected the allegations in a statement to The Independent.
She writes that she encountered Mr Giulaini, 79, backstage at then-President Donald Trump’s speech at the Ellipse, down the National Mall not far from the US Capitol, shortly before the attack on the democratic handover of power began.
She writes that Mr Giuliani put his hand “under my blazer, then my skirt”.
“I feel his frozen fingers trail up my thigh,” she adds. “He tilts his chin up. The whites of his eyes look jaundiced. My eyes dart to John Eastman, who flashes a leering grin.”
Mr Eastman is a law professor who pushed a much-criticized theory that Mr Trump could legally overturn the 2020 election.
“I fight against the tension in my muscles and recoil from Rudy’s grip … filled with rage, I storm through the tent, on yet another quest for Mark,” Ms Hutchinson writes.
Ms Hutchinson outlines in the book how she started out as a Trump supporter but subsequently only grew more and more disappointed with the president and about how she later became a key witness for the congressional panel looking into the Capitol riot.
Mr Giuliani has pleaded not guilty to 13 charges related to racketeering and conspiracy in Georgia in connection to the Trump campaign’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election in the state.
The ex-US Attorney has also been found liable for defamation of two election workers in the state. The bar association in Washington, DC has argued for his disbarment.
Amid a growing mountain of legal fees, Mr Giualini put his Manhattan apartment up for sale. The 79-year-old is also being sued for $1.3m by his own lawyer for unpaid fees and for $10m by a former personal assistant. In that lawsuit, Mr Giualini also faces allegations of sexual assault and harassment, as well as abuse of power and wage theft.
About January 6, 2021, Ms Hutchinson writes that she “experience[d] anger, bewilderment, and a creeping sense of dread that something really horrible [was] going to happen”.
“I find Rudy in the back of the tent with, among others, John Eastman,” she adds. “The corners of his mouth split into a Cheshire cat smile. Waving a stack of documents, he moves towards me, like a wolf closing in on its prey.”
“‘We have the evidence. It’s all here. We’re going to pull this off’,” she quotes Mr Giualini as saying. “Rudy wraps one arm around my body, closing the space that was separating us. I feel his stack of documents press into the small of my back. I lower my eyes and watch his free hand reach for the hem of my blazer.”
“‘By the way,’ he says, fingering the fabric, ‘I’m loving this leather jacket on you.’ His hand slips under my blazer, then my skirt,” she writes.
Ted Goodman, a political adviser to Mr Giuliani, told The Independent in a statement: “It’s fair to ask Cassidy Hutchinson why she is just now coming out with these allegations from two and a half years ago, as part of the marketing campaign for her upcoming book release. This is a disgusting lie against Mayor Rudy Giuliani—a man whose distinguished career in public service includes taking down the Mafia, cleaning up New York City and comforting the nation following September 11th.”
The Independent has reached out to Mr Eastman for comment. | US Political Corruption |
Majority Leader Steve Scalise is scrambling to lock down the votes to become the next House speaker, but protracted opposition to the Louisiana Republican inside the GOP conference and the numerical realities of the narrowly divided chamber could ultimately derail his bid.
Several senior Republicans see little path to 217 votes, after Scalise won just 113 votes in the GOP conference, which includes three delegates who don’t have a vote on the House floor. Making up that deficit in just a matter of days is an extremely tall order – plus a number of hard-right Republicans say they are dead-set against Scalise, when he can only afford to lose four GOP votes on the floor. At least 12 GOP lawmakers have said publicly they’ll oppose Scalise’s nomination and more have expressed frustration or skepticism about his leadership, more than enough to sink his bid.
House GOP members will huddle behind closed doors Thursday afternoon, according to two sources familiar. No phones will be allowed in the meeting.
Republicans are worried that Scalise is facing grim prospects of becoming speaker, an impasse that threatens to prolong the GOP’s leadership crisis that has left the House paralyzed and unable to move on any legislation.
Late Wednesday, members of the conference were beginning to weigh how they would handle the potential collapse of his bid, with several GOP sources saying they believe they’d have to consider a new candidate who has yet to run for the speakership.
Scalise spent Wednesday after the vote meeting individually with GOP members as he and his whip operation tried to convince the holdouts to come around, the sources said. He found some success in the outreach, but it’s not yet clear whether he can win over enough Republicans to overcome the razor-thin GOP House majority.
Scalise or any other Republican candidate for speaker needs 217 votes to win the speaker’s gavel, a majority of the entire House, meaning they can only afford to lose four Republicans if every member is voting.
Rep. Jim Jordan, who lost the vote for speaker to Scalise on Wednesday, 113-99, said Thursday he wants Republicans to unite around Scalise. “I do and I’ve been clear about that since yesterday,” Jordan said.
But pressed on if he would rule out taking the job if Scalise can’t get there, Jordan didn’t give a clear answer. “I will nominate Steve on the floor and I hope we can unite around a speaker,” the Ohio Republican said.
The opposition to Scalise inside his party has thrown into doubt how Republicans will get out of their speaker conundrum that’s left them simply unable to govern.
While there was some belief on Capitol Hill that the brutal assault on Israel over the weekend might prompt Republicans to quickly select a leader – House lawmakers were given a classified briefing on Israel Wednesday before the conference vote for speaker – the deep divisions in the conference that led to Kevin McCarthy’s removal last week have now left the quest for a new speaker at a standstill.
Anger inside the conference is rising.
“These folks are destroying our conference and apparently want to be in the minority,” said Rep. Don Bacon, who represents a swing Nebraska district. “They don’t respect the customs of the House that have gone on for over two centuries.”
The House gavels back in at noon Thursday, but there’s no indication Republicans will be ready to vote on a speaker.
Scalise is facing broad skepticism inside the far-right House Freedom Caucus, a key bloc of Republicans who mostly supported the Trump-backed Jordan for speaker, multiple sources told CNN, citing a general lack of trust with Republican leadership. Scalise has been in leadership years, although he is more conservative than McCarthy.
Jordan, who chairs the Judiciary Committee, threw his weight behind Scalise following Wednesday’s vote, saying he was encouraging his supporters to do the same. “We need a speaker and Steve is the guy for that. Like I said, I have offered to give a nominating speech for him,” the Ohio Republican told reporters Wednesday afternoon.
But there was a cohort of lawmakers who expressed staunch opposition to voting for Scalise on the House floor.
“Well, Leader Scalise won, and it’s not over. I’m still throwing my support behind Jim Jordan for speaker. I’m not going to change my vote now or any time soon on the House floor,” said GOP Rep. Max Miller of Ohio.
Scalise’s individual outreach did peel off at least one holdout. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, who initially said Wednesday that she would vote for Jordan on the floor, met with Scalise and said afterward she felt “comfortable” enough to support his speaker nomination.
While she said he did not make specific commitments, he did assure her that he’ll allow her to “aggressively” do her job on the Oversight Committee, which is part of the impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden.
But Luna said she would only back Scalise for the speakership on the first ballot. If it went to multiple ballots, she said, “we must find a candidate” the conference can unite behind.
Still, a number of Republicans don’t think that Jordan could be a viable alternative given that he lost to Scalise in the nominating contest, and some Republicans were irritated when he didn’t immediately close ranks behind Scalise.
“If Scalise were not to make it, the next person got less votes,” Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida said of Jordan. “And by the way, I think, more controversial. So that would not be a good thing for this place.”
Rep. Erin Houchin of Indiana said she doesn’t know if “it will be Jordan or Scalise or even someone else at this point. … I think we’re in uncharted territory, and it’s gonna be very hard to predict.”
Another GOP member said that it would have to be a new candidate altogether, something that would take longer to sort out.
“Steve is nowhere near 217,” said the Republican member.
Leaving the floor without a vote Wednesday, interim Speaker Patrick McHenry tried to be optimistic the House GOP conference would solve the impasse soon.
Asked if there could be a floor vote Thursday, the North Carolina Republican said, “That’s the hope.”
Could anyone get the 217 votes required? He had the same response: “That’s the hope.”
This story and headline have been updated to include additional developments.
CNN’s Annie Grayer, Lauren Fox, Kristin Wilson, Morgan Rimmer, Sam Fossum and Claire Foran contributed to this report. | US Congress |
6:00
News Story
A Black family fights to get their kids back from Tennessee Department of Children’s Services
One month after the Tennessee Highway Patrol pulled the couple over, their five young children remain in state custody
Bianca Clayborne and Deonte Williams were on the way to Chicago for a family funeral when they were pulled over in Coffee County. Williams was arrested and their young children taken from them. (Screengrab from Zoom)
A Black family from Georgia is fighting for the return of their five young children from the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services after a traffic stop in Manchester, Tenn. last month.
Bianca Clayborne and Deonte Williams were on Interstate 24 heading to a family funeral in Chicago — kids asleep in the back of the car — when a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer pulled them over for “dark tint and traveling in the left lane while not actively passing,” according to Feb. 17 citations issued to the couple.
The trooper searched the family’s Dodge Durango then arrested Williams for possession of five grams of marijuana, a misdemeanor in Tennessee. Clayborne was cited but not arrested.
Clayborne said she was told she was free to leave with the children, but could follow a THP car to find her way to the Coffee County Justice Center in order to bond Williams out.
Six hours after the traffic stop, as Clayborne sat on a bench in the criminal justice center waiting for Williams’ release, the five children — a breast-feeding baby now four months old along with 2-, 3-, 5- and 7-year-olds — were forcibly removed from her side while an officer restrained her from reaching for her crying baby, she said.
Unbeknownst to Clayborne, DCS had sought and received an emergency court order placing the kids in state custody while she waited for Williams. The DCS petition said there was probable cause that the children were neglected and there was no “less drastic” alternative to taking the children from their parents.
Nearly a month later, the children remain in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. Attorneys for the couple are calling DCS’s actions “extreme” “abnormal” and a violation of the parents’ rights.
They have also suggested that the couple received disparate treatment driving through rural Tennessee because they are Black.
“It’s just so shocking to the conscience that in 2023 this is happening,” said Jamaal Boykin, a Nashville attorney representing the family in their custody case.
“I just have to believe if my clients looked different or had a different background, they would have just been given a citation and told you just keep this stuff away from the kids while you’re in this state and they’d be on their way.”
Inadmissible evidence, miscommunication
A Tennessee Lookout review of court records, THP citations and DCS correspondence about the case raises questions about why the state agency aggressively pursued taking the children from their parents.
DCS first got a referral from the Coffee County Jail that both parents had been arrested, court records show. That scenario would require DCS to intervene to make sure the children were cared for.
But after responding to the call, the DCS caseworker “discovered only the father had been arrested,” court records said.
I just have to believe if my clients looked different or had a different background, they would have just been given a citation and told you just keep this stuff away from the kids while you’re in this state and they’d be on their way.
– Jamaal Boykin, attorney for Deonte Williams and Bianca Clayborne
DCS pursued an emergency custody petition anyway, receiving a court order the same day allowing them to take the children.
Six days later, when the parents appeared before a Coffee County juvenile judge for their first hearing, they were asked to submit to urine drug screens.
Williams tested positive for THC, the active ingredient in marijuana.
Clayborne’s test was negative.
Williams and Clayborne then submitted to hair follicle tests, though it’s unclear from court records why they were asked to take a second drug test and who asked them to do so.
Within minutes, a rapid “stat” hair follicle test came back positive for methamphetamines, fentanyl and oxycodone in both parents. Clayborne and Williams both deny using the substances.
The rapid drug test, performed on equipment owned by the Coffee County Treatment Courts, is “not court admissible,” Mike Lewis, the treatment court’s administrator, said Wednesday. Lewis was speaking generally about the testing and not about this case.
Such rapid hair follicle testing equipment is known for generating “too many false positives,” said Greg Bowen, owner of Nashville laboratory ReliaLab Test, Inc. who is uninvolved in this case. “The state should never be relying on instant results,” he said, noting the machines are typically operated by court staff and not trained laboratory technicians.
Nevertheless, DCS used the results of the rapid hair follicle tests as the basis of an amended petition that claimed that the children were not only neglected; they were abused.
“Both parents submitted to urine and hair follicle tests,” the DCS Feb. 23 petition read. “As a result of the drug screens, the children should be deemed to be severely abused.”
The judge agreed, issuing a temporary order that continues to keep the children in DCS custody. The parents, who have now retained a three-member legal team, return to court next week.
Courtney Teasley, a family attorney, has notified DCS she planned to challenge the results of the hair follicle tests.
But DCS attorney Sheila Younglove, in an email reviewed by the Lookout, has already told the family’s lawyers that would not be possible. “The drug court does not hold onto them,” she said in a March 9 email.
The family’s attorneys have called the failure to preserve evidence in the ongoing case “shocking.”
A spokesperson for DCS noted in a statement sent Wednesday that state law prohibits the agency from releasing specific information about the case, which remains ongoing in Coffee County Juvenile Court.
The agency does not determine the custody of children, the statement said.
“DCS does not remove children from custody, only the courts have the authority to make that ruling. DCS and law enforcement follow protocol for collecting evidence,” the statement said. “Those findings are then presented to the court. In this instance, the evidence resulted in the court placing children in DCS custody.”
‘Absolute lunacy’
Clayborne said Monday she is traumatized by the events of the past month; her children cry when she speaks to them on the phone, and grab onto her when she ends her visits with them.
She has lost weight, has trouble sleeping and she suffered a panic attack last weekend that sent her to the emergency room.
Most troubling, she said, is that “I don’t think I’m producing enough milk.”
“The first night my chest was gorged; it was so painful,” she said. “Now it’s to the point where I don’t think I”m producing enough milk. There needs to be a connection.”
Williams, who owns his own trucking company, says he is on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of the legal battle and numerous trips to Tennessee to visit his children.
He said he was furious the state had “kidnapped” his children — an attitude that DCS has since cited in limiting his access to his children because supervisors of the visits felt threatened, DCS emails reviewed by the Lookout said.
In addition to claims of severe abuse, DCS’ petition — filed a week after the children were taken — also say “the children made disclosures about the father being the ‘Weed Man.”
The Feb. 23 DCS petition says that “they then showed (a caseworker) how to roll a joint and stated that the parents take them with them to ‘sell the weed.’”
“It’s absolute lunacy,” Williams said in an interview this week. “There’s nothing like that. We never put things like that around the kids; we love them.”
The traffic stop: “I was trying to keep my kids calm’
The couple were driving to Williams’ uncle’s funeral in Chicago after rousing the children out of bed in their home in an Atlanta suburb during the pre-dawn hours of a February Friday morning.
Williams said he spotted the flashing lights of a trooper behind them. He said he exited the freeway and turned into the closest gas station to stop.
The BP gas station Williams pulled into is immediately off Exit 114 on I-24 going west through Manchester, Tenn., but DCS’ emergency petition seeking to take the kids said that the family “would not pull over once THP turned on their lights.” The claim is not included in THP citations issued to the couple and not a crime for which the couple has been charged.
The couple say the THP officer immediately ordered Willilams out of the car, placed him uncuffed in the back of a cruiser and escorted Clayborne and her children inside the gas station on a cold day while they conducted a search.
“My son was terrified,” she said of her seven-year old. “He said this was just like TV; this was like TV. I was just holding him by his face and I’m just like ‘don’t think like that, don’t think like that. It’s going to be ok, it’s going to be ok.’”
By then there were three law enforcement vehicles — the couple isn’t certain from which jurisdiction — and a dog sniffing the suitcases, diaper bags and other possessions officers had laid on the ground around the car.
The officers found a blunt in the passenger door and a small bag in the car — in total fewer five grams of marijuana. The THP citations say both Williams and Clayborne admitted to smoking the marijuana — a claim that Clayborne denies.
“I wasn’t trying to hide it. I didn’t know it was a big deal,” Williams said. Williams was handcuffed a short while later and driven to the Coffee County jail.
Law enforcement also found a gun — a weapon Clayborne legally owns, their attorneys said. Neither parent has been charged with weapons violations.
Williams, now 41, previously was sentenced at age 18 to a 12-year sentence for aggravated burglary. He has not been convicted of any crimes since, his attorney said. Williams’ felony background was also cited by DCS in their petition to take the children.
After Williams was driving away in a patrol car, Clayborne loaded the children and the families’ possessions on the ground back into their Dodge.
“When I got in the car, I was shaking,” she said. “The kids were crying.”
She said she hoped that they would soon be able to get Williams out, then get back on the road to Chicago.
A parking confrontation
But once Clayborne drove into the parking lot of the Coffee County Criminal Justice Center in Manchester, three women approached the car and identified themselves as two DCS caseworkers and one DCS “shadower,” a newly hired caseworker learning the job, Clayborne said.
One worker got in the passenger side of the car next to Clayborne, while the others stood outside. The worker asked her if she had family in Tennessee.
“I asked why and she said it was because I’m taking your kids,” Clayborne said. “I was like, what for? Because I’m not understanding this. I said I haven’t been smoking. I said I breastfeed my kid.”
The woman asked Clayborne to leave her children in the car with a caseworker and walk inside to take a urine drug test in the ladies room, Clayborne said.
“I said I don’t feel comfortable leaving my children in the car with you. Because I don’t know what you’re going to do.”
At the worker’s request, Clayborne said she tried unsuccessfully to provide a urine sample while in her car. And when she couldn’t, Clayborne said she was told that it would make matters worse for her.
“So I asked the lady if she could get out of my car. I locked the doors with me and my kids in the car,” she said. She cracked the window to talk instead, she said. Soon, at least a half dozen men surrounded her car, she said.
Court records describe the confrontation in the parking lot.
“The mother became very defiant and locked herself and the children in the vehicle,” court records said. “Officer Crabtree then placed spike strips around the vehicle so the mother would not leave the premises.”
Clayborne said she did not plan to flee.
Teasley, the couple’s attorney, said she believes Clayborne was being unlawfully detained in the parking lot while a court order was being sought to remove her children. Clayborne was otherwise not under arrest and free to leave, she said.
But Clayborne still had to go inside the justice center in order to post bond for Williams. She said she decided to get out of the car and take her children into the justice center.
The justice center
Inside, “the process seemed slow,” Clayborne said. She waited on benches with her children until about 3 p.m. — nearly six hours after the 9:40 a.m. stop. It was then, according to court records, the children were taken from her.
Uniformed police officers approached Clayborne and her children and “circled me,” she said.
“Then my baby started crying so I reached for my son, and as I’m reaching, a man held me and told me, ‘don’t touch him. He’s getting taken away from you,’” Clayborne said.
One woman was walking her five year old son out the door; another picked her daughter and walked away. Someone else took the stroller with her baby inside.
“I just sat there crying, crying, crying,” she said, her voice shaking as she recounted the events via a Zoom meeting from Georgia.
Clayborne said no one asked her for any information – her phone number, the children’s health or nutritional needs and no one immediately provided her contact information so she could learn where they were or a court order showing why they were taken.
“My kids – they have asthma and you’re not asking about nothing,” she said. “I breastfeed.They didn’t give me anything. They just ran off with my kids.”
The couple are due back in Coffee County Juvenile Court on Monday.
Our stories may be republished online or in print under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. We ask that you edit only for style or to shorten, provide proper attribution and link to our web site. Please see our republishing guidelines for use of photos and graphics. | Civil Rights Activism |
Senate Republicans on Wednesday rolled out a new plan to address rising student debt and the soaring cost of college just as President Joe Biden’s $400 billion student loan handout is expected to be struck down in the Supreme Court.
Instead of trying to forgive loans as Biden did, Senate Republicans are supporting programs aimed at making sure students understand the real cost of college and shutting off loans for programs that don't result in salaries that are high enough to justify those loans.
"President Biden's answer was to enact his $400 billion student debt scheme, which doesn't forgive debt. It really transfers the responsibility to pay it back away from the person who willingly took on the debt," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, said Wednesday.
Senate Republicans say their plan will tackle the rising cost of post-high school degrees and make it easier for students and families to navigate loan programs. It’s a package of five bills collectively called Lowering Education Costs and Debt Act.
One of the bills from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, aims to reduce confusion for federal student borrowers by narrowing the number of repayment plan options from nine to two – the standard 10-year plan as well as an option for low-income, low-balance borrowers.
Cornyn’s bill also prohibits new undergraduate and graduate loans from being issued for programs where students are projected to make less than the average high school and bachelor’s degree recipient, respectively.
Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., introduced a second bill to end the government’s Graduate PLUS loans, which have no borrowing limits, while keeping in place other federal loans that do. Republicans say the PLUS loans are helping drive up the cost of college.
"This would prevent some of the worst examples of students being exploited for profit. It would force schools to bring down cost and to compete for students. What an idea," Tuberville said on Wednesday. "It would also protect students from getting buried in debt they can never, ever pay."
A third bill from Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., is the Informed Borrowing Act. Under that proposal, borrowers would be required to acknowledge receiving information that explains the cost of their loan and what their repayment windows look like, among other information, each year. It also calls for income projections for a student’s desired trajectory based on their school and program of study.
Two other bills, from Cassidy and Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, are specifically aimed at making sure students are fully aware of college costs and how far that investment would go.
Cassidy’s College Transparency Act, which has bipartisan support in the House and Senate, would refine and update databases to give a more complete picture of schools’ enrollment statistics and data on how students fare after graduation across all available majors and programs. Grassley’s Understanding the True Cost of College Act is seeking to standardize colleges’ financial aid offer forms so that students can better compare different options.
The Supreme Court is expected this month to decide the fate of the president’s student loan plan, which would forgive up to $20,000 for federal student loan recipients whose income is less than a certain amount.
Biden’s plan also received bipartisan opposition in Congress. A resolution disapproving of the policy passed the House and Senate with bipartisan support. | US Federal Policies |
Former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows is extensively cooperating with special counsel Jack Smith's election interference investigation of former President Donald Trump, CBS News has learned.
Meadows has provided lengthy and in-depth testimony several times in the past year before the grand jury, as well as providing prosecutors with reams of documents, including text messages, that have provided them with a roadmap of Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election, according to sources familiar with the former Trump chief of staff's testimony.
On Tuesday, ABC News reported that Smith granted Meadows immunity to testify under oath, but Meadows's lawyer, George Terwilliger, told CBS News, "I told ABC that their story was largely inaccurate. People will have to judge for themselves the decision to run it anyway." He declined to discuss the investigation with CBS News.
CBS News has so far not confirmed that Meadows has received immunity in exchange for his testimony, but Trump allies and sources close to several witnesses are growing increasingly alarmed that Meadows is testifying in detail and without reservation because he might be seeking an immunity deal or may already have an understanding with prosecutors. These sources expect Meadows' testimony and his text messages to be pillars of the upcoming federal trial of the former president, with Meadows as a key witness.
Text messages and emails Meadows provided to the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, include messages from lawmakers, conservative TV hosts, Trump family members and, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas about efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Thomas advised Meadows in one text that lawyer Sidney Powell, who promoted incendiary and unsupported claims about the election, should become "the lead and the face" of Trump's legal team. in the Georgia election interference case last week.
Trump, on Truth Social, contemplated the possibility of a Meadows immunity arrangement.
"I don't think Mark Meadows would lie about the Rigged and Stollen 2020 Presidential Election merely for getting IMMUNITY against Prosecution (PERSECUTION!) by Deranged Prosecutor, Jack Smith...," he wrote. "BUT, when you really think about it, after being hounded like a dog for three years, told you'll be going to jail for the rest of your life, your money and your family will be forever gone, and we're not at all interested in exposing those that did the RIGGING…Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation... I don't think that Mark Meadows is one of them, but who really knows?"
Robert Costa contributed to this report.
for more features. | US Political Corruption |
FIRST ON FOX: Indiana Rep. Jim Banks, a Republican, demanded answers from Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin regarding the Defense Department’s (DOD) "inadequate guidance" for colleges seeking waivers to host Confucius Institutes on campus while maintaining department funding.
Banks, who is running for Senate in Indiana, sent Austin the letter on Friday regarding the DOD guidance for colleges looking to host the Chinese Communist Party-linked entities on campus while still receiving federal funds from the Pentagon.
"This guidance is an invitation for the Chinese Communist Party to double down on its influence and espionage operations at U.S. universities," Banks told Fox News Digital.
"The Biden administration is again undermining Congress’s efforts to combat Chinese espionage and malign influence, just like they did with their fake TikTok bill and ongoing refusal to enforce Section 117 disclosure requirements," the Indiana Republican continued.
"House Republicans are working day and night on oversight against a president who is dead-set on appeasing Communist China," he added.
In his letter, Banks urged "the DOD to revise this inadequate guidance, which undermines Congress’s intent in Section 1062 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2021 (FY2021)."
Banks wrote that in "Sec. 1062 of the FY2021 NDAA, Congress prohibited the DOD from providing any funding to any institution of higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute after October 1, 2023" and that the "prohibition followed a more limited provision in the FY2019 NDAA."
"CIs act as agents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on U.S. campuses, spreading Party propaganda, monitoring students and dissidents, and providing China a launching pad for espionage against our nation’s most valuable research and technology," Banks warned.
"Congress intended for the Sec. 1062 restriction to encourage the removal of all CIs from U.S. campuses and to remove the espionage threat which CIs pose to DOD-sponsored research and development (R&D)," he continued.
Banks pointed out that the March 28, 2023 guidance from DOD "offers conditions by which a U.S. university may receive DOD funds without closing any Confucius Institutes on campus," but while "the guidance imposes some restrictions on CIs for colleges to qualify for waivers, it also introduces significant loopholes and fails to take seriously the threat posed by CIs to national security."
"The waivers that DOD grants to universities to continue operating with CIs can theoretically last for an unlimited duration. Per the guidance, DOD also relies on the host universities, which often want to preserve their Confucius Institutes, to notify DOD of any changes to their contract with their CI before DOD reviews their waivers. The waiver guidance also requires universities with CIs to report the foreign travel of any staff involved in R&D but does not require any foreign travel reporting for Confucius Institute employees. While the guidance restricts some Confucius Institute employees from accessing any federally funded scientific data, it does not restrict CI employees from accessing this research if they are also employees of the host university."
Banks wrote that the "guidance also fails to address other loopholes related to DOD funding of universities that host CIs" and that while "DOD imposes some constraints on U.S. universities with CIs, DOD can continue funding foreign universities with CIs without any new waiver process whatsoever."
"The guidance also refuses to specify whether, after October 1, 2023, DOD will continue to pay contracts and grants awarded to universities with CIs that did not receive a waiver," Banks wrote. "Given that many federal grants can last for periods of three to five years, this means that DOD may violate the law by continuing to fund universities that did not even succeed at implementing the modest controls required by this guidance."
Banks blasted the guidance as the DOD "bowing to the wishes of academia and the scientific community to continue their deep ties with China, despite the growing threat of CCP propaganda and espionage" and that much "of the recent guidance derives from a report the DOD commissioned from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine earlier this year, which argued in favor of such generous waivers to allow Confucius Institutes to continue operating on U.S. campuses."
Banks peppered Austin with questions, including if DOD will "commit to regularly review institutions’ Sec. 1062 waivers to maintain a CI and not only rely on notifications from universities that their contractual relationship with their CIs has changed."
"As with all his correspondence, the secretary will reply to the author of the letter in due time, and we would not have anything further to offer on this," a Pentagon spokesperson told Fox News Digital.
The DOD guidelines state that the department’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Confucius Institute Waiver Program (CIWP) is responsible for considering and approving or denying waiver applications from any U.S. institution of higher education that is hosting a Confucius Institute and desires a waiver from the prohibition on funding required by Section 1062 of the NDAA for FY 2021."
The guidance recognizes Confucius Institutes being linked to the communist Chinese government and that American "institutions of higher education that are hosting an institute meeting the definition of a Confucius Institute may apply for a waiver from the CIWP."
"A host institution applying to the CIWP for a waiver must provide a waiver application package to the CIWP that includes the following: A letter signed by a senior official at the host institution requesting the waiver from the Secretary of Defense and certifying that the host institution meets the CIWP waiver criteria (listed in section 3, below); The documentation required by the CIWP (also listed in section 3, below); and Attestation that the host institution will notify the DoD of any change in the contractual relationship between the Confucius Institute and the host institution."
Last month, the Senate unanimously passed a bill this week that clamps down on China’s reach into U.S. universities by tightening restrictions on Confucius Institutes.
The Concerns Over Nations Funding University Campus Institutes in the United States (CONFUCIUS) Act, introduced by Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., targets Chinese-funded cultural centers on college campuses that lawmakers have said are being utilized for propaganda agendas.
Fox News Digital's Caitlin McFall contributed reporting. | US Federal Policies |
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to pass a Republican measure to block President Joe Biden's student debt relief program and end the administration's pause on federal student loan payments.
The House voted 218-203, largely along party lines, with two Democrats — Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington — joining Republicans in supporting the measure. The measure faces unlikely odds in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
The House resolution would repeal the administration’s program to cancel between $10,000 and $20,000 in loans for borrowers whose income falls below certain levels or who have received a Pell Grant. The legislation would also end a pandemic-era pause on loan payments and interest accrual.
Republicans have sharply criticized the Biden administration's program, arguing it burdens taxpayers and is unfair to Americans who have already paid off their loans or who did not attend college. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing the program would decrease the federal deficit by about $315 billion in the next decade.
