article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
For the fourth time in five months, former President Donald Trump has been indicted on criminal charges.
Trump and 18 other people were charged in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia, over more than a year.
The defendants allegedly solicited state leaders throughout the country, harassed and misled a Georgia election worker and pushed phony claims that the election was stolen, all in an effort for Trump to remain in power despite his election loss.
According to the indictment, the alleged scheme involved prominent individuals such as Trump's former chief of staff Mark Meadows, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and attorney John Eastman.
Trump's campaign called the indictment "un-American and wrong" in a statement early Tuesday. The former president contends his actions were not illegal and the investigation is politically motivated. He has pleaded not guilty to his three other indictment cases, which are in New York criminal court, Florida federal court, and Washington D.C. federal court.
Guiliani released a statement early Tuesday morning echoing Trump's campaign statement and contended the allegations are false.
"The real criminals here are the people who have brought this case forward both directly and indirectly," he said in a statement.
Trump and the co-defendants were given a deadline of Aug. 25 to turn themselves in for arraignment on the charges.
Here are some of the major allegations in the 41-count indictment.
False statements to state leaders
The indictment alleges that members of the conspiracy made several false statements to the Georgia state legislature, falsely claiming there was election fraud and that they could appoint their own electors.
For example, co-defendant and Trump staff member Michael Roman instructed an individual associated with the Trump campaign to "distribute information related to the December 14, 2020 meetings of Trump presidential elector nominees in Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin to other individuals associated with the campaign," the indictment alleges.
The indictment specifically says that members of the conspiracy "corruptly solicited Georgia officials, including" former Georgia House Speaker John Ralston, "to violate their oaths to the Georgia Constitution and to the United State Constitution by unlawfully changing the outcome of the November 3, 2020, presidential election in favor of Donald Trump."
On Dec. 7, 2020, Trump specifically tried to solicit Ralston to violate his oath by calling a special session of the Georgia General Assembly for the purpose of unlawfully appointing presidential electors from Georgia, according to the indictment.
The Georgia indictment also highlights efforts by Trump and Meadows to allegedly interfere with the election counting process and push their false claims.
On Dec. 22, 2020, Meadows traveled to Cobb County Center and "attempted to observe the signature match audit being performed by law enforcement officers and officials from the Georgia Secretary of State despite the fact that the process was not open to the public." .The officials, including the Georgia Deputy Secretary of State, prevented Meadows from entering the space where the audit was being conducted.
A day later, it is alleged that Trump placed a call to the office of the Georgia Secretary of State Chief Investigator Frances Watson that had been arranged by Meadows. During the call, Trump falsely stated he had won the 2020 election by "hundreds of thousands of votes."
Meadows texted Watson on Dec. 27 asking if she could "speed up Fulton County signature verification in order to have results before Jan. 6," the indictment said.
Creation of false election documents
The defendants allegedly created false Electoral College documents and recruited individuals to convene and cast false Electoral College votes at the Georgia State Capitol, in Fulton County, on December 14, 2020, according to the indictment.
"The false documents were intended to disrupt and delay the joint session of Congress on January 6, 2021," the indictment states.
The indictment contends the defendants allegedly tried to conduct similar acts in key battleground states: Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Harassment and intimidation of Ruby Freeman
The indictment detailed alleged efforts to harass Georgia election worker Ruby Freeman to convince her to report election fraud claims in testimony.
Giuliani and others made false claims to the Georgia House of Representatives that Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, who was also an election worker, sabotaged voting machines, according to the indictment.
The indictment alleges some of the defendants tried to influence Freeman's testimony and intimidated her.
Trump associate Trevian Kutti allegedly traveled from Chicago to Georgia to speak to Freeman, the indictment alleged. Kutti claimed she was there to help Freeman because she was in danger and lied to her about her intentions, according to the indictment.
Soliciting Dept. of Justice officials
Former senior Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, who is one of the defendants named in the indictment, allegedly made false statements in writing and in person to the Acting Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General, urging the officials to let him convey the false information to Georgia State Officials.
Clark wanted to be able to say that the Department of Justice "identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple states, including the State of Georgia," according to the indictment.
Clark requested authorization, both in writing and in person, to send this incorrect information to Gov. Brian Kemp, Ralston and President Pro Tempore of the Georgia Senate, Butch Mille.
Unlawful breach of election equipment
The indictment alleges that members of the group "stole data, including ballot images, voting equipment software, and personal voter information."
Trump attorney and co-defendant Sidney Powell allegedly "entered into a written engagement" with a forensic data firm known as SullivanStricker LLC that they allege joined in an "unlawful breach of election equipment in Coffee County, Georgia.”
"The stolen data was then distributed to other members of the enterprise, including members in other states," the indictment said.
ABC News' Lucien Bruggeman contributed to this report. | US Political Corruption |
President Joe Biden’s interview with ProPublica last Friday was the kind of era-defining interview one can easily imagine as source material in a future history course (assuming history will still be allowed to be taught in the future).
In the interview with journalist John Harwood, Biden broached everything from former President Donald Trump’s plans for the White House to ethics rules for the Supreme Court. It was a timely convo that came amid Trump’s violent rhetoric and just days before the high court kicked off its new session, which some understandably fear will be chock-full of right-wing rulings.
And what we got was essentially a rapid-fire questioning of the president regarding a host of issues that feel like existential crises for the country.
On political violence
Biden rejected Harwood’s suggestion that the threat to democracy might not be too serious, given the “orderly midterm elections, no violence” in 2022, along with the absence of civil unrest in response to Jan. 6-related charges for Trump and others.
Harwood’s questioning appeared to ignore the gun-toting poll watchers reported in Arizona last fall, as well as the racist threats reportedly lobbed at federal Judge Tanya Chutkan and Atlanta-area prosecutor Fani Willis over Trump’s legal proceedings. Biden explained why Harwood missed the mark.
“I think the opposite thing’s happened, John,” the president said of the threat to democracy. “I think that this is the last gasp, or maybe the first big gasp, of the MAGA Republicans, and I think Trump has concluded that he has to win. And they’ll pull out all the stops.”
On ethics and the Supreme Court
Asked whether he thinks the conservative-loaded Supreme Court will uphold the rule of law, Biden said that although the current court “has been one of the most extreme courts,” he still thinks the justices will sustain the “basic fundamentals of rule of law.” (I’m not nearly as confident.)
The president also pushed back against Justice Samuel Alito’s claim that Congress doesn’t have the authority to impose a code of ethics on the court. The right-wing justice made the claim following a raft of reports that he and Justice Clarence Thomas had engaged in questionable associations with rich benefactors.
Biden acknowledged the open debate over whether Congress can regulate the court, but said he thinks the answer is yes.
“The idea that the Constitution would in any way prohibit or not encourage the court to have basic rules of ethics that are just, on their face, reasonable ... is just not the case,” he said.
On a third-party challenge in 2024
I found Biden’s other remarks about democracy interesting, as well.
For example, Biden openly stated his belief that having No Labels — a shadowy third party backed by former Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and a host of conservative-leaning benefactors — in the 2024 presidential race would benefit Trump.
“It’s going to help the other guy. And he knows,” Biden said of Lieberman, his longtime colleague in the Senate. “So that’s a political decision he’s making that I obviously think is a mistake. But he has a right to do that.”
On media, misinformation and Musk
Biden said right-wing news outlets have helped amplify the threat to democracy — as has X under Elon Musk.
Asked whether Musk, who owns the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, has contributed to the problem by undercutting the company’s previous efforts to combat misinformation, the president said he had no doubt.
Said Biden: “Where do people get their news? They go on the internet, they go online. And you have no notion whether it’s true or not.”
On age and his re-election bid
In one of the most self-aware replies he gave, Biden pushed back after Harwood cited voter concerns about his age and asked the 80-year-old president: “Why are you the only Democrat who can protect democracy next year?”
“I’m not the only Democrat that can protect it,” Biden replied before alluding to Trump. “I just happen to be the Democrat who I think is best positioned to see to it that the guy I was worried about taking on democracy is not president.” | SCOTUS |
For the first time in weeks, the House has a permanent speaker, and can finally move forward with time-sensitive legislation. Exactly what newwill bring to the floor — and what he plans to either delay or bypass — is coming into focus, as Washington gets to know a relatively low-profile member whose prior experience in leadership in Congress was his role as deputy whip.
Congress faces a variety of pressing concerns in the near term: government funding runs out in mid-November, and there is bipartisan support for providing financial support to Israel against Hamas. Johnson suggested that there may be conditions attached to legislation he'll put on the floor in the coming weeks.
Israel funding
The first action the House took after Johnson was sworn in as speaker was to pass a resolution affirming support for Israel, a symbolic gesture. But Johnson says the House will bring to the floor a standalone bill providing about $14.5 billion in supplemental aid to Israel, the same figure that was requested by the White House. However, Johnson told Fox News' Sean Hannity Thursday that he wanted that spending to be offset, which may prompt some opposition.
"We're going to find pay-fors in the budget," he told Hannity. "We're not just printing money to send it overseas. We're going to find the cuts elsewhere to do that."
That bill is expected to come to the House floor soon.
Ukraine funding
Johnson, like many other House Republicans, seems less likely to move as quickly on, despite the to lawmakers that Ukraine funding is running low.
He told Hannity that aid to Israel and Ukraine must be separate items, after President Biden requested a supplemental package that would provide aid to both at the same time.
"I told the staff at the White House today that our consensus among House Republicans is that we need to bifurcate those issues," Johnson told Hannity.
Still, Johnson told the Fox News host the U.S. "can't allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine because I don't believe it would stop there."
Government funding
Johnson has expressed his distaste for continuing resolutions, or short-term funding bills when Congress can't agree on comprehensive ones. Government funding currently runs out on Nov. 17.
He would like the House to pass individual spending bills for the full fiscal year, but he told Hannity Republicans are working to make sure that if a stopgap bill to keep the government open past Nov. 17 is required, "we do it with certain conditions." He did not say what those conditions would be.
Conservatives have long expressed frustration with keeping government spending at current levels and want to make cuts.
Gun control
Theperpetrated by a suspect in Maine this week hasn't changed Johnson's mind on gun control. He is a staunch defender of gun owners' rights and remains opposed to considering further steps to restrict access to guns.
"At the end of the day, the problem is the human heart," Johnson told Hannity. "It's not guns, not the weapons. At the end of the day, we have to protect the right of the citizens to protect themselves and that's the Second Amendment."
Johnson said it's not the right time to talk about legislation related to gun control, although he expects discussions later, including on addressing mental health.
Like the vast majority of House Republicans, Johnsontightening access to guns for some populations. The bill did receive bipartisan support.
Gay marriage
In his conversation with Hannity, Johnson indicated he would had no plans to try to move legislation opposing gay marriage, saying, "This has been settled by the Supreme Court". The high court ruled that banning same-sex marriage is unconstitutional.
"So, that's the decision," Johnson said. "... I'm a constitutional law attorney — I respect that, and we move forward."
Last year, with bipartisan support,protecting same-sex and interracial marriages at the federal level. The bill, which had previously passed the Senate with bipartisan support, was signed into law.
Abortion
Johnson, who spent yearsas a lawyer for a conservative Christian advocacy group, appeared to distance himself from the idea of a federal abortion ban, although some of the most conservative members of Congress and several GOP presidential candidates favor a national ban. He suggested that abortion bans may best be left to the states.
"We argued my entire career for 25 years that the states should have the right to do this. There's no national consensus among the people on what to do with that issue on a federal level, for certain. We have such big priorities in this moment right now," Johnson told Hannity, pointing to other matters like Israel and Ukraine.
Changing the motion to vacate that resulted in McCarthy's removal as speaker
Johnson didn't go into detail on whether or how he would propose changing the current, a rule that enabled a single member, Rep. Matt Gaetz, to force a no-confidence vote in former Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
"I think we're going to change it," Johnson told Hannity.
for more features. | US Congress |
Double your support for intelligent, in-depth, trustworthy journalism.
Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press
Lindsay Whitehurst, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
WASHINGTON (AP) — Hunter Biden on Tuesday offered to testify publicly before Congress in response to a subpoena from Republicans investigating nearly every aspect of his business dealings as they pursue an impeachment inquiry into his father, President Joe Biden.
READ MORE: House Republicans subpoena Hunter and James Biden as impeachment inquiry ramps back up
The Democratic president’s son slammed the inquiry as a “fishing expedition” and refused to give closed-door testimony but said he would “answer any pertinent and relevant question” in front of the House Oversight Committee next month, setting up a potential high-stakes face-off.
Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, subpoenaed Hunter Biden in early November in the inquiry’s most aggressive step yet and one that tests the reach of congressional oversight powers. Comer’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Tuesday.
So far, Republicans have failed to uncover evidence directly implicating President Biden in any wrongdoing. But lawmakers insist their evidence paints a troubling picture of “influence peddling” in the Biden family’s business dealings, particularly with clients overseas.
The subpoena demanded Hunter Biden appear before the Oversight Committee for a deposition by mid-December. His uncle James Biden was subpoenaed same day, as well as former business associate Rob Walker.
Hunter Biden’s attorney Abbe Lowell said in Tuesday’s letter that his client had “misgivings about your motives and purpose” but had previously offered to speak with the committee without a response.
“Your empty investigation has gone on too long wasting too many better-used resources. It should come to an end,” Lowell wrote. “From all the individuals you have requested depositions or interviews, all you will learn is that your accusations are baseless. However, the American people should see that for themselves.”
He offered to appear on Dec. 13, the date named in the subpoena, or another day next month.
READ MORE: Impeachment inquiry unpopular, even if Americans question Biden’s actions
The subpoenas were bitterly opposed by Democrats, and the White House called for the subpoenas to be withdrawn. Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, wrote that the subpoenas are “irresponsible” and the product of an overzealous House GOP majority that “weaponized the oversight powers of Congress.”
Congressional Republicans are also probing the Justice Department’s handling of a criminal investigation into Hunter Biden’s business dealings. That long-running case had been expected to end with a plea deal, but it imploded during a July plea hearing.
Hunter Biden is now charged with three firearms felonies related to the 2018 purchase of a gun during a period he has acknowledged being addicted to drugs. No new tax charges have been filed, but prosecutors have indicated they are possible in Washington or California, where he now lives.
Associated Press writer Farnoush Amiri contributed to this report.
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Support PBS NewsHour:
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.
Politics
Sep 28 | US Congress |
Miami University in Ohio is my alma mater. And for decades, Miami’s football teams played on a field which featured a mystifying, archaic, non-digital game clock which nobody – and I mean nobody – could understand.
Not even the players and coaches from Miami.
Most clocks tell time.
But all that old clock told was ambiguity.
No one was ever quite sure how many minutes or seconds were left in the game.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., never set foot on Miami’s field. But the clock he’s dealing with in Congress is reminiscent of the bizarre timepiece on the gridiron in Oxford, Ohio.
Johnson’s held the Speaker’s chair for less than a month. But he is already on the clock. And much like football games at Miami, no one quite knows how to read the clock or how much time is left in the game for Johnson.
The Speaker maneuvered to pass an interim spending bill last week to avoid a Thanksgiving government shutdown. Johnson did so with a margin nearly identical to that of his predecessor to sidestep a September shutdown. Only that bill cost former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., his job.
Everyone knew that McCarthy was on the clock this year after it took 15 ballots and parts of five days to elect him Speaker back in January. McCarthy’s clock was far different from the outmoded clock at Miami.
McCarthy’s clock was a chronograph with quartz movement. Everyone knew it was just a matter of time with McCarthy.
McCarthy finally won the gavel following the longest Speaker’s election since 1859. But to understand Johnson’s clock management, one only need to examine the failure of a procedural vote on the House floor just before lawmakers abandoned town for the Thanksgiving recess.
The House was trying to rifle through one more, individual spending bill before the break. This measure would fund Commerce, Justice and Science (CJS) programs. Also on the docket: a bill to freeze $6 billion in Iranian assets the U.S. sent to Tehran as part of a prisoner exchange.
House Republicans have struggled for weeks to pass even their own appropriations bills. That was a hallmark of McCarthy’s tenure. Things haven’t gotten much better under Johnson. In fact, the GOP leadership has either yanked from the schedule or the House has blocked an astonishing four spending bills during Johnson’s abbreviated Speakership.
Such was the case last Wednesday when House conservatives teamed with Democrats to bar the House from even beginning debate on the (CJS) appropriations bill and the Iran measure.
With no bill to debate, the House brass pulled the plug and sent everyone home a day-and-a-half earlier than expected.
"The swamp won," said Rep. Chip Roy, R-Tex., about Johnson writing yet another temporary spending bill. But he called Johnson "a good man."
Still, Roy was just heating up.
"Republican voters are tired of promises to fight. We want to actually see change," barked Roy on the House steps.
A few minutes later, Roy was inside, ranting on the House floor. Roy’s voice cracked in anger as he bellowed about Johnson’s bipartisan gambit to fund the government.
"I want my Republican colleagues to give me one thing - one - that I can go campaign on and say we did! Anybody sitting in the (Capitol) complex, if you want to come down to the floor and come explain to me one material, meaningful, significant thing the Republican majority has done besides ‘Well, I guess it’s not as bad as the Democrats,’" beseeched Roy.
The Texas Republican had no takers.
Except perhaps by Democrats.
Republicans might not have a lot to show for their efforts. But considering the chaos on the GOP side of the aisle - punctuated by the three-week vacancy in the Speakership - Democrats will likely deploy Roy’s diatribe about the dearth of GOP accomplishments in every political ad for competitive House contests next year.
Roy was relentless in his criticism of how Republicans quickly reverted to old ways under Johnson. That’s why he and other conservatives torched the provision for the House to consider the spending bill and Iran measure.
"We went through an entire month without a Speaker and we just did the same damn thing that we’re doing," exploded Roy. "I didn’t come here for more excuses. I didn’t come here to have the Speaker of the House assume the position and in 17 days, pass a continuing resolution (the interim spending plan) on the floor of this House through suspension of the rules."
Johnson used a procedure called "suspension of the rules" to approve the emergency spending plan because Roy and other right-wing members would have blocked the House from considering the "rule" required to put a bill on the floor. The House must first approve a "rule" before it considers most major pieces of legislation. No rule? Then no debate on the floor.
That is, unless you go around the rule and consider the measure as a suspension bill.
House Freedom Caucus Chairman & Rep. Scott Perry, R-Penn., described the CJS/Iran bill as "very, very, weak."
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., was more strident.
"We’re going to make sure that he follows through on what he said he was going to do," said Luna of Johnson.
Yours truly asked Johnson why the Speaker’s two-step spending plan "didn’t seem to satisfy some of the arch-conservatives in your caucus."
"I’m one of the arch-conservatives and I want to cut spending right now," answered Johnson. "But when you have a three-vote majority, as we do right now, we don’t have the votes to be able to advance that right now.
In short, it’s about the math.
But that might not satisfy the likes of Roy and other conservatives. They essentially argued in favor of a government shutdown over Thanksgiving in their quest to secure immediate spending cuts.
They’ll get to go to the mat over that in the coming weeks. Johnson’s two-leveled spending plan sets up government funding deadlines on January 19 and February 2.
With a note of irony, we’ll note that February 2 is also Groundhog Day.
It’s not 100 percent clear that Johnson is in the precise position that Kevin McCarthy was. But a trendline is emerging. Johnson says he won’t allow another temporary spending measure. And if he does, Johnson has gone back on a promise. If he sticks to his promise, that could spark a government shutdown.
That’s why there’s worry about Johnson facing a challenge to his leadership much like McCarthy. Thus, he is on the clock.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., summoned the Congressional press corps for a news conference a few hours after House members fled Washington last Wednesday.
A reporter asked Jeffries about his relationship with Johnson and if he had "any advice for him as he faces these difficulties."
"Good luck!" chortled Jeffries, eliciting laughter from reporters as he concluded the session with the scribes.
Jeffries speaks the truth.
Johnson is on the clock. And if time’s not on his side, perhaps luck will be. | US Congress |
McCarthy’s description for debt ceiling is bad medicine for older Americans
Republicans pledged during the State of the Union to take Social Security and Medicare off the table in debt ceiling negotiations, but Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s (R-Calif.) new plan demands that older and working Americans pay for the GOP’s miserly fiscal agenda in other ways. Th House Republicans’ recently released proposal for lifting the debt ceiling would hobble federal services that seniors rely on, including customer service at the Social Security Administration.
We and 30 other seniors’ advocacy groups have sent a letter to Speaker McCarthy urging the House to pass a clean bill to lift the debt ceiling, as Congress had done nearly 80 times in the past. We object to House Republicans risking a default on the federal government’s debts, which could lead to global economic catastrophe. As President Biden said in a speech last week, “A default would destroy the economy. And who do you think it would hurt the most? You! Hard working people. The middle class.”
We think it’s morally and fiscally wrong to hold Americans’ financial well-being hostage to the demands of the MAGA wing of the GOP, whose agenda does not reflect the will of the majority of voters. A Washington Post/ABC News poll in February indicated that 65 percent of Americans want a clean debt ceiling bill, while only 26 percent said the Biden administration should first agree to federal spending cuts.
We’ve seen this movie before. In 2011, Tea Party Republicans refused to raise the debt ceiling without deep spending cuts. Despite opposition from most Democrats, the ensuing debt battle left us with automatic spending caps that still have lingering effects on the federal government, including chronic underfunding of the Social Security Administration — which tens of millions of seniors rely on for customer service.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, here they go again. House Republicans are demanding spending caps that will shortchange almost every federal agency. They propose to freeze spending at FY 2022 levels (a whopping $4.5 trillion in cuts) which would amount to an estimated 23 percent reduction for everything except the military and veterans programs. The Social Security Administration, for one, needs more — not less — funding to do its job for the American people.
Without proper SSA funding, Social Security claimants have suffered through field office closings, interminable wait times on the agency’s toll-free phone line, and lengthy delays in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) hearings. The Washington Post reported in 2017 that 10,000 SSDI claimants had died awaiting a chance to plead their cases. Now, Republicans want to cut at least 23 percent from this vital federal agency.
Ironically, SSA is one of the most fiscally responsible federal agencies, with administrative costs below 1 percent. But since 2010, SSA’s operating budget has been cut by 17 percent (adjusted for inflation), while the number of beneficiaries has soared. With 10,000 baby boomers turning 65 every day, Kevin McCarthy’s party wants to gut the agency that handles their benefits.
The GOP’s draconian cuts also would affect seniors’ programs under the Older Americans Act (OAA). This includes federal funding for programs like home delivered meals, in-home services, transportation, legal services, elder abuse prevention and caregiver support. Even the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program that helps low-income seniors keep their homes heated in the winter and cool in the summer would be cut under the Republican plan. These cuts aren’t fiscally responsible. They’re downright cruel.
Speaking of mean-spirited fiscal policy, the GOP plan would impose work requirements on Medicaid patients — including “near seniors” in their 50s who may not be able to afford private insurance and are not yet eligible for Medicare. Medicaid is a health care program for low-income Americans, not a vehicle for forcing people with sporadic job opportunities or chronic medical conditions to work.
Not everyone on Medicaid can work consistently, nor can they necessarily navigate the mountains of red tape that work requirements entail. “The evidence has been clear that when we take (health insurance) away from people, it doesn’t help them get jobs,” Sharon Parrott, President of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told NPR. “In fact, losing that health care can lead people to have worse health outcomes and be less able to engage in the labor market.”
While Republicans insist on slashing spending for lower-income and elderly Americans, they propose to shower the wealthy with yet more favors. The House GOP debt ceiling plan would slash money allocated to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to crack down on wealthy tax cheats — literally making it easier for their rich donors to continue underpaying taxes. At the same time, Republicans claiming to be gravely concerned about federal red ink refuse to consider scaling back the 2017 Trump/GOP tax cuts, which added $2 trillion to the nation’s debt with little benefit for working people.
There is no guarantee that Speaker McCarthy’s plan will garner enough Republican support to pass the House. Even if the GOP debt ceiling bill does pass, the Democratic-controlled Senate likely will reject Republican demands for massive spending cuts. President Biden has pledged not to negotiate at all, insisting on a clean bill to lift the debt ceiling. No matter, Speaker McCarthy is playing a dangerous game by risking a federal default. (The last time Republicans pushed this issue to the brink, the United States’ credit rating was downgraded because of the threat of a default.)
A default would hit seniors especially hard because it could jeopardize the payment of Social Security and Medicare benefits. Even a short delay in payments would be a burden for the millions of Americans who rely on their earned benefits to cover out-of-pocket health care expenses, food, rent and utilities. In fact, almost two-thirds of beneficiaries depend on Social Security for half of their income and 40 percent rely on their benefits for 90 percent or more of their income.
Republicans — who traditionally receive the majority of the senior vote — claim to support Social Security and Medicare. But taking any action that risks the payment of benefits (or customer service at the SSA) is not standing up for seniors. Neither is cutting Medicaid, food stamps, energy assistance, or any of the other myriad programs that retirees depend on to make ends meet. More fundamentally, risking an economic recession and threatening the financial security of Americans of all ages would be a failure of Congress to fulfill its duty.
Here’s what we and our fellow seniors’ advocates demand: that House Republicans do their jobs and lift the debt ceiling without conditions. Hands-off of our enormously successful social insurance and safety net programs. Stop holding our economy hostage to the demands of the MAGA minority. Americans have plenty of real problems to handle. This one is wholly manufactured by the House GOP.
Max Richtman is president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. He is former staff director of the Senate Special Committee on Aging.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
A federal judge in Georgia has denied former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' bid to move his Fulton County election interference case to federal court.
"Having considered the arguments and the evidence, the Court concludes that Meadows has not met his burden," Judge Steve Jones wrote in a 49-page order filed Friday.
Meadows had sought to have his case moved based on a federal law that calls for the removal of criminal proceedings brought in state court to the federal court system when someone is charged for actions they allegedly took as a federal official acting "under color" of their office.
"The court DECLINES to assume jurisdiction over the State's criminal prosecution of Meadows under 28 U.S.C 1455 and REMANDS the case to Fulton County Superior Court," the judge's order said.
In addition to Meadows, former DOJ official Jeffrey Clark, former Coffee County GOP chair Cathy Latham, current Georgia state Sen. Shawn Still, and former Georgia GOP chair David Shafer have also filed motions requesting their cases be removed to federal court.
Attorneys for former President Donald Trump on Thursday notified the court that they may also seek to have the former president's case moved into federal court, according to a court filing.
Trump, and 18 others have pleaded not guilty to all charges in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia.
The former president says his actions were not illegal and that the investigation is politically motivated. | US Federal Policies |
In the last two days, the quest to hold accountable those who allegedly interfered in the 2020 presidential election has taken two dramatic and potentially far-reaching turns. Lawyers Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro have decided to plead guilty and testify against their co-defendants in Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s sprawling RICO prosecution. The pleas could prove to be a proverbial nail in former President Donald Trump’s legal coffin.
Powell pleaded guilty to six misdemeanor counts, while Chesebro pleaded to a felony count of conspiracy to commit filing false documents. Both were committed as part of a corrupt scheme to overturn the results of the presidential election in Georgia. Their co-defendants in that case include Trump, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, among others. Although it’s not clear how much direct evidence the pair may be able to offer against their co-defendants, the guilty pleas affirmed that there was indeed a criminal conspiracy to corruptly interfere in the Georgia election. That is ominous for their co-conspirators and vindicates Willis’ theory of prosecution.
Powell’s prominence, in particular, in the president’s orbit after the 2020 election cannot be understated.
Their pleas have implications far beyond Georgia state lines. Given their proximity to Trump after the 2020 election, the guilty pleas could be important in special counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump for election interference.
Powell and Chesebro were two of six unnamed co-conspirators in Smith’s indictment in that case. Together with Giuliani, Powell hopped from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, peddling wild election conspiracy theories and bringing bogus court challenges to keep Trump in power.
Powell’s prominence, in particular, in the president’s orbit during that period cannot be understated. Recall that Trump discussed naming Powell as a special counsel to investigate voter fraud. That appointment was included in a draft executive order that also would have directed the military to seize voting machines in battleground states.
Powell was reportedly present at one or more Oval Office meetings at which these illegal, undemocratic schemes were allegedly proposed, discussed and — given the draft presidential order — nearly executed. To say Powell is likely to have incriminating evidence against Trump himself is an understatement.
What do Powell and Chesebro’s pleas tell us about the approaches they’ll likely take in connection with her criminal exposure in Smith’s case? Given that the special counsel’s indictment of Trump announced in a very public way that six co-defendants allegedly assisted Trump in interfering in the 2020 election, I believe it’s highly likely that those six defendants will be indicted and tried for their crimes — unless they plead guilty and cooperate with federal prosecutors.
Neither Powell’s nor Chesebro’s plea deal ends the possibility of imprisonment.
Given how intertwined the Georgia crimes are with the broader election fraud scheme — involving many of the same co-conspirators — it’s impossible to envision how Powell or Chesebro could mount a successful defense to the federal election crimes now that they've pleaded guilty to state election crimes. In short, in the opinion of this former career federal prosecutor, I would expect they either already are or soon will be formal cooperating witnesses in Smith’s 2020 election case.
None of this is to suggest that their testimony will necessarily be convincing. Cooperating witnesses, by definition, are criminals — they committed crimes, pled guilty to those crimes and agreed to testify truthfully against others — and rebuilding her credibility for a trial jury will be no easy task for prosecutors.
For example, there is plenty of video of Powell making outrageous — and ultimately false — claims of election fraud. Defense attorneys will vigorously cross-examine her along the lines of, “Were you lying then or are you lying now?”
But that is a routine attack on a cooperating witness, which prosecutors will anticipate. Indeed, Powell can establish not only that she was “lying then,” but that her lies were in service to, and perhaps even at the direction of, her co-conspirator Donald Trump. This would convert Powell’s lies into evidence that actually incriminates Trump.
However, there’s a more fundamental problem with — and ultimately a more fruitful attack on — Powell’s credibility: her sweetheart plea deal. Powell was indicted on multiple felony counts, with the lead count alone carrying up to two decades in prison. Yet she was allowed to plead guilty to a series of misdemeanors and did not receive a minute of jail time.
You can see how cross-examination of Powell might unfold: “Ms. Powell, you were facing the rest of your life in prison, but all you had to do was falsely implicate Donald Trump to receive an obscenely lenient plea deal. Ms. Powell, you would have said anything DA Willis wanted you to say to avoid jail, isn’t that right?” Prosecutors will need lots of hard corroboration — emails, texts, notes, recordings — for Powell and Chesebro’s testimony.
Furthermore, neither Powell’s nor Chesebro’s plea deal ends the possibility of imprisonment. As noted earlier, they’ll still face criminal exposure in the federal case. The Georgia prosecutors might have been willing to extend a probation-only plea deal to Powell and Chesebro. But I doubt the federal government will be quite so generous.
In the event that either pleads guilty and cooperates in the federal prosecution of Trump, there are compelling societal interests that militate in favor of a period of incarceration for crimes that were designed, in a very real and direct sense, to bring an end to our great American experiment. Crimes like that deserve more than mere probation. Not if we’re serious about deterring Trump and other would-be dictators from trying it all over again. | US Political Corruption |
Here’s the White House’s attack line today against Republicans, condensed into a tweet:
Some economic truths, before we get into the politics: America’s budget debt is very high, both in absolute terms, and as a percentage of GDP. The federal budget deficit – which is the portion of its spending that Washington must borrow money to cover – is also lofty (though it has been worse). And in June, the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills unless Congress agrees to increase the limit on how much money it can borrow.
So what’s the purpose of Biden’s tweet and speech today? The GOP has demanded the president and his Democratic allies agree to cut spending if they want their votes for raising the borrowing limit. Today, the White House will try to convince voters that it’s the GOP who want to spend recklessly. We’ll see if the public believes them.
We’ll be hearing more from Nikki Haley today after she announced her candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination on Tuesday. She’s the only major candidate to emerge against Donald Trump, but there’s more to her story than that, the Guardian’s Lauren Gambino reports:
As the Republican governor of South Carolina in 2015, Nikki Haley stood shoulder to shoulder with political leaders from across the state to call for the removal of the Confederate flag from the statehouse grounds. Days before, an avowed white supremacist who posed with the flag in photographs massacred nine Black parishioners at a church in Charleston.
As her state – and the nation – reeled from the heinous act, Haley argued that the flag embraced by many southerners as a symbol of “noble” traditions was for too many others “a deeply offensive symbol of a brutally oppressive past”.
It was a defining moment for the governor, one that earned her national attention and cemented her status as a Republican rising star. On Tuesday, Haley, 51, officially entered the race for president, becoming the first and so far only major Republican challenger to former president Donald Trump.
Here’s the White House’s attack line today against Republicans, condensed into a tweet:
Some economic truths, before we get into the politics: America’s budget debt is very high, both in absolute terms, and as a percentage of GDP. The federal budget deficit – which is the portion of its spending that Washington must borrow money to cover – is also lofty (though it has been worse). And in June, the government is expected to run out of money to pay its bills unless Congress agrees to increase the limit on how much money it can borrow.
So what’s the purpose of Biden’s tweet and speech today? The GOP has demanded the president and his Democratic allies agree to cut spending if they want their votes for raising the borrowing limit. Today, the White House will try to convince voters that it’s the GOP who want to spend recklessly. We’ll see if the public believes them.
Biden looks to cast GOP as money wasters in speech
Good morning, US politics blog readers. America’s large national debt was accumulated under both Republican and Democratic presidents, but ever since they reclaimed the majority in the House of Representatives, the GOP has cast itself as guardians of fiscal prudence. Joe Biden will try to undercut that argument today in a speech where he will accuse the Republicans of wanting to hike the national debt by more than $3tn. The president is likely playing the long game here, since he’s in the midst of trying to convince the House GOP and its leader Kevin McCarthy to support increasing the US government’s borrowing limit before June, the point at which it could run out of money. The Republicans say they want spending cuts in exchange for their votes, while the White House’s stance can be summed up in two words: no negotiations. Expect to hear more about this at his speech set for 2:30pm ET.
Here’s what else is happening today:
Nikki Haley, the former United Nations ambassador under Donald Trump, will today formally announce her campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, after scooping herself with a surprise video announcement yesterday.
Kamala Harris is heading to the annual Munich Security Conference, where she’ll meet with global leaders and likely discuss Ukraine, China and other matters of international concern to Washington.
The Senate will be in session, and consider more of Biden’s nominees to the federal courts. | US Federal Elections |
WASHINGTON — Former President Donald Trump wants to subpoena the successor to the Jan. 6 committee and several other entities in connection with the federal election interference criminal case, contending that there are "certain missing records" that could be relevant to his defense.
In a court filing in one of the two cases brought by special counsel Jack Smith, Trump's lawyers said they would like to subpoena the U.S. Archivist; the clerk of the House of Representatives; the Committee on House Administration (which took over material from the defunct Jan. 6 committee); the special counsel to the president; the Department of Homeland Security's general counsel; Rep. Barry Loudermilk of Georgia; and Rep. Bennie Thompson, who chaired the Jan. 6 committee.
Loudermilk, a Republican on the House Administration committee, wrote in an earlier letter that only written transcripts were transferred after the Jan. 6 committee dissolved, and that "video recordings of transcribed interviews and depositions, which featured prominently during the Select Committee’s hearings, were not archived or transferred."
Trump's team said that material is important to his defense.
"Needless to say, there is significant overlap between the Select Committee’s investigation and this case, and there is a strong likelihood that individuals discussed in the Missing Records could be called as trial witnesses," Trump's lawyers wrote.
Trump's trial on four counts related to his efforts to stop the peaceful transfer of power and stay in the White House is set to begin in March 2024. The Trump filing came the day after Smith's team revealed that at least 25 individuals cited attorney-client privilege when declining to provide information for the investigation. | US Federal Elections |
Counties in Pennsylvania have told Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro and lawmakers that it is too late to move up the state's 2024 presidential primary date if counties are to successfully administer the election.
In a letter, the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania said there is no longer enough time for counties to handle the tasks associated with moving next year's primary election from the current date set in law, April 23.
The counties' association drafted the letter after weeks of efforts by lawmakers to move up the primary date, in part to avoid a conflict with the Jewish holiday of Passover. That became embroiled in partisan and intraparty disagreements after Senate Republicans then touted moving up the date as a way to give the late primary state more say in deciding 2024's presidential nominees.
County officials say they are planning for 2023's election, less than five weeks away, and already spent many months of planning around holding 2024's primary election on April 23.
"While we thank the General Assembly and the administration for their thoughtful discussions around this matter, at this date counties can no longer guarantee there will be sufficient time to make the changes necessary to assure a primary on a different date would be successful," the organization’s executive director, Lisa Schaefer, wrote in the letter dated Friday.
Shapiro has supported changing the primary date to avoid it falling on Passover, but his administration has been silent about the protracted fight in the Legislature over moving it. Lawmakers have not yet shown a willingness to let the matter drop.
On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Joe Pittman, a Republican, released a letter insisting that the House agree to the Senate's preferred date of March 19, instead of the House's counterproposal of April 2.
"In the Senate we now consider this matter to be closed," Pittman wrote.
Counties face a number of challenges if the primary date moves.
Those include rescheduling more than 9,000 polling places that are typically contracted a year or more ahead of time, including in schools that then schedule a day off for teacher training. Schools would have to consider changing their calendars in the middle of the academic year, Schaefer said.
Counties also would need to reschedule tens of thousands poll workers, many of whom were prepared to work April 23 and had scheduled vacations or other obligations around the date, Schaefer said.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania — a presidential battleground state won by Democrat Joe Biden in 2020 — is still buffeted by former President Donald Trump's baseless lies about a stolen election.
Schaefer said county elections staff are facing an increasingly hostile environment that has spurred "unprecedented turnover."
Changing the presidential primary at this late date would put the state "at risk of having another layer of controversy placed on the 2024 election, as anything that doesn’t go perfectly will be used to challenge the election process and results," Schaefer said. "This will add even more pressure on counties and election staff, and to put our staff under additional pressure will not help our counties retain them."
Senate Republicans had backed a five-week shift, to March 19, in what they called a bid to make Pennsylvania relevant for the first time since 2008 in helping select presidential nominees. County election officials had said April 9 or April 16 would be better options.
House Democrats countered last week with a proposal to move the date to April 2, two days after Easter. However, Senate Republicans are echoing the concerns of county election officials who say the nexus with Easter will make it difficult to get voting machines and election materials into churches that also serve as polling places.
House Republicans opposed a date change, saying it threatened counties' ability to smoothly administer the primary election.
Critics also suggested that moving up the date would help protect incumbent lawmakers by giving primary challengers less time to prepare and that 2024's presidential nominees will be all-but settled well before March 19. | US Federal Elections |
On Nov. 16, 2023, the bipartisan House Committee on Ethics issued a scathing report on the behavior of Rep. George Santos, finding that Santos had engaged in “knowing and willful violations of the Ethics in Government Act.” That committee’s Republican chair later introduced a motion to expel Santos from Congress. Regardless of the success or failure of that motion, which will be considered after Thanksgiving, Santos himself has announced he will not seek reelection.
These consequences are being brought to bear on Santos in large part because of what the report calls a “constant stream of lies to his constituents, donors, and staff.” Santos appears to have deceived donors about what their money would be used for. Ostensible campaign donations were redirected for his private use, including purchases of Botox and subscriptions to OnlyFans, an X-rated entertainment service.
What, though, makes Santos’ lies so unusual – and so damning? The idea that politicians are dishonest is, at this point, something of a cliché – although few have taken their dishonesty as far as Santos, who seems to have lied about his education, work history, charitable activity, athletic prowess and even his place of residence.
Santos may be exceptional in how many lies he has told, but politicians seeking election have incentives to tell voters what they want to hear – and there is some empirical evidence that a willingness to lie may be helpful in the process of getting elected. Voters may not appreciate candidates who are unwilling or unable to mislead others from time to time.
As a political philosopher whose work focuses on the moral foundations of democratic politics, I am interested in the moral reasons behind voters’ right to feel resentment when they discover that their elected representatives have lied to them.
Political philosophers offer four distinct responses to this question – although none of these responses suggests that all lies are necessarily morally wrong.
1. Lying is manipulative
The first reason to resent being lied to is that it is a form of disrespect. When you lie to me, you treat me as a thing to be manipulated and used for your purposes. In the terms used by philosopher Immanuel Kant, when you lie to me, you treat me as a means or a tool, rather than a person with a moral status equal to your own.
Kant himself took this principle as a reason to condemn all lies, however useful – but other philosophers have thought that some lies were so important that they might be compatible with, or even express, respect for citizens.
Plato, notably, argues in “The Republic” that when the public good requires a leader to lie, the citizens should be grateful for the deceptions of their leaders.
Michael Walzer, a modern political philosopher, echoes this idea. Politics requires the building of coalitions and the making of deals – which, in a world full of moral compromise, may entail being deceptive about what one is planning and why. As Walzer puts it, no one succeeds in politics without being willing to dirty their hands – and voters should prefer politicians to get their hands dirty if that is the cost of effective political agency.
2. Abuse of trust
A second reason to resent lies begins with the idea of predictability. If our candidates lie to us, we cannot know what they really plan to do – and, hence, cannot trust that we are voting for the candidate who will best represent our interests.
Modern political philosopher Eric Beerbohm argues that when politicians speak to us, they invite us to trust them – and a politician who lies to us abuses that trust in a way that we may rightly resent.
These ideas are powerful, but they also seem to have some limits. Voters may not need to believe candidates’ words in order to understand their intentions and thereby come to accurate beliefs about what they plan to do.
To take one recent example: The majority of those who voted for Donald Trump in 2016, when he was trumpeting the idea of making Mexico pay for a border wall, did not believe that it was actually possible to build a wall that would be paid for by Mexico. They did not take Trump to be describing a literal truth, but expressing an untruth that was indicative of Trump’s overall attitude toward migration and toward Mexico – and voted for him on the basis of that attitude.
3. Electoral mandate
The third reason we might resent lies told on the campaign trail stems from the idea of an electoral mandate. Philosopher John Locke, whose writings influenced the Declaration of Independence, regarded political authority as stemming from the consent of the governed; this consent might be illegitimate were it to be obtained by means of deception.
This idea, too, has power – but it also runs up against the sophistication of both modern elections and modern voters. After all, campaigns do not pretend to give a dispassionate description of political ideals. They are closer to rhetorical forms of combat and involve considerable amounts of deliberate ambiguity, rhetorical presentation and self-interested spin.
More to the point, though, voters understand this context and rarely regard any candidate’s presentation as stemming solely from a concern for the unalloyed truth.
4. Unnecessary and disprovable
Santos’ lies, however, do seem to have provoked something like resentment and outrage, which suggests that they are somehow unlike the usual forms of deceptive practice undertaken during political campaigns.
Certainly the congressional response to these lies is extraordinary. If Santos is expelled from Congress, he would be only the third member of that body to have been expelled since the Civil War.
The rarity of this sanction may reflect a final reason to resent deception, which is that voters especially dislike being lied to unnecessarily – nor about matters subject to easy empirical proof or disproof. It seems clear that voters may sometimes be willing to accept deceptive and dissembling political candidates, given the fact that effective statecraft may involve the use of deceptive means. Santos, however, lied about matters as tangential to politics as his nonexistent history as a star player for Baruch College’s volleyball team.
This lie was unnecessary, given its tenuous relationship to his candidacy for the House of Representatives, and easily disproved, given the fact that he did not actually attend Baruch. Similarly, the ethics report on Santos emphasized the fact that his expenditures often involved purchases for which there was no plausible relationship to a campaign, including US$6,000 at luxury goods store Ferragamo. The proposition that such a purchase was useful for his election campaign is difficult to defend – or to believe.
I believe voters may have made their peace with some deceptive campaign practices. If Walzer is right, they should expect that an effective candidate will be imperfectly honest, at best. But candidates who are both liars and bad at lying can find no such justification, since they are unlikely to be believed and thus incapable of achieving those goods that justify their deception.
If voters have made their peace with some degree of lying, in short, they are nonetheless still capable of resenting candidates who are unskilled at the craft of political deception.
This is an updated version of an article originally published on Jan. 20, 2023. | US Political Corruption |
Senate Democrats hope to quickly advance President Joe Biden’s pick to be his top diplomat in Jerusalem with the deadly terrorist attack by Hamas in Israel increasing the urgency to fill the position.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee plans to meet next Wednesday to hear from Jack Lew, a former Treasury secretary under President Barack Obama whom Biden nominated last month to be ambassador to Israel.
“It is as critical as ever that we have a Senate-confirmed ambassador in Israel,” said Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.), who took over as chairman of the panel late last month after Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) stepped aside because of his indictment on federal corruption charges.
Lew’s confirmation increased in importance after Hamas attacked Israel from the Palestinian-controlled Gaza Strip. At least 14 Americans have been killed during hostilities, and Hamas has taken some Americans hostage.
“The United States needs a full-time ambassador in Israel,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, told reporters on Tuesday. “He needs to be confirmed immediately.”
Lew would replace Thomas Nides, who left the post earlier this year. Lew also served as director of the Office of Management and Budget under Obama.
National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan told reporters on Tuesday that Lew’s confirmation was a “top priority” when the Senate returns next week from its week-long recess.
“We’re going to work with both Democrats and Republicans, particularly leaders on both sides and the chair and ranking of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, to make that happen as soon as humanly possible and get him out to the region immediately thereafter,” Sullivan said.
GOP Obstacles
Lew’s confirmation could still face obstacles on the Senate floor as he has faced criticism from some Republicans who are unhappy with Democratic policies dealing with Iran and the West Bank.
Absent consent from every Republican and Democrat in the Senate, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would have to file a motion to limit debate on Lew’s nomination, forcing two votes at simple-majority thresholds and hours of debate before a final confirmation vote. That would compete with floor time otherwise dedicated to spending bills that, in lieu of another stopgap measure, need to pass by Nov. 17 to avoid a government shutdown.
Key Republicans remain undecided on Lew’s nomination, including Foreign Relations ranking member Jim Risch (R-Idaho). Sen. Todd Young (R-Ind.), a member of the panel, expects to meet with Lew soon, according to spokesman Matt Lahr. Spokespeople for other Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee did not return requests for comment Tuesday.
Fifteen Republican senators in July said the State Department’s guidance that US agencies cut support for scientific and technological cooperation with Israeli institutions in the West Bank would make the Senate’s vetting of nominees “intractable.”
Congressional Republicans have also questioned what they view as Lew’s liberal stance toward Iran, especially his support for the Obama-era agreement opposed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that sought to curb Iran’s nuclear development in exchange for the lifting of sanctions.
“Jack Lew has fully embraced the failed Obama-Biden policy of Iranian appeasement and is grossly unqualified to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Israel,” said McKinley Lewis, a spokesperson for Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.). “After traveling to Israel this summer, Senator Scott has confidence the current leadership at the Embassy in Jerusalem to successfully handle U.S. interests.”
The Foreign Relations Committee scheduled the hearing shortly after Lew’s paperwork was completed on Friday, according to Anna Devanny, a spokesperson for Risch.
After next week’s hearing, the panel would need to meet again in order to send his nomination to the floor, likely after senators also get a chance to quiz Lew in writing with follow-up questions. Only a simple majority of the panel would be required to recommend Lew to the rest of the chamber. | US Federal Policies |
Wednesday evening’s GOP debate was another exercise in futility—a skirmish between future also-rans who mostly served to emphasize how Donald Trump's dominance wasn't on stage. But the ordeal may have been clarifying in at least one way—as a showcase for a particular strain of smugness that has come to dominate the far-right.
Vivek Ramaswamy—forgive me, please, for giving this smirking asshole even a small taste of the attention he so desperately craves—took the stage in Miami with a promise to be “unhinged.” Mission accomplished! Over two interminable hours, the 38-year-old biotech businessman implied Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who is Jewish, is a Nazi; suggested Michelle Obama, not Joe Biden, is currently acting as president; and attacked everyone from the moderators to Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel to Nikki Haley, who seemed to be speaking for most Americans when she made clear her disgust with him.
“You’re just scum,” she told him after he invoked her daughter in one broadside.
But Ramaswamy, a Reddit thread come to life, may take that as a compliment. Like Tucker Carlson, Elon Musk, and Joe Rogan—who he suggested, in his first answer of the night, should be hosting the debate—Ramaswamy has built his political brand on being a smug jerk. Provoking the likes of Haley and Chris Christie, the closest to establishment figures on the debate stage? That’s likely a confirmation to him that he’s doing something right.
His demeanor hasn’t helped him in the polls, where he is mired in the mid-single digits. But it has made him an exciting figure among the sect of self-righteous, self-satisfied cranks that have coalesced in recent years: See Ramaswamy yukking it up with the likes of Bill Maher and Jordan Peterson, delighting in the approval of Russell Brand and Glenn Greenwald, admiring his own genius, even as he says the most idiotic shit imaginable.
“Don’t just build the wall—build both walls,” he said at one point Wednesday, calling for, yes, the construction of border walls on both the southern and northern U.S. borders.
Ego is nothing new in politics, of course. But Trump ushered in a new age of undue self-regard on the right—a cottage industry of trolls with heads full of nothing but confidence and hearts filled with cynicism and contempt. It’s been a profitable run for some of these blowhards—and destructive for the country and its political system. But nobody, to this point, has really been able to translate it into a political strategy the way Trump has. Ron DeSantis, once billed as his successor, has flopped so hard in the GOP primary that it could threaten his reign over his tiny kingdom in Florida. Kevin McCarthy smarmed his way to House speaker but had his self-esteem pierced when he was unceremoniously relieved of his post in October.
Ramaswamy—perhaps the most off-putting of his vainglorious fellow travelers—may be spared such a dramatic downfall, if only because he’s unlikely to rise to political heights high enough to do so. But he has at the very least secured a place on the Professional Asshole circuit—and perhaps as a toady to Trump himself, the only Republican figure he seems to exempt from his description of the GOP as a “party of losers.” | US Federal Elections |
Lawyers for former President Donald Trump filed a brief with the Colorado state Supreme Court this week arguing that a constitutional provision that would disallow him from being able to run for the presidency again in 2024 should be ignored because, as they put it, he never made an oath, as president, to “support” the Constitution.
The argument is one of semantics, as the president of the United States is sworn in through a different oath than members of Congress or other government officials.
Article II of the U.S. Constitution requires presidents-elect to read an oath promising to “preserve, protect and defend” the document as they are being sworn into office.
Six residents in Colorado sued to have Trump barred from being able to appear on the state ballot next year as a candidate for president, citing Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — sometimes known as the insurrectionist clause — as their basis for doing so. That provision states that no person can be elected to any office within the United States if they have served in a position where they “previously [took] an oath … to support the Constitution” while subsequently engaging in “insurrection or rebellion” or giving aid or comfort to those who have engaged in such activities.
Because the language of the amendment says “support” rather than any of the words used in the presidential oath of office, Trump’s lawyers contend the provision doesn’t apply to him. The former president’s lawyers claim this difference in the language was “purposefully” created by the authors of the amendment.
“Section Three does not apply, because the presidency is not an office ‘under the United States,’ the president is not an ‘officer of the United States,’ and President Trump did not take an oath ‘to support the Constitution of the United States,'” Trump’s lawyers wrote in a brief to the state’s highest court.
Lawyers from the nonprofit watchdog organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), who are representing the six residents in Colorado seeking to disqualify Trump from the ballot, argued differently in their brief to the state Supreme Court last week.
“The Constitution itself, historical context, and common sense, all make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s disqualification clause extends to the President and the Presidency,” CREW stated in its brief to the court, adding:
The Constitution explicitly tells us, over and over, that the Presidency is an “office.” The natural meaning of “officer of the United States” is anyone who holds a federal “office.” And the natural reading of “oath to support the Constitution” includes the stronger Presidential oath to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”
Other legal experts and scholars have also noted that the 14th Amendment’s insurrectionist clause should apply to Trump as well, based on his motivating a mob of his loyalists to attack the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, and his apparent sanctioning of their actions for several hours after they had begun. Trump’s other actions, including his leading a plot behind the scenes to usurp the outcome of the 2020 presidential election in order to illegitimately remain in office, also warrant barring him from running again.
“It’s an error to focus on JAN 6, for which Trump DENIES responsibility. It’s what he ADMITS — ATTEMPTING TO STAY IN POWER AFTER OFFICIALLY LOSING THE ELECTION — that DEFINES ‘insurrection against the Constitution of the United States,'” Laurence Tribe, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University, said on social media earlier this month.
Today is #GivingTuesday — don’t miss your chance to give!
Millions of people are supporting nonprofits like Truthout for #GivingTuesday. Will you join them?
As an independent newsroom, Truthout relies on reader donations to remain online. Your tax-deductible donation of any amount — even a few bucks! — helps make it possible for us to publish award-winning journalism that amplifies the voices of changemakers everywhere. | US Federal Elections |
Bernie Sanders was forced to step in to prevent a fist fight during a heated war of words at a US Senate hearing.
The experienced senator played peacekeeper after Republican senator Markwayne Mullin, a former-cage-fighter-turned-politician, took to his feet to confront union chief Sean O'Brien.
Moments earlier, Mr Mullin branded Mr O'Brien, the president of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, a "moron" and challenged him to "stand your butt up".
Mr Sanders yelled at Mr Mullin to sit down, banged his gavel several times and told both to stop their row.
"You are a United States senator!" Mr Sanders yelled at Mr Mullin.
"This is a hearing, and God knows the American people have enough contempt for Congress, let's not make it worse."
While the pair never came face to face, they shouted for around six minutes as Mr Sanders tried to regain order of the Senate hearing.
The two appeared to conclude their exchange by agreeing to have coffee together.
Read more from the US:
Trump, absent from debate. emerged relatively unscathed
Body of man missing since August found with his alive dog
The exchange occurred after Oklahoma senator, Mr Mullin, recalled an interaction he had with Mr O'Brien in June on social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter.
At the time, the pair discussed engaging in an MMA fight for charity.
Mr Mullin read aloud Mr O'Brien's original set of tweets during the hearing on Tuesday, which said: "Greedy CEO who pretends like he's self-made.
"In reality, just a clown and a fraud. Always has been, always will be. Quit the tough guy act in these senate hearings. You know where to find me. Any place, anytime, cowboy."
After reading out the post, Mr Mullin said the pair could "finish it here", before calling on Mr O'Brien to "stand your butt up".
"You stand your butt up," replied Mr O'Brien, before Mr Sanders intervened. | US Congress |
A small western Pennsylvania water authority was just one of multiple organizations breached in the United States by Iran-affiliated hackers who targeted a specific industrial control device because it is Israeli-made, U.S. and Israeli authorities say.
“The victims span multiple U.S. states,” the FBI, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, known as CISA, as well as Israel’s National Cyber Directorate said in an advisory emailed to The Associated Press late Dec. 1.
They did not say how many organizations were hacked or otherwise describe them.
Matthew Mottes, the chairman of the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa, which discovered it had been hacked on Nov. 25, said Thursday that federal officials had told him the same group also breached four other utilities and an aquarium.
Cybersecurity experts say that while there is no evidence of Iranian involvement in the Oct. 7 attack into Israel by Hamas that triggered the war in Gaza they expected state-backed Iranian hackers and pro-Palestinian hacktivists to step up cyberattacks on Israeli and its allies in its aftermath. And indeed that has happened.
The multiagency advisory explained what CISA had not when it confirmed the Pennsylvania hack on Wednesday – that other industries outside water and water- treatment facilities use the same equipment – Vision Series programmable logic controllers made by Unitronics – and were also potentially vulnerable.
Those industries include “energy, food and beverage manufacturing and healthcare, ” the advisory says. The devices regulate processes including pressure, temperature and fluid flow.
The Aliquippa hack promoted workers to temporarily halt pumping in a remote station that regulates water pressure for two nearby towns, leading crews to switch to manual operation. The hackers left a digital calling card on the compromised device saying all Israeli-made equipment is “a legal target.”
The multiagency advisory said it was not known if the hackers had tried to penetrate deeper into breached networks. The access they did get enabled “more profound cyber physical effects on processes and equipment,” it said.
The advisory says the hackers, who call themselves “Cyber Av3ngers,” are affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which the U.S. designated as a foreign terrorist organization in 2019. The group targeted the Unitronics devices at least since Nov. 22, it said.
An online search Saturday with the Shodan service identified more than 200 such internet-connected devices in the U.S. and more than 1,700 globally.
The advisory notes that Unitronics devices ship with a default password, a practice experts discourage as it makes them more vulnerable to hacking. Best practices call for devices to require a unique password to be created out of the box. It says the hackers likely accessed affected devices by “exploiting cybersecurity weaknesses, including poor password security and exposure to the internet.”
Experts say many water utilities have paid insufficient attention to cybersecurity.
In response to the Aliquippa hack, three Pennsylvania congressmen asked the U.S. Justice Department in a letter to investigate. Americans must know their drinking water and other basic infrastructure is safe from “nation-state adversaries and terrorist organizations,” U.S. Sens. John Fetterman and Bob Casey and U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio said. Cyber Av3ngers 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.
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. Unitronics has not responded to the AP queries about the hacks.
The attack came less than a month after a federal appeals court decision prompted the EPA 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.
Photo: This photo provided by the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa shows the screen of a Unitronics device that was hacked in Aliquippa, Pa., on Saturday, Nov. 25, 2023. The hacked device was in a pumping booster station owned by the Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa. An electronic calling card left by the hackers suggests they picked their target because it uses components made by an Israeli company. (Municipal Water Authority of Aliquippa via AP)
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy. | US Federal Policies |
Donald Trump’s dubious defense that he was exercising his free-speech rights in response to a four-count federal criminal indictment charging him with pushing illegal schemes to overturn his 2020 election loss is prompting ex-Department of Justice (DoJ) officials and scholars to criticize such claims as bogus and as threats to the rule of law.
Despite special counsel Jack Smith’s detailed 45-page, four-count indictment of Trump for promoting several illegal schemes including organizing slates of fake electors in seven states to thwart Joe Biden’s victory, Trump and some top Republican allies have repeatedly portrayed his multi-pronged drive to stay in power as a free speech matter.
But former DoJ officials, scholars and ex-Republican House members say Trump’s actions and schemes went far beyond free speech, and that Trump and his allies are weakening the justice system and could breed new conspiracy theories by making a first amendment defense.
Critics say Trump allies embracing his free-speech claims seem to be trying to cover themselves with the party’s base and to rationalize sticking with Trump, despite the indictment’s sizable body of damning evidence revealing Trump’s active role in unprecedented and illegal ploys to overturn the 2020 result.
The DoJ filed a four-count grand jury indictment against Trump on 1 August that charged him with mounting several illegal efforts to stay in office – with help from six unnamed co-conspirators who were not charged – despite his loss to Biden by 7 million votes and no evidence of massive fraud, as Trump has falsely and repeatedly claimed.
After pleading not guilty, Trump used one of his Truth Social posts on 3 August to charge that “the Radical Left wants to Criminalize Free Speech!” and cited comments from Republican allies echoing his claims. Trump’s lawyer John Lauro told CNN on 1 August that the charges against Trump are “an attack on free speech, and [on] political advocacy”.
DoJ veterans say such claims are factually wrong and threaten the integrity of the legal system.
“Trump is deliberately distorting the critical difference between just saying things and actively doing things that have criminal consequences,” said Donald Ayer, a deputy attorney general during George HW Bush’s administration.
“Obviously, he didn’t just talk about the idea that he won the election. The indictment lists several areas of conduct where he conspired and acted repeatedly to alter the outcome of the legitimate voting process that occurred. For Trump or others to now be claiming there is no difference between the two is to once again undermine the very idea that our society is governed by rules that people are required to follow.”
Similarly, ex-federal prosecutors say Trump is playing fast and loose with the facts, and mounting a dangerous defense.
“The indictment highlights how Trump and his co-conspirators relied on speech not just to speak their truth or rally their adherents, but to push hard, behind the scenes, to pressure others into assisting the charged fraud,” said Columbia law professor and former federal prosecutor Daniel Richman.
Richman added: “Trump’s supporters likely know all this, but find it politically useful to wave the first amendment banner. It’s more for the crowds than for a courtroom. But the effect is simply to advance the theme of political victimhood, and undermine trust in the judicial process.”
Trump and his allies have kept up a drumbeat of free-speech claims that seem politically driven in response to Smith’s charges – the third criminal indictment of Trump this year. On Monday, Trump and 18 allies were indicted by a Georgia district attorney on 41 counts that included 13 racketeering, perjury and forgery charges against Trump involving his efforts to overturn his loss.
At his first post-indictment campaign rally in New Hampshire on 8 August , for instance, Trump invoked free speech again.
“They want to silence me because I will never let them silence you,” he said, referring to a recent motion by prosecutors seeking a protective court order to curb Trump from sharing sensitive information about the case which could result in intimidating witnesses.
“They’re not taking away my first amendment rights,” he told the crowd.
The motion by the prosecutors came in the wake of a Truth Social post by Trump warning: “IF YOU GO AFTER ME, I’M COMING AFTER YOU.”
Some top Republican House leaders have embraced Trump’s messaging. To boost Trump’s political and legal fortunes post indictment, Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, the third ranking party leader, has echoed Trump’s stance. “Trump had every right under the first amendment to correctly raise concerns about election integrity in 2020,” she has said.
Some scholars say that Trump and his allies’ free-speech assertions are dangerous rationales that undermine democratic principles.
“Republicans don’t believe this stuff,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard government professor and the co-author of How Democracies Die, referring to Trump’s fallacious free-speech defense.
“Authoritarian behavior has to be legitimized and dressed up. Either justified by an emergency or a major security threat or justified as technically legal.”
Trump has continued to distort the detailed evidence in the indictment and to use free speech as a cover for his attacks on critics such as former vice-president Mike Pence, whose grand-jury testimony figured prominently in the indictment of Trump and who is expected to be a witness when the case goes to trial.
As the indictment details, Trump tried unsuccessfully to pressure Pence to help on January 6 to block certifying Biden’s win in Congress, and when Pence balked, Trump exclaimed: “You’re too honest.”
Prosecutors’ motion to get a protective order was spurred by concerns that he might improperly share information about the case, and potentially intimidate witnesses such as Pence, who Trump has condemned as “delusional”.
On Friday, Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is overseeing the latest federal charges against Trump, held a hearing about the prosecutors’ request.
At the hearing, Chutkan said “Trump has [the] right to free speech but that right is not absolute” and that it needs to be balanced with the “orderly administration of justice … If that means he can’t say exactly what he wants to say about witnesses in this case, then that’s how it’s going to be.”
More broadly, ex-Republican House members are voicing strong concerns about Trump and his allies’ distorted free-speech claims.
“Trump has a right under the first amendment to say he was ripped off in the election, even though he was wrong,” said ex-Republican congressman Charlie Dent.
“He does not have a first amendment right to steal an election by pressuring his vice-president to ignore and discount state certified electoral votes, encourage his supporters to storm the Capitol, create a fake elector scheme and intimidate state election officials. He did all this after he exhausted all legitimate legal remedies.”
Dent warned: “Those who continue to enable Trump’s flouting of the rule of law and his reckless disregard for the constitutional order are causing too many of our fellow Americans to lose faith in our republic and the democratic institutions that undergird it.”
Other ex-Republican members see dangers from Trump and his allies’ tactics.
“The GOP has historically been the law and order party, but I think their new strategy for retaking the House is to exacerbate the narrative that DoJ and the courts are biased and corrupt,” former Republican congressman Dave Trott said.
For Harvard’s Levitsky, the real issue is “Republicans acquiescence to authoritarianism. Nobody believes conspiracy to commit a crime is free speech. It’s what they say because they can’t say they support Trump, despite the fact that he is a criminal and an authoritarian.” | US Federal Elections |
In what may be the first time the word “shitter” has entered the Congressional record, Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) put her Republican colleagues on blast during a Thursday hearing of the House Oversight Committee, accusing them of willfully ignoring Donald Trump’s mishandling of classified documents.
At the first hearing on the Biden impeachment inquiry, Crockett accused Republicans of dancing around the subject of the president, pointing out that if she played a drinking game based on the number of times the words “if” or “Hunter” had been said that day, “I would be drunk by now.”
She noted that she’d seen no evidence of President Joe Biden’s alleged misconduct, but “when we start talking about things that look like evidence, [Republicans] want to act like they blind.”
Crockett then lifted up a number of images that allegedly show classified records being stored in a Mar-a-Lago bathroom, saying, “These are our national secrets. Looks like [they’re] in the shitter to me.”
She began rattling off the number of criminal counts with which Trump is charged before challenging the GOP to “find some evidence” or let lawmakers “get back to the people’s work, which means keeping this government open so that people don’t go hungry in the streets.”
She said the only crime Biden is guilty of is “loving his child unconditionally.”
“Honestly, I hope and pray that my parents love me half as much as he loves his child,” she said. | US Congress |
Ocasio-Cortez knocks Biden plan for student loan interest to kick in during ‘on-ramp’ period
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) took aim Sunday at President Biden’s plan for student loan interest to restart during his proposed “on-ramp” period after the Supreme Court shot down his plan for student loan forgiveness.
Ocasio-Cortez told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” that she would like to see interest on payments suspended during the 12-month on-ramp period the Biden administration proposed after the Supreme Court struck down the president’s student debt forgiveness plan last week.
“I would like to see interest payments suspended during this time, especially during that 12-month ramp-up period,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “There are millions of people in this country that have student loan debt under — student loan debt amounts under $10,000 or $20,000, as outlined in the plan.”
“People should not be incurring interest during this 12-month on-ramp period. So, I highly urge the administration to consider suspending those interest payments,” she added.
Biden’s new plan includes an “on-ramp” repayment program for those who may miss payments when they resume this fall and remove the threat of default or harm to credit ratings for 12 months because the Education Department will not refer borrowers who miss payments to collection agencies or credit bureaus.
In addition, Biden reintroduced his forgiveness plan grounded in the Higher Education Act (HEA), which proponents of the plan argue allows the education secretary to “compromise, waive or release” student loans. Ocasio-Cortez said that she believes the administration has the authority to forgive student debt under the HEA.
“Myself, as well as other members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, met with the White House recently around this plan, as well as many other advocates in the space as well. And we truly believe that the president — Congress has given the president this authority,” she said. “The Supreme Court is far overreaching their authority. And I believe, frankly, that we really need to be having conversations about judicial review as a check on the courts as well.”
The plan announced last year 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.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
- President Joe Biden will sign an executive order that aims to expand access to care for children and elderly and disabled Americans.
- The cost for care for older people and those with disabilities has spiked 40% in the last decade. During that time, the cost of child care has climbed 26%.
- The move comes as the White House faces steep opposition in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives to many social spending proposals.
- The White House has long maintained that Biden's social policy agenda is highly popular. A second term in office could mean more focus on pushing through many of the promises he was unable to pass in his ambitious Build Back Better agenda — even when Democrats held both chambers of Congress.
WASHINGTON — President Joe Biden will sign an executive order Tuesday that aims to expand access to care for children, the elderly and disabled Americans, signaling the importance of the issue as he prepares to run for a second term.
In more than 50 executive actions, Biden is asking nearly every federal agency to expand care options without new spending. He has long pushed to ease the burden of care costs, but Congress has stifled his efforts during his first term.
The White House faces steep opposition to many of Biden's social spending proposals in the Republican-controlled House. Biden asked Congress in his budget proposal last month for $750 billion in funding over the next decade for care, a variation of a proposal he made on the campaign trail to create a "21st Century Caregiving and Education Workforce."
The administration failed to pass a dramatic reimagining of dependent care during Biden's first two years in office, as several Democrats opposed the new taxes and spending needed for it. The White House, congressional Democrats and advocates said the plans would provide an economic boost as they would create jobs and allow employees who have dependents more flexibility to work.
In a call with reporters Monday previewing the executive action, a senior administration official said Biden is focused on doing everything he can to improve access on his own.
"This is a case where the president is working hard on the investment angle, has worked hard with Congress, that has not worked out quite as well," the official said.
The cost of care for older people and those with disabilities has spiked 40% in the last decade, according to White House data. During that time, the cost of child care has climbed 26%. It has spiked more than 200% in the last 30 years.
The White House pointed to data from Boston Consulting Group that estimates economic output could drop $290 billion a year beginning in 2030 if the care pitfalls are not patched.
Even before the pandemic in 2019, 76% of parents reported struggling to access affordable, dependable care, the White House said.
By going forward without congressional action, Biden is signaling the importance of the issue to him ahead of an expected reelection bid. The White House has long maintained that Biden's social policy agenda is highly popular with the American public despite conservative gripes over costs.
A second term in office could mean more focus on pushing through many of the promises he was unable to pass in his ambitious Build Back Better agenda. While the Democratic-controlled Congress pushed pieces of his broad social spending proposal, it cut an ambitious child-care program from it, among other policies.
"Too many families are struggling to afford or access high-quality care, and too many care workers are struggling to make a living doing this critically important work," Domestic Policy Council Director Susan Rice said on the call. "The president's not going to wait to take action to address our nation's care crisis."
In his executive order, Biden asked Cabinet-level agencies to flag grant programs that can be used to fund care for children and long-term care for workers on federal projects. The plan also outlines ways to improve access to in-home care for veterans, promote care worker unionization, increase pay for early childhood educators and improve job quality for caregiving workers.
The White House is also mulling requiring companies seeking federal funds for job creation to provide expanded access to care benefits for their workers. The Commerce Department in March mandated that companies seeking substantial funds from the $52 billion semiconductor manufacturing and research program to identify how they will assist their workforce in accessing childcare. | US Federal Policies |
FIRST ON FOX: A coalition of 25 Senate Republicans joined by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., are introducing legislation to block the Biden administration from moving forward with regulations targeting gas-powered car tailpipe emissions.
The lawmakers, led by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, and Sen. Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., are expected to introduce the Choice in Automobile Retail Sales (CARS) Act later Thursday. The legislation, if passed, would strike down the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal unveiled earlier this year that would significantly tighten vehicle tailpipe emissions restrictions.
"Once again, the Biden administration’s rule-making process is being used to push a radical green agenda and pick winners and losers," Crapo said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "Americans deserve to have access to affordable, reliable vehicles fueled by American-made energy products.
"However, the Biden EPA’s rule change would hurt everyday Americans while simultaneously helping China. Consequences of rules and regulations such as these restrict consumer choice and raise costs for the average American family."
In April, the EPA proposed regulations that were the most aggressive for federal tailpipe emissions ever crafted. If finalized and implemented, a staggering 67% of new sedan, crossover, SUV and light truck; up to 50% of bus and garbage truck; 35% of short-haul freight tractor; and 25% of long-haul freight tractor purchases could be electric by 2032, the White House projected.
Critics of the rules accused the EPA of attempting to use the proposal as a backdoor electric vehicle (EV) mandate, essentially forcing future purchases of zero-carbon vehicles.
In addition to blocking the proposed tailpipe emissions regulations, the CARS Act would prohibit regulations mandating the use of any specific technology or regulations that limit the availability of new vehicles based on engine type. The legislation would additionally require the EPA to update any regulations that limit new vehicles based on engine type within two years.
"We cannot allow the EPA to continue to impose oppressive and careless regulations that increase our dependence on foreign adversaries like China and make everyday necessities more expensive for Americans and their families," added Manchin, who chairs the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "I waited in line for gas in the '70s because America was too reliant on foreign oil, and I refuse to risk one day waiting in line for a Chinese battery.
"This bipartisan legislation would rescind this federal overreach and protect access to traditional, affordable vehicles," the West Virginia Democrat added. "As chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I will continue to lead the fight against EPA’s radical climate agenda to protect our energy, national and economic security."
In addition to Crapo, Ricketts and Manchin, 23 Senate Republicans joined the effort Thursday as co-sponsors. Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va.; Banking Committee Ranking Member Tim Scott, R-S.C.; and Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jim Risch, R-Idaho, were among those co-sponsors.
The CARS Act has also received widespread endorsements from industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers and conservative groups like Heritage Action and the National Taxpayers Union.
"We welcome Sen. Crapo’s and Sen. Ricketts’ efforts to safeguard Americans’ freedoms and prevent the EPA from imposing a de facto ban on the sale of new vehicles that use gasoline and other liquid fuels," said Amanda Eversole, the American Petroleum Institute's executive vice president and chief advocacy officer.
"The Senate should work expeditiously to pass The Choice in Automobile Retail Sales Act to ensure the EPA’s intrusive government policy doesn’t limit American families’ access to affordable and reliable vehicle options."
Chet Thompson, the president and CEO of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturer, added the CARS Act will "preserve consumer choice and allow individuals and families to continue selecting the cars and trucks that work best for them."
Since the Biden administration proposed the tailpipe emissions rules in April, which would impact car model years 2027 through 2032, lawmakers, including those who introduced the CARS Act, and energy experts have blasted the proposal. They argued EVs are costly, less efficient and more dependent on Chinese supply chains than traditional gas-powered cars.
The average cost of an EV was $65,291, and the average cost of a car with an internal combustion engine was $48,094 last year, according to Kelley Blue Book. And the Department of Energy reported that the average range of model year 2021 gasoline vehicles was 403 miles compared to the median 234-mile range of model year 2021 EVs.
The EPA's tailpipe regulations are coupled with a series of other actions pursued by the Biden administration targeting gas-powered cars. The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration proposed aggressive fuel economy regulations earlier this year that automakers have warned would lead to billions of dollars in penalties, costs that would be passed on to consumers.
Reps. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., and Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., introduced the House version of the CARS Act in July, but the bill has yet to receive a floor vote. | US Federal Policies |
According to the memo from the FBI and department of homeland security, the federal agencies have identified an increase in threats “occurring primarily online and across multiple platforms” including social media.They specifically link the increase to the August 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, a strong sign of yet more legal trouble to come for the former president.“The FBI and DHS have observed an increase in violent threats posted on social media against federal officials and facilities, including a threat to place a so-called dirty bomb in front of FBI Headquarters and issuing general calls for ‘civil war’ and ‘armed rebellion,’” the agencies wrote.Far-right Republican lawmakers in the House have joined in the attacks on federal law enforcement, including Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene:Impeach Merrick Garland and Defund the corrupt FBI!End political persecution and hold those accountable that abuse their positions of power to persecute their political enemies, while ruining our country.This shouldn’t happen in America.Republicans must force it to stop!— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) August 15, 2022
She was joined by Arizona’s Paul Gosar:It is crucial that we hold our Department of Justice accountable after the obvious political persecution of opposition to the Biden Regime.The "national security state" that works against America must be dismantled.— Rep. Paul Gosar, DDS (@RepGosar) August 14, 2022
Yet there seems to be an awareness among Republicans that the attacks don’t match the message of a party that attempts to cast itself as supporters of law enforcement. “We cannot say that whenever they went in and did that search, that they were not doing their job as law enforcement officers,” Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson said of the FBI in a Sunday interview on CNN:Key events1h agoFears of violence grow following FBI search of Trump's resortShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureDavid SmithLast week was indeed a wild one in US politics, with Joe Biden getting Congress to pass a major spending plan while his rival Donald Trump had his house raided. David Smith reports on the new dynamics created by the events as the midterms approach:Departing his small, unshowy home state of Delaware, Joe Biden roared into the sky aboard Air Force One, borne aloft by jet fuel and a dramatic uplift in his political fortunes.A thousand miles away, some unexpected guests had just arrived at the opulent Florida estate of the US president’s predecessor, Donald Trump, but not for its champagne, sumptuous buffet or two pound lobsters.At about 9am on Monday, FBI agents – said to number between 30 and 40, some wearing suits, most in T-shirts, casual trousers, masks and gloves – began a search of Mar-a-Lago for government secrets that should not have left the White House.The suicide of a man who crashed his car into barricades outside the US Capitol over the weekend underscores the tense atmosphere the search of Mar-a-Lago created, Maya Yang reports:A man drove into a barricade near the US Capitol in Washington DC on early Sunday morning, fired several shots into the air after his vehicle ignited, and then shot himself to death, according to police.Officials were quick to note they had not determined a motive for the man’s actions, though they did say there was no indication he was targeting any Congress members, who were in recess at the time.The man – identified as Richard Aaron York III, 29, of Dagsboro, Delaware – crashed his car into the barricades at East Capitol and Second streets, a press statement from the Capitol police announced.As he exited his car, the vehicle became engulfed in flames. York proceeded to fire a gun multiple times in the air, prompting police officers to approach him.Oliver LaughlandOliver Laughland has more on the apparent rift within the Republican party over how much to blame the FBI and justice department for the search of Mar-a-Lago:A handful of Republican governors have criticized the “outrageous rhetoric” of their party colleagues in the US Congress, who have accused federal law enforcement officers of a politicized attack on former president Donald Trump after executing a court-approved search warrant on his Florida home this week.Maryland governor Larry Hogan, a Republican moderate, described attacks by party members as both “absurd” and “dangerous”, after a week in which certain Republicans have compared the FBI to the Gestapo and fundraised off the slogan: “Defund the FBI”.Speaking to ABC News on Sunday, Hogan described the comparisons of the FBI to Nazi Germany’s secret police, made by Florida senator Rick Scott, as “very concerning to me, it’s outrageous rhetoric”.According to the memo from the FBI and department of homeland security, the federal agencies have identified an increase in threats “occurring primarily online and across multiple platforms” including social media.They specifically link the increase to the August 8 search of Mar-a-Lago, a strong sign of yet more legal trouble to come for the former president.“The FBI and DHS have observed an increase in violent threats posted on social media against federal officials and facilities, including a threat to place a so-called dirty bomb in front of FBI Headquarters and issuing general calls for ‘civil war’ and ‘armed rebellion,’” the agencies wrote.Far-right Republican lawmakers in the House have joined in the attacks on federal law enforcement, including Georgia’s Marjorie Taylor Greene:Impeach Merrick Garland and Defund the corrupt FBI!End political persecution and hold those accountable that abuse their positions of power to persecute their political enemies, while ruining our country.This shouldn’t happen in America.Republicans must force it to stop!— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) August 15, 2022
She was joined by Arizona’s Paul Gosar:It is crucial that we hold our Department of Justice accountable after the obvious political persecution of opposition to the Biden Regime.The "national security state" that works against America must be dismantled.— Rep. Paul Gosar, DDS (@RepGosar) August 14, 2022
Yet there seems to be an awareness among Republicans that the attacks don’t match the message of a party that attempts to cast itself as supporters of law enforcement. “We cannot say that whenever they went in and did that search, that they were not doing their job as law enforcement officers,” Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson said of the FBI in a Sunday interview on CNN:Fears of violence grow following FBI search of Trump's resortGood morning, US politics blog readers. Supporters of former president Donald Trump have reacted to last week’s FBI search of his Mar-a-Lago resort with both threats of violence and at least one real attack so far. Over the weekend, reports emerged that the bureau and the department of homeland security had put out a memo warning that the search inflamed extremists across the United States. An incident outside the US Capitol early Sunday morning in which a man drove his car into a barricade before shooting himself underscored the tense atmosphere.Here’s a look at what we can expect today: Today is the first anniversary of the Taliban taking power in Afghanistan following the US withdrawal, which is seen as one of the catalysts for the steady drop in Joe Biden’s approval rating over the past year. Another congressional delegation is in Taiwan. House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s visit earlier this month was met with fury by China, which responded with military drills around the island. Congress is finally on vacation after the House of Representatives on Friday passed the Democrats’ inflation reduction act to lower health care costs and fight climate change. Biden, who is also on vacation, is expected to sign it soon. | US Political Corruption |
Trusting the process — Networks blocked had dozens of fake accounts from China, thousands from Russia. China's ability to influence American politics by manipulating social media platforms has been a topic of much scrutiny ahead of the midterm elections, and this week has marked some progress toward mitigating risks on some of the most popular US platforms.
US President Joe Biden is currently working on a deal with China-based TikTok—often regarded as a significant threat to US national security—with the one goal of blocking potential propaganda or misinformation campaigns. Now today, Meta, owner of Facebook and Instagram, shared a report detailing the steps it took to remove the first "Chinese-origin influence operation" that Meta has identified attempting "to target US domestic politics ahead of the 2022 midterms."
In the press release, Meta Global Threat Intelligence Lead Ben Nimmo joined Meta Director of Threat Disruption David Agranovich in describing the operation as initiated by a "small network." They said that between fall 2021 and September 2022, there were four "largely separate and short-lived" efforts launched by clusters of "around half a dozen" China-based accounts, which targeted both US-based conservatives and liberals using platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter.
In total, Meta removed "81 Facebook accounts, eight pages, one group, and two accounts on Instagram." Meta estimated approximately 250 accounts joined the group, 20 accounts followed one or more Pages, and fewer than 10 accounts followed one or both Instagram accounts.
"This was the first Chinese network we disrupted that focused on US domestic politics ahead of the midterm elections," the press release said. Previously, Meta had only disrupted Chinese networks that were working to influence opinions on US politics held by audiences outside the US.
When Meta monitors this type of activity, which it calls "coordinated inauthentic behavior," it says in its report that it's looking for fake accounts intentionally manipulating public debate. The bad actors do this by coordinating actions of multiple fake accounts "to mislead others about who they are and what they are doing." Meta policy dictates that this type of moderation is about monitoring account behavior, not the content of posts. Examples in the report include fake accounts posting memes targeting the left by alleging that the National Rifle Association of America paid off Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and the right by depicting a tentacled Biden gripping the world bearing nukes and machine guns. What gets an account removed is not, Meta said, "what they post or whether they're foreign or domestic," but whether the network would collapse without the fake accounts propping it up.
A Meta spokesperson told Ars that it focuses on "violating deceptive behavior, not content," to take down covert influence operations because "these networks typically post content that isn't provably false, but they rather aim to mislead people about who's behind it and what they are doing."
In the press release, Nimmo and Agranovich summed up the extent of the Chinese network's reach and how well Meta worked to detect its deceptive behaviors, writing: "Few people engaged with it, and some of those who did called it out as fake. Our automated systems took down a number of accounts and Facebook Pages for various Community Standards violations, including impersonation and inauthenticity."
Other threats detected
In the same report, Meta described a takedown of a much larger instance of "coordinated inauthentic behavior" originating from Russia.
Described as the largest Russian network of its kind that Meta has "disrupted since the war in Ukraine began," this second operation targeted users based in "primarily Germany, France, Italy, Ukraine, and the UK." Its online presence spanned 1,633 Facebook accounts, 703 Facebook pages, one Facebook group, and 29 accounts on Instagram." The reach was limited to 4,000 accounts following at least one page, fewer than 10 accounts joining the group, and 1,500 accounts following at least one Instagram account. The operation also invested $105,000 in Facebook and Instagram ads, "paid primarily in US dollars and euros."
The Russian network began operating in May, Meta reported, by launching more than 60 websites "carefully impersonating legitimate websites of news organizations in Europe," such as Spiegel and The Guardian. It's concerning because of the attention to detail mimicked authoritative news sites and translated articles into different languages. The operation relied on Facebook, Instagram, petitions on Change.org, Twitter, YouTube, and other social networks in its attempt to spread its fraudulent information. German investigative journalists tipped off Meta to the problem, and when Meta tried to block domains, the network "attempted to set up new websites, suggesting persistence and continuous investment in this activity across the Internet."
"This is the largest and most complex Russian-origin operation that we've disrupted since the beginning of the war in Ukraine," Nimmo and Agranovich wrote in the press release. "It presented an unusual combination of sophistication and brute force. The spoofed websites and the use of many languages demanded both technical and linguistic investment."
But while Meta considered the Russian network "unusual," a report from the Stanford Internet Observatory (SIO) Cyber Policy Center released last month described the majority of these tactics as common.
For their report, SIO evaluated Meta and Twitter data covering a period of five years of pro-Western covert influence operations, which the platforms had already jointly removed.
To complete its analysis, SIO worked with the social media analytics firm Graphika to identify "an interconnected web of accounts on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, and five other social media platforms that used deceptive tactics to promote pro-Western narratives in the Middle East and Central Asia," as well as narratives that heavily criticized Russia, China, and Iran.
Twitter's dataset "covered 299,566 tweets by 146 accounts between March 2012 and February 2022," but Meta's was limited to "39 Facebook profiles, 16 pages, two groups, and 26 Instagram accounts active from 2017 to July 2022." Combining the datasets left SIO with five years' worth of cross-platform activities from the influence operations to analyze.
Hoping to better understand "how different actors use inauthentic practices to conduct online influence operations," SIO found that these operations have a limited range of tactics, employing the same—mostly unsuccessful strategies—over and over.
"The assets identified by Twitter and Meta created fake personas with GAN-generated faces, posed as independent media outlets, leveraged memes and short-form videos, attempted to start hashtag campaigns, and launched online petitions: all tactics observed in past operations by other actors," SIO's report said.
In Meta's most recent report, tactics included relying on "crude ads," generating fake profiles, impersonating journalists, leveraging memes, launching online petitions, and posting comments on influential accounts for maximum visibility. Page: 1 2 Next → | US Federal Elections |
Why is the White House convening a summit on food insecurity for the first time in half a century? As The Guardian’s Nina Lakhani reports, a combination of high inflation and the end of pandemic support programs has squeezed vulnerable households, prompting the Biden administration to step in with a pledge to end hunger by 2030. Here’s more from her report:When was the last food conference?The last food conference, hosted by Richard Nixon in 1969, was a pivotal moment in American food policy that led to the expansion of food stamps and gave rise to the Women, Infants and Children program that today provides parenting advice, breastfeeding support and food assistance to the mothers of half the babies born each year.How bad is hunger in the US now?One in 10 households struggled to feed their families in 2021 due to poverty – an extraordinary level of food insecurity in the richest country in the world. The rate has barely budged in the past two decades amid deepening economic inequalities and welfare cuts.Food insecurity remains stubbornly high in the US, with only a slight downward trend from 2021 – but significantly lower than 2020 when the Covid shutdown and widespread layoffs led to record numbers of Americans relying on food banks and food stamps to get by.The conference comes as the cost of food is soaring due to double-digit inflation, and amid fears of recession. The cost of groceries in July was up 13.1% compared with last year, with the price of cereal, bread and dairy products rising even higher, according to the Consumer Price Index.Households are under more pressure as states roll back pandemic-linked financial support such as free school meals for every child and child tax credits. Many states are stopping expanded food stamp benefits.Real-time data from the US Census survey “suggest that food hardship has been steadily rising in families with children this year”, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, director of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, recently told the Guardian.Key events38m agoBiden takes aim at food insecurity in the wealthy but hungry United StatesShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureMonths after the end of a term in which the rightwing majority made history by overturning abortion rights, expanding the ability to carry a concealed weapon and limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate power plant emissions, the supreme court’s justice’s are gathering again today, SCOTUSblog reports.While the private meeting is a normal part of preparing for the upcoming term, justices are expected to get an update on the investigation into the unusual May leak of the draft decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the case that reversed Roe v Wade and ended nearly a half-century of nationwide abortion access:Today at SCOTUS: The justices meet privately for their annual "long conference" to review cert petitions that have rolled in over the summer. They'll also likely discuss the status of the Dobbs leak investigation and whether to continue live audio of oral arguments this term.— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) September 28, 2022
Why is the White House convening a summit on food insecurity for the first time in half a century? As The Guardian’s Nina Lakhani reports, a combination of high inflation and the end of pandemic support programs has squeezed vulnerable households, prompting the Biden administration to step in with a pledge to end hunger by 2030. Here’s more from her report:When was the last food conference?The last food conference, hosted by Richard Nixon in 1969, was a pivotal moment in American food policy that led to the expansion of food stamps and gave rise to the Women, Infants and Children program that today provides parenting advice, breastfeeding support and food assistance to the mothers of half the babies born each year.How bad is hunger in the US now?One in 10 households struggled to feed their families in 2021 due to poverty – an extraordinary level of food insecurity in the richest country in the world. The rate has barely budged in the past two decades amid deepening economic inequalities and welfare cuts.Food insecurity remains stubbornly high in the US, with only a slight downward trend from 2021 – but significantly lower than 2020 when the Covid shutdown and widespread layoffs led to record numbers of Americans relying on food banks and food stamps to get by.The conference comes as the cost of food is soaring due to double-digit inflation, and amid fears of recession. The cost of groceries in July was up 13.1% compared with last year, with the price of cereal, bread and dairy products rising even higher, according to the Consumer Price Index.Households are under more pressure as states roll back pandemic-linked financial support such as free school meals for every child and child tax credits. Many states are stopping expanded food stamp benefits.Real-time data from the US Census survey “suggest that food hardship has been steadily rising in families with children this year”, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, director of the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, recently told the Guardian.Biden takes aim at food insecurity in the wealthy but hungry United StatesGood morning, US politics blog readers. The United States may be the world’s biggest economy and one of the wealthiest nations on the planet but everyday, many Americans struggle to provide enough food for their family. The Biden administration will today convene the first summit in 50 years aimed at turning around this trend, with the goal of ending hunger by 2030 and reducing diseases related to nutrition. Joe Biden will speak at the event at 10am ET.Here’s what else is happening today: Hurricane Ian continues churning towards Florida’s west coast, after hitting Cuba and knocking out its entire electrical grid. It’s expected to make landfall today amid fears of a devastating storm surge. Sanctions chiefs from the state and treasury departments will testify before the Senate foreign relations committee about whether the campaign to punish Russia for invading Ukraine is working, at 10 am eastern time. The Senate will continue negotiating a short-term government funding measure to prevent a shutdown on 1 October, after conservative Democrat Joe Manchin dropped a controversial energy permitting provision that threatened to hold up the bill. | US Federal Policies |
Republicans tried to squash Biden's new student loan repayment plan. They failed.
The Senate late Wednesday narrowly struck down a Republican-led effort to overturn President Joe Biden’s generous new student loan repayment plan, which conservative critics slammed as a “free college scheme.”
The Democrat-controlled Senate voted mostly along party lines in a 49-50 vote to stave off the latest challenge to Biden’s new income-driven payback option known as "Saving on A Valuable Education," or SAVE. West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin, who is openly flirting with a presidential bid after saying he won't seek reelection, was the only Democrat to vote with the GOP.
The plan, which has already enrolled 5.5 million borrowers according to the Education Department, would cap interest for borrowers and base monthly loan repayments on their incomes and family sizes. For some borrowers, payments are set to $0. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona has called it the “most affordable repayment plan ever.”
Biden's SAVE student loan repayment planWho are the winners and losers in this income-driven repayment option?
Though it failed, the attempt was further proof of the uphill battle Biden faces − be it on the campaign trail, in Congress or in court − when it comes to just about anything related to forgiving student loans or easing the pinch from payments, one of his top political priorities as he seeks reelection.
Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., introduced the joint resolution on the Senate side in early September with other congressional Republicans.
“Where is the forgiveness for the guy who didn't go to college but is working to pay off the loan on the truck he takes to work?” he said on the Senate floor Wednesday. “This is irresponsible. It is deeply unfair. “
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., derided the attempt for sending a cruel message, in his words, to working families. "I'm very glad this chamber had the good sense to defeat it," Schumer said after the measure was declared to have failed to pass. "This is a real victory for our young people and for the future of America."
Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. − who as a presidential candidate proposed forgiving the entirety of America's nearly $2 trillion in student loan debt − said although he supports SAVE, Biden's student debt relief plans haven't gone far enough.
"We have hundreds of thousands of bright young people who have the ability to get a college degree or to get a good trade certificate, but they cannot afford to do so," he said, responding to his Republican colleagues on Wednesday. "How absurd is that?"
Americans split on student loan forgiveness as Biden makes it a priority
The political back-and-forth demonstrates just how partisan student loan forgiveness is in Washington and across the country: Americans are largely split about it, with Democrats supportive and Republicans mostly opposed. Despite the divide, Biden vowed to plow forward with a Plan B after the Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority struck down his plan for broader loan forgiveness this summer.
Student loan debt has ballooned into a political and economic crisis in recent years, though its impact on borrowers abated slightly during a three-year pandemic-related pause in payments. That moratorium expired this fall, and the return to repayment prompted a shaky jumpstart to a flawed system. Servicers put borrowers on hold for hours on end, reportedly prompting a federal probe. Some made eye-popping billing errors.
What's the latest on student loan debt?One huge question looms for Biden's panel
This fall, a panel convened by the Education Department is in the thick of loan forgiveness discussions, with a third and final round of negotiations set to wrap up in December. Though large-scale relief isn’t likely to emerge from those talks, Americans could see more targeted forms of debt relief − if those new policies can hold up to legal and political challenges, which are likely.
Zachary Schermele is a breaking news and education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at [email protected]. Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele. | US Federal Policies |
Trump: Koch Network endorsement of Haley a ‘minor hit’ for DeSantis
Former President Trump, the front-runner for the GOP’s 2024 presidential nomination, says a conservative group’s endorsement of primary rival Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, is “a minor blow” to Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis’s struggling campaign.
Americans for Prosperity (AFP) Action, a Charles Koch-backed group with deep pockets, has promised “a multimillion dollar ad campaign” in support of Haley starting this week.
“I was never in the running because I’m all about Making America, not the outside World, Great Again! These losers have fought me from 2016 to the present,” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Wednesday.
AFP Action senior adviser Emily Seidel said in announcing the endorsement that Haley “offers the best opportunity to improve the lives of all Americans.”
Trump, who appointed Haley to be ambassador to the United Nations in his administration, has maintained a commanding lead in the GOP primary, though Haley’s been on the rise in recent weeks.
Meanwhile, DeSantis has struggled to build the momentum to narrow the gap with Trump.
Recent national polls have shown Trump averaging about 61.3 percent support among Republican voters to DeSantis’s 13.8 percent and Haley’s 9.9, according to Real Clear Politics.
The Iowa caucuses, the real first test for the candidates, will take place Jan. 15.
In his post, Trump mocked Haley’s standing, even as he admitted she may have earned a boost from AFP’s support.
“She’s down 50 Points, she better start running FAST!” he said.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Elections |
Hamas’ Terror Also Holds A Warning For The US
American politics is increasingly filled with the kind of hateful rhetoric that can incite its own kind of violence.
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- We become depraved by degrees. Germans did not become Jew killers in a day. It took years of conditioning, via propaganda, and then steady practice, via party and state brutality, to shed their humanity and become a nation of functional sociopaths. The Hamas terrorists who murdered babies in their cribs last week weren’t stamped with pathological hatred at birth. It was an acquired habit, the result of a process of moral dulling and rage sharpening. No doubt some foes of Hamas will now rejoice at the sight of Palestinian babies blown to smithereens in retaliation. It’s not a terribly long distance from eye for an eye to baby for a baby.
If you look around American politics, you can see the early stages — and in select cases not so early — of the kind of moral, social and intellectual deterioration that first imagines, and later gleefully invites, atrocity. At New York magazine, Eric Levitz has an excellent survey of moral idiocy on the left. The terrorist attack on Israel was an opportunity for those averse to moral complexity to let their freak flags fly. Many didn’t wait for the facts to filter in before seizing it. Levitz wrote:
It is not hyperbole to say that many left-wing supporters of Palestine celebrated Hamas’s atrocities. The national leadership of Students for Justice in Palestine declared the weekend’s events a “historic win for the Palestinian resistance,” touting Hamas’s success in “catching the enemy completely by surprise.” The Connecticut chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America applauded the Palestinian resistance’s “unprecedented anti-colonial struggle,” pledged its solidarity to that struggle, and vowed, “No peace on stolen land!” At a rally co-sponsored by socialist organizations in New York City, one speaker spoke approvingly of the mass murder of Israeli teenagers, saying, “There was some sort of rave or desert party where they were having a great time, until the resistance came in electrified hang gliders and took at least several dozen hipsters.”
Such comments are reminiscent of the low point of the American left, when self-styled radicals circa 1970 rationalized mindless political violence, leaving a trail of dead and injured, from police officers to physics researchers, in their deluded, self-righteous and utterly self-defeating wake.
The threat of violence, and depravity, in the US now largely resides on the right. Proud Boys, Nazis, Oath Keepers, Christian supremacists and other very fine people have found a home in the Republican Party to a degree the New Left never did in the Democratic Party. The GOP has rallied around the n’er-do-well heir to a crooked real estate fortune with a long history of sexual assaults and swindles as its leader. With his frequent encouragement, the rhetoric of political violence and thuggery is increasing.
Donald Trump has promoted summary executions of suspected shoplifters. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has championed summary executions of people illegally crossing the US border with Mexico, saying “of course you use deadly force.” Both comments evince outright contempt for American law and basic human rights. Did their demagogy initiate a firestorm of condemnation from Republican leaders? It did not. Instead, some Republicans, increasingly comfortable with the politics of tribal hatred, cheered.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott is a national leader in implementing sadistic policies to inflict harm on targeted populations. When I first saw a photograph of the buoys he had placed in the Rio Grande River, interspersed with circular saw blades to wound any migrant clinging to the contraption in an effort to avoid drowning, I assumed the picture was fake. It wasn’t. Neither is the abject depravity required to dream up — and implement — such a Bond-villain exercise in mindless cruelty. Like Trump, Abbott, the governor of the largest Republican state, is an engine of moral degeneracy. Like Trump, he is also a Republican in good standing. That constitutes a dire political emergency.
The horror of Hamas terrorist attack will reverberate in the weeks ahead. Israel, in the course of retaliating, as any viable nation must, may compound the horror through overreaction. Calibration of force is never easy. It’s especially difficult when the desire for vengeance accompanies a powerful need for deterrence.
But as most of us recoil from the depravity of Hamas attack, and from the further death and destruction that will ensue from Israel’s response, we should pause to consider the unsteady landscape of American politics. Depravity has an increasingly solid foothold here. We can’t pretend we don’t know where it leads.
More From Bloomberg Opinion:
- A Centrist Rebellion Is What Congress Needs: Matthew Yglesias
- Hamas Torches Biden’s Deal for a New Middle East: Andreas Kluth
- White Supremacy and the Path to Democracy: Timothy O’Brien
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Francis Wilkinson is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US politics and policy. Previously, he was an editor for the Week and a writer for Rolling Stone.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com/opinion
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | US Political Corruption |
- Bankruptcy-bound trucking firm Yellow received $700 million in Covid pandemic relief loans three years ago, after Trump administration officials pushed for it despite objections from the Defense Department.
- And Yellow has repaid just $230 out of the $729.2 million in principal it still owes the U.S. Treasury for those loans, according to a government watchdog's report in May.
- The Teamsters Union, which represents Yellow workers, blasted the freight carrier in a statement Sunday and highlighted the Covid loans.
Bankruptcy-bound trucking firm Yellow received a whopping $700 million in Covid pandemic relief loans three years ago after Trump administration officials pushed for it despite objections from the Defense Department.
Yellow has repaid just $230 out of the $729.2 million in principal it still owes the U.S. Treasury for those loans, according to a government watchdog's report in May. That single payment was made in June 2021.
The Teamsters Union, which represents Yellow workers, blasted the freight carrier in a statement Sunday and highlighted the Covid loans.
"Yellow has historically proven that it could not manage itself despite billions of dollars in worker concessions and hundreds of millions in bailout funding from the federal government," Teamsters General President Sean M O'Brien said.
Yellow told staff on Friday that it is completely shutting down, which would put 30,000 workers out of their jobs, and the Teamsters said the company plans to file for bankruptcy.
When it does, it will become the largest bankruptcy ever for a trucking firm.
A Yellow spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC.
The Trump administration in July 2020 approved the $700 million in loans to then-financially troubled Yellow, formerly known as YRC Worldwide, under the so-called CARES Act, which authorized such for companies "critical to maintaining national security."
At the time the loans were made, they represented 95% of the total funds disbursed under the CARES Act. The federal government received a nearly 30% stake in Yellow in exchange for the loans.
A House subcommittee in April 2022 issued a scathing report on the loans, saying they were extended to the company despite the assessment by Defense Department officials that the company was not "critical" to national security.
The report said, "The loan's approval involved the intervention of top Trump Administration officials —potentially including the president," Donald Trump.
According to the report, documents show that Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows planned to call Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin about Yellow's request for the loans in May 2020.
"Secretary Mnuchin's communications confirm President Trump's interest in the loan approval," the subcommittee noted in a statement about the report.
"The morning that Treasury announced the loan to Yellow, Secretary Mnuchin sent Chief of Staff Meadows and the president's executive assistant a CNN article reporting on the loan and highlighted that a union leader thanked President Trump for the loan — just months before the 2020 presidential election," the statement said.
At the time the loans were made, the Department of Justice was suing Yellow for alleged fraud related to overcharges to the Defense Department for freight carrier services. The company in March 2022 agreed to pay about $6.85 million to settle that lawsuit. | US Federal Policies |
To bring the fight to the GOP directly, the campaign said it is placing 1,000 signs of "Dark Brandon," which is a photo of President Joe Biden with red laser eyes, around the debate venue. The meme is a nickname for Biden in social media posts based on the anti-Biden phrase, "Let's Go Brandon," but the Democratic president's campaign has adopted the meme to turn it in their favor as a joke.
"Team Biden-Harris is taking the fight to MAGA extremists wherever they are, including the Republicans running for president on an agenda of ripping away Americans' fundamental freedoms," campaign spokesman Kevin Munoz said in a statement to the Washington Examiner. "To Republicans running to strip away abortion rights, gut Social Security and Medicare, and undermine our democracy: You better watch out, Jack."
The signs are being placed around the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, where the third GOP presidential debate is being held. Five Republican candidates will take the stage on Wednesday night: former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), and entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy.
Former President Donald Trump has not signed the Republican National Committee pledge agreeing to support the winning GOP nominee, and he will not attend the third debate. He also did not attend the first two.
Trump will hold a rally in Miami one hour before the GOP debate starts at 8 p.m. Eastern time.
As of Wednesday morning, RealClearPolitics places Trump in first place among GOP presidential hopefuls, with an average of 58.3% in polls, followed by DeSantis with 14.6%, Haley with 9.4%, Ramaswamy with 4.4%, and Christie and Scott each with 2.6%. | US Federal Elections |
“They had none left. That’s not good. That’s my kind of food too.”
Mr Trump later took to Truth Social, his social media platform, to thank the officials.
“I had a great afternoon with each and everyone of you — You’re ALL appreciated more than you’ll ever know,” he said. “On behalf of all Americans, THANK YOU for your service and dedication.”
Mr Trump served meals to the state’s Department of Public Safety troopers and National Guard servicemembers who are stationed along the border under Operation Lone Star, a security initiative to combat rising migrant crossings. The officials will be spending the holiday on the border.
Meals were provided by the Texas Department of Public Safety Officers Association.
The Independent reached out to Mr Trump’s campaign for comment.
Following the event in Edinburg, Texas Republican Gov Greg Abbott endorsed Mr Trump in a statement posted to X, formerly known as Twitter.
“Now more than ever, America needs a President who will secure the border and prioritise national security.
“President Trump is the clear choice to get the job done.” Mr Trump is currently ahead in the polls against his Republican counterparts.
It’s not the first time Mr Trump has made such comments regarding Thanksgiving. In response to a reporter’s question in 2018 asking him what he’s most grateful for, Mr Trump said, “For having a great family and for having made a tremendous difference in this country.
“I’ve made a tremendous difference in the country. This country is so much stronger now than it was when I took office that you wouldn’t believe it.” | US Federal Elections |
Zuckerbucks redux: Social media mogul funds recruitment of progressives to administer elections
Clerk Work has recruited hundreds of candidates to run for local elections offices. "You can influence quite literally who is administering elections," said founder of program's parent organization Amanda Litman, who was email director for Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign.
The Facts Inside Our Reporter’s Notebook
Links
- project of the Center for Tech and Civic Life
- to make voting safer amid the pandemic
- according to the Capital Research Center
- accepted $2 million in private money
- declined a $1.5 million grant
- Brunswick and Forsyth counties
- accepted a $1.5 million grant
- amNY reported
- according to Open Secrets
- Litman told the Washington Post
- statement to The Daily Signal
The injection of private money into public election administration — or "Zuckerbucks" — is continuing in a new form, as left-leaning candidates are being recruited to run for local elections offices by an organization that receives funds from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg.
The U.S. Alliance for Election Excellence, a project of the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), is awarding funds to counties and municipalities under the Centers for Election Excellence program. The alliance will provide $80 million over five years "to envision, support, and celebrate excellence in U.S. election administration," according to CTCL.
CTCL poured nearly $350 million into local elections offices managing the 2020 election, with most of the funds donated to the nonprofit by Zuckerberg. The nonprofit has claimed its 2020 election grants — colloquially known as "Zuckerbucks" — were allocated without partisan preference to make voting safer amid the pandemic.
Critics of the unprecedented level of private funding injected into election administration offices in 2020 argue the grants were awarded disproportionately to boost voter participation in swing state Democratic strongholds. A House Republican investigation found that less than 1% of the funds were spent on personal protective equipment.
Following controversy surrounding the disproportionate resources funneled to Democratic jurisdictions and claims the imbalance helped sway the election in Biden's favor, 24 states have either restricted or banned the use of private money to fund elections, while 12 counties have also restricted or banned the funds, according to the Capital Research Center.
However, DeKalb County Board of Voter Registration & Elections accepted $2 million in private money from the alliance in "violation" of 2021 state election reform law, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger (R) told Just the News on Thursday, while the county claims that it adhered to the letter of the law.
DeKalb County's acceptance of the funds came on the heels of an elections official in Michigan turning down an offer of private funding from the same source. Ottawa County Clerk Justin Roebuck declined a $1.5 million grant from the controversial nonprofit due to concerns over private money with possible political connections being used "to fund election operations."
In North Carolina, election officials in Brunswick and Forsyth counties also said they won't take money from the Alliance for Election Excellence. However, unlike Ottawa County, Brunswick and Forsyth are keeping their membership with the alliance.
The alliance is not the only left-leaning, Zuckerberg-linked organization seeking to influence elections.
Run for Something, which seeks out liberal Democratic millennial candidates for state and local political offices, was founded in 2017 by Amanda Litman, Hillary Clinton's former email director for her 2016 presidential campaign, and Ross Morales Rocketto, a Democrat Party consultant.
Run for Something's "candidates must be pro-L.G.B.T., pro-choice, pro-immigrant and pro-equality," media outlet amNY reported from an interview with Litman.
The organization received $10,000 in donations from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, $100,000 from Hillary Clinton's Onward Together, and $50,000 from ActBlue, a PAC that provides online fundraising software to Democratic campaigns and progressive groups, according to Open Secrets.
Run for Something has a program called Clerk Work, which recruits candidates to run for local elections offices. In July, Clerk Work had recruited nearly 300 candidates.
"You can influence quite literally who is administering elections," Litman told the Washington Post. "If we don't do it, we are absolutely going to regret it."
Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.), cochairwoman of the House Election Integrity Caucus, slammed Run for Something and CTCL in a statement to The Daily Signal. "Let's call this what it really is — a blatant attack on the security and integrity of the fairness and transparency of our elections," she said.
"Dark money liberal advocacy groups will stop at nothing to inject partisan funds into election administration efforts," she added. "They did it in 2020 with 'Zuckerbucks,' and they are continuing to find ways to do it today."
Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.), cochairman of the House Election Integrity Caucus, told The Daily Signal, "Propping up partisan operatives to serve as election clerks will not solve our election integrity issues, and it definitely will not restore confidence in our electoral system on either side of the aisle.
"It's going to take careful consideration and deliberate debate on these matters to improve election integrity and bolster faith in our elections." | US Local Elections |
Chris Christie announced his presidential campaign on Tuesday, which is notable mostly because he’s the only Republican candidate who has actually made a point of attacking Donald Trump. He certainly did so last night, to which the former president responded with characteristic childishness.
“How many times did Chris Christie use the word SMALL? Does he have a psychological problem with SIZE?” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Actually, his speech was SMALL, and not very good. It rambled all over the place, and nobody had a clue of what he was talking about. Hard to watch, boring, but that’s what you get from a failed Governor (New Jersey) who left office with a 7% approval rating and then got run out of New Hampshire. This time, it won’t be any different!”
Trump then posted a doctored video of Christie at a buffet table.
Trump jabbed at Christie’s weight last week, too, sharing a post from Roger Stone about how Christie needs to simply run rather than run for president, along with another doctored photo of the former New Jersey governor.
Christie has been attacking Trump for months, suggesting that “the only thing that’s gonna defeat Donald Trump” is if he can have the chance to go after the former president on a debate stage. He bashed Trump at town hall in New Hampshire on Tuesday by calling him a “lonely, self-consumed mirror hog” who “finds someone else and something else to blame for whatever goes wrong.”
It was abundantly clear that Trump was a “lonely, self-consumed mirror hog,” when Christie endorsed him after he dropped out of the 2016 Republican primary. Christie went on to lead the presidential transition before Trump replaced him with Mike Pence, and then endorsed Trump again in 2020. He’s said recently that he soured on Trump after he refused to acknowledge President Biden’s win.
“Beware of the leader in this country, who you have handed leadership to, who has never made a mistake, who has never done anything wrong, who when something goes wrong it’s always someone else’s fault. And who has never lost,” Christie said in New Hampshire.
Trending
Christie also went after Trump’s record. “He left with the biggest deficit of any president in American history,” he said. “He said he was going to eliminate the national debt in eight years. He added $3 trillion to the national debt in four years.”
Trump has saved most of his campaign vitriol for Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, widely believed to be the only other candidate with a shot to win the nomination. It certainly isn’t surprising that Trump isn’t taking Christie’s attacks lying down, though, and a prolonged back-and-forth between the two Republicans may be just what Christie needs to bump up his polling numbers and — potentially — win himself a chance to go after Trump in person, on a debate stage. | US Federal Elections |
In blunt and unequivocal words, Trump claimed, "It was Joe Biden with his weakness and what he did with Iran and others that caused the attack on Israel."
The event came just hours after the former president filed for the state's first-in-the-nation primary on Monday and just days after Biden held a prime-time address from the Oval Office Thursday night following his trip to Israel.
"Four days ago, crooked Joe Biden gave one of the most dangerous and deluded speeches ever delivered from the Oval Office. It was [a] disaster," Trump said. "Crooked Joe went before the American people and said that if you want to support Israel, then you have to give a blank check for the proxy war also in Ukraine, having to do with Russia and Ukraine."
"Joe Biden’s speech was a grotesque betrayal of Israel and a confused mess of neocon warmongering and American-last lunacy," Trump continued. "Pushing conflict abroad and distracting from his many disasters at home."
The Biden administration has requested a $106 billion foreign aid package from Congress in the wake of the Oct. 7 surprise Hamas attack against Israel launching war in the Middle East. The package includes $61.4 billion for Ukraine in its war against Russia and $14.3 billion for Israel, which Trump opposes.
During his speech, Trump mocked Biden, claiming he "can't even walk up the children's stairs on Air Force One," mocked television networks for commenting on Biden's Israel speech and State of the Union address, then later slammed progressive Democrats who have expressed sympathy for Gaza such as Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) as "crazy."
The former president stated he would avert a world war, impose sanctions on Iran, unlock American energy, and reinstate his controversial 2017 ban on countries with Muslim majorities if he were reelected. "I will immediately reinstate all sanctions on the murderous Iranian regime. We have to do that until we have a deal," Trump said. "If you will not enforce sanctions against Iran, then you do not stand with Israel. It's that simple."
Trump also called for the U.S. to construct an Iron Dome comparable to Israel’s air defense missile system, although the U.S. doesn't face the same missile threats as Israel. “Americans deserve an Iron Dome, and that's what we're going to have. We're going to have an Iron Dome around our country,” Trump said.
Another GOP rival, Vivek Ramaswamy, called for the U.S. to build an Iron Dome last week during a New Hampshire stop. “Russia has hypersonic missile capabilities ahead of that in the U.S.,” he told NBC News. “We’re vulnerable to new threats on our homeland. Those hypersonic missiles can reach the United States of America today. We’re badly vulnerable."
Trump once again slammed Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) by a derogatory nickname, claimed his campaign is "dying like a falling bird from the sky," and referred to former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley as "birdbrain." In New Hampshire, Trump leads his 2024 rivals in polls by double digits. A FiveThirtyEight average of New Hampshire polls shows Trump at 44% support, Haley at 15%, and DeSantis at 11.8%.
"The other candidates say, 'Oh, well, we want to run because we can win.' Every poll has DeSanctus getting killed," Trump said about his top two competitors after bragging about his poll numbers. "Birdbrain getting killed. They're all getting killed. Every one of them is getting killed."
Throughout his speech, Trump reiterated his rising poll numbers as he faces 91 charges across four criminal cases, his alleged claims of election interference in the 2020 elections which he called "bulls***," and his virility compared to Biden. Other campaign stump issues Trump touched on included securing the southern border, defeating communist China, protecting parental rights, and rebuilding the U.S. military.
"I was the first president in decades who didn't start a war," Trump bragged. "Remember Hillary [Clinton] said: 'He will start a war.' ... No, my personality kept us out of war." | US Federal Elections |
Voters will choose candidates for a slew of offices in New York and Florida today, but one race with an immediate – although not decisive – effect on the balance of power in Congress is taking place in New York.The state’s 19th district has swung between supporting Democrats and Republicans, and there, voters will choose a new congressman to serve for a few months as a replacement for Antonio Delgado, a Democrat who was appointed New York’s lieutenant governor. The Republican candidate Marc Molinaro has centered his appeal to voters on fighting inflation, while Democrat Pat Ryan has tried to win support by capitalizing on the party’s recent productivity in Congress, as well as outrage at supreme court decisions like the reversal of Roe v. Wade. “A win here would validate that the ground is shifting,” Ryan told Politico in an interview.If Ryan wins, the Democrats will have one more vote in their tiny House majority. If Republicans win, they’ll have one less, making any resistance to the last pieces of legislation they’re expected to consider before the year ends more problematic. The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter considers the race a toss-up. Key events7m agoTrump kept hundreds of classified documents after leaving White House: report53m agoFlorida and New York voters to make electoral mood known in primariesShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureTrump kept hundreds of classified documents after leaving White House: reportDespite rules requiring outgoing presidents to turn their materials over to the National Archives, the US government has retrieved more than 300 classified documents from Donald Trump since he left office, beginning with an initial 150 recovered in January, The New York Times reports.The initial release of documents alarmed the justice department, which feared that the former president may have retained secrets that should have been sent to the government after his departure from the White House. It also laid the groundwork for the FBI’s search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort earlier this month, where they turned up even more sensitive materials.Since he left the White House, the report says government record keepers have been concerned about the whereabouts of the several documents from the Trump administration, including a note Barack Obama left his successor, and letters from North Korea’s dictator Kim Jong-un. Those concerns eventually grew into the national security investigation that led to the FBI’s search. Here’s more from Times’ report:The extent to which such a large number of highly sensitive documents remained at Mar-a-Lago for months, even as the department sought the return of all material that should have been left in government custody when Mr. Trump left office, suggested to officials that the former president or his aides had been cavalier in handling it, not fully forthcoming with investigators, or both. The specific nature of the sensitive material that Mr. Trump took from the White House remains unclear. But the 15 boxes Mr. Trump turned over to the archives in January, nearly a year after he left office, included documents from the C.I.A., the National Security Agency and the F.B.I. spanning a variety of topics of national security interest, a person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Trump went through the boxes himself in late 2021, according to multiple people briefed on his efforts, before turning them over. The highly sensitive nature of some of the material in the boxes prompted archives officials to refer the matter to the Justice Department, which within months had convened a grand jury investigation. Aides to Mr. Trump turned over a few dozen additional sensitive documents during a visit to Mar-a-Lago by Justice Department officials in early June. At the conclusion of the search this month, officials left with 26 boxes, including 11 sets of material marked as classified, comprising scores of additional documents. One set had the highest level of classification, top secret/sensitive compartmented information.Voters will choose candidates for a slew of offices in New York and Florida today, but one race with an immediate – although not decisive – effect on the balance of power in Congress is taking place in New York.The state’s 19th district has swung between supporting Democrats and Republicans, and there, voters will choose a new congressman to serve for a few months as a replacement for Antonio Delgado, a Democrat who was appointed New York’s lieutenant governor. The Republican candidate Marc Molinaro has centered his appeal to voters on fighting inflation, while Democrat Pat Ryan has tried to win support by capitalizing on the party’s recent productivity in Congress, as well as outrage at supreme court decisions like the reversal of Roe v. Wade. “A win here would validate that the ground is shifting,” Ryan told Politico in an interview.If Ryan wins, the Democrats will have one more vote in their tiny House majority. If Republicans win, they’ll have one less, making any resistance to the last pieces of legislation they’re expected to consider before the year ends more problematic. The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter considers the race a toss-up. Florida and New York voters to make electoral mood known in primariesGood morning, US politics live bloggers. Voters in New York and Florida head to the polls today for primary elections that will give the latest signal of how the electorate is leaning this year, and potentially make Democrats’ wafer-thin majority in the House of of Representatives even slimmer.Here’s a rundown of what to expect today: Polls in New York close at 9pm, while in Florida they shutter at 7pm, meaning results can be expected to trickle out after that. Anthony Fauci granted interviews where he elaborated further on his decision to step down as the nation’s top infectious disease doctor in December, including to MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow. Joe Biden is on vacation and Congress is in recess, meaning it’ll probably be another quiet one in Washington. | US Federal Elections |
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
toggle caption
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is running for speaker of the House, a race that will have a significant impact on the future of the Republican Party and the governing ability of Congress.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, is running for speaker of the House, a race that will have a significant impact on the future of the Republican Party and the governing ability of Congress.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
The U.S. House of Representatives remains virtually frozen as Republican tumult fuels scrambled plans over who could take over leadership of the lower chamber.
Republican members huddled in meeting after meeting on Wednesday with potential candidates for speaker talking to the different factions of the party.
"There's scenarios where this could be going on for weeks," Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., told reporters steps off the House floor amid the competing meetings.
Graves, a key ally to Kevin McCarthy and North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry, who is now acting speaker, warned against rushing to pick a new speaker.
There is a tension between some lawmakers who want quick election for speaker to move on and those who caution the conference needs to coalesce around someone who can bring all the factions together and avoid another embarrassing debacle on the House floor with multiple rounds of balloting.
"I think the first step is is is letting people go home to decompress a little bit," Graves said. "The second step is letting us come back together and I think before we have a single discussion about speaker, we've got to discuss the functionality of the position."
The race to a Republican speaker
House Republicans left a Tuesday evening conference meeting after McCarthy's ouster stunned, but with plans to meet again in a week to pick a candidate to succeed him. If so, they could vote on the new speaker next Wednesday.
But it's unclear if they'll reach that goal.
A few floors below where Graves gave his remarks, a closed-door meeting was taking place between a delegation of Texas congressional members and potential speaker candidates. It marks one of many meetings expected in the growing Republican race to lead the narrowly controlled chamber.
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Rep. Kevin Hern, who chairs the conservative Republican Study Committee, were among those meeting with Texas members on Wednesday.
A group of GOP lawmakers from New York left the speaker's office and declined to say who they were backing for speaker. Asked about moving ahead with a vote next Wednesday, Rep. Nick LaLota, said he wanted a vote "I think the sooner the better."
Scalise and Jordan say they're running
Hern has not yet publicly announced his candidacy but Jordan and Scalise have already jumped into the fray.
"I have a proven track record of bringing together the diverse array of viewpoints within our Conference to build consensus where others thought it impossible," Scalise said in his statement.
Scalise has been a member of House GOP leadership since 2014 and was first elected to Congress in a special election in 2008. He is widely respected among House Republicans but many members are calling for fresh faces and fresh leadership after the ouster of former Speaker McCarthy.
He is pitching himself as a unifying force against Democrats.
"Our strength as a Conference comes from our unity, and we have seen when we unite as a Conference, we can deliver wins for the American people," Scalise said. "Now we need to take those unified positions and work to extract conservative wins from the Democrat Senate and White House by leveraging upcoming deadlines. While we need to be realistic about what can be achieved, if we stay united, we can preserve leverage for the House to secure tangible wins in our impending policy fights."
Jordan is one of the founding members of the hardline House Freedom Caucus and served as the group's first chair. He has been a driving force on the right flank of the party since he was elected in 2006.
In recent years Jordan has gone from an agitating force seeking to oust former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to a central player in the party. His influence grew first under Former President Trump as he became one of his most forceful defenders in Congress. A shared loyalty to Trump help foster a more collegial relationship with McCarthy during his speakership.
But Graves cautioned against promoting current members of the leadership team --without specifically noting Scalise's name. "I think it's a mistake right now for the conference to just give everybody one, one rung of promotion. That is premature. We've got to address some of the fundamental issues I brought up before. I think we need to do a deeper dive and look at the accountability of the leadership team and something that I think was flawed in January."
As lawmakers considered other races for leadership posts below the speaker, and who might run, Rep. Kelly Armstrong, R-N.D., stressed the focus should be on the speaker's race, saying, "this is constitutional line of succession, the rest of it is palace intrigue."
"The House of Representatives remains frozen"
Graves said it's possible to consider a scenario where McHenry remains in his temporary post for an extended period while allowing work on the floor.
But complex rules largely restrict the House from conducting business, that includes advancing legislation or referring bills to committees.
"We're in a situation now where you've have unprecedented conditions where the House of Representatives is effectively frozen," he said.
Graves said members should not repeat the 15 rounds of elections it took to elect McCarthy speaker in January, and rather, get that work done behind closed doors. In the meantime, he said some Republicans are looking for a workaround to allow House floor work until a permanent speaker is chosen.
"This is a blank slate. And so the limitations or the authority is really unknown," he said. "So folks are trying to figure out how to build the airplane while you're flying it."
NPR's Kelsey Snell and Susan Davis contributed to this report. | US Congress |
Black Panther is one of my favorite films. Yet, I’ve always been troubled by the idea that Wakanda, the technological and social embodiment of the Age of Enlightenment, decides who its leader will be based on ritual combat. The ability to hurl your opponent off a cliff doesn’t translate into crafting treaties or intricate economic discussions. It’s good theater—bad politics. Just like the debates.
Choosing a president’s qualifications based on a debate is like beauty pageant judges assessing a woman’s intelligence based on her waist-to-hip ratio in a thong bikini. The skills required to bluster on a stage are not the same ones crucial to creating meaningful legislation, negotiating with international allies and enemies, or dealing with domestic challenges. It’s like trying to choose your brain surgeon by watching them bake cookies.
But Americans like competitive sports and so they insist on this sad spectacle. Do they hope for clarification about the candidates’ individual policies, plans, and promises? That may be a part of it but, like hockey fans, they are giddy for the inevitable fights. They want to see the gloves fly off and someone give someone a verbal bloody nose.
I approach the debates as I used to a Muhammad Ali fight. There are three parts: The Hype, The Fight, The Spin. The Hype is the pre-match trash talk. Ali promised his fight against Joe Frazier would be “a chilla, and a killa, and a thrilla, when I fight the Gorilla in Manila.” Against George Foreman he waxed poetic: “Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. His hands can't hit what his eyes can't see. Now you see me, now you don't. George thinks he will, but I know he won't.” If only DeSantis and Pence had the wit to rhyme like that.
But the debates aren’t about helping the undecided rationally choose a candidate. They are about the candidates getting a national stage to promote themselves. Some of them no one even knew they were running—and after the debate, some will disappear back into the Milli Vanilli mist of obscurity.
The Spin portion of the spectacle will continue for days afterward, during which each candidate will claim victory because they were able to get their gelatinous ideas out to the American people. Ironically, none of the American people will be able to repeat any of those ideas specifically, just a vague sleepy sensation of anti-wokeness, conservative values, something about something, blah blah blah. Like the wooziness when coming out of anesthetic after surgery.
The fact-checkers will power-wash the sparkly sequins from the candidates’ frustratingly vague and substanceless statements. As for the debate/fight itself, frenzied punches were thrown, eyes blackened (mostly Ramaswamy’s), insults hurled. Here’s my ringside scorecard (1-10, with 10 being best):
Ron DeSantis: Most cowardly performance of all because he refused to answer any questions directly, always pivoting to some canned slogans like “Reverse American Decline.” He spoke in bursts of anger, like a bully threatening us if we don’t vote for him. He claimed he wants to teach kids about the Constitution and Bill of Rights while actually undermining them in his policies. Score: 2
Vivek Ramanswamy: Tried to push his youth and his business knowledge. He thinks climate change is a hoax and promotes fossil fuel as the savior of our economy. I was shocked by how uninformed he is on, well, everything. T.S. Eliot’s poem “The Hollow Men” ends with “This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper.” Ramanswamy is that whimper. He’s a man with no political experience and no substance. He’s proposed getting rid of Juneteenth. He wants to raise the voting age to 25, thereby eliminating many young voters who would align with Democrats. These aren’t ideas, they’re political pranks. Score: 1
Mike Pence: Pence came with his sleeves rolled up, ready to rumble. He showed a lot more spunk than ever before. He tried to justify his positions by telling us they were divinely inspired, with God as his co-pilot. While I appreciated his grit, his policies are paternalistic and outdated. He wants a national ban on abortion, which he thinks will be popular despite polls saying the opposite. Score: 5
Nikki Haley: Will Republicans ever vote for a woman as president (let alone a woman of color)? Maybe someday. But not today. Refreshingly, she blamed Republicans in Congress for spending too much. She also held Ramaswamy’s feet to the fire about Ukraine (which he wants to abandon), revealing just how scarily uninformed he is. She pandered to conservatives with her trans position, but came across as informed and intelligent in other issues. Score: 8
Chris Christie: Probably the most entertaining performer among the group. He has an energetic confidence, like Jackie Gleason as Minnesota Fats gliding determinedly around the pool table. He’s a political animal, sure, but he’s not evil like Trump and DeSantis. And he’s much smarter than both of them. His criticism of Trump had the crowd against him all night, but he held his ground. He even defended Mike Pence when he didn’t have to. Score: 8
Tim Scott: Kept repeating that he grew up in a single-parent household and something about “God’s green Earth.” That’s really all he’s got. His words evaporated into the ether as soon as he spoke them. Score: 2
Doug Burgum: Current North Dakota governor soon to be former GOP candidate. Came across as a folksy nice guy with a big heart but small ideas. Talked a lot about small-town values. Crime is rising? Small-town values will fix it. He seemed completely unaware of the complexities of foreign policy. Score: 2
Asa Hutchinson: Former Arkansas governor wants to prosecute Trump. But he also wants to ban abortion, which he did as governor. Preached about cutting government workers. Pretty vague on what exactly he’d do as president. Doesn’t matter. He’s already sinking out of sight. Score: 2.
Shakespeare gives the most accurate description of the debate: “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is recognized the world over as one of the greatest basketball players who ever played as well as a committed social activist and award-winning writer. He is the author of 17 books and an award-winning documentary producer. He is a nine-time award-winning Columnist of the Year from the National Arts and Journalism Awards. His popular newsletter kareem.substack.com is one of the top read columns globally. | US Federal Elections |
One of the world’s most active ransomware groups has taken an unusual—if not unprecedented—tactic to pressure one of its victims to pay up: reporting the victim to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
The pressure tactic came to light in a post published on Wednesday on the dark web site run by AlphV, a ransomware crime syndicate that’s been in operation for two years. After first claiming to have breached the network of the publicly traded digital lending company MeridianLink, AlphV officials posted a screenshot of a complaint it said it filed with the SEC through the agency’s website. Under a recently adopted rule that goes into effect next month, publicly traded companies must file an SEC disclosure within four days of learning of a security incident that had a “material” impact on their business.
“We want to bring to your attention a concerning issue regarding MeridianLink's compliance with the recently adopted cybersecurity incident disclosure rules,” AlphV officials wrote in the complaint. “It has come to our attention that MeridianLink, in light of a significant breach compromising customer data and operational information, has failed to file the requisite disclosure under item 1.05 of form 8-K within the stipulated four business days, as mandated by the new SEC rules.”
The violation category selected in the online report was “Material misstatement or omission in a company’s filings or financial statements or a failure to file.”
Wednesday’s dark web post also included what appeared to be an automatic response received from the SEC acknowledging receipt of the complaint.
As noted, the rule hasn’t yet gone into effect, so even if the breach meets the legal definition of a material event, it’s not likely MeridianLink would be in violation. That said, AlphV is likely capitalizing on the industry-wide anxiety caused by the SEC’s recent decision to sue the chief information security officer of SolarWinds. The SEC alleged the SolarWinds executive misled investors about the company’s cybersecurity practices before a 2020 cyberattack by Russian hackers who then went on to infect 18,000 SolarWinds customers with malware.
MeridianLink officials declined a request for an interview or to answer questions asking if customer data was breached in a network intrusion or whether a security attack took place that could be considered material. Instead, the company issued a statement that confirmed officials had identified a “cybersecurity incident” and went on to say:
Upon discovery, we acted immediately to contain the threat and engaged a team of third-party experts to investigate the incident. Based on our investigation to date, we have identified no evidence of unauthorized access to our production platforms, and the incident has caused minimal business interruption. If we determine that any consumer personal information was involved in this incident, we will provide notifications, as required by law.
Brett Callow, a security analyst with Emsisoft, noted that a ransomware group known as Maze has previously warned victims that it “keeps the communication with the major Securities and Financial Regulators and will acknowledge them on all data leaks and breaches if the agreement is not reached.”
“I'm not sure whether they ever actually did,” Callow told Ars. “Gangs have also threatened GDPR complaints and, IIRC, one may have actually followed through on that.” He said he’s unaware of any group filing a complaint with the SEC. GDPR is short for the General Data Protection Regulation, a European Union law granting individuals broad privacy protections.
AlphV first appeared in November 2021 and is notable for its use of ransomware, named BlackCat, that's developed in the Rust scripting language. The group targets both Windows and Linux environments.
“As of April 2023, ALPHV has evolved itself into one of the most prolific ransomware groups in the current threat landscape, only falling behind the Lockbit ransomware group in observed activity,” geopolitical and cybersecurity analyst Chris Lucas wrote in May. “Being primarily a Russia-based group, ALPHV will unlikely target organizations based in the Russian Federation or among the rest of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) that make up the former Soviet Union.”
The group was already known for the uncommon practice of threatening to launch distributed denial-of-service attacks on the targets it had already compromised in an attempt to apply extra pressure to pay up.
In trading on Thursday, MeridianLink shares fell 0.2 percent, or 4 cents, to $18.51. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
It was inevitable from the beginning of the 119th Congress
that Kevin McCarthy’s speakership would hang by a thread and probably be
challenged frontally within his first year. And Matt Gaetz was always going to
be the one to deploy it.
But the chaos in the House has its roots going back many years. And Kevin McCarthy himself helped to set this anarchic dynamic in motion.
Of course, we can pinpoint the start of anti-Washington, anti-institution, tribal politics in the rise of Newt Gingrich, starting in 1979 and culminating in his achieving the speakership following the stunning GOP victory in 1994. We know that story well.
Less well known, though, is that the playbook that Gingrich used to achieve a Republican majority was repeated a decade and a half later. In 2010, Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Ryan published a book called Young Guns, a takeoff on the 1988 movie of the same name. Cantor, of Virginia, was then the minority whip, McCarthy the chief deputy whip, and Ryan the top Republican on the House Budget Committee. Subtitled A New Generation of Conservative Leaders, the book conspicuously failed to mention the Republican leader, John Boehner. The book was a springboard for the three to fan out around the country recruiting Tea Party radicals, hoping to exploit their anger after the financial collapse in 2008-09 and subsequent backlash against Barack Obama, promising to blow up the establishment in Washington with the hopes that they could use that anger to catapult themselves into the majority—and then coopt the new members they brought into the House.
Cantor and the others armed the candidates with talking points that included attacking any increases in the debt ceiling as adding directly to the federal debt and pledging that they would get as a down payment on slashing government an immediate cut, in the first hundred days, of $100 billion. McCarthy explicitly noted in the book, “Our recruits this time are like 1994. We’ve got new blood coming in here. New recruits and reinforcements to get us back to our roots as a party, back to reclaiming the American idea and stopping the careerism.”
He wrote on the stakes, “The election this year is about much more than health care, or energy policy, or even the security of our country. Will we repeal TARP and unwind the vast amounts of government spending and mandates that distorts the innovation and free enterprise in our financial services industry, our health care system, our car companies, and our energy sector? Will we take meaningful steps to cut hundreds of billions in federal spending, so we can ratchet back the deficit spending and the ballooning $12 trillion national debt that we owe to creditors like China and the Middle East.”
The Young Guns did spur a stunning victory in the midterms, giving Republicans a majority in the House with historic gains and a freshman class 87 strong. John Boehner became the speaker, Cantor the majority leader, McCarthy the majority whip and Ryan the chair of the Budget Committee. But the promise made by the Young Guns to their recruits that there would an immediate and dramatic cut in federal spending was quashed as unrealistic right after the newcomers arrived by none other than Ryan, enraging the hardliners. The expectation that once the new members came to Congress they could be coopted did not pan out.
And the desire by Cantor to use the debt ceiling as a hostage to force Barack Obama to accept huge cuts and changes in his programs, seized upon by the Tea Party members, did not work; on the verge of default, a last-minute deal was brokered with Obama by Boehner, without any help from his majority leader or whip, and to the disappointment of the Tea Party legislators.
The failure to achieve any of the promised goals claimed their first victim in Eric Cantor—defeated in a primary in 2014 by a Tea Party adherent, David Brat. Cantor resigned from Congress before the term was up. Boehner was next. He quit after less than five years in the job, blasting some of his House Republicans as legislative terrorists on his way out. McCarthy announced his candidacy for the top job, but opposition by the radicals, including the newly formed Freedom Caucus, blocked his ascension; they did not trust him to lead. Instead, Ryan was drafted for the post, while McCarthy was still able to salvage his position as majority leader. Ryan lasted just two terms, including the first two years of the Trump presidency, but bedeviled by the same radical forces demanding extreme policies that he could not deliver, he announced his retirement from Congress well before his second term was up.
Ryan was succeeded as speaker by Nancy Pelosi when Democrats captured the majority in 2018, but McCarthy was able to emerge as the Republican leader, and, in part because of his obdurate opposition to every action by Pelosi and his obeisance to Donald Trump, he was the next in line to become speaker when Republicans recaptured the majority in the 2022 election. But the seeds of his demise had been set years earlier. The same forces that claimed the other Young Guns were destined to destroy him as well.
Trump was in some ways a logical extension of the nihilistic, radical politics that emerged in the two decades before his emergence as a presidential candidate and president. But he was an accelerant, not the cause. The GOP transformation into a radical cult was there before he became its leader and was itself amplified by the rise of tribal media and social media, and advanced by gerrymandering and other political tools that insulated a minority in the country from the consequences of their radical statements and actions.
McCarthy played a pivotal role in the transformation. But it wasn’t just that he helped create a monster that turned around and ate him, with eight extremist members turning on him. McCarthy’s reputation as unprincipled and untrustworthy, as having few policy chops or deep beliefs in anything except himself, is what caused him to fail in his first bid to become speaker when Boehner exited, and it’s what led to 15 agonizing votes over several days to win in January. As TNR’s Timothy Noah wrote, here’s how Bill Thomas, McCarthy’s mentor and Republican predecessor representing California’s 20th congressional district, described McCarthy to The New Yorker shortly before McCarthy was elected speaker: “Kevin basically is whatever you want him to be. He lies. He’ll change the lie, if necessary. How can anyone trust his word?”
McCarthy’s behavior around January 6—calling Trump when the Capitol was overrun and demanding that he call off his shock troops, which Trump coldly declined, but then voting that the election had been stolen; calling Trump out on the House floor soon thereafter, and then, two weeks later, traveling to Mar-a-Lago to kiss Trump’s ring—infuriated Democrats and not a few Republicans. Following that by harshly punishing the two Republicans who stood up to Trump, Liz Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger, and embracing radicals like Marjorie Taylor Greene, demonstrated the truth of Thomas’s observation. If anything, the surprise was that only eight Republicans voted to oust him.
So it was inevitable that he would pay the price. But we will all pay a heavier price with what he and the other Young Guns helped to create: an ungovernable House dominated by a lunatic fringe that is now at the center of the GOP. | US Congress |
Washington — Thefrom his position as House speaker to fill the now-vacant seat atop the GOP-controlled lower chamber.
Patrick McHenry, who now temporarily wields the gavel as speaker pro tempore, announced during a meeting with fellow GOP lawmakers on Tuesday that the House Republican conference will hold a candidates' forum andnext week. The House stands in recess to allow the Republican conference and Democratic caucus to "meet and discuss the path forward," McHenry announced.
While it's unclear if a candidate can garner enough support from the fractured Republican conference to claim the gavel, some names have emerged as the possible successor to McCarthy, who said he will not run again. The full House votes on the speaker, and Democrats in the minority will almost certainly oppose any Republican candidate unanimously, meaning it will likely be up to the Republicans to find consensus on their own.
At least one candidate had already thrown his hat in the ring as of Wednesday morning. Here are the GOP lawmakers who could mount a bid for the speakership:
Steve Scalise
As the majority leader, Scalise is currently the second-ranking Republican in the House. If he seeks and wins the gavel, it would set off a reshuffling of the House GOP leadership ranks, since the position of majority leader would be vacant.
Scalise was elected to Congress in 2008 and represents Louisiana's 1st Congressional District. He has risen through the ranks of Republican leadership, serving as majority and minority whip before he was tapped by his colleagues for the No. 2 position for the 118th Congress.
Looming over a potential run for the speaker, though, is Scalise's, a type of blood cancer. The majority leader announced the diagnosis in August and said it is "very treatable." He is expected to undergo treatment for "several months."
Scalise appears to have earned the endorsement of at least one member of GOP leadership. Majority Whip Tom Emmer told reporters Tuesday that Scalise "would be a great speaker." Emmer would be in line to run for majority leader if Scalise ascends to the speaker's office.
In response, Scalise said he hasn't made any formal announcement about his future within the GOP conference and, when asked if he's physically up to the job of speaker, replied, "I feel great."
Rep. Matt Gaetz, the Florida Republican who unilaterally forced the vote to remove McCarthy, also indicated to reporters earlier this week that Scalise could be a good candidate to fill the vacant speaker seat.
"I think very highly of Steve Scalise. I would vote for Steve Scalise," he said after filing his motion to vacate. "I would probably vote for at least 100 Republicans in our caucus and maybe 100 other Amercans out there who wouldn't necessarily need to be a member of the body to be considered for the speakership."
Gaetz said he wouldn't "pass over" Scalise because of his blood cancer diagnosis and ongoing treatment."
Jim Jordan
Jordan serves as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Weaponization of the Federal Government Select Subcommittee, which was created after Republicans took control of the House in January.
He told reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday that he is running for the top House job.
"I've had a lot of people reach out to us, asking me to do it, because I think we can. We'll see if that happens, but I think I can," he said.
Elected to represent Ohio's 4th Congressional District in 2006, Jordan was a founding member and leader of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative lawmakers. The Ohio Republican in the past served as a thorn in the side of GOP leadership — former House Speaker John Boehner called Jordan a "legislative terrorist."
Jordanfor House speaker in 2018 after then-Speaker Paul Ryan said he wouldn't run for another term, but was not expected to garner support from a majority of Republicans. Democrats ended up winning control of the House after the 2018 midterm elections, and McCarthy was elected minority leader by the GOP conference.
Though Jordan and fellow conservatives often sparred with Boehner, Jordan became an ally of McCarthy's. He spoke in support of McCarthy's candidacy for speaker in January and defended the embattled California Republican on Tuesday before the vote to remove him.
Jordan emerged as a possible alternative candidate for speaker at the start of the new Congress in January, garnering a handful of votes from conservative lawmakers who opposed McCarthy during more than a dozen rounds of voting.
Kevin Hern
Hern, who was elected to represent Oklahoma's 1st Congressional District in 2018, leads the 176-member Republican Study Committee, which bills itself as the conservative caucus of the House GOP.
As with Jordan, Hern garnered backing from several Republicans opposed to McCarthy during the speaker elections in January, even though he cast his vote for his colleague from California.
A spokesperson for Hern told CBS News that he is "seriously considering a run," but hasn't made a decision yet. Gaetz on Tuesday listed Hern among Republicans who he could support for speaker, alongside Scalise, Emmer, Texas Rep. Jodey Arrington, and Mike Johnson of Louisiana.
Ellis Kim contributed reporting.
for more features. | US Congress |
In one of its many attempts to curb robocalls, the Federal Communications Commission said it is making it harder for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers to obtain direct access to US telephone numbers.
Robocallers make heavy use of VoIP providers to bombard US residents with junk calls, often from spoofed phone numbers. Under the rules in place for most of the past decade, VoIP providers could easily gain access to US phone numbers.
"This VoIP technology can allow bad actors to make spoofed robocalls with minimal technical experience and cost," the FCC said.
But under rules adopted by the FCC yesterday, VoIP providers will face some extra hurdles. They will have to "make robocall-related certifications to help ensure compliance with the Commission's rules targeting illegal robocalls," and "disclose and keep current information about their ownership, including foreign ownership, to mitigate the risk of providing bad actors abroad with access to US numbering resources," the FCC said.
The FCC order will take effect 30 days after it's published in the Federal Register. A public draft of the order was released ahead of the FCC meeting.
Current system provides easy access
"It was eight years ago that this agency decided to allow interconnected VoIP providers to obtain telephone numbers directly from our numbering administrator. Before that, they could only get numbers by making a request through a traditional carrier," FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel said in a statement for yesterday's commission meeting.
Simplifying the system had benefits but also unintended consequences, Rosenworcel said:
Too often the providers picking up these numbers en masse are the same folks using VoIP technology to facilitate robocalls. So in the interest of curbing these bad actors, we are adopting new guardrails. We are putting conditions on direct access to numbering resources to make sure we do not hand out numbers to perpetrators of illegal robocalls. This will safeguard our numbering resources, make life harder for those who want to send us junk calls and a little easier for all of us who don't like getting them.
The current rules that will be replaced "do not require interconnected VoIP providers to disclose any information about their ownership or affiliation, nor do they specify a process to evaluate applications with substantial foreign ownership," the FCC said. The new ownership disclosure rule "will assist Bureau staff in their existing practice of identifying applications that require further review to determine whether the direct access applicant's ownership, control, or affiliation raises national security and/or law enforcement concerns," according to the order.
The FCC said applicants must also certify to their compliance with other rules applicable to interconnected VoIP providers and "comply with state laws and registration requirements that are applicable to businesses in each state in which numbers are requested."
While the rule change applies to new applicants seeking direct access to numbering resources, the FCC is also taking public comment on a proposal that would "requir[e] existing direct access authorization holders whose authorizations predate the new application requirements to submit the new certifications, acknowledgments, and disclosure." The FCC adopted yesterday's order unanimously, saying that it is consistent with requirements in the TRACED Act (Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence) adopted by Congress in 2019.
Bad actors “set up shop under a new name”
Yesterday's order came two days after the FCC took action against a gateway phone company accused of routing many illegal robocalls from outside the US to consumer phone companies like Verizon. The company, One Owl Telecom, is on the verge of having all its calls blocked by US-based telcos after being accused of ignoring orders to investigate and block the robocalls.
One Owl's operators were connected with two previous companies that were punished by the FCC for similar offenses. The case illustrates challenges faced by the FCC when enforcing robocall rules against companies with foreign operators and opaque structures. Describing One Owl, the FCC said the company's efforts "to operate under the cloak of ever-changing corporate formations to serve the same dubious clientele demonstrate willful attempts to circumvent the law to originate and carry illegal traffic."
"Right now, it is very easy for bad actors who get caught facilitating illegal robocalls to set up shop under a new name and carry on with business as usual, and these rules will make it harder to do that," Nicholas Garcia, policy counsel for consumer-advocacy group Public Knowledge, told Ars.
Garcia noted that "false or fraudulent registration and compliance reports would be an obvious way for the most dedicated bad actors to circumvent these new rules. But that itself may provide new avenues for enforcement, and more requirements and friction raise the cost and risks" for VoIP operators that don't follow the rules. | US Federal Policies |
Are you stumped about what to give your loved ones this holiday season? Gift shopping for the guy or gal who has everything? Looking for some dirt on your representative in Congress? George Santos has got you covered!
The former congressman, who was unceremoniously booted from the House on Friday, is filling his early day of unemployment hawking videos on Cameo for $200 a pop. Describing himself as a “Former congressional ‘Icon’,” Santos lists “holiday,” “birthday,” “gossip,” “pep talk,” “roast,” “advice,” or “other” on the menu of options customers can choose from. In one video, he tells someone named “Megan,” who is getting “some tough heat in the press,” to keep her head high and not let the haters get her down, noting that he speaks from experience. (“They can boot me out of Congress, but they can’t take away my good humor or my larger-than-life personality, nor my good faith, and the absolute pride I have for everything I’ve done,” Santos says.) In another, he opens a video to a woman named “Katie,” who seemingly complimented his line-free face, by saying, “Hi Katie, thank you for the love, thank you for the kindness—you know, Botox keeps you young, fillers keep you plump.”
It’s unclear if the “gossip” Santos is offering would involve stories about his former colleagues, but there’s definitely a nonzero chance it does.
Because Santos served less than five years in Congress before he was expelled, he is not eligible to receive a pension. So these videos are obviously necessary to help pay the bills until he figures out his next act (which we assume he will soon announce involves curing cancer). In addition, shortly before lawmakers gave him the heave-ho, Santos told reporters that he will write a book and “maybe in the future” consider going on “Dancing with the Stars.”
Elon Musk turns to plan B—warning people if they don’t pay for premium subscriptions to X there will be a genocide on conservatives—after telling advertisers to “go f--k” themselves
When Fox News is calling you out…
Elsewhere!
Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First
NYT • Read More
White House warns Congress of urgent need for Ukraine funding
The Washington Post • Read More
Comer mischaracterizes Hunter Biden car payment reimbursement to his dad
The Washington Post • Read More
Ron DeSantis, Like Trump, Wants to “Replace” Obamacare. But Don’t Ask for the Details
Vanity Fair • Read More
Top Tucker Carlson producer accused of sexually assaulting Fox staffer
The Washington Post • Read More
“Time to Be Bold”: Advice for Democrats From a Quietly Powerful Governor
Politico • Read More
George Santos Doesn’t Belong in Congress: “He Belongs on Bravo,” Says John Oliver
Vanity Fair • Read More
Penguins Take Thousands of Naps Every Day
NYT • Read More | US Congress |
After engineering this month’s unceremonious defenestration of the hapless Kevin McCarthy, some far-right Republicans openly dreamed of installing their hero Donald Trump to replace him as speaker of the House of Representatives.
Trump himself, meanwhile, suggested that only Jesus Christ was certain to be elected to the role – apparently overlooking practical concerns of presumed unavailability.
But in new speaker Mike Johnson, a previously little-known rightwinger from Louisiana, members of the Trump-loving Republican House Freedom Caucus have seen the speaker’s gavel go to a man who shows all the hallmarks of being their master’s voice – and reveals the iron grip Trump still has on the Republican party.
For the former US president’s part, he now has in a key congressional leadership role a figure who, if the past is any guide, willingly dances to his tune.
Time alone will tell if this continues to be the case. But having served in the House legal defence team against Trump’s first impeachment, Johnson, 51 – a vocal and extreme social conservative – then played a key role in trying to overturn the 2020 presidential election won by Joe Biden, his bona fides as a member of the Make America Great Movement’s seem unchallengeable.
Matt Gaetz, the hardline Florida congressman who was the vanquished McCarthy’s arch-nemesis, had little doubts, tweeting on Wednesday: “If you don’t think that moving from Kevin McCarthy to Maga Mike Johnson shows the ascendance of this movement and where the power in the Republican Party truly lies, then you’re not paying attention.”
But it is the endorsement of Trump himself that has paved the way for the previously unheralded Johnson’s ascendancy – and gives a clue to his future conduct.
Trump opened the door to a Johnson speakership on Tuesday by viciously turning against the previous hopeful, Tom Emmer, a Republican whip and Minnesota congressman, who he tarred with the Republican in name only (Rino) appellation while warning darkly that voting him would be a “tragic mistake”.
“I have many wonderful friends wanting to be Speaker of the House, and some are truly great Warriors,” he wrote on his Truth Social network. “RINO Tom Emmer, who I do not know well, is not one of them. He never respected the Power of a Trump Endorsement, or the breadth and scope of MAGA–MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”
Having seen his previous favored nominee, Jim Jordan, fail after three attempts at winning the endorsement of the house Republican conference, Trump realised that he may have finally found his man.
With the fatally smeared Emmer safely out of the running, Trump finally put his thumb on the scale.
“I am not going to make an Endorsement in this race, because I COULD NEVER GO AGAINST ANY OF THESE FINE AND VERY TALENTED MEN, all of whom have supported me, in both mind and spirit, from the very beginning of our GREAT 2016 Victory,” he posted on Wednesday.
But he added: “My strong SUGGESTION is to go with the leading candidate, Mike Johnson, & GET IT DONE, FAST!”
With the deed done, the indicted former president was in celebratory mood, telling journalists outside a New York court on Wednesday where he is on trial over alleged business fraud that Johnson would be “a fantastic speaker”, adding that he had not heard “one negative comment about him. Everybody likes him.”
Whether this applies to outside the narrow confines of modern Republican politics is another question entirely.
Johnson is already on record as staunchly opposing further aid to Ukraine, a highly divisive faultline in the Republican party and a key priority of the Biden administration.
And with Congress facing a 17 November deadline to pass funding legislation that would avoid a damaging government shutdown – all amid calls for spending cutbacks by his far-right Republican allies – the hitherto obscure congressman from Louisiana might be about to become much better known, and more disliked. | US Congress |
The judge presiding over theof former President Donald Trump is open to rescheduling a March 25, 2024, trial but won't consider the issue until February, he said in a letter to Trump's attorneys.
Judge Juan Merchan said in his Sept. 1 letter that in February, he will consider "any necessary changes" or "any actual conflicts" that could delay the trial, currently scheduled for March 25, 2024.
Merchan was responding to an Aug. 30 letter from Trump attorney Todd Blanche asking for a Sept. 15 conference to discuss scheduling issues. Blanche's request came two days after a federal judge, Tanya Chutkan,to begin in Washington, D.C. just three weeks before the New York one, on March 4, 2024.
Chutkan said when she scheduled the federal trial that she had spoken with Merchan about her intended trial date.
Trump has entered not guilty pleas in both cases. In New York, prosecutors for Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg's officewith 34 felony falsification of business records counts related to an prior to his election in 2016. In Washington D.C., special counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with four felony counts related to an alleged scheme to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power after he lost the 2020 election to President Joe Biden.
Merchan said in his letter that he would "discuss scheduling and make any necessary changes when we next meet on February 15, 2024."
"We will have a much better sense at that time whether there are any actual conflicts and if so, what the best adjourn date might be for trial," Merchan said.
Even as the Republican is running for president once again, chunks of his schedule are increasingly dominated by trials.
Trump, two of his sons and his company arebeginning on Oct. 2, stemming from a lawsuit brought by the New York attorney general alleging widespread, yearslong fraud. The state is seeking $250 million and several severe sanctions against the Trumps and the Trump Organization.
On Jan. 15, Trump is scheduled for a second federal civil trial in hiswith the writer E. Jean Carroll. Trump has already been ordered to pay Carroll $5 million after a federal jury in May for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll. Trump appealed that decision, but in January, a separate jury is scheduled to consider damages related to another alleged defamation.
In addition to the two criminal trials currently scheduled for March, a federal trial over felony charges that Trump willfully retained national security information after leaving office is scheduled for May 20, 2024.
Trump isin Fulton County, Georgia, alongside 18 co-defendants in a case alleging they operated a "criminal enterprise" while contesting the 2020 election in the state after his defeat. A trial date has not yet been scheduled.
Trump has entered a not guilty plea in each of those two cases, too, and denied wrongdoing in every matter in connection with each criminal and civil matter in which he's accused.
for more features. | US Political Corruption |
WASHINGTON (AP) — By most accounts, Speaker Mike Johnson inherited a House Republican majority in disarray after the sudden ouster of his predecessor last month.
But as Johnson, R-La., tries to rebuild that slim majority, he’s fast running into the same hard-right factions and divisions that Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., was unable to tame. That's disrupting the party's agenda, shelving priorities and leaving gnawing questions about any leader’s ability to govern.
Capitol Hill devolved into fresh scenes of political chaos this past week as tensions soared. A Republican senator challenged a Teamsters union boss to a brawl, one of several outbursts involving lawmakers, and the untested new speaker was forced to abandon his own party’s schedule and send everyone home early for Thanksgiving.
"This place is a pressure cooker,” Johnson lamented. Hopefully, he said, people will “cool off.”
But the outlook ahead appears no better. House Republicans who pledged to slash federal spending, investigate President Joe Biden and end a long string of Democratic policies have made only incremental progress on their priorities.
Even though McCarthy struck a surprising debt deal with Biden earlier this year that set a course to reduce federal deficits by $1.5 trillion over the next decade, a conservative victory, it exists mainly on paper.
Republicans have failed to pass all the legislation needed to put all those cuts into law and have yanked some bills from the House floor. Centrist conservatives said the measures went too far, however, as the hard-right faction demands steeper reductions in government programs.
With the days dwindling before a potential government shutdown, Congress had little choice but to pass another short-term measure that keeps federal spending on autopilot for a couple more months. That avoids a federal closure for now, but sets up the next showdown in January.
“We haven’t done anything!” thundered Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, lashing into his colleagues in a lengthy speech as lawmakers fled for the exits.
Conservatives took particular umbrage at the temporary spending bill, called a continuing resolution, that maintained spending at the levels that had been agreed to last year, when Democrats had full control of Congress and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was the speaker.
“When are we going to do what we said we were going to do?” Roy railed. “When are we going to act like a Republican majority and start fighting?”
It’s the same complaint that led the hard-right bloc to oust McCarthy in October, the first unseating of a speaker in U.S. history, and will threaten Johnson's leadership.
The GOP divide on spending underscores the disconnect between Republican ideals for shrinking the size and scope of government and the reality of cutting programs and services close to home.
Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., was one of the more centrist conservatives who voted against a procedural step on legislation to fund the Justice Department, among other agencies, because he said the law enforcement cuts would hurt public safety agencies.
"My constituents don’t want me voting for that," he said.
Republicans are also incensed they have been enduring countless midnight voting sessions, considering hundreds of amendments — voting to slash Biden administration salaries to $1, trying to end “woke” policies on diversity and inclusion — on legislative packages that ultimately go nowhere.
LaLota said after 10 months in the majority, the strategy is not working. "My constituents want us to cut, but they want us to cut in the right areas," he said.
Complicating the work of Congress is a world at war.
Biden has asked Congress for a nearly $106 billion supplemental spending package to provide military and government aid to Ukraine as it fights Russia, and to support Israel in the war with Hamas and provide relief for Palestinians in Gaza. The package carries other priorities, including strengthening U.S.-Mexico border security, which will be a top priority when lawmakers return.
On the eve of voting, Johnson laid out his strategy for the stopgap measure, drawing on the hard-right Freedom Caucus' proposal to break the spending bill into two parts, with funding set to expire on Jan. 19 for some agencies and then Feb. 2 for others.
But the conservatives panned the plan, and the caucus members said most would oppose it. Johnson rebuffed their suggestion to at least attach the House-passed Israel aid package as a way force the Senate to act.
Hard-right members rolled their eyes at Johnson's strategy. But they said they wanted to give the new speaker the grace to find his way.
“The new speaker is respected. He’s admired, he's trusted,” said Rep. Bob Good, R-Va. “You know, he’s human. He’s imperfect, like we all are.”
Republicans are well aware their slim House majority is increasingly at risk heading into the 2024 election season if they are unable to deliver on their promises to voters. Many lawmakers in both parties are choosing to retire rather than keep fighting the same battles.
Johnson defended his three weeks on the job, saying, “I can't turn an aircraft carrier overnight." He insisted he's in “a very different situation” from what McCarthy faced.
“We have some great plans,” he told reporters at a news conference.
But Republican Rep. Garrett Graves of Louisiana, a top McCarthy ally, said the idea that “by electing a new speaker, you are going to suddenly have all these new options I think is now being realized this is not factual.”
He added: "I think that it’s going to continue to be a bumpy road going forward.”
After House Democrats provided the votes needed to help Johnson avert a federal shutdown, Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, whose party also delivered the votes to help oust McCarthy, said he is working to have a good relationship with the new speaker.
Asked whether he had any advice for Johnson, Jeffries said: “Good luck.” | US Congress |
January 18, 2023 10:53 AM A whistleblower from the Orange County Supervisor of Elections in Orlando, Florida, is alleging the elections office lacks sufficient supervision of its ballots. Brian Freid, the whistleblower who was terminated from his post as information systems director last year, alleged that the elections office flouted state laws overseeing the transportation of ballots and chain of custody. He outlined his accusations in a recent affidavit and fretted that the lack of proper oversight could be conducive to a heightened risk of voter fraud. FORMER ARIZONA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE TO SPEARHEAD INQUIRY INTO BALLOT PRINTER DEBACLE Freid alleged that the Orange County SOE lacks a proper system for tracking the creation of ballots, supplies used in the creation of ballots, and storage of ballots in secure areas. He said that due to the lack of chain of custody, officials can "print an unlimited number of live ballots undetected either in the technical services area or offsite." "There is no management of ballot creation, ballot tracking, or the management of the thumb drives used to copy the ballot PDF's," Freid's affidavit filed with a local Florida Department of Law Enforcement office, obtained by Just the News, claimed. At one point, he noted that the thumb drives used to move the county's voter database between tablets were often left in a tablet room that was not properly secured. The thumb drives "contain unredacted voter data for all voters, including protected voters," and generally are not erased after being used, the affidavit alleged. Freid allegedly observed vote-by-mail ballots being transported from the SOE office to the post office by "only one SOE employee or a single temporary worker." Freid implied that this procedural deficiency could leave vote-by-mail ballots vulnerable to malfeasance and stressed that he "was unable to find any documented procedures or chain of custody forms of how many Vote by Mail ballots are sent out or picked up." In the affidavit, Freid cited a Florida statute that requires election facilities to have a proper "chain of custody of ballots, including a detailed description of procedures to create a complete written record of the chain of custody of ballots and paper outputs beginning with their receipt from a printer or manufacturer until such time as they are destroyed." Many of the rooms in Orange County SOE, such as the tablet room, records vault, server room, and more, lack robust security measures such as proper locks and security cameras, Freid alleged. "Most of these secure areas use old pin locks to secure the doors and the combinations for these locks have not been changed in many years. Most of the doors use the same combinations and are know[n] by most staff member[s] and many of the temporary workers," the affidavit claimed. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Freid described himself as a lifelong Democrat, per Just the News. He claimed to have been terminated from his post in the Orange County SOE last October after he urged the county to fire another official in the office, Bill Cowles, whom he blames for much of the alleged deficiencies in the country's voting processes. The Washington Examiner contacted the Orange County SOE for comment. | US Federal Elections |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Lisa Desjardins
Lisa Desjardins
Laura Barrón-López
Laura Barrón-López
Kyle Midura
Kyle Midura
Leave your feedback
Federal workers were put on notice that a shutdown is imminent and millions of government employees and military members could stop being paid in three days. The Senate has worked in a bipartisan manner to prevent a shutdown, but the hold-up is with House Republicans, some of whom are refusing to support any short-term measure that would buy Congress more time to act. Lisa Desjardins reports.
Amna Nawaz:
Federal workers were put on notice today that a shutdown is imminent. Millions of government employees and active-duty military members could stop being paid in just three days' time.
Geoff Bennett:
The U.S. Senate has been working in a bipartisan manner to prevent a shutdown, but the holdup is with House Republicans, some of whom are refusing to support any short-term measure that would buy Congress more time to act.
Congressional correspondent Lisa Desjardins is on Capitol Hill following all the twists and turns.
Lisa, Congress now has less than three days to reach a deal. The House and Senate appear to be moving in different directions.
What is the latest this evening?
Lisa Desjardins:
Right.
This deadline is quite serious, and it is approaching more quickly now. However, things at the Capitol are becoming more complicated, and it feels almost as if slowing down.
First of all, let's talk a little bit about the Senate, which has a compromise idea. However, a single senator, Rand Paul of Kentucky, is saying he will not allow that to proceed any more quickly than according to Senate rules, because he objects to Ukraine funding in that bill.
Geoff, what that means, essentially, is that we are on track for the Senate to be able to vote on its compromise spending plan no sooner than Monday. Something would have to change.
So, let's review where we are. Right now, the shutdown would start for most government agencies Sunday morning at 12:01, just after midnight on Sunday morning here in the country, in America. And then we know, as I said, that the House, the Senate right now is on track to have a final vote no sooner than Monday.
Now, the House, we don't know what their plan is. We're waiting to see it. House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has said he would have one. He wanted to have a vote on it tomorrow. But we're waiting to see. There are so many details up in the air right now, but I think — think of it in terms of two pivot points, Geoff.
One is tonight. The House of Representatives will try to pass a yearlong funding bill, possibly two, for a few agencies. That will be a test if Republicans can agree on anything in the House. The other pivot point is Saturday. That's when some senators are going to try and amend that Senate bipartisan deal.
That may be changing. We will see how many votes there are on Saturday. We will also see if the deadline itself makes the Senate move a little more quickly.
Lisa, you mentioned Ukraine funding.
Remind us of what other issues are at play here.
Ukraine funding has been a major factor in both chambers right now. But we are seeing the rise of Republicans talk more and more about border security.
Initially, the reason we were not able to see spending bills pass in the House and the reason we got to this point was overspending amounts, the idea of the national debt, holdouts saying there had to be lower spending levels than even Republicans themselves agreed to just a few months ago.
That was the real reason we got here, but now we're hearing more and more Republicans say, we also have been concerned about border security. We want more border security provisions in any kind of temporary deal, and we're hearing that conversation among Senate Republicans as well. That's what I mean by saying this has become more complicated, not less, as we get toward the shutdown.
And there was other news on Capitol Hill today. You attended the first House Republicans' impeachment inquiry.
Tell us about it.
That's right.
For months, House Republicans have been investigating the Biden family. Today, that effort entered a new phase.
Rep. James Comer (R-KY):
The Committee on Oversight and Accountability will come to order.
In a relatively small hearing room, big questions and profound politics.
Rep. James Comer:
The American people demand accountability for this culture of corruption.
For Republicans led by House Oversight Chairman James Comer, the top question is whether they will move to impeach President Joe Biden.
In a 30-page memo released last night, Republicans outlined their accusation, writing they have evidence suggesting that President Biden knew of, participated and profited from his family's international business activities. In other words, the suggestion is influence peddling.
As we all know, the Bidens had nothing to sell except the brand, which was Joe Biden. Hunter Biden sold the brand well, making the Biden family millions from China and elsewhere.
Republicans are looking at millions of dollars made by Hunter Biden, the president's son and, James Biden, his brother, especially in 2019 and 2020, for consulting with foreign businesses, including in Ukraine and China.
They have charts of shell companies and spoke of texts and phone calls between Biden family members. But, in all of that, Democrats repeatedly pointed out there is no direct evidence of payments to or influence peddling by Joe Biden.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD):
If the Republicans had a smoking gun or even a dripping water pistol, they would be presenting it today, but they have got nothing on Joe Biden.
Do you all solemnly swear?
Republican witnesses were broad experts in law and investigation, and they raised broad questions.
Forensic accountant Bruce Dubinsky:
Bruce Dubinsky, Founder, Dubinsky Consulting:
Why were members of the Biden family and close business associates receiving millions of dollars of payments from foreign entities and individuals? What services, if any, were being provided?
He concluded:
Bruce Dubinsky:
Much more information is still needed in order to be able to answer these questions.
None said they have seen enough to add up to a crime.
Law professor and conservative commentator Jonathan Turley.
Jonathan Turley, Constitutional Attorney, George Washington University:
This is a question of an impeachment inquiry. It is not a vote on articles of impeachment. In fact, I do not believe that the current evidence would support articles of impeachment.
This is the first step in an inquiry initiated by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy earlier this month under pressure from hard right members of the House. Republicans argue there is real concern about the Biden family.
Democrats have fired back, charging this as an attempt to distract from the criminal charges now against former President Donald Trump and making a point in this hearing by reversing their laptops to show ticking clocks, that a shutdown is just two days away.
Rep. Kwesi Mfume (D-MD):
Why in the hell are we playing this game? And why don't we be honest? If it was so important, it could wait. This is what is important, protecting this government and protecting the people who pay taxes here. But we want to play games with all of this.
Democrats' sole witness, law professor Michael Gerhardt, stressed the stakes.
Michael Gerhardt, University of North Carolina: An impeachment inquiry is deadly serious. It is, again, just about the most serious thing any House committee ever undertakes.
Republicans expect more impeachment hearings as soon as next month.
And, today, speaking with House Republicans, there is divide. Some say these impeachment hearings were necessary, but I spoke to more than one House Republican who said it was actually an embarrassment. They are concerned about the evidence connecting the dots, even though there are a lot of documents. They say they're still waiting for more evidence and perhaps this hearing should have waited itself as well — Geoff.
Lisa, thank you.
Let's turn now to our White House correspondent, Laura Barrón-López, here with us in the studio.
So, Laura, we heard in Lisa's report that the GOP's handpicked witnesses said that there's no evidence to support articles of impeachment. How is the White House responding to what was this hours-long hearing today?
Laura Barrón-López:
Well, that fact, Geoff, that the same — that the Republican witnesses said that there is no evidence is exactly what the White House is seizing on.
They put out statements quoting the Republican witnesses saying that there is no evidence for impeachment. They also had their own shutdown clock.
They issued a statement every 30 minutes as this hearing was playing out over the course of the day to say that there's only this many hours left before a shutdown occurs, and essentially highlighting and focusing on the fact that House Republicans have been unable to come to an agreement amongst themselves on how to fund the government and the impact that would have on food assistance programs, on payments to active-duty military members and the like across the board.
That is what the White House is focusing on right now.
And as this hearing was happening, President Biden, he was actually in Arizona. He was paying tribute to his late friend the GOP senator, former GOP Senator John McCain, and it gave President Biden a chance to talk about what he sees as the threats to democracy, right?
This is — at this speech in Arizona, President Biden specifically gave his most detailed remarks to date about what he sees as a really present and clear threat from not just Donald Trump, but also from other Republican candidates that are running for the presidential nomination.
He focused on the fact that a number of those candidates, including Trump, have said that they want to overhaul the federal agencies, that, if they were to have the presidency, if they were to have the Oval Office, that they want to gut federal agencies, that they want to install loyalists across all the different departments, specifically the Justice Department.
And the president said that this is not normal and this is something that Americans need to pay attention to.
Joe Biden, President of the United States: Seizing power, concentrating power, attempting to abuse power, inciting violence against those who risk their lives to keep Americans safe, weaponizing against the very soul of who we are as Americans, this MAGA threat is a threat to the brick and mortar of our democratic institutions.
But it's also a threat to the character of our nation.
So those are some of the most specific remarks that the president has given to really say that if Republicans were to take power, if they were to take the presidency in 2024, that the federal agencies that you have known for — since America's existence would not exist.
And he also talked a lot about John McCain, the late senator, and really struck this contrast, Geoff, to say that John McCain was a Republican who was willing to put the country first and was willing to call out what he saw as wrongdoing, was willing to stand up to Donald Trump, and that he doesn't see that anymore amongst Republicans.
He also addressed the fact that no Republicans or a majority of Republicans have remained silent after the former president issued a death threat suggesting that General Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint — the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, should be executed.
Should we expect to hear more about this from President Biden as this campaign moves forward?
We will.
So this is the fourth speech that the president has given to date on threats to democracy, and the campaign has made clear that this is something that he is going to be talking about aggressively heading into the election cycle.
Laura Barrón-López, thanks so much.
Thank you.
Lisa Desjardins is a correspondent for PBS NewsHour, where she covers news from the U.S. Capitol while also traveling across the country to report on how decisions in Washington affect people where they live and work.
Laura Barrón-López is the White House Correspondent for the PBS NewsHour, where she covers the Biden administration for the nightly news broadcast. She is also a CNN political analyst.
Support Provided By:
Learn more | US Congress |
No, Federal Home Loan Banks didn’t cause the SVB collapse
The Federal Home Loan Banks have been taking some heat for their eleventh-hour lending to Silvergate, Silicon Valley and Signature banks. We regulated and then represented these FHLBanks through 40 years of economic ups and downs, hearing time and time again uninformed criticisms that the banks were too small, too large, too dominated by big commercial banks or too unresponsive to one political agenda or the other. But it truly is odd to blame them for doing what they were established and authorized to do, particularly when it is hard to find any more successful federal endeavor over the last 90 years. We are all ears if anyone can name one.
As various legislators including Sen. Sherrod Brown take aim at the FHLBanks because they lent to troubled banks — a role that they were designed and have regularly been asked to perform — it suggests that there may be more than meets the eye here.
It is entirely fair to evaluate the role of the FHLBanks in these collapses, but the same is true of other, perhaps more inconvenient, questions and culprits. What role did Congress’s insatiable spending and the Federal Reserve printing trillions of dollars over the last 15 years play, for instance? Did the Fed’s 15-year suppression of interest rates at historically low levels only to jerk them up as inflation inevitably threatened the economy set financial intermediaries up to fail? And just how did those failed banks operate themselves into such dire condition under the watchful eyes of their federal and state regulators?
But we digress.
Congress devised the FHLBank System in 1932 to help savings and loan associations finance home mortgages and rejuvenate an economy battered by the Great Depression. Today, after many adjustments by Congress over the years, it is a cooperative of 11 regional wholesale banks, each comprised of member financial institutions. In 1989, Congress expanded membership to include commercial banks, recognizing that the shrinking role of S&Ls in American housing finance would require a new set of mortgage lenders.
Congress’s foresight has been borne out by the fact that Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, PNC Bank and Citizens Bank are now among the top 10 mortgage lenders in the country and are part of the economic backbone of the FHLBank System that community banks and consumers rely on. Those commercial banks would have been unlikely to make any mortgage loans 40 years ago.
The 11 privately capitalized FHLBanks borrow jointly from the capital markets at favorable government-like rates and then relend those lower cost funds to their member institutions to stimulate home mortgage lending. Money is of course fungible, but however those borrowings are immediately used, loans from the FHLBanks must be collateralized with mortgages and other prescribed financial instruments. Members cannot do an end run around the housing finance mandate of the system. In addition, it is the FHLBank System that repaid the tab resulting from the S&L crisis of the 1980s and 1990s and today directs no less than 10 percent of its annual profits to affordable housing projects.
The Federal Home Loan Banks have also been chastised for having a priority over unsecured creditors that puts it first in line to be repaid when member institutions fail. Curiously, that is precisely what both Congress and state legislators provided in enacting laws that protected the interests of the FHLBanks as secured creditors. Congress understood that liquidity is critical in stressful economic periods, particularly given the fact that commercial banks have always been reluctant to borrow from the Federal Reserve Banks given the stigma attached. Prudential bank regulators have historically supported continued lending by FHLBanks when member institutions get into trouble so that they have time to explore rescue solutions and plan for orderly resolutions.
Some question whether the FHLBanks should be incentivized in this way to act as financial emergency room physicians to avert or delay bank failures if the result is the subordination of the interests of the FDIC in its role as financial undertaker. But that is a debate that resolved years ago, favoring the option that allows financial institutions to have ready access to FHLBank loans as long as they can meet the stringent underwriting requirements that apply. The rapid deterioration of Silicon Valley Bank after social media ignited a virtual run of $42 billion in deposits the day before it was closed, and the $100 billion in withdrawals reported at Republic Bank, demonstrate just how quickly things can unravel these days and threaten financial stability.
Those who would have the FHLBanks participate even more than they do in affordable housing or other programs or activities in political favor at any particular time are free to plead their case to Congress. Those decisions should not be made by individual legislators or unelected regulators. History has shown that the best thing the FHLBanks can do for all consumers is to perform as Congress intended, and create housing credit that fosters economic growth and maximizes market stability.
A recent University of Wisconsin study highlights the FHLBanks’ record of success. Their lending generates an estimated $130 billion of additional mortgage lending each year, while saving consumers $17 billion in interest payments. That success is even more remarkable taking into consideration the fact that no FHLBank has ever lost a dime on any loan made to a member institution in the last 90-plus years. That is an accomplishment that is unlikely any other lender in America can boast of.
It is fair to ask Congress to reconsider what the FHLBanks should do to make 21st century housing markets and depository institutions work even better, and whether the inherent subsidy of mortgage finance in the system should continue. And to digress one last time, while its record is being evaluated, perhaps other related issues such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac languishing in conservatorship for 15 years should also be attended to. Whatever is decided, we are confident that no one will like a U.S. financial system without FHLBanks.
Thomas P. Vartanian is executive director of the Financial Technology & Cybersecurity Center and a former general counsel (1981-83) of the agencies that handled the S&L crisis. He is also the author of “200 Years of American Financial Panics” (2021) and “The Unhackable Internet” (2023).
Robert H. Ledig is managing director of the Financial Technology & Cybersecurity Center and an author of “21st Century Money, Banking & Commerce.”
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
After years of inaction, the FCC this week said that it's finally going to protect consumers against a scam that takes control of their cell phone numbers by deceiving employees who work for mobile carriers. While commissioners congratulated themselves for the move, there’s little reason yet to believe it will stop a practice that has been all too common over the past decade.
The scams, known as "SIM swapping" and "port-out fraud," both have the same objective: to wrest control of a cell phone number away from its rightful owner by tricking the employees of the carrier that services it. SIM swapping occurs when crooks hold themselves out as someone else and request that the victim's number be transferred to a new SIM card—usually under the pretense that the victim has just obtained a new phone. In port-out scams, crooks do much the same thing, except they trick the carrier employee into transferring the target number to a new carrier.
This class of attack has existed for well over a decade, and it became more commonplace amid the irrational exuberance that drove up the price of Bitcoin and other crypto currencies. People storing large sums of digital coin have been frequent targets. Once crooks take control of a phone number, they trigger password resets that work by clicking on links sent in text messages. The crooks then drain cryptocurrency and traditional bank accounts.
The practice has become so common that an entire SIM-swap-as-a-service industry has cropped up. More recently, these scams have been used by threat actors to target and in some cases successfully breach enterprise networks belonging to some of the world’s biggest organizations.
The crooks pursuing these scams are surprisingly adept in the art of the confidence game. Lapsus$, a threat group comprised mostly of teens, has repeatedly used SIM swaps and other forms of social engineering with a confounding level of success. From there, members use commandeered numbers to breach other targets. Just last month, Microsoft profiled a previously unknown group that regularly uses SIM swaps to ensnare companies that provide mobile telecommunications processing services.A key to the success of the group, tracked by Microsoft as "Octo Tempest," is its painstaking research that allows the group to impersonate victims to a degree most people would never imagine. Attackers can mimic the distinct idiolect of the target. They have a strong command of the procedures used to verify that people are who they claim to be. There's no reason to think the rules won't be easy for groups such as these to get around with minimal additional effort.
Vague rules
This week, the FCC finally said it was going to put a stop to SIM swapping and port-out fraud. The new rules, the commission said, “require wireless providers to adopt secure methods of authenticating a customer before redirecting a customer’s phone number to a new device or provider. The new rules require wireless providers to immediately notify customers whenever a SIM change or port-out request is made on customers’ accounts and take additional steps to protect customers from SIM swap and port-out fraud.”
But there’s no real guidance on what these secure authentication methods should be or what constitutes immediate notification. The FCC rules have instead been written to explicitly give “wireless providers the flexibility to deliver the most advanced and appropriate fraud protection measures available.” Adding to the challenge is a gaggle of carriers with low-paid and poorly trained employees and cultures steeped in apathy and carelessness.
None of this is to say that the FCC won’t ultimately create rules that will provide a meaningful check on a scam that’s reached epidemic proportions. It does mean that the problem will be extremely hard to solve.
For the time being, SIM swaps and port-out scams are a fact of life, and there’s little reason for optimism that a handful of vaguely worded requirements will make a difference. For now, the best you can do is—when possible—to ensure that accounts are protected by a PIN or verbal password and follow these additional precautions provided by the Federal Trade Commission. | US Federal Policies |
New income-driven student loan repayment plan available to borrowers
The Department of Education released a beta website on Monday for the Biden administration’s new income-driven student loan repayment plan, known as the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan.
“A beta version of the updated [Income-Driven Repayment (IDR)] application is now available and includes the option to enroll in the new SAVE Plan – the most affordable repayment plan yet,” the department said on the site.
Previously, the administration had numerous IDR options for borrowers, which advocates have said led to a confusing system for borrowers.
The new SAVE plan will replace the Revised Pay As You Earn Repayment (REPAYE) plan, one of the most widely used out of the four IDR options available to borrowers. The other three IDR plans will be phased out by the department or limited in the future.
The SAVE plan will make three significant changes this year compared to the REPAYE option. The first raises the income exemption from 150 percent above the poverty line to 225 percent, meaning a single person earning less than $32,800 would have $0 monthly payments under the plan.
The plan also won’t allow unpaid interest to grow if a person is making their monthly student loan payments. Lastly, spousal income for borrowers who are married and file separately will not be included.
The website – first reported by CNN — shows a demo of the application process, where some information such as tax returns can be automatically inserted due to information the government has on file for a borrower.
“We will be able to show borrowers their exact monthly payment amount and give them the ability to choose the most affordable repayment plan for them,” one official told CNN.
Officials told the network the full website launch will happen in August after the department has time to assess the site’s performance during the beta launch. Those who apply for SAVE during the beta period will not have to reapply after the full launch.
Those on the previous REPAYE IDR plan will be automatically enrolled in the new plan and do not need to use the launched application.
The Hill has reached out to the Department of Education for comment on the beta launch.
Other aspects of the SAVE program will be implemented next year such as payments getting reduced from 10 percent to 5 percent of income above 225 percent of the poverty line for undergraduate loans.
The SAVE plan, touted as the most generous IDR plan by the administration, is expected to cost between $150 billion to $350 billion a year, according to varying estimates.
The launch of the SAVE plan comes two months before borrowers end their three-year-long pause on student loan payments and begin President Biden’s “on-ramp” repayment system.
Under the system, interest will still accrue, but borrowers will not be penalized in other ways such as credit score ratings for not paying their student loan payments up until Sept. 2024.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
toggle caption
President Biden told reporters on Tuesday that he's worried about the fate of his $24 billion request for Ukraine aid.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
President Biden told reporters on Tuesday that he's worried about the fate of his $24 billion request for Ukraine aid.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
President Biden said he is worried that disarray in Congress could undermine his promise to give Ukraine the aid it needs for its fight against Russia, and plans to deliver a major address to try to persuade the American public that continued support for Ukraine is in the national interest.
Biden had asked Congress for $24 billion for military, humanitarian and economic aid for Ukraine through the end of the calendar year, but the House of Representatives left that out of the recent stopgap measure that keeps government funded through Nov. 17.
Biden had assured international allies in a call on Monday that he was confident that Congress would eventually provide the support. But after that call, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy was ousted, leaving the path for approval of the funding request unclear.
"It does worry me. But I know there are a majority of members of the House and Senate in both parties who have said they support funding Ukraine," Biden said.
But support alone isn't enough to get a bill on the House floor. At least one of the candidates to replace McCarthy — Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, — has said he opposes additional funding for Ukraine.
Biden says he's going to make the case to Americans
Biden has long pledged that the United States would support Ukraine "as long as it takes" for the country to defend itself against Russia's invasion. But polls show a growing number of Americans feel the United States is giving too much — a sentiment that is particularly acute among Republicans.
Biden said he intends to deliver remarks soon to make the case for the funding. The White House declined comment on the timing of that speech.
"I'm going to make the argument that it's overwhelmingly in the interests of the United States of America that Ukraine succeed," Biden said.
The White House National Security Council has said that there's enough funding left to meet Ukraine's immediate needs on the battlefield. NSC spokesperson John Kirby said on Monday that the funding could last "perhaps a couple of months or so, roughly."
Biden suggested to reporters that the administration is looking at other avenues for some funding for Ukraine outside the regular appropriations process, but he and the White House declined to give details. | US Federal Policies |
The U.S. House is now led by an election denier extraordinaire
Mike Johnson is smart, friendly and conservative. He also tried helping Trump overturn the 2020 vote
Attempting to assist Donald Trump overturn an election is not a firing offence in the modern Republican Party.
In fact, it can land you a promotion.
The new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives was not only one of the most important allies in the former president's attempt to cancel the 2020 election result; he called the vote rigged and spread crackpot conspiracy theories about voting machines.
Yet Mike Johnson received unanimous support from Republicans in a 220-209 vote on Wednesday, ending an impasse that had paralyzed one-half of the U.S. Congress for nearly a month.
It's a dizzying ascendancy the youthful, six-year congressman from Louisiana, a career constitutional lawyer known as bright and amiable.
That's one thing his friends and foes agree on: Johnson is smart and likable.
"A very pleasant demeanour," is how top House Democrat Hakeem Jeffries described him.
"A friend of all, and enemy to none," is how senior Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik described him. "Above all else, Mike is kind."
That gentlemanly manner was on display the instant Johnson took up the gavel. In a gracious address, he began by speaking directly to the Democratic leader.
The parties may see the world differently, Johnson said, but he emphasized Jeffries's love for the country and vowed to work constructively with him: "We're going to find common ground," he said.
That's where the agreement ends.
Johnson's selection is a reflection of a bitterly polarized politics. A day earlier, Republicans seemed on the verge of selecting a relative moderate, Tom Emmer — backer of same-sex marriage, supporter of funding Ukraine, and a soft-red conservative who, it's worth noting, voted to certify the 2020 election.
The party base revolted. And Trump delivered the coup de grace Tuesday, with a scathing statement that killed Emmer's bid.
By Wednesday afternoon, Republicans had rallied behind an anti-Emmer.
'Damn right'
A ruby-red conservative, Johnson is a repeated opponent of Ukraine aid, he frequently sponsors anti-abortion bills and he fought in court against same-sex marriage in his previous life as a lawyer for a Christian advocacy group.
And, importantly, he worked, on behalf of Trump, to assemble colleagues' signatures for a legal challenge against the 2020 election result. Johnson appeared to pressure them, telling them the then-president was eagerly waiting to see the list of signatories.
He later insisted he wasn't trying to intimidate colleagues. He said he regretted his choice of words. Yet Johnson has referred to the election as fixed, and has repeated the sorts of canards about voting machines that resulted in a $787 million US defamation payout by Fox News.
In the House of Representatives, as the vote began Wednesday, Democrat Pete Aguilar summed up the dynamics of the Speaker race: "This is about: Who can appease Donald Trump?"
When he referred to the Speaker-designate as a key architect of Trump's electoral college objection, a Republican shouted: "You're damn right!"
In fact, it's considered in poor taste, nowadays, among Capitol Hill Republicans to even bother asking about that.
They heckled a reporter at Johnson's first news conference as Speaker-designate, when ABC's Rachel Scott began asking: "You helped lead the efforts to overturn the 2020 election…"
She never finished the question. It was drowned out in boos. Members including Scalise burst out laughing like it was preposterous to even be raising this.
Another election objector reacted more angrily: "Shut up! Shut up!" shouted Virginia Foxx of North Carolina. Lauren Boebert waved at the reporter, as if shooing off a fly.
Johnson smiled and shook his head: "Next question."
And that was it. Somewhere between 60 and 70 per cent of Republican voters think the 2020 election was illegitimate, and there's little political incentive for members in solid right-wing districts, meaning most Republicans, to say otherwise.
Here's something Johnson had in common with his peers: Most of the speakership candidates had voted against certifying the election, as had the last Speaker, Kevin McCarthy.
Where Johnson differed from most was in the effort and intellectual brainpower he dedicated to it.
His promotion on Wednesday was celebrated by none other than Trump. In fact, the former president took credit for it, referring to his own actions aimed at torpedoing Emmer and elevating Johnson.
"At this time yesterday, nobody was thinking of Mike," Trump said. "Then we put out the word. And now he's the Speaker of the House."
Trump added: "He's going to make us all proud."
To be fair, Trump's track record as kingmaker is imperfect. He'd tried to elevate Jordan and fell short.
Some Republicans refrained from backing Jordan, who was a louder backer of Trump's election lies. His voting record was also a shade more conservative than Johnson's.
New doubts about Ukraine funding
Johnson's appointment could fray nerves in Europe.
He has almost always voted against Ukraine funding. He has also offered no indication whether he will allow a vote on the issue, as President Joe Biden is requesting
The president wants legislation that combines funding for Israel, Ukraine, the border, and other issues in a wide-ranging national-security bill.
In his first speech as Speaker, Johnson only committed to Israel. He didn't mention Ukraine funding and it's unclear how, or whether, he'll allow a vote on it.
Trump's allies celebrated his triumph. This included the lawmaker who led the move to oust McCarthy three weeks ago.
"The swamp is on the run," Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida said on the podcast of right-wing populist Steve Bannon.
"MAGA is ascendant. If you don't think moving from Kevin McCarthy to MAGA Mike Johnson shows the ascendance of this movement, and where the power in the Republican Party truly lies, then you're not paying attention." | US Congress |
Federal student loans have not accrued interest since March 2020 but will begin doing so again on Oct 1. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is moving forward on a series of new initiatives announced since the Supreme Court struck down its $400 billion student debt transfer in June.
“The work of the Biden-Harris administration will make sure that student loans aren’t a barrier to opportunity, restore the promise of post-secondary education, and help build a stronger economy," Undersecretary of Education James Kvaal said on a call with reporters.
The original student loan forgiveness plan rested on the HEROES Act of 2003, which was written with Iraq War veterans in mind, to cancel loans on the legal premise that the pandemic constituted a national emergency. That was struck down by the high court over the summer.
But a DOE release says the department is looking at using a different law, the Higher Education Act of 1965, to achieve similar ends.
A highlighted portion of that law reads, "in the performance of, and with respect to, the functions, powers, and duties, vested in him by this part, the Secretary [of Education] may enforce, pay, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”
Many student loan forgiveness champions had urged President Joe Biden to use the Higher Education Act in the first place, and some were upset that he didn't.
A new program is likely to have different particulars, but the goal seems to remain the same.
"The department also is considering adding regulations on the circumstances under which the department may waive all or part of federal student loan debts," the DOE release reads.
The Biden White House has charged ahead in the face of the Supreme Court setback, announcing a series of new moves and bragging that it has canceled more student debt than any other administration. It has announced an income-driven repayment program that would see most new loans forgiven after no more than 20 years and canceled debts for existing IDR payments by including months where payments were not made toward completion of the program.
Opponents of debt forgiveness say the moves aim at the wrong problem.
"Borrowers facing renewed student loan bills in October should join with JCN to demand colleges dramatically reduce their prices," said Alfredo Ortiz, president and CEO of Job Creators Network. "As a first step, legislators should haul college presidents before Congress to explain their outrageous tuition hikes that have saddled so many Americans with huge debts."
Ortiz says all of the DOE's initiatives will "give colleges a blank check" to continue raising tuition on the backs of borrowers.
The new programs may be more narrowly targeted, however. DOE says it's focused on debtors whose balances are greater than what they originally borrowed, those with loans that were taken out decades ago, those whose college experience "did not provide sufficient financial value," those who are eligible for relief programs but have not applied, and those who have "experienced financial hardship and need support."
The department has formed a Student Loan Relief Committee to meet and discuss the ideas. Committee members include civil rights organizations, state attorneys general, a collection of schools, loan servicers, students, and military veterans.
Repayments will begin next week even if there's a government shutdown, though the department has said things could change if the shutdown lasts for longer than a few weeks. But many borrowers may continue to hope that at least some of their debt will be written off and transferred to taxpayers.
“We're not going to rest until we fix our broken student loan system," Kvaal said. | US Federal Policies |
This week, Fox News reported on remarks by White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. The headline, “Jean-Pierre refuses to call anti-Israel protestors ‘extremists’ despite fear among Jewish students,” circulated the news that the Biden administration was refusing to denounce antisemitic extremists bullying American Jews.
Around the same time, Ryan Grim, bureau chief of the Intercept, circulated a clip of Jean-Pierre, which he summarized, “The White House just compared ‘anti-Israel protesters’ — the phrase used by the Fox News reporter in his question — to the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville.” Grim’s account went viral, attracting more than 3,000 quote tweets, with comments like “a deeply cynical statement that sounds like an administration in over its head” (Carnegie Endowment scholar Zachary Carter) and “The Israeli govt has imposed a siege on every civilian in Gaza, is mercilessly bombing civilian targets, has already forced the displacement of over a million people, has massacred thousands of innocents. To the White House those who oppose these war crimes are akin to nazis.” (Krystal Ball, host of Breaking Points.)
Both these breathless reports, with their contradictory findings, came from the same exchange at the same press briefing. The transcript of the exchange is far more banal. In it, Jean-Pierre announces a series of measures combatting antisemitism. As reporters fling a series of questions at her, Jean-Pierre continually retreats to safe talking points denouncing hatred and bias in all its forms.
When asked, “Does President Biden think the anti-Israel protesters in this country are extremists?,” she replied, “What I can say is what — we’ve been very clear about this: When it comes to antisemitism, there is no place. We have to make sure that we speak against it very loud and be — and be very clear about that.” In a sense, Fox News is right that she declined to answer the question. In another sense, Grim is right that she replied to a question about anti-Israel protesters with an answer about antisemitism, implicitly drawing a link between the two.
Obviously, Fox News and Grim’s mutually exclusive interpretations can’t both be correct. If you read the full transcript in context, neither interpretation is fair. Jean-Pierre clearly decided to stick to narrow talking points about how bigotry and hatred are unacceptable and kept repeating those bromides as reporters try to pull her into some more newsworthy or interesting positions. Her strenuous effort to avoid controversy brought about the very response she set out to avoid, in a kind of Larry David–esque farce.
Perhaps this episode says something about Jean-Pierre’s wobbly communications skills. But it also captures the unfairness of the criticism that has met Biden’s efforts to define a moral center in the conflict. Even his most unobjectionable statements have been met with biting ridicule and anger, with each side accusing the president of endorsing the other.
Despite the vocal and frequently unfair denunciations the Biden administration has received from left and right alike for its response to Hamas’s terror attacks and their aftermath, I believe the policy is broadly correct. The administration’s response to the war in the Middle East has five main components:
1. Publicly embrace Israel in the wake of the October 7 terrorist attack and endorse its right to self-defense.
2. Privately warn Israel’s government not to rush into an expansive military response.
3. Denounce antisemitism.
4. Denounce anti-Muslim bias.
5. Endorse emergency military aid to Israel.
Progressives have greeted this combination of positions with horror, and its backlash has combined public protests by hundreds of Democratic staff, holding demonstrations at congressional hearings, with a level of vitriol that far exceeds anything it has previously raised against Biden.
The left’s dissent grows out of the belief that essentially any military response by Israel is wrong — either due to Israel’s indefensible occupation or because it will inevitably kill innocent Palestinians. I sympathize with both points, even though I am not willing to follow the logic of either one of them fully to the conclusion of ruling out any military response.
In addition to making the moral case, the left has increasingly argued that Biden is putting his own election at risk by alienating young progressives and Arab American voters. It may be true that Biden’s approval rating has dropped, presumably because he has alienated some left-leaning voters. It does not follow, however, that taking a different position would have left him better off.
One recent News Nation poll shows Biden’s approval rating on handling the war between Israel and Hamas (54 percent) is about ten points higher than his overall job approval. Nearly half the public sympathizes with Israel, against just 10 percent sympathizing with the Palestinians, and the rest equally sympathetic to both. Seventy percent of the public approves of sending weapons to Israel.
Another poll, by Slingshot Strategies, finds 44 percent of Americans favor supporting Israel as it tries to eliminate Hamas’s military capabilities, versus 31 percent who support a cease-fire. Just 21 percent of respondents say Biden is too supportive of Israel, against 29 percent who say he hasn’t been supportive enough, and 50 percent saying his level of support has been just right.
Biden’s approval rating may be suffering even as he takes a broadly popular position simply because the issue divides his base, and some of the people who support his Israel stance still don’t approve of his presidency overall. Still, it’s unlikely that adopting an unpopular stance on the Middle East would help his standing. Progressive activists who are threatening Biden’s reelection are engaged in what Matthew Yglesias calls “murder-suicide politics” — threatening to help a worse candidate win unless their preferred candidate adopts a position that will hurt him.
And while the left’s disagreements with Biden’s approach toward Israel are rational enough, it ignores his willingness to affirm the humanity and dignity of Muslims and Arabs.
That distinguishes him from the Republican Party, which is led by a man who routinely excludes Muslims and immigrant communities from moral concern. Donald Trump has mocked the very idea that the descendants of immigrants from Muslim countries have any right to participate in civic life. (“She’s telling us how to run our country,” he once said of Ilhan Omar. “How did you do where you came from? How’s your country doing? She’s going to tell us — she’s telling us how to run our country.”) He has more recently promised to exclude immigrants who “don’t like our religion.”
It’s understandable that progressives demand more than denunciations of Islamophobia and hate crimes against Arab Americans. But sadly, the Democrats’ banal affirmation of civic equality for all Americans is not something that can be taken for granted.
However impractical the left’s revolt against Biden may be, it at least has the benefit of genuine conviction. The right’s attacks on Biden’s positions are dishonest and cynical.
The main thrust of right-wing commentary has been to pretend the left is directing the Democratic Party’s policies on Israel and antisemitism rather than denouncing them ineffectually. The conservative Washington Examiner has a cover depicting the Democratic donkey in a casket, carried to its grave by a Hamas terrorists, a member of antifa, a Democratic Socialist, and other radicals. The Free Press has published a series of articles giddily depicting progressive Jews moving rightward in reaction to the left’s defenses of Hamas. National Review is likewise using antisemitism as a recruitment tool for the Republican Party.
It is obviously not only fair but necessary for progressives to confront antisemitism on the left. The comparative state of the Republican Party is no reason to excuse antisemitism — being less racist than the right isn’t a high enough standard.
But when it comes to deciding which party to support, the comparative state of the two parties is precisely the issue. And here the conservatives are asserting that somehow the GOP is more free of antisemitism.
“There’s no doubt that there are neo-Nazis and right-wing Jew-haters, who deserve to be ostracized and are, in some cases, truly dangerous,” argues National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry. “But they are marginalized. They don’t have tenured positions at prestigious universities. They aren’t capable of mustering sizable crowds on campuses and in cities across America. They aren’t organizing morally repugnant statements that engender wide-ranging debate in the political mainstream.”
Marginalized? In Florida, a small cell of neo-Nazis has taken to harassing local Jews. Ron DeSantis’s spokesmen suggested they were actually left-wing crisis actors, and then DeSantis himself refused to join other Republicans in denouncing them. As the New York Times reports, DeSantis has maintained an “adamant, ongoing refusal to condemn the public activities of neo-Nazis.” Why? Because Trump has brought Nazis into the Republican coalition, and DeSantis is afraid that renouncing any of his supporters will make him appear weak. Occupying a position where major party leaders won’t renounce you is a good definition of influence.
Marjorie Taylor Greene wrote one post accusing the Rothschild family of starting forest fires with a secret space laser for profit, and another claiming “an unholy alliance of leftists, capitalists, and Zionist supremacists has schemed to promote immigration and miscegenation, with the deliberate aim of breeding us out of existence in our own homelands,” before winning election to Congress and becoming a key ally of the Republican leadership. Nick Fuentes, a charismatic neo-Nazi leader, was invited to an intimate dinner with the former president of the United States and leading candidate for the Republican nomination.
Trump himself has a record of antisemitism that Republicans have persistently ignored. An abridged list includes: “complaining privately that Jews ‘are only in it for themselves’ and ‘stick together’ in an ethnic allegiance that exceeds other loyalties”; repeatedly stating in public that Jews are good with money, naturally loyal to Israel, and own Congress; running national television advertisements blaming “a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class, stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and political entities,” juxtaposed with images of Janet Yellen, George Soros, and Lloyd Blankfein; frequently sharing content generated by white supremacists on his social-media feeds; and of course hosting the notorious antisemites Ye and Fuentes.
Conservatives are arguing that antisemitism on the right is marginal and thus a comparatively minor concern when it has become normalized by the most famous and powerful person in the world.
The Biden administration, supported by the vast majority of elected Democrats, has extended unflinching moral support to Israel and forceful denunciations of antisemitism. That they held to these positions in the face of a revolt on their left flank demonstrates the depth of their commitment.
The right’s response to this is that liberal Jews should defect to the party led by a racist demagogue, whose “America First” movement — the slogan, as well as the ideology, he borrowed from the 1930s movement that openly cozied up to Hitler — has inspired antisemites to join partisan politics after decades of exclusion.
The premise of the right’s conflation between the Democratic Party and its left-wing critics is that the anti-Zionist far left owns the future of liberalism and the party. As Ross Douthat argues, “The leftward ratchet in Democratic politics has been a powerful force, and generational turnover means that progressive activists may get a chance to reshape the party in their own image before long. At which point, where might Zionist Democrats go, if not toward actual conservatism?”
This is a belief both the far left and the right are eager to stoke. It may be true. It may not. The future has yet to be written.
Surely, though, one great determinate of that future is whether voters reward Biden’s support for Jews and Zionism, or whether they punish it. If Biden loses to Trump, the argument from the left that Democrats cannot afford to alienate any element of the progressive base will be vindicated. The reactionaries predicting that the Democratic Party will succumb to illiberalism are seeking to create that very result.
The components of Biden’s response to October 7 and its aftermath may seem banal. It seems almost pathetic to congratulate a president for managing to oppose antisemitism and racism against Muslims. But one of the two party nominees has managed to clear this low bar of basic moral decency, and he is catching hell for doing it. | US Federal Policies |
Some House Republicans are not taking a liking to the conference's closed-door meetings to choose a new chamber speaker, even though that is typically the norm for such discussions.
House GOP Reps. Matt Gaetz of Florida and Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia have chirped on social media about their party's secluded meetings to choose a speaker candidate.
The meetings culminated with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., being chosen by the GOP conference as their standard-bearer in the speaker race after former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's historic ouster.
According to a GOP staffer, the speaker's deliberations are typically conducted behind closed doors for both parties as the House elects the speaker internally from the assembled members — though technically it can be anyone, even if they're not a member.
"Let’s do this on the House floor instead of behind closed doors," Greene tweeted. "Stop dragging it out."
"If Kevin McCarthy had to go 15 rounds then the next Speaker should be able to do the same or more if they have to," Greene continued. "Our job titles are REPRESENTATIVES of the American People. Let’s go."
Gaetz tweeted that he agreed with Greene, saying the House GOP should "do the messy work of governing and leadership selection in front of the people."
"Just like I voted against McCarthy time after time…in public…making my argument, others should have to reveal their thinking and be appropriately judged by their voters," Gaetz said.
"We elected [and] removed McCarthy with total transparency," the Florida congressman said of his motion to vacate, a very public House function. "Let’s replace him in the same manner."
However, even with Gaetz's grandstanding outside the GOP conference meetings, he took part in the internal deliberations, even piggybacking on Texas Rep. Chip Roy's amendment to raise the vote threshold for a House speaker floor vote.
"Take a look at what Gaetz is saying on Twitter as opposed to conference yesterday," a GOP source familiar with the House deliberations told Fox News Digital.
Gaetz reportedly dubbed Roy's proposal as the "Matt Gaetz proposal."
Gaetz responded to the criticism online, tweeting that the "closed door process happened" over his "objection."
"I thought we should have proceeded to an open process the moment McCarthy was removed," Gaetz wrote. "I voted for [House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim] Jordan in that process."
"Jordan lost by 7 votes, endorsed Scalise, offered to nominate Scalise and is whipping votes for Scalise," he added.
The chirping comes as House Republicans continue to deliberate on their conference's choice for speaker.
It is still unclear on when the House GOP will hold the official vote to determine the next speaker to succeed McCarthy.
Scalise was chosen on Wednesday as the GOP's nominee for speaker, defeating House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio. | US Congress |
It’s no exaggeration to say Jon Huntsman Jr. thought Wednesday’s third Republican presidential primary debate was a total waste of time.
“Let’s be honest,” he told me, before he’d even picked up the remote. “None of this matters.”
The 2012 Republican presidential candidate was never a big fan of televised debates to begin with — candidates are overly scripted, too restrained by time and rarely substantive. But in this year’s race, he views the debates as even more of an unnecessary formality: “Tonight, it’s going to be, who will be left standing?” Huntsman said. “Because whoever’s left standing could likely be Trump’s running-mate, before he moves off to prison, or wherever he goes.”
Call him a pessimist, or maybe a realist. Even so, as soon as the cameras panned to the five candidates onstage in Miami, Huntsman couldn’t help but turn up the volume and lean forward.
It’s been over a decade since he was on that stage. On Wednesday night, he watched the debate from his living room in Salt Lake City, alongside his wife Mary Kaye, a group of Deseret News photojournalists, and myself. I told him I wanted his candid responses to what he saw onscreen. He obliged, and then some.
It helped that a significant portion of the night centered on Huntsman’s biggest area of expertise. His 2012 run was sandwiched between stints as U.S. ambassador to Russia and China, the nation’s two largest geopolitical rivals. Thanks to the ongoing wars in Israel and Ukraine, foreign policy was the night’s central issue. With each answer the candidates gave, Huntsman couldn’t resist weighing in — nodding his head, rolling his eyes. During each commercial break, Huntsman filled in the gaps, sharing what they really should’ve said.
Huntsman liked much of what he saw. He told me, going in, that there were only “three people that really matter on that stage”: Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley and Tim Scott.
Haley won the night, he thought — she was strong on Israel, strong on abortion and reasonable on the deficit. Scott “speaks to your heart,” though he got “a little too over-the-top, a little too evangelical” toward the end.
On the others, Huntsman was more harsh. DeSantis looked tired — “like he’s having a colonoscopy live on television.” And he couldn’t seem to make up his mind on Vivek Ramaswamy. The entrepreneur “has an IQ of 150,” the smartest guy to run for president “in a long time.” At moments, he seems “professorial,” Huntsman said, or like a McKinsey consultant; at others, “he’s selling pillows at midnight on television.”
Huntsman didn’t wait long to unleash his critiques. The first question went to DeSantis: Why should you, and not Trump, be the Republican nominee?
DeSantis had barely opened his mouth before Huntsman began calling out all his pre-packaged topics. The elites … “Check.” Gas prices … “Check.” The open border … “Check.”
“He’s preloading his first answer with all of the catchphrases, and pretty soon he’ll be out of stuff to say,” Huntsman said. “It’s totally patronizing.”
When Ramaswamy dove into his first answer, Huntsman seemed to squint his eyes. Ramaswamy attacked the Republican National Committee and the media, calling out one of the moderators by name and calling her “corrupt.”
“He’s going full on populist, as opposed to the other two,” Huntsman said.
When Scott made his first appearance, Huntsman shook his head and turned to me. Scott campaigned with Huntsman in 2012; Huntsman has visited Scott’s church in South Carolina and played in his band. “He’s a genuine human,” Huntsman said, but Scott has been completely unable to gain momentum this cycle, hovering around 2% in national polls. “If Trump were not in, I think he’d be doing a lot better,” Huntsman said.
As the debate progressed, Huntsman noted the candidates forging clear brands for themselves: DeSantis, the problem-solving governor, who would cite his own successes in Florida in each answer; Ramaswamy, the populist revolutionary, who could crack jokes about DeSantis’ high-heels because “he’s in single digits and has nothing to lose”; Chris Christie, the respectful statesman, probably recognizing this is his final debate and wanting to “leave on a high note.”
The debate became more personal to Huntsman when it turned to Israel. Huntsman announced last month that his family’s foundation would “close its checkbook” to the University of Pennsylvania, his and his father’s alma mater, after the school’s “silence” following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel.
In the aftermath of the attack, Jewish students at Penn and other elite universities became targets of antisemitism. The moderators shared a question from Matthew Brooks, president of the Republican Jewish Coalition, who asked about the “dramatic rise of antisemitism” on college campuses. “What do you say to university presidents who have not met the moral clarity moment to not forcefully condemn Hamas terrorism?”
Huntsman rose his fist, in apparent celebration. “This is the most important topic of the night,” he said.
Ramaswamy chided the anti-Israel college protesters. Scott promised to cancel student visas for international students who participate in such protests. “This is a bit over-the-top,” Huntsman said. “It sounds fine to the ear, but in actual practice, it’s an impossibility.”
“The hard part is differentiating rhetoric — throw-away lines — from useful ideas that are actually implementable,” he continued. “And the ratio is about 90 to 10: 90% throw-away lines, and 10% things that you can actually work with.”
Then came Haley — calm, collected, firm. “The country is out of sorts,” she said.
“If the KKK were doing this, every college president would be up in arms,” she continued. “This is no different. You should be treating it exactly the same. Antisemitism is just as awful as racism.”
“That may have won her the night,” Huntsman said. “And it very well may win her the No. 2 slot (behind Trump).”
When the debate transitioned to Ukraine, Huntsman perked up. He was the ambassador to Russia from 2017 to 2019, performing the thankless job of negotiating relations between the Trump administration and a nation some have called America’s No. 1 geopolitical threat. When Scott danced around a question about further aid to Ukraine, choosing to hit Joe Biden for a lack of accountability, Huntsman slammed Scott for his “non-answer.”
“That could have been a home run,” he said.
As Ramaswamy and DeSantis doubled down on their isolationist foreign policy, saying the U.S. should cut its aid to Ukraine, Huntsman shook his head.
“You’ve got half the stage that is basically saying we should not commit to Ukraine, which is a real transition in Republican orthodoxy,” Huntsman said.
I asked Huntsman which candidate on stage would scare Vladimir Putin the most. “Well, Putin — similar to Xi Jinping — has already determined that we’re in terminal decline,” he said. “So it doesn’t matter who’s president; the United States is done, based on our financial imbalances and social divisions, is how he would see it.”
When Haley said the U.S. “needs to modernize our military,” Huntsman smiled. “I could agree with that!” he said. But then DeSantis began hammering Haley for China’s economic development in her state. “This is just nonsense. This is a complete waste of people’s time,” Huntsman groaned.
When Scott was asked what he would do to deter China from invading Taiwan, Huntsman again leaned in. “Now we’re going a level deeper.” Then Scott’s answer floated to the Middle East, and Huntsman again sighed. “He’s backing off the specifics, instead of describing what types of defense programs we need on the high seas,” he said. “What kind of weapon systems ought we to be investing in? What are the implications for Taiwan?”
“He may not know,” Mary Kaye responded.
“Well, he’s in the Senate,” Huntsman said. “He absolutely should know.” Huntsman seems to have a lukewarm perspective on the Senate; when I asked if he’d consider running for Sen. Mitt Romney’s seat next year, he balked. “What can you get done as a junior senator?” he asked. “You’re one of a hundred. I mean, what has Romney done, beside his rhetorical attacks on Trump?”
Ramaswamy began rhapsodizing on the supply chain entanglements that put the U.S. military in China’s pocket — the reliance on China for parts and supplies. “These are actually very salient points, you know, what it takes to build a plane or ship,” Huntsman said. But by the time Huntsman finished his thought, Ramaswamy was promising to ban U.S. businesses from expanding into China. “OK, these are throwaway lines,” Huntsman said. “It’s a free market.”
I asked if any of the candidates understood China. Huntsman hesitated, thinking. “I doubt, with the exception of maybe one or two, they’ve even been there,” he said.
Later, when Ramaswamy attacked Haley’s daughter for using TikTok, Haley snapped back, “Keep my daughter’s name out of your voice.”
Hunstman smiled. “She may win this one for that reason alone,” he said. “You don’t bring families into it.”
When the conversation returned to DeSantis, Huntsman feigned surprise. “Oh! I forgot DeSantis was there!” he said. “Ron DeSantis has got to acquire a smile, at some point.”
“His demeanor looks defeated,” Mary Kaye said. “He looks kind of depressed, like the balloon has popped.”
“He really comes across as an overly scripted, overly coached candidate,” Huntsman said.
“I think that’s one of the things people like about Trump,” Mary Kaye said — that there’s no veneer, no script. “Absolutely,” Huntsman said.
By the time the candidates made their closing statements, Huntsman had seen enough. Haley’s was “inspirational.” Scott’s was “a little too over-the-top.” Ramaswamy’s was “horrible — a total wasted opportunity to inspire people.” Christie looked “beaten down,” with “nothing to lose” — but it seemed to bring out the best of him. DeSantis did one thing the other candidates seemed to forget: ask people to vote for him.
Huntsman was convinced Haley won, followed by Scott and DeSantis. Ramaswamy is “absolutely brilliant,” he said, but translating that to being “believable and comprehensible” is a “challenge.”
I asked if he thought any of these candidates had a chance of winning the nomination. “No,” he said. “Tonight is completely inconsequential,” aside from a competition for a potential vice president spot.
If he were choosing a vice president, then, who would he select? He thought for a moment. “I think Nikki Haley is showing some moxie,” he said.
“If I just had to choose one of them in the field, who I would trust most — just based on instinct and experience — I think she’d probably rise to the top pretty fast.” | US Federal Elections |
Sen. Ted Cruz took to Twitter on Thursday to express support for Sen. John Fetterman after he checked himself into the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to receive treatment for clinical depression.
Cruz, R-Texas, he and his wife Heidi would be praying for Fetterman, D-Penn., and urged people to put their politics aside to do the same.
"Heidi & I are lifting John up in prayer. Mental illness is real & serious, and I hope that he gets the care he needs," said Cruz.
He added: "Regardless of which side of the political aisle you’re on, please respect his family’s request for privacy."
Earlier on Thursday, Fetterman’s Chief of Staff Adam Jentleson said the senator had "experienced depression throughout his life" but that it became worse "in recent weeks."
"Last night, Senator John Fetterman checked himself into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center to receive treatment for clinical depression. While John has experienced depression off and on throughout his life, it only became severe in recent weeks," Jentleson said in a press release.
"On Monday, John was evaluated by Dr. Brian P. Monahan, the Attending Physician of the United States Congress. Yesterday, Dr. Monahan recommended inpatient care at Walter Reed. John agreed, and he is receiving treatment on a voluntary basis," he added.
The statement continued: "After examining John, the doctors at Walter Reed told us that John is getting the care he needs, and will soon be back to himself."
Fetterman’s wife Gisele Barreto Fetterman, also took to Twitter Thursday, saying she was "so proud" of her husband.
"After what he’s been through in the past year, there’s probably no one who wanted to talk about his own health less than John. I’m so proud of him for asking for help and getting the care he needs," she wrote in a post, sharing the chief of staff’s statement.
She added: "This is a difficult time for our family, so please respect our privacy. For us, the kids come first. Take care of yourselves. Hold your loved ones close, you are not alone."
Several lawmakers and others found a rare sense of unity online in expressing support for Fetterman.
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., said Fetterman was "showing his strength" in seeking help.
FETTERMAN RETURNS TO SENATE AFTER DAYS IN HOSPITAL, CASTS VOTE ON SENATE FLOOR AMID ONGOING HEALTH ISSUES
She wrote, "Seeking help is not an easy thing to do, let alone sharing it. In doing both, Senator Fetterman is showing his strength & helping break down the stigma of getting mental health treatment."
"I'm sending my thoughts to him & his family, & commend John on getting the care he needs," Murray added.
Rep. Ritchie Thomas, D-NY, said he admired Fetterman and that he had many supporters "rooting" for him.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., tweeted: "John Fetterman has always been 100% true to himself and he has always been a fighter."
She added: "Seeing him take the time and get the care he needs will help so many others who are battling depression."
FETTERMAN HEARS VOICES LIKE THE TEACHERS IN ‘PEANUTS’ AFTER STROKE, STRUGGLES TO ADJUST TO SENATE LIFE: REPORT
Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., also expressed support.
"Thinking about Senator Fetterman today. Glad he is getting the support he needs at Walter Reed. Proud he is being open about his struggle with depression and hoping it encourages others to seek help who need it," Schiff wrote.
He added: "Stay strong, John. We are with you."
Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Ill., commended Fetterman’s "brave example" and encouraged people to "end the stigma" of asking for mental health.
"Sending healing thoughts to Sen. Fetterman. He is setting an incredibly brave example by talking about his mental health. We need to end the stigma and talk openly about issues like depression, anxiety, and other mental health challenges," he wrote.
Sen. Bob Casey, D-Penn., wrote: "Millions of Americans struggle with their mental health. I am proud of Fetterman for getting the help he needs and for publicly acknowledging his challenges to break down the stigma for others. Terese and I are sending our prayers to John, Gisele, and the Fetterman family."
Fetterman suffered a stroke during his senatorial campaign and his Republican opponent Dr. Mehmet Oz repeatedly made his health a focus of the race, arguing the Democrat was subsequently unfit for office. Some Republicans have used Fetterman's latest episode to further smear his health. | US Congress |
After Dr. Sarah Williams lost her husband Clarence to lung cancer in 2015, her grief was soon accompanied by financial worries about providing for their 9-year-old twins.
Affording basics like school supplies and field trips strained Williams' part-time professor salary in North Carolina for more than a year. Eventually she discovered her twins were eligible for federal survivor payments from the Social Security Administration (SSA) for children who lose a parent. Both children soon started receiving payments of hundreds of dollars a month, helping to alleviate the financial burden that came with their father's death.
But many Black children who lose a parent never see benefits like those that helped Williams' family, a problem that has drawn the attention of advocates and lawmakers who say the SSA should be doing more to close the racial gap that exists among children who receive benefits and those who don't.
"The numbers are startling"
Every employee in the U.S. pays Social Security taxes, and individuals who have worked long enough become eligible for monthly benefits when they retire or become disabled. When they die, their surviving family members might also qualify to receive benefits. Whether a child under 18 is eligible depends on several factors, but those who do qualify typically get 75% of the benefit the deceased parent was entitled to receive. Last year, surviving children who qualified for benefits got an average of $957.05 a month.
There are approximately 10.1 million Black children nationwide, and Census data reveals an alarming 9.6% of them, or about 975,000, had lost at least one parent as of 2021. That figure has doubled in the past decade, with a sharp increase due to the COVID-19 pandemic. One study found that Black children lost caregivers at twice the rate of White children from April 2020 until the end of 2022.
Recent Social Security data shows that only about 26% of Black children who have lost a parent — 257,533 — are receiving survivor benefits, according to the analysis by David Weaver, a former Social Security Administration executive and researcher. The comparable percentage for non-Black children is 46%. Roughly 30,000 fewer Black children are receiving survivor benefits than in 2009, the last time the data was broken down by race.
Weaver's findings raise questions about why the remaining roughly 717,000 Black children who have lost a parent are not receiving survivor payments, and what can be done to increase their access to benefits they might be entitled to.
"I think the numbers are startling," Weaver told CBS News. "Social Security is supposed to be a social insurance program, so its benefits are supposed to be broadly distributed."
This gap in eligibility for Black children obtaining survivor benefits has been the subject of little public discussion by SSA, likely in part because data detailing the racial breakdown of beneficiaries has been incomplete for decades. But other research has identified racial eligibility gaps in different parts of Social Security, including one study that found Black men are less likely to be insured for disability benefits. Weaver said lawmakers could make changes to the eligibility requirements for survivor benefits that could address these issues.
For those who are eligible, a lack of awareness that Social Security offers payments for family survivors — and not only retirees — is often cited as the primary impediment to connecting children with the benefits they're owed. The surviving parent or caregiver is responsible for claiming the benefits on the child's behalf, and many are unaware that the benefit exists.
"Families may not even know they are eligible," said Joyal Mulheron, a bereavement policy expert. "When you experience the death of a loved one, it's not simply being sad. It can throw the stability of a family into chaos."
Regular communication from the government regarding survivor benefits has also been curtailed over the past decade.
Before 2011, all workers over 25 received a statement in the mail every year that detailed benefits options in case of an unexpected death. Statements are now only mailed to workers before their 60th birthday. Instead, the SSA encourages workers to sign up for an online account to track what benefits they might be entitled to.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress has pushed to reverse the change in recent years and mandate that Social Security restart mailing benefit statements to all American workers older than 25, which would include information on survivor benefits.
Even if a grieving family is aware of the benefits, the application process can be complicated and difficult to navigate. Martha Shedden, president of the National Association of Registered Social Security Analysts, noted that there is no option to apply for survivor benefits online. Instead, family members must apply in-person or over the phone, which have backlogs that built up after offices shut down and staff left during the pandemic.
"Survivor benefits are the most-under collected of all of the benefits because I think many people may not know that they are eligible for them," Shedden said. "The other problem is you can't apply with an online application. You must either call or go into an office. The biggest issue about Social Security is that people do not realize how much money is at stake. The claiming decision is very confusing and complicated and they don't know who to turn to for help."
Shedden cautioned that the longer a grieving family waits to file for benefits, the more money the children will miss out on, since retroactive payments only go back six months.
"A silent problem"
Some experts pointed out that many children enter the care of extended relatives who may be unfamiliar with the deceased parent's working history or unaware that they can apply for the child's benefits. Others are placed in dysfunctional foster care systems, where Black children are disproportionately overrepresented.
Patrice Willoughby, the senior vice president for global policy and impact at the NAACP, told CBS News that the Social Security Administration needs to do a better job of identifying family caregivers or foster systems taking care of Black children who have lost a parent.
"While the problem itself is urgent, because we cannot allow for children to fall through the cracks, it is a silent problem because there is not an advocacy component associated with the needs of Black children holistically," Willoughby said.
Currently there is no nationwide system to identify children who have lost a parent or caregiver, said Catherine Jaynes, president of the Children's Collaborative for Healing and Support. The group is working with states to improve data collection practices, including by specifying on death records when the deceased person leaves behind a child, as is currently done in Brazil.
Jaynes also said states could compare parental death records with the names on childrens' birth certificates to flag when a child loses a parent. No state currently matches records.
Asked about the disparity for survivor benefits for Black children, an SSA spokesperson said the agency is "committed to equitable access" but acknowledged there are "many reasons" why a child may not receive a survivor benefit, noting that some are ineligible due to a parent's short work history. The spokesperson said the administration does not have "readily available" statistics on how many Black children are denied benefits but said there are efforts to improve race and ethnicity data to examine the program.
To try to improve awareness about the survivor benefits, the SSA spokesperson said they've conducted "hundreds" of outreach activities since 2021 that serve the African American community.
But some lawmakers say the agency's efforts are insufficient. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, who chairs the subcommittee overseeing Social Security, believes SSA has to do more to reach children, especially children of color, a spokesperson said.
Brown and other Senate Democrats have asked President Biden to appoint a "beneficiary advocate" to champion the program's beneficiaries inside the agency and address user frustrations, similar to the Internal Revenue Service's taxpayer advocate.
Still, the issue has not received the kind of attention on Capitol Hill that's needed to close the gap, experts said. "Congress has not done enough to help these young survivors get the benefits they need," said Weaver, the analyst.
As for Williams, her twins will soon age out of the survivor benefits program when they turn 18. She hopes Mr. Biden, who became a young widower himself after his first wifein a car crash, will continue to look out for families like hers and the widowed moms of Black Women Widows Empowered, the bereavement support group she now runs.
"Widows are finding us, sometimes within days of their loss or first year of their loss. I would hate to see widows go a year or two without the needed support and help," Williams said.
for more features. | US Federal Policies |
More legal issues continue to plague Harris County Judge Lina Hidalgo as a criminal complaint has been filed and referred to the Texas Rangers for investigation just a day after meeting with Vice President Kamala Harris.
The complaint stems from a press conference Hidalgo held earlier this month on November 10, the day after news broke that the Texas Rangers would be executing search warrants in relation to an $11 million COVID-19 vaccine outreach contract the county awarded to a highly connected Democratic strategist in 2021.
Hidalgo’s comments were made on county property and livestreamed on the Office of the County Judge’s official social media accounts.
During the event, Hidalgo accused District Attorney Kim Ogg of leaking the new warrants to the media, although they had already been posted to the district clerk’s website and were available to the public.
Under Texas Election Code, using an elected office to engage in political advertising is a Class A misdemeanor, and under the Penal Code, misuse of government property, services, or personnel constitutes an Abuse of Official Capacity, which could be classified as a misdemeanor or state jail felony depending on the value of the thing misused.
Three of Hidalgo’s former staffers were indicted on felony charges in relation to the COVID-19 vaccine outreach contract last year, but the county judge is now under review for her alleged participation in the bid-rigging scheme that sidelined the University of Texas Health Science Center in favor of Elevate Strategies.
Following the press conference, which was removed from the county's social media pages, attorney Mark McCaig filed a civil complaint with the Texas Ethics Commission and a criminal complaint with Harris County Constable Precinct 4.
In late July, Hidalgo took a leave of absence while hospitalized for depression, but she returned to office in early October.
On Monday, Hidalgo welcomed Vice President Kamala Harris to Houston for an event sponsored by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Hildalgo made a post on X Monday, sharing her thanks to Harris and President Biden for the support of the Latino community.
"Excited to join forces with VP Harris in Harris County discussing the Biden-Harris administration’s support of the Latino community. The $1 billion received in ARP investments serves all our communities in entrepreneurship, childhood education, healthcare access and more," Hidalgo said.
The County Judge’s office has not immediately been available for comment on the new investigation. | US Political Corruption |
OPINION:
The current president of the United States represents everything that’s wrong with big government, an understanding of which could be the most important legacy of the dismal Biden years.
Under President Biden, our government continues to mutate. What started as a republic of limited powers based on the consent of the governed has become a bruising behemoth — intrusive, arrogant, incompetent and larcenous — much like the president himself.
The model of a career politician, Mr. Biden came to Washington at the tender age of 30 and stayed for what seems an eternity — 36 years in the Senate, eight as vice president and now, if he serves out his current term of office, four years as president.
That’s half a century in the cozy bosom of government. Instead of Lunch Bucket Joe, it should be Lunch at the Ritz Joe.
If there’s an original bone in his body, you’d need microsurgery to find it.
At any point in his long and undistinguished career, he professed to believe whatever his party believed, no matter how absurd.
He started as a traditional tax-and-spend liberal, then veered hard left when his party went “woke.”
Besides becoming the biggest spender in our history, he’s embraced the sexual revolution with a fervor usually reserved for a religious creed — abortion without limits, LGBTQ privileges and transgenderism.
He’s gone so far as to call bans on the genital mutilation of minors “cruel” and “callous.” A spokesman for the Defense Department says the military has a “sacred duty” to help servicewomen obtain abortions — “sacred” per the Church of Satan.
On the so-called green agenda, he looks like Greta Thunberg with cognitive decline. The party that says government has no business in your bedroom wants to take over your kitchen. New York state will ban gas stoves in new homes and buildings by 2026.
This president wants to pull the plug on domestic energy production, drive us to electric cars, take away our guns, stifle speech, spy on Americans and indoctrinate our children.
The only places where Mr. Biden isn’t interested in control are at the border and on the streets of our cities.
The Democratic Party and its leader have become the champions of illegal aliens, fentanyl smugglers, shoplifters and homeless crazies who punch old ladies in the face at subway stops.
He has presided over record deficits, soaring prices for food and energy and subsidies for almost everything.
In a desperate bid for votes, he keeps trying to forgive student loan debt, even though the Supreme Court has told him he doesn’t have the authority. He attacks the high court, a co-equal branch of government, as “out of control” and “not normal.”
Starting on the campaign trail, when he called a questioner a “horse’s ass,” and up to recent reports that he screams at his staff, Mr. Biden has exhibited arrogance worthy of an Asian potentate.
In his book “The Road to Serfdom,” free market economist and Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek had a chapter titled “Why the Worst Get on Top.”
The worst are those who love power and are the most ruthless in its acquisition and exercise. This president has turned the Justice Department, IRS and FBI into his Praetorian Guard, at all times prepared to draw the sword against his enemies.
He’s also refined the art of influence peddling. By comparison, he makes Boss Tweed look like an advocate of good government. Even Al Capone didn’t use his own son as his bagman.
If the allegations are true, the president and his family raked in millions by selling access and influence. This includes money from regimes that are the sworn enemies of the nation he is alleged to lead.
Big government or the welfare state is a thing of ugliness: legalized theft, coercion, turning citizens into subjects, and attacks on the individual, the family and society in the name of equity and inclusion. All have reached their apex under Joseph Robinette Biden.
Perhaps his tenure will cause a reassessment of what’s taken us from a shining city on a hill to a suffocating swamp.
When I was a kid, one brand of bubble gum came with comic cards. One had a glum-looking man with leg irons, sitting in a jail cell, with the caption: “Cheer up! You can always serve as bad example.”
Even Mr. Biden has a purpose in life.
• Don Feder is a columnist with The Washington Times.
Copyright © 2023 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Click to Read More and View Comments
Click to Hide | US Federal Policies |
WASHINGTON — Special counsel Jack Smith on Friday asked a federal judge to bar former President Donald Trump from publicly discussing the testimony and credibility of potential witnesses or the evidence in his federal election interference trial in D.C.
The request came in the form of a motion that laid out many of Trump's most aggressive social media posts in recent months, in which he has taken aim at likely witnesses, including former Vice President Mike Pence, the judge presiding over the case and the U.S. attorneys prosecuting him.
"The defendant knows that when he publicly attacks individuals and institutions, he inspires others to perpetrate threats and harassment against his targets," prosecutors wrote.
Since he was indicted, they wrote, Trump has "spread disparaging and inflammatory public posts on Truth Social on a near-daily basis regarding the citizens of the District of Columbia, the Court, prosecutors, and prospective witnesses."
The only solution, the special counsel argued, was for U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan to issue an order holding Trump to the same standards to which his lawyers were being held.
Under their proposed fix, Trump would be prohibited from making public statements about "'the identity, testimony, or credibility of prospective witnesses' and the 'merits of the case or the evidence in the case.'"
Smith argued that this would amount to a "narrow, well-defined restriction."
But if Trump's past statements are any indication, such a ruling could effectively render a wide range of statements Trump has regularly made about the case in violation of the order.
This is breaking news. Please check back for updates. | US Federal Elections |
An unnamed CIA whistleblower has made the dramatic allegation that half a dozen analysts there were bribed to reject the theory that COVID-19 resulted from a research-related leak of a new coronavirus, according to a press release today from the office of the Republican leading a congressional investigation into the pandemic. The allegation was strongly rejected in a CIA statement released hours later. Science.org: A majority of U.S. intelligence agencies has so far concluded that the COVID-19 pandemic mostly likely started when SARS-CoV-2 jumped from an infected animal host into people; a wildlife market in Wuhan, China, has received intense attention from researchers as the potential source. But the Department of Energy and FBI so far have favored the so-called lab-leak hypothesis, even though none of the agencies has expressed high confidence in their conclusions on COVID-19's origin. CIA, for example, had reportedly said it was "unable to determine" whether SARS-CoV-2 made a direct jump from animals to humans -- or came from a lab.
Now, Representative Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), who chairs the House of Representatives's Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, says his panel and the House's Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have heard testimony from a whistleblower "who presents as a highly credible senior-level CIA officer." According to the press release, the whistleblower testified that only the most senior analyst of a seven-member CIA team investigating the origin of COVID-19 supported the zoonotic transmission theory. The whistleblower alleged the other six team members supporting the lab origin then received "a significant monetary incentive to change their position," wrote Wenstrup and Representative Mike Turner (R-OH), who chairs the intelligence panel.
In response to emailed questions from Science, CIA Director of Public Affairs Tammy Kupperman Thorp challenged the whistleblower's account: "At CIA we are committed to the highest standards of analytic rigor, integrity, and objectivity. We do not pay analysts to reach specific conclusions. We take these allegations extremely seriously and are looking into them. We will keep our Congressional oversight committees appropriately informed," she wrote in the agency's statement.
Now, Representative Brad Wenstrup (R-OH), who chairs the House of Representatives's Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, says his panel and the House's Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence have heard testimony from a whistleblower "who presents as a highly credible senior-level CIA officer." According to the press release, the whistleblower testified that only the most senior analyst of a seven-member CIA team investigating the origin of COVID-19 supported the zoonotic transmission theory. The whistleblower alleged the other six team members supporting the lab origin then received "a significant monetary incentive to change their position," wrote Wenstrup and Representative Mike Turner (R-OH), who chairs the intelligence panel.
In response to emailed questions from Science, CIA Director of Public Affairs Tammy Kupperman Thorp challenged the whistleblower's account: "At CIA we are committed to the highest standards of analytic rigor, integrity, and objectivity. We do not pay analysts to reach specific conclusions. We take these allegations extremely seriously and are looking into them. We will keep our Congressional oversight committees appropriately informed," she wrote in the agency's statement. | US Congress |
- Republicans proposed giving Israel $14 billion, attached to $14 billion in IRS funding cuts.
- The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the proposal would cut revenue by $26 billion.
- Senate Democrats and the White House said they would reject the bill.
Republicans want to give Israel $14.3 billion — but only if they can cut the same amount from the IRS.
One of the new Speaker of the House Mike Johnson's first actions was proposing a bill to fund Israel as it continues its war against Palestinian militant group Hamas. While Senate Democrats, and President Joe Biden, requested emergency funding for the country without any conditions attached, Johnson did not oblige — he attached $14 billion in funding cuts for the Internal Revenue Service.
According to a new report from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, that proposal to cut IRS enforcement would result in $26 billion in lost revenue.
"House Republicans' legislation would increase the deficit by helping wealthy individuals and corporations cheat on their taxes, increasing the tax burden on honest, hardworking families who pay their taxes with every paycheck," Treasury spokesperson Ashley Schapitl said in a statement to Insider.
In an interview with the Washington Post, IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel said that Republicans' plan "would actually cost taxpayers $90 billion — that's with a 'B,'" over the course of the Inflation Reduction Act.
This isn't the first time that Republicans have attempted to claw back some of the $80 billion that Biden's tax and healthcare economic package allocated to the IRS. Under former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, the GOP proposed legislation that would completely rescind that IRS funding; the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that that legislation would add a net $114 billion to the budget.
While Republicans were successful in clawing back $21 billion through legislation to raise the debt ceiling, the IRS has started putting the rest towards cracking down on ultra wealthy taxpayers who aren't paying their fair share. The agency recently said it squeezed $122 million more in owed taxes from just 100 millionaires — which came after it collected $38 million from 175 other high-earners. Currently, the agency is contacting 1,500 more millionaires that owe over $250,000.
"Thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act, the IRS has already recovered $160 million from 275 individuals who make more than $1 million a year and have $250,000 in recognized tax debt, without increasing audits on those earning less than $400,000 a year," Schapitl said. "This legislation would put a stop to these efforts, allowing wealthy individuals and large corporations to continue to get away with not paying their fair share."
The bill was essentially dead on arrival in both the Senate and White House. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer wrote on X, formerly Twitter, on Tuesday that "the House GOP bill has the hard right's fingerprints all over it: It makes aid for Israel contingent on poison pills that reward ultra-wealthy tax cheats. It's insulting that the hard right is openly trying to exploit the crisis in Israel to try and reward the ultra-rich."
The Office of Management and Budget also said in a Tuesday statement that if the bill makes it to Biden's desk, he would veto it.
"Congress has consistently worked in a bipartisan manner to provide security assistance to Israel, and this bill threatens to unnecessarily undermine that longstanding approach," the OMB said. "Bifurcating Israel security assistance from the other priorities in the national security supplemental will have global consequences."
Republicans will likely have to propose a cleaner bill in order to get aid to Israel as soon as possible. Still, it likely will not be without any spending cuts — Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said on Tuesday that he is in "conceptually the same place" as Schumer when it comes to sending aid to both Israel and Ukraine, but Democrats would likely have to accept stronger border provisions in any eventual legislation. | US Federal Policies |
Trump drops suit against former lawyer Michael Cohen
The former president, facing a scheduling conflict with a campaign rally, ended his case seeking $500 million from the attorney who turned on him.
Former President Donald Trump late on Thursday abruptly dropped a lawsuit against his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen as a conflict loomed between the litigation and Trump’s campaign to win back the White House.
A federal magistrate judge had ordered Trump to sit for a deposition in the case starting Monday morning in New York. Earlier this week, however, the former president scheduled a campaign rally in New Hampshire for Monday at noon.
Trump had already delayed the deposition twice, and his lawyers had tried to have it scheduled for Sunday. But at a hearing last week, the judge declined to grant that date and insisted on Monday.
Trump aides and lawyers rebuffed questions about the conflicting demands over the past couple of days, but in a court filing around 8 p.m. on Thursday, a Florida-based attorney for Trump, Alejandro Brito, announced that his client was dropping the case.
The one-line filing offered no explanation but said the termination of the suit was “without prejudice,” meaning it could be refiled.
Trump filed the suit in April in federal court in South Florida, alleging that Cohen breached attorney-client privilege and a confidentiality agreement by making public allegations about Trump. | US Political Corruption |
FBI seizes electronic devices of NYC Mayor Eric Adams
Mayor Eric Adams denies any wrongdoing.
The FBI seized the electronic devices of New York City Mayor Eric Adams as part of a federal investigation that previously brought the FBI to the home of his top fundraiser, a source familiar with the matter told ABC News.
The FBI declined to comment to ABC News.
The mayor's office confirmed that the seizure took place on Monday. The mayor has denied any wrongdoing.
"As a former member of law enforcement, I expect all members of my staff to follow the law and fully cooperate with any sort of investigation—and I will continue to do exactly that. I have nothing to hide," Adams said in a statement.
Federal prosecutors with the Southern District of New York declined to comment.
The FBI previously searched the home of Brianna Suggs, Adams’ main fundraiser. The investigation seeks to determine whether the mayor’s campaign receives illegal foreign donations from Turkey with a Brooklyn construction company as a conduit sources told ABC News.
Boyd Johnson, a campaign attorney for Adams, said that it was discovered an individual recently acted improperly and they acted on that information.
"In the spirit of transparency and cooperation, this behavior was immediately and proactively reported to investigators. The Mayor has been and remains committed to cooperating in this matter. On Monday night, the FBI approached the mayor after an event. The Mayor immediately complied with the FBI's request and provided them with electronic devices. The mayor has not been accused of any wrongdoing and continues to cooperate with the investigation," Johnson said in a statement.
Investigators came to Adams after an event Monday evening to ask for all devices he had on his person, including an iPad and a phone, a source familiar with the matter told ABC News.
Later, the mayor's office turned over more devices.
Most of the devices have been returned, according to the source.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. | US Political Corruption |
Discover more from The Bulwark
Trump Rallies are Tutorials in Hate, Vulgarity, and Disrespect
Children are absorbing terrifying lessons that will haunt us for generations.
“MOM, I DON’T THINK YOU SHOULD SEE THIS. You should leave the room.”
That was my younger son, age 7 or 8, purportedly trying to “protect” me years ago from a risqué music video on MTV.
We were relatively permissive parents. The boys watched MTV and The Simpsons from an early age—so many episodes of the latter so many times each that even now, in their thirties, both of them can spout the perfect bit of dialogue to fit any occasion, no matter how surreal. I see now they were right—that show was hilariously and cuttingly on the nose about everything.
I thought of all this while reading a Washington Post account of a Donald Trump rally in Iowa. I thought I knew what these rallies were like: I watched one start to finish back in 2016 and since then I’ve read many verbatim transcripts of Trump rallies and speeches. And I thought I knew Iowa and its unique political culture: I spent much of the 1990s and 2000s covering its liberal peaceniks, conservative Christians, caucuses and straw polls. I figured that, like many journalists and Americans in general, I was shockproof after eight years of Trump, though I’ve tried hard to avoid becoming numb or bored or exhausted.
Hannah Knowles has proved I am not shockproof. Her Post story about Trump’s rally in Fort Dodge on Saturday is, in fact, a continuing series of new shocks. That’s because her focus is not only on Trump but on the people who came to see him, and their children. Brace yourself:
Children wandered around in shirts and hats with the letters “FJB,” an abbreviation for an obscene jab at President Biden that other merchandise spelled out: “Fuck Biden.” . . .
One of Trump’s introductory speakers from the Iowa state legislature declared anyone who kneels for the national anthem is a “disrespectful little shit,” quickly drawing a roaring response. And outside the packed venue, vulgar slogans about Biden and Vice President Harris were splashed across T-shirts: “Biden Loves Minors.” “Joe and the Ho Gotta Go!” One referred to Biden and Harris performing sexual acts.
Some t-shirts for sale showed “images of Trump giving a middle finger.” One supporter Knowles quoted by name, Lori Carpenter, said Biden has to go “and the ho shouldn’t have been there in the first place.” The “ho” was Harris, Knowles said the woman clarified “before offering another nickname for Harris that was even more vulgar.”
Support our independent, clear-eyed coverage of the road to 2024 by signing up for a free or paid subscription:
Others made excuses for Trump. “He’s admitted that he’s no holy man. And neither is anybody else,” Matthew Stringer told Knowles. Marsha Crouthamel said Trump needed to “excite” people and she didn’t care because “his policies are strong.” Carpenter, who called Kamala Harris a “ho,” called herself a Christian who could “look past” Trump’s flaws.
The once and aspiring president was his tiresome shock-jock self. According to a transcript that says his often incoherent rant clocked in at a mere 1 hour, 15 minutes—it felt interminable—he called Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis “DeSanctus” six times, “DeSanctimonious” six times, and “son of a bitch” once, and in a likely embellished telling, said DeSantis had begged for Trump’s gubernatorial primary endorsement in 2018 with “tears in his eyes.”
Trump used the word “birdbrain” four times to describe his United Nations ambassador, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley. He was even more juvenile in his attacks on Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Cal.), the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial. He called him “Adam ‘Shifty’ Schiff” twice and compared his neck to a pencil three times. “How does he hold up that fat ugly face?” he asked as the crowd roared.
Last but not least, Trump unloaded on Joe Biden in a series of attacks that elevated projection to a high art. The four-times-indicted, twice-impeached ex-president described Biden as incompetent, the worst president ever, and—twenty times!—crooked or a crook. He also called him “a Manchurian candidate” owned by China, and had (as usual) high praise for Chinese leader Xi Jinping. “He happens to be a very smart person,” Trump said of Xi. “These are very smart people, but they’re dealing with very stupid people, our leader. Our leader is a stupid person.”
THIS WAS ALL HAPPENING in a high school gym. I repeat, a high school gym. Where teenagers hang out. In a building where they are supposed to be learning how to be good citizens and constructive members of society. Instead, we have this: Trump said he used to hold back on Biden out of respect for the presidency, “but now you can say it.”
That’s because of him. Trump has, for his followers, made it okay to say anything, whether it’s praising Nazis and dictators or attacking U.S. troops and military heroes. He’s also made it okay to do anything, including to beat up police defending the U.S. Capitol, smash windows to get in, smear feces on the Capitol walls, and go after elected officials in the Senate chamber—forcing people to cower on the floor or flee for their lives.
Most of us already know we’re in trouble, that Trump is the worst role model in the history of American politics. He’s pushed the boundaries so far that I look back on past political analyses I myself have written and don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Howard Dean, a medical doctor and 12-year governor of Vermont, has a bad temper? Calls opponents “boneheads”? Comes across as angry and edgy? Lacks the “tact” needed for international diplomacy?
Hahahahaha.
Maybe because of numbness and exhaustion among the reporters who have been covering Trump, local stories about his rally were deadpan. One summarized Trump’s attacks as “digs.” Page 1 of Monday’s Washington Post print edition highlighted a feature from Door County, Wisconsin, headlined “In this bellwether, sick of politics.” The lead anecdote was about a woman who didn’t trust the government or the news and didn’t know whom to trust. So she consulted a psychic.
Yes, really. That was the lead photo, her with the psychic. And the Knowles story, as important as it was, showed up on page 3 under the headline, “Trump’s backers are emulating his crassness and cruelty.” Accurate, but no headline alone could convey the obscenities and level of contempt on graphic display in Knowles’s piece. Or the participation of the children.
My own take in 2016 was hypothetical but frightening: A nation of Trumps would be a nation of bullies. It’s actually turned out much worse. Our reality now is the Trump-inspired violence of January 6th and ongoing threats and violence against elected officials in both parties any time they demonstrate independence from Trump and his hardcore MAGA movement.
On Saturday in Fort Dodge, Trump called America “Joe Biden’s banana republic” and said he would “bring it back from hell because right now we’re in hell.” This from a loser who tried to stay in power after his defeat, incited a failed coup toward that end, and is now facing two criminal indictments over his plot. This from a man deemed by the Economist to pose “the biggest danger to the world in 2024.”
PRESIDENTS ARE NOT PERFECT, as we all know, but my sons never had brutally aggressive nastiness in their faces every day on TV, parents who called a vice president a whore, or parents who excused a president’s transgressions. When they were young, we were dealing with Madonna dancing provocatively in her pointy cone bras, the subversiveness of Bart Simpson, and, yes, the lurid, drawn-out Bill Clinton sex scandal. That last once sent my then-9-year-old—the same child who had tried to banish me from the room because of an MTV video—scurrying out of the kitchen because, he said, “I shouldn’t be hearing this.” His parents were not angrily attacking an unfair system rigged against Clinton. We were outraged at him, and I fervently wished he’d resign.
Trump presents a massive challenge today to parents across the ideological spectrum who believe in old-fashioned virtues like respect and civility. Other parents, those who admire Trump, are enthusiastically introducing their kids to the cruel and dangerous MAGA culture, and they appear blind to the harm Trump is doing—both to their families and to the nation.
What am I thankful for this Thanksgiving week? I’m thankful that I am no longer a parent of small children, or teenagers, or any child under 25. And hopeful that the courts and the next election will put a stop to the worst of it before there’s a new generation conditioned to see horrific behavior, from parents to political leaders, as simply the way things are. | US Political Corruption |
Shutdown averted? House passes short-term funding plan, sends to Senate
The House’s swiftly-approved plan is now with the Senate, which is meeting late on Saturday with just hours to go before the midnight deadline to fund the government.
| Washington
The threat of a federal government shutdown was suddenly easing Saturday after the House quickly approved a 45-day funding bill to keep agencies open, once Speaker Kevin McCarthy dropped demands for steep spending cuts and relied on Democratic votes for passage.
The rushed package would leave behind aid to Ukraine, a White House priority opposed by a growing number of GOP lawmakers, but increase federal disaster assistance by $16 billion, meeting President Joe Biden’s full request.
It goes next to the Senate, which was meeting late in the evening, hours to go before the midnight deadline to fund the government.
“We’re going to do our job,” Mr. McCarthy, the House Republican leader, said before the House vote. “We’re going to be adults in the room. And we’re going to keep government open.”
It’s been a head-spinning turn of events in Congress after days of House chaos pushed the government to the brink of a disruptive federal shutdown.
With no deal in place before Sunday, federal workers would face furloughs, more than 2 million active-duty and reserve military troops would work without pay and programs and services that Americans rely on from coast to coast would begin to face shutdown disruptions.
The House measure would fund government at current 2023 levels for 45 days, through Nov. 17, setting up another potential crisis if they fail to more fully fund government by then. The package was approved by the House 335-91, with most Republicans and almost all Democrats supporting.
But the loss of Ukraine aid was devastating for lawmakers of both parties vowing to support President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after his recent Washington visit. The Senate bill included $6 billion for Ukraine, and both chambers came to a standstill Saturday as lawmakers assessed their options.
“The American people deserve better,” said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, warning in a lengthy floor speech that “extreme” Republicans were risking a shutdown.
For the House package to be approved, Mr. McCarthy was forced to rely on Democrats because the speaker’s hard-right flank has said it will oppose any short-term funding measure, denying him the votes needed from his slim majority. It’s a move that risks his job amid calls for his ouster.
After leaving his right-flank behind, Mr. McCarthy is almost certain to be facing a motion to try to remove from office, though it is not at all certain there would be enough votes to topple the speaker. Most Republicans voted for the package Saturday while 90 opposed.
“If somebody wants to remove me because I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try,” Mr. McCarthy said of the threat to oust him. “But I think this country is too important.”
The White House was tracking the developments on Capitol Hill and aides were briefing the president, who was spending the weekend in Washington.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who has championed Ukraine aid despite resistance from his own ranks, is expected to keep pursuing U.S. support for Kyiv in the fight against Russia.
The House’s quick pivot comes after the collapse Friday of Mr. McCarthy’s earlier plan to pass a Republican-only bill with steep spending cuts up to 30% to most government agencies that the White House and Democrats rejected as too extreme.
“Our options are slipping away every minute,” said one senior Republican, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart of Florida.
The federal government was heading straight into a shutdown that poses grave uncertainty for federal workers in states all across America and the people who depend on them – from troops to border control agents to office workers, scientists and others.
Families that rely on Head Start for children, food benefits, and countless other programs large and small are confronting potential interruptions or outright closures. At the airports, Transportation Security Administration officers and air traffic controllers are expected to work without pay, but travelers could face delays in updating their U.S. passports or other travel documents.
An earlier McCarthy plan to keep the government open collapsed Friday due to opposition from a faction of 21 hard-right holdouts despite steep spending cuts of nearly 30% to many agencies and severe border security provisions.
The White House has brushed aside Mr. McCarthy’s overtures to meet with President Biden after the speaker walked away from the debt deal they brokered earlier this year that set budget levels.
Catering to his hard-right flank, Mr. McCarthy had made multiple concessions including returning to the spending limits the conservatives demanded back in January as part of the deal-making to help him become the House speaker.
But it was not enough as the right flank insisted the House follow regular rules, and debate and approve each of the 12 separate spending bills needed to fund the government agencies, typically a months-long process.
Mr. McCarthy’s chief Republican critic, Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, has warned he will file a motion calling a vote to oust the speaker.
Some of the Republican holdouts, including Mr. Gaetz, are allies of former President Donald Trump, who is Mr. Biden’s chief rival in the 2024 race. Mr. Trump has been encouraging the Republicans to fight hard for their priorities and even to “shut it down.”
At an early closed-door meeting at the Capitol, several House Republicans, particularly those facing tough reelections next year, urged their colleagues to find a way to prevent a shutdown.
“All of us have a responsibility to lead and to govern,” said Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York.
The lone House Democrat to vote against the package, Rep. Mike Quigley of Illinois, the co-chair of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus, called it a victory for Russian President Vladimir Putin and “Putin-sympathizers everywhere.” He said, “Protecting Ukraine is in our national interest.”
Associated Press writer Colleen Long contributed to this report. | US Federal Policies |
Jim Jordan Pauses House Speaker Quest And Will Back McHenry As Interim
Republican Jim Jordan will back empowering Representative Patrick McHenry as a temporary speaker until January, giving the Trump loyalist time to try and build support to win the top House leadership spot, a person familiar with the matter said.
(Bloomberg) -- Republican Jim Jordan backs empowering Representative Patrick McHenry as a temporary speaker until January, giving the Trump loyalist time to try to build support to win the top House leadership spot, people familiar with the matter said.
Jordan fell far short of the votes needed to become speaker in two rounds of balloting this week, and it was unclear whether a resolution to give temporary power to McHenry has enough support among other Republicans.
Florida Republican Mario Diaz-Balart said he would “support a proposal to get the conservative Republican agenda back on track.” But several other Republicans questioned the constitutionality and the wisdom behind doing that.
“Over half the Republicans in the room won’t vote for it,” Jim Banks of Indiana, who is running for a Senate seat, said. “It’s a historic mistake.”
Democrats have also been noncommittal about empowering McHenry and their votes could be needed if more than four Republicans vote against the resolution.
The speaker’s office has been vacant for more than two weeks, leaving the House paralyzed. Lawmakers have been unable to address aid for Israel in its war with Hamas or consider funding measures to avoid an impending mid-November US government shutdown.
The caretaker position was established after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and has been largely interpreted as limited to presiding over the choice of a new speaker. McHenry was among those who’ve agreed with that interpretation.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | US Congress |
Supporters of an effort to get rid of Alaska’s ranked choice voting system are accused of "intentional deception" by failing to properly report their activities, including the involvement of Christian organization, according to allegations in a new complaint filed with state campaign finance watchdogs.
The group Alaskans for Honest Elections is gathering signatures with the goal of getting on next year's ballot an initiative that aims to repeal the state's system of open primaries and ranked vote general elections. But Alaskans for Better Elections, which supports the elections system, wants to halt that signature gathering until the repeal group fixes the alleged violations and pays all potential fines. This is the third time Alaskans for Better Elections filed a complaint against the repeal group with the state election watchdog.
The latest complaint, filed Monday, says Alaskans for Honest Elections appears to be using Wellspring Ministries in Anchorage as an "unreported base of operations for signature gathering efforts," despite public claims by Wellspring that the church was not involved.
Kevin Clarkson, an attorney representing individuals and groups advocating for the repeal of ranked voting, called the complaint "a salacious mash of contorted false allegations," the Anchorage Daily News reported.
Alaska voters in 2020 approved the switch to open primaries and having ranked voting in general elections. Alaskans for Better Elections was behind that successful push. Supporters of ranked voting say it gives voters more choice and encourages candidates who need a coalition of support to win to move away from negative campaigning. Opponents claim the process is confusing.
Clarkson, a former state attorney general, said the signature gatherer named in the complaint, Mikaela Emswiler, paid Wellspring Ministries to rent space for her work. The ballot group also paid Emswiler’s company $15,000 on Nov. 13. Clarkson said use of the facility is "perfectly legal," given that Emswiler paid the church for the space, and that the ballot group paid Emswiler.
Art Mathias, an Anchorage pastor who is a director of the ballot initiative, its main funder and president of Wellsprings Ministries, has previously testified before the commission about the lack of involvement by the church in the ballot initiative.
Churches and other tax-exempt religious organizations, like Wellsprings Ministries, are barred by federal law from participating in political campaign activity. But the Alaska Public Offices Commission lacks authority to investigate potential violations of that law.
The commission previously determined the repeal ballot group violated state law by filing campaign finance reports late, incurring more than $2,000 in fines. The panel currently is considering allegations that backers of the repeal effort violated campaign finance rules, including by channeling money through a church-affiliated organization in a way that initially concealed the source of the contributions.
Phillip Izon, a leader of the ballot group, also has filed a complaint against Alaskans for Better Elections, alleging it has violated reporting requirements. The commission has not yet considered that complaint. | US Local Elections |
With former President Donald Trump out of the picture, Ron DeSantis and Vivek Ramaswamy will be center stage for the first Republican primary debate.
The two candidates will share the prime position based on their poll numbers, according to an official lineup shared by Fox News on Tuesday.
A super PAC supporting Trump, meanwhile, is trolling his GOP rivals with a new website depicting them as vice presidential contenders.
And what's next for the candidates, like Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, who failed to qualify for the debate?
Here's what to know from the campaign trail on Tuesday.
Debate lineup revealed
The Republican National Committee said earlier this year the stage lineup would be determined by polling data.
With eight candidates overall qualifying for the debate, DeSantis and Ramaswamy will each be flanked by three rivals.
Former Vice President Mike Pence will stand next to DeSantis, while former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley will stand next to Ramaswamy.
In the fifth and sixth positions are former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott. Former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson and North Dakota Gov. Dug Burgum are in the seventh and eighth positions, respectively.
DeSantis looks to fundraise off debate
DeSantis' campaign will host an all-day fundraiser with donors in Milwaukee the day after the debate, sources confirmed to ABC News. The event is described similarly to the fundraising event held in Miami when DeSantis first launched his campaign back in May.
Sources also said the DeSantis team will host an after-party following the debate, which will be attended by members of his campaign, donors and surrogates.
DeSantis plans to return to the campaign trail on Thursday, traveling to Iowa.
- Hannah Demissie, Will McDuffie and Will Steakin
What's next for Suarez, other long-shot candidates?
Four candidates failed to make the debate stage: Suarez, former Rep. Will Hurd, businessman Perry Johnson and former California gubernatorial candidate Larry Elder.
Hurd, Johnson and Elder all criticized the Republican National Committee -- with Elder and Johnson vowing to take legal action.
Suarez, who previously told ABC News' Rachel Scott he'd consider dropping out of the race if he didn't make it, took a different tone.
"I am sorry that this debate will not include my perspectives from the largest growing voting block in our country - young, conservative Hispanics," Suarez wrote in statement posted to X, formerly known as Twitter. "Additionally, Republicans will not be able to hear my story of how conservative principles of keeping taxes low, keeping people safe and focusing on creating prosperity for all created the most successful big city in America."
"I respect the rules and process set forth by the RNC, and I look forward to working with my party to ensure we win back the White House and restore the path to a brighter future for our country," Suarez said.
In the statement, Suarez didn't make it explicitly clear his campaign will continue. Responding to ABC News' request for comment, a spokesperson for Suarez's campaign still did not clarify if he'll stay in the presidential race, replying "this is the only statement for the time being."
-Hannah Demissie and Will McDuffie
Pro-Trump PAC trolls rivals as veep contenders
Make America Great Again Inc. is trolling the other presidential candidates ahead of Wednesday's Republican debate, dubbing it the "Vice Presidential Debate 2024," and creating a website.
The website asks people to "Vote Below for your favorite VP," featuring bobbleheads of each candidate that made the debate stage. If you click on a candidate's bobblehead, a quote they've previously said praising Trump pops up along with attacks on the candidate.
The site depicts a fly on Pence's head, a reference to his vice presidential debate against Kamala Harris in 2020 when a fly landed on him for several minutes.
The Pence quote reads: "[President Trump] restored American credibility on the world stage. We're standing with our allies, we're standing up to our enemies."
-Soorin Kim and Lalee Ibssa
How some candidates are preparing
Ramaswamy has followed up on a video of him playing tennis with more "debate prep" -- this time posting a clip of himself in the gym.
Tim Scott's campaign manager told CNN the senator "just needs to have fun" and that their preparation strategy included getting experts to "poke and jab at him."
According to a source familiar, Scott is already in Milwaukee with his family, most notably his mother, Miss Frances. Tuesday and Wednesday, Scott will spend time in prayer and will also be in the gym as well, the source said.
Haley has said the more than 80 town halls and rallies she's held so far has made for "the best debate prep."
Christie said his plan is straightforward: 'Listen, this is really simple: If I get asked a question, I answer it. I know that makes me different than everyone else running for President. I don’t read off scripts, I speak my mind."
Scott jabs at DeSantis on debate eve
Scott called one of his fellow candidates' insinuations "hogwash" when responding on Tuesday to Florida Gov. Ron Desantis saying that he himself is the only candidate debating whose sole purpose for running is to be president. DeSantis suggested on Fox News on Monday that some people were aiming to be chosen as vice president or to receive a Cabinet position.
"It's called hogwash... [any candidate] that goes through the process of preparing to be president of the United States, who wants to be anything other than the President of the United States; they, A, should not be in the race; B, should not be on the stage; and C, it's just completely ridiculous," Scott told Fox News Radio.
"Every single person on that stage, I hope and pray, wants to be the leader of the free world. If you do not, don't show up for the debate," Scott fired back.
-Oren Oppenheim | US Federal Elections |
It was hardly the triumphant return to Washington that he and his campaign imagined. Donald Trump was back in America’s capital this week, not as president but an accused criminal. “Not guilty,” he pleaded in a hushed courtroom to four charges stemming from the effort to overturn his defeat in the 2020 presidential election.
But even as observers savored a sombre yet reaffirming moment for the rule of law, a follower of the former US president could be seen outside court waving a giant flag. “Trump or death,” it declared, not far from the halls of Congress where lethal violence erupted on January 6,2021.
Trump is now twice impeached and thrice indicted but his support base is holding firm.
Indeed, each negative in a court of law translates into a positive in the court of public opinion. He remains the dominant figure among Republican voters who share his view that he is being unfairly targeted by a justice system bent on helping Democrat Joe Biden.
“The more the indictments, the better his poll numbers, the easier the argument that it’s two standards of justice and Donald Trump is persecuted and picked on,” said Bill Whalen, a policy fellow at the Hoover Institution thinktank in Palo Alto, California. “It’s very funny, considering he’s the pre-eminent bully in American politics, that no one plays the victim card better than Donald Trump.”
A whiff of criminality or scandal used to be career ending for politician. President Richard Nixon resigned over Watergate; Vice-President Spiro Agnew quit after being charged with bribery, tax evasion and conspiracy; Gary Hart’s presidential campaign collapsed due to allegations of an extramarital affair; Anthony Weiner resigned from Congress after a series of sexting scandals.
But Trump has shattered the laws of the political physics. He has made the state and federal charges – now a combined 78 across three jurisdictions – against him a central plank of his campaign platform, casting himself as a martyr. At his rallies he portrays the cases as not just an attack on him but his supporters. He told a crowd last week in Erie, Pennsylvania: “They’re not indicting me, they’re indicting you.”
A few dissenting voices apart, Republicans have echoed and amplified these talking points with characteristic fervour. Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia wrote on X, formerly Twitter, that she “will still vote for Trump even if he’s in jail”.
Far from destroying his prospects, many observers believe, the latest and arguably most serious indictment for his alleged role in undermining American democracy will likely fuel a march toward the Republican party’s presidential nomination in 2024.
Rick Wilson, a veteran Republican strategist and cofounder of the Lincoln Project, an anti-Trump group, said: “Every time he’s indicted or under the spotlight, his numbers go up with Republican voters.
“I don’t see a pathway right now where Republican base voters suddenly wake up and say, ‘Wow, this is a bad guy and we’re going to change our minds, we’re going to to vote for Chris Christie or Ron DeSantis.’ All of them have failed on a fundamental level to make a case for themselves because the base will punish them if they attack him.”
Some Republicans in Congress are still willing to criticise Trump on certain issues and a few, such as Senator Mitt Romney of Utah, are outspoken in their conviction that he is unfit for office. Others, such as Congresswoman Liz Cheney of Wyoming, have either retired or been ousted.
But most party leaders have stayed silent and fallen into line, apparently terrified of alienating Trump’s fervent support base in what critics describe as political cowardice. Even his main opponents in the party’s presidential primary race have dodged the issue or endorsed his claim of a Democratic witch-hunt and “deep state” conspiracy.
Wilson added: “Not one of the serious candidates – there aren’t many in the primary field – are making any kind of argument other than this is illegitimate, this is wrong, [special counsel] Jack Smith’s the real criminal, all these crazy things. Not one of the serious ones is saying this guy should be in prison, not in the White House.
“I don’t think this is a moment where Trump has been harmed in the primary; it’s solidified it. He’s going to be on TV every minute of every day for weeks and weeks and weeks and every time that happens the fundraising for the other Republicans dries up, their ability to communicate a messaging stops, none of it works. The whole thing is set of perverse incentives and it’s an almost inescapable trap for the rest of the field.”
Trump himself understands this trap and how it starves his opponents of political oxygen. Ahead of his court appearance on Thursday, he wrote on his Truth Social media platform: “I need one more indictment to ensure my election!”
He has also used the cases to raise cash, sending out a flurry of fundraising emails and raking in millions. Even so, an analysis by the Associated Press found that so far this year the former president’s political operation has spent more on legal fees defending him, his staff and his allies than on travel, rallies and other campaign expenses combined.
And commentators say that while the indictments could help Trump solidify support within his base and win the Republican nomination, his ability to capitalise on them will be more limited in next year’s presidential election, when he will have to win over more sceptical moderate Republicans and independents.
In a July Reuters/ Ipsos poll, 37% of independents said the criminal cases against Trump made them less likely to vote for him for president, compared to 8% who said they were more likely to do so.
However, hours before the latest indictment was unsealed, alarm bells were set off among Democrats by a New York Times/Siena opinion poll that showed him running neck and neck with Biden at 43%. Wilson’s advice to Democrats is simple: “They should say over and over again: this is a choice between economic growth and steady leadership in the world and at home or backing a criminal.”
Democratic leaders in Congress welcomed this week’s indictment as proof that all are equal before the law. But Biden has been circumspect about commenting on Trump’s trials and tribulations.
He appointed Merrick Garland as attorney general, who in turn appointed Jack Smith as special counsel to lead the Trump investigations. The president, an institutionalist, has been careful to keep his distance from both and to avoid commenting on the cases, lest he give credence to the accusation of political meddling. On Tuesday, as the nation was digesting the latest indictment, Biden continued his holiday by going to see the blockbuster film Oppenheimer. On Thursday, asked if he would watch the court hearing, Biden replied: “No.”
Donna Brazile, a former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee, said: “There’s a reason the justice department is independent and Merrick Garland appointed the special counsel so there’s no role whatsoever for the president to be involved in it. First of all, the separation of powers and secondly, it doesn’t help him politically to become entangled in this.
“At this moment the Republican party has to sort this out, not the Democratic president, not the Democratic party, not Democratic voters. Trump is running for president not to solve America’s problems; he’s running to try to stay out of jail and not be held accountable.”
The electoral and legal calendars are set to collide. A New York state criminal trial involving a hush money payment to adult film star Stormy Daniels is due to start on 25 March next year, and his Florida trial in a federal classified documents case is scheduled to begin on 20 May. Both would take place just months before the November election, as might a third trial in the case centred on his 2020 election lies.
But plenty of analysts agree that the White House should resist the temptation to weigh in on Trump’s woes. Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinktank in Washington, said: “They need to let the law speak for itself. The more they talk about it, the more it looks political.
“They want the person who didn’t vote, particularly the young person who is culturally liberal and inclined to the Democratic party, to let the facts speak for themselves and not have them think, ‘Oh, wait a minute, I think Trump is awful but this is awful too’. That’s the question you never want to have appear in marginal voters’ minds. That means let the court thing play out for itself. Don’t talk about it.” | US Federal Elections |
McCarthy Now Seeking Stopgap Spending Bill Without Funding Cuts
There were no immediate details on how much funding would be attached toward the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster relief fund.
(Bloomberg) -- House Republicans are tentatively planning to push a rushed vote Saturday on a temporary government spending measure that avoids cuts to federal agencies and provides billions to replenish the nation’s disaster funds.
Just hours away from a US government shutdown as existing funding expires at midnight, Speaker Kevin McCarthy and his lieutenants are presenting details of the bill to rank-and-file GOP members at a closed-door conference at 9:30 a.m. in Washington
While the duration of the proposed bill to extend existing spending levels isn’t settled, it’s likely to run for 45 days, a House GOP official familiar with the discussions said.
Read more: GOP Has Lots of Ideas to Halt a Shutdown But Can’t Agree on One
There were no immediate details on how much funding would be attached toward the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster relief fund. No other strings are attached to the bill, the person said.
Even so, McCarthy can’t count on the measure to pass the House after his plan to keep the government open for 31 days — and temporarily cut funding for most agencies by 30% — was embarrassingly defeated on Friday. Hard-liners in his party joined Democrats in opposing it.
Democrats likely wouldn’t support the newly crafted proposal either, the official said. But McCarthy’s lieutenants believe it has a chance to pass in the narrowly divided House, while acknowledging it’s difficult.
Options and time are running short. Even if this bill passed, it would need to be embraced by the Democratic-led Senate to avert a government shutdown on Sunday morning.
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | US Federal Policies |
President Joe Biden on Thursday offered a stark warning against the dangers posed by an “extremist” and antidemocratic Maga movement led by former president Donald Trump in remarks in Arizona paying tribute to late Republican senator John McCain.
Speaking in Tempe, Arizona, Mr Biden opened by quoting the farewell letter Mr McCain had written to be published after his death, a letter which called the US the “world’s greatest republic” that was founded on “ideals, not blood and soil”.
“John was right — every other every other nation in the world has been founded on either grouping by ethnicity, religion, background. We're the most unique nation in the world ... founded on an idea ... that we are all created equal,” he said.
The president said he was reminded, during his recent trip to Vietnam, of how much America currently needs the late senator’s “courage and foresight and vision” at what he described as “a new time of testing”.
“Very few of us will ever be asked to endure what John McCain endured. But all of us are being asked right now: What will we do to maintain our democracy?”
At that point, he was briefly interrupted by a group of climate protesters, whom he promised to meet after he finished talking on the condition that they “shush up” and let him finish.
He quipped: “Democracy, never as easy — as we just demonstrated.”
Continuing, Mr Biden said “the cause” of democrat is “worth giving our all for” because it “makes all things possible”.
He said democracy means “rule of the people, not rule of monarch, not rule of the monied, not rule of the mighty”.
“Regardless of party that means respecting free and fair elections, accepting the outcome, win or lose. It means you can't love your country only when you win,” he said. “Democracy means rejecting and repudiating political violence, regardless of party. Such violence is never never never acceptable in American. It's non democratic and it must never be normalised,” he continued.
But the president warned that democracy “is still at risk” despite his efforts to make “the defense and protection and preservation of American democracy the central issue of [his] presidency,” and said he’d come to Arizona to warn of “another threat to our democracy” and to “our political instutitions”.
“For centuries, the American constitution has been a model for the world, with other countries adopting ‘we the people’ as their North Star as well. But as we know, we know how damaged our institutions of democracy the judiciary, the legislature, the executive, have become become in the eyes of the American people, even the world from attacks within the past few years,” he said. “We lose these institutions of our government at our own peril”.
Mr Biden said the goal of the movement is to “alter the balance of power by increasing the President's authority over every part of the federal government and ... erode the constitutional order of checks and balances and separation of powers”.
Continuing, he said the extremists plan to “limit the independence of federal agencies, put them under the thumb of a president give the President the power to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated If he doesn't like what is being spent for” and “get rid of long standing protections for civil service” by revamping a Trump-era executive order he rescinded on his first day in office.
“Seizing power, concentrating power, temporary and abuse, power, purging and packing key institutions spewing conspiracy theories spreading lies for profit and power to divide Americans every way, inciting violence against those who risk their lives to keep America safe ... it goes against the very soul of who we are as Americans,” he said.
Mr Biden called the movement “a threat to the brick and mortar of our democratic institutions” and “a threat to the character of our nation, that which gives our constitutionalise” and “binds us together as Americans”.
While he touted his ability and desire to work with the GOP, he said there is “no question that today’s Republican Party is driven and intimidated by Maga extremists” and slammed recent attacks on the military by Mr Trump and his allies, including previous comments about American veterans made by Mr Trump, who called those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for the US in war “suckers and losers”.
Mr Biden has given a handful of other democracy-centred addresses, including at Independence Hall in Philadelphia a year ago and at Union Station in Washington shortly before the November midterm elections.
The issue of preserving democracy is expected to be a key theme in his reelection campaign, and he laid out his beliefs in detail as he continued his remarks.
“I believe very strongly that the defining feature of our democracy is our Constitution. I believe in the separation of powers and checks and balances, that debate and disagreement do not lead to disunion. I believe in free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power. I believe there is no place in America — none, none, none — for political violence,” he said. “We have to denounce hate, not embolden cross the aisle across the country. I see fellow Americans, not mortal enemies. We a great nation, because we're good people who believe in honor, decency and respect”.
He said that “every generation” must remain “vigilant” in defence of democracy, and warned that democracies “don’t have to die at the end of a rifle” but “can die when people are silent, when they fail to stand up or condemn threats to democracy”.
“For all its’ faults, American democracy remains the best paths forward to prosperity, possibilities, progress,” he said.
Mr Biden added that the answer to the threats he described is “engagement ... “not to sit on the sidelines ... to build coalitions and community, to remind ourselves there's a clear majority of us who believe in our democracy and are ready to protect it” and said the country is at “an inflection point in our history”, where decisions made will “determine the course of this country – and the world – for the next six or seven decades”.
“We have to stand up for our Constitution and the institutions of democracy because Maga extremists have made clear they won’t,” he said. “History is watching. The world is watching. Most important, our children and grandchildren are watching”. | US Federal Policies |
Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) said he is not concerned about President Joe Biden's chances in a hypothetical matchup against former President Donald Trump next year, claiming voters have "brain fog" about what the country was like under Trump.
Shapiro said he believes the general election will help lift that fog off voters despite a recent poll by NBC News showing that Trump is leading Biden. The president also faces a low approval rating of 40% over his handling of foreign policy, including the Israel-Hamas war.
“I’m not sure folks remember just how chaotic it was, how divisive it was, how he was just in your face in your living room every day,” Shapiro told NBC News of Trump in an article published Wednesday. “I don’t think people want to go back to that. As people are reminded of what it was like and they are forced to tune back in and listen to that during the course of a presidential race, they’re going to reject his extremism, his chaos, and his danger."
Shapiro, who was elected to his first term as governor last year, said he believes the race will be a repeat of 2020 between Biden and Trump, which he believes will give Biden a boost.
“My expectation is that as the race joins and there’s a real competition of ideas and of approach, the president will be in a much stronger position,” Shapiro said. "If Donald Trump is given the opportunity to get the keys to the White House again, he’s even more dangerous the second time around because he and the team around him know how to operate the levers of government. He’s told us that he understands how to do it, and he’s going to use that to prosecute his enemies."
Despite his confidence in the president, Shapiro said Biden should explain how his record as president has benefited Pennsylvanians, including his efforts to expand broadband access and broader investments in infrastructure. Biden has traveled to Pennsylvania more than two dozen times since taking the Oval Office.
Shapiro is considered a rising star in the Democratic Party as one of its most visible officials and is widely considered to be a future Democratic presidential candidate. | US Federal Elections |
At this point, I've contented myself with the notion of the inmates' running the asylum. The problem I have is that now the inmates are running not just the asylum, but the county commission, the zoning board, the licensing commission, the town council, the mayor's office, three of the town's four churches, and the local Peewee hockey league. As we approach a government shutdown that appears inevitable, the state of play is that the House hates the Senate, the Senate hates the House, half of the House majority hates the other half, and nobody much likes Speaker Kevin McCarthy. From Politico:
Though the Senate bill shortchanges President Joe Biden’s requests for Ukraine and disaster aid, it delivers far more robust funding for both priorities than some senators had contemplated just 24 hours earlier. It contains none of the spending cuts sought by conservatives and funds the government through Nov. 17 mostly at current levels — all things that House Republicans have declined to endorse. The proposal also offers nothing to Speaker Kevin McCarthy on border policy, an issue that he’s now demanding must be at the center of any government funding deal to avoid a shutdown on Oct. 1. But senators in both parties said the chamber needs to make a move — and fast — given the dysfunction of the House.
Let us be clear. It is not "the House" that is dysfunctional, per se. It is an angry claque of Australopithecine conservatives that has rendered it thus, leading McCarthy around by his nose and the country be damned. My god, even Senator John Cornyn, never the sharpest knife in the drawer, has sussed the problem out.
“It seems to change every hour, if not by the minute in the House. So I don’t think they know what they can do at this point. But we know what we can do ... and that is to send over a [bill] and see what the speaker can do with it,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said.
For his part, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer fulsomely praised the bipartisan nature of the Senate bill, while giving the back of the hand to the chaos wrought by the Republicans at the other end of the Capitol, hanging the responsibility— or lack thereof— around the neck of Speaker McCarthy.
We now have four days to go until funding expires on Saturday at midnight. We are now right at the precipice. Yet, all last week Speaker McCarthy, instead of focusing on bipartisanship, he catered to the hard right and has nothing, nothing to show for it...Today's agreement won't have everything that both sides want. Let me repeat, this C.R. is a bridge, not a final destination. It will help us achieve our immediate and necessary goal of avoiding a government shutdown and move us away from the senseless and aimless extremism that has dominated the House, and to get to work on appropriations.
The reaction from that quarter was quick and predictably infantile.
Though the bill might be able to pass the Senate by the time funding expires on Sunday morning, it “ain’t gonna pass the House,” said senior appropriator Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). The legislation amounts to a challenge from one side of the Capitol to the other, where McCarthy has passed just one of his party’s own full-year spending bills. And it sets up exactly the situation that the speaker warned his rebellious conservatives was coming: paralyzed House Republicans getting jammed by the Senate with a bill they refuse to endorse. “It’s not gonna happen over here. It’s not gonna happen on the Republican side,” Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) said, pointing to the Ukraine aid.
The Senate bill has a rough road to travel to passage; there is considerable resistance among some Republicans to increased aid to Ukraine. (Senator Rand Paul is in a particular snit over that.) But it has absolutely no chance in the House, where McCarthy and his pack of vandals seem to have been lobbied to varying degrees by the executives in the employ of the firm of Scrooge and Marley, LLC. From the Washington Post:
House Republicans have all but punted on a short-term solution that would keep the government open beyond Saturday, choosing instead to focus on long-term appropriations bills. McCarthy has been unable to unite his conference behind a short-term plan that would both appease his hard-right flank and ensure he keeps his leadership position. Roughly 10 Republicans have said they will never vote for a continuing resolution in protest of the House’s delay in considering full-year funding bills.
The House bills are every bit as horrifying as you thought they'd be. From the WP:
Cutting housing subsidies for the poor by 33 percent as soaring rents drive a national affordability crisis. Forcing more than 1 million women and children onto the waitlist of a nutritional assistance program for poor mothers with young children. Reducing federal spending on home heating assistance for low-income families by more than 70 percent with energy prices high heading into the winter months. With days left before the government shuts down, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) has embraced steep reductions to the U.S. safety net in an attempt to appease far-right Republican demands for lower spending. If McCarthy can win over conservatives and pass legislation funding the government, Republicans hope to have greater leverage in negotiations with the Democratic-controlled Senate and White House.
But far-right votes have remained elusive, leading McCarthy to propose ever larger and still evolving spending cuts. “The level of reductions in the existing House resolution set us back significantly on issues that government should be funding for the benefit of this country,” said G. William Hoagland, senior vice president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a think tank in Washington...
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), a top McCarthy lieutenant, told reporters over the weekend that the House leadership plans to cut spending on “discretionary” programs, a category that excludes programs such as Social Security and Medicare, by roughly 27 percent, except for the military budget and spending on veterans affairs. That appears to translate into taking more than $150 billion per year out of the part of the budget that funds child care, education subsidies, medical research and hundreds of additional federal operations. The “bottom line is we’re singularly focused right now on achieving our conservative objectives,” Graves said. “Hail Satan!” he added.
Funny, funny man.
Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976. He lives near Boston and has three children. | US Congress |
Marjorie Taylor Greene says she’s drawing a line in the sand. Though her ally, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, is trying to rally the conference around a short-term funding measure to avoid a government shutdown this fall, the far-right Georgia Republican told constituents Thursday that she wouldn’t sign on to any such measure—unless he formally moves to impeach President Joe Biden.
“I will not vote to fund the government unless we have passed an impeachment inquiry” on Biden,” Greene told a town hall audience, adding that she would not support a continuing resolution that includes funding for the “Biden regime’s weaponized government,” COVID vaccines, or Ukraine’s defense against the Russian invasion. “I will be happy to work with all of my colleagues, I will work with the speaker of the House, I will work with everyone,” she said. “But I will not fund those things.”
The ultimatum—which builds on a list of absurd demands other House Republican extremists have made ahead of the funding fight—could make the prospect of a shutdown more likely. For all their cable news innuendo, Republicans have not appeared to find any actual evidence of wrongdoing by the president, and it’s not clear there’s enough support in the full conference for a formal impeachment push. “I don’t think it’s there at the moment,” as New York Republican Mike Lawler told reporters recently. On the other hand, McCarthy appears to be increasingly open to the idea, telling Fox News last week that impeachment seems a “natural step forward” for House Republicans—and even using the promise of an inquiry to try to dampen opposition to his government funding plan.
“If we shut down,” he said, “all the government shuts it down—investigation and everything else.”
In other words, if Greene's protest picks up steam, the funding of the government may very well depend on an explicitly political impeachment—one rooted in lies, conjecture, and of course a desire to protect and avenge Donald Trump. “Comparing this to past impeachments isn’t apples to apples or even apples to oranges; it’s apples to elephants,” as a White House aide told NBC News Friday of the administration’s preparations to respond to the expected inquiry. “Never in modern history has an impeachment been based on no evidence whatsoever.”
That obviously isn’t an issue for Greene, who first filed articles of impeachment against Biden the day after he took office: The point of all this isn’t to hold the president accountable for actual wrongdoing, after all; it’s about cheapening the impeachment process that twice ensnared Trump—first over his attempt to extort Ukraine, then over the insurrection he incited in a last-ditch effort to remain in power. McCarthy has spent most of his speakership trying to delay this exercise in political nihilism. But now, he is coming to a fork in the road. “The House Republicans responsible for keeping the government open already made a promise to the American public about government funding,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement Thursday, following Greene’s remarks. “It would be a shame for them to break their word and fail the country because they caved to the hardcore fringe of their party in prioritizing a baseless impeachment stunt over high stakes needs Americans care about deeply.” | US Congress |
January 21, 2023 03:57 PM You've probably heard about President Joe Biden's attempt to do an end-run around the courts that are now considering the legality of his executive order for lump-sum student debt forgiveness. He is now trying to shrink or eliminate payments for students who are in repayment. Those privileged enough to have attended college would now have to pay, at most, 5% of their incomes above 225% of the federal poverty level — considerably less than the 10% of income above 150% of the poverty level that they must now pay. This means, for example, that an unmarried graduate making $40,000 at his first job would go from a maximum monthly payment of $172 to a maximum monthly payment of $46. Plus, those loans (for undergraduates, anyway) will be completely forgiven at the end of 20 years, so there are no consequences to the borrowers, and no upside for the taxpayers, for such low payments. BIDEN PUSHES CONTROVERSIAL STUDENT LOANS TRANSFORMATION AS 'FORGIVENESS' FALTERS I find this rather galling, given that I paid significantly more than twice that of $46 just on the least expensive of my student loans at the turn of the century — and mind you, that was back when that amount was worth a lot more. But here's the worst part. The student loan program was nationalized in 2010 as part of Obamacare. This was done for a very specific reason: Student loans are money-makers, and the Democrats trying to ram Obamacare through were desperate for revenues to cover the program's costs and make them look less ludicrous. So they hypothecated the student loan program's profits to pay for Obamacare. Let this be a lesson about trusting the Democrats when they say that a given new revenue stream is going to be used for a specific purpose — say, education or roads. For now, Biden is just going to give away all of the program's profits, Obamacare funding be damned, and give them away to the most privileged people in America. This sort of irresponsible governance is the reason we're coming up against the debt ceiling yet again. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER You know, I could understand if Biden agreed to forgive debt for college dropouts with low incomes after, say, five or 10 years of consistent payments. No one envies the people who are saddled with huge debts and obtained no degree for all their trouble. But for college graduates? The people with the most to look forward to? And to do it with a lie in which Biden participated 13 years ago about paying for Obamacare? Hopefully, neither of these attempts to buy the votes of student borrowers will succeed. It isn't Biden's money to bribe people with. | US Federal Policies |
A man identified as a suspect in the killings of three Los Angeles homeless men as they slept this week was already in custody in connection with another murder that occurred in nearby San Dimas, police said Saturday.
The suspect, identified as 33-year-old Los Angeles man Jerrid Joseph Powell, was behind bars on Saturday for his alleged role in a follow-home robbery turned homicide in San Dimas on Tuesday, LAPD Chief Michel Moore said during a press conference.
Despite already being in custody, Powell was again formally arrested on Saturday for killing three homeless men in separate shootings carried out this week in different parts of the city of Los Angeles.
Chief Moore said that after his first arrest, investigators located a handgun in Powell's car which was used in the three homeless killings, all of which occurred in open areas in the early morning hours. They also believe the victims were shot while they slept.
The four murders happened over the span of four days, starting on Sunday, Nov. 26 at around 3 a.m. in the southeast area of Los Angeles, where 37-year-old Jose Vamos was shot in an alley in the 800 block of West 110th Street.
Another shooting occurred in the city's Central division on Monday, Nov. 27, at around 4:55 a.m. on the 800 block of East Seventh Street along a rear wall. The victim was identified as Mark Diggs, a 62-year-old male.
The third shooting involving a homeless individual occurred within the Hollenbeck division on Wednesday, Nov. 29, at around 2:30 a.m. near the intersection of South Avenue 18 and Pasadena Avenue. The victim has thus far only been identified as a 52-year-old male.
Investigators have now been able to connect Powell to the, a Los Angeles County employee who was found by his wife after he shot inside of his Tesla in the garage of his San Dimas home on Tuesday, Nov. 28.
Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna also spoke at Saturday's press conference, detailing how surveillance footage helped investigators determine that Powell followed Simbolon home from an electric vehicle charging station in West Covina. He then approached Simbolon in his garage, robbed him and "senselessly" shot him.
Police were alerted that Powell's vehicle of interest entered Beverly Hills late Wednesday evening thanks to their. They were able to utilize an automatic license plate reading technology to track his vehicle, leading to his eventual arrest.
"If we did not enter that plate into the reader system, this individual that we believe is responsible for at least four murders may have been out there and re-offended," Luna said.
He was booked early Thursday morning on suspicion of murder and robbery and was being held in lieu of $2 million bail prior to his connection to the three homeless killings.
Investigators do not believe that Powell has any connection to the four victims. They noted that Powell is a convicted felon with a background that includes violent crime.
"Based on his criminal history, he didn't just start doing this a week ago," Sheriff Luna said.
At a press conference the day prior, Moore noted that LAPD had created a task force Robbery-Homicide division which included investigators from multiple specialties.
"We're bringing Homicide investigators from throughout the city," Moore said at the time. "We're bringing additional investigators from specialized posts and we have placed our forensic science division on ready so that any forensic evidence that is gathered is also quickly processed and analyzed in an effort to identify the person we believe responsible for these three homicides."
Moore said that he had contacted officials from surrounding cities, looking for similar crimes with similarities.
"We have no unsolved homicides outside the city of Los Angeles," Moore said. "Yet our work continues in identifying whether there are any other shooting victims of persons who are experiencing homelessness, which are unsolved and may have any similarities to these homicides."
Mayor Karen Bass urged people living on the streets to seek shelter immediately in the hours following their announcement.
"Our message to the unhoused community is clear — do not sleep alone tonight. Seek shelter, seek services, stay together, seek support and we need your help to get the word out," Bass said.
As a result, the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authorityin an attempt to provide additional safety as the search for the suspect continued.
If you have any information in any of these cases, you are urged to contact the tipline at (213) 486-6890.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Watch John King’s full report from Iowa on CNN’s “Anderson Cooper 360” at 8 p.m. ET.
The homes are nearly identical, dotting both sides of the curvy road in a middle-class subdivision. But one stands out: 10 solar panels newly attached to its sloping roof as the crew links the system to the electric meter. The finishing touch: a new Midwest Solar magnet attached to the junction box.
Chris Mudd is the hands-on founder and CEO. He checked in with the crew, made a point of thanking the homeowner for her business and then took a moment to reflect on Midwest Solar’s swift progress.
“Our first 12 months I think we averaged three or four systems a month. … It was tough. Today, we are doing 15-20 systems a month,” Mudd says. “We lost money the first year we were in business and we’re going to make money our second year. I think that’s good. Starting a business from scratch is very difficult.”
Yes, he says, some of the credit goes to President Joe Biden’s clean energy initiatives – particularly tax incentives for solar systems.
“Absolutely,” Mudd says. “There are lots of grants available to business owners. The tax credit is at that 30%. Absolutely.”
But Mudd is a lifelong Republican, would prefer that tax credit money instead be spent on a border wall and is rooting for a Donald Trump comeback – beginning here in Iowa – to make that happen.
“Do I think Donald Trump’s perfect? No,” Mudd says. “Personally, I’m not a big fan of who he is and what he does and how he lives. But I think the decisions and things that he did for the country were good.”
Our conversation was the day after the former president was indicted again by a special counsel, this time on charges stemming from Trump’s effort to stay in power after losing the 2020 election.
My visit to Iowa was part of a new project designed to build relationships with voters and to see the 2024 campaign through their eyes and their experiences as the cycle unfolds. The first-in-the-nation GOP caucus state is our first foray for the obvious reason: Trump at the moment is the formidable favorite to win the Republican nomination and, if he is to be stopped or even stalled, it would likely have to come early in the process.
“I think he’s the best guy for the job,” Mudd tells us. “I wonder why they are attacking him so hard. Why are they going after this guy so hard? Does everybody really believe what happened was exactly the way that the government is laying it out today? I don’t.”
Mudd’s distrust runs deep, and like many Republicans, still includes the 2020 presidential vote count – even though there is no evidence of widespread election fraud that would have affected the outcome.
“Did something happen to that election?” Mudd asks. “You know, we have six states change late at night, from the trajectory of where they are going.”
I remind him that this was because some states counted early ballots first, and others counted the ballots cast on Election Day first. Biden, for example, had a big lead in the early hours of the count in Ohio and Texas, because they counted early ballots first, but he ultimately lost both by wide margins as all ballots were counted. Pennsylvania and Georgia were among the states where Election Day votes were counted first, and Trump led in early returns but faded as the counting turned to votes cast early.
Mudd does not dispute this but says he would have more confidence if states followed the same procedures.
A Republican family divided
Families like the Mudds, to borrow a phrase, are what makes America great.
Jim Mudd Sr. was an AM radio voice, who started a small advertising business in Cedar Falls in 1981 at the suggestion of a local Iowa car dealer. Mudd Advertising now employs 85 people and has clients from coast to coast.
This American Dream family is also living America’s political divide.
Dad and three sons are loyal Republicans; two daughters are Democrats.
The Republicans don’t watch and don’t trust CNN. But they are beyond gracious and kind to CNN visitors. They revere former President Ronald Reagan, yet the Trump effect – and the Fox effect – on today’s Republican Party is abundantly clear in an hour-plus conversation around a Mudd Advertising conference table.
“Nothing about that deal is the American way, I don’t think,” Mudd Sr. says of the latest Trump indictment.
Of the eight family and friends around the table, only one voices opposition to Trump. Tracey Mudd, Chris’ wife, says she does back most Trump policies.
“It is more of his tone,” she says. “He kind of rubs me the wrong way sometimes.”
No one at the table raises a hand when asked if anyone supports US financial and military assistance to Ukraine.
The explanation from Rob Mudd is stunning, and no one at the table disputes it. “I don’t believe what we are being told about Ukraine,” he says. “You don’t have to be smart to connect the dots, right. And so, is the war to cover up sins committed so that you can cover your tracks? Too much money that’s been thrown over there.”
The unfounded allegation that Biden’s support for Ukraine is somehow linked to his son Hunter Biden’s overseas business dealings sounds like an old Tucker Carlson show open.
So, I try this question: “You think all the NATO countries would do what Biden told them to do to cover up some Hunter Biden business deal?”
Rob Mudd doesn’t hesitate.
“It all depends on (Ukrainian President Volodymyr) Zelensky and how much dirt he has on Biden to keep the money coming.”
When I suggest “that’s out there,” there is laughter around the table.
One big goal of this project is to better understand America’s divide, and this is just the beginning. The kindness and goodwill around the table – despite clear disagreements over what is true – are an encouraging first step.
Jim Mudd Jr. is for Trump, but says he is also impressed with entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy’s promise to slash the federal bureaucracy.
Beyond those two, the 2024 candidate who has piqued his interest the most is Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
“I think he is a really good guy,” Mudd Jr. says. His father agrees: “He sounds like a real genuine individual to me. He’s smart and he’s even minded. He’s open minded, I should say.”
CNN reminds the group RFK Jr.’s family is unhappy with his primary challenge to Biden. And that he has pushed views on vaccines and other issues that reputable scientists consider conspiracy theories and dangerous.
The conversation is polite, cordial. And it vividly captures the country’s red state-blue state divide, which includes what you think of Trump and where you get your news.
“I think it’s nearly impossible to know what is true,” Chris Mudd says. “Because there’s so many – there’s a little bit of truth in every lie. … It’s hard to distinguish what’s really true and what’s not because there is a little bit of truth in everybody’s angle.”
Another takeaway of the conversation is that the roughly half of likely GOP voters who are backing Trump are a loyal group, to say the least.
There is that other half to consider, of course.
Looking for something different
Sioux City is 212 miles west of Cedar Falls and was a Trump stronghold in the 2016 caucuses.
Attorney Priscilla Forsyth was raised Republican but switched to the Democrats while in law school. Her caucus experience includes backing Howard Dean in 2004 and John Edwards in 2008.
But she attended a small Trump event in 2016 and liked what she heard.
“He does have charisma, I mean, whether you like him or not, he does,” Forsyth says in an interview at the Woodbury County courthouse. “I liked his policies.”
She’s attended three Trump rallies and, for the most part, isn’t bothered by his aggressive language and attacks. But his effort to stay in power after losing the 2020 election was a turning point.
“You have to respect the system,” Forsyth says. “Otherwise, the system falls apart.”
While she doesn’t flatly rule out voting for Trump again, Forsyth is shopping for a new candidate.
“I think the country needs to move on,” she says. “I think we need to get rid of Biden. I think we need to get rid of Trump. I think we need to move on.”
So there’s at least modest evidence some past Trump supporters are looking elsewhere.
But beating him here, or wounding him here, would require a giant change in the current GOP math.
Watch the booming Des Moines suburbs over the next five months to see if there is any evidence that is happening. The population in Metro Des Moines is up about 60,000 voters just from 2016, and the suburbs are Trump’s kryptonite.
“I don’t appreciate the negativity, the character,” says Jaclyn Taylor, a single mother and entrepreneur who lives in suburban Waukee.
Taylor supported Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in the 2016 caucuses, but voted for Trump in November 2016 and again in 2020.
She sighs when asked how she would vote if there is a Biden-Trump rematch.
“I don’t know. It’s very difficult. I really can’t answer that question.”
South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott intrigues Taylor. Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley does, too. Sometimes Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis as well.
Betsy Sarcone is also a single mom and a real estate agent who lives in nearby Urbandale.
DeSantis tops her list at the moment, but she, too, wants to take her time and is not a fan of the six-week abortion ban signed by the Florida governor.
“I don’t feel it is my place to judge,” Sarcone says. “I think that is up to them.”
Sarcone was a Florida Sen. Marco Rubio supporter in the 2016 caucuses and, like Taylor, voted for Trump against Hillary Clinton and again against Biden.
But if 2024 is a 2020 rematch, Sarcone says she would back Biden – because she would feel abandoned by the GOP.
“I think the victim mentality has run its course,” Sarcone said of Trump. “I see the party as the party of personal responsibility and for this man to still be on the national stage representing the Republican Party is very troubling to me.”
Both suburban mothers are feeling 2016 déjà vu five months before Iowa casts the first 2024 votes.
Shopping around is an Iowa tradition, but both understand that a splintered field eventually helps Trump, as it did in 2016. And both say their goal is to talk to friends as the January caucuses approach, with the hope they can agree on one Trump alternative.
“I think the moderates need to band together,” Sarcone says. “We’ve got to find one that works.”
Taylor says she is having the same conversations, because “it’s a no-brainer, right?” | US Federal Elections |
On 16 or perhaps 17 July 2024, in Milwaukee, the Republican national convention will likely nominate as its presidential candidate a convicted criminal. When Donald Trump ascends the podium to accept the nomination for his third time he will probably have been found guilty months earlier of having staged an attempted coup to overthrow American democracy – “conspiring to overturn the legitimate results of the 2020 presidential election, obstruct the certification of the election results, and discount citizens’ legitimate votes”, in the words of special counsel Jack Smith.
The US district court judge Tanya Chutkan has announced that she will set the trial date at the next hearing on Trump’s case on 28 August. Smith has sought a 2 January 2024 start date for a trial to last an estimated six weeks into mid-February. Trump’s attorneys have preposterously suggested a date in April 2026. If Judge Chutkan fixes the trial for any time before 1 June 2024, Trump will accept the Republican nomination after its verdict is rendered.
And if the date is earlier than June, Republican primaries will be conducted at the same time as the trial. Day by day, the compounding of the doubled events will incite his followers to redouble their fervor and devotion. Rocket fuel will be pumped on to the fire of Trump’s campaign. While the closing statements are delivered to the jury, Republicans will, if the polls hold, have already voted overwhelmingly for Trump and reduced his opponents’ chances to ashes.
The day of the first contest, the Iowa caucuses, 15 January, is also the day that his second defamation trial with E Jean Carroll begins. The judge in that case, in New York, Lewis A Kaplan, found in July that Trump had “raped” her. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted … makes clear, the jury found that Mr Trump in fact did exactly that,” he said. So Trump will mount the stage at the convention, regardless of the legal verdict about the January 6 riot at the US Capitol, or any other verdict, as an adjudicated rapist.
All told, so far, Trump faces 91 criminal counts in four jurisdictions. Three other elaborate trials will follow his January 6 case, if it is scheduled any time in January or February. His trial date in New York is tentatively on the calendar for 25 March 2024. In that case, he is charged by the Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg “for falsifying New York business records in order to conceal damaging information and unlawful activity from American voters before and after the 2016 election. During the election, Trump and others employed a ‘catch and kill’ scheme to identify, purchase, and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral prospects. Trump then went to great lengths to hide this conduct, causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity, including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.”
But Bragg has suggested he would postpone this trial to allow the January 6 federal case to be first.
Trump’s trial in the Mar-a-Lago presidential records case is on the calendar in Florida for 20 May 2024, where he is charged with the illegal and willful theft of national security documents and obstruction of justice.
Even more than during the gripping performance of his various indictments, the theatre of his trials will subsume politics. There will not be another campaign, some semblance of a normal campaign of the past, a fantasy campaign, separate from Trump’s trials. The scenes from courtroom to courtroom will overlap with the primaries – the final ones taking place on 4 June 2024 – only intensifying the zeal of his base. And then Trump’s battle with the law will engulf the general election.
The trials are a continuous spectacle, featuring an all-star cast in far-flung locations. Political reporters are barely heard from, while legal analysts fill the airwaves. Every twist and turn, every motion, every argument is the breathless lead story. Everyone, from prosecutors to co-conspirators, named and unnamed, indicted and unindicted, are characters in Trump’s new reality show – part violent action movie (the insurrection), part sleazy porn flick (Stormy Daniels), part conspiracy thriller (Mar-a-Lago), and part mafia drama (the fake elector racket).
But the Trump trials are more than his means; they are his ends. The trials are not the sideshow, but the heart and soul of Trump’s campaign. They have become his essential fundraising tool to finance his defense, his platform for whipping up his followers into a constant state of excitement, and his instrument for dominating the media to make himself the center of attention and blot out coverage of anyone else.
The trials are the message. They are the drama around which Trump plays his role as the unjustly accused victim, whose rights are trampled and who is the martyr for his oppressed “deplorables”. He is taking the slings and arrows for them. The narcissist is the self-sacrificing saint. The criminal is the angel. The liar is the truth-teller. If any Republican lapses in faithfulness, they are more than a mere doubter or skeptic, but a betrayer and traitor. Trump’s trials are the rigorous trial of his followers’ faith. Rejection of temptation in an encounter with an impertinent fact that might raise a qualm shows purity of heart. Seduction by fact must be resisted. The siren song of critical thinking must be cast out as sin. Trump’s convictions are the supreme test of his followers’ strength of conviction.
Republicans are not prisoners of Trump’s narcissistic rage. They don’t reject it. They don’t regret it. They don’t apologize. They mirror it. They mimic it. They exult in it. It is the gratification they receive for passing through the ordeal of belief. His rage is their reward. It is their cheap vicarious defiance of the evil-doers: the establishment, the globalists, the Fauciists, the FBI, the Barbie movie. As Trump has received target letters, so judges, district attorneys, the special counsel, and their wives, too, must be targets. Fair game is fair play. Hallelujah!
Poor Mike Pence, who Trump chose as his running mate to balance his sinfulness with Christian virtue, benightedly still believes that truthfulness, righteousness and clean hands makes him the ideal evangelical avatar. He has positioned himself on the Republican issues as a scold of Trump’s fall from grace on abortion. Pence is in favor of a national ban, not leaving it to the states like Trump, as if issues matter. His humility as a godly servant leader, for years imitating every gesture of Trump’s, reached its abrupt end in his refusal to drink from Trump’s poisoned chalice.
Yet Pence’s embrace of scripture in the form of the constitution has not beatified him to the evangelicals. There is no worldly subject that can grant him absolution from being perceived as Trump’s Judas. His steadfastness is scorned. His blamelessness is derided. “I’m glad they didn’t hang you,” a man said to Pence at the Iowa state fair. That man’s sentiment is the current definition of moderate Republicanism.
The precise source of Trump’s permanent campaign of trials can be traced to before the election of 2016, when his inveterate dirty trickster Roger Stone coined the “Stop the Steal” slogan to claim Trump had been robbed by Senator Ted Cruz in the Colorado caucuses. That falsehood became Trump’s “Stop the Steal” con before the 2020 election, which metastasized into his coup and insurrection, and now the prosecutions. (Last week, a Danish film-maker who has produced a documentary about Stone released previously unseen video of him laying out the details of the fake electors scheme on 5 November 2020, two days after the election. It seems doubtful that Stone was the originator of the conspiracy. The idea was floated in February 2020 at a closed meeting to the rightwing Council on National Policy, whose president, Tom Fitton, later called on Trump to pardon Stone. Fitton sent Trump a memo on 31 October 2020, three days before the election, advising him to declare before the ballots were counted, “We had an election today – and I won.” Fitton has been identified by a number of news organizations as Unnamed Co-Conspirator Individual 1 in the Georgia indictment.)
But Trump’s career in crime is an epic story that antedates his election fraud. The Georgia indictment charging him with operating a “criminal enterprise” is overdue by almost 50 years. His coup d’état is the coup de grâce. But the enormity of his conspiracy to overturn the election ultimately depended upon the weak reed of Pence, who proved surprisingly unpliable. Trump brought the lessons he learned in the demimonde of New York to Washington.
He always wanted his Roy Cohn, his model lawyer and mouthpiece. His credentials were nonpareil. Cohn was born and bred in the clubhouse political culture of graft and favoritism, Joe McCarthy’s vicious counsel, returned to the city as its number one fixer, from the mob to the Catholic archdiocese, who had won his own acquittals in four criminal trials for bribery and conspiracy when the Trumps – father Fred, with his real-estate empire in the outer boroughs, and his son Donald, on the make in the Big Apple – hired him in 1974 to get them off the hook of a federal suit for housing discrimination against black tenants. On advice of counsel, Trump repeatedly perjured himself, Cohn dragged the case out, and the Trumps ignored Department of Justice decrees. Cohn claimed the case was created by “planted malcontents”. Trump, meanwhile, got his real-estate license, and Cohn would set him up with the mob to build Trump Tower.
But Roy Cohn was only one part of what Trump required to operate. He also needed the prosecutors to lay off. He needed his Robert Morgenthau, scion of one of New York’s most distinguished families, personification of civic virtue, the US attorney for the southern district of New York for a dozen years and the district attorney of Manhattan for 35 years, “my friend, the late, GREAT, Robert Morgenthau”, as Trump called him after his death at 100. Morgenthau brought Trump on to the board of the Police Athletic Association, hosted a tribute dinner to him and accepted campaign contributions. He never opened a single investigation into Trump, and always felt there was nothing to see.
Soon after Rudy Giuliani was appointed the US attorney for the southern district in 1983, Trump was bounced out of New York by the bankers. Trump’s profligacy and mismanagement crashed his monumental casino and hotel, the Taj Mahal in New Jersey, built with mob help, and he could not secure his loans. Giuliani was busy elsewhere, prosecuting the five families of the mafia, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico) of 1970, the first time the act was applied in a major case. His pioneering use of the Rico statute made Giuliani’s reputation. Trump and Giuliani circled each other in a strange dance of outsized egos.
Giuliani threw in with Trump late in the game, during the 2016 campaign, when he manipulated his network of FBI agents in and around the New York office to raise the pressure on director James Comey to reopen the already closed investigation into Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails because of the existence of a computer owned by her aide Huma Abedin and accessed by her husband Anthony Weiner. Comey succumbed. His public announcements were decisive in shifting marginal votes in swing states to Trump. (The FBI chief of counter-intelligence in the New York office at the time, Charles McGonigal, closely connected to Giuliani, pleaded guilty this week to money-laundering payments from a sanctioned Russian oligarch.)
Trump’s next task for Giuliani was to troll through the back alleys of Ukraine seeking disinformation on Joe Biden to discredit him as the Democratic candidate in 2020. Giuliani’s efforts were an essential element in Trump’s scheme that prompted him to attempt extorting Volodymyr Zelensky into trading fabricated dirt on Biden for missiles desperately needed to defend Ukraine against Russia. Trump was impeached for the first time.
Giuliani was the master of Rico. He knew better than anyone how the law worked and the mafia operated. The first he used to forge his image as a crime-fighter; the second he emulated on Trump’s behalf. So, the wielder of Rico was ensnared under Rico. He learned first-hand how the mafia did its business. He discovered how to organize a racket into an effective hierarchy. He learned the potential value of intimidating innocents. From this point of view, he saw the Republican party as a racket in the making, from the Republican National Committee to the Republican Association of Attorneys General to the state parties, all constituent families of a mafia, with Giuliani himself as the consigliere to the capo di tutti capi.
“This criminal organization,” stated the Georgia indictment, “… constituted an ongoing organization whose members and associates functioned as a continuing unit for a common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise.” Giuliani was indicted on 13 counts, including racketeering, making false statements, harassment and intimidation of an election worker, and election fraud. The former prosecutor is the prosecuted. He is struggling to meet his attorney’s fees. He complains that he is owed $300,000 from Trump for non-payment for his counsel.
The trials have become Trump’s engine for capturing his third Republican nomination. His celebrity has been transformed into a passion play of victimization. His problem is that the trials are not shows.
Sidney Blumenthal is the author of The Permanent Campaign, published in 1980, and All the Power of the Earth: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln 1856-1860, the third of a projected five volumes. He is the former assistant and senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and senior adviser to Hillary Clinton | US Federal Elections |
Former Vice President Mike Pence said that he's done explaining for his ex-running mate after being pressed on former President Donald Trump's recent comments toward retired U.S. Army General Mike Milley.
During an appearance on CNN Friday night, anchor Kaitlan Collins asked the former vice president if he believed Milley was referring to Trump in his retirement speech earlier in the day, during which the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said, "We don't take an oath to a king or a queen or to a tyrant or a dictator. And we don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator."
The comment seemed to be in response to the recent attacks directed at Milley by Trump, who suggested in a post on Truth Social last week that the general would have been executed for "treason" in "times gone by."
"Kaitlan, I don't know who he was referring to there, but I must tell you that Donald Trump's recent comments regarding General Milley were inexcusable," Pence said Friday. "When you think of General Milley's incredible years of service in the uniform of the United States, to make the kind of statements the former president made are just unacceptable."
Collins continued to press Pence, including asking him if he believed Trump was a "wannabe dictator," while pointing out Trump's response to Milley's comments Friday evening in which he called Milley "slow moving and thinking." Pence was also asked his opinion on Trump's repeated threats toward his political adversaries and the prosecutors behind his numerous criminal indictments.
"Do you believe that he is a threat if he returns to the Oval Office?" Collins posed to the ex-vice president.
"You know, I spent four years trying to explain Donald Trump's words, and I'm out of that business now, Kaitlan," Pence replied.
Newsweek reached out to Trump's campaign team Friday night via email for comment.
Pence has previously said that he and Trump went their "separate ways" following the January 6 siege on the U.S. Capitol, during which the ex-president put immense pressure on Pence to interrupt Congress' election certification proceedings of President Joe Biden's victory. Pence, however, has often evaded leveling direct attacks at Trump since launching his own bid for the 2024 election, including avoiding telling Collins on Friday whether he believed that Trump is "unfit" to be president.
"I'm running for president of the United States because I believe our party and our country need new leadership," Pence told CNN. "And I've been very clear about that."
According to analysis by polling group FiveThirtyEight, Trump is polling at 55.1 percent on average among Republicans across the surveys. Pence is in fifth place, at 4 percent, trailing Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (13.5 percent), businessman Vivek Ramaswamy (6.6 percent) and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley (6.5 percent). | US Federal Elections |
House Republicans said the Justice Department deviated from "standard processes" and gave Hunter Biden "special treatment" in its years-long federal investigation into him.
The House GOP's findings are laid out in an interim staff report released Tuesday by the House Judiciary Committee, House Ways & Means Committee, and the House Oversight Committee.
The chairmen of those panels – Reps. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, Jason Smith R-Mo., and James Comer, R-Ky. – are leading the impeachment inquiry against President Biden. The chairmen are investigating any foreign money received by the Biden family, whether President Biden was involved in his family’s foreign business dealings, and steps allegedly taken by the Biden administration to "slow, hamper, or otherwise impede the criminal investigation into the President’s son, Hunter Biden, which involves funds received by the Biden family from foreign sources."
The investigation began after two IRS whistleblowers, Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler, came forward this spring and told Congress that the Justice Department "had impeded, delayed, and obstructed the criminal investigation of the President’s son, Hunter Biden."
"The whistleblowers, who came forward only after IRS leadership failed to address their concerns, noted several deviations by Justice Department officials ‘from the normal process that provided preferential treatment, in this case to Hunter Biden,’" the report states.
The report points to Shapley and Ziegler’s claims that the Justice Department "allowed the statute of limitations on certain charges against Hunter Biden to lapse, prohibited line investigators from referring to or asking about President Biden during witness interviews, withheld evidence from line investigators, excluded the investigative team from meetings with defense counsel, and tipped off defense counsel about pending search warrants."
As part of the investigation, the committees have heard testimony from nearly a dozen DOJ officials, including Special Counsel David Weiss, who is leading the Hunter Biden probe, and have obtained "hundreds of pages of documents."
"The testimony and documents received by the committees to date corroborates many of the allegations made by IRS whistleblowers," the report states.
The committees found that the Justice Department and FBI "afforded special treatment" to Hunter Biden. The report cites witness testimony, which revealed that there was a "delicate approach used" during the Hunter Biden case. Those officials described the probe as "sensitive" or "significant."
"Evidence shows Department officials slow-walked the investigation, informed defense counsel of future investigative actions, prevented line investigators from taking otherwise ordinary investigative steps, and even allowed the statute of limitations to expire on the most serious potential charges," the report states. "These unusual – and oftentimes in the view of witnesses, unprecedented – tactics conflicted with standard operating procedures and ultimately had the effect of benefiting Hunter Biden."
The report also points to testimony which revealed Weiss, when serving as just U.S. attorney for Delaware, "did not have ‘ultimate authority’ over the Hunter Biden case." Weiss did testify during a transcribed interview that he was initially denied when requesting special prosecutor status. Attorney General Merrick Garland, in August 2023, appointed him as special counsel.
The report states that there is "no question that without the brave IRS whistleblowers, it is likely that the Biden Justice Department would have never acted on Hunter Biden’s misconduct."
"When forced to act, the Biden Justice Department worked closely with Hunter Biden’s counsel to craft an unprecedented plea deal that was so biased in the direction of Hunter Biden it fell apart in open court," the report states. "When a federal judge rejected the Department’s attempt to push through a sweetheart plea deal and quietly end the five-year investigation of Hunter Biden, Attorney General Garland appointed Weiss as special counsel and refused to answer questions about the case on the basis of the existence of an ‘ongoing investigation.’"
The report adds: "Using the ‘ongoing investigation’ as a veil to shield its misconduct, the Biden Justice Department unilaterally limited the scope of witness testimony and document productions to Congress, severely curtailing the Committees’ ability to gather information."
House Republicans said in their report that even amid these "troubling findings," there is "more information that the Justice Department is keeping from the Committees."
"The Justice Department has still not fully complied with requests for relevant documents, and it has impeded the Committees’ investigation by baselessly preventing two Tax Division officials – Senior Litigation Counsel Mark Daly and Trial Attorney Jack Morgan – from testifying, despite subpoenas compelling their testimony," the report states. "These documents and this testimony are necessary for the Committees to complete our inquiry."
The report says the Justice Department’s "blatant disregard for the Committees’ constitutionally prescribed oversight responsibilities is yet another stain that the Biden Administration has placed on the Justice Department’s once-venerated reputation."
House Republicans admitted that their investigation is "far from complete," but vowed to "continue to gather evidence to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to draft articles of impeachment against President Biden for consideration by the full House of Representatives."
The White House has blasted the House impeachment inquiry against the president as baseless.
The Justice Department, and individual DOJ officials, have denied whistleblower allegations that suggest politics played a role in prosecutorial decisions throughout the Hunter Biden probe.
Hunter Biden has been subpoenaed by the House Oversight Committee and is expected to appear for a deposition on Dec. 13. House Republicans have promised to release the transcript of Hunter Biden's deposition and have vowed to schedule a public hearing so the president's son can testify publicly before the American people, as his attorney requested. | US Political Corruption |
Senate moves shutdown-prevention plan that’s ‘not gonna happen’ in House
The addition of some Ukraine aid to the bipartisan spending proposal has immediately imperiled the bill and irritated House Republicans, further risking a shutdown on Oct. 1.
The bipartisan Senate spending billreleased Tuesday is a direct confrontation of the House GOP that risks raising the already high prospects of a government shutdown.
Though the Senate bill shortchanges President Joe Biden’s requests for Ukraine and disaster aid, it delivers far more robust funding for both priorities than some senators had contemplated just 24 hours earlier. It contains none of the spending cuts sought by conservatives and funds the government through Nov. 17 mostly at current levels — all things that House Republicans have declined to endorse.
The proposal also offers nothing to Speaker Kevin McCarthy on border policy, an issue that he’s now demanding must be at the center of any government funding deal to avoid a shutdown on Oct. 1. But senators in both parties said the chamber needs to make a move — and fast — given the dysfunction of the House.
“It seems to change every hour, if not by the minute in the House. So I don’t think they know what they can do at this point. But we know what we can do ... and that is to send over a [bill] and see what the speaker can do with it,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said.
Cornyn added that the Senate is flexible in its approach: “I don’t think there’s such a thing as a final offer. Whatever we need to do to keep the lights on.”
Though the bill might be able to pass the Senate by the time funding expires on Sunday morning, it “ain’t gonna pass the House,” said senior appropriator Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho). The legislation amounts to a significant challenge from one side of the Capitol to the other, where McCarthy has passed just one of his party’s own full-year spending bills, and it sets up exactly the situation that the speaker warned his rebellious conservatives was coming: paralyzed House Republicans getting jammed by the Senate with a bill they refuse to endorse.
“It’s not gonna happen over here. It’s not gonna happen on the Republican side,” Rep. Greg Murphy (R-N.C.) said, pointing to the Ukraine aid.
The Senate took the first step forward on Tuesday in what’s likely to be an arduous journey this week through procedural hoops and tough floor negotiations. GOP senators are already openly planning to propose changes to the bill: Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.) said Tuesday evening he’ll be “pushing really, really hard tomorrow at lunch to get rid of that Ukraine funding.” That idea, though, would still hit a brick wall in the House, according to Rep. Cory Mills (R-Fla.).
Even if the stopgap spending patch can clear the upper chamber this week, it will do nothing to help McCarthy out of his political pickle.
Senators’ thinking on the bill evolved quickly over the past few days. Aides in both parties hinted they would craft a simple bill without too many add-ons to see if McCarthy would welcome the chance to take up a simple funding extension as the Sept. 30 deadline neared.
But in the end, the Senate changed course and embraced a strategy aimed at offering antsy lawmakers some assurance that disaster and Ukraine assistance programs wouldn’t go entirely unfunded. The White House also made a late and sustained push to include more money for those priorities.
“It’s important for us to go and act. If we can get a good bipartisan vote, it will be an important signal to send to the House. And the speaker will recognize that he should not cater to a small group of extremists,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) said.
The California Republican is already facing the threat of a far-right rebellion, one that would be virtually guaranteed if McCarthy put any Senate-negotiated plan on the floor with billions of dollars in Ukraine aid — not to mention a lack of further spending cuts and no border policy changes.
Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio), a senior appropriator who leads the more centrist Republican Governance Group, made clear that he has little interest in a Senate-negotiated stopgap, also known as a continuing resolution or a CR.
“The plan is to get some kind of stopgap funding that includes border security that’s so necessary, to protect us from what the president has allowed to happen on the southern border,” Joyce said.
Instead, the House GOP is expected to pivot back to its own stopgap funding bill, with steep funding cuts and conservative border policy attached.
Monday afternoon, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer sold the bill as a shutdown prevention measure, calling it a “bridge” to more work on a more comprehensive spending plan. Immediately afterward, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell endorsed the bill and savaged the alternative: “Government shutdowns are bad news.”
“I’m more optimistic than when I was yesterday or the day before. At least we’ve got a vehicle to work with here,” Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said.
The House has “got to look at the realities of this,” he added. “What they are trying to do is insert uncertainty in the process and waste money.”
But the bill is not the “clean” solution many had expected, and that is bound to create procedural hurdles in the Senate. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he will slow down any bill with Ukraine aid, and he alone can likely prompt a short shutdown by withholding unanimous consent for a quick vote on the measure released Tuesday night.
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), meanwhile, is dissatisfied with the disaster relief money. Ukraine and disaster relief would receive roughly $6 billion each under the Senate’s plan. Asked if he’d hold the bill up, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said, “I’ll resolve those procedural questions as they come up.”
“We’ll just have to see how this plays out. ... I mean, it’s hard to predict. It really is,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) of the bill’s fate.
McCarthy would have struggled mightily to bring a “clean” bill to the floor, even if the Senate tried to give him one — Republicans across the conference have demanded concessions on the border and other issues. Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio) said “you can’t pass a clean CR here.”
McCarthy is already facing ultraconservatives still enraged over his debt-limit negotiating with Biden this spring, in addition to blatant threats to his gavel if he works with Democrats to avert a shutdown.
Those warnings from the right would include any bill blessed by McConnell.
McCarthy and his leadership team are instead devoting this week to passing their own party-line spending bills. But as they prepare to bring four of the GOP’s most popular proposals to the floor, it’s still not certain that any of them have the votes to pass, according to multiple GOP sources.
Some of McCarthy’s allies had acknowledged that the speaker’s lack of options could eventually force him to put a Senate-approved stopgap on the House floor. But that would only have been an option if the plan remained free of extra spending priorities. Now the speaker is focused on securing border policy concessions from Democrats.
He floated, for the first time on Tuesday, that he would like a sitdown with Biden on the matter.
“The president could keep government open by doing something on the border,” McCarthy said. | US Congress |
- Rep. Tom Emmer is the latest GOP nominee for speaker of the House.
- If he wins, he could be a hurdle to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
- As of Tuesday afternoon, it didn't appear Emmer had the votes to win the gavel.
Rep. Tom Emmer is the latest Republican nominee for speaker of the House, and that could mean a fresh headache for the nation's largest business lobbying group.
Emmer, like former Speaker Kevin McCarthy, is one of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's biggest critics among House Republicans. If Emmer were to become speaker, his dislike of the Chamber could mean that the group could be boxed out from either meeting with him or other members of Republican House leadership.
A lack of engagement with House Republican leadership, particularly the speaker, could mean that the Chamber will have little impact on future legislation.
Yet Emmer, as of Tuesday afternoon, was far from a lock to become speaker. He still needs dozens of votes to get to the necessary 217 supporters in a House floor vote. Emmer also has a big antagonist in former President Donald Trump. "Voting for a globalist RINO like Tom Emmer would be a tragic mistake," Trump posted on his Truth Social account, using the acronym for the insult "Republican in name only."
Much of the animosity among Republicans toward the typically GOP-friendly Chamber stems from the group's support of some Democrats in recent congressional races. When McCarthy was speaker, he was known to not meet with the Chamber of Commerce on key issues, including a recent debate over the debt ceiling.
"The U.S. Chamber has lost its way. They're more focused on pandering to Democrats than supporting the pro-job and pro-growth principles they once purported to uphold," Emmer posted on Twitter, now known as X, in July
Emmer was in charge of the National Republican Congressional Committee, the campaign arm for House Republicans, when the Chamber endorsed Democrats during the 2020 and 2022 election cycles. Asked how Emmer will engage with the Chamber if he becomes speaker, a person close to the Republican nominee for the speakership said: "Emmer's feelings on the U.S. Chamber have been very clear."
Out of the nine Republicans who initially raised their hands to be speaker-designate this time around, Emmer was the worst possible result for the Chamber, given his intense criticism of the group, according to two other people familiar with the matter. These people declined to be named in order to speak freely about private discussions.
A spokesperson for the Chamber of Commerce did not return a request for comment. A spokeswoman for Emmer's office did not return a request for comment.
For years, the Chamber was considered a go-to lobbying group for the Republican Party. It supported Republican-led tax reform legislation, including large tax cuts for businesses and wealthy Americans, which then-President Trump signed in 2017.
But the relationship between the Chamber and some Republican officials soured since then. The group opposed Trump's tariffs on goods coming in from China, which prompted anger among Trump's core supporters. Previously, many Republican lawmakers had long opposed starting a trade war with China.
The Chamber has continued to support Republicans despite the criticism the group has received from House Republican leadership. Its political action committee has already donated toward the reelection campaigns of Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., who's the interim speaker; Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wis.; and Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., according to the Federal Election Commission records.
The Chamber gave more to Republicans than Democrats during the 2022 election cycle, according to data from OpenSecrets. Emmer's campaign received $1,000 from the Chamber of Commerce in 2015, according to an FEC record. | US Congress |
RNC chair calls on GOP candidates to adopt ‘common sense’ messaging on abortion
Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel tried to paint the GOP as the “common sense” party on abortion and suggested Republican candidates ought to adhere to that message to win future elections.
In an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Dana Bash pressed McDaniel on what the GOP messaging should be on abortion – in light of McDaniel saying after the elections this past week that “Our candidates have lost their messaging on abortion.”
“I have been on your show talking about this since 2022,” McDaniel told Bash. “I am a suburban woman. I get this. We actually put a memo out before the elections in 2022. It’s up to the candidates if they take those suggestions. As I always say, if I give my husband directions in the car, it doesn’t mean he’s going to take them, right? But we have to talk about this.”
McDaniel pointed to newly elected Virginia State Sen. Danny Diggs (R), who McDaniel said “did a fantastic job.”
“He won a Senate race. He put his daughter in an ad, and she was compassionate. She understood women. She wasn’t coming at them as criminals because they have different – differences of opinion,” McDaniel said. “And she articulated her dad’s position.”
“His position was, we should have commonsense limitations,” McDaniel said when pressed. She then asked why Democrats can’t agree to the same “commonsense limitations.”
McDaniel’s language echoes much of the rhetoric that GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley has used in her softer approach to restricting abortion.
While Haley said during the debate this past week that she would sign any abortion ban that comes to her desk as president, she has repeatedly insisted that would never happen – arguing the Senate’s filibuster threshold appropriately prevents such divisive legislation from passing. Haley has also said Americans should not demonize or prosecute those with differing opinions on abortion.
Ohio, a state that Trump won in both 2016 and 2020, voted to make abortion access a protected right under the state’s constitution – a move that many Democrats have hailed as a victory. Democrats similarly won many tough races at the ballots this past week, prompting GOP strategists to express concern over the durability of an anti-abortion position going into the 2024 election.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Elections |
ATLANTA -- The Georgia State Election Board is asking a judge to order a conservative voting organization to produce information to help investigate its claims of ballot trafficking in the state.
The Texas-based True the Vote group filed complaints with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in November 2021, including one saying it had received “a detailed account of coordinated efforts to collect and deposit ballots in drop boxes across metro Atlanta” during the 2020 general election and in a runoff election in January 2021.
True the Vote’s assertions were relied upon heavily for the film “2000 Mules,” a widely debunked film by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza. The film featured surveillance video from drop boxes in Atlanta’s suburbs showing people depositing multiple ballots. A State Election Board investigation found that those people were submitting ballots for themselves and family members who lived with them, which is allowed under Georgia law.
In the court filing Tuesday, the state attorney general’s office asked a Fulton County Superior Court judge to order True the Vote to comply with its subpoena.
“After multiple good faith efforts by the SEB (State Election Board) and its counsel to obtain the requested information and documents, True the Vote continues to indifferently vacillate between statements of assured compliance and blanket refusals,” leaving the election board with no choice but to turn to the courts, the filing says.
Two attorneys who have represented True the Vote in the matter did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment Wednesday.
True the Vote's complaint said its investigators “spoke with several individuals regarding personal knowledge, methods, and organizations involved in ballot trafficking in Georgia.” One of those people, referred to in the complaint only as John Doe, “admitted to personally participating and provided specific information about the ballot trafficking process.” Doe is alleged to have outlined a “network of non-governmental organizations” that paid people to collect and deliver absentee ballots.
The group said it was able to confirm patterns of activity to support the allegations using surveillance video and geospatial mobile device information. In a September 2021 letter, Vic Reynolds, who was director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation at the time, said the evidence produced did not amount to proof of ballot harvesting.
After receiving the group's complaints two months later, Raffensperger's office opened an investigation. Investigators in April 2022 issued subpoenas to True the Vote for relevant documents and information, including the identity and contact information for people who True the Vote said provided details about the alleged ballot trafficking.
A lawyer for True the Vote in May 2023 wrote a letter to a state attorney saying that a complete response to the subpoenas would require the organization to identify people to whom it had promised confidentiality and that it could not do that. The lawyer wrote that True the Vote was withdrawing its complaints.
State Election Board Chair William Duffey responded in a letter two weeks later, saying that the board's investigation into True the Vote's “serious allegations” was ongoing. Therefore, he wrote, he would not allow the complaints to be withdrawn and asked the state attorney general's office to seek enforcement of the subpoenas.
A lawyer for True the Vote in June wrote in a letter that True the Vote had already provided some of the information requested to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation but declined to provide the identities and contact information for people described in its complaints “because doing so may put those persons in physical or personal jeopardy.”
One man falsely accused in the film of committing ballot fraud has filed a still-pending federal lawsuit against True the Vote, D'Souza and others. Surveillance video in the film shows Mark Andrews, his face blurred, depositing five ballots in a drop box in downtown Lawrenceville, a suburb northeast of Atlanta, ahead of the 2020 election. A voiceover by conservative pundit and filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza says: “What you are seeing is a crime. These are fraudulent votes.”
A state investigation found that Andrews was dropping off ballots for himself and his three adult children. | US Federal Elections |
WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives on Tuesday took the unprecedented step of ousting a speaker from office, nearly nine months after Kevin McCarthy won the powerful gavel in a dramatic 15-round floor fight.
The vote was 216-210, to topple the California Republican. All 208 Democrats teamed up with just eight GOP rebels to vacate the speaker’s chair — the first time in U.S. history that lawmakers have formally voted to remove a sitting speaker in the middle of a term. An overwhelming number of Republicans, 210, voted to keep McCarthy in power, but it was not enough to stop the effort given the GOP’s razor-thin majority.
Follow along for live updates.
The vote threw the GOP-controlled House into chaos as lawmakers struggled to figure out what to do next. The House is now in recess while members meet; the session was ended by Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., a top McCarthy ally, who slammed the speaker's gavel down after the vote. McHenry will now serve as a temporary replacement for McCarthy with the title speaker pro tempore.
“I recognize that my friends on the other side have a very complex set of partisan, personal and political calculations to make — and I certainly wouldn’t presume to give them any advice about that,” Rules Chairman Tom Cole, R-Okla., a top McCarthy ally who tried unsuccessfully to block Gaetz’s effort, warned on the floor before the vote. “But I would say, ‘Think long and hard before you plunge us into chaos. Because that’s where we’re headed if we vacate the speakership.’”
Cole received big applause and a standing ovation from almost the entire GOP side of the chamber as he finished speaking. He led a parade of McCarthy allies in speaking in favor of retaining the speaker.
But Gaetz, countered: “Chaos is Speaker McCarthy. Chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word. ...I don’t think voting against Kevin McCarthy is chaos. I think $33 trillion in debt is chaos. I think that facing a $2.2 trillion annual deficit is chaos.”
A vote on McCarthy’s political future will come after the House debates the motion.
Under House rules, McCarthy had until Wednesday to take up the resolution that Gaetz, a conservative Florida Republican and Donald Trump loyalist, filed Monday night. But McCarthy and his allies moved to rip off the Band-Aid and quickly take on the so-called motion to vacate that has consumed the Capitol.
“I get politics. I understand where people are,” McCarthy told reporters. But he added: “I truly believe the institution of the House, at the end of the day, if you throw a speaker out that has 99% of their conference, that kept government open and paid the troops, I think we’re in a really bad place.”
Given how rarely the speakership has been declared vacant — the last time it happened was in 1910, when Speaker Joseph Cannon declared the chair vacant against himself — it’s unclear how exactly it will play out.
A number of senior Democrats have said they won’t vote to rescue McCarthy from the mutiny. Numerous House Democrats exited their own conference meeting Tuesday mum on how they’d vote on a motion to vacate, although they stressed there would be “unity” within the party on a way forward.
“We are not saving Kevin McCarthy,” said Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., as she left the meeting.
In the Democrats’ meeting, leadership played sound of McCarthy’s Sunday interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation” where he said Democrats wanted to shut down the government in last week’s standoff, Connolly recounted. Many rank-and-file Democrats fumed at his remarks.
Democrats heard a range of views about what to do, but “there wasn’t anybody who came to the defense of Kevin McCarthy,” said Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass.
Neal, like others, said they’d defer to Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. “I’m going to hear what the leader has to say and coalesce around him,” Neal said.
Still, there are Democrats who say they won’t under any circumstances rescue McCarthy.
“I will vote to remove Kevin McCarthy as speaker. I will not be an enabler,” added Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va. “It is absolutely against Democratic interests and the interests of the country, from my point of view, to allow him to persist in office.”
“He’s a MAGA extremist in his politics and is the antithesis of everything we hold dear,” Connolly continued.
Other Democrats didn't say how they would vote — only that Democrats need to stick together in the face of the GOP civil war over McCarthy's future.
"Democrats understand right now that our unity is our power as we watch the other side devolve," said Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Mich., a Senate candidate. "And I am not here to fix the Republican Party, only they can do that." | US Congress |
The debate, televised without an audience and slower in pace than its 2024 Republican counterparts, allowed DeSantis to differentiate himself from his primary opponents and Newsom to introduce himself to a general election audience should he run for president in the future.
Here are the Washington Examiner's top four takeaways:
DeSantis had a good night
DeSantis has improved in the Republican primary debates over the course of his campaign and had a strong performance against Newsom.
Despite appearing awkward at times, DeSantis had a solid opening, criticizing Newsom and other blue state governors, several of whom have lost residents to red ones.
"You almost have to try to mess California up," DeSantis said. "They actually, at one point. ran out of U-Hauls in the state of California because so many people were leaving!"
“He’s imposed restrictions on his own people while exempting himself from those restrictions and going to The French Laundry while his people were suffering," he added.
DeSantis's responses also included anecdotes from people he has met during the election cycle, in addition to a pandemic-era story about Newsom's father-in-law, who now lives in Florida.
"These liberal elites, they like to impose burdens on you," he said. "They don't want to have to face the consequences of their actions."
The debate was a "throwback" to a more traditional time before former President Donald Trump’s presence on the political scene, according to University of Michigan debate director Aaron Kall.
"This will provide DeSantis with practice and momentum heading into next week’s Alabama debate," he told the Washington Examiner of the fourth primary debate. "DeSantis can now say he’s gone toe-to-toe on a debate stage with the Democratic governor of California, which is good preparation for general election debates with President [Joe] Biden."
Newsom had a tough crowd
With Fox News as the host, Newsom was aware he would have to answer harder questions than DeSantis, with anchor Sean Hannity interfering less when DeSantis interrupted Newsom than vice versa.
Newsom went into the "lion’s den" to debate both DeSantis and moderator Hannity, according to Kall.
"Newsom was effective tonight in defending the legislative record of the Biden-[Vice President Kamala] Harris administration while simultaneously raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for the campaign," he said. "High-profile events like tonight’s will put Newsom in an excellent position to be one of the Democratic Party’s top standard bearers heading into the 2028 presidential election."
Republican strategist Cesar Conda countered that the debate will make Democrats "even more depressed."
"Gavin Newsom is far more articulate than Joe Biden, who everyone knows would get destroyed by [former U.N. Ambassador Nikki] Haley, DeSantis, or Trump in a presidential debate," he said. "Newsom has become the leading 'break glass in case of emergency' Democratic nominee should something happen to Biden."
Regardless, Newsom persevered, criticizing DeSantis for weaponizing "grievance" during his bid and "focusing on false separateness."
"There's one thing, in closing, that we have in common, is neither of us will be the nominee for our party in 2024," he said to DeSantis.
Newsom hugged Biden
Newsom underscored his support of Biden and his record before next year's election during his opening remarks, going on to defend the president against criticism regarding his age and economic policies, rebranded as Bidenomics.
DeSantis seized on Newsom's strategy, anchoring him to Biden and Harris amid their poor polling.
"I'll give Gavin credit — he did at least admit in his first answer he's joined at the hip with Biden and Harris," DeSantis said.
One of DeSantis and Newsom's most cacophonous clashes concerned DeSantis's claims Newsom is running a shadow 2024 campaign against Biden.
"I thought this guy was running for president of the United States," Newsom said.
"You are too. You just won't admit it," DeSantis replied.
Immigration, education, and freedom
Newsom criticized DeSantis for "lying" to immigrants before "using human beings as pawns" and sending them to places such as Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts, and his home state's capital of Sacramento.
"I’m the only guy here that is a border state governor," he said. "You’re trolling folks trying to find migrants to play political games, to get some news, so you can out-Trump Trump, and by the way … how is that going for you, Ron? You’re down 41 points in your own home state."
DeSantis came prepared with props, including Maia Kobabe's Gender Queer: A Memoir and a graphic from an app that tracks where human feces has been found in Newsom's hometown of San Francisco.
"California does have freedoms that some people don't, that other states don't," he said. "You have the freedom to defecate in public in California, you have the freedom to pitch a tent on Sunset Boulevard, you have the freedom to create a homeless encampment under a freeway." | US Federal Elections |
Several defendants in the Georgia election interference case have been approached about their interest in accepting plea deals, as the Fulton County district attorney seeks to pare back the pool of defendants and pick up cooperators ahead of potential trials, according to sources familiar with the matter.
Only one of the 19 defendants charged in the sprawling Fulton County racketeering case – bail bondsman Scott Hall – has formally accepted a plea deal. And it’s unclear whether any of the defendants currently in conversations with Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ office are likely to agree to a deal.
There is no indication Willis has offered any sort of deal to former President Donald Trump and a spokesperson for the district attorney did not respond to a request for comment.
Among those approached by Willis’ office was Trump 2020 campaign official Mike Roman, but other defendants have also had discussions about possible plea deals in recent days, the sources said. Roman’s attorney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The plea deal conversations surrounding him were previously reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
At a hearing last week, a prosecutor from the district attorney’s office said they were likely to make plea offers to attorneys Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro, two defendants in the case who are set to go to trial later this month. But it’s unclear if Powell or Chesebro would be willing to accept a deal if one were offered.
The plea deal conversations are not an unusual step, particularly given the broad pool of defendants. Sources familiar with the district attorney’s case said prosecutors hoped to whittle down the field of defendants before potential trials, just as Willis did in previous racketeering cases involving Atlanta public school educators and an ongoing case involving Atlanta-area rappers.
“She will be using this as a way to try to squeeze people to talk,” Michael J. Moore, a former US attorney for the Middle District of Georgia, said of the plea offers. “Sometimes the deal will be so sweet that they will obviously agree to cooperate. At the end of the day, what impact that has I don’t know. I don’t know if she’ll have enough people to connect the dots or not.”
The remaining 18 defendants in the case – all of whom have pleaded not guilty – will have a diverse set of interests to weigh in deciding whether to accept a deal.
Forging ahead to trial could mean massive legal bills. But several of the defendants in the case also face potential exposure in the ongoing federal election interference investigation and may balk at any sort of plea deal that fails to immunize them from potential federal charges, lawyers told CNN.
CNN’s Nick Valencia contributed to this report. | US Political Corruption |
FIRST ON FOX: A decorated military veteran and successful Republican businessman in Montana who’s considering a run for the Senate in 2024 against Sen. Jon Tester is taking aim at the Democratic incumbent over his comment that U.S. "farted around in the Middle East forever."
The comment is’t sitting well with Tim Sheehy, a former Navy SEAL and Purple Heart recipient who notched more than 200 missions in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe.
Sheehy — the CEO of Bridger Aerospace, a Montana-based aerial firefighting and wildfire surveillance services company — is being urged by some in the nation’s capital to run for the Senate next year in a crucial race that could determine the chamber's majority.
"I was there, and I can promise you I wasn’t farting around," Sheehy said Thursday in a statement shared first with Fox News.
Tester, who’s running for a fourth six-year term representing Montana in the Senate, made his comments in an interview published Sunday in the Daily Inter Lake, a Kalispell, Montana-based newspaper.
The farmer and former state lawmaker was expressing his backing of the Biden administration’s strong military support for Ukraine as it continues to defend itself after coming under attack from Russia over a year ago.
When asked if he was concerned that the war in Ukraine could go on for a long time, Tester answered: "That's another challenge… We farted around in the Middle East forever. And that's why at some point in time, there's a negotiated agreement, or this thing will escalate. Or we'll pull out."
Sheehy said in his statement that "on 9/11 nearly 3,000 Americans were killed by Al Qaeda terrorists in the most brazen attack on the continental United States since the War of 1812. In response, millions of young men and women answered the call to ensure that an attack of that magnitude never happened again. In what became our nation’s longest war, over 7,000 American men and women gave the ultimate sacrifice."
"On Sunday, Senator Jon Tester described these wars as ‘farting around in the Middle East.’ I was there, and I can promise you I wasn’t farting around. As the Chair of the Senate Veterans Affairs’ Committee, Senator Tester should have a better vocabulary to use for our veterans," Sheehy argued.
Tester is being heavily targeted by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) as the GOP aims to flip the seat in a state former President Donald Trump carried by 16 points in 2020. Democratic held seats in heavily red West Virginia and Republican leaning Ohio are also top NRSC targets as Republicans aim to win back the Senate majority in next year’s elections.
A GOP source confirms to Fox News that Sheehy’s being encouraged to run by Montana’s other senator, Republican Steve Daines — who’s the NRSC chair this election cycle.
"Tim is a good friend and a great American," Daines said in a statement to Fox News.
A Republican strategist familiar with Sheehy’s thinking, who asked to remain anonymous to speak more freely, told Fox News that "people have been encouraging him to run and he's considering it, but no decisions have been made yet."
Republican sources tell Fox News that Sheehy is viewed as a candidate "right out of central casting" due to his military and business background, his status as a political outsider without a long trail of controversial votes or statements, and his ability to self-finance a campaign due to his personal wealth.
If Sheehy runs, he would potentially face off in what would be a competitive primary against Rep. Matt Rosendale, a hard-right congressman who’s seriously mulling a bid. During the 2020 GOP primary for the House seat, Rosendale had the backing of the deep-pocketed, anti-tax, conservative group Club for Growth. | US Federal Elections |
Washington — The Senate is expected to vote on a stopgap funding bill on Wednesday that would punt a spending fight until early next year.
The House, known as a continuing resolution, Tuesday night, sending it to the Senate ahead of a Friday deadline. Without a funding extension, the government is set to shutdown Saturday.
House Speaker Mike Johnson unveiled the measure less than a week before funding from a short-term bill passed in September was set to expire.
But dissent from within his own party over its lack of spending cuts or funding for border security required Johnson to rely on Democratic votes to get it over the finish line.
Theextends appropriations dealing with veterans programs, transportation, housing, agriculture and energy until Jan. 19. Funding for eight other appropriations bills, including defense, would be extended until Feb. 2.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries originally called the two-step plan a nonstarter, but later said Democrats would support it given its exclusion of spending cuts and "extreme right-wing policy riders." All but two Democrats voted to pass the measure, while dozens of Republicans opposed it.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said he hoped there would be a strong bipartisan vote for the House bill.
"Neither [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell nor I want a shutdown," Schumer said Tuesday.
President Biden is expected to sign the bill if it passes the Senate.
Why is the government facing another shutdown?
Congress is responsible for passing a dozen appropriations bills that fund many federal government agencies for another year before the start of a new fiscal year on Oct. 1. The funding bills are often grouped together into a large piece of legislation, referred to as an "omnibus" bill.
The House has passed seven bills, while the Senate has passed three that were grouped together in a "minibus." None have been passed by both chambers.
In September, Congress reached a last-minute deal to fund the government through Nov. 17 just hours before it was set to shutdown.
Hard-right members upset by the short-term extension that did not include spending cuts and who wanted the House to pass the appropriations bills individually moved toas their leader.
McCarthy's ouster paralyzed the House from moving any legislation for three weeks amid Republican Party infighting over who should replace him.
By the time Johnson took the gavel, he had little time to corral his members around a plan to keep the government open, and ended up in the same situation as McCarthy — needing Democratic votes to pass a bill that did not include spending cuts demanded by conservatives.
for more features. | US Congress |
Nine members of the "Los Chapitos" faction of Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel were sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury for fentanyl trafficking the agency announced in a news statement on Tuesday. A tenth individual, a leader of Clan del Golfo, one of Colombia's most significant cocaine cartels, was also sanctioned.
Today's actions by the U.S. show the government will continue to "target the criminal enterprises threatening international security and flooding our communities with fentanyl and other deadly drugs," said Brian E. Nelson, under secretary of the Treasury for terrorism and financial intelligence. All properties, transactions or interests in properties in the U.S. or outside within the control or possession of U.S. persons need to be blocked and reported, the news statement said.
The nine "Los Chapitos" sanctioned are part of the Sinaloa Cartel, which the U.S. government says is responsible for large-scale fentanyl and methamphetamine production and trafficking into the United States. In April 2023 the Justice Department charged– including "El Chapo" Guzman's Ivan Guzman Salazar, Alfredo Guzman Salazar and Ovidio Guzman Lopez – of the Sinaloa Cartel with fentanyl trafficking. The indictment said cartel associates to torture their rivals while some of their victims were "fed dead or alive to tigers."
Seven of the nine sanctioned were also indicted by the U.S. Department of Justice in April 2023, and in some cases, rewards are offered for information leading to their capture. A reward of up to $1 million dollars has been offered for information leading to the arrest of Jorge Humberto Figueroa Benitez, as leader of "Los Chapitos" security, the U.S. Department said.
Benitez was sanctioned on Tuesday, along with Leobardo Garcia Corrales, Martin Garcia Corrales, Liborio Nunez Aguirre, Samuel Leon Alvarado, Carlos Mario Limon Vazquez, Mario Alberto Jimenez Castro, Julio Cesar Dominguez Hernandez and Jesus Miguel Vibanco Garcia.
Vibanco Garcia, the brother-in-law of Jimenez Castro, often travels to Vancouver, Canada, where he coordinates fentanyl distribution operations, the Treasury Department said in the news statement. Vancouver is "a strategic position" for the Sinaloa Cartel, the agency said, and the U.S. has been working to reduce the flow of illicit drugs across the Northern border.
Stephen Smith contributed to this report.
for more features. | US Federal Policies |
Pennsylvania Republicans are criticizing Governor Josh Shapiro over his handling of sexual harassment allegations made against one of his top aides who recently resigned.
Several female Republican lawmakers, led by Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward, have questioned why the aide was allowed to remain in his position for months after his accuser came forward.
The Democratic governor on Thursday broke his silence on the scandal involving his former Secretary of Legislative Affairs Mike Vereb, who resigned in September nearly six months after he was accused of harassment by a female subordinate.
"The fact that this is a personnel matter, I can’t comment on any specifics and that’s really designed to be able to protect all parties involved in any matter," Shapiro told reporters Thursday at an appearance in Bethlehem to announce new funding for recreation and conservation projects, according to PennLive.
Vereb, a former Republican state lawmaker, resigned from his role as the governor's liaison to the state legislature in September. The resignation came after a female deputy secretary who worked in the legislative affairs office accused him of regularly making lewd and sexually inappropriate remarks, PennLive reported.
"According to a draft of a Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission complaint obtained by PennLive, the women said she could no longer work in an environment where she was regularly subject to lewd and sexually inappropriate comments from Vereb. She also said she was retaliated against when she complained," the report said.
Shapiro spokesman Manuel Bonder would not comment on the specifics of the personnel matter but noted the Commonwealth "takes allegations of discrimination and harassment seriously."
"Robust procedures are in place for thoroughly investigating reports of discrimination and harassment – and these procedures are implemented whenever complaints of discrimination or harassment are made and provide detailed guidance to help ensure that allegations are promptly and fully investigated and that employees feel comfortable to report misconduct," Bonder said.
Pressed to respond to Republican criticisms, Shapiro told reporters Thursday to "consider the source when it comes from the president pro tem."
GOP officials blasted Shapiro's response. "There are legitimate questions about the handling of harassment allegations inside Governor Shapiro’s office," said Michael Straw, the communications director for the Pennsylvania State Republican Campaign Committee. "Instead of taking the opportunity today to be transparent and answer a question on a serious topic, he attacked the credibility of the first female Senate President. Pennsylvanians deserve answers from Josh Shapiro."
The accuser's attorney, who refrained from commenting on his client's case specifically, also criticized the governor's remarks about Ward.
"Legitimate questions or concerns expressed by elected officials--of either party-- about sexual harassment in the workplace shouldn't be dismissed in such a cavalier fashion. That response is beyond disappointing," said attorney Charles Pascal, chairman of the Armstrong County Democratic Committee.
Bonder told Fox News that the governor was referring to Ward's longtime opposition to legislation that would increase the statute of limitations on sex crimes.
"For years, Senator Ward has refused to run a bipartisan bill to give survivors of sexual abuse their day in court to hold their abusers accountable," Bonder said. "The Governor finds that unacceptable, and as soon as the Senator decides to allow a vote on the bill, he will proudly sign it to deliver justice and accountability to survivors all across Pennsylvania."
Ward did not respond to a request for comment.
Shapiro also said Thursday that his administration is led by "two strong women," referring to his Chief of Staff Dana Fritz and General Counsel Jennifer Selber, according to PennLive. The governor said that together they work for a safe work environment for all Commonwealth employees.
"Should anyone feel that we’re not meeting those standards, we have an independent robust professional process to allow people to come forward safely and have their concerns heard," Shapiro said. "That’s something that I’m committed to. The leaders in my administration are committed to. And that is something we adhere to in every case."
Democratic State Sen. Lisa Boscola, who was at the event with Shapiro, said several female Democratic lawmakers met privately with the governor to discuss the matter.
"We came out of that very confident that he is handling this, his administration – and he is right. He has two powerful women that know what they're doing when it comes to personnel issues," Boscola said. "So I'm very confident him and his administration is handling this as best as they can." | US Political Corruption |
Danelo Cavalcante was convicted of murder charges in August for brutally stabbing his former girlfriend to death in front of her children.
Less than two weeks after receiving a life sentence, the 34-year-old sparked fresh terror as he broke free from a Pennsylvania jail.
A massive manhunt is now underway to locate Cavalcante, who is considered “extremely dangerous”.
Cavalcante was found guilty of the murder of Deborah Brandao on 16 August – more than two years after he stabbed her 38 times with a kitchen knife in Schuylkill Township back in April 2021. Prosecutors said he killed Brandao to stop her from telling police about an active arrest warrant he was facing for another alleged murder in his home country of Brazil in 2017.
Just days into beginning his life sentence for Brandao’s killing, Cavalcante broke free from the Chester State Prison on the morning of 31 August.
Here is everything we know about Cavalcante and his escape:
The escape
Cavalcante escaped from the Chester County Prison in Pocopson Township, Pennsylvania, at around 8.50am on 31 August.
At the time, other inmates in the exercise yard were playing basketball. Video of the incident showed him crab-walking up a wall and pushing through razor wire in order to gain access to the prison’s roof.
He then jumped down into another area of the prison and left on foot. The unconventional method is exactly the same that was used by another inmate back in May, Chester County Prison acting Warden Howard Holland said.
During that incident, the inmate was captured within minutes after a tower officer reported the break to prison staff. In Cavalcante’s case, the tower officer tasked with surveilling the escape route failed to report the jailbreak, which went unnoticed for nearly an hour.
Cavalcante’s absence was only noticed during a head count when his block returned back inside around 9.50am after the basketball game. The jail was then put into lockdown and the 911 centre was notified 10 minutes later.
“We can confirm that the corrections officer on duty when Danelo Cavalcante escaped was terminated yesterday afternoon,” a source told CNN in a statement. “He was an 18-year veteran of the prison.”
The acting warden said that an investigation into the escape was being conducted by the state attorney’s office.
Mr Holland said that following the escape attempt in May, the prison had brought consultants in to increase security at the facility. Razor wire — which Cavalcante pushed through — was placed to prevent access to the roof, but officials didn’t expect “the human element” to fail, Mr Holland said.
“While we believed that the security measures we had in place were sufficient, they have proven otherwise,” Mr Holland said. “And we will work to enhance our security ... One key difference in [this] escape is the role of the tower officer whose primary responsibility is to oversee the inmate in the exercise yard.”
Mr Holland declined to say what the prison officer was believed to be doing during the escape, only noting that he was at the post.
Sightings of Cavalcante
On 4 September, a surveillance camera on a trail had captured him walking in an area of Longwood Gardens in East Marlborough Township.
The images show that Cavalcante has obtained a backpack and a hooded sweatshirt during his escape.
Cavalcante has been seen at the intersection of Routes 926 and 52, north on Route 52 to Parkersville Road, southeast to Route 926 and west to the intersection of Routes 926 and 52 in Pocopson Township, police said.
There were also two reported burglaries in the area that police have investigated, but these are not currently confirmed to be linked to the escaped prisoner.
However, Lt Colonel George Bivens of the Pennsylvania State Police said that the incidents “are of interest to us”.
West Chester resident Ryan Drummond claimed in an interview with The Philadelphia Inquirer that one of Cavalcante’s confirmed sightings occurred at his home. Mr Drummond said that he woke up to noises downstairs on 1 September and realised that there was an intruder.
“I decided not to confront him and thought it was a better move to flick the light switch,” Mr Drummond, whose wife and children were also in the home, told the Inquirer. “And he flicked it back at me, which was terrifying, so I told my wife to call 911.”
Mr Drummond said that Cavalcante entered the home through an old French door that couldn’t lock properly.
He said his nine-year-old daughter had raised fears about Cavalcante being able to gain access to the home through the door, but he tried to reassure her that the murder convict was likely far away.
“The last few days have been surreal. It’s tough,” Mr Drummond said. “We’re all jumpy, and I could see this has taken a psychological toll on my kids. If they’re in the room by themselves, they’re calling for us.”
Cavalcante was last spotted near Phoenixville in northern Chester County on 9 September.
Earlier that day, he stole a white 2020 Ford Transit van that he used to drive from Longwood Gardens to Phoenixville.
The individual was out having dinner with his family and did not immediately respond to Cavalcante. He later alerted local police of the sighting.
Doorbell video images showed Cavalcante to be now clean-shaven and wearing a green hooded sweatshirt, black baseball cap, green prison pants and white shoes.
The fugitive then travelled to the home of another former coworker’s home in Phoenixville. A female who was at the home when Cavalcante rang the bell called a friend, who eventually informed law enforcement about the sighting.
Then, around 10.40am on 10 September, police found the van that Cavalcant had stolen in a field behind a barn in East Nantmeal Township, about 15 miles from Phoenixville. Lt Col Bivens said he believed Cavalcante abandoned the vehicle at least in part because it was low on fuel.
Authorities are concerned that he would attempt to obtain another vehicle or has already done so.
The manhunt has been repeatedly expanded as Cavalcante has managed to sneak past the search perimeter several times.
The area where Cavalcante abandoned the van is roughly a 40-minute drive from the previous eight-mile perimeter police had established near the popular Longwood Gardens botanical park.
“No perimeter is 100 per cent secure. We do the best we can. Most times we’re able to secure it adequately,” Mr Bivens said on 10 September.
The manhunt
Authorities said in a “case outline” that there would be a “combined reward” of $5,000 from the US Marshals Service and $5,000 from Chester County. Crime Stoppers is offering an additional $15,000, bringing the reward total to $25,000.
Authorities said law enforcement teams, including the US Marshals, SWAT and other federal agencies, have joined the search to find Cavalcante.
The marshals had initially employed helicopters, drones and other resources to search for Cavalcante in the heavily wooded areas near the prison.
Law enforcement also blasted a message from his mother, speaking in Portuguese, into his hiding place from police helicopters and patrol cars.
Robert Clark, supervisory deputy US Marshal for the Easter District of Pennsylvania spoke at a conference explaining why these tactics were being deployed.
“As desperate as he is, maybe he has a change of thought and hears his mother telling him to surrender, and his family cares about him,” Mr Clark said.
“Perhaps this is what puts him over the edge where we can get a peaceful surrender.”
Pennsylvania State Police are facing growing scrutiny after it was confirmed on 10 September that Cavalcante had managed, yet again, to sneak past the search perimeter.
US Marshals Service supervising deputy Robert Clark said he believed Cavalcante’s mobilization to more urban East Nantmeal Township would work to the advantage of law enforcement looking for him.
“I think the advantage switched to law enforcement. Before it was advantageous to Cavalcante while he was playing tactical hide and seek in the woods,” Mr Clark said. “Now it’s an advantage to law enforcement because he’s in an urban area and that’s what the US Marshalls do best and we’re forced-multiplied by other local and state agencies.”
Mr Bivens said that he is confident Cavalcante remains in Pennsylvania as he “does not have the resources” to leave the state.
“We don’t have a defined search area at this point,” Mr Bivens added. “We are considering and acting and investigating any tip or piece of information we receive. There are areas in Nantmeal Township that may have more of our resources.”
Mr Bivens said that he was aware of some weaknesses in the previous ten-mile perimeter, but refused to acknowledge that the several agencies collaborating in the manhunt had made any mistakes. The Lt Col went on to say that the perimeter was “strong” but not infallible.
Authorities said that although there has been no indication that Cavalcante is armed, he is believed to be so due to his previous criminal history.
Cavalcante’s sister is arrested by ICE
State police confirmed on 10 September that US Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested Cavalcante’s sister Eleni Cavalcante over “some immigration issues”. She faces the possibility of deportation, Lt Col George Bivens said.
Mr Bivens didn’t say whether she is suspected of helping her brother Cavalcante, but noted that she had been of “no value” in the search for her brother.
It’s not Cavalcante’s first time being on the run. Right after he stabbed Brandao to death in front of her children in April 2021, Cavalcante was briefly on the run before he was arrested in Virginia and extradited to Pennsylvania.
During his trial earlier this year, Eleni Cavalcante’s boyfriend Francisco Lima testified that he had helped Cavalcante escape following the brutal stabbing, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
Mr Lima, who received immunity in exchange for his testimony, said that he had bandaged Cavalcante’s wounds, given him a clean change of clothes and put gas in his car so he could drive out of state.
The murder
Cavalcante was convicted of the murder of 33-year-old Deboral Brandao on 16 August after the jury deliberated for just 15 minutes. He was sentenced to life in prison on 22 August.
Cavalcante and Brandao reportedly met through mutual friends and moved in together with her two children not long after their two-year relationship began.
Prosecutors outlined his domestic abuse against Brandao during the trial.
It was reported that in June 2020, Cavalcante bit Brandao on her lip hard enough to draw blood and chased her and her children out of their home. Brandao and her kids hid in a neighbour’s apartment and a warrant was issued by police for Cavalcante’s arrest. However, he did not turn himself in.
Later that year, Cavalcante allegedly attacked Brandao again, chasing her with a knife, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported.
Brandao then filed for a temporary abuse order against him, but this lapsed in March 2021 when she did not appear at a hearing.
According to evidence presented at the trial, the two kept in touch and police said Cavalcante drove to Brandao’s home to confront her in April 2021.
While Brandao’s children, then aged seven and three, were playing near by, Cavalcante pulled her hair and threw her to the ground. He then began to stab her repeatedly.
Brandao was later pronounced dead at Paoli Hospital, the outlet said. Two friends of Cavalcante testified during his trial that they helped the murder convict escape and gave him clean clothes so he could “disappear” for a while.
Prosecutors said Cavalcante killed Brandao to stop her from telling police about his outstanding arrest warrant for murder in Brazil.
He was captured in Virginia shortly after the stabbing, while police said he was attempting to return to Brazil.
“I haven’t slept for many days,” Ms Brandao said. “I have been waking up with fright at night.”
Chester County District Attorney Deb Ryan said that Ms Brandao and her family are being protected by police.
“They do have protection and they are terrified. They haven’t left their home, they’re barricaded inside their home and they are very scared,” Ms Ryan said. “We do have police detail surrounding the home but I know they are very scared and very, very worried.”
Cavalcante is described as 5 foot tall with light complexion, shaggy black curly hair and brown eyes.
Anyone with information about Cavalcante’s current whereabouts is asked to call 911 or the US Marshals’ Tipline at 877-WANTED-2. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
The budget cuts that House Republicans are demanding in their high-stakes debt-ceiling standoff with President Joe Biden sharpen the overlapping generational and racial conflict moving to the center of U.S. politics.
The House GOP’s blueprint would focus its spending cuts on the relatively small slice of the federal budget that funds most of the government’s investments in children and young adults, who are the most racially diverse generations in American history.
Those programs, and other domestic spending funded through the annual congressional-appropriations process, face such large proposed cuts in part because the GOP plan protects constituencies and causes that Republicans have long favored: It rejects any reductions in spending on defense or homeland security, and refuses to raise taxes on the most affluent earners or corporations.
But the burden leans so heavily toward programs that benefit young people, such as Head Start or Pell Grants, also because the Republican proposal, unlike previous GOP debt-reduction plans, exempts from any cuts Social Security and Medicare. Those are the two giant federal programs that support the preponderantly white senior population.
The GOP’s deficit agenda opens a new front in what I’ve called the collision between the brown and the gray—the struggle for control of the nation’s direction between kaleidoscopically diverse younger generations that are becoming the cornerstone of the modern Democratic electoral coalition and older cohorts that remain predominantly white and anchor the Republican base.
The budget fight, in many ways, represents the fiscal equivalent to the battle over cultural issues raging through Republican-controlled states across the country. In those red states, GOP governors and legislators are using statewide power rooted in their dominance of mostly white and Christian nonurban areas to pass laws imposing the conservative social values and grievances of their base on issues including abortion, LGBTQ rights, classroom censorship, book bans, and even the reintroduction of religious instruction into public schools. On all those fronts, red-state Republicans are institutionalizing policies that generally conflict not only with the preferences but even the identity of younger generations who are much more racially diverse, more likely to identify as LGBTQ, and less likely to identify with any organized religion.
The House Republicans’ plan would solidify a similar tilt in the federal budget’s priorities. Because Social Security, Medicare, and the portion of Medicaid that funds long-term care for the elderly are among Washington’s biggest expenditures, the federal budget spends more than six times as much on each senior 65 and older as it does on each child 18 and younger, according to the comprehensive “Kids’ Share” analysis published each year by the nonpartisan Urban Institute. Eugene Steuerle, a senior fellow there who helped create the “Kids’ Share” report, told me, “We are already in some sense asking the young to pay the price” by cutting taxes on today’s workers while increasing spending on seniors, and accumulating more government debt that future generations must pay off.
Spending on children 18 and younger now makes up a little more than 9 percent of the federal budget, according to the study. But that number is artificially inflated by the large social expenditures that Congress authorized during the pandemic. By 2033, the report projects, programs for kids will fall to only about 6 percent of federal spending.
One reason for the decline is that spending on the entitlement programs for the elderly—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—will command more of total spending under the pressure of both increasing health-care costs and the growing senior population. Under current law, in 2033 those programs for seniors will expand to consume almost exactly half of federal spending, the “Kids’ Share” analysis projects.
By protecting those programs for seniors from any cuts, and rejecting any new revenues, while exacting large reductions from programs for kids and young adults, the GOP plan would bend the budget even further from the brown toward the gray. The implication of the plan “is that children will get an even smaller slice of federal spending” than anticipated under current policies, Elaine Maag, an Urban Institute senior fellow and a co-author of the “Kids’ Share” report, told me.
Federal spending on kids is particularly at risk because of how Washington provides it. The federal government does channel substantial assistance to kids through tax benefits, such as the child tax credit, and entitlement programs, including Medicaid and Social Security survivors’ benefits, that are affected less by the GOP proposal. But many of the federal programs that benefit kids and young people are provided through programs that require annual appropriations from Congress, what’s known as domestic discretionary spending. As Maag noted, the programs that help low-income and vulnerable kids are especially likely to be funded as discretionary spending, rather than entitlements or tax credits. “Head Start or child-care subsidies or housing subsidies are all very targeted programs,” she said.
The GOP plan’s principal mechanism for reducing federal spending is to impose overall caps on that discretionary spending. Those caps would cut such spending this year and then hold its growth over the next nine years to just 1 percent annually, which is not enough to keep pace with inflation. Over time, those tightening constraints would result in substantially less spending than currently projected for these programs. If the GOP increased defense spending enough to keep pace with inflation, that would require all other discretionary programs—including those that benefit kids—to be cut by 27 percent this year and by almost half in 2033, according to a recent analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive advocacy group. If the GOP also intends to maintain enough funding for veterans programs (including health care) to match inflation, the required cuts in all other discretionary programs would start at 33 percent next year and rise to almost 60 percent by 2033.
As Sharon Parrott, the president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, told me this week, by demanding general spending caps, the GOP does not have to commit in advance to specific program reductions that might be unpopular with the public. “What they are trying to do is put in place a process that forces large cuts without ever having to say what they are,” Parrott said.
Federal agencies have projected that the cuts required under the Republican spending caps would force 200,000 children out of the Head Start program, end Pell Grants for about 80,000 recipients and cut the grants by about $1,000 annually for the remainder, and slash federal support for Title I schools by an amount that could require them to eliminate about 60,000 teachers or classroom aides. The plan also explicitly repeals the student-loan relief that Biden has instituted for some 40 million borrowers. Its cuts in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, generally known as welfare, could end aid for as many as 1 million children, including about 500,000 already living in poverty, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has calculated.
The appropriations bill that a House subcommittee recently approved for agricultural programs offers another preview of what the GOP plan, over time, would mean for the programs that support kids. The bill cut $800 million, or about 12 percent, from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children. Parrott noted that to avoid creating long waiting lists for eligibility, which might stir a more immediate backlash, the committee instead eliminated a pandemic-era program that gave families increased funding through WIC to purchase fruits and vegetables. “They are saying the country can’t possibly afford to make sure that pregnant participants, breast-feeding participants, toddlers, and preschoolers have enough money for fruits and vegetables,” she said.
Parrott doesn’t see the GOP budget as primarily motivated by a desire to favor the old over the young. She notes that the GOP plan would also squeeze some programs that older Americans rely on, for instance by reducing funds for Social Security administration or Meals on Wheels, and imposing work requirements that could deny aid to older, childless adults receiving assistance under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
Instead, Parrott, like the Biden administration and congressional Democrats, believes that the GOP budget’s central priority is to protect corporations and the most affluent from higher taxes. “To me, that’s who they are really shielding,” she said.
Yet the GOP’s determination to avoid reductions in Social Security and Medicare, coupled with its refusal to consider new revenue or defense cuts, has exposed kids to even greater risk than the last debt-ceiling standoff. Those negotiations in 2011, between then-President Barack Obama and the new GOP House majority, initially focused on a “grand bargain” that involved cuts in entitlements and tax increases along with reductions in both discretionary domestic and defense spending. Even after that sweeping plan collapsed, the two sides settled on a fallback proposal that raised the debt ceiling while requiring future cuts in both domestic and defense spending.
The House Republicans’ determination to narrow the budget-cutting focus almost entirely to domestic discretionary spending not only means more vulnerability for programs benefiting kids, but also less impact on the overall debt problem they say they want to address. Even some conservative budget experts acknowledge that it’s not possible to truly tame deficits by focusing solely on discretionary spending, which accounts for only about one-sixth of the total federal budget. Brian Riedl, a senior fellow and budget expert at the conservative Manhattan Institute, supports Republican efforts to limit future discretionary spending but views it only as an attempt to “prevent the deficit from getting worse.”
Riedl told me that in his analysis of long-term budget trends, he found it impossible to prevent the federal debt from increasing unsustainably without also raising taxes and significantly slowing the growth in spending on Social Security and Medicare. But, as he acknowledged, the GOP’s willingness to consider reductions in those programs has dwindled as their electoral coalition in the Donald Trump era has evolved to include more older and lower-income whites. “As the Republican electorate grew older and more blue collar, they revealed themselves as more attached to entitlements [for seniors] than previous Republican electorates,” he said.
Trump in 2016 recognized that shift when he rejected previous GOP orthodoxy and instead opposed cuts in Social Security and Medicare. Trump has maintained that position by publicly warning congressional Republicans against cutting the programs, and attacking Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who entered the 2024 GOP race yesterday, for supporting such reductions in the past. Biden has also pressured the GOP to preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Though it’s not discussed nearly as much, the GOP’s refusal to consider taxes on high earners also has a stark generational component. With the occasional exception, older Americans generally earn more than younger Americans (the top tenth of people at age 61 earn almost 60 percent more than the top tenth of those age 30). Older generations are especially likely to have accumulated more wealth than younger people, Steuerle noted. As part of the economy’s general trend toward inequality, Steuerle said, older generations today are amassing an even larger share of the nation’s total wealth than in earlier eras.
Refusing to raise taxes on today’s affluent while cutting programs for contemporary young people subjects those younger generations to a double whammy. Not only does it mean that the federal government invests less in their health, nutrition, and education, but it also increases the odds that as adults they will be compelled to pay higher taxes to fund retirement benefits for the growing senior population.
Although Biden also wants to avoid cuts in entitlements for seniors, his call for raising more revenue from the affluent still creates a clear contrast with the GOP. By proposing higher taxes, Biden has been able to devise a budget that protects federal spending on kids and other domestic programs while also reducing the deficit. Biden’s budget proposal achieves greater generational balance than the GOP’s because the president asks today’s affluent earners, who are mostly older, to pay more in taxes to preserve spending that benefits young people. If Biden reaches a deal with congressional Republicans to avoid default, however, their price will inevitably include some form of spending cap that squeezes such programs: the real question is not whether, but how much.
Looming over these choices is the intertwined generational and racial re-sorting of the two parties’ electoral coalitions. As Riedl noted, especially in the Trump era, the GOP has become more dependent on older white people who are either eligible for the federal retirement programs or nearing eligibility. According to a new analysis published by Catalist, a Democratic electoral-targeting firm, white adults older than 45 accounted for just over half of all voters in the 2022 and 2018 midterm elections and just under half in the 2020 and 2016 presidential campaigns. But because those older white Americans have become such a solidly Republican bloc, they contributed about three-fifths of all GOP votes in the presidential years, and fully two-thirds of Republican votes in midterm elections.
Democrats, in turn, are growing more reliant on the diverse younger generations. Catalist found that Democrats have won 60 to 66 percent of Millennials and members of Generation Z combined in each of the past four elections. Those two generations have more than doubled their share of the total vote from 14 percent in 2008 to 31 percent in 2020. Adding in the very youngest members of Generation X, all voters younger than 45 provided almost 40 percent of Democrats’ votes in 2022, Catalist found, far more than their overall share (30 percent) of the electorate.
The inexorable long-term trajectory is for the diverse younger generations to increase their share of the vote while the mostly white older cohorts recede. In 2024, Millennials and Gen Z may, for the first time, cast as many ballots as the Baby Boomers and older generations; by 2028, they will almost certainly surpass the older groups. In the fight over the federal budget and debt ceiling—just as in the struggles over cultural issues unfolding in the states—Republicans appear to be racing to lock into law policies that favor their older, white base before the rising generations acquire the electoral clout to force a different direction. | US Federal Policies |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press
Mary Clare Jalonick, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
WASHINGTON (AP) — Now that House Republicans have chosen Majority Leader Steve Scalise as their nominee for speaker, the race is on to secure the 217 votes he will need on the House floor to win the gavel and officially take the place of the ousted Kevin McCarthy.
WATCH: GOP moves closer to electing Rep. Scalise as next House speaker
The GOP conference picked Scalise as their nominee on Wednesday in a secret ballot. Lawmakers exiting the room said Scalise won 113 votes, while Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, the House Judiciary Committee chairman, took 99. A handful of Republicans declined to vote for either.
With Scalise falling well short of 217 in the conference vote, the Louisiana congressman’s path to the speakership is uncertain. He was holding meetings to try and unite Republicans behind him, but some lawmakers said they were still supporting Jordan.
McCarthy, R-Calif., was suddenly and unexpectedly removed as speaker last week after just nine months on the job, leaving the House essentially leaderless with North Carolina Rep. Patrick McHenry in a caretaker role.
Scalise, who was McCarthy’s No. 2 in leadership, is a popular lawmaker who suffered major injuries after being shot during a baseball practice with colleagues in 2017. He recently announced that he has blood cancer, but has insisted that he feels good and is up to the top job.
What you need to know about how the House elects a speaker:
The speaker is normally elected every two years, in January, when the House organizes for a new session. A new election can be held if the speaker dies, resigns or is removed from office. This is the first time an election is being held after the removal of speaker.
Once the House is in a quorum — meaning the minimum number of members are present to proceed — each party puts a name into nomination for speaker. Republicans will nominate Scalise. Democrats will nominate their current leader, New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, and vote for him.
House members are seated during the speakership vote. It’s one of the few times that lawmakers are all seated around the chamber.
WATCH: Tamara Keith and Amy Walter on pressure to elect House speaker after attack in Israel
Once the roll call for speaker begins, members are called on individually and shout out their choice. The candidate to become speaker needs a majority of the votes from House members who are present and voting. The House will vote as many times as necessary until someone reaches that threshold.
McCarthy narrowly won the speakership in January on the 15th round of balloting.
Scalise faces several challenges as the floor vote looms. Nearly half the Republican conference supported Jordan. While some of them have said that they will now vote for Scalise, he will need the support of nearly every House Republican to win the speakership.
Additionally, lawmakers can vote for anyone they want to on the floor. While it has been the tradition for the speaker candidate to be a member of the House, it is not required. In January, a few Republican members even called out votes for former President Donald Trump, taking votes from McCarthy.
READ MORE: With House leadership vacuum, Trump weighs in on speaker race
Historically, the magical number to become speaker has been 218 out of the 435 members of the House. But many previous speakers, including McCarthy and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif, have ascended to the dais with fewer votes than that because some members voted present instead of calling out a name. Every lawmaker voting “present” lowers the overall tally needed to reach a majority.
There are two vacancies in the 435-seat House right now, which means it would take 217 votes to win become speaker every lawmaker voted for a nominee.
Once a speaker candidate wins a majority of the vote, the clerk will announce a speaker has been elected.
A bipartisan committee, usually consisting of members from the home state of the chosen candidate, will then escort the speaker-elect to the chair on the dais where the oath of office is administered. The new speaker then traditionally gives a short speech.
Outgoing speakers have usually joined their successors at the speaker’s chair, where the gavel is passed as a nod to the peaceful transition of power. It’s unclear whether McCarthy will do that or whether the task will fall to McHenry.
As soon as a speaker is sworn in, he or she is immediately in charge. A plaque with their name is hastily put above the door of the spacious speaker’s office next to the Rotunda and the person’s belongings are moved in.
McCarthy was photographed pointing at his own name above the door within hours of his election in January. On Wednesday, Capitol workers were moving furniture out of the speaker’s office.
Scalise has said that if he is elected, his first action will be to pass a bipartisan resolution making clear that the House stands with Israel in its war with Hamas. The speaker will also have to quickly figure out a way to unite Republicans and keep the government open before a mid-November deadline.
Associated Press writer Farnoush Amiri contributed to this report.
Support Provided By:
Learn more | US Congress |
Among the hotel patrons snarled in the fallout of MGM Resorts' cyberattack was -- unfortunately for the company -- one very high-profile figure: Lina Khan, the chair of the US Federal Trade Commission. Bloomberg News: On Tuesday night, she was among the 45 people waiting to check in at the MGM Grand along the Las Vegas strip as staff worked to manually fulfill everyone's reservation, according to people familiar with the matter. When Khan and her staff got to the front of the line, an employee at the desk asked them to write down their credit card information on a piece of paper.
As the leader of the federal agency that, among other things, ensures companies protect consumer data wrote down her details, Khan asked the worker: How exactly was MGM managing the data security around this situation? The desk agent shrugged and said he didn't know, according to a senior aide who was traveling with Khan and described the experience to Bloomberg as surreal. Khan was among the thousands of MGM hotel patrons inconvenienced in the aftermath of the hack, which was said to be orchestrated by a group of hackers known as Scattered Spider. Days after the incident, many of the company's websites -- including its reservation system -- were still displaying error messages, some slot machines at its casinos across the country are still out of service and employees were handling processes manually.
As the leader of the federal agency that, among other things, ensures companies protect consumer data wrote down her details, Khan asked the worker: How exactly was MGM managing the data security around this situation? The desk agent shrugged and said he didn't know, according to a senior aide who was traveling with Khan and described the experience to Bloomberg as surreal. Khan was among the thousands of MGM hotel patrons inconvenienced in the aftermath of the hack, which was said to be orchestrated by a group of hackers known as Scattered Spider. Days after the incident, many of the company's websites -- including its reservation system -- were still displaying error messages, some slot machines at its casinos across the country are still out of service and employees were handling processes manually. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
You have probably heard people say before that the next election will be “the most consequential of our lifetime.”
Matt Bennett, co-founder of Third Way, a national think-tank that champions modern center-left ideas, tells The New Abnormal that it is an overused term—unless you are referring to the 2024 presidential election.
“It seems like every cycle we say that and we kind of mean it but this time I think we are in a category change where I believe the United States and the way that we think about ourselves as a nation has not been in danger like this since 1865. I think the only comparable moment to this was the Civil War,” he tells The New Abnormal co-host Danielle Moodie.
“I believe that if this election goes wrong—that if we return Donald Trump to power—we are going to live in a country that will become unrecognizable to us in very short order,” he said.
“In 1968, the hinge swung the wrong direction and America elected a malign character to be president and that turned out very badly for us with Nixon,” he says. “I would argue that while Nixon was a bad president and a bad person, he does not hold a candle to Donald Trump in either respect. I think a second Trump administration would make the Nixon administration look like he was Abraham Lincoln.”
Bennett says the difference is that Trump now better understands how “the levers of power work in the White House” and that he will appoint sycophants around him who will carry out his orders and fail to hold him to account.
“I think most importantly, the sole emphasis that he places on having loyal lickspittle toadies around him, rather than people like General Mattis—that would be the true catastrophe,” he says. | US Federal Elections |
Trump asks appeals court to lift gag order imposed on him in 2020 election interference case
Former President Donald Trump has asked a federal appeals court to lift a gag order restricting his speech about potential witnesses, prosecutors and court staff in the case that accuses him of scheming to overturn his 2020 election loss
Former President Donald Trump asked a federal appeals court on Thursday to lift a gag order restricting his speech about potential witnesses, prosecutors and court staff in the case that accuses him of scheming to overturn his 2020 election loss.
Trump’s attorneys urged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to block the gag order ruling from U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan while the former president pursues his appeals.
“The Gag Order violates the First Amendment rights of President Trump and over 100 million Americans who listen to him," Trump's attorneys wrote in court papers.
Chutkan, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, reimposed the gag order on Sunday after denying Trump’s request to let him speak freely while he challenges the restrictions in higher courts.
The order bars Trump from making public statements targeting special counsel Jack Smith and his team, court employees and possible witnesses.
It does not prohibit Trump from airing general complaints, even incendiary ones, about the case against him. The judge has explicitly said Trump is still allowed to assert his claims of innocence and his claims that the case is politically motivated.
Trump has made verbal attacks on those involved in the criminal cases against him a central part of his bid to reclaim the White House in 2024. Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the case, and cast himself as the victim of a politically motivated justice system working to deny him another term.
In pushing to reinstate the gag order, prosecutors pointed to Trump’s recent social media comments about his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, which they said represented an attempt to influence and intimidate a likely witness in the case. | US Federal Policies |
Is it a psyop? A government cover-up? Aliens have entered mainstream discourse again, but it’s hard not to question the motives behind how this information is being fed to us – and why
The US government is stashing dead alien bodies in its congressional closet, or at least that’s what whistleblower David Grusch wants us to believe following the UFO hearing in Washington last week. The former intelligence officer went viral last month for claiming that the Pentagon is in possession of “intact and partially intact” alien vehicles, a statement that he refused to elaborate on other than to tease “non-human biological pilots” found at several alleged crash sites. Grusch openly admits to first getting into aliens after reading the now-discredited 2017 New York Times report, yet the ever-alluring promise that intelligent life beyond our planet is just out of reach – or, at least hidden behind many layers of top-level government clearance – has resurfaced in recent years to increasing mainstream attention. Even NASA is taking it seriously.
Mass spectacle aside, the public hearing marks a first in US history. Historically it’s been the case that only the military and national security has access to information about UFOs, or UAPs (unidentified aerial phenomena). Yet, since the pandemic, we’ve seen an uptick in official alien-speak: the Pentagon has opened a new office tasked with investigating UFO reports, there’s an independent, UFO-assessing committee set up by NASA, which is holding public meetings ahead of its final report. There’s even a private company Enigma Labs releasing a UFO report-tracking app. There’s been reports of an alien meteor thought to be found at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean and a large metal cylinder found off a remote beach in Australia. Not to mention the 800-plus UAPs reportedly spotted by airline pilots, the videos of which have been kept out of public reach.
In this new and uncharted era of disinformation, it’s easy to see how stories of technologies of unknown origins, non-human intelligence and unexplained phenomena can fan the flames of cover-ups and conspiratorial thinking (the American public has a right to know!). The idea that the Pentagon is actually in possession of UAPs evokes mental scenes of flashy, X-Men-adjacent Hollywood plots, which is a way easier option than to pause and consider the actual manmade horrors on our shores. Yet, the recent hearing also marks a huge shift in the depiction of aliens across culture, from kooky counterculture to legitimate government narrative. For all this talk of phenomena, mysterious and unexplained, it’s hard not to question the motives behind how this information is being fed to us – and why.
The relationship between alien sightings and government distrust has been around since the very beginning, with early examples such as the 1947 Roswell incident fanning the conspiratorial flames, bringing to light the question of official narratives, who they benefit and why – is it an alien spacecraft or a high-altitude spy balloon? Similarly, extraterrestrial threats have long stood in for geopolitical power, with contemplations of alien existence used as a mask for the development of spy planes. Key figures like Richard Doty, a former Air Force Office of Special Investigations agent, openly admitted to passing fake documents to UFO researchers in the 80s and 90s.
“It’s not surprising to me that we’re talking about aliens in a moment where it’s getting really, really hard to figure out what’s real” – Trevor Paglen
“This UFO belief is intrinsically tied to notions of a government and military cover-up, and is powerful and pervasive within society,” agrees Mark Pilkington, the author of Mirage Men. One particular angle is the relationship between UFOs and the history of military and defence technology development: “Amplifying concerns about unknown, possibly unfriendly objects flying over US skies is of great benefit to the defence industry.” This is no doubt supported by the shift in language in recent years away from UFO, which is wrapped up in green-man-sci-fi connotations, to the more technical-sounding and abstract Unidentified Aerial Phenomena, which accommodates for all matter of unknowns, from surveillance drones to spy balloons, unusual weather or other natural phenomena – “all of which are important in the military domain,” he adds. “It also keeps the discussion grounded in science and credible for those – still the majority – who are not on board with the alien narrative.”
This doesn’t only apply to geopolitical threats but to the individual, too. UFO-speak can be used to manipulate or psyop individuals, capitalising on our differences in perception to create confusion, making it harder to organise counter-narratives against what the government drip-feeds us. This is particularly true as social media chips away at any notion of a consensus reality – young people are increasingly turning to alt media platforms like TikTok as their main news source – which amplifies fringe beliefs and makes it harder to distinguish what’s real or not. “It’s not surprising to me that we’re talking about aliens in a moment where... it’s getting really, really hard to figure out what’s real,” says artist Trevor Paglen, whose work tackles ideas of mass surveillance and government disinformation.
Even the positioning of UAP sightings as classified information plays into this narrative, with officials capitalising on our collective distrust of mainstream media to uncover hidden truths – as one official said at last week’s congressional hearing, “we can’t be afraid of asking questions and we can’t be afraid of the truth”. So, whether there are actually intelligent aliens out there communicating with a secret part of the Deep State or not, there’s a gamification involved in unearthing classified information, which only adds further incentive to the cause. Paglen elaborates, “It presents itself as a secret that’s being revealed, and that secret is more likely to be true than the bullshit that’s already been given to you.”
But it’s not just government disinformation that’s contributing to this current wave of UFOria. The past few years have seen a shift away from the fedora-tipping Reddit atheism of the late aughts towards a nu-spiritualism, as people turn to the mystical to make sense of an increasingly unreal present. Rapid advances in technology are upturning the laws of physics – AI can unearth ancient languages, while ancient worms trapped in the permafrost for thousands of years are breathing new life – summoning a perpetual state of snowballing weirdness that writer Venkatesh Rao refers to as The Permaweird: the idea that the world has got more complex than we can imagine that we resort to magical thinking, where “social fictions indistinguishable from religious eschatologies”, to cope.
When everyday life begins to resemble a sci-fi plot and news headlines hail new scientific breakthroughs that challenge our preexisting assumptions of the world, let alone time itself, the idea that aliens might walk among us doesn’t seem all that strange. Even better, it poses a quasi-scientific belief system that’s literally endorsed by the government and NASA. Tin hat or not, it’s important to consider why these conversations are entering the mainstream now – and it’s not a coincidence that it’s during a time when space tourism is on the rise and conversations around AI and non-human intelligence are reaching their peak and posing very real existential threats.
With the unimaginable existing everywhere, it’s hard not to get sidetracked when listening to the congressional hearing, its high-profile, intentionally confusing spectacle setting the stage for further speculation, while keeping us distracted from anything more shadowy beneath the surface. As with all conspiracies, there is an element of truth: yes, we’re facing huge existential threats, and yes, there are unidentified aerial phenomena flying around in the air (though apparently only in the US). But perhaps we need to consider the very real threats on Earth before shooting our troubles into the skies. | US Federal Policies |
Subsets and Splits