article_text
stringlengths 294
32.8k
⌀ | topic
stringlengths 3
42
|
|---|---|
At a West Palm Beach rally Wednesday, Trump criticized the Israeli government for the intelligence failure surrounding Hamas's Saturday attack. The former president said Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shia Islamist party the United States recognizes as a terrorist organization, was "very smart."
"Terrorists have murdered at least 1,200 Israelis and 22 Americans and are holding more hostage, so it is absurd that anyone, much less someone running for President, would choose now to attack our friend and ally, Israel, much less praise Hezbollah terrorists as 'very smart,'” DeSantis wrote in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter. "As President, I will stand with Israel and treat terrorists like the scum that they are."
Terrorists have murdered at least 1,200 Israelis and 22 Americans and are holding more hostage, so it is absurd that anyone, much less someone running for President, would choose now to attack our friend and ally, Israel, much less praise Hezbollah terrorists as “very smart.”— Ron DeSantis (@RonDeSantis) October 12, 2023
As… pic.twitter.com/408e82OVDP
In the remarks DeSantis took issue with, Trump criticized Biden administration security officials for saying they were worried about a Hezbollah attack from the north. The former president said this was a bad move, as he warned Hezbollah was clever enough to see this as an admission of weakness at the border with Lebanon.
"I read all of Biden security people, can you imagine, National Defense people? And they said, 'Gee, I hope Hezbollah doesn't attack from the north because that's the most vulnerable spot.' I said, wait a minute, you know, Hezbollah's very smart, they're all very smart. ... And they have a national defense minister or somebody saying, 'I hope Hezbollah doesn't attack us from the north.' So the following morning, they attacked. They might not have been doing it, but if you listen to this jerk, you would attack from the north because he said."
Trump also acknowledged that he would take heat for describing Hezbollah as "smart," comparing it to the media coverage of his describing Chinese President Xi Jinping as "smart."
"The press doesn't like when they say, you know ... I said that President Xi of China, 1.4 billion people, he controls it with an iron fist," Trump said. "I said, 'He's a very smart man.' They killed me the next day. 'I said he was smart!' What am I gonna say?"
The remarks were interpreted by DeSantis as a praise of Hezbollah by Trump. The Florida governor also took issue with Trump's criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his saying that Israel needs to further strengthen itself.
"I'll never forget that Bibi Netanyahu let us down. That was a very terrible thing," Trump said, referring to the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. He later said that Netanyahu tried to take credit for it, which "didn't make me feel too good, but that's alright."
Trump lamented the attacks against Israel beginning on Saturday and urged Israel to prepare for a larger fight.
"When I see sometimes the intelligence ... you talked about some of the things that went wrong over the last week," he said. "They've got to straighten it out because they're fighting, potentially a very big force. They're fighting potentially Iran. And when they have people saying the wrong things, everything they say is being digested by these people because they're vicious and they're smart. And boy, are they vicious because nobody's ever seen the kind of site that we've seen. Nobody's ever seen it."
DeSantis has heavily criticized the Biden administration over its handling of the war in Israel and Gaza, arguing that its policies helped contribute to the crisis. His comments bashing Trump are the first time he has gone after the Republican front-runner for his stance on the conflict. | US Political Corruption |
- Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey is expected to face his fellow Senate Democrats on Capitol Hill after more than half of them have called for his resignation.
- Menendez faces bribery charges of abusing his office to enrich himself, including by pocketing gold bars and hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash.
- Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has not called on Menendez to step down, but other top-ranking Democrats have.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York has yet to ask Menendez to quit.
But Schumer told reporters Wednesday, "We'll see what happens after" Menendez speaks to the caucus at a closed-door lunch on Capitol Hill.
Sen. John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who was the first Democrat to call for Menedez to step down, in a social media post on Thursday wrote, "Unless Senator Menendez is coming today to resign, I am not interested in hearing his 'explanation' for gold bars stashed in a mattress."
Menendez, 69, last week was charged with conspiracy to commit bribery and other charges with his wife, Nadine, and three New Jersey businessmen.
The couple pleaded not guilty Wednesday to the charges in federal court in Manhattan.
Prosecutors have said a raid on their house last year found gold bars, hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, and a Mercedes-Benz convertible that they allegedly received in exchange for Menendez using his influence to try to help the three men.
The senator has repeatedly said he does not plan to resign.
Twenty-nine Democratic senators, and Vermont independent Bernie Sanders, who caucuses with them, have urged Menedez to step down.
Among them are Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate majority whip, as well third-ranking Democrat Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Patty Murray, the Senate President Pro Tempore.
This is developing news. Please check back for updates. | US Political Corruption |
A New Mexico teenage mother was sentenced Monday to a mandatory 18 years in prison for tossing her newborn son into a trash bin behind a shopping center, but a state district judge cited mental health concerns and the defendant’s age in suspending two years of the punishment.
Jurors convicted Alexis Avila, 19, of child abuse involving great bodily harm following a days-long trial last month in which her public defender argued her actions were not premeditated and that a previously undiagnosed mental health disorder played a role.
Judge William Shoobridge told Avila that had it not been for luck and the grace of God he would have been deliberating a sentence in a murder case as there was a high probability the child would have died had it not been found that winter day in Hobbs, near the Texas border.
Avila told the judge she wants to learn how to deal with stress and anxiety and said she regrets missing out on her son’s first milestones.
“I regret his first hours of life were traumatic, and I regret that he will always have this in the back of his head and will think I do not love him because that’s what he’ll read and hear,” she said. “But that’s not true at all. I do love him. I truly do.”
Avila was arrested in January 2022.
Police said a group of people were looking through the trash bin when they found the baby and tried to keep the boy warm until police and paramedics arrived.
Investigators used surveillance video to identify a car suspected of being involved, which led them to Avila.
Public defender Ibukun Adepoju disputed that Avila made a premeditated attempt to kill her baby. Abepoju said while Avila’s actions were wrong, they were the result of her bipolar disorder and that she was disassociated and detached from her feelings.
Avila’s case also spurred new conversations in New Mexico communities and among legislators about the state’s safe haven law, which allows parents to leave a baby younger than 90 days at a safe location without criminal consequences.
Such laws first began to pass in state legislatures in the early 2000s in response to reports of baby killings and abandonments.
New Mexico lawmakers in 2022 approved a bill to expand the state’s Safe Haven Program and provide funds to build one baby box for every county where an infant can be left.
Boxes have been installed in several other states. Florida is the latest to consider legislation that would allow for the boxes. | US Local Policies |
Just hours after the Supreme Court struck down the president's student loan forgiveness plan, the White House came back on Friday with several avenues to support borrowers.
The Biden administration is seeking to provide debt relief under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and has initiated that regulatory process. Additionally, the Education Department is creating a temporary 12-month on-ramp repayment program that removes the threat of default if borrowers miss payments once they restart in October. Third, the administration finalized a new income-driven repayment plan that it called "the most affordable repayment plan in history."
The goal is to ease some of the financial strain many borrowers face when it comes to their student loans and is a direct response to the Supreme Court's decision earlier Friday.
"I believe the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down student debt relief was a mistake, it was wrong," President Joe Biden said Friday afternoon in a press briefing.
"It will take longer, but it's the best path that remains," he added regarding the steps the administration is taking to provide debt relief. "We’re not going to waste any time on this."
Debt relief
The Education Secretary on Friday initiated a rule-making process in an effort to open "an alternative path to debt relief for as many working and middle-class borrowers as possible" under the authority provided by the Higher Education Act, according to a White House factsheet.
The Education Department on Friday issued a notice that announced a virtual public hearing on July 18 and asks for written comments from stakeholders. After the hearing, the department will finalize the issues that need to be addressed and hold negotiated rule-making sessions this fall.
The White House factsheet did not make clear if the Biden administration is pursuing the same forgiveness plan parameters that the court struck down. Under that plan, the federal government planned to forgive $10,000 for individuals who made less than $125,000 and for households that earn less than $250,000. An additional $10,000 in forgiveness goes to those who received need-based Pell Grants.
The White House press office did not immediately respond to an email to clarify the debt relief parameters it was pursuing under the Higher Education Act.
On-ramp repayment plan
The administration also unveiled a plan to help borrowers when they restart their paused payments in October. For 12 months, borrowers won't be penalized for late, missed, or partial payments. Borrowers don't have to take any action to qualify for the program.
The payments will still be due and interest will still accrue during the 12 months, but the interest will not capitalize at the end of the on-ramp period. Borrowers who miss payments won't be reported to credit bureaus, won't be considered in default, and won't be referred to collection agencies for those payments.
The administration encouraged borrowers who can afford to pay their payments to do so.
New income-driven repayment plan
Last, the administration finalized the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) plan. The White House said this new income-driven repayment plan will cut borrowers’ monthly payments in half, allow many borrowers to pay $0 in monthly payments, and prevent balances from growing due to unpaid interest.
The plan makes loan payments more affordable in the following ways:
The most borrowers must pay toward their undergraduate loans is 5% of their discretionary income, down from 10%.
No borrower making less than 225% of the federal poverty level will have to make a monthly payment.
Loan balances will be forgiven after 10 years of payments — instead of 20 years — if the original loan balance was $12,000 or less.
Borrowers won't be charged with unpaid monthly interest, so balances won't grow if they make their payments — even if that monthly payment is $0 because their income is low.
Student borrowers in repayment can enroll later this summer before monthly payments restart. Borrowers who sign up or are already signed up for the Revised Pay as You Earn (REPAYE) plan will be automatically enrolled in the new plan.
"President Biden, Vice President Harris, and I will never stop fighting for borrowers," Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a press statement, "which is why we are using every tool available to provide them with needed relief."
Janna Herron is the personal finance editor for Yahoo Finance. Follow her on Twitter @JannaHerron. | SCOTUS |
Key events1h agoDemocrats edge towards Senate majority as counting continuesShow key events onlyPlease turn on JavaScript to use this featureIf Republicans win a majority in the House, Kevin McCarthy could be the man to lead it for the next two years. The Guardian’s Edward Helmore reports on McCarthy’s conversation with Joe Biden yesterday, and the president’s acknowledgment that Democrats face long odds in keeping the chamber:The eyes of the political world remained focused on Arizona and Nevada on Friday, where hundreds of thousands of uncounted votes held the key to control of the US Senate, three days after Americans cast their final ballots in midterm elections.The delay in districts such as Arizona’s Maricopa county, which includes Phoenix, is attributed to the record number of ballots cast on Tuesday. Election officials had estimated they would have a tally by Friday but now say they will count through the weekend.In Nevada, election officials had estimated a finish by Friday but, again, the high number of ballots cast means counting will continue through next week. However, a winner could be called as soon as any candidate is judged to have passed a majority threshold.The Associated Press has not called the Senate races in Nevada and Arizona, where Democratic incumbents are fighting for re-election.But the Cook Political Report has weighed in on Arizona, saying that Democrat Mark Kelly won his race:I've seen enough: Sen. Mark Kelly (D) wins reelection in #AZSEN, defeating Blake Masters (R).— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) November 11, 2022
Nevada conducted its election mostly by mail, and is slowly releasing the results of ballots that have been counted. According to the Nevada Independent, the results are looking good for Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto in her bid for another term against Republican Adam Laxalt – but it’s not over yet:Good morning from The #WeMatter State, and Happy Veterans Day, especially to those who served.Here's where we are:Laxalt leads by 9K statewide over CCM.The news of this early AM is below, and let me tell you what it means.1/ https://t.co/oyNKItxqF6— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) November 11, 2022
This is part of the 57K mail ballots (there are actually more but wait) to be counted in Clark.Those first 35K will put a huge dent in Laxalt's lead, and CCM, if indies are breaking to Ds as they have been, will pick up more than 6K.2/— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) November 11, 2022
If CCM continues pace of getting 60 percent and Laxalt gets 35 percent, she will pick up 9K in this batch alone.If it's 55-40, she will add more than 5K.The margin could be greater (65-30?).3/Bottom line: Unless trend suddenly shifts, this batch will help her a lot.3/— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) November 11, 2022
So what else is left?Laxalt is still going to gain 2-4K in rurals -- super-red Douglas should post a few thousand ballots today.There are still 20K or so to count in Clark and 20K in Washoe -- minus whatever ballots need to be cured -- and that 40K batch should help her.4/— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) November 11, 2022
The ballots needing to be cured -- mail that has signature problems, for example -- also favor Dems. Culinary, others running intense campaigns to get those voters to fix their ballots so they can be counted. Via @JohnRSamuelsen: pic.twitter.com/X3jrPH1jm6— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) November 11, 2022
There are also 5.5K provisional ballots, many of them from first-time voters, young folks. Those are thought to favor the Dems, too.Laxalt's best chance to hang on in the face of this blizzard of mail votes is for the margins to go down and rural margins/volume to be huge.6/7— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) November 11, 2022
Bottom line: This first batch of 35K mail ballots shows a partisan breakdown that strongly favors CCM, and if the trend continues, she is going to win.But miles to go before I can finally sleep, and we will know a LOT when Clark/Washoe post tonight.Good morning!7/7— Jon Ralston (@RalstonReports) November 11, 2022
We do not know all the results of the midterms, but we do know that Joe Biden will be president until January 2025. So let’s go through a few scenarios about how the outcomes of the still-uncalled House and Senate races will affect his presidency.Democrats seem to be on course to win the Senate again, which is a significant prize for any president. Besides passing laws, the chamber is tasked with confirming the White House’s nominees – including supreme court justices, federal judges and cabinet secretaries. The last time Republicans controlled the chamber under a Democratic president, Barack Obama, they held up nominations of judges and most famously refused to consider his nominee for a vacant supreme court seat, which ended up being filled by Donald Trump. Keeping control of the chamber would be majorly helpful to Biden, even if he doesn’t have the House.Congress’s lower chamber has fewer unilateral powers than the Senate, and was always seen as unlikely to remain in Democratic hands after the midterms. That does not mean the party is out of contention there. Several races remain to be called, and a return to power by Biden’s allies is still possible – though as this thorough Politico piece makes clear, it will be harder for them to pull that off than for the GOP to regain the majority.The most likely outcome at this point appears to be a narrow Democratic majority in the Senate and a small Republican majority in the House, similar to the situation Trump faced from 2019 to 2021. If that happens, expect the House GOP to pass lots of bills that the Senate will ignore, as its Democratic leaders focus on confirming judges and whatever other nominees the White House sends them.If Republicans take both House of Congress – aided by wins in Nevada and Georgia’s still-to-be-determined Senate elections – then Biden will probably be using his veto pen repeatedly over the next two years against whatever legislation they manage to pass. But if Democrats somehow defy the odds and pull off a history-making victory in both chambers, Biden will get another shot at accomplishing a laundry list of priorities – including codifying abortion protections that previously were guaranteed by Roe v Wade, which the president said would be the first bill he sends to the new Congress.Democrats edge towards Senate majority as counting continuesGood morning, US politics blog readers. Ballots are still being counted three days after Tuesday’s midterms, and it seems like Democrats may have a shot at taking control of the Senate again. While the Associated Press hasn’t called the race, there are signs that senator Mark Kelly has won reelection in Arizona, though the fate of Nevada’s Catherine Cortez Masto is still up in the air. If both triumph, Joe Biden’s allies win control of the chamber for another two years. But if only one does, the run-off election for Georgia’s Senate seat set for 6 December will determine control. And that’s to say nothing of the House, where several key races are yet to be called. What a week.Here’s a look at what’s going on today: Democrats worried they could lose the governor’s mansion in blue-state Oregon amid a backlash over crime, homeless and the state’s unpopular incumbent. Their fears were allayed last night when the Associated Press called the race for Democrat Tina Kotek. Far-right Republican Lauren Boebert is edging closer to reelection despite a surprisingly strong challenge from Democrat Adam Frisch. In Nevada’s Senate race, Democrat Cortez Masto is slowly cutting into her Republican challenger Adam Laxalt’s lead as mail-in ballots are counted. | US Federal Elections |
Ralph Yarl, the teenager who was shot after mistakenly going to the wrong house to pick up his siblings, opened up about the harrowing experience for the first time in an exclusive interview with GMA co-anchor Robin Roberts that is set to air on Tuesday morning.
Yarl told Roberts that his mother asked him to pick up his twin brothers from a friend's house, but he had never been there before and accidentally arrived at the wrong address. According to Yarl, he pulled his car into the driveway and walked up the steps and rang the doorbell and then waited for "a long time" until an older man with a gun opened the door. They were separated by another glass door, Yarl recalled.
"He points [the gun] at me … so I kinda, like, brace and I turn my head," Yarl told Roberts. "Then it happened. And then I'm on the ground ... and then I fall on the glass. The shattered glass. And then before I know it I'm running away shouting, 'Help me, help me.'"
Yarl was shot in the head and in the right arm on the evening of April 13 by Andrew Lester – a homeowner in Kansas City, Missouri, according to police. The teenager, who celebrated his 17th birthday last month, suffered a traumatic brain injury, his family previously told ABC News.
Lester, 84, was charged with one count of felony assault in the first degree and one count of armed criminal action, also a felony, Clay County prosecuting attorney Zachary Thompson said during a press conference on April 17.
Watch Robin Roberts' exclusive interview with Ralph Yarl on "Good Morning America," Tuesday, June 27, starting at 7 a.m. on ABC.
Lester pleaded not guilty and was released on April 18 on a $200,000 bond. His preliminary hearing is scheduled for Aug. 31 after a judge agreed to partially seal the evidence in the case in response to a protective order filed by Lester's attorney, Steven Salmon.
"In this case, the court entered an order prohibiting the dissemination of information from the discovery by both the prosecution and defense," Salmon told ABC News in a statement on Monday. "As a party to the criminal case, any statement from Mr. Lester would certainly violate that order. I can say Mr. Lester is looking forward to the upcoming preliminary hearing."
Yarl told Roberts that after he was shot, he was bleeding from his head and was surprised that he was as "alert" as he was. He said that his "instincts took over" and he went looking for help, but according to Yarl, he had to approach multiple homes after the first house he approached declined to help him and locked the door.
"So then I go to the next house across the street. No one answers. And the house to the right of that house, I go there and someone opens the door and tells me to wait for the police," he said.
Yarl's mother, Cleo Nagbe, told Roberts that after her son didn't return from picking up his siblings, she was worried and drove around looking for him.
Shortly after, she said she received a phone call from police, telling her that Ralph was shot so she headed straight to the hospital.
"It was traumatic," she said.
According to a probable cause statement obtained by ABC News, Lester told police that he "believed someone was attempting to break into the house" and grabbed a gun before going to the door because he was scared.
Lester, who is white, claimed that he saw a "Black male approximately 6 feet tall" pulling on the door handle and "shot twice within a few seconds of opening the door." He said that the Black male ran away and he immediately called 911.
Police spoke with Yarl on April 14 while he was recovering at Children's Mercy Hospital. According to the probable cause statement, he told police that he rang the doorbell and said that he didn't pull on the door knob.
Yarl's aunt, Faith Spoonmore, told ABC News last month that after the shooting her nephew didn't want to go back home because he was shot in the neighborhood where he also lived.
But since then, Yarl and his family have relocated. He said that he is seeing a therapist and hoping to continue his recovery by focusing on his passions for chemical engineering and for music.
"I'm just a kid and not larger than life because this happened to me," he said. "I'm just gonna keep doing all the stuff that makes me happy. And just living my life the best I can, and not let this bother me."
Yarl, who played the bass clarinet during his interview on "GMA," also plays the saxophone, the tenor saxophone, the clarinet and the contrabass clarinet. He told Roberts that music helped him cope during his recovery.
"Classical music kinda resonates with me," he said.
"Just the feeling that it creates and the fact that you can make it yourself … it kinda invigorates me."
Nagbe said that her son's recovery has been a "blessing" and the family is "overwhelmingly grateful" for the outpouring of love and support that they have gotten since the shooting – from people donating to the fund, to those writing letters of support for Ralph.
"Every day I sit and I read a letter and I cry," she said.
Nagbe told Roberts that Ralph and his family have been writing thank you notes to the people who sent him letters.
"I just feel that if they took the time to send Ralph a letter, I owe them the time to write them a thank you note," she said.
Asked what justice looks like for him, Yarl said, "Justice is just the rule of the law, regardless of race, ethnicity, and age."
"[Lester] should be convicted for the crimes that he made," he added. "I am past having any personal hatred for him."
ABC News' Eboni Griffin, Nicole Curtis, Danielle Genet and Mya Green contributed to this report. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
- Attorneys for Donald Trump and special counsel Jack Smith are set to argue over the former president's gag order in his criminal election interference case.
- Trump has appealed the gag order imposed by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, barring him from making public statements targeting prosecutors and witnesses in the case.
- Smith accuses Trump of illegally conspiring to overturn his Electoral College loss to President Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential race.
Attorneys for Donald Trump and federal prosecutors are set to lock horns in a federal appeals court Monday over the former president's claim that he is being unconstitutionally silenced by a gag order in his criminal election interference case.
A panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Washington, D.C., Circuit is set to hear in-person arguments starting at 9:30 a.m. ET.
Trump had been slapped with the court-ordered muzzle last month by U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who ruled that his statements targeting people involved in the case posed "sufficiently grave threats to the integrity of these proceedings."
Chutkan's gag order barred Trump from making public statements targeting his prosecutors and "reasonably foreseeable" witnesses regarding the substance of their testimony.
Special counsel Jack Smith accuses Trump of illegally conspiring to overturn his Electoral College loss to Biden in the 2020 presidential race. Trump has pleaded not guilty to the four-count indictment charging him with crimes including conspiracy to defraud the United States.
Trump's lawyers promptly appealed Chutkan's order to the D.C. appeals court, arguing that it violates Trump's First Amendment right to speak publicly about his legal battles, especially as he runs for president again in 2024.
The appellate judges on Nov. 3 temporarily lifted the gag order while they considered Trump's request for a longer pause as part of his appeal. They noted that their temporary stay "should not be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits" of the gag order.
They are not expected to issue a ruling during Monday's hearing.
Smith's team has argued that Trump's statements are intended to intimidate potential witnesses and warned that they could affect the D.C. jury pool for the trial.
After Chutkan temporarily paused the gag order last month, Trump sent statements suggesting that his former chief of staff Mark Meadows, a likely witness, had been coerced by Smith into testifying.
Chutkan, who had paused the gag order in order to weigh Trump's request for a stay pending appeal, reinstated it in late October.
This is developing news. Please check back for updates. | US Federal Elections |
“Trump begged me to come to Bedminster this week, I said only if I could record a substack with him, but the GIGANTIC P—Y is too afraid of me, so instead he did this,” Coulter wrote in a post on X, the social media app formerly known as Twitter.
Bedminster is Trump’s New Jersey estate where the former president spends part of the year.
The firebrand conservative media personality records a video interview show called “Unsafe” that she publishes on subscription-based Substack, the newsletter- and podcast-hosting subscription service.
Coulter’s swipe at Trump, who despite his legal woes remains the odds-on favorite to capture the GOP presidential nomination in 2024, was a response to the former president’s posts blasting the author on his Truth Social app.
Last month, Coulter called Trump a “giant baby” who “can barely speak English.”
She has also praised his main GOP presidential nominee rival, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.
“Has been Ann Coulter is a Stone Cold Loser!!!” Trump wrote of his erstwhile supporter on Wednesday.
In another Truth Social post, Trump disavowed Coulter once again, writing: “Ann Coulter, the washed up political ‘pundit’ who predicted my win in 2016, then went unbearably crazy with her demands and wanting to be a part of everything, to the consternation of all, has gone hostile and angry with every bit of her very ‘nervous’ energy’.”
“Like many others, I just didn’t want her around — She wasn’t worth the trouble!”
Coulter has previously used derogatory language to describe the 45th president.
In the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the US Capitol, Coulter told the Daily Beast: “We finally got the authoritarian liberals have been talking about. And I want to point out what a gigantic p—y he is.”
“Who are these people still supporting Trump and this nonsense ‘Stop the steal’? I don’t understand why,” Coulter told the news site.
“Why are you doing this for Trump when he doesn’t give a crap about you? These poor, working-class Americans, hanging on by their fingernails!”
Coulter added: “No, he didn’t have time for them. He was too busy talking to Bob Woodward.”
Coulter was initially one of Trump’s more prominent boosters. In 2016, she authored a book “In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome.”
But Coulter turned against Trump, accusing him of “betraying” his voters by failing to complete the much-touted wall along the US-Mexico border to stop the flow of undocumented migrants.
Trump came into office vowing to construct a barrier along the southern frontier as part of a crackdown on illegal immigration, but he only managed to complete a portion of the wall. | US Federal Elections |
U.S. could be seeing ‘last gasp’ of MAGA Republicans, Biden says
Or, the president said, it could be “the first big gasp.”
President Joe Biden is predicting that the 2024 presidential election could make or break the MAGA movement.
“I think that this is the last gasp or maybe the first big gasp of the MAGA Republicans. And I think Trump has concluded that he has to win. And they’ll pull out all the stops,” Biden said during an interview with ProPublica that aired Sunday. Though the 2024 general election is still more than a year away, and former President Donald Trump has yet to win the Republican nomination, Biden has already moved to go after the current front-runner in the GOP primary.
Biden has been pitching his reelection bid as a fight for democracy. So far he’s delivered four major speeches on the topic at events across the country, the most recent — and most forceful — in Arizona last week.
“We have to stand up for America’s values embodied in our Declaration of Independence because we know MAGA extremists have already proven they won’t,” Biden told those who gathered in Tempe to hear him speak. “We have to stand up for our Constitution and the institutions of democracy because MAGA extremists have made clear they won’t.”
During recent closed-door fundraisers, the president has also warned that “democracy is on the ballot,” and he’s publicly railed against political violence like that which the country saw during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.
In the interview with ProPublica, Biden also slammed hard-right House Republicans’ move to refuse to vote for a bill that would avert a government shutdown unless their demands for spending cuts and conservative border legislation were not met.
“You see what’s happening in terms of what MAGA Republicans are doing in the House. They don’t make up a majority of the House, but they’re bringing them [to] a screeching halt,” Biden told former CNN reporter John Harwood in the interview. | US Federal Elections |
FIRST ON FOX: The Republican chairman of the House Committee on Small Business is accusing the Small Business Administration (SBA) of failing to protect coronavirus loan programs from fraud after a government report found that the agency disbursed over $200 billion in possibly fraudulent COVID-19 loans, nearly double that which was previously expected.
The Small Business Administration Office of the Inspector General said in its report on COVID-19 pandemic loan fraud on Tuesday that the agency disbursed more than $200 billion in potentially fraudulent PPP loans and Economic Injury Disaster Loans during the pandemic.
In total, the SBA's Office of the Inspector General said there were 4.5 million potentially fraudulent loans and grants from pandemic loan programs.
The Office of the Inspector General said the SBA "did not have an established strong internal control environment for approving and disbursing program funds," adding that "there was an insufficient barrier against fraudsters accessing funds that should have been available for eligible business owners adversely affected by the pandemic."
Rep. Roger Williams, R-Texas., said in a statement to Fox News Digital that the Office of the Inspector General report shows significantly more criminal activity occurred than was previously known.
"These findings show the SBA failed to implement basic guardrails to protect the integrity of these programs, resulting in roughly 1 in 5 loans dispersed being labeled as potentially fraudulent."
"These findings show the SBA failed to implement basic guardrails to protect the integrity of these programs, resulting in roughly 1 in 5 loans dispersed being labeled as potentially fraudulent. When COVID-19 hit the United States, the SBA was tasked with taking on an oversized role to help save small businesses and our nation’s job creators. Unfortunately, these after-action reports show the agency was not up to the task. I look forward to hearing directly from Inspector General Ware in July on what went wrong, how to fix these issues, and what recourse we must take to recoup these stolen taxpayer dollars," Williams said.
According to the Office of the Inspector General report, SBA management said that the report contains "serious flaws that significantly overestimate fraud." The Office of the Inspector General said in response that "we remain confident in our estimates of potential fraud for the COVID-19 EIDL program and PPP."
In a press release by the Small Business Administration, Administrator Isabella Casillas Guzman said that "Pandemic relief programs, including those supported by President Biden’s American Rescue Plan, have driven a historic economic recovery, including saving millions of businesses and creating over 13 million jobs since 2021."
Fox News Digital reached out to the Small Business Administration for comment. | US Federal Policies |
A Colorado funeral home where 189 decaying bodies were discovered this month appears to have fabricated cremation records and may have given families fake ashes, according to information gathered by The Associated Press from customers and crematories.
The families that did business with Return to Nature Funeral Home fear their loved ones weren't cremated at all and instead could be among the yet unidentified corpses authorities discovered after responding to a report of an "abhorrent smell."
"My mom's last wish was for her remains to be scattered in a place she loved, not rotting away in a building," said Tanya Wilson, who believes the ashes she spread in Hawaii in August were fake. "Any peace that we had, thinking that we honored her wishes, you know, was just completely ripped away from us."
Return to Nature gave Wilson's family and some others death certificates stating their loved ones' remains had been handled by one of two crematories. But those businesses told the AP they were not performing cremations for Return to Nature on the dates included on the certificates.
Death certificates called into question
Calls and texts sent to numbers listed for Return to Nature and owners Jon and Carie Hallford have gone unanswered since the discovery of the decaying bodies. No arrests have been made. Law enforcement officials have said Return to Nature's owners were cooperating as investigators sought to determine any criminal wrongdoing.
The AP reviewed four death certificates shared by families. All list a crematory owned by Wilbert Funeral Services, but the deaths came at least five months after the company stopped doing cremations for the financially troubled Return to Nature Funeral Home last November. Lisa Epps, attorney for Wilbert, said members of at least 10 families told the company they had death certificates from after November.
A second crematory, Roselawn Funeral Home in Pueblo, Colorado, was contacted by a family last week that had a 2021 death certificate from Return to Nature listing Roselawn as the crematory. Roselawn did not do the cremation, said its manager, Rudy Krasovec.
Dry concrete
None of the families the AP interviewed received an identification tag or certificate that experts say are usually given to ensure cremations are authentic. Members of all four families described a similar consistency of the ashes that seemed like dry concrete. Two mixed some ashes with water and said they solidified. Dry concrete has been used before by funeral homes to mimic human ashes.
Stephanie Ford said her dry-witted adrenaline junkie husband, Wesley Ford, had nightmares of waking up in a coffin and hated the idea of being buried and his body decaying.
"He wanted to be cremated," she said, "and back to the earth quickly."
Wesley Ford died in April, and Return to Nature handled the cremation. When Stephanie Ford learned of the grim discovery at the funeral home this month, her daughter, a physician, took a closer look at the ashes.
"Mom, that's not dad," she told her mother.
"I know logically it's not my fault," said Stephanie Ford, pushing the words through tears. "There's a little bit of guilt on my part that I let him down."
- Long Island-born sisters blame funeral homes for burial mix-up
- How one casket company is disrupting the funeral industry
Financial and legal troubles
Public records show the Hallfords and their company, which opened in 2017 and offered cremations and "green" burials without embalming fluids, were beset by recent financial and legal troubles. Among the problems were a forced eviction, unpaid taxes and a lawsuit by Wilbert, which received a $21,000 judgment in June because Return to Nature failed to pay for "a couple hundred" cremations, Epps said.
When Return to Nature gave the ashes to Wilson's family, her brother, Jesse Elliott, thought they were unusually heavy. Elliott confronted Carie Hallford about his concerns.
"Jesse, of course this is your mother," Elliott recalled Hallford telling him after she handed him a June death certificate that said Wilbert handled the cremation.
With both siblings skeptical, Wilson took some of the ashes to a different funeral home for a second opinion. Funeral director Amber Flickinger from Platt's Funeral Home told the AP that the ashes were unusually fine and dark, adding, "I've never seen anything that looks like that in the range of what cremated remains would typically expect to look like."
After the bodies were found at Return to Nature, Michelle Johnston also became skeptical of the ashes that the funeral home said were of her husband, Ken, a retired UPS driver with a gentle demeanor. After mixing the ashes with water, she said, it looked like concrete.
"I was kind of getting to a place where I wasn't losing it every day," she said, and now, "I don't know where my husband is."
Properly cremated remains are made up of bone fragments that do not have any organic material left, which means they lack DNA that could be used to identify individuals, said Barbara Kemmis, director of the Cremation Association of North America. Sometimes RNA is preserved in the bone fragments, and that can distinguish if the ashes are from a male or female and if they are human or from another animal, she said.
Determining that ashes are fake can be more straightforward, particularly when they've been substituted with concrete. A simple test entails wetting the material and seeing if it hardens when it dries, Kemmis said. Real ashes won't solidify and would stay brittle, said Faith Haug, who chairs the mortuary science program at Colorado's Arapahoe Community College.
Authorities could be waiting to bring charges until they determine if there are any more improperly stored bodies, said Ian Farrell, a criminal law expert at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.
Bereaved families devastated
Potential charges under state law could include misdemeanor violations of mortuary regulations and misdemeanor fraud, Farrell said. Each body could result in separate charges, meaning potential fines topping $1 million. The maximum consecutive sentence for misdemeanors is 2 years in jail, he said.
If any federal charges were brought, the penalties potentially could be more severe. In January, a Colorado funeral home operator accused of illegally selling body parts and giving clients fake ashes received a 20-year prison sentence for federal mail fraud.
Abby Swoveland hired Return to Nature when her mother, Sally Swoveland, passed away. The senior Swoveland had run a muzzleloader gun shop called The Mountain Man for nearly 50 years with a sense of humor and a sharp tongue.
When Abby Swoveland called Wilbert Funeral Services, listed on the death certificate, and learned they had long ago stopped doing business with Return to Nature, she was devastated.
"It completely has undone any healing that was taking place," Swoveland said.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
WASHINGTON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Republican former U.S. Representative Liz Cheney, an outspoken critic of ex-President Donald Trump who co-chaired the congressional probe of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, said she is weighing a third-party bid for the White House in 2024.
In media interviews, Cheney said she was considering running for president next year as a third-party conservative candidate or on a bipartisan ticket that would include both a Republican and a Democrat. She cited Trump as a threat to democracy and the United States.
"We face threats that could be existential to the United States, and we need a candidate who is going to be able to deal with and address and confront all of those challenges," Cheney told the Washington Post in remarks published on Tuesday.
She said she planned to decide on a run in coming months.
Cheney, 57, who lost her re-election bid in 2020 amid a tide of pro-Trump sentiment in her party, served as the top Republican on the House committee that investigated the Jan. 6 Capitol attack by Trump supporters who wanted to overturn his election loss to Democrat Joe Biden.