The Biden administration, by contrast, has argued that the cost of higher education has become a "lifelong burden" on low- and middle-income Americans. The program provides people with "breathing room" to repay loans after the pandemic and accompanying economic crisis are over, the administration said in a statement.
Rep. Bob Good, R-Va., who introduced the legislation in the House, praised its passage in a statement after the vote.
"President Biden’s student loan transfer scheme shifts hundreds of billions of dollars of payments from student loan borrowers onto the backs of the American people,” Good said in a statement. “I am pleased that my Republican colleagues overwhelmingly supported my legislation on the House floor today.”
But providing student loan relief has been a key priority for Biden and has helped him marshal support from progressive Democrats. On Monday, the White House warned that Biden would veto the House measure if it makes it to his desk, saying it would "weaken America's middle class."
Democrats have raised concerns that the House resolution would force people to retroactively make loan payments that had been paused during the pandemic. A Congressional Research Service report on how such measures are implemented says disapproved rules would be "deemed not to have had any effect at any time, and even provisions that had become effective would be retroactively negated."
Rep. Robert Scott, D-Va., ranking member of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, said the resolution would primarily affect people making less than $75,000 per year and that it "seeks to deny these borrowers the relief they were promised."
"What's going to happen to all those interest payments that now have to be added back to the loan?" Scott said on the chamber floor Wednesday, adding that the legislation "would trigger a wave of delinquencies and defaults for our most vulnerable borrowers.”
A representative for Good did not immediately respond to a request for comment about potential retroactive payments.
The Congressional Budget Office did not account for such payments in its estimate of the bill's financial impact, leaving it unclear whether the Education Department would interpret the resolution as requiring it to charge people for paused payments.
An Education Department spokesperson, responding to a question about retroactive payments, said only that the House resolution “would create immense operational and communication complexities that would seriously harm borrowers.”
The House previously voted to block the debt relief program as part of its bill to raise the debt ceiling and cut government spending. But Wednesday's vote was the first time the legislation came to the House floor as a standalone measure.
Senate Republicans can use special procedures under the Congressional Review Act to force a vote on the measure even though they are the minority party, and the measure would only need a majority of votes to pass, instead of 60 votes. Still, while 47 Senate Republicans have cosponsored Sen. Bill Cassidy's resolution, it is unclear whether it can gain the majority of votes, requiring Democratic support, that it would need to pass the Senate — and it would not have the supermajority needed to override a presidential veto.
Congress is considering the measure as the Supreme Court also weighs in on the Biden administration's program. The high court is poised to soon issue a ruling on whether Biden can continue his plan to cancel some debt for tens of millions of borrowers. | US Federal Policies |
If there’s one thing that unites Colorado Democratic Party Chairman Shad Murib, Colorado GOP Chairman Dave Williams and Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, it’s their shared skepticism of the election system overhaul being proposed by Kent Thiry, the wealthy former CEO of the Denver-based dialysis giant DaVita.
Each dislikes the proposal, which would move Colorado to an open primary system and adopt ranked-choice voting in general elections, for different reasons. Thiry also wants to do away with Colorado’s caucus and assembly process and stop vacancy committees from filling legislative openings. The changes would be made through a 2024 ballot measure — or measures — amending the state constitution and take effect in 2026.
Boebert said on social media that “ranked-choice voting is a scheme launched by well-moneyed interests who are only concerned with their own power and not giving Coloradans a choice at the ballot box.”
Williams responded to The Sun in a text message.
“Self-serving rich liberals shouldn’t be able to buy their way onto a ballot and manipulate democracy with deceptive marketing,” he wrote. “Thiry wants to be governor and validate his ego by spending his massive wealth to change the rules of the game so he can have a better chance at winning.”
In an interview with The Sun, Murib echoed Williams’ concerns. He said Thiry’s proposal, in particular the ditching the caucus and assembly ballot-access process altogether for signature gathering, which can be highly expensive, would “create a pay-to-play system for elected office in Colorado where only the wealthy millionaires and billionaires and self-funders would have access to elected office in Colorado.” For instance, Republican secretary of state candidate Pam Anderson spent more than $121,000 to collect the 8,000 voter signatures she needed to make the ballot in 2022.
But Thiry framed his proposals to The Sun as a way to elect less extreme candidates to office. A spokesman said Thiry doesn’t plan to run for office. (The governor’s office will be up for grabs in 2026.)
“Kent has led five successful ballot initiatives in Colorado since 2016, and some version of ‘will he run for governor?’ has been asked at every turn,” Curtis Hubbard, a spokesman for Thiry, said in an email. (Hubbard has served as an adviser to The Colorado Sun but has no influence over editorial decisions.) “It was not the case then, and it’s not the case now. He supports these initiatives because we need to break the stranglehold party insiders have on our elections by giving all voters and candidates equal access.”
But state Rep. David Ortiz, a Littleton Democrat who uses a wheelchair after being injured in an Army helicopter crash in Afghanistan, worries that Thiry’s proposal would make getting on the ballot less accessible for people like himself. Collecting signatures often means going door to door or standing for long periods of time outside grocery stores or at farmers markets and parks.
The caucus and assembly process, Ortiz said, “is the only accessible way for candidates with a disability to get on the ballot.”
Ortiz said he’ll propose legislation at the Capitol next year that would protect the caucus process under accessibility laws. He said his proposal also will require virtual access to a caucus or assembly if a candidate or participant requests it.
Ortiz said, however, that he likes the idea of Colorado adopting ranked-choice voting.
Murib, too, said he isn’t opposed to some changes to Colorado’s elections system.
☀️ READ MORE
“I love unaffiliated participation in our politics,” he said. “We need to rethink our caucus process. I think we need to rethink how high a threshold it is to get signatures across the state because it really blocks off grassroots candidates.”
But he said he’d like to see more cities in Colorado try out ranked-choice voting or other alternatives before the system is adopted statewide.
Implementing such a complicated system before the 2026 election is also worrisome to county clerks. Matt Crane, executive director of the Colorado County Clerks Association, said some studies indicate ranked-choice voting may confuse voters and discourage people of color and seniors from casting ballots.
“Traditionally, we’ve been very skeptical of ranked-choice voting,” Crane said.
And Frank Atwood, chairman of Colorado’s Approval Voting Party, said he wants to see an election system where voters may fill in a bubble for every candidate on the ballot that they approve of, with the highest total vote-getter winning.
“The thing about approval voting is the transparency and the ease of it,” Atwood said. “It’s far less complicated” than ranked-choice voting.
The Secretary of State’s Office declined to comment on Thiry’s proposals.
The proposal details and future actions
Three versions of Thiry’s proposal were filed last week. The designated proponents are listed as Charles Dukes, a Commerce City councilman, and Roberta Lynn Moreland, who worked on the ranked-choice voting system Fort Collins will begin using next year.
Here’s what each would do:
- Initiative 98 would move Colorado to an open primary system in the races for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governor, secretary of state, treasurer, attorney general, legislature, state Board of Education, and University of Colorado regent. In each race, all candidates would appear on the same primary ballot regardless of their party affiliation. The top four vote-getters would advance to a general election that would be conducted by ranked-choice voting. The measure would also require that all candidates for those offices collect petition signatures to make the ballot, as opposed to going through the caucus and assembly process. Unaffiliated voters would be allowed to sign those petitions. Vacancy committees would no longer be used to fill legislative seats — instead there would be a special election.
- Initiative 99 would do everything that Initiative 98 does while also moving Colorado’s presidential general election to a ranked-choice voting election.
- Initiative 100 would only enact the open primary system for the races described in Initiative 98 and switch all of those general elections to ranked-choice voting. It would not affect the presidential contest. This measure wouldn’t affect how candidates make the ballot (the caucus and assembly process would still be allowed and unaffiliated voters would still be barred from signing candidate petitions) and it wouldn’t eliminate legislative vacancy committees.
Each measure would also declare that “it is the intent of the people of Colorado that all votes lawfully cast are counted before 11:59 p.m. on Election Day, and when not reasonably possible, as soon as is practicable.”
The initiatives would let county clerks begin counting ballots as soon as they receive them — right now counting can’t start until 15 days before Election Day — and direct local election officials to “use all reasonable efforts, including requesting sufficient staff and resources, to foster the timely reporting of election results beginning at 7 p.m. on Election Day.”
“The General Assembly shall provide the necessary funding so that counties have adequate staffing, systems and technology to timely complete the counting and reporting of election results,” the initiatives declare.
It’s rare that counties complete vote tabulation on election night. And there’s an eight-day period during which voters are allowed to rectify signature differences and overseas ballots are accepted.
The measures are still a long way from appearing on the 2024 ballot.
Legislative staff are set to give feedback on the proposals at a hearing at 10 a.m. Dec. 5 to start the review process.
Skeptics of the proposal think the initiatives may violate a rule in the state constitution limiting ballot measures to dealing with a single subject.
Assuming the initiatives are ultimately approved by the state Title Board, Thiry and other supporters of the proposals must collect roughly 125,000 voter signatures that represent a sample of at least 2% of voters in each of Colorado’s 35 state Senate districts to qualify.
Then, to pass, the measures would have to be approved by 55% of the electorate because they seek to amend the constitution. | US Local Elections |
Durbin on potential government shutdown: ‘I don’t know what to think’
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-III.), the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said Sunday he “doesn’t know what to think” over a potential government shutdown if Congress is unable to pass funding bills or come to a short-term resolution by Friday.
When asked by CNN’s “State of the Union” co-anchor Dana Bash if he expects the government to shut down, Durbin said: “I don’t know what to think.”
“I can tell you this — there is one clear point that we should remind everyone of,” Durbin said. “The solution to this problem, funding our government, the critical services, depends on a bipartisan approach, Democrats and Republicans working together.”
Durbin argued that the debt deal made earlier this summer between President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) needs to be “the starting point of our conversation.”
Infighting among House Republicans has McCarthy struggling to pass a temporary funding measure before the federal government runs out of funds on Friday. Last week, McCarthy and other GOP leaders tried to pass a rule on a short-term stopgap bill, known as a continuing resolution, to extend government funding past the deadline, but were met with opposition within his conference.
Conservatives are demanding lower funding levels across all 12 appropriations bills — 11 of which the House has yet to pass — as well as certain border policy changes. Some members have said they will not support a short-term stopgap at all.
Pressed on if he would support additional border security in any bill, Durbin said: “I agree that we need to put more thinking and resources into the border to bring order to the chaos that’s there.”
Bash then said it sounded like Durbin might be OK with additional funding for the border, to which Durbin responded, “Well, I’m not going to single-shot any one item that needs to be there, or else. I think that’s the wrong approach to use.”
“We’re talking about a continuing resolution to keep the lights on in the government. So while we debate the appropriation bill for the next fiscal year, which starts Oct. 1, so I’m not going to say it’s a requirement for any element to be included,” Durbin said. “Let’s sit down on a bipartisan basis and pass a continuing resolution.”
Durbin also pointed to the Senate Appropriations Committee, which advanced all 12 funding bills in July of the first time in years, but those bills have since stalled in that chamber.
Over the next week, Republicans will work to pass four of their 12 full-year government funding bills, then make another go at a short-term stopgap bill to prevent a shutdown.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Congress |
Eight Republican presidential candidates gathered for the first primary debate of the 2024 cycle, offering Americans one of their first major chances to start weighing who will be the GOP standard bearer next year.
What voters got was two hours of sharp elbows over everything from age to policy to, of course, former President Donald Trump.
On stage were Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, former Vice President Mike Pence, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum.
Knives out for Ramaswamy
The 38-year-old Ramaswamy was the target of more attacks than any other candidate on stage, and it wasn't even close.
Ramaswamy, who's never held office, took hits from Pence and Christie over his experience and Haley over his foreign policy.
"Now is not the time for on-the-job training," Pence said. "We don't need to bring in a rookie. We don't need to bring in people without experience."
Christie later accused the fast-spoken Ramaswamy of sounding "like ChatGPT," referring to the popular digital tool, and Haley, after hitting him over his skepticism of aid to Ukraine and comments putting a timetable on support for Israel, accused him of having "no foreign policy experience and it shows."
"Ramaswamy comes across like the guy in high school that everyone wanted to beat up. In fact, I thought Christie was going to slug him at one point," said GOP strategist Bob Heckman.
Ramaswamy repeatedly sought to parry, touting his outsider status as a badge of honor and drawing audience applause for saying the U.S. should invest more to protect its own southern border rather than borders of countries overseas, a reference to U.S. support for Ukraine's fight against Russia's invasion.
The barbs were clearly part of an attempt to knock Ramaswamy down a peg, but they also served as recognition of his recent surge in support and attention and he had the second-most speaking time, trailing only Pence.
Voters have organically brought up Ramaswamy to ABC News on the campaign trail, and national and statewide surveys have him rising, with FiveThirtyEight's polling average showing him in third place by over 5 points, behind DeSantis and Trump.
Ramaswamy's campaign touted his performance, with spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin texting ABC News, "Vivek: 1 GOP Establishment: 0."
"This is my first time in a political debate. And I am thrilled with how it came out. We've over-exceeded my expectations," Ramaswamy also boasted in the spin room after the debate.
Pence, in a departure, takes on attack-dog role
Pence, a seasoned politician known for his staid demeanor, instead, in a stark departure, took on the role of attack dog Wednesday night.
He directed almost all of his ire at Ramaswamy, though he did throw an elbow at the absent Trump, whom he once again said had no right to ask him to reverse the 2020 election results.
Beyond targeting Ramaswamy over his relative lack of experience, Pence also rebuked his foreign policy stances, arguing it was insulting to say that Washington had to choose between supporting Ukraine or border security.
"Anybody that thinks that we can't solve the problems here in the United States and be the leader the free world has a pretty small view of the greatest nation on Earth," Pence said.
Pence also repeatedly interrupted other candidates and the moderators to try to get in on whatever topic was being discussed, prompting moderator Bret Baier to interject while he was asking a question.
"Vice President Pence, it really doesn't help," Baier said.
Pence, despite his lengthy resume as a House member, governor and vice president, has struggled to break out of the single digits in national polling and surveys in Iowa, where he is hinging much of his campaign, and trying to have a breakout moment is one pathway to a polling boost -- though it's unclear if it worked.
"Pence was going for it big time tonight," Heckman said. "Knows he needs to slug his way into the top tier."
DeSantis fights for airtime
DeSantis still holds second place in most national and statewide polls, but recent rises by candidates like Ramaswamy and Scott have fueled questions over how safe his position as the main Trump alternative is.
Besides seeking to fend off other candidates' rises, he's also had to fend off negative headlines over his fundraising, staff changes and a monthslong campaign reboot -- headlines that could have been put to bed by a strong performance.
In the end, DeSantis wasn't attacked as much as expected but didn’t appear to falter, sticking to his talking points and ended up fighting for airtime -- speaking for the fourth-longest amount of time, behind Pence, Ramaswamy and Christie.
That deficit is largely because he did not engage in many of the debate's shouting matches, which his allies sought to tout.
"I think he did very well tonight and looked the most presidential of all the candidates. His answers were clear and concise, and he was able to introduce himself as an effective leader, a veteran, and family man. I really appreciate that he spoke directly to the voters instead of engaging in shouting matches like the other candidates," said Nick Larossi, a Florida lobbyist close to DeSantis' campaign.
Haley tries to carve out her own lane
Haley seemingly sought to be the adult in the room, touting her conservative bona fides, chiding Ramaswamy for failing to live up to GOP orthodoxy and trying to remain above the fray during some of the sharper exchanges.
At one point, when Christie and Ramaswamy were going back and forth, Haley tried to put a stop to it while at the same time pointing out that she was the only woman on stage.
"This is exactly why Margaret Thatcher said, 'If you want something said, ask a man. If you want something done, ask a woman,'" Haley said.
She also sought to find some safe ground on one of the most difficult topics of the race: abortion.
Rather than get mired in the debate over how many weeks abortion should be allowed for, Haley instead reached for policies that polls show have more support among the broader electorate.
"Can't we all agree that we should ban late term abortions? Can't we all agree that we should encourage adoptions? Can't we all agree that doctors and nurses who don't believe in abortion shouldn't have to perform them? Can't we all agree that contraception should be available? And can't we all agree that we are not going to put a woman in jail or give her the death penalty if she gets an abortion? Let's treat this like the respectful issue that it is," she said.
Some strategists ABC News spoke to said they viewed Haley as a winner in the debate -- something that was easier given her stubbornly low polling and relatedly low expectations.
"Nikki Haley helped herself the most by the impressive amount of prep she did. I think other camps will take more seriously how much prep is needed to break through on a stage where everyone is basically saying the same thing all the time," said Gail Gitcho, a GOP strategist and veteran of presidential campaigns who used to work for Ramaswamy's campaign.
Still some discomfort over Jan. 6
There still appeared to be some discomfort over the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection, a seminal event that President Joe Biden is expected to highlight in the general election.
When the moderators asked if Pence had done his duty on Jan. 6 by not overturning the election, requesting that those who agreed raise their hands, DeSantis stepped in to prevent the candidates from having to do so.
Many of the candidates ultimately agreed that Pence obeyed his constitutional oath that day, though Hutchinson did draw boos when he called the riot that day an "insurrection."
DeSantis ultimately said he did think Pence "did his duty."
"I got no beef with him," he said.
No consensus on abortion, a little more on Ukraine
Abortion remained a sticky subject for the candidates and underscored the lack of consensus heading into 2024.
Haley wouldn't say what kind of timetable on restrictions she would support -- but said a federal ban was unrealistic. Burgum also said he wouldn't sign a national ban despite having signed a six-week ban into law in North Dakota.
Pence, meanwhile insisted that there must be a minimum federal standard, and Scott said there should be a national 15-week limit.
On Ukraine, there appeared to be more agreement.
Most of the candidates said they would support more aid to Kyiv, though DeSantis focused mostly on making sure Europe beefs up its share of the support.
Ramaswamy, meanwhile, was the only candidate who said he wouldn't support more aid for Ukraine in its war against Russia.
Trump gets less focus than anticipated but benefits from no major game-changers
Baier had teased that Trump would get top billing in the debate, despite his absence, and some of the fieriest exchanges occurred during the section over whether the candidates would support him as the nominee if he were convicted of a crime.
Six of the eight raised their hands to say they would.
Christie raised eyebrows over his repeated attacks against the former president, and Ramaswamy reiterated his defense of Trump. Other candidates took a vaguer tact of urging voters to look forward.
Still, Trump was not spoken of nearly as much as was anticipated, and overall, the former president could be viewed as a winner of the debate given his hefty polling lead and lack of a fundamental change in the field stemming from the Wednesday event.
"All of the 'who won' talk is conjecture without Trump there," said Doug Heye, a former Republican National Committee staffer and former top aide to House GOP leadership. "This is rearranging the deck chairs on a boat that’s tied to the dock." | US Federal Elections |
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today that evidence gleaned from a warrant for Google's search data could be used in the prosecution of a teen who was charged with murder for a fire that killed five people in the Denver area. From a report: As police scrambled to solve the source of the 2020 blaze, they asked Alphabet's Google to provide information about people who searched for the address of the house that went up in flames, using a controversial technique known as a keyword search warrant. After some initial objections, Google provided data that enabled detectives to zero in on five accounts, leading to the arrest of three suspects in the case.
Lawyers for one of the suspects, Gavin Seymour, who was found to have Googled the home's address 14 times in the days before the fire, argued that the keyword warrant constituted an illegal search and that any evidence from it should be suppressed. His motion is the first known challenge to the constitutionality of keyword search warrants. The case is ongoing. In its 74-page decision, the court found that law enforcement had acted in good faith when it obtained the warrant for the teen's search history. Still, it stressed that the findings were specific to the facts of the case, and it refrained from weighing in about the use of Google's search data more broadly.
Lawyers for one of the suspects, Gavin Seymour, who was found to have Googled the home's address 14 times in the days before the fire, argued that the keyword warrant constituted an illegal search and that any evidence from it should be suppressed. His motion is the first known challenge to the constitutionality of keyword search warrants. The case is ongoing. In its 74-page decision, the court found that law enforcement had acted in good faith when it obtained the warrant for the teen's search history. Still, it stressed that the findings were specific to the facts of the case, and it refrained from weighing in about the use of Google's search data more broadly. | SCOTUS |
Alissa Escarce/Radio Diaries
toggle caption
A photograph of LaMont Dottin in Fowler's home in Oct. 2023
Alissa Escarce/Radio Diaries
A photograph of LaMont Dottin in Fowler's home in Oct. 2023
Alissa Escarce/Radio Diaries
This is the sixth story in The Unmarked Graveyard: Stories from Hart Island series from Radio Diaries. You can listen to the next installment on All Things Considered, and read and listen to previous stories in the series here.
One evening in the fall of 1995, 21-year-old LaMont Dottin didn't come home. He was a freshman at Queens College and was living with relatives, having recently moved to New York from California.
LaMont's mother, Dr. Arnita Fowler — who holds a doctorate in management — was still in California and flew to New York the next day. But when she went to the police to report her son missing, the officer she spoke with was dismissive. Her son was an adult.
"No matter what I said," she remembers, "He says, 'No, take my word for it. He'll be home soon.'"
But LaMont didn't come home, and Fowler kept returning to the precinct. Finally, about a month later, police officially listed him as a missing person. His case was transferred to the Missing Persons Squad, joining thousands of other cases on the docket to be investigated.
Fowler started calling Missing Persons at least twice a week to follow up. "But they would refuse to meet with me, and just say, there's no update, or, we have a new detective on it," she remembers.
This pattern would continue for the next four years.
In the mid-1990s, the NYPD's Missing Persons Squad was "in a state of disrepair," says Phillip Mahony, who joined the squad as a sergeant in 1997. "There was no work being done on cases. Record keeping wasn't good."
Kameron Brown also joined the squad as a detective in 1997, and he remembers Fowler's frequent calls to the office. "I definitely remember [LaMont's] mom being very persistent," he says.
New York Daily News / Screenshot by NPR
toggle caption
A clipping from the New York Daily News from Nov. 21, 1995 shows Fowler holding a missing persons flyer for her son.
New York Daily News / Screenshot by NPR
Brown says the caseloads assigned to each detective at the time were overwhelming. He remembers working as one of 10 or 11 detectives, each with between 20 and 40 cases. NYPD records show that, in 1997, the squad was assigned more than 7,000 missing persons cases overall. And resources were tight. According to Mahony and Brown, the squad had no cars that officers could use to conduct investigations.
"I remember looking at this spreadsheet of open missing person cases," Mahony remembers. "It just went on for like a hundred pages because they were never closed."
Mahony says cases of missing adults, like LaMont, would have been low on the squad's list of priorities at the time.
While she was waiting for answers from the police department, Fowler upended her life to look for her son herself. "I was known as a one-woman search party," she says.
She started writing press releases and holding press conferences to draw attention to her son's case. The story was covered by several local outlets, including the New York Daily News.
"Arnita Fowler hasn't had time to prepare for Thanksgiving," begins one Daily News article from Nov. 1995. "She's been too busy checking city hospitals, the morgue and jails in a desperate search for her 21-year-old son."
New York Daily News / Screenshot by NPR
toggle caption
An article clipping from New York Daily News from Nov. 21, 1995.
New York Daily News / Screenshot by NPR
An article clipping from New York Daily News from Nov. 21, 1995.
New York Daily News / Screenshot by NPR
LaMont's father, Norman Dottin, who lived on Long Island at the time, remembers distributing flyers and going door-to-door with other family members and friends. "We had no idea where to look," he says.
In an effort to find clues to LaMont's disappearance, Fowler spoke with her son's friends, as well as students and teachers at Queens College. She hired a private detective. "I would look in every homeless person's face as I walked the streets," she remembers.
"I go, was I crazy?" she says, as she thinks back on it now. "But I know that I could not live the rest of my life not knowing if he was out there."
LaMont was Fowler's only child, and she was just 17 when he was born. "We were always together," she says. "And I know he was saying, 'My mom's going to find me.'"
In 1998, Mahony was promoted to commanding officer of the NYPD Missing Persons Squad. He set about implementing a series of reforms, including creating a specialized team to revisit "the hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of active cases that had accumulated over the years," Mahony says.
Brown was assigned to this unit, which came to be known as the Long Term Case Team. Some of the cases they were assigned had been open since the 1950s. They were given cars and other resources to go out and investigate. No matter how much time had passed, Brown remembers, "When you really go back and still speak to parents, that same pain of their child being missing was still there."
LaMont's case was assigned to the Long Term Case Team in March of 1999.
A few months later, Fowler made one of her routine calls to the Missing Persons Squad, and got a different response than usual. "The same man who had been telling me no — it was the same guy!" she remembers. "He said, 'Sure, we'll meet you.'"
When detectives visited Fowler the next day, they told her that LaMont's body had been found in the East River in Oct. 1995, a week after he went missing. His body would have been sent to the morgue, where fingerprints would have been taken and submitted for cross-checks with local and national databases.
But LaMont's body wasn't identified. He became a John Doe, and, like other unidentified New Yorkers, he was buried on Hart Island in a mass grave in early 1996.
Alissa Escarce/Radio Diaries
toggle caption
Fowler with a photograph of her son, in October 2023.
Alissa Escarce/Radio Diaries
When detectives revisited the case in 1999, however, they made a surprising discovery. Just a few weeks after his death, the FBI had actually matched fingerprints taken from a body found floating in the East River with LaMont's fingerprints in a national database. According to Fowler, his fingerprints were in the database because of an arrest for a stolen car when he was in high school in California.
News reports from the time say it was unclear exactly how the breakdown in communication between the NYPD and FBI occurred. Records from the NYPD show that LaMont's body was identified through fingerprints on Sept. 7, 1999. Finally, detectives marked the case closed.
"I couldn't imagine that this was the outcome after four years," Fowler says.
The detectives also shared the news with LaMont's father, who was a city police officer himself. "I probably was pissed off at the time, because you would expect them to be a little more diligent because I was a police officer," Dottin says. "But over the years I've come to accept the fact that — man, they didn't put him where he was at."
LaMont's family never learned exactly how he died. Though Fowler received an autopsy report, she chose not to read it. Instead, she shared it with a relative who told her there was no blunt force trauma, and nothing indicating foul play. She does not believe her son took his own life.
Immediately upon learning LaMont was buried on Hart Island, Fowler decided to have his body exhumed and organized a funeral at Blanche Memorial Baptist Church in Queens. The funeral was covered by the New York Daily News, which featured a photograph of a new, white casket being drawn in a carriage by two white horses.
Alissa Escarce/Radio Diaries
toggle caption
Fowler has kept this article from New York Daily News from Sept. 21, 1999.
Alissa Escarce/Radio Diaries
"It is what I believe that he deserved, nothing but the best," Fowler says. "I needed memories to be something that you could reflect on who he was — the prince that he was to me." LaMont is now buried in Calverton National Cemetery on Long Island.
After her son was found, Fowler became an advocate for missing persons and their families and began pushing for reforms to New York's missing persons laws. In 2016, New York State passed LaMont Dottin's Law, which requires police to expedite searches for missing adults by reporting them to the National Crime Information Center database. Previously, such reports were required only for missing children, and adults who were considered vulnerable.
More recently, Fowler has advocated for similar requirements at the national level.
New York City has also seen improvements in the identification of John Does in recent years, including through the use of DNA technology, which has helped identify a number of previously unnamed bodies buried on Hart Island.
In spite of the decades that have passed since LaMont's disappearance, Fowler says she still misses him every day. "I can, as a mother, still smell what he smelled like, still hear what he laughed like," she says.
"People just don't disappear."
New York City's Parks Department, which has managed Hart Island since 2021, has announced that it will begin offering public tours of the cemetery for the first time this week. For more information visit https://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/hart-island.
This story was produced by Alissa Escarce of Radio Diaries. It was edited by Deborah George, Joe Richman, and Ben Shapiro. Thanks also to Nellie Gilles, Mycah Hazel and Lena Engelstein of Radio Diaries.
This story is the sixth in a series called The Unmarked Graveyard: Stories from Hart Island. You can find other stories from Hart Island on the Radio Diaries podcast. | US Police Misconduct |
Former Trump White House official Alyssa Farrah Griffin said Sunday that the former president appeared to have lost a step during a campaign stop in Iowa on Saturday. Trump during a rally speech in Cedar Rapids claimed that President Joe Biden "is the destroyer of American democracy" and vowed to "do something" about Obamacare even as he claimed that he "saved" Obamacare.
"It's kind of remarkable, I've been watching the clips from Trump's visit to Iowa and I'm stunned having spent a lot of time with him in 2020 and years before—he is slowing down," Farah Griffin, the former White House director for strategic communications, told CNN. "There's a lack of sharpness in what he's saying and a lack of kind of clarity," she added. "There's another clip where he basically says he's going to overturn Obamacare, but also says that he'll fix it, just complete inconsistencies and for Republicans our strongest case against Joe Biden is the age and the decline that some of us have seen. And if I'm being honest, head-to-head, I'm not sure which is struggling more." | US Federal Elections |
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new book is as much a memoir as it is a map of his political ideology. An anecdote about playing Little League baseball is tied to his support of Taiwan. He spends more ink detailing his public battle with Walt Disney World than his wedding at the Magic Kingdom.
DeSantis, regarded as a potential Republican challenger to former President Donald Trump, promoted his book as a “blueprint for America’s revival.” Over 256 pages, “The Courage to Be Free” positions DeSantis as a battle-tested leader who defeated the “woke elites” on political issues around COVID-19, election management and U.S. history.
His book often glosses over the snags he faced along the way. It also shies away from outright attacking Trump, though DeSantis refers to some disagreements with Trump’s initial approach to COVID-19 and downplays the significance of Trump’s primary endorsement in the 2018 governor’s race.
We fact-checked seven statements in his book that are wrong, misleading or lacked context.
“Some were thankful for keeping Florida open during the coronavirus pandemic. Others were thankful for keeping their kids in school.”
In the book’s early pages, DeSantis revels in his record of snubbing public health recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19. But he largely omits the closures of schools and businesses that happened under his watch.
In April 2020, there were seven states that had not issued stay-at-home orders to their residents; Florida wasn’t among them. On April 1, 2020, DeSantis issued an executive order directing all Florida residents to “limit their movements and personal interactions outside of their home.” The order expired April 30, 2020, and Florida began a phased reopening in May.
Though he carved out an exception for religious services and some recreational activities, DeSantis didn’t exempt in-person classroom instruction. DeSantis’ Department of Education issued a March 13 recommendation that Florida schools close their facilities for an extended spring break before lengthening the closure through the end of the school year in early June.
“Although COVID-19 has been a huge disruption for Florida students and educators, Florida teachers have done a fantastic job leading the nation in distance learning,” DeSantis said April 18, 2020. “Our number one goal is to ensure the safety and security of students and to provide a great education.”
Schools reopened in person in August 2020. DeSantis’ office cited that move as evidence of his claim.
“Some even questioned my decision to keep our beaches open, as if there was a real risk of catching COVID-19 on a hot, sunny beach.”
This is misleading. DeSantis directed Floridians on March 17, 2020, to “support beach closures at the discretion of local authorities.” He also signed an executive order on March 20, 2020, requiring that all beaches in Broward and Palm Beach counties close down.
The governor cited recommendations from local officials and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention when announcing the measure, adding that “Southeast Florida is the epicenter of what we’re fighting in Florida.”
The Gang of Eight immigration bill “represented the largest amnesty in American history.”
Defining “amnesty” is tricky. Some view it as blanket permission for undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States. Others view amnesty as any measure that is favorable to any undocumented immigrant, even if it includes a list of tough measures they have to meet.
The 2013 “Gang of Eight” immigration bill fell into the latter category. The bill proposed by eight senators — four Republicans, four Democrats — included a path to legal status and eventually citizenship and more money for border security. The bill passed the Senate but stalled in the House because Republicans wanted Congress to focus first on border security.
The bill mandated fines, background checks and waiting periods, and it was tougher than its 1986 predecessor signed by President Ronald Reagan. The bill did not offer blanket legal residency to unauthorized immigrants, but it also offered a measure of clemency to those immigrants who would not be required to return to their home countries.
His actions on election integrity included “eliminating drop boxes.”
DeSantis did not eliminate the use of drop boxes in elections.
In 2022, the Republican-led Florida Legislature passed a law that renamed drop boxes “secure ballot intake stations.” They look just like the previous version of drop boxes. Florida law generally requires that any such stations be placed at election offices or early voting sites, and must be monitored by staff members who empty them daily.
Drop boxes were used for decades nationwide without controversy until President Donald Trump in 2020 led the way in casting doubt about their security.
DeSantis’ spokesperson Bryan Griffin told PolitiFact that “intake stations are monitored 24/7. Drop boxes are not.” But Florida’s 2021 law already had rules requiring election workers to monitor boxes in person back when the state used the “box” word. And before Florida passed these more recent laws regarding security measures for the boxes, many counties already used security procedures.
His administration prohibited “Zuckerbucks (i.e. private money funneled to election offices, typically for partisan purposes.)” Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg “used his $400 million to manage the election itself.”
This is misleading. In 2020, election offices faced an expensive and unprecedented challenge of holding elections during a pandemic. Federal money did not cover all the extra expenses including for the increase in voting by mail.
Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, gave about $400 million in an effort to close the gap. Zuckerberg and Chan did not manage the election; they awarded the money to nonprofits, which then awarded grants to election offices.
One pot of money went to states led by Republican and Democratic election officials. Another pot of money went to 2,500 local elections offices. In Brevard County, Florida, where voters overwhelmingly voted for Trump in 2020, election officials spent about $840,000 on machines and technology used at the polls and for mail ballots.
After the 2020 election, Florida joined about half of U.S. states in banning private money for elections.
“Far from being a pro-slavery event, the American Revolution put slavery on the defensive. Until 1776, slavery had been a constant throughout human history, dating back to antiquity.”
DeSantis’ book blamed the protests that erupted after the 2020 killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer for critical race theory, a broad set of ideas about systemic bias and privilege, gaining steam in education and across the U.S.
Turning his aim to The New York Times’ 1619 Project, DeSantis disagreed with the premise that slavery had “a central role” in the American Revolution. He’s made this claim before; previous iterations even suggested that “no one had questioned” slavery before Americans. Experts have said DeSantis’ comment that the American Revolution jump-started abolition is incorrect.
The United States was founded in 1776 and did not abolish slavery until 1865. Meanwhile, France, for instance, began the movement to end slavery on its mainland in 1315, though the country was later active in the slave trade and continued the practice in its colonies. France abolished slavery in its colonies in 1794 and gave enslaved people citizenship in 1848.
British abolitionism also predates the revolution, Phillip Deloria, a Harvard professor and historian, told PolitiFact.
Decades before the American Revolution, Samuel Sewell, an English colonist who resided in Massachusetts, criticized the enslavement of African people and in 1700 published an essay titled “The Selling of Joseph,” that argued the practice was an “atrocious” crime.
Says his debate performance turned the 2018 Republican gubernatorial primary toward his favor.
When DeSantis faced a contentious Republican primary challenge from then-Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam, Trump said he tipped the scales in DeSantis’ favor. DeSantis disagreed.
He credits a December 2017 tweet from Trump as boosting his name recognition across Florida, but qualified the former president’s influence by writing that the state’s voters are not “sheep who simply follow an endorsement from a politician they like without any individual analysis.”
DeSantis added that the momentum Trump’s tweet gave his campaign was short-lived. “In the middle of June, a little more than two months before the primary, an NBC News poll had me losing to Putnam by 17 percent,” he wrote. Luckily, DeSantis said, everything changed after a June 28, 2018, debate with Putnam, and “the race was over.”
DeSantis neglected to mention that Trump tweeted out a second “full endorsement” ahead of that debate on June 22, 2018, calling DeSantis, “strong on Borders, tough on Crime & big on Cutting Taxes – Loves our Military & our Vets.
“He will be a Great Governor & has my full Endorsement!” Trump wrote. | US Federal Elections |
Republicans Get Ready to Rumble
After House Democrats narrowly averted a shutdown, GOP congresspeople are in brawling mode.
First time farce, second time… farce. That appears to be the principal takeaway from the great GOP House leadership rebellion of 2023.
Back in early October, patient followers of MAGAfied Kremlinology in the Republican House conference will recall, Speaker Kevin McCarthy was sent packing in a historic motion-to-vacate vote for the grave offense of brokering a deal with House Democrats on a clean continuing resolution to keep the government functioning and funded. Now, after weeks of fruitless jockeying within the conference to replace McCarthy, his eventual successor, Louisiana Representative Mike Johnson, has reached a near-identical compact with House Democrats on a “laddered” continuing resolution that institutes two separate deadlines—one in mid-January, one in early February—for government operations to start running out of money. The stopgap bill, like the predecessor McCarthy deal, was basically a Democratic rescue action; 209 Democratic members voted to approve it, with just two voting no; the corresponding totals in the GOP majority were 127 and 93. Indeed, Johnson’s bill received three more Republican no votes than McCarthy’s did.
The House action, which Johnson obtained via a rule suspension to move directly to a floor vote, again drew the ire of the hard right House Freedom Caucus, which played a central role in both McCarthy’s marathon 14-ballot election to the speakership and his defenestration from the same post nine months later. But this latest spasm of outrage was tempered with the recognition that Johnson, a dogmatic evangelical culture warrior and proven election denier, is a comrade-in-arms—an affinity that caucus members never felt with the chameleonic and opportunistic McCarthy. Unlike the past several GOP speakers, Johnson has included Freedom Caucus members in his weekly strategy meetings, and at least some of them are falling in line behind him. Andrew Ogles, a caucus member from Tennessee, told The Washington Post that the stopgap resolution is palatable this time out because it will serve as the overture to the spending fights of 2024. “We have to kind of gear up and gird up for January,” he said. “Because that’s where the real fight begins.”
Johnson himself struck the same note of anticipatory belligerence at a press conference announcing the staggered continuing resolution bills, as reporters pressed him to explain why and how his spending deal was different from McCarthy’s. “We’re not surrendering, we’re fighting,” the speaker insisted. “But you have to be wise about choosing your fights.”
That claim will be decided during the post-holiday phase of intra-conference infighting—but in an inopportune development for Johnson’s messaging, Congress spent much of the day leading up to the vote in fracases that showcased neither wisdom nor judgment. To start things off, Representative Tim Burchett, a Tennessee colleague of Ogles’s who voted for McCarthy’s ouster last month, was elbowed in the kidneys by the former speaker in a Capitol corridor encounter. Burchett gave chase to McCarthy and his security detail, demanding to know what was up; when the former speaker denied delivering the body blow, Burchett hissed to NPR reporter Claudia Grisales, “he’s just a jerk.” Burchett dilated further on that theme in a later interview with CNN reporter Manu Raju: “He’s a bully with $17 million and a security detail. He’s the type of guy that, when you’re a kid, would throw a rock over the fence and then run home and hide behind his mama’s skirt.”
The same rarefied aura of reasoned disputation attached to House business at virtually every corner on Tuesday. Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene elected to reply to her California colleague Darrell Issa, who had not supported her half-baked motion to impeach Department of Homeland Security head Alejandro Mayorkas, with a Twitter meme branding him “a pussy”—something less than a closely calibrated refutation of Issa’s claim that Greene lacked “the maturity and experience” to make such a motion stick.
Current Issue
Meanwhile, the nominal overseer of Issa and Greene on the House Oversight Committee, James Comer of Kentucky, was in prime middle-school form himself. Democratic committee member Jared Moskowitz had indelicately pointed out that the great presidential trespass Comer was in the process of investigating—Joe Biden’s extension of a $200,000 loan to his brother—was a bit of business that Comer himself had conducted with one of his own hard-pressed siblings. “This is bullshit!” Comer proclaimed, and for good measure hit back at Moskowitz with the taunt, “you look like a smurf here.”
If weary citizens of the republic thought the Senate, which likes to advertise itself as the world’s greatest deliberative body, might showcase a more measured approach to civic inquiry, I regret to report that Lord Gargamel had other things in mind. GOP Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who sits on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, thought it mete to confront Teamsters President Sean O’Brien, who was testifying before the panel, with derisive social-media comments the union president lobbed at the lawmaker back in June, including the characterizations “clown” and “fraud.” Mullin then invited O’Brien to a fist fight: “You want to run your mouth? We can be two consenting adults, we can finish it here.” The Teamsters official replied, “Fine, that’s perfect,” which got Mullin to issue this Daniel Webster–esque rejoinder: “Stand your butt up, then.” He was in the process of standing his own butt up when Committee Chair Bernie Sanders brought the whole biker-bar set piece to a close by reminding Mullin “You’re a United States senator.”
Indeed, and alas. These are the congressional legatees of the Party of Lincoln, who early next year will take up Mike Johnson’s mandate to meet the House’s primary obligation as the holder of the nation’s purse strings, and set about fighting in a more productive and targeted fashion. No wonder the new House speaker is such an ardent man of prayer. | US Congress |
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.
I feel Prettyman, oh so Prettyman
I’m enjoying some time with family, so it’s a bit of an abbreviated newsletter this week. There’s news from Michigan and Wisconsin down below. And… a BIT of indictment news from Washington. Seriously, a former president hearing charges read for using multiple conspiracies to attempt to overturn the 2020 election could be the first chapter of the most important trial in modern history. After long days of tracking events, I had a chat with VICE News’ Greg Walters, who was at yesterday’s arraignment of Donald Trump at the E. Barrett Prettyman federal courthouse in DC. We talked about where we go from here with all the charges and expected charges.
(BTW, Greg and I joined VICE’s Twitch stream yesterday to talk about the latest charges. Check it out!)
Hey man, it’s been a busy day. Is this a good time?
Sure, as long as you don’t mind that I’m chopping eggplant while we talk. I’ve barely eaten all day.
Absolutely, chop! So, I saw you writing on Twitter that Donald Trump was rather slouchy in this latest appearance.
Yeah, he seems to be getting increasingly slouchy. This is just not Trump’s happy place. He has a different persona during his arraignments than he does in the rest of his Trumpy life. We’ve been watching this guy since 2015 and his public persona is extremely well known. But he’s not like that in these arraignments. He’s slouchy, he’s folding his hands intensely in a sort of white knuckle death grip. He’s looking around the room, he’s monosyllabic, he doesn’t know whether to stand up or sit down when he speaks.
He’s not in his golden place.
That’s a good way to put it. He’s just not in his calm mind, if he has one.
I saw that a bunch of DC District judges watched from the back row of the courtroom.
Yeah we spotted Chief Judge Boasberg in the back.
And Judge Amy Berman Jackson was there, and Judge Randy Moss too. Also several police officers who defended the Capitol on Jan. 6 came out. It was clearly a big day at the office!
Jack Smith was there, of course. Also, this is interesting: Evan Corcoran, the lawyer who is a prominent witness and was forced to answer questions in the grand jury investigation of the Mar-a-Lago, appeared with Trump’s entourage. All this after Trump tried to bamboozle him about giving back classified documents! It’s hard to say what’s going through Corcoran’s mind, but he seems to still be showing up to the indictments as a member of Team Trump in some kind of good standing.
Everyone’s been looking at the six co-conspirators, but the one name that’s just glaringly absent from the indictment, and could be conspicuously absent in Fulton County in a couple weeks, is Mark Meadows. He’s the guy you’re very loudly not hearing about.
That’s right. That is fueling a lot of speculation that Mark Meadows may have flipped, which is a big deal, because it’s gonna be a big deal in Georgia. It’s unlikely that he would have flipped in one of these cases and not the other.
He was a central player in Trump's attempts to reverse his electoral defeat in November, December, January 2020-21. And yet he was nowhere in the indictment. It’s not for sure, but we’re expecting in Atlanta for Fani Willis to plausibly cast a wider net and indict some of these same people who feature as unindicted co-conspirators in the Jack Smith case. If that happens, and if Meadows is not charged, that’s something close to confirmation that he is either cooperating or that the prosecutors feel he is a very likely valuable cooperator.
Yeah, if, say Giuliani, Eastman, Chesebro, Trump, and a cast of fake electors in Georgia get charged, and Mark Meadows doesn’t…
It just doesn’t seem like Meadows would be able to keep dancing through the raindrops without getting wet here. It would tell us a lot.
You were pointing me earlier today toward this statement from the Sheriff of Fulton County, who said Trump gets no special treatment whatsoever in Fulton County if he’s arrested and booked there. And the procedures for criminal defendants in Fulton County can be pretty stark.
I saw Sheriff Patrick Labat at an event during the midterms and he struck me as the kind of guy who’s unlikely to be restrained and care very much about the visuals of an arraignment. That matters because he’s the person in charge of the booking and, like, saying that we’re going to see a mug shot this next time.
And criminal defendants in Fulton County are processed at 901 Rice St, which is a notorious jailhouse scene.
Yeah, you gotta wonder if the local authorities are gonna want to bring attention to 901 Rice. It’s a vexed criminal complex, which I’ve been to. It just gets a lot of press for being a very terrible place where lots of people wait for a long time before even being charged with crime, because there’s such a big backup in cases. Trump’s lawyers point out the big backlog in local cases while the DA is going after the former president. So I can see why the authorities might not want to go there.
Speaking of big backlogs, they’re running out of slots to schedule all the criminal and civil trials Trump is facing, if they’re going to happen before the election. Did you see that Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg said on WNYC that he’d be open to delaying the Stormy Daniels payoff trial if someone else, like in DC, Atlanta, or Florida needs to go first?
Yeah, and he did point out that that’s technically up to the judge to schedule cases. But Bragg could play a role in objecting or helping along a request to delay. But he made it clear that he wasn’t going to fight that. And that’s important, in part because one of the really key points about this hearing today, and the trial, is whether it can proceed to a verdict before the election.
This was a big part of the dynamic for the pre-arraignment days for Walt Nauta in the Mar-a-Lago case. And did you see that the Special Counsel has made a motion saying Stanley Woodward has a conflict of interest in representing both Nauta and Trump? They’re requesting a hearing on it, and I’ve been wondering for a long time how a lawyer can rep both Donald Trump and Walt Nauta when those two clients’ best interests clearly have to diverge.
Right. It makes me wonder, first of all, whether Trump and Nauta might have been baiting the DOJ into taking this off ramp to have this argument, which, again, could burn time. But also, it’s a sign that DOJ is still hoping Nauta will flip. Because one of the best reasons to switch lawyers for two different defendants is to try to get one of them to flip on the other.
Hey, Woodward represented Cassidy Hutchinson before she got rid of him and talked to the Jan. 6 committee (and the Special Counsel). And he also represented Yuscil Taveras, Employee #4 in the Mar-a-Lago case, until he switched lawyers and decided to tell the truth about being ordered to erase surveillance servers!
Another plausible way to look at this case, if you are a defendant, is that your best way forward is to stay in Trump’s good graces because the case against you is so strong, you’re toast no matter what. And what you really want is a guy in the White House with the pardon power, and he still likes you, because you stood strong.
If either of these cases does get pushed out past the election, maybe all the sudden it becomes easier to flip some of the co-defendants who have been holding out to see if Trump wins. If he loses, that could be sort of a domino effect. Again, pure speculation on my side, but something to watch.
Alright man, enjoy the eggplant stir fry.
It’s going to be way too garlicky. I have to burn the taste of all this justice out of my mouth.
Oops, I did Mich-i-gan
That’s the latest from the feds, so let’s go to the states!
A special prosecutor in Michigan has charged two more Republicans with election tampering for their part in the caper to heist and break into ballot tabulators and prove voting fraud. Former Michigan GOP Attorney General candidate Matt DePerno and former state Rep. Daire Rendon were both indicted in the scheme, which involved taking machines from three rural Michigan counties and transporting them to hotels or AirBnBs, where others broke into the machines hunting for evidence of fraud.
DePerno was indicted on four counts: Undue possession of a voting machine, conspiracy to commit undue possession of a voting machine, conspiracy to commit unauthorized access to a computer or computer system, and willfully damaging a voting machine. Rendon caught two charges: Conspiracy to commit undue possession of a voting machine, and false pretense.
Both men were charged by Michigan special prosecutor DJ Hilson, who was appointed after AG Dana Nessel filed a complaint about the scheme last year. (Nessel had a conflict of interest involving DePerno, who had run against her for attorney general in 2022. BTW here’s DePerno telling PBS NewsHour that he has tons of evidence of fraud, before angrily walking away.)
Let’s take a quick step back. The federal case against Donald Trump and his six co-conspirators doesn’t indict any of the alleged plot’s dozens of fake electors from swing states, though they (along with others from New Mexico) play a key part in the narrative. Instead, the feds are keeping their case narrow and leaving the MAGA’s anti-democracy supporting cast to the states.
Nessel charged 16 fake electors in Michigan. There’s a good chance some of Georgia’s fake electors could be included in whatever charges the Fulton County grand jury issues this month (some have agreed to cooperate with DA Fani Willis and appear to have immunity deals).
But remember, Trump’s infection of the democratic process didn’t end when his plot failed after Jan. 6. All over America, conspiracy theories popped up like mushrooms as MAGA zealots rushed to find evidence of non-existent widespread fraud. DePerno and Rendon (and others likely soon to be charged) took and tampered with machines in Michigan. In Georgia, Sidney Powell, aka Trump “Co-conspirator #3,” dispatched a team of computer experts who broke into computer systems in Coffee County, Georgia, with the aid of a local GOP official and fake elector.
And, as all Breaking the Vote readers know, in Mesa County, Colorado, then-Clerk Tina Peters allegedly hired an IT expert just so she could steal his security credentials, give them to an election conspiracist, and allow that man to access voting machines and publish their data online. Peters is facing seven felony counts in October.
“It’s tough to own any of this when it’s all just conspiracy shit beamed down from the mothership.”
— An email from an unnamed “Senior Campaign Advisor,” in the most recent indictment of Donald Trump, expressing frustration that Trump and Rudy Giuliani’s fraud claims in Georgia couldn’t be substantiated.
The spoils of warranto — Everyone knew the lawsuits would flood in as soon as liberals flipped Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. Just a day after the court was sworn in with newly-minted Justice Janet Protasiewicz taking her seat, Democrats filed suit challenging the state GOP’s long-entrenched gerrymander, which keeps the evenly-divided state tilted rightward.
A group of 19 voters and a legal advocacy organization challenged the GOP’s use of legislative maps that they say violate separation of powers rules and voting laws. They’re asking the court to issue a writ of quo warranto, which would effectively force state lawmakers to run in more fairly redrawn districts in 2024.
This case is being fast-tracked right to the state Supreme Court. Wisconsin is considered one of the most anti-democratically gerrymandered states in the country (North Carolina is up there too). Republicans and Democrats essentially evenly divide the Wisconsin electorate, yet the GOP holds 64 of 99 seats in the state Assembly, and 21 of 33 seats in the Senate.
None, if by hand — One GOP-dominated Arizona county is abandoning its plans to hand-count all its 2024 election ballots after a test run resulted in rampant errors and eye-popping costs.
Officials in Mohave County voted 3-2 to end the plans after a trial hand count of 850 test ballots resulted in 46 errors. The ballots took three minutes each to count, and in the end, officials told the county board they’d have to hire 245 workers to work seven days a week just to tabulate all the ballots inside the county’s 19-day time limit. And at a total cost of $1,108,000, more than the entire election allowance for the year, it’s all a budget-busting cluster!
Election experts and officials have been warning about this kind of thing for years. Arizona Sec. of State (and Breaking the Vote guest) Adrian Fontes advised GOP county officials that attempting to go full-hand-count would violate state law. A couple forged ahead to try it anyway. And don’t forget about Shasta County, Calif., where local GOP officials, swimming in Dominion propaganda, spent over $1 million in taxpayer money to replace machines just before Fox settled Dominion’s defamation suit.
Also ran swag — Thanks to his testimony to the Jan. 6 grand jury, Mike Pence has some gear that’s guaranteed to rocket his presidential campaign!
FROM EMPTYWHEEL
FROM SLATE
FROM THE WASHINGTON POST | US Federal Elections |
Washington — Many Republican lawmakers have posed raising the threshold to trigger a no-confidence vote in the next House speaker — or ditching the rule altogether — afterfrom the role Tuesday.
What is a motion to vacate?
The California Republican paved the way for his own dismissal in January as he sought enough support to become the lower chamber's leader,with far-right Republicans that a single member could bring a motion to vacate the chair — a vote of no confidence in the speaker. McCarthy's ouster was the first time in U.S. history a House speaker has been removed by such a motion.
Can the House function without an elected speaker?
Without an elected speaker, legislative business in the House is now at a standstill as the federal government inches toward a mid-November deadline to avoid a government shutdown.
Why do Republicans want to change the rule?
A potential vote on the next speaker could come as soon as next week, but the divide over whether to change the rule could complicate the path to winning the gavel.
Republican Rep. Carlos Giménez of Florida said he would not support any candidate until there is a commitment to reform the rule.
"No one can govern effectively while being threatened by fringe hostage takers," he wrote on social media.
Republican Rep. Marc Molinaro of New York called the motion to vacate a "bad precedent" and said the threshold should be "very high."
"It is an absolute mistake to allow such a small number of folks to be able to initiate such a disruptive process, and hopefully we revisit it," Molinaro told reporters Wednesday.
The threshold for bringing a motion to vacate was a single member until 2019, when Democrats won the majority. Then, a majority of either party had to agree to it.
As he sought to win over far-right holdouts in January, McCarthy proposed a threshold of five members, but that didn't satisfy some of the most conservative members of his party. McCarthy ultimately agreed to give a single member the power to force a no-confidence vote.
On Tuesday, eight Republican detractors led by Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida and all Democrats voted to oust McCarthy.
Rep. Garret Graves, a McCarthy ally, said Gaetz's move has "created so much chaos." The Louisiana Republican indicated that he wanted to see a rule change before the election of a new speaker.
"I think one of the first things we need to do before electing a new speaker is help to solidify the position," he told CBS News on Wednesday. "This is third in line of the president of the United States. It's unreasonable to have this type of chaos or vulnerability."
The Main Street Caucus, a "pragmatic" group of a dozens of conservatives, said continuance of the one-person threshold "will keep a chokehold on this body through 2024."
"Personal politics should never again be used to trump the will of the 96% of House conservatives," the group said in a statement. "Any candidate for speaker must explain to us how what happened on Tuesday will never happen again."
Announcing that, McCarthy said his advice for the next speaker is to "change the rules."
Does anyone want to keep the rule allowing one lawmaker to bring a motion to vacate?
Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado said she's open to ditching the rule as long her preferred candidate — — wins the speakership.
Gaetz has said she would require the future speaker to keep the one-person threshold.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has also weighed in, calling on House Republicans to get rid of the motion.
"It makes the speaker job impossible," the Kentucky Republican told reporters Wednesday.
Nikole Killion, Alejandro Alvarez and Alan He contributed reporting.
for more features. | US Congress |
ROCHESTER, N.H. — For $1, New Hampshire voters were invited to drink beer with Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Saturday in Concord.
But barely more than two dozen people showed up at the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, which slashed the ticket price for the general public from $50 late in the week in order to build the crowd.
By the time the event started, an hour late, there were just 30 people in the room.
For a campaign that promised allies a new approach while shedding staff amid a cash crunch and declining poll numbers, the meet-and-greet with homebuilders was just one of a string of events in Iowa and New Hampshire in recent days that were distinctive less for any change in DeSantis’ tack than for the appearance of waning interest in his candidacy.
At least at the outset, DeSantis has reset in name only.
“When you’re not gaining traction in the polls, they’ve got to do something,” said Jim Tobin, who attended DeSantis’ economic policy speech in Rochester on Monday, and is leaning toward voting for the governor. “If he was even in the polls, they wouldn’t be doing anything."
In campaign memos and conversations with donors, DeSantis advisers have talked of a path forward by making the governor more approachable through retail politicking — diners and barbecues — and town-hall forums that emphasize his policy ideas (the economy and foreign policy in August) and military service. DeSantis’ economic policy speech to a crowd of about 100 people here Monday, along with appearances at restaurants, a house party and former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown’s barbecue, followed that plan.
His campaign says he's hitting his marks.
"The media will continue their obsession with endless clickbait stories that do nothing to inform voters, and Ron DeSantis will keep sharing his plans to declare American's economic independence and restore sanity in our country as the next president," campaign spokesman Andrew Romeo said.
"While some candidates think they are entitled to the nomination," Romeo added, "the governor will not be outworked and will fight for every vote, one day at a time."
While his four-day swing through the Granite State and a bus tour of Iowa last week bore some of the trappings of a candidate trying to make a sharp turn, DeSantis often reverted to his norm, both in substance and style.
He remains committed to the basic message that, as president, he can export his agenda from Florida to the rest of the country and, despite beefing up his stump speech with broadsides against President Joe Biden and a handful of policy promises, he still emphasizes the culture-war issues that dominated the early days of his campaign.
At a coffee shop in Oskaloosa, Iowa, on Friday, he began his remarks with some sharp zingers against Biden and a tight section on economic conditions. But he then spoke at length about destroying “woke” culture and defended the Florida Board of Education’s decision to approve a Black history curriculum that said middle school students should learn about the “personal benefit” slaves received from learning trades.
And there were signs that the campaign’s focus on retail politics — on showing that DeSantis can connect with people outside his bubble — eluded the candidate at times.
A 15-year-old at the Oskaloosa coffee shop asked about military service restrictions on people with mental health disorders — a topic right in line with the DeSantis campaign’s desire to highlight his military expertise.
“I can’t legally vote,” the teen said, “but I struggle with major depressive disorder.”
DeSantis interrupted the teen with a rejoinder: “It’s never stopped the other party from not letting you vote.”
After letting the youngster finish, DeSantis swung back around to acknowledge that he wasn’t sure what restrictions might be in place and stressing that such rules are made with “whatever is best for the unit” in mind.
It wasn’t the only moment on the two-state trip in which the governor’s attempts to project intimacy by making small talk seemed to backfire.
“Oh, what is that? An Icee?” a puzzled-looking DeSantis asked one kid during his Thursday visit to the Wayne County Fair in Corydon. “That’s probably a lot of sugar, huh?”
Later that evening, in Osceola, an 82-year-old farmer told DeSantis that he tends fewer acres since his wife died of cancer five years ago, and asked about the candidate’s thoughts on ethanol, a corn-based renewable fuel used in cars.
DeSantis passed up an opportunity to offer sympathy, launching into a stump-speech promise to “turn back this rush to electric vehicles.”
Agreeing with DeSantis’ view on electric vehicles, the farmer said he couldn’t afford to transition his tractors and other equipment. In that case, it seemed, the voter found a way to connect with DeSantis rather than the other way around.
DeSantis defended his personal touch in an interview with NBC News last week, arguing that critics are off-base when they say he has difficulty connecting.
“That hasn’t been the truth,” he said during the Iowa tour. “The truth here on this trip, we’ve gone to all these counties, people coming up to me saying, 'I’m so glad that you showed up. You know, you’re the first guy to actually show up here where people are signing up committing to caucus for us and really significant numbers in terms of the percentages of people that are showing up.'”
DeSantis said that’s a sign that his campaign is moving in the right direction.
“So we’re making big, big progress,” he said, pointing to his visits to smaller counties. “I’m going to say I have been in your community. We’ve listened to your concerns, and we’re going to deliver results for you.”
DeSantis’ cash-strapped campaign has turned to his super PAC, Never Back Down, to defray costs by sponsoring events that DeSantis attends. Ostensibly, part of his new strategy is to get closer contact with voters at slimmed-down meetings. That has the obvious benefit of portraying sparse attendance as a virtue.
There were some bright spots on DeSantis’ most recent campaign swing, which was due to wrap up Tuesday with a town hall-style event televised by WMUR in New Hampshire.
After his Lincoln Dinner speech to the Iowa GOP Friday night, DeSantis hung out with supporters at an after-party sponsored by his super PAC, beer in hand. The speech itself, part of a cattle call of candidates delivering remarks to a crowd of more than 1,000 Iowa Republicans, drew applause and praise from attendees.
“DeSantis was in danger of being written off by many Iowa Republican Party leaders and activists,” said Will Rogers, a former chairman of the Polk County, Iowa, GOP who has not endorsed a candidate. “His performance at Friday night’s dinner clearly shows that he has a lot of life left in his campaign, and this might have been the start of his comeback.”
On Sunday, at Brown’s barbecue, DeSantis spoke to an energized crowd of well more than 100 people — more than at the homebuilders event but still short of the audiences that flocked to see him in Iowa during his pre-campaign book tour.
Despite out-raising the field, earning enough media coverage to make himself a household name in political circles and securing second place in polling, DeSantis’ campaign looks more like the operation of a second-tier candidate now than the juggernaut it was expected to be.
This month, DeSantis fired more than 40 percent of his campaign staff after a filing with the Federal Election Commission showed that he had tapped out top donors and burned through cash. Out of $20.1 million raised in his first six weeks as a candidate, he had spent $7.8 million. Under federal election law, roughly $3 million of the remainder can’t be used in the primary because it is reserved for the general election.
At the same time, DeSantis’ poll numbers have sagged. A New York Times/Siena College survey released Monday showed former President Donald Trump at 54 percent and DeSantis at 17 percent. The remaining candidates in the crowded field were all below 4 percent.
DeSantis donors and allies have long been concerned about his campaign. Some expressed optimism about his chances of resetting his trajectory after the staff layoffs. But other Republicans say the campaign is still falling well short of expectations.
“I think he’s got a very good team in Iowa and I think he’s heavily focused,” said a GOP lawmaker who has not endorsed in the race yet. “But am I disappointed overall? Yeah. I think people thought the rollout was going to be better. I think they thought there would be a more robust campaign, that they’d be making more progress. And so, yeah, I think it’s been disappointing over the last six weeks.”
The attendance at Saturday's “Beers With Builders” event was measurably smaller than the crowds DeSantis drew at several stops on his first trip to the state as a candidate this year.
Originally, organizers had made the event free to members of the homebuilders’ association and charged $50 per ticket for nonmembers. But in an effort to pack the room, the association dropped the price to $1 for nonmembers — a nominal fee designed to prevent tickets from being reserved by malicious actors.
“I charged a token $1 because the ‘bots’ fill up events with bad emails,” association executive director Matt Mayberry said in a text exchange with NBC News.
But a cheap ticket and free beer could only do so much.
Allan Smith and Emma Barnett reported from New Hampshire, Henry J. Gomez from Iowa, and Jonathan Allen from Washington, D.C. | US Federal Elections |
Illinois governor blasts Trump over ‘vermin’ rhetoric
“I don’t know where it’s going with Donald Trump,” he said.
Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker on Sunday expressed deep concern about rhetoric from former President Donald Trump that he said echoed language from Nazi Germany.
Speaking on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki,” the Illinois Democrat said, “I don’t know where it’s going with Donald Trump. What I can tell you is that the things that he talks about are frightening to those of us who know the history of Europe in the 1930s and 40s.”
“And,” Pritzker added, “I’m deeply concerned about his predilection for revenge and what that will mean for you know, groups of people that didn’t support him in the 2024 election if, in fact, he gets elected.”
Pritzker was referring to a Trump speech a week ago in Claremont, N.H., where he said: “We pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections.”
The former president has used similar language on other occasions. The “vermin” rhetoric in particular has come under criticism from those like Pritzker who say that the language dehumanizes opponents in the way that Adolf Hitler and others did in gaining power in 1930s Germany.
Saying “I’m deeply concerned about the rise of hate in the United States and especially, of course, here in Illinois,” Pritzker also expressed general fears about hate speech and hateful behavior in the United States amid the Israel-Hamas war, referring to the recent slaying of a 6-year-old Muslim boy in his state.
“Wadea Al-Fayoume, the 6-year-old Palestinian American boy, is a completely innocent young child who doesn’t know anything about conflicts happening thousands of miles away, who’s just living his life, and he’s attacked by an extremist here in the United States. It’s just something that none of us should even fathom,” Pritzker said of the fatal stabbing of the youngster in his home on Oct. 14 in Plainfield Township, Ill.
“And yet, it happened and it happened in the wake of this war that’s happening overseas, and this young boy, killed, murdered, because someone had been radicalized by right wing radio and right wing television; that’s something we all need to pay attention to,” Pritzker said. | US Political Corruption |
American cardholders paid a record $130 billion in interest and fees in 2022, according to a new government report.
The study released Tuesday by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was part of the government watchdog’s biennial report to Congress. The breakdown: Credit card companies charged consumers more than $105 billion in interest and some $25 billion in fees last year. Overall, it was the "highest amount" recorded in the CFPB’s data history.
The CFPB report comes at a time when outstanding credit card debt has surpassed a record $1 trillion — and pressure from the Federal Reserve’s fight on inflation has continued to push interest rates higher.
For many Americans, the combination of rising debt and interest rates has been hard to manage.
"Credit card debt is more expensive than years past," Rohit Chopra, CFPB director, said in a statement. "It’s clear that Americans need more ways to switch cards to ones with lower rates."
The bottom line
As interest rates and fees increased in 2022, more Americans had a harder time paying down their credit card debts.
According to the report, the average cardholder carried $5,288 in total credit card debt at the end of 2022, up 24% from 2021 lows and marking a return to late 2019 levels. Cardholders with prime credit scores between 660 and 719 shouldered the highest debt, with average balances reaching $9,135 at the end of 2022.
Among major credit card issuers, 82% of total debt was revolving — meaning that consumers were carrying a balance into the next month in 2022. Only 18% of consumers surveyed said they were able to pay off their full balances by their due date, the CFPB noted.
In 2020, by contrast, only 51.3% of consumers carried a balance into the next month, and 48% of respondents said were able to pay balances in full by the due date.
"Pandemic relief programs in 2020 and 2021 enabled some card holders to pay down credit card balances, but the number of people facing persistent debt could climb if interest rates remain elevated," the CFPB said in a statement.
And interest rates rose quite a bit during 2022, due to the Fed’s moves to curb inflation.
The average APR on private cards — used for select vendors, similar to retail cards — was 27.7% by the end of 2022, an increase of more than 2 percentage points from the year prior, according to the CFPB. Meanwhile, interest rates on general-purpose cards — used across wide networks such as Visa and Mastercard — jumped from 18.8% in mid-2020 to 22.7% in 2022.
Between March and December 2022, the prime rate most commercial banks use to set cardholders' APRs had risen by 4 percentage points.
"All in all, the data show more cardholders are being charged late fees, falling behind on payments, and facing higher costs on growing debt," CFPB researchers noted.
More borrowers face 'persistent debt'
A greater share of Americans slipped into more than 180 days' delinquency as they faced higher fees and interest, the CFPB found, and those with the lowest credit scores at times weren’t able to pay anything at all.
Nearly 10% of credit card users found themselves in "persistent debt," the CFPB said in the release, meaning they were charged more in interest and fees each year than what they paid toward their principal.
One of the hurdles consumers faced were higher minimum payments.
The minimum payment for revolving accounts increased to $102 for general purposes cards, up from $95 the year prior. Meanwhile, folks with private-label cards faced a minimum payment of $69, up from $66 in 2021.
Those most vulnerable to falling behind on payments and facing higher minimum payments were borrowers with deep subprime credit scores (below 580), or those with prime scores (between 660 and 719), the CFPB found.
For instance, for private-label cards, the average minimum payment due for consumers with a credit score under 580 was $43 higher than those who had a credit score of 660. Folks in the deep prime scoring category also paid $54 more than consumers with credit scores above 720.
CFPB researchers noted it was "a pattern that could become increasingly difficult for some consumers to escape."
Reducing junk fees
To reduce consumers' financial burden, the CFPB has also been taking aim to reduce junk fees and promote a fairer marketplace.
Earlier this year, the government watchdog proposed a rule to reign in excessive credit card late fees, which they say companies “exploited” as they hiked fees with inflation. The measure is part of the CFPB’s campaign to eliminate or reduce junk fees.
Companies currently charge up to $41 for each missed payment. Under the proposed rule, late fees would be lowered to $8 and the automatic annual inflation adjustment would be eliminated. The proposed rule would also ban late fees above 25% of the consumer's required payment.
The CFPB also proposed another rule this month to allow consumers to change banks with more ease, in hopes to encourage a competitive marketplace and help folks transfer their transaction data without hurdles.
"Over a decade ago, Congress banned excessive credit card late fees, but companies have exploited a regulatory loophole that has allowed them to escape scrutiny for charging an otherwise illegal junk fee," Chopra said in a statement. "[The] proposed rule seeks to save families billions of dollars and ensure the credit card market is fair and competitive." | US Federal Policies |
Ranking Member Raskin’s Statement on Chairman Comer’s Rejection of Hunter Biden’s Public Testimony
Washington, D.C. (November 28, 2023)—Today, Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, released the following statement after Chairman Comer rejected Hunter Biden’s request to testify before the Committee in a public hearing:
“Let me get this straight. After wailing and moaning for ten months about Hunter Biden and alluding to some vast unproven family conspiracy, after sending Hunter Biden a subpoena to appear and testify, Chairman Comer and the Oversight Republicans now reject his offer to appear before the full Committee and the eyes of the world and to answer any questions that they pose? What an epic humiliation for our colleagues and what a frank confession that they are simply not interested in the facts and have no confidence in their own case or the ability of their own Members to pursue it. After the miserable failure of their impeachment hearing in September, Chairman Comer has now apparently decided to avoid all Committee hearings where the public can actually see for itself the logical, rhetorical and factual contortions they have tied themselves up in. The evidence has shown time and again President Biden has committed no wrongdoing, much less an impeachable offense. Chairman Comer’s insistence that Hunter Biden’s interview should happen behind closed doors proves it once again. What the Republicans fear most is sunlight and the truth.”
Click here to read additional information from Oversight Democrats.
### | US Political Corruption |
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
toggle caption
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy talks to reporters about launching an impeachment inquiry into President Biden on Sept. 14, 2023.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy talks to reporters about launching an impeachment inquiry into President Biden on Sept. 14, 2023.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
When Republicans took power in the House of Representatives, they began trying to find evidence to make the case that President Biden had profited from the business dealings of his son, Hunter Biden.
They have not found that evidence, and struggled to bring public focus to their investigation – that is, until this week, when it was given the imprimatur of impeachment.
But this impeachment case is different – both in substance and in process – than the ones that loom large over the legacies of former presidents like Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.
"This current attempt to conduct an impeachment inquiry is unlike any others I think we've had in American history, because in the past there's always been some credible evidence of wrongdoing by the president that is part of the complaint against the president," said Michael Gerhardt, a professor of constitutional law at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill, who has testified as an expert witness in past impeachments.
"But in this situation, we don't have any credible evidence. And instead, this process seems to be what is sometimes called a fishing expedition," Gerhardt said.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has defended launching the impeachment inquiry in the absence of hard evidence, saying that finding evidence is the point of the inquiry.
Nick Wass/AP
toggle caption
Then Vice President Joe Biden watches a basketball game with his son Hunter on Jan. 30, 2010.
Nick Wass/AP
Then Vice President Joe Biden watches a basketball game with his son Hunter on Jan. 30, 2010.
Nick Wass/AP
The substance of the case against Biden is unclear
Under the Constitution, Congress can remove a president from office if it finds he or she committed "treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors." These are the inquiries from modern presidencies:
- Nixon was accused of obstructing justice by impeding the investigation into the Watergate break-in, abusing his presidential powers to harass his political enemies and refusing to cooperate with the House investigation.
- Clinton lied under oath about an inappropriate sexual relationship with a White House intern and was also accused of obstruction of justice for trying to keep it a secret.
- Trump, in his first impeachment, was accused of soliciting the interference of Ukraine in the 2020 presidential election and obstructing Congress.
- Trump, in his second impeachment, was accused of inciting an insurrection by lying about the results of the 2020 election that he lost and encouraging his supporters to head to the Capitol
Ray Stubblebine/AP
toggle caption
Former President Richard Nixon resigned from office before the House voted on impeachment, announcing his decision on television on Aug. 8, 1974.
Ray Stubblebine/AP
Former President Richard Nixon resigned from office before the House voted on impeachment, announcing his decision on television on Aug. 8, 1974.
Ray Stubblebine/AP
Past impeachments concerned things that happened during a presidency — not before
In Biden's case, House Republicans allege that Biden somehow benefited from the business dealings his son had in Ukraine and China, when he was vice president. The president and White House have denied this, and investigators have not turned up any smoking guns from witnesses or financial records.
That the alleged activity happened before Biden was even president makes this presidential impeachment unlike any other in U.S. history, said scholars who spoke with NPR. Keith Whittington, an impeachment expert at Princeton University, said impeachment is supposed to be reserved for grave offenses that present an ongoing threat to the country, making removal from office the only remedy.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
toggle caption
Former President Bill Clinton walks to deliver a short statement on the impeachment inquiry in the Rose Garden on Dec. 11, 1998, apologizing for his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Former President Bill Clinton walks to deliver a short statement on the impeachment inquiry in the Rose Garden on Dec. 11, 1998, apologizing for his affair with intern Monica Lewinsky.
J. Scott Applewhite/AP
"I think it's a much harder challenge to convince members of Congress that it's appropriate and useful to impeach an officer based on prior conduct that occurred prior to their holding office," Whittington said.
Past impeachments happened closer to the activity in question
In the case of Nixon, it took nearly two years from the time of the Watergate break-in to the formal launch of an impeachment inquiry. In the meantime, there were Senate hearings and a special prosecutor digging for evidence. By the time the House voted to launch the inquiry, the vote was widely bipartisan.
With Clinton, the House didn't officially launch its inquiry until independent counsel Kenneth Starr provided documentation the president had lied under oath and had taken steps to conceal the relationship, some 10 months earlier.
Steve Helber/AP
toggle caption
Protesters hold signs and sing in front of the White House on Dec. 17, 2019, the night before the House voted to approve articles of impeachment for former President Donald Trump.
Steve Helber/AP
Protesters hold signs and sing in front of the White House on Dec. 17, 2019, the night before the House voted to approve articles of impeachment for former President Donald Trump.
Steve Helber/AP
In Trump's first impeachment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced there would be an inquiry days after she learned that the president had phoned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy two months earlier to try to strong-arm him to announce an investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden. His second impeachment happened a week after Trump supporters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 in an effort to overturn the results of the election.
The Biden inquiry breaks precedent in a number of ways – including that there is no known date when the offending activity occurred, because House investigators haven't produced evidence of such an event. But they are investigating the period when Biden's son Hunter was serving on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, almost 10 years ago.
"The distance now between where Joe Biden is today from the time period in which he's supposedly engaged in misconduct, is pretty substantial," said Gerhardt. "It's unique among presidents."
Some past impeachment inquiries began with a formal vote
There aren't many formal rules about the impeachment process itself – including whether it's necessary to first vote on whether to begin an inquiry. "That's mostly a question of politics more than it's a question of constitutional requirements," said Whittington.
In Biden's case, McCarthy launched the inquiry without having a formal vote – a step that had happened for Nixon and Clinton.
At the moment, McCarthy doesn't have enough votes within his own party to guarantee passage. Several Republicans from districts President Biden won in 2020 have said there isn't enough hard evidence to proceed with an inquiry.
McCarthy has pointed to the first impeachment of Trump as setting a new precedent for the process. Pelosi launched the process on Sept. 24, 2019. At the time, there were some reluctant Democrats who didn't want to be forced to take a tough vote.
Trump's White House counsel and allies including McCarthy objected vociferously, saying the inquiry wasn't legitimate because there hadn't been a vote. Ultimately, Pelosi held a vote on Oct. 31. All but two Democrats voted in favor of proceeding, and every Republican voted against it.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
toggle caption
Former President Donald Trump at a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, where he encouraged his supporters to march on the Capitol, where lawmakers were certifying the results of the election.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Former President Donald Trump at a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, where he encouraged his supporters to march on the Capitol, where lawmakers were certifying the results of the election.
Jacquelyn Martin/AP
For Trump's second impeachment, there was no impeachment inquiry at all. The House moved straight to voting on the articles of impeachment a week after the Jan. 6th insurrection, in a push to impeach Trump before he left office on Jan. 20.
That impeachment has since been overshadowed by a House select committee that investigated the attack on the U.S. Capitol – recommending the Justice Department pursue criminal charges against Trump – and the indictment of the former president on four counts related to efforts to overturn the election results.
It's unclear how long these impeachment proceedings will take
Trump's first impeachment inquiry began a little more than a year before Election Day. House Democrats rushed it through in part to avoid a potentially politically unpopular event hanging over their own re-election campaigns.
It's not clear how Republicans plan to proceed for Biden, but Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga. – an ally of McCarthy – has said it could be drawn out.
"What I actually want to see is, I want to see a very deep dive, a detailed investigation, no matter how long it takes, and it may take months and months," she told reporters. "It may go all the way to the November election."
An impeachment is a political process, not a criminal one. Getting an impeachment through the House requires a simple majority vote, which means the threshold for impeachment is what the party in power can bear politically, rather than any sort of legal standard.
"Technically speaking, if a party controls a majority of seats in the House, it has the power – the raw power – to bring about an impeachment," Gerhardt said.
Nixon resigned from office before the House could vote on impeachment. But in the cases of Clinton and Trump, once an impeachment inquiry was launched, it ultimately led to the House voting to pass the articles of impeachment,
No president has been removed from office by the Senate.
NPR's Daniel Wood contributed to this report. | US Congress |
While Donald Trump is responsible for unhinged, incoherent content on Truth Social every single day, an image he posted on Monday evening stood out for being especially offensive and delusional. Tucked between video clips of Trump’s remarks hours earlier outside a Manhattan courtroom, where he is being tried for fraud in a civil lawsuit brought by New York attorney general Letitia James, was a screenshot of a tweet from user Dom Lucre showing a fake courtroom sketch of Jesus by Trump’s side.
The image is ridiculous, blasphemous, and confusing. Is Jesus supposed to be Trump’s co-defendant or his attorney? Does the caption “nobody could have made it this far alone” mean Trump being hauled before the court for his decades of alleged business fraud is part of some divine plan? And who is this “Dom Lucre” anyway?
Well, you’re going to be sorry you asked!
The X (formerly Twitter) account where the post originated belongs to Dominick McGee, a right-wing influencer and QAnon conspiracy theorist who made headlines in July when his account was quickly reinstated after he posted child sex-abuse imagery. The notorious image was made by Peter Gerard Scully, an Australian who was sentenced to life in prison plus 129 years last year for rape, human trafficking, and the sexual abuse of children as young as 18 months. After some of McGee’s more than half a million followers complained that he was banned over his politics, X owner Elon Musk stepped in to reinstate him. As the Washington Post reported, Musk claimed that only X’s content moderators had seen the material, though that doesn’t appear to be the case:
“Only people on our CSE team have seen those pictures,” Musk tweeted, referring to the company’s child sexual exploitation staff. “For now, we will delete those posts and reinstate the account.”
In fact, the image in question had drawn more than 3 million views and 8,000 retweets, according to Twitter statistics on a cached version of the tweet from Tuesday.
Once his account was restored, McGee claimed he was banned “over Obama” and that he hadn’t even put up the widely viewed post containing child-abuse content.
It’s unclear if Trump knows about this incident or just saw McGee’s post and thought, You know what, I am just like Jesus. But the episode serves as an important reminder: While it’s fun to laugh at Trump’s outrageous antics, they’re often far more sinister upon closer examination. That’s why I won’t be doing any further Googling about Trump’s recent mid-speech tirade about possibly being eaten by a shark. Let’s just enjoy it.
More on politics
- The Feds Got George Santos’s Accountant
- Why Don’t Republicans Just Run on the Economy, Stupid?
- Why House Republicans Keep Couping Each Other | US Political Corruption |
Congressmen ask DOJ to investigate water utility hack, warning it could happen anywhere
Three members of Congress are asking the U.S. Justice Department to investigate how hackers breached a water utility system near Pittsburgh
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Three members of Congress have asked the U.S. Justice Department to investigate how foreign hackers breached a water authority near Pittsburgh, prompting the nation's top cyberdefense agency to warn other water and sewage-treatment utilities that they may be vulnerable.
In a letter released Thursday, U.S. Sens. John Fetterman and Bob Casey and U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio said Americans must know their drinking water and other basic infrastructure is safe from “nation-state adversaries and terrorist organizations.”
“Any attack on our nation’s critical infrastructure is unacceptable,” Fetterman, Casey and Deluzio wrote in their letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland. “If a hack like this can happen here in western Pennsylvania, it can happen anywhere else in the United States.”
The compromised industrial control system was made in Israel, and a photo from the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa, Pennsylvania, suggests the “hackivists” deliberately targeted that facility because of the equipment's link to Israel. The image of the device screen shows a message from the hackers that said: “Every equipment ‘made in Israel’ is Cyber Av3ngers legal target.”
A group using that name used identical language on X, formerly Twitter, and Telegram on Sunday. The group claimed in an Oct. 30 social media post to have hacked 10 water treatment stations in Israel, though it is not clear if they shut down any equipment.
Casey's office said it was told by U.S. officials that they believe Cyber Av3ngers is indeed behind the attack. The Aliquippa water authority's chairman, Matthew Mottes, said federal officials told him that hackers also breached four other utilities and an aquarium.
“We’ve been told that we are not the only authority that’s been affected in the country, but we are believed to be the first,” Mottes said in an interview.
Leading cybersecurity companies Check Point Research and Google’s Mandiant have identified Cyber Av3ngers as hacktivists aligned with Iran's government.
Since the beginning of the Israel-Hamas war, the group has expanded and accelerated targeting Israeli critical infrastructure, said Check Point's Sergey Shykevich. Iran and Israel were engaged in low-level cyberconflict prior to the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel and cybersecurity experts have said they expected a rise in hacktivism in response to Israel’s attacks in Gaza.
The device breached in Pennsylvania was made by Israel-based Unitronics, according to the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. Known as a programmable logic controller, it is used across a wide spectrum of industries including water and sewage-treatment utilities, electric companies and oil and gas producers. It regulates processes including pressure, temperature and fluid flow, according to the manufacturer.
Unitronics has not responded to queries about what other facilities with its equipment may have been hacked or could be vulnerable.
Experts say many water utilities have paid insufficient attention to cybersecurity.
In Pennsylvania, the hack prompted the water authority to temporarily halt pumping Saturday in a remote station that regulates water pressure for customers in two nearby towns. Crews took the system offline and switched to manual operation, officials said.
The attack came less than a month after a federal appeals court decision prompted the Environmental Protection Agency to rescind a rule that would have obliged U.S public water systems to include cybersecurity testing in their regular federally mandated audits. The rollback was triggered by a federal appeals court decision in a case brought by Missouri, Arkansas and Iowa, and joined by a water utility trade group.
The Biden administration has been trying to shore up cybersecurity of critical infrastructure — more than 80% of which is privately owned — and has imposed regulations on sectors including electric utilities, gas pipelines and nuclear facilities. But many experts complain that too many vital industries are permitted to self-regulate.
In its warning Tuesday, the U.S. cybersecurity agency said attackers likely breached the Unitronics device “by exploiting cybersecurity weaknesses, including poor password security and exposure to the internet.”
Mottes said he doesn't know how the device in Aliquippa was hacked, but that he trusted the federal agency's judgment. | US Federal Policies |
Fulton County’s sweeping indictment against former President Donald Trump and 18 additional co-defendants also includes details involving 30 “unindicted co-conspirators” – people who Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis alleges took part in the criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
Some of the co-conspirators are key Trump advisers, like Boris Epshteyn, while several others are likely Georgia officials who were the state’s fake electors for Donald Trump.
One of the unindicted co-conspirators who appears multiple times in the indictment is Georgia’s Republican Lt. Gov. Burt Jones. Willis was barred by a state judge from investigating Jones after she hosted a fundraiser last year for Jones’ Democratic opponent when he was a state senator running for lieutenant governor.
The 98-page document alleges the 30 unindicted co-conspirators, who are not named, “constituted a criminal organization whose members and associates engaged in various related criminal activities” across the 41 charges laid out in the indictment.
“Prosecutors use the ‘co-conspirator’ label for people who are not charged in the indictment but nonetheless were participants in the crime,” said Elie Honig, a CNN senior legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor. “We do this to protect the identity and reputation of uncharged people – though they often are readily identifiable – and, at times, to turn up the pressure and try to flip them before a potential indictment drops.”
CNN was able to identify some of the co-conspirators by piecing together details included in the indictment. Documents reviewed from previous reporting also provide clues, especially the reams of emails and testimony from the House January 6 Committee’s report released late last year.
CNN has been able to identify or narrow down nearly all of the unindicted co-conspirators:
Co-conspirator 1 is Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch
The indictment refers to Trump’s speech on November 4, 2020, “falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election” and that Individual 1 discussed a draft of that speech approximately four days earlier, on October 31, 2020.
The January 6 committee obtained an email from Fitton sent on October 31 to Trump’s assistant Molly Michael and his communications adviser Dan Scavino, which says, “Please see below a draft statement as you requested.”
The statement Fitton wrote also says in part, “We had an election today – and I won.”
Co-conspirator 3 is Boris Epshteyn, Trump political adviser
The indictment states that co-conspirator 3 appeared at the infamous November 19, 2020, press conference at the Republican National Committee headquarters in Washington, with Rudy Giuliani, one of the defendants in the case. Epshteyn was there.
The indictment also includes two emails between co-conspirator 3, John Eastman and Kenneth Chesebro, two lawyers who pushed the strategy of then-Vice President Mike Pence trying to overturn the election on January 6, 2021, including one with a draft memo for options of how to proceed on January 6.
According to emails released by the January 6 committee, Epshteyn was the third person on those emails.
Co-conspirator 4 is Robert Sinners, Trump’s Georgia election day operations lead
Individual 4 received an email from co-defendant David Shafer, Georgia’s Republican Party chair, on November 20, 2020, that said Scott Graham Hall, a Georgia bail bondsman, “has been looking into the election on behalf of the President at the request of David Bossie,” according to the indictment.
CNN obtained court documents that show Shafer sent this email to Sinners in November 2020: “Scott Hall has been looking into the election on behalf of the President at the request of David Bossie. I know him.” Hall is one of the 19 defendants charged in the indictment.
The indictment notes an additional email from December 12, 2020, from Shafer to Individual 4 advising them to “touch base” with each of the Trump presidential elector nominees in Georgia in advance of the December 14, 2020, meeting to confirm their attendance.
CNN reporting from June 2022 reveals an email exchange between Sinners and David Shafer on December 13, 2020, 18 hours before the group of alternate electors gathered at the Georgia State Capitol.
“I must ask for your complete discretion in this process,” Sinners wrote. “Your duties are imperative to ensure the end result – a win in Georgia for President Trump – but will be hampered unless we have complete secrecy and discretion.”
Co-conspirator 5 is Bernie Kerik, former NYPD Commissioner
Kerik’s attorney, Tim Parlatore, confirmed to CNN that his client is the unnamed individual listed in the indictment as co-conspirator 5. The indictment refers to co-conspirator 5 taking part in several meetings with lawmakers in Pennsylvania and Arizona, states Trump was contesting after the 2020 election.
That included the meeting Kerik attended at the White House on November 25, 2020, with a group of Pennsylvania legislators, along with Trump, then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, Giuliani, Jenna Ellis and individual 6.
Parlatore took issue with Willis’ definition of co-conspirator in the case of Kerik, saying that the indictment only refers to him in the context of receiving emails and attending meetings.
Co-conspirator 6 is GOP operative Phil Waldron
The indictment says on November 25, 2020, Trump, Meadows, Giuliani, Ellis, Individuals 5 and 6 met at the White House with a group of Pennsylvania legislators.
According to the January 6 committee report, Waldron was among the visitors who were at the White House that day, along with Kerik and attorney Katherine Freiss. Cassidy Hutchinson, former aide to Meadows, explained that their conversation with the president touched on holding a special session of the Pennsylvania state legislature to appoint Trump electors.
The indictment also says on December 21, 2020, Sidney Powell, a defendant in the case, sent an email to Individuals 6, 21 and 22 that they were to immediately “receive a copy of all data” from Dominion’s voting systems in Michigan.
The Washington Post reported last August that the email stated Waldron was among the three people to receive the data, along with Conan Hayes and Todd Sanders.
Waldron is the only person who was involved in both the White House meeting and received the Powell email.
Co-conspirator 8 is Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones
The indictment says Giuliani re-tweeted a post from co-conspirator 8 on December 7, 2020, calling upon Georgia voters to contact their local representatives and ask them to sign a petition for a special session to ensure “every legal vote is counted.” The date and content of the tweet match a tweet posted by Jones, who was at the time a state senator.
Jones, who was elected lieutenant governor in November, appears more than a dozen times throughout the indictment as co-conspirator 8, including as a fake elector.
After the 2020 election, Jones was calling for a special session of the Georgia legislature, something Gov. Brian Kemp and former Lt. Gov. Geoff Duncan refused to do.
On Thursday, Pete Skandalakis, the executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia, told CNN that he will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Jones’ role in the state’s 2020 election interference case, after a judge blocked Willis from investigating him last year.
Co-conspirators 9 is former Georgia Republican Party Treasurer Joseph Brannan
The indictment lists several emails sent to co-conspirator 9 related to preparations for the fake electors who met on December 14, 2020, including an email from Chesebro “to help coordinate with the other 5 contested States, to help with logistics of the electors in other States hopefully joining in casting their votes on Monday.”
According to emails obtained by the January 6 committee, that email was sent to an account belong to the Georgia GOP treasurer, which at the time was Brannan.
Co-conspirator 9 is also included in the indictment as one of the 13 unindicted co-conspirators who served as fake electors.
Co-conspirators 10 and 11 are Georgia GOP officials Carolyn Fisher and Vikki Consiglio
The indictment says on December 10, 2020, Ken Chesebro sent an email to Georgia state Republican Chair David Shafer and Individuals 9, 10 and 11, with documents that were to be used by Trump electors to create fake certificates.
The January 6 committee obtained as part of its evidence an email from Chesebro sent on December 10 sent to Shafer and three other email addresses. One is for Carolyn Fisher, the former Georgia GOP first vice chair, one is for the Georgia Republican Party treasurer and one is for the Georgia GOP assistant treasurer, the role Consiglio was serving in 2020.
The email contains attachments of memos and certificates that could be used to help swap out the Biden electors with a slate of electors for Trump.
Both co-conspirators 10 and 11 also served as fake electors in Georgia.
Co-conspirators 2 and 8-19 are the fake electors
Of the 30 unindicted co-conspirators, 13 are listed as the fake electors for Donald Trump, who signed papers “unlawfully falsely holding themselves out as the duly elected and qualified presidential electors from the State of Georgia,” according to the indictment.
Three of the 16 Georgia fake electors were charged in the indictment: David Shafer, Shawn Still and Cathleen Alston Latham.
The other 13 fake electors, according to the fake electors certificate published by the National Archives, are Jones (co-conspirator 8), Joseph Brannan (co-conspirator 9), James “Ken” Carroll, Gloria Godwin, David Hanna, Mark Hennessy, Mark Amick, John Downey, Daryl Moody, Brad Carver, CB Yadav and two others who appear to be Individuals 10 and 11.
Several of the fake electors who were not charged are only listed in the indictment for their role signing on as electors for Trump, while others, like Jones, appear in other parts of the indictment as being more actively involved with the alleged conspiracy.
Co-conspirator 20 is unclear
The indictment says Individual 20 was part of a meeting at the White House on December 18, 2020, with Trump, Giuliani and Powell, known to have discussed the possibility of seizing voting machines.
The December 18 meeting featured prominently during some of the hearings from the January 6 committee. All but two of the outside advisers who attended have been named as co-defendants in the indictment already: former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn and former Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne.
The meeting featured fiery exchanges between Trump’s White House lawyers and his team of outside advisers, including on whether to appoint Sidney Powell as special counsel to investigate voter fraud, according to the indictment and previous details that have been disclosed about the meeting.
The outside advisers famously got into a screaming match with Trump’s White House lawyers – Pat Cipollone and Eric Herschmann – at the Oval Office meeting. Cipollone and Herschmann, along with Meadows, pushed back intensely on the proposals, Cipollone and Herschmann testified to the January 6 committee.
Co-conspirators 21 and 22 are Conan Hayes and Todd Sanders
Co-conspirators 21 and 22 are Conan Hayes and Todd Sanders – who are both affiliated with Byrne’s America Project, a conservative advocacy group that contributed funding to Arizona’s Republican ballot audit. Hayes was a former surfer from Hawaii and Sanders has a cybersecurity background in the private sector.
The indictment says on Dec. 21, 2020, Sidney Powell sent an email to the chief operations officer of SullivanStrickler, saying that individual 6, who CNN identified as Waldron, along with individuals 21 and 22, were to immediately “receive a copy of all data” from Dominion’s voting systems in Michigan.
According to the Washington Post, Conan and Todd were the other two people listed on the email to receive the data.
Co-conspirators 23-30 are related to Coffee County voting machines
The final eight co-conspirators listed in the indictment are connected to the effort to access voting machines in Georgia’s Coffee County.
Co-conspirator 25 and 29 are a Cyber Ninjas CEO Doug Logan and analyst Jeffrey Lenberg
The indictment says that Misty Hampton allowed co-conspirators 25 and 29 to access non-public areas of the Coffee County elections office on January 18, 2021. Logan and Lenberg were the two outsiders granted access to the elections office that day by Hampton, according to surveillance video previously obtained by CNN. No one else was given access to the office that day, according to a CNN review of the footage.
The indictment also notes that co-conspirator 25 downloaded Coffee County election data that SullivanStrickler then had uploaded to a separate server. Documents previously obtained by CNN show five accounts that downloaded the data – one account belongs to Logan and none of them belong to Lenberg. Still, CNN could not definitively determine who exactly downloaded the data.
Logan and his company conducted the so-called Republican audit of the 2020 ballots cast in Arizona’s Maricopa County.
Co-conspirator 28 is Jim Penrose
The indictment says that co-conspirator 28 “sent an e-mail to the Chief Operations Officer of SullivanStrickler LLC” directing him to transmit data copied from Coffee County to co-conspirator 30 and Powell. CNN has previously reported on emails Penrose and Powell arranged upfront payment to a cyber forensics firm that sent a team to Coffee County.
CNN’s Kaitlan Collins, Morgan Stoviak and Aleena Fayaz contributed to this report. | US Political Corruption |
The Fulton County District Attorney's Office has issued a subpoena for former NYPD commissioner Bernie Kerik to testify in the first trial scheduled in Georgia later this month over allegations of election interference by former President Trump and more than a dozen of his allies 2020, Fox News Digital has confirmed.
Ahead of the upcoming trial for two of the 19 defendants – lawyer Kenneth Chesebro and former Trump campaign lawyer Sidney Powell – scheduled to begin on Oct. 23 in Atlanta, Kerik received a subpoena to testify but plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, CNN first reported Monday. Trump and the 16 others will be tried separately.
Kerik’s attorney Tim Parlatore told Fox News Digital he asked prosecutors that if Kerik was expected to testify as a part of a conspiracy case, would they be offering immunity. Parlatore stressed to Fox News Digital, however, that he did not ask for immunity for his client.
"And when they said no, I said I don’t care either way, but to expect my client to testify under oath with no immunity … I think Mr. Wade needs to go back to law school," Parlatore saidl, referring to special prosecutor Nathan Wade, who has been leading the election interference probe for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis for nearly two years.
"No competent criminal attorney would allow Mr. Kerik to testify absent a grant of immunity," Parlatore wrote in a letter to the Fulton County District Attorney's Office Monday.
"To be clear, Mr. Kerik has done nothing wrong and rejects your claim that he is a co-conspirator in any alleged criminal conduct," Parlatore wrote. "You made the public accusation, so now you must live with the consequences of Mr. Kerik (and presumably all other alleged unindicted co-conspirators) invoking their 5th Amendment rights and refusing to testify."
Kerik has not been named as a co-conspirator in court documents, which include allegations involving several unnamed individuals.
The letter says Kerik will refuse to answer questions under oath without receiving written assurances from the district attorney's office that he will not be prosecuted.
Parlatore claimed prosecutors have already told him, "If we wanted to indict Mr. Kerik, we would have already done so," but have so far refused to put any promises in writing.
Fox News Digital reached out to the Fulton County DA office for comment but did not immediately hear back.
Parlatore previously confirmed to Fox News Digital in July that Kerik secured a deal with Special Counsel Jack Smith to hand over thousands of documents related to the Justice Department's investigation into Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
At the time, Kerik’s attorney noted that the documents could include exculpatory evidence for Trump, suggesting the former president’s investigators acted in good faith.
Kerik’s legal team had initially refused to turn over documents to the House select committee probing the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. They had cited attorney-client privilege, given that Kerik worked with Trump’s attorney and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani on the probe. Parlatore said Kerik received a "standard proffer letter" before later agreeing to an interview with Smith’s office to answer questions related to the 2020 election aftermath and the Jan. 6 at the U.S. Capitol, CNN reported.
Kerik, who served as the NYPD commissioner from 2000 to 2001, pleaded guilty in 2009 to felony charges of tax fraud and making false statements to the government. He spent about three years in prison before transitioning to home confinement and eventually supervised release. Trump pardoned Kerik for his past convictions in early 2020.
Fox News' Andrew Murray contributed to this report. | US Political Corruption |
Washington — Former President Donald Trump is appealing athat restricts him from making public statements about certain individuals involved in special counsel Jack Smith's case against him in Washington, D.C., according to a court document filed by Trump's legal team on Tuesday.
Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a limited gag order on Monday barring the former president from publicly attacking Smith, his team of prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses in the case, citing what she said were threats posed to the fair administration of justice.
Trump's appeal will now head to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel is likely to consider the matter. As that process plays out, Trump could ask either Chutkan or the higher court to pause the enforcement of the gag order until the issue is fully litigated.
Chutkan's order followed a lengthy hearing in federal court in the nation's capital over a request from Smith and his team asking her to limit what Trump can say about the case involving his alleged attempts to overturn the 2020 election results.
The former president wasin August on four charges including conspiracy and obstructing Congress' work related to his alleged efforts to reverse the outcome of the election. He has pleaded not guilty and denies all wrongdoing. The trial is currently set for March 2024.
The limited gag order
On Monday, Chutkan issued a split ruling, granting the special counsel's requests for restrictions on statements by the former president that she said could jeopardize the trial while rejecting other limits sought by prosecutors.
"This is not about whether I like the language Mr. Trump uses. This is about language that presents a danger to the administration of justice," the judge said.
Chutkan said — and a written version of the order published on Tuesday reiterated — that Trump was free to criticize the Biden administration and the Department of Justice in general and assert his innocence. But she said disparaging remarks about prosecutors, court officials and potential witnesses were out of bounds.
"Undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when Defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed," the judge wrote in her opinion. "The defense's position that no limits may be placed on Defendant's speech because he is engaged in a political campaign is untenable."
Prosecutors on Monday argued for what they described as a "narrowly tailored" order to prevent the former president from making statements that could threaten witnesses, taint the jury pool or otherwise affect the case.
"We have no interest in preventing the defendant from running for office or defending his reputation," prosecutor Molly Gaston said.
Trump's attorneys pushed back on the request on First Amendment grounds and characterized the move as an attempt to silence the former president during a political campaign. Trump is the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024.
"[Trump] is entitled to say that the Department of Justice is acting unlawfully," defense attorney John Lauro said during Monday's hearing. "He is entitled to even say things that are insulting to these prosecutors."
Chutkan said her ruling — which Trump is now appealing — reflected her concern for witnesses' safety, explaining that her goal was to restrict any witness intimidation. Trump's presidential candidacy, the judge contended, did not give him "carte blanche" to vilify prosecutors and others involved in the case. Any other defendant, she contended, would be limited as such.
A spokesperson for Smith's office declined to comment on the appeal.
for more features. | SCOTUS |
Conservatives hold back on Johnson ouster threat — but plot other payback
The House GOP’s right flank is furious the new speaker worked with Democrats to avoid a shutdown, a move that essentially mirrored Kevin McCarthy’s last act on the job.
Speaker Mike Johnson is averting a government shutdown essentially the same way Kevin McCarthy did: by partnering with Democrats to pass a government funding bill with no spending cuts.
Unlike his predecessor, it won’t cost him the job.
Many House conservatives are fuming that Johnson — the most ideologically conservative speaker in decades — refused to take a hard line in his first attempt negotiating with Democrats and instead leaned on them for help. In the end, more Democrats voted for the measure than Republicans, in nearly identical numbers to the September stopgap measure that triggered McCarthy’s firing. Some tore into his strategy in a closed-door meeting Tuesday, arguing that his plan, which would allow funding levels set under Nancy Pelosi to persist for months, is tantamount to surrender.
They’re not looking to oust Johnson over it. But some conservatives are privately entertaining other ways to retaliate.
One tactic under discussion is the same one they used against McCarthy after he struck a debt deal they hated: holding the House floor hostage by tanking procedural votes.
“There is a sentiment that if we can’t fight anything, then let’s just hold up everything,” said Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.), one of several frustrated Freedom Caucus members who has huddled with the speaker multiple times this week.
There are a few reasons conservatives won’t push a mutiny 20 days into Johnson’s speakership, an effort Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) characterized as “untenable.” But mainly, Johnson doesn’t have the same stubborn trust issues that plagued his predecessor.
McCarthy and his allies argue he was ousted not for working with Democrats to pass a spending bill, but largely due to personal animus among the eight GOP members who voted against him, particularly the leader of the rebellion, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.).
The extent of that bad blood between McCarthy and his defectors was on full display Tuesday, when one of the eight, Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.) accused the former speaker of intentionally elbowing him in the Capitol basement. Burchett even suggested the two men could settle things in “the parking lot.” (McCarthy denied any kind of physical shove.)
Johnson, who the House GOP unanimously supported for speaker last month and has served in Congress less than seven years, doesn’t have the same personal beefs. But conservatives aren’t giving him a pass on this indefinitely, with some signaling Johnson will have a major problem down the line if he doesn’t prove he’ll govern differently than McCarthy.
“There’s always that tension, but I don’t see that happening anytime in the near future,” said Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.), a House Freedom Caucus member. “I think most people are willing to give him some time, but we need to see something different.”
There’s another hurdle: Johnson is confronting a GOP conference that’s now even more bitterly divided than when his predecessor was in charge. Besides frustrations from the right flank, the Louisianan is also facing restive groups of Biden-district Republicans and centrists, who have increasingly made clear they’ll push back if leadership tries to force tough votes. After its ugly 22-day speaker battle, the 221-member conference has seemingly lost its ability to maneuver as a team. Instead, it’s every man for himself.
“You’ve got everybody acting as an independent agent rather than acting in a uniform way,” said Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio). “And they’re not necessarily in one line or the other. I think because of the tactics that have been taken by certain folks, [it’s] encouraged other folks.”
If those divisions worsen — like if conservatives make good on their threat to start blocking bills from coming to the floor — some centrist Republicans pointed out that would just increase their incentive to join forces with Democrats. Republicans openly shifting to that strategy would amount to a historic shift in House power dynamics.
“It just forces us to work with Democrats — these guys play checkers, they don’t play chess,” said centrist Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.).
Johnson, meanwhile, is attempting to steady a seesaw of competing demands from the various corners of his conference, all while getting acquainted with a job that is six ladder rungs above where he previously served in GOP leadership. It’s a nearly impossible role, even in normal circumstances, as McCarthy, Paul Ryan and John Boehner all demonstrated before him. Johnson likened it to drinking from “Niagara Falls for the last three weeks.”
One sign of success: Johnson staved off disaster on the floor on Tuesday in real time, talking down a group of conservatives who wanted to block a massive health, labor and education spending bill. The speaker’s pitch, according to Norman: He had a plan to jam the Democratic Senate and cut spending in the full-year funding legislation Congress now has to pass in January and February.
But House Freedom Caucus members, in a meeting attended by Johnson and another ultraconservative ally, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), said that they had their own strategy to make the Senate swallow spending cuts now rather than later. Johnson, clearly, chose to go another route.
“We were going to fight. We had a well-laid-out plan yesterday, had a senator there, who had it worked out where as Bill Posey said, ‘the hot potato was with the Senate,’” Norman said about the meeting. “If you are scared of getting wet, you might not swim.”
The next morning, speaking to his full GOP conference, Johnson privately made the case that this was simply the card he was dealt. He presented the stopgap spending bill as his only real option, given the House’s slim margins as well as the amount of time they lost in the three-week long speaker’s race, according to a House Republican who attended the closed-door meeting.
Publicly, Johnson shared a similar message, pushing back on conservative assertions that he was surrendering: “I can’t turn an aircraft carrier overnight.”
And asked whether he fears the funding fight makes his speakership any less secure, Johnson brushed it off: “I’m not concerned about it at all.”
He argued that he’s in a “different situation” than his predecessor, largely thanks to his spending strategy — which includes two funding deadlines intended to force Congress to consider individual spending bills, rather than a mammoth spending package. Johnson said Democrats first feared the idea, but he insisted it will change the way they approach funding. (The Freedom Caucus, which initially supported the two-step approach, later formally opposed it because it contained “no spending reductions, no border security, and not a single meaningful win for the American People.”)
“Kevin should take no blame for that. Kevin was in a very difficult situation that happened,” Johnson added.
Still, the right flank remains mostly unconvinced by the Louisiana Republican’s pitch. Many worry that Johnson’s decisions on the stopgap bill are an early signal that he is less likely to fight for their priorities heading into January and February.
Rep. Dan Bishop (R-N.C.), who was in the Freedom Caucus meeting with Johnson, acknowledged that he’s in a “tough position” but warned that his honeymoon period is effectively over. And now, the speaker needs a strategy pivot, or he’ll fall into the same trap as previous GOP speakers who “flamed out one after another.”
“He’s got to find an opportunity to change the dynamics,” Bishop said. “If he can’t, he’s going to follow the same path of not just the immediately previous speaker but a series of them who have not really proved successful.”
Meredith Lee Hill contributed to this report. | US Congress |
In a 2017 interview with 60 Minutes, Robert Bigelow didn't hesitate when he was asked if space aliens had ever visited Earth. "There has been and is an existing presence, an ET presence," said Bigelow, a Las Vegas-based real estate mogul and founder of Bigelow Aerospace, a company NASA had contracted to build inflatable space station habitats. Bigelow was so certain, he indicated, because he had "spent millions and millions and millions" of dollars searching for UFO evidence. "I probably spent more as an individual than anybody else in the United States has ever spent on this subject."
He’s right. Since the early 1990s, Bigelow has bankrolled a voluminous stream of pseudoscience on modern-day UFO lore—investigating everything from crop circles and cattle mutilations to alien abductions and UFO crashes. Indeed, if you name a UFO rabbit hole, it’s a good bet the 79-year-old tycoon has flushed his riches down it.
But it’s also a good bet that Bigelow would see this differently. After all, both the media and Congress are now solemnly discussing a supposed massive UFO cover-up by the U.S. government. There’s even proposed legislation to open the X-Files! "The American public has a right to learn about technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence, and unexplainable phenomena," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York harrumphed in a recent public statement.
This legacy of plutocrat-backed fringe science comes as political partisanship, corporate propaganda, and conspiracy mongering continues to sow distrust in science. One lawmaker, Representative Tim Burchett of Tennessee, recently said, "The devil's been in our way," claiming a "cover-up" of UFO reports by military and intelligence agencies.
Such talk was once solely the domain of Internet fever swamps and late-night conspiracy- themed radio shows. Now it's part of the political mainstream. This doesn’t happen without Bigelow (and other wealthy eccentrics) greasing the way with their fat wallets. For example, Laurance Rockefeller was undoubtedly the most prominent UFO benefactor in the 1990s. The wealthy heir financed numerous UFO panels, conferences and book-length reports that kept flying saucers in the public discourse.
From a scientific standpoint, all this money seems wasted on a zany quest that is akin to the search for Bigfoot or Atlantis. The same might be said of Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb's recent hunt for evidence of extraterrestrial life off the coast of Papua New Guinea, which cost $150,000 and was funded by cryptocurrency mogul Charles Hoskinson. Loeb's polarizing claims of finding traces of alien technology and of having a more open-minded and dispassionate approach to fringe science have garnered a truly staggering amount of media coverage, but his peers in the scientific community are rolling their eyes.
It's the latest stunt by Loeb, who also helms a controversial UFO project and previously drew the ire of his colleagues with outlandish claims about the supposedly artificial nature of an (admittedly weird) interstellar comet. Steve Desch, an astrophysicist at Arizona State University, recently told the New York Times: "What the public is seeing in Loeb is not how science works. And they shouldn't go away thinking that."
True, but as communication researcher Alexandre Schiele wrote in a 2020 paper for the Journal of Science Communication, what people see about "science" is usually on TV, particularly via sensationalist programming on cable channels such as Discovery and the misnamed History Channel, where viewers are "bombarded with aliens, ghosts, cryptids and miracles as though they are indisputable facts."
Unfortunately, much of this nonsense has, at one point or another, been masked with an aura of legitimacy by prestigious institutions. For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lent its imprimatur to an alien abduction conference in the early 1990s—which Robert Bigelow helped pay for. A generous benefactor to academia, Bigelow also gave millions to the University of Nevada during the 1990s to study supposed psychic phenomena, such as telepathy, clairvoyance and the possibility of life after death. (In recent years, the billionaire has turned his attention and money largely to the afterlife.)
Indeed, there is a long tradition of fringe science at prestigious universities. The dubious field of parapsychology, for instance, owes its existence to the decades of pseudoscholarship churned out at Duke and Harvard University—and financed by wealthy private patrons. Some of our most illustrious thinkers, such as the eminent psychologist William James, have fallen for it. Belief in Martians sprang in large part from a wealthy amateur astronomer, Percival Lowell, who built the observatory that still bears his name. A University of Arizona psychology professor attracted criticism in recent years for taking money from the Pioneer Fund, founded in 1937 by textiles magnate to promote the racist science of eugenics.
Eventually, this wacky stuff, be it ESP or UFOs, makes its way to Congress and the Pentagon. That's how we end up with people in government-funded programs who claim they can bend spoons with their minds or walk through walls. And that’s how we end up with the Department of Defense giving Robert Bigelow $22 million from 2008 to 2011 to investigate UFOs, werewolves and poltergeists (seriously) on a Utah ranch.
This would be the same ranch Bigelow had already bought after reading a story in a Utah newspaper about how the property was teeming with UFOs, including one "huge ship the size of several football fields."
Does this sound familiar? If so, that's because in recent weeks, a number of similar hard-to-fathom, evidence-free UFO claims have echoed without challenge through the halls of Congress and all over television networks. Among the most eyebrow raising: tales of recovered saucers, hidden alien bodies, and a football field–sized UFO spotted over a military base.
Guess what: You can draw a line from these outlandish assertions to the vast repository of so-called studies once funded by Bigelow. In fact, some of the people he contracted to write them, such as astrophysicist Eric Davis, have acknowledged speaking (behind closed doors) with Congress.
To say UFO enthusiasm has swept Washington D.C. is not an overstatement. In recent years, there have been three Congressional hearings and two Pentagon task forces. NASA is about to deliver its own verdict after a year-long study. As Timothy Noah writes in the New Republic, "UFOs are fast becoming the most-studied topic in American governance."
Perhaps, but Robert Bigelow will tell you that nobody has studied the topic more than him. He might be right. Whatever the latest UFO whistleblower says and whatever Congress turns up, you can bet that Bigelow already paid for it.
This article was first published at ScientificAmerican.com. © ScientificAmerican.com. All rights reserved. Follow Scientific American on Twitter @SciAm and @SciamBlogs. Visit ScientificAmerican.com for the latest in science, health and technology news.
Live Science newsletter
Stay up to date on the latest science news by signing up for our Essentials newsletter.
Keith Kloor is New York City–based journalist and adjunct professor of journalism at New York University. | US Federal Policies |
Donald Trump’s devolution into an American dictator who believes that he is on a mission from God as some type of chosen one continues. This is mentally pathological behavior on a massive level. His Hitler-like behavior is only going to get worse as next year’s presidential election approaches and the pressure from his criminal and civil trials increases.
Trump’s behavior is not isolated to him, it is important to note. He is the leader of a political cult movement and controls the Republican Party.
On Saturday, Trump gave two speeches in Iowa to his MAGA faithful. In Ankeny, Trump continued to advance his Big Lie that the 2020 election was “stolen” from him and his MAGA people. During that same speech, Trump continued with his white supremacist threats and plans to end multiracial democracy, by telling his followers that they should go to Democrat-led (meaning majority black and brown) cities and other communities to “protect” the vote on Election Day 2024. The implication here is clear: these (white) Trumpists, in a replay of Jim Crow and the Black Codes are to use the threat of force to keep black and brown people from exercising their Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Trump is basically trying to incite widespread violence on Election Day 2024:
The most important part of what is coming up is to guard the vote, and you should go into Detroit, Philadelphia, and some of these places, Atlanta, and you should go into some of these places, and we have to watch those votes….
Watch those votes when they come in, when they’re being, you know, shoved around in wheelbarrows and dumped on the floor and everyone’s saying what’s going on?....We’re like a third world nation, a third world nation. And we can’t let it happen….
We need your help to stay independent
During a speech in Cedar Rapids that took place later in the day, Trump anointed himself as being handpicked by God and a vessel of divine will. As Salon's Heather "Digby" Parton wrote, "Trump unveiled a new 'I know you are but what am I' campaign strategy over the weekend by attacking President Joe Biden as 'the destroyer of American democracy.'":
The claim is ludicrous, of course. Trump's the one who attempted to overturn the election and incited a violent mob to storm the capitol and stop the certification of the election. There is no greater example of democracy destruction than that. But he said it and it wasn't off the cuff. They passed out placards before the rally that said, "Biden attacks Democracy" and flashed the words on a big screen above him as he said it.
“But I think if you had a real election and Jesus came down and God came down and said, ‘I’m going to be the scorekeeper here,’ I think we’d win there [in California], I think we’d win in Illinois, and I think we’d win in New York," Trump told his gathered MAGA troops.
Trump’s behavior is not isolated to him, it is important to note. He is the leader of a political cult movement and controls the Republican Party.
Trump is telling his followers what they want to desperately believe. Public opinion, focus groups, and other research repeatedly show that a significant percentage of White Christians see Trump as a prophetic figure who is a tool for their “God” to make America a White Christian nation.
In the same speech in Cedar Rapids, Trump, in a rare moment, told the truth about his and the neofascist movement’s plans to end American democracy: “We've been waging an all-out war on (in) democracy." This was not a gaffe or error given the context of Trump’s behavior and threats for the last seven years, including a coup attempt and the Big Lie.
Two recent news articles are continuing to sound the alarm very loudly even as too many Americans, specifically members of the political class and news media, are waking up too late to stop what feels like a repeat of 2016 and what will be an even worse disaster for the country and world on Election Day if Trump returns to power.
A new essay in the Economist asks: Is Donald Trump the most dangerous threat to the world in 2024?
This is a perilous moment for a man like Mr Trump to be back knocking on the door of the Oval Office. Democracy is in trouble at home. Mr Trump’s claim to have won the election in 2020 was more than a lie: it was a cynical bet that he could manipulate and intimidate his compatriots, and it has worked. America also faces growing hostility abroad, challenged by Russia in Ukraine, by Iran and its allied militias in the Middle East and by China across the Taiwan Strait and in the South China Sea. Those three countries loosely co-ordinate their efforts and share a vision of a new international order in which might is right and autocrats are secure.
Because maga Republicans have been planning his second term for months, Trump 2 would be more organised than Trump 1. True believers would occupy the most important positions. Mr Trump would be unbound in his pursuit of retribution, economic protectionism and theatrically extravagant deals. No wonder the prospect of a second Trump term fills the world’s parliaments and boardrooms with despair. But despair is not a plan. It is past time to impose order on anxiety.
The greatest threat Mr Trump poses is to his own country. Having won back power because of his election-denial in 2020, he would surely be affirmed in his gut feeling that only losers allow themselves to be bound by the norms, customs and self-sacrifice that make a nation. In pursuing his enemies, Mr Trump will wage war on any institution that stands in his way, including the courts and the Department of Justice.
Yet a Trump victory next year would also have a profound effect abroad.
The Economist then emphasizes how Trump would weaken the global order by withdrawing from NATO, ending support for Ukraine which would advance the cause of Putin and the global antidemocracy movement, make poor choices that could expand the war in the Middle East, and perhaps even embolden China to become even more aggressive in the region (perhaps going so far as to (finally) invade Taiwan as America’s key allies in Asia acquire nuclear weapons because they have to fill in the power vacuum created by an American withdrawal.
The Economist concludes, “A second Trump term would be a watershed in a way the first was not. Victory would confirm his most destructive instincts about power. His plans would encounter less resistance. And because America will have voted him in while knowing the worst, its moral authority would decline. The election will be decided by tens of thousands of voters in just a handful of states. In 2024 the fate of the world will depend on their ballots.”
The Economist is not some “left-wing” publication, rag sheet, or click bait content farm. It is a solidly conservative, respectable, and institutionalist publication that has been published, in one form or another, since 1843.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
In a powerful, if not devastating, new essay at the Washington Post, neoconservative Robert Kagan pleads with the American people and their responsible leaders to stop Dictator Trump.
Kagan’s article is some six thousand words long. He writes with such clarity and force that it is as though he knows, given the realities of Trump and his allied forces’ threats to end the First Amendment and the Constitution, rubbleize the rule of law, and put his “enemies” in jail or worse, that he, like other pro-democracy voices, is on borrowed time. When dictator Trump takes power, what will happen? Kagan warns:
Having answered the question of whether Trump can win, we can now turn to the most urgent question: Will his presidency turn into a dictatorship? The odds are, again, pretty good.
It is worth getting inside Trump’s head a bit and imagining his mood following an election victory. He will have spent the previous year, and more, fighting to stay out of jail, plagued by myriad persecutors and helpless to do what he likes to do best: exact revenge. Think of the fury that will have built up inside him, a fury that, from his point of view, he has worked hard to contain. As he once put it, “I think I’ve been toned down, if you want to know the truth. I could really tone it up.” Indeed he could — and will. We caught a glimpse of his deep thirst for vengeance in his Veterans Day promise to “root out the Communists, Marxists, Fascists, and Radical Left Thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our Country, lie, steal, and cheat on Elections, and will do anything possible, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America, and the American Dream.” Note the equation of himself with “America and the American Dream.” It is he they are trying to destroy, he believes, and as president, he will return the favor….
But that’s just the start. After all, Trump will not be the only person seeking revenge. His administration will be filled with people with enemies’ lists of their own, a determined cadre of “vetted” officials who will see it as their sole, presidentially authorized mission to “root out” those in the government who cannot be trusted. Many will simply be fired, but others will be subject to career-destroying investigations. The Trump administration will be filled with people who will not need explicit instruction from Trump, any more than Hitler’s local gauleiters needed instruction. In such circumstances, people “work toward the Führer,” which is to say, they anticipate his desires and seek favor through acts they think will make him happy, thereby enhancing their own influence and power in the process.
Kagan’s conclusion:
A paralyzing psychology of appeasement has also been at work. At each stage, the price of stopping Trump has risen higher and higher…. But wait until Trump returns to power and the price of opposing him becomes persecution, the loss of property and possibly the loss of freedom. Will those who balked at resisting Trump when the risk was merely political oblivion suddenly discover their courage when the cost might be the ruin of oneself and one’s family?
We are closer to that point today than we have ever been, yet we continue to drift toward dictatorship, still hoping for some intervention that will allow us to escape the consequences of our collective cowardice, our complacent, willful ignorance and, above all, our lack of any deep commitment to liberal democracy. As the man said, we are going out not with a bang but a whimper.
In an interview with CBS on Sunday, former Rep. Liz Cheney warned that the American people are “sleepwalking into dictatorship” if they elect Donald Trump in 2024. Cheney, like too many other members of the political class and news media who still believe in the myth of American exceptionalism and the inherent goodness of the “average" American, has committed a fundamental error in her assumptions and therefore conclusion. In reality, there are tens of millions of (white) Americans who know exactly what Trump represents and want him to be president again. Trump is a weapon for their rage, anger, resentment, destructive impulses, cruelty, and desires to hurt the people they despise. These Americans are not asleep, tricked, bamboozled, conned, or somehow not aware of what they are doing and the implications of such collective evil and meanness. American fascism as a force and idea, and the fascists and authoritarians and others who are attracted to such politics and vision, are very real – and denying that fact will not save this country or its democracy and future. They know the evil that they do and are doing it with their eyes wide open.
Read more
about the threat of a second Trump term | US Political Corruption |
Momentum is building in Washington for a special commission to tackle the nation’s nearly $34 trillion debt, but the idea is drawing mixed reviews from some lawmakers amid skepticism of its chances of success in a divided Congress.
Members across Congress have been pressing for a fiscal commission aimed at exploring ways to reduce the nation’s debt, particularly as Washington feuds over how the government should be funded for most of next year.
“The urgency to actually establish a commission to look at our spending and taxing has increased dramatically since Simpson-Bowles made an effort a decade ago,” Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) told The Hill this week, referring to the Obama-era fiscal commission spearheaded by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles in 2010.
“At that time, debt as a percentage of the GDP was about 60 percent. It’s up twice that now, and our interest bill is two or three times larger,” Romney said. “So, the urgency has grown, and a commission seems to be the only possible step that would make a difference.”
Romney, who joined Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) earlier this month in leading a push for a bicameral commission focused on reducing the debt, will testify along with the West Virginia Democrat before the House Budget Committee on the issue Wednesday.
The bill is one of three bipartisan proposals the committee plans to review as part of the hearing, which will examine the need for a fiscal commission, particularly as some hard-line conservatives dial up the pressure on GOP leadership for the effort in recent months.
Opposition to possible plan emerges
But not everyone is as hopeful about the push.
Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) called the potential lift “awfully far-fetched” in remarks this week and touched on some of the distrust among members that could pose a hurdle to the effort in the months ahead.
“The history of these things is, you know, Republicans are big on the spending cuts, but then decide they want to let the billionaires get off the hook on revenue,” Wyden told The Hill.
His comments come just weeks after House GOP leadership’s proposal targeting funding for the IRS drew criticism from fiscal experts who said it undercut the party’s agenda to reduce the national debt.
The measure sought to cut more than $14 billion in funding for the IRS to offset new aid for Israel.
But analysis showed pulling back investments for the revenue service could actually end up adding billions of dollars to the nation’s deficits.
“You can’t responsibly reduce the deficit without having revenues be a central component of any type of plan,” said Joel Friedman, senior vice president for federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
“You really need some type of commitment, upfront and clear, that revenues will be part of this. Otherwise, you’re just setting it up for failure,” Friedman said Monday when pressed about proposals for a fiscal commission. “And then it’s sort of, you know, what’s the point of doing a commission if it’s just going to fail?”
Public support for the idea may be solid
As the national debt continues to climb, some polling has indicated strong public support for the idea, regardless of party.
A survey released by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation last month found that 9 in 10 voters supported a bipartisan fiscal commission, with 90 percent of Democrats and Republicans backing the push, along with 87 percent of independents.
Research from the Pew Research Center also showed an uptick in Americans’ concern about the nation’s deficit earlier this year, as both major parties battled over how to raise the country’s debt ceiling and ward off what experts say could have been an unprecedented and catastrophic national default.
Congress narrowly avoided the threat after both sides agreed to a deal that would suspend the debt ceiling into 2025, along with new limits on annual government funding that Republicans pushed for.
But the high stakes fight also played a role in the U.S. seeing its credit rating downgraded by another top rating agency months later.
“These budget skirmishes and brinksmanship do not really solve the problem at all, and instead they bring us closer to various crises,” said Michael Peterson, chief executive officer at Peterson, while acknowledging the “current budget discussion has not been successful in terms of bringing out more serious long term fiscal solutions.”
Peterson said a commission would provide a chance for members to come up “with the right mix of policy solutions that can garner support from both parties.”
“Given the difficulty of these issues, both policy wise and politically, getting a smaller group into a structure that allows them to put everything on a table and have serious discussions over a significant period of time,” he said.
How would a special commission work?
Some lawmakers say the idea could allow for fiscal solutions beyond the annual government funding fights, including potential changes on the mandatory spending side, which covers funding for major programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
However, there is disagreement among experts over how effective a commission could be, especially when compared to the Bowles-Simpson effort.
Discussing the push, Friedman argued that, despite the recommendations made on the revenues side at the time, “the only thing that really came out of commission that ended up being used were cuts on the spending side.”
“The only thing that was enacted through the Budget Control Act that was nominally related to the Bowles-Simpson things were these caps on discretionary spending,” he said, adding that those caps “were further lowered and ended up causing — even though some of it was given back over the years — ended up imposing some real damage on the discretionary side of the budget.”
While Friedman said commissions can put ideas on the table, on whether an agreement put forward by a commission could survive an up or down vote in this Congress, he added, “I don’t see it.”
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
On Tuesday, voters in Ohio enshrined protection for reproductive rights in the state constitution, while voters in Virginia gave control of both legislate chambers to Democrats, thereby thwarting Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s plans to enact abortion restrictions in the state.
On Wednesday, Republican Rep. Bob Good of Virginia appeared on the “Victory News” program, where he declared that in the wake of these losses, Republicans must become even more uncompromising and extreme on the issue of abortion.
“We are right on every issue; the Democrats are wrong on every issue,” Good proclaimed. “That’s why they frantically cling to abortion as the only issue that they think may work for them, and in some cases it has demonstrated that it does.”
“Part of the problem is that we surrender and we default to the media narrative, the left’s narrative that this is a loser for us,” he continued. “We need to be unflinchingly, unapologetically pro-life. I think when you have moderation, you have tepid, vanilla, benign statements on the issue of life—if you’re trying to talk about 15-week bans that only effect less than 10 percent of abortions—I think what that does is that demotivates our base. It’s not inspirational. It suppresses turnout in red states, and it leads to us losing elections.”
“We need to be bold and aggressive and paint with bright red colors on this issue,” Good said. | US Local Elections |
For those who have closely followed the political rise of Donald Trump, it’s rather obvious that the former president isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. This is a man, after all, who once mused about spraying disinfectant or ultraviolet light inside the body to kill the Covid-19 virus, looked directly at the sun during a solar eclipse without protecting his eyes and said Hurricane Florence was “one of the wettest we’ve ever seen, from the standpoint of water.”
This is a man who looked directly at the sun during a solar eclipse and said Hurricane Florence was “one of the wettest we’ve ever seen, from the standpoint of water.”
But in the wake of his third criminal indictment in four months, it appears that even Trump’s criminal defense team is essentially arguing that their client is an idiot.
Consider the comments of Trump’s lawyer John Lauro, who said Sunday that his client’s defense “is quite simple. Donald Trump … believed in his heart of hearts that he had won that election.”
I don’t doubt that Trump believed he won the 2020 election or that he repeated the lie so many times that it became his reality, but that’s not a defense — it’s a cry for help.
And in Trump’s case, arguing that he believed he won suggests that he also lives in a fantasy world. Last week’s federal indictment says Trump’s closest aides told him repeatedly that he lost the 2020 election. Every conspiracy theory whispered in this ear by Sidney Powell and the My Pillow guy proved hollow, and every legal challenge failed in court. There’s never been a shred of evidence backing up Trump’s “beliefs.”
More than 2½ years later, only the most deluded Americans believe in their heart of hearts that Trump won re-election, but Lauro's argument is it that that group includes the man most likely to be the GOP’s presidential standard-bearer in 2024.
The only way this defense could work is if, like Trump, the judge and members of the jury are also two sandwiches shy of a picnic.
In his bizarre statements over the weekend, Lauro didn’t limit himself to positing what Trump believes in his heart. He also claimed that when Trump asked Vice President Mike Pence to refuse to certify Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 election at the Jan. 6, 2021, joint session of Congress, he “asked him in an aspirational way.” Lauro said the same about Trump’s infamous phone call to Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, whom he asked to “find 11,780 votes” that would allow him to be declared the winner of the state.
“That was an aspirational ask,” Lauro said.
In Lauro’s telling, Trump simply asked, “Will no one rid me of this turbulent election outcome?” and nothing more.
But as the indictment alleges, Trump did far more than just “aspirationally” ask Pence. He and his co-conspirators are accused of concocting and attempting to implement a scheme to draft fake electors and, in the process, disenfranchise actual voters. And as Pence has said, the former president didn’t merely ask him to stop the certification — he pushed him to “reject votes outright” and “overturn the election.”
Lauro’s argument is akin to defending an accused bank robber with the claim that “he only aspirationally asked the teller to give him money.” As a defense, it’s ludicrous and insulting to the intelligence of anyone it seeks to persuade.
Lauro’s argument is akin to defending an accused bank robber with the claim that “he only aspirationally asked the teller to give him money.”
Then again, Lauro said his client committed a “technical violation of the Constitution” but “not a violation of criminal law,” which suggests that maybe the lawyer representing Trump is a few law books short of being Clarence Darrow.
But Trump’s making nonsensical arguments follows a familiar pattern in his attempts to get out of trouble. Who can forget his allegedly “perfect” phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, which led to his first impeachment? After his indictment in the Mar-a-Lago documents case, Trump claimed he had a right to possess certain government documents after having left office (he didn’t), that he had sole discretion in deciding which of his papers to turn over to the government (nope) and that Hillary Clinton and Biden did even worse things with classified documents than he did (they didn’t).
Perhaps Trump’s most moronic and outlandish argument was that he had the right to declassify documents with his mind — a claim utterly ludicrous and yet amazingly debunked by an audio recording in which he acknowledged that he held on to classified documents that, “as president, I could have declassified,” but “now I can’t.”
To be fair, Lauro is in an impossible position. The evidence against his client appears to be overwhelming. Trump continues to imperil himself further by constantly commenting on the cases and attacking the special counsel and the judge. There is no good legal or moral defense for Trump’s alleged actions, and his only hope for a not guilty verdict may rest on the jury’s giving him a pass because they think his elevator peters out well short of the top floor.
While it’s highly unlikely, one can’t completely dismiss the possibility that jurors will give him such a pass. After all, in 2020, after four years of Trump’s demonstrating that he is as sharp as a bowling ball, 74 million Americans thought he should spend another four years in the nation’s most powerful elected office. | US Political Corruption |
Questions mounted Thursday about why an Oklahoma sex offender who authorities say shot to death his wife, her three children and their two friends and then killed himself was freed from prison despite facing new sex charges in a separate case.
Okmulgee Police Chief Joe Prentice said each victim had each been shot in the head one to three times with a 9 mm pistol when they were found Monday near a creek in a heavily wooded area in rural Oklahoma.
The bodies apparently had been moved there from where they were originally killed, the scene “staged” before Jesse McFadden, a 39-year-old convicted sex offender, killed himself, Prentice said Wednesday. The bodies were discovered near McFadden's home in Henryetta, a town of about 6,000 about 90 miles (145 kilometers) east of Oklahoma City.
The gruesome discovery came Monday - the very day that McFadden was to stand trial on charges that he solicited nude images from a teen while he was in prison for rape. McFadden was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment in 2003 for first-degree rape. He was freed in 2020, three years early, in part for good behavior.
He faced new charges while still in prison. accused of using a contraband cellphone in 2016 to trade nude photos with a 16-year-old girl. Court records show McFadden was charged with the new crimes in 2017 after a relative of the victim alerted authorities. He was rearrested a month after he was released in October 2020 and released on $25,000 bond.
Lee Berlin, a Tulsa-based defense attorney, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that he’s shocked by what he described as a “panoply of errors” in the McFadden case. He said they include releasing McFadden from prison despite serious charges pending against him as well as “low” bail for McFadden once he was arrested on the new charges.
“I’m a sex-crimes defense attorney — this is all I do all day every day — and I’m like, how the hell does that happen?” Berlin said.
Meanwhile, McFadden had vowed not to return to prison in a series of ominous messages with the teenager whom he had allegedly been texting while behind bars. According to screen grabs of the messages, forwarded to KOKI in Tulsa, McFadden said his “great life” was crumbling and blamed the teenager for the latest set of charges against him that could put him back in prison for decades. A solicitation conviction can mean a 10-year sentence; the pornography charge could mean 20 years behind bars.
“Now it's all gone,” he texted. “I told you I wouldn't go back.”
“This is all on you for continuing this,” he said.
Prentice declined Wednesday to speculate on a motive.
“Everyone wants to understand why," he said. "People who perpetrate crimes like this are evil and normal folks like us can’t understand why they do it.”
Relatives of the victims were in disbelief by McFadden's early release, especially in light of the seriousness of the new charges against him.
“And they rushed him out of prison. How?" asked Janette Mayo of Westville, whose daughter, Holly Guess, 35, and her grandchildren, Rylee Elizabeth Allen, 17; Michael James Mayo, 15; and Tiffany Dore Guess, 13, were among those killed.
“Oklahoma failed to protect families. And because of that my children - my daughter and my grandchildren - are all gone,” Mayo said.
The other victims were 14-year-old Ivy Webster and 16-year-old Brittany Brewer. Justin Webster, who said he allowed Ivy to join a sleepover at the McFadden home not knowing anything about the man's past, raised similar concerns.
"There needs to be repercussions and somebody needs to be held accountable. They let a monster out,” Webster said.
A spokeswoman for the Oklahoma Department of Corrections said in a statement that McFadden was able to earn credits for things like behavior and attitude and completing program and education assignments that were then applied after he served 85% of his crime. Spokeswoman Kay Thompson added that registered sex offenders are allowed to live with their own children and stepchildren as long as they are not a victim of the offender. The DOC did not address why McFadden was released despite facing new felony charges.
Prosecutors objected to any early release from prison, noting that McFadden had tied a 17-year-old’s hands and feet to bedposts, cut her shirt off and raped her at knifepoint. At one point, he threatened to use the knife on her if she "did not shut up,” court records show.
McFadden married Holly Guess in May 2022; what she knew of his record isn't clear. Mayo said the family didn’t learn about her son-in-law's criminal history until a few months ago.
“He lied to my daughter," said Mayo. "He convinced her it was all just a huge mistake.”
The grim discovery could push the number of people slain in mass killings past 100 for the year, according to a database maintained by the AP and USA Today in a partnership with Northeastern University.
___
Associated Press reporter Heather Hollingsworth in Mission, Kansas, and data journalist Larry Fenn and researcher Rhonda Shafner in New York contributed to this report. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Student loans? US approves $42B to forgive debt for public workers.
The United States rolls out a loan forgiveness program to encourage public service. Open to teachers, librarians, nurses, and others, the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program cancels a borrower’s remaining student debt after 10 years of public interest.
The United States has approved more than $42 billion in federal student loan debt forgiveness for more than 615,000 borrowers in the past 18 months as part of a program aimed at getting more people to work in public service jobs, the U.S. Department of Education said this week.
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is open to teachers, librarians, nurses, public interest lawyers, military members, and other public workers. It cancels a borrower’s remaining student debt after 10 years of public interest work, or 120 monthly payments.
The program is separate from President Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan, which would wipe away or reduce loans for millions of borrowers regardless of what field they work in. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering whether that plan can go ahead.
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, known as PSLF, was launched in 2007, but stringent rules meant that more than 90% of applicants were rejected, the Department of Education said in 2019.
In October 2021, the government temporarily relaxed the requirements, making it easier for people to apply and be approved. Those relaxed requirements ended in October 2022. However, borrowers who want to increase their payment count have another opportunity to do so. They can apply for the one-time account adjustment until the end of the year.
Through the one-time account adjustment, borrowers with direct loans through the William D. Ford program will have similar benefits to those that were available under the limited PSLF waiver. Borrowers who do not have direct loans can consolidate and receive PSLF credit for prior payments as part of this adjustment as long as they submit a consolidation application by the end of 2023.
One of the people who benefited from the PSLF waiver was Beth Bourdon, an assistant public defender in Orlando, Florida.
Ms. Bourdon had about $57,000 of student loans forgiven in February 2022. Previously, because her loans had been acquired through the Family Federal Education Loan Program, Ms. Bourdon didn’t qualify for relief. But when the waiver took effect in October 2021, she successfully applied.
“I kept checking and re-checking the site, and one day I went, and the balance was zero,” Ms. Bourdon said. “Two days later, I got the official letter.”
With the exception of one two-year period, Ms. Bourdon has worked in public interest law since 2005. She said she made payments of about $417 every month from June 2008 to October 2021, when she consolidated her loans and applied for PSLF.
“Public defenders, we don’t get paid a lot,” she said. “When people’s student loans hit, they’re faced with a really hard decision. Can I remain doing this job I love or will I have to go to a civil firm to try to make money? The PSLF helps try to retain talented people who would otherwise go somewhere else.”
Ms. Bourdon said the cancellation gives her “breathing room.”
She added that she talked about 10 people she knows through the process of applying for forgiveness via the waiver and that several have already received cancellations.
“It’s so great – knowing how relieved I was, for my friends to have that kind of relief too,” she said.
Starting July 1 of this year, the Education Department will implement changes designed to make the PSLF application process easier. Some of the changes were previously included in the waiver.
Here’s what you need to know if you want to apply:
Who qualifies?
If you are or were previously employed at least 30 hours per week with the following types of organizations, you qualify:
•Government organizations at any level (U.S. federal, state, local, or tribal). This includes the U.S. military, all work in public education, and full-time volunteer work with AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps.
•Any not-for-profit organization that is tax-exempt under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
•If you work for a not-for-profit organization that is not tax-exempt, you may still qualify for PSLF if the organization provides certain types of qualifying public services such as emergency management, legal aid, and legal services, early childhood education, service to individuals with disabilities or the elderly, public health, including nurses and nurse practitioners, public library and school library services, and public safety such as crime prevention and law enforcement.
To demonstrate that your job in public service qualifies you for forgiveness, you’ll file an employer certification form with your servicer, listing jobs you’ve held.
You must have direct loans or consolidate other federal student loans into a direct loan. You must also make 120 qualifying payments or 10 years of payments.
Which student loans are eligible?
Any federal student loan received under the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan program is eligible.
If you have either a Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) or a Federal Perkins Loan, you’ll need to consolidate those into direct loans with your servicer. Payments made on these loans before you consolidated them do not count as qualifying PSLF payments.
Private student loans are not eligible.
How can I apply?
You can apply to the program using the PSLF help tool. If you want to do it manually, you can print and mail a PSLF form.
How can I consolidate my debt into a direct loan?
First, visit studentaid.gov to see if you have loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan or Perkins Loan Program. Those are the loans you’ll consolidate.
Next, apply online or by mail. The process is free and takes about six weeks to complete, but you can submit the Public Service Loan Forgiveness form after the consolidation is complete.
What counts as a qualifying payment?
A qualifying monthly payment is a payment that you made after Oct. 1, 2007, while you were employed by a qualifying employer.
The 120 qualifying monthly payments don’t need to be consecutive. For example, if you have a period of employment with a non-qualifying employer, you will not lose credit for prior qualifying payments.
What about the payment pause?
Student loan payments are currently paused because of the COVID pandemic.
Payments are set to resume, along with the accrual of interest, 60 days after the current Supreme Court case about student loan forgiveness is resolved. If the case hasn’t been resolved by June 30, payments will start 60 days after that.
Borrowers will get credit toward PSLF for payments they would have made during the pause as long as they meet all other qualifications for the program, according to the Education Department.
For the qualifying payments to show in your account, you must submit a PSLF form that certifies your employment during the pause.
How many people are currently in the program?
As of mid-April of this year, more than 615,000 borrowers have qualified for forgiveness under the limited PSLF waiver, which ended in October. Some borrowers who submitted their applications before the end date may continue to have their applications processed from the waiver period.
Who can I contact if I have questions?
If you have a specific question about your application, it’s best to call or email a representative.
For general questions about student loans, the Federal Student Aid Information Center (FSAIC) hosts a contact center that allows borrowers to live chat, call, or email.
This story was reported by The Associated Press. | US Federal Policies |
FBI Director Christopher Wray pleaded with lawmakers on Tuesday to continue funding a controversial surveillance tool of the U.S. government.
Wray testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday morning. In his opening remarks, he urged Congress to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which has been both credited with preventing terror attacks on U.S. soil and accused of being a vehicle for spying on U.S. citizens.
The law lets the government keep tabs on specific foreign nationals outside the country without first obtaining a warrant to do so, even if the party on the other side of those communications is an American on U.S. soil. The program will expire at the end of this year if not reauthorized by Congress.
"The expiration of our 702 authorities would be devastating to the FBI's ability to protect Americans," Wray told Senate lawmakers.
He said the FBI is aware of a "steady drumbeat" of calls for attacks by foreign terrorist organizations since Hamas massacred more than 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7. Section 702, Wray argued, is an "indispensable" tool to combat terror threats by allowing the government "to stay a step ahead of foreign actors located outside the United States who pose a threat to national security."
The FBI director pointed to several examples of how the bureau has used Section 702 to help victims of cyber crimes and identify potential targets.
"In just one recent cyber case, for instance, 702 allowed the FBI to alert more than 300 victims in every state and country around the world," Wray said, adding that those notifications were made possible by the FBI's ability to conduct U.S. person queries in the existing 702 database.
Wray testified that stripping the FBI of its 702 surveillance powers would be akin to "unilateral disarmament" in the face of growing threats from Iran and China.
However, critics on the right and left claim the program encroaches on Americans’ civil liberties, specifically if the FBI conducts warrantless surveillance on communications between Americans and foreign nationals.
A letter objecting to combining the measures was signed by more than 50 lawmakers on Wednesday, led by Reps. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, and Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., members of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, along with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., and Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.
"A temporary extension would be entirely unnecessary, and it would be an inexcusable violation of the public’s trust to quietly greenlight an authority that has been flagrantly abused," the letter addressed to Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said.
"If Section 702 is to be reauthorized for even a single day, it must be through standalone legislation subject to robust, open debate and amendment."
Wray argued against any attempt by lawmakers to restrict the FBI's surveillance authority, which he compared to the "pre-9/11-style wall" that prevented U.S. intelligence agencies from sharing information that could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks.
"If that's the path chosen, what are we going to say to the family whose loved one’s care was sabotaged when a hospital was taken offline by a foreign adversary and the FBI wasn’t able to stop the cyber attack? What’s the justification for not using every lawful tool to stop China from stealing our technology and undermining our freedoms? Because I can assure you the PRC is not holding back or tying its own hands behind its back," he said.
"And what if there were a terrorist attack that we had a shot to prevent, but couldn’t take it, because the FBI was deprived of the ability under 702 to look at key information already sitting in our holdings?"
Fox News Digital is told that congressional leaders are considering attaching a temporary extension of FISA to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), an annual defense spending bill.
Doing so would delay the fight over Section 702 reauthorization until early 2024.
Fox News Digital's Elizabeth Elkind contributed to this report. | US Federal Policies |
Ranked-choice voting is having a moment. The past year saw not only an expansion in the use of ranked-choice systems but also increased interest in instituting it more widely. And in 2023, legislatures in at least 14 states will consider bills that would move them to this increasingly popular model.In ranked-choice elections, voters identify their first choices on their ballots, then rank the other candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes on the first count, the election moves to an instant runoff. The candidate with the fewest votes gets eliminated, and ballots cast for that candidate are recast for voters’ second choices. The process repeats itself until a candidate reaches a majority.Advocates of ranked-choice voting have long said the setup benefits moderate candidates who don’t play to either party’s fringe and work instead to appeal to the broadest number of people.State lawmakers in both major parties seem to be listening to that argument.Just two weeks into 2023, lawmakers in 14 states have introduced, filed and prefiled 27 bills that propose various iterations of ranked-choice voting, according to an NBC News review.Some bills propose implementing the system for statewide and federal elections; others propose limiting its use to primary elections. Bills in some states propose ranked-choice voting only for local elections, while others offer a temporary pilot system that would test the use of ranked-choice voting for a fixed number of years.The variety and quantity underscore a growing trend in elections across the country: ranked-choice voting is clearly on the rise.“This year we’re already seeing a lot of state legislation, and we’re going to see a lot more,” said Rob Richie, the president and CEO of FairVote, a national nonpartisan group that has for decades worked to advance the use of ranked-choice voting in the U.S. “Some of it will pass.”In Virginia, for example, four state lawmakers from both major parties last week introduced bills that would advance ranked-choice voting in the state. Two would allow it for presidential primaries, starting in 2024, one would allow it for any primary elections and one would expand the state’s current ranked-choice pilot program for use in all local elections.In 2020, Virginia lawmakers enacted a pilot program for ranked-choice voting in local elections through 2031; a handful of localities have so far used the system. The state GOP used a ranked-choice voting system at its state convention in 2021 to select a gubernatorial nominee. Supporters of the system say it more easily allows a candidate with broad crossover appeal to advance; the winner, Glenn Youngkin, went on to win the general election. “Advocates all over the country use the GOP nominating contest in Virginia as a prominent successful test case. And that’s important because sometimes it gets painted as a progressive issue, and it’s really not. It really benefits both parties, and that’s such a good example of it being used on the right,” said Liz White, the executive director of UpVote Virginia, a nonpartisan election reform organization that supports ranked-choice voting.“It really appears that both parties in Virginia are moving steadily down a road toward accepting RCV on a wider scale,” White said.In Connecticut, state Rep. Keith Denning, a Democrat, introduced a bill that would establish a ranked-choice voting system for all state and federal elections, and Rep. David Michel, also a Democrat, introduced a bill that would allow ranked-choice voting in all local and municipal elections.Lawmakers in Oklahoma and Montana introduced bills that would allow officials to enact ranked-choice voting in all elections, and Wyoming legislators proposed creating a pilot program for its use in local and municipal elections in the state.Bills in Maryland and Massachusetts would allow specific towns and cities to use ranked-choice voting in their elections, while bills in Missouri and New Hampshire would create rules for ranked-choice voting, possibly setting the stage for future legislation that would authorize use of the system.A bill in Oregon proposes using ranked-choice voting in federal and state elections, a bill in New Jersey proposes using it in all elections in the state, and a New York bill would change all nonpartisan primary elections to a ranked-choice voting system.In addition, local ballot measures have already been placed and scheduled to occur in 2023 that would allow voters direct say over whether to enact ranked-choice voting in their local elections. Those are in Redondo Beach, California, and Burlington, Vermont. Both ballot measures are scheduled to be voted on in March. Discussions are also underway among policymakers in Arizona, who are looking at ranked-choice voting as a possible way of curbing extremism.“This is going to be a year of progress,” FairVote’s Richie said.Ranked-choice voting advocates like Richie say they’re amped about that progress and continue to argue that the system changes politics for the better by incentivizing candidates to avoid pandering to their bases and going negative. They say that’s because those candidates must continue to appeal to voters as a second, third or even fourth choice in elections given the way most ranked-choice voting models function.“It’s very simple where the virtues come from. If you’re limited to a single choice, your overt engagement with a field of candidates is limited to that single choice. If you become aligned with that single choice you stop thinking. But when you’re given the opportunity to consider multiple candidates, you’re expanding the number of reasons for engagement to happen, for conversations to happen."The latest raft of proposed legislation follows a year of notable and growing enthusiasm for ranked-choice voting. In 2022, lawmakers in 25 states introduced legislation advancing or expanding ranked-choice voting, with bills enacted in six states, according to FairVote. Voters in eight jurisdictions passed ballot measures adopting ranked-choice voting. That included Nevada, where voters approved a citizen-led constitutional amendment to institute ranked-choice voting in all statewide general elections except the presidential election. Under Nevada law, the measure must pass again in 2024 to take effect.In 2022, Alaska became the second state to use ranked-choice voting in state and federal elections (Maine has used the system in state and federal elections since 2018), and the number of cities and towns that switched to ranked-choice voting grew to more than 50. In many states, some of the purported strengths of the system promised by supporters — such as a rejection of polarizing candidates — came to fruition. In Alaska, for example, where ranked-choice voting was used for the first time in the state’s Senate and congressional races, voters chose incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Mary Peltola for those offices over more extreme candidates.“Ranked-choice voting forces candidates to build coalitions and appeal to people they’re not used to appealing to,” said White, of UpVote Virginia. “And it forces voters to do the same with candidates they may not have otherwise taken a look at.” | US Federal Elections |
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders is embroiled in a controversy dubbed by critics and the media as #LecternGate or #PodiumGate -- a silly-sounding name for a potentially serious issue involving an unusual payment with tax dollars and an alteration to the receipt of how that money was spent.
While there have been many twists and turns, at the heart of the incident is an invoice for a $19,029.25 purchase that was made in June by Sanders' office with a state-issued credit card and later reimbursed by the state's Republican Party, purportedly for a custom-made lectern.
Now, however, that purchase and the unusual way in which it was eventually revealed are drawing scrutiny as alleged waste or wrongdoing. The state Legislature recently launched an ongoing audit, which Sanders, a rising Republican star and former Trump White House official, has said she welcomes. No one involved in the purchase has been charged with a crime.
The five-figure podium, or its accompanying traveling case, have never been seen in use and the podium has only been photographed once, in late September.
The approximately $19,000 cost for the podium is notably higher than could be purchased via standard retail means. One retailer wrote online that their own lecterns sell for around $7,000. And two political sources outside of Sanders' office with experience producing podiums and the costs associated with them told ABC News that $19,029.25 is more than they would have charged or spent on the procurement.
Sanders said last week that her lectern was built with a specific height for stature and designed "to get the best sound quality" after previously teasing its "special features."
She and her aides have dismissed the whole thing as "a manufactured controversy" and said she is happy the purchase and the reimbursement are being audited.
"The governor … encourages legislators to complete it without delay," Sanders' spokesperson Alexa Henning said in a statement to ABC News. "This is nothing more than a manufactured controversy by left wing activists to distract from the bold conservative reforms the legislature has passed and the governor has signed into law and is effectively implementing in Arkansas."
How #PodiumGate became public
The matter first came to light because Arkansas attorney Matt Campbell, founder of the progressive blog "Blue Hog Report," requested public records in June related to Sanders' travel and security after she traveled to the Paris Air Show.
Campbell then launched a legal battle against the state after he said he received incomplete returns. Arkansas insists it complied with the public records law.
Sanders called a special legislative session and ultimately was able to tighten the state's public records law, citing her family's safety despite outcry even from some other Republicans about curbing government transparency.
During that special session, Campbell publicly questioned the podium payment, which he had found detailed in the partial records he received.
Campbell has also publicly released many of the government records he received, which have been reviewed by ABC News. Sanders' office has not disputed their legitimacy.
From there, it spiraled, first with local journalists and then the national media looking more closely at what happened.
The $19,029.25 purchase is linked to a June 8 invoice from Beckett Events LLC, a boutique event management company based in Virginia, for what was described as a Custom Falcon Podium, the accompanying road case and a 3% credit card processing fee.
Virginia Beckett and Hannah Salem Stone, who run Beckett Events LLC, have ties to Sanders: They were previously hired by Sanders' office to help with advance planning on her gubernatorial inauguration and subsequent response to President Joe Biden's State of the Union address. They were also at the Paris Air Show in June. (Beckett Events did not respond to requests for comment.)
The Arkansas Republican Party ultimately reimbursed the state for the $19,029.25 payment via a check dated Sept. 14 -- only after Campbell called attention to it.
According to the public records Campbell released, the lectern invoice was also altered after the fact by Sanders' executive assistant, to add the “To Be Reimbursed” notation.
Henning, Sanders spokesperson, has said the use of a state credit card for the lectern was "an accounting error."
An email surfaced this month by Jay Orsi, a freelance investigative journalist, from an earlier Campbell request, shows a fiscal manager at the Arkansas Department of Transformation and Shared Services describe how Sanders' executive assistant was instructed to add the "To Be Reimbursed" to the original invoice -- but told not to date it. The email does not indicate who told the assistant to change the invoice but not date that change.
Sanders, when asked last week who gave the assistant the instruction to add a note and not date it, said only that "it went through standard protocol in our office."
More emails raise more questions
Notably, the governor's office had also sought approval before the lectern purchase to increase the state credit card's spending limit, according to the emails between state employees obtained by Campbell and reviewed by ABC News.
Henning, Sanders' spokesperson, told The Associated Press: "A note was added to the receipt so that it would accurately reflect that the state was being reimbursed for the podium with private funding the governor raised for her inauguration and the check was properly dated."
She has also maintained that the podium was "not [intended] strictly for use by the Governor."
Sanders' assistant originally wrote in an email to an employee at the Arkansas Department of Transformation and Shared Services on May 11 that "we have a custom podium on order" and that it would cost "around 10K."
The assistant asked how they could make the payment to Beckett Events LLC before June 30.
On May 31, the assistant emailed again to say they had pricing and that the vendor required payment up front: "Both the governor and [another official] have used this vendor before, so they approve the purchase," she wrote.
During the special legislative session, as questions swirled around the lectern, the assistant wrote in an email on Sept. 11 that the governor's office received the lectern via freight carrier on Aug. 9. The state has not made public any receipt of delivery.
Tom Mars, who served as the Arkansas State Police director under former Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sanders' father, claims to represent a former state employee-turned-whistleblower who can prove Sanders' office improperly altered and sought to withhold public records from Campbell, an accusation that Sanders denies.
Mars declined to identify his client to ABC News.
What happens next?
The Arkansas Legislative Joint Audit Committee has opened a probe into the lectern's procurement, which is ongoing.
Mars told ABC News that his client appeared for an interview last week for that audit -- and that he has personally contacted federal law enforcement authorities, but he declined to specify the agencies he reached out to.
Sanders has said she doesn't intend to be seen with the lectern, because it is a distraction.
"I figure if I do, you would talk about nothing else instead of the important actions we're actually taking today," she said last week. "While we are focused on things that actually impact our state and impact Arkansas, the media wants to spend all of their time focused on things that frankly don't." | US Political Corruption |
Pro-DeSantis super PAC fires interim CEO after 9 days
Never Back Down fired Kristin Davison on Friday, according to two people familiar with the decision.
The chief super PAC supporting Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, Never Back Down, has fired its interim chief executive officer after less than two weeks.
It was the latest in a series of shake-ups as tumult has continued to disrupt the super PAC for weeks.
Never Back Down fired Kristin Davison on Friday for unspecified “management and personnel issues” just nine days after she replaced Chris Jankowski as CEO, according to two people familiar with the decision. The super PAC named Scott Wagner, a longtime DeSantis ally, as interim CEO, according to an internal email sent Saturday night. Wagner is also replacing former Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt as board chairman.
Davison did not respond to requests for comment Saturday. Representatives for Never Back Down referred POLITICO to Wagner’s Saturday night email.
Jankowski left on Nov. 22; Laxalt resigned four days later. Others have also split with the super PAC in recent days, said the two people, who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss personnel changes. It was not immediately clear how widespread the other departures were.
The continued shake-ups come amid widespread infighting inside the super PAC and ongoing conflict with the Florida governor’s campaign. Last week, NBC News reported on a near-physical altercation between Wagner and top Never Back Down strategist Jeff Roe.
The DeSantis campaign believes Never Back Down’s TV ads have been ineffective, those close to the governor say, and campaign manager James Uthmeier this week issued a memo implicitly suggesting the group instead focus on waging a get-out-the vote program.
As turmoil roiled Never Back Down, DeSantis allies formed a new super PAC, Fight Right. Never Back Down had been the only pro-DeSantis group — taking on more campaign functions than most super PACs normally do — and the creation of the new group raised questions about Never Back Down’s role moving forward.
DeSantis continues to trail far behind former President Donald Trump in the race for the GOP nomination, and polls show the governor, once considered a possible strong competitor to Trump, instead locked in a battle for second place with former UN Ambassador Nikki Haley.
In the wake of Uthmeier’s memo, Never Back Down decided to focus on field deployment in the run-up to the Jan. 15 Iowa caucus, those familiar with the discussions said. Fight Right, meanwhile, will focus on TV advertising.
“I and the entire board look forward to continuing to work with the whole Never Back Down team to double down on its core mission of running the biggest and best ground game in modern American politics,” Wagner wrote in the memo Saturday.
Representatives for the DeSantis campaign did not respond to a request for comment Saturday. | US Political Corruption |
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- Elections officials in a central Pennsylvania county were scrambling on Monday to fix an error on more than 18,000 mail-in ballots for the spring primary, when voters will elect judges for the state Supreme Court and other positions.
Late last week someone noticed that the ballot for Superior Court instructed Republican and Democratic primary voters to pick only one judicial candidate to nominate from their party, when in fact voters could pick two, according to Lancaster County’s elections board. There are two vacancies to fill on the mid-level appeals court.
By early Monday afternoon, postal officials had helped Lancaster, which is about 71 miles (114 kilometers) west of Philadelphia, intercept and safely secure over 15,000 of the affected ballots, officials said.
The problem comes as voters are just receiving mail-in ballots for the primary, which also includes a vacancy on the state Supreme Court.
Voters will receive replacements with corrected wording and a sheet of instructions. Those who received an erroneous ballot were told to throw it out and wait for a replacement. Ballots from those who fill out and return erroneous versions will be “set aside” by the elections board, the county said.
The deadline to return mail-in ballots is May 16.
Pennsylvania is a closely divided swing state that is expected to be a major battleground in next year’s presidential contest. Lancaster is a Republican-majority area with a large farm economy and a growing suburban population. More than 220,000 Lancaster residents voted in the November gubernatorial election.
Lancaster County also had a printing problem with primary ballots a year ago, when a vendor mailed ballots with the wrong ID code, preventing scanning machines from reading them. About one-third of the 21,000-plus ballots affected last year were able to be properly scanned. The votes had to be painstakingly transferred to fresh ballots.
Lancaster also faced a ballot printing error in 2021, when a large number of primary mail-in ballots had to be counted by hand, delaying final results. In that case, the Lancaster County Board of Elections said some 14,000 multi-sheet ballots had been printed in the wrong order. | US Local Elections |
Maine's secretary of state is raising concerns over No Labels's initiative to launch independent tickets across the United States, claiming that the organization misled voters into registering as third party for the 2024 election.
Secretary of State Shenna Bellows said on Monday that she received "complaints" from local clerks and voters who claim No Labels tricked them into joining the initiative to launch a third-party ballot in all 50 states.
"Voter after voter is telling my team that they were instructed that they were merely signing a petition. They were not told they were changing their political party,” Bellows, who is a Democrat, said in an interview with NBC News on Monday.
“We have had enough similar complaints from voters and clerks alike that it raises serious concerns in our office about No Labels Party organizers.”
Bellows sent a cease-and-desist letter to Nicholas Connors, director of No Labels, as well as letters to every voter that registered with the party last month. She wrote to Connors that her office had "serious concerns" about the "conduct of your campaign" to enroll Maine voters in the No Labels Party for the 2024 election.
The centrist organization has been working to gain access to ballots across all states to open the doors for a third-party candidate in the presidential elections. No Labels is spending $70 million to launch an independent ticket in the United States. The group has gained momentum in Arizona, Colorado, Alaska, and Oregon.
In the letter to Connors, Bellows said voters told her office that they were approached to sign a "petition" to support the new party, and they did not understand that No Labels was asking Maine voters to "change their party enrollment."
"We infer from these widespread reports that there are many more voters who are similarly unaware that they are now enrolled in the No Labels party," Bellows said, adding that a voter registration card is not a petition and enrolling voters into a new party is "not petitioning activity."
"The use of such terms is highly misleading, particularly since Maine law does provide for the use of petitions for many other types of political activity, such as the direct initiation of legislation and the nomination of candidates. Many Maine voters know what a petition is and understand that signing one does not change one’s party enrollment," Bellows said.
Bellows also called attention to the fact that Maine voters may not know they are currently disaffiliated from their prior party and will be prevented from voting in the primary election of their choice if they remain in the No Labels party.
Maine is one of several states that allow only unaffiliated voters to participate in any party primary they choose but do not allow voters who are registered with one party to vote in another's primary. So, voters who were unaffiliated and now are registered for the No Labels party will not be able to vote for a Democratic or Republican nominee.
Bellows sent an official letter to voters enrolled in the No Labels Party, alerting them to a possible change in their party affiliation.
"We are sending this letter to ensure that you are aware that you have enrolled in the No Labels Party. If you wish to remain enrolled in the No Labels Party you do not need to do anything," Bellows wrote, urging people who believe they were "misled" into joining the party to contact her office.
Bellows warned in the letter that there is a three-month waiting period from the time a voter enrolled in the No Labels party before they can switch to a new party. After that, if someone wishes to enroll in a new party, there is a 15-day waiting period before that enrollment becomes effective, secretary of state communications director Emily Cook told the Washington Examiner.
Maine's presidential preference primary is March 5, 2024, and the primary is June 11, 2024. If voters who switched to No Labels want to make changes to their affiliation, they would need to do so at least three weeks before the primary to secure the ballot of their choice. Maine residents who decide to vote absentee weeks ahead of Election Day would have plenty of time to change their party affiliation. However, Cook noted that many Maine voters like to vote on or close to Election Day, which is one of the reasons a letter was sent out to voters affiliated with the No Labels Party.
“The response we’ve seen from voters who received the letter has generally been of gratitude for the information provided," Bellows said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. "Ensuring voters have the information they need to exercise their First Amendment right to associate with the party of their choice (or no party) and those parties’ associated primary elections in 2024, is our concern.”
For the 2024 election, No Labels is seeking to offer alternative candidates for voters who, polls show, do not want to see another showdown between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. A poll released Tuesday from NewsNation and Decision Desk HQ showed that 23.38% of voters said they were very likely to consider a third-party candidate if Biden and Trump are the candidates.
A No Labels poll conducted in March found that 59% of respondents would consider voting for a centrist independent candidate over Biden and Trump. In a three-person race, the independent candidate received 20% of the support, compared with 33% for Trump and 28% for Biden. While 20% seems like an insignificant amount, Democrats worry that the No Labels initiative will aid a Republican victory.
New parties need to enroll 5,000 voters to qualify for the ballot in Maine, and Bellows said the state has had no issues with the other third parties active in the state.
No Labels organizers were told to ask voters to join the No Labels Party and the form that Maine voters signed was titled "Maine voter registration application," said Matthew Sanderson, counsel to No Labels, in a letter to Bellows.
"No Labels is not aware of any circumstance where one of its organizers told a voter that they were merely signing a 'petition.' If you are indeed aware of any actual instance of an organizer misstating the purpose of No Labels' effort, please provide that information and the organizer will be dismissed," Sanderson said.
Sanderson said that No Labels had "no objection" to the secretary of state alerting "all 6,456 No Labels enrollees" to let them know of their affiliation. He added the group would be "interested" in knowing if the office finds someone joined unintentionally.
He said that No Labels "cautions" Bellows and her office from "creating and distributing its notification" and that the party asked the office to avoid language that would "encourage unenrollment."
"You are a member of a major political party and should not use your government office or public resources to suppress newly competitive political movements in this space," Sanderson said. "No Labels requests that it receive an advance copy of the notification so that the organization can verify its impartiality."
The Washington Examiner reached out to No Labels and Sanderson for comment. | US Federal Elections |
According to the Florida governor's campaign, "Donald Trump causes major workplace accidents for his own candidacy every time he veers off the teleprompter."
It started the tally Monday, pointing out gaffes from Trump's New Hampshire rally. "Did you miss the Trump rally today? Here’s a quick recap: (WARNING: There were several teleprompter issues)," wrote DeSantis War Room on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.
During the video, Trump mixed up the leaders of Turkey and Hungary, told attendees not to worry about voting, and went off on a tangent about how the acronym U.S. resembles the word "us," something he said he just realized.
The DeSantis rapid response video has amassed over 100,000 views on X.
Justifying the "accident tracker," DeSantis's campaign reminded supporters of various controversial recent moves by Trump. "From praising Hezbollah terrorists and criticizing [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, to failing to be able to answer whether a man can become a woman, to calling pro-life legislation passed in numerous conservative states (including Iowa and South Carolina) terrible, to pledging to cozy up to China, to attacking Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, the former president has been his own worst enemy on the campaign trail," read the email announcement.
The campaign explained the purpose of such a tracker is to show voters what a "liability" Trump would be during his second term as president. They will therefore follow "how long Trump can go without causing an accident on the job."
DeSantis's team further took a shot at Trump's relative absence from the campaign trail throughout his primary bid. "Days in which Trump adopts Biden’s basement campaign strategy don’t count," his campaign said, noting Trump told a crowd recently that his rallies take place “like once a month.”
Trump's campaign did not provide a comment to the Washington Examiner.
In attacking Trump's verbal mistakes, DeSantis and President Joe Biden are somewhat unified. Biden's rapid response account has similarly been calling out such gaffes, including the latest Trump mistake, confusing the Turkish and Hungarian leaders. Both campaigns are apparently looking to paint Trump as too old or lacking the mental sharpness to lead the country. | US Federal Elections |
That could make the I-10 blaze complicating LA traffic this week the third fire in the area involving leftover hand sanitizer. A different pallet yard storing sanitizer erupted in flames in downtown Los Angeles in January. And in 2021, a notoriously noxious smell plaguing the LA County town of Carson was linked by officials to a massive fire at a lot storing thousands of bottles of hand sanitizer.As WIRED reported in June, the US Food and Drug Administration lifted regulations on hand sanitizer during the height of the Covid-19 crisis, putting faith in the free market to solve a hand sanitizer shortage. It soon became clear that faith was misplaced.After production jumped, the US quickly had more hand sanitizer than anyone knew what to do with, and much of it turned out to be toxic because of poor manufacturing practices. Over the past few years, unsellable hand sanitizer has been accumulating at sites across the nation. And industrial fires involving large amounts of hand sanitizer have been reported at multiple sites in Texas, Oklahoma, and Illinois.Hand sanitizer is highly flammable and regulations say it should be treated as hazardous waste. But some in the chemical distribution industry had complained that properly disposing of hand sanitizer was too expensive. One Oklahoma fire was also investigated as arson.Serafin says that he was not a major distributor of hand sanitizer, just someone trying to support his family during the pandemic selling products such as masks, cleaning fluid, and sanitizer to local businesses. He said his landlord Apex Development had charged him $4,500 a month during the time it was allegedly holding out on rent payments to the California Department of Transportation.Serafin said he and other sublessees stopped paying rent to Apex when they learned of their landlord’s litigation with the state but resumed paying after its CEO, Nowaid, became aggressive and locked them out of the property.“At the end of the day, my business is screwed, my livelihood is gone, and all I can do is work,” Serafin said of his current situation. He said he had been renting there since 2009 and that the Department of Transportation was aware of the crowded conditions under the freeway. In addition to the hand sanitizer, Serafin said that there were also forklifts, cardboard, gas canisters, and trucks under the overpass. Apex’s contract with Caltrans stated that flammable or hazardous materials were not supposed to be stored there. Serafin says he's confident his sanitizer did not start the fire.“My hand sanitizers did not start it. I could tell you where it was. It was literally in the middle of my shop,” he said, referring to the space he rented under the overpass. “How would it get started right there? It wouldn't.” | US Federal Policies |
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., returned to the Senate floor Monday after being hospitalized for several days, amid growing concerns over his health and ability to serve in the Senate.
The Democrat was hospitalized for three days after feeling lightheaded, but made an appearance at the Capitol after doctors reportedly ruled out another stroke or seizure. The Pennsylvania Democrat, with a thumbs up, voted to confirm Cindy Chung as a judge on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
"Hey everyone. It’s great to be back in the Senate. Thank you all for the well wishes—looking forward to getting back to work today," Fetterman wrote in a Tweet.
Due to his auditory processing disability, there are wired screens in the Senate chamber where closed-captioning is typed out by professional broadcast captioners so that Fetterman can participate in Senate business.
FETTERMAN HEARS VOICES LIKE THE TEACHERS IN ‘PEANUTS’ AFTER STROKE, STRUGGLES TO ADJUST TO SENATE LIFE: REPORT
The newly elected senator suffered a stroke in May 2022 while on the campaign trail, but despite severe auditory processing issues that resulted from the health scare, he won the race for Pennsylvania's open Senate seat in November.
Amid calls during the campaign to release his medical records to the public, Dr. Clifford Chen wrote Fetterman's medical report stating that he was "recovering well from his stroke and his health has continued to improve." Records later revealed that Chen had donated more than $1,300 to Fetterman's campaign that year.
Last week it was reported that Fetterman described his severe hearing processing issues as causing him to hear the voice of the teacher from the "Peanuts" cartoon when listening to people speak, according to the New York Times.
Due to his condition, the Senator carries around a closed captioning tablet in order to converse with people while at work, and his office is also equipped with closed captioning devices.
Despite the health concerns, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., said the devices Fetterman uses are something people will just have "to get used to."
"We’re going to have to learn our own styles with it," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., told the New York Times of Fetterman's condition after using the tablet to converse with him. "What I was saying was accurate even when I talked fast. I wanted to make sure it was accurate. It was kind of hard to imagine what it would be like to be him."
"He answers like you would answer anyone," Klobuchar said. "It’s us that have to get used to it — he’s used to it." | US Congress |
A “demonic” MS-13 gang member robbed and dismembered an Uber Eats driver in Florida last week as his wife waited for him to complete his final delivery of the night, police announced Tuesday.
Oscar Solis, 30, who moved to the Sunshine State in January after being sprung on parole from Indiana, allegedly “yanked” Randall Cooke, 59, into his home on April 19 and butchered him, according to Pasco County Sheriff Chris Nocco.
“He was just a guy trying to make a living for his family,” Nocco said at a press conference, calling the murder “demonic.”
Cooke texted his wife at 6:43 p.m. to tell her he was en route to his last delivery and would be home soon.
When her ensuing texts went unanswered, Cooke’s wife contacted police and reported him missing later that night.
Investigators contacted Uber Eats, which relayed his final recorded location that night as a residential street address in Holiday.
Deputies canvassed the house the day after Cooke’s disappearance, but no one answered the door, and there was nothing suspicious about the scene, Nocco said.
They returned the following day, on April 21, and were able to make contact with an occupant of the home, who provided them with surveillance footage from the preceding days.
Nocco said Cooke could be seen on the porch of the home the night of April 19 with the food order.
The video then showed a resident of the home, Oscar Solis, and another person carrying trash bags around the side of the residence the following day.
“Unfortunately, what we found inside some of those trash bags were human remains,” Nocco said.
Solis was immediately picked up and charged with failing to register in Pasco County as a felon before investigators gathered enough evidence to charge him with murder.
The repeat felon, whose rap sheet includes battery, resisting arrest and a charge for stabbing a fellow inmate in prison, was paroled just months ago after serving four years in Indiana for assault and burglary. Solis was affiliated with MS-13 in Indiana, Nocco said.
“You’re talking about a violent individual that Indiana released and sent down to Florida,” he added angrily. “They released him on parole. Unfortunately, now we have a hardworking guy, a loving husband, who is no longer with us because this violent individual killed him.”
Officials said Solis moved to Florida to live near his father, who moved out of the home once Solis arrived after he was paroled.
The unsuspecting father, Nocco said, placed the delivery order that eventually led to Cooke’s murder.
A GoFundMe page for Cooke states that he had two stepdaughters and was his household’s primary breadwinner.
“The person that took the life of someone so giving and a heart of gold,” the page said, alongside a picture of Solis. “This is the guy that killed Randall. Please pray they get justice for Randall and he gets life in prison so he can suffer.”
Nocco said the Cooke’s “soulmate” wife — who frantically texted her husband after his disappearance — was inconsolable.
“She did everything she could,” Nocco said of Cooke’s shattered wife. “Evil just came.” | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Washington — Embattled GOP Rep. George Santos' future in Congress could be determined Wednesday night when the House is set to vote on a resolution that would expel him from Congress, an effort .
Five GOP lawmakers from the Empire State urged their Republican colleagues to vote in favor of their resolution expelling Santos in a letter circulated on Wednesday, calling it a "moral" issue.
The letter, signed by first-term Reps. Nick LaLota, Anthony D'Esposito, Marcus Molinaro, Brandon Williams and Mike Lawler, addressed concerns about expelling Santos before he's been criminally convicted, as well as fears that doing so would narrow Republicans' already slim majority in the House. All five Republicans face competitive races next year.
"We agree it would set a precedent, but a positive one," the letter said. "Indeed, we should let the American people know if a candidate for Congress lies about everything about himself to get their votes, and then that false identity becomes known by his own admission or otherwise, that House Members will expel the fraudster and give voters a timely opportunity to have proper representation."
"These lies were more than just exaggerations like many other politicians make," it added. "These lies defined George Santos and were the basis for his nomination, election and defrauding donors of millions."
Santos hasto 23 federal charges accusing him of stealing his campaign donors' identities and racking up thousands of dollars in unauthorized charges on their credit cards, falsifying campaign finance reports, money laundering and other crimes.
The effort to expel Santos
The Constitution gives each chamber of Congress the power to expel members with a two-thirds majority vote, meaning nearly 80 Republicans would need to vote with all Democrats to expel Santos for the effort to succeed. Only five representatives have been expelled since 1861.
The three-page resolution includes roughly a dozen justifications for Santos' expulsion, including his criminal charges and the series of lies he told about his background before he was elected to Congress in November 2022. "[A]s a result of these actions, George Santos is not fit to serve his constituents as a United States Representative," it says. The resolution is "privileged," meaning the House was required to bring it up for a vote soon afterlast week.
The House will take up the resolution as part of a series of votes Wednesday evening. The lower chamber will also hold votes on whether to table separate resolutions to censure GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Democratic Rep. Rashida Tlaib.
The five Republicans leading the renewed effort to expel Santos voted againstto oust him from Congress in May. The matter was instead referred to the House Ethics Committee, which said Tuesday it would announce its " " in its investigation by Nov. 17.
Depending on what the committee decides about Santos' alleged conduct, it could recommend censure, expulsion or other punishments. The House would still have to vote on whether to expel or censure Santos if he is still in Congress at that point.
"I will not beg for my constitutional rights," Santos wrote Monday on X. "I will let my colleagues make their decision without my interference."
Scott MacFarlane contributed reporting.
for more features. | US Congress |
You have probably heard about Donald Trump’s record-setting run of four indictments. It has, understandably, received wall-to-wall media coverage. You may well have heard about the Trump indictments from the ex-president’s fellow Republicans, loudly disputing the facts and attacking the prosecutors. Or from the Trump campaign, which is selling his mug shot on T-shirts. But you very likely have not heard much about it from the people with the most to gain from Trump going to trial: President Joe Biden and the Democrats.
The asymmetry is striking, intentional—and possibly misguided, if the Democrats think that court action and press coverage will do a sufficient job of rallying key Biden voters in 2024. Since April, when Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg announced that his office was bringing fraud charges against Trump, alleging that he’d covered up hush money payments to Stormy Daniels, the former president’s allies have rushed to the microphones and keyboards every time Trump racks up a new indictment. Mississippi governor Tate Reeves: “They have proven they will do anything to ‘get’ Donald Trump.” Florida congressman Byron Donalds: “Nobody can take [the right to challenge election results] away from you, especially some rogue, knucklehead prosecutor out of the Department of Justice.”
The most prominent Democrats, however, have been determined to stay out of the headlines on the matter. Their statements about Trump, if any, are typically written and calculated to be “very muted, restrained,” one senior Democratic operative says. Biden has repeatedly refused to comment on his predecessor’s indictments, even shouting “No!” to a reporter’s request for comment after Trump’s Florida arraignment. Jill Biden, perhaps, has gone the furthest, telling a group of Democratic donors that it has been “shocking” to see so many Republicans still supporting Trump even after the indictments, per the Associated Press. Though those comments were apparently not meant for wide public consumption.
For Biden, the attempt to stay above the fray is a relatively easy choice. His brand is all about returning Washington to functioning normally, and the contrast he wants to draw is that he, unlike Trump, is a believer in the nonpartisan dispensing of justice. “I think the president has been clear on the issues that underlie all of these indictments, like the issues of democracy, of the rule of law, of having an independent justice department,” a Biden insider says. “The irony of people being like, Why won’t the president comment on the indictments? Part of what Trump is indicted for is weaponizing the Justice Department! And people want us, in some sense, to do the same thing? Why would we do that? Our guy stands for the opposite of that.” The ongoing federal investigation of the president’s son is also a disincentive: Biden commenting on the cases against Trump while Hunter Biden is still under scrutiny by a special counsel would give oxygen to Republican what-about-ism.
Beyond the White House, though, the prevailing silence is more nuanced and somewhat harder to understand. Six Senate Democrats have a solid reason: Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Joe Manchin (West Virginia), and Jon Tester (Montana) are running for reelection in states Trump won in 2020; Tammy Baldwin (Wisconsin), Bob Casey (Pennsylvania), and Jacky Rosen (Nevada) are running in states Trump barely lost. Bashing the former president could be counterproductive for them; better to focus their campaigns on local issues as they try to win over independents. But then there’s Hakeem Jeffries, House Democrats’ leader, whose job in the minority could arguably be entirely centered on attacking Trump’s candidacy and legal troubles. He, too, has been careful in his comments. “The Trump indictment and the facts that will continue to emerge from the legal process speak for themselves,” Jeffries told CNN in June.
At all levels, Democrats are following the old maxim that when an adversary is tripping over himself, you stay out of his way. For electeds not facing voters, staying quiet is seen as avoiding a Republican trap. “Our thinking is that Trump is going to inject politics into this no matter what,” the senior Democratic operative says. “So there’s no benefit to us making this a political issue because if there’s a conviction, we want people to have faith it was a fair process. We need to defend the legal process and the legal system, and not make the courts political.”
There’s also the reasoning that we’re still 15 months away from Election Day. Most voters aren’t paying attention, and by next November, it’s possible Trump could be both the Republican nominee and a convicted felon who is looking to be reelected in order to stave off jail—an unprecedented combination that would make Biden’s argument without Biden’s help. “You don’t really need to make this into an issue,” a Biden adviser says. “America knows that Donald Trump means chaos, that he lives in an alternate reality, and that he’s a demagogue. Sixty percent of general election voters believe he probably committed a crime. It has hurt him and it is going to continue to hurt him.” Indeed, a YouGov poll showed 66% agreeing that Trump had “definitely or probably” committed a crime—and that was back when the former president had only been indicted once. Whether that translates into votes for Biden, or against Trump, is a different question. The danger of a cautious approach toward the ex-president’s legal mess (particularly if Trump hasn’t yet gone to trial, or if he has and has been acquitted) is that it could calcify into complacency.
In both the 2020 presidential election and the 2022 midterms, impatient Democrats and pundits worried that Biden was waiting too long to get his act together or that he was emphasizing the wrong messages. Yet selling “the soul of America” worked for Biden three years ago and talking about the general threat to democracy resonated with voters last fall, as Democrats exceeded dismal expectations. “He was widely criticized for not focusing on the economy, for talking about democracy and reproductive rights,” the Biden insider says of the midterms. “And he was proven right.”
So here’s a radical thought: Maybe Joe Biden knows what he’s doing. This time around he’ll also be able to boast a record of delivering tangible results for millions of Americans on things like lower drug prices and higher wages. Still, there will come a time in next year’s campaign when Biden needs to address—viscerally, not legalistically—how his predecessor’s rule-breaking matters beyond the courtroom, and the dangers of what Trump would do with the power of a second term. “I would not ever expect Joe Biden to directly make Trump’s legal proceedings a center of his campaign reelection effort,” says Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s former White House communications director and now a CNN contributor. “Joe Biden has never hesitated to call out the existential threat he believes Donald Trump poses to the country. What he’s not doing is auditioning to be a legal analyst on MSNBC.” | US Political Corruption |
The Biden administration said it is forgiving $9 billion in student debt for 125,000 borrowers, a move that comes as student loan repayments are starting up again this month after a hiatus of more than three years.
The debt cancellation is the latest push from the White House to erase some student loans in the wake of the Supreme Court's June ruling. The 6-3 decision by the court's conservative majority the administration's plan for broad-based student loan forgiveness, which would have helped more than 40 million borrowers erase up to $20,000 each in debt.
With that debt forgiveness plan struck down, the Biden administration has focused on other methods for relieving student debt, including creating a new(IDR) plan as well as outright forgiveness for some qualified borrowers. Meanwhile, with millions of student borrowers resuming payments this month, there are with loan servicers, ranging from long wait times for callers to customer service reps who can't answer questions.
Who is getting their student debt forgiven?
The Biden administration said it is forgiving debt for three types of borrowers:
- Public servants: About 53,000 borrowers who are enrolled in Public Service Loan Forgiveness programs will get $5.2 billion in forgiveness, according to the Education Department. These programs are open to people who work for the government or nonprofit organizations, with forgiveness available after 120 qualifying monthly payments and while working full-time for an eligible employer. These types of workers include teachers, law enforcement professionals and social workers.
- People in IDRs: About 51,000 borrowers and who have $2.8 billion in debt will get relief. IDRs reduce student loan monthly payments by pegging a person's payment amount to their income, but the Biden administration has said some of these programs hadn't accurately tracked payments made under the plans. Because of this, the Education Department said it is reviewing the plans and discharging debt for some borrowers who have been in repayment for more than 20 years but "never got the relief they were entitled to."
- Disabled borrowers. Another 22,000 borrowers with $1.2 billion in debt who have a total or permanent disability will get their debt discharged. The Education Department is finding these borrowers through a data match with the Social Security Administration.
What is happening with broader student loan forgiveness?
The Biden administration is working onthrough the Higher Education Act. But that process could take at least a year, and also could face legal challenges.
In the meantime, the Education Department has been forgiving debt for specific types of borrowers, such as those in IDRs, with U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona on Wednesday noting that the administration has approved $127 billion in debt relief for about 3.6 million borrowers, including the latest round of forgiveness.
The efforts are aimed at fixing a "broken student loan system," Cardona said in a statement.
for more features. | US Federal Policies |
- An appeals court rejected three companies' request to pause relief for borrowers in the Sweet vs. Cardona lawsuit.
- Last year, a federal judge signed off on a settlement in the case that would give 200,000 borrowers $6 billion in debt relief.
- Those borrowers filed a lawsuit in 2019 over stalled borrower defense claims against the schools they attended.
After years of stalled student-debt cancellation, thousands of borrowers are finally getting relief.
In 2019, the Project on Predatory Student Lending, on behalf of borrowers who believed they were defrauded by the schools they attended, filed a lawsuit — now known as Sweet vs. Cardona — over stalled borrower defense claims, which are claims borrowers can file to get their debt discharged if they can prove they were defrauded by their school.
While the lawsuit was not resolved under former President Donald Trump's Education Sec. Betsy DeVos, President Joe Biden's Education Sec. Miguel Cardona took it on. Cardona agreed to a settlement last summer in the case that would give 200,000 impacted borrowers $6 billion in debt relief. But in January, two for-profit higher-education companies — Lincoln Educational Services Corp. and American National University — and Everglades College, Inc., a nonprofit, filed notices to place a stay on the relief, arguing they were not given due process to dispute the claims made against them in the settlement.
Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the companies' request to pause the relief — and now, all borrowers within the settlement can finally move forward with their debt discharges as the appeals process plays out.
"Appellants fail to demonstrate a sufficient probability of irreparable harm to warrant a stay of the challenged settlement pending these appeals," the court wrote in its decision.
In February, federal Judge William Alsup ruled that the settlement relief could move forward for all borrowers aside from the ones who attended the three schools who requested to pause the relief, saying in his decision that it "breaks a logjam that has vexed several Secretaries and allows the Department to redirect resources to other initiatives. And it gives plaintiffs, who have languished in borrower-defense application limbo, their long-awaited relief."
"Note the relief provided by this settlement (financial and otherwise) will allow plaintiffs to breathe easier, sleep easier, repair their credit scores, take new jobs, enroll in new educational programs, finish their degrees, get married, start families, provide for their children, finance houses and vehicles, and save for retirement," he continued. "It will allow them not only to move on, but also to move up, elevating others in the process."
As the Project for Predatory Student Lending detailed on its website, borrowers who submitted a borrower defense claim against one of the schools on this list will receive automatic relief, and the Education Department will notify them of that relief by April 28, 2023.
Borrowers who filed a claim against a school not included on that list will receive relief based on the following timeline:
- Within six months of the settlement agreement for claims submitted on or before December 31, 2017
- Within 12 months of the settlement agreement for claims submitted from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2018
- Within 18 months of the settlement agreement for claims submitted from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019
- Within 24 months of the settlement agreement for claims submitted from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020
- Within 30 months of the settlement agreement for claims submitted from January 1, 2021, through June 22, 2022. | US Circuit and Appeals Courts |
Thousands of texts from Trump allies stay hidden in Arizona a year after judge's order on 'audit'
More than a year after a judge ordered the leader of the controversial Arizona "audit" to turn over his texts and other electronic messages, thousands still remain inexplicably hidden.
Cyber Ninjas CEO Doug Logan has released more than 39,000 messages, available to anyone who wants to try to make sense of the disordered, sometimes duplicative documents. But his refusal to let go of an estimated 3,000 more raises questions about what's in them, and why they remain secret despite a court order.
Among the messages still hidden from the public:
- Seventy messages from Randy Pullen, a former state GOP chairman and spokesperson for the election review. These include 10 messages he sent Sept. 20 and 21, 2021, just days before Logan issued his final report to the Senate.
- Seven hundred messages from Pennsylvania lawyer Stephanie Lambert. Lambert was not Logan’s lawyer, but someone who participated in election challenges in her home state and others.
- Any messages in a key eight-day span from July 23-29, 2021. Of the tens of thousands of messages made public from January 2021 to April 2022, not one came from this time, not even with redactions. The gap came with no explanation.
The Arizona Republic has fought for public records of the review of the 2020 Maricopa County general election for almost two years from the Arizona Senate and from the Cyber Ninjas. Reporters have reviewed what has been released and noted the redactions. The news organization's attorneys have raised objections where they believe information was improperly withheld.
“It has been like pulling teeth getting these records from the defendants,” said attorney David Bodney, who represents The Arizona Republic.
“At various points they have indicated that the document production was complete or nearly complete, and we continue to find basis to believe there are yet more documents and information to be uncovered,” Bodney said.
“We want to end this dispute as expeditiously as possible, but we can only end it when the Senate and Cyber Ninjas honor their legal duties by disclosing all of the responsive public records.”
Why do these records matter, as the 2020 election fades further from view?
The Arizona Senate ordered an "independent" review of Maricopa County election results. The documents show the partisanship baked into Logan's project as he worked for the Senate. They detail how former President Donald Trump's loyalists were involved, proving the exercise was anything but independent.
Many of the people messaging with Logan as he worked in Arizona were enmeshed in election challenges around the country, and legal probes into some of their actions continue. The hidden documents could help clarify whether they were working in concert at Trump's behest and could influence those investigations in other states.
Finally, clarity on what exactly happened here seems essential as Arizona prepares for another presidential election in 2024.
As The Republic has dived into the records, a trio of election experts has done the same, creating a searchable and chronological database from documents Logan and his attorneys have provided in various formats.
Putting the documents in order has allowed them to see where in conversations the redactions continue to occur, raising even more specific questions.
Logan did not respond to a text message seeking comment about the redactions. He last corresponded with The Republic in January, when he was asked about his redactions and the contents of his messages.
"It sounds like you've already made up your mind and are willing to distort the facts to match your conspiracy theories," Logan said at the time.
Logan's lawyer, David Hardy of Tucson, did not respond to a request for comment.
Documents released in various formats
The Senate started turning over documents in June 2021, nearly two years ago. Logan, though, took longer.
The release of documents has required persistent legal pressure from attorneys for The Republic.
In April 2022, Hardy told a judge there was a "factual question" over whether Logan needed to hand over the records.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Michael Kemp rebuked him. "He needs to turn over everything. Every email. Every text. Everything," Kemp said. "The issue of public records has been clearly resolved. These are public records. There is no more dispute over that. That is the law of the case. Period."
Bodney said, “All along Cyber Ninjas has resisted disclosing public records in this case. Only recently, after having been sanctioned repeatedly, have records begun to roll in, slowly over a period of months.”
Even after a judge sanctioned Logan and his wife $50,000 a day for defying those orders, he dragged his feet. Late last year, he finally turned over thousands of his texts and messages from the Signal app.
But even then, Logan continued to conceal thousands of documents.
The Senate and Cyber Ninjas have followed a familiar pattern in response to requests for records under the Arizona Public Records Law. First, they released thousands of innocuous messages, such as emails from supporters. Then, after continued pressure through the courts, more documents have come out.
Logan has turned over records in different formats, making them time-consuming to cross reference. On top of that, they were initially released in non-chronological order.
For example, in November 2022, Logan and the Senate turned over 200 pages of Logan’s messages formatted as images. The pictures of the Excel files were not searchable and required hours of organization to comprehend.
In December 2022, Logan released another 915 pages of documents, again all image files, as well as long lists of messages that were redacted for various reasons.
On March 21, Logan’s lawyer handed over 19 pages of Logan’s messages in an Excel database. Some were previously redacted, but many others were duplicates of already released messages.
In some cases, the redacted messages are precisely selected, with one or two here and there shielded from view. In other places, entire exchanges between Logan and others are blacked out.
How election experts sorted messages to give a clearer picture
The continued defiance has drawn the attention of professional election auditors who say they suspect the entire Maricopa audit was a sham concocted by Trump allies to sow distrust in the election.
Because the Senate is publishing Logan’s messages on a public website, anyone can view and analyze them. That’s what Larry Moore, the founder of Boston-based election technology company Clear Ballot Group, has done.
He's working with Benny White, a Pima County resident and a Republican, and Tim Halvorsen, the retired Clear Ballot chief technology officer.
The trio has compiled the various formats of messages submitted by Logan into a single, searchable Excel database — and it shows that thousands of messages remain concealed.
White said it seems clear that Logan is intentionally hiding messages that he doesn't want public, such as his involvement in accessing voting equipment in Georgia and Michigan.
“There are a lot of rows where the message content area is blank. Sometimes it’s a critical issue, because following is a comment like ‘Wow I didn’t know that existed.’ But you don’t know what the blank row was talking about,” White said.
Moore noted that many of the messages Logan redacted in December, then released unredacted after being challenged by The Republic, were simple messages with fewer than five words.
He suggested Logan was intentionally hiding messages and trickling them out to prolong the lawsuit.
“He is un-redacting junk,” Moore said. “Throughout this two-year process, there have been delays and obstruction and obfuscation of the data. And now that people are analyzing this, it is clear that he is selectively removing redactions that don’t mean anything. And what he is intentionally leaving redacted, I can only conclude, that the horse is buried there.”
White, Moore and Halvorsen spent hours using optical character recognition to convert the various document formats Logan submitted, allowing users to follow text message threads between Logan and cohorts during his work in Arizona.
The trio said they were interested in the project because they questioned the motives for Logan's work in Arizona and other states and sought the truth behind what set the audit in motion.
Moore and White say it is clear Logan was not an objective auditor because before the Senate selected him for the job, he joined a group of Trump-supporting election conspiracy theorists at a South Carolina property of attorney Lin Wood immediately after the 2020 election.
They have dug into the records hoping to show the audit was tainted from the start.
The Senate hired Cyber Ninjas in March 2021. While Logan’s report ultimately concluded that Joe Biden was in fact the winner of Arizona’s election, a host of characters tied to Trump encouraged Logan to show the election was compromised.
“I’m outraged at the corruption of government here,” White said, noting that the effort was ordered by former Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott, and current President Warren Petersen, R-Gilbert, and that people who participated in the audit are now in office, including Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Goodyear, and Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale.
White is a retired Marine pilot who went on to work for Delta Air Lines until 2005, when he earned a law degree and dove into election work, serving on a committee at the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office to revise the official state Election Procedures Manual, and with the Pima County Republican Party.
He became familiar with Moore, who launched an election audit company called Clear Ballot Group in 2009. The Boston-based company is among the largest vote-tabulation businesses in the nation, and its machines are certified to run elections in multiple states.
Clear Ballot has conducted nearly 200 election audits, including for four states after the 2020 general election, according to the company.
Fann had the chance to hire Clear Ballot, as the company submitted a proposal to scan and recount Maricopa County ballots for $415,000, but she chose Cyber Ninjas instead — a move that has cost Arizona and county taxpayers millions.
What is in the redacted messages to and from Doug Logan?
It's unclear what the Senate and Logan continue to conceal in the messages they have refused to turn over. But what they have released has included several embarrassing details of their work.
The Senate hasn't yet released an additional 40 messages, which The Republic’s lawyers say either should be made public or require a fuller explanation as to why they are protected.
But Logan is far more recalcitrant.
Messages between Logan and his company lawyer, Jack Wilenchik, are protected by attorney-client privilege, and those are exempted from the case. But only about 318 messages fall under that category — out of about 3,300 messages that remain redacted.
Many of the conversations still hidden include messages with Lambert, who participated in election challenges in Pennsylvania.
She communicated frequently with Logan regarding his activities in multiple states to challenge the results of the 2020 election.
Dozens of messages in the Logan-Pullen conversation are redacted over four days in late October 2021, the month after the audit report was released.
Twelve messages from subcontractor Gene Kern and seven messages with Logan's confidant Heather Honey remain redacted.
Then there’s the mysterious gap in messages from July 23-29, 2021.
Before and after this period, documents show Logan sent several messages a day with his team. And he received many as well, from people reaching out for updates or to offer mundane notes about operations.
Many events took place over this time that would have seemed to require Logan's attention.
- A July 23 thunderstorm caused a leak in the roof at the state fairgrounds building where the audit work had moved after leaving Veterans Memorial Coliseum. A spokesperson told the media that ballots were not damaged.
- Also July 23, audit liaison Ken Bennett was banned from the building during a tiff with other people working on the audit. Bennett eventually regained access and resumed his role.
- On July 26, Senate Republicans filed a new subpoena for the county’s routers and other election items, as well as a subpoena to Dominion Voting Systems.
- And July 29, workers at the fairgrounds loaded the nearly 2.1 million ballots onto trucks to return them to the county. And Cyber Ninjas released some information regarding who had funded its work.
Documents have exposed awkward details
The documents Logan has produced mix personal and work information.
As an example, Texan and election conspiracy theorist and Seth Keshel messaged Logan frequently during the audit. At one point, Keshel told Logan about issues he was having in his marriage.
He also asked about canvassing voters.
"So after the count, the ballots are all checked for legality I take it?" Keshel said in one message on June 12, 2021. "What about illegals, out of state residents, gays voting?"
Logan responded, without addressing the fact that sexual orientation does not affect the eligibility to vote: "That phase is indefinitely delayed … but hoping to kick that off soon," he wrote.
Logan intended to conduct a canvass of voters to see if people who cast ballots reported problems. Arizona lawmakers directed him not to do that, but a woman named Liz Harris who was working with Logan on the audit did it anyhow.
Harris was elected to the state Legislature in 2022 but then removed by her peers after a hearing in which she allowed a witness to make outrageous and false claims about elected officials and a bribery scheme with a Mexican drug cartel.
Other messages revealed a host of insider details about conflict, confusion and ineptitude in the audit, including that Logan was pleading with Trump's affiliates to get the ex-president to pay for the underfunded effort, and that he and state lawmakers concealed the audit participation of controversial inventor Jovan Pulitzer.
The contractors confided they didn't know Arizona election law when they were hired, struggled to pay bills and raise money, fought over what to report to the Senate, got deeply sidetracked by a film about their effort, and consistently were in touch with people who tried to concoct ways to keep Trump in office after his election loss. | US Political Corruption |
Trump backs Adams, Cuomo in sexual misconduct lawsuits
Trump has faced several allegations of sexual misconduct over the years.
Former President Donald Trump expressed his support for New York Mayor Eric Adams and former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo as the pair face new lawsuits from women alleging sexual misconduct — in Adams’ case, a claim that dates back decades.
On Truth Social early Wednesday, Trump said he hopes Adams, Cuomo and “all of the others that got sued based on this ridiculous law where someone can be sued decades later, and with no proof, will fight it on being totally unfair and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”
Trump was referencing Adult Survivors Act lawsuits, which surfaced last week as the New York legislation was expiring. The act gave victims of sexual assault two years to sue over past assaults that would previously have been barred by the statute of limitations.
Cuomo, who resigned as governor in 2021 amid allegations that he sexually harassed nearly a dozen women, faces a lawsuit from a former aide whose criminal case was dropped by Albany County prosecutors. Adams was sued by a woman accusing him of sexually assaulting her in 1993. The mayor, through a spokesperson, denied knowing the plaintiff, whose name was being withheld by POLITICO.
Trump has faced several allegations of sexual misconduct over the years. A New York jury earlier this year found Trump liable for battery and defamation after the writer E. Jean Carroll accused him of assaulting her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in 1996. The jury awarded Carroll $5 million.
“I got sued, decades later (she has no idea when her made up event took place!), by a woman - I HAD NO IDEA WHO SHE WAS. It was a made up fairytale that was brought and funded by political operatives for purposes of Election Interference,” Trump wrote. | US Political Corruption |
A Stanford University employee was arrested Wednesday on charges of lying to authorities about two alleged incidents of rape that she claimed occurred on the California campus, prosecutors said.
According to the complaint, obtained by NBC News, Jennifer Gries, 25, of Santa Clara, was arrested on two felony counts of perjury and two misdemeanor counts of inducing false testimony after an investigation found that she twice made false accusations of rape against someone matching the description of a Black male co-worker, in what Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen called a "rare and deeply destructive crime."
The false assault reports — which did not identify Gries by name — “triggered campus wide safety alerts and campus unrest,” the DA’s office said. They also spurred national media coverage, including by NBC News, which covered the two false assault reports, as well as a student-led protest on the campus in October after the second false report.
“These false reports are damaging, both for true survivors of sexual assault and for the members of our community who experienced fear and alarm from the reports,” Stanford officials said in a statement Wednesday, noting that evidence shows false reports of sexual violence are extremely rare.
Indeed, research has shown that false reports make up 2% to 8% of sexual assault reports, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center. And Black men in particular have long been falsely accused of sexual assault. Five Black and Latino teenagers, for instance, were wrongly imprisoned for six to 13 years for the 1989 rape of a white jogger in New York City's Central Park before their convictions were thrown out in 2002.
“Sexual assault and other sexual offenses regrettably continue to be prevalent both at Stanford and in our broader society. Our steadfast commitment to provide compassionate support for survivors of sexual assault and to prevent these acts from occurring in the first place remains unabated,” Stanford's statement continued.
The university's Public Safety Department spent more than $300,000 investigating the false reports and hiring outside security, according to the probable cause document.
Gries, who works in the university's Housing Services Department, has been released on $25,000 bail, and an arraignment is scheduled in San Jose for April 17, a DA’s spokesperson said.
She could face five years in jail if she is convicted, the spokesperson said.
It was not immediately clear whether she has a lawyer. Gries did not immediately respond to texts and emails at the contacts listed under her name Wednesday morning.
According to a LinkedIn profile under her name, she has worked at Stanford since August 2020 — first as a front-desk assistant and most recently as a Housing Service Centers supervisor.
Gries is on a leave of absence, officials said in the statement released Wednesday, adding that they will be “reviewing her employment in light of the information shared” by the DA’s office.
A university spokesperson did not respond to questions about whether the falsely accused co-worker is still employed.
Two false reports in two months
Gries first told county sexual assault forensic examination nurses at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center on Aug. 9 that she had been attacked by a Black man in his late 20s in a bathroom near Stanford's Wilbur Hall, according to the DA's office. It said that she alleged that she did not want to contact law enforcement and that the perpetrator was an "unknown assailant."
After she saw the subsequent campus safety alert, Gries reached out to the Stanford Public Safety Department to speak with a detective about the criminal process. When they met Aug. 17, she "refused to disclose any more details about the alleged sexual assault" but said she knew the alleged perpetrator and did not believe the public was in danger. She also asked the detective "whether human resources would be notified of this report" and "said she did not expect a community alert or for the incident to be in the news," the probable cause document says.
The detective told her the university had received "numerous questions from concerned parents of students at Stanford about whether the campus is safe."
Less than two months later, on Oct. 7, Gries again reported to a sexual assault forensic examination nurse at Stanford Hospital that she had been raped on campus — this time, she alleged, by a Black man in his late 20s in a basement storage closet.
In both cases, the probable cause document says, she signed a consent form acknowledging the nurses were mandated reporters who had to notify law enforcement about the reported sexual assaults and that they would submit her name to law enforcement along with a suspicious injury report. That led to the two misdemeanor charges of inducing false testimony, the complaint says.
Both of Gries’ sexual assault examination kits “were analyzed as priority rushes given the extreme public safety risk of a potential sex offender,” the DA’s office said. According to the probable cause document, "the lab reports showed no male DNA detected in the genital or oral areas" for both rape kits.
Evidence revealed that "Gries made up the stories due to being angry at a co-worker," the DA's office said, adding that she twice applied under penalty of perjury for funds from the California Victim of Crimes Board — which reimburses crime-related expenses — attesting that she had been sexually assaulted. She did not receive funds from the entity, a spokesperson for the DA said.
'Can't I just make his life a living hell'
An investigation by the Stanford Public Safety Department revealed that Gries had made a sexual harassment complaint against a co-worker who fit the description of the alleged rapist — a Black male in his 20s — last March and that a human resources investigation found the complaint was unsubstantiated, according to the probable cause document. She was subsequently moved to a different location at work, it says.
The investigation also concluded that she had told an acquaintance she was in a relationship with that co-worker, that he had sexually assaulted her and that she had become pregnant with twins before she suffered a miscarriage.
But Gries had not actually been pregnant, the investigation concluded. And texts between her and the acquaintance showed that Gries discussed the co-worker’s allegedly sexually assaulting her, blaming herself for the alleged assault and saying, "Can’t I just make his life a living hell myself," according to the probable cause document.
On Nov. 3, Gries again met with the same Stanford Public Safety Detective she previously spoke with and "confirmed that she personally knew the assailant." She also "asked what would happen if she provided a name," and the detective said "she would speak to that person and to other people who knew both of them," the probable cause document says.
When the detective told Gries she already knew who was being described, Gries "became visibly distraught, hyperventilated, and fanned herself" before she said "she needed air and started to cry." She left and later texted the detective that she was going to the emergency room because she felt overwhelmed, the probable cause document says.
On Jan. 24, Gries met with the detective again and "admitted to lying about the rapes and wrote an apology letter to the target of the false allegations who was the same person as the HR investigation, the victim," according to the probable cause document.
"She stated she was upset with the victim because she felt he gave her ‘false intention’ and turned her friends against her," it says.
In an interview with authorities, Gries' co-worker "denied any sexual or romantic contact" with her and said the HR investigation left him "scarred" and caused extreme stress while he was caring for his sick mother, who later died. He also provided evidence supporting where he said he was at the time of the alleged assaults, and he provided a swab for DNA analysis, according to the probable cause document.
He told authorities the false accusations had left him feeling "disgusting."
"I don’t feel human. I don’t feel human at all," he said, according to the probable cause document.
Students react
Sexual violence prevention advocates on campus said the false reports should not distract from the prevalence of sexual violence at Stanford.
"This instance of an unfounded allegation does not change the fact that 40% of women-identified undergraduate students at Stanford will be sexually violated during their time on campus," Sexual Violence Free Stanford, a student-led advocacy group, said Wednesday on Instagram, referring to the findings of a 2019 survey.
"Not only do large percentages of on-campus sexual violence go unreported, but false reporting rates of sexual violence are nearly always comparable to — if not lower than — those of other crimes," it added. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Subsets and Splits