article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
January 18, 2023 10:53 AM A whistleblower from the Orange County Supervisor of Elections (SOE) 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, further alleges that the elections office flouts 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 alleges 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. 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 [sic]," Freid's affidavit filed with a local Florida Department of Law Enforcement office obtained by Just the News claims. 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 alleges. 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." Lastly, 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 claims. Freid describes himself as a lifelong Democrat, per Just the News. He claims 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. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The Washington Examiner contacted the Orange County SOE for comment. | US Local Elections |
GOP fails to elect a speaker. This time it’s not due to hard-liners.
- Quick Read
- Deep Read ( 6 Min. )
| Washington
Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan came into Tuesday’s speakership election projecting confidence that he would win, telling reporters “we need to get a speaker today.”
But in the initial vote on the House floor, 20 Republicans refused to support him – five times more than he could afford to lose. It was similar to the opposition that Kevin McCarthy faced back in January when the current narrow GOP majority first attempted to elect a speaker.
Why We Wrote This
In a show of backbone that surprised many, moderate Republicans declined to coalesce behind hard-liner Jim Jordan, so as not to reward tactics that brought on the chaos of the past few weeks.
Mr. Jordan’s opponents weren’t the same hard-line lawmakers who forced former Speaker McCarthy to endure 15 rounds of voting before securing the gavel. Rather, today’s holdouts were a coalition of moderates and what might be called institutionalists – Republicans who want to deny the gavel to a lawmaker they see as an obstructionist.
These members declined to coalesce behind the latest GOP nominee, despite intense pressure from Jordan allies and despite the prospect that it would prolong this period of disarray in the House.
“When you have people that broke the rules, and … now they’re saying, you know, we need you to get on board – it doesn’t work for some of us,” Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who cast his vote today for Mr. McCarthy, told reporters on Monday night.
Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan came into Tuesday’s speakership election projecting confidence that he would win, telling reporters “we need to get a speaker today.”
But in the initial vote on the House floor, 20 Republicans refused to support him – five times more than he could afford to lose. It was similar to the opposition that Kevin McCarthy faced back in January when the current narrow GOP majority first attempted to elect a speaker.
Mr. Jordan’s opponents weren’t the same hard-line lawmakers who forced former Speaker McCarthy to endure 15 rounds of voting before securing the gavel, in what would prove to be a short, tumultuous tenure. Rather, today’s holdouts were a coalition of moderates and what might be called institutionalists – Republicans who want to deny the gavel to a lawmaker they see as an obstructionist.
Why We Wrote This
In a show of backbone that surprised many, moderate Republicans declined to coalesce behind hard-liner Jim Jordan, so as not to reward tactics that brought on the chaos of the past few weeks.
In a show of backbone that surprised many, these members declined to coalesce behind the latest GOP nominee, despite intense pressure from Jordan allies and despite the prospect that it would prolong this period of disarray in the House. Many made clear they were put off by Mr. Jordan’s tactics in the leadership jockeying. They said they did not want to reward the band of Freedom Caucus members and allied conservatives who had brought on the chaos of the past few weeks by ousting Speaker McCarthy and trying to bend the will of the majority to their demands.
“When you have people that broke the rules, and … now they’re saying, you know, we need you to get on board – it doesn’t work for some of us,” Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska, who cast his vote today for Mr. McCarthy, told reporters on Monday night.
After the initial vote Tuesday afternoon, the House went into recess as the Jordan team tried to regroup. While his team projected confidence that another round of voting would take place later in the day, at press time it looked like a second vote would take place on Wednesday. There were also questions about whether the holdouts would eventually cave, if offered sweeteners or if it became clear this was the only way to get the House working again – or if their stance might actually inspire some Jordan supporters to defect.
The House has now been brought to a standstill for two weeks, with no speaker to authorize floor activity – a highly unusual state of affairs for the modern Congress, despite recent gridlock.
Empower the temporary speaker?
If Mr. Jordan can’t consolidate support, one fallback option increasingly under discussion would be to empower Speaker Pro Tem Patrick McHenry for a short period of time. Democrats, for their part, are pushing for half a dozen Republicans to support Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.
Whoever ultimately wins the gavel, the turmoil of the past two weeks does not bode well for that person to govern the Republican conference – let alone the House. Amid a raft of pressing issues, from a Nov. 17 deadline to fund the government to Ukraine’s and Israel’s urgent calls for military aid, the new speaker will face daunting challenges with razor-thin margins.
“If we don’t have a speaker in the chair, we don’t have the ability to govern,” said Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas, who chairs the House Foreign Relations committee and recently met with the White House about concerns that the Israel-Gaza war could escalate and involve U.S. ground troops. “The United States is projecting weakness. And we can’t afford to project that dynamic anymore.”
The Hastert Rule and beyond
Since the mid-1990s, House Republican speakers have followed an informal principle known as the Hastert Rule: The majority of the majority must support a measure before it can come to the floor for a vote. The idea was to ensure that only legislation broadly acceptable to Republicans would become law, and to prevent measures from passing with more support from the other side.
But recently, some Republicans complain, that “majority of the majority” rule has been replaced by something different – a small band of GOP hard-liners calling the shots on policy matters and even dictating the speakership itself.
“We have a minority of the majority kicking our butts,” Representative Bacon, who represents a Nebraska district that Mr. Biden won in 2020, told reporters Monday night. “They’ve been orchestrating this since January to get to this point with Mr. Jordan. And I think it’s unacceptable.”
The eight Republicans who combined with Democrats to oust Kevin McCarthy constituted less than 4% of the House GOP conference, effectively forcing the other 96% to bend to their will.
Those eager to demonstrate that Republicans can govern effectively were loath to reward such tactics by supporting another hard-liner like Mr. Jordan.
A standout wrestler who went nearly undefeated in high school and college, he has cultivated a reputation as a fighter – some would say a bully – in Congress. He co-founded the Freedom Caucus in 2015 to challenge GOP leadership, and helped bring down Speaker John Boehner later that year.
But it’s not so much Mr. Jordan’s past reputation that is responsible for the resistance he faced among institutionalists. Rather, it’s the circumstances of the past two weeks and what they would be rewarding – “reinforcing this behavior and power dynamics,” says Liam Donovan, a former staffer for the National Republican Senatorial Committee and now a lobbyist.
Indeed, Mr. Jordan’s tactics of building support in recent days appeared to alienate some mainstream Republicans who might have otherwise supported him. In particular, after he lost an internal speaker nomination contest to Rep. Steve Scalise last week, his offer to endorse Mr. Scalise – but only for one round of voting, and only on condition that Mr. Scalise would then return the favor – irked many. Mr. Scalise then bowed out.
“You’re telling me that’s the way a team works? Not any team that I’ve ever played on and certainly not a winning team,” Rep. Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania told reporters last night.
But hard-liners have an asymmetrical advantage over frustrated colleagues like Mr. Kelly: They are willing to bring the wheels of government to a screeching halt in the name of reining in a bloated bureaucracy. By contrast, institutionalists – however conservative on government spending or other matters – have a vested interest in keeping government functional.
“So while they may have been pushed to the point where they are willing to adopt those tactics, there is an inherent reluctance to do that because at the end of the day these guys want to be team players,” says Mr. Donovan, the GOP lobbyist. “They think it’s important to unify and get back to their job.”
Paradoxically, the “most approximate avenue to stability” at the moment may be electing Jim Jordan as speaker, he adds.
And moderates have more to lose by blocking a candidate, adds Matt Glassman, senior fellow at Georgetown University in Washington. Whereas hard-liners’ brand is strengthened by resisting the party, he says, moderates depend on the party for resources and campaign help.
“They have a sense of party loyalty embedded in them, in part driven by these needs of electoral help, but it’s also baked into the cake of who they are,” says Mr. Glassman.
Jordan’s weaknesses
To be sure, Mr. Jordan comes with plenty of liabilities.
As a wrestling coach at Ohio State from 1987-1995, he overlapped with a doctor who sexually abused at least 177 athletes over two decades, according to an independent report. At least six former wrestlers say they reported such incidents to Mr. Jordan, who has denied knowledge of the abuse.
In Congress, he has few legislative accomplishments. Since being elected in 2006, not a single bill he sponsored became law, though he was a co-sponsor on 64 bills that did. The Center for Effective Lawmaking, a joint project of the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University, has ranked him as one of the least effective House Republican legislators. Former Speaker John Boehner once called him a “legislative terrorist.”
But Rep. Dusty Johnson of South Dakota, of the Main Street Republicans caucus, told reporters that most of the reasons he’d heard for voting against Jim Jordan were about “petty squabbles” and “the transgressions of yesterday.”
“We need to ask ourselves, who is the speaker for tomorrow?” he said. “Who is going to give us the best chance to secure conservative wins while avoiding a government shutdown? Who is going to give us the best opportunity to manage the different personalities in our conference?”
And indeed, as a darling of conservative media, Mr. Jordan is seen as someone who could provide some cover for House Republicans until they can get the government funded – even if it means some unpopular moves, including another temporary stop-gap measure like the one that proved to be a last straw for Mr. McCarthy’s detractors.
In comments to Hill reporters, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky predicted Mr. Jordan would enjoy a year or two of immunity from right-wing “potshots.”
“His brand is the gold standard with the Republican base,” he said. | US Congress |
The Biden administration will end both the COVID-19 national emergency and public health emergency on May 11, the White House informed Congress on Monday night.
The current public health emergency is in place through April, while the national emergency is in place until March. They began in 2020, soon after the onset of the pandemic.
"At present, the Administration's plan is to extend the emergency declarations to May 11, and then end both emergencies on that date. This wind down would align with the Administration's previous commitments to give at least 60 days' notice prior to termination of the PHE," the administration wrote in a letter to Congress.
"To be clear, continuation of these emergency declarations until May 11 does not impose any restriction at all on individual conduct with regard to COVID-19," the administration wrote. "They do not impose mask mandates or vaccine mandates. They do not restrict school or business operations. They do not require the use of any medicines or tests in response to cases of COVID-19."
The impact of the public health emergency ending will come into clearer focus over the next three months, as different agencies in the federal government determine which related programs can be continued without the order in place -- and how to unwind programs that can't.
One potential impact will be on hospitals and doctors' offices, which have come to rely on higher rates for Medicare patients and more flexibility around bed capacity rules when there's a surge of patients.
States will also soon be exempt from sharing data with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has mandated information like case counts and COVID-19 deaths during the public health emergency -- a change that could lead to a cloudier future picture of COVID-19 in the U.S.
A senior administration official told ABC News that the CDC will reach out to states in the coming months to encourage them to continue sharing that information voluntarily.
The public health emergency also affects the health care coverage Americans have come to rely on for free COVID-19 vaccines, treatments and tests. While vaccines will remain largely free for people with insurance even after the emergency ends -- so long as they're administered by an in-network provider -- free treatment and tests could be less of a guarantee.
The senior official predicted the change will be relatively minor and that instead, the larger change in COVID-19 coverage will come later this year, when the government stops buying and distributing vaccines, tests and treatments for free for all Americans and insurance companies begin to take up the cost, moving the whole system to the private market.
People on Medicaid may also face changes in their health care coverage after April 1, when states will once again be able to remove enrollees who no longer qualify for the program.
States have so far been barred from ending people's Medicaid coverage for the duration of the pandemic, even if enrollees' circumstances change and they no longer qualify, as a tenet of the public health emergency. According to a group of Republican governors, who in December pressured the Biden administration to end the public health emergency, the Medicaid expansion has led to an increase of approximately 20 million people on the program's rolls since the start of the pandemic.
At least 13% of Medicaid recipients could get removed from their coverage when the Medicaid rules change, according to research compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) from around 20 states.
The end of the public health emergency could also bring the end of Title 42 -- the order that has allowed the Trump and Biden administrations to turn many migrants away at the border by citing the potential spread of the virus.
The Biden administration supports "an orderly, predictable wind-down of Title 42, with sufficient time to put alternative policies in place," the government said in Monday's announcement. | US Federal Policies |
Joanna WaltersTom Barrack, a onetime private equity executive and fundraiser for former US president Donald Trump, was found not guilty by a jury on Friday of unlawfully acting as an agent of the United Arab Emirates, dealing a setback to the US Justice Department, Reuters writes. Barrack was also acquitted of obstruction of justice and making false statements to FBI agents in 2019 about his interactions with Emirati officials and their representatives.The verdict followed a six-week trial in federal court in Brooklyn. Barrack, who was prosecuted by the US attorney’s office in Brooklyn, had faced a total of nine criminal counts.More when we get it.Tom Barrack was acquitted on Friday. Here he is leaving Brooklyn federal court earlier this week. Photograph: John Minchillo/APKey events44m agoOfficial deadline appears to pass for Trump to respond to subpoena by January 6 panel3h agoHouse GOP doesn't plan to wait till 2023 to go after Hunter Biden3h agoTrump eyeing 14 November to announce new presidential campaign4h agoPivotal Democrat gets a belated October surprise when Oprah endorses his campaignShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureA prime example of the tensions among Democrats over their message on the economy is the child tax credit.Expanded last year as part of Joe Biden’s marquee American Rescue Plan spending bill to help the economy recover from the pandemic, the program lowered child poverty by sending monthly payments to many families. It expired at the end of 2021 after Democrats failed to agree on extending it, and HuffPost reports that the party is basically avoiding the subject on the campaign trail.Here’s more from their report:When it comes to economic policy, Democrats have been more likely to talk about the original Social Security ― the beloved retirement benefit for seniors ― than the monthly benefit parents received last year through the expanded child tax credit. Democratic campaign ads have highlighted the party’s support for reducing costs for the middle class, and any mention of “middle class tax cuts” could semi-plausibly be a reference to the child tax credit, since the monthly payments the IRS sent out last year technically were, in fact, tax credits. But out of hundreds of campaign ads this cycle, few mention the child tax credit by name. According to a new analysis of campaign ads published Thursday by the Wesleyan Media Project, just 0.2% of federal campaign ads in the general election have mentioned the child tax credit. Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley hit his Democratic challenger, Mike Franken, for opposing the child tax credit because he favored repealing the 2017 Republican tax cuts, which expanded the credit before Democrats built on that expansion last year. Another ad, from a super PAC boosting Evan McMullin, the independent challenging incumbent Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), calls out Lee for having opposed the Democratic child tax credit last year. Neither of those got into any specifics about the child tax credit. From July through December, most parents in the U.S. received as much as $300 per child each month, a taste of the kind of child benefit that other developed countries have long provided. As a result of the payments, child poverty fell to nearly half its rate before the cash payments began. But reducing child poverty, apparently, does not make great campaign fodder. The payments were modestly popular, but much less so than empowering Medicare to negotiate cheaper prescription drugs ― another, more recent Democratic policy achievement that has been the centerpiece of plenty of campaign ads.The election isn’t even over, but something of a blame game has begun among Democrats over which tactics the party should have chosen in their quest to defy history and maintain their tiny majorities in Congress. In an interview with The Guardian’s Erum Salam, Bernie Sanders – an independent senator who caucuses with Democrats - weighs in on how the party could have better defended their record on the inflation-wracked economy:Bernie Sanders has criticized Democrats for not doing enough to motivate voters around the economic issues that have an impact on everyday life, as he warned next week’s midterm elections are the most “consequential” in modern American history.In an interview with the Guardian in Texas, the leftwing Vermont senator said: “Obviously, everybody should be turning out for what is the most consequential midterm election in the modern history of this country. Democracy is on the ballot. Women’s right to control their own bodies is on the ballot. Climate change is on the ballot, so everybody should come out.”But Sanders said he worried “very much that Democrats have not done a good enough job of reaching out to young people and working-class people and motivating them to come out and vote in this election”.Joanna WaltersTom Barrack, a onetime private equity executive and fundraiser for former US president Donald Trump, was found not guilty by a jury on Friday of unlawfully acting as an agent of the United Arab Emirates, dealing a setback to the US Justice Department, Reuters writes. Barrack was also acquitted of obstruction of justice and making false statements to FBI agents in 2019 about his interactions with Emirati officials and their representatives.The verdict followed a six-week trial in federal court in Brooklyn. Barrack, who was prosecuted by the US attorney’s office in Brooklyn, had faced a total of nine criminal counts.More when we get it.Tom Barrack was acquitted on Friday. Here he is leaving Brooklyn federal court earlier this week. Photograph: John Minchillo/APOfficial deadline appears to pass for Trump to respond to subpoena by January 6 panelJoanna WaltersDonald Trump has missed the official deadline of 10am US east coast time today to inform the special House committee investigating the Capitol attack by his extremist supporters on January 6, 2021, whether he intends to cooperate with their congressional investigation.There are no outward signs at this point that Trump has responded, but as our Hugo Lowell notes, it’s still a space worth watching today.New: Trump appears to have missed the 10a ET deadline indicated on the Jan. 6 committee subpoena — but worth noting Trump and the committee has been viewing the deadline to be Friday in general, per sources familiar.— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) November 4, 2022
The acceptance of the subpoena last month by attorneys for the former US president means Trump must settle on his response to the sweeping demand from the panel – requesting documents and testimony about contacts with political figures as well as far-right groups that stormed the Capitol – that will set him on a path without room for reversal.Hold your breath?Expectation has been that Trump will either ask for more time or ignore the subpoena entirely, based on the reasoning that DOJ OLC would likely find he has absolute immunity. But final decision is Trump’s, and there are warring factions on how he should respond.— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) November 4, 2022
If nothing happens today, what will the committee do?In less than an hour, Twitter employees expect official notification of whether or not they will keep their jobs under Elon Musk’s ownership.A bloodbath is expected, and Twitter’s headquarters in San Francisco has been closed today while the news is delivered and employees digest their fates, or, as Musk may prefer, let the news “sink in”.Will Donald Trump return to Twitter post-midterms or post-any 2024 announcement? This is by way of letting readers know that our US team is now taking over the live blog that’s dealing with Twitter news today, after our business team in London was covering both the Twitter and the US jobs and economic news earlier.We have various fresh Twitter stories on our site but will bring you all the breaking news as it happens, which you can follow in the live blog here.And for our readers interested in following all the developments in Russia’s war against Ukraine, you can pick up on the news, live, in our global blog here.Poll after poll has shown that the economy is the biggest issue on voters’ minds as they decide who to support on their midterm ballot. Today, the government released its October employment report, which will be the last before Tuesday’s election and indicates the labor market is stronger than expected despite the high rate of inflation that has battered Democratic support:The US economy added 261,000 jobs in October, the labor department announced on Friday in its last snapshot of the health of the employment market before next week’s midterm elections.The latest report confirmed the remarkable strength of the US jobs market. The unemployment rate rose to 3.7%, still close to a 50-year low. The news comes after the Federal Reserve once again raised interest rates in a bid to slow investment and bring down inflation, a move that economists and the Fed predict will eventually cost jobs.So far the Fed’s actions – the most drastic since the 1980s – seem to have had little impact on the US’s white-hot jobs market. Monthly job growth has averaged 407,000 thus far in 2022, compared with 562,000 per month in 2021. In 2019, before the coronavirus pandemic struck the US, job gains averaged 164,000 a month.Intimidation isn’t all voters are worried about. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released today indicates a majority of Americans believe the country’s partisan divides have widened to such a degree that political violence is a possibility.The survey was conducted following last Friday’s attack on Democratic House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband Paul at their San Francisco home.The survey finds 88% of respondents are concerned about the threat of violence, with six in 10 saying they are “very concerned”. Americans tended to blame the opposite party for the potential unrest, but Republicans were generally blamed more at 31%, while 25% blamed the Democrats. The survey said 32% blamed both parties equally.Midterm voting has already begun in some states, bringing with it an increasing number of complaints about voter intimidation, Rachel Leingang reports:In suburban Mesa, Arizona, people staked out an outdoor ballot drop box, taking photos and videos of voters dropping off ballots. Some wore tactical gear or camouflage. Some were visibly armed.Others videotaped voters and election workers at a ballot drop box and central tabulation office in downtown Phoenix. They set up lawn chairs and camped out to keep watch through a fence which had been added around the facility for safety after 2020 election protests.Some voters claim the observers approached or followed them in their vehicles. Other observers hung back, watching and filming from at least 75ft from the drop boxes.In total, the Arizona secretary of state has received more than a dozen complaints from voters about intimidation from drop box watchers, many of which have been forwarded to the US Department of Justice and the Arizona attorney general as of late October, as well as a threat sent to the secretary of state herself. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order on 1 November to limit the watchers’ activities.House GOP doesn't plan to wait till 2023 to go after Hunter BidenHouse Republicans will as soon as Wednesday resume their attempts to get answers from the Treasury about the business activities of Hunter Biden, CNN reports.The GOP has long sought to make the entanglements of Joe Biden’s son into a scandal to sap the president’s support, and James Comer, who is expected to become the House oversight committee chair if the party retakes the chamber in Tuesday’s midterm elections, told CNN the party won’t wait to take its seats before restarting their demands for answers.“We’re going to lay out what we have thus far on Hunter Biden, and the crimes we believe he has committed,” Comer said. “And then we’re going to be very clear and say what we are investigating, and who we’re gonna ask to meet with us for transcribed interviews. And we’re going to show different areas that we’re looking into.” He added that the week after the midterms, he’ll hold a press conference along with top Republican on the House judiciary committee Jim Jordan to lay out what they’ve discovered about Hunter Biden in their investigations thus far. Here’s more from CNN:The younger Biden, who is facing a federal investigation into potential tax violations and allegedly making a false statement over a gun purchase, has not been charged with any crime. But Republicans are planning to focus in large part on Biden’s overseas business dealings as they try to link him to his father, though it remains to be seen what if any evidence they have uncovered. Hunter Biden has also denied wrongdoing in his business activities. The fact that the Hunter Biden probe will be one the GOP’s first order of business following their anticipated takeover of the House next week underscores just how much investigations, hearings and subpoenas will dominate in a Republican majority. Most bills will be primarily messaging endeavors, unlikely to overcome the president’s veto or the Senate’s 60-vote threshold, though they would have to pass legislation to fund the government and raise the national borrowing limit to raise a debt default – an endeavor that is already alarming Democrats. The White House declined to comment on this story. Biden has also denied wrongdoing in his business activities.Here’s more from The Guardian’s Martin Pengelly about why another Trump campaign is a matter of when, not if:As the midterm elections loom in the US and Republican hopes of retaking Congress rise, it appears it is now a matter of when, not if, Donald Trump will announce his third White House run.The former president has trailed another campaign ever since his 2020 defeat by Joe Biden, a contest Trump refused to concede, pursuing the lie about electoral fraud which fueled the deadly attack on Congress and his second impeachment.In Texas last month, Trump said: “In order to make our country successful, safe and glorious again, I will probably have to do it again.”Now, a flurry of reports say Trump will move swiftly after the midterms, seeking to capitalise on likely Republican wins fueled by focusing on economic anxieties and law and order.Trump eyeing 14 November to announce new presidential campaignDonald Trump is considering announcing his new run for the White House on 14 November, with the intention of building on expected Republican victories in the midterms, Axios reports.It’s no surprise that Trump has long been mulling another race for the White House, potentially setting him up for a rematch against Joe Biden in 2024. Axios notes that Trump’s plans are fluid and could change depending on the outcome of Tuesday’s elections, in which Republicans are expected to reestablish a majority in the House of Representatives and potentially the Senate. A weaker result for the GOP could delay his announcement, according to the report.Axios reports that Trump has increasingly hyped up a potential run to his followers, saying in a Thursday appearance in Iowa, “In order to make our country successful and safe and glorious, I will very, very, very probably do it again ... Get ready that’s all I’m telling you — very soon. Get ready.”“I said it was up to the citizens of Pennsylvania and of course, but I will tell you all this, if I lived in Pennsylvania, I would have already cast my vote for John Fetterman for many reasons,” Oprah Winfrey said last night in announcing her endorsement of Pennsylvania’s Democratic Senate candidate.Fetterman’s race is among those that have grown tighter in recent weeks as polls showed rising support for his Republican competitor Mehmet Oz. The endorsement of Winfrey – an icon to many Americans, particularly women and African Americans – is seen as a shot at revitalizing his chances.It’s likely also a bitter moment for Oz, who was a staple on Winfrey’s show before launching his own. “Doctor Oz loves Oprah and respects the fact that they have different politics. He believes we need more balance and less extremism in Washington,” a spokesman for his campaign told Politico.Meanwhile, Fetterman tried to make the most of the endorsement on Twitter:Pivotal Democrat gets a belated October surprise when Oprah endorses his campaignGood morning, US politics blog readers. Democrat John Fetterman is locked in a tight battle for Pennsylvania’s vacant Senate seat, but last night he got an assist from an unlikely party: Oprah Winfrey. The American talkshow host endorsed Fetterman’s campaign at a virtual event, potentially boosting his quest to give the Democrats another seat in the Senate. On Saturday, Fetterman will be joined by Joe Biden and Barack Obama as the Democrats double-down on a race that could prove pivotal to them controlling the chamber for another two years. We will get a sense of whether it matters when polls close in four days.Here’s what else is happening today: The labor market was in better shape than expected in October, according to government data released this morning. The world’s largest economy added 261,000 jobs, but the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.7%. Joe Biden is in California where he will promote the Chips act intended to boost American technological innovation, before heading to Chicago for a rally this evening. A big majority of Americans are concerned about increased political violence, a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this morning found. | US Political Corruption |
A Democratic House member is asking Palm Beach County, Florida, to tax Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago property at the rate the former president claims it is worth amid his ongoing civil fraud trial in New York.
In a letter provided exclusively to NBC News, Rep. Jared Moskowitz, D-Fla., issued the request to Dorothy Jacks, Palm Beach County's property appraiser.
Moskowitz noted New York Judge Arthur Engoron’s ruling last week saying that Trump repeatedly committed acts of fraud for years. Engoron ruled that Trump lied to banks and insurers by overvaluing and undervaluing his assets while exaggerating his net worth to billions of dollars.
“Between 2011 and 2021, you value the Mar-a-Lago property between $18 million and $28 million,” Moskowitz wrote in the letter to the Palm Beach County appraiser.
“Mar-a-Lago was listed as worth $490 million in financial documents given to banks,” he wrote. “If the property value of Mar-a-Lago is so much higher than it was appraised, will you be amending the property value in line with the Trump family’s belief that the property is worth well over a billion dollars?”
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Moskowitz, first elected in 2022, is a moderate Democrat who represents a district in Florida that includes parts of Palm Beach County. He is also a member of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability.
With Trump’s civil fraud trial in the national conversation, the letter is an attempt by the first-term congressman to highlight the disconnect between Trump’s claims that his property is worth far more than the value set by appraisers, as cited by the judge in his case. | US Political Corruption |
Trump FCC Pick Nathan Simington Wants You To Think Net Neutrality Is A Secret Cabal By Big Tech To ‘Censor Conservatives’
from the things-just-keep-getting-dumber dept
The modern authoritarian GOP knows its radical policies are widely unpopular, which is why it increasingly needs to rely on propaganda. That’s also why the party pretends that absolutely any effort to moderate online political propaganda is “censorship.” With young voters turning away from the GOP in record numbers, propaganda, gerrymandering, and race-baiting anti-democratic bullshit is all the party has.
It’s an argument that bleeds into pretty much everything these days, even net neutrality.
After the Biden FCC last week announced it would be restoring net neutrality, Trump FCC pick Nathan Simington came out with a rambling missive claiming that efforts to keep Comcast from screwing you over is, you guessed it, somehow an attempt to censor conservatives. Net neutrality is, Simington claims, secretly a way to help “big tech” censor poor, unheard right wingers:
“The leaders of Big Tech companies have anointed themselves the arbiters of which ideas are allowed to be expressed and which are not. These companies are, without a doubt, the biggest threat against freedom of speech that our country has faced in decades.”
So one, you’ll notice that Simington is incapable of talking honestly about telecom monopoly power and his party’s 40 year track record of coddling it. But his core thesis, that this is all secretly a favor to “big tech,” simply isn’t true. Why not? Because “big tech” companies documentably stopped caring about net neutrality a long time ago.
While Google used to care about net neutrality, it stopped somewhere around 2010. Once Netflix became successful, it too vocally stopped caring about net neutrality somewhere around 2017. While these companies originally supported net neutrality, once they became big and powerful they simply stopped caring. Facebook never cared, and long actively opposed net neutrality.
The GOP knows this, they just think (or hope) that you’re stupid.
Simington also tries to argue that because the internet didn’t explode into a rainbow of bright colors after the 2017 repeal of net neutrality (which required the use of fake and dead people to pretend the repeal had public support), that the consumer protection rules must not have mattered:
“It has now been nearly six years since we repealed the net neutrality rules, and as far as I know, no one has died yet, nor have any other of the solemnly predicted catastrophes come to pass.”
Folks opposed to basic consumer protection love to make this claim, but they’re actively ignoring that big telecom didn’t behave worse post repeal because numerous states rushed in to pass state level laws. Companies like Comcast didn’t want to implement major anti-competitive practices on their network, because they now risk running afoul of state net neutrality laws all along the west coast.
This gets conflated into “gosh, our removal of federal guidelines must not have mattered,” which is misleading bullshit. The FCC repeal of net neutrality didn’t just kill net neutrality rules, it gutted much of the FCC’s consumer protection authority. The GOP’s repeal even tried to ban states from protecting broadband consumers entirely, an effort the courts have subsequently shot down.
Focus on what matters: Net neutrality rules were imperfect, stopgap efforts to keep giant telecom monopolies from using their power over internet access to harm consumers and competitors. If you don’t support net neutrality, what’s your solution for concentrated telecom monopoly power? The GOP actively supports concentrated telecom monopoly power. There are 40 years of documentable evidence.
From Simington’s missive, do you gather he cares one fleeting shit about the problems created by telecom monopoly power? The high costs? They slow speeds? The patchy access in rural markets? The comically terrible customer service? The refusal of ISPs to upgrade poor, minority neighborhoods?
Simington can’t even be bothered to actually discuss the actual issue he’s trying to counter. Because what the modern GOP cares about is protecting its own power, and, at the moment, that requires propping up the delusion that anything the GOP doesn’t like is somehow “big tech censorship.” Even some basic, popular consumer protections designed to protect the public from big telecom. | US Federal Policies |
Capitol Hill is breathing a sigh of relief as lawmakers jet back to their home states for the Thanksgiving holiday after a grueling 10 weeks full of late-night votes and, toward the end, increasingly testy exchanges.
It’s tested the mettle of newly minted Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., whose leadership victory temporarily appeared to unite what’s been a highly divided House GOP Conference this year.
But months-old fractures, particularly over government spending, have continued to widen three weeks into Johnson’s speakership – despite scoring some key victories so early in his tenure.
Johnson managed to usher through the House an Israel aid bill without President Biden’s request for additional billions toward Ukraine, Taiwan and his own border policies, and offsetting the $14.3 billion aid with money the president allocated toward the IRS.
He also led Congress to avoid a government shutdown by passing a "clean" extension of last year’s federal funding along bipartisan lines ahead of the Friday fiscal deadline.
It was the latter move that helped fuel a rebellion within his own party on Thursday – from both hardline conservatives who felt betrayed by the measure and moderates who were sick of being forced into politically difficult votes by the right flank’s demands.
The tricky dynamics preceded Johnson’s speakership – and fueled ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s historic ouster – but don’t appear to be easing yet.
A group of 19 conservatives and moderate Republicans joined Democrats to tank a procedural vote on the spending bill dealing with the Departments of Justice and Commerce on Wednesday. Before this year, such a vote – known as a rule vote – had not failed in two decades.
House Freedom Caucus Chair Scott Perry, R-Pa., called the spending bill "weak" and added, "We want the message to be clear to the American people and to our leadership. We are done with the failure theater here."
Rep. Nick LaLota, R-N.Y., one of the moderate Republicans who voted against the rule, argued it would not get enough votes to pass anyway and "would cut important funding to my district’s Law Enforcement."
"I voted ‘no’ on its rule because we need to stop wasting time with doomed bills & draft ones which can pass the House & don’t disproportionately hurt my district," he wrote on social platform X.
Similar divisions forced House GOP leaders to reschedule and scuttle other key spending bills multiple times over the last two weeks.
"I think there's a honeymoon period here. I'm not sure how long it lasts," Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said last week after the second of two spending bills was pulled. "With what's going on on the floor today, I think that indicates the honeymoon might be shorter than we thought."
Meanwhile, tensions over McCarthy's ouster last month reached yet another boiling point this week when Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., one of eight GOP lawmakers who voted to remove McCarthy as speaker, accused the ex-leader of elbowing him in the kidney while passing him in the hall.
McCarthy denied attacking Burchett and said he only accidentally bumped into him.
The House returns on Nov. 28 after the Thanksgiving break.
The House had been in session at least part of every week since Sept. 12 when they returned from August recess. A planned two-week district work period in October was canceled due to needing more time to work on government funding. | US Congress |
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
toggle caption
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy speaks to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on May 24, 2023. The U.S. government will soon run out of cash to pay its bills unless it can raise or suspend its debt ceiling.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy speaks to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on May 24, 2023. The U.S. government will soon run out of cash to pay its bills unless it can raise or suspend its debt ceiling.
Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images
The U.S. running short of both time and money to pay its bills
At some point in the next several weeks, the U.S. is likely to run out of money to pay its bills, risking the prospect of a devastating default.
With time of the essence, here are answers to five things that people often get wrong about the ongoing debt ceiling saga.
Did runaway spending by President Biden and Congressional Democrats leave the U.S. on the brink of default?
In a word, no.
The U.S. can currently borrow up to $31.4 trillion, and political leaders need to urgently raise or suspend that debt ceiling or risk leaving the country unable to pay its bills.
But the current national debt has been building up for years, and carries plenty of fingerprints – from both Democrats and Republicans. The reality is that the U.S. needs to borrow money to pay its bills given that the government hasn't balanced its budget since the Clinton administration.
Two unfunded wars, three recessions, a global pandemic and three rounds of tax cuts all contributed to the tide of red ink.
In fact, of the total debt on the books today, 16% was added during the eight years George W. Bush was in office, 30% was added during the eight years Barack Obama was in office, 25% was added during the four years Donald Trump was in office – and 12% was added since President Biden took office.
What about the war in Ukraine? Did that contribute to the national debt?
It was neglibible at best.
Since Russia's invasion of Ukraine last year, the U.S. has devoted more than $76 billion dollars to the country, including humanitarian aid, financial assistance and weapons.
While that dwarfs the amount of aid the U.S. sends to other countries, it's a smaller fraction of GDP than some allies have contributed to Ukraine.
It represents less than 5% of this year's projected deficit and just 2/10ths of 1% of the government's accumulated debt.
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
toggle caption
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addresses Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 21, 2022. The U.S. has provided Ukraine with more than $76 billion in aid, but that's a smaller fraction of GDP than some allies have contributed to the country.
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addresses Congress at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. on Dec. 21, 2022. The U.S. has provided Ukraine with more than $76 billion in aid, but that's a smaller fraction of GDP than some allies have contributed to the country.
Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images
Is the U.S. going to run out of cash on June 1?
When the U.S. will actually be unable to pay its bills is difficult to predict with precision. After all, billions of dollars flow in and out of government coffers daily.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has said repeatedly that forecasting a precise moment when money runs short is impossible.
However, since the government knows generally when bills are coming due, Yellen says it's "highly likely" that the government will run short of cash in early June, and possibly "as early as June 1."
Quarterly taxes are due on June 15, so if the government is able to get that far, the influx of new revenue will push the crunch date further off into the future.
In addition, the government will get additional headroom under its borrowing limit at the end of June, which would buy additional time.
So far, financial markets are generally assuming a deal will be reached to avoid a default. But as the crunch time gets closer, investors may get increasingly nervous. If investors start to doubt the government's ability to pay its bills, the resulting volatility could put additional pressure on lawmakers to make a deal.
Is the debt default the same as a government shutdown?
This one sparks confusion all the time, even among seasoned journalists at NPR.
It's easy to see why. The threat of a debt default and a government shutdown are both symptoms of political gridlock, and because they sometimes occur at the same time, they can easily get mixed up.
But they're not the same.
Government shutdowns happen with some regularity when Congress fails to agree on additional spending to fund the government. They're costly and inconvenient. But essential government services continue, and the lasting damage is limited.
By contrast, the threat of a default arises when Congress fails to agree on additional borrowing so the country can continue paying its bills.
While the government has occasionally flirted with default — most recently in 2011 and 2013 — it has never actually failed to pay its bills. Doing so would likely do lasting damage to the government's reputation as a dependable debtor, and could result in permanently higher borrowing costs.
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
toggle caption
A sign is displayed on a government building in Washington, D.C., that is closed because of a government shutdown on Dec. 22, 2018. Government shutdowns happen when Congress fails to agree on additional spending to fund the government
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
A sign is displayed on a government building in Washington, D.C., that is closed because of a government shutdown on Dec. 22, 2018. Government shutdowns happen when Congress fails to agree on additional spending to fund the government
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images
Why doesn't the U.S. get rid of the debt ceiling altogether?
The U.S. could do that, but it's harder in practice.
The debt ceiling was created by Congress during World War I, as a way to simplify government borrowing without the need for lawmakers to approve each individual bond issue.
It could just as easily be removed if lawmakers choose to do so. However, it can be politically challenging because it could be seen as a gateway to additional deficit spending.
Congress could eliminate the debt ceiling altogether, or declare that necessary borrowing is automatically authorized whenever federal spending is approved.
This second option was, in fact, the practice followed for a decade and a half, under the so-called Gephardt Rule, named for former Rep. Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., who got tired of cajoling lawmakers to raise the debt limit to pay for spending they'd already voted for.
Some Democrats called for repealing the debt limit last year, before Republicans took control of the House, but President Biden dismissed the idea as "irresponsible." That set the stage for the current showdown.
Congress has raised the debt limit dozens of times, and it rarely comes close to reaching a crisis.
Recent exceptions have come during periods of divided government — in particular when the House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans and a Democrat is in the White House, with the GOP using the debt ceiling as leverage to extract policy concessions.
By contrast, Congressional Democrats repeatedly agreed to raise the debt limit with little drama during periods of divided government, including twice during the Trump administration and three times during the George W. Bush administration. | US Federal Policies |
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, pledged to unite the GOP conference and give members without leadership roles a louder voice in party discussions in a letter to colleagues sent Monday.
"The principles that unite us as Republicans are far greater than the disagreements that divide us. And the differences between us and our Democratic colleagues vastly outweigh our internal divisions," Jordan wrote in the letter obtained by Fox News Digital.
"The country and our conference cannot afford us attacking each other right now. It is time we unite to get back to work on behalf of the American people."
The letter comes as Jordan is quickly consolidating support ahead of an expected House-wide vote for speaker on Tuesday. Jordan won a closed-door GOP conference vote to be their next candidate, but his conservative credentials and reputation as a bomb-thrower have stirred concerns among moderates.
Jordan is also tasked with convincing lawmakers to come around who were unhappy with the treatment of ousted ex-Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., and the previous speaker-designate, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., who stepped away from the race when it became clear too many people were refusing to back him over Jordan.
"As Republicans, we are blessed to have an energetic conference comprised of members with varied backgrounds, experiences, and skills — just like the country we represent. We may not always agree on every issue or every bill, and that's all right," Jordan wrote. "It's an honor to receive our conference's nomination as Speaker-designate. Over the past weeks, each of you have communicated the issues that matter most to you and your constituents."
"We've discussed frustrations about the treatment of Kevin McCarthy and Steve Scalise and the events of the past month. You've been honest and open, and I appreciate the candid conversations. In these conversations, we've also discussed your thoughts on how we can best move forward. And we must move forward."
Jordan's letter appears to be an indirect olive branch to moderates and other Republicans who may have been skeptical of his leadership. It comes after reports that some moderates may be considering working with Democrats to find a consensus speaker candidate.
Jordan promised to empower members outside of those in leadership and heads of the "Five Families," what the GOP calls its formal separate factions.
"The role of a Speaker is to bring all Republicans together. That's what I intend to do. We will make sure there are more Republican voices involved in our major decisions beyond the Five Families. Our goal will be to empower our committees and committee chairs to take the lead on the House's legislative work through regular order," he said.
"This will bring us together to pass responsible legislation to fund our government and support our military. I will tirelessly work to defend and expand our majority and help every Republican member back at home."
Jordan told reporters on Monday that he intends to hold a vote at noon Tuesday, regardless of whether he knows he has the 217 votes necessary to win the speaker's gavel. | US Congress |
The IRS used National Small Business Week to tout President Biden's Inflation Reduction Act, which critics argue will allow the IRS to target small businesses for more tax money.
National Small Business Week runs from April 30 through May 6. To mark the occasion, the IRS sent out a news release giving "advice" on how small business taxpayers can take advantage of new and existing tax benefits.
"The IRS is joining the Small Business Administration and others in both the public and private sector to celebrate the hard work, ingenuity and dedication of America's small businesses and their contributions to the economy," the release said. "With next year’s filing deadline nearly a year away, entrepreneurs still have time to identify possible tax benefits, take action to qualify for them and then claim them when they file in 2024. They also have time to plan for reporting changes and even claim overlooked tax benefits from the recent past."
The IRS noted potential benefits for businesses that continued paying their employees during the COVID pandemic and that help pay their employees' student loan obligations, among others. However, the first benefits listed were ways for small businesses to "cut energy costs" and "expand clean energy credits" due to the Inflation Reduction Act, a massive, Democrat-backed spending package that Biden signed into law last year.
"The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), enacted last summer, includes provisions that can save small business owners money on energy costs," the release said. "Small businesses can receive a tax credit covering 30% of the cost of switching over to low-cost solar power, lowering operating costs and protecting against volatile energy prices.
"Small business building owners can receive a tax credit up to $5 per square foot to support energy efficiency improvements that deliver lower utility bills. Through the Clean Commercial Vehicle Credit, small businesses that use vehicles such as trucks and vans can benefit from tax credits up to 30% of purchase costs for clean commercial vehicles, like electric and fuel cell models that meet applicable requirements.
"There is no limit on the number of Clean Commercial Vehicle credits a business can claim. These credits are nonrefundable, so businesses can't get back more on the credit than they owe in taxes."
The news release came two weeks after Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, wrote a letter to IRS Commissioner Daniel Werfel accusing his agency of launching a "witch hunt" against small businesses over its plan outlining how it will spend money from Biden's Inflation Reduction Act.
"Now is simply not the time to place unnecessary burdens on our small businesses as they continue to grapple with recent economic challenges," Ernst wrote. "Instead of commencing on a witch hunt on small businesses by enhancing audit rates without justification, we should focus on tax solutions that promote small business growth and economic competitiveness."
The Inflation Reduction Act granted $80 billion to the IRS to hire thousands of new employees over the next decade. The IRS wrote in its recently published "strategic operating plan" that it will use the funds in part to "increase enforcement activities in other key areas where audit coverage has declined while complying with Treasury's directive not to increase audit rates relative to historical levels for small businesses and households earning $400,000 per year or less."
Ernst specifically cited that provision, which suggests businesses making more than $400,000 per year could be subject to the IRS's increased "enforcement activities," arguing such a threshold is lower than any other industry standard for a "large business."
The senator demanded that Werfel provide more clarity on how the IRS proposal would be implemented, such as whether the $400,000 figure references net income or the business’s revenue.
"It is not clear by which precedent the IRS determined that a large business is any entity earning more than $400,000 in revenues. Under this approach, enhanced tax enforcement efforts would sweepingly apply to small businesses across the country," Ernst wrote. "It is abundantly clear that small businesses will bear the brunt of these enforcement efforts; not solely large corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers."
The senator noted that a small business with about five employees would bring in more than $424,000 on average, citing data from the U.S. Census Bureau.
Both Werfel and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen have repeatedly vowed that funding from the Inflation Reduction Act will not go toward increased audits for middle- and low-income Americans or anyone making less than $400,000 per year.
When reached for comment for this story, the IRS directed Fox News Digital to comments made by Werfel in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee last week.
"[Inflation Reduction Act] funding also gives us an important opportunity to improve enforcement efforts to promote fairness while respecting taxpayers' rights," said Werfel. "The agency will follow Secretary Yellen's directive not to raise audit rates above historic levels for small businesses and households making less than $400,000.
"I want to be crystal clear: We are not increasing audit rates for hardworking taxpayers making under $400,000. That is my pledge. There is no new surge of audits coming for workers, retirees and others."
A Government Accountability Office report from last year found that the majority of IRS audits historically are conducted on individuals and businesses below the $400,000 threshold.
Werfel later added that the IRS' "plan is to focus our enforcement efforts on complex returns of high-wealth filers."
Despite the IRS chief's comments, however, Yellen didn't deny in congressional testimony in March that potentially 90% of new IRS audits using Inflation Reduction Act resources would come from lower- and middle-income individuals making less than $400,000 annually.
Indeed, Yellen was asked by Rep. Adrian Smith, R-Neb., to clarify whether her directive meant the total number of audits annually of families earning less than $400,000 wouldn't increase or if she meant the proportion of new audits targeting those families wouldn't exceed historical rates.
"I'm talking about the proportion of those small businesses and families," Yellen responded.
"OK, so the proportion. I mean, just for the record, the proportion is 90%," said Smith, referencing the GAO report. "So, 90% of the new audits will be, you know, according to the data, that we can expect up to 90% of new audits to be on those making less than $400,000."
Yellen didn't reject Smith's conclusion but reiterated that the purpose is to increase the audit rates on high-income earners. However, Smith pointed to data that suggests it will be "broader than that."
Both the GAO and Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse have found in repeated analyses that low-income taxpayers are audited at a much higher rate than high-income earners.
Experts say it's difficult to calculate an average cost of an IRS audit for the ordinary American, since each audit is unique to a particular circumstance. Some organizations put the average at thousands for a mail audit and tens of thousands for a more intrusive IRS field audit. That doesn't include additional penalties or potentially thousands of dollars needed to pay for lawyers or accountants to help with the auditing process, which can be complex and require going through confusing paperwork.
Another issue that taxpayers can face when confronted with audits is the legal process should they challenge the IRS. Unlike normal courtrooms, where defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty, in tax court the burden of proof is on the taxpayer to prove the IRS wrong. | US Federal Policies |
President Joe Biden announced that his efforts to provide millions of student loan borrowers with debt relief were not over on Friday after a Supreme Court decision blocked his current debt relief program.
Biden said his next move would be through the use of the 1965 Higher Education Act, which gives Education Secretary Miguel Cardona the authority to “compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”
What is the Higher Education Act?
The 1965 law was established under President Lyndon B. Johnson as part of his domestic agenda. The law was intended to offer financial assistance to college students, including through low-interest loans and the establishment of new scholarships.
An important aspect of the older legislation was that it did not mandate a national emergency in order to address student loans. The previous law Biden tried to invoke to forgive the loans, called the HEROES Act, only gave Cardona the ability to “waive or modify” federal student loan provisions in a national emergency.
Several Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), encouraged the Biden administration to use the 1965 law as the basis for its student loan forgiveness program as early as 2021.
A look at the Biden administration's newest actions on student loan relief:
The president announced that Cardona had already taken the first two steps under the new proposed program, including initiating a rule-making process that is aimed at opening an alternative path to debt relief for working and middle-class borrowers.
Cardona also finalized a repayment plan that includes lowering the amount of money borrowers need to repay in each check, cutting the amount from 10% to 5% of their discretionary income. It will also allow many borrowers to make $0 monthly payments, and it will not charge borrowers unpaid monthly interest if they make their monthly payment, according to a White House Fact Sheet.
Another change is the creation of a 12-month "on-ramp repayment program" that will remove the threat of default for loan recipients who are unable to pay their bills. The Department of Education will not refer those borrowers who miss payments to credit agencies for a year as they readjust to making payments again.
The White House encouraged borrowers to repay the loans if they can, but it said the new repayment program was to help borrowers adjust after the three-year repayment pause during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The new plans come after the Supreme Court determined in a 6-3 ruling on Friday that the administration overstepped its authority when it moved to waive billions in student loan debt under the HEROES Act.
"I believe that the Court’s decision to strike down our student debt relief plan is wrong," Biden said in a statement. "But I will stop at nothing to find other ways to deliver relief to hard-working middle-class families. My Administration will continue to work to bring the promise of higher education to every American." | US Federal Policies |
January 09, 2023 01:08 PM The Postal Service is touting its improved speed for getting mail-in ballots to election officials in the 2022 midterm elections. Nearly all mailed ballots, 98.96%, for both the Nov. 8, 2022 election and the Georgia runoff were delivered to officials within three days — an improvement from 2020, where for the Georgia runoff, only 92.9% of ballots were delivered within three days and only 97.9% in the general election. MAIL THIEVES STEAL $20,000 IN DONOR CHECKS TO REP. ELISE STEFANIK "Once again, our entire Postal Service team has successfully delivered the nation’s ballots securely and on time,” Postmaster General Louis DeJoy said in a statement. “We take great pride in the role our organization plays in the vote-by-mail process. The American people can continue to feel confident in using the U.S. Mail to fulfill their democratic duty.” The percentage of ballots delivered to election officials within a week was 99.93%, a 0.51% improvement from the 2021 Georgia runoff and a 0.04% improvement from the 2020 general election. Officials also say the average time for ballots to be delivered to voters was less than two days, an improvement from the average of 2.1 days in the 2020 general election and 3.4 days for the 2021 Georgia runoff. FILE - A USPS employee works outside post office in Wheeling, Ill., Dec. 3, 2021. The U.S. Postal Service delivered more than 54 million ballots for the midterm election, with nearly 99% of ballots delivered to election officials within three days, officials said Monday, Jan. 9, 2023. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh, File) Nam Y. Huh/AP At least 54.4 million ballots were sent to officials via the Postal Service during the 2022 general election, down from the 136 million ballots sent during the 2020 general election at the peak of the coronavirus pandemic. Vote-by-mail skyrocketed in popularity during the 2020 election, with many states making it easier to cast a ballot by mail and maintaining those changes for the 2022 election. "These results speak for themselves. The Postal Service has performed at a very high level as it has done since the late 1800s. The entire team — from the postmaster general, to the senior leadership team, to the 655,000 men and women of the Postal Service — is dedicated to ensuring excellence when it comes to delivering our nation’s election mail for the American people. And we will continue to look for opportunities to improve operational effectiveness of this critical service in future elections,” Amber McReynolds, chairwoman of the USPS board of governors election mail committee, said in a statement. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Officials promise to "continue to look for ways to improve upon the tremendous results" from the 2022 elections. Widespread vote-by-mail laws in various states are likely to remain in place for the 2024 election, which will feature a presidential election. The 2022 midterm elections saw Republicans gain control of the House of Representatives and the Democrats gain a slim majority in the Senate. The tight majority the GOP gained in the House led to a contentious House speaker election, which went 15 rounds, ending with Rep. Kevin McCarthy as speaker. | US Federal Elections |
WASHINGTON -- The unprecedented ouster of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy has left no consensus among Republicans about whether his removal was the right move as the party struggles to coalesce around a new leader, according to a new poll.
Only one-quarter of Republicans say they approve of the stunning decision by a small group of House Republicans to remove the California lawmaker from his post during a vote last week. Three in 10 Republicans believe it was a mistake for a small faction of the party, and all Democrats, to support a motion ejecting McCarthy from the speakership.
“It's just chaos,” Betsy Young, a Republican from Oregon, told The Associated Press. “And I don't think it’s helpful.”
About 4 in 10 Republicans (43%) say they neither approve nor disapprove. That is according to a new poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research conducted after McCarthy became the first speaker in history to be voted out of the role.
The political upheaval in Congress has left Americans as a whole split on the issue — if they have an opinion at all — with some saying McCarthy had it coming and others warning of the precedent such action could set for future speakers. Overall, a quarter of Americans said they approve, a quarter disapprove and about half say neither.
Thomas Adkins, a Republican from North Carolina, told the AP that the former speaker “relinquished his leadership" when he made a deal with congressional Democrats to fund the government last month while facing a looming shutdown deadline.
“That’s sort of going over to the enemy in my thinking, so in that respect, I thoroughly disapprove of the speaker’s actions,” the 84-year-old said.
Kevin Fry, a Republican from Indiana, echoed those sentiments, saying McCarthy “didn’t keep his word” to the party when he said he would not negotiate on cutting spending and other conservative priorities. “When you give your word and everybody relies on that, then you know, you need to be held accountable,” the 64-year-old added.
It is the same argument the eight far-right members who voted for McCarthy's removal made on the floor of the House last week. That decision and Democrats’ willingness to join along has since thrown the House and its Republican leadership into disarray as the majority is now rushing to vote in a new speaker this week to lead them during this divisive moment.
But Young, who considers herself a moderate Republican, calls the reasoning for McCarthy's removal “stupid," resulting in a stain on the GOP moving forward.
“(Democrats and Republicans) are supposed to work together, and they forget that,” she said. “They’re in their own bubble and they forget that the rest of the country is not Washington, or it’s not the state capitals.”
The poll shows that conservative Republicans are more likely than those who describe themselves as moderate or liberal to approve of the move to remove McCarthy, 31% to 16%. Even among conservatives, though, 33% said they disapprove.
A quarter of Democrats also disapprove of McCarthy being removed, despite all their representatives voting in favor of the motion. Thirty percent of Democrats approve.
Deedee Gunderson, a Democrat from New Mexico, said that while she's not a fan of McCarthy and how he has governed, she's worried that his ouster has given more power to the extremes of the Republican Party.
“I think they are trying to destroy this government,” she said.
Following McCarthy's removal, 39% of Republicans say they have an unfavorable view of the former speaker. That's up slightly from 25% in an AP-NORC poll conducted in January.
The fight over congressional leadership also comes after the chamber narrowly avoided a government shutdown by passing a short-term funding bill that delays its fiscal deadline until mid-November. That conflict over government spending and financial priorities is expected to resume in the coming weeks, with U.S. aid to Ukraine against Russia's invasion one of the major issues at play. The poll shows 69% of Republicans — but just 37% of Democrats — think the U.S. government is spending too much on Ukraine aid.
Overall, a majority of Americans continue to say U.S. spending is too high, but have little appetite for cuts to major programs. And Americans are split on which party would do a better job handling the federal budget, with 27% saying Democrats and 26% Republicans. A third of Americans say they trust neither party.
“Our spending is so out of control that I can’t believe how much debt we’ve incurred on both sides,” Fry said. “I don’t think that’s necessarily a Democratic or Republican issue.”
___
The poll of 1,163 adults was conducted Oct. 5-9, 2023, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, designed to represent the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points. | US Congress |
House GOP members are preparing a motion to expel Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., amid his renewed threat to pursue a motion to vacate House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
The House Republican members will seek to expel Gaetz if the ethics committee report comes back with findings of guilt, Fox News has learned. One member told Fox News the report is mostly written but does not know what it contains. Yet following threats to vacate McCarthy, the member said of Gaetz, "No one can stand him at this point. A smart guy without morals."
It takes a two-thirds vote to expel. And Republicans are treading on thin ice with their majority. The House is down to 433 members. It’s unclear where things stand with federally indicted Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y. If you were to have members expelled, retire or die, the majority could be right on the edge for the GOP.
During an appearance on CNN Sunday morning, Gaetz said he planned "to file a motion to vacate against Speaker McCarthy this week."
"I think we need to rip off the Band-Aid. I think we need to move on with new leadership that can be trustworthy. Look, the one thing everybody has in common is that nobody trusts Kevin McCarthy. He lied to Biden. He lied to House conservatives," Gaetz told CNN "State of the Union" host Jake Tapper. "Kevin McCarthy's goal was to make multiple contradictory promises to delay everything back up against shutdown politics and at the end of the day, blow past the spending guardrails he had agreed."
In response to that motion to vacate, McCarthy said, "I’ll survive."
"This is personal with Matt," McCarthy said, according to ABC producer and reporter Ben Siegel. "Let’s get over it, let’s start governing."
But on CNN, Gaetz insisted he was not pursuing McCarthy's ouster over personal matters.
"This isn't personal, Jake. This is about spending," Gaetz said Sunday. "This is about the deal Kevin McCarthy made. If Kevin McCarthy didn't want to keep the deal to return to pre-COVID spending, if he didn't want to keep the deal to have single subject spending bills, not vote for government spending all up or down at once, then he shouldn't have made that deal. So this is about keeping Kevin McCarthy to his word. It's not about any personal animus."
The House Ethics Committee has been investigating Gaetz since 2021 on allegations, including campaign finance violations as well as claims of taking bribes and using drugs – accusations the congressman has vehemently denied. Gaetz also denies allegations leaked from a Justice Department sex trafficking probe said to have involved an underage girl.
"If Kevin McCarthy is still the speaker of the House, he will be serving at the pleasure of the Democrats. He will be working for the Democrats," Gaetz said Sunday. "The only way Kevin McCarthy is speaker of the House at the end of this coming week is if Democrats bail them out now, they probably will."
"I will make no deal with Democrats and concede no terms to them. I actually think Democrats should vote against Speaker McCarthy for free. I don't think I should have to deal with that."
Such a gambit to try to bounce a speaker in the middle of a Congress is rare. Former Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., threatened to use the tactic on House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, in the summer of 2015. Boehner saw the writing on the wall and resigned that October. The House last saw a formal effort to remove a speaker in 1910.
As the House currently has 433 members, if all members vote for someone by name in a speaker’s race, the successful candidate must receive 217 votes.
It’s unclear how many Republicans may vote against that secondary motion to table or refer. McCarthy’s move on government funding has inflamed many on the hard right. And it’s unclear if Democrats could potentially assist McCarthy. Some McCarthy opponents on the Democratic side of the aisle may vote with Republicans wanting to bounce the speaker. Others may not participate in the vote at all. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., has said Republicans must solve this civil war on their own.
Also on CNN's "State of the Union," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Sunday she would vote to recall McCarthy. | US Congress |
JEFFERSON CITY — The top Republican in the Missouri Senate on Wednesday cast doubt on GOP efforts to raise the threshold for constitutional amendments after voters killed a similar effort in Ohio.
Ohio voters, by a 57%-43% margin, on Tuesday soundly rejected a plan that would’ve required constitutional amendments to receive a 60% majority for passage. As in Missouri, constitutional amendments in Ohio currently need a simple majority to take effect.
The Ohio vote was viewed as a win for abortion rights supporters, who will need only a simple majority at the ballot box this November to codify the right to an abortion in the state constitution.
While some Missouri Republicans appeared undeterred Wednesday in their effort to raise the bar for constitutional amendments, Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, expressed doubt that voters would go along with a change.
People are also reading…
Rowden told the Post-Dispatch Wednesday afternoon that while he expects another push to change the initiative petition process next year, “I find it hard to imagine a scenario where the outcome in Missouri would be different than Ohio if we do get it on the ballot.”
House Speaker Pro Tem Mike Henderson, R-Bonne Terre, acknowledged in an earlier interview Wednesday that the Ohio vote gave Missouri lawmakers “something to study.”
Henderson, who this year sponsored a proposal raising requirements, said he preferred a 55% threshold to a 60% bar.
“We knew 60% from the polling we had had, that people thought that was too high,” Henderson said Wednesday. “I don’t think it stalls our momentum.
“We know 60% isn't going to make it,” he said. On a 55% bar, he said, “I still think that’s probably a number that the people would probably find palatable.”
Rep. Bill Falkner, a St. Joseph Republican who also filed legislation lifting the threshold, said he was working on an alternative to raising the threshold for constitutional amendments — one in which the Legislature would be allowed to debate, but not veto, amendments that would take effect with a simple majority.
“My biggest point is people need to know what’s in it,” he said Wednesday. He said if petitioners opt not to go through the Legislature, “then I’m all for the 60%, or I would even be for 57, 58%.”
On a higher threshold, Falkner said: “Yes, I think that there’s still momentum to try to get that through” and to a vote of the people.
Recent action
The House approved a 57% threshold in the closing days of this year’s session in May, but it died in the Senate. Voters would’ve gotten the final say on whether to raise the bar.
Ballot summaries drafted by Missouri legislators have buried mention of proposed higher thresholds under bullet points limiting voting to U.S. citizens, which is already required. Critics of that move have called it “ballot candy” designed to trick voters into approving a higher threshold.
In Ohio, voters were told of the proposed 60% threshold in the first of three bullet points that appeared on the ballot.
Even if Missouri Republicans draft potentially favorable ballot wording in 2024, state courts could rewrite the ballot summary — as they did in 2020 on a ballot question to repeal a redistricting process voters approved two years earlier.
House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, a Springfield Democrat who is running for governor, said Republicans “have made it clear they plan to continue their assault on the initiative petition.”
“They know they've gone too far stripping away the rights of Missourians,” Quade said. “But like we saw last night in Ohio, even in ‘red’ states, voters won’t be fooled.”
A spokesman for House Speaker Dean Plocher, R-Des Peres, did not provide a comment on the Ohio vote Wednesday.
During a May news conference, Plocher predicted that if an abortion question made it on the ballot, a constitutional amendment would pass with a simple majority.
At that point, with hours left in the legislative session, the 57% threshold was languishing in the Senate.
“If the Senate fails to take action on IP (initiative petition) reform, I think the Senate should be held accountable for allowing abortion to return to Missouri,” Plocher said.
Initiative petition fights
Four proposed constitutional amendments filed with the Missouri secretary of state on Tuesday would enshrine the current simple majority threshold, as well as a requirement that ballot summaries “correctly and fairly” describe what is before voters.
The proposals followed the formation of the political action committee “Missourians For Fair Governance” on Aug. 1, which states it is in support of a ballot measure “to protect Missourians’ power of the petition for citizen governance.”
The group shares a phone number with the Missouri Realtors Association, which has opposed efforts to increase the threshold for constitutional amendments.
The Realtors’ association has previously used the process to amend the constitution to ban sales tax collections on real estate transfers. In 2016, Realtors also financed a campaign to stop the Legislature from extending state sales taxes to services.
Meanwhile, the attempt by Missouri abortion rights supporters to place a separate question before voters next year, which if approved would protect abortion access, has been repeatedly held up in the courts.
The ACLU of Missouri is challenging a ballot summary drafted by Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft, a Republican, that the group argues is misleading and argumentative in violation of state law requiring fair ballot language.
A trial on the wording is scheduled to start Sept. 11 in Cole County Circuit Court. A separate lawsuit by Republican lawmakers challenging the measure’s cost estimate could also delay signature collection.
The courtroom fights follow a separate dispute, which the state Supreme Court resolved last month, between Attorney General Andrew Bailey and Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick, both Republicans, that delayed the initiative petition process by months.
Signatures to make the 2024 ballot are due in May, and at least one abortion rights opponent has publicly said opponents hope to delay signature collection as long as possible.
Updated at 4:53 p.m. with comments by Sen. Caleb Rowden. | US Local Elections |
Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) blasted Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) Thursday for allegedly blocking her request to file a subpoena for sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs, accusing Democrats of “hiding” something.
Blackburn is a member of the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee, on which Durbin serves as chair, giving him control over the panel’s subpoena power.
The Tennessee Republican publicly called out Durbin on X, writing, “@SenatorDurbin BLOCKED my request to subpoena Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs. What are Democrats trying to hide?”
.@SenatorDurbin BLOCKED my request to subpoena Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs.
What are Democrats trying to hide?
— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) November 30, 2023
Blackburn initially called to subpoena the flight logs in early November, demanding to get more information on those who allegedly flew in billionaire Epstein’s jet to his private Caribbean island and other locations, where he is suspected of pimping out women and children to his guests.
Passengers of the plane, dubbed the “Lolita Express,” included former presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, Epstein’s former pilot testified.
After being found dead in his cell at New York City’s Metropolitan Correctional Center in August 2019, many questions remain as to who paid to sexually abuse the girls that Epstein procured and trafficked all over the world.
“If you didn’t see the Judiciary Committee hearing today, this was quite a mess,” Blackburn said in a video message later on Thursday.
“We were trying to get my subpoenas of Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs… and of course, the chairman blocked it all, cut it off. That’s not how this committee is supposed to work.”
Senate Judiciary Democrats don’t want to approve my subpoenas for Justice Sotomayor’s staff or Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs.
This is not how the committee works. pic.twitter.com/ytwSE49zo1
— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) December 1, 2023
She continued her rampage on Friday morning, writing on X, “We need to uncover the names of every individual who participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific human trafficking ring. I’m calling to subpoena his flight logs.”
We need to uncover the names of every individual who participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s horrific human trafficking ring.
I’m calling to subpoena his flight logs.
— Sen. Marsha Blackburn (@MarshaBlackburn) December 1, 2023
The senator also made a statement through her office, bringing up how the Judiciary Committee wants to “ignore” reports of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressing colleges and libraries to purchase her book:
This is a sad day in the history of the prestigious Judiciary Committee and further underscores the Left’s two tiers of justice crusade. Senate Democrats have long been trying to undermine the Supreme Court and Justice Clarence Thomas, but want to ignore Justice Sotomayor allegedly using her taxpayer-funded staff to coordinate speaking engagements in exchange for selling and promoting thousands of her books. They also don’t want to have a conversation about the estate of Jeffrey Epstein to find out the names of every person who participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s human trafficking ring.
While Durbin has not publicly responded to Blackburn’s criticism, the Democrat senator was inundated with thousands of social media comments demanding the release of Epstein’s flight logs.
“Why did Dick Durbin block Marsha Blackburn’s request to subpoena Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs?” conservative television host Emerald Robinson wrote.
“Because the Democrats are groomers. You know it’s true.”
Why did Dick Durbin block Marsha Blackburn's request to subpoena Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs?
Because the Democrats are groomers.
You know it's true.
— Emerald Robinson ✝️ (@EmeraldRobinson) December 1, 2023
“Is Dick Durbin on Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs or is one of his donors on Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs?” activist and author Brigitte Gabriel posted.
Is Dick Durbin on Jeffrey Epstein's flight logs or is one of his donors on Jeffrey Epstein’s flight logs?
— Brigitte Gabriel (@ACTBrigitte) December 1, 2023
Fox News’s Jesse Watters also slammed the judiciary chair, asking, “Why is Senator Dick Durbin covering up for Jeffrey Epstein?”
Fox News's Jesse Watters: "Why is Senator Dick Durbin covering up for Jeffrey Epstein? Jeffrey Epstein is a dead child trafficker. And Sen. Marsha Blackburn tried subpoenaing Jeffrey Epstein's flight log earlier today and Sen. Dick Durbin blocked it." pic.twitter.com/zhF5DAz8PJ
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) December 1, 2023 | US Congress |
Reps. Jamie Raskin and Dan Goldman, the two primary Democratic voices on the House Oversight Committee, apparently have decided to play for keeps. They've sent a letter to committee chairman James Comer that essentially asks Comer if he bought a bag of magic beans from Gal Luft, Comer's beloved "whistleblower" who seems to have used Comer's bumbling probe into Hunter Biden Something Something as a getaway vehicle. From the letter:
“It appears as if Mr. Luft sought ‘whistleblower’ status from you in an effort to defend himself from criminal prosecution while a fugitive from justice. Worse yet, this latest episode also raises concerns that Mr. Luft may be manipulating your investigation not only for his own self-interest but perhaps also in furtherance of the CCP’s efforts to undermine U.S. security interests and the President of the United States. These recent revelations naturally raise broader concerns about the credibility and motivations of other purported whistleblowers that Congressional Republicans have relied on to support unfounded and baseless allegations. Sadly, the Luft episode severely undermines the credibility of the critical function of whistleblowers in this body."
Translation From The Original Legislator's Etiquettespeak: Can you really be as dumb as you look?
Although Mr. Luft has been on the run for months, you touted him as a “potential witness” and even prepared to interview him as part of your investigation. As recently as Friday, you described Mr. Luft as “a very credible witness” about matters relating to the President’s son’s financial dealings with Chinese companies. Mr. Luft purportedly shared his allegations about Hunter Biden with officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice in a March 2019 meeting in Brussels. 6 The indictment alleges that Mr. Luft repeatedly lied to federal agents during that very same meeting. In May, in response to statements that you “lost” Mr. Luft, you further acknowledged Mr. Luft’s duplicity, stating: “Remember, these informants are kind of in the spy business, so they don't make a habit of being seen a lot or being high-profile or anything like that.” Indeed, Mr. Luft has now been charged with being an unregistered foreign agent of the CCP’s interests in the United States.
Translation From The Original Legislator Etiquettespeak: Yes, we guess you are. Is there anyone dumber than that?
Despite previous public reporting about Mr. Luft’s evasion of the serious criminal charges unsealed yesterday, Senator Ron Johnson demanded that Mr. Luft be granted immunity from prosecution in order to help Republicans attack President Biden, asserting that “he’s literally fleeing for his life right now. He’s on the run. He’s an important witness. He needs to be granted immunity to be able to testify and tell his story.”
Translation From The Original Legislator Etiquettespeak: Aw, geez, we forgot about him. Sorry.
We further note that you have refused to share any documents or information that you have received from Mr. Luft with Oversight Committee Democrats. Given your own public endorsements of Mr. Luft’s information, there is no plausible basis for you to withhold from Committee Democrats any and all information that Mr. Luft has provided to the Committee, including any information that led you to conclude that he is “a very credible witness” despite being under indictment and a fugitive from justice. In order to protect the Congress’s institutional credibility and to reassure the American people that the CCP is not using Republicans’ investigations as a vehicle to undermine the United States government, we urge you to immediately initiate an investigation into whether the Committee may have been unwittingly duped by Mr. Luft in furtherance of the CCP’s interests, as well as any potentially false statements made by Mr. Luft to Members of Congress or congressional staff. In addition, we request that you immediately provide Committee Democrats with all materials and information provided by Mr. Luft to the Committee.
Translation From The Original Legislator Etiquettespeak: For the moment, we are arguing that you were just the world's biggest all-day sucker. Give us those documents lest we change our minds.
Goldman and Raskin dance around the most compelling question regarding this affair — namely, have any of the Republicans involved in this farce had any contact with Luft since the latter took it on the arches. It's the obvious next question. And it's coming.
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 Political Corruption |
White House officials had previously attacked House Committee on Oversight and Government Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and other Republican lawmakers for scheduling the hearing just days ahead of the deadline to fund the government for the coming fiscal year.
"In the two weeks since Speaker McCarthy unilaterally opened this fact-free impeachment stunt, House Republicans’ claims have drawn fresh scrutiny, with fact-checkers finding there’s 'little to back up their allegations' and calling them 'totally unproven' and 'repeatedly debunked,' which even their own Republican colleagues have recognized," White House spokesperson Sharon Yang said in a statement accompanying the memo.
Yang again went after Comer Wednesday for not providing any new evidence to back Republican claims.
"Yet House Republicans are plowing ahead with this baseless stunt anyway. House Oversight Chair Jamie Comer has promised that tomorrow’s hearing will be a 'rehash' of old allegations and is 'not expected to cover new ground,'" she continued. "Instead he claims it is intended to 'help educate the Washington, D.C. press corps' which translates to 'get media attention for our false claims.'"
The memo itself purports to fully rebut the following seven claims alleged by Republicans regarding Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and the family's business dealings:
- Joe Biden engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national
- Joe Biden as VP got the Ukrainian prosecutor general fired in order to help the company where his son served on the board
- Joe Biden has participated in his family’s global business ventures with America’s adversaries
- President Biden is compromised by deals with foreign adversaries and it is impacting his decision making
- There was political interference from the Biden administration in Trump-appointed prosecutor David Weiss’ investigation of Hunter Biden
- The Biden Administration is stonewalling congressional investigations
- Joe Biden and the White House have changed their story on the President’s alleged involvement
"Again and again, Speaker McCarthy, Marjorie Taylor Greene, James Comer, and other House Republicans have shown that they are pursuing a baseless impeachment stunt — despite revealing no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden — in a relentless effort to smear the President," the memo concludes. "The relentless pursuit of this extreme, far-right political agenda comes at the expense of what the American people have sent their leaders to Washington to do — move past the constant political warfare and focus on working together to improve the lives of American families." | US Congress |
The threat of fraud and cyber scams is a 365-days-a-year problem when it comes to online shopping.
But just as the rate at which retailers hit you with promo emails scales up at this time of year, so too does the risk of falling foul of criminals trying to access your bank account.
According to the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC), shoppers lost more than £10m to cyber criminals over last year's festive shopping period.
With Black Friday sales under way and Christmas on the horizon, Sky News enlisted some cybersecurity experts to offer advice on how best to stay safe and avoid scams this year.
A favourite tactic of fraudsters is to draw you in with an email that looks remarkably legitimate, seemingly offering an exclusive deal at one of your favoured retailers.
It is, as Mike McLellan of Secureworks puts it, a "classic scenario we'd expect to see around Black Friday".
An important thing to look out for is the domain name of the sender's email address - is it a close match, but with something slightly off? Think @amaz0n.co.uk, for example.
"On smartphones, that kind of detail is usually hidden," advises Mr McLellan. "So tap on it and check where the email has come from."
You should also keep an eye out for misspellings and odd formatting.
However, the NCSC has warned that criminals are likely to use increasingly accessible AI tools to produce even more convincing scam emails, websites, and adverts than usual.
If you're at all unsure, it's good practice to go to the website directly, rather than click on any links in the email.
Some scams may direct you to a retailer's login page to enter your account information.
It could look perfectly normal, and you go ahead and pop in your username and password, while in the background, criminals capture that information and use it themselves.
Chris Bluvshtein, of VPNOverview, says: "Every website should have a valid security certificate, and you can tell by the little padlock icon next to the URL.
"If a website doesn't have one of these, then don't give your bank details or valuable information."
These can be some of the hardest scams to notice yourself, but banks have become very good at alerting you to "unusual logins" and flagging any subsequent dodgy transactions.
"If you suspect something bad has happened, consider changing your password," Mr McLellan says. "And checking your bank activity."
Another classic of the Black Friday scam genre is a text message suggesting you have a parcel waiting with DHL, Royal Mail, or some other delivery provider.
"Quite often you will be expecting something when you get these texts - but again keep an eye out for anything that doesn't look normal," says Mr McLellan.
A good indicator that something is amiss is if the text asks you for payment and includes a bit.ly link.
You should not click on these.
An emerging threat over the past year is an extension of phishing using QR codes.
Secureworks has dubbed it "Qishing", when criminals use them to direct unsuspecting consumers to fraudulent websites that could steal their personal information.
Director of threat intelligence, Rafe Pilling, says: "We're so used to seeing 'scan this code' to register, view a menu, order drinks or food to a table, or even enter competitions via the big screen at events stadiums, that consumers are thinking less about what they're actually scanning.
"As the hype around holidays like Black Friday drives more urgency in consumer actions, we can expect to see more cyber criminals taking advantage with Qishing."
Modern smartphones and web browsers offer some useful baked-in features to help you stay safe.
Both have password managers and generators, which will come up with randomised options for you to lock your accounts and then store those behind a master password - or even biometrics like facial or fingerprint recognition.
Consider multifactor authentication as well, says Mr McLellan, for an extra layer of security.
Apple and Google Pay are good payment options if the retailer accepts them, as they protect your bank details.
"It's best to use them instead of your debit card," says Mr Bluvshtein.
Read more science and tech news:
How chaos unfolded at OpenAI
Heart of Milky Way captured for first time
UK to build new satellite to monitor climate change
Black Friday promotions will often try to entice you with limited time deals, alerting you to them via an app notification, text message or email.
If one arrives while you're out and about, it could be tempting to jump straight to it.
But shopping on public wi-fi networks, like those you might find at railway stations and on trains, is a bad idea, according to Mr Bluvshtein.
"Public wi-fi rarely has safety protocols such as passwords in place, and hackers can piggyback and steal unsecured banking details and sensitive information without you knowing," he says.
What to do if you suspect you've been scammed
Even with the best will in the world, there may come a moment where you suspect the worst.
But try not to fret - there are steps you can take to limit the damage, or prevent any from occurring at all.
"Keep an eye on bank accounts and if you see anything unusual, get in touch with them," says Mr McLellan.
"Banks have got very robust fraud controls these days - and that's why it's best to use credit cards if possible.
"If you think any of your online accounts have been compromised, change the password, and try not to reuse them across different retailers.
"We do recognise that some of these have a technical bar to them, but if nothing else, at least keep an eye on what's happening and be vigilant about your online activity." | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Former President Donald Trump expects to attend at least the first day of thepitting him and his company against New York Attorney General Letitia James, sources with knowledge of Trump's plan say. The trial begins Monday.
Trump's plan was first revealed in a court filing related to a separate court case,against his former lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen. In it, the judge in Cohen's case said that Trump asked to postpone a scheduled Oct. 3 deposition because of his intention to attend the first week of the trial.
The sources told CBS News that Trump expects to attend at least Monday's proceedings.
The document in the Cohen case indicates Trump made the decision in the days since Judge Arthur Engoron, who will be presiding over the trial,.
"Plaintiff represented that, now that pretrial rulings have been entered in the case that materially altered the landscape, it was imperative that he attend his New York trial in person—at least for each day of the first week of trial when many strategy judgments had to be made," wrote the judge in Cohen's case.
At a campaign stop in California Friday, Trump was asked if he intended to attend the trial Monday.
"I may, I may," Trump repliled. "What a disgrace. It's a rigged — everything about this city is rigged. It's all rigged now."
Trump, two of his children, and his companyby . Her office accused them of perpetrating years of fraud, and vastly overrepresenting both Trump's wealth and the values of many of his properties on financial statements. On Tuesday, Engoron found that Trump overvalued the properties by hundreds of millions of dollars — and misrepresented his own worth by billions — while pursuing bank loans. The upcoming trial will now focus on other allegations in the lawsuit related to falsification of business records, issuing false financial statements, insurance fraud and conspiracy.
Lucian Chalfen, a spokesperson for the court said, "We are prepared for any eventuality. Court Officers have been on a heightened state of readiness and officers have been cautioned to remain alert and vigilant both inside the courthouse and while on perimeter patrols. "
A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia James declined to comment. A spokesperson for Trump's campaign did not reply to a request for comment.
Zachary Hudak contributed to this report.
for more features. | US Political Corruption |
Meg Kinnard/AP
toggle caption
Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump stands on the field during halftime in an NCAA college football game between the University of South Carolina and Clemson Saturday, Nov. 25, 2023, in Columbia, S.C.
Meg Kinnard/AP
Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump stands on the field during halftime in an NCAA college football game between the University of South Carolina and Clemson Saturday, Nov. 25, 2023, in Columbia, S.C.
Meg Kinnard/AP
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump is not immune from prosecution in his election interference case in Washington, a federal judge ruled Friday, knocking down the Republican's bid to derail the case charging him with plotting to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan's decision amounts to a sharp rejection to challenges the Trump defense team had raised to the four-count indictment in advance of a trial expected to center on the Republican's multi-pronged efforts to undo the election won by Democrat Joe Biden.
Though the judge turned aside Trump's expansive view of presidential power, the order might not be the final say in the legal fight. Lawyers for Trump, who has denied any wrongdoing, are expected to quickly appeal to fight what they say an unsettled legal question.
In her ruling, Chutkan said the office of the president "does not confer a lifelong 'get-out-of-jail-free' pass."
"Former Presidents enjoy no special conditions on their federal criminal liability," Chutkan wrote. "Defendant may be subject to federal investigation, indictment, prosecution, conviction, and punishment for any criminal acts undertaken while in office."
Chutkan also rejected Trump's claims that the indictment violates the former president's free speech rights. Lawyers for Trump had argued that he was within his First Amendment rights to challenge the outcome of the election and to allege that it had been tainted by fraud, and they accused prosecutors of attempting to criminalize political speech and political advocacy.
But Chutkan said "it is well established that the First Amendment does not protect speech that is used as an instrument of a crime."
"Defendant is not being prosecuted simply for making false statements ... but rather for knowingly making false statements in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy and obstructing the electoral process," she wrote.
An attorney for Trump declined to comment Friday evening.
Her ruling comes the same day the federal appeals court in Washington ruled that lawsuits brought by Democratic lawmakers and police officers who have accused Trump of inciting the U.S. Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021, can move forward.
The appeals court in that case rejected Trump's sweeping claims that presidential immunity shields him from liability, but left the door open for him to continue to fight, as the cases proceed, to try to prove that his actions were taken his official capacity as president.
Trump's legal team had argued the criminal case, which is scheduled to go to trial in March, should be dismissed because the 2024 Republican presidential primary front-runner is shielded from prosecution for actions he took while fulfilling his duties as president. They assert that the actions detailed in the indictment — including pressing state officials on the administration of elections — cut to the core of Trump's responsibilities as commander in chief.
The Supreme Court has held that presidents are immune from civil liability for actions related to their official duties, but the justices have never grappled with the question of whether that immunity extends to criminal prosecution.
The Justice Department has also held that sitting presidents cannot be prosecuted. Trump's lawyers are trying to ensure that same protection to a former president for actions taken while in office, asserting that no prosecutor since the beginning of American democracy has had the authority to bring such charges.
"Against the weight of that history, Defendant argues in essence that because no other former Presidents have been criminally prosecuted, it would be unconstitutional to start now," Chutkan wrote. "But while a former President's prosecution is unprecedented, so too are the allegations that a President committed the crimes with which Defendant is charged."
Special counsel Jack Smith's team has said there is nothing in the Constitution, or in court precedent, to support the idea that a former president cannot be prosecuted for criminal conduct committed while in the White House.
"The defendant is not above the law. He is subject to the federal criminal laws like more than 330 million other Americans, including Members of Congress, federal judges, and everyday citizens," prosecutors wrote in court papers.
It's one of four criminal cases Trump is facing while he seeks to reclaim the White House in 2024.
Smith has separately charged Trump in Florida with illegally hoarding classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate after he left the White House. Trump is also charged in Georgia with conspiring to overturn his election loss to Biden. And he faces charges in New York related to hush-money payments made during the 2016 campaign. | US Federal Elections |
In a late-night court filing, former President Donald Trump's attorneys are asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to stay District Judge Tanya Chutkan's limited gag order in the D.C. 2020 election interference case brought by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Chutkan's order, Trump's lawyers allege, is "muzzling President Trump's core political speech during an historic Presidential campaign."
His attorneys called Judge Chutkan's recently reinstated gag order move unprecedented, sweeping, and "viewpoint based."
The prosecutors and potential witnesses Chutkan has barred Trump from publicly targeting are high-level government officials, the filing argues and are thus connected to the campaign. Those officials, Trump contends, are unfairly shielded from criticism as a result of the order. Chutkan said in her order that Trump may not speak about prosecutors working on the case, court staff and potential witnesses.
The defense argues the gag order not only unconstitutionally restricts Trump's speech during a campaign, but affects the rights of his supporters to hear him.
"This right of listeners to receive President Trump's message has its 'fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office,' especially for the Presidency," Trump's attorneys argue.
Trump asked the court to make a decision by Nov. 10. That is just eight days away, and so far, it doesn't appear that a three-judge panel has been assigned to consider the case.
Specifically, the motion asks the appeals court to stay the gag order because of Trump's objections, to immediately and administratively pause the order while the longer stay is considered, and if those requests are rejected, his lawyers are asking for a writ of mandamus, an order from the appeals court to Chutkan to reverse her ruling on the stay.
The Justice Department opposes the requests and has consistently pushed the courts to keep the gag order in place.
Trump's motion — which was widely expected — follows Chutkans rejection of a similar request to stay the gag order. The judge temporarily put the ruling on hold as she considered the request, but ultimately decided that it should stay in place.
Smith's team originally asked the judge to restrict the former president's speech during pre-trial litigation, citing what prosecutors alleged were the potential dangers his language posed to the administration of justice and the integrity of the legal proceedings.
Chutkan only partially granted the government request, barring Trump from publicly targeting court staff, federal prosecutors by name, and potential witnesses in the case. The judge said at the time her order was not based on whether she liked the comments in question, but whether they could imperil the future trial. Trump, Chutkan said, was being treated like any other defendant.
Last month, prosecutors suggested that the judge link her limited gag order to the former president's conditions of release, effectively linking his pre-trial liberties with compliance with the court's ruling. Chutkan, however, did not agree and simply reinstated her gag order.
Thursday night's request comes less than 24 hours after Trump's defense team asked Chutkan to put the legal proceedings on hold as she considers the former president's assertions of presidential immunity. His attorneys have argued that the four count indictment against him — which include conspiracy to defraud the US — should be dismissed because the alleged actions were committed while Trump was president.
The former president has pleaded not guilty to all charges and denied wrongdoing.
for more features. | US Circuit and Appeals Courts |
- At least 18 people are dead and 13 injured after a gunman opened fire at a bowling alley and a bar in Lewiston, Maine.
- The suspect in the shooting, Robert Card, remains at large and is considered armed and dangerous, police said.
- Card is a firearms instructor and Army reservist who was committed to a mental health facility over the summer but later released.
Law enforcement agencies are searching for the suspect in a mass shooting that left at least 18 people dead and 13 injured Wednesday at a bowling alley and a bar in the town of Lewiston, Maine.
The suspect, Robert Card, remained at large Thursday and is considered armed and dangerous, Gov. Janet Mills told reporters at a press conference. Card should not be approached under any circumstances, Mills said.
The governor said the full weight of her administration is behind the search for Card and that the person responsible for the shootings will be held "accountable under the full force of state and federal law."
Card, 40, is a trained firearms instructor and an Army reservist, according to a bulletin from the Maine Information and Analysis Center.
He was committed to a mental health facility in the summer after he "reported mental health issues to include hearing voices and threats to shoot up" a National Guard base in Maine, according to the bulletin. He was released from the facility after two weeks.
The search is a coordinated effort between federal, state, county and municipal law enforcement.
State police have issued a shelter-in-place order for Lewiston and the neighboring towns of Lisbon and Bowdoin as law enforcement personnel search for Card. People should stay in their homes with the doors locked, police said.
The gunman opened fire at Just In Time Recreation bowling alley and Schemengees Bar & Grille, both in Lewiston, on Wednesday evening, leaving seven people dead at the bowling alley and eight people dead at the bar. Three more people were pronounced dead at the hospital. The two businesses are located about 12 minutes apart by car.
President Joe Biden has spoken individually with Mills, Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Jared Golden, D-Maine, according to the White House. Biden has also offered federal support to state and local law enforcement.
"For countless Americans who have survived gun violence and been traumatized by it, a shooting such as this reopens deep and painful wounds," Biden said in a statement Thursday.
"Far too many Americans have now had a family member killed or injured as a result of gun violence," he added. "That is not normal, and we cannot accept it."
Biden called on Republican lawmakers to work with Democrats to pass a bill banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, enact universal background checks, require the safe storage of guns, and end immunity for gunmakers.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
The NYPD urged residents of New York City to be on the lookout for potential domestic terror attacks on Wednesday, saying the Oct. 7 assault on Israel may "resonate" with some in the U.S.
The police released the public statement Wednesday afternoon and added that they have canceled all in-service training for new police officers. The NYPD is one of several U.S. law enforcement agencies to warn of potential copycat attacks on home soil amid the unrest in Israel.
"We are currently in a heightened threat environment and tensions have been rising since the assault against Israel on October 7th. The NYPD is doing everything we can do to forestall future violence in our city. However, we know the ongoing events overseas may resonate with individuals domestically and that is hard to anticipate," police wrote.
"The NYPD asks all New Yorkers to remain vigilant and reminds everyone if they see something to say something. For these reasons, the NYPD is continuing with our Citywide all-out deployment and all in-service training will continue to be postponed until further notice," the statement continued.
FBI Director Chris Wray warned during a speech in California Saturday of a spike in domestic threats linked to Israel's war against Hamas.
"In this heightened environment, there’s no question we’re seeing an increase in reported threats, and we have to be on the lookout, especially for lone actors who may take inspiration from recent events to commit violence of their own," he said. "And I’d encourage you to stay vigilant, because as the first line of defense in protecting our communities, you’re often the first to see the signs that someone may be mobilizing to violence. And I’d also ask you to continue sharing any intelligence or observations you may have."
"We are closely coordinating with our counterparts in the region as well as other international partners," the statement continued. "Through our Legal Attaché office in Israel, FBI personnel are working with our partners on the ground to locate and identify any impacted Americans. Reports of deceased, injured, or unaccounted for Americans are being treated with the utmost urgency and aggressively investigated. The FBI's Victim Services Division is coordinating with the Department of State to assist, as necessary, with family engagement."
Hamas' Oct. 7 attack killed at least 1,400 people in Israel, including at least 31 Americans. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
The agency, which was established in 1980, has long been a favorite punching bag of Republicans, with President Ronald Reagan among the first Republican standard-bearers to declare the department unnecessary and call for its elimination.
Former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, who led the department during the Trump administration, told the Washington Examiner in an interview that eliminating the department has been a favorite talking point of conservatives for decades, but the discussion today has shifted due to the emergence of the parental rights movement.
"The talk about it today is really founded more in a desire to empower parents and families," DeVos said. "Many have realized in what ways the department stands in the way of that empowerment."
A number of the Republican presidential hopefuls have made abolishing or limiting the department a central theme of their campaign. Former President Donald Trump previously unveiled plans to eliminate the department during his term in office, while Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, and former Vice President Mike Pence have all singled out the department for elimination.
DeVos, who has called for shutting down the department herself, said that the agency's creation during the presidency of Jimmy Carter was a "payoff" to the teachers unions that supported Carter's campaign in 1976.
"It is totally beholden to political organizations through the teachers unions," DeVos said. "The federal government only funds less than 10% of education overall, yet the political blanket that they have over everything is undeniable, and it influences decisions down to the most local level."
The Washington Examiner reached out to the Trump, DeSantis, Pence, and Ramaswamy campaigns, as well as those of former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), and former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie about their positions on abolishing the department.
The Trump, Pence, and Christie campaigns did not respond to the requests.
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the DeSantis campaign pointed to a June 28 interview on Fox News where the governor vowed to eliminate the Education, Commerce, and Energy departments, along with the IRS, if he had the support in Congress.
"What I’m also going to do ... is be prepared if Congress won’t go that far," DeSantis said. "I’m going to use those agencies to push back against woke ideology and against the leftism that we see creeping into all institutions of American life. So for example, with the Department of Education: we reverse all the transgender sports stuff. Women's sports should be protected. We reverse policies trying to inject [agendas into] the curriculum in our schools. That will all be gone."
The campaign of Tim Scott shared a quote from a recent interview where the senator did not directly say if he would abolish the department, but said he would "starve" the department of funding beyond the 10% it provides to education institutions.
"We only provide 10% of the education dollars from the federal level," the senator said. "I would starve the rest of the Department of Education and make sure that the states get to keep more of their money, to make more of their decisions that's in the best interest of the kid. And it gives the parents a choice. When parents have a choice, the kid has a chance. That is not a political issue. That is an issue of surviving in the greatest country on Earth. And if you get a good education, you don't survive. You thrive."
Haley, who served as governor of South Carolina before her appointment to the U.N. ambassadorship, also declined to commit to the department's elimination in a recent interview, but said she would "would send a team into every single agency and tell them to cut regulations, cut bureaucracy, take out any people that are problems."
Ramaswamy has gone further than simply calling for the department's elimination. The political newcomer features a comprehensive plan on his website to roll the functions of the department into other agencies, namely the Labor, State, and Treasury departments.
Ramaswamy told the Washington Examiner the increased spending on education has yielded worsening student achievement rates, and said the money spent would be better used if given to parents directly.
"Parents who move their kids to schools spending less money per student while achieving better outcomes ought to be able to keep half the money," the candidate said. "A student at a failing school in NYC that receives $40k per student, who transfers to a school 15 miles away that receives $20k per student, gets to keep half the difference, $10k. Do the math. The Left calls math 'racist.' I call it a $250k-plus graduation gift for kids. You pick which one is better. I will shut down the Department of Education, without apology, there are much better uses for that money: put that money back into parents’ pockets where it belongs."
For DeVos, she sees a challenge ahead for the candidates as they attempt to sell voters on the prospect of eliminating a department. The goal, she said, is to explain how the department is an "obstacle" to "empowering students and families and teachers at the most local level."
The former secretary declined to single out any candidate's messaging on the issue as particularly compelling, noting that they are "all finding their voice on it."
"I think the emphasis needs to be on empowering students, teachers, families, and states," she said. "We [shouldn't] be for [anything] standing in the way of ensuring that every single student can achieve their full potential. The department, by definition and by practice, stands in the way of that." | US Federal Policies |
Brett Kavanaugh says he's hopeful the Supreme Court will take 'concrete steps' to address ethics scandals
WASHINGTON — Justice Brett Kavanaugh signaled Thursday that the Supreme Court may take steps "soon" to address ethics scandals that have eroded confidence and sparked a partisan fight in Congress over whether lawmakers can force a code of ethics on the nation's highest court.
“The chief justice spoke about that in May and said that we're continuing to work on those issues, and that is accurate. We are continuing to work on those issues,” Kavanaugh told a conference of judges and lawyers in Cleveland, according to The Washington Post, CNN and others. "And I'm hopeful that there will be some concrete steps taken soon on that."
Kavanaugh's remarks were the most optimistic about potential changes at the Supreme Court since Chief Justice John Roberts told an audience in May that the ethics scandals swirling around the court were an "issue of concern" and that the justices were "continuing to look at things" to address the problem.
"We’re nine public servants that are hard working and care a lot about the court and care a lot about the judiciary as a whole," Kavanaugh said, according to The Washington Post. The justices “want that respect for the institution to be shared by the American people," he said. "To the extent that we can increase confidence, we’re working on that.”
Faith in the court has tanked in recent years. An Ipsos poll last month found that half of Americans have little or no trust in the justices and that faith in the Supreme Court has slipped below that of other legal institutions, including juries, local police and state judges. Only “corporate attorneys” fared markedly worse than the high court.
Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, has been at the center of controversy involving private jet travel and luxury vacations paid for by a Republican megadonor. But other justices − including Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor and Roberts himself − have been the subject of news stories in recent months that have raised ethical questions.
A Senate committee in July approved a bill that would require the Supreme Court to adopt a code of ethics, but the issue has become highly partisan, and the measure is unlikely to win approval of Congress anytime soon. | SCOTUS |
Washington — Rep. Tim Burchett accused former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy of elbowing him in the back in retaliation for voting to oust him from the role last month.
"Kevin McCarthy walked by and he elbowed me in the kidneys as he walked by," Burchett told reporters Tuesday. "Kind of caught me off guard."
The Tennessee Republican connected the alleged incident to his vote to remove McCarthy from the speakership last month after McCarthy depended on Democratic votes to avoid a government shutdown.
"Four hundred thirty-five of us. Eight of us voted against it," he said when asked whether the alleged elbowing could have been an accident. "And the chances of him walking beside me and giving me an elbow in the back? Come on."
An NPR reporter was interviewing Burchett at the Capitol after the GOP's conference meeting when the alleged incident occurred. The reporter, Claudia Grisales, said McCarthy shoved Burchett as he passed them in a hallway.
"I thought it was a joke, it was not. And a chase ensued," Grisales wrote.
Grisales said Burchett yelled, "Why'd you elbow me in the back, Kevin? Hey Kevin, you got any guts?"
Burchett said he chased after McCarthy because he "didn't know what was going on."
"I see him scurrying away, and so I just followed in pursuit," he said, adding that he thought the action was "100% on purpose."
When he confronted McCarthy, Burchett said the California Republican acted like he didn't know what he was talking about.
According to Grisales, Burchett told McCarthy, "You got no guts. … What kind of chicken move is that? You're pathetic man, you are so pathetic."
"He's just not telling the truth," Burchett told reporters, calling him a "bully." "It's unfortunate it's going be a sad asterisk beside his career."
He said he didn't plan to take any action against McCarthy and didn't expect leadership to do anything about it.
CBS News has reached out to McCarthy's office for comment.
Ellis Kim contributed reporting.
for more features. | US Congress |
14th Amendment emerges as last-ditch fix to ward off default
Top political figures are swirling the possibility that President Biden could use the powers of a clause in the 14th Amendment as a last-ditch effort to ward off the looming threat that the U.S. could default on its debt as soon as next month.
When asked about possibility of invoking the amendment, President Biden as recently as Friday appeared to leave such an option on the table when he told MSNBC in an interview he had “not gotten there yet.”
But Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen on Sunday sounded the alarm, calling it a “constitutional crisis” should the president rely on the 14th Amendment, which obscurely addresses the nation’s debt in a way that legal scholars believe allows the president to continue issuing debts without lifting or suspending the ceiling.
“There is no way to protect our financial system in our economy, other than Congress doing its job and raising the debt ceiling and enabling us to pay our bills and we should not get to the point where we need to consider whether the President can go on issuing debt. This would be a constitutional crisis,” Yellen said on ABC’s “This Week.”
The Treasury Secretary said she doesn’t want to “consider emergency options” and warned that, if Congress doesn’t act to solve the issue, “we will have an economic and financial catastrophe that will be of our own making, and there is no action that President Biden and the U.S. Treasury can take to prevent that catastrophe.”
But Biden technically can take action, and White House aides have reportedly looked at the possibility in order to avoid a default.
Lawmakers have insisted a deal to avoid default can only be reached between Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who are meeting on Tuesday for the first time since February in an attempt to hash out a deal.
Biden and his administration have spent the past few months insisting they won’t negotiate and want a “clean” debt limit increase but Republicans won’t budget on the stance that an increase has to come with a promise of spending cuts, though the GOP has been short on details on just where they want to see the federal budget be slashed.
The impasse has Washington bracing for what Yellen called a potential “catastrophe.” The nation has never defaulted on its debt in history.
The amendment chiefly extended the Bill of Rights liberties to formerly enslaved people, but also includes a section saying “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned.”
Even some Republicans acknowledge invoking the 14th Amendment isn’t an alternative.
Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), appearing after Yellen on “This Week,” said invoking the amendment is “certainly not a good option.”
“She rightfully said it would be a constitutional crisis because the Constitution is very clear that spending — all those details around spending and money actually has to come through Congress,” Lankford said.
At a press briefing last week, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said the administration won’t “entertain scenarios” when asked if the 14th Amendment option was one being considered by Biden or one that was even brought to his desk yet.
Jean-Pierre stressed that Congress needs to act — a sentiment the White House stresses almost daily on the matter and repeated by OMB Director Shalanda Young when she was asked about the possibility of the move during a separate briefing.
“Oh, well, let me be very clear: Congress needs to do its job. Tomorrow, they could put a bill on the floor to make sure we don’t default. This is of people’s own making. … This is made up drama,” Young said. When pressed on whether the move was on the table, she repeated that it’s “Congress’s duty to do.”
Meanwhile, another option lawmakers and the White House aren’t ruling out is agreeing on a short-term fix.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) on NBC’s “Meet the Press” didn’t rule out agreeing to correlating a debt limit increase with the deadline for when federal government spending will run out.
“Is the obvious solution here a short term punt?” host Chuck Todd asked. “And it looks like this: you essentially raise the debt ceiling through September 30 and make the debt ceiling and the budget deadlines converge.”
“I don’t think the responsible thing is to kick the can down the road,” Jeffries said.
“But we, of course, are open to having a discussion about what type of investments, what type of spending, what type of revenues are appropriate in order to protect the health and safety and economic well-being of the American people. That’s a process that is available to us right now,” he said.
Pressed on whether he was ruling out the short-term move, Jeffries said, “Well, we have to avoid default, period, full stop.”
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
Borrowers saddled with unmanageable student debt may wonder if they should have avoided college altogether.
Don't have second thoughts, one expert said — but with caveats.
"Higher education is absolutely worth it," Natalia Abrams, founder and president of the Student Debt Crisis Center, recently told Yahoo Finance Live (video above). "But student loans, no."
Americans owe over $1.7 trillion in federal student loan debt with a million borrowers defaulting every year. But at the same time, the cost of attendance — tuition, fees, room and board — has tripled in the past four decades such that even with financial aid, many lower and middle-income families can't afford it, creating a "funding gap," according to a Brookings Institution study.
That's why the rely on student loans.
"It's a difficult financial product for people to take on and there's so much dishonesty that goes on the back end," Abrams said. "So for loan borrowers, they may not feel that the loan itself is worth it, but the education is."
One reason education is worth it has to do with job prospects. By 2027, 40% of all jobs are expected to require a bachelor's or master's degree, according to AAUW research.
And a majority of Americans do view higher education as valuable to get a well-paid stable career, according to New America’s Seventh Annual Survey on Higher Education, but they also believe it is unaffordable.
"We made a promise to young people in this country for generations… work hard, go to school, get good grades, you'll go to a great college and that's your ladder into thriving in this country," Blake Zeff, the director of "Loan Wolves," a documentary about student loans, told Yahoo Finance Live. "Guidance counselors would tell these kids don't worry about these loans, you'll get a great job when you graduate. Everyone has these loans, and you'll pay them down easily."
"The truth is these loans are very complicated financial instruments… have compounding interest, which means that you could start paying down your debt right after college, but the interest is so high it multiplies and becomes impossible to get out from under it," Zeff said.
Fortunately, as of July 1, the Department of Education has eliminated the interest capitalization for borrowers in most income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, except the IBR plan due to statutory regulations. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help borrowers who for years had interest capitalized, turning a small principal balance into six-figure debt.
"In the documentary, Scott was the first person in his family to ever go to college and got a master's degree to be a teacher," Zeff said. "Scott initially was $35,000 in debt, but is now over $100,000 in debt due to interest."
When borrowers start repayment, it is the loan servicer that typically tells them about their repayment options.
However, loan servicers haven’t always been fully transparent with borrowers, which is why the Biden administration is implementing the one-time IDR payment adjustment that counts certain previously ineligible months toward forgiveness. That helps to reverse some of the damage caused by servicers that did not properly track deferments or steered borrowers to forbearance instead of income-driven repayment plans that would have counted toward years of payment.
"The real problem with student loans is on the back end with compounding capitalizing events that is not explained by the loan servicer," Abrams said. "Our tax dollars pay for these loan servicers to just create more money problems for the student loan borrower."
Ronda is a personal finance senior reporter for Yahoo Finance and attorney with experience in law, insurance, education, and government. Follow her on Twitter @writesronda. | US Federal Policies |
ATLANTA — Channel 2 Action News has learned that Jenna Ellis, an attorney for former President Donald Trump, has reached a plea deal in the Georgia election interference case.
Ellis pleaded guilty to one count of aiding and abetting false statements, according to Fulton County court documents. The documents do not reveal the terms of the plea agreement.
Ellis is the fourth defendant in the Georgia election interference case to change their plea to guilty. Scott Hall, Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro reached agreements.
Following Ellis’ plea, that leaves 15 others still facing charges in the case, including Trump.
This is a developing story. Stay with Channel 2 Action News for the latest.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
Hall, an Atlanta-area bail bondsman, received five years of probation, a $5,000 fine and 200 hours of community service.
Chesebro agreed to five years of probation, pay $5,000 in restitution, community service hours and to write an apology letter to the citizens of Georgia. He will also have to truthfully testify and cannot have contact with witnesses or other co-defendants.
Powell was sentenced to six years probation, a $6,000 fine and will have to pay $2,700 in restitution to the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office. She will also have to testify truthfully against the other co-defendants in the case and cannot have any contact with witnesses or other co-defendants.
RELATED STORIES:
- With Sidney Powell plea deal, Kenneth Chesebro will go to trial solo next week
- Chesebro rejects plea deal ahead of Georgia election interference trial, ABC reports
- Former Trump attorney pleads guilty in Georgia election interference case, will have to testify
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
©2023 Cox Media Group | US Political Corruption |
What does the FBI want from the Pennsylvania lawmakers its agents visited and handed subpoenas to this week? That has not been publicly released yet, but their visit makes clear federal investigators’ probe into attempts to tamper with the 2020 election continues to sprawl.In June, they raided the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former justice department official who was seen as friendly to Donald Trump’s false claims the 2020 election was rigged. Earlier this week, they seized the phone of Scott Perry, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who was another backer of the lie that the election was stolen.According to the Patriot-News, Perry said he was informed that he wasn’t a target of whatever the FBI was investigating, and that he would cooperate. However both Clark and Perry’s names have come up in recent hearings of the January 6 committee, particularly Clark’s, after Trump mounted a failed effort to install him as the head of the justice department to allegedly disrupt the certification of the election results. Perry has meanwhile been pointed to as the person who connected Trump’s confidantes in the White House with Clark. The takeaway from all this is that while the relationship between the January 6 committee’s investigation and the FBI’s is murky, it’s clear that they are interested in the same people.Key events1h agoFBI hands subpoenas to Pennsylvania Republicans while Trump keeps mum on Mar-a-LagoShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureLauren GambinoWith control of Congress at stake, the White House said the president, vice president and cabinet officials are preparing to fan out across the country to sell voters on their healthcare, climate change and tax bill. The bill, which passed the Senate over the weekend and is poised to pass the House on Friday, achieves only a fraction of Democrats’ long-sought policy ambitions, but nevertheless amounts to a significant and once-unimaginable legislative victory. Biden, who is on vacation in South Carolina, is expected to sign the bill into law with great fanfare after it arrives on his desk.In a new memo, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield and senior advisor Anita Dunn previewed their pitch to voters, which includes touting their efforts on health care, gun control and climate while accusing Republicans of siding with special interests and pushing a nationwide ban on abortion. “The president and congressional Democrats beat the special interests and delivered what was best for the American people,” the memo says. “Every step of the way, congressional Republicans sided with the special interests — pushing an extreme MAGA agenda that costs families.”The Democrats’ economic policy bill caps an unusually productive stretch for Congress, which is better known for inaction than action. Amid a flurry of legislative victories, Biden is also breathing a sigh of relief as new economic indicators suggest inflation has cooled in July and painfully-high gas prices are easing. Republicans are still poised to do well in the midterms, thanks to historic trends in which the president’s party tends to lose ground. And the GOP is already hammering Democrats over their plan, which they say amounts to reckless spending at a time when Americans face decades-high inflation – a top concern for voters.But the picture has brightened somewhat for Democrats as they attempt to seize on this burst of momentum. “This is the choice before the American people,” the memo states. “President Biden and congressional Democrats taking on special interests for you and your family or Congressional Republicans’ extreme, MAGA agenda that serves the wealthiest, corporations and themselves.” Yesterday, Donald Trump sat for a deposition as part of the New York attorney general’s investigation into his business dealings, but as Edward Helmore and Hugo Lowell report, he didn’t have much to say:Donald Trump declined to answer questions under oath on Wednesday in New York state’s civil investigation into his business dealings, pleading the fifth two days after the FBI raided his Florida home in a criminal case, seeking classified documents taken from the White House.The former US president’s decision to exercise his fifth-amendment constitutional right against self-incrimination was delivered during a closed-door deposition in Manhattan, where the New York state attorney general, Letitia James, is examining the Trump family real estate empire.“I declined to answer the questions under the rights and privileges afforded to every citizen under the United States constitution,” Trump said in a statement released after the questioning began. What does the FBI want from the Pennsylvania lawmakers its agents visited and handed subpoenas to this week? That has not been publicly released yet, but their visit makes clear federal investigators’ probe into attempts to tamper with the 2020 election continues to sprawl.In June, they raided the home of Jeffrey Clark, a former justice department official who was seen as friendly to Donald Trump’s false claims the 2020 election was rigged. Earlier this week, they seized the phone of Scott Perry, a Republican congressman from Pennsylvania who was another backer of the lie that the election was stolen.According to the Patriot-News, Perry said he was informed that he wasn’t a target of whatever the FBI was investigating, and that he would cooperate. However both Clark and Perry’s names have come up in recent hearings of the January 6 committee, particularly Clark’s, after Trump mounted a failed effort to install him as the head of the justice department to allegedly disrupt the certification of the election results. Perry has meanwhile been pointed to as the person who connected Trump’s confidantes in the White House with Clark. The takeaway from all this is that while the relationship between the January 6 committee’s investigation and the FBI’s is murky, it’s clear that they are interested in the same people.FBI hands subpoenas to Pennsylvania Republicans while Trump keeps mum on Mar-a-LagoGood morning, US politics blog readers. The Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Patriot-News is reporting that the FBI delivered subpoenas or visited the offices of several Republican state lawmakers over the past two days. While it’s unclear what the investigators wanted, the interaction came around the time agents seized the phone of a Republican congressman from the state whose name has come up repeatedly as being involved in efforts to stop Joe Biden from taking office following the 2020 election. Meanwhile, Donald Trump has yet to say much more about the FBI search of Mar-a-Lago earlier this week – besides complaining that it happened at all.Here’s what else is going on today: Gas prices have dipped under $4 a gallon on average, according to AAA, reversing the spike that happened in recent months and badly damaged Biden’s approval rating. Many members of Congress are expected to attend the funeral for Jackie Walorski, who was killed in a car accident last week, along with two of her staffers. Biden is on vacation in South Carolina, with nothing on his agenda, though he’s certainly keeping abreast of lawmakers’ moves to pass his top legislative priority, the Inflation Reduction Act, which the House of Representatives may do tomorrow. | US Political Corruption |
The thrice-indicted, twice-impeached, once-defeated, politically toxic Republican standard-bearer has a real shot at the presidency again.
By every conventional standard, Donald Trump should long ago have resigned himself to a pleasant retirement playing golf at his clubs, but instead he is marching toward the Republican nomination and could, quite plausibly, return to the White House.
Although the early polling of a potential head-to-head match-up between Trump and Biden is close, and 2016 remains a cautionary tale for anyone dismissive of Trump’s chances, the Republican case against Trump leans heavily on the notion that he’s unelectable, and Democrats clearly prefer to run against him on the assumption that he’ll be beaten.
There is no doubt that Trump is the riskiest electoral choice for Republicans and the odds may be against him in a rematch with Biden. But the “can’t” in the common formulation, “Trump can’t win,” is a strong word.
If nothing else, once you’ve won a major party nomination, you’ve got some significant chance of winning, just by dint of being one of two people in the country who could plausibly be president at that point.
A nominee is the almost-automatic inheritor of a solid electoral block constituting roughly half the country, or about 45 percent of the popular vote and 200 electoral votes. “Each party has now established a virtually impregnable sphere of influence across a large number of states in which they dominate elections up and down the ballot — from the presidential contest through Congress and state races,” Ron Brownstein writes, pointing out that 40 states have voted for the same party in the past four presidential elections.
Regardless, let’s say the odds are heavily stacked against Trump. If, say, Joe Biden has a 70 percent chance of winning and Trump only a 30 percent chance, the fact is that 30 percent things happen all the time. A good major-league hitter has about a 30 percent chance of getting a hit during any given at bat, and fans aren’t shocked when he does it.
No one in a Trump-Biden rematch would be a robust, broadly appealing candidate.
Trump won a narrow victory against Hillary Clinton in 2016 and was portrayed by many Republicans as an electoral juggernaut, thanks, in part, to how relieved they were to be rid of Hillary.
By the same token, Biden won a narrow victory against Trump in 2020 and has been seen by many Democrats as — if not necessarily an electoral juggernaut — uniquely suited to beating Trump, thanks, in part, to how relieved they were to be rid of Trump (at least for a time).
The reality is that it’s less that Biden is the indispensable bulwark against Trump than Biden needs to run against Trump to win.
Biden needs the 77-year-old Trump to mute his age as an issue, Trump to obscure his ethical problems and Trump to match his unpopularity.
Trump is weaker than he was in 2020, but so is Biden. Trump may not be capable of picking up any additional votes over and above 2020, but Biden certainly could lose some.
According to the latest New York Times/Siena poll, Biden has a dismal 39 percent approval rating; 42 percent strongly disapprove of the job Biden is doing, including 41 percent of independents. If the economy settles down into a cushiony soft landing, which is looking likelier, Biden could get a boost. Otherwise, he’s a weak incumbent sitting atop a deeply discontented country.
Biden also has considerable downside risks. He could have an ill-timed fall or some other health event. There could yet be a smoking gun in the Hunter Biden scandal. Independent or third-party candidates could steal a small, but crucial increment of votes. The Electoral College gives Republicans an advantage. And the economy could still bounce the wrong way.
One of Biden’s chief vulnerabilities, age, is by definition going to get worse, not better.
Biden has the stiff gait of someone who could take a nasty spill at any time. The White House decision to have him use the shorter, underbelly steps for Air Force One is wise and prudent. We’ve seen him almost nod off in the midst of talking to the president of Israel in the Oval Office and trail off at other times into mumbly incoherence.
Already, his reduced state is hurting him. According to the latest NBC News poll, 68 percent of voters have concerns about Biden’s mental and physical health, and 55 percent have major concerns. The number, naturally, has gone up over time. Back in October 2020, only 51 percent had concerns. What will the figure be 15 months from now? This isn’t a strictly partisan phenomenon, by the way — 43 percent of Democrats share these concerns.
Trump, of course, would enter a general election weighed down by his own deep, persistent unpopularity. According to that Times poll, 44 percent of people have a strongly unfavorable view of Trump, including 49 percent of independents.
The indictments are layered on top of his already radioactive image. They are a wedge issue, boosting him among Republicans while further undermining him among everyone else. 51 percent of people, and 55 percent of independents think Trump has committed serious federal crimes; 53 percent of people think he threatened democracy with his post-election conduct, including 58 percent of independents.
At the very least, the indictments and any trials will drain him of resources and time (they already have). And they will put an intense focus on subjects that will remind voters, if they needed reminding, of why they don’t like him — payoffs to a porn star, willfully reckless handling of classified material and attempts to subvert the 2020 election.
He could easily end up convicted of felonies before the November 2024 election rolls around. But it’s also possible that Trump succeeds in delaying trials past the election (the documents case, in particular, presents nettlesome issues around classified material that could prove very time consuming). And it’s not out of the question that some charges could get tossed, or Trump could escape conviction thanks to a couple of recalcitrant jurors.
If he’s convicted, that’d be a drag, and perhaps a killer. We shouldn’t underestimate, though, the ability of our ceaseless news cycle to absorb anything and make it old news, and if the economy is unsatisfactory in a year’s time, it’s not impossible to imagine Americans focusing on that issue to the exclusion of almost anything else.
What we are looking at, then, is an unpopular incumbent who doesn’t control Congress, so has limited power to change his image, and who’s a hostage to fortune regarding his health and the state of the economy.
And he may well be challenged by an unpopular opponent who’s one of the most famous people in America, with limited power to change his image and who’s a hostage to fortune regarding his legal issues and the state of the economy.
It’d behoove Republicans not to play this game and offer someone who’s fresh and relatively young, with much less baggage, beginning with not having committed or been indicted for any crimes.
Failing that, the GOP is going to bank on Trump not being literally unelectable, and hope for the best. | US Federal Elections |
The gunman who killed three people Saturday at a Dollar General store in Jacksonville, Florida, in what authorities said was a racist attack against Black people had earlier been turned away from the campus of a nearby historically Black university.
The shooter, described by police as a White man in his early 20s, first went to the campus of Edward Waters University, where he refused to identify himself to an on-campus security officer and was asked to leave, the university stated in a news release.
“The individual returned to their car and left campus without incident. The encounter was reported to the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office by EWU security,” the school said.
The suspect put on a bulletproof vest and mask while still on campus, and then went to the nearby Dollar General, Jacksonville Sheriff T.K. Waters told CNN’s Jim Acosta. Armed with an AR-15 style rifle and a handgun, the gunman opened fire outside the store and then again inside, fatally shooting the three victims before killing himself, according to Waters.
The three victims killed, two males and one female, were all Black, the sheriff said.
The university, which is in a historically Black neighborhood, went into lockdown Saturday and students living on campus were told to stay in their residence halls.
The attack clearly targeted Black people, Waters said. The suspect used racial slurs and left behind writings to his parents, the media and federal agents outlining his “disgusting ideology of hate,” the sheriff told reporters.
“This shooting was racially motivated, and he hated Black people,” Waters said at a news conference Saturday evening.
The shooter did not appear to know the victims and it is believed he acted alone, he said.
“This is a dark day in Jacksonville’s history,” the sheriff said. “Any loss of life is tragic, but the hate that motivated the shooter’s killing spree adds an additional layer of heartbreak.”
The FBI has launched a federal civil rights investigation into the shooting and “will pursue this incident as a hate crime,” said Sherri Onks, special agent in charge of the FBI’s Jacksonville office.
The Jacksonville attack was one of several shootings reported in the US over two days, including one near a parade in Massachusetts and another at a high school football game in Oklahoma, underscoring the everyday presence of gun violence in American life.
There have been at least 472 mass shootings in the US so far in 2023, according to the Gun Violence Archive, which, like CNN, defines a mass shooting as one in which four or more people are wounded or killed, not including the shooter. It is almost two mass shootings for each day of the year so far. The nation surpassed the 400 mark in July, the earliest month such a high number has been recorded since 2013, the group said.
Shooter’s father called police after shooting started
The shooter, who lived in Clay County with his parents, left his home around 11:39 a.m. Saturday and headed to Jacksonville in neighboring Duval County, Waters told CNN.
At 1:18 p.m., the gunman texted his father and told him to check his computer, according to Waters, who did not provide details on what was on the computer.
At 1:53 p.m., the father called the Clay County Sheriff’s office, the sheriff said.
“By that time, he had began his shooting spree inside the Dollar General,” Waters said of the gunman.
Officers responded to the scene as the gunman was exiting the building. The gunman saw the officers, retreated into an office inside the building and shot himself, Waters said.
Photos of the weapons the gunman had were shown by authorities, including one firearm with swastikas drawn on it. While it remains under investigation whether the gunman purchased the guns legally, the sheriff said they did not belong to the parents.
“Those were not his parents’ guns,” Waters told reporters Saturday. “I can’t say that he owned them but I know his parents didn’t – his parents didn’t want them in their house.”
“The suspect’s family, they didn’t do this. They’re not responsible for this. This is his decision, his decision alone,” the sheriff later told CNN.
Gunman’s history and access to guns being probed
The shooter was the subject of a 2017 law enforcement call under the state’s Baker Act, which allows people to be involuntarily detained and subject to an examination for up to 72 hours during a mental health crisis.
Waters did not provide details on what led to the Baker Act call in that case, but said normally a person who has been detained under the act is not eligible to purchase firearms.
“If there is a Baker Act situation, they’re prohibited from getting guns,” he told CNN. “We don’t know if that Baker Act was recorded properly, whether it was considered a full Baker Act.”
The shooter’s writings indicated he was aware of a mass shooting at a Jacksonville gaming event where two people were killed exactly five years earlier, and may have chosen the date of his attack to coincide with the anniversary, Jacksonville Mayor Donna Deegan said.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Saturday condemned the shooting and called the gunman a “scumbag.”
“He was targeting people based on their race. That is totally unacceptable. This guy killed himself rather than face the music and accept responsibility for his actions, and so he took the coward’s way out. But we condemn what happened in the strongest possible terms,” DeSantis said, according to a video statement sent to CNN by the governor’s office.
The US Department of Homeland Security is “closely monitoring the situation,” Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement on Saturday.
“Too many Americans – in Jacksonville and across our country – have lost a loved one because of racially-motivated violence. The Department of Homeland Security is committed to working with our state and local partners to help prevent another such abhorrent, tragic event from occurring,” he said.
CNN’s Isabel Rosales, Ashley R. Williams, Sharif Paget, Philip Wang and Kit Maher contributed to this report. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Senate US Border-Ukraine Aid Talks Stall, Whispers of Working Through Christmas Begin
Schumer says talks have 'been on ice for weeks,' while McConnell warns Democrats against 'wasting time with bizarre public scoldings'
Senate border negotiations needed to unlock votes for foreign aid to Israel and Ukraine were on life support Monday as both parties accused each other of intractable positions.
“Republicans have to come back to reality,” said Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., the top Democratic negotiator.
Democrats said they’ve effectively halted negotiations until Republicans show they’re willing to compromise. But Republicans say Democrats are not willing to entertain any serious policy changes needed to actually reduce the flow of migration at the U.S. southern border.
A procedural test vote expected midweek is likely to fail, and some senators have begun discussing working until Christmas to get a deal and pass the foreign aid and U.S. border package. The White House has warned Congress that it is out of money to send more weapons to Ukraine and lawmakers are “running out of time” to approve more.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., took shots at the other side in their week-opening floor speeches Monday afternoon.
Schumer said progress has “been on ice for weeks” with Republicans tripling down “on extremist policies that seem dictated by Donald Trump and Stephen Miller, like indefinite detention of asylum seekers, sweeping powers to shut down the immigration system.”
“Democrats are wasting time with bizarre public scoldings,” McConnell countered, citing a letter from the White House and public comments from Murphy, the lead Democratic negotiator, that the GOP proposals to stem migration amount to closing the border.
- Senate Leaves Town ‘Stuck’ on US Border-Foreign Aid Talks
- GOP Senators Targeting Asylum Rules in Ukraine, Border Security Talks: Report
- McConnell Warns Biden, Senate Democrats: No Ukraine Aid Without ‘Credible’ Border Concessions
- Debate on Foreign Aid, US Border to Intensify as Congress Returns
- Senate Hopes To Unlock Aid for Israel and Ukraine This Week
- Senate Assembles Package on Ukraine Aid as House Remains Paralyzed
“Apparently, restoring a functional asylum and parole system, orderly points of entry, and meaningful enforcement of our immigration laws is a bridge too far for Senate Democrats,” McConnell said.
Despite the impasse, Murphy and Oklahoma Sen. James Lankford, the lead Republican negotiator, finally spoke Monday after not talking since Friday.
Murphy said conversations with his counterpart do not mean negotiations are happening in earnest. “We won’t start negotiating again until Republicans decide that they’re actually willing to meet in the middle,” he said.
Murphy said Republican negotiators are trying to “shut down” the border and “radically” alter asylum policy, “things that are nonstarters for Democrats.” Anyone who thinks that eliminating legal pathways to immigration will make the problem go away doesn’t understand the nature of migration, he said.
“It has to be a real negotiation,” Murphy said, saying both parties need to work in “that middle deal space.”
Lankford said it was news to him that talks had broken down. Even though he and Murphy did not speak on Saturday or Sunday, he said staff were still working through disagreements.
“Did we make progress this weekend? No,” he acknowledged Monday evening. “Did we make more progress today? We'll see.”
Senate Republican Whip John Thune said his party was set to give Democrats a counteroffer Monday night. Their policy focus remains on restricting asylum and parole, he said.
Democrats have agreed to some asylum changes but ones that would only reduce migration by about 10%, whereas Republicans want to go much further, Thune said.
Republicans want to detain migrants seeking asylum, rather than release them into the country while their claims are being processed. The parole process, they argue, has been abused to allow migrants to slip through the cracks while their asylum claims languish.
“Until you eliminate catch and release, people are just going to keep coming because there's no real consequences associated with it,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said.
Thune and Cornyn cited a GOP proposal to prevent migrants from being able to claim asylum in the U.S. if they qualified for it in another country they passed through as one way to reduce the flow of migrants at the border.
Lankford, Thune and Cornyn disputed characterizations from some Democrats that Senate Republicans are embracing the strict border policies that their House counterparts passed last spring for political gain.
“I've got to make law, not just a point,” Lankford said, noting the House GOP bill does not have any Democratic support.
He said there are five to 10 Senate Republicans who won't vote for anything with Ukraine aid attached so he's looking at a deal that can get roughly 40 GOP votes and at least 20 Democratic votes.
Democrats think Republicans need to shoot for a deal that will win a bipartisan majority of both parties. Murphy pointed to remarks from Cornyn — who said border policy is “the price” Democrats have to pay to get Ukraine aid — as evidence Republicans are trying to force Democrats to "swallow their most difficult proposals."
Cornyn acknowledged there is not a lot of wiggle room in Republicans’ price for unlocking the votes for the foreign aid package.
Schumer on Monday evening began the floor process needed to start considering the national security package, which is expected to include roughly $100 billion in foreign aid and funding to secure the border and process migrants. His procedural move to clear the way for a vehicle for Biden's package sets up a test vote later in the week.
Republicans vowed to block the vote if there’s no border deal by then. “If Schumer brings it up, it will certainly fail,” Lankford said
Murphy said he hopes Republicans will reconsider voting against beginning the floor process on the package because “time is running out.”
“So let’s get the bill on the floor so that we can vote on that agreement as quickly as possible.”
Sen. Brian Schatz, D-Hawaii, while not directly involved in negotiations, expressed frustration with his GOP colleagues, saying: “I think that 50 years from now, no one is going to remember whether we changed asylum policy. They will remember whether we let Putin take another country by force in a ground war in Europe. So we need to understand the stakes here.”
Republicans acknowledge it will take some time, maybe more than the two remaining weeks of session the Senate has scheduled for the year.
“Ready to stay here ‘til Christmas?” Cornyn asked reporters. “That’s what it’s looking like right now.”
- Joe Lieberman Says Third Party No Labels Would Give ‘A Lot of Consideration’ to Nikki HaleyPolitics
- RNC Announces Four Candidates Qualified for Fourth DebatePolitics
- Christie Responds to Trump Referring to Him as a ‘Fat Pig’: ‘My Children Hate It’Politics
- Zelenskyy to Address Senators Via Video During Classified Briefing by Biden AdministrationPolitics
- GOP Hones Focus on Bribery Claims in Biden Impeachment ProbePolitics
- Hunter Biden’s Bid to Subpoena Trump and Bill Barr ‘Unsupported, Improper,’ Special Counsel SaysPolitics
- Fetterman Trolls Menendez With George Santos ‘Encouragement’ Video: ‘Hey, Bobby … Stay Strong’Politics
- Georgia Prosecutors May Ask to Revoke Bond of Trump Co-Defendant Who Appeared to Threaten Witness: ReportPolitics
- Hillary Clinton Calls Out Those ‘Closing Their Eyes’ to Hamas Rape Victims: ‘Crime Against Humanity’Politics
- White House: ‘No Daylight’ Between Harris and Biden on Civilian Deaths in GazaNews
- Trump Loses Bid to Fast-Track Appeal of His New York Gag OrdersPolitics
- Rep. Dingell Says She Was Doxxed, Harassed After Calling Out Hamas RapesPolitics | US Federal Policies |
Ex-Goldman Associate Charged With Insider Trading
Federal prosecutors charged a former employee who worked at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Blackstone Inc. with securities fraud for allegedly tipping his friends to upcoming deals.
(Bloomberg) -- Federal prosecutors charged a former employee at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Blackstone Inc. with securities fraud for allegedly tipping his friends to more than half a dozen deals.
Anthony Viggiano, 26, tipped two friends to deals that Viggiano learned about at his time at the two Wall Street firms, the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission said Thursday. The charges detail how the group made more than $400,000 on trades passed around on messaging apps like Signal as well as Xbox chat.
“Viggiano betrayed the trust of his employers by tipping his friends,” Damian Williams, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, said in a statement. “No matter how evasive insider traders’ conduct, or the lengths gone to hide their offenses, this Office will track down and prosecute those who attempt to cheat the system.”
The latest complaint marks at least the fifth incident involving a Goldman Sachs employee in recent years. Last year, a Goldman banker was accused of passing stock tips to a squash buddy. And that followed a trio of insider trading cases involving Goldman staffers through a span of 18 months ending in October 2019.
Both Goldman and Blackstone said they are cooperating with prosecutors.
“The allegations in the indictment are egregious,” said Mary Athridge, a spokeswoman for Goldman Sachs. “The firm has zero tolerance for this kind of behavior.”
Viggiano worked in the asset and wealth management division, according to the indictment. He had previously resigned from a post at Blackstone, after the firm discovered he had been trading without pre-clearance.
“We make crystal clear to every employee through our extensive compliance and training procedures that we have absolutely zero tolerance for the behavior alleged,” Matt Anderson, a Blackstone spokesman, said in a statement. “This individual was a junior analyst in a non-investment, finance function who was briefly employed for less than seven months and left two years ago.”
His childhood friend, Christopher Salamone, pleaded guilty on Sept. 21 and is cooperating with prosecutors, the Justice Department said. Lawyers for Viggiano and Salamone declined to comment.
Signal, Xbox
The SEC alleged that Viggiano sent tips about deals in 2021 through May 2023 involving companies including, American International Group Inc., Harmony Biosciences Holdings Inc., and CDK Global Inc., to his friends Stephen Forlano and Salamone. Those two allegedly traded on the tips, making hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits.
A lawyer for Forlano said his client denies the allegations.
Viggiano tried to cover his tracks by passing tips to Salamone, asking him to download the encrypted messaging app Signal to communicate and then used the disappearing message feature. He also supplied Salamone with cash for trading, the SEC said.
Salamone made $322,000 from the tips, gave Viggiano $35,000 in cash, and planned to hand over more money, the SEC said. The former Goldman employee had suggested that the illegal trading profits be split 50-50.
The other friend Viggiano tipped — Forlano — not only traded off that information, but also passed it to five friends and family members.
College Buddies
The men all had close relationships dating back years. Viggiano and Salamone are friends dating back 20 years and Salamone’s mother and Viggiano’s father are dating, the SEC said. Forlano went to college with Viggiano and Nathan Bleckley, a US Army captain who is a defendant in the SEC suit, but wasn’t charged by the DOJ.
A lawyer for Bleckley said his client “places a high priority on doing what’s right.”
“We eagerly anticipate closing this chapter of his life and moving on to the next one,” said the lawyer, Todd Spodek.
Salamone confronted Viggiano on a call in June, asking if there was information showing he gave tips to Forlano. Salamone was recording the conversation.
“Nah. Nah,” Viggiano replied. “Because similar to you... Signal, or like XBOX 360 chat, there’s no tracing that. Good luck ever finding that.”
--With assistance from Jenny Surane.
(Adds lawyer comment in sixth paragraph. A previous version of the story had been corrected to reflect the nature of his departure from Blackstone.)
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | US Political Corruption |
Biden’s 81st Birthday Highlights Biggest Liability For 2024
Birthdays can be bittersweet — particularly when you’re the oldest president in US history.
(Bloomberg) -- Birthdays can be bittersweet — particularly when you’re the oldest president in US history.
As Joe Biden celebrates turning 81 on Monday, the occasion will highlight how age has become his greatest liability entering the final campaign of his 53-year political career and a likely rematch with his predecessor, Donald Trump.
While the White House insists that Biden remains healthy enough to serve as commander in chief, recent polls show him trailing Trump across key swing states, with voters citing deep concerns about his health and acuity.
A Bloomberg News/Morning Consult survey this month found voters in seven swing states more likely to associate old age with Biden than any other topic. In an open-ended question asking what they had heard about the candidates lately, hundreds of respondents cited Biden’s age. Fewer than a dozen did the same for Trump.
Those perceptions have been fueled by high-profile moments including his fall at an Air Force Academy graduation, staircase stumbles boarding Air Force One, the revelation he was using a medical device to aid his breathing during sleep, and a series of verbal gaffes. Taken together, they have fanned uneasiness among Democrats that the man who has cast himself as the bulwark against Trump’s return is just one illness or injury from plunging his campaign – and the nation – into calamity.
White House aides have created a safety net of small accommodations, including regularly using a lower set of stairs for boarding Air Force One, to avoid giving fodder to opponents or the news media. Secret Service agents and staff are careful in cramped backstage settings, using flashlights and verbal warnings to guide the president’s path, according to a person familiar with the matter.
The president also interacts less frequently with the White House press corps, holding far fewer formal press conferences or off-the record sessions on Air Force One and only sitting for a single interview with a daily news print journalist.
Aides say his press strategy is deliberate, reflecting the changing media landscape. And while Biden’s wariness of the press is a stark departure from Trump — and his own time as vice president — those traveling with the president maintain his gift for gab hasn’t diminished, and that he often spends long flights peppering sleepy staffers with questions.
Biden allies also call the focus on the president’s age and health unfair, considering his chief rival, 77-year-old Trump, is medically obese and disdainful of exercise beyond the golf course. And while Trump regularly mocks Biden’s acuity on the campaign trail, he’s prone to slips of his own.
In recent weeks, Trump has incorrectly identified which city he is in, implored his supporters not to vote, and erroneously suggested he was running against or had run against former President Barack Obama. The miscues have become fodder for rivals including Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who has suggested on the campaign trail that Trump has lost a step.
Biden himself has taken to handling the topic of his age with a light touch. He makes regular quips suggesting he’s been in Washington since the days of the Founding Fathers. When an attendee at a union event earlier this month fell off a riser — causing a loud noise to interrupt the event — Biden seized the moment for laughs.
“I want the press to know that wasn’t me!” Biden quipped, before pretending as if he were disoriented.
The president’s doctors have also said that certain noticeable traits – like his shuffled gait following a foot injury, or the reemergence of his stutter when tired – are unrelated to questions of acuity. Some of Biden’s verbal stumbles during speeches appear to stem from his decision — like Trump — not to wear glasses in public, leaving him squinting as he reads a teleprompter.
And while age and injury have heightened his golf handicap, people who interact with the president say he’s dedicated to his workout routines and diligently follows a weights-and-treadmill program prescribed by the White House physician and written out on a notecard. He bikes, often at considerable speed, while vacationing in Rehoboth Beach in Delaware and at Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.
Some close to the president acknowledge their own concern when Biden appears occasionally to lose his train of thought, or deploys folksy, and sometimes nonsensical, turns of phrase. Yet others see behind-the-scenes moments when he exactingly interrogates aides over policy matters and roll their eyes at the notion he’s slipping.
Aides have developed a playbook for swatting down age questions. They offer ways his longevity has been an asset, such as in negotiations on Capitol Hill where he marshaled decades of institutional knowledge.
“He has used his deep experience to deliver unprecedented benefits,” White House spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement, adding that GOP criticisms of the president’s age “failed in 2020, 2022, and 2023.”
They dismiss the notion Biden is ducking the press corps as a provincial view as audiences for traditional outlets decline, and note Biden takes shouted questions regularly at White House events.
“Our communications strategy is all of the above – which it must be to break through in a fractured media environment and an era of information overload,” communications director Ben LaBolt said in a statement.
Aides also highlight displays of stamina, such as Biden’s trips to Ukraine — the first by a modern American president to a war zone not under control of US forces — and to Israel in the days following the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas.
“There’s nothing about his physical health, his acuity, any aspect of his performance that gives me an iota of concern in this space — because I interact with him regularly,” said Jared Bernstein, chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers.
Still, voters’ concerns remain. Now, the rituals of the campaign trail, including schmoozing with donors at fundraising events and engaging in off-the-cuff chatter with voters, provide fresh opportunities to beat back perceptions of frailty — or feed right into them.
Rope lines and big-city fundraisers haven’t always shown the president in his best light. Earlier this year, when White House staffers’ kids visited for Take Your Child to Work Day, Biden took part in an impromptu question-and-answer session. During his exchanges with the children, he forgot that he had just visited Ireland, and struggled — after saying they spoke every day — to recall where his grandchildren lived.
He’s mixed up the names of world leaders, often conflating China’s Xi Jinping with India’s Narendra Modi. At the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit last week in San Francisco, Biden said he forgot the name of a reporter he intended to call on.
Biden can ill afford those kinds of moments when 58% of voters say they have doubts about his fitness for office and 67% said he was too old to be president, according to a Harvard-Harris poll released last month.
Nevertheless, his aides believe they know how to overcome those challenges.
“If you remember our ads in 2020, they had the president in them — they had his voice, they had him showing that he’d just be doing the job,” Jen O’Malley Dillon, who served as Biden’s campaign manager in that election and now as White House deputy chief of staff. “In some ways, that’s the most effective thing for us to do, which is continue to show the president doing the job.”
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | US Federal Elections |
Washington — In a major reversal, Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine called on Congress to ban assault weapons in the wake of the.
"I have opposed efforts to ban deadly weapons of war, like the assault rifle used to carry out this crime," Golden said at a news conference Thursday. "The time has now come for me to take responsibility for this failure, which is why I now call on the United States Congress to ban assault rifles like the one used by the sick perpetrator of this mass killing in my hometown of Lewiston, Maine."
At least 18 people were killed and 13 others wounded when a gunman first opened fire at a bowling alley, and then a restaurant, in the small city Wednesday night. The suspect, believed to be 40-year-old Robert Card, remains at large.
Golden, who has previously broken with his party to vote against gun control bills, said he's now willing to work with his colleagues to pass such measures.
"For the good of my community, I will work with any colleague to get this done in the time that I have left in Congress," he said.
Last year, Golden wasa bill that would have banned certain semi-automatic weapons. The bill passed the House after mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, , and in Highland Park, Illinois.
Golden also voted against a House-passed bill that would have raised the age limit for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle and banned the sale of high-capacity magazines.
"For far too many years, in the wake of tragic violent mass shootings, both Congress and the public have reacted with the same cycle of partisan debate and advocacy for proposals that do not have sufficient support to become law. Time and again, this cycle has resulted in nothing getting done," Golden said in a June 2022 statement.
"Now is not a time for bills we all know will fail. Congress should not simply focus on 'doing something' but rather on doing something of substance that can pass into law and will advance the effort to prevent those with violent intent from obtaining or possessing weapons," the statement said.
for more features. | US Federal Policies |
Several Senate Republicans are uniting in support of House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's move to initiate an impeachment inquiry against President Biden despite a growing number of skeptical GOP leaders in the upper chamber.
The inquiry will determine whether there are grounds to bring formal charges (articles of impeachment) against Biden over allegations of "abuse of power, obstruction, and corruption," McCarthy said Tuesday.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said Wednesday on his "Verdict with Ted Cruz" podcast that he's been "calling for the House to open impeachment inquiries for months."
"I think the evidence long ago cleared that threshold, but they finally done it," he said.
"Joe Biden's confession on tape is direct evidence that he committed one of the critical elements of bribery," Cruz later said. "Now, we don't yet have direct evidence of every element of the crime, but we have direct evidence of one of the most critical aspects of the crime, which is the quote that Joe Biden has admitted and that is unequivocally direct evidence, and it's pretty damn compelling."
Meanwhile, Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that he didn’t think "we would be down this road" if the Biden administration was "being open and transparent with everybody to begin with."
"There was a lot of information that was requested by the committee that has jurisdiction, from the Ways and Means [Committee] to Judiciary to Oversight," he said. "And the fact is, is they were slow-balling or just refusing to share the information."
If enough evidence is compiled and articles of impeachment are sent over to the upper chamber, Mullin said, "Then it's our job to put him on trial and, if so, convict him."
Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., said the House has "done an excellent job trying to uncover the tangled web of corruption that we've seen coming out of the Biden administration and specifically the Biden family."
"Clearly, there are facts that need further investigation," he said. "The House is headed in the right direction."
Also on Tuesday, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters that he would probably be a "yes" vote on impeaching the president, The Messenger reported.
"If I had any legitimate questions, and I think there are questions about the narrative, yeah, I would," he said.
"I've been involved in every impeachment in this country but one," Graham said.
Although Graham supports an inquiry, he said that "we need to have structure here" in response to McCarthy evading a floor vote before launching the inquiry. McCarthy said former Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi created that precedent when she sidestepped a vote to impeach former President Donald Trump for the second time in 2021.
Sen. Mike Braun, R-Ind., also said in a statement Tuesday that "serious allegations" have been elevated about Biden's "involvement with his son’s overseas business dealings that can’t be ignored."
"We need to get to the full truth, and an impeachment inquiry is the right way to do that," he said.
Conversely, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has not indicated his support of the inquiry. He told reporters Tuesday when asked about the House's effort: "I don't think Speaker McCarthy needs any advice from the Senate on how to run the House."
White House spokesperson for oversight and investigations Ian Sams slammed the effort as "extreme politics."
COMER DEMANDS STATE DEPT EXPLAIN 'SUDDEN' DECISIONS LEADING TO FIRING OF UKRAINIAN PROSECUTOR PROBING BURISMA
"House Republicans have been investigating the President for 9 months, and they've turned up no evidence of wrongdoing. His own GOP members have said so. He vowed to hold a vote to open impeachment, now he flip flopped (sic) because he doesn't have support. Extreme politics at its worst," Sams wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
The House is probing Biden’s foreign business ties with his son, Hunter, in Ukraine and China. Republicans hope to unearth bribery negotiations that suggest Biden leveraged his position as then-vice president under former President Barack Obama for personal gain.
House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., will lead the inquiry alongside House Oversight Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith, R-Mo.
Should the House vote to impeach Biden, the Senate would serve as a tribunal where senators would review evidence, listen to witnesses and cast votes for the acquittal or conviction of the impeached official.
GOP legislators may face an uphill battle as the Democrat-controlled Senate is unlikely to convict Biden. Sen. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., on Wednesday called the decision to launch an impeachment inquiry "absurd." | US Congress |
For the first time in American history, a Speaker of the House has been stripped of the gavel.
A small group of Republican hardliners led by Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida provided the pivotal votes on Tuesday needed to remove Speaker Kevin McCarthy from his leadership position, marking a dramatic but expected end to McCarthy’s contentious 10-month tenure as leader of the House and setting the stage for an intense intraparty search for his replacement.
The move to oust McCarthy began after the California Republican relied on Democrats to avert a government shutdown. Gaetz, after days of warning and mounting tension, went on the House floor on Monday night to introduce a resolution that declared the speakership vacant, triggering an exceedingly rare process to compel a vote to determine whether McCarthy would retain his post as Speaker. All Democrats present and 8 Republicans supported the measure in a 216-210 vote that followed an hour of floor debate, during which hard-right Republicans railed against their own leader and verbally sparred with his defenders while Democrats listened silently.
“Chaos is Speaker McCarthy,” Gaetz said. “Chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word.”
But others argue the chaos is what comes next. There’s no clear consensus on which lawmaker might be elected to replace McCarthy, and so far no Republican has put themself forward to serve as Speaker. Republican Rep. Tom Cole, a key McCarthy ally, urged members to “think long and hard before you plunge us into chaos” by voting to vacate the speakership. “He put his political neck on the line, knowing this day was coming, to do the right thing—the right thing for the country,” Cole said, referring to McCarthy’s efforts to end the government shutdown.
Gaetz's motion has thrust the House into uncharted territory. Only two other speakers in history have faced similar motions to vacate, neither of which succeeded: once in 1910 and more recently in 2015 when Rep. Mark Meadows attempted to oust Speaker John Boehner. (That motion was not introduced on the floor, but it ultimately led to Boehner's resignation from Congress.)
The decision to boot McCarthy came on the heels of his strategic maneuver to avert a government shutdown over the weekend, when he relied on Democratic votes to pass a clean stopgap spending bill after Gaetz’s faction refused to back the House GOP measure. Conservatives said that McCarthy, who made a series of pledges to win the speakership after a marathon 15 rounds of voting in January, broke his word to conservatives by striking the short-term deal.
"It is becoming increasingly clear who the Speaker of the House already works for, and it's not the Republican conference," Gaetz declared on Monday as he argued for McCarthy's removal. He criticized McCarthy's reliance on Democratic support to pass the funding bill and accused him of deceiving his fellow Republicans during spending negotiations and making undisclosed agreements with Democrats, particularly regarding funding for Ukraine, a matter that many conservatives vehemently opposed.
The move by Gaetz represented a significant escalation in the ongoing power struggle between McCarthy and the hardliners in his party. Since McCarthy's election as Speaker in a chamber where his party holds a razor-thin five-seat majority, more than five Republicans have intermittently threatened to challenge his leadership, subjecting him to numerous votes of confidence, some of which were politically painful for McCarthy and moderate Republicans.
This bitter feud between Gaetz and McCarthy has roots dating back to McCarthy's initial ascent to the speakership. In January, Gaetz took to the House floor to accuse McCarthy of engaging in questionable financial dealings, a narrative that continued to simmer. As a concession to Gaetz and the 19 other Republicans who initially opposed his speakership, McCarthy altered House rules to enable any member to call for a snap vote on his ouster—which ultimately led to his failure to keep the position.
Still, the ultimate success of Gaetz's bid to remove McCarthy wasn’t assured, as it hinged on the support of some fellow Republicans and all Democrats. Even some Republicans who had expressed reservations about McCarthy's leadership weren’t on board with Gaetz’s plan. “Mr. McCarthy is an accurate reflection of the current House Republican Conference,” Rep. Dan Bishop, a rightwing North Carolina Republican who has sparred with McCarthy, said in a statement before voting no on the resolution to vacate the speakership.
In the days leading up to the vote, several moderate and conservative-leaning Democrats indicated that they would be hesitant to punish McCarthy for his efforts to work across the aisle and prevent a government shutdown. Others saw no reason to bail him out, given the series of concessions McCarthy had made to appease the right flank of his party, including opening an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden and reneging on spending agreements made with the President during the debt ceiling crisis.
But in the end, every Democrat present voted for the motion to vacate. In a statement released early Tuesday afternoon, House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries announced that Democrats would not lend their support to McCarthy: “Under the Republican majority, the House has been restructured to empower right-wing extremists, kowtow to their harsh demands and impose a rigid partisan ideology,” he said.
Several Democrats echoed that sentiment ahead of the vote. “Republican leadership is in such a dysfunctional state and we need them to be functional in order to take up things for the American people,” Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat, tells TIME.
Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a Virginia Democrat, said ahead the vote that McCarthy is “likely the most unprincipled person to ever be speaker of the House” before listing off reasons she would not back him. “He’s disdainful, he lies about us, he lies about the process of governance. It’s not even a question of whether or not we should take any particular action,” she told reporters.
Gaetz's move, while celebrated by his supporters, incited the ire of McCarthy's allies within the Republican Party, who viewed the push as a publicity stunt driven by personal animus. “I cannot conceive of a more counterproductive and self-destructive course,” Rep. Tom McClintock, a Republican from California, said on the House floor. McCarthy remained stoic throughout the vote Tuesday, occasionally smiling but making little eye contact with his detractors.
With McCarthy removed from his leadership position, House Republicans will now look to find a replacement that can appease both far-right members and moderates in the party. (Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina will serve as acting Speaker until a new one is elected.) Asked on Monday if he had any lawmakers in mind for the job, Gaetz suggested House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, a Louisiana Republican and McCarthy ally.
- The 100 Best Mystery and Thriller Books of All Time
- Inside One Indian iPhone Factory
- What Beyoncé Gave Us
- Congress Avoided a Shutdown. What Happens Next?
- What Happens to Diane Feinstein's Senate Seat
- The Enduring Charm of John Grisham
- Kerry Washington: The Story of My Abortion
- Want Weekly Recs on What to Watch, Read, and More? Sign Up for Worth Your Time | US Congress |
Santos calls Ethics Committee report a ‘dirty biased act’ that ‘tramples over all of my rights’
Rep. George Santos (R-N.Y.) took to social media Thursday evening after the House Ethics Committee released a scathing report about his potential federal crimes, calling politics and the report “dirty.”
“What the ‘ethics committee’ did today was not part of due process, what they did was poison…the jury pool on my on going investigation with the DOJ,” Santos said in a post on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. “This was a dirty biased act and one that tramples all over my rights.”
The report, released Thursday, referred its findings of “potential violations of federal criminal law” to the Department of Justice and will raise questions about whether the House will expel Santos.
The freshman New York congressman has been wrapped up in controversy since before he formally became a member of the House and has admitted to fabricating aspects of his backstory and resume, The Hill previously reported.
Santos has called the investigations his “year from Hell.”
“Running for office was never a dream or goal, but when the opportunity to do so came I felt the time to serve my country was now,” Santos’ post said.
The report stated that Santos “cannot be trusted” and found that he “blatantly stole from his campaign.” The committee found that Santos could have wrongfully used thousands of dollars from his campaign on vacations and cosmetic procedures.
The New York representative is facing 23 federal criminal counts on allegations that he misled donors, fraudulently received unemployment benefits, lied on House financial disclosures, inflated his campaign finance reports and charged his donors’ credit cards without authorization. He has already endured two expulsion efforts.
Online, Santos said he knows one thing. “Politics is indeed dirty, dirty from the very bottom up.”
“Consultants, operatives, the opposition, the party and more…the one thing I never knew was that the process in Congress was dirty,” his post said. “I will continue to fight for what I believe in and I will never back down.
Following the report’s release, Santos said he would not seek reelection in 2024. He said he will serve his constituents for as long as he is allowed, signaling that he does not plan to resign.
The congressman said he will be hosting a press conference Friday morning at the Capitol and encouraged members of the media to attend.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Political Corruption |
Political rhetoric changes views on democratic principles, study finds
Most people will agree that over the past several years, American political leaders have been saying—and sharing on social media—unusual things that politicians would never have said a decade or two ago. At times, their words can seem out of character for what a leader should typically say and can even appear antidemocratic in nature.
As our nation heads into the 2024 election year, what our leaders say will matter even more when it comes to fulfilling the ultimate democratic process of electing the next U.S. president.
These atypical comments or posts made by political leaders are technically referred to as "norm-violating rhetoric." Although previous research has deemed that such rhetoric does not undermine support for democracy as a system of government, a new study from the University of Notre Dame shows that some of that antidemocratic rhetoric reduces support for certain basic principles of American democracy.
The study, "Norm-violating rhetoric undermines support for participatory inclusiveness and political equality among Trump supporters," was recently published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Matthew E.K. Hall, the David A. Potenziani Memorial College Professor of Constitutional Studies, professor of political science and director of Notre Dame's Rooney Center for the Study of American Democracy, along with his co-author James N. Druckman of Northwestern University.
In this study, the two researchers shared 20 actual tweets posted on Twitter, now known as X, from former President Donald Trump with a representative sample of individuals. Half were Republicans who approved of Trump and half were Democrats who disapproved of him. Participants were randomly assigned to see either tweets with some norm-violating rhetoric or tweets with completely normal presidential language.
The team then measured each individual's responses to a set of questions about four core democratic principles: participatory inclusiveness (everyone gets to participate in elections), contestation (free speech is protected), the rule of law (no one is above the law) and political equality (laws need to protect everyone the same whether they are of a majority or a minority group).
Hall added that while this particular study focused on Trump's actual tweets, it is not meant to be an attack on Trump or on Republicans, and he and his co-author plan on doing further research into different forms of troubling rhetoric from other Republicans as well as Democrats.
"It's not necessarily important who the individual is in particular, but it is important that they are a leader and what our leaders say truly does matter," Hall explained.
The researchers found that exposure to Trump's norm-violating tweets did not change how the individuals felt about democracy as a form of government, but it did reduce their support for two democratic principles in particular: participatory inclusiveness and political equality.
Hall explained that if someone who approved of Trump was shown a "placebo" tweet, nothing changed. But if the Trump supporter was shown one of his more antidemocratic tweets, then he or she would indicate less support of those critical political values.
For example, Hall said, "When Trump's tweets talk about 'the most rigged election in our nation's history,' 'fraud that will occur' in the next election and 'fraudulent and missing ballots,' his supporters trust elections less, essentially losing faith in the process."
And, continued Hall, "When Trump's tweets refer to protesters as 'thugs' who engaged in 'looting, burning and crime' or to the media as 'the enemy of the people,' his supporters express less support for political equality."
"This shows us that Trump supporters are listening to Donald Trump," Hall explained. "And when he says these things, it shifts their opinions. So it is creating more polarization—not about ideology or issues, but about the principles of democracy itself. And if you have leaders who violate the norms of our democracy, it will lead to a public that is less respectful of our democracy."
For those who took the survey but were not supportive of Trump to begin with, Hall said there was no change in their overall attitudes toward democracy. However, Hall was surprised by the fact that when non-supporters of Trump read the tweets containing norm-violating rhetoric, they became more supportive of the rule of law.
"They actually become worried about executive power and how the elites are dominating our society," Hall said. "This means that Trump's opponents shifted to support other principles that they feel are threatened."
When asked what his research means for the upcoming election season, Hall predicted an amping up of the rhetoric in the days ahead—and what is important is whether the talk will reinforce or undermine support for our democracy.
"Rhetoric matters," Hall concluded. "And maybe what our leaders say doesn't matter today necessarily, but if they keep saying it over and over again, for years at a time, then big segments of our population will start changing the way they think about our democracy in the long term—eroding the basic fabric of support for our core democratic principles. That's how a democracy falls apart."
More information: Matthew E. K. Hall et al, Norm-violating rhetoric undermines support for participatory inclusiveness and political equality among Trump supporters, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2023). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2311005120
Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Provided by University of Notre Dame | US Federal Elections |
A group of six Republican and unaffiliated voters in Colorado, represented by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), have filed a lawsuit requesting former President Donald Trump be removed from the state's 2024 presidential ballot for violating Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
"While it is unprecedented to bring this type of case against a former president, January 6th was an unprecedented attack that is exactly the kind of event the framers of the 14th Amendment wanted to build protections in case of. You don’t break the glass unless there’s an emergency," CREW President Noah Bookbinder said in a press release announcing the lawsuit.
The lawsuit comes after state's have been speculating whether or not to take the presidential hopeful off the ballot due to his involvement in the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
Section 3 of the 14th Amendment declares that if a candidate has "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" they cannot hold public office in any capacity.
"As a longtime Republican who voted for him, I believe Donald Trump disqualified himself from running in 2024 by spreading lies, vilifying election workers, and fomenting an attack on the Capitol," a conservative columnist for the Denver Post and Republican activist Krista Kafer said in the press release. "Those who by force and by falsehood subvert democracy are unfit to participate in it. That’s why I am part of this lawsuit to prevent an insurrectionist from appearing on Colorado’s ballot."
Trump has denied all wrongdoing related to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, block the peaceful transfer of power, and incite violence at the Capitol. In a Tuesday post on Truth Social, he claimed the 14th Amendment has "no legal basis" and it just another attempt at "election interference" to keep him off the ballot.
"Like Election Interference, it is just another 'trick' being used by the Radical Left Communists, Marxists, and Fascists, to again steal an Election that their candidate, the WORST, MOST INCOMPETENT, & MOST CORRUPT President in U.S. history, is incapable of winning in a Free and Fair Election. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Trump wrote.
- Trump Lashes Out Over 14th Amendment Talk: ‘No Legal Basis’
- New Hampshire Gov. Sununu Shoots Down 14th Amendment Keeping Trump Off State Ballot
- Adam Schiff Calls 14th Amendment Disqualifying Trump from 2024 a ‘Valid Argument’
- Dem Sen Tim Kaine Says ‘Powerful Argument To Be Made’ Trump Disqualified from 2024 Under 14th Amendment
- White House: 14th Amendment Won’t ‘Deal With’ Debt Ceiling Problem
- White House Official Says No Chance 14th Amendment Will Be Used in Debt Fight
While officials in other states have been weighing whether or not to challenge Trump's ballot eligibility, this is the first serious challenge of its kind based on the 14th Amendment.
Updated at 12:10 p.m.
- Christie Agrees Biden Is Too Old to be President: ‘You Saw Him Fall Asleep’Politics
- Biden Told Manchin He’d be ‘Really F–ing’ Him if He Didn’t Vote For COVID Package: BookPolitics
- Trump Asks to Delay New York Civil Fraud TrialPolitics
- Apoorva Ramaswamy on Vivek’s Spike in Unfavorability: Just ‘One Data Point’Politics
- Cohen Says Lengthy Jan. 6 Sentences ‘A Warning’ for Georgia Co-DefendantsPolitics
- Trump: J6 Committee ‘Deleted and Destroyed’ Evidence, Members Guilty of ‘Criminal Contempt’Politics
- Sen. Tim Kaine Introduces ‘End Shutdowns Act’ as Government Shutdown LoomsPolitics
- Alabama Attorney General to Appeal Redistricting Decision to Supreme CourtPolitics
- E. Jean Carroll Lands Partial Victory in Second Defamation Lawsuit Against TrumpPolitics
- Trump-Tied Lawyer Claims ‘Pressure’ from Feds Made Ex-Client Flip in Classified Documents CasePolitics
- Christie Slams DeSantis for ‘Hypocrisy’in Seeking Disaster Aid After Voting Against it for SandyPolitics
- Sarah Palin Criticizes Jan. 6 Sentences: ‘Two-Tier Different Justice Systems That Apply According to Politics’Politics | US Federal Elections |
Oct 4 (Reuters) - New Mexico's attorney general has charged a police officer with voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of a Black nurse during a struggle last year in which police say the nurse took an officer's taser.
Las Cruces police officer Brad Lunsford allegedly shot Presley Eze, a 36-year-old Connecticut man working in a Las Cruces nursing home, in the back of the head in August 2022 at a gas station. The officers had stopped Eze after an employee reported he shoplifted a beer from the station, according to police records and video.
State Attorney General Raul Torrez on Tuesday said the killing was an unjustifiable use of force and another example of "poor police tactics."
Torrez said in a statement that his office consulted with use-of-force experts who concluded that deadly force was not reasonable in the circumstances.
Eze is among Black Americans killed by police in recent years whose deaths have sparked protests and a renewed push for civil rights and curbs on police brutality.
Lunsford was booked on the charge and released on Tuesday, a spokesperson for Torrez said.
Luis Robles, a lawyer for Lunsford, said that during a struggle Eze fell atop a second officer, tried to take the officer's handgun, then took his taser as Lundsford attempted to pull Eze off.
Lundsford feared he and the second officer could be tasered and possibly shot with one of their own handguns while incapacitated, Robles said.
Reporting By Andrew Hay; Editing by Donna Bryson and Bill Berkrot
私たちの行動規範：トムソン・ロイター「信頼の原則」 | US Police Misconduct |
Black man’s decapitated remains found after he warned his mom he was targeted by ‘truckloads of white guys’
JACKSON, Miss. (WLBT/Gray News) – A Mississippi family is searching for answers about what happened to their son after his remains were found in three separate places.
Attorney Ben Crump is now involved, as he and the family said they believe this could have been a racially motivated murder.
The family of 25-year-old Rasheem Carter said he was last seen outside a Super 8 Hotel in October in Laurel, which is half an hour away from where he had been contracted to work at manufacturing company Georgia Pacific in Taylorsville.
Part of his remains were found on Nov. 2, 2022. A second set of his remains was found later, and a third set was found Feb. 23.
Crump said the family was notified via email about their son’s DNA match to the remains.
Crump released a statement Wednesday in response to the findings of the Mississippi Crime Lab, saying, “It is unacceptable that the family had to find out through an email that more of Rasheem’s remains were found.”
The cause of Carter’s death remains undetermined, according to the Smith County Sheriff’s Department.
A forensic anthropology examination was completed by the Mississippi State Medical Examiners Officer on Feb. 2. Based solely upon the condition of Carter’s remains, no cause of death “could be reasonably determined” by the medical examiner’s office.
However, his family claims that officials have admitted they believe he was murdered.
Those close to Carter said he was being threatened by people he knew.
“My son told me that it was three truckloads of white guys trying to kill him,” his mother Tiffany Carter said.
Tiffany Carter went on to reveal that her son sent her a warning in a text message right before he went missing.
“He said, ‘Me and the owner of this company not seeing eye to eye, mama,’” she read from her phone. “‘If anything happened to me, he’s responsible for it. I’m too smart for it, mama. He got these guys wanting to kill me,’ and that’s what he sent to me.”
Tiffany Carter said her son went to the Taylorsville Police Department asking for help, but claims they were no help at all.
On Oct. 2, 2022 – one day after Rasheem Carter last communicated with his family and the same day they filed a missing person’s report – he was captured on a trail camera in a wooded area where his remains were later found.
In the footage, which the family shared with Insider, Rasheem Carter is seen shirtless in the woods. His upper body appears to be covered in bruises and he is holding what looks like a large stick.
Officials said, however, that the apparent bruising could actually just be shadows.
Tiffany Carter told Insider that the footage shows her son “running for his life.”
“When I see that picture, I know my son was somewhere struggling, somewhere running for his life... I really believe he was chased there,” she said.
Attorney Carlos Moore, who is serving as co-counsel, said Rasheem Carter was “dutifully and gainfully employed,” just trying to make a living for his young child.
“And ends up dead, chased by what we believe to be a white supremacist, a lynch mob,” Moore said.
During a press conference in March, Crump shared gruesome details on how Rasheem Carter’s remains were found.
“His head was severed from his body,” Crump stated. “His vertebrate, his spinal cord was in another spot they discovered away from his severed head.”
Crump also said someone attempted to use Rasheem Carter’s credit card after it was determined that he was dead.
“And we believe that is a big clue,” Crump said. “Think about it, the person who had his credit card is likely to have encountered him while he was alive, and it shouldn’t have to be this difficult for this broken-hearted mother to get answers.”
The family is calling on the Department of Justice to investigate. They plan to protest this Saturday at 11 a.m. at the Taylorsville SportsPlex.
Copyright 2023 WLBT via Gray Media Group, Inc. All rights reserved. | Civil Rights Activism |
A group of Republican senators went to the Senate floor Wednesday night to push Alabama GOP Sen.to drop his hold on more than 370 military nominations.
For more than four hours, Republican Senators Dan Sullivan, Joni Ernst, Lindsey Graham, Mitt Romney and Todd Young spoke on the floor to ask for unanimous consent to confirm military nominations by voice vote, one nomination at a time. They argued with Tuberville. They pleaded with him. They upbraided him — and they spoke at length about the people whose nominations he was blocking.
As each nominee was put forward for a unanimous consent vote, the presiding officer asked, "Is there objection?"
And every time, Tuberville answered, "I object."
Tuberville has been stopping the Senate from approving military nominations en masse for months to protest a Pentagon policy that pays for travel expenses for service members who must leave the state to obtain an abortion and other reproductive care.
After Tuberville objected to a motion by Graham that included the nominee to be deputy commander of the Pacific Air Forces Laura Lenderman, Graham fired back at Tuberville: "You've just denied this lady a promotion. You did that. All of us are ready to promote her because she deserves to be promoted. She had nothing to do with this policy."
Graham went on to say that Tuberville's holds are impacting the military. "No matter whether you believe it or not, Senator Tuberville, this is doing great damage to our military," Graham said. "I don't say that lightly. I have been trying to work with you for nine months."
Romney argued that senators ought to be careful with the power they have to block confirmations.
"This power is extraordinary that we're given as individual senators, but it's incumbent upon us to use it in a reasonable way and not to abuse it in such a way that we end up putting in harm's way the capabilities of our military and the well-being of our men and women in uniform," he said.
Romney added that he agreed that theruns afoul of the Hyde Amendment, which says that government funding cannot be used for abortions. But he said the way to counter the policy is through the courts. He also proposed a workaround that would allow private charities to fund abortions out of state for service members.
Tuberville blocked 61 nominations on the floor Wednesday evening, Sullivan said.
The Alabama senator argues the Pentagon is funding abortions and says he will continue to stop the Senate from bloc confirmations of military promotions until the department changes its policy.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer filed cloture on three top nominations on Tuesday, setting up a potential vote for Thursday. Those votes include the nominees to head the Navy, the Air Force, and No. 2 at the Marine Corps.
The push for confirming the No. 2 at the Marine Corps comes as the head of the Marine Corps Gen. Eric Smith remains in the hospital due to a medical emergency. Because the Senate has not confirmed an assistant commandant, the Marine Corps is currently being led by the next senior officer who is a three-star general.
If the nominees for the head of the Air Force and Navy are confirmed, it will mark the first time the joint chiefs of staff will have a Senate-confirmed leader for every military service branch since July.
The Senate has circumvented Tuberville's hold in a limited way by voting individually on ain the past few months, but to do this for the over 370 flag and general officer nominations still pending would take the Senate weeks to complete.
The hold is now impacting leadership positions in the Middle East where a conflict between Israel and Hamas has been intensifying. The U.S. has deployed more than 1,200 troops to the region in case the conflict in Israel spreads and to protect U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria that have come under attack 28 times in less than a month.
Some of the key nominations for positions in the Middle East include the commander of the Navy's 5th fleet and the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command.
for more features. | US Congress |
Former President Donald Trump on Tuesday reposted a Truth Social post calling for a "citizen's arrest" of New York Attorney General Letitia James and Judge Arthur Engoron, who is overseeing his fraud trial. Trump shared a post by a user describing his "fantasy": "I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LITITIA JAMES AND JUDGE ENGORON PLACED UNDER CITIZENS ARREST FOR BLATANT ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND HARASSMENT."
Legal experts expressed alarm over the post. "Sometimes he says incendiary things that his followers act on, as in 'will be wild.' This is an actual incitement to break the law and it greatly endangers the judge and AG," tweeted former U.S. Attorney Harry Litman. George Washington University Law Prof. Jonathan Turley, who frequently defends Trump in the media, also warned: "Just in case anyone is taking such a statement as more than a fantasy, there is no basis for a citizen’s arrest and such an effort to physically hold either the judge or the attorney general would most certainly constitute a criminal act."
New York state Sen. Mike Gianaris, a Democrat who previously pushed to change the law, argued that the statute allowing for a citizen's arrest should be eliminated. "Citizen's Arrest is bonkers to begin with, and it shouldn't be used by aspirational despots to go after perceived enemies. We must get rid of it once and for all," he wrote. | US Political Corruption |
Each day, you leave digital traces of what you did, where you went, who you communicated with, what you bought, what you’re thinking of buying, and much more. This mass of data serves as a library of clues for personalized ads, which are sent to you by a sophisticated network – an automated marketplace of advertisers, publishers and ad brokers that operates at lightning speed.
The ad networks are designed to shield your identity, but companies and governments are able to combine that information with other data, particularly phone location, to identify you and track your movements and online activity. More invasive yet is spyware – malicious software that a government agent, private investigator or criminal installs on someone’s phone or computer without their knowledge or consent. Spyware lets the user see the contents of the target’s device, including calls, texts, email and voicemail. Some forms of spyware can take control of a phone, including turning on its microphone and camera.
Now, according to an investigative report by the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, an Israeli technology company called Insanet has developed the means of delivering spyware via online ad networks, turning some targeted ads into Trojan horses. According to the report, there’s no defense against the spyware, and the Israeli government has given Insanet approval to sell the technology.
Sneaking in unseen
Insanet’s spyware, Sherlock, is not the first spyware that can be installed on a phone without the need to trick the phone’s owner into clicking on a malicious link or downloading a malicious file. NSO’s iPhone-hacking Pegasus, for instance, is one of the most controversial spyware tools to emerge in the past five years.
What sets Insanet’s Sherlock apart from Pegasus is its exploitation of ad networks rather than vulnerabilities in phones. A Sherlock user creates an ad campaign that narrowly focuses on the target’s demographic and location, and places a spyware-laden ad with an ad exchange. Once the ad is served to a web page that the target views, the spyware is secretly installed on the target’s phone or computer.
Although it’s too early to determine the full extent of Sherlock’s capabilities and limitations, the Haaretz report found that it can infect Windows-based computers and Android phones as well as iPhones.
Spyware vs. malware
Ad networks have been used to deliver malicious software for years, a practice dubbed malvertising. In most cases, the malware is aimed at computers rather than phones, is indiscriminate, and is designed to lock a user’s data as part of a ransomware attack or steal passwords to access online accounts or organizational networks. The ad networks constantly scan for malvertising and rapidly block it when detected.
Spyware, on the other hand, tends to be aimed at phones, is targeted at specific people or narrow categories of people, and is designed to clandestinely obtain sensitive information and monitor someone’s activities. Once spyware infiltrates your system, it can record keystrokes, take screenshots and use various tracking mechanisms before transmitting your stolen data to the spyware’s creator.
While its actual capabilities are still under investigation, the new Sherlock spyware is at least capable of infiltration, monitoring, data capture and data transmission, according to the Haaretz report.
Who’s using spyware
From 2011 to 2023, at least 74 governments engaged in contracts with commercial companies to acquire spyware or digital forensics technology. National governments might deploy spyware for surveillance and gathering intelligence as well as combating crime and terrorism. Law enforcement agencies might similarly use spyware as part of investigative efforts, especially in cases involving cybercrime, organized crime or national security threats.
Companies might use spyware to monitor employees’ computer activities, ostensibly to protect intellectual property, prevent data breaches or ensure compliance with company policies. Private investigators might use spyware to gather information and evidence for clients on legal or personal matters. Hackers and organized crime figures might use spyware to steal information to use in fraud or extortion schemes.
On top of the revelation that Israeli cybersecurity firms have developed a defense-proof technology that appropriates online advertising for civilian surveillance, a key concern is that Insanet’s advanced spyware was legally authorized by the Israeli government for sale to a broader audience. This potentially puts virtually everyone at risk.
The silver lining is that Sherlock appears to be expensive to use. According to an internal company document cited in the Haaretz report, a single Sherlock infection costs a client of a company using the technology a hefty US$6.4 million. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
About three hours before a midnight deadline, the Senate overwhelmingly passed a bipartisan bill Saturday evening to keep the government funded for 45 days, on a vote of 88 to 9, just before awas to go into effect.
The bill now goes to President Biden's desk for his signature.
No Democratic senators voted against the measure.
The House had passed the measure that afternoon, after House Speaker Kevin McCarthy announced in the morning that he would try to push the short-term funding bill through the House with Democratic help — a move that could keep the government open but would put his speakership at risk.
The bill ultimately won support from more Democrats than Republicans in the House, with 90 Republicans voting no. Just one Democrat voted against the measure.
The House passed a bill 335-91 Saturday afternoon to fund the government for 45 days, hours before awas to go into effect.
The bill House Speaker Kevin McCarthy put to a vote ultimately won support from more Democrats than Republicans. Ninety Republicans voted no on the continuing resolution to fund the government, and just a single Democrat voted against the short-term funding measure. The bill would fund the government at current 2023 levels for 45 days. It does not contain funding for Ukraine that was sought by Democrats but opposed by many Republicans but does include spending for disaster relief.
McCarthy was forced to rely on Democrats for passage because the speaker's hard-right flank said it would oppose any short-term measure. The speaker set up a process for voting requiring a two-thirds supermajority, about 290 votes in the 435-member House for passage. Republicans hold a 221-212 majority, with two vacancies.
Before the vote, McCarthy indicated that the cost of a shutdown to Americans, particularly those in uniform, was too high. "I am asking Republicans and Democrats alike, put your partisanship away, focus on the American public," he said. "How can you in good conscience — think of the men and women who volunteer to risk their lives to defend us — to say they can't be paid, be while we work out our differences — that is unfair. I cannot do that to our men and women in uniform."
Ukraine funding not included in short-term spending bill
Prior to the Senate vote, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat, had put a hold on the continuing resolution over Ukraine funding, according to two congressional sources.
The White House welcomed passage of the House bill, noting that it "keeps the government open at a higher funding levels" than a version the Senate was considering "and includes disaster relief and FAA authorization," a White House official said. The official, noting McCarthy's support for Ukraine funding, said the White House expects he "will bring a separate bill to the floor shortly."
Two Senate GOP aides told CBS News that last Sunday, national security adviser Jake Sullivan and Secretary of State Antony Blinken told McConnell that the Biden administration had exhausted nearly all available security assistance funding for Ukraine and could not make it through a 45-day period based alone on existing drawdown authorities, the mechanism used to transfer military equipment to Ukraine. Based on that guidance and despite the knowledge that it would draw House opposition, McConnell agreed to support the Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's continuing resolution, which contained $6 billion in support for Ukraine for 45 days.
A House lawmaker with knowledge of the Ukraine funding issue confirmed to CBS News that the Biden administration had given House lawmakers a similar message and said something would have to be done relatively quickly to move on a supplemental Ukraine aid bill before the 45 days are up. But Republican House leaders are confident that there's bipartisan support for this.
Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, of South Dakota, said Ukrainians "should not take anything negative" from the vote Saturday and added, "we can do border security and a supplemental on Ukraine in a connected type of approach somewhere in a very short time period, whether that's over the next two days, three days, 10 days."
The Senate had been working on advancing its own bill that was initially supported by Democrats and Republicans and would fund the government through Nov. 17.
But once the House plan emerged, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell urged his members to vote no on advancing the Senate version to see whether the House could get its temporary funding measure passed.
Funding bill may keep government open but risks McCarthy's speakership
McCarthy announced Saturday morning he would try to push the 45-day funding bill through the House with Democratic help — a move that could keep government open but would put his speakership at risk.
"The House is going to act so government will not shut down," McCarthy said, after an early-morning meeting with the Republican conference Saturday. He told reporters that it would give lawmakers more time to finish work on individual appropriations bills.
Relying on Democratic votes and leaving his right-flank behind is something that the hard-right lawmakers have warned would risk McCarthy's job as speaker. They are almost certain to quickly file a motion to try to remove McCarthy from that office, though it is not at all certain there would be enough votes to topple the speaker.
"If somebody wants to remove because I want to be the adult in the room, go ahead and try," McCarthy said of the threat to oust him. "But I think this country is too important."
The quick pivot to Saturday's bill came after the collapse Friday of McCarthy's earlier plan to pass a Republican-only bill including severe border security provisions and steep spending cuts up to 30% to most government agencies that the White House and Democrats rejected as too extreme. It failed because of opposition from a faction of 21 hard-right holdouts.
Catering to his hard-right flank, McCarthy had returned to the spending limits the conservatives demanded back in January as part of the deal-making to help him become the House speaker.
Some of the Republican holdouts, including Gaetz, are allies of former President Donald Trump, who is Biden's chief rival in the 2024 race. Trump has been encouraging the Republicans to fight hard for their priorities and even to "shut it down."
What a shutdown would mean
Without short-term funding before midnight,face furloughs, more than 2 million active-duty and reserve military troops will work without pay and programs and services that Americans rely on from coast to coast will begin to face shutdown disruptions.
A shutdown would pose 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 would be confronting potential interruptions or outright closures. At the airports, Transportation Security Administration officers and air traffic controllers would be expected to work without pay, but travelers could face delays in updating their U.S. passports or other travel documents.
— Margaret Brennan, Jack Turman, Keshia Butts, Ellis Kim, Willie James Inman and Alan He contributed to this report.
for more features. | US Federal Policies |
The FBI has arrested an Arizona man over a religiously-motivated terror attack on a remote Australian property last year that left six dead.
The 58-year-old US citizen faces two charges, one of which relates to the incitement of violence online.
He "repeatedly" sent online messages containing "Christian end of days ideology" to the attackers, police say.
The Wieambilla ambush left two police officers and a neighbour dead, as well as the three shooters involved.
The US man was arrested by FBI agents in Heber Overgaard, north-east of Phoenix, on Friday.
Police say the three shooters - Nathaniel, Stacey and Gareth Train - followed two YouTube accounts created by the man. They added that he continually messaged Gareth and Stacey in the lead up to the attack, which took place in Queensland last December.
There is also evidence that the suspect and Gareth were "commenting directly" on each other's YouTube videos, Queensland Police Assistant Commissioner Cheryl Scanlon told a press conference on Wednesday.
Queensland Police investigators have travelled to the US to assist the FBI and local law enforcement with the investigation.
The deadly attack took place on 12 December after police arrived at a remote inland property owned by Gareth and Stacey Train in Wieambilla - about 270km (168 miles) west of Brisbane.
Four officers had travelled there to check on Nathaniel Train, who had been reported missing to authorities.
As soon as they left their car to approach the house, they were inundated with gunfire.
Two constables - Matthew Arnold, 26, and Rachel McCrow, 29 - were hit immediately, before reportedly being shot again, execution-style.
Another officer was injured but escaped, while the fourth was terrorised by the shooters who lit fires to try and flush her out of hiding.
58-year-old Alan Dare, a neighbour who turned up at the scene to help, was fatally shot too.
The siege involved "many weapons" and continued for hours, before the suspects were shot by specially trained officers, authorities said.
Investigators say the attack was premeditated, and that it involved "advanced planning and preparation against law enforcement".
Camouflaged hideouts, barriers, dirt mounts, guns, knives, CCTV, and mirrors on trees were set up throughout the property.
Queensland police have since labelled the incident a "religiously-motivated terror attack" and allege the Trains subscribed to "a broad Christian fundamentalist belief system known as premillennialism".
Premillennialism is the belief that after a period of destruction and extreme suffering on Earth, Jesus Christ will physically return to bring peace.
It is the first time an extreme Christian ideology has been linked to a terror attack in Australia, authorities say.
The man has been charged under US law and there are currently no plans to extradite him to Australia.
Gun violence is rare in Australia, which has some of the toughest firearms laws in the world. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Republican-controlled Wisconsin Senate voted Thursday to fire the battleground state’s nonpartisan top elections official ahead of the 2024 presidential election.
Democrats say the vote was held improperly and that lawmakers don’t have the authority to oust Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Meagan Wolfe. The issue is expected to end in a legal battle.
The fight over who will lead the elections agency stems from persisting lies about the 2020 election and creates instability ahead of the 2024 presidential race for the state’s more than 1,800 local clerks who actually run elections.
Wolfe has been the subject of conspiracy theories and threats from election skeptics who falsely claim she was part of a plan to rig the 2020 vote in Wisconsin, and GOP leaders cited concerns from those skeptics in justifying Thursday’s 22-11 vote along party lines.
“Wisconsinites have expressed concerns with the administration of elections both here in Wisconsin and nationally,” said Majority Leader Devin LeMahieu. “We need to rebuild faith in Wisconsin’s elections.”
Election observers have voiced concerns that replacing Wolfe with a less experienced administrator or continuing to dispute her position could create greater instability in a high-stakes presidential race where election workers expect to face unrelenting pressure, harassment and threats.
The bipartisan elections commission deadlocked in June on a vote to nominate Wolfe for a second four-year term. Three Republicans voted to nominate her and three Democrats abstained in the hopes of preventing a nomination from proceeding to the Senate for confirmation.
Senate rejection would normally carry the effect of firing her, but without a four-vote majority nominating Wolfe, a recent state Supreme Court ruling appears to allow her to stay in office indefinitely as a holdover.
Senate Republicans in June pushed ahead with forcing a vote despite not receiving a nomination from the commission. LeMahieu said he interpreted the commission’s 3-0 vote as a unanimous nomination. The Legislature’s nonpartisan attorneys and Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul have both contested that interpretation, saying the law is clear that an elections administrator must be nominated by at least four commissioners.
Wolfe did not attend a Senate committee hearing on her reappointment last month, citing a letter from Kaul saying “there is no question” that she remains head of the elections agency. That hearing instead became a platform for some of the most prominent members of Wisconsin’s election denialism movement to repeat widely debunked claims about the 2020 election.
The Republican-led elections committee voted Monday to recommend firing Wolfe.
Biden defeated Trump by nearly 21,000 votes in Wisconsin in 2020, an outcome that has withstood two partial recounts, a nonpartisan audit, a conservative law firm’s review and numerous state and federal lawsuits.
Many Republican grievances against Wolfe are over decisions made by the elections commission and carried out by Wolfe, as she is bound by law to do. In addition to carrying out the decisions of the elections commission, Wolfe helps guide Wisconsin’s more than 1,800 local clerks who actually run elections.
Wolfe became head of the elections commission in 2018, after Senate Republicans rejected her predecessor, Michael Haas, because he had worked for the Government Accountability Board. GOP lawmakers disbanded the agency, which was the elections commission’s predecessor, in 2015 after it investigated whether former Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign illegally worked with outside groups.
Since the 2020 election, some Republicans have floated the idea of abolishing or overhauling the elections commission.
Wolfe has worked at the elections commission and the accountability board for more than 10 years. She has also served as president of the National Association of State Election Directors and chair of the bipartisan Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, which helps states maintain accurate voter rolls.
___
Harm Venhuizen is a corps member for the Associated Press/Report for America Statehouse News Initiative. Report for America is a nonprofit national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms to report on undercovered issues. | US Local Elections |
There were a lot of choice words flying around the stage at the final GOP primary debate tonight, but the candidates’ body language said much more than any of their canned remarks.
I’ve been decoding nonverbal communication for over 50 years, 25 as an FBI agent. My work taught me that people lie all the time, but their bodies usually tell the truth. A flushed face, a twitch at the corner of the mouth, a hand shaking with nerves — nonverbal tells reveal our true thoughts and emotions.
And there were certainly a lot of unspoken thoughts and emotions tonight.
Ron DeSantis’ awkward smile, Nikki Haley’s killer eyeroll, Vivek Ramaswamy’s angled eyebrows — I saw a veritable stage play tonight, only the best dialogue was unspoken. Here’s what body language told me about how the candidates are closing out this primary season:
Ron DeSantis Can Smile, After All — It’s Just Awkward
During the first GOP debate, I wrote that Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis failed to smile. He seems to have taken that advice to heart. Unfortunately, he fumbled the execution. He should be aiming for what’s called a Duchenne smile, when the zygomaticus major muscle lifts the corners of the mouth while the orbicularis oculi muscle around the eyes raises the cheeks, crinkling one’s laugh lines and crows feet in a way that communicates genuine authenticity. DeSantis, often criticized for his awkwardness, pulls the corners (or commissures) of his mouth to reveal his teeth, but the gesture appears odd and stiff. You can see this at the end of his closing statement. That’s a big problem for DeSantis, because an inauthentic smile looks untrustworthy.
Vivek Ramaswamy Isn’t Having Fun Anymore
At the first debate, Vivek Ramaswamy looked like he was having a ball, with a supernova smile and big, emphatic hand gestures that grabbed him attention as a feisty newcomer. Tonight, as Ramaswamy took his last shot at drawing daylight between himself and his opponents on a debate stage, it was clear the fun is over. He was angry, and it was visible from the very beginning: His eyebrows angled with discontent, his jaws were tense and his vocal volume, an element of what we call prosody, was stuck on high, making him appear one-note and aggrieved. Even when he gestured with both hands or used his eyebrows to potentiate his message, that vocal flatline made everything he said sound the same, leaving his audience unable to pick out the highs from the lows. His repeated interruptions of former U.N. ambassador Nikki Haley and other candidates also worked against him. Confidence does not require constant interjection. He looked like a nervous bench-sitter itching to play in the game.
Nikki Haley Has a Deadly Eyeroll
The tension on Haley’s face from the start spoke to her commitment and resolve. She was cogent and focused, and her delivery was precise. Her use of humor to defang Vivek’s sexist remark about her heels (he compared her and DeSantis, who has been accused of wearing height-boosting heel inserts in his cowboy boots, to “Dick Cheney in three-inch heels”) was flawless. When Ramaswamy — who has campaigned on TikTok — criticized Haley for allowing her daughter to use the app, she hit back hard. Her words were strong — “Leave my daughter out of your voice,” she said — but her body language was even stronger: She clenched her jaw and rolled her eyes in a devastating, dismissive way, showing that she’s in control even when she’s seething and that she considers Ramaswamy insignificant. She pointed her finger at him like a gun to show him that he’d crossed a line. Unfortunately, many of Haley’s other hand gestures were muted. As I wrote in my advice piece for the candidates before the second debate, Haley should spread her fingers wide when she makes hand gestures to draw extra attention to her talking points and she needs to do them high enough so that the television audience can see them. Her close-fingered gestures failed to achieve that kind of dazzle — especially for the viewers at home.
Chris Christie Can Tell a Story With His Eyes
Christie was as polished as always. As a former prosecutor practiced at charming a jury, he used his smooth vocal cadence to deliver talking points in a way that was easy to understand. His hand gestures were also smooth, communicating a sense of calm and control. Only Scott, himself a polished orator, used nonverbals to demarcate his most important points so effectively. Christie is particularly adept at communicating with his eyes, arching his eyebrows for drama and narrowing his eyes to underline important messages. You may not agree with him, but when he is speaking, you cannot turn away from him.
Tim Scott Looks Like a Friend
Scott looked presidential. He was eloquent and poised. Once again he quoted scripture on the stage, speaking with the measured and comforting cadence of a pastor. Of all the candidates, he appears the most approachable, thanks to his easy smile, his deep baritone voice and the way he turns to all sides of the audience as he speaks, making everyone feel addressed. His wide, open-palmed hand gestures and the upward tilt of his head, an almost prayerful posture, gave weight to his message. Early on, he hesitated multiple times when he spoke, but he course-corrected as the debate went on, cleaning up his delivery, gliding through a variety of topics and rattling off statistics without a hitch. | US Federal Elections |
Kari Lake, the Arizona Republican running for the U.S. Senate, described America as a country with "high crime" while calling for a change in asylum laws.
Speaking at a recent press conference in Nogales, Arizona, she called for a reform of current legislation to prevent people seeking asylum in the U.S. if they are leaving a country that has "elevated crime."
Lake called for asylum laws to be changed while suggesting that asylum seekers are entering a country with a high crime rate under the Joe Biden administration. Lake, who is endorsed by former President Donald Trump and falsely claimed her November 2022 election loss to Gov. Katie Hobbs was the result of voting irregularities, has made controlling illegal immigration on the Arizona border one of her key policies during her Senate campaign.
"You can seek asylum if you're leaving a country that has elevated crime. Well, I'll tell you what, this country has elevated crime," Lake said. "People are pouring across a country with high crime. I got news for them, you're entering into a country with high crime. So we need to change those asylum laws so that that's not a reason that you can seek asylum."
The former Arizona gubernatorial candidate shared a clip of her November 21 remarks on X, formerly Twitter, adding: "Biden is selling you a lie. America has high crime. It's not worth the treacherous path to come here. We need to reform our Asylum Laws. That's exactly what I will do in the Senate. #BuildTheWall."
The White House has been contacted for comment via email.
During her press conference in Nogales Lake also expanded on how she would secure the border if elected to the Senate next year.
"For starters, we need to immediately fund and make sure that the border wall is completed," Lake said. "We know it works right here in town, you don't see people running across. They do where there isn't a border wall.
"We want to make sure we have enough judges hired ready to process these people right away. Give them court dates, have the court dates immediately, because we know that 90, 95 percent of the people reading a card saying they're seeking asylum, are fraudulent asylum claims and they can't stay."
Lake is running for the Senate seat currently held by Democrat-turned Independent Senator Krysten Sinema, who is yet to confirm if she will seek re-election in 2024.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
fairness meter
About the writer
Ewan Palmer is a Newsweek News Reporter based in London, U.K. His focus is reporting on US politics, domestic policy and the courts. He joined Newsweek in February 2018 after spending several years working at the International Business Times U.K., where he predominantly reported on crime, politics and current affairs. Prior to this, he worked as a freelance copywriter after graduating from the University of Sunderland in 2010. Languages: English.
You can get in touch with Ewan by emailing [email protected].
Ewan Palmer is a Newsweek News Reporter based in London, U.K. His focus is reporting on US politics, domestic policy... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here. | US Federal Elections |
President Joe Biden has warned that conservative rebels "will be back again" to try thwart the next funding deal after Congress voted to pass a stop-gap bill to keep the government funded, avoiding a shutdown with just hours left until the deadline.
“The last few days and weeks extreme MAGA Republicans tried to walk away from that deal,” Biden said during a press conference at the White House on Sunday. “Voting for deep, lasting spending cuts from 30 to 80% — that would have been devastating for millions of Americans.”
“It failed again, it failed again, and we stopped it,” he added. “But I’m under no illusions that they’ll be back again.”
Asked by a reporter whether he trusts that House Speaker Kevin McCarthy uphold his word on an agreement, Biden said: “We just made one about Ukraine. So we’ll find out.”
Congress passed a short-term bill to keep the government open Saturday night. The legislation, which keeps the government funded at current levels through Nov. 17 and authorizes additional disaster relief money, allows Congress more time to reach a funding agreement for the full year. However, it left out aid to Ukraine after McCarthy removed the provision from the bipartisan Senate bill, saying it should be considered separately at a later date.
Prior to the bill’s passage, McCarthy announced he would drop Republicans’ demands for spending cuts and policy provisions on immigration to clear the way for a quick House vote on a “clean” stopgap bill.
McCarthy’s move came a day after a group of 21 conservative rebels, led by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., voted against Republicans’ 30-day funding bill to keep the government open. The rebels demanded the House pass all 12 appropriations bills with significant spending cuts, before holding negotiations on funding with the Democratic-controlled Senate.
McCarthy on Saturday said he had no choice but to leave out Republicans’ demands after conservative rebels tanked his funding bill.
In addition to Gaetz, the Republicans who voted against McCarthy’s short-term funding bill included Reps. Andy Biggs, Eli Crane and Paul Gosar of Arizona; Lauren Boebert and Ken Buck, both of Colorado; Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia; Tim Burchett and Andy Ogles, both of Tennessee; Alex Mooney, who is running for Senate in West Virginia; Matt Rosendale, who is running for Senate in Montana; and Nancy Mace, who represents a swing district in South Carolina. All these lawmakers also voted against the continuing resolution that passed Saturday night.
Gaetz said Sunday that he plans to file a motion this week to oust McCarthy as speaker for working with Democrats to pass the stop-gap measure. | US Congress |
'He NEEDS a decent haircut!' Prince Harry's 'scruffy' mop, 'nasty' beard and 'crumpled' clothing during his UN speech in New York leaves royal fans stunnedPrince Harry's appearance for UN speech during visit to New York shocked fansMany were stunned by his 'scruffy' hair and 'crumpled' suit during the outingDuke of Sussex was joined by Meghan Markle for event in the city yesterday Published: 05:03 EDT, 19 July 2022 | Updated: 07:28 EDT, 19 July 2022 Royal fans begged the Duke of Sussex to 'get a haircut' after many were left stunned by his 'scruffy' mop and 'fuzzy' beard during his appearance at the UN in New York yesterday. Prince Harry, 37, who is currently living in his $14 million mansion in California having stepped back from royal duty, waded into US politics as he blasted the 'rolling back of constitutional rights' during his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly for Nelson Mandela Day.However it was his appearance which shocked many royal fans, who were critical of his messy ginger locks and lengthy facial hair. Posting on Twitter, one commented: 'I wish Harry would have a decent haircut, he always looks scruffy. Royal fans begged the Duke of Sussex, 37, to 'get a haircut' after many were left stunned by his 'scruffy' mop and 'fuzzy' beard during his appearance at the UN in New York yesterday Prince Harry's unkempt hair and crumpled outfit caught the attraction of many followers yesterday at the UN 'I find Meghan's dress sense very up and down, but she looked very elegant today and this was a good look for her.' Meanwhile another wrote: 'Harry's looking thrilled again. Why does he always look crumpled and scruffy?'A third added: 'I think Harry's largest offense is that haircut. Who's he trying to fool? 'Shave your head, dude, regardless of whatever you have to say, no one is going to take you seriously looking like a homeless clown.' Many royal fans took to Twitter to beg the Duke of Sussex to 'get a decent haircut' and 'a beard trim' Another commented: 'Harry needs a professional haircut and beard trim. Better yet, shave off all that nasty fuzz.' One added: 'No one looks happy and Harry looks scruffy.'It's 90 degrees and humid in NYC but naturally Meghan Markle is dressed for the wrong season. Wonder if she paid for her shoes.' The Duke's relaxed appearance was a stark contrast to his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly in which he blasted the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a 'global assault on democracy and freedom.' The Duke's relaxed appearance was a stark contrast to his keynote speech at the UN General Assembly in which he blasted the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as a 'global assault on democracy and freedom'Despite the event meant to be in celebration of Nelson Mandela Day, the Prince launched an attack on American politics during his keynote speech.He said: 'This has been a painful year in a painful decade. We are living through a pandemic that continues to ravage communities in every corner of the globe.'Climate change wreaking havoc on our planet with most vulnerable suffering most of all. The few weaponizing lies and disinformation at the expense of the many.'And from the horrific war in Ukraine to the rolling back of constitutional right in the US we are witnessing a global assault on democracy and freedom the cause of Mandela's life.' The couple seemed in good spirits at the event, with Meghan smiling from ear to at her husbandHarry also the blasted the 'rolling back of constitutional rights' and criticized SCOTUS for its decision to remove federal abortion protections.The comments, heard by a mostly-empty room at the United Nations on Monday morning, were the latest broadside at US politicians.They followed recent remarks by Meghan to Vogue magazine in which she, alongside famous feminist icon Gloria Steinem, urged men to be 'more vocal' with their anger about the decision to overturn Roe.Steinem, who was spotted with the Duchess earlier Monday, has recruited Meghan in her fight to get Congress to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment - a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex.Despite the event meant to be in celebration of Nelson Mandela Day, the Prince launched an attack on American politics during his keynote speech Monday was not the first time the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have waded into American politics, finding themselves in hot water after commenting on the US election.During a Time 100 video in September 2020 they called on American voters to 'reject hate speech, misinformation and online negativity' in 'the most important election of our life.'Members of the royal family are supposed to be politically neutral, when they stepped back from their roles the Sussex's vowed that 'everything they do will uphold the values of Her Majesty'. Advertisement | SCOTUS |
State lawmakers find America’s medical debt problem ‘can no longer be ignored’
About 100 million Americans deal with medical debt, late notices, threatening voicemails and credit score declines.
Personal medical debt has reached startling heights — and state lawmakers are taking notice.
In the absence of federal consensus and in anticipation of congressional inaction, state legislators have enacted a variety of consumer protections to mitigate or forestall medical debt. Several more bills are being debated in the coming weeks, expected to be signed later this year and taken up when sessions reconvene in 2024.
The actions — in more than a dozen states — represent a determined, if patchwork, effort to help the roughly 100 million Americans who deal with medical debt, late notices, threatening voicemails and credit score declines. And the bills underscore the difficulty state lawmakers have helping their distressed constituents contend with the ever-increasing costs of health care.
“You can’t put a price on the anxiety people are facing when they get these bills,” said North Carolina state Treasurer Dale Folwell, a Republican, who is pushing legislation that would cap interest on medical debt collections, prohibit collectors from foreclosing on property or garnishing wages and regulate how medical debt is shared with consumer reporting agencies. That bill passed unanimously in the state Senate and is stalled in the House as lawmakers work on a budget.
Oregon this year passed a law limiting the interest that can be charged on medical debt and requires non-profit hospitals to screen patients with bills of $500 for financial assistance eligibility.
Illinois enacted legislation that requires hospitals screen patients for financial assistance and take other cost-reducing measures before sending a bill to collection.
Colorado, in June, became the first state to enact a law prohibiting consumer reporting agencies from including medical debt in credit reports. The law also requires debt collectors to notify people that medical debt will not be included in their credit report.
New York lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a similar bill this spring.
“There’s a lot happening in states and it’s been slowly building,” said Eva Marie Stahl, vice president of public policy at RIP Medical Debt, a nonprofit that purchases people’s medical debt so they don’t have to pay it. “It’s relatable. It’s something everyone has experienced or has a loved one who has experienced it.”
Total medical debt in the United States is impossible to quantify because it hits people in incalculable ways. There was $88 billion in medical debt on consumer credit scores, according to a 2022 report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the most recent available nationwide data.
Since the report’s release, credit agencies have voluntarily removed debts of less than $500, debts less than a year old or those that have been marked paid, which means that figure is likely substantially lower today. But just because medical debit is not on a credit report doesn’t mean the debt disappeared. That money is still owed and patients may still be sued or pursued by debt collectors.
Credit scores were never an effective measurement because they represent only part of the story. Medical debt exists on credit cards and in payment plans to hospitals. People borrow from friends and family. They take out a second mortgage or an unsecured personal loan.
Total medical debt in the U.S. may be as high as $195 billion, according to KFF, a health policy research organization. Black and Hispanic people as well as young adults are most likely to have medical debt as are people in states that have not expanded Medicaid.
Even as the uninsured rate has declined to historic lows, medical debt has become more ubiquitous. It’s a consequence of rising out-of-pocket costs — the average family deductible is now almost $4,000, according to KFF, up from $2,500 a decade ago — and the ballooning costs of health care. Medical debt can pile up because of a dental emergency or certain fertility treatments, which often aren’t covered by insurance.
The vast majority of medical debt is owed to hospitals whose medical services tend to be more expensive, according to a recent report from the Urban Institute. More than two-thirds of people in debt to hospitals owed more than $1,000 and one-quarter owed at least $5,000. Roughly two-thirds of those who owed money to non-hospital providers owed less than $1,000 and just 6 percent owed more than $5,000.
Hospitals, by law, must treat anyone who walks into the emergency room regardless of ability to pay and they write off billions in uncompensated care every year. Hospitals are also contending with the rising costs of new technology, medical supplies, lab services and increasing labor costs.
The American Hospital Association points to the prevalence of high-deductible plans, inadequate health insurance offerings and the uninsured rate as key drivers of medical debt.
“While every hospital has a financial assistance policy to help those most in need, they can only help so much and so many,” the trade group said recently. “No matter how generous, hospital financial assistance will never be a substitute for a health insurance plan that covers preventive and necessary care at an affordable price on the front and back end of coverage.”
But insurance isn’t always the only culprit. Medical debt is a growing problem for seniors on Medicare. A May report from CFPB found that between 2019 and 2020 medical debt among seniors increased 20 percent to $53.8 billion. Having Medicaid alongside Medicare wasn’t much of a help even though seniors on the insurance program for people with low incomes should have little or no out-of-pocket costs, the report found.
“Medical debt, kind of like student loan debt, is all encompassing and affects so many people that it’s a mainstream issue that can no longer be ignored by legislators,” said Berneta Haynes, senior attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “More and more state legislators are recognizing that … whether you are insured or not, you will likely at some point be dealing with medical debt.”
Pennsylvania State Rep. Arvind Venkat, a Democrat and emergency physician, sponsored legislation that would authorize state funds to be used to purchase and forgive medical debt. Pennsylvanians would be eligible if their household income is less than four times the poverty level or if their medical debt equals more than 5 percent of their income.
“I get emails and phone calls from all across the state, people who are not my constituents who say this is an important issue,” Venkat said. “No one thinks medical debt is a good idea. It’s a glitch in the system and it’s a worsening problem.”
Venkat was moved to introduce the bill, which passed the House with bipartisan support and is part of ongoing budget negotiations in the state Senate, because one of his patients died from breast cancer that she did not immediately treat because she feared the expense. That’s a too-common occurrence, he said.
“I am a physician. My wife is a physician. We are obviously affluent, but I guarantee if something catastrophic were to happen to us, our insurance would only go so far,” he said.
Venkat’s legislation is modeled on what several municipal governments have already done: use federal cash to purchase and forgive medical debt. During the past two years, places including Cook County, Ill., Toledo, Ohio, New Orleans, and Pittsburgh, the North Hills suburbs of which Venkat represents, spent more than $16 million in American Rescue Plan Act money to wipe out roughly $1.5 billion in medical debt.
New Jersey’s fiscal 2024 budget set aside $10 million in ARPA funds toward eliminating medical debt. Connecticut’s recently signed biennial budget directs $6.5 million to purchase medical debt.
Venkat’s bill also includes a provision that requires hospitals to let patients know about their charity-care program, make it easier for patients to apply for financial assistance and prohibits them from being charged until their application has been processed.
It’s similar to a section in Minnesota’s most recent state budget, which requires hospitals to see whether patients are eligible for charity care and to post notices about its availability.
Among the reasons for the flurry of action is a wave of media reports and constituent complaints about hospitals suing patients, putting liens on their homes, garnishing their wages or staking claim on their tax refunds.
Folwell, the North Carolina treasurer who is also running for governor in 2024, released a report in August that showed between 2017 and 2022, hospitals in the state filed nearly 6,000 lawsuits against 7,517 patients and won a total of $57.3 million in judgments. The average judgment was $16,623, with almost one in four judgments worth more than $20,000.
Nonprofit hospitals, which are exempt from most taxes in exchange for providing free or discounted care to those in need, were behind 90 percent of those lawsuits, according to the report, which was released jointly with Duke University School of Law.
“We are dealing with hospital CEOs who give the middle finger … to the IRS rules that say they are supposed to provide charity care equal to the tax benefit they receive,” Folwell said.
The majority of lawsuits in North Carolina — as well as in other states, according to various studies — result in default judgments, usually meaning the patient did not respond to a summons or appear in court. While the hospitals employ law firms that specialize in debt collection, most patients don’t have the money for an attorney to defend against a bill they cannot afford.
Folwell likened the system to a cartel. “They control the supply of health through the certificate of need process,” he said. “They control the access, they control the price and if you don’t pay your bills, they will break your kneecaps.” | US Local Policies |
The White House issued an urgent warning to Congress on Monday, predicting that Ukraine will soon lose ground in its war against Russia without another infusion of financial aid from the US.
“I want to be clear: without congressional action, by the end of the year we will run out of resources to procure more weapons and equipment for Ukraine and to provide equipment from US military stocks,” Shalanda Young, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in her letter to congressional leaders.
“There is no magical pot of funding available to meet this moment. We are out of money – and nearly out of time.”
In October, the White House asked Congress to approve a $106bn supplemental funding bill that would provide assistance to Ukraine, Israel and allies in the Indo-Pacific while also strengthening border security. However, bipartisan negotiations over that bill have now stalled.
Although previous funding packages for Ukraine have won widespread bipartisan support in Congress, the issue has become increasingly contentious in the Republican-controlled House.
Given hard-right Republicans’ entrenched opposition to additional Ukraine aid, the new Republican House speaker, Mike Johnson, must walk a fine line in his negotiations with the Senate.
Here’s everything you need to know about the path forward for Ukraine aid:
How much additional aid has the White House requested?
The supplemental funding request that the White House outlined in October included roughly $60bn in additional aid for Ukraine. Although Congress has already appropriated more than $111bn to bolster Ukraine’s war efforts, Young warned in her letter to congressional leaders that resources are quickly running out.
According to Young, the defense department has already used 97% of the $62.3bn it received, while the state department has none of its $4.7bn remaining. Noting the global stakes of the war in Ukraine, Young stressed that Congress must act immediately to prevent disaster.
“This isn’t a next-year problem. The time to help a democratic Ukraine fight against Russian aggression is right now,” Young said. “It is time for Congress to act.”
Where do negotiations over the bill stand now?
Bipartisan negotiations to craft a supplemental aid package that can pass both chambers of Congress appeared to stall over the weekend. House Republicans have pushed to include harsher immigration policies in the bill, particularly on the issues of asylum and parole applications, but those proposals are a non-starter for many Democrats.
One of the lead Democratic negotiators in the talks, the senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, told Politico on Monday that hard-right Republicans wanted to “essentially close the border” in exchange for supporting more Ukraine funding.
“Right now, it seems pretty clear that we’re making pretty big compromises and concessions and Republicans aren’t willing to meet us anywhere close to the middle,” Murphy said.
Why do hard-right Republicans oppose additional aid?
As more members of the Republican party have embraced Donald Trump’s “America First” approach to foreign policy, more rightwing lawmakers have grown suspicious of providing funding to Ukraine.
They have argued the US should not be sending so much money to Ukraine when those funds could be better used to address border security, even though US assistance to Ukraine represents less than 1% of the nation’s GDP.
But many prominent Republicans, including the Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, continue to support funding for Ukraine, and that division has caused a growing rift in the party.
The issue drew increased attention in October, when the hard-right congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida accused the then speaker Kevin McCarthy of cutting a “a secret side deal” with Joe Biden to provide additional funding to Ukraine. McCarthy rejected that characterization, but Gaetz’s charge underscored how the speaker’s support for Ukraine had become a wedge issue between him and the hard-right flank of his caucus.
McCarthy was then removed as speaker, after Gaetz and seven other House Republicans joined Democrats in supporting a motion to vacate the chair.
How has the new House speaker navigated the negotiations?
Although Johnson initially expressed support for Ukraine following the Russian invasion in February 2022, his stance has shifted. The group Republicans for Ukraine gave Johnson a grade of “F” on its congressional scorecard, noting that he has repeatedly voted against measures aimed at strengthening US support for Ukraine.
Last week, Johnson said he was “confident and optimistic” that Congress would approve aid for both Israel and Ukraine, but he has suggested the two priorities should not be linked in one bill. Responding to Young’s letter on Monday, Johnson reiterated his demand that any aid for Ukraine must be tied to stiffer border policies.
“The Biden administration has failed to substantively address any of my conference’s legitimate concerns about the lack of a clear strategy in Ukraine, a path to resolving the conflict, or a plan for adequately ensuring accountability for aid provided by American taxpayers,” Johnson said on X, formerly Twitter.
“House Republicans have resolved that any national security supplemental package must begin with our own border. We believe both issues can be agreed upon if Senate Democrats and the White House will negotiate reasonably.”
Can Congress still pass another aid package before the end of the year?
That remains highly unclear, as the two parties currently appear far apart in their negotiations. But one of the lead Republican negotiators, the senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, voiced confidence on Monday that lawmakers would ultimately reach a consensus.
“We continue to work to find a solution that will protect our national security, stop the human trafficking, and prevent the cartels from exploiting the obvious loopholes in our law,” Lankford said on X. “That is the goal [and] we will continue to work until we get it right.”
What are the potential consequences if a deal fails?
In her letter, Young predicted that the loss of US financial support would “kneecap Ukraine on the battlefield, not only putting at risk the gains Ukraine has made, but increasing the likelihood of Russian military victories”.
Such a scenario could cause the war to spill over into a broader regional conflict involving the United States’ other European allies, Young warned, and that perilous situation might endanger US troops abroad.
“I must stress that helping Ukraine defend itself and secure its future as a sovereign, democratic, independent and prosperous nation advances our national security interests,” Young said. “The path that Congress chooses will reverberate for many years to come.” | US Federal Policies |
A judge is set Friday to make public a report, for months shrouded in secrecy, on alleged efforts by former President Donald Trump and his allies to overturn Georgia's 2020 election results.
Most of the report, by ain Fulton County, Georgia, was ordered to be withheld from the public as the district attorney there considered and others in his orbit.
"Much has changed since that February order was entered," wrote Judge Robert McBurney in a Aug. 28 order indicating the report would be released Friday unless objections were raised by concerned parties. "As anyone with an internet connection now knows, the district attorney hasfor their alleged participation in a 'racketeering enterprise' purportedly designed to interfere with the lawful administration of the 2020 general election in Georgia."
The special purpose grand jury had the ability to subpoena witnesses and documents, but could not vote to indict. Over the course of about six months in 2022, it interviewed 75 witnesses, including current and former state and federal officials.
by a separate, traditional grand jury on Aug. 15. Every defendant in the case has since entered not guilty pleas, and many, including Trump, have adamantly denied wrongdoing.
The special purpose grand jury recommended the report be made public.
A "'recommendation' is more than a mere suggestion or request: if a grand jury recommends publication, 'the judge shall order the publication,' McBurney wrote in his Aug. 28 order.
McBurney previously released two brief sections of the report. In one section, the special purpose grand jury wrote, "we find by a unanimous vote that no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election."
In a different section, they wrote that a "majority of the Grand Juryby one or more witnesses testifying before it" and recommended that the district attorney seek "appropriate indictments."
Two of the 19 defendants were charged with perjury, Cathleen Latham, a former chairwoman of the Coffee County, Georgia Republican Party, and Robert Cheeley, a local attorney.
It is unclear what other charges were recommended by the special purpose grand jury.
for more features. | US Political Corruption |
Good morning US politics blog readers! Wednesday begins with another extraordinary development in the saga of Donald Trump’s hoarding of classified documents at his Florida residence.Among the papers found by the FBI during a search last month was one describing a foreign government’s nuclear capabilities, the Washington Post reported. It would appear to confirm security officials’ worst fears about the nature of the material the former president refused to hand back to the National Archives.We’ll be watching for reaction.There’s also increasing scrutiny and growing criticism of the judge in the case, Trump appointee Aileen Cannon, who made the decision to appoint an independent special master to review the evidence in the justice department’s inquiry.Some legal scholars question the legitimacy of the unprecedented decision, saying it places Trump above the law. Bill Barr, Trump’s former attorney general, was more succinct, telling the New York Times: “It’s a crock of shit.”Here’s what else we’re watching today: Steve Bannon, Trump’s former senior strategist who is already awaiting sentencing for contempt of Congress after refusing to cooperate with the January 6 trial, is expected to be indicted on fraud charges relating to a fundraising scheme. Barack and Michelle Obama return to the White House at 1.30pm for the unveiling of their official portraits, hosted by Joe and Jill Biden. Victory by Geoff Diehl, a Trump-supporting election denier, in Massachusetts’ Republican primary could pave the way for an openly gay Democrat Maura Healy to become state governor in November’s midterms. The White House press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, is scheduled to deliver her daily briefing at 2.45pm. | US Political Corruption |
It would appear that MGM Resorts—one of the largest entertainment and hospitality venues in the world (and the largest casino operator on the Las Vegas strip)—just got hacked.
On Monday, local news outlets in Las Vegas caught wind of various complaints from patrons of MGM businesses; some said ATMs at associated hotels and casinos didn’t appear to be working; others said their hotel room keys had stopped functioning; still others noted that bars and restaurants located within MGM complexes had suddenly been shuttered. If you head to MGM’s website, meanwhile, you’ll note it’s definitely not working the way that it’s supposed to.
MGM put out a short statement Monday saying that it had been the victim of an undisclosed “cybersecurity issue.” The Associated Press notes that computer outages connected to said issue appear to be impacting MGM venues across the U.S.—in Vegas but also in places as far flung as Mississippi, Ohio, Michigan, and large parts of the northeast. MGM’s statement, which it posted to the social media site X, reads:
“MGM Resorts recently identified a cybersecurity issue affecting some of the Company’s systems. Promptly after detecting the issue, we quickly began an investigation with assistance from leading external cybersecurity experts. We also notified law enforcement and took prompt action to protect our systems and data, including shutting down certain systems. Our investigation is ongoing, and we are working diligently to determine the nature and scope of the matter.”
Later, in a statement shared with Bloomberg, the company confirmed that it had been hit by a “cyberattack” and said the attack was affecting some of its computer systems. While it’s still not totally clear what kind of attack we’re talking about here, the most likely culprit in a case like this would be ransomware. Ransomware attacks on casinos aren’t quite as common as, say, attacks on schools or small businesses—but they have been known to happen.
It’s worth noting that MGM isn’t just any old casino vendor; it’s a huge corporate empire, encompassing a multitude of interlocking businesses, and the impact of a ransomware attack on its business operations could be immense. As per usual, however, with cases involving “cyber incidents,” we’ll have to wait to see just how screwed MGM really is. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
You can put lipstick on a pig, but…
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck…
What’s in a name? That which we would call a rose…
Don’t spit on cupcakes and call it frosting…
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., faces his first true test this week. The newly elected House speaker is offering something he’s characterized in recent weeks as a "laddered CR." Yeah, not a lot of people in Washington knew what that was either.
Johnson engineered a plan to fund the entire government on a temporary basis through Jan. 19, which is when Congress is expected to pass one batch of spending bills to avert a shutdown. The remainders would have until Feb. 2.
The "laddered" concept stems from dealing with one "rung" of bills by one date and the next "rung" of bills later on. Laddered. Get it?
Call it what you will, but what Johnson proposed is a "CR" – short for "Continuing Resolution." An interim spending bill which simply renews all funding at current levels to avoid a government shutdown early Saturday morning.
Ironically, this is exactly the same legislative idea that got former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., canned earlier this fall. So, what gives?
It’s rebranding. Companies change their names all the time. Firms wrap their products up in shinier, newer packages. It doesn’t affect the stuff inside. The term "CR" became toxified inside some quarters of the House Republican Conference. So, you have to alter the marketing. Moreover, Johnson reiterates that he is committed to advancing the 12 annual appropriations bills which fund the government one by one as Republicans promised.
Except for a couple of things. A CR is still a CR. There was never enough time from when Johnson clasped the gavel to advance all the spending bills through the House and merge them with the Senate to avoid a shutdown, so this was the only way out of this cul-de-sac for Johnson.
But moreover, Johnson is running into the same problems which dogged his predecessor. Republicans insist on passing their own partisan spending bills individually, but they can’t.
Republicans had to yank a Transportation/Housing spending bill off the floor last week and did the same with a Treasury/White House spending bill on Thursday.
And for the record, the latter bill met its demise after the House rejected an amendment to reduce the pay of White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre to $1 a year. That’s right. $1.
What is this? The Price is Right?
Jean-Pierre’s annual take-home pay is $188,000. Point being, Republicans burned crucial time making amendments like those pertaining to Jean-Pierre in order for debate and a vote when they couldn’t even get the overall legislation to pass.
These appropriations bills are not exactly ready for the Showcase Showdown.
It’s far from clear whether the House can even pass Johnson’s proposal. And, because of GOP skepticism, Johnson may need to rely on Democrats to avert a government shutdown. Sound familiar?
If Republicans give Johnson a pass and approve his "laddered" CR – especially with Democratic assistance – we will have confirmed something significant about the Speaker’s debacle which consumed most of October and prompted McCarthy’s ouster: the motion to vacate the chair was never about spending bills or legislation. It was a personal vendetta against McCarthy.
But back to the task at hand: government funding expires at 11:59 p.m. ET Friday. There is not much turning radius to move a bill of any sort through the House and through the Senate. Either way, it doesn’t appear that Johnson faces some of the same opprobrium which was leveled at his predecessor, but Johnson doesn’t appear to have a Midas Touch yet, either.
Lawmakers from both sides long suggested that Johnson would enjoy a "honeymoon" after finally securing the gavel following a brutal three weeks incinerating one speaker and three speaker nominees.
"There’s a honeymoon period here. I’m not sure how long that lasts. Maybe 30 days," opined Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., late last Thursday.
But minutes later, House Republican leaders pulled the Treasury/White House bill from the floor because it lacked the votes to pass.
"With what’s going on over on the floor today, I think that indicates that the honeymoon might be shorter than we thought. And every time the CR expires, the speaker’s putting his head in the lion’s mouth," said Massie.
Johnson may not be able to control the CR and he also can’t control privileged resolutions offered by Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., who filed a special resolution late last week to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas.
Since the resolution is "privileged," it goes to the front of the legislative line. The House will likely consider Greene’s gambit on Tuesday.
It’s possible that the GOP-led House could impeach Mayorkas with no hearings, no depositions and no markup of a resolution. This would be after Republicans brayed for months about "the regular order." Greene said it was too late for all of that.
"No more strongly worded letters. No more committee hearings. No more clips on the press. We have to do something about it," she said.
To be frank, many Republicans would rather talk about impeaching Mayorkas instead of actually impeaching Mayorkas, especially with no committee hearings or markups.
The House just voted to table (or kill) a resolution to expel Rep. George Santos, R-N.Y., because the Ethics Committee hadn’t completed a report on his conduct. Moreover, Johnson said on Fox he was concerned about "due process," but that’s cast to the wind with Greene’s measure to impeach Mayorkas.
A senior House leadership source told Fox to expect a straight up or down vote on the Mayorkas resolution. In other words, no motion to table. Of course, Democrats could move to table, but it’s unclear if they would do that. Democrats don’t want Mayorkas impeached, but they may feel it’s a victory either way.
One of two things will happen: The House votes to impeach Mayorkas. If so, he becomes only the second cabinet officer ever impeached. The last was Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876, but Democrats know that the Senate would never hold a full trial on Mayorkas. It must start the process. But the Senate can vote to dispense with the articles.
Democrats will view impeachment as a victory because Republicans wasted their time – impeaching Mayorkas – as the government runs out of money. They’ll also point to who authored the articles of impeachment: Greene.
The other scenario is if the House fails to impeach Mayorkas. It’s far from clear that the House has the votes to do so. Democrats will then point to Republicans chattering ad nauseam about impeaching Mayorkas and then stumbling.
All talk and no action, and some Republicans have had it.
"I’m not going to be thinking a lot about every privileged resolution that Majorie (Taylor) Greene files because we’ve got real work to do," said freshman Rep. John Duarte, R-Calif., who represents a battleground district and won by 564 votes in 2022. "I’m not interested in these peripheral impeachments."
Regardless, Democrats will point to election results last week in Kentucky, Virginia and Ohio and suggest that Republicans are again focused on the wrong things.
Not everyone in the nation knows who Mike Johnson is yet, but if the government shuts down on Saturday, you can bet everyone will learn who he is.
So, you can dress things up by applying lipstick, mascara and anything else on a CR… but it’s still a CR. That’s something Republicans abhor, but Johnson has no choice when his side still can’t even pass their own spending bills.
There is one school of thought on Capitol Hill that maybe a shutdown is inevitable. Congress narrowly averted a shutdown once McCarthy put a straight, six-week CR on the floor at the last minute, so maybe McCarthy simply delayed a shutdown. McCarthy paid the price for preventing that earlier in the fall.
Johnson won’t pay an immediate price regardless of how things go. He might not get a laddered CR, but this is the challenge Johnson faces for climbing the leadership ladder. | US Congress |
Years after their lives were turned upside down by conspiracy theorists, Ruby Freeman and her daughter, Wandrea ArShaye "Shaye" Moss, were officially cleared by Georgia authorities on Tuesday.
Georgia’s State Election Board dismissed its yearslong investigation into alleged election fraud at the State Farm Arena in Atlanta, more than two years after conspiracy theorists — and then-President Donald Trump — claimed that Freeman and her daughter had committed election fraud in the 2020 presidential election.
The fraud claims were “unsubstantiated and found to have no merit,” the investigation concluded, reporting on the work of the FBI, the Georgia Bureau of Investigations and investigators from the Secretary of State’s office vetting the alleged fraud.
During their efforts to overturn the results of the election, Trump and his ally Rudy Giuliani repeatedly claimed that Freeman and Moss committed election fraud. A heavily edited, brief clip of security footage was widely circulated online and by Trump allies as supposed proof.
Giuliani said Freeman and Moss were passing USB drives “like vials of heroin or cocaine” during ballot counting operations. Moss later explained her mother handed her a ginger mint during ballot counting.
Freeman in particular became a regular target for Trump, and the former president made false comments about her on social media as recently as January.
The Trump campaign did not immediately return a request for comment.
State officials said at the time that the election workers had done nothing wrong, but both women were relentlessly harassed. Freeman fled her home, fearing for her safety.
Last year, the U.S. House's Jan. 6 committee played taped testimony from Freeman and Moss during a congressional hearing.
“There is nowhere I feel safe. Nowhere,” Freeman said last June. “I have lost my name and I have lost my reputation...All because a group of people starting with number 45 and his ally Rudy Giuliani decided to scapegoat me and my daughter."
Investigators interviewed or received affidavits from nine election workers. They also identified and interviewed an unnamed man who created an Instagram account purporting to be Freeman and claiming to commit election fraud.
"The account creator admitted he created the fake account and confirmed the content that was posted on the account was fake," the report said.
The bulk of the investigation appears to have been conducted in December 2020 and January 2021, but both the State Election Board and the Georgia Secretary of State's office was backed up reviewing claims, according to Gabriel Sterling, the chief operating officer in the Georgia Secretary of State’s office.
This particular report, due to the partisan nature of the allegations, took a particularly long time because it "needed to be beyond reproach," he added.
Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger applauded the conclusion of the investigation in a statement on Wednesday: "False claims and knowingly false allegations made against these election workers have done tremendous harm. Election workers deserve our praise for being on the front lines."
Moss and Freeman have sued outlets and individuals who advanced false claims about them for defamation. One America Network settled one defamation lawsuit, while other claims are still ongoing. | US Federal Elections |
The shootings took place at two different locations in Lewiston, Maine, on Thursday night, according to police. The suspect has been on the run ever since.
Here is how the mass shootings unfolded:
Wednesday, Oct. 26
6:56 p.m.
Emergency dispatchers begin to receive 911 calls detailing a male shooting at Just-In-Time Recreation, a bowling alley in Lewiston, Maine, formerly known as Sparetime, State Police Col. William Ross told reporters during a news conference Thursday morning.
7:08 p.m.
Law enforcement receives reports of an active shooter inside the billiards room at the Schemengees Bar & Grille restaurant in Lewiston, about 4 miles south of the bowling alley, Ross said.
Shortly after, a large law enforcement response from multiple surrounding agencies assists the Lewiston Police Department.
8 p.m.
The Androscoggin County Sheriff's Office posts on its Facebook page that it's investigating two active shooter events.
The post includes a photo of the suspect brandishing a semi-automatic rifle.
8:06 p.m.
Maine State Police posts on Facebook that there's an active shooter situation in the city of Lewiston, advising residents to shelter in place.
"Please stay inside your home with the doors locked," police said.
Around 9 p.m.
Law enforcement sources tell ABC News that a bowling alley in Lewiston is one of the scenes of the shooting.
There are additional reports of shots fired at the Schemengees Bar & Grille in Lewiston, the sources said.
A federal source also tells ABC News that there are multiple fatalities and the FBI is offering assistance.
9:15 p.m.
The Lewiston Police Department releases a photo of a white SUV that may be connected to the shooting.
Around 9:30 p.m.
Multiple sources tell ABC News that at least 16 people have died in the shooting. A massive manhunt for the suspect is in effect.
Around 10 p.m.
The FBI urges the public to remain vigilant and report any and all suspicious activity to law enforcement immediately.
10:10 p.m.
The Gun Violence Archive, a database reporting on gun violence in the U.S., posts on X, formerly known as Twitter, that the Lewiston shooting is the worst to occur in 2023.
It was also the 565th mass shooting in 2023 and the 31st mass murder, according to the organization.
10:52 p.m.
The Lewiston Police Department identifies a person of interest as 40-year-old Robert Card and releases his mugshot.
Card is considered armed and dangerous, police said.
Sources tell ABC News that Card has a history of military service as a firearms instructor and that he was treated at a mental health facility over the summer after he allegedly said he was hearing voices and threatened to shoot up a National Guard facility in Saco, Maine.
Around 11:30 p.m.
A vehicle registered to Card is located near a boat landing Lisbon, Ross said. The town is about about 8 miles southeast of Lewiston.
Thursday, Oct. 26
4:23 a.m.
Police in nearby Lisbon advise residents to remain sheltering in place as the search for the suspect continues.
6:14 a.m.
Maine State Police expands the shelter in place advisory and school closings to include the town of Bowdoin, about 15 miles east of Lewiston.
8:52 a.m.
The bowling alley where the shooting took place posts on Facebook that it is "devastated" for the community and the staff.
"We lost some amazing and whole hearted people from our bowling family and community last night," the post on Just-In-Time Recreation's Facebook page read. "There are no words to fix this or make it better."
Around 9:30 a.m.
Lisbon Police Chief Ryan McGee tells reporters that investigators are relying on the community's help to locate Card and that no tip is too small.
"If you see something in Lisbon that is suspicious, I want you to call," McGee said.
Around 9:45 a.m.
The flag on the roof of the White House is lowered to half-staff to honor the victims of the Maine shootings.
10:45 a.m.
Maine Gov. Janet Mills tells reporters during a news conference the death toll from the shooting is now 18 people, with another 13 people injured.
Card has since been charged with eight counts of murder, Ross said, adding that the number of counts will ultimately be 18 once the remaining victims are identified.
He should be considered "extremely" armed and dangerous and should not be approached, Ross said.
Around 3 p.m.
The U.S. Coast Guard announces that it is searching the Kennebec River in Maine for any sign of Card.
Card owns a boat and property in the Lewiston area, according to a source briefed on the situation.
Thursday afternoon
Multiple law enforcement sources tell ABC News that investigators recovered a firearm from Card's abandoned vehicle when it was found late Wednesday.
Authorities are testing and tracing the gun to determine if it was involved in the shooting.
Around 5 p.m.
The FBI searches a home in Bowdoin, Maine, associated with the suspect, federal sources tell ABC News. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
For most losing political candidates, the months that follow defeat can be a time for reflection and dissection—time to pick apart what went wrong, to write a book, to secure a cushy gig as a cable-news contributor, or even to plot a comeback.
But for Mehmet Oz, it’s been a time to pretend his disappointing Senate campaign, and his newfound political ambitions altogether, never happened.
After a winter spent recuperating from his five-point loss to Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA)—and hidden from the internet legions that had gleefully dragged him for months—Oz is slowly re-emerging.
Gone is Oz the MAGA-acolyte partisan. Back is the famous, friendly TV doctor—or at least Oz hopes.
Instead of doing Fox News hits, Oz is once again working with HealthCorps, a teen-focused health nonprofit organization he founded well before his political career. He’s posting photos on social media and touting work that he says “has helped millions of teens thrive, to support our nation’s next generation.”
In February, when an earthquake wreaked havoc in Turkey—where Oz is a citizen—he traveled to the devastated area. It’s unclear what role he actually played in recovery efforts, but he did take several photos next to injured patients, sometimes showing off his stethoscope.
On his YouTube page, Oz has spent the past five months recirculating old clips of his television show, dropping one or two per weekday. Prior to his election loss, the page hadn’t posted anything since 2021. Now, it’s re-upping the classics of the genre, from “Causes And Cures For BLOATING!” to “Amazing Stories Of Animals Saving People” to “Are You Addicted To Fast Food?”
Judging by his and his family’s social media presences, it seems Oz isn’t worried about maintaining the Pennsylvania brand he tried, and largely failed, to cement during the campaign. For the most part, it appears he’s been morphing into a Florida man, spending time in his Palm Beach estate.
Nowhere to be found, however, is any indication is the same person who spent last year campaigning with Donald Trump, decrying the “failing economy, crime-ridden streets, and our energy crisis,” bashing transgender athletes, and vowing to fight “against the woke liberal mob.”
While other failed candidates from the 2022 cycle have toyed with running again—including Pennsylvania’s GOP gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano—Oz seems entirely uninterested.
Perhaps those candidates had less to lose.
Oz, a protégé of Oprah Winfrey, built a media empire and an array of connections with the rich and powerful. Soccer moms filled his studio audience and raved over his medical advice. It all made him a fortune, which he boosted with deep ties to the companies whose products he pushed.
In running a polarizing political campaign, Oz risked all of that. Now, it appears he’s trying to get it back.
Indeed, after the election, reports emerged that Oz attempted to restart his daytime show, which ended in January 2022, before he kicked off his Senate bid. But his jaunt into politics soiled his marketability with a mainstream audience.
Perhaps more importantly, his Senate run entailed months of scrutiny from the press, and Oz’s opponents, dissecting his more dubious medical claims and business practices, tarnishing his reputation further.
All 13 seasons of his show were also produced by Winfrey’s Harpo Productions. Winfrey endorsed Fetterman in November.
There’s another question looming over Oz’s pivot: whether he stayed in Pennsylvania. His conveniently timed move from New Jersey to Pennsylvania—which happened only when there was a Senate vacancy—became a key point of contention in his race.
Fetterman and Democrats repeatedly—and gleefully—attacked Oz as a carpetbagger and poser. At one point, Fetterman hired Snooki, of Jersey Shore fame, to call him out in a viral video. And the Democrat’s campaign spent months posting memes trolling Oz for the change in residence.
It’s difficult to discern how much time Oz has actually spent in Pennsylvania since the November election. In at least one post shared to his social media accounts in April, Oz showed himself visiting the Belmont Charter Network in Philadelphia as part of his work with HealthCorps.
But his family’s Instagram posts suggest he’s spent plenty of time away from the Keystone State. His daughter, Daphne Oz, posted photos this past Thanksgiving from the family’s now-famed New Jersey mansion, suggesting Oz himself was likely in attendance. His son, Oliver, posted a photo in early December from the same home.
This January, Oz posted a photo of himself visiting a Discovery senior living community. There are no Discovery senior living communities in Pennsylvania, or New Jersey, but there are more than a dozen in Florida, where Oz has another residence.
In March, Oz himself posted a photo celebrating St. Patrick’s Day from his Palm Beach mansion. And in April, Daphne, a health influencer in her own right, posted a photo that showed the family—including her father—spending time in the Florida residence, too
Oz has multiple mansions. He has 10 homes, in fact—eight of which he forgot about while running for Senate last year. During the campaign, he claimed to live in a $3 million home in an upscale Philadelphia suburb that he bought in late 2021.
The former candidate’s ties to Pennsylvania aren’t the only remnant of his campaign that seems to have disappeared: his campaign website is gone, too.
Oz used DoctorOz.com when he was a TV doctor to promote his show, before transforming it into his Senate campaign’s homepage. While it’s common for losing candidates to maintain websites long after the race ends, Oz’s site now redirects to his YouTube page to amplify more hit videos, like “The Buyer’s Guide To Rotisserie Chicken.”
Notably, other websites for losing 2022 candidates, like those of Herschel Walker, Blake Masters and Adam Laxalt, are still live. Others, like Mandela Barnes’, have been repurposed to fit the candidates’ current work.
Oz did not respond to a request for comment sent to HealthCorps’ media contact.
But even as Oz attempts to pivot back into the medical personality that built his fortune, onlookers aren’t always so receptive. While he still boasts fans in the comment sections who’ve lauded his semi-return to public life, many are still trolling the once-candidate with the same jokes that hung over his Senate run.
Below Oz’s most recent tweet showing off his trip to the Philadelphia charter school, one user simply said, “OMG are you grifting schools now?”
Another added, “Great, now GTFO back to NJ.” | US Federal Elections |
For yet another example of how out-of-control federal bureaucrats think they can stretch the law beyond recognition to meet their policy preferences, look no further than a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
The F-1 student visa program that allows foreigners to enter the country and study at American universities is the center of the case, Washington Alliance of Technology Workers v. Department of Homeland Security.
The Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 , is the law governing student visas and it’s very specific. It stipulates that the Department of Homeland Security can issue student visas to a “bona fide student qualified to pursue a full course of study” who “seeks to enter the United States temporarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing such a course of study” (emphasis added).
Yet despite the clear language of this provision that permits foreign students only to study in the U.S., DHS promulgated a new regulation in 2016. It amended similar, existing regulations first issued in 1992 to allow foreign students to remain and work in the country for up to a year after their studies end. DHS also allows students in science, technology, or engineering to work while remaining in the U.S. for an additional 24 months.
Thus, those foreign students may remain working in the U.S.—and taking jobs away from American graduates—for up to 36 months after they complete their university degrees. The Washington Alliance of Technology Workers sued unsuccessfully to protect America’s own tech workforce.
Keep in mind: Not only does such an extension of time for foreign students directly violate the explicit language of the applicable statute on student visas, it also violates the applicable statute under which aliens can be granted permission to work. That statute provides a specific list of aliens who may be issued work permits, and these students are not on that list.
Yet the majority of judges on the D.C. Circuit decided to allow DHS to continue this flawed visa program, created out of whole cloth by the administrative state rather than Congress, through a fundamentally unreasonable misinterpretation of applicable immigration law. A misinterpretation that benefits aliens at the expense of U.S. citizens.
As the two dissenting judges, Neomi Rao and Karen Henderson, point out, Congress passed “detailed statutory requirements for work visas” that “reflect political judgments balancing the competing interests of employers and American workers.” Furthermore, they note, the Department of Homeland Security now has been given “virtually unchecked authority to extend the terms of an alien’s stay in the United States,” an authority Congress never granted the agency.
In essence, the appeals court is affirming DHS’ defiance of federal immigration law and approving its violation of the law that Congress intended to constrain the agency.
Rao and Henderson dissented from the D.C. Circuit’s refusal to grant en banc review by all of the circuit’s judges of the erroneous decision by a three-judge panel in favor of DHS’ misinterpretation of the law. Henderson authored a dissent in that panel decision, too.
Those detailed statutory requirements are “incompatible with assuming a broad delegation to DHS” to give work visas to any aliens its bureaucrats decide should get to work in the U.S. As Henderson points out in her dissent in the panel decision, no “plausible textual basis” exists for the agency to assert it has the power “to allow student visa holders to remain in the country and work long after their student status has lapsed.”
Rao and Henderson get it exactly right when they say that regardless of whether the Department of Homeland Security’s action is a “good policy for retaining high-skilled graduates who will further innovation and economic development … neither [DHS] nor this court is authorized to rewrite the immigration laws established by Congress.”
The “good policy” argument doesn’t fly anyway, because the only thing that three additional years of allowing aliens to work in the U.S. after completing university studies does is 1) take jobs away from American graduates, particularly in science and technology and 2) give those aliens even more experience with technology that they can take home to hostile nations such as Communist China to be used to compete with and undercut American industry.
The court decision upholding the DHS regulation, Rao and Henderson write, is “inconsistent with the detailed nonimmigrant visa program which precisely specifies who may enter and for what purposes.”
What makes this decision even worse, the two judges write, is that the flawed reasoning of the D.C. Circuit can apply not just to the student visas that were the subject of the litigation, but “extends DHS authority to confer valuable benefits to all nonimmigrant holders.”
In other words, the Department of Homeland Security will be able to wipe out, bureaucratically, all of the restrictions that Congress has placed on all other visas in federal immigration law.
Hopefully, the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers will appeal this case to the Supreme Court. The immigration statutes involved aren’t ambiguous; they are clear and straightforward.
It is obvious that DHS is violating the plain language of those statutes by allowing foreign students to stay and work here after they complete their studies. Well, obvious to everyone except the bureaucrats at DHS and a majority of judges on the D.C. Circuit.
That appeal also could be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to kill or substantially limit the so-called Chevron Doctrine. Under that principle, established by the high court in the 1984 case Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council , courts should give “deference” to a federal agency’s interpretation of statutes it administers.
Federal agencies, just like the Department of Homeland Security in this case, have used this deference to engage in activities and to issue regulations that go far beyond the statutory authority they were granted by Congress. That deference—unchecked by the courts—gives unelected bureaucrats virtual lawmaking power through the regulatory process. It poses a threat to our constitutional form of government.
It’s time for the Supreme Court finally to do something about this threat.
This article originally appeared in the Daily Signal and is reprinted with kind permission from the Heritage Foundation. | US Circuit and Appeals Courts |
Fetterman discharged from hospital, will return to Senate after recess
Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) was discharged from Walter Reed National Military Medical Center on Friday, after spending several weeks receiving in-patient treatment for depression.
“I am extremely grateful to the incredible team at Walter Reed,” Fetterman said in a statement. “The care they provided changed my life. I will have more to say about this soon, but for now I want everyone to know that depression is treatable, and treatment works.”
“This isn’t about politics — right now there are people who are suffering with depression in red counties and blue counties,” he continued. “If you need help, please get help.”
The Pennsylvania senator will spend the next two weeks back home in the Keystone State while the Senate is in recess and will return to Washington, D.C., when the session resumes on April 17, his office said.
“I am so happy to be home. I’m excited to be the father and husband I want to be, and the senator Pennsylvania deserves. Pennsylvanians have always had my back, and I will always have theirs,” Fetterman added.
Fetterman’s depression is now in remission, according to Dr. David Williamson, the neuropsychiatrist at Walter Reed who oversaw the senator’s treatment.
He presented with “severe symptoms” of depression when he was first admitted to Walter Reed for treatment in mid-February, including “low energy and motivation, minimal speech, poor sleep, slowed thinking, slowed movement, feelings of guilt and worthlessness,” Williamson said in a discharge briefing provided by the senator’s office.
Fetterman had also reportedly stopped eating and taking fluids, leading to low blood pressure and “potentially affecting brain circulation,” Williamson also noted.
His mood “steadily improved” throughout his six weeks of treatment, and he was also fitted for hearing aids after the doctors identified mild to moderate sensorineural hearing loss on both sides.
“With improvement in his depression, improvement in the patient’s speech abilities was noticeable,” Williamson said, adding, “His depression, now resolved, may have been a barrier to engagement.”
The Pennsylvania senator suffered a stroke shortly before the Democratic primary last May that has resulted in ongoing auditory processing issues.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Congress |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Kate Brumback, Associated Press
Kate Brumback, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
ATLANTA (AP) — A federal judge who rejected efforts by former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows to move his charges in the Georgia election subversion case to federal court is set to hear arguments on Monday from former Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark on the same issue.
Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has accused Clark and Meadows, along with former President Donald Trump and 16 others, of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to overturn Democrat Joe Biden’s presidential election victory and keep the Republican Trump in power. The 41-count indictment includes charges under the state’s anti-racketeering law. All 19 defendants have pleaded not guilty.
Clark is one of five defendants seeking to move his case to federal court. U.S. District Judge Steve Jones, who will preside over Monday’s hearing, rejected Meadows’ attempt for removal earlier this month, saying the actions outlined in the indictment were taken on behalf of the Trump campaign and were not part of his official duties. While the ruling could signal an uphill battle for Clark and the others, Jones made clear he would assess each case individually.
READ MORE: What you need to know about Jeffrey Clark’s 2020 election charges
The practical effects of moving to federal court would be a jury pool that includes a broader area than just overwhelmingly Democratic Fulton County and a trial that would not be photographed or televised, as cameras are not allowed inside federal courtrooms. But it would not open the door for Trump, if he’s reelected in 2024, or another president to issue pardons because any conviction would still happen under state law.
The indictment says Clark wrote a letter after the November 2020 election that said the Justice Department had “identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia” and asked top department officials to sign it and send it to Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp and state legislative leaders. Clark knew at the time that that statement was false, the indictment alleges.
In a court filing seeking to move the charges against him to federal court from Fulton County Superior Court, lawyers for Clark argued that the actions outlined in the indictment “relate directly to his work at the Justice Department as well as with the former President of the United States.” Clark was the assistant attorney general overseeing the environment and natural resources division and was the acting assistant attorney general over the civil division at the time.
“Indeed, the State has no authority whatsoever to criminalize advice given to the President by a senior Justice Department official concerning U.S. Department of Justice law enforcement policy based on a County District Attorney’s disagreement with the substance or development of that advice,” Clark’s lawyers wrote.
They accused Willis, a Democrat, of persecuting political rivals: “It is not a good-faith prosecution; it is a political ‘hit job’ stretched out across 98 pages to convey the false impression that it has heft and gravity.”
Prosecutors argued that Clark’s two roles gave him no authority over elections or criminal investigations.
He was told by top department officials that the central claim in his letter was false, that he didn’t have authority to make that claim and that it was outside the department’s role, prosecutors wrote in their response. Richard Donoghue, the acting deputy attorney general, told him the letter “amounted to ‘nothing less than the Department meddling in the outcome of a presidential election.'”
The law allowing federal officers to move a case to federal court “is designed to protect legitimate federal authority from state and local interference, not to afford a federal forum to individuals who blatantly sought to misuse the weight of federal authority to interfere with matters of state control,” prosecutors wrote.
Meadows, who is appealing Jones’ ruling, took the stand and testified for nearly four hours last month, answering questions from his own lawyer, a prosecutor and the judge. He talked about his duties as Trump’s last chief of staff and sometimes struggled to recall the details of the two months following the election.
It’s unclear whether Clark will also choose to testify. His lawyers on Thursday filed a 10-page sworn statement from Clark outlining his service in the Justice Department, perhaps as a substitute for having him testify and subject himself to questioning by prosecutors.
Clark was also identified as one of six unnamed co-conspirators in an indictment filed by special counsel Jack Smith charging Trump with seeking to illegally overturn the results of the 2020 election and block the peaceful transfer of power to Biden. He has not been charged in that case.
Federal agents searched Clark’s Virginia home in the summer of 2022, and video emerged of him standing in his driveway, handcuffed and wearing no pants.
Support Provided By:
Learn more | US Political Corruption |
Donald Trump has long attacked Joe Biden, his likely opponent at the polls next year, as “Sleepy Joe”, portraying the 80-year-old president as too old and too mentally fogged to occupy the Oval Office. As recently as Friday, the former president attacked his successor for being unfit to deal with Russia and the threat of nuclear war.
But Trump’s tactics rebounded when he said Biden threatened to lead the US into “world war two” – and suggested that he, Trump, thought he had beaten Barack Obama for the presidency back in 2016.
There have been two world wars. The first ended in 1918, the second in 1945. The cold war, the nuclear stand-off between the US and the Soviet Union that often threatened a third world war, ended with the fall of the communist regime in Moscow in 1991.
Obama was president, and Biden vice-president, from 2009 to 2017. In the 2016 election, Trump beat Hillary Clinton.
Mockery of Trump’s stumbles was immediate and sustained. But it also pointed to an increasingly stark issue on both sides of the aisle: the advanced age of many American leaders, and polling that shows most voters want generational change.
At 80, Biden is the oldest president ever. Should he win re-election and serve a full term, he will be 86 on leaving office. Polling has shown more than 75% of Americans think he is too old for a second term.
Trump is 77 but polls show significantly fewer voters think he is too old to return to power. Whether gaffes like those he made in Washington move the needle remains, of course, to be seen.
Addressing the Pray, Vote, Stand summit, a rightwing event, Trump said Biden was “cognitively impaired, in no condition to lead and … now in charge of dealing with Russia and possible nuclear war”.
Under Biden, he added: “We would be in world war two.”
On Monday, the MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman, laughed as he said: “It’s almost like it’s the summer of 1939 all over again. You know, [Trump’s] father’s going to a Nazi rally or something, or a Klan rally. I don’t know which rally he did or didn’t go to.”
“But yeah,” Scarborough said. “You think they may want to take out the ‘cognitively impaired’ part of his speeches from now on.”
Jonathan Lemire, his fellow host, said: “That’s an attack line the Republicans and Trump love to use [against Biden] but, man, that does seem like he was looking in the mirror just there.
“I mean … we see these polls that suggest that voters are more concerned about President Biden’s age than Donald Trump’s age. Trump is only three years younger and anyone watching Trump day in, day out says he’s changed too.”
Biden says he is fit to serve. So does Trump, telling NBC in an interview broadcast on Sunday “there should be a competency” test for presidents, of the sort he “aced” while in the White House. That prompted memories of previous national mirth, when in summer 2020 Trump, then 74, bragged about successfully recognising “person, woman, man, camera, TV” in a cognitive exam.
But, again, the issue remains a serious one.
Democrats protest that disproportionate attention is paid to Biden’s age than that of Trump. Last week, Chuck Rocha, a Democratic strategist, told CBS News: “Joe Biden is getting older, we all know that. But the other guy he’s probably going to be running against is getting older, too. And in the focus groups that I’m doing, old and steady still beats old and crazy.”
Nonetheless, on Sunday, a new poll from CBS and YouGov said only 34% of voters thought Biden would complete a second term if elected. Asked the same question about Trump, 55% said they thought he would complete a full four years.
Asked if the two men had the necessary mental and cognitive health to be president, 26% said only Biden did, 44% said only Trump did and 23% said neither did.
Ninety-one criminal charges and assorted civil lawsuits notwithstanding, Trump leads Republican polling by wide margins. His challengers have made age and cognitive ability an issue but such is Trump’s dominance, they have mostly directed their fire at Biden.
Ron DeSantis, the hard-right Florida governor who is a distant second to Trump, said last week age was “absolutely a legitimate concern” when electing a president.
“The presidency’s not a job for someone that’s 80 years old,” DeSantis told CBS.
He did not say if he thought the same about someone who was 77, and who the former Republican party chair Michael Steele called a “dumbass”, over his Washington remarks.
But DeSantis added: “Obviously, I’m the governor of Florida, I know a lot of people who are elderly, they’re great people, but you’re talking about a job where you need to give it 100%, we need an energetic president.”
Concern about the age of many US party leaders has spread beyond the presidency, particularly given public health scares suffered by Mitch McConnell, the 81-year-old Republican leader in the Senate, and Dianne Feinstein, the 90-year-old Democratic senator from California.
DeSantis said: “I think that if the founders could kind of look at this again, I do think they probably would’ve put an age limit on some of these offices.” | US Federal Elections |
Welcome to the 2024 Republican primary field, Nikki Haley! Here’s who else you will probably be up against in your quest for the White House:
First of all, there’s Donald Trump. Not only has he already declared his run, but poll after poll indicate he’s the frontrunner among potential GOP contenders. Consider him the final boss of this election’s Republican primary – but as any video gamer knows, your last adversary isn’t always the most difficult to overcome. The former president, after all, has no shortage of liabilities.
There’s also Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is so widely expected to run that Trump has already started attacking him. He’ll campaign on taking his divisive culture wars legislation national, while touting the southern state as an economic success story.
Republican senator Tim Scott is expected to soon announce his own bid for the White House, bringing the number of South Carolinians in the GOP’s field to two. And don’t forget about Mike Pence. The former vice-president may have fallen out with Trump, but he’s betting the Republican rank and file will give him a second chance.
Who else? Speculation is endless, but other good bets are Trump’s former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, senator Ted Cruz and perhaps Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin.
Senators don’t have particularly high expectations for this morning’s classified briefing on UFOs, Punchbowl News reports.
“I hope they can say more than that this wasn’t an alien invasion,” John Thune, the number-two Republican in the Senate, told the publication.
That said, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree they want more details from the Biden administration on what American jets shot down over the past few days. Mark Warner, the Democratic leader of the Senate intelligence committee, said he was “not satisfied yet” with the information released to him. The committee’s top Republican Marco Rubio said much the same.
“It’s impossible to make an assessment because there’s virtually no information available beyond what you’ve already seen publicly reported. And it’s just not a sustainable position. I will tell you, this is not usual. You don’t shoot things down over American airspace. We’ve never done that before. And we’ve done it four times in the last eight days,” he said, according to Punchbowl.
Anyway, enough about Pence and Trump; let’s talk about UFOs. We still don’t know what the three objects American planes shot down over the continent in the past days were, though the White House said they were not extraterrestrial in nature. Senators from both parties are clamoring for details, and will receive a classified briefing on the topic today. Meanwhile, the Guardian’s Richard Luscombe reports the navy has managed to recover quite a bit of a Chinese spy balloon shot down earlier this month off South Carolina’s coast:
The US military has recovered “significant debris” from a suspected Chinese surveillance balloon shot down this month, the Pentagon has said, after the White House claimed China had been operating a high-altitude balloon program spying on the US and its allies for many years.
The US Northern Command said in a statement: “Crews have been able to recover significant debris from the site, including all of the priority sensor and electronics pieces identified as well as large sections of the structure.”
The balloon, shot down off the coast of South Carolina on 4 February, was the first of a series of mysterious objects shot down by the US military over an eight-day period in North American airspace.
Mike Pence may have fallen out with Donald Trump, but he hasn’t escaped the swirl of investigations surrounding his former boss.
Last week, special counsel Jack Smithsubpoenaed Pence as part of his investigation into Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election, as well as the classified material found at Mar-a-Lago.
Politico reports today that Pence intends to challenge the summons, using a unique legal theory that might actually work:
Pence allies say he is covered by the constitutional provision that protects congressional officials from legal proceedings related to their work — language known as the “speech or debate” clause. The clause, Pence allies say, legally binds federal prosecutors from compelling Pence to testify about the central components of Smith’s investigation. If Pence testifies, they say, it could jeopardize the separation of powers that the Constitution seeks to safeguard.
“He thinks that the ‘speech or debate’ clause is a core protection for Article I, for the legislature,” said one of the two people familiar with Pence’s thinking, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss his legal strategy. “He feels it really goes to the heart of some separation of powers issues. He feels duty-bound to maintain that protection, even if it means litigating it.”
Pence’s planned argument comes on the heels of an FBI search of two of his homes after his attorney voluntarily reported classified material in his home last month — drawing him into a thicket of document-handling drama that’s also ensnared Trump and President Joe Biden. While Pence aides say he’s taking this position to defend a separation of powers principle, it will allow him to avoid being seen as cooperating with a probe that is politically damaging to Trump, who remains the leading figure in the Republican Party.
Pence is preparing to launch a presidential campaign against his onetime boss. Aides expect the former vice president to address the subpoena — and his plans to respond it — during a visit to Iowa on Wednesday.
But regardless of its political consequences, the argument from Pence’s camp means Smith could be in for a legal mess.
That’s because the legal question of whether the vice president draws the same “speech-or-debate” protections as members of Congress remains largely unsettled, and constitutional scholars say Pence raising the issue will almost certainly force a court to weigh in. That could take months.
How do you know if someone might be running for president? When they head to Iowa. And that’s exactly where Mike Pence is going.
The former vice-president will be in Cedar Rapids on Wednesday, where he’ll rally with the community against policies “that indoctrinate children and attempt to strip parents of their rights,” according to his conservative non-profit Advancing American Freedom. But first, Pence will travel to Minneapolis, where he “will deliver remarks on defending parents’ rights and combatting the Radical Left’s indoctrination of children.”
Travel to Iowa is closely watched because it’s the first state to vote in the Republican primary process. The eventual nominee doesn’t always win the state, but it certainly helps.
For those not in the know about Nikki Haley, let the Guardian’s Ramon Antonio Vargas answer all your questions:
Former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley is challenging her one-time boss for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, according to a video she released Tuesday.
“I’m Nikki Haley, and I’m running for president,” Donald Trump’s former United Nations ambassador said in the video.
The 51-year-old’s run – which was widely expected – breaks a promise she made two years ago to not challenge the ex-Republican president for the Oval Office. But she had indicated recently that she would go back on her word, arguing that the country’s economy was too distressed for her to stand by and that it needed a new generation of leaders – Democratic incumbent Joe Biden is 80, and Trump is 76.
As of Tuesday morning, no other major Republican candidate beside Trump and Haley had announced bids aiming to unseat Biden, who has said he intends to seek a second four-year term.
Other Republicans who are expected to eventually join the fray include Ron DeSantis, Florida’s governor, Mike Pence, Trump’s former vice-president, Mike Pompeo, ex-secretary of state, and South Carolina Senator Tim Scott.
Welcome to the 2024 Republican primary field, Nikki Haley! Here’s who else you will probably be up against in your quest for the White House:
First of all, there’s Donald Trump. Not only has he already declared his run, but poll after poll indicate he’s the frontrunner among potential GOP contenders. Consider him the final boss of this election’s Republican primary – but as any video gamer knows, your last adversary isn’t always the most difficult to overcome. The former president, after all, has no shortage of liabilities.
There’s also Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who is so widely expected to run that Trump has already started attacking him. He’ll campaign on taking his divisive culture wars legislation national, while touting the southern state as an economic success story.
Republican senator Tim Scott is expected to soon announce his own bid for the White House, bringing the number of South Carolinians in the GOP’s field to two. And don’t forget about Mike Pence. The former vice-president may have fallen out with Trump, but he’s betting the Republican rank and file will give him a second chance.
Who else? Speculation is endless, but other good bets are Trump’s former secretary of state Mike Pompeo, senator Ted Cruz and perhaps Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin.
Trump’s 2024 competition heats up as Haley jumps into race
Good morning, US politics blog readers. She was once Donald Trump’s point woman at the United Nations, and since leaving his administration has managed to carve out a niche unique among Republicans: not his sidekick, but not his enemy, either. We’ll see if Nikki Haley can continue threading that needle after her announcement today that she is running for president in 2024, a decision that puts her in direct competition with her former boss, who is vying for another stint in the White House. In the coming weeks, Haley and Trump are expected to be joined by more contenders, including senator Tim Scott and former vice-president Mike Pence.
Here’s what else is happening today:
Senators are getting a classified briefing this morning about the UFOs American jets shot down from the continent’s skies. The Biden administration hasn’t said much about just what was cruising over US and Canadian airspace.
Joe Biden will address the National Association of Counties’s meeting in Washington at 1.15pm eastern time. Will he discuss UFOs with the officials? Probably not but one can always hope.
The Senate convenes at 10am, and lawmakers are expected to approve Biden’s 100th nominee to the federal judiciary. | US Federal Elections |
Many Republicans have stood against Donald Trump. Few have succeeded.Liz Cheney will now be the latest to try, looking to capitalize on her conservative voting record, her vice-chairmanship of the January 6 committee and of course her father’s time as vice-president under Republican George W. Bush.Trump remains the favorite among Republicans for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination, and undoing that would require Cheney to convince the GOP to abandon the viewpoints and policies he brought into the mainstream when he won the White House in 2016. It’s a tough ask, and no shortage of Republicans have failed in the past. Just ask the eight House Republicans who voted for Trump’s impeachment but then were ousted by voters or opted to retire, or the various party fathers and moderates who begged the GOP not to back Trump, only to be bowled over by the will of the electorate.Why is Cheney doing it? As she said in her concession speech last night, “A few years ago, I won this primary with 73 percent of the vote. I could easily have done the same again. The path was clear, but it would have required that I go along with President Trump’s lie about the 2020 election… That was a path I could not and would not take.”Politico’s Playbook has another theory. Cheney won’t have much competition in the Trump-hating space, they write, with the GOP more or less in his grips and Democrats split over how big of a deal to make of him among their voters. “So rather than a kamikaze mission, her primary loss may have been more like parachuting out of a plane that had outlived its usefulness. Her great task now is figuring out where to land,” Playbook says.Key events10m agoThe day so far2h agoPence 'would consider' talking to January 6 committee - but with caveats3h agoCourt allows Biden administration to again pause oil and gas leases on federal land4h agoAfter primary loss, Liz Cheney aims for new job: Trump foe-in-chiefShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureThe day so farYesterday’s elections in Wyoming and Alaska have ousted Liz Cheney from her House seat while giving Sarah Palin a shot at getting her own spot in the chamber. But Cheney has vowed to keep fighting Donald Trump and his allies, a task at which many before her have failed.Here’s a rundown of what has happened so far today: Former vice-president Mike Pence signaled a degree of openness to talking to the January 6 committee, though with several caveats. Rudy Giuliani has appeared before a special grand jury in Atlanta that is investigating attempts to meddle with the state’s election results in 2020. He has been told he is a target of the investigation. The memoir of Trump’s son-in-law and former White House adviser Jared Kushner was torn apart by The New York Times’ book reviewer. A court ruling allowed the Biden administration to again pause new oil and gas drilling leases on federal land. While Alaska’s elections were held yesterday, it may take till the end of the month to determine the winner of closely fought races, such as the special election for the state’s vacant House of Representatives seat.According to the Anchorage Daily News, “As of 2 a.m. Wednesday, the Alaska Division of Elections had counted over 150,000 ballots in the race that will determine Alaska’s next representative in Congress, in a special election to replace 49-year Rep. Don Young, who died unexpectedly in March. The Division will continue to accept ballots until Aug. 31, as long as they were postmarked on or before election day. Once the last ballots are counted — if no candidate crosses the 50% threshold needed to win under the state’s new ranked choice voting system — the candidate in last place will be eliminated and the second-place votes of that candidate’s supporters will be redistributed.”Sarah Palin may nearing a return to the national political stage, Maanvi Singh reports, after Alaska voters gave her decent support in last night’s special election:Sarah Palin looks set to be on the ballot in November’s general election after the former governor of Alaska and ex vice-presidential candidate clinched one of four spots vying for a seat in the US House, according to the Associated Press.Palin, who rose to fame more than a decade ago as John McCain’s running mate, advanced to the general election along with her two challengers, Nick Begich III, a tech millionaire backed by the Alaska Republican party, and Mary Peltola, a former state legislator and Democrat. It was too early to call the fourth spot.Palin, Peltola and Begich are competing for Alaska’s only House seat, formerly occupied by Don Young, who died in March. The trio were also competing in a special election to serve the remainder of Young’s term, which ends early next year.“This book is like a tour of a once majestic 18th-century wooden house, now burned to its foundations, that focuses solely on, and rejoices in, what’s left amid the ashes: the two singed bathtubs, the gravel driveway and the mailbox.” That’s a line in a New York Times review of a Trump administration official’s newly published memoir. But whose?The answer: Jared Kushner.The literary savaging of “Breaking History”, the memoir of Donald Trump’s son-in-law who became one of his closest White House advisers, was carried out by Times literary critic Dwight Garner, who is clearly no fan of the former president’s policies. “Kushner almost entirely ignores the chaos, the alienation of allies, the breaking of laws and norms, the flirtations with dictators, the comprehensive loss of America’s moral leadership, and so on, ad infinitum, to speak about his boyish tinkering (the “mechanic”) with issues he was interested in,” Garner writes.The reviewer however finds plenty of issues with the book’s content and prose irrespective of its politics, concluding that it ultimately contains so little meaningful insights into the Trump administration as to be uninteresting to just about every party that would want to read it.“You finish ‘Breaking History’ wondering: Who is this book for? There’s not enough red meat for the MAGA crowd, and Kushner has never appealed to them anyway. Political wonks will be interested — maybe, to a limited degree — but this material is more thoroughly and reliably covered elsewhere. He’s a pair of dimples without a demographic,” Garner says.Here’s the latest on Liz Cheney’s primary defeat and plans for political rebirth, from David Smith on the ground in Jackson, Wyoming along with Richard Luscombe and Joanna Walters: Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney has announced she is considering her own run for the White House in an all-out effort to prevent Donald Trump from winning another term as US president.Cheney decisively lost her Republican primary race on Tuesday night and will lose her seat in the US Congress.The Trump-backed challenger Harriet Hageman beat Cheney by almost 40 points as Wyoming voters took revenge for her voting to impeach Trump and for focusing on her role on the January 6 House select committee.The panel, of which Cheney is vice-chair and one of only two Republicans, is investigating Trump’s role in fomenting the insurrection at the US Capitol by his supporters on 6 January 2021, in a vain attempt to stay in office following his defeat by Joe Biden.Liz Cheney was praised on MSNBC this morning by, of all people, White House chief of staff Ron Klain.“I don’t think there was anything we agree on,” said Klain, who was tasked by Joe Biden with getting his legislative proposals through Congress. “But, I respect enormously her commitment to democracy.”.@WHCOS Ron Klain commends Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) for upholding her oath to the Constitution, instead of swearing "fealty" to Donald Trump:"I respect enormously [Liz Cheney's] commitment to democracy ... instead of her commitment to one man." pic.twitter.com/wIKog8CyQQ— The Recount (@therecount) August 17, 2022
Pence 'would consider' talking to January 6 committee - but with caveatsA closer look at former vice-president Mike Pence’s remarks about testifying before the January 6 committee indicates Donald Trump’s one-time White House deputy would indeed entertain the request, but also has concerns about the constitutional implications.Here’s a full video of his comments:Former Vice President Mike Pence when asked if he would cooperate if the January 6th committee called on him to testify:“If there was an invitation to participate, I would consider it.” pic.twitter.com/y9NFrHwYtf— The Recount (@therecount) August 17, 2022
The Inflation Reduction Act signed yesterday was another major part of the Biden administration’s climate plan, and includes a slew of new tax incentives to encourage green investments, Oliver Milman reports:The giant climate bill signed by Joe Biden on Tuesday is set to touch upon myriad aspects of Americans’ lives, helping shape everything from the cars they drive to the stovetops in their kitchens.Biden has lauded the $369bn of climate spending in the Inflation Reduction Act as the “largest investment ever in combatting the existential crisis of climate change” and predicted it will save people hundreds of dollars each year in energy costs. This claim is based upon a series of investments aimed at shifting buying habits away from a polluting status quo towards cleaner, electrified vehicles and appliances.A US household could save $1,800 on their energy costs each year, according to a recent estimate, although this would require the installation of electric heat pumps for hot water and air conditioning, replacing a gasoline-powered car with an electric vehicle and installing solar panels on the roof.Court allows Biden administration to again pause oil and gas leases on federal landA Louisiana judge has allowed the Biden administration to reinstate a pause on new oil and gas leases on federal land, in a win for the White House’s climate policy, Reuters reports.The order by a judge in the fifth circuit court of appeals overturns a previous lower court ruling that blocked the pause, which Joe Biden announced in the opening days of his administration. Earlier this year, the interior department began selling new onshore oil and natural gas drilling leases while the case made its way through court.Mild tidbit of news from Mike Pence during his appearance in New Hampshire, as reported by Politico:Former VP Mike Pence says if there was an invitation to testify before the Jan. 6 committee, "I would consider it." #nhpolitics— Lisa Kashinsky (@lisakashinsky) August 17, 2022
Pence isn’t known to have talked to the committee. However, his name has been all over the public hearings, which have featured in-person and videotaped testimony from people close to Trump’s vice-president about what he was doing in the days before the attack on the Capitol, and during the assault, when he had to flee to a hidden area. Meanwhile, Pence’s former chief of staff has spoken to a grand jury investigating the assault.Donald Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani has arrived at an Atlanta court for his appearance before a special grand jury investigating the effort to overturn the state’s 2020 election results.He was greeted by something of a media circus:Rudy Giuliani has arrived at the Fulton County Courthouse to testify in grand jury proceedings looking into interference in the 2020 election results. @cbs46 pic.twitter.com/6mAC7AdcNQ— Madeline Montgomery (@MadelineTV) August 17, 2022
Rudy Giuliani arrives at the Fulton County Courthouse, with a mob of cameras and reporters following his entrance, as he is set to testify behind closed doors in a special grand jury probe. He is a target of the investigation. #gapol pic.twitter.com/64BWdHcKVT— stephen fowler (@stphnfwlr) August 17, 2022
Giuliani’s appearance will not be public, but Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis, who convened the special grand jury, has informed the one-time New York City mayor he is a target of the investigation. Giuliani made repeated efforts to convince state officials that Georgia’s 2020 election results were fraudulent, but none of the allegations were ever found to have substance. Many Republicans have stood against Donald Trump. Few have succeeded.Liz Cheney will now be the latest to try, looking to capitalize on her conservative voting record, her vice-chairmanship of the January 6 committee and of course her father’s time as vice-president under Republican George W. Bush.Trump remains the favorite among Republicans for the party’s 2024 presidential nomination, and undoing that would require Cheney to convince the GOP to abandon the viewpoints and policies he brought into the mainstream when he won the White House in 2016. It’s a tough ask, and no shortage of Republicans have failed in the past. Just ask the eight House Republicans who voted for Trump’s impeachment but then were ousted by voters or opted to retire, or the various party fathers and moderates who begged the GOP not to back Trump, only to be bowled over by the will of the electorate.Why is Cheney doing it? As she said in her concession speech last night, “A few years ago, I won this primary with 73 percent of the vote. I could easily have done the same again. The path was clear, but it would have required that I go along with President Trump’s lie about the 2020 election… That was a path I could not and would not take.”Politico’s Playbook has another theory. Cheney won’t have much competition in the Trump-hating space, they write, with the GOP more or less in his grips and Democrats split over how big of a deal to make of him among their voters. “So rather than a kamikaze mission, her primary loss may have been more like parachuting out of a plane that had outlived its usefulness. Her great task now is figuring out where to land,” Playbook says.After primary loss, Liz Cheney aims for new job: Trump foe-in-chiefGood morning, US politics blog readers. Last night, Republican voters rejected Liz Cheney’s bid to continue serving as their congresswoman, meaning she has only the remainder of the year left in the House of Representatives. She will continue in the highly public role of vice-chair of the January 6 committee, but this morning, Cheney said she is thinking about a run for presidency in 2024 – putting her in a position to compete directly against Donald Trump, a fellow Republican whom she loathes.We’re certain to hear more about that today, but here’s what else is happening: In Alaska, ex-governor Sarah Palin advanced in the special election to fill the state’s open house seat, giving the one-time vice-presidential nominee a shot at returning to national politics. Voters will make their final decision in November. Former vice-president Mike Pence – who also fell out with Trump – is in New Hampshire, another state where voters are known as early kingmakers for aspiring presidential candidates. Indeed, Pence has hinted he may run in 2024. The Biden administration will attempt a victory lap following the signing of the Inflation Reduction Act yesterday, the Democrats’ landmark spending plan to fight climate change and lower health care costs. However Joe Biden himself is on vacation in Delaware. | US Federal Elections |
‘Shocked and sickened’: Biden condemns killing of 6-year-old Muslim boy
“This horrific act of hate has no place in America,” Biden said.
President Joe Biden said he was “shocked and sickened” by the killing of a 6-year-old Muslim boy in Illinois on Sunday that the Department of Justice is investigating as a federal hate crime.
“This horrific act of hate has no place in America, and stands against our fundamental values: freedom from fear for how we pray, what we believe, and who we are,” Biden said in a statement Sunday night.
“As Americans, we must come together and reject Islamophobia and all forms of bigotry and hatred,” Biden continued. “ I have said repeatedly that I will not be silent in the face of hate. We must be unequivocal. There is no place in America for hate against anyone.”
On Saturday, a 71-year-old Illinois man fatally stabbed a 6-year-old boy and seriously wounded his 32-year-old mother, targeting the pair for their Muslim faith amid the ongoing fighting between Israel and Hamas, according to police.
The boy, Wadea Al-Fayoume, was stabbed 26 times and pronounced dead at the hospital, according to the sheriff’s office. His mother was also stabbed several times but is expected to recover.
The suspect, Joseph M. Czuba, was charged with first-degree murder, attempted first-degree murder, two counts of hate crimes and aggravated battery with a deadly weapon, according to the sheriff’s office.
The Justice Department announced Sunday night that it has opened a federal hate crime investigation into the events leading to the death of Al-Fayoume and the injuries suffered by his mother. Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was “heartbroken by the abhorrent killing.”
Following the start of the war, police in U.S. cities and federal authorities have been on high alert for violence driven by antisemitic or Islamophobic sentiments. DOJ said the incident “cannot help but further raise the fears of Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian communities in our country with regard to hate-fueled violence.”
Illinois lawmakers also expressed condolences and condemned the killing late Sunday night. Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker called the killing “nothing short of evil.”
“Every individual deserves to feel secure in their community, their school, their grocery store, their mosque, synagogue, temple, or church,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on X, formerly known as Twitter. “But these hate crimes don’t happen in a vacuum. We must all stand united and speak out against hate.”
“I’m disgusted by this horrific violent hate crime that targeted an innocent Illinois mother and child because they are Muslim,” Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) said on X. “I condemn the barbaric, cold-blooded murder of six year old Wadea Al-Fayoume and hope the bigoted attacker is brought to justice.” | US Federal Policies |
On Thursday, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes asked McCaskill about new surveys of New Jersey Democratic voters. Just 5% of respondents in one poll said they would vote for Menendez in a future primary contest; 9% said they would in another poll.
“This is the way it’s supposed to work,” said McCaskill, a political analyst for MSNBC and NBC News. “I mean, one party, you have people who want the norms of ethical behavior and the respect for the rule of law, and, frankly, the sense that whether he did something legal or not, what’s in that indictment makes him unattractive to vote for as a United States senator.”
“On the other hand, you’ve got a guy indicted” on 91 felony counts, she continued, pointing to Trump’s four criminal indictments, “and his party wants to bring him back to the Capitol and have him in charge of the only part of government they control.”
Trump is making a bid for the presidency again even though he’s been charged with allegedly attempting a coup, falsifying business records, mishandling classified documents and conspiring to overturn Georgia’s election results.
Both Menendez and Trump deny all wrongdoing.
But lawmakers and voters from their respective parties have responded very differently to the criminal allegations. More than half of Menendez’s colleagues in the Senate have called for his resignation.
Meanwhile, Trump is the front-runner in the GOP presidential race, polling at over 50% to win the party’s nomination.
A majority of his opponents said they would still back him as nominee even if he’s convicted.
Several members of the House Republican conference have in recent days proposed installing Trump as House speaker following Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s ouster.
Watch McCaskill’s commentary on MSNBC below. | US Federal Elections |
Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp vetoed a bill on Tuesday that would have restricted tuition increases at public universities and colleges in the state without the approval of the General Assembly.
House Bill 319 was amended by senators on the final day of the legislative session to prohibit the University System of Georgia's universities and colleges from raising tuition or fees by more than 3% from the year before, which the governor called an infringement on the authority of the state Board of Regents and a violation of the state constitution.
Kemp said the proposed cap could not be implemented without Georgians voting for a constitutional amendment limiting the powers of the Board of Regents.
"The Georgia Constitution makes plain the authority to govern, control, and manage the University System and all system institutions is vested in the Board of Regents," he wrote in a statement.
The Board of Regents oversees the University System of Georgia.
"Because of the constitutional reservation of authority in the Board of Regents, the legislation cannot be adopted without the approval of Georgians through exercise of their franchise," Kemp added.
The measure intended to address a disagreement in which senators pushed the idea of a $66 million cut to USG's teaching budget, which comes out of a total budget of $9 billion that includes state funds and tuition and fees received from students.
Senators argued that universities should cover the deficit using some of their roughly $500 million in cash on hand.
The disagreement follows Republican Lt. Gov Burt Jones' effort to allow hospitals to be built in rural counties without state permits. His push was opposed by Wellstar Health System, which owns a hospital in Jones' home of Butts County that would face competition from a new facility that could be built on land owned by Jones’ father.
Wellstar has also agreed to take over Augusta University’s hospitals, a deal Jones opposed in an apparent attempt to pressure Wellstar. Augusta University received $105 million earlier this year to purchase a new electronic medical records system, but Jones argued that the payment money was an unfair giveaway to Wellstar.
Kemp supported the deal between Wellstar and Augusta University.
Jones argued in a statement Tuesday that Kemp should support the legislation to place a tuition cap on Georgia's public universities and colleges.
"With rising living costs and inflation, the General Assembly worked to make college more affordable for hardworking Georgia families, a goal we should all share," Jones said. "A 3% annual increase cap makes sense, especially considering the Board of Regents has reserve funds in excess of $500 million. Perhaps their unilateral control over tuition increases should be revisited in future legislative sessions."
USG Chancellor Sonny Perdue, who is also a former governor of Georgia, said in a statement Thursday after lawmakers adjourned that the $66 million cut is "an incredibly disappointing outcome." He added that schools are impacted by inflation and took a 10% budget cut during the 2021 budget that was never fully restored.
Perdue also noted that all schools do not have enough leftover money to handle the cut.
House Higher Education Committee Chairman Chuck Martin, a Republican, said nobody in the Senate outlined the reason behind the amendment being attached to the underlying bill that would have abolished a loan-servicing agency.
Martin did not take issue with Kemp's veto or statement that the tuition cap was unconstitutional.
"I can’t say that I would disagree with his interpretation," Martin said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report. | US Local Policies |
Last week, after helping foment the eight-person coup that ended Kevin McCarthy’s 269-day reign as speaker of the United States House of Representatives Matt Gaetz’s signature smirk was everywhere. The 41-year-old Floridia congressman peacocked through a slew of must-see Beltway cable news shows, dancing on McCarthy’s political grave, and generally basking in the brilliance of his successful scheme—one he openly doubted would work just the night before it did.This week, Gaetz shut up—or, more accurately, he was shut up.It’s not just Gaetz. All week long, unidentified Republican Party puppet masters have muzzled House members, scrambling to portray unity in the face of the disarray emanating from today’s leaderless House GOP. This includes the rare step of confiscating Republican’s electronic devices in an attempt to prevent leaks in the midst of their secret meetings to pick McCarthy’s replacement.“I don't know who keeps talking in real time, because that's what they're concerned about,” Chris Smith, a New Jersey Republican, tells WIRED.Nothing seems to be going right for House Republicans. Just ask the party’s handpicked majority leader, Steve Scalise. To the surprise of most, on Thursday night, he bowed out of the speaker race just a day after the majority of the conference tapped him to replace McCarthy. Even after disconnecting members and stopping real-time leaks, a minority of the majority party scuttled Scalise in less than 48 hours. Despite the wishes of party leaders, this revolt isn’t leaving our screens anytime soon.It’s impossible to mute contemporary lawmakers for very long. The more party leaders try, the more the Republican base erupts with accusations of secret side deals. Still, party leaders are scrambling to regain control—if only momentarily and only in the Capitol’s plethora of backrooms.“They're a little either whiplashed or gun shy from the McCarthy stuff. Gaetz and others knew they could blow up the Congress, but they didn't know how to rebuild it,” David Jolly, a former Florida Republican congressman, tells WIRED. “And in the rebuilding phase, they're sensitive to some of the negative press and the negative impressions.”Today’s members of Congress are beholden to their online followings, not some party leader. Even one picked by the overwhelming majority—some 96 percent, in McCarthy’s case—of their peers. Regaining control of the seemingly uncontrollable seems to, once again, be proving a fool’s errand.“The power centers no longer go up through leadership,” Jolly says. “Go back as far as you want—20 years, 30 years, whatever—all power structures funneled through leadership. Now they're all these independent power structures that reward and stabilize members regardless of if they've been there a year or 30 years. In fact, in many ways, the people who have been there 30 years probably have less security than the ones that just got there.”Stripping members of their electronic devices is punishment for leaks and Gaetz-style boasting. It's being lauded by many members annoyed that their internal party deliberations often make headlines before they even hit the exits. But it’s backfiring.Republican Party deliberations are staying secret longer—mere minutes longer, really—but the digital timeout isn’t fostering party unity. Following one of the party’s daily secret meetings this week, Republicans announced Louisiana congressman Steve Scalise would be their nominee for the new House speaker, beating out Ohio’s Jim Jordan. Now the real trouble begins. In the wake of McCarthy’s speakership—the third shortest in US history—the Republican Party’s right flank is emboldened, empowered, and feeling more justified than ever in their self-righteous quest to rid Washington of what they view as the federal government’s biggest problems.The far-right Freedom Caucus and its allies began the House speaker fight in January, demanding more transparency, like the ability to review bills 72 hours before voting. Just last week, as he was moving his motion to vacate the speaker, Gaetz accused McCarthy of making "secret side deals" with US president Joe Biden. It seems calls for transparency withered alongside McCarthy’s short-lived speakership. If anything, the party seems mostly unified in embracing a new level of secrecy.Phoneless in WashingtonIt’s still unclear who is running things among House Republicans. WIRED reached out to a slew of Republican leaders—former speaker McCarthy, speaker pro tem Patrick McHenry, former speaker-designate Scalise, majority whip Tom Emmer, and GOP conference chair Elise Stefanik—asking who made the call to temporarily confiscate member’s phones this week. None responded.With no one in charge, everyone’s in charge. Each member of Congress is coached to run their office like a business, with each serving as the CEO, CFO, and mascot. Who’s Cupid without a bow and arrow? Ask a phoneless politician.“Oh, wow. Really?” John Larson, a Connecticut Democrat, says after WIRED informs him of his rowdy Republican neighbor’s new no-phone rule. “It goes to show you the level of trust in this place, huh?”It’s not unheard of for lawmakers to be stripped of their devices. US senators had to check their phones and tablets when they sat as the jury for former US president Donald Trump’s two impeachments. They were also only allowed to drink water and milk (yeah, it’s a thing).Lawmakers also turn over their personal and government-issued devices before heading into classified briefings, like the one House members had Wednesday morning on the Israel-Hamas war. Most of the time, like the rest of us, lawmakers’ fingers are all but one with their screens.“One of the members said to me—I won’t say who she was—she goes, ‘I need my phone!’” Smith, the New Jersey lawmaker, says with a laugh. “It is a different world. For a while there, all of us went to our grandkids or kids to figure out how to use these things. Now we got it down, and we can't stop it!”But stop they did. Many Republicans report these deviceless—and largely staffless—meetings are a welcome change. “I think it does help. Looking over at your colleague, wondering if he's the one live-streaming it, it foments mistrust,” Thomase Massie, a Republican Kentuckian, tells WIRED. “I think you have more direct, but coarser, conversations if there aren’t witnesses in the room. You’re missing the good stuff!”Still, Massie is attune to the complaints from the base about secret meetings. “If we don't have some kind of public vote on the floor, or in conference, where everybody accounts for their own vote, I feel like they can claim this is a stolen election,” Massie says. “If you come out of a secret room, with a secret ballot, and say, ‘This is our choice. Take our word for it,’ I think a lot of people want to know how their congressmen voted, and they want them to prove it, either in a roll call here or on the floor.”But confiscating rank-and-file Republicans’ devices didn’t heal the internet-fueled internal GOP rift barely hiding underneath the party’s near universal hatred of Joe Biden, love of tax cuts, and fear of Donald Trump. It merely paused the cage match, again. And, as usual, some of McCarthy’s fiercest opponents are now the loudest critics of the clamp down on devices.“It’s ridiculous, really,” Tim Burchett—the Tennessee Republican who partnered with Gaetz in orchestrating McCarthy’s demise—tells WIRED. “You know someone’s gonna walk out and tell it.”If anything, the no-phone rule is only fueling the Republican Party’s new ranks of conspiracy-laden conservatives. Burchett doesn’t know who made the call—but he blames McCarthy anyway. “That’s part of his leadership team that’s in place still,” Burchett says. “It'll work for a little while, and then somebody will figure something out.”That Escalated Quickly—and Is Far From OverBurchett, Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and their fellow GOP hardliners were leaders of the transparency pack ahead of McCarthy’s ouster. Problem is, the public is now locked out of their private feeding frenzy at the feet of the party’s next generation of potential power brokers.Just as McCarthy did in January, Scalise hosted holdouts and opponents alike for private meetings. While Republicans were encouraged to personally air their concerns and demands alike to his face, something was different this time, at least according to former speaker-designate Scalise.“No side deals,” Scalise told reporters huddled outside an impromptu Thursday afternoon GOP conference meeting. “Let’s have this in full view of everybody. No side deals. No secret meetings.”Full view? Just no phones allowed. No side deals either? Just private one-on-one conversations with some of the most expensive—morally speaking, at the very least—votes to buy on Capitol Hill.Just as McCarthy did in January, Scalise moved further right—or at least did all he could to placate holdouts. It seemed to be working, just as it did for McCarthy—until it didn’t.The towel came flying in after just one day of private confabs with the farthest flung rightward wing of today’s rightward-tilting GOP. Scalise flipped at least one vote, but at what cost? Freshman Anna Paulina Luna isa Floridian who was slingshotted into this 118th Congress via her previous perch as a so-called social media influencer. Scalise denies doling out promises and Luna refuses to say how the majority leader won her trust and met her demand.All we know is, Scalise flipped her from a no to a yes. And she left the private meeting satisfied, feeling confident he met each one of the three bright red lines she’s publicly drawn in the proverbial political sands: impeaching Biden, slapping his son Hunter Biden with a subpoena, and defunding special counsel Jack Smith, thus halting the two federal cases he’s spearheading against Trump."After talking to Representative Scalise, I feel very confident that he's going to allow me to aggressively pursue justice for this country and this nation," Luna told reporters after meeting with Scalise Wednesday. "He will be aggressively allowing me to pursue and do my job."That’s a lot of weighty demands for anyone to placate in one day. One down, but Scalise still had 106 or so to go. Many were adamantly unbudgeable, even if they did go through the formal motions of sitting down with Scalise. The de-phoning experiment failed to unite the GOP’s new ranks of partisans, so vulnerable members are now demanding party leaders try other out-of-the-box options.“We have to have something that takes the personality and emotion out of it,” says Marc Molinaro, a freshman Republican from New York. “At the end of the day, in the conference, we have to have a deliberative effort to get from whatever number the top vote getter has to 217. That has to happen in a deliberative way. We didn't have that the last few days.”Frustration turned to anger after McCarthy was pushed out. Now, after more than a week of the House being ground to a halt by the majority party, embarrassment is now transforming into desperation. Ineptitude is not good looks, which speaker pro tem Patrick McHenry understands. When WIRED asks if Molinaro’s got any new ideas to try next, the former government relations consultant’s mind darts to a recent closed-door conversation he had with McHenry.“Patrick McHenry suggested we don't get food or water, and maybe that will help,” Molinaro tells WIRED. “That was a joke. I don't want people to think he's gonna starve us.”Like good policy, all good humor is grounded in reality, no? The unanswered question—one hovering ominously over all US politics these days—is, do Republicans live in the same reality as, well, Republicans? MAGA’s now passé—a distinction without a difference, really. That is, unless centrist Republicans actually declare the difference. That’s a step too far for most tenets cramped in Trump’s new small tent GOP. Scalise gets the distinction, but he stops short of defining the difference."There's some folks that really need to look in the mirror over the next couple of days and decide are we going to get back on track, or if they're going to pursue their own agenda," Scalise told reporters at the Capitol Thursday night. That’s the same tightrope McCarthy—who only was granted his recently retired gavel in the 15th bruising round of speaker votes back in January—teetered on throughout his tenuous nine month tenure. It’s also much like the one Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell has delicately maneuvered around—or sidestepped—on the other side of the Capitol. Center-right Republicans seem to finally be standing up to minority rule of their majority.“It shows a structural problem,” Michael Waltz, a third-term Floridia Republican, tells WIRED. “You have to, in a republic, be able to rule by majority vote, and when we have a structural problem that came out of January where we can't, then I think that's gotta be fixed.”Scalise’s surrender seems to have dislodged something. Some Republicans say it’s time to call on the House parliamentarian—the chamber’s procedural braintrust—to see if there’s an obscure loophole they can use to bypass this latest Republican blockade of Republicans. “There’s suggestion of that, but I don't see consensus around that,” Waltz says, even as he says tweaking internal party rules is different than overhauling House rules. “We're gonna be addressing our rules.” For now, the majority of the GOP don’t dare tamper with House rules, in no small part because Trump’s base is enlivened, engaged and digitally screaming at the party’s rank-and-file.Thing is, all of this was inevitable. “We knew this. I felt this in November when we, sadly, won with such a slim majority,” Chuck Fleischmann, a seven-term Tennessean, tells WIRED. “You could feel the difficulties of that slim majority present at that time. It just came into fruition 10 months later.”Inevitable sure; painful nonetheless. Scalise is affable, genuine and beloved by many, especially as he currently battles cancer after surviving a mass shooting just six years ago.“The mood is pensive. There was a little bit of surprise there,” Fleischmann says. “This is not going to be an easy process. We had an historic event last week—a first, the vacating of the chair—so moving forward in these uncharted waters, in these uncharted times, is going to be difficult with a very slim majority.”Slim and divided. Moments after Scalise and his entourage of aides and suit-donning officers left the Capitol Thursday evening, his inglorious departure was already a distant memory to second-term Michelle Fischbach of Minnesota.“I’m looking for my phone,” the flustered congresswoman fretted, rifling through the huge handbag she set on a bronze-rimmed trash can in the Capitol’s dingy basement. When asked if she was frustrated by how the day ended, with Scalise’s walk of shame before his political family and the press corps, Fischbach spoke up on behalf of the minority of the minority of the majority party, telling WIRED, “It’s more frustrating that I can’t find my phone.”The frustration is palpable. | US Congress |
Donald Trump, the president, may well be immune from any civil action for allegedly inciting an attack against the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. But Donald Trump, the candidate, is not, an appellate court in the District of Columbia says.“When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act,” a ruling, handed down Friday morning, says.The court’s unanimous decision to reject Trump’s claim of absolute immunity places the Republican frontrunner in increased financial jeopardy, paving the way for members of Congress and Capitol police to seek compensation for harms allegedly endured during a riot, which resulted in millions of dollars in damages and caused injury to nearly 140 police officers, according to their union.In a 67-page opinion, the court says that Trump failed in his attempt to demonstrate he’s entitled to what’s called “official-act immunity,” a powerful liability shield afforded to presidents that aims to ensure that they can—as the court puts it—“fearlessly and impartially discharge the singularly weighty duties” of the presidency.“We answer no,” the court says, “at least at this stage of the proceedings, adding that “campaigning to gain that office is not an official act of the office.”The ruling has been long awaited. Trump’s claim of immunity was first rejected by US district court judge Amit Mehta in February 2022.In part, it was Trump’s own attempt to overturn the election at the US Supreme Court that may have doomed his case. The DC Circuit says he acknowledged that his post-election efforts to have the result reversed in his favor were done in a personal capacity, and not that of a sitting president. Those claims, the ruling says, certified that Trump sought the court’s intervention based on his own “unique and substantial” interests as—specifically—a candidate.Trump’s attorney has argued the distinction is immaterial, and the appellate court unanimously disagreed. However, the matter of immunity was the sole issue under consideration and Trump’s liability has yet to be determined.The US Justice Department, asked by the appellate court to weigh in on the matter last year, concluded in March that Trump could be sued over the attack, adding that while presidents are afforded great protection with regard to a “vast realm” of speech, it did not extend to the “incitement of imminent private violence.”The civil case is separate from the federal criminal trial in the district, led by special counsel and former acting US attorney Jack Smith, which concerns not only Trump’s attempt to overturn the election, but allegations that he unlawfully retained classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. Earlier this week, former vice president Mike Pence reportedly told the special counsel that Trump’s advisors—“crank” attorneys, as Pence put it—pushed the country to the brink of a constitutional crisis. The case is set to go to trial this March.The siege began shortly after Trump delivered a 75-minute speech at a park south of the White House known as the Ellipse. A House select committee investigating the riot last year said that Trump was aware the attack on the Capitol was underway as he arrived at the White House roughly 15 minutes after the speech. Witnesses, including a former DC police sergeant, claimed at the time that Trump had been swept away by US Secret Service agents trying to prevent him from joining the march.Trump’s press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, later testified that during the attack, Trump requested a list of phone numbers belonging to US senators on the Hill, whom he reportedly contacted in an attempt to stop the results of the 2020 election from being certified. The calls were not recorded on the presidential call log. During this time, Trump supporters were engaged with police and had begun forcing them back onto the Capitol lawn, throwing bottles and dousing several offices with chemical spray.The attack lasted approximately two hours and resulted in five deaths, including that of a Capitol police officer. The rioters, who broke windows, ransacked lawmakers’ offices, and stole documents and electronics, reportedly caused more than $2 million in damages to the 222-year-old building.Two Capitol police officers, James Blassingame and Sidney Hemby, are seeking $75,000 in compensatory damages (as well as unspecified punitive damages) for injuries they say they sustained in the attack. In a court filing, Blassingame, an officer of 19 years, says he was struck in the face, head, and up and down his body by Trump supporters during the attempt to breach the Capitol building. Hemby, a former Marine, suffered “cuts and abrasions” to his face and hands. Neither officer could be immediately reached for comment.At the onset of the suit, the plaintiff lawmakers included Democrats Eric Swalwell, Stephen Cohen, Bonnie Coleman, Veronica Escobar, Pramila Jayapal, Henry C. Johnson, Marcia Kaptur, Barbara Lee, Jerrold Nadler, and Maxine Walters. Karen Bass, a former congresswoman and current mayor of Los Angeles, has also joined the suit. The lawmakers, including Bass, either did not respond or declined to comment.Bennie Thompson, the congressman from Mississippi, says he was no longer party to the case on appeal, but welcomed the court’s decision. “Donald Trump should not be able to use the Presidency to shirk accountability for what he did to cause the insurrection on January 6th,” he tells WIRED.An attorney for Trump, Jesse Binnall, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. | US Political Corruption |
Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images
toggle caption
A person wearing a mask walks past a sign encouraging people to complete the 2020 census in Los Angeles.
Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images
A person wearing a mask walks past a sign encouraging people to complete the 2020 census in Los Angeles.
Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images
The last national head count of people living in the United States may have missed a substantial share of residents who are not U.S. citizens, according to a Census Bureau report released last week.
The finding comes after years of concern over census interference by former President Donald Trump's administration that likely discouraged many unauthorized immigrants, green card holders and other noncitizens from taking part in the count in 2020.
The Constitution requires a once-a-decade tally of the "whole number of persons in each state." The population numbers are used to reallocate congressional seats and Electoral College votes, as well as guide some $1.5 trillion a year in federal money to local communities for public services.
But the bureau's estimated tally of the U.S. population as of Census Day 2020, based on a simulated tally involving administrative records from government and third-party sources, was 2.3% higher than the count's actual result of 331.4 million.
That gap, researchers found, was likely driven by noncitizen residents who are missing from the agency's count, especially those with "unknown legal status." About 19.7% of noncitizens tallied in the simulation using administrative records had addresses that could not be matched with those counted in the 2020 census.
That raises "the possibility that the 2020 Census did not succeed in collecting data for a significant fraction of noncitizens residing in the United States," the bureau's report says.
Earlier research by the bureau warned of a scenario like this in light of the Trump administration's failed push to add to the 2020 census forms a question about a person's U.S. citizenship status. After news about Trump officials' plan began spreading in late 2017, many participants in focus groups for the count's marketing campaign said they were planning to ignore the census out of fear that the question's responses would be misused to deport unauthorized immigrants.
Using a question to produce citizenship data, the agency also found, was likely to be more costly and less accurate than using administrative records.
That campaign for a citizenship question was ultimately blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was later asked to weigh in on a presidential memo by Trump that called for the unprecedented exclusion of unauthorized immigrants from the numbers used to divvy up each state's share of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. After the high court punted on that case, President Biden reversed Trump's policy as one of his first executive actions.
The bureau's latest report, however, makes no direct mention of these Trump-era census controversies.
Instead, the researchers note that noncitizens are more likely than citizens to be living at addresses that the bureau's workers did not try to contact for the 2020 census. Many of the noncitizens the bureau's simulation tallied were living in group-style living quarters or buildings with multiple housing units and near the U.S.-Mexico border.
The bureau's public information office did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the discrepancy between the study's estimates and the count's results.
The study was part of the bureau's efforts to increase its use of administrative records to more accurately tally historically undercounted populations, including residents who are not U.S. citizens, people of color and children under age 5.
In addition to noncitizens, this simulated count produced higher numbers than the 2020 census for: males, children under age 15, adults ages 25 to 64, Black and white people who do not identify as Hispanic, and Latinos.
There were lower numbers from the simulation for adults ages 65 to 74, Asian Americans who do not identify as Hispanic, and non-Hispanic people who identify with two or more races.
Edited by Benjamin Swasey | US Federal Policies |
If Joe Biden wants to hold onto the White House in 2024, Dorien Dudley is the man he has to convince.
At 19, Mr Dudley is voting for the first time next year at his home in Baldwin County, Georgia – one of the most reliable bellwether areas in the country.
Since 1984, voters there have chosen the successful presidential candidate in all but one election. In 2020, they helped Mr Biden over the line to win Georgia by just 0.2 per cent.
As a young black man, Mr Dudley also represents a caucus of ethnic minority and Gen Z voters that helped the 81-year-old president take power three years ago, and which he is now trying to hold onto.
So far, it does not seem to be working.
“With Joe Biden, I’m not really for or against. I really have indifferent thoughts on it,” says Mr Dudley, after revealing he once considered a career in politics but decided against it after a teacher persuaded him that politicians are all the same. Instead, he is joining the military.
“It may seem radical, but I feel like there should be an age limit on people that run for politics,” he adds, noting that Mr Biden’s age and frequent gaffes “most definitely” will inform the way he votes.
Mr Dudley’s apathy is reflected nationally in the latest polls, which show that among black voters, young people and in swing states more generally Mr Biden’s campaign is flagging.
Inside the campaign
The president also has the approval of just 39.5 per cent of voters overall – the worst polling position of any president seeking re-election since 1945.
Mr Biden and those around him now have one year to turn around those challenging numbers and – in the words of his campaign slogan – “finish the job”.
The task falls to a small circle of trusted advisers, ensconced in a high-rise office block in Mr Biden’s home town of Wilmington, Delaware, just 10 minutes from his local church.
The mood in the camp is light, despite the results of opinion surveys. “I don’t think polling has been the most effective barometer of how people vote,” one campaign insider told The Telegraph, pointing to a “strong performance” by Democrats in special elections (the congressional equivalent of by-elections) this year.
Leading the team since April is Julie Chavez Rodriguez, his campaign manager and the granddaughter of Cesar Chavez, a fearsome 1960s agricultural trade unionist who organised a five-year national boycott of grapes.
She is described by colleagues as dedicated and, unlike many top aides in US politics, camera-shy.
Joining her at the top table is Quentin Fulks, who masterminded the successful re-election campaign of Georgia senator Raphael Warnock, and Michael Tyler, a former national press secretary of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).
Much of the day-to-day media work is handled by Kevin Munoz, who ran the White House’s Covid-19 communications strategy and featured personally in ads for the vaccination programme on US dating apps, while the finance team is directed by Colleen Coffey and Michael Pratt, two other former DNC staffers.
They have had their work cut out. Although Mr Biden has made few campaign-specific appearances, with most of his speeches taking place on government time, the campaign has already spent more money than any other candidate. Federal Election Commission receipts show he has spent $24.8 million (£20.1 million) to Donald Trump’s $23 million.
As the campaign picks up in the coming months, more of Mr Biden’s trusted lieutenants are expected to make their way from his White House team to work on his re-election effort.
Two of his closest advisers, Anita Dunn and Steve Richetti, remain in their government positions and are thought to be making strategic decisions about the campaign while Ms Chavez Rodriguez runs day-to-day operations in Wilmington.
Ms Dunn, a senior adviser to Mr Biden in Washington, is a veteran of six Democratic presidential campaigns, while Mr Richetti chaired the president’s 2020 campaign and now serves as counsellor to the president.
On Sept 6, the campaign named Grace Landrieu, the White House’s top economic policy and labour adviser, as Mr Biden’s policy director.
Her appointment reflects Mr Biden’s focus as he heads into a year of campaigning. After three years of a presidency marred by high inflation, which has weakened voters’ savings and squeezed household budgets, his aides are in no doubt that a successful economic message is vital to his success.
Economy voters’ top priority
A poll for The Telegraph by Redfield & Wilton Strategies last month found that in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina, the economy was voters’ top priority. A majority in all six states also said their financial situation had worsened in the last year.
“Voters do attribute Biden’s policies for playing a role in the rising inflation, for sure,” said Philip Van Scheltinga, who conducted the research. “Even if inflation comes down, voters are still feeling the cost of it having risen in the first place, and that’s difficult to overcome for any candidate.
“Even if you have wage growth outpacing inflation, everyone’s savings will have been hit pretty severely.”
With inflation now down to 3.7 per cent, Mr Biden is attempting to take control of the economic narrative by talking about his unique blend of eye-watering state subsidies, labour market regulations and investment in technical education.
The president has passed legislation that pours $422 billion (£359 billion) into the US green energy and semiconductor manufacturing industries and $1.2 trillion into public infrastructure and argues that the spending will replace “trickle-down” economics by giving America a stronger manufacturing base and reversing the decline of the so-called Rust Belt heartlands in the north-east of the country.
The scornful nickname “Bidenomics”, given to the project by the conservative Wall Street Journal, now adorns the stage behind the podium when he gives political speeches and comes with a strapline: “Investing in America.”
For his campaign staff, the policy is also a way to win over the support of blue-collar workers in the crucial states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. All three supported Biden in 2020 but by a margin of less than three per cent.
In almost every economic speech he delivers, Mr Biden talks about “growing the economy from the middle out and bottom up instead of the top down” because “when the middle class does well, the poor have a ladder up and the wealthy still do very well”.
While Mr Biden’s focus on the economy may be necessary, it is also a risk. Unlike most other elections in US history, the incumbent president’s most likely challenger has a White House record of his own to sell.
At his most recent rallies, Mr Trump has spent a significant portion of his lengthy addresses talking about the economy, falsely claiming to have created millions more jobs during his time in office than Mr Biden.
Mr Trump, by far the Republican frontrunner, is also fond of rehearsing his record on foreign diplomacy – not thought of as his strong suit at the time – which he says would have prevented war in Ukraine and Gaza.
Young people unsure on Biden’s foreign policy
The latest polls show less than half of Americans now think Washington should send weapons to Ukraine, with the biggest fall among Democrats.
The Middle East also presents an electoral challenge for Mr Biden. Although more Americans support Israel than Palestine, the biggest support for Palestinians is found among core Democrat voters.
While 59 per cent of Arab-Americans supported Mr Biden in 2020, just 17 per cent say they would now vote for him, creating a headache for his campaign in the swing states of Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which have large Muslim populations. For the first time since 1997, a majority of Arab-American voters do not identify as Democrats.
The polls show young people too are more likely to have qualms about Mr Biden’s interventionist foreign policy instincts.
“I think the defence budget increases about 50 billion every time they vote on it,” said Spencer Roberts, a 22-year-old theatre student from Baldwin County who carries a “F--- Trump” badge on his rucksack.
“I’m all down for helping out people, but we are not the world police. I feel like there are more important things that can help people here and now that we could be focusing on.”
On the age issue, he adds: “I’m not gonna get any social security because there are so many old people. They paid in, so they’re getting it out, but there aren’t enough young people to put that money in.”
Age concerns
Concerns about Mr Biden’s age have heightened following a series of public gaffes, including referring to the “nine wonders of the world”, confusing the All Blacks rugby team with the Black and Tan constables that battled with the IRA and referring to Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, as “Mr President”.
More than three-quarters of Americans think Mr Biden is too old to run a second time. Privately, aides worry he could trip on stage at a campaign event and bring his presidential bid to an end, through public humiliation or injury.
Karlyn Bowman, a public opinion analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a centre-Right think-tank, said Mr Biden is facing a particular challenge appealing to young liberals who see him as an elderly, inactive president who does not have their best interests at heart.
“Younger people want action. They want things done more quickly, whether it’s Black Lives Matter or climate change, whatever it happens to be, and so therefore they probably don’t see Biden doing enough,” she said.
“If inflation remains high, if Biden stumbles, if things get worse nationally on all fronts, they could stay home, and so the Biden campaign should be very worried about that.”
Campaign aides for the president think that while the Middle East crisis is unlikely to be dominating the headlines by next November, the collapse in support from young people poses a significant risk.
“We are very cognisant of the need to invest early and build motivation,” said one insider, pointing to an upcoming programme focused on young voters in Madison, Wisconsin – one of the key swing states.
Campaign staff talk about working in a “low trust environment” that requires targeted advertising, outreach programmes and local organising to motivate demographics that would otherwise stay at home.
Campaign not ‘taking black and brown voters for granted’
In recent weeks the campaign has launched $25 million of television advertisements in battleground states, addressing issues where the campaign may stumble. Top of the list are the economy, the war in Ukraine and ethnic minority voters.
An advert that aired on Saturday at a college football game declared that the Biden-Harris campaign was “putting in the work for black America”, highlighting the administration’s policies on funding for black businesses, racial equality and healthcare.
“This is the largest investment in black media in campaign history,” one campaign staffer told The Telegraph.
A separate campaign push is rolling out on radio stations with a large number of black listeners in the coming weeks, while a second outreach pilot is launching in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
“The campaign is very cognisant of the need not to take black and brown voters for granted,” said an aide.
“In past campaigns they have parachuted into these communities at the last minute. That is the opposite of what we are doing here.”
Jitters about Mr Biden’s electability among both ethnic minorities and young liberals have already seen him make greater use of what one Gen Z Biden-outrider describes as his “secret weapon”: Kamala Harris.
The vice president surprised some analysts by appearing in Mr Biden’s campaign launch video in April after what some saw as a lukewarm first two years in office. Many had expected her to be replaced for Mr Biden’s re-election campaign.
But, since last year’s mid-term elections, when the Democrats’ strong performance eliminated her constant requirement to be in the Senate to cast tie-breaking votes, Ms Harris has embarked on a “Fight for Our Freedoms” tour of historically black US college campuses, giving firebrand speeches designed to emphasise her youth and passion.
It is hoped that the vice president, who is 22 years younger than Mr Biden and whose parents are African-American and Asian-American, will be more able to convince those communities to stick with the Democrats in 2024 than her boss.
In all its literature, the Biden campaign has tried to adopt a positive message to counter the declinism of Mr Trump and a widespread view that democracy in the US is broken.
“There are some who say America is failing,” says a narrator in one recent ad, as the screen is filled with a slow-motion clip of Mr Trump.
“Not Joe Biden. He believes our best days are ahead because he believes in the American people.”
But, with a year until the election and Mr Biden’s campaign off to a faltering start, a key question remains. Do the American people still believe in him? | US Federal Elections |
That should do it for George Santos, the fabulist lawmaker who has best embodied the embarrassing emptiness at the heart of the GOP majority since it took the House this year. The New York Republican—who is already facing more than a dozen criminal charges, including for wire fraud and money laundering—announced Thursday that he would not seek a second term in Congress, following a damning Ethics Committee report on his alleged misuse of campaign funds, among other apparent misconduct. And he may not even make it to the end of his term: As Politico reports, Republican Ethics Chair Michael Guest is introducing a resolution to expel him from office, a move that upwards of 40 of his GOP colleagues support.
“He’s gone,” as one House Republican told Axios.
Santos may be the most notable House lawmaker to announce his retirement or resignation recently, but he’s not the only one: As NBC News noted Friday, he’s among 26 in the lower chamber to announce plans to step aside, either immediately or at the end of the term—a response, in no small part, to the profound unseriousness of the House that Santos represents. “It’s stupid, you know,” as Republican Ken Buck, who announced his upcoming retirement this month, told Punchbowl News. “Impeach that person, censure that person—it’s all political, so members can go raise money and talk tough back home.”
“It’s insane,” added retiring Democrat Earl Blumenauer. “It adds no value to my life.”
Government dysfunction is nothing new, of course. But this iteration of the House GOP—a motley collection of extremists, grifters, and vessels of naked ambition—has taken it to new heights. They began their majority in January with a 15-round bout over the gavel; spent the year bickering among one another over how best to wield their power against President Joe Biden; and are entering the final stretch of the year still bitter over the ouster of Kevin McCarthy as House speaker. Mike Johnson, his successor, has managed at least to punt the government shutdown fight to the new year. But he hasn’t been able to quell the chaos of his conference, which entered Thanksgiving break with spasms of cynical infighting and puerile name-calling. “It’s the same clown car with a different driver,” as one Republican, Kelly Armstrong, described the conference this week.
It’s no surprise members of congress would want to leave. “Washington, D.C. is broken,” Republican Debbie Lesko of Arizona said last month, in announcing her retirement. “It is hard to get anything done.” And it could get worse: The deeper the chamber’s dysfunction, the more it will attract figures like Santos who thrive on it. “Congress is not the institution that I went to 19 years ago,” as New York Democrat Brian Higgins said in announcing his plans to resign this month. “There was a time where leadership could discern what was serious and what was not. Unfortunately, those days are over.” | US Congress |
WASHINGTON, Sept 20 (Reuters) - U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland told a House committee on Wednesday that Republican threats to defund the FBI would be "catastrophic" if carried out and that the Justice Department did not exist to do anyone's political bidding.
Garland pushed back against Republican lawmakers who have criticized the Department of Justice for its handling of the indictments of Republican former President Donald Trump and Democratic President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.
"Our job is not to take orders from the president, from Congress, or from anyone else, about who or what to criminally investigate," Garland told the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
"I am not the president’s lawyer. I will add I am not Congress’s prosecutor. The Justice Department works for the American people."
Some of Trump's hardline Republican allies have called for a defunding of the FBI to protest its investigation into and prosecution of more than 1,140 Trump supporters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in a bid to overturn his election defeat.
Garland warned that carrying out that threat would leave the nation "naked" to everything from the "malign influence of the Chinese Communist Party" to "domestic violent extremists."
"I just cannot imagine the consequences of defunding the FBI," Garland said. "They would be catastrophic."
Wednesday marked Garland's first testimony before Congress since two historic firsts: the department's criminal charges against a former U.S. president and against a sitting president's adult child.
It also comes a week after the Republican-led House launched an impeachment inquiry into President Biden, related to Hunter Biden's foreign business dealings and as congressional inaction threatens to cause the fourth partial U.S. government shutdown in a decade beginning next month.
The White House has dismissed the impeachment probe as politically motivated and unsubstantiated. The committee's ranking Democrat, Jerrold Nadler, on Wednesday accused Republicans of wasting "countless taxpayer dollars" on investigations into Biden "to find evidence for an absurd impeachment."
Special Counsel Jack Smith, appointed by Garland last autumn, has twice secured indictments of Trump over his alleged mishandling of classified records and for his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.
Trump, the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, has pleaded not guilty to those charges and to two state criminal indictments he faces in New York and Georgia.
The former president has repeatedly verbally attacked Smith, potential witnesses, and U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the election subversion case, saying the prosecutions he faces are politically motivated.
Republicans have also been critical of the department's handling of a five-year-long tax investigation into Hunter Biden, 53.
The younger Biden was set in July to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax counts and to agree to enroll in a program to avert a gun charge as part of a deal with the then-U.S. Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss.
The deal collapsed after a federal judge questioned its terms.
Shortly before that, an Internal Revenue Service whistleblower who worked on the criminal tax probe also claimed that the Justice Department stymied Weiss from pursuing more serious tax charges by failing to appoint him sooner as special counsel, so that he could pursue the cases in either Washington, D.C., or Central California. Hunter Biden lives in California.
Amid mounting Republican criticism, Garland appointed Weiss as special counsel so he could continue to investigate and possibly pursue tax charges in other federal districts.
Weiss' office this month charged Hunter Biden with three counts related to purchase and possession of a firearm while he was using illegal drugs. He intends to plead not guilty.
Republicans on Wednesday grilled Garland about the Hunter Biden case.
"Has anyone from the White House provided direction at any time to you personally or to any senior officials at the DOJ regarding how the Hunter Biden investigated was to be carried out?" Republican congressman Mike Johnson asked.
"No," Garland said.
The attorney general also defended how the investigation was carried out under Weiss, saying he never "intruded" into Weiss' work and telling Congress that Weiss always had "full authority to conduct his investigation" as he saw fit and only recently sought special counsel status.
Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Scott Malone, Matthew Lewis and Jonathan Oatis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | US Federal Policies |
Fulton County prosecutors rebutted claims that three so-called "alternate electors" amounted to federal officials during a hearing Wednesday in District Attorney Fani Willis' Georgia election interference case.
Judge Steve Jones, for a third time, heard arguments during an evidentiary hearing in Atlanta on the issue of federal removal, this time from David Shafer, Shawn Still and Cathy Latham -- three of former President Donald Trump's so-called "alternate electors" who are charged in the conspiracy case.
The three are following in the footsteps of former Trump Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and former Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark, two federal officials who were charged in the case and have sought to move their cases based on a federal law that calls for the removal of criminal proceedings brought in state court to the federal court system when a federal official or someone acting under them is charged for actions they allegedly took while acting "under color" of their office.
Shafer, Still and Latham are charged with impersonating a public officer and forgery, among other crimes, after they allegedly met with 13 other individuals in December 2020 and put forward electors' certificates falsely stating that Trump won the state and declaring themselves the state's "duly elected and qualified" electors.
Attorneys for the three told the judge that their clients' efforts were legal and that their actions qualify them to have their cases removed to federal court.
But Fulton County prosecutors slammed the defendants' argument as a "fantasy" that was "untethered" to reality.
"These private parties did not transform into public officials by committing a crime," prosecutor Anna Cross told the court. "They were not federal officials. They were not electors at all."
Tensions in the courtroom flared briefly after one of Shafer's attorneys, Craig Gillen, accused prosecutors of targeting the electors over their support for former President Trump, which he called a "sad state of affairs."
As a defendant, Gillen said, "if you're for Trump, buckle up. You're in the danger zone."
Cross called the accusation a "borderline offense."
"That's an accusation that the state 100% rejects," the prosecutor said.
Attorneys for the three defendants laid out their arguments as to why their elector plan was legal, and why it places them under federal law and qualifies for removal.
"What bugs me is that these three have been labeled as 'fake' [electors]," Gillen said. "They served pursuant to federal law."
Gillen, in a 30-minute PowerPoint presentation, made his case that authority over the electors was turned over to the federal government after he said the state of Georgia "missed" the "critical" Dec. 8, 2020, safe harbor deadline for states to certify their results, by not resolving the pending litigation filed the Trump campaign by that date.
"They did their duty," Gillen said of the so-called alternate electors.
"When the state misses the safe harbor date," added Holly Pierson, another attorney for Shafer, "the power goes back Congress."
Pierson also pushed back on the state's claim that electors are not federal officers.
"Our clients did what federal law allows them to do," Pierson said.
Judge Jones took the matter under advisement and said he would try to issue a ruling as quickly as possible, but did not offer a timeframe.
The three defendants could face an uphill battle after Jones earlier this month denied Meadows' bid to have his case removed. Clark is awaiting a ruling on his motion, while Meadows is continuing his efforts on appeal.
Trump and 18 others were charged in a sweeping racketeering indictment for alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election in the state of Georgia.
All 19 defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Shafer previously served as the chair of the Georgia Republican Party, while Still is currently a Georgia state senator and Latham was the GOP chair for Coffee County.
None of the three are appeared in court for their joint hearing, after each submitted a waiver for their in-person appearances. Clark also did not appear for his hearing, while Meadows testified at his own hearing for over three hours.
Shafer, Still and Cathy Latham have argued in court filings that they qualify for removal because they were acting as federal officials, under federal authority, in their role as alternate electors.
"The role of presidential elector is a federal one -- created and directed by the United States Constitution and Congress," the motion from Still's attorney argued. "Thus, Mr. Still, acting as a presidential elector, was a federal officer."
But that argument has drawn sharp rebuke from the Fulton County DA's office, who said the individuals "falsely impersonated" real electors and do not qualify for removal.
"Defendants and his fellow fraudulent electors conspired in a scheme to impersonate true Georgia presidential electors," the DA's office wrote in a filing. "Their fiction is not entitled to recognition by the Court."
"'Contingent electors' are not presidential electors," the filing said, adding that "there is no prize for first runner up in the Electoral college."
Judge Jones, in denying Meadows' bid to move his case to federal court, said Meadows failed to show how the allegations in the indictment were related to any of his official duties as Trump's chief of staff.
Instead, Jones said Meadows' actions were "taken on behalf of the Trump campaign with an ultimate goal of affecting state election activities and procedures." | US Federal Elections |
There’s a decent chance that, come January 2025, Donald Trump will either be in the White House or in a prison cell. Last November, my money was on the prison cell. The Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, was the Republicans’ golden boy and Trump was experiencing a major slump; for one thing, he had a mindboggling number of legal problems to deal with.
He seemed to have lost his last crumbs of credibility: an embarrassing number of candidates he’d backed were defeated in the midterms, making the former president look like a loser and causing his allies to turn on him. “TRUMPTY DUMPTY” crowed the once-loyal New York Post on its front page. “Trump has no political skills left,” a Trump campaign insider said in messages seen by the Guardian. “His team is a joke. The ship is sinking.”
First offboard that sinking ship? Ivanka Trump. The entrepreneur and women’s empowerment champion has always excelled in putting her own interests first. As soon as it seemed as if her dad had gone from a powerbroker to a liability, she fled to Miami with her family and kept a low profile. When Trump officially announced that he would be running for the 2024 nomination, Ivanka made sure that everyone knew she was staying out of it. “I do not plan to be involved in politics,” she said in a statement. She also skipped the official announcement at Mar-a-Lago.
Several months on, the political landscape looks drastically different. DeSantis has gone from being feted as the future of the Republican party to being the butt of many jokes. His far-right policies may play to some voters’ fascist fantasies, but his creepy demeanour and Disney villain laugh have rendered him unelectable. There has been report after report about his odd behaviours – like consuming chocolate pudding cups with his fingers and eating “like a starving animal who has never eaten before”. DeSantis is off-putting, even to extremists.
Trump, meanwhile, is back on top of the polls. A New York Times/Siena College poll published this week found that 71% of Republican voters still stand with the former president amid the multiple investigations he’s facing. That’s partly because many of them don’t seem to believe his many legal troubles are a big deal: 91% of people who have Fox News as their main source of information don’t think the former president committed serious crimes, the poll revealed. In any case, Trump is trouncing his competition and has a 37% lead over DeSantis. He’s the clear favourite for the Republican nomination.
The biggest sign that Trump’s fortunes may be reversing, however? Ivanka and Jared Kushner, the most fair-weather of family, are now being seen in public with Trump again. “They’ve been spotted more frequently this summer,” one top campaign strategist told Vanity Fair. “They’ve made it clear they’re supportive. They pop into meetings to say hi.” The pair also set tongues wagging after they showed up at a recent screening of the child-trafficking movie Sound of Freedom that Trump hosted at his Bedminster golf club.
Vanity Fair’s sources didn’t mince their words about why they reckon the power couple are suddenly so family-oriented. “Now that the president is 40 points ahead, of course Jared is pretending he’s involved,” a former Trump administration official told the outlet. “If he’s president again, Jared needs to protect his turf, especially in the Middle East.” We can’t have anyone else claiming the Middle East now, can we?
One imagines that Ivanka also wants to protect her turf and finish what she started in 2017. The former first daughter had big dreams, after all. She was going to be the first female president! She was going to run the World Bank! She was going to empower every woman in the world, starting with herself! And then democracy got in the way.
Unfortunately for Trump, democracy is still in the way. He may be the Republican favourite, but he still has to battle his way through numerous lawsuits and face off against Joe Biden (the presumptive Democratic nominee) to regain his place on the world stage. I won’t even begin to speculate about whether he might be able to pull that off, but I can tell you this: if you want to know how close Trump is to regaining power don’t look at the polls, look at Ivanka. If she’s keeping her distance, he’s in trouble. But if she’s cosying up to her dad? Then we’re all in a lot of trouble. | US Federal Elections |
House panel prepares to share Trump tax secretsIf Monday was a day of reckoning for Donald Trump in Congress, Tuesday is likely to be another when a House committee meets this afternoon to vote on whether to release six years of his tax returns to the public.A Supreme Court ruling last month cleared the treasury department to hand the documents to the ways and means committee, ending a three-year fight by the former president to shield many of his closest financial secrets.The committee is almost certain to vote later this afternoon to release at least some of the information, although when, and in what form, is still uncertain. But given that Democrats have been fighting so hard to get it, and their majority in the House is in its final days, it’s reasonable to assume we’ll see something soon.House Ways and Means Committee meets this afternoon and will go into closed session to discuss Trump’s tax returns that were turned over to Congress after years of court battles. With a few days left in their majority, Ds - led by Chairman Neal - need to decide how to handle them— Manu Raju (@mkraju) December 20, 2022
A big question for panel chair Richard Neal, a Massachussetts Democrat, is how far to go with the documents. Some analysts expect to see an executive summary of the returns, while others say the full documents attached to a committee report are likely.Of course, both could still happen. A vote this afternoon for any kind of public release would be another blow for the former president, who was referred to the justice department on Monday on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection over his 2020 election defeat. As we reported earlier this month, the House committee first requested Trump’s returns in 2019. Trump, who on 15 November began his third consecutive run for the presidency, dragged the issue through the court system.It was long customary, though not required, for major party presidential candidates to release their tax records. Trump was the first such candidate in four decades not to do so.Read more:Key events1m agoCongress to vote on $1.7tn government spending deal31m agoHouse panel prepares to share Trump tax secretsShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureCongress to vote on $1.7tn government spending dealIt was a late night for congressional leaders negotiating a long-term government spending package, an agreement coming in the early hours Tuesday on a $1.7tn deal.Senators are discussing the deal today. According to the Associated Press, the package includes another large round of aid to Ukraine, a nearly 10% boost in defense spending, and roughly $40bn to assist communities across the country recovering from drought, hurricanes and other natural disasters.The bill, which runs for 4,155 pages, includes about $772.5bn for non-defense discretionary programs, and $858bn in defense funding and would last through the end of the fiscal year in September.Lawmakers are racing to complete passage before a midnight Friday deadline, or face the prospect of a partial government shutdown going into the Christmas holiday.Patrick Leahy. Photograph: ReutersThe package includes about $45bn emergency assistance to Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion, according to Democratic Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate appropriations committee. It would be the biggest US infusion of assistance yet. Previous rounds of military, economic and humanitarian assistance have totaled about $68bn.The legislation also includes historic revisions to federal election law that aim to prevent any future presidents or presidential candidates from trying to overturn an election. The bipartisan overhaul of the Electoral Count Act is in direct response to former president Donald Trump’s efforts to convince Republican lawmakers and then-vice president Mike Pence to object to the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.Support from at least 10 Republican senators will be needed for the agreement to pass and head for consideration by the House. And that is not a guarantee.“We still haven’t seen a single page of the bill… and they’re expecting us to pass it by the end of this week. It’s insane,” Florida Republican senator Rick Scott said in a tweet.We still haven't seen a single page of the Pelosi-Schumer spending bill, and they're expecting us to pass it by the end of this week. It's insane. Congress should NEVER spend YOUR MONEY on a bill we haven't read.— Rick Scott (@SenRickScott) December 20, 2022
House panel prepares to share Trump tax secretsIf Monday was a day of reckoning for Donald Trump in Congress, Tuesday is likely to be another when a House committee meets this afternoon to vote on whether to release six years of his tax returns to the public.A Supreme Court ruling last month cleared the treasury department to hand the documents to the ways and means committee, ending a three-year fight by the former president to shield many of his closest financial secrets.The committee is almost certain to vote later this afternoon to release at least some of the information, although when, and in what form, is still uncertain. But given that Democrats have been fighting so hard to get it, and their majority in the House is in its final days, it’s reasonable to assume we’ll see something soon.House Ways and Means Committee meets this afternoon and will go into closed session to discuss Trump’s tax returns that were turned over to Congress after years of court battles. With a few days left in their majority, Ds - led by Chairman Neal - need to decide how to handle them— Manu Raju (@mkraju) December 20, 2022
A big question for panel chair Richard Neal, a Massachussetts Democrat, is how far to go with the documents. Some analysts expect to see an executive summary of the returns, while others say the full documents attached to a committee report are likely.Of course, both could still happen. A vote this afternoon for any kind of public release would be another blow for the former president, who was referred to the justice department on Monday on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection over his 2020 election defeat. As we reported earlier this month, the House committee first requested Trump’s returns in 2019. Trump, who on 15 November began his third consecutive run for the presidency, dragged the issue through the court system.It was long customary, though not required, for major party presidential candidates to release their tax records. Trump was the first such candidate in four decades not to do so.Read more:Good morning US politics blog readers! It’s another day of peril for Donald Trump on Capitol Hill as a House committee meets this afternoon to vote on whether to release six years of the former president’s tax returns to the public.It’s a reasonable bet Trump didn’t wake in good spirits anyway after Monday’s referral to the justice department on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection, and today’s meeting of the ways and means committee is unlikely to lighten his mood.He’s spent years trying to shield his tax returns, and Democrats in Congress could blow that up in the waning days of their majority. But it’s unclear when, or in what form, we would see those returns in the event of a yes vote.Here’s what else we’re watching today: The Senate will discuss funding to keep the government running, not quite a week after the last time. But today they’re talking about a $1.7tn spending package agreed in the early hours that will avert a shutdown for at least another year. Voters are at the polls in Virginia to elect a Democratic nominee to fill the unexpired term of congressman Donald McEachin, who died of cancer last month after winning re-election. Joe Biden has a quiet day planned, with no events on his public schedule. As things stand, no briefing from White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is scheduled either, but things could change. Please stick with us. We’ve a lot coming up today, including more analysis of the historic criminal referral for former President Trump. | US Congress |
The US House of Representatives has approved a temporary funding bill aimed at avoiding a government shutdown due to start at midnight (05:00 GMT).
It includes disaster funds, but no US aid for Ukraine.
The 45-day resolution was proposed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy after a rebellion by hard-line fellow Republicans who control the chamber.
The bill, however, needs the approval of the upper chamber, the Senate, before signature by the president.
Democrats have a one-seat majority in the Senate and the provision of US aid to Ukraine could be a sticking point there.
If no agreement is reached, the fourth shutdown to occur over the past decade will kick in and significantly affect everything from air travel to marriage licenses.
Most government employees will be furloughed without pay, and some food assistance programs could stop.
Numerous attempts to reach a consensus on a new federal funding package have failed.
The temporary extension, known as a continuing resolution (CR) required support from two-thirds of the House to pass due to a fast-track mechanism to get it through ahead of the midnight deadline.
The US funding package is set to expire on 1 October, at the start of the US federal government's financial year.
Without a new deal, thousands of federal employees across the country are to be placed on unpaid leave, including members of the armed forces, air traffic control and those working in childcare centres.
The deal agreed on by Republicans and Democratic senators includes aid to Ukraine in the war against invading Russian forces, in addition to US disaster assistance.
Mr McCarthy has been constrained by hard-right Republicans and had refused - until now - to put a bill to the full House, including the Senate bill.
Instead, he tried and failed to get agreement on a Republican-drafted short-term spending bill on Friday, with 232 votes against the measure and 198 in favour.
More than a dozen of the most hardline Republican representatives voted against its passage. | US Federal Policies |
Borrowers stare down student loan repayments after years of high inflation
Student loan borrowers are frustrated and anxious only three months away from being forced to resume payments after a three-year hiatus.
For the roughly 40 million Americans who owe the federal government student loans, interest will begin acrruing on that debt in September. Payments will be due again in the beginning of October.
As the three-year pause comes to a close and the Supreme Court determines the fate of student loan forgiveness, borrowers are scrambling to put together a budget and figure out their loan situation as they worry the impending debt will delay other goals they have for the future.
Why the payment pause may be gone for good
Student borrowers have been off the hook for federal loans since March 2020 after former President Donald Trump issued an executive order pausing interest accrual and payments on loans owed to the government.
Despite several previous extensions, student loan borrowers had to give up the hope of another after the debt ceiling deal struck between President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) officially set the pause to expire.
Student borrower advocates and progressives slammed Biden for agreeing to the decision, saying the president betrayed their trust by agreeing to turn back on payments before knowing the fate of student debt relief.
Student loan debt: Borrowers brace for Supreme Court decision
The Supreme Court is set to rule this week on whether Biden’s executive order wiping out up to $20,000 in student loans for millions of Americans is constitutional.
Cody Hounanian, executive director of the Student Debt Crisis Center, says they know thousands of individuals who do not feel ready to restart payments.
“We have surveyed tens of thousands of borrowers over the past three years and we are deeply concerned that many borrowers are still on financial thin ice,” Hounanian said.
“The long-term economic impacts of the pandemic, an unprecedented surge in inflation, and major changes in the federal student loan system have created insurmountable obstacles for many borrowers,” Hounanian said.
How borrowers are reacting to upcoming payments
For some, restarting payments is a sign that officials do not care about the welfare of student borrowers.
“I honestly felt like it was a smack in the face,” said Marcus Jones, a 23-year-old who works at a finance company.
“We’ve been through so much these past few years as students that most people couldn’t even imagine, and for there to not have been any change to occur or for just the deadline to even be extended again, it felt like they didn’t care,” Jones said.
With the end of the pause quickly approaching, some borrowers have started preparing for their monthly payments.
LyAsia Monroe, a financial analyst, said she has made a “feasible and not-stressful plan” to resume paying her loans, but that she feels like “post-grad students like myself can’t live the American dream” because of her debt.
Cristian deRitis, deputy chief economist with Moody’s analytics, told The Hill that he expects many borrowers have been preparing for the pause to resume and that graduates who received financial benefits from their degrees should be able to handle to expense.
Even so, deRitis said, “there’s that group of borrowers that is closer to the edge in terms of financial stress … and this additional burden is going to cause them to have to make some tougher choices in terms of which bills to pay.”
Looming loan payments are forcing borrowers to rethink major life decisions, such as when to purchase a home.
“It will absolutely prevent me from doing things such as buying a home because it’s my largest debt I have,” said Keisha Medina, a psychometrist who has between $20,000 and $30,000 of student loan debt.
Borrowers are facing repayments in an uncertain economy
Record high inflation has also caused household costs to increase significantly in the past year.
While there are signs that it may be easing, consumers are still feeling the burden — especially for housing.
Housing expenses remained a core driver of inflation last month, despite data showing that annual inflation growth hit its slowest pace in more than a year.
Can borrowers afford the rent? Eviction filings soar above pre-pandemic levels in some cities
Moody’s deRitis noted that student loan payments could pull back economic growth by about $86 billion per year, assuming millions of borrowers who do not receive additional forbearance begin paying about $300 per month.
“That’s significant,” deRitis said. “Probably not enough to push us into a recession alone but, combined with some of the other factors going on, the other headwinds the economy’s faced…it could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.”
Yet the burden of payments could be lessened if borrowers set up income driven repayment plans (IDR), deRitis continued.
Borrowers will have to keep a close eye on IDR options while the Biden administration is working on changes that aim to take effect next year. One such change includes cutting a person’s discretionary income that goes towards student loans from 10 percent to 5 percent.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona’s former attorney general suppressed findings by his investigators who concluded there was no basis for allegations that the 2020 election was marred by widespread fraud, according to documents released Wednesday by his successor.
Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes, who took office last month, said the records show the 2020 election “was conducted fairly and accurately by election officials.”
Previous Attorney General Mark Brnovich, a Republican, never released a March 2022 summary of investigative findings, which ruled out most of the fraud claims spread by allies and supporters of former President Donald Trump. Yet a month later, he released an “interim report” that claimed his investigation “revealed serious vulnerabilities that must be addressed and raises questions about the 2020 election in Arizona.”
He released his April report despite pushback from his investigators who said some of its claims were refuted by their probe. Brnovich was at the time in the midst of a Republican Party primary for U.S. Senate and facing fierce criticism from Trump, who claimed he wasn’t doing enough to prosecute election fraud.
Brnovich, whose primary bid was unsuccessful, also did not release a September memo that systematically refuted a bevy of election conspiracies that have taken root on the right, including allegations of dead or duplicate voters, pre-marked ballots flown in from Asia, election servers connected to the internet and even manipulation by satellites controlled by the Italian military.
“In each instance and in each matter, the aforementioned parties did not provide any evidence to support their allegations,” the September memo read. “The information that was provided was speculative in many instances and when investigated by our agents and support staff, was found to be inaccurate.”
The September memo, which was among the documents released Wednesday, describes an all-encompassing probe that became the top priority for the attorney general’s investigators, who spent more than 10,000 hours looking into 638 complaints. They opened 430 investigations and referred 22 cases for prosecution. President Joe Biden won Arizona by a little over 10,000 votes.
Mayes said the fraud claims were a waste.
“The ten thousand plus hours spent diligently investigating every conspiracy theory under the sun distracted this office from its core mission of protecting the people of Arizona from real crime and fraud,” Mayes said in a statement.
Attempts to reach Brnovich for comment were unsuccessful.
Brnovich’s “interim report” claimed that election officials worked too quickly in verifying voter signatures and pointed to a drop in the number of ballots with rejected signatures between 2016 and 2018 and again in 2020. He also claimed that Maricopa County was slow in responding to requests for information.
He made those claims even after investigators who reviewed a draft pushed back, publishing his report largely unchanged following their feedback.
The investigative staff concluded that the county recorder’s office “followed its policy/procedures as they relate to signature verification; we did not uncover any criminality or fraud having been committed in this area during the 2020 general election,” investigators wrote. They also said they found the county “was cooperative and responsive to our requests.”
Arizona became the epicenter of efforts by Trump allies to cast doubt on Biden’s victory. Republican leaders of the state Senate subpoenaed election records and equipment and hired a Florida firm led by a Trump supporter, Cyber Ninjas Inc., to conduct an unprecedented review of the election in Maricopa County.
The Cyber Ninjas review gave Biden more votes than the official count but claimed that their work raised serious questions about the conduct of the election in Maricopa County, home to metro Phoenix and the majority of Arizona’s voters. The investigation by the attorney general’s office found the allegations did not stand up to scrutiny.
“Our comprehensive review of CNI’s audit showed they did not provide any evidence to support their allegations of widespread fraud or ballot manipulation,” Brnovich’s investigators wrote.
Thursday’s release is the latest confirmation that there was no widespread fraud in the 2020 election and that Biden won the presidency legitimately. Trump continues to repeat his lie that the election was stolen from him as he mounts his third bid for the White House, despite reviews and audits saying otherwise in the battleground states he contested and his own administration officials debunking his claims.
Officials in Maricopa County, where nearly all the officials overseeing elections are Republicans, say they endured death threats and verbal abuse due to the suggestions of malfeasance in the Cyber Ninjas review and Brnovich’s “interim report.”
“This was a gross misuse of his elected office and an appalling waste of taxpayer dollars, as well as a waste of the time and effort of professional investigators,” Clint Hickman, the Republican chairman of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors said in a statement.
Brnovich’s investigators did conclude that Maricopa County officials did not uniformly follow state election procedures when filling out forms to document the pickup and transport of mail ballots. But they said the errors were procedural and that “investigators did not find anything that would (have) compromised the integrity of the ballots or the final ballot count.”
Investigators interviewed two Republican state lawmakers who publicly claimed they knew of fraud in the election, but wrote that neither Rep. Mark Finchem nor Sen. Sonny Borrelli repeated their claims to investigators — when they could have been subject to criminal charges for false reporting to law enforcement. The investigators said a third lawmaker, Republican state Sen. Wendy Rogers, declined to speak with them. | US Federal Elections |
The Kraken has been released—on probation.
Sidney Powell, the attorney who used that catchphrase for her work to overturn the 2020 presidential election, pleaded guilty today to six misdemeanors in Fulton County, Georgia, as part of a sweeping racketeering case against Donald Trump and 16 others. Under the terms of the deal, Powell admitted she conspired to breach the election systems in Coffee County, Georgia. She recorded a proffer video with prosecutors that described the crimes and she agreed to testify at future cases. She also wrote an apology letter to citizens of Georgia and agreed to pay almost $9,000 in fines.
The plea deal appears to be a very good one for Powell—letting her off with only misdemeanors, which can be wiped from her record as a first offender if she complies with the terms of the agreement. She was set to go on trial tomorrow, alongside the lawyer Kenneth Chesebro, who is accused of designing a scheme to submit false electors on behalf of Trump. (Powell still faces defamation charges from manufacturers of voting machines, and she’s an unindicted co-conspirator in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s federal case against Trump.)
“It’s a great deal. If I were her, I’d be very pleased,” Anthony Michael Kreis, a law professor at Georgia State, told me. “It’s a great outcome especially if you’re engaged in what most people would say are obvious felonies.”
The question is what it gives prosecutors. Although today’s plea doesn’t offer the public any new information about the prosecutors’ case or the evidence they have, it seems to have a potential to affect the overall Fulton County case in three ways. In short, Kreis told me, “I think there are a lot of people who are in more trouble than they were before.”
First, the plea simplifies the Chesebro trial. Powell and Chesebro had asked for speedy trials, rather than waiting a few months for a more standard trial. Though both are attorneys, their roles were very different. Powell, flashy and drawn to animal prints and chunky jewelry, became a household name in the weeks after the election because she often spoke to the press about the election scheme, though her role seems to have been mostly lower-level and operational. Chesebro, by contrast, was little known and had no public profile but worked closely with John Eastman and other lawyers on the broad contours of the paperwork coup.
Removing Powell will narrow the Chesebro trial, which could help prosecutors, but it may also satisfy Chesebro, whose attorneys wanted the cases separated. “There has never been any direct contact or communication between Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell,” they argued in a filing last month. “Similarly, there is no correlation or overlap between the overt acts or the substantive charges associated with Mr. Chesebro and Ms. Powell.” (Chesebro rejected a deal that would have spared him prison time but required him to plead guilty to a felony and testify, ABC News reports.)
Second, Powell’s plea moves forward the Coffee County portion of the racketeering case. According to prosecutors, the conspirators arranged to unlawfully access and copy data from voting machines in the Southeastern Georgia location. Powell is the second person to plead guilty to involvement there, following Scott Hall, an Atlanta bail bondsman who copped a plea in September. Their testimony may help prosecutors target Jeff Clark, a little-known Justice Department official who attempted to lead a coup inside the department, getting Trump to appoint him acting attorney general, and to convince state legislatures to overturn election results. (He has pleaded not guilty.)
“The person in the gravest of danger [now] is Jeff Clark,” Kreis said. “Now we have a direct chain of individuals who can link Sidney Powell to Scott Hall and Scott Hall to Jeff Clark. Now there’s two witnesses who can presumably talk about the way in which Jeff Clark was not just concocting letters in his office to encourage the general assembly to overturn the election but was involved in and linked to unlawful actions in Georgia.”
Third is the question of how other people accused in the case might react to Powell’s plea. Prosecutors likely hope that it might convince some of the lower-level defendants to conclude that their chances of beating the rap are low but also that cooperating now might produce favorable terms. Agreements to testify would, in turn, presumably make it easier to mount a successful case against the biggest names in the case—Trump, of course, as well as the attorneys Eastman and Rudy Giuliani, and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows. A trial for these defendants likely won’t occur until next year.
“It’s a real prisoner’s dilemma,” Kreis said. “Who’s talking; who’s doing what; what’s the deal I’m going to get? It’s a complicated set of game theory.”
How all of the remaining defendants, with all of their different interests, choose to play will help determine what sort of game is being played: Powell’s conviction could be the first domino in a dramatic cascade, or simply an early piece taken off the board in a long, grueling chess match. | US Political Corruption |
This post was most recently updated on April 24, 2023. The original September 2021 piece is archived here.
Once again, the debt ceiling is in the news and is a cause for concern. If the debt ceiling binds, and the U.S. Treasury does not have the ability to pay its obligations, the negative economic effects would quickly mount and risk triggering a deep recession.
The debt limit caps the total amount of allowable outstanding U.S. federal debt. The U.S. hit that limit—$31.4 trillion—on January 19, 2023, but the Department of the Treasury has been undertaking a set of “extraordinary measures” so that the debt limit does not yet bind. Treasury estimates that those measures will be sufficient through at least early June. Sometime after that, unless Congress raises or suspends the debt limit, the federal government will lack the cash to pay all its obligations. Those obligations are the result of laws previously enacted by Congress. As our colleagues Len Burman and Bill Gale wrote, “Raising the debt limit is not about new spending; it is about paying for previous choices policymakers legislated.”
If the debt ceiling binds, and the U.S. Treasury does not have the ability to pay its obligations, the negative economic effects would quickly mount and risk triggering a deep recession.
The economic effects of such an unprecedented event would surely be negative. However, there is an enormous amount of uncertainty surrounding the damage the U.S. economy will incur if the U.S. government is unable to pay all its bills—it depends on how long the situation lasts, how it is managed, and the extent to which investors alter their views about the safety of U.S. Treasuries. An extended impasse is likely to cause significant damage to the U.S. economy. Even in a best-case scenario where the impasse is short-lived, the economy is likely to suffer sustained—and completely avoidable—damage.
The timing of when Treasury will not have enough cash to meet its obligations—the so-called “X-date”—is uncertain because it depends on the inflows of federal tax payments. Estimates of the X-date range from early June to early fall; the range is so wide because the delay in the tax filing deadline for those affected by storms in California makes the pace and amounts of federal tax particularly uncertain this year. That uncertainty underlines the urgency around this issue. Policymakers should not assume they have several months to work out a solution.
The U.S. government pays a lower interest rate on Treasury securities because of the unparalleled safety and liquidity of the Treasury market. Some estimates suggest that this advantage lowers the interest rate the government pays on Treasuries (relative to interest rates on the debt of other sovereign nations) on the order of 25 basis points (a quarter of a percentage point) on average. Given the current level of the debt, this translates into interest savings for the federal government of roughly $50 billion next year and more than $750 billion over the next decade. If a portion of this advantage were lost by allowing the debt limit to bind, the cost to the taxpayer could be significant.
How will the U.S. Treasury operate when the debt limit binds?
One cannot predict how Treasury will operate when the debt limit binds, given that this would be unprecedented. Treasury did have a contingency plan in place in 2011 when the country faced a similar situation, and it seems likely that Treasury would follow the contours of that plan if the debt limit were to bind this year. Under the 2011 plan, there would be no default on Treasury securities. Treasury would continue to pay interest on those Treasury securities as it comes due. And, as securities mature, Treasury would pay that principal by auctioning new securities for the same amount (and thus not increasing the overall stock of debt held by the public). Treasury would delay payments for all other obligations until it had at least enough cash to pay a full day’s obligations. In other words, it will delay payments to agencies, contractors, Social Security beneficiaries, and Medicare providers rather than attempting to pick and choose which payments to make that are due on a given day.
Federal employees would likely continue working during a debt-limit impasse in contrast to the government shutdowns that occur when Congress hasn’t enacted appropriations bills. That’s because federal agencies would still have legal authority, provided by Congress, to obligate funds. Thus, national parks and other government agencies would likely remain open, but federal workers’ paychecks would be delayed.
Timely payments of interest and principal of Treasury securities alongside delays in other federal obligations would likely result in swift legal challenges. While the motivation to pay principal and interest on time to avoid a default on Treasury securities is clear, lawsuits would probably argue that Treasury has no authority to unilaterally decide which obligations put in place by Congress to honor. (Imagine the legal challenges if the executive branch were to indefinitely postpone payments related to a particular program enacted by Congress.) Courts would have to determine whether Treasury could prioritize interest payments while the legal challenges were being resolved—adding another layer of uncertainty. Moreover, it is not clear how such litigation would turn out, as the law imposes contradictory requirements on the government. Treasury is required to make payments, honor the debt, and not go above the debt limit: three things that cannot all happen at once.
Treasury may have the legal authority to mint and issue a “collectible” trillion-dollar platinum coin and deposit it at the Federal Reserve in exchange for cash to pay the government’s bills. However, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has noted that the Fed, reluctant to intervene in a partisan political dispute, might not accept the deposit. Others argue that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution—which says that “the validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned”—would allow Treasury to ignore the debt limit and indeed requires it to meet all obligations. But those actions would certainly be viewed as circumventing the law that establishes the debt ceiling, and they would likely not prevent havoc in the debt market and many of the ill effects on the economy described below.
The consequences to prioritizing certain types of payments
If the debt limit binds, and Treasury were to make interest payments, then other outlays will have to be cut in an average month by about 25 percent. That would be necessary because the Congressional Budget Office expects close to 25 cents of every dollar of non-interest outlays to be financed by borrowing in 2023. If Treasury were to prioritize interest payments as well as Social Security payments, as some commentators have suggested they could, other payments to people, businesses, and agencies would see even more substantial cuts of roughly one third.
However, the size of the cuts would vary from month to month because infusions of cash to Treasury from tax revenues vary greatly by month. Tax revenues in July and August tend to be fairly low. Thus, the required cuts to federal spending when an increase in federal debt is precluded are particularly large during these months. If Treasury wanted to be certain that it always had sufficient cash on hand to cover all interest payments, it might need to cut non-interest spending by 35 percent or more.
How would a binding debt limit affect the economy?
The economic costs of the debt limit binding, while assuredly negative, are enormously uncertain. Assuming interest and principal is paid on time, the very short-term effects largely depend on the expectations of financial market participants, businesses, and households. Would the stock market tumble precipitously the first day that a Social Security payment is delayed? Would the U.S. Treasury market, the world’s most important, function smoothly? Would there be a run on money market funds that hold short-term U.S. Treasuries? What actions would the Federal Reserve take to stabilize financial markets and the economy more broadly?
Much depends on whether investors would be confident that Treasury would continue paying interest on time and on how long they think the impasse will persist. If people expect the impasse will be short-lived and are certain that Treasury will not default on Treasury securities, it is possible that the initial response could be muted. However, that certainty would in part depend on whether there are swift legal challenges to Treasury prioritizing interest payments and subsequent rulings.
Regardless, even if the debt limit were raised quickly so that it only was binding for a few days, there could be lasting damage. At the very least, financial markets would likely anticipate such disruptions each time the debt limit nears in the future. In addition, the shock to financial markets and loss of business and household confidence could take time to abate.
If the impasse were to drag on, market conditions would likely worsen with each passing day. Concerns about a default would grow with mounting legal and political pressures as Treasury security holders were prioritized above others to whom the federal government had obligations. Concerns would grow regarding the direct negative economic effects of a protracted sharp cut in federal spending.
Worsening expectations regarding a possible default would make significant disruptions in financial markets increasingly probable. That could result in an increase in interest rates on newly issued Treasuries. If financial markets started to pull back from U.S. Treasuries all together, the Treasury could have a difficult time finding buyers when it sought to roll over maturing debt, perhaps putting pressure on the Federal Reserve to purchase additional Treasuries in the secondary market. Such financial market disruptions would very likely be coupled with declines in the price of equities, a loss of consumer and business confidence, and a contraction in access to private credit markets.
Financial markets, businesses, and households would become more pessimistic about a quick resolution and increasingly worried that a recession was inevitable. More and more people would feel economic pain because of delayed payments. Take just a few examples: Social Security beneficiaries seeing delays in their payments could face trouble with expenses such as rent and utilities; federal, state, and local agencies might see delays in payments that interrupt their work; federal contractors and employees would face uncertainty about how long their payments would be delayed. Those and other disruptions would have enormous economic and health consequences over time.
Given that those disruptions would likely occur when the economy is growing slowly and perhaps contracting, the risk that the crisis would quickly trigger a deep recession is heightened. Moreover, tax revenues, the only resource the Treasury would have to pay interest on the debt, would be dampened, and the federal government would have to cut back on non-interest outlays with increasing severity.
In a worst-case scenario, at some point Treasury would be forced to delay a payment of interest or principal on U.S. debt. Such an outright default on Treasury securities would very likely result in severe disruption to the Treasury securities market with acute spillovers to other financial markets and to the cost and availability of credit to households and businesses. Those developments could undermine the reputation of the Treasury market as the safest and most liquid in the world.
Estimates of the effects of a binding debt limit on the U.S. economy
It is obviously difficult to quantify the effects of a binding debt limit on the macroeconomy. However, history and illustrative scenarios provide some guidance.
Evidence from prior “near-misses”:
As discussed in this Hutchins Center Explains post, when Congress waited until the last minute to raise the debt ceiling in 2013, rates rose on Treasury securities scheduled to mature near the projected date the debt limit was projected to bind—by between 21 basis points and 46 basis points, according to an estimate from Federal Reserve economists—and liquidity in the Treasury securities market contracted. Yields across all maturities also increased a bit—by between 4 basis points and 8 basis points—reflecting investors’ fears of broader financial contagion. Similarly, after policymakers came close to the brink of the debt limit binding in 2011, the GAO estimated that the delays in raising the debt limit increased Treasury’s borrowing costs by about $1.3 billion that year. The fact that the estimated effects are small in comparison to the U.S. economy likely reflects that investors didn’t think it very likely that the debt ceiling would actually bind and thought that if it did, the impasse would be very short-lived.
Evidence from macroeconomic models:
In October 2013, the Federal Reserve simulated the effects of a binding debt ceiling that lasted one month—from mid-October to mid-November 2013—during which time Treasury would continue to make all interest payments. The Fed economists estimated that such an impasse would lead to an 80 basis point increase in 10-year Treasury yields, a 30 percent decline in stock prices, a 10 percent drop in the value of the dollar, and a hit to household and business confidence, with these effects waning over a two-year period. According to their analysis, this deterioration in financial conditions would result in a mild two-quarter recession, leading to an increase in the unemployment rate of 1.25 percentage points in the first year after the crisis and 1.7 percentage points in the second. Such an increase in the unemployment rate today would mean the loss of about 2 million jobs in 2023 and 2.8 million jobs in 2024.
Macroeconomic Advisers conducted a similar exercise in 2013. It assessed the economic costs of two scenarios—one in which the impasse lasted just a short time and another in which it persisted for two months. Even in the scenario in which the impasse was resolved quickly, the economic consequences were substantial—a mild recession and a loss of 2.5 million jobs that returned only very slowly. For the two-month impasse, which included a deep cut to federal spending in one quarter, offset by a surge in spending in the next quarter, the effects were larger and longer lasting. In the analysis, such a scenario would lead to the near-term loss of up to 3.1 million jobs. Even two years after the crisis, there would be 2.5 million fewer jobs than there otherwise would have been.
In 2021, when failure to raise the debt ceiling once again threatened Treasury’s ability to pay its obligations, Moody’s Analytics concluded that the costs to the U.S. economy of allowing the debt limit to bind then would be severe. In Moody’s simulation, if the impasse lasted several months in the fall of 2021, employment would decline by 5 million and real GDP would decline almost 4 percent in the near term before recovering over the next few quarters.
Conclusion
While greatly uncertain, the effects of allowing the debt limit to bind could be quite severe, even assuming that principal and interest payments continue to be made. If instead Treasury fails to fully make all principal and interest payments—because of political or legal constraints, unexpected cash shortfalls, or a failed auction of new Treasury securities—the consequences would be even more dire.
The workarounds that have been proposed—the platinum coin, increasing borrowing despite the debt limit, prioritizing payments—either bring significant legal uncertainty or are not sustainable solutions. These unlikely workarounds do not avoid the chaos that is inherent to the debt ceiling binding. The only effective solution is for Congress to increase the debt ceiling without delay or, better yet, abolish it.
The Brookings Institution is financed through the support of a diverse array of foundations, corporations, governments, individuals, as well as an endowment. A list of donors can be found in our annual reports published online here. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in this report are solely those of its author(s) and are not influenced by any donation. | US Federal Policies |
Raskin says second Trump term would ‘look a lot like Vladimir Putin in Russia’
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) on Sunday compared a hypothetical second Trump White House term to that of President Vladimir Putin’s Russia and other authoritarian leaders in response to Trump’s veiled threats that he would go after his political opponents if reelected.
“Well, the role of the government in his view is to advance his political fortunes and destroy his political enemies. So what would a second term look like? It would look a lot like Vladimir Putin in Russia. It would look a lot like [Prime Minister Viktor Orban] in Hungary — illiberal democracy, meaning democracy without rights, or liberties, or respect for the due process, the system, the rule of law,” Raskin said on MSNBC’s “Inside with Jen Psaki.”
Raskin, a member of the now dissolved House select committee that investigated the Jan 6., 2021, attack on the Capitol and Trump’s role in it, also described such countries as not accepting results that don’t benefit certain leaders.
“They don’t accept elections that don’t go their way,” Raskin said. “They refuse to disavow political violence. They embrace political violence as an instrument for obtaining power, and then everything flows from the will of a charismatic politician. And that is Donald Trump in their book.”
“So we are clearly headed into a completely different form of government than any of us would recognize, as continuous with the past — right-wing, authoritarian government in league with Putin, [Chinese President Xi Jinping], Orban, [former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro], you name it,” he said.
Trump has repeatedly lashed out as he faces an unprecedented 91 criminal felony counts stemming from four separate indictments, two on the state level and two on the federal.
He has suggested in Truth Social posts and during rallies that if reelected, he could go after his political opponents such as President Biden in return.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Elections |
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
- Oops!Something went wrong.Please try again later.
The late-night hosts have been having a lot of fun with the struggles in Washington D.C. to select a new speaker of the House the past few weeks, and now that the journey has finally come to an end, the hosts definitely had reactions.
The House of Representatives elected Rep. Mike Johnson from Louisiana to become the 56th speaker of the House on Wednesday, ending a three-week mess that has played out very publicly.
Not only did all four major late-night shows react to the news — said Johnson looks like a kid dressed up as a Congressman for Halloween — they hit on many of the same aspects of the story. Here’s a look at how it all breaks down.
The wait is finally over
It took three weeks of trying and multiple failed attempts to fill the speaker seat after Kevin McCarthy was ousted, here’s what the hosts thought about it finally getting done.
:
“They found someone just in time, if the job stayed open any longer it would have automatically gone to Ryan Seacrest.”
“Republicans said Mike Johnson is their first choice… after their first 10 choices lost.”
“Let’s just say if speaker nominees were Star Wars characters, he’s their Jar Jar.”
“Let’s just say if speaker nominees were halloween candy, this guy’s a Necco Wafer.”
“It’s like being at a restaurant and hearing, ‘do you have Coke? No. Do you have Pepsi? No. Fine I guess I’ll have the Mike Johnson.”
Stephen Colbert:
“Our long national nightmare is finally different.”
“Johnson was just elected this afternoon, getting votes from all 220 Republicans. Finally, a man who appeals to all factions of the Republican party: the MAGA faithful, the social conservatives, the white nationalists and (with a picture of Lauren Boebert) the horny Beetlejuice goblins."
The Mike Johnson name
While it may be low-hanging fruit, the hosts just couldn’t help themselves when it comes to Johnson's rather common name.
Stephen Colbert:
“He is the most generic sounding congressional leader since the election of James Kirkland Brand.”
— The Late Show (@colbertlateshow) October 26, 2023
Seth Meyers:
“Wow, the speaker race was so embarrassing they’re not even giving their real names anymore. Mike Johson is the name you give when you check into your hotel with your mistress. That’s what Spirit Halloween calls their Michael Jackson costume.”
Jimmy Fallon:
“That’s right, the new speaker of the House is Mike Johnson, and if that name sounds familiar it’s because it’s on every fake ID.”
Jimmy Kimmel:
“Not only is he not the best choice for speaker, you can’t even definitively say that Mike Johnson is the best Mike Johnson they could have chose. There’s Mike Johnson from Louisiana, he’s a Republican state representative who may have been a better Johnson overall. You have quadruple gold medalist Mike Johnson, you’ve got Canadian bodybuilder Mike Johnson, Swedish chef Mike Johnson who would make everyone little meatballs every day. You could have given the gavel to one of at least five Mike Johnsons in the NFL or even country music’s number-one black yodeler Mike Johnson.”
Johnson’s election-denier past
But what really seems to irk the hosts the most, is the fact that Johnson previously led the charge in asking the Supreme Court to throw out the 2020 presidential election on behalf of then-president Donald Trump, who falsely claimed it was fraudulent.
Jimmy Fallon:
“Johnson is pretty controversial because he led the effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election. So whether or not he won today, he was going to say he did.”
Jimmy Kimmel:
“He’s been called the most important architect of the electoral college objections, contesting the results of the election in 2020. He voted to decertify the results of that election confirming Biden as president, so he checks off all the important boxes. He’s also anti-gay, anti-choice, pro-conspiracy theory, he seems terrific.”
“You could go to the middle of the phone book and pick any one of the hundreds of Mike Johnsons, each one would be a better choice for speaker, because not one of them tried to overthrow the presidential election, in the house that he now represents.”
“Even though Mike Johnson tried to decertify Biden’s election win, Biden called Johnson to congratulate him because that’s what normal people do. Biden said he looked forward to working together to find common ground, and Johnson said he looked forward to burning democracy to the ground.”
Seth Meyers:
“House of Representatives voted to elect Louisiana congressman Mike Johnson speaker of the House. And apparently this election result he will accept.”
Meyers also took a deeper dive into the selection in his A Closer Look segment.
The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon and Late Night With Seth Meyers air on NBC; Jimmy Kimmel Live! airs on ABC; The Late Show With Stephen Colbert airs on CBS. | US Congress |
“People are going to vote for him even if he is in jail,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) said.
In an interview with Piers Morgan on TalkTV, Greene expressed confidence that Trump is headed for a big win less than a year from today.
Morgan tackled a few questions about the 2024 election, asking Greene if she expects him to win. She responded, “Absolutely. He's blowing it out of the water. The primary is a joke. And he is winning poll after poll in the general election.”
He then asked what would happen “if he gets convicted.”
Greene, who often appears as a speaker at Trump campaign rallies, suggested that people would vote for Trump as payback for what she believes are political witch hunts in the trials in Georgia, Washington, Florida, and New York.
“I would vote for him even if he's in jail because we have communism in our country," she said. "We have the Biden administration that is using the Department of Justice like the campaign arm of the Biden campaign. It's unbelievable, and Americans know this.”
She was on Morgan's show to promote her new book MTG, an autobiography with a focus on her rise as a conservative political and "MAGA" star. The book, published by Winning Team, will be released next week. | US Federal Elections |
Key events45m agoSummary and welcomeShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureDavid SmithIf you missed it earlier, the Guardian’s Washington bureau chief David Smith offered this analysis, saying that Republicans have dusted off a familiar playbook to weaponise the FBI’s Mar-a-Lago search:Republicans responded furiously to the development, following Trump’s lead in claiming that the search showed the justice department waging a politically motivated witch-hunt. Their florid rhetoric will do little to assuage fears that a prosecution of Trump could lead to social unrest and even political violence.Ronna McDaniel, chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, said: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Countless times we have examples of Democrats flouting the law and abusing power with no recourse.The Republican response on Monday drew from a familiar playbook: Trump has long maintained that the Russia investigation, for example, was a “hoax” and part of a “deep state” conspiracy against him. Scrutiny of his removal of presidential records, or his role in the January 6 insurrection, is likely to produce a similar backlash.David Axelrod, ex-strategist under Barack Obama, said: “This is why Trump is going to run. He wants to portray any criminal probe or prosecution as a plot to prevent him from once again becoming POTUS. Many of his followers will believe it – as they did his lies about the LAST election.”Read more of David Smith’s analysis here: Republicans dust off familiar playbook to weaponise Mar-a-Lago FBI searchYou may recall Alexander Vindman, the retired United States Army lieutenant colonel who retired claiming he had been bullied by President Trump and administration officials after he responded to a subpoena and testified in front of Congress during the hearings for Trump’s first impeachment.Vindman has clearly woken up with a zing in his step today, and has fired off this tweet:Hey GOP/MAGA/Fox News , if Trump and his henchmen can launch a campaign of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against a serving Army Officer for testifying before Congress, it can happen to anyone.Hey GOP/MAGA/@FoxNews , if Trump and his henchmen can launch a campaign of harassment, intimidation, and retaliation against a serving Army Officer for testifying before Congress, it can happen to anyone.— Alexander S. Vindman (@AVindman) August 9, 2022
Overnight Donald Trump launched a new campaign video on his Truth Social network, just hours after he had complained bitterly about his Mar-a-Lago residence being searched by the FBI.The nearly four minute video paints a bleak picture of life in the United States during a lengthy black and white section which opens “we are a nation in decline, we are a failing nation”, then bursts into colour later on with a promise from Trump that “the best is yet to come”.The video stops short of saying that Trump will run for 2024, but is as close as you can get to an election campaign video.Clearly filmed before the FBI executed their search warrant, nevertheless at one point in the video Trump tells viewers “We’re a nation that has weaponized its law enforcement against the opposing political party like never before. We’ve never seen anything like this. We’re a nation that no longer has a free and fair press. Fake news is about all you get. We are a nation where free speech is no longer allowed.”After news broke that the FBI executed a search warrant at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, some of his supporters gathered outside the resort in Palm Beach, Florida. A supporter of Trump waves a flag outside Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. Photograph: Marco Bello/ReutersSupporters of former US President Donald Trump outside his residence last night. Photograph: Giorgio Viera/AFP/Getty ImagesThe scene also drew protestors.A protester demonstrates outside the home of former President Donald Trump. Photograph: Eva Marie Uzcategui/Getty ImagesHere is a video clip of what it all looked like.Trump supporters gather after FBI searches his Mar-a-Lago home – videoIf you need a quick catch-up, then here is a handy list of the current lawsuits and investigations that former US President Donald Trump is facing. They include missing national records, which appears to have been the aim of the FBI’s search of Mar-a-Lago, as well as investigations over the attack on the US Capitol on 6 January, election tampering in Georgia, E Jean Carroll’s defamation case and a criminal inquiry in the state of New York.You can find them all here: What lawsuits and investigations is Donald Trump facing? This is Martin Belam with the live blog in London, by the way. You can reach me at [email protected] Summary and welcomeHello and welcome to our coverage of the continuing reaction to former US president Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate being raided by the FBI. We’ll also be bringing you the rest of the day’s US politics news as it develops. Here is a summary of where things stand at the moment: Former US President Donald Trump claimed FBI agents raided his Mar-a-Lago estate on Monday and broke into his safe, adding that his estate “is currently under siege, raided, and occupied.” The FBI executed a search warrant around 6pm ET which appears to have been related to an investigation into Trump unlawfully taking White House classified documents with him to Mar-a-Lago after his presidency. The search appeared to concern boxes of classified documents that Trump brought with him from the White House to the Florida club, the New York Times reported, citing two unnamed people familiar with the investigation. Trump released a lengthy statement following the search, comparing the FBI raid to “Watergate” and blaming it on “Radical Left Democrats”. “After working and cooperating with the relevant government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate ... They even broke into my safe!” he said. Trump was not at the estate at the time of the raid and was in the New York area, according to multiple reports. The White House said it had no advance information of the FBI’s search. Justice Department officials declined to comment on any element of the search, including whether it informed the White House ahead of time, whether attorney general Merrick Garland approved the court-approved search warrant - or even if he was briefed on the raid. Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said he didn’t know any more details other than what he read in the news. The FBI obtained a warrant to search Mar-a-Lago because they were able to establish probable cause - to a federal magistrate judge in West Palm Beach, according to a source familiar with the matter - that Trump was unlawfully holding official White House records at his residence in Florida. The probable cause, in this case, was likely that the records were being kept at Mar-a-Lago. The very presence of government records at the resort is the potential crime, according to top former FBI officials who spoke to the Guardian on the condition of anonymity. Former acting US Solicitor General said today’s search makes it likely that Trump is the target of a criminal investigation by the justice department and said his lawyer should be advising him about possible jail time. Journalists at the scene in Palm Beach reported that a crowd of supporters gathered outside Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home holding flags late Monday evening in Florida. NCB News reporter, Cristian Benavides, posted a series of videos of supporters at the scene. “The crowd near Mar-A-Lago continues to grow into the night following that search warrant earlier today,” he said. Republicans responded furiously to the development, following Trump’s lead in claiming that the search showed the justice department waging a politically motivated witch-hunt. House minority leader Kevin McCarthy said the raid was evidence of “weaponized politicization” at the justice department. | US Political Corruption |
- Rep. Rosa DeLauro asked all federal agency heads how GOP spending cut proposals would impact them.
- The agencies responded on Monday, with Education Sec. Miguel Cardona outlining the "devastating" impact the cuts would have on student-loan borrowers.
- He said the cuts would delay student-debt relief and make it even harder to get customer service help.
Federal agencies are responding to a Republican plan to cut spending levels — and its impacts don't look pretty.
In January, House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro wrote to all federal agency heads asking how a Republican plan to cap fiscal year 2024 spending at the 2022 level would impact their agencies and the Americans they serve.
On Monday, the agencies responded. House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro said in a statement that Republican proposals to cut spending on federal programs would "cause irreparable damage to our communities by gutting the programs every single American relies on. Those proposals are unrealistic, unsustainable, and unconscionable."
"Continued Republican calls for cuts of this magnitude—both secret proposals from Republican leadership and public demands from extremists in the party—would be absolutely detrimental to all Americans, many of whom have not seen a pay raise in years and are struggling to pay their bills," DeLauro added. "The math is not there. These drastic cuts would put people at risk."
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona, in his response, elaborated on the "devastating effects" the GOP proposal would have on students and parents who rely on financial aid — especially student-loan borrowers. He noted that while specifics of the Republican plan have yet to be publicly released, the Education Department analyzed the impacts of capping programs at the fiscal year 2022 level, and 22% below the currently enacted level for fiscal year 2023.
Cardona said the impacts of the decreased spending would be significant when it comes to administering financial aid. A 22% spending reduction would cut $468 million to service financial aid, and if funding were kept at the 2022 level, "more than 40 million student loan borrowers would be impacted through decreased service hours and longer turnaround times to make changes to student loan repayment plans, or obtain a deferment, forbearance, or discharge of student loans."
He added that 17.6 million parents and students who apply for financial aid could experience "multiple-hour wait times and reduced call center hours," and applications for loans could take "weeks longer to process."
Student-loan borrowers are already faced with hours-long wait times to get simple questions answered from the companies that service their loans. With Biden's broad plan to cancel student debt stalled as the Supreme Court makes a final decision on the legality of the relief, borrowers have had questions on what the relief means for their repayment.
One borrower, for example, recently told Insider that "no one is taking the time to help me or to listen to me," causing her to spend hours emailing and calling federal agencies to get help with repayment.
Still, Democrats are waiting for a concrete plan from the opposing party on what type of spending cuts they want to see in a potential deal to raise the debt ceiling and keep the US on top of paying its bills, so it's unclear how exactly the Education Department will be impacted by any forthcoming cuts.
But the agency already has a lot on its plate with minimal resources, given Congress approved a budget last year that did not increase Federal Student Aid's funding. Biden's recently released budget requested a funding increase for the agency to help facilitate a smooth transition to repayment for borrowers this year, but it's not likely to be approved by a GOP-led House. | US Federal Policies |
As the Israel-Hamas war continues, with Israeli troops moving into the Gaza Strip and encircling Gaza City, one piece of technology is having an outsized impact on how we see and understand the war. Messaging app Telegram, which has a history of lax moderation, has been used by Hamas to share gruesome images and videos. The information has then spread to other social networks and millions more eyeballs. Sources tell WIRED that Telegram has been weaponized to spread horrific propaganda.Microsoft has had a hard few months when it comes to the company’s own security, with Chinese-backed hackers stealing its cryptographic signing key, continued issues with Microsoft Exchange Servers, and its customers being impacted by failings. The company has now unveiled a plan to deal with the ever-growing range of threats. It’s the Secure Future Initiative, which plans, among multiple elements, to use AI-driven tools, improve its software development, and shorten its response time to vulnerabilities.Also this week, we’ve looked at the privacy practices of Bluesky, Mastodon, and Meta’s Threads as all of the social media platforms jostle for space in a world where X, formerly known as Twitter, continues to implode. And things aren’t exactly great with this next generation of social media. With November arriving, we now have a detailed breakdown of the security vulnerabilities and patches issued last month. Microsoft, Google, Apple, and enterprise firms Cisco, VMWare, and Citrix all fixed major security flaws in October.And there's more. Each week, we round up the security and privacy news we didn’t cover in depth ourselves. Click the headlines to read the full stories, and stay safe out there.The Flipper Zero is a versatile hacking tool designed for security researchers. The pocket-size pen-testing device can intercept and replay all kinds of wireless signals—including NFC, infrared, RFID, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi. That means it's possible to read microchips and inspect signals being admitted from devices. Slightly more nefariously, we've found it can easily clone building-entry cards and read credit card details through people's clothes.Over the last few weeks, the Flipper Zero, which costs around $170, has been gaining some traction for its ability to disrupt iPhones, particularly by sending them into denial of service (DoS) loops. As Ars Technica reported this week, the Flipper Zero, with some custom firmware, is able to send “a constant stream of messages” asking iPhones to connect via Bluetooth devices such as an Apple TV or AirPods. The barrage of notifications, which is sent by a nearby Flipper Zero, can overwhelm an iPhone and make it virtually unusable.“My phone was getting these pop-ups every few minutes, and then my phone would reboot,” security researcher Jeroen van der Ham told Ars about a DoS attack he experienced while commuting in the Netherlands. He later replicated the attack in a lab environment, while other security researchers have also demonstrated the spamming ability in recent weeks. In van der Ham’s tests, the attack only worked on devices running iOS 17—and at the moment, the only way to prevent the attack is by turning off Bluetooth.In 2019, hackers linked to Russia’s intelligence service broke into the network of software firm SolarWinds, planting a backdoor and ultimately finding their way into thousands of systems. This week, the US Securities and Exchange Commission charged Tim Brown, the CISO of SolarWinds, and the company with fraud and “internal control failures.” The SEC alleges that Brown and the company overstated SolarWinds’ cybersecurity practices while “understating or failing to disclose known risks.” The SEC claims that SolarWinds knew of “specific deficiencies” in the company’s security practices and made public claims that weren’t reflected in its own internal assessments.“Rather than address these vulnerabilities, SolarWinds and Brown engaged in a campaign to paint a false picture of the company’s cyber controls environment, thereby depriving investors of accurate material information,” Gurbir S. Grewal, director of the SEC’s Division of Enforcement said in a statement. In response, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, the CEO of SolarWinds, said in a blog post that the allegations are part of a “misguided and improper enforcement action.”For years, researchers have shown that face recognition systems, trained on millions of pictures of people, can misidentify women and people of color at disproportionate rates. The systems have led to wrongful arrests. A new investigation from Politico, focusing on a year’s worth of face recognition requests made by police in New Orleans, has found that the technology was almost exclusively used to try to identify Black people. The system also “failed to identify suspects a majority of the time,” the report says. Analysis of 15 requests for the use of face recognition technology found that only one of them was for a white suspect, and in nine cases the technology failed to find a match. Three of the six matches were also incorrect. “The data has pretty much proven that [anti-face-recognition] advocates were mostly correct,” one city councilor said.Identity management company Okta has revealed more details about an intrusion into its systems, which it first disclosed on October 20. The company said the attackers, who had accessed its customer support system, accessed files belonging to 134 customers. (In these instances, customers are individual companies that subscribe to Okta’s services). “Some of these files were HAR files that contained session tokens which could in turn be used for session hijacking attacks,” the company disclosed in a blog post. These session tokens were used to “hijack” the Okta sessions of five separate companies. 1Password, BeyondTrust, and Cloudflare have all previously disclosed they detected suspicious activity, but it is not clear who the two remaining companies are. | US Political Corruption |
Student Union
Judges Halt Rule Offering Student Debt Relief for Those Alleging Colleges Misled Them
A federal appeals court on Monday halted a rule from President Joe Biden's administration that could make it easier to obtain student loan debt relief for borrowers who say they were victims of misleading information about the quality of education they would receive.
At issue is a rule broadening existing policy ending the debt of students who borrowed money to attend colleges and universities that are determined to have misled them on matters such as whether their courses would actually prepare them for employment in their field or the likely salary they would earn upon obtaining a degree.
Career Colleges and Schools of Texas, an association of for-profit higher learning institutions, filed a lawsuit against the rule in February. Among its complaints was that the rules are so broad that they cover even unintentional actions by a college. They also said the rule unconstitutionally gives an executive branch agency, the Department of Education, what amounts to the power of a court in deciding whether to grant claims for debt relief.
Administration lawyers said relief granted by the department could be appealed in federal court.
The colleges asked a Texas-based federal judge to block the rule while the case plays out. The judge refused in a June ruling. But three 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges on Monday issued a brief order granting an injunction. The order said the panel would hear arguments in November.
The three judges on the panel in New Orleans are Edith Jones, nominated to the court by former President Ronald Reagan; and two nominees of former President Donald Trump, Stuart Kyle Duncan and Cory Wilson.
See all News Updates of the Day
Where US Schools Are Recruiting International Students — Report
According to a recent report, U.S. colleges are most interested in international students from India, with 57% prioritizing undergraduate outreach there. Outreach to Vietnam, South Korea and Brazil are next.
For graduate students, India is again in first place, but China, Nigeria and Vietnam are also attracting strong interest.
As U.S. enrollments decline, colleges are looking abroad — there were more than 900,000 international students in the U.S. in 2022. Read the report from Julie Baer and Mirka Martel of the Institute of International Education. (July 2023)
Conservative Groups Sue to Block Biden Plan Canceling $39 Billion in Student Loans
Two conservative groups are asking a federal court to block the Biden administration's plan to cancel $39 billion in student loans for more than 800,000 borrowers.
In a lawsuit filed Friday in Michigan, the groups argue that the administration overstepped its power when it announced the forgiveness in July, just weeks after the Supreme Court struck down a broader cancellation plan pushed by President Joe Biden.
It asks a judge to rule the cancellation illegal and stop the Education Department from carrying it out while the case is decided. The suit was filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance on behalf of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy and the Cato Institute.
The Education Department called the suit "a desperate attempt from right wing special interests to keep hundreds of thousands of borrowers in debt."
"We are not going to back down or give an inch when it comes to defending working families," the department said in a statement.
It's part of a wave of legal challenges Republicans have leveled at the Biden administration's efforts to reduce or eliminate student debt for millions of Americans. Biden has said he will pursue a different cancellation plan after the Supreme Court decision, and his administration is separately unrolling a more generous repayment plan that opponents call a "backdoor attempt" at cancellation.
The Biden administration announced July 14 that it would soon forgive loans for 804,000 borrowers enrolled in income-driven repayment plans. The plans have long offered cancellation after borrowers make 20 or 25 years of payments, but "past administrative failures" resulted in inaccurate payments counts that set borrowers back on their progress toward forgiveness, the department said.
The new action was announced as a "one-time adjustment" that would count certain periods of past nonpayment as if borrowers had been making payments during that time. It moved 804,000 borrowers across the 20- or 25-year mark needed for cancellation, and it moved millions of others closer to that threshold.
It's meant to address a practice known as forbearance steering, in which student loan servicers hired by the government wrongly pushed borrowers to go into forbearance — a temporary pause on payments because of hardship — even if they would have been better served by enrolling in one of the income-driven repayment plans.
Under the one-time fix, past periods in forbearance were also counted as progress toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness, a program that offers cancellation after 10 years of payments while working in a government or nonprofit job.
Biden's action was illegal, the lawsuit says, because it wasn't authorized by Congress and didn't go through a federal rulemaking process that invites public feedback.
"No authority allows the Department to count non-payments as payments," the lawsuit says. It adds that the action came in "a press release that neither identified the policy's legal authority nor considered its exorbitant price tag."
The conservative groups say Biden's plan undercuts Public Service Loan Forgiveness. The Mackinac Center and Cato Institute say they employ borrowers who are working toward student loan cancellation through the program. They say Biden's action illegally accelerates progress toward relief, diminishing the benefit for nonprofit employers.
"This unlawful reduction in the PSLF service requirement injures public service employers that rely on PSLF to recruit and retain college-educated employees," the suit alleges.
The Cato Institute previously sued the administration over the cancellation plan that was struck down by the Supreme Court. The Mackinac Center is separately challenging Biden's pause on student loan payments, which is scheduled to end this fall with payments resuming Oct. 1.
With Race-based Affirmative Action Out, College Admissions Essays Could Offer Insight
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled affirmative action, or preferential admissions for underrepresented groups, unconstitutional. However, the court ruling said applicants can still mention their background and life experiences in a personal essay.
Scott Jaschik of Inside Higher Ed writes that discussing race, whether as “discrimination, inspiration or otherwise,” is acceptable; going back to the old system, and engineering college cohorts by racial category, is not. With the rules unclear, colleges are struggling to obey the letter of the law. Read Jaschik’s article for more information. (July 2023) [[
Public Investment Seen Aiding Struggling College Students in Getting Degree
At CUNY, the public university system in New York City, officials found that investment in students increases their chances of graduating by almost double. CUNY’s highly successful ASAP program gives at-risk students financial aid, unlimited public transit access and intensive one-on-one advising.
The city believes it’s a win-win, and claims the return is three times the investment because graduates earn more money and pay more taxes. Read more in an op-ed from Elizabeth Davidson Pisacreta and Katherine Giardello in The Hechinger Report. (July 2023) | US Federal Policies |
President Joe Biden is building the wall, even if he doesn't want to.
"These funds were appropriated in fiscal 2019 under Republican leadership," press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said. "We believe there are better, more effective ways of moving forward to secure our border, and we have continuously asked for Congress to act."
The news came out last night, though Jean-Pierre says DHS made the allocation back in June. She also said Biden had asked Congress to reallocate the funds, which it refused.
Biden said much the same himself earlier in the day.
"The money was appropriated for the border wall. I tried to get them to reappropriate, to redirect that money. They didn’t," he said. "They wouldn’t. In the meantime, there’s nothing under the law other than they have to use the money for what it was appropriated for. I can’t stop that."
Asked specifically if he thought a border wall would be effective, Biden said, "No."
Despite the White House's apparent reluctance, the border wall announcement comes as immigration has become a weight on the administration. Biden's approval rating on the issue is just 33.6%, and he's facing increased pressure from blue state politicians in New York, Illinois, and the Washington D.C. area thanks to migrants who have flooded those areas via bus.
Jean-Pierre was pressed repeatedly about the border wall during Thursday's press briefing.
Several reporters questioned why the money had to be spent now if it was appropriated four years ago. Jean-Pierre pointed back to needing to comply with the law, though she refused to name which specific law she was referring to.
DHS cited an "acute and immediate need" for the wall due to surging illegal immigration, apparently against the beliefs of the president.
"The president has been very clear about this," Jean-Pierre said. "He doesn't believe the border wall is effective, and that has not changed. That has not changed." | US Federal Policies |
The United States government is barreling towards a shutdown at the end of the month as the deadline approaches without a firm funding deal in sight. The process of approving a new government spending bill has been held up considerably by the further-right MAGA-aligned members of the House GOP, who have refused to support bills that continue to provide funding for things like aid to Ukraine and the investigation into Donald Trump by Special Counsel Jack Smith.
On Tuesday, a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the U.S. government was agreed upon in the Senate, with support from both Democrats and Republicans in the chamber. The resolution would keep the government funded through a new deadline of November 17 and would notably provide roughly $6 billion in funding for aid to Ukraine, as well as another $6 billion for disaster relief. This CR has been described as a temporary solution to buy Congress more time to negotiate on a new years-long funding agreement and is slated for a test vote late on Thursday.
"This bipartisan CR is a temporary solution, a bridge towards cooperation and away from extremism," Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said while introducing the new CR.
If passed in the Democrat-led Senate later this week, as is hoped for, the CR is expected to face major headwinds in the House, where Republicans hold a slim majority of seats. In the wake of the measure's announcement, a handful of notable MAGA Republicans took to X, the platform previously known as Twitter, to pledge their opposition to it.
"Not only does a CR continue Nancy Pelosi's budget and Joe Biden's policies but it continues to send funds to Ukraine while our country is being attacked by an invasion at our southern border!" Representative Matt Rosendale of Montana wrote. "I will NOT support this!"
Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, who has notably been blocking votes on military appointments in protest against abortion policies, responded to the news of the CR bluntly, posting a thumbs-down emoji and nothing else.
Newsweek reached out to Majority Leader Schumer's office via email for comment. | US Federal Policies |
California Governor Gavin Newsom has come under fire after after admitting that San Francisco was cleaned up ahead of the arrival of "fancy leaders" for the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation leaders' summit.
San Francisco is hosting the summit, which opened Saturday and runs through Friday. The main event is a planned meeting between President Joe Biden and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the summit.
In the days leading up to the event, homeless encampments in the city's downtown were cleared, sidewalks were polished, graffiti was scrubbed away and murals and decorative crosswalks were added to busy areas.
At a press conference on Thursday, Newsom acknowledged that the cleanup efforts were timed to coincide with the arrival of "fancy" leaders to San Francisco, which has been struggling to shed its image as a city in decline.
"I know folks say, 'Oh, they're just cleaning up this place because all those fancy leaders are coming into town.' That's true because it's true," Newsom said.
"But it's also true, for months and months and months prior to APEC, we've been having different conversations. And we've raised the bar of expectation between the city, the county and the state, and our federal partners as well that we all have to do more and do better."
Newsom, a former San Francisco mayor, added that Californians will be "seeing a lot more of this all around town and all around the Bay Area."
He later told reporters that "obviously, any time you put on an event, by definition... you know, you have people over to your house, you're going to clean up the house."
The Democratic governor's remarks prompted a wave of criticism on social media. His office was contacted for comment via email overnight, and this article will be updated with any response received.
"Gov. Newsom orders homeless camps removed in San Francisco in an obvious attempt to impress his new best friend, China's Communist dictator," Melissa Melendez, a former California state senator, wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
"Pity he's had no desire to impress those who actually live in California."
Another person wrote that Newsom "unapologetically" admitted that he "only cleaned up San Francisco because [Xi] is coming to town—what he failed to explain is where all the homeless people are now..."
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the city did not have the funds to open up special shelters for APEC. Emily Cohen, a spokesperson for the city's homeless department, told the newspaper that the city was starting its winter shelter program in time for the event, opening a 30-spot shelter near where the summit is being held.
The city is beginning to expand capacity at other shelters that are already operating, but Cohen could not say how many of those beds would be available during APEC.
California Rep. Kevin Kiley, a Republican, wrote on X that Newsom "is trying not just to save himself from humiliation, but to hide the consequences of the failed policies he wants to impose on the rest of the country."
Newsom "admitted that the only reason officials cleaned San Francisco is due to Xi Xinping coming to visit later this week," political commentator Savanah Hernandez wrote.
"A reminder of the condition downtown San Francisco is normally left in & what children have to walk past everyday,' she wrote, alongside a video showing the city's drug and homelessness crisis.
Another person wrote that Newsom "cleans the streets of San Francisco for Xi Jinping, but not for you peasants. How does that make you feel?"
However, some noted that the cleanup efforts would be viewed as a positive.
"I hate to say this but the fact they got this done is going to be seen as a good thing," one person wrote. "It's clear Newsom will run in 2024. I think this will push him to the front."
Another added that it "is probably a good thing for SF, let's hope it stays this way."
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
fairness meter
About the writer
Khaleda Rahman is Newsweek's Senior News Reporter based in London, UK. Her focus is reporting on abortion rights, race, education, sexual abuse and capital punishment. Khaleda joined Newsweek in 2019 and had previously worked at the MailOnline in London, New York and Sydney. She is a graduate of University College London. Languages: English.
You can get in touch with Khaleda by emailing [email protected]
Khaleda Rahman is Newsweek's Senior News Reporter based in London, UK. Her focus is reporting on abortion rights, race, education,... Read more
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here. | US Local Policies |
NYSP: Horseheads Man Charged After Potential Explosive Found, Search Warrant Discovers Hazardous Materials
UPDATE 3:15PM -- New York State Police held a press conference at 3PM to announce the arrest of a suspect in the investigation into a possible explosive and hazardous materials found in Chemung County.
According to Troop E Commander, Maj. Miklos Szoczei II, on November 6th, a Veteran Highway Department employee found a possible explosive on Merka Road, and called 911. The New York State Police Bomb Disposal Unit and FBI made the explosive safe.
State and federal law enforcement began investigating the incident, interviewing neighbors and companies across the country, narrowing down a possible suspect.
On November 11th, authorities arrested Michael P. Hilliard, 43, of Horseheads, and charged him with 1st Degree Criminal Possession of a Weapon. State Police confirmed Hilliard was arrested after authorities intercepted a U-Haul on Route 13 in Newfield Saturday evening. Scanner reports indicate police were following the U-Haul around 6:30PM Saturday, working to stop the vehicle before it entered the city of Ithaca. NYSP would not discuss any other details regarding that incident.
On the morning of November 12th, authorities executed a search warrant at Hilliard's apartment home at 207 South Main Street in Horseheads, where the NYSP Bomb Disposal Unit and Contaminated Crime Scene Emergency Response Team (CCERT) and Forensic Identification Unit discovered suspicious and hazardous materials inside the home.
The immediate surrounding area was evacuated for safety concerns, until the home is cleared. South Main Street between Franklin and Broad street will remain closed until further notice, potentially up to 48 hours. Affected residents are being assisted by the American Red Cross and the Horseheads Fire Department.
Anyone with information should contact New York State Police at 585-398-4100.
HORSEHEADS, NY (WENY) — New York State Police have evacuated part of Main Street in Hanover Square, in Horseheads due to possible hazardous materials.
According to NYSP, the New York State Police Bomb Disposal Unit and Contaminated Crime Scene Emergency Response Team are clearing a residence at 207 South Main Street for possible hazardous materials. They say East Franklin Street to Broad Street will be closed to the public until further notice.
NYSP have evacuated the area and are asking the public to stay clear until further notice.
WENY News has a crew on scene, where police tape and barricades can be seen blocking off South Main Street from Hanover Square, south beyond the Horseheads Village Police Department.
New York State Police are expected to host a press conference at some point today - WENY News will provide updates as we get them. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Annie Ma, Associated Press
Annie Ma, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
WASHINGTON (AP) — Millions of additional students in schools serving low-income communities will be eligible to receive breakfast and lunch at no cost under a rule change announced Tuesday by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
At schools where 25% of families participate in income-based public benefits, such as the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, the federal government now will cover the cost of free meals for all enrolled students. Previously, the qualifying threshold was 40%.
READ MORE: Colorado voters will decide whether all public school students get a free lunch
Roughly 3,000 additional school districts serving more than 5 million students will now be eligible, officials said.
“While there is still more work ahead to ensure every K-12 student in the nation can access healthy school meals at no cost, this is a significant step on the pathway toward that goal,” said Stacy Dean, USDA deputy under secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.
During the pandemic, Congress temporarily made universal meals free to all students, but that ended last year. Other federal programs that provided direct food assistance to families also scaled down amid soaring food prices, putting strains on family budgets and leaving some kids hungry.
Meantime, eight states — California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico and Vermont — have made school meals free to all students regardless of income.
The new rule will expand access to universal meals through a program known as the Community Eligibility Provision, or CEP. Instead of requiring families to fill out individual applications for free or reduced-price meals, schools participating in the program receive federal funding based on income data, with local or state money filling in any gaps in the cost of offering meals to all students. Advocates say reducing administrative burdens like applications helps ensure children don’t go hungry.
READ MORE: California launches largest free school lunch program in U.S.
Some have criticized the costs of the program. The Republican Study Committee has called for eliminating the CEP altogether, arguing it ignores the individual income eligibility of each student.
Nationally, expanding a community-based model of universal meals would alleviate burdens on many families, said Anna Korsen, policy and program director at Full Plates Full Potential, a nonprofit organization in Maine that works on maximizing access to school meals.
“The federal poverty guidelines that dictate who gets a free meal and who doesn’t are really outdated,” Korsen said. “There are so many families that on paper don’t qualify for a free meal, and they can get lumped into this group of … families that can afford to pay for lunch or breakfast at school. But really, those families are living paycheck to paycheck.”
Agriculture secretary Tom Vilsack said the rule change is a step toward fulfilling the promise of healthy school meals for all.
“Increasing access to free, healthy school breakfast and lunch will decrease childhood hunger, improve child health and student readiness, and put our nation on the path to better nutrition and wellness,” he said.
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Nation
Apr 16 | US Federal Policies |
A kilogram of fentanyl was found under nap mats at a nursery in New York where one child died and three others were taken to hospital, police say.
Police believe the children, ranging in age from 8 months to two years old, inhaled the powerful narcotic drug at the Bronx nursery last week.
Three children were given Narcan, an emergency medication used to reverse opioid overdose.
Drug conspiracy and murder charges have been filed against two people.
Nicholas Dominici, who was due to turn two in November and had attended the nursery for just one week, died of a suspected drug overdose on Friday.
A search of the nursery turned up one kilo of fentanyl that was discovered "underneath a mat where the children had been sleeping earlier", said NYPD chief detective Joseph Kenny on Monday.
They also allegedly discovered three presses used to package kilos of drugs, investigators say.
The owner of the Divino Niño nursery in the Bronx, Grei Mendez, 36, and her tenant Carlisto Acevedo Brito, 41, are facing federal charges of narcotics possession "with intent to distribute resulting in death and conspiracy to distribute narcotics resulting in death", according to federal prosecutors.
"The defendants poisoned four babies and killed one of them because they were running a drug operation from a daycare centre," Manhattan US Attorney Damien Williams said at a news conference on Tuesday.
Fentanyl, a synthetic painkiller 50 times more powerful than heroin, has been blamed for an increase in drug deaths. Police say the drugs recovered from the nursery could have killed 500,000 people.
Surveillance footage and phone records show that Ms Mendez called her husband after finding the children ill - moments before she contacted 911. Her husband then arrived and removed several full shopping bags from the nursery, officials said.
Authorities are still searching for her husband, who has been identified in court documents as a co-conspirator.
A lawyer for Ms Mendez said his client denies the charges and was unaware that drugs were being kept in the nursery.
"Her only crime was renting her room to someone who had a kilo," said her lawyer, Andres Aranda, according to ABC News.
"There is no evidence that she did anything but care properly for these children."
It is unclear whether Mr Brito, who is a cousin of Ms Mendez's husband, has a lawyer.
Both suspects have been labelled as flight risks by authorities and are being held without bail. They each face life in prison if convicted.
City health inspectors conducted a surprise visit of the nursery on 6 September, but did not identify any violations, said City Health Commissioner Ashwin Vasan.
"I'm very sorry, but one of the things that my childcare inspectors are not trained to do is look for fentanyl. But maybe they need to," he said at a news conference on Monday.
Mayor Eric Adams at the news conference called for a "full national assault" on the drug, and alluded to its potency.
"A tenth of a size of a fingernail can kill an adult. So imagine what it could do to a child," he said, holding up a photo showing a lethal dose in comparison to a one cent coin.
Virtually every corner of the US, from Hawaii to Alaska to Rhode Island, has been touched by fentanyl, research shows.
In 2010, less than 40,000 people died from a drug overdose across the country, and less than 10% of those deaths were tied to fentanyl.
By 2021, over 100,000 people died in drug overdoses, with an estimated 66% of those tied to fentanyl. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
SAN FRANCISCO — President Joe Biden ripped former President Donald Trump for describing his political opponents as "vermin," reminding donors it is not the first time his likely 2024 challenger has referenced Nazi Germany.
"In just the last few days, Trump has said [if he] returns office he's gonna go after all those who oppose him and wipe out what he called the vermin in America, quote the 'vermin' in America — a specific phrase because it's just a specific meaning," Biden said during a fundraiser Tuesday hosted by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-CA) in San Francisco on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
The president added: "[It's the] language you heard Nazi Germany in the '30s. That [isn't] even the first time. Trump also recently talked about blood of America has been poisoned. The blood in America has been poisoned. Again, echoes the same phrases used in Nazi Germany."
Biden, who has increasingly criticized Trump before next year's general election, contended there are "a lot of reasons" to be against Trump and that "damn he shouldn't be president." He also referred to the former president's attacks on former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, which drew boos from the crowd in her hometown.
"You remember Trump told us he was going to win so much we’d get get tired of winning… oh man, I shouldn’t get started," Biden said. "Let me tell you one thing that’s true. We got tired of Trump. The truth is the guy can’t get tired of losing."
Trump told a crowd last weekend in New Hampshire that he would "root out the communists, Marxists, fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections."
The Trump campaign has defended Trump's statement, asserting his critics "are clearly snowflakes grasping for anything because they are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome and their entire existence will be crushed when President Trump returns to the White House." | US Federal Elections |
Subsets and Splits