She has kept her focus on the former president, echoing Biden in saying that another Trump presidency would threaten American democratic institutions.
"I happen to think democracy is at risk at home, obviously, as a result of Donald Trump’s continued grip on the Republican Party, and I think democracy is at risk internationally as well," she told the Post.
Cheney made similar remarks in interviews with USA Today and MSNBC coinciding with the launch Tuesday of her memoir, "Oath and Honor: a Memoir and a Warning." She could not immediately be reached for comment.
Despite Cheney's political setbacks, the daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has deep roots in the Republican Party and has cultivated a national network of donors that has enabled her to stockpile millions of dollars.
Trump remains the frontrunner in the 2024 race for the Republican presidential nomination despite indictments in four state and federal criminal cases, including one in Washington over his role in efforts to overturn his 2020 loss.
Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has vowed to carry out reprisals against those he perceives to have wronged him if elected again. Representatives for his campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Reporting by Susan Heavey; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Jonathan Oatis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. | US Federal Elections |
They are fresh-faced, suited and booted, the National Mall behind them and the world at their feet. Congressmen Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy and Paul Ryan smile out from the cover of Young Guns, their co-authored 2010 book about the next generation of conservatives. “This isn’t your grandfather’s Republican party,” said publicity material at the time.
Thirteen years later, the trio is neither young nor the future. Cantor (“the leader”) became Republican leader in the House of Representatives but lost his seat to a nascent rightwing populism. Ryan (“the thinker”) became speaker but retired early to escape a toxic political relationship with President Donald Trump. And this week McCarthy (“the strategist”) was ousted by some of the extremists he helped elect to Congress but could not tame.
The men’s careers chart the Republican party’s journey from disciplined machine to dysfunctional malaise. Like Britain’s Conservative party, Republicans were once admired and feared for their ability to fall into line and ruthlessly consolidate power. But on Tuesday, as eight rebels joined Democrats to visit humiliation on McCarthy, the party of Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan was in turmoil – and nearly came to blows.
“I’ll be really candid, I think if we had stayed together in the meeting last night, I think you would have seen fists thrown,” Congressman Garret Graves, an ally of McCarthy, told CNN. “And I’m not being dramatic when I say that. There is a lot of raw emotion right now.”
Such a scene would have been unthinkable two decades ago when Republicans were effective at wielding power and pushing through laws relating to everything from foreign wars and domestic surveillance programmes to Medicare and the No Child Left Behind schools policy. Tom DeLay, House majority leader from 2003 to 2006, was dubbed “the Hammer” because of his willingness to crush dissent.
Kurt Bardella, a former Republican congressional aide, said: “They were a legislative juggernaut. But that changed in the 2010s with the emergence of the Tea Party. The disruptive factions within the Republican party began to splinter away from the traditional, more pragmatic conservatism that we saw in the 2000s.
“Whether it was [Speaker John] Boehner, Cantor, Paul Ryan or Kevin McCarthy, none of them was equipped to be able to manage that. None of them was equipped to prevent their own demise. It’s basically a Maga hitlist at this point, when you look at Cantor, Ryan and McCarthy on the cover of that book.”
McCarthy had, as campaign chairman, played a central role in 2010 in recruiting dozens of Tea Party conservatives who took control of the House. He shared their views on fiscal restraint but underestimated their darker impulses: distrust in government, racial hostility to Barack Obama and a conviction that the base had been betrayed by the elites.
It was fertile territory for Trump, who in 2015 and 2016 fused celebrity culture with economic discontent and white grievance to knock the Republican party back on its heels. Joe Walsh, a former Tea Party conservative who served in Congress, said: “The one thing Trump got right was he understood how weak the party establishment was, and so they were in no position to fight him.
“When he came on the scene in 15 and 16, the base was pissed off. The establishment ignored the base for years. People like me inflamed the base, so when Trump got there the base was ready to just dictate shit. The donors in the establishment have never understood that.”
Republicans at the time such as Tara Setmayer, a former communications director who worked on Capitol Hill for seven years, believed the party needed to reach young voters, women and minorities to survive. But the ascent of Trump sent it spinning in the opposite direction, with consequences that still reverberate today.
“That was the inflection point,” Setmayer said. “It was political expediency instead of standing up for what was right. If enough people had stood up to Donald Trump they could have beaten him back. But they didn’t, and they let it get away from them. They mistakenly thought they could control him and it was a case of a political Frankenstein’s monster.”
Ryan, then the speaker, clung to the hope that Trump would mature, moderate and become “presidential” once in office. It proved to be folly. Ryan appreciated the tax cuts and military spending but, after two years, had to accept that the “Make America great again” forces could not be contained. He bowed out of public life.
The baton passed to McCarthy, who had an advantage: with Democrats in control of the House, Republicans had reason to bury their differences and unite in opposition to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. But last year’s midterm elections sowed the seeds of his downfall.
Republicans emerged with a much thinner majority than opinion polls had predicted. In January it took McCarthy 15 rounds of voting to be elected speaker after cutting a deal with the far right, including a rule change that would let any member of the House to seek his removal. Nine rocky months later, after averting a government shutdown with Democratic help, he became the first speaker in history to be ditched.
Democrat Chuck Schumer, the Senate majority leader, said on Wednesday: “All three of them were chased out. Speaker Boehner, Speaker Ryan and now Speaker McCarthy have all learned the same lesson: you cannot allow the hard right to run the House, or the country.”
McCarthy’s nemesis was Matt Gaetz, a Florida congressman egged on by former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, who hosts an influential podcast (Gaetz was a guest on it a day after McCarthy’s demise). Critics say Gaetz is taking advantage of an era in which, instead of working their way up the ranks one committee at a time, politicians can build their brand, “go viral” and raise money by flaunting their extremism in the rightwing media ecosystem.
Rich Lowry, editor-in-chief of National Review magazine, wrote: “Republican backbenchers used to be people such as Jack Kemp and Paul Ryan, who became something by promoting ideas that they carefully developed, sincerely believed, and persuaded their colleagues to embrace. Now, the emphasis is on becoming a micro-celebrity via constant outrage.”
Bardella, a former spokesperson for the conservative Breitbart News who is now a Democratic strategist, added: “Matt Gaetz isn’t the cause. He’s a symptom of the complete radicalisation of not only the Republican party a the conservative rightwing media sphere in general.
“Their deliberate decision to amplify the most extreme voices and give them a platform and give them a microphone and give them an audience every single night of the most ardent Republican primary voters to watch it, absorb it, paved the way for the chaos that has engulfed the entire Republican party right now.”
It seems likely to get worse before it gets better. Without a speaker, the House cannot fully function to pass laws or fund the government. Steve Scalise, the majority leader, and Jim Jordan, the judiciary committee chairman, are the two leading candidates to succeed McCarthy and frantically chasing endorsements ahead of a vote among Republicans expected on Tuesday.
A long, divisive struggle could ensue while Democrats remain united, making a mockery of the temptingly alliterative headline “Dems in disarray”. Now the roles have been reversed. Even Trump wondered aloud: “Why is it that Republicans are always fighting among themselves?”
Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, said: “We now see [that] the kind of authoritarian populism that talks about taking control, bringing order and strongman rule is an utter fiction.
“That rhetoric has led to anarchy and the breakdown of governance and, just to bring it full circle, we’re now almost assuredly going to hear Trump and other Republican presidential candidates running on the promise to bring order to Washington to solve the very disorder they created.”
He added: “We are in some very weird Alice in Wonderland politics here. The problems created by the fanatics in the Republican party have created a disorder that they are claiming they can solve.” | US Congress |
Cedar Rapids, Iowa — As Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis completed a presidential campaign milestone Saturday afternoon byin Iowa, former President Donald Trump largely ignored his GOP opponent by taking aim at another rival, President Biden, as the two candidates held dueling rallies in the state.
In an event in Cedar Rapids, Trump focused his attacks on Mr. Biden, who he claims is "destroying American democracy." Trump appears to be seeking to frame the primary election as over before any votes have been cast, and focusing his attention on his 2020 rival.
The Trump campaign Saturday handed out new signs reading "Biden attacks Democracy" to rally-goers.
"Joe Biden is not the defender of American democracy. Joe Biden is the destroyer of American democracy," Trump said to a crowded gymnasium at Kirkwood Community College, portraying the 91 criminal charges he facesas politicized.
In a social media post on his Truth Social platform Wednesday, Trump made the unverified claim that Biden has "the Justice Department and others suing me wherever and whenever possible - WEAPONIZATION, it's called, and maybe that can make a difference."
Additionally, Trump also pledged to appoint a special prosecutor to "go after" Mr. Biden if Trump were to win the presidency in 2024.
Trump's attacks come as he was dealt two legal setbacks Friday. A federal judgeto dismiss the special counsel's 2020 election interference case against him, while a federal appeals court that Trump is not entitled to broad immunity from civil lawsuits related to the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.
The Biden re-election campaign pushed back on claims that Mr. Biden is going after Trump personally.
"Donald Trump's America in 2025 is one where the government is his personal weapon to lock up his political enemies. You don't have to take our word for it — Trump has admitted it himself," Biden campaign spokesperson Ammar Moussa said. "After spending a week defending his plan to rip health care away from millions of Americans, this is his latest desperate attempt at distraction — the American people see right through it and it won't work."
The choice to focus on Mr. Biden instead of the ongoing Republican presidential primary was notable.
Trump mentioned DeSantis only a handful of times, saying DeSantis' campaign was falling "like a very seriously wounded bird," and repeating claims that he helped get DeSantis elected during his 2020 gubernatorial election.
Less than 100 miles away in the city of Newton, in Jasper County, it was a different story for DeSantis, who was completing a "full Grassley," a nickname for a tour of all of Iowa's 99 counties.
With just 44 days to go until the Iowa caucus, DeSantis showcased some new attacks on Trump, who hasover him in state and national polls.
DeSantis argued that completing his 99-county tour showed he considers himself "a servant, not a ruler. And that's how people that get elected should consider themselves."
DeSantis, his campaign and allies often argue that Trump feels "entitled" to the GOP nomination, given his comparatively lighter campaign schedule.
"I've been very frank with my view on President Trump's campaign," DeSantis said to the crowd at the Thunderdome, a wedding venue in Jasper County.
He added that Trump is "campaigning on things that he promised to do in [2016] and didn't deliver." DeSantis cited Trump's promise to build a wall on the southern border, his call to "drain the swamp" in Washington, D.C., and his call to create a so-called "special counsel for Democrats."
DeSantis then turned to Trump's response during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, calling it "the wrong approach."
"Knowing what we know now, would you still do the same things that you would do? His answer to that question is yes," DeSantis said. "And to me that is disqualifying because this can never happen to our country ever again,"
DeSantis also criticized how, in his closing days as president, Trump gave a presidential commendation to Dr. Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease.
DeSantis also accused Trump of not supporting those who were criminally charged and convicted for their involvement in the.
"Did he help the people that got caught up in the Capitol stuff, that he told to go there? Did he give any support for them? No, but he did give a commendation to Dr. Fauci on his last day in office," DeSantis said.
DeSantis was introduced by evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds,have endorsed him. In his introduction, Vander Plaats said that the country needs a "God-fearing man," and argued for Trump supporters to back DeSantis instead.
"Voting for Ron DeSantis is not against Donald Trump, it is about the future of our country," he said.
Ron Murray, an Iowa voter from Jasper County, the 99th which DeSantis visited, seemed to agree with Vander Plaats pitch. Murray said he was considering his options going into the event, but left convinced he would vote for DeSantis.
"I believe that [DeSantis] is a God-fearing man, and I do not believe that Trump is," he said.
for more features. | US Federal Elections |
A Denver District Court judge is expected to decide this week whether former President Donald Trump is eligible for Colorado's 2024 primary ballot.
Closing arguments in a lawsuit filed by six Colorado voters wrapped up Wednesday.
Sean Grimsley, an attorney for the petitioners, argues that Trump engaged in an insurrection by inciting a violent mob to attack the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 to try to stop the peaceful transfer of power. He says that makes him ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment.
"Such a person has proven themselves untrustworthy and incapable of insuring we remain a country ruled by law and not by men through his actions and his actions alone... Donald Trump has disqualified himself from ever holding office again," he said.
Trump's attorney - former Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler - says there's no evidence that Trump intended to incite violence and violence, he says, doesn't equal an insurrection.
"I would say as if the petitioners' case the foundation of it... is... it is rotted... it is a rotten foundation... the Jan. 6 report was originally used for political purposes to... sort of... an election issue... and that has failed I mean, like it or not for the office, president Trump remains reliable in many instances considered a leading candidate for the presidency," he said.
He says the lawsuit amounts to election interference and is based entirely on the Jan. 6 Committee's report which he says is completely one-sided.
The trial - which ended two weeks ago - included testimony from D.C. riot police, rally goers, constitutional experts, and two members of congress.
If petitioners succeed, their lawsuit could provide a playbook for other states.
If they can keep Trump off the primary ballot in enough states, they hope to keep him from getting the needed delegates to secure the Republican presidential nomination.
Regardless of the judge's decision, the case is all but certain to be appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Similar lawsuits challenging Trump's ballot eligibility under the 14th Amendment have failed recently in Michigan and Minnesota. | US Federal Elections |
Mortgage and loan giant Mr. Cooper says a “cybersecurity incident” earlier this week was the cause of an ongoing outage, adding that the company is “working to resolve the issue.”
The Texas-based company said in a statement on its website that on October 31, Mr. Cooper “became the target of a cyber security incident and took immediate steps to lock down our systems in order to keep your data safe.”
In a separate notice, Mr. Cooper said it is “actively investigating this event to determine if any data has been compromised.”
Mr. Cooper is a home loan, mortgage refinancing and debt collection giant with more than 4.1 million customers, according to its website, which appears to be largely down at the time of writing.
The company said in its statement that customers “will not incur any fees, penalties or negative credit reporting.”
Mr. Cooper initially described the incident as an “outage” in messages to customers that TechCrunch has seen.
It’s not clear when Mr. Cooper expects to bring its systems back to operation, or if the company has the technical ability to determine what customer data, if any, was stolen.
When reached by email, a spokesperson representing Mr. Cooper via a third-party public relations firm sent a boilerplate statement echoing the company’s public remarks and declined to answer our questions about the incident.
In a filing with federal regulators on Thursday, Mr. Cooper said it does not anticipate the cybersecurity incident having a material adverse effect on its business, operations or financial results. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Donald Trump Jr.’s X account was compromised on Wednesday in one of the more high-profile security lapses during Elon Musk’s ownership of the company. The account made several unusual posts, including one that falsely claimed former President Donald Trump had “passed away” and that Trump Jr. would take his place in the ongoing 2024 presidential campaign. The bogus posts were eventually deleted later in the morning.
Security at X, formerly Twitter, has always been a rocky issue — and it was a problem long before Musk took over. A massive hack in 2020 saw numerous popular accounts hijacked in an effort to push a Bitcoin scam; its perpetrators have since faced legal consequences. Earlier this year, a database posted online was claimed to contain over 200 million X usernames and email addresses. But the company pushed back on any perception that it had been hacked, saying the amassed data “could not be correlated with the previously reported incident or any data originating from an exploitation of Twitter systems.”
Ella Irwin, who had served as X’s head of trust and safety, resigned from her position in June, and layoffs at the company have cut into that division (along with many others).
In February, X announced that only Premium subscribers would be able to utilize SMS for two-factor authentication. Other customers can still take advantage of alternate two-factor methods, and if you’ve still got an account on the platform, here’s your reminder to make sure your security is up to snuff.
The FTC has ramped up privacy investigations surrounding X under its new leadership, pushing the company for answers on how it’s ensuring user data remains secure. Soon after Musk purchased what was formerly Twitter, employees raised concerns the company was at risk of violating its consent decree with the FTC and potentially being hit with massive fines.
Trump Jr. had not yet acknowledged any breach of his account as of Wednesday morning after the posts were deleted. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Editor’s Note: This story was adapted from the January 3 edition of CNN’s Meanwhile in America, the email about US politics for global readers. Click here to read past editions and subscribe. CNN — 2022 was the year democracy bounced back. But will the worst political system apart from all the others keep up its lead in the year ahead? In the US last year, midterm election voters repudiated Donald Trump’s election-denying extremist candidates; now the former President’s reelection campaign – which is based on lies about 2020 – faces an existential crisis. Congress also passed a new law designed to make it harder for sore loser presidents like Trump to mess with the Constitution. In another blow to populist extremism, Brazilian voters ousted one of Trump’s proteges, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro. And in April, French President Emmanuel Macron defeated far right challenger Marine Le Pen. As democracies showed resilience, autocrats lost momentum in several countries last year. Soon after securing a norm-busting third term, Chinese leader Xi Jinping was embarrassed by nationwide outcry and forced to abandon a controversial “Zero Covid” policy. Iran’s clerical regime is still being rattled by a furious protest movement. And the pitfalls of surrounding yourself with yes men were exposed by Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s miscalculated “special operation” in Ukraine, which has raised the profile of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a champion for democracy and revived the West’s Cold War alliance. Democracy’s enemies won’t rest. There’s no sign that the challenges facing Moscow, Tehran or Beijing could loosen their iron grasps on power. Even in the US, Trump is on the comeback trail and a Republican majority (dominated by members who voted not to certify President Joe Biden’s election in 2020) is poised to take over the US House of Representatives. But those who thought they had democracy on the run in 2022 got a surprise. The simple magic of a voter marking their ballot in a polling booth or a protestor willing to put their life on the line for the right to do so remains as powerful as ever. Washington is bracing for a new era of divided government likely to bring governing showdowns, shutdowns, withering political investigations and the opening shots of the 2024 presidential race. Here’s what we think will shape the year. A House Republican majority, in which radical conservatives now have disproportionate influence, will try to throttle Biden’s presidency and ruin his reelection hopes. By driving McCarthy’s speakership bid to the brink, pro-Trump conservatives have already shown they will not be stopped. Governing could therefore be impossible and a likely standoff with the White House over raising the US borrowing limit later this year could turn into an economy-wrecking disaster. Spare a thought for Attorney General Merrick Garland, whose decision on whether to charge Trump with a crime is one of the most fateful in modern politics. Trying the ex-President would tear open old political wounds and would further damage legal and governing institutions politicized by Trump. Yet a failure to prosecute could set a precedent that hands ex-presidents impunity and fractures the principle that everyone is equal before the law. Like it or not, Trump has pitched America into the next presidential campaign. But his limp launch, bleating over his 2020 election loss and the poor track record of his hand-picked election-denying candidates in the midterms diminished his aura. Potential alternative Republican figureheads for populist, nationalist culture war politics, like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, are emerging. Biden meanwhile may give Americans a new piece of history – a reelection campaign from a president who is over 80. His strongest card is that he’s already beaten Trump once. But that might not help him against a younger challenger like DeSantis. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine showed how global events can redefine an American presidency. But as the war grinds on, Biden’s capacity to stop it from spilling into a disastrous Russia-NATO clash will be constantly tested. He has his hands full: An encounter between a Chinese jet and US military jet over the South China Sea over the holiday hints at how tensions could boil over there. And nuclear crises are building with Iran and North Korea. In 2022, 40-year-high inflation and tumbling stock markets coincided with historically low unemployment rates in an odd economic mix. The key question for 2023 will be whether the Federal Reserve’s harsh interest rate medicine – designed to bring down the cost of living – can bring about a soft landing without triggering a recession. | US Federal Elections |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Kate Brumback, Associated Press
Kate Brumback, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
ATLANTA (AP) — Lawyer Sidney Powell pleaded guilty to reduced charges Thursday over efforts to overturn Donald Trump’s loss in the 2020 election in Georgia, becoming the second defendant in the sprawling case to reach a deal with prosecutors.
Powell, who was charged alongside Trump and 17 others with violating the state’s anti-racketeering law, entered the plea just a day before jury selection was set to start in her trial. A judge agreed that she will serve about six years of probation, have to pay $2,700 in restitution and have to testify truthfully against her co-defendants.
She was initially charged with racketeering and six other counts as part of a wide-ranging scheme to keep the Republican president in power after he lost the 2020 election to Democrat Joe Biden. Prosecutors say she also participated in an unauthorized breach of elections equipment in a rural Georgia county elections office.
The acceptance of a plea deal is a remarkable about-face for a lawyer who, perhaps more than anyone else, strenuously pushed baseless conspiracy theories about a stolen election in the face of extensive evidence to the contrary. If prosecutors compel her to testify, she could provide insight on a news conference she participated in on behalf of Trump and his campaign shortly after the election and on a White House meeting she attended in mid-December of that year during which strategies and theories to influence the outcome of the election were discussed.
Powell was scheduled to go on trial on Monday with lawyer Kenneth Chesebro after each filed a demand for a speedy trial. Jury selection was set to start Friday. The development means that Chesebro will go on trial by himself, though prosecutors said earlier that they also planned to look into the possibility of offering him a plea deal.
A lower-profile defendant in the case, bail bondsman Scott Graham Hall, last month pleaded guilty to five misdemeanor charges. He was sentenced to five years of probation and agreed to testify in further proceedings.
Prosecutors allege that Powell conspired with Hall and others to access election equipment without authorization and hired computer forensics firm SullivanStrickler to send a team to Coffee County, in south Georgia, to copy software and data from voting machines and computers there. The indictment says a person who is not named sent an email to a top SullivanStrickler executive and instructed him to send all data copied from Dominion Voting Systems equipment in Coffee County to an unidentified lawyer associated with Powell and the Trump campaign.
Support Provided By:
Learn more | US Political Corruption |
Double your support for intelligent, in-depth, trustworthy journalism.
Gary Fields, Associated Press
Gary Fields, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
WASHINGTON (AP) — Campaigning in Iowa this year, Donald Trump said he was prevented during his presidency from using the military to quell violence in primarily Democratic cities and states.
Calling New York City and Chicago “crime dens,” the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination told his audience, “The next time, I’m not waiting. One of the things I did was let them run it and we’re going to show how bad a job they do,” he said. “Well, we did that. We don’t have to wait any longer.”
Trump has not spelled out precisely how he might use the military during a second term, although he and his advisers have suggested they would have wide latitude to call up units. While deploying the military regularly within the country’s borders would be a departure from tradition, the former president already has signaled an aggressive agenda if he wins, from mass deportations to travel bans imposed on certain Muslim-majority countries.
A law first crafted in the nation’s infancy would give Trump as commander in chief almost unfettered power to do so, military and legal experts said in a series of interviews.
READ MORE: Colorado judge keeps Trump on ballot, rejecting challenge under Constitution’s insurrection clause
The Insurrection Act allows presidents to call on reserve or active-duty military units to respond to unrest in the states, an authority that is not reviewable by the courts. One of its few guardrails merely requires the president to request that the participants disperse.
“The principal constraint on the president’s use of the Insurrection Act is basically political, that presidents don’t want to be the guy who sent tanks rolling down Main Street,” said Joseph Nunn, a national security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. “There’s not much really in the law to stay the president’s hand.”
A spokesman for Trump’s campaign did not respond to multiple requests for comment about what authority Trump might use to pursue his plans.
Congress passed the act in 1792, just four years after the Constitution was ratified. Nunn said it’s an amalgamation of different statutes enacted between then and the 1870s, a time when there was little in the way of local law enforcement.
“It is a law that in many ways was created for a country that doesn’t exist anymore,” he said.
It also is one of the most substantial exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using the military for law enforcement purposes.
Trump has spoken openly about his plans should he win the presidency, including using the military at the border and in cities struggling with violent crime. His plans also have included using the military against foreign drug cartels, a view echoed by other Republican primary candidates such as Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Nikki Haley, the former U.N. ambassador and South Carolina governor.
WATCH: Jonathan Karl explores Trump’s grasp on GOP in new book, ‘Tired of Winning’
The threats have raised questions about the meaning of military oaths, presidential power and who Trump could appoint to support his approach.
Trump already has suggested he might bring back retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who served briefly as Trump’s national security adviser and twice pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI during its Russian influence probe before being pardoned by Trump. Flynn suggested in the aftermath of the 2020 election that Trump could seize voting machines and order the military in some states to help rerun the election.
Attempts to invoke the Insurrection Act and use the military for domestic policing would likely elicit pushback from the Pentagon, where the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is Gen. Charles Q. Brown. He was one of the eight members of the Joint Chiefs who signed a memo to military personnel in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The memo emphasized the oaths they took and called the events of that day, which were intended to stop certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s victory over Trump, “sedition and insurrection.”
Trump and his party nevertheless retain wide support among those who have served in the military. AP VoteCast, an in-depth survey of more than 94,000 voters nationwide, showed that 59 percent of U.S. military veterans voted for Trump in the 2020 presidential election. In the 2022 midterms, 57 percent of military veterans supported Republican candidates.
Presidents have issued a total of 40 proclamations invoking the law, some of those done multiple times for the same crisis, Nunn said. Lyndon Johnson invoked it three times — in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington — in response to the unrest in cities after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968.
WATCH: Trump’s ramped-up rhetoric raises new concerns about violence and authoritarianism
During the Civil Rights era, Presidents Johnson, John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower used the law to protect activists and students desegregating schools. Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, to protect Black students integrating Central High School after that state’s governor activated the National Guard to keep the students out.
George H.W. Bush was the last president to use the Insurrection Act, a response to riots in Los Angeles in 1992 after the acquittal of the white police officers who beat Black motorist Rodney King in an incident that was videotaped.
Repeated attempts to invoke the act in a new Trump presidency could put pressure on military leaders, who could face consequences for their actions even if done at the direction of the president.
Michael O’Hanlon, director of research in foreign policy at the Brookings Institution think tank, said the question is whether the military is being imaginative enough with the scenarios it has been presenting to future officers. Ambiguity, especially when force is involved, is not something military personnel are comfortable with, he said.
“There are a lot of institutional checks and balances in our country that are pretty well-developed legally, and it’ll make it hard for a president to just do something randomly out of the blue,” said O’Hanlon, who specializes in U.S. defense strategy and the use of military force. “But Trump is good at developing a semi-logical train of thought that might lead to a place where there’s enough mayhem, there’s enough violence and legal murkiness” to call in the military.
WATCH: How Trump sees a 2nd term as a chance to promote loyalists and punish critics
Democratic Rep. Pat Ryan of New York, the first graduate of the U.S. Military Academy to represent the congressional district that includes West Point, said he took the oath three times while he was at the school and additional times during his military career. He said there was extensive classroom focus on an officer’s responsibilities to the Constitution and the people under his or her command.
“They really hammer into us the seriousness of the oath and who it was to, and who it wasn’t to,” he said.
Ryan said he thought it was universally understood, but Jan. 6 “was deeply disturbing and a wakeup call for me.” Several veterans and active-duty military personnel were charged with crimes in connection with the assault.
While those connections were troubling, he said he thinks those who harbor similar sentiments make up a very small percentage of the military.
William Banks, a Syracuse University law professor and expert in national security law, said a military officer is not forced to follow “unlawful orders.” That could create a difficult situation for leaders whose units are called on for domestic policing, since they can face charges for taking unlawful actions.
“But there is a big thumb on the scale in favor of the president’s interpretation of whether the order is lawful,” Banks said. “You’d have a really big row to hoe and you would have a big fuss inside the military if you chose not to follow a presidential order.”
Nunn, who has suggested steps to restrict the invocation of the law, said military personnel cannot be ordered to break the law.
“Members of the military are legally obliged to disobey an unlawful order. At the same time, that is a lot to ask of the military because they are also obliged to obey orders,” he said. “And the punishment for disobeying an order that turns out to be lawful is your career is over, and you may well be going to jail for a very long time. The stakes for them are extraordinarily high.”
Associated Press writers Jill Colvin and Michelle L. Price in New York, and Linley Sanders in Washington contributed to this report.
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Support PBS NewsHour:
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Politics
Nov 21 | US Federal Elections |
The FBI seized electronic devices from Mayor Eric Adams earlier this week, according to his campaign, as scrutiny of Adams’ fundraising intensifies while a federal public corruption probe into donations to his campaign is underway.
FBI agents approached Adams on Monday night after an event and requested his electronic devices, said Adams’ campaign attorney Boyd Johnson in a written statement Friday. Evan Thies, a campaign spokesman, said the mayor had been served a search warrant.
To obtain a search warrant, investigators would have had to prove to a judge that there is probable cause to believe that the devices sought would reveal evidence that a crime had been committed.
Adams’ attorney did not specify where the mayor was Monday night but his schedule showed that he was slated to deliver remarks at NYU downtown for an event on autism.
“The Mayor immediately complied with the FBI’s request and provided them with electronic devices. The mayor has not been accused of any wrongdoing and continues to cooperate with the investigation,” Boyd said.
“As a former member of law enforcement, I expect all members of my staff to follow the law and fully cooperate with any sort of investigation—and I will continue to do exactly that. I have nothing to hide,” Adams said in a statement.
The New York Times, which first reported the seizure, said the FBI agents took at least two cellphones and an iPad from the mayor, and returned them to him within days.
A spokesperson for the FBI declined to comment. Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, also declined to comment.
It’s unclear if the seizure of Adams’s devices is directly related to the Nov. 2 FBI raid at the home of Brianna Suggs, the mayor’s main campaign fundraiser. Boyd said Adams is cooperating with federal authorities.
“After learning of the federal investigation, it was discovered that an individual had recently acted improperly. In the spirit of transparency and cooperation, this behavior was immediately and proactively reported to investigators,” Johnson said in the statement. “The Mayor has been and remains committed to cooperating in this matter.”
It’s the first time Adams’ campaign has pointed to a single person involved with the campaign having been engaged in wrongdoing. Thies said he cannot comment on who the unnamed individual is because the investigation is ongoing.
During a press conference on Wednesday, Adams told reporters that he repeatedly instructed his campaign to follow the rules. “It is what I've stated all the time, I sleep well at night,” he said. “I am clear that we follow the rules.”
Adams did not mention that his devices had been seized.
Most of New York City’s political class is currently in San Juan, Puerto Rico for the annual Somos conference that draws elected officials and lobbyists.
Adams elected not to attend, saying he did not want taxpayers to foot the bill on the trip. “I don't think that it is appropriate for me to, you know, have on a flowery shirt lying on a beach drinking a margarita when I'm telling everyday New Yorkers that it's going to be a tough fiscal crisis,” he said.
This is a developing story. | US Political Corruption |
More than 40 million federal student loan borrowers could be eligible for up to $20,000 in debt forgiveness, but they will likely have to wait several more months before the Supreme Court rules on whether President Joe Biden can implement his proposed relief program.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments last week in two cases challenging Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, but justices aren’t expected to issue their decision until late June or early July.
When the ruling comes will also determine when federal student loan payments, which have been paused due to the pandemic since March 2020, will restart.
Some borrowers have been anxiously waiting for years to see if Biden would fulfill his campaign pledge to cancel some federal student loan debt. The president finally announced a forgiveness plan last August.
But after 26 million people applied, the program was blocked by lower courts in November – before any debt could be canceled.
“In some ways, it feels like we are one step closer now that they’ve heard the oral arguments, but until a decision is made, it still feels like we are in limbo,” said Lindsay Clausen, who has about $68,000 in student loan debt and works as an instructional designer at a university.
Clausen, 33, filed for relief from Biden’s forgiveness program last fall as soon as the application was open, hoping the forgiveness would help her and her husband save for a new home and expand their family.
“I felt relief, and then it was like a rug was pulled from underneath me,” Clausen said.
“Whichever way SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) decides to rule, it will at least be nice to have an answer,” she added.
How Biden’s forgiveness program would work
The Biden administration has estimated that more than 40 million federal student loan borrowers would qualify for some level of debt cancellation, with roughly 20 million who would have their balance forgiven entirely, if the forgiveness program is allowed to move forward.
But not everyone with a federally held student loan would qualify.
Individual borrowers who earned less than $125,000 in either 2020 or 2021 and married couples or heads of households who made less than $250,000 annually in those years could see up to $10,000 of their federal student loan debt forgiven. Those with higher incomes would be excluded.
If a qualifying borrower also received a federal Pell grant while enrolled in college, the individual is eligible for up to $20,000 of debt forgiveness. Pell grants are a key federal aid program that help students from the lowest-income families pay for college, but these borrowers are still more likely to struggle paying off their student loans.
At a cost of $400 billion, is loan forgiveness fair?
Student debt cancellation would deliver financial relief to millions of Americans, potentially helping them buy their first homes, start businesses or save for retirement.
But those who have already paid off their student loans, or chose not to borrow money to go to college to begin with, would get nothing. And the estimated $400 billion cost of canceling some debt would shift to all taxpayers.
At last week’s hearing, several of the conservative justices questioned whether that tradeoff is fair, while liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed back, arguing how many borrowers “don’t have friends or families or others who can help them make these payments.”
The back-and-forth on fairness touches on one of the biggest complaints about the nation’s higher education system: many people feel they need to go to college, and as a result borrow money, to get ahead.
Angel Enriquez, a 30-year-old meteorologist with about $61,000 in student loan debt, is one of those people.
His parents, immigrants from Mexico, couldn’t afford to help him pay for college. Enriquez was wait-listed at a state school that had a meteorology program, so he instead enrolled at a more expensive school out of state. He is now pursuing a master’s degree, which he felt he needed to stand out in a competitive industry.
“When you talk about fairness, it’s a complicated argument,” Enriquez said.
“But if you talk to someone who comes from poverty, or someone who’s a person of color, they are going to benefit from the forgiveness program the most because they’re the ones that have to jump through extra financial hoops in order to get where everyone else in the educated country is,” he said.
Debt relief could help those whose degrees haven’t paid off
For some students, college degrees do not deliver the step up in the world they hoped for.
Even though Blake Goddard worked part-time jobs while in college, he still had to borrow nearly $90,000 for his bachelor’s degree in network communications management from DeVry University. In an effort to land a higher-paying job in the information technology industry, he then earned his master’s degree, borrowing another $44,000.
Despite those degrees, most of his jobs have been temporary contract positions, and many of his co-workers opted for getting lower-cost IT industry certifications rather than a four-year degree.
Meanwhile, the Department of Education has found that DeVry University, a for-profit college, misled at least 1,800 borrowers with false advertising about job placement rates.
While Goddard, 45, considers himself “one of the lucky ones” who would qualify for $20,000 of debt relief, the cancellation wouldn’t make too much of a dent in his more than $150,000 balance.
His debt, Goddard said, is “so detrimental” to his American dream, which was to buy a house and have a family.
“I was stupid enough to fall for it,” Goddard said about taking out student loans.
“I wish we could make it so nobody else in this country falls into the same trap,” he added.
Now, he’s committed to helping others avoid borrowing so much money for college and volunteers with an organization that helps students pursue careers in STEM fields.
College cost problem persists
One criticism of Biden’s one-time forgiveness program is that it would do nothing to address the cost of college for future students.
A more permanent solution to the college affordability problem would have to be created by Congress, but lawmakers have failed to pass any sweeping measure. A provision to make community college free was dropped from Biden’s Build Back Better agenda before it came to a vote in the House in 2021.
The Biden administration is also working on changes to existing federal student loan repayment plans, which don’t need congressional approval, and that aim to make it easier for borrowers to pay for college.
The Department of Education is currently finalizing a new income-driven repayment plan to lower monthly payments as well as the total amount borrowers pay back over time. In contrast to the one-time student loan cancellation program, the new repayment plan could help both current and future borrowers.
Additionally, in July, changes will be made to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, which allows certain government and nonprofit employees to seek federal student loan forgiveness after making 10 years of qualifying payments. The changes will make it easier for some borrowers to receive debt forgiveness.
What happens next?
If the Supreme Court ultimately gives the student loan forgiveness program the green light, it’s possible the government will begin issuing some debt cancellations fairly quickly. The administration has said it already approved 16 million applications for relief.
But several of the conservative justices expressed skepticism last week about whether Biden has the power to implement his student loan forgiveness program.
Lawyers for the government have remained confident that their plan is legal. They point to a 2003 law passed after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that grants the secretary of education power to make sure people are not worse off in respect to their student loans in the event of a national emergency.
“I’m confident we’re on the right side of the law,” Biden told CNN a day after the oral arguments when asked if he was confident the administration would prevail in the case. “I’m not confident of the outcome of the decision yet.”
If the Supreme Court strikes down Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, it could be possible for the administration to make some modifications to the policy and try again – though that process could take months.
The pandemic pause on payments will remain in effect until either 60 days after the Supreme Court’s decision, or late August – whichever comes first. | SCOTUS |
Fetterman Trolls Menendez With George Santos ‘Encouragement’ Video: ‘Hey, Bobby … Stay Strong’
The recently-expelled Santos told Bob Menendez, facing charges of acting as a foreign agent, to 'stand your ground'
Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., appears to be one of George Santos' first customers on Cameo, where the recently-expelled New York congressman is offering videos to fans and describing himself as a "former congressional icon."
Fetterman posted his Santos Cameo video on social media Monday, dedicating it exclusively to Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., who's facing felony bribery charges, as well as charges he acted as a foreign agent for Egypt. The senator has denied any wrongdoing.
Fetterman, who has repeatedly called for Menendez to be expelled from Congress, order a special Santos video for the New Jersey Democrat.
"I thought my ethically-challenged colleague could use some encouragement given his substantial legal problems," Fetterman posted to X, formerly Twitter. "So, I approached a seasoned expert on the matter to give 'Bobby from Jersey' some advice."
Santos is in high spirits in the video despite his recent expulsion, as well as looming criminal charges related to his campaign spending, reporting and fabrication of his life's story.
The Republican offered Menendez some support and encouraged him to make his colleagues "put up or shut up," as Santos' did when his House colleagues voted to boot him from Congress after a House Ethics Committee report found he used campaign donations to buy personal luxury items.
- Rep. George Santos Says Sen. Menendez Should Not Resign: ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty’
- House Set to Vote on Whether to Expel or Keep George Santos
- George Santos Critics Urge US House To Expel the ‘Crook’ and ‘Liar’
- HBO to Develop Film Based on George Santos
- Fetterman Renews Calls For Menendez’s Expulsion From Congress
- Most Republicans Side With George Santos, Saving Him From Expulsion
"Hey, Bobby! Look, I don't think I need to tell you but these people that want to make you get in trouble and want to kick you out and make you run away, you make them put up or shut up!" Santos said. "You stand your ground, sir. And don't get bogged down by all the haters out there. Stay strong."
He ended the message with a cheerful "Merry Christmas!" to his former colleague.
- 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
- Mike Johnson Headlines Christian Lawmakers Gala at Museum of the BiblePolitics
- Koch Network Faces Internal Scrutiny From Operatives Following Haley EndorsementPolitics
- White House Says Houthi Attacks on Ships in Red Sea ‘Fully Enabled by Iran’Politics
- Biden Administration Launches Treasury Dept. ‘Strike Force’ To Combat Fentanyl TraffickingPolitics
- Trump Expected to Return to New York Trial on Thursday Ahead of TestimonyPolitics
- Whoopi Goldberg Says Biden Would Have Put Trump’s ‘Ass in Jail’ If Trump’s Claims About Him Were TrueEntertainment
- Alyssa Farah Griffin Says Former Boss Trump Is ‘Historically Dangerous’Entertainment | US Congress |
Biden student loan repayment changes could cost around $475B: economic model
President Biden’s changes to the income-driven repayment (IDR) plans could cost around $475 billion over a 10-year budget window, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
The administration introduced the Saving on Valuable Education (SAVE) plan earlier this year to transform the IDR system in a move that could save thousands of dollars for student loan borrowers.
The final changes to the plan, such as cutting discretionary income for repayments from 10 percent to 5 percent, raising the federal poverty guidelines from 150 percent to 225 percent and covering the interest on loans that are not covered under the plan, will be implemented over the next year.
The changes would make it so a single person making less than $32,805 a year or a family of four making less than $67,500 a year will pay $0 a month on student loans.
But, this will come at a price.
The model predicts $200 billion will go towards payment reductions from the $1.64 trillion in outstanding loans in 2023 while the other $250 billion would go towards the $1.03 trillion in outstanding loans expected over the next 10 years.
It is predicted that around 6.57 percent of future borrowers wouldn’t have to pay any money back under this plan.
On the conservative side, the model says the program could cost around $390 billion while the maximum projection is more than $558 billion.
The costs of these programs have been a major concern to Republicans who have been against these changes and any sort of student debt relief.
“The administration’s Income-Driven Repayment rule is nothing more than a backdoor attempt to provide free college by executive fiat,” said Education and the Workforce Committee Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.).
The Department of Education has called the SAVE program the “most generous” plan ever given to student borrowers to repay their debts.
The administration estimates the plan will save an individual borrower more than $1,000 a year and a family of four more than $2,200 a year.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
The House speakership drama enters a new week under increased urgency as Israel declared war Sunday following unprecedented surprise attacks by Hamas.
Kevin McCarthy’s historic ouster as speaker leaves the House in uncharted legal territory regarding what it can do under acting Speaker Patrick McHenry. When Congress lawmakers return to Washington, they will be under pressure to elect a new speaker swiftly amid the crisis in Israel, which has prompted calls from within the Republican Party to speed up their timeline given the national security implications of keeping the role vacant.
As the Biden administration looks to provide additional assistance to Israel, officials were unsure Saturday about what could be accomplished without a sitting speaker. While McHenry is serving as speaker pro tempore, he has little power outside of recessing, adjourning or recognizing speaker nominations, and it’s unclear whether he can participate in intelligence briefings on the crisis in Israel.
Democratic House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Sunday that he had conversations with the White House and the National Security Council on Saturday, but he has not yet met with the so-called Gang of Eight – which typically includes the top leaders and heads of the intelligence committees in both parties and both chambers.
“I do anticipate that we’ll have the opportunity to have a secure briefing at some point next week,” Jeffries told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union.”
Jeffries said it is his understanding that the Biden administration can make some decisions regarding aid to Israel without waiting for Congress and urged the administration to do so, adding that he expects “it will provide whatever assistance it can.”
House Foreign Affairs Chairman Mike McCaul told Bash on Sunday that the president can use $3.3 billion in foreign military financing that is already appropriated.
The Texas Republican also called McCarthy’s ouster “dangerous.”
“I look at the world and all of the threats that are out there and what kind of message are we sending to adversaries when we can’t govern, when we are dysfunctional, when we don’t even have a speaker of the House?” McCaul said on “State of the Union.”
McCarthy on Saturday slammed his Republican colleagues for removing him from office last week, and stressed the impact of a speakerless House on national security. “Why would you ever remove a speaker during a term to raise doubt around the world?” McCarthy asked in a Fox News interview.
McCarthy announced shortly after his ouster that he would not seek the speakership again, making room for House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan to launch their bids for the seat.
Former President Donald Trump has thrown his support behind Jordan. Oklahoma Rep. Kevin Hern announced Saturday that he had decided not to run, saying, “I believe a three-man race for speaker will create even more division and make it harder to elect a speaker.”
House Republicans are scheduled to hold a candidate forum on Tuesday and an internal election on Wednesday.
As Jordan and Scalise vie for their colleagues’ support, Jordan said Sunday that he would lay out his plan to address the government funding deadline to his caucus Tuesday.
“We’ve got to have 218 votes for a Republican speaker, and we’ve got to have 218 votes for how we deal with November 17 when the funding bill for the government comes due. … I will outline that in front of my colleagues on Tuesday when we get together,” he said on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures.”
Jordan said his first order of business, however, would be to bring a resolution to the floor in support of Israel.
It’s unclear when the speaker floor vote will happen, and the timeline is contingent on whether moderate GOP lawmakers can rally around Scalise or Jordan, who are among the hardliners of the party.
“We have to get a speaker elected this week so we can get things on the floor like replenishing the Iron Dome,” McCaul told Bash on Sunday – referring to Israel’s rocket defense system, which was developed with help from the US. He added that the House should look to pass a resolution condemning Hamas “by unanimous consent whether or not we have a speaker in place because I think we cannot wait. We have to get that message out as soon as possible.”
CORRECTION: This story has been updated to clarify when Congress returns.
CNN’s Casey Gannon, Annie Grayer, Melanie Zanona, Manu Raju, Kevin Liptak and Lauren Koenig contributed to this report. | US Congress |
Global ransomware attacks are at an all-time high after steadily increasing over the last few years. The worst part is that the U.S. is the top target in the world for all ransomware attacks, accounting for over 43% of the last 1,900 reported attacks in the last year, according to a report from Malwarebytes.
So why exactly are we the biggest target? What could we be doing wrong that's making it so easy for ransomware attackers to go after us? I spoke with Steve Stone, head of Rubrik Zero labs, the Data Threat Search Unit at the cloud data management and data security company Rubrik, for more answers on this troubling topic.
What is ransomware and why has it grown so much in popularity?
A ransomware attack happens when a group of hackers encrypts the data on a system, usually of a large organization, and demands a ransom to restore access to the owners or users. The hackers may also threaten to delete or leak the data if the ransom is not paid, so it’s a very serious attack.
What are some of the most notorious attacks?
These attacks come from various sources, but some of the most notorious ones are from Russian ransomware groups, such as Clop, REvil, DarkSide and Conti. These groups operate as ransomware-as-a-service (RaaS) platforms, which means that they provide the ransomware software and infrastructure to other cybercriminals who carry out the attacks and share the profits with them.
What major organizations have been targeted by these cybercriminals?
Some of the major organizations that have been targeted by these groups in the last year include health care, education, energy and transportation sectors. One of the victims was CalPERS, the biggest pension fund in the U.S., which had its data stolen and leaked by Clop through a third-party vendor that was exploited by a zero-day vulnerability.
How can ransomware attacks harm individuals?
Ransomware attacks can affect individuals like you and me. In fact, anyone who uses a computer or a device connected to the internet can be a potential victim of ransomware.
This means that your personal files, such as your photos, videos, documents and emails, could be locked by hackers who demand a ransom for their release.
How ransomware attacks are now carried out?
A few years ago, ransomware attackers had to do a lot more work and spend much more time doing various steps to reach their goals. They had to find the target, follow them, work through negotiations, and a ton more steps, making it a pretty complicated process.
What has truly changed the game now is "Ransomware-as-a-service." This is when ransomware operators will write software and then hackers will pay to launch attacks using that software.
They don't need to have any technical skills, they can just pay to have the work done for them so that they can be paid quickly. Plus, tools like ChatGPT can now make this method more accessible to anyone. It's far less work for a far bigger reward.
And according to Stone, the person or organization they're targeting doesn't even matter much to them: "Ransomware actors, they're looking for something that's going to return value on their time, so they don't want to spend a ton of time finding the right target, which really differentiates from government-sponsored efforts... it's much more about how are they going get paid than the actual specific target itself."
Why isn't the government shutting it all down?
It's not that the government has no desire to do anything. It's more that the ways to bring down ransomware attackers are very complicated and ever-changing. As soon as we think we've solved one issue, the attacker will find five more loopholes to get around it.
I asked this very question to Stone, and he reiterated that the truth of the matter is that the government is working on this every day. Stone said, "This is a forever problem. It's here to stay. And the sooner I think we look at it that way, we'll recognize the government will always need to do more. It will always need to do better and so will we."
GET MORE OF MY SECURITY ALERTS, QUICK TIPS & EASY VIDEO TUTORIALS WITH THE FREE CYBERGUY NEWSLETTER - CLICK HERE
What can I do to protect myself from ransomware?
Ransomware criminals will try to get you to pay money to them to get your files back. However, paying the ransom does not guarantee that you will regain access to anything a criminal takes from you and will only permit them to do it more.
Your best bet is to prevent an attacker from gaining access to your files altogether so that you don't have to try to fight to get them back. Here are some of my tips for avoiding having your data stolen in a ransomware attack.
Be careful about opening suspicious links or attachments
If you receive an email from an address you do not recognize, don’t open it. If you open it by mistake, avoid clicking any links or opening any attachments within the email. This is a classic method that cybercriminals use to try to trick you into thinking that the message is from someone important to you.
Have good antivirus protection
Keeping hackers out of your devices can be prevented if you have good antivirus software installed. Having antivirus software on your devices will make sure you are stopped from clicking on any potential malicious links that may install malware or ransomware on your devices, allowing hackers to gain access to your personal information. Plus, it's designed to tell you when there is already malware on your device so that you can immediately work toward getting rid of it.
Back up your files on an external hard drive
I highly advise you to create backups of your information on an external hard drive and store it securely in a safe location. This process involves regularly making backup copies from your Windows or Mac computer and then disconnecting the external drive from your computer for added safety. You should store the disconnected drive in a secure place like a fireproof safe or a safety deposit box. By keeping the drive unplugged when not in use, you significantly minimize the risk of unauthorized access to your data by hackers.
Keep software up to date
Regularly update your operating system, antivirus software, web browsers and other applications to ensure you have the latest security patches and protections.
Use strong and unique passwords
Create strong passwords for your accounts and devices, and avoid using the same password for multiple online accounts. This will make it harder for hackers to access your data or infect your devices with ransomware. Consider using a password manager to securely store and generate complex passwords. It will help you to create unique and difficult-to-crack passwords that a hacker could never guess. Second, it also keeps track of all your passwords in one place and fills passwords in for you when you're logging into an account so that you never have to remember them yourself. The fewer passwords you remember, the less likely you will be to reuse them for your accounts.
How to Respond to a Ransomware Attack
Do not pay the ransom. Paying the ransom does not guarantee that you will get your data back, and it may encourage the attackers to target you again.
Disconnect your device from the internet and any other networks. This may prevent the ransomware from spreading to other devices or encrypting more data.
Contact law enforcement and report the incident. They may be able to help you recover your data or track down the attackers. You can find a list of law enforcement contacts for ransomware attacks on the CISA website.
Restore your data from backups. If you have backups of your important data, you may be able to restore them to a clean device. Make sure that your backups are not infected by the ransomware and that you scan them for malware before restoring them.
Use identity theft protection: If you are a victim of a ransomware attack, you may want to consider investing in identity theft protection. Identity theft protection companies can monitor personal information like your home title, Social Security number (SSN), phone number, and email address and alert you if it is being used to open an account. They can also assist you in freezing your bank and credit card accounts to prevent further unauthorized use by criminals. One of the best parts of using some services is that they might include identity theft insurance of up to $1 million to cover losses and legal fees and a white glove fraud resolution team where a U.S.-based case manager helps you recover any losses.
Kurt's key takeaways
Ransomware attacks are a serious threat that can affect anyone, anywhere and anytime. The U.S. is especially vulnerable to these attacks because of its high-value targets, and its lack of cyber defenses.
The best way to protect yourself and your data from ransomware is not to click on suspicious links or attachments, back up your files regularly, and use reliable antivirus software. And if you ever become a victim of ransomware, contact law enforcement.
Have a question or suggestion for stories you’d like us to cover? Let us know by writing us here: Cyberguy.com/Contact
For more of my tech tips and security alerts, subscribe to my free CyberGuy Report Newsletter by heading to Cyberguy.com/Newsletter
Answers to the most asked CyberGuy questions:
- What is the best way to protect your Mac, Windows, iPhone, and Android devices from getting hacked?
- What is the best way to stay private, secure, and anonymous while browsing the web?
- How can I get rid of robocalls with apps and data removal services?
Copyright 2023 CyberGuy.com. All rights reserved. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Votebeat is a non-profit news organization reporting on voting access and election administration across the US. Sign up for our free newsletters here.
In North Carolina, Local Labs wanted obscure voter records that would take weeks, or even months, to prepare. In Georgia, the company requested a copy of every envelope voters used to mail in their ballots. And in dozens of counties across the US, Local Labs asked for the address of every midterm voter.
Local election offices across the country are struggling to manage a sharp rise in the number of public records requests, and extensive requests coming from a little-known conservative effort called Local Labs in at least five states have stymied election officials, according to a Votebeat review of hundreds of records requests, as well as interviews. The requests are broad and unclear, and the purpose for obtaining the records is often not fully explained, leaving officials wondering in some cases whether they can legally release the records.
Local Labs is known for a vast network of websites that rely mainly on aggregation and automation, blasting out conservative-leaning hyper-local news under names such as the Old North News, in North Carolina, and Peach Tree Times, in Georgia.
Local Labs’ CEO, Brian Timpone, told Votebeat the company was using records requests in an attempt to expose election fraud that he is sure exists. The company was sometimes getting paid by GOP-backed clients to do so, Timpone acknowledged, characterizing the work simultaneously as both political research and journalism.
“We’re just trying to push for more free speech and more transparency,” Timpone said. “And no one else is doing it.”
Veteran journalists and those who study journalism ethics say he’s wrong. The Arizona State University journalism professor Julia Wallace – previously the editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution – said doing reporting and paid-for work at the same time is not ethical. “That’s not independent, so that’s not journalism,” she said.
Timpone is no stranger to journalism controversies: among his previous companies was one that sold cheap content to local news organizations and was ultimately closed after a series of ethics scandals, including plagiarism.
To be sure, public records laws exist because the public has the right to know what the government is doing, and ensuring access to records is a critical window into that. Election offices, open records advocates say, should consider proactively and publicly sharing more election records.
But election officials have questions.
It’s unclear from the requests when the company is doing the work for a third party or for their news websites, or both, and if the election offices can legally provide the records.
One recent Local Labs project offers a clue of what might be to come.
After the midterm election, Local Labs was paid by America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a national thinktank that pushes the former president Donald Trump’s agenda, to send public records requests to 100 counties in the US asking for a record of each voter who voted, along with their address and other information. AFPI published the first results of that work in June, in a misleading report that insinuated that thousands of fraudulent ballots were cast in Arizona’s midterm election.
“Voter Discrepancies Found in the Arizona 2022 General Election,” the AFPI headline read. But most, perhaps all, of the more than 8,000 discrepancies found were because Local Labs had compared two sets of voter lists from different time periods and including different voters.
Yavapai county officials, for example, showed Votebeat emails in which an elections official tried to convince Local Labs not to publish the broad findings because they were misleading, taking time over days to explain the source of the discrepancies. The warnings went ignored.
“They just put the information out, and we are left defending ourselves,” the Yavapai county recorder, Michelle Burchill, said. “Then we are being harassed,” she said, because people believe it.
Journalism, political research, or both?
Local Labs is a piece of a network, owned in part by Timpone, that has a dubious history.
Timpone’s prior company, Journatic, imploded amid accusations of plagiarism. Multiple media companies canceled their contracts following a This American Life episode in 2012 that showed the company was using low-cost labor out of the Philippines to produce local news under fake bylines. That led the company’s editorial director to resign over ethical disputes.
Ahead of the 2022 election, non-profits and political action committees paid Metric Media, another company within the network, more than $1m, according to Columbia Journalism Review, and ProPublica found that special interest groups gave another company in the network, Pipeline Media, nearly $1m. The local news websites associated with the network then published stories promoting the agendas of the groups that wrote the checks.
Local Labs advertises its public records request service to outside clients on its website, which says those clients include news publishers and media companies. Timpone confirmed that his network had received payment from and partners with GOP-leaning special interest groups, and that the network had not received payment from groups affiliated with the Democratic party.
Because some election officials know Local Labs sells its records requests services, they have been unsure whether they can legally release some records, so they have reached out to clarify the purpose of the requests. Some voter and election information can only legally be released for non-commercial purposes. Local Labs employees, meanwhile, sometimes ask for fee waivers meant for members of the media, according to records obtained by Votebeat.
In Local Labs’ recent requests in North Carolina, for example, a person giving their name as “Vince Espi” writes that he is a news reporter for Old North News, “a media organization committed to providing comprehensive and accurate news coverage on local governmental affairs”. In Georgia, Espi says he is a reporter for the Peach Tree Times. When requesting voter data from Johnson county, Iowa, in December, another employee, Josiah Chatterton, wrote the intended use was “primarily for the benefit of the general public”. When asked to clarify, because voter lists can only be legally released for certain purposes in Iowa, he said it was for “political research”, a legally permissible purpose in that state.
Asked why the requests should be considered non-commercial requests in the instances in which Local Labs is selling the records, Timpone said he considered their service to be “project management”, or gathering and organizing records, rather than selling them. Counties have occasionally disagreed.
“Local Labs does not obtain records for its own publication,” one Illinois school district’s public records officer wrote. “Your organization provides public records for sale.”
Local Labs’ intentions were also an issue in a recent federal court case involving the Voter Reference Foundation, which has links to Trump allies and prominent conservatives. The New Mexico secretary of state’s office wrote in a court filing that Local Labs should have disclosed upfront that it was selling the voter data it collected to the foundation, a transaction the office said wouldn’t have been allowed under state law. But the Albuquerque-based federal judge ultimately decided the use of the data was legal after considering Voter References’ final use of the data rather than Local Labs’ sale of the records.
Timpone emphasized that Local Labs was filing the requests as journalists, while also sometimes assisting thinktanks like AFPI “do thoughtful research where it hasn’t been done”.
But ASU’s Wallace said one of the fundamental principles in journalism, included in the Society of Professional Journalists ethics code, is to act independently.
“You are there to serve the public, you aren’t there to serve private interests,” she said.
Local Labs runs afoul of another core principle of journalism, being accountable and transparent: Vince Espi isn’t giving his full name.
Timpone confirmed the employee’s name was Vince Espinoza, and said he didn’t know why Espinoza had chosen to use a partial name when submitting requests.
Local Labs slam county offices with requests
North Carolina and Georgia election officials say they are frustrated by Local Labs’ broad requests because the company often fails to answer any questions that would make them easier to understand.
“I am reaching out for the third time to clarify your records requests to our county boards of elections,” Pat Gannon, spokesperson of the North Carolina state board of elections, wrote to Espinoza on 17 August, asking him to call him.
“Obviously we will respond to all public records requests as required by law, but this is immensely frustrating to busy elections officials trying to ensure that all eligible individuals can vote and have their vote counted,” Gannon said.
Records provided by Gannon show numerous Local Labs requests across the state in recent months, for broad information that would take weeks to gather such as all documents with information about election hardware and software, and all absentee ballot applications. These add to outstanding Local Labs requests, including for all absentee ballot envelopes cast in the midterm election, which would take weeks to scan and redact.
In Wake county, North Carolina, it took a team of election workers three or four months to respond to a similar request for the envelopes from a different requester – there were more than 40,000 absentee ballots cast in the midterm election there. Danner McCulloh, who processes records requests for Wake county, said each envelope had to be scanned and redacted individually, and then reviewed by a legal team. The result was just envelopes with the voter’s name and address, since state law required the redaction of signatures and other identifying marks.
Local Labs asked for the envelopes along with any absentee ballot application from a voter – which would also have taken weeks to scan. When Stacy Beard, the county’s communications director, reached out to ask for clarification on what the company wanted, she said she never heard back. The county decided to pour its time into the request and send the applications anyway – but not the ballot envelopes, because it wasn’t clear what exactly Local Labs wanted.
“That kind of request,” Olivia McCall, the county’s elections director, said, “shuts an office down.”
Bartow county, Georgia, has received numerous extensive Local Labs requests, according to records provided by the county. Its elections director, Joseph Kirk, says he also hasn’t heard back when he tries to clarify exactly what the company is requesting, which makes him think it’s more of a fishing expedition than a true interest in the data.
“When you ask for any, and all, and everything for a four-year period, that really does put a hurting on offices, especially smaller offices,” Kirk said. “It’s not just something we can click a button and send out.”
In response to a request for all absentee ballot envelopes, similar to the one received by Wake county, Kirk told Local Labs that it would take one person working 163 days straight to provide the estimated 104,572 responsive records, and it would cost Local Labs about $23,000.
“We can try to get it done before then, but I hope you understand that registering voters and conducting elections must be our priority,” he wrote. He didn’t hear back.
Timpone said he was trying to show the public that “these bureaucrats have been hiding the truth from them,” adding that he believed “they are hiding the records from them, and deleting the records and covering their own asses and trying to blame, you know, Trump or some other politician for it.”
Timpone did not offer any definitive evidence that counties were illegally withholding election records. Asked why Local Labs sometimes didn’t respond when asked for clarification, such as to Gannon, he said he wasn’t aware that was the case. The same week Timpone spoke with Votebeat, Espinoza responded to Gannon.
Misleading findings in latest report
With regards to the America First report, Timpone said that Local Labs was trying to expose what he said was a problem – that counties don’t keep a fixed record of the voters who voted on election day and their voter status and address at that time.
In Yavapai county, Matt Webber, who manages voter records for the county, told Local Labs that, of the 139 “discrepancies” they found, 105 were secure voters – voters who are legally left off the list the county sent Local Labs because they are in a protected category, like law enforcement or a victim of domestic violence – and some addresses were not accurate because a small number of voters moved shortly before the election.
Still, the top-line finding from the America First report – that there was a “potential 8,241-vote discrepancy” across six Arizona counties – didn’t account for any secure voters, or the inter-county moves.
Webber and other Yavapai county officials said in an interview they were frustrated to see that. While the report broadly acknowledged that counties tried to tell them about such problems with their data analysis, the report authors still claimed it likely that “there are more votes than registered voters who voted.” This claim is false, Yavapai county officials said.
On 29 June, Burchill – the Yavapai county recorder – released a public service announcement to combat the AFPI report. “There is no discrepancy [in] our numbers!” she wrote.
Burchill wants to remind voters that there are a lot of people online calling themselves election experts nowadays, but it’s best to just check with their county about specific claims.
“The only way we are going to win this is if voters come to us with questions.”
Jen Fifield is a reporter for Votebeat based in Arizona. Contact Jen at [email protected].
Freelance journalists Thy Vo, Matt Dempsey and Hank Stephenson contributed research to this report. | US Political Corruption |
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
toggle caption
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California who was first elected in 1992, died Thursday at the age of 90.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California who was first elected in 1992, died Thursday at the age of 90.
Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images
Even as lawmakers worked to address rapidly approaching government shutdown, many in Congress paused in mourning Friday. Remembrances flooded from both sides of the aisle in reaction to the death of Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
On the floors of the Senate and the House, proceedings paused as leaders took turns paying tribute to Feinstein, whose death was announced Friday morning. She was 90.
As a vase of white roses rested at Feinstein's seat, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer ticked off a list of Feinstein's legislative accomplishments: the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, her advocacy on marriage equality and climate justice.
"When you asked her how is she voting on something, [she would say] 'Let me study this issue before taking a position,'" Schumer said. "And when she came back — if she believes the cause of the vote was right and vital to many issues she cared about — she not only voted for it, there was no stopping her in getting it done."
In the House, House Rules Committee Chair Tom Cole , R-Okla., interrupted a meeting on stopgap funding bill to announce the reports of her death.
"I know many of us had the opportunity to deal with her, and certainly all of us, on both sides of the aisle, respected her," he said as he called for a moment of silence.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a Republican from California, recalled working with Feinstein on water legislation in the midst of the state's record-breaking drought in the mid-2010s. "I remember the hours, the nights that we would have to work to try to work through the challenges. We come from different parties, we have different philosophies — but we put our state first," he said, speaking to reporters at the Capitol.
Feinstein served in the Senate for more than 30 years. She was the longest-serving woman senator in history, and the first woman to serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
President Biden, who served alongside Feinstein in the Senate for more than 15 years, paid tribute to his former colleague in remarks at an event at Joint Base Myer–Henderson Hall in Arlington, Va.
"She was a historic figure, a trailblazer for women, and a great friend. Dianne made her mark on everything from national security to the environment, to gun safety, to protecting civil liberties. The country will miss her dearly, and so will Jill and I," he said.
Flags over the U.S. Capitol were lowered to half-staff, as were flags at city buildings in Los Angeles in Feinstein's home state of California.
"Senator Feinstein was a trailblazer on whose shoulders I, and women in elected office all across America, will always stand," said Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who now must appoint Feinstein's replacement, thanked her for her service to their state and hometown of San Francisco, where both served as mayor.
"She broke down barriers and glass ceilings, but never lost her belief in the spirit of political cooperation. And she was a fighter — for the city, the state and the country she loved," Newsom said. | US Congress |
A Florida woman claims the state’s GOP leader—a former county commissioner elected on a “family values” platform—raped her early last month, according to a heavily redacted investigation report filed by Sarasota police.
The unidentified accuser told cops she and Florida Republican Party Chairman Christian Ziegler, along with Ziegler’s wife, Moms for Liberty co-founder Bridget Ziegler, had been in a “longstanding consensual three-way sexual relationship prior to the incident,” reported the Florida Center for Government Accountability (FLCGA), which first obtained the document.
Sources told the watchdog nonprofit the alleged assault occurred in the woman’s home, but that Bridget Ziegler was not there at the time.
The publicly released version of the document does not include any names, addresses, or other identifying information. But an accompanying story published by the FLCGA named Florida Republican Party Chairman Christian Ziegler as the subject of the probe, which NBC News said it later confirmed.
An investigative supplement filed by a “Detective Llovio” and attached to the report is almost completely censored.
“On 10/04/23, [redacted] reported [redacted] had been sexually battered [redacted] on 10/02/23 at [redacted] home [redacted] located at [redacted] Sarasota, FL,” it states.
The only other visible text in the page-and-a-half-long narrative are the words, “the sexual assault complaint,” and, “said the sexual assault allegation.” Elsewhere in the report, the words “stated” and “raped” can be seen.
Police have searched a cell phone belonging to Ziegler—who also allegedly recorded the woman without her consent during threesomes with him and his wife, according to sources cited by the FLCGA.
In a statement on Thursday, Ziegler’s attorney, Derek Byrd, said his client has been “fully cooperative” with investigators, and that he believed he would be “completely exonerated.” Byrd cautioned against rushing to judgment and argued that “public figures are often accused of acts that they did not commit whether it be for political purposes or financial gain.”
Ziegler is closely linked to both Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump, who recently namechecked Ziegler in a speech at this month’s Florida Freedom Summit.
“I want to thank a man that has done a fantastic job, the state party chair, Christian Ziegler, wherever you may be,” Trump said. “There are a lot of people out here. He has been really fantastic.
Bridget Ziegler is a MAGA darling in her own right, vocally backing book bans in public schools across the United States and providing support for DeSantis to help pass his so-called Don’t Say Gay law.
Florida Democratic Party Chair Nikki Fried on Thursday called for Ziegler to step down, and blasted the couple for “stunning” hypocrisy.
“Christian Ziegler can’t possibly continue to lead the Florida GOP under these conditions,” Fried said in a statement. “Given the severity of the criminal allegations, I’m calling for his immediate resignation. As for the more salacious allegations—what happens behind closed doors is Christian and Bridget’s personal business.”
Fried added, “That being said, I do find it interesting that two people who are so obsessed with banning books about gay penguins might be engaged in a non-traditional sexual relationship.” | US Political Corruption |
A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.
There is a long list of one-time allies and aides who have either turned against former President Donald Trump or whom he has turned against.
No person in US politics – certainly no recent president – has such an expansive list of high-profile allies turned enemies.
His longest-serving White House chief of staff, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, delivered an incredible rebuke of Trump’s personality and leadership in an on-the-record statement to CNN’s Jake Tapper.
Given that Trump is the front-runner for the GOP nomination in 2024 and simultaneously facing multiple criminal cases, both the campaign and the court proceedings could prompt additional people to speak out.
What’s below is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but rather a catalog of the most notable turns by former aides and top officials whom Trump at one point chose to work for him at the White House. Some are now actively working against him. Three are running against him in the presidential primary. Others have stayed relatively quiet after resigning in protest. The link at each name includes more context.
1. His vice president, Mike Pence: “The American people deserve to know that President Trump asked me to put him over my oath to the Constitution. … Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be president of the United States.”
2. His second attorney general, Bill Barr: “Someone who engaged in that kind of bullying about a process that is fundamental to our system and to our self-government shouldn’t be anywhere near the Oval Office.”
3. His first secretary of defense, James Mattis: “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people – does not even pretend to try. Instead he tries to divide us.”
4. His second secretary of defense, Mark Esper: “I think he’s unfit for office. … He puts himself before country. His actions are all about him and not about the country. And then, of course, I believe he has integrity and character issues as well.”
5. His chairman of the joint chiefs, retired Gen. Mark Milley, seemed to invoke Trump: “We don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We take an oath to the Constitution and we take an oath to the idea that is America – and we’re willing to die to protect it.”
6. His first secretary of state, Rex Tillerson: “(Trump’s) understanding of global events, his understanding of global history, his understanding of US history was really limited. It’s really hard to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t even understand the concept for why we’re talking about this.”
7. His first ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley: “He used to be good on foreign policy and now he has started to walk it back and get weak in the knees when it comes to Ukraine. A terrible thing happened on January 6 and he called it a beautiful day.”
8. His presidential transition vice-chairman, Chris Christie: “Someone who I would argue now is just out for himself.”
9. His second national security adviser, HR McMaster: “We saw the absence of leadership, really anti-leadership, and what that can do to our country.”
10. His third national security adviser, John Bolton: “I believe (foreign leaders) think he is a laughing fool.”
11. His second chief of staff, John Kelly: “A person that has nothing but contempt for our democratic institutions, our Constitution, and the rule of law. There is nothing more that can be said. God help us.”
12. His former acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, who resigned as US special envoy to Ireland after January 6, 2021: “I quit because I think he failed at being the president when we needed him to be that.”
13. One of his many former communications directors, Anthony Scaramucci: “He is the domestic terrorist of the 21st century.”
14. Another former communications director, Stephanie Grisham: “I am terrified of him running in 2024.”
15. His secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, who resigned after January 6: “When I saw what was happening on January 6 and didn’t see the president step in and do what he could have done to turn it back or slow it down or really address the situation, it was just obvious to me that I couldn’t continue.”
16. His secretary of transportation, Elaine Chao, who resigned after January 6: “At a particular point the events were such that it was impossible for me to continue, given my personal values and my philosophy.
17. His first secretary of the Navy, Richard Spencer: “…the president has very little understanding of what it means to be in the military, to fight ethically or to be governed by a uniform set of rules and practices.”
18. His first homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert: “The President undermined American democracy baselessly for months. As a result, he’s culpable for this siege, and an utter disgrace.”
19. His former personal lawyer and fixer, Michael Cohen: “Donald’s an idiot.”
20. His White House lawyer, Ty Cobb: “Trump relentlessly puts forth claims that are not true.”
21. A former director of strategic communications, Alyssa Farah Griffin, who is now a CNN political commentator: “We can stand by the policies, but at this point we cannot stand by the man.”
22. A top aide in charge of his outreach to African Americans, Omarosa Manigault Newman: “Donald Trump, who would attack civil rights icons and professional athletes, who would go after grieving black widows, who would say there were good people on both sides, who endorsed an accused child molester; Donald Trump, and his decisions and his behavior, was harming the country. I could no longer be a part
of this madness.”
23. A former deputy press secretary, Sarah Matthews, who resigned after January 6: “I thought that he did do a lot of good during his four years. I think that his actions on January 6 and the lead-up to it, the way that he’s acted in the aftermath, and his continuation of pushing this lie that the election is stolen has made him wholly unfit to hold office every again.”
24. His final chief of staff’s aide, Cassidy Hutchinson: “I think that Donald Trump is the most grave threat we will face to our democracy in our lifetime, and potentially in American history.” | US Federal Elections |
Two hours in and Kari Lake's trial is already over (or it should be)
Opinion: Kari Lake's "whistleblower" just annihilated her last gasp challenge of the 2022 election.
Kari Lake on Wednesday opened her (second) trial challenging the 2022 election ... with a complete and total fizzle.
Her attorney, Kurt Olsen, told the judge he’d be presenting evidence that Maricopa County didn’t verify the voter signatures on “hundreds of thousands” of early ballots, instead hiring signature reviewers who just went through the motions while the county looked on.
“This isn’t a question of not doing it well enough,” he told judge. “They’re simply not doing signature verification.”
Then Olson called his first witness: A “whistleblower” who proceeded to annihilate Lake’s case.
Jacqueline Onigkeit, who worked as a level one reviewer during last year’s election, spent more than an hour explaining the lengths to which county went to verify signatures -- the weeklong training of workers, the two shifts of level one reviewers, three levels of signature review, the admonition to get it right.
“They (supervisors) told us, ‘You need to be very cautious. You need to pay attention to what you’re doing and remember that whatever you reject or approve, you can be called in to testify,” Onigkeit testified.
As a witness for the defense, Onigkeit was dynamite. The problem is, she was supposed to be the star witness for Lake.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson made it clear what Lake needs to do to win this, her second try at booting Gov. Katie Hobbs out of office.
“The Court can – and does – hold Plaintiff to her counsels’ representation of the scope of her claim at Trial, that no signature verification was conducted,” he wrote, in a ruling issued Tuesday.
No signature verification.
Two hours in and this trial is already over. Or it should be.
Olsen, in his opening statement, told Thompson that signature reviewers were clicking through images of comparison signatures “as fast as they could tap the keyboard.”
As a result, he said, more than 274,000 ballots were approved in less than three seconds each.
Then he showed a video of a guy doing just that.
It might have been an impressive visual -- except for the fact that Deputy County Attorney Tom Liddy told the judge the guy was pulled from the job for not doing the job.
That just bolstered the county's case that it was taking signature verification seriously.
As Lake's "whistleblower" bolstered the county's case.
Onigkeit told Thompson that signature reviewers were “bombarded” with ballots the day after the election but that they were repeatedly warned about moving too quickly.
Any signatures they rejected were kicked up to level two reviewers who would sometimes kick them back for a second look. But even then, she said, there was no pressure on level one reviewers to accept those signatures. Meanwhile, there was a third level of people auditing their work.
“I don’t know who worked level 3,” she testified. “I just know we were informed … that we were being audited every day and if we were approving too many signatures or rejecting too many signatures we’d be called into an office and talked to and if it happened again, we’d be let go.”
Onigkeit said she was diligent in doing the work.
“I was very focused on verifying signatures and making sure the signatures matched,” she said.
As blockbusters go, Kari Lake is halfway there.
If you count the “bust” part.
Support local journalism: Subscribe to azcentral.com today. | US Federal Elections |
Americans face $200 billion in medical debt. Will lawmakers step in?
U.S. lawmakers propose bills to tackle the $200 billion medical debt crisis, with measures including debt relief programs, lower interest rates, and greater transparency on costs of care. Medical debt is a leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.
| Denver
An estimated 100 million Americans have amassed nearly $200 billion in collective medical debt – almost the size of Greece’s economy – according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Now lawmakers in at least a dozen states and the U.S. Congress have pushed legislation to curtail the financial burden that’s pushed many into untenable situations: forgoing needed care for fear of added debt, taking a second mortgage to pay for treatments, or slashing grocery budgets to keep up with payments.
Some of the bills would create medical debt relief programs or protect personal property from collections, while others would lower interest rates, keep medical debt from tanking credit scores, or require greater transparency in the costs of care.
In Colorado, House lawmakers approved a measure Wednesday that would lower the maximum interest rate for medical debt to 3%, require greater transparency in costs of treatment and prohibit debt collection during an appeals process.
If it became law, Colorado would join Arizona in having one of the lowest medical debt interest rates in the country. North Carolina lawmakers have also started mulling a 5% interest ceiling.
But there are opponents. Colorado Republican state Sen. Janice Rich said she worried that the proposal could “constrain hospitals’ debt collecting ability and hurt their cash flow.”
For patients, medical debt has become a leading cause of personal bankruptcy, with an estimated $88 billion of that debt in collections nationwide, according to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Roughly 530,000 people reported falling into bankruptcy annually due partly to medical bills and time away from work, according to a 2019 study from the American Journal of Public Health.
One family, the Powers, ended up owing $250,000 for a medical procedure they felt was life-saving. They declared bankruptcy in 2009, then the bank foreclosed on their home.
“Only recently have we begun to pick up the pieces,” said James Powers during his February testimony in favor of Colorado’s bill.
In Pennsylvania and Arizona, lawmakers are considering medical debt relief programs that would use state funds to help eradicate debt for residents. A New Jersey proposal would use federal funds from the American Rescue Plan Act to achieve the same end.
Bills in Florida and Massachusetts would protect some personal property – such as a car that is needed for work – from medical debt collections and force providers to be more transparent about costs. Florida’s legislation received unanimous approval in House and Senate committees on its way to votes in both chambers.
In Colorado, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and the U.S. Congress, lawmakers are contemplating bills that would bar medical debt from being included on consumer reports, thereby protecting debtors’ credit scores.
Mistry Castaneda found herself $200,000 in debt when she was 23 and had a recommended surgical procedure. The debt tanked her credit score and, she said, forced her to rely on her emotionally abusive husband’s credit.
For over a decade Ms. Castaneda wanted out of the relationship, but everything they owned was in her husband’s name, making it nearly impossible to break away. She finally divorced her husband in 2017.
“I’m trying to play catch-up for the last 20 years,” said Ms. Castaneda a hairstylist from Grand Junction on Colorado’s Western Slope.
Medical debt isn’t a strong indicator of people’s creditworthiness, said Isabel Cruz, policy director at the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative.
While buying a car beyond your means or overspending on vacation can partly be chalked up to poor decision-making, medical debt often comes from short, acute-care treatments that are unexpected – leaving patients with hefty bills that exceed their budgets.
For both Colorado bills – to limit interest rates and remove medical debt from consumer reports – a spokesperson for Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said the governor will “review these policies with a lens towards saving people money on health care.”
While neither bill garnered stiff political opposition, a spokesperson for the Colorado Hospital Association said the organization is working with sponsors to amend the interest rate bill “to align the legislation with the multitude of existing protections.”
The association did not provide further details.
For Lindsey Vance, protecting her credit score early could have had a major impact. Ms. Vance’s medical debt began at age 19 after she received medical care following a skateboard crash. About 20 years later, she has never been able to qualify for a credit card or car loan. Her in-laws cosigned for her Colorado apartment.
“My credit identity was medical debt,” she said, “and that set the tone for my life.”
This story was reported by the Associated Press. | US Federal Policies |
WASHINGTON -- A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Friday that the Biden administration overstepped its authority in trying to cancel or reduce student loans for millions of Americans.
The 6-3 decision, with conservative justices in the majority, effectively killed the $400 billion plan, announced by President Joe Biden last year, and left borrowers on the hook for repayments that are expected to resume by late summer.
The court held that the administration needs Congress' endorsement before undertaking so costly a program. The majority rejected arguments that a bipartisan 2003 law dealing with student loans, known as the HEROES Act, gave Biden the power he claimed.
“Six States sued, arguing that the HEROES Act does not authorize the loan cancellation plan. We agree,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent, joined by the court’s two other liberals, that the majority of the court “overrides the combined judgment of the Legislative and Executive Branches, with the consequence of eliminating loan forgiveness for 43 million Americans.”
Loan repayments are expected to resume by late August under a schedule initially set by the administration and included in the agreement to raise the debt ceiling. Payments have been on hold since the start of the coronavirus pandemic more than three years ago.
The forgiveness program would have canceled $10,000 in student loan debt for those making less than $125,000 or households with less than $250,000 in income. Pell Grant recipients, who typically demonstrate more financial need, would have had an additional $10,000 in debt forgiven.
Twenty-six million people had applied for relief and 43 million would have been eligible, the administration said. The cost was estimated at $400 billion over 30 years.
___
Follow the AP’s coverage of the Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court | SCOTUS |
Is America on the brink of tyranny? Trump's plan if elected in 2024 should frighten us all.
A bureaucracy purged of those loyal to the Constitution rather than to Donald Trump will send free and fair elections to history's landfill, along with the Bill of Rights
The New York Times published an article Monday that's bone-chilling for anyone who cherishes our freedom, democracy and constitutional governance. The story recounted, with full cooperation of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, his plans to eliminate executive branch constraints on his power if he is elected president in 2024.
The obstacles to be eliminated include an independent Justice Department, independent leadership in administrative agencies and an independent civil service. Richard Neustadt, one of the country’s best known students of the American presidency, has said that in a constitutional democracy the chief executive “does not obtain results by giving orders – or not. ... He does not get action without argument. Presidential power is the power to persuade.”
Trump’s plan would substitute loyalty to him for loyalty to the Constitution. This vision is simultaneously frightening and unsurprising. In 2019, he said, “I have to the right to do whatever I want as president.” And in December, Trump called for the “termination of ... the Constitution.”
In effect, he attempted to do exactly that in the run-up to the riot at the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, by pressuring state officials to reverse President Joe Biden’s electoral victory, attempting to weaponize the Justice Department and bullying Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election.
Trump now may face federal charges for his role in fomenting the riot.
And while he was president, in addition to appointing subservient heads of executive departments, he took steps to increase his control over the regulatory authority of administrative agencies. To cite one example, in 2019, Trump forced climate change researchers in the Department of Agriculture to move from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City, Missouri, producing a huge exodus from federal employment.
In 2020, he attempted to undermine the independence of the civil service by issuing an executive order adopting “Schedule F.” It purported to vastly augment a president’s power to hire and fire federal officials by expanding the number of “political appointees” throughout government employment who were outside civil service protections.
Trump's plan is to centralize power in Oval Office
The Times story outlined his 2025 road map to implement this command-and-control model of executive authority and centralization of power if he’s returned to the Oval Office. In effect, the article described how his team would replace our constitutional republic with an authoritarian state.
Such a state seeks to eliminate the independence of civil servants. Saying good things about bureaucracy may be unpopular, but federal employees' competence, expert judgment and commitment to governance by law is essential to democratic government.
Will heat wave impact politics?Climate change isn't a top issue for Democrats or Republicans. Record heat should change that.
One definition of an authoritarian state is that it is characterized by the consolidation of power in a single leader, "a controlling regime that justifies itself as a 'necessary evil.'" That kind of control necessarily features "strict government-imposed constraints on social freedoms such as suppression of political opponents and anti-regime activity."
Those characteristics describe the contours of the 2025 blueprint that the Trump campaign wanted the public to see via the Times' report. As the story notes, they are setting the stage, if Trump is elected, “to claim a mandate” for the goal of centralizing power in him.
The Times quoted John McEntee, Trump’s 2020 White House director of personnel, defending the rejection of checks and balances on a president: “Our current executive branch was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. ... What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”
Founders warned about danger of too much presidential power
In fact, the executive branch, like the two other branches, was devised by the framers of our Constitution, to limit power by dividing it. Even Alexander Hamilton, who defended energy in the executive branch, suggested that the path to tyranny was marked when government officials are “obliged to take refuge in the absolute power of a single man.”
It described the paradox facing the framers as this: One must “enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.”
Trump’s 2025 blueprint would end governmental control on a president so he can dominate and control the governed.
The threat is real:Our nuclear weapons are much more powerful than Oppenheimer's atomic bomb
Along with divided power, the central constraint that our founding documents create is the overarching legal institution known as the rule of law. That is why Trump’s plan for a radical reorganization of the executive branch starts with ending “the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.”
Controlling the prosecutorial power allows a president to use it to favor friends, destroy enemies and intimidate ordinary citizens tempted to speak out.
That would sound the death knell of American freedom. As John Locke, the 17th century political philosopher who inspired the authors of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, “Wherever law ends, tyranny begins.” Or as Blake Smith put it in an article in Foreign Policy last year, “The bureaucratic ethos is essential to the functioning of the state and the preservation of private life as a separate, unpolitical domain of tolerated freedom.”
At the close of America’s first decade as a constitutional republic, George Washington voluntarily chose not to seek a third term as president to avoid setting the country on the road to the tyranny of lifetime rule by a president. He understood from the revolution against a king that retaining the personal power of one person is the central goal of authoritarianism.
If voters elect Trump president in 2024, he will implement the plan his campaign has purposefully leaked. The outcome is easy to foretell. A bureaucracy purged of those loyal to the Constitution rather than to Trump will send free and fair elections to history’s landfill, along with the Bill of Rights and the freedoms they were designed to protect.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College in Massachusetts. Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, is counsel to Lawyers Defending American Democracy. | US Federal Elections |
At some point in the near future, Donald Trump is going to have to pick a 2024 running mate and would-be VP, and while we now know that this specific job includes responsibilities like “being okay with the boss calling you a pussy,” “rolling with the punches when the boss’s supporters threaten to hang you,” and “understanding that, from time to time, the boss will blame you for his insurrections,” there are, somehow, still people who actually want it. Badly!
Rolling Stone reports that conservative nightmares Marjorie Taylor Greene and Kari Lake are currently in a “death race” to be named Trump‘s 2024 VP, a job that we again must emphasize involves working for a guy who thinks nothing of siccing his blood-thirsty followers on individuals he’s mad at. (That is, of course, if he’s the GOP nominee, which very much looks like will be the case). While the women have kept it civil in public, the outlet reports, “behind the scenes, the two view one another with intense distrust and disdain, each seeing the other as direct competition for Trump’s political affections,” according to several people familiar with the matter. Viewing Lake as a direct threat for the gig, Greene has reportedly “gone beyond simple attempts to raise her own profile in the ongoing Trump veepstakes,” and has recently taken to “trash-talking” the failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate to “to others in the MAGA elite, political circles, and conservative media, multiple.” (Last spring, People revealed that in an effort to win the VP nod, Lake had practically moved into Mar-Lago, and was spending more time there than Melania Trump, a.k.a. the ex-president’s wife.)
Hilariously—if the notion of an accused criminal returning to power with a VP whose grasp on reality is nonexistent is funny—Greene’s biggest complaint about Lake is said to be that she is not “serious” enough to be a heartbeat away from the presidency. (Obviously, that’s one hundred percent true, but it’s also true that an individual best known for promoting QAnon, harassing a school shooting survivor, and the whole Jewish space lasers business should also not be allowed anywhere near the halls of power.) “MTG thinks [Lake] is a scammer and not even a conservative,” a source told Rolling Stone, adding that the Georgia congresswoman has said that “Lake is a grifter and [is] trying to keep riding Trump’s coattails because she lost [in Arizona], so she’s cozying up on the election-integrity messaging.” Said another person familiar with Greene’s point of view, Greene “thinks it’s complete nonsense that anyone would think it’s a good idea for Donald Trump to consider [Kari] for VP.”
As for whether or not either woman has any chance whatsoever of being named Trump’s running mate, that is unclear as this time. According to Rolling Stone, the ex-president has “made a point of repeatedly commending each of them for their frequent efforts—both publicly and behind the scenes with lawmakers and grassroots activists—to aid his 2024 campaign.” On the other hand, numerous people close to Trump have put the odds of either Greene or Lake being added to the ticket at slim to none, with several boldly declaring that even Trump is not “stupid enough” to make one of them his running mate. (In July, the Daily Beast reported that Lake’s strategy of being in Trump’s face as much as possible had backfired, and that the he’d become “less enthusiastic” about her, having decided she was too much of a “spotlight hound.”)
But don’t go thinking that a second Trump administration would be a Greene-free affair, because even if Rep. Gazpacho Police (R-Crazy Town) doesn’t make it to the ticket, it seems there’ll still be a place for her somewhere:
>Trump has suggested to close associates that Greene would be “great” in some position of seniority in his potential second administration, whether in the cabinet, at an agency, or in the West Wing at his side. The ex-president even floated the idea of installing her at the Justice Department; this confused some in Trump’s orbit because, as a source bluntly put it: “I don’t think she’s a lawyer.”
As for Lake, it’s possible she might take herself out of the running, having suggested she may run for Senate.
If you would like to receive the Levin Report in your inbox daily, click here to subscribe.
What have Fox News viewers been missing since Tucker Carlson left the airwaves?
Mitch McConnell insists he’s the picture of health despite evidence we all witnessed to the contrary
Can Joe Biden Ride “Boring” to Reelection?
Vanity Fair • Read More
How “Insider” Election Threats Could Help Send Donald Trump Back to the White House
Vanity Fair • Read More
A new era of climate-linked disease threatens humanity
The Washington Post • Read More
Texas AG Ken Paxton pleads not guilty as historic impeachment trial begins
The Washington Post • Read More
House Republicans Tack Trump’s Border Wall Onto Their Absurd Funding Wishlist
Vanity Fair • Read More
Elon Musk, Who Is “Against Anti-Semitism of Any Kind,” Is Now Threatening to Sue the ADL
Vanity Fair • Read More
New York attorney general asks judge to fine Trump for ‘frivolous’ legal arguments
Politico • Read More
George Santos and aide appear to be discussing plea deals with feds
Politico • Read More
Thousands queue for hours to leave Burning Man festival
BBC • Read More | US Federal Elections |
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump’s verbal and written attacks on participants in the criminal case against him pose a “grave threat” to the judicial process and warrant a limited gag order, the judge overseeing the Jan. 6 coup attempt case against him wrote Tuesday.
“Since his indictment, and even after the government filed the instant motion, defendant has continued to make similar statements attacking individuals involved in the judicial process, including potential witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff,” U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan wrote in her three-page order formalizing her ruling from the bench Monday.
“Defendant has made those statements to national audiences using language communicating not merely that he believes the process to be illegitimate, but also that particular individuals involved in it are liars, or ‘thugs,’ or deserve death,” she wrote. “Undisputed testimony cited by the government demonstrates that when defendant has publicly attacked individuals, including on matters related to this case, those individuals are consequently threatened and harassed.”
She has barred the former president from attacking prosecutors and their staff, courthouse staff and witnesses or their testimony. While the order is technically directed at everyone associated in the case and also protects defense lawyers from attacks, Monday’s two-hour hearing was based entirely on Trump’s conduct ever since special counsel Jack Smith brought a four-count indictment against him in August for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election and remain in power.
Trump lawyer John Lauro argued Monday that because Trump is a candidate seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, the First Amendment protects any and all of his statements.
Chutkan rejected that, pointing out repeatedly during the hearing that as a criminal defendant, Trump agreed to give up some rights as a condition of his pretrial release on bail.
“The defense’s position that no limits may be placed on defendant’s speech because he is engaged in a political campaign is untenable,” she wrote. “The bottom line is that equal justice under law requires the equal treatment of criminal defendants; defendant’s presidential candidacy cannot excuse statements that would otherwise intolerably jeopardize these proceedings.”
Trump has been stating, falsely, that the Justice Department under President Joe Biden is trying to silence him as he campaigns. “They take away my right to speak. I won’t be able to speak, like I’m speaking to you,” he complained to reporters again Tuesday at a separate civil fraud trial in New York. “My speech has been taken away from me. I’m a candidate that’s running for office, and I’m not allowed to speak.”
But Chutkan in her order specifically said it does not stop Trump from criticizing either Biden or the Justice Department. She similarly exempted criticisms against former Vice President Mike Pence on policy matters, as opposed to issues that will arise at trial regarding Trump’s attempts to coerce Pence into stealing the election for him.
“This order shall not be construed to prohibit defendant from making statements criticizing the government generally, including the current administration or the Department of Justice; statements asserting that defendant is innocent of the charges against him, or that his prosecution is politically motivated; or statements criticizing the campaign platforms or policies of defendant’s current political rivals, such as former Vice President Pence,” she said.
Lauro said during Monday’s hearing that Trump would likely appeal any gag order. He did not immediately respond to a HuffPost query. | US Political Corruption |
New House Speaker Mike Johnson may already be losing his first big clash with the hard-right lawmakers who are making the Republican majority and the nation ungovernable as time races down to yet another federal funding cut-off.
The Louisiana conservative, who was just lifted from obscurity to second in line to the presidency, may soon find himself in the position that doomed his predecessor Rep. Kevin McCarthy — needing Democratic votes to keep the government open.
A funding deadline of Friday night means Washington again faces a wild ride of shutdown brinkmanship caused by extreme GOP lawmakers who either cannot or don’t want to help run the country. The imbroglio is not just harming America’s image as a functioning democracy abroad. It has already wasted every week of the House majority party’s term since the summer and threatens to further weaken the key swing-district members critical to the GOP’s hopes of keeping the gavel in next year’s election.
Johnson on Saturday unveiled a complex two-tiered plan to temporarily fund the government, with a pair of deadlines in January and February for the passage of permanent department budgets.
The move could head off the Washington holiday-season tradition of shutdown dramas and mammoth all-encompassing spending bills. But the chances that a GOP majority that has trouble passing any bill could deliver on this intricate plan seem very low. Given the House’s record, Johnson may simply be setting the country up for two government shutdowns rather than one.
While the two-step approach appears to be a concession to the far right — which abhors what it calls “clean” continuing resolutions, or CRs, that keep government open temporarily at current spending levels — Johnson’s approach may already have backfired since it lacks the sweeping cuts that hard-right Republicans demanded even though they have no chance of getting them past a Democratic-run Senate and White House. “It’s a 100% clean. And I 100% oppose,” Freedom Caucus member and Texas Rep. Chip Roy wrote on X, conjuring up exactly the showdown that cost McCarthy his job.
Johnson’s task is so difficult because the tiny GOP majority means he can lose only a handful of members on any bill and still pass it with only Republican votes – hence the need to get help from Democrats on some issues and the consequent risk of further alienating far-right members of his conference.
The House Rules Committee will take the first step in considering Johnson’s unconventional stop-gap bill Monday when it meets at 4 p.m. ET. The committee includes Roy, a public GOP opponent of the bill, and Johnson can only afford to lose three GOP votes in committee.
Johnson’s inheritance is nightmarish for a new speaker
This mass of political complications means Johnson heads into a vital week for his leadership having no idea how it will end and facing the possibility that his nascent authority could soon be in tatters.
Time is critically short given the need to muscle a funding measure through both the House and Senate in five days. Johnson is hugely inexperienced and has no pedigree in manipulating his party’s fractious majority or in finding legislative tricks that can unglue votes. Furthermore, the dynamics of a divided political system; a recalcitrant GOP right flank; splits between Republicans in the House and the Senate; and Democrats controlling the other chamber and the White House haven’t changed since McCarthy’s fall last month.
So Johnson is left with the same unpromising set of conflicting forces that felled McCarthy and that may be unsolvable.
The political and geopolitical costs of this mess are only growing. The House’s failure to govern means Israel is still waiting for an aid package as it battles Hamas in Gaza. (Johnson did pass $14.3 billion in aid for the Jewish state but offset the funding with cuts to the Internal Revenue Service to appease hardline conservatives, making it a futile gesture the Senate won’t accept.) Ukraine’s hopes of receiving another massive US aid package are receding given the House’s incapacity to act and increasing opposition to the lifeline among far-right conservatives.
So the key question this week may be whether hardline Republicans will give their new leader any more leeway than they gave McCarthy and allow him to stave off his first crisis with some Democratic votes. Johnson comes from the far right himself. But any compromises with Democrats will begin the process of erosion of hardline support and Johnson’s transformation in the eyes of right-wing backbenchers into an establishment figure guilty of wanting to govern. That’s a slippery slope to potential attempts to oust him.
Still, Johnson’s two-pronged approach — known, in a new contribution to the impenetrable lingo of Congress, as a “laddered CR” — does have the virtue for Republicans of requiring House Democrats to consider their own political risks. Since the new speaker did not include massive spending cuts demanded by the hard right in his plan, Democrats could see their own political blowback if they do not back it. That’s because a government shutdown could have broad impacts, including the eventual delay of pay to the military.
Trump looms over the House – and the year to come
House Democrats are yet to solidify their position but did note Saturday that spending cuts weren’t included in Johnson’s plan. The White House, however, issued a searing response to the proposal, calling it “a recipe for more Republican chaos and more shutdowns – full stop.”
“With just days left before an Extreme Republican Shutdown — and after shutting down Congress for three weeks after they ousted their own leader — House Republicans are wasting precious time with an unserious proposal that has been panned by members of both parties,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote in a statement.
The word “extreme” — used twice in the statement — hints at the White House’s strategic thinking. It fits with imagery President Joe Biden and his campaign are using in his escalating confrontation with ex-President Donald Trump, the runaway Republican front-runner two months before voting begins in the GOP primary. Facing alarming poll numbers — including a survey last week showing Trump beating him in key swing states — Biden is keen on the comparison to the ex-president’s extremism that helped him win the 2020 election.
Trump spent the weekend making Biden’s point for him, vowing in language resonant of demagogic autocrats to root out “radical left thugs that live like vermin” if he wins a second term and targeting special counsel Jack Smith and his family.
Trump may also complicate things for Johnson. The former president’s influence on far-right Republicans is huge. In the funding drama that felled McCarthy, Trump called for a shutdown, perhaps reasoning that the chaos and potential economic damage could deepen feelings of national malaise that may boost his calls for strongman leadership. Already, one of Trump’s most prominent acolytes, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, has blasted Johnson’s plan as a “clean CR.” Greene also spent the weekend complaining that the new speaker wasn’t rushing to reignite the GOP impeachment inquiry against Biden.
Johnson pleads for a break from his hardliners
As with the White House, Johnson’s language explains his strategy. “I wasn’t the architect of the mess we are in,” he said on a GOP conference call Saturday. This approach can be read as a plea to Republicans — who voted for him amid exhaustion and frustration after weeks of feuding over the speakership — to give him time and space since he’s new in the job. By recalling his poisoned inheritance, Johnson also reminds his troops of the chaos that could ensue all over again if they fail to back him.
Johnson also faces a complex set of scenarios in even getting his plan to a floor vote this week. And time is so short before Friday’s deadline because the Senate is likely to adopt a contrary approach by passing a clean extension bill amid little enthusiasm among senators in both parties for Johnson’s approach.
“We are going to proceed in the Senate on a clean CR, without gimmicks, without ladders,” Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy said Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“It does worry me that the House process requires you to come back and deal with half the budget on one date, and half the budget on another date. That sounds to me a little bit of a recipe for failure,” Murphy said. Still, Murphy did not rule out Johnson’s approach, adding that he was willing to “listen to the case that they’re making.”
But given the near-impossibility of outlining government funding that the most extreme members of the GOP majority will accept, it may already be too late for listening.
The US government is back on the edge of a cliff.
CNN’s Manu Raju contributed to this report.
This story has been updated with additional information. | US Congress |
Abraham Lincoln needed a makeover. Or at least, that was the diagnosis from his wife, Mary Todd Lincoln, a fashionable woman of the Kentucky aristocracy. He had a few sartorial disadvantages working against him. For one thing, Lincoln reportedly never cared much for his appearance, and it didn’t help that Abe was a towering 6’ 4’’. Finding clothes that fit for a man his size is difficult today, let alone in the 1860s.“Her whole point was to make him look more formal, more acceptable, when really he was a guy from the backwoods with an incredible twang to his voice, whom a lot of people found easy to dismiss as some hick, not realising he’s probably one of the smartest guys to ever become president,” University of Notre Dame historian Linda Przybyszewski, author of The Lost Art of Dress: The Women Who Once Made America Stylish, told The Independent.Now, political hopefuls have the opposite problem.“There’s this notion that they have to be approachable at some points yet remain authentic so it’s not fake,” she added. (Getty Images)Looking like a member of the DC elite—of The Swamp™, God forbid—is about the furthest thing from desirable in our world of rampant inequality and congressional uselessness. Senate candidate John Fetterman wears almost exclusively Carhartt hoodies and shorts, while the signature look of Donald Trump, who became a millionaire at age 8, is a bright-red MAGA trucker hat. Everyone is dressing up to signal something.As America enters midterm season, the clothes on our most prominent candidates don’t tell us everything about who will win or how they will govern, but they reveal a lot. Most voters will never meet the people they elect, but they’ll probably see their picture. Candidates know this, and what they wear is a valuable, if often unacknowledged, barometer of what’s animating the great war of images that is US politics. No midterm race offers a greater aesthetic clash than the contest between Mr Fetterman and Dr Mehmet Oz for a Pennsylvania US Senate seat.Mr Fetterman, the Democratic Pennsylvania lieutenant governor, is the former mayor of the hollowed-out steel town of Braddock, and looks like a guy who knows his way around a welding rig: shaved head, heavy metal chin beard, full-arm tattoos, big boots and Dickies work clothes.John Fetterman (AFP via Getty Images)The GOP’s Dr Oz, on the other hand, is a TV mega-millionaire who wears tailored suits and owns a reported 12 properties, including a palatial mansion in New Jersey.Both men have made personal style a key part of their campaign, especially Mr Fetterman.“He’s looked different and been different his entire life,” claims a Fetterman ad, which also includes a headline proclaiming the lieutenant governor “our blue-collar tough guy.”Elsewhere the lieutenant governor has mocked his own style as “Western Pennsylvania business casual.”“I do not look like a typical politician, nor do I look like a typical person,” he wrote in 2021, in what’s easily the most sartorially specific candidate blog post you’ll ever read. “I even lack the political metaphorical sleeves to roll up — all I ever wear are short-sleeve work shirts because hard work is the only way to build our communities back up.”The intense focus on his unique look has won him praise as “an American taste god” in GQ, and from the Financial Times for his “combination of progressive politics and manly style,” reclaiming and reframing a macho aesthetic that’s been the almost exclusive province of the Republican party and its majority support from US male voters. Mr Fetterman still looks like a tough guy who is spoiling for a fight, just a fight on behalf of working class people, LGTB+ rights and universal healthcare.Mehmet Oz (Getty Images)In response to all this praise, and to the record-breaking $48m Mr Fetterman has pulled in campaign donations, Dr Oz has accused his rival of putting on a costume. And to a degree, he’s right.“He’s a pretend populist,” Dr Oz told Fox News in July. “Many folks think it’s because of the way he dresses with his hoodies and his shorts that he’s been working his whole life. It’s quite the opposite.”Mr Fetterman is worth between $717,000 and $1.5m according to financial disclosures. He had a self-described “cushy” upbringing as the son of an insurance businessman, lived off his parents’ financial support until his 40s and now resides in a chic converted loft apartment that could fill the pages of Architectural Digest. He may wear work clothes, but he’s not a former steel worker or auto mechanic. He has an MBA and a public policy degree from Harvard, with no student debt.Of course, Dr Oz also has a degree from Harvard and is also a millionaire, and many times over compared to his rival. Welcome to US politics, the land of the Ivy League populists. To Einav Rabinovitch-Fox, a historian of gender history at Case Western Reserve University, Mr Fetterman’s style is indicative of another dynamic: the political and aesthetic freedom that comes from being a white man in US politics, and the excessive scrutiny that comes from being anything but that.Raphael Warnock (Getty Images)She highlighted examples of Black men like former president Barack Obama, a perennial sharp dresser, as well as Senator Raphael Warnock of Georgia, always seen in exquisitely tailored suits.Mr Warnock, who preaches at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, once the home church of Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, is the latest in a line of Southern Black men stepping into politics in their Sunday best, and that’s no coincidence, according to Ms Rabinovitch-Fox.“Warnock or Obama cannot dress like John Fetterman from Pennsylvania. They cannot be in a hoodie, something that a Black man can’t wear,” she said.The suit that launched Suitgate (Getty Images)When Mr Obama deigned to wear a tan suit in the White House briefing room, it caused a full-blown political scandal, while wearing casual clothes as a Black person in America, as the story of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin and his hoodie attests, can literally put one’s life in danger.This sense of political constriction is even greater once gender and religion enters the mix, added Ms Rabinovitch-Fox. John Fetterman and Minnesota Representative Ilhan Omar, who is a woman of colour, immigrant and a Muslim who wears a hijab, have similar enough politics, but the Pennsyvlania candidate has received nowhere near the vitriolic and often violent attacks from the right for voicing the same opinions.“They’re not that far in their opinions, but it is the way he can say and look and talk in ways that she can’t,” the historian said.Fashion and style have played a subtler, but no less important, signaling role in the race for governor in Texas.Consider the case of Beto O’Rourke. The former El Paso congressman, who is running to unseat GOP incumbent Greg Abbott, understands the power of a good look.He and his handsome mug nabbed a spot on the cover of Vanity Fair magazine when he was still just considering running for president in 2020, a race he ultimately dropped out of a few months later.Now, as he mounts another long-shot Democratic campaign in Texas, he’s used his fashion choices to put a spotlight on a key issue in the state: gun violence.He’s frequently pictured in a burgundy baseball cap featuring the state of Texas and the words “Uvalde”, a reference to the school massacre in May where 21 people were gunned down with an assault rifle.Beto O’Rourke (AP)Mr O’Rourke has hammered Mr Abbott for resisting changing any gun laws after the killing, once even getting himself ejected from a press conference the governor held in the aftermath of the shooting. When Beto went viral in August for calling a heckler a “motherf***er” during a speech about Uvalde, it was part of a larger campaign strategy of trying to set himself apart from the rest on this visceral issue in the state.Judging by his wardrobe, Ms Abbott’s key messages lie elsewhere. Throughout his administration, he’s made frequent trips to the US-Mexico border, where he’s often pictured in a more military-style uniform with his name embroidered and an official crest, as if the governor himself is one of the border agents patrolling the Rio Grande with an M16.Greg Abbott (Getty Images)He’s also used media image-making in a slightly more impersonal way, sending busloads of asylum-seekers to liberal jurisdictions like New York City and vice-president Kamala Harris’s doorstep, arguing its a response to Washington inaction because “our supposed Border Czar, Vice President Kamala Harris, has yet to even visit the border to see firsthand the impact of the open border policies she has helped implement, even going so far as to claim the border is ‘secure.’”So, take your pick Texas, do you want the guy in the Uvalde hat, or the Border Patrol uniform?Moments of crisis, and the fashion that goes along with them, have also revealed criticisms of 2022 candidates as out of touch during emergencies.Earlier this month, the internet roasted Florida governor Ron DeSantis for wearing knee-high white boots and a campaign vest as he toured storm damage from Hurricane Ian, earning the former lawyer unflattering comparisons to Kim Jong-Un, Luke Skywalker and a go-go dancer.California governor Gavin Newsom, meanwhile faced criticisms of his own for a distinct crisis wardrobe choice.In September, as the state faced a record-breaking heatwave and the governor was encouraging Californians to ease the strain on the power grid and turn off their air conditioning, the wealthy former San Francisco wine merchant ditched his typical slick suits and wore what appeared to be a fleece jacket and cap featuring almost comically large bear logos from the California flag.It was classic Newsom. When he toured wildfire damage with then-Senator Kamala Harris, he was also spotted in a military-style jacket with a huge bear patch.Specialized Embroidery for You, a shop outside of Sacramento, says it makes the jackets for the governor, who gives them away as favours to guests, its owner told The Independent, though she declined to comment further.“I was told by the staff that he is very particular and when he likes something, he comes back for more and more and he loved this bear!” the shop wrote on its Facebook page in September of 2020. “I am very humbled and honored to have been given this project.”The governor’s office did not respond to repeated requests for comment about the jackets or who pays for them.Critics online said Mr Newsom and his choice of wardrobe showed a double-standard, a type of cricitism that’s dogged the governor throughout his tenure, such as when he dined in 2020 at a luxury Napa restaurant for a lobbyist’s birthday party despite state pandemic restrictions at the time on mass gatherings.Naturally, the bear look became the subject of an extensive discussion on Fox News, a stand-in for all the ills of California governance that the ambitious Mr Newsom could one day bring to a rumoured presidential run, from electric cars to San Francisco street chaos.For those following at home, the governor’s heat wave look was apparently an expensive Lululemon jacket, according to the shop, which, credit where it’s due, is an extremely on-the-nose thing for a theoretically out of touch SF politician to wear touring a rural fire catastrophe.That a politician’s style would be worthy of remarking on at all is something fairly new to modern politics, according to Professor Przybyszewski, the Notre Dame historian.Prior to the mid-1900s and the “youthquake” of the 1960s, most people leaving the house dressed formally and to blend in. Personal style of any kind was reserved for home, vacation or maybe a masquerade ball. Otherwise? Suits, hats, dresses, done deal.It is only in our present age of 24/7 media coverage that what a candidate wears, and whether it’s distinctive and communicates the right things, actually matters all that much.“It’s the idea of the photo. You don’t want this really sharp contrast between a guy in a perfectly tailored suit and some poor man who’s wearing the only clothes he has managed to survive in,” Ms Przybyszewski said. “It’s not always about anything real, it’s about symbolism.”As early as the 1988 presidential campaign, commentators like Joan Didion were arguing that national US politics have achieved total saturation and “symbiosis” with the media, so much so that campaigns are really better understand as competing film productions to briefly hold the attention of the “increasingly hypothetical voter, who was seen as responsible not to actual issues but their adroit presentation.”When so few Americans have any real say over the Washington policitical process, and so few in Washington seem to care, politics reduces to a battle of media images.“Like American political life itself, and like the printed and transmitted images on which that life depended, this was a world with no half-life,” Ms Didion argued in her classic essay “Insider Baseball,” which features the memorable image of the Michael Dukakis campaign staging and then restaging a photo-op of the candidate tossing a baseball with his aides as fodder for political journalists.Still, this mostly empty symbolism can also point us towards where the parties might see their future.Leaders in the Republican Party certainly seem invested in Kristi Noem, the governor of South Dakota, who is seeking re-election this year, and her brand of hard-charging, outside-the-Beltway conservatism.Kristi Noem (Getty Images)In her time in the governor’s office, Ms Noem, a rancher and former South Dakota congresswoman, has made national headlines for backing draconian abortion restrictions and bucking any form of Covid restrictions, pushing the state to record-breaking waves of coronavirus deaths last year.She’s frequently seen in riding boots and a cowboy hat, and rode her chopper in an event in the 2022 Sturgis motorcycle cycle rally in full biker gear.She said that her presence at the event was in part to stick it to the liberal media for its reporting about how Sturgis helped spread Covid.“By repeating the lie again and again, the media unwittingly made Sturgis into something bigger – something more,” she wrote in a press release in August. “They made it a banner of Freedom, and they made every rider at the Rally a carrier of that banner.”Earlier this year, she got a resounding re-election endorsement from Donald Trump, playing up her tough Western bona fides.“She is strong on Borders, the Second Amendment, preserving land and Energy Dominance,” the former president said in February.It seems she is on the fast track back to the national spotlight. She’s released an autobiography, traveled frequently out of state to endorse other candidates, raised hundreds of thousands of dollars, and worked with Corey Lewandowski, Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign manager.Though her campaign is flagging a bit at the moment, according to the polls, the national momentum behind Ms Noem, as well the political comeback bid from former Alaska governor and VP candidate Sarah Palin, suggests the Republican party is moving further aesthetically from the country club to something a little bit further right and little bit deeper in the rural West.The conversation doesn’t end there. Republican attacks on trans students, the right’s embrace of rapper and fashion designer Kanye West, Fox News complaints about the cultural war and lack of attractive students on college campuses—all of these lines of political argument are deeply inflected by how people choose to present themselves and what that represents.Political fashion may be all about image, but the stakes are very real. | US Federal Elections |
Republican presidential field: One party, many brands
- Quick Read
- Deep Read ( 7 Min. )
| Raymond, N.H.
Often in presidential primaries, candidates struggle to find ways to differentiate themselves. Largely agreeing on the main issues of the day, they wind up emphasizing slight nuances or leaning on stylistic distinctions.
The 2024 Republicans don’t have that problem.
Why We Wrote This
Yes, Donald Trump is leading by far in polls of GOP voters. But the Republican Party is far from homogeneous, as a disparate field of presidential candidates attests.
From the debate stage to the campaign trail, whether they’re talking about Ukraine or abortion or the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, these candidates’ pitches have been so jarringly different from one another that voters might be forgiven for wondering if they’re truly from the same party.
The kaleidoscope of views could help the GOP attract some new supporters – including more independents, voters of color, and a younger generation. At the same time, analysts say, the party is running the risk of coming across as incoherent. And parties that are deeply divided on policy often struggle at the ballot box.
In contrast to the “big tent” of Democrats, Republicans have long been the more “ideological party, rowing in the same boat,” says David Barker, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. “Which was why people used to say that Republicans had a leg up. Now we’ve really seen that turn upside down.”
At a senior center in Raymond, New Hampshire, last week, former Vice President Mike Pence was boasting about raising military spending under the Trump-Pence administration, while stressing the need to support Ukraine in its war against Russia. Asked the next day if Russian President Vladimir Putin was a war criminal, Mr. Pence didn’t hesitate: “Without question.”
Not far away, at a picnic in Salem, candidate Vivek Ramaswamy offered a different take. “We have to get the facts before we get to the bottom of that,” the pharmaceutical entrepreneur said when asked about Mr. Putin’s status as a potential war criminal. Speaking to voters on an unusually hot September day, Mr. Ramaswamy said he would prioritize the homefront over involvement in foreign conflicts. “My job is to keep us out of World War III while advancing American interests.”
Often in presidential primaries, candidates struggle to find ways to differentiate themselves. Largely agreeing on the main issues of the day, they wind up emphasizing slight nuances or leaning on stylistic distinctions.
Why We Wrote This
Yes, Donald Trump is leading by far in polls of GOP voters. But the Republican Party is far from homogeneous, as a disparate field of presidential candidates attests.
The 2024 Republicans don’t have that problem.
From the debate stage to the campaign trail, whether they’re talking about Ukraine or abortion or the Jan. 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, these candidates’ pitches have been so jarringly different from one another that voters might be forgiven for wondering if they’re truly from the same party.
The kaleidoscope of views on display could help the GOP attract some new supporters – including more independents, voters of color, and a younger generation that sees Reagan-style conservatism as hopelessly passé. At the same time, analysts say, the party is running the risk of coming across as incoherent, making it hard for voters to identify what it actually stands for. And parties that are deeply divided along policy lines often struggle at the ballot box.
“When political scientists for the past 20-plus years have compared the Republican and Democratic parties, a common refrain has been, ‘Well, the Democrats are this “big tent” party of different constituents who don’t have much in common – union people, highly educated individuals – but they agree to join forces for the purposes of trying to win elections,’” says David Barker, director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University. “By contrast, the conventional wisdom has been that Republicans are the ideological party rowing in the same boat ... which was why people used to say that Republicans had a leg up. Now we’ve really seen that turn upside down.”
It’s the ripple effect of a realignment that started when Donald Trump captured the White House in 2016 and has yet to be fully resolved. With Mr. Trump still dominant and pushing the GOP in a more populist direction, his rivals are caught between trying to emulate him and hewing to a more traditional conservatism – or trying to somehow have it both ways.
Staking out varied positions
In her own campaign stops across the Granite State last week, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley advocated for a muscular foreign policy, similar to Mr. Pence’s pitch. But she put forward a very different message on the subject of a national abortion ban – essentially telling voters it’s not going to happen. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who was in his home state dealing with Hurricane Idalia, often sounds more populist than Mr. Trump, such as in his culture war battle with Disney. He has expressed skepticism about the COVID-19 vaccine, while Mr. Trump recently told interviewer Megyn Kelly that his decision to back the vaccine’s development, according to health officials, “saved 100 million lives.”
When it comes to Mr. Trump, the candidates have differing takes – at times, even from themselves. Ms. Haley has said he would be a weak general election candidate, calling him “the most disliked politician in America,” while also saying she’d back him if he were the nominee. Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has essentially made his entire campaign about the need to prevent Mr. Trump from recapturing the White House. Mr. Ramaswamy, on the other hand, calls Mr. Trump the best president of the 21st century.
There’s always a spectrum within parties, notes Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist and New Hampshire native. But Mr. Trump fundamentally shifted the landscape for the GOP, so that even positions once seen as utterly heterodox are now “percolating” among the 2024 candidates.
“We were the party of fiscal responsibility, including entitlement reform. We were the party of free trade capitalism,” says Mr. Bartlett. “Flash-forward four years: Donald Trump says, ‘No more stupid wars. You’re not going to touch Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Oh, and by the way, it’s called fair trade, not free trade.’ And what happened? He won.”
While some candidates are calling for a return to core Republican ideas and principles, others seem to be saying, “Maybe Trump’s ideas are much closer to where voters and the base of the party is,” Mr. Bartlett adds.
As Trump leads, Ramaswamy echoes message
So far, Mr. Trump is the heavy favorite to win the nomination again, with formidable leads in most national polls. A late August poll of New Hampshire primary voters found the former president as the top choice for almost half of those surveyed.
“I like Donald J. Trump,” says David Hunt, wiping sweat and dirt from his arms as he takes a break from working outside his home in Windsor, New Hampshire. Mr. Hunt says his business drilling wells for homes has all but dried up due to rising interest rates and a difficult housing market. The farm stand that he runs with his wife, Laurie, where they sell local produce, honey, and maple butter through an honor system, has struggled as well. By comparison, Mr. Hunt says he “never made as much” money as he did during the Trump years.
When asked if he’d consider voting for anyone else in the GOP primary field, Mr. Hunt answers, “Vik.”
Indeed, Mr. Ramaswamy has tried to position himself as the inheritor of the MAGA mantle, though many New Hampshire voters like Mr. Hunt still struggle to pronounce his name. Mr. Ramaswamy calls his campaign “the leading edge of defining where the ‘America First’ movement goes from here.”
The Harvard- and Yale-educated lawyer, who made millions as a biotech entrepreneur, has never held elected office and says he’s only voted in two presidential elections – in 2004 for a Libertarian and in 2020 for President Trump.
At the first Republican debate in late August, Mr. Ramaswamy stood in the middle of the stage, fending off attacks from almost all the other candidates and throwing punches of his own. In the 24 hours that followed, there were more than 1 million Google searches of his name.
The crowd at the Ramaswamy picnic whistled and applauded when he vowed to abolish numerous government agencies, cut 75% of the federal workforce, and battle the “new secular cults” of COVID-19 and “transgenderism.” The GOP primary, he told the crowd, was a choice between “incremental reform” and “revolution.”
Mr. Ramaswamy’s rhetoric closely emulates Mr. Trump’s, and he echoes the former president’s depiction of America as in a state of decline. Indeed, one lesson other candidates seem to have taken from Mr. Trump’s political success is that style matters more than substance – and that many voters will be flexible on policy if they like a candidate’s posture.
“Right now, the Republican Party is about attitude and swagger,” says Mr. Bartlett, the GOP strategist. “Vivek has made some very inflammatory comments. It tends to resonate. It is not just what you say, but how you say it in the Republican Party.”
Can a return to Reaganism appeal?
At the other end of the spectrum is Mr. Pence, a 1990s-style politician in a blue blazer and dad sneakers, who has been calling for a return to Reaganesque Republicanism – the “three-legged stool” of religious traditionalism, foreign policy hawkishness, and free market sentiment – which he says would usher in a new “Morning in America.”
On the stump in New Hampshire, the former Trump vice president called out “Donald Trump and his imitators” for preaching a “siren song of populism” that has destabilized the GOP and aligned it with Democrats on many issues.
“We have come to a Republican time for choosing,” Mr. Pence told a crowd of students, several of whom said they were there for class credit, at Saint Anselm College in Manchester. “The question of the hour is not just who, but what will we offer the American people a year from this November? ... I believe that choice will determine the fate of the party and the course of our nation for years to come.”
If Mr. Pence’s meager crowds last week were any indication, however, the party may have already made its choice.
“I don’t like Pence,” said freshman Isiah Chamberlain after seeing the former vice president at town hall at New England College in Henniker, New Hampshire. “I’d take any populist candidate over an elitist conservative.”
Still, others saw Mr. Pence’s message as worth heeding. Freshman Matthew Cryan said he liked the former vice president’s references to Ronald Reagan and his comments about standing firm against Mr. Putin. “I want to knock him down before he has the chance to get stronger.”
During the last debate, Mr. Pence was the only candidate onstage “who reflects what a president should be,” says Deana Gagnon, a store manager speaking outside a shopping center down the road from the Pence town hall in Raymond. Ms. Gagnon voted for Mr. Trump in 2020 but says she now finds him unpresidential.
“I don’t want a president for show,” she says. “I want a president who can make some change.” | US Federal Elections |
Republican lawmakers returning to Washington this week will do so without a House speaker, setting up a high-pressure situation to reach consensus on a candidate to wield the gavel – and the power to push through support for Israel.
While Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina serves as the acting speaker after the historic ouster of Rep. Kevin McCarthy last week, he has little power outside of recessing, adjourning or recognizing speaker nominations.
Two candidates have stepped up to fill the vacuum: House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, who has the backing of former President Donald Trump. Oklahoma Rep. Kevin Hern announced Saturday that he had decided not to run.
Neither man starts the week with anywhere near the votes needed to claim the top spot, so here’s what to watch as the race unfolds:
Who are the candidates?
Jim Jordan: The powerful chair of the Judiciary Committee and a founder of the conservative Freedom Caucus secured Trump’s backing last week. (The former president’s intervention came after he expressed openness to temporarily serving in the role himself and had considered a visit to Capitol Hill to speak with Republicans, but he is no longer expected to make that trip.) Jordan has been a key figure in high-profile House GOP-led investigations.
Steve Scalise: As the No. 2 House Republican after the speaker, Scalise has been a prominent figure in the conference and had long been seen as either a potential successor, or rival, to McCarthy. Before he became majority leader, Scalise served as House GOP whip, a role focused on vote counting and ensuring support for key party priorities. The majority leader, his current role, oversees the House floor and schedules legislation for votes.
The jockeying for votes
Scalise met virtually with the House Freedom Caucus on Sunday afternoon as he tries to lock down support ahead of a secret-ballot leadership election Wednesday to nominate a candidate for speaker, according to a person familiar with the matter. The move comes after Jordan met with the same group on Friday.
Both lawmakers have also been making a direct pitch to more centrist members, insisting they will make their reelection battles a priority and ensure more stability atop the badly divided conference, according to sources familiar with the conversations.
By CNN’s count, just over 60 members have publicly endorsed so far, with many more indicating they will keep their powder dry for now. Jordan racked up some notable endorsements over the weekend, mostly from the far-right faction.
How the vote will unfold
The House GOP is scheduled to hold a candidate forum on Tuesday and an internal election on Wednesday, but it’s unclear when the floor vote will happen.
Monday at 6 p.m. ET: Republicans who left town will start returning for an in-person candidate debate and discussion during which Scalise and Jordan are expected to make their pitches to the conference.
Tuesday at 5 p.m. ET: The House GOP will hold an official candidate forum during which members will debate who is the best fit to take the gavel.
House Democrats will hold a similar forum on Tuesday to officially nominate their leader, Hakeem Jeffries, for speaker.
Wednesday 9 a.m. ET: House Republicans will hold an internal, secret-ballot election to officially select their nominee.
When will the official floor vote take place? This could happen as soon as Wednesday, but it will be up to whomever the GOP decides to officially nominate – starting the floor vote will be their call.
And this is where things get tricky. Remember, it took McCarthy 15 rounds of balloting to secure the necessary votes in January. Given the division in the GOP and the party’s slim majority, it will be a tall order for whoever the ultimate Republican nominee is to try to secure the requisite 217 votes quickly. (The nominee can only lose four GOP votes.)
The magic number of 217 – the majority of the current House – assumes every member is physically there and shows up to vote “aye” or “nay.” If they vote “present” or don’t show up, then the calculus changes.
Supporting Israel
There’s no sign yet that the GOP is changing its schedule to nominate a new speaker following surprise attacks by Hamas against Israel on Saturday.
But the emergency situation in Israel puts a spotlight on the state of paralysis – and uncharted legal territory – that the House is in without an elected speaker.
Lawmakers have been scrambling to determine, for example, whether McHenry can participate in a so-called Gang of Eight intelligence briefing on the attacks, a source familiar with the discussions told CNN on Saturday.
Biden administration officials briefed leadership of key House committees Sunday evening, multiple sources told CNN.
That briefing, provided by officials from the departments of State and Defense, included McHenry, as well as majority and minority leaders of national security committees and those on appropriations.
Jeffries, meanwhile, said Sunday that he had conversations with the White House and the National Security Council but has not yet received a briefing with the Gang of Eight – which includes top leaders and heads of the intelligence committees in both parties and both chambers.
McHenry’s limited powers
McHenry has been clear with members, a source familiar tells CNN: He cannot bring any resolution or further funding to the floor in his current role.
Committees can still continue to operate, but McHenry is mostly responsible for overseeing the election of a new speaker, which means recessing, adjourning or recognizing nominations on the floor.
The chaos around what the House can and cannot do has sparked outcry from some GOP members, who are calling on their party to speed up their timeline for electing a new speaker.
“In light of today’s attacks, we should be called back to DC & vote on a Speaker ASAP,” GOP Rep. Brandon Williams of New York tweeted.
“This is why you don’t remove a Speaker mid-term without cause,” New York Rep. Michael Lawler wrote on social media.
If the speaker’s race drags on, House Republicans could try to vote to give McHenry more temporary powers.
And even without McHenry having power to bring nonbinding resolutions to the floor, House Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul indicated the chamber may look to pass a bipartisan resolution condemning Hamas anyway.
“We want to get that on the floor by unanimous consent, whether or not we have a speaker in place. Because I think we cannot wait,” McCaul, a Texas Republican, told CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday. “We have to get that message out as soon as possible.”
CNN’s Lauren Fox, Alex Marquardt, Annie Grayer, Manu Raju, Melanie Zanona, Oren Liebermann, Clare Foran and Pamela Brown contributed to this report. | US Congress |
Top Iowa Evangelical Vander Plaats: ‘Trump Deserved to Lose My Endorsement’
Ron DeSantis denied accusations of a 'pay-to-play' scheme in response to a Trump Truth Social rant on the religious leader's backing
Top Iowa Evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats said former President Donald Trump "deserved to lose" his endorsement after he drew the ire of the former president for backing GOP Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis's White House bid.
Vander Plaats, the head of The Family Leader, joined The Blaze's Steve Deace on Monday and discussed Trump's reaction to his endorsement, which included the former president accusing Vander Plaats of "scamming" politicians and appearing to insinuate a play-to-play strategy.
"The number one hurdle for Donald Trump is I've never met a dad or a mom or a grandpa or a grandma who have told me they want their son or daughter, grandchild to grow up to be like him," Vander Plaats said. "That's a big deal."
The religious leader also targeted Trump for going after Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds, R, for also choosing to back DeSantis. Reynolds and Vander Plaats mark two major endorsements for DeSantis in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.
"Trump deserved to lose my endorsement. Matter of fact, I’ve never endorsed him," Vander Plaats said. "But he proved he was not worthy of the endorsement of me, of the ministry, and by extension, the broader body. And I believe Iowa will rise up."
Trump took to Truth Social to initially react to Vander Plaats' endorsement and he highlighted $95,000 in payments made by DeSantis-linked groups to Vander Plaats' organization, which were originally reported by Reuters.
- Prominent Iowa Evangelical Bob Vander Plaats Expected to Endorse DeSantis
- Trump Campaign Rips Iowa Evangelical Leader Vander Plaats After DeSantis Endorsement: ‘History of Losing’
- Evangelical Leader Bob Vander Plaats Endorses DeSantis
- Key Iowa Evangelical Rips Trump, Hosts DeSantis for Church
- Rove Says Iowa Is ‘Do Or Die’ for DeSantis
- Trump Rips Prominent Evangelical After DeSantis Endorsement As ‘Scammer’
The payments were for advertising in events and pamphlets, but Trump's words still led to DeSantis and Vander Plaats shooting back against accusations of a paid-for endorsement.
"It's a scurrilous charge. It's without merit." DeSantis told Fox News on Monday, adding Vander Plaats' has a "great reputation."
- DeSantis Hits Haley For Not Debating Him on Fox News, Despite RNC Nixing Such EventsPolitics
- Marjorie Taylor Greene Takes a Shot at Biden’s Age: ‘You Have Been in Office Longer Than I’ve Been Alive’Politics
- Mike Pence Warned Trump There Was ‘No Idea More Un-American’ Than Overturning the 2020 Election: ReportPolitics
- Cynthia Nixon Joins Hunger Strike Outside White House to Demand Permanent CeasefireEntertainment
- Haley Talks Trump in South Carolina: ‘Chaos Follows Him’Politics
- Bidens, Clintons Among Those Gathering to Honor Rosalynn CarterPolitics
- California Rep. Valadao’s Office Vandalized by Anti-Israel ProtestorsPolitics
- Russian Court Extends Detainment of Wall Street Journal Reporter Evan GershkovichPolitics
- Senate Dems Meet with IDF on Israel-Hamas WarPolitics
- Monica Lewinsky Calls for Constitutional Amendments for Age Limits, Ban on Self PardonsPolitics
- Biden Announces New Humanitarian Aid Flights To Egypt For Aid To Gaza Amid Temporary CeasefirePolitics
- Biden Heads to Boebert’s District — And Twists the KnifePolitics | US Federal Elections |
In 2019, Kennedy Ndahiro, the editor of the Rwandan daily newspaper The New Times, explained to readers of The Atlantic how years of cultivated hatred had led to death on a horrifying scale.
“In Rwanda,” he wrote, “we know what can happen when political leaders and media outlets single out certain groups of people as less than human.”
Ndahiro pointed out that in 1959, Joseph Habyarimana Gitera, an influential political figure within the largest ethnic group in Rwanda, the Hutus, had openly called for the elimination of the Tutsi, the second-largest of Rwanda’s ethnic groups. Gitera referred to the Tutsi as “vermin.”
“The stigmatization and dehumanization of the Tutsi had begun,” Ndahiro wrote. It culminated in a 100-day stretch in 1994 when an estimated 1 million people were killed, the majority of whom were Tutsis. “The worst kind of hatred had been unleashed,” Ndahiro wrote. “What began with dehumanizing words ended in bloodshed.”
I THOUGHT ABOUT the events that led up to the Rwandan genocide after I heard Donald Trump, in a Veterans Day speech, refer to those he counts as his enemies as “vermin.”
“We pledge to you that we will root out the Communists, Marxists, fascists, and the radical-left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country—that lie and steal and cheat on elections,” Trump said toward the end of his speech in Claremont, New Hampshire. “They’ll do anything, whether legally or illegally, to destroy America and to destroy the American dream.” The former president continued, “The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous, and grave than the threat from within. Our threat is from within.”
When Trump finished his speech, the audience erupted in applause.
Trump’s comments came only a few weeks after he had been asked about immigration and the southern border in an interview with the host of a right-wing website. “Did you ever think you would see this level of American carnage?” Trump was asked.
“No. Nobody has seen anything like this,” Trump responded. “I think you could say worldwide. I think you could go to a banana republic and pick the worst one and you’re not going to see what we’re witnessing now.” The front-runner for the Republican nomination warned that immigrants pose an immediate threat. “We know they come from prisons. We know they come from mental institutions and insane asylums. We know they’re terrorists. Nobody has ever seen anything like we’re witnessing right now. It is a very sad thing for our country. It’s poisoning the blood of our country.”
In a September 20 speech in Dubuque, Iowa, Trump said, “What they’re doing to our country, they’re destroying it. It’s the blood of our country. What they’re doing is destroying our country.”
Trump’s rhetoric is a permission slip for his supporters to dehumanize others just as he does. He portrays others as existential threats, determined to destroy everything MAGA world loves about America. Trump is doing two things at once: pushing the narrative that his enemies must be defeated while dissolving the natural inhibitions most human beings have against hating and harming others. It signals to his supporters that any means to vanquish the other side is legitimate; the normal constraints that govern human interactions no longer apply.
Dehumanizers view their targets as having “a human appearance but a subhuman essence,” according to David Livingstone Smith, a philosophy professor who has written on the history and complicated psychological roots of dehumanization. “It is the dehumanizer’s nagging awareness of the other’s humanity that gives dehumanization its distinctive psychological flavor,” he writes. “Ironically, it is our inability to regard other people as nothing but animals that leads to unimaginable cruelty and destructiveness.” Dehumanized people can be turned into something worse than animals; they can be turned into monsters. They aren’t just dangerous; they are metaphysically threatening. They are not just subhuman; they are irredeemably destructive.
THAT IS THE WICKEDLY SHREWD rhetorical and psychological game that Trump is playing, and he plays it very well. Alone among American politicians, he has an intuitive sense of how to inflame detestations and resentments within his supporters while also deepening their loyalty to him, even their reverence for him.
Trump’s opponents, including the press, are “truly the enemy of the people.” He demanded that the parent company of MSNBC and NBC be investigated for “treason” over what he described as “one-side[d] and vicious coverage.” He insinuated on his social network, Truth Social, that the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, deserved to be executed for committing treason. At a Trump event in Iowa, days after that post, one Trump supporter asked why Milley wasn’t “in there before a firing squad within a month.” Another told NBC News, “Treason is treason. There’s only one cure for treason: being put to death.”
Trump has taken to mocking the violent attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband, which left him with a fractured skull that required surgery and other serious injuries. Special Counsel Jack Smith, who has brought two indictments against the former president, is a “Trump-hating prosecutor” who is “deranged” and a “disgrace to America”—and whose wife and family “despise me much more than he does.” The former president posted the name, photo, and private Instagram account of a law clerk serving Judge Arthur Engoron, who is currently presiding over Trump’s civil fraud trial and whom Trump despises and has repeatedly attacked, describing him as “CRAZY” and “CRAZED in his hatred of me.” (Trump later deleted the Truth Social post targeting the law clerk, whom he called a “Trump Hating Clerk,” but not until after it had been widely disseminated.)
And in the first rally of his 2024 campaign, held in Waco, Texas, Trump lent his voice to a recording of the J6 Prison Choir, which is made up of men who were imprisoned for their part in the riot at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. The song “Justice for All” features Trump reciting the Pledge of Allegiance mixed with a rendition of the national anthem.
“Our people love those people,” Trump said at the rally, speaking of those who were jailed. “What’s happening in that prison, it’s a hellhole … These are people that shouldn’t have been there.”
The Washington Post “identified five of the roughly 15 men who are featured in the video. Four of them were charged with assaulting police, using weapons such as a crowbar, sticks and chemical spray, including against Officer Brian D. Sicknick, who died the next day.”
At the Waco rally, Trump declared, “I am your warrior. I am your justice.” He added, “For those who have been wronged and betrayed, of which there are many people out there that have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” Trump has described 2024 as “our final battle.” He means it; so do tens of millions of his supporters.
TRUMP’S RHETORIC IS CLEARLY fascistic. These days, Trump is being “much more overt about becoming an authoritarian and transforming America into some version of autocracy,” Ruth Ben-Ghiat, a historian at NYU, told PBS NewsHour. That doesn’t mean that if Trump were elected president in 2024, America would become a fascistic state. Our institutions may be strong enough to resist him, though it’s an open question. But Trump can do many things short of imposing fascism that can do grave harm to America.
Trump, after all, has been impeached twice, indicted four times on 91 counts, and found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. Courts in New York have found that he or his companies have committed bank fraud, insurance fraud, tax fraud, and charity fraud. Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election. He was the catalyzing figure that led to a violent attack on the Capitol. And he has argued for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
In our nation’s history, according to former Vice President Dick Cheney, who served in four Republican administrations and was part of the Republican leadership in the House, “there has never been an individual who is a greater threat to our republic than Donald Trump.”
That Trump would say what he’s said and done what he’s done is no surprise; he is a profoundly damaged human being, emotionally and psychologically. And he’s been entirely transparent about who he is. The most troubling aspect of this whole troubling drama has been the people in the Republican Party who, though they know better, have accommodated themselves to Trump’s corruptions time after time after time. Some cheer him on; others silently go along for the ride. A few gently criticize him and then quickly change topics. But they never leave him.
By now I know how this plays out: For most Republicans to acknowledge—to others and even to themselves—what Trump truly is and still stay loyal to him would create enormous cognitive dissonance. Their mind won’t allow them to go there; instead, they find ways to ease the inner conflict. And so they embrace conspiracy theories to support what they desperately want to believe—for example, that the election was stolen, or that the investigation into Russian ties to the 2016 Trump campaign was a “hoax,” or that Joe Biden has committed impeachable offenses. They indulge in whataboutism and catastrophism—the belief that society is on the edge of collapse—to justify their support for Trump. They have a burning psychological need to rationalize why, in this moment in history, the ends justify the means.
As one Trump supporter put it in an email to me earlier this month, “Trump is decidedly not good and decent”—but, he added, “good and decent isn’t getting us very far politically.” And: “We’ve tried good and decent. But at the ballot box, that doesn’t work. We need to try another way.”
This sentiment is one I’ve heard many times before. In 2016, during the Republican primaries, a person I had known for many years through church wrote to me. “I think we have likely slipped past the point of no return as a country and I’m desperately hoping for a leader who can turn us around. I have no hope that one of the establishment guys would do that. That, I believe, is what opens people up to Trump. He’s all the bad things you say, but what has the Republican establishment given me in the past 16 years? First and foremost: BHO,” they said, using a derogatory acronym for Barack Obama that is meant to highlight his middle name, Hussein.
If I had told this individual in 2016 what Trump would say and do over the next eight years, I’m confident he would have laughed it off, dismissing it as “Trump Derangement Syndrome”—and that he would have assured me that if Trump did do all these things, then of course he would break with him. Yet here we are. Despite Trump’s well-documented depravity, he still has a vise grip on the GOP; he carried 94 percent of the Republican vote in 2020, an increase from 2016, and he is leading his closest primary challenger nationally by more than 45 points.
White evangelical Protestants are among the Republican Party’s most loyal constituencies, and in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center, more than eight in 10 white evangelical Protestant voters who frequently attend religious services voted for Trump, as had 81 percent of those who attend less frequently. That’s an increase over 2016. Trump’s support among white evangelicals is still extremely high: 81 percent hold a favorable view of him, according to a poll taken in June—after Trump was indicted for a second time.
The evangelical movement in America has been reshaped by the sensibilities of Trump and MAGA world. For example, in one survey, nearly one-third of white evangelicals expressed support for the statement “Because things have gotten so far off track, true American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save our country.”
It is a rather remarkable indictment of those who claim to be followers of Jesus that they would continue to show fealty to a man whose cruel ethic has always been antithetical to Jesus’s and becomes more so every day. Many of the same people who celebrate Christianity’s contributions to civilization—championing the belief that every human being has inherent rights and dignity, celebrating the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and the parable of the Good Samaritan, and pointing to a “transcendent order of justice and hope that stands above politics,” in the words of my late friend Michael Gerson—continue to stand foursquare behind a man who uses words that echo Mein Kampf.
It doesn’t have to be this way. Taking a stand for conscience, even long after one should have, is always the right thing to do.
“When we engage in dehumanizing rhetoric and promote dehumanizing images,” the best-selling author Brené Brown has written, “we diminish our own humanity in the process.” We are called to find the face of God in everyone we meet, she says, including those with whom we most deeply disagree. “When we desecrate their divinity, we desecrate our own, and we betray our humanity.”
Far too many Christians in America are not only betraying their humanity; they are betraying the Lord they claim to love and serve. | US Political Corruption |
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump is asking a federal judge to dismiss criminal charges against him based on his actions leading up to his Jan. 6, 2021, coup attempt because, as president, that coup attempt should be considered part of his presidential duties.
Trump lawyers Todd Blanche and John Lauro, in Thursday’s 52-page filing to U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, attempted to minimize Trump’s actions leading up to the violent assault on the Capitol that day and that, regardless, the law allowed Trump to act based on his belief that the election had been stolen from him.
“The indictment is based entirely on alleged actions within the heartland of President Trump’s official duties, or at the very least, within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official duties,” Blanche and Lauro wrote. “As President Trump is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for such acts, the court should dismiss the indictment.”
“President Trump’s alleged Tweets and public statements about fraud in the election and the role of the vice president in the certification process were directly related to his contentions that: (1) the presidential election’s outcome was tainted by fraud and other procedural irregularities, and (2) the U.S. Department of Justice and certain state governments had failed to adequately investigate and prosecute fraud and irregularities in the election,” Blanche and Lauro wrote.
They also argued that Supreme Court precedent acknowledged that a president needed to be able to take “bold and unhesitating action” at times without fear of prosecution, and that was what Trump was doing.
“Here, 234 years of unbroken historical practice — from 1789 until 2023 — provide compelling evidence that the power to indict a former president for his official acts does not exist,” they wrote.
Blanche and Lauro also argued that the only allowable means of punishing a president for his actions was an impeachment trial and removal by the U.S. Senate.
Trump was, in fact, impeached by the House for inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection, and 57 senators — including seven Republicans — voted to convict him, even though he was already out of office. That figure was 10 shy of what was needed to convict, which would likely have been followed by a majority vote to ban Trump from federal office forever.
“President Trump was acquitted of these charges after trial in the Senate, and he thus remains immune from prosecution,” Blanche and Lauro wrote. “The special counsel cannot second-guess the judgment of the duly elected United States Senate.”
Trump was indicted by U.S. Department of Justice special counsel Jack Smith for conspiring to defraud the United States, conspiring to obstructing an official proceeding, attempting to obstruct an official proceeding, and conspiring to deprive people of their voting rights. The charges are based on Trump’s attempts to block the Jan. 6 congressional certification of the 2020 election and his attempt to remain in power despite his loss in that contest using slates of fraudulent electors. If convicted on the most serious offenses, he could receive decades in federal prison.
Trump is under a separate federal indictment by Smith for his retention of secret documents at his Florida country club and his attempts to hide them from authorities when they sought their return.
A Georgia grand jury also indicted Trump for his attempts to overturn his election loss in that state, while a New York state grand jury indicted him for filing falsified business records to conceal a $130,000 hush-money payment to a porn star ahead of the 2016 election.
Despite the 91 total felony counts against him, Trump nevertheless remains the front-runner for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination by a wide margin. | US Political Corruption |
Biden administration announces $39 billion in student debt relief for 804,000 borrowers
The Biden administration has announced that it will provide $39 billion in total student debt relief for 804,000 borrowers, its latest step since President Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan was struck down by the Supreme Court.
The Education Department said Friday the relief is being provided on income-driven repayment plans, in which the federal government cancels remaining balances for the borrower after they have made their payments for 20 or 25 years.
The department said the “fixes” will more accurately count monthly payments that qualify under the plans, and it will notify borrowers who are eligible for the relief in the upcoming days.
The Supreme Court struck down Biden’s plan to give $10,000 of student debt relief to low- and middle-income borrowers and up to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients in a 6-3 decision last month. The majority found Congress had not directly authorized the president to forgive debts worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
Biden announced after the decision that his administration would continue to work to provide student debt relief despite the court’s ruling. He said he would base his debt relief plan on a different law, the Higher Education Act, which proponents argue allows the education secretary to “compromise, waive or release” student loan debt.
The administration must undergo a public comment period before the plan can go into effect, delaying its potential implementation.
The Hill has reached out to the White House for comment on Friday’s announcement.
Vice President Harris said in a statement that she and Biden are “committed” to providing relief to student borrowers.
“Our Administration will continue to fight to make sure Americans can access high-quality postsecondary education without taking on the burden of unmanageable student loan debt,” she said.
Harris said many of the borrowers eligible for the relief were placed in forbearance by loan servicers against the rules of the payment plan, and others did not receive credit for monthly payments they made.
“For far too long, borrowers fell through the cracks of a broken system that failed to keep accurate track of their progress towards forgiveness,” Education Secretary Miguel Cardona said in a statement.
The relief is being provided as part of an adjustment that the administration announced in April 2022.
Cardona said the plan will ensure everyone receives the forgiveness they deserve in addressing “past administrative failures.”
Updated at 9:28 a.m.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Policies |
As US voters get ready to vote in the midterms, a number of recent news events are shaping their social media feeds - the raid on Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago as he's investigated for possibly mishandling documents, abortion bans, and debates about gun rights. For Americast and Newsnight, BBC's Disinformation and Social Media correspondent Marianna Spring is investigating what voters are recommended online at a turbulent time for US politics. I've created social media accounts belonging to five fake characters, who reflect views from across the political spectrum in the US. The people I created are based on data by a US think tank which defined types of voters after surveying more than 10,000 randomly selected US adults.I've given each of them five profiles across Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, YouTube and Twitter - with names and computer-generated photos. They are: Larry, the Faith and Flag conservative; Britney from the Populist Right; Gabriela, the less political Stressed Sideliner; Michael, the Democratic Mainstay; and Emma from the Progressive Left.After just a week of running the accounts, Britney - the Populist Right Voter - has already been recommended and has encountered pages on Instagram and Facebook continuing to promote disinformation that Trump really won the 2020 election. She's also come across similar content on TikTok. False claims are sometimes accompanied by violent rhetoric in reference to Trump's opponents. In contrast, the accounts belonging to Michael - the Democratic Mainstay, and Emma - the Progressive Left voter, have been pushed memes celebrating the investigation into Trump and quizzing why this didn't happen sooner. Britney's feeds include suggestions that the recent raid on his home in Mar-a-Lago just confirms he was actually victorious and the State is out to get him. Several of these pages opt for phrases like "Trump won" rather than "stop the steal", which was the term used on social media ahead of the riots at the Capitol. Those riots - and the wave of false claims about fraudulent voting in their build-up - have marked a turning point in the US. Now, more than ever, there are questions about how misleading and harmful posts online could affect voters heading to the polls, and social media sites have made fresh commitments to tackle it.The BBC's experiment so far suggests those same false claims about "ballot mules" and "ballot trafficking" from the 2020 election continue to spread online. Britney has also come across other anti-Semitic conspiracies about sinister global plots - and been recommended conspiracy-inspired pages. TikTok told the BBC, "We take our responsibility to protect the integrity of our platform and elections with utmost seriousness." It says it prohibits election misinformation, "provides access to authoritative information through our Election Centre" and works with independent fact-checking organisations. Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, says "it has hundreds of people across more than 40 teams working on the midterm elections", as well as "robust measures in place to combat misinformation". That includes partnerships with 10 fact-checking organisations in the US. Larry - the Faith and Flag conservative - has been recommended similar content about the raid on Trump's home, as well as repeated pages promoting guns and other weapons. However, the feed belonging to Emma - the Progressive Left voter - also featured more about influencer Andrew Tate, recently banned from Instagram and Facebook for promoting misogyny online. The videos on her feed rejoice his ban, whereas none of the other older voters have encountered anything similar. The account of Gabriella - the undecided voter - hasn't been exposed to much politics at all, whether Trump or Tate. Her profiles are generally apolitical and so, instead, her social media feeds are dominated by posts about her hometown of Miami, fashion, dance, and saving money during the cost of living crisis. How were the characters created? The profiles are all informed by data from Pew Research Center, which defined nine different typologies of US voters who sit along the political spectrum after conducting a wide-ranging survey in 2021.The BBC has selected five of those nine types and based the characters on data about their demographic, age, interests and opinions on different political issues. The five types chosen aim to reflect a cross-section of the US electorate with a range of views and backgrounds. The Democrat-leaning and Republican-leaning groups that the characters are based on offer insight into what the greatest proportion of active voters on the political right and left can be exposed to online. The more apolitical Stressed Sideliner type makes up relatively less of the electorate compared to all of the other right or left-leaning groups.I'll be logging on regularly to each of the accounts for a similar period of time to like the kinds of posts they would, check what they've been recommended, and see where the social media algorithms take our characters. I use a VPN on each of the phones, so my location can be set to the US. According to research from Pew, around seven in 10 Americans use social media - and this is one of the only ways of interrogating the subjective social media worlds of different voters that we can't usually access. While it can't offer an exhaustive insight into what every US voter could be seeing on social media - and they don't have friends or followers - it gives us a snapshot into what different types of voters across the political spectrum are exposed to when they log onto their phones. There are a series of recent news events that are shaping some of the voters' social media feeds. The raid on Trump's home in Mar-a-Lago, as he's investigated for possibly mishandling documents. The Roe v Wade ruling that made abortion legal across the US was overturned. The war in Ukraine, debates about gun rights and a cost-of-living crisis across the world. Their accounts are all private - and they don't comment or talk to anyone real. They just like, follow and join groups, pages and accounts as per their interests and recommendations. Here's an explanation of who they are and what they like. Larry is what is known as a Faith and Flag conservative. This group has the oldest voters according to Pew's research - with a third over 65. Larry, a retired insurance broker, is 71-years-old. This group is also the least diverse, with the highest proportion of non-Hispanic white voters, as well as the highest share of male voters. What would Larry like on social media? He has very conservative values and has followed and liked pages that are pro-guns and the US Second Amendment. He is loyal first and foremost to the Republican party and whoever represents them, which most recently has been Donald Trump - and likes pages about this. Fox News is the main place this voter group goes for news, according to Pew's data. For him, religion is very important in public life. He is an evangelical protestant who is married to a woman and has grown-up children. He has followed several anti-abortion pages and groups.He doesn't like the federal government having too much power. Instead, he's liked lots of groups and pages about his local area and community in Oneonta, Alabama. He has also followed several US army pages. Britney, 50-years-old, is the Populist Right character. She votes Republican, but unlike Larry, she's much more critical of big business. She likes some posts on social media opposing billionaires and supporting higher taxes for big corporations. She also follows pages about unfounded conspiracies like the Great Reset and New World Order, which tap into the idea that the very rich are orchestrating a sinister global plot. She is very supportive of Trump - and the possibility he'll run for re-election in 2024. Her loyalties lie with him rather than the Republican party itself. The Populist Right group is overwhelmingly white - but the 54% of voters who fall into this group are female. It is also one of the least highly educated groups with just two in 10 graduating from college. Recently-divorced Britney and her children live in Houston in Texas, where she works as a school secretary and takes part in parent groups online.Half of this group opposed Covid-19 vaccines - so Britney likes and follows some anti-mask and anti-vaccine content on social media. Like Larry, she is also religious and follows many anti-abortion accounts and pages. Fox News is also where she gets her news, according to research - and it's the outlet she was recommended lots on Twitter when she first signed up. Gabriela, 44-years-old, is a floating voter - and Pew's research dubs this group Stressed Sideliner. Her views vary and she's not really that interested in politics. She likes music, dance, fashion - and topics that are generally apolitical on social media. This group is 56% women - and has the highest share of Hispanic voters compared to all the other groups. Gabriela lives with her husband and children in Miami, Florida, and likes and follows pages about her local area, as well as the Hispanic community there. About one in four Stressed Sideliners live in lower-income households. Gabriela has liked lots of groups and pages about saving money on monthly shopping. She is a nanny, so has also joined lots of parent groups and others advertising work. Her views on social issues vary. According to Pew's research, on abortion, banning guns, legalising marijuana and making university free, Stressed Sideliners align with Democrats. But she's more conservative on the death penalty and supportive of the police. She has liked some pro-choice content.Michael, 61-years-old, is part of the Democratic Mainstay group. This is the most diverse group, with the highest proportion of black voters at 26%. According to Pew's research, three quarters of this group are religious - and it has the highest proportion of black protestant voters. Michael really values faith and family. He's interested in pages linked to churches in his local area, as well as US and black history. He's been a committed Democrat for years. He likes lots of pages, groups and accounts linked to the party, as well as popular politicians like Joe Biden, Kamala Harris and Barack Obama. Democratic Mainstays are slightly older and have less formal education than other Democrat-leaning groups. Michael is a teacher in Milwaukee, Wisconsin - where he lives with his wife and kids. He is economically more liberal. On social media he follows various teaching unions and charities that help families make ends meet. But he is more moderate on other social issues and is pro-military. He prefers left-leaning news outlets, including CNN.Emma is the most liberal of all the types - 48% of this group has received a university degree, and most of them are white. Emma attended university and lives in New York City with her girlfriend, where she is a graphic designer. The creative arts are very important to these voters, according to Pew's data. Emma follows accounts about art and film. This group is made up of younger voters - with a third under 30. They are also the least religious of all of the groups. Emma is 25-years-old and an atheist. According to Pew, these voters are likely to get their political news from NPR and The New York Times - which are pages Emma follows. Progressive Left voters are very passionate about racial and gender equality - 88% judge there to be serious discrimination against black people. Emma follows lots of accounts in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. She is also pro-choice and passionate about the environment. Emma likes a variety of pages about intersectional feminism, women's marches and LGBTQI rights, including supporting the transgender community. She follows environmental activists - and she supports the legalisation of marijuana, liking several pages that promote this. Emma and Larry are both the most politically engaged according to Pew's research. They voted at the highest rate in the 2020 Presidential election, they post about politics online and they donate to campaigns too. Where can you keep up with the Undercover Voters? Listen to Americast on BBC Sounds and tune into BBC 2's Newsnight for regular updates on what these profiles are recommended around major news events, and investigations into how they are targeted in the build-up to the midterms. | US Federal Elections |
Discover more from The Bulwark
Punching Politicians and Trump’s Belligerence
Journalists shouldn’t shy away from linking the two.
WHEN THE 118th CONGRESS GOT UNDERWAY, one of the first actions of the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives was to remove the magnetometers that former Speaker Nancy Pelosi had had installed outside the House chamber following the January 6th attack.
After Tuesday’s events on Capitol Hill—when deposed House Speaker Kevin McCarthy allegedly sucker-elbowed a fellow Republican who called it “a clean shot to the kidneys” and Senator Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) dared a witness in a Senate hearing to a fistfight—maybe it’s time to bring those magnetometers back.
Remember when, back in September, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) referred to Republican infighting as a “civil war” and everyone understood him to be speaking metaphorically? Maybe not so much.
Before Tuesday’s unhinged Republican behavior recedes from memory, it’s worth emphasizing one aspect of it that has been underappreciated in the press coverage: that it didn’t happen in a void, but rather fits into larger patterns in the world of Donald Trump.
Time and again, Trump has issued permission slips to those who practice violence. His fascination with the use of force, including by violent militias like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, is well documented. Tuesday’s events can only really be understood in that larger context of Trump and violence.
But you’ll search in vain for a mention of Trump in most reporting about Tuesday. The main New York Times article gives room to an excusatory tweet from Mitch McConnell’s spokesman (“Today is another example of why Congress shouldn’t be in session for 5 weeks straight”) and a distracting statement from MAGA Matt Gaetz (Thanksgiving “will allow everybody to go home [and] cool off”) but doesn’t even mention Trump’s name. The same goes for CNN, PBS, ABC, and the Los Angeles Times.
At least the Washington Post made an effort to note a parallel for the violence in the American past, quoting Yale historian Joanne B. Freeman, author of The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to the Civil War: “If no one speaks up, [violence] becomes representative of what that party stands for.”
The most infamous tale of deadly force on the Senate floor is the 1856 caning of anti-slavery Republican Senator Charles Sumner by Rep. Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democratic congressman from South Carolina. The cane was metal-tipped, and Brooks struck Sumner’s head from the back, nearly killing him.1
Never miss another Bulwark story. Sign up for a free or paid subscription today.
This was all part of accelerating division in the years leading to full-blown national violence on an unprecedented scale. Now, as before, violence is showing up in the halls of Congress—except this time it follows years of Donald Trump lauding the use of force in remarks that often became memes.
You’re not allowed to punch back anymore. I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They’d be carried out on a stretcher, folks.
Then in August 2017, from the White House podium, Trump said about the violent Charlottesville “Unite Right Rally” that there were “very fine people on both sides.” One side included James Alex Fields, who drove his Dodge Challenger into counterdemonstrator Heather Heyer, killing her.
Fast-forward to mid-2020 when Trump said of post-George Floyd riots, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts,” and retweeted a supporter’s video that said, “The only good Democrat is a dead Democrat.”
No one can forget the January 6th “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage” tweet after Trump had learned that violence was surging at the Capitol. It was the time when the invaders were shouting, “Hang Mike Pence.”
Nor do we fail to remember Trump’s famous three hours of diddling while the Capitol filled with violence; only when police reinforcements were about to turn the tide did the then-president ask the mob to go home.
Then there’s Trump’s more recent social posting about Mark Milley, the retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “In times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH” for what Trump misrepresented Milley had done.
Last, let’s add Trump’s Hitler-channeling speech dehumanizing his foes as “vermin.” That, blogger Lucian Truscott IV wrote on Saturday, “is how it begins”—the violent roundups to the concentration camps. (General Dwight Eisenhower put Truscott’s grandfather in charge of relocating the liberated inmates of Dachau.)
ALL OF THESE TRUMPIAN MOMENTS—and countless others one could name—create an environment in which political violence becomes acceptable, and in which it’s okay to coldcock someone you don’t like in a Capitol hallway or to challenge an adversary to put up his dukes in a hearing room of what was once known as the world’s “greatest deliberative body.”
There is no reason to think we won’t see more such political pugnacity on the right as the 2024 campaign continues. Journalists should not be shy about connecting the dots between the vile words of Trump and the violent actions of his Republican followers. And the rest of us, remembering that normalizing small acts of political violence can create the climate for big ones, must keep calling out MAGA violence and those who are responsible for it.
Sen. Mullin apparently wishes he were around in the days when Brooks bashed Sumner: “You used to be able to cane,” he said. | US Congress |
When jobs are plentiful and business profits soar, that means good news for federal tax revenues. At least, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
For 15 years after the Tax Reform Act of 1986 went into effect, that’s exactly what happened: Changes in the U.S. unemployment rate were a strong predictor of changes in our federal tax revenues as a percent of the GDP; a drop in the unemployment rate caused revenues as a percent of GDP to increase. But since the beginning of the 21st century, a series of tax cuts under presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump have shattered the link between tax revenues and employment. Revenues as a percent of GDP dropped significantly, and now they no longer grow much when the economy strengthens.
After news that the federal deficit grew despite a strong economy, amid rising interest rates, there are renewed fears about the nation’s fiscal outlook. With these fears typically come calls to reduce spending. But the U.S. doesn’t have a spending problem; it has a revenue problem caused by tax cuts.
Between 1995 and 2000, the unemployment rate fell from 5.6% to 4.0%, and revenues rose from 17.9% to 20.0% of GDP — the equivalent of taking in an additional $600 billion per year after adjusting for the size of the economy. When the unemployment rate fell a similar amount between 2015 and 2019, going from 5.4% to 3.7%, revenues dropped from 17.9% of GDP to 16.3% — the equivalent of taking in $450 billion less per year after adjusting for the size of the economy.
Why did this happen? Because during that same time, the Bush tax cuts, their bipartisan extensions, and later the Trump tax cuts slashed taxes, significantly lowering overall revenue. Importantly, a disproportionate share of the benefits from these cuts accrued to very rich Americans, profitable corporations and wealthy heirs.
This newfound pattern of low revenues even in times of high employment has persisted up to the present day. In fiscal year 2023 — which just ended Sept. 30 — the unemployment rate averaged 3.6%, the lowest since 1969. However, because of these large tax cuts, revenues were a paltry 16.5% of GDP.
These lower revenues have a profound impact on the finances of the nation. Prior to the tax cuts being enacted, the Congressional Budget Office projected long-term stability of the debt-to-GDP ratio. Yes, the CBO projected rising spending driven by Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. But the agency also projected that revenues would be able to keep up indefinitely without any additional tax increases, due to real wage gains leading to higher revenues. Now, however, the CBO projects that debt is on track to rise as a percent of GDP indefinitely, with revenues now significantly lower and no longer projected to match primary (noninterest) program costs.
Two points explain this. The first involves a concept called the fiscal gap, which measures how much primary deficit reduction is required to stabilize the debt-to-GDP ratio. The 30-year fiscal gap is smaller than the size of the Bush tax cuts, their extensions and the Trump tax cuts under current law over the next 30 years. Therefore, mathematically and unequivocally, without those tax cuts, the debt ratio would be declining, not rising.
Second, even though the debt ratio is rising, spending can’t be blamed. The CBO’s 2012 long-term budget outlook was the last time debt was projected to decline indefinitely — because that projection was made before the Bush tax cuts were largely permanently extended. And relative to the CBO’s 2012 projection, current projections of program costs are down, not up. In short, if you were trying to explain how we got from the CBO’s 2012 projection of a declining debt ratio to its current projections of a rising debt ratio, changes in spending have lowered the future debt path, but revenues have declined significantly more than spending. Changes in revenues are therefore entirely responsible for going from a declining debt ratio to an ever-growing debt ratio.
The first step in effecting change is proper diagnosis. Those who look to blame spending to close the primary deficit are looking in the wrong place. If not for the regressive tax cuts initiated under presidents Bush and Trump, we would have been looking at a stable debt-to-GDP ratio. Any discussion of how to change our fiscal path should focus first on generating additional revenue lost to these tax cuts. | US Federal Policies |
Chief prosecutor of Jan. 6 rioters describes ‘pervasive’ threats to his office
Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, described the threats in a closed-door interview with the House Judiciary Committee.
The federal prosecutors who have brought charges against hundreds of Jan. 6 rioters are seeing an uptick in violent threats and harassment directed toward their office, the office’s lead prosecutor told congressional investigators.
Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for Washington, said the threats come from around the country and have become “pervasive,” though he did not elaborate on their substance or whether any law enforcement agency is investigating them.
Graves’ comments, documented in a transcript obtained by POLITICO, came in a closed-door interview on Oct. 3 with the House Judiciary Committee about the Hunter Biden probe. In the interview, Republican investigators pressed Graves on allegations that his office refused to assist the U.S. attorney in Delaware who is leading the probe into the president’s son. Graves declined to answer some of the investigators’ questions about his personnel, citing threats to his office.
The threats he described appear to be part of a broader trend of law enforcement officials grappling with security concerns while working on politically charged cases.
Special counsel Jack Smith’s team, which is running two federal prosecutions of Donald Trump, spent nearly $2 million for U.S. marshals protection from November to March, according to a person familiar with the spending granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive matter. Fani Willis, the Georgia prosecutor leading a separate prosecution of Trump, reported receiving 150 personal threats in the two months following her indictment of the former president and his allies.
And Thomas Sobocinski, an FBI agent connected to the Hunter Biden probe, previously told congressional investigators that law enforcement personnel working on that investigation have faced threats — and that their families have, as well.
“People are trying to fuel the sentiment of stoking ire against these dedicated civil servants,” Graves said in the interview with the House Judiciary investigators. “And you really don’t even know the extent of it because it’s not group affiliated.”
Graves repeatedly declined to name subordinates in his office who were involved in the decision last year not to team up with David Weiss, the Delaware prosecutor who has long been investigating Hunter Biden on tax and gun issues. Linking his deputies to Weiss’ probe could put them at risk, Graves said.
“I’m already dealing with enough threats and harassment of my assistant United States attorneys who are career prosecutors,” he said.
He alluded to unspecified “mitigation measures” that he has put in place to protect himself and other people in his office.
Graves did not describe the source or the nature of the threats. But the most nationally prominent work he’s helmed — by far — stems from the violent breach of the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. The Justice Department has charged more than 1,100 people with crimes related to the Jan. 6 attack, and Graves’ office has played a central role in coordinating the nationwide undertaking. A spokesperson for the D.C. U.S. attorney’s office did not respond to a request for comment.
In his interview, Graves also defended his interaction with Weiss, who was designated as a special counsel in August. Whistleblowers have said that Weiss indicated Graves refused to partner with him in bringing a case against Hunter Biden in Washington, hindering the investigation. Graves, however, told investigators that he offered Weiss as much logistical support as he requested. And he said that when the two U.S. attorneys spoke on the phone about the case, he suggested that they partner — only to decide several weeks later that it would not be the right move. | US Political Corruption |
In an emotionally charged hearing in Birmingham’s federal court Wednesday morning, it was revealed Joran van der Sloot had confessed to killing Mountain Brook teen Natalee Holloway in Aruba in 2005.
Van der Sloot, 36, received a 20-year sentence on each of the two convictions. Those sentences will be served concurrently with each other and also concurrently with his sentence in Peru.
“You have finally admitted that, in fact, you murdered her,” a tearful Beth Holloway said in court.
“You terminated her dreams, her potential, her possibilities, when you bludgeoned her to death in 2005,” Holloway said after he pleaded guilty.
“You didn’t get what you wanted from Natalee, your sexual satisfaction, so you brutally killed her....You are the one in Aruba no one wants to be, the black mark on the island,” she said.
Beth Holloway said after Natalee was killed, van der Sloot went home and watched pornography. Holloway said she feels sorry for his mother and grandmother.
“I have no doubt she would have made all her dreams come true. She really would have,” Beth Holloway said of Natalee.
Van der Sloot sat with his attorney in an orange jumpsuit drinking water and showed no visible signs of emotion.
When U.S. District Court Judge Anna Manasco asked if he knew he could be charged with perjury if he lied, van der Sloot said, “yes ma’am.”
“I would like to take this chance to apologize to the Holloway family, to apologize to my own family, to say I hope the statement I provided brings some kind of closure to everyone involved,” van der Sloot said.
Van der Sloot said he is now a Christian. “I am no longer that person I was back then.”
Manasco said she thought about rejecting the plea agreement so that if he was convicted she could sentence him to a term consecutive and not concurrent with the one he is serving in Peru. Manasco chose not to do that to keep from losing his confession.
Van der Sloot is currently serving a 28-year prison sentence in Peru for the 2010 murder of Lima college student Stephany Flores. Flores was killed five years to the day Natalee disappeared.
His Peru sentence expires in 2045. Should van der Sloot be released from the Peruvian prison early -- for any reason -- he would then have to serve the remainder of the 20-year sentence in the U.S.
It was stated in court he will be “promptly” removed from the U.S. and taken back to Peru.
“I paid my daughter’s killer money. That’s shocking. I don’t think anyone can really wrap their mind around what that means,” Beth Holloway told him.
“By the way you look like Hell, Joran. I do not see how you’re gonna make it....You are a killer and I want you to remember that every time that jail door slams.”
According to court documents, the judge would consider statements only from the victim of the extortion and wire fraud – Beth Holloway – and members of Natalee’s immediate family. Beth was the only family member who spoke in court.
Van der Sloot plea states he exploited the fear of Holloway’s mother that she would never find her daughter’s body or know what happened to her unless she paid him $250,000.
As part of the agreement, van der Sloot had to take a polygraph which prosecutors said he passed. Natalee’s parents were allowed to hear his confession “in real-time.”
The extortion case was prosecuted by Lloyd Peeples, chief of the U.S. Attorney’s Criminal Division, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Catherine Crosby.
Van der Sloot, Peeples said, “picked his victim” and in choosing to defraud Beth Holloway, “chose his own greed over Beth Holloway’s grief.”
Manasco called Natalee’s death a “brutal murder” and said the only evidence is his confession to killing her and the “disposal and destruction of her remains.”
“You have brutally murdered two women who refused your sexual advances,” Manasco said.
“You knew the information you were selling was an absolute lie,” Manasco said of his extortion of Beth Holloway.
Manasco said the pain of Natalee’s death was compounded by the fact that her “family has not found and will not find her remains.”
Van der Sloot was represented by Alexandria Darby of the federal public defender’s office. Van der Sloot this morning told the judge he was fully satisfied with his attorneys.
The last time Natalee was seen alive
The 18-year-old visited Aruba on a high school graduation trip in 2005 with 130-plus of her classmates from Mountain Brook High School. If she had lived, Holloway’s 37th birthday would have been later this week.
For several days in May 2005, the teens - of legal drinking age in Aruba - sunned and snorkeled and at night donned sundresses for dinner and partying at Carlos’ N Charlie’s, which at the time was located in downtown Oranjestad.
The group often ended up at Excelsior Casino, which was connected to the Holiday Inn where the Mountain Brook group stayed.
On their last night there, Natalee and her friends met van der Sloot, who lived with family in the nearby Montana neighborhood and attended the Aruba International School.
She was last seen about 1 a.m. getting into a gray Honda with van der Sloot and his friends, the Kalpoe brothers, as they left Carlo ‘N Charlie’s.
Natalee was scheduled to fly home that morning but did not meet the group in the lobby to leave for their flight.
Natalie’s family flew to Aruba immediately.
They, along two Aruban policemen, went to the van der Sloot home looking for Holloway.
Van der Sloot initially denied knowing Natalee, but later said they drove to the California Lighthouse area of Arashi Beach, because Natalee wanted to see sharks, before dropping her off at her hotel around 2 a.m.
Van der Sloot said Natalee fell down as she got out of the car but refused his help. He said she was approached by a man in a black shirt, similar to those worn by security guards, as the young men drove away.
18 years of mystery, hope and alleged extortion
Despite arrests, releases, and more arrests, Aruban prosecutors officially declared Natalee’s case closed in 2007. The following year, they announced they reopened the case but refused to arrest van der Sloot.
Over time, rewards of up to $1 million were offered for Natalee’s safe return. Rewards of up to $250,000 were offered for information leading to her remains.
She was officially declared dead on Jan. 12, 2012.
- Beth Holloway speaks out after Joran van der Sloot confesses to killing Natalee
- Joran van der Sloot confesses to killing Natalee Holloway: ‘You terminated her dreams,’ mother says
- If Joran van der Sloot confesses to killing Natalee Holloway what will happen to him?
- Joran van der Sloot will reveal how Natalee Holloway died as part of plea deal, lawyer says
- Joran van der Sloot extortion case nearing an end? Plea, sentencing hearing set
The U.S. Attorney’s office and FBI said that on May 15, 2010, nearly five years after Natalee vanished, van der Sloot extorted $15,000 as a partial payment, wired from Birmingham to the Netherlands.
He was to be paid a total of $250,000. The information that van der Sloot has provided to that unnamed individual was false, authorities said.
On March 29, 2010, van der Sloot emailed an unidentified representative of Natalee’s mother.
According to charging documents, van der Sloot offered to take the representative to Natalee’s body and tell what happened to her and identify those involved in her death.
Documents state van der Sloot agreed to modify the offer. For an initial payment of $25,000, he would take the Holloway representative to Natalee’s body.
Once Natalee’s body was recovered, he would then collect the remaining $225,000.
Van der Sloot emailed his bank account information so the money could be deposited by wire transfer. He insisted, authorities said, on a written contract from Beth Holloway.
The contract faxed to Holloway and signed, on May 10, 2010, charging documents show, the Holloway representative flew to Aruba.
Beth Holloway later wired $10,000 to New York so the representative could have cash available when he met with Van der Sloot.
The representative met with van der Sloot in Aruba and showed him Holloway’s signed agreement.
Van der Sloot and the representative signed two copies of the agreement and took pictures of each other during the signing. The meeting, during which the representative gave van der Sloot the $10,000, was recorded.
Holloway then wired the $15,000 balance to van der Sloot’s Netherlands bank account.
Van der Sloot and the representative got into a rental car and left the hotel, according to the federal affidavit. Van der Sloot pointed out a residence where he said Natalee’s body was left in the foundation.
Van der Sloot said his father, Paulus van der Sloot – who died of a heart attack on Feb. 10, 2010 – had buried Natalee’s body under the foundation of the single-story house.
Van der Sloot said he was with Natalee and had thrown her to the ground after she attempted to stop him from leaving her.
“Van der Sloot claimed that when she fell down, she hit her head on a rock and died,’’ wrote FBI Special Agent William Bryan.
Van der Sloot said he hid Natalee’s body and told his father what happened.
Van der Sloot said his father accompanied him to where he had hidden Natalee’s body. He said he remained in the car while his father buried her body.
“Van der Sloot added that he had not actually seen his father inter the remains,’’ Bryan wrote, “but was told and shown by his father where the body was buried.”
The FBI agent wrote that Aruban law enforcement officials reviewed a building permit for that address – which has not been made public – and found no foundation or structure on the parcel of land at the time of Natalee’s disappearance.
The document indicates that a permit was requested on May 23, 2005, and approved on May 26, 2005. An inspection was conducted on June 15, 2005, and the permit was not issued until Oct. 18, 2010.
“The house identified by Van der Sloot was not under construction at the time of Natalee Holloway’s disappearance,’’ Bryan wrote.
On May 17, 2010, van der Sloot admitted to the representative that he lied about the location of Natalee’s remains and a month later he was charged in Alabama’s federal court with extortion.
Van der Sloot was extradited to Alabama on June 8, 2023, and booked into the Shelby County Jail. | US Circuit and Appeals Courts |
The spoiler alerts started early - his own.Donald Trump has been screaming 'comeback' at political rubberneckers from every stage he could find in the two years since he was turfed out of the White House.
Now, we're told, the least surprising announcement in US politics is imminent.The timing isn't a surprise, as he'll want to see how the Republican party performs at Tuesday's mid-terms - any politician worth an ounce of strategy and self-interest would want to gauge the speed of travel before jumping on the bandwagon.Timing could also play into something else - the small matter of possible criminal charges. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player How do midterm elections work? The US Justice Department has been investigating the Capitol riots and the discovery of classified government documents at Mr Trump's Mar-a-Lago home and resort in Florida.If Mr Trump is to be indicted, it would be signed off by Merrick Garland, the US Attorney-General appointed by President Joe Biden. More on Donald Trump Donald Trump teases fresh White House bid telling Republican rally 'I will very, very, very probably do it again' '#TrumpIsDead' trends on Twitter as users test Elon Musk's approach to fake news Anger, betrayal and fear as America braces for the midterm elections You can see the script already - the one in which Mr Trump is charged and points to a Democrat stitch-up, politically-motivated, to undermine his presidential ambitions.Experience tells us his claims would have an audience. A strong Republican showing on Tuesday can only give him a push - and this, in a party that's been reshaped in his shadow. Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player 'Democracy is at risk' warns Biden Trump acolytes - election deniers et al - are threaded through a changed party.Even members who resist the pull of his politics can't ignore a core of Trump support within their ranks.Republican candidates, at national and state level, scrambled to receive his endorsement when they stood in primary run-offs; he will feel they owe him.He will be the big beast in a party leadership contest but there will, likely, be other serious candidates. People like Ron DeSantis, Florida governor, and the man who served as Mr Trump's number two in the White House, Mike Pence.The challenge for all will be to corral party traditionalists with its fringe elements turned mainstream.It will be a continuation of the struggle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party - the rules of engagement won't necessarily be "party first". | US Federal Elections |
On February 13, 2020, a Russian-educated Mexican microbiologist who worked in Singapore arrived at the Miami, Florida, airport, and rented a car.
The following day, the man and one of his two wives drove to a Miami condo complex and entered through the security gate by following closely behind a car in front of them. When security guards alarmed by the unusual actions found the vehicle and confronted the man, his wife snapped a photograph of a license plate of another nearby car. They were ordered to leave.
The car whose license plate was photographed belonged to a “U.S. government confidential human source, who previously provided information regarding [Russian Intelligence Service] activities implicating national security interests of the United States,” according to a 2020 FBI affidavit.
Until now, the identity of the “U.S. government human source” had been a closely held secret. But a book scheduled for release later this month has pinpointed who it was -- a revelation that pointed to a complex, sophisticated, yearslong effort by Russian intelligence agencies to locate the man, and possibly assassinate him.
The man was Aleksandr Poteyev, a former Russian Foreign Intelligence Service officer whose tip-off to the FBI a decade earlier ignited one the biggest spy scandals in modern U.S. history, leading to the arrest of 10 Russian “sleeper” agents living undercover in the United States under elaborate false identities.
The Russians were swiftly deported from the United States. In exchange, four Russians jailed in their home country on charges of spying -- including a former military intelligence officer named Sergei Skripal -- were released and sent to the West in a Cold War-style swap.
Putin's Fury
In the aftermath of the Russians’ expulsion, then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin made no effort to hide his fury at the person who, to his mind, betrayed his country.
"Those people sacrificed their lives to serve the Motherland, and there happened to be an animal who betrayed them," Putin said during a televised call-in show in December 2010. "How will he live with it all his life? How will he look his children in the eye? Swine!"
"As for the traitors, they will croak all by themselves. Whatever equivalent of 30 pieces of silver they get, it will get stuck in their throats,” he said.
In 2018, Skripal and his daughter nearly died in Salisbury, England, when they were exposed to a powerful Soviet-era nerve agent, and a British woman who also came in contact with the substance died. British authorities identified two Russian military intelligence agents as the culprits.
Poteyev, meanwhile, is still believed to be alive.
The Mexican man, who pleaded guilty to U.S. foreign agent charges in 2022 and is scheduled to be released from a U.S. prison next month, is Hector Alejandro Cabrera Fuentes, 38.
His connection to the Poteyev case was first confirmed in the book Spies: The Epic Intelligence War Between East and West, which is being released later this month. RFE/RL obtained a copy in advance.
The book’s author, Calder Walton, a researcher at Harvard University’s Kennedy School, told RFE/RL that he learned of Fuentes’ connection to Poteyev from two U.S. intelligence officials.
The findings were corroborated separately by The New York Times.
'We Can Help Each Other'
Fuentes agreed to assist Russian intelligence agents, according to Justice Department filings, sometime around May 2019, when his second wife -- a Russian woman -- and their two daughters traveled to Russia from Germany to resolve some paperwork issues. Fuentes at the time was in Singapore, where he worked as an occupational researcher at the National Heart Center.
Russian officials refused to let the woman and children leave at the conclusion of their trip. According to the FBI affidavit, Fuentes then traveled to Moscow, where he met with an unnamed Russian official whom he knew from earlier “professional meetings and exchanges.”
At a later meeting in Moscow, the Russian man gave Fuentes a “hardcopy printout” of a 2015 e-mail from Fuentes’ Gmail account, noting that Fuentes had been searching for real estate in Miami. According to the affidavit, the man pointed out that Fuentes’ wife and daughters were unable to leave Russia and told him, “We can help each other.”
Fuentes was then instructed by the Russian man to rent an apartment in Miami in the same complex where Poteyev was living, but to do it under someone else’s name, the FBI said.
Fuentes finalized the rental in December 2019. That month, he met again in Moscow with the Russian official, who then instructed Fuentes to locate Poteyev’s car and make note of the license plate and its physical location in the complex’s parking garage. The man, however, told Fuentes not to photograph the car, according to the affidavit.
On February 16, two days after Fuentes and his first wife were confronted by security at the condo complex, they were stopped by U.S. border agents at the Miami airport, where they were scheduled to fly out to Mexico City. Agents searched Fuentes’ wife's phone and found a photograph of the car license plate that she had taken in the complex parking garage, and one she had sent to Fuentes via WhatsApp.
When Fuentes was questioned by FBI agents the following day, the affidavit said, he revealed the situation involving his other wife and their daughters, who had been prevented from leaving Russia. And he turned over his messages with the man he believed worked for the Federal Security Service, Russia’s main domestic intelligence agency, known as the FSB.
Fuentes was arrested on February 18, 2020, on charges of being an unregistered foreign agent. He pleaded guilty roughly two years later and was subsequently sentenced to four years in prison.
“I have zero interest in getting involved in anything like that from now on,” he told the court at his sentencing on June 22, 2022.
U.S. authorities said they would deport Fuentes after he finishes his sentence. He is scheduled to be released next month, on July 16, from a minimum-security federal prison in South Carolina.
Fuentes’ Miami-based lawyer, Ronald Gainor, confirmed Fuentes’ upcoming release and expected deportation, but had no further comment.
'We Know Who He Is And Where He Is'
For years, Poteyev worked for Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, known as the SVR, which along with the FSB is the one of the main successor agencies to the KGB.
After tipping off U.S. officials to the Russian “illegals” spy ring, he escaped Russia and resettled in the United States, reportedly under a witness protection program that's said to be overseen by the CIA. His name emerged publicly in leaks to Russian media in late 2010.
In a November 2010 report on a high-ranking SVR defector, the Russian newspaper Kommersant quoted an unnamed Kremlin official invoking the name of the Ramon Mercader, the Soviet agent who assassinated Leon Trotsky with an ice pick in Mexico City in 1940.
“We know who he is and where he is. He betrayed either for money, or he was simply caught on something. But you can be sure that Mercader has already been sent for him,” the official was quoted as saying.
Kommersant identified the defector as a different SVR officer, but days later named Poteyev publicly for the first time.
In July 2011, about a year after he fled Russia and about seven months after Putin publicly suggested that agents who betray Russia be killed, Poteyev was sentenced in absentia to 25 years in prison by a Moscow court.
The effort to target Poteyev using Fuentes was not the first.
In late 2013 or early 2014, a Russian hit man reportedly traveled to Florida looking for a Russian intelligence agent who had defected, according to a 2018 report by the Times. The man was reportedly tracked by U.S. law enforcement. The man was later identified by the BBC as Poteyev.
Two years after that alleged attempt, in July 2016, Russia’s Interfax news agency, citing unnamed intelligence officials, published a cryptic item that suggested Poteyev had died. The news story circulated widely, in and out of Russia.
In fact, the story in fact may have been planted as a way to “flush out” Poteyev, to prompt him to contact his relatives back in Russia and help Russian agents to locate him.
Earlier that year, however, Poteyev used his real name to obtain a fishing license in Florida, BuzzFeed News reported. He also registered to vote using his real name, something that perplexed security experts.
In April 2021, the United States announced it was expelling 10 Russian diplomats, accusing them of involvement in hacking U.S. government agencies and interference in the 2020 presidential election. Some of them were identified as intelligence officers working under diplomatic cover.
One was the Washington station chief for the SVR, who was expelled, according to the Times, in response to the plot targeting Poteyev. | US Political Corruption |
Donald Trump holds such a tight grip on the GOP that he has enjoyed the deference not only of his allies, but of most of his rivals, as well. But at least one of his competitors appears emboldened by his fourth and most recent indictment: Mike Pence, who was cartoonishly loyal as Trump’s vice president, is said to be eager for a showdown with his old boss. “It’s let’s-get-it-on time,” top Pence adviser Marc Short told Politico. “We’ve been waiting for this for a while.”
How sturdy is this spine that Pence has allegedly grown? That remains to be seen. His previous, highly-publicized shows of audacity weren’t exactly symmetrical to the political abuse Trump has subjected him to— and the talk he and his team have been doing recently qualifies as “tough” only in the loosest definition of the word. But it’s more than some of his fellow 2024 hopefuls have been able to muster.
Ron DeSantis—who is polling a distant second behind Trump, and has been on the receiving end of his most impassioned vitriol—reacted to the former president’s indictment with the usual nonsense about Trump being the victim of a political prosecution. “I think it’s an example of this criminalization of politics,” the Florida governor claimed. (That's in keeping with his campaign's curious debate strategy, as reported by the New York Times Thursday, to “defend Donald Trump.”) Vivek Ramaswamy, who is nipping at DeSantis’s heels, chimed in with some drivel of his own. “As someone who’s running for President against Trump,” he said, “I’d volunteer to write the amicus brief to the court myself: prosecutors should not be deciding U.S. presidential elections.” That, of course, is not at all what’s happening. But don’t tell that to South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, who has tried to position himself as the most unifying of this rag-tag bunch of Republican aspirants, but has barely made a blip in the polls: “We see the legal system being weaponized against political opponents,” Scott told reporters at the Iowa State Fair. “That is un-American and unacceptable.”
Compared to all that, Pence’s boilerplate “no one’s above the law” statement almost sounds assertive.
It isn’t, of course. This new, bold Pence still hasn’t gone to the lengths Chris Christie, Will Hurd, and Asa Hutchinson have (though Christie did say he viewed Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s decision to prosecute the former president as “unnecessary,” given his earlier federal indictment by Jack Smith on similar charges). But those candidates are running specifically as anti-Trump Republicans, and none have made much of an impression on the polls so far (though Christie did pull ahead of DeSantis in New Hampshire in one Emerson College survey). To defy Trump even a little would, for Pence, constitute something of a shift in his political identity.
Which is probably for the best. That identity—as Trump’s top toady—has the former vice president averaging just over five percent in polls, not much better than Nikki Haley, who has spent her campaign trying to walk a similar tightrope as Pence: running against Trump without upsetting him or his movement too much. That might keep them from getting some dopey nickname hurled at them on Truth Social. But it does nothing to rationalize the existence of their campaigns, let alone give them a real shot at besting Trump.
Is this actually “let’s-get-it-on time” for Pence? We’ll see. But if not now, as Trump prepares for his fourth arraignment in as many months, it’s hard to imagine it ever will be. | US Federal Elections |
Evangelical leaders flock to Speaker JohnsonThe Louisiana Republican has deep ties to evangelical leaders, including pastors who hold anti-democratic views and helped fuel the Jan. 6th Capitol riot as a battle for God to save America.
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has close ties to the evangelical movement, including some fringe elements.
AP
hide caption
toggle caption
AP
House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., has close ties to the evangelical movement, including some fringe elements.
AP
Mike Johnson's surprise rise to the speakership after weeks of bitter party infighting was cause for celebration for Pastor Dutch Sheets.
"God has given us a miracle in the election of Congressman Michael Johnson to this position. He's a godly man, raised up for such a time as this," Sheets said in his Oct. 27 "Give Him 15" daily prayer broadcast. "I do not know him, but have several friends who do, who attest to his qualifications, integrity and heart for the Lord."
There's nothing unusual in American politics about religious leaders praying for politicians or holding a fundamental view that God's divine hand is at play in the creation and existence of America.
But Sheets is not a traditional Christian pastor.
"Dutch Sheets did more, in my estimation, than any Christian leader to organize Christians for January 6th," said Matthew D. Taylor, a senior scholar at The Institute for Islamic, Christian, and Jewish Studies. Taylor has a forthcoming book on the role Christian extremism played in efforts to fraudulently overturn the 2020 election and fuel the attack on the U.S. Capitol.
Johnson may not know Sheets personally, but they have deep ties to a network of religious leaders who have advocated to end or weaken the separation of church and state, and for Christianity to play a more dominant role governing society. Taken to its extreme — as it was by some adherents on Jan. 6th — it embraces anti-democratic means to achieve their end. Johnson's rapid elevation to the height of power in Washington gives allies of this movement --who also boast close ties with presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump --direct lines to leaders of the Republican Party.
The speaker's office did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
Sheets is a leading figure among a faction of once-fringe Christian evangelical and Pentecostal leaders affiliated with the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, an ideology that has existed for decades on the fringes of the religious right.Adherents of this ideology have risen in prominence and power since the 2016 election of Donald Trump, in which he became an unlikely hero of the Christian right and cultivated relationships with leaders in the NAR movement.
NAR apostles and prophets, as NAR leaders often refer to themselves, ultimately want to end or weaken the separation of church and state. Many embrace a concept known as "the Seven Mountains mandate" which says Christians have a duty to God to take control of the seven pillars of society: business, education, entertainment, family, government, media and religion.
The speaker has affiliated himself with some of Sheets' ideological allies in the NAR movement, including Pastor Jim Garlow. He hosts regular World Prayer Network livestreams in which Johnson has been a frequent guest. In an Aug. 9 broadcast, Garlow said Johnson "ranks up there in the top 1 percentile" in Congress and has "worked with us very closely."
Johnson, in turn, praised Garlow. "I'm so grateful for the ministry and your faithfulness. It's a great encouragement to me and others who are serving in these sometimes rocky corners of the Lord's vineyard."
Garlow was part of a group of religious leaders who hosted dozens of online global prayer sessions for "U.S. election integrity" which promoted false claims of election fraud and hosted prominent figures in the effort to overturn the election including Trump's former lawyer Sidney Powell, who pleaded guilty last month in a Georgia court to six counts of conspiracy to commit election interference.
For his part, Johnson's effort to help overturn the election is well documented. A constitutional lawyer by trade, Johnson wrote the supporting brief on behalf of House Republicans asking the Supreme Court to block the Electoral College certification in certain key states Biden won. The court rejected the case. Johnson also voted against certifying the 2020 election in the House.
Johnson's faith could help him govern in today's GOP
The Christian Right has not had as close an ally and evangelist in House leadership since former Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a controversial and pugilistic figure who campaigned against a "war on Christianity" and embraced religious activists throughout his political tenure that ended in 2006.
Johnson brings a wholly different persona to the leadership table. "He's a hard person to dislike. I mean, if you don't like Speaker Johnson, you don't like puppy dogs. He's just a charming, affable and kind person. And that's that's a hard target in politics," said Mike Franc, a veteran conservative GOP operative and former House Republican leadership aide.
While Johnson's religious ties will likely bring scrutiny from political opponents and the broader public, it can also be an asset in leadership where many rank-and-file Republicans share Johnson's faith and worldview.
"When there's a strong bond based on religiosity, it creates a level of trust and a kind of trust that extends way beyond issues that fall within, say, the social conservative silo," Franc said. "If his colleagues actually trust his judgment because they share bonds that might be based on religiosity, so much the better for him in his ability to lead and to be able to, more importantly, maybe even ask his colleagues in the Republican conference to take a tough vote here and there."
Timothy Head is the executive director for Ralph Reed's Faith and Freedom Coalition, a long-established Christian outfit that works to organize and motivate evangelical and faith-based conservative voters. Head told NPR that while Johnson was not a household name, his elevation to speaker would likely soon make him one — particularly in evangelical circles.
"I think that he will excite evangelical voters. Once people learn his full biography and frankly, his personal story," said Head.
Johnson's faith dictates his political views — with limits
Johnson's Southern Baptist faith and activism are central to his political life and rise. Prior to his 2016 election to Congress, Johnson spent much of his earlier professional life as a constitutional lawyer who worked for conservative Christian causes, including the Alliance Defending Freedom, which opposes gay rights.
Johnson speaks openly and comfortably about his faith. "I am a Bible-believing Christian," he told Sean Hannity in his first interview as speaker. "Someone asked me today in the media, they said, 'It's curious. People are curious. What does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?' I said, 'Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it.' That's my worldview. That's what I'm believe."
In the same interview, Johnson tamped down speculation that he would use the speakership to advance socially conservative causes he's worked for in the past. He said he sees the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage as settled law. "I respect that, and we move forward," he said. He also suggested abortion legislation, such as a national 15-week ban, would not be a priority in this Congress, where "the frontline matters" involve the economy, foreign policy and border security. "The rest of these things, they're just using for political attacks," he said.
Where Johnson has been less clear is in his willingness to talk about his role in helping Trump overturn the 2020 election, or clarifying if he views Joe Biden as the legitimately elected president of the United States. A reporter who tried to ask him a question about it the night he secured the speaker's nomination was booed down by Republican lawmakers.
Johnson did give an extended interview on the topic in Dec. 2020 to The New Yorker. "I don't see a grand conspiracy," he said then, "Whether it was stolen or not, the fact that such a huge swath of the country believes that it was is something that should keep all of us up at night."
Johnson's role in the 2020 election fight was not an issue for Republicans who opposed efforts to overturn the election. "I think it's a mistake, but I think people make mistakes and can still be really good speakers," Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., told CNN.
The Religious Right and the future of the GOP
There's no way to understand the Republican Party and the forces involved in the 2024 election without understanding the fracturing within the evangelical movement that is unfolding in real time, says Marvin Olasky.
He would know. A leading evangelical thinker, writer and journalist, Olasky was a long-time editor of the Christian news publication World. He's been called the godfather of "compassionate conservatism," the ethos for social programs and governance that defined the George W. Bush-era GOP politics.
Olasky described it to NPR this way: Within the evangelical faith right now there is a wing that wants to live in a "Holy Land theme park" which is governed by strict biblical law, and those who want to live in a "Liberty theme park" which embraces pluralism, other faiths and the tenets of democracy.
"I like this country and I like the democratic process. And then there are other folks. And again, this is a civil war almost within Christianity who say, no, we want to achieve these ends and we'll do it by any means necessary," he said. "I have to say that compassionate conservatism is out of business these days, and in a sense, cruel conservatism is ascendant."
Johnson's elevation means the "any means necessary" wing now has a direct line to the speaker and — as Pastor Garlow noted in a recent Facebook post — "and is 2nd in line for the Presidency. Praise God!!!!"
This point is key for Taylor.
"There's plenty of room in democracy and in pluralism for people with extreme views, as long as they're willing to play by the rules, as long as they're willing to say: You win some and you lose some in elections, but the rules are what they are," he said, noting that this view is not shared with NAR adherents, and those that played a role in trying to undermine the 2020 election. "What fueled January 6th was a willingness to throw out the rules, a willingness to get rid of the rules of pluralistic democracy, to overturn an election that every court that looked at it said was perfectly valid."
Johnson to play a leading role in the 2024 election
Should he make it that long as speaker, Johnson now has a powerful bully pulpit for the 2024 election in which Donald Trump is likely to be the nominee. Trump still rejects the outcome of the 2020 election and is under federal and state criminal indictments for his efforts to overturn it.
While Johnson's close ties to leaders in the NAR movement are easily documented (as Taylor does in this recent column for The Bulwark), he does not share their rhetoric. "I have no agenda other than what's best for the American people and to defend the rule of law, and that's what we're doing," he told Hannity.
Taylor says that a critical point is that this fringe evangelical wing has become so influential, it can't be ignored. "I don't see Mike Johnson as some sort of like, 'oh, man, he is really a crazy person from the margins and an outlier in this world,' " Taylor said. "I think he's just a signal of what it looks like to be a right-wing Christian politician these days is these are the people that you hang out with. These are the people that support you."
"An Appeal to Heaven" flag, a symbol embraced in recent years by Christian Nationalists, hangs outside Speaker Mike Johnson's congressional office.
Eric McDaniel/NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Eric McDaniel/NPR
"An Appeal to Heaven" flag, a symbol embraced in recent years by Christian Nationalists, hangs outside Speaker Mike Johnson's congressional office.
Eric McDaniel/NPR
Taylor noted that Johnson has also embraced certain symbolism of the far-right movement that has been popularized by pastors like Sheets. One of those is the "An Appeal to Heaven" flag, which is a white flag with a green pine tree in the center that dates back to the Revolutionary War. It has become a symbol for Christian Nationalists and was carried by people who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6.
"I don't know how much Mike Johnson buys into any of that, but he's definitely sending overt signals to these extremist networks of Christians that he is in solidarity with them," he said.
The flag still hangs outside of his congressional office in the Cannon building. | US Congress |
Trump vows to appeal reimposed gag order: ‘It will not stand!’
Former President Trump vowed to appeal the gag order reimposed late Sunday by a federal judge in his election interference case, calling the decision unconstitutional and politically motivated.
Trump went on a lengthy social media rant shortly after the decision was posted, calling U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan a “very Biased, Trump Hating Judge” and claiming that the gag order will put him at a “disadvantage” in his legal battles and on the campaign trail. He again said that the gag order violates his First Amendment rights, an argument his legal team has pressed.
“This order, according to many legal scholars, is unthinkable! It illegally and unconstitutionally takes away my First Amendment Right of Free Speech, in the middle of my campaign for President, where I am leading against BOTH Parties in the Polls,” he wrote on Truth Social.
“Few can believe this is happening, but I will appeal. How can they tell the leading candidate that he, and only he, is seriously restricted from campaigning in a free and open manner? It will not stand!” he added.
Chutkan, who is overseeing the federal election interference case, reinstated the gag order nine days after she temporarily lifted it to allow for Trump and his lawyers to appeal the ruling. The order, which bars Trump from making certain public statements about witnesses and prosecutors, was initially put in place on Oct. 16.
In a separate post late Sunday on Truth Social, the former president questioned the timing of the cases brought against him by the Justice Department, claiming that the decision to file them during the presidential campaign season was to hurt his election bid.
“Why didn’t Crooked Joe Biden tell his Injustice Department to file the lawsuits and Indictments against me 3 years ago, instead of right in the middle of my campaign for President? You’re setting a BAD precedent for yourself, Joe. The same can happen to you,” he wrote.
“These Third World Biden Indictments, which should never have been filed, would have been tried and over with years ago. My SleazeBag Opponent shouldn’t be able to do this during my campaign, OR BEFORE THE ELECTION!” Trump added.
Prosecutors argued in a recent court filing that the court should reimpose the gag order “to prevent such harmful and prejudicial conduct.”
Trump pleaded not guilty to four felony accounts in the federal election interference case that accused him of engaging in multiple criminal conspiracies to stay in power after losing the presidential election in 2020.
–Updated at 7:37 a.m.
Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. | US Federal Elections |
The following content is sponsored by the Electronic Payments Coalition.
Financial fraud is on the rise. Thousands of criminals work day-and-night to try to get your credit card information and personal information. Hackers in China, Russia, and a host of other countries have realized how lucrative it is to gain someone’s financial information and quickly make purchases before it’s shut down. It’s why card networks, banks, and credit unions have invested hundreds of millions in tracking and trying to prevent fraud.
But, in a surprise to no one, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois doesn’t really care. His latest bill will put Americans at greater risk of being hacked and exposed to foreign payment networks. Sen. Durbin for years has done the bidding of Walmart and Target, who would prefer not to run payments over secure, more expensive networks, but would rather route customer’s payments overseas which is much cheaper but also way less secure.
But Walmart and Target can’t just do this on their own. They need a new law that allows the Federal Reserve to control how payments are processed so that they can ignore the current requirements of brand-name cards like Visa and Mastercard. They are working hard to lobby senators on the left and right to do them this favor. What they’re leaving out of their lobbying pitch is that it will put American consumers at risk.
If you pay for something at a store with a credit card, the retailer currently has to use the routing network of whatever card you give them, if they choose to accept credit cards. So, if you picked out a Mastercard or Visa card because of its security guarantees and perks, you know that your financial information is being safely routed over their network with their 21st century technology. This new law on the table will destroy that security. If it moves forward, retailers will be able to ignore your preferred network and instead pick an alternative network of their choice. It’ll be cheaper but also lead to an increase in fraud and a headache for all involved.
Fraud is already a major problem for consumers. Unfortunately, retailers have an extremely poor track record of protecting their customers. The Target data breach is one that immediately comes to mind for a lot of people. Through a third-party vendor Target used, hackers stole the data of up to 40 million credit and debit cards. Nearly every state attorney across the country sued Target on behalf of consumers, and Target had to pay out millions in settlements. And it wasn’t just the credit card information compromised. Reportedly 70 million customers had personal information compromised including addresses and phone numbers.
Another example that comes to mind is Wawa. If you aren’t familiar with the brand, imagine your typical 7-11 or neighborhood convenience store. Wawa has hundreds of stores and gas stations up and down the east coast. Hackers deployed malware on Wawa’s point-of-sale systems, allowing access to payment card data. Although Wawa didn’t admit wrongdoing, they agreed to settlements after multiple states attorney generals sued, alleging that Wawa did not have reasonable security measures in place.
So why should we trust retailers and the federal government to control how the payments system works? It is clear retailers want this to save money and pad their profits. Sen. Durbin wants to see the government grow in its control of payments and doesn’t mind doing a favor for big-box stores. It’ll be up to consumers to shout from the rooftops how dangerous this is to their financial security. | US Federal Policies |
Joe Manchin speaks with reporters on Capitol Hill, January 2021.Jose Luis Magana/AP This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.
Within the brutal machinations of US politics, Joe Manchin has been elevated to a status of supreme decision-maker, the man who could make or break Joe Biden’s presidency.
Internationally, however, the Democratic senator’s new fame has been received with puzzlement and growing bitterness, as countries already ravaged by the climate crisis brace themselves for the US—history’s largest ever emitter of planet-heating gases—again failing to pass major climate legislation.
For six months, Manchin has refused to support a sweeping bill to lower emissions, stymieing its progress in an evenly split US Senate where Republicans uniformly oppose climate action. Failure to pass the Build Back Better Act risks wounding Biden politically but the ramifications reverberate far beyond Washington, particularly in developing countries increasingly at the mercy of disastrous climate change.
“He’s a villain, he’s a threat to the globe,” said Saleemul Huq, director of the International Centre for Climate Change and Development, based in Bangladesh. “If you talk to the average citizen in Dhaka, they will know who Joe Manchin is. The level of knowledge of American politics here is absolutely amazing, we know about the filibuster and the Senate and so on.
“What the Americans do or don’t do on climate will impact the world and it’s incredible that this one coal lobbyist is holding things up. It will cause very bad consequences for us in Bangladesh, unfortunately.”
The often tortuous negotiations between Manchin, the White House and Democratic leaders appeared doomed on December 19, when the West Virginia senator said he could not support the $1.75 trillion bill, citing concerns over inflation and the national debt. The latest twist caused anguish to those who see their futures being decided by a previously obscure politician located thousands of miles away. “I’ve been following the situation closely,” said Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands, a low-lying Pacific nation that risks being wiped out by rising sea levels. “We have to halve emissions in this decade and can’t do it without strong, immediate action by the US.”
Stege said the Marshall Islands was already suffering the impacts of the climate crisis and if the US doesn’t slash its emissions “the outcomes for countries like mine are unthinkable.” | US Federal Policies |
Washington — The Supreme Court is hearing arguments Tuesday in ainvolving President Biden's plan to cancel up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of Americans, as a constitutional and political showdown over the future of the program arrives before the justices.
Though a decision from the court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, isn't expected until this summer, the outcome will affect roughly 40 million borrowers who are eligible for the relief that President Biden, 20 million of whom stand to have their loan balances eliminated altogether, according to White House estimates.
The debt forgiveness initiative fulfilled a major campaign promise from the president, who faced pressure from some congressional Democrats and activists to take action to help the 43 million borrowers feeling the economic strains of the COVID-19 pandemic. Outside the court before the start of arguments, advocacy organizations gathered to rally in support of the program.
Under the plan, eligible borrowers earning less than $125,000 can receive up to $10,000 in student debt relief, and qualifying Pell Grant recipients, who are students with the greatest financial need, can have up to an additional $10,000 forgiven.
Mr. Biden's student loan forgiveness program would wipe out $430 billion in student debt, but it was met swiftly by legal challenges from a group of six states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Kentucky and South Carolina — and two borrowers from Texas, who separately argued the plan exceeds the administration's authority.
The justices will consider two questions when they convene for arguments: whether the states and borrowers have the legal right (or "standing") to challenge the program, and whether the Biden administration exceeded its authority with its debt relief plan.
In the case brought by the six states, a federal district court in St. Louis dismissed the case for lack of standing. But a federal appeals court, finding that "Missouri is harmed from the financial losses that the cancellation inflicts."
The appeals court focused its decision on the Higher Education Loan Authority of the State of Missouri, or MOHELA, a state-created entity that services federal student loans, finding that the financial impact on the loan servicer due to the debt discharge threatened financial harm to Missouri.
For the second case from Texas brought by borrowers Myra Brown and Alexander Taylor, a federal district court found the borrowers satisfied the requirements for standing and ruled the plan is an unconstitutional exercise of Congress's legislative power. A federal appeals court declined to reinstate the program.
Brown does not qualify for debt relief, as her loans are held by commercial entities, and Taylor is eligible for $10,000 in loan forgiveness.
The Biden administration has argued in court papers that neither the states nor the borrowers have legal standing to challenge the debt relief program. Any harm to the states' treasuries is "self-inflicted" and their theory of decreased tax revenues "unduly speculative," according to Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who will argue on behalf of the Department of Education. With regards to Missouri and MOHELA, the two are "legally separate entities," she said.
But Missouri argues the student debt relief program will inflict "substantial financial losses" on MOHELA and therefore injure the state, while the other states involved in the case claim they will lose tax revenues as a result of the program.
The states also argue the program is unlawful, as it was not authorized by the 2003 law the Biden administration said gives it the power to cancel student loan debt.
That law, the HEROES ACT, authorizes the education secretary to "waive or modify" student financial assistance programs for borrowers "in connection" with a war, military operation or national emergency, such as the pandemic.
Mr. Biden announced his student debt forgiveness plan last August, and in the less than four weeks that the application was available, more than 26.2 million people applied. Over 16 million of those applications were approved by the Department of Education, according to the White House. The Trump administration, followed by the Biden administration, paused federal student-loan payments during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the most recent extension running through June. | SCOTUS |
Rogelio V. Solis/AP
toggle caption
A poll worker in Brandon, Miss., right, hands an "I Voted" sticker to a person who filled out a ballot on Nov. 8, 2022.
Rogelio V. Solis/AP
A poll worker in Brandon, Miss., right, hands an "I Voted" sticker to a person who filled out a ballot on Nov. 8, 2022.
Rogelio V. Solis/AP
Disability and voting rights advocates are asking a federal court to block a measure in Mississippi, set to go into effect next week, that creates new restrictions for people who need assistance voting by mail.
Senate Bill 2358 limits who can collect and transmit a ballot that was mailed to someone else. In Mississippi, the state's absentee-by-mail voting program is for limited groups of voters — people out of town on Election Day, people 65 or older and people with a temporary or permanent physical disability.
Under the new law, which goes into effect July 1, only election officials, postal workers, a family member or household member or a caregiver can assist these voters in mailing back their ballot.
Violating these new restrictions is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year in county jail and/or a fine of up to $3,000.
Supporters of the Mississippi law say it's aimed at preventing ballot harvesting, which is when someone collects and returns other people's ballots.
Many Republicans have argued this practice leads to vote stealing and fraud, which studies have found are extremely rare in United States elections.
Mississippi GOP Gov. Tate Reeves, who signed the bill into law earlier this year, said in a video address that across the country "bad actors have used ballot harvesting to take advantage of elderly and vulnerable voters" in an effort to "circumvent" the democratic process.
"Senate Bill 2358 is now law and Mississippi's elections are safer because of it," Reeves said.
The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Jeff Tate, did not reply to a request for comment.
In recent years, Republicans have decried "ballot harvesting"
A similar bill in Alabama that would crack down on absentee ballot assistance passed the state House this year, but failed to get a final vote in the Senate.
For several years, Republicans have pushed back against ballot collection in certain instances, and that rhetoric ramped up during the pandemic ahead of the 2020 election, due in large part to misinformation shared by former President Donald Trump.
More recently, though, some Republicans, including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have said the party needs to embrace "ballot harvesting where legal."
Ahmed Soussi, a staff attorney with the Southern Poverty Law Center, told NPR that legislation similar to Mississippi's has passed in other states in the South, and around the country. He said these kinds of restrictions are rooted in misinformation and create barriers for voters who need help casting mail ballots.
"Voter assistance does not mean voter fraud or people trying to come in and change votes," Soussi said. "We want to make sure everyone is able to vote and some people need assistance."
Plaintiffs express confidence the law will be struck down
Last month, a voter who requires assistance returning their ballot, two Mississippians who have provided voting assistance to their friends and neighbors — as well as Disability Rights Mississippi and the League of Women Voters of Mississippi — sued the state in federal court, arguing the new law violates federal voting protections for people with disabilities.
"Recognizing that voters with disabilities and other challenges are disproportionately denied access to voting," plaintiffs say in their legal challenge, "Congress has specifically amended the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to ensure that people who require assistance in voting due to disability, blindness, or inability to read or write can receive assistance from someone they trust."
Soussi said Mississippi's law violates a voter's right to choose who helps them cast a ballot.
"Some people don't have a family member or household member or caregiver close by," he said. "Sometimes people rely on their neighbor. Sometimes they rely on a friend."
State officials who are defendants in this case wrote in a filing that SB 2358 doesn't run afoul of federal protections for voters with disabilities. They also argue that the state has a protected interest in safeguarding its elections.
"The Supreme Court has been clear that a state has a compelling interest in preserving the integrity of its election process," defendants argued. "S.B. 2358 inherently reflects this compelling interest by prohibiting ballot harvesting. And the State is harmed any time a state law is enjoined by a federal court on behalf of a handful of plaintiffs. This is particularly true with respect to protecting the integrity of elections in Mississippi."
Soussi said across the country federal courts have struck down a slew of similar laws that create new barriers for voters who need assistance. Last year, a federal judge in Texas struck down similar limits in that state. A similar ruling was issued for a Wisconsin law that same year.
"The courts have shown little tolerance of any narrowing of [this] right, which does give us confidence," Soussi said.
Plaintiffs in this case are asking the court to block the law ahead of the state's August primary election. Mail ballots for that election are expected to go out as early as late July. | US Federal Policies |
- Ted Cruz's highest-profile 2024 Democratic challenger says the Texas senator is podcasting too much.
- But Cruz argues that hosting a thrice-weekly podcast is "critical" to being effective as a senator.
- "That is not somehow peripheral to doing the job," said Cruz. "It is integral to doing the job."
Sen. Ted Cruz is, without a doubt, the single most prolific podcaster on Capitol Hill: every single week, he releases three episodes of "Verdict," each of which last anywhere from thirty minutes to more than an hour.
"It takes quite a bit of time," Cruz acknowledged during a brief interview with Insider at the Capitol on Thursday. "I work seven days a week communicating and defending the values of the people of Texas."
But as the Texas Republican seeks a third term in 2024, his first high-profile Democratic challenger — Rep. Colin Allred — is hoping to make Cruz's highly-successful side-hustle into a political liability.
"He's honestly busier being a podcaster — which he does three times a week — than actually being a senator," said Allred during an interview on MSNBC on Wednesday evening.
—Acyn (@Acyn) May 4, 2023
"I am personally insulted by the fact that this guy's doing three podcasts a week," said Allred on a podcast appearance in March, well before he launched his campaign. "I represent a little bit less than a million Texans. He represents 30 million. I am so busy."
"He's a content machine, he's not a legislative machine," Allred added.
'It is integral to doing the job'
Cruz wasn't always a podcasting maestro.
The Texas senator began the project over three years ago, during former President Donald Trump's first impeachment trial.
"It became the number one ranked podcast in the world at the time, because people found it valuable to understand what was happening in the Senate," Cruz told Insider. "That is not somehow peripheral to doing the job. It is integral to doing the job."
Though some other lawmakers also host podcasts, Cruz is well ahead of the pack in terms of the sheer volume of podcasting he does. The next most-prolific podcaster besides Cruz may be Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who releases episodes on a weekly basis.
Occasionally, the podcast has been a source of headaches. In December, the Campaign Legal Center alleged that Cruz's arrangement with iHeartMedia violates a rule prohibiting senators from accepting gifts from registered lobbyists. And in March, his former co-host called for the eradication of "transgenderism," prompting Cruz to repeatedly dodge questions on the topic.
Allred, a third-term lawmaker and former NFL linebacker who represents a Dallas-area House seat, is suggesting that Cruz's podcast self-promoting endeavor that detracts from the serious job of legislating and delivering constituent services.
But Cruz, who does not derive any personal income from the project, argues that it's just part of communicating with the world.
"Congressman Allred's idea that communicating with voters is somehow separate from the job is a bizarre and frankly silly idea," said Cruz. "The podcast is an incredibly valuable tool to explain the issues facing America."
He added that podcasts have a "potency" that other mediums lack, allowing him to get into "real substance."
"If you go do like a TV hit, which I do every week, you're on on for six, eight minutes. You have a soundbite or two, and there's value to that, but you can't really sit down and explain an issue in substance," said Cruz. "What I like about the podcast is sometimes the podcast is 20-30 minutes, sometimes it's an hour, depends on what the issue is." | US Federal Elections |
A practice used by some, if not all, Arizona counties to verify signatures on early ballots may be illegal.
And that could result in election officials across the state have to change their procedures – and potentially result in more signatures on ballot envelopes being questioned.
Yavapai County Superior Court Judge John Napper, a Republican, said state law is “clear and unambiguous” that election officials must compare the signatures on the envelopes with the voter’s actual registration record. And that, he said, consists only of the document signed when a person first registered along with subsequent changes for things like altering party affiliation.
And what that means, the judge said, is it is illegal for county election officials to instead use other documents to determine if the signature on that ballot envelope is correct and should be accepted.
Napper’s conclusion is not the last word.
Strictly speaking, he only rejected efforts by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes to have the lawsuit by two groups challenging the process thrown out. Napper has not issued a final order.
“We look forward to the issue being litigated,” said Paul Smith-Leonard, spokesman for Fontes.
But the judge, in his ruling, made it clear that he is not buying arguments by the secretary of state that the rules in the Elections Procedures Manual allowing the comparison of signatures against other documents – the practice now widely in use – complies with what state law clearly requires.
And Kory Langhofer, who represents those challenging the practice, said Napper’s refusal to dismiss the case means “there’s nothing left to fight about.”
Central to the fight is a section of law which requires the county recorder, on receiving early ballots, to “compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.”
Langhofer, in his court filing, acknowledged that there is nothing in state law that explicitly defines what is a “registration record.”
But he argued that “most naturally” means the state or federal documents by which someone signs up to vote and provides certain other information. And what it also includes, Langhofer said, are updated state or federal forms.
Only thing is, he said, is the most recent version of the Elections Procedures Manual, prepared by the Secretary of State’s Office, says county recorders “should also consult additional known signatures from other official election documents in the voter’s registration record, such as signature rosters or early ballot request forms.”
In some cases, Langhofer said, counties are using signatures on early ballot envelopes from prior elections for their comparisons.
Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cazares-Kelly doesn’t go that far. But she said her office relies on much more than the voter registration record.
It starts, she said, with the fact that some people register to vote when they get a driver’s license. But those licenses, she noted, can be good for up to 45 years.
“As everybody should know, signatures vary by time and place and how much time you have,” Cazares-Kelly said. “You will change your signature a number of times throughout your life, going from adolescent to full adulthood.”
And she said even her own signature changes given having to sign “a hundred documents a day.”
So other documents can be helpful.
“We receive other notifications from the voters,” Cazares-Kelly said.
“Every single time we receive something in writing, it goes into their voter file,” she continued. “So every single thing that has a signature on it, it is another indication, another touch point, another opportunity to update what those signatures look like.
Cochise County Recorder David Stevens said his office also relies on signatures on other correspondence it has received from a voter. He also said that ballot signatures can be compared with those on file with the Motor Vehicle Division.
Fontes, in asking Napper to dismiss the lawsuit, argued that other documents listed as acceptable in the Elections Procedures Manual are within the definition of a “registration record.” And if the judge wasn’t buying that, Fontes said that phrase is ambiguous, meaning that the manual can interpret it as part of his duties.
Napper was having none of that.
“The language of the statute is clear and unambiguous,” the judge wrote. “The common meaning of ‘registration’ in the English language is to sign up to participate in an activity.”
And Napper derided the idea that other documents submitted by a voter fit that definition.
“No English speaker would linguistically confuse the acting of signing up to participate in an event with the act of participating in the event,” the judge wrote.
“Registering to attend law school is not the same as attending class,” he continued. “Registering to vote is not the same as voting.”
Nor was Napper impressed by the claim that the phrase “registration record” is ambiguous, allowing the secretary of state some latitude to interpret it.
“Pursuant to the statute, the recorder is to compare the signature on the envelope with the voter’s prior registration,” he said, quoting from the law. “If they match, then the vote is counted.”
The judge also noted there is a procedure in state law that allows county election officials, if they question whether a signature on a ballot matches the official record, to contact the voter. That allows the voter to verify that it is his or her signature and offer an explanation that could be related to age, illness or injury.
Langhofer represents the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. It has backed various measures to impose new identification requirements on voters while opposing efforts to restore the state’s permanent early voting list.
Also suing is an organization called Restoring Integrity and Trust in Elections. It bills itself as opposing laws changes in election laws that seek to give one group a partisan advantage and enforcing “constitutional standards against voting laws and procedures that threaten or dilute the right of qualified citizens to vote.”
Reuters says that that founders of RITE, formed last year, include former U.S. Attorney General William Barr, Karl Rove who was a top adviser to former President George W. Bush, and hotelier Steve Wynn.
l | US Federal Elections |
Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) appears to be teetering on the edge of dropping his sweeping blockade against high-level military confirmations, which would bring his nearly 10-month standoff to a close just as his Republican colleagues were beginning to murmur about forcing his hand.
The far-right Alabama senator, speaking to reporters on Thursday, suggested that he would allow the promotions through “in the very near future,” even as early as next week—but that he would continue to bar nominees he considers “woke.”
“I think that we need to make sure that people that are our generals and admirals should be vetted to some degree,” Tuberville said, according to CNN, “but also understand that we need to get these people promoted, and it’s been a long time for some of them.” He did not mention that he was the sole reason for that delay.
Tuberville launched his blockade in protest of a Pentagon policy that ensures abortion access, including time off and travel reimbursement, for service members. The blockade has held up more than 350 nominations since February. This week, however, the senator began singing a markedly different tune. On Tuesday, he reportedly told his Republican colleagues at a closed door lunch that he was formulating an exit strategy.
“Listen, everyone. I got y’all into this mess. I’m gonna get you out,” he said, according to Punchbowl News.
A day later, the senator told Politico that he was considering backing down “soon, but not today.”
“Trying to get some kind of resolution before we get home for Christmas, we’ve got a couple of weeks,” he added. “We’ve got to do this the right way. It’s been 10 months. I want to get this over with too, if we do it the right way.”
Tuberville’s change of heart comes shortly after it was reported that fed-up Senate Democrats had begun plotting to outmaneuver him. Earlier this month, the Majority Leader Chuck Schumer led the chamber’s Democrats, along with Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-AZ), in crafting a resolution to circumvent Tuberville. The resolution would allow a temporary Senate process change in order to “swiftly confirm” the nominated military leaders as a bloc.
Tuberville on Thursday cast doubt on Schumer’s chances of amassing enough support to ram the resolution through.
“I saw today that Senator Schumer says he’s going ahead with the resolution. I don’t think he’s got the votes, so we’ll talk again today and probably Tuesday on the resolution,” he said.
But Tuberville’s actions have been met with frustration from both sides of the aisle, with members of his own party increasingly willing to criticize him for causing a “national security problem” by gumming up the works. Several Republican senators, including Dan Sullivan (AL) and Joni Ernst (IA), have taken to the floor to rail against the blockade.
The Alabama senator said he’d had “real good discussions” with his colleagues about the “proper way” to overcome the impasse, and suggested he planned to sit down with “a couple of” Democrats in the coming days.
“We do want to stand up for life and the taxpayers not having anything to do with abortion, and get these people that need to be promoted, promoted,” he added. | US Congress |
WASHINGTON -- The federal judge overseeing Donald Trump's 2020 election interference case in Washington on Sunday reimposed a narrow gag order barring him from making public comments targeting prosecutors, court staff and potential witnesses.
The reinstatement of the gag order was revealed in a brief notation on the online case docket Sunday night, but the order itself was not immediately available, making it impossible to see the judge’s rationale or the precise contours of the restrictions.
U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan, who is presiding over the federal case charging Trump with plotting to overturn the results of the 2020 election, had temporarily lifted the gag order as she considered the former president's request to keep it on hold while he challenges the restrictions on his speech in higher courts.
But Chutkan agreed to reinstate the order after prosecutors cited Trump's recent social media comments about his former chief of staff they said represented an attempt to influence and intimidate a likely witness in the case.
The order is a fresh reminder that Trump's penchant for incendiary and bitter rants about the four criminal cases that he's facing, though politically beneficial in rallying his supporters as he seeks to reclaim the White House, carry practical consequences in court. Two separate judges have now imposed orders mandating that he rein in his speech, with the jurist presiding over a civil fraud trial in New York issuing a monetary fine last week.
A request for comment was sent Sunday to a Trump attorney, Todd Blanche. Trump in a social media post late Sunday acknowledged that the gag order was back in place, calling it “NOT CONSITUTIONAL!”
Trump's lawyers have said they will seek an emergency stay of the order from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The defense has said Trump is entitled to criticize prosecutors and “speak truth to oppression."
Trump has denied any wrongdoing in the case. He has made a central part of his 2024 campaign for president vilifying special counsel Jack Smith and others involved the criminal cases against him, casting himself as the victim of a politicized justice system.
Prosecutors have said Trump's verbal attacks threaten to undermine the integrity of the case and risk inspiring his supporters to violence.
Smith's team said Trump took advantage of the recent lifting of the gag order to “send an unmistakable and threatening message” to his former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, who was reported by ABC News to have received immunity to testify before a grand jury.
The former president mused on social media about the possibility that Meadows would give testimony to Smith in exchange for immunity. One part of the post said: “Some people would make that deal, but they are weaklings and cowards, and so bad for the future our Failing Nation. I don’t think that Mark Meadows is one of them but who really knows?”
In a separate case, Trump was fined last week $10,000 after the judge in his civil fraud trial in New York said the former president had violated a gag order.
___
Richer reported from Boston. | US Federal Policies |
The prosecutor in Marion County, Kansas, said Wednesday that police should return all seized material to ain a case that has drawn national scrutiny of press freedom.
Marion County Attorney Joel Ensey said in a news release reviewed by CBS News that his review of police seizures from the Marion County Record found "insufficient evidence exists to establish a legally sufficient nexus between this alleged crime and the places searched and the items seized."
"As a result, I have submitted a proposed order asking the court to release the evidence seized. I have asked local law enforcement to return the material seized to the owners of the property," Ensey said.
Police raids on Friday of the newspaper's offices, and the home of editor and publisher Eric Meyer put the paper and the local police at the center of a national debate about press freedom, with watchdog groups condemning the police actions. The attention continued Wednesday — with TV and print reporters joining the conversation in what is normally a quiet community of about 1,900 residents.
The raids — which the publisher believes were carried out because the newspaper was investigating the police chief's background — put Meyer and his staff in a difficult position. Because their computers were seized, they were forced to reconstruct stories, ads and other materials. Meyer also blamed stress from the raid at his home on the death Saturday of his 98-year-old mother, Joan, the paper's co-owner. The Record said that after the raid, Joan had been "stressed beyond her limits and overwhelmed by hours of shock and grief," asearlier this week.
Meyer"Gestapo tactics from World War II" and compared them to actions taken by "Third World dictators." He said that during the raids, one reporter's finger was injured when her cell phone was wrested out of her hand, and video footage shows the reporter being read her rights, though she was not detained or charged, according to prior CBS News reporting.
The search lasted about 90 minutes. Meanwhile, Meyer's home was searched. Officers seized computers, his internet router and his cellphone.
The raids exposed a divide over local politics and how the Record covers Marion, which sits about 150 miles (241 kilometers) southwest of Kansas City.
A warrant signed by a magistrate Friday about two hours before the raid said that local police sought to gather evidence of potential identity theft and other computer crimes stemming from a conflict between the newspaper and a local restaurant owner, Kari Newell.
Newell accused the newspaper of violating her privacy and illegally obtaining personal information about her as it checked her state driving record online. Meyer said the newspaper was looking into a tip — and ultimately decided not to write a story about Newell.
Still, Meyer said police seized a computer tower and cell phone belonging to a reporter who wasn't part of the effort to check on the business owner's background.
Rhodes said the newspaper was investigating the circumstances around Police Chief Gideon Cody's departure from his previous job as an officer in Kansas City, Missouri. Cody left the Kansas City department earlier this year and began the job in Marion in June. He has not responded to interview requests.
Asked if the newspaper's investigation of Cody may have had anything to do with the decision to raid it, Rhodes responded: "I think it is a remarkable coincidence if it didn't."
A frantic effort to publish despite setbacks
As the newspaper staff worked late into Tuesday night on the new edition, the office was so hectic that Kansas Press Association Executive Director Emily Bradbury was at once answering phones and ordering in meals for staffers.
Bradbury said the journalists and those involved in the business of the newspaper used a couple of old computers that police didn't confiscate, taking turns to get stories to the printer, to assemble ads and to check email. With electronics scarce, staffers made do with what they had.
"There were literally index cards going back and forth," said Bernie Rhodes, the newspaper's attorney, who was also in the office. "They had all the classified ads, all the legal notices that they had to recreate. All of those were on the computers."
At one point, a couple visiting from Arizona stopped at the front desk to buy a subscription, just to show their support, Bradbury said. Many others from around the country have purchased subscriptions since the raids; An office manager told Bradbury that she's having a hard time keeping up with demand."SEIZED … but not silenced," read the front-page headline in 2-inch-tall typeface.
for more features. | US Police Misconduct |
"To live outside the law, you must be honest.
— Bob Dylan
How screwed are we? I'll tell you.
On Wednesday, the news was all about a big bag of wind destroying Florida and flooding the South, spreading destruction and threatening pestilence and death.
Then there's Hurricane Idalia.
Also on Wednesday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell froze and stood motionless in front of an assembly of reporters — for the second time this summer — so that's encouraging.
But seriously, folks. Last Thursday, Donald Trump turned a 22-minute booking for a felony indictment in Georgia into a six-hour media special, complete with a larger motorcade than the actual president's — with dozens of camera lights on the runway and a chopper-talk session.
Meanwhile, Joe Biden, the aforementioned actual president, quietly lent assistance to Hawaii after the devastating wildfires on Maui, for which he was criticized by Republican members of Congress. He also met with international leaders at the White House this week, and went after Big Pharma to negotiate reduced Medicare prices for 10 common prescription drugs.
The press? Well, we completely missed the point, as usual, and covered every juvenile tantrum Donald Trump threw in his malevolent attempt to stay in the news. The context is missing. The press is failing us, and people are too ignorant to notice the problem. That's because we're busy dividing ourselves into teams of social cheerleaders, cheering on our champions and literally booing the opposition.
Welcome to politics 2023. One man, who claims to support Christian values, continues his run for the highest office in the land based on revenge and hypocrisy, while our president, a devout Catholic, is insulted by the likes of Ted Cruz, accused of being anti-Catholic and "the face of corruption" in a post on X (formerly Twitter). Biden, in case anyone cares, goes to church every Sunday. Trump never went once in his four years at the White House. Rumor was it would burst into flames if he did.
It would be easy to claim that all of this is new. But that would also be wrong. The seeds of today's political division and reporting began with Ronald Reagan.
While lying to the press, Reagan also set out to destroy it. He himself was quoted in the New York Times on Oct. 6, 1985, saying, "A substantial part of the political thing is acting and role playing and I know how to do that."
Of course that's literally all it is today.
What else is different?
Well, the press itself is different too. Reagan destroyed the FCC's "fairness doctrine" and encouraged media consolidation. Decades later, as social media rose to take the place of the corporate media's diminished role in providing vetted information, the slide accelerated.
People hiding behind anonymous handles rather than their actual names hurled insults and threats. Twitter offered "verified" names as a way to combat that — until Elon Musk took over and turned the verification process upside down, once again making anonymous insults and trolls fashionable.
Every tool used to legitimize and verify information in the last 40 years has evaporated under the push to make money. Fewer companies own most of the corporate media. Fewer independent news platforms exist — and they often get lumped in with bloggers and trolls.
The end result is chaos. Confusion.
We need your help to stay independent
That's how America became stupid. Neil deGrasse Tyson, while trying to address how the U.S. is being left behind in areas such as physics, math and engineering (not to mention infrastructure) observed in a recent speech that "Science illiteracy is rampant in our culture." When he addressed the problems of journalism, he pointed out a headline that read, "80 percent of airplane crash survivors had studied the locations of the exit doors on takeoff."
As Tyson noted, there are quite a few things wrong with that headline, including this: Did they manage to interview those people who didn't survive plane crashes? Another headline reported that half the schools in a certain district were "below average." No kidding: That's what "average" means. (OK, technically that would be the definition of 'median," but to insist on nuance now is pointless.)
Our inherent, vapid stupidity in the news business makes us sound more like characters in the 1970s novelty song"The Streak" than the diligent investigative reporters played by Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford in "All the President's Men."
That's right. We're just as proud as we can be of our anatomy and we're inviting public critique.
Too arcane? Try it this way: We don't get it.
The justice system's current big play is the last bid for accountability I'll see in my lifetime for Donald Trump, and by extension all those who hold power and are willing to break the law to keep it.
Donald Trump faces 91 felony charges in four different jurisdictions, brought by approximately 100 American citizens sitting on four different grand juries. This major play by the justice system is the last bid for accountability that I'll see in my lifetime for Donald Trump, and by extension for those who hold power and are willing to break the law in order to keep it. If it fails, then, quite literally, God help us. There will be no holding the rich and the powerful accountable — for anything, ever.
Meanwhile, Trump himself is desperate. He smells of it as surely as a "Supernatural" demon smells of sulfur. Yet we continue to give him a thin veneer of credibility by allowing him to claim that a legitimate prosecution is political persecution.
Who cares what Donald Trump thinks?
When Charles Manson went on trial for orchestrating a series of gruesome murders, we did not dance on the head of a pin for his demons. Is Trump a lesser demon? No. If anything, he's worse. His criminal activity has caused the suffering of millions, if not billions, across the planet and the fallout has only just begun.
We give his illegitimate political spawn, like Vivek Ramaswamy and Marjorie Taylor Greene, ample opportunity to propose bombing our allies for supplying drugs that millions of our citizens demand, while claiming climate change is a hoax. These minor demons are drafting off Trump while creating whole new lanes of lunacy.
In the corporate media, we keep fighting over competing inaccurate narratives while members of Congress contribute to the mayhem by "playing a role," as Ronald Reagan put it 40 years ago.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
The stupidity of the press is actually harder to decipher than the pandering of our politicians to constituents whom they view as fans of their fictional personas. Most of us are vaguely aware of the danger posed by Donald Trump. Some of us are acutely aware of it. But we're also insecure and ignorant and not sure how to write or speak about him. If we simply call him a liar and a charlatan, we risk being called partisan. If we don't show respect for "both sides," then we are sullying our reputation — unless of course we are overtly partisan, and in that case we don't care.
Either way, we flail about because of our inexperience. Everyone — even corporate news managers — say they wish we had more Walter Cronkites than Tucker Carlsons in the profession. You know, people with experience and common sense, rather than clowns chasing shadows.
Even corporate news managers say they wish they had more Walter Cronkites than Tucker Carlsons. But no one in TV would hire or promote someone like Cronkite today.
The very same managers who wistfully wish for the "good old days" do not hire or promote people like Walter Cronkite, particularly not in television. The grizzled beat reporter with vast experience has been replaced by smiling, blissfully ignorant and much cheaper talking heads who can either entice or enrage an audience with their good looks while sounding knowledgeable. They definitely aren't. We too have chased the Reagan model, and cover politics the same way politicians conduct their business: flash over substance.
You don't have to look at political reporters. Just look at how we cover natural disasters, like the hurricane in Florida. How many times have you heard a reporter tell an anchor during a live shot, "Great question!" That's usually a self-congratulatory comment, since the reporter has likely scripted the question for the anchor. The routine descriptions of all hurricanes, since I began covering them in the 1980s, includes cliché phrases like, "Never seen anything like this before" and "unparalleled destruction," while the reporters wade through flood waters trying to look brave.
Please. TV reporters have covered hurricanes and major weather events the same way since Dan Rather waded into the flood waters while covering Hurricane Carla for KHOU in 1961. His stunt reporting eventually led to him replacing Cronkite as the anchor of "CBS Evening News." Rather is revered today, but his contemporary peers often did not see him that way. He was a product of television, seen as a performer in his earlier years. He grew into his role and earned his stripes, but he was also the anchor who critics argue ushered in the new era of flash over substance. The fact that he's so respected today speaks not only to his growth as a reporter, but perhaps also to our lowered expectations of reporters.
But please: It's all about the Barbie movie! Or the horse race of politics, or the polls.
We can report on numbers and fictional characters. They are simple and clean. People are not. Covering people takes a lot of experience, an ability to understand nuances of speech, actions and culture. We have none of that today — either among the press or among politicians.
Former House Speaker Tip O'Neill said of Reagan that "he knows less than any president I've ever known." The joke that circulated around D.C. during his presidency was that Reagan had tried to defect to the Soviet Union but was sent back because "he didn't know anything." As a performer playing Reagan in the off-Broadway show "Rap Master Ronnie" put it, "If you're right 90 percent of the time, why quibble over the remaining three percent?"
John Wayne, a notorious conservative and longtime ally of Reagan's, wrote him a blistering letter in 1977 telling Reagan to stop misinforming people about the Panama Canal treaty. "I'll show you point by God damn point in the treaty where you are misinforming people. This is not my point of view against your point of view. These are facts," Wayne wrote.
Reagan didn't care. He played to the crowd he helped create, which has proliferated since he won the presidency in 1980. "You'd be surprised how much being a good actor pays off," he told the Washington Post in 1984.
Now you understand how Donald Trump and his minions can spout limitless hypocrisy and get away with it. And you understand how the press, which was once able to accurately point out the lies and hypocrisy, today cannot.
"Floating down the stream of time," George Harrison once told us "makes no difference where you are or where you'd like to be."
Yes. It is all too much.
We are led by aging and frail men and women who should step aside, or by grifters who con their constituents because they don't know or don't care about anything better.
And all of this is being reported by indifferent, insecure, ignorant and incompetent journalists whose only goal is to fill time, gain ratings and pretend they know what they're doing.
That's how screwed we are.
The only consolation is that if the Justice Department remains sound, then Donald Trump will likely spend his remaining years behind bars, staring at himself in the mirror with no access to the outside world.
Read more
from Brian Karem on Trump, Biden and the future | US Political Corruption |
"Illegal dumping is way too common, and often leads to no consequences," writes Slashdot reader Tony Isaac. "In some urban neighborhoods, people dump entire truckloads of waste in ditches along the streets. Maybe authorities have found a way to make a dent in this problem." Houston Chronicle reports: The Texas Game Wardens were recently able to track down and arrest a litterbug allegedly behind an illegal dumping of over 200 pounds of construction materials using a barcode left at the scene of the crime, according to a news release from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD). The pile of trash, which included sheetrock, housing trim, two-by-fours and various plastic items, was reportedly dumped along a bridge and creek on private land instead of being properly disposed of.
However, hidden among the garbage was also a box containing a barcode that would help identify the person behind the heap. A Smith County Game Warden used the barcode to track down the materials to a local store, and ultimately the owner of the credit card that was used for the purchase, TPWD said. The game warden interviewed the home owner who had reportedly just finished remodeling his home. "The homeowner explained that he paid someone familiar to the family who offered to haul off their used material and trash for a minimum fee," Texas Games Wardens said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the suspect kept the money and dumped the trash onto private property."
Working with the game warden, Smith County Sheriff's Office environmental deputies eventually arrested the suspect on charges of felony commercial dumping. At the time of the arrest, the suspect's truck was reportedly found loaded with even more building materials and trash, TPWD said. The state agency did not identify the suspect or disclose when or where they were arrested.
However, hidden among the garbage was also a box containing a barcode that would help identify the person behind the heap. A Smith County Game Warden used the barcode to track down the materials to a local store, and ultimately the owner of the credit card that was used for the purchase, TPWD said. The game warden interviewed the home owner who had reportedly just finished remodeling his home. "The homeowner explained that he paid someone familiar to the family who offered to haul off their used material and trash for a minimum fee," Texas Games Wardens said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the suspect kept the money and dumped the trash onto private property."
Working with the game warden, Smith County Sheriff's Office environmental deputies eventually arrested the suspect on charges of felony commercial dumping. At the time of the arrest, the suspect's truck was reportedly found loaded with even more building materials and trash, TPWD said. The state agency did not identify the suspect or disclose when or where they were arrested. | US Local Policies |
The family of Dexter Wade is calling for justice after the 37-year-old man was allegedly fatally struck by a Jackson, Mississippi Police Department cruiser in March and later buried in a potter's field without his family knowing.
"My son -- I never thought in a million years that he would leave me," Wade's mother, Bettersten Wade Robinson, said in a tearful press conference Monday in Jackson. "He was my oldest son and I wouldn't have never thought this'd happened to him."
Wade Robinson reported her son missing on March 14, nine days after she had last heard from him on March 5. She didn't learn until August 24 -- more than five months after his death – that Dexter Wade had been struck and killed by an off-duty Jackson police officer the night of March 5, as he was walking across a local highway.
According to civil rights attorney Ben Crump, who is representing the family, an investigator from the coroner's office identified Dexter Wade using fingerprints and reported that identification to Jackson Police on March 9, just four days after Wade's death.
Mayor Chokwe Antar Lumumba said on Oct. 26, during his State of the City address, that Wade had no ID on his person but he did have a prescription drug bottle.
The Jackson Police Department used the information from the bottle to contact Dexter Wade's medical provider, who in turn offered authorities a number "that was not accurate or not a good number to be used any further, and so they were unable to make contact," said Lumumba, noting that this transpired before Bettersten Wade Robinson first reported her son missing.
His body remained in a morgue for months before being discharged and buried in a potter's field.
"Because of that, Mr. Wade, they were unable to find his family within an expeditious period of time, and he was later buried once the coroner went to the Hinds County Board of Supervisors in order to get permission to do so," Lumumba said.
Bettersten Wade said she followed up regularly with police for any news regarding what had happened to her son, and didn't receive any answers from authorities until August when she was notified of his death.
“The failure was that ultimately, there was a lack of communication with the missing persons division, the coroner's office and accident investigation,” Lumumba said. The mayor also noted that "The accident was investigated and it was determined that it was, in fact, an accident, and that there was no malicious intent."
Crump on Monday, however, questioned why police didn't visit Robinson Wade's home to inform her of her son’s death.
“If they really wanted to notify her that the police officer had hit and killed her son when he crossed the street, they could have came and knocked on the door. It defies all logic and common sense,” Crump said.
The Hinds County District Attorney's Office said in a statement that it is working with the Jackson Police Department, Hinds County Coroner's Office, and other relevant agencies to investigate Wade's death, the failure to notify his next of kin in a timely manner, and the "irregularities surrounding the disposition of Mr. Wade's body."
"We ask for the public's patience as this important work is undertaken," the statement reads.
The Jackson Police Department declined ABC News' request for comment on the allegations.
Wade's family is asking for Wade's body to be exhumed so they can facilitate an independent autopsy and perform a "proper funeral and burial."
"Currently, his grave is marked by a pole and number in a pauper's field," Crump said during Monday's press conference.
Mayor Lumumba said during his State of the City address that "at no point have we identified, nor did any investigation reveal that there was any police misconduct in this process." He also called the monthslong wait to notify Wade Robinson of her son's death a "failure."
"To add insult to that trauma, it is even more difficult to not have the ability to grant a proper burial for that child," Lumumba said.
During the mayor's State of the City address, Jackson Police Chief Joseph Wade -- who has no relation to Dexter Wade -- offered his condolences to Wade's family.
"I cannot imagine the pain that they're feeling," said the police chief. "I put measures in place to make sure something like this does not happen on my watch. I've also put the right people in place to make sure this does not happen on my watch."
Crump accused police of an alleged "cover-up" for the failure to notify Robinson for months that her son had been killed by a police officer.
"Far too often in America … we just accept this police narrative," said Crump Monday. "Ms. Bettersten, you never gave up on your baby boy, your only boy, and the system did not sweep him under the rug. And we're never going to let Dexter Wade be swept under the rug. We're going to keep fighting until we get justice." | US Police Misconduct |
Damian Dovarganes/AP
toggle caption
Black Coalition Fighting Back Serial Murders members Suzette Shaw, left, holding photos of 10 victims, and Margaret Prescod, at podium, join relatives of victims speaking after the sentencing for Lonnie Franklin Jr., a convicted serial killer known as the "Grim Sleeper," in Los Angeles Superior Court in August 2016.
Damian Dovarganes/AP
Black Coalition Fighting Back Serial Murders members Suzette Shaw, left, holding photos of 10 victims, and Margaret Prescod, at podium, join relatives of victims speaking after the sentencing for Lonnie Franklin Jr., a convicted serial killer known as the "Grim Sleeper," in Los Angeles Superior Court in August 2016.
Damian Dovarganes/AP
Tens of thousands of Black youth and women go missing across the U.S. each year. But their cases hardly ever grab national headlines, let alone receive the attention and resources dedicated to finding them.
The state of California is taking steps to address that, creating a new statewide alert system to help locate and bring attention of missing Black children and young Black women — being the first in the nation to do so.
Senate Bill 673, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sunday, will create the "Ebony Alert" system for missing Black children and young women. When activated, the proposed system – similar to Amber or Silver alerts — would inform people of missing Black children and young women between the ages of 12 to 25.
The alert system will make use of electronic highway signs and encourage the use of television, radio, social media and other platforms to spread information about the missing persons alert.
The new alert system will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2024.
State Sen. Steven Bradford, who introduced the measure, praised Newsom's support in signing the bill — and he emphasized the disparity between resources and coverage in searching for white people and those of color across California.
"Today, California is taking bold and needed action to locate missing Black children and Black women in California," Bradford said in a statement announcing the bill signing.
"The Ebony Alert will ensure that vital resources and attention are given so we can bring home missing Black children and women in the same way we search for any missing child and missing person," he added.
Black youth and women go missing at a disproportionate rate
On average, more than 600,000 people are reported missing in the U.S. each year, according to data from the National Crime Information Center.
In 2022, up to 546,000 people were reported missing across the U.S. — with 36% of those cases identified as Black youth and women.
And while Black people make up 13% of the U.S. population, nearly 40% of missing persons cases are people of color, according to the Black and Missing Foundation.
"It is important to continue to raise awareness about this issue and advocate for policies that prioritize finding missing people of color," Natalie Wilson, co-founder of the Black and Missing Foundation, told NPR.
Wilson told NPR that time is often critical in missing persons cases. She hopes that this new alert system will work hand-in-hand with media and law enforcement to help families searching for their missing loved one.
"We must ensure that every missing person is given the same amount of attention and resources, regardless of their race or socioeconomic status," she said. | US Local Policies |
Mr Trump repeated one of his favourite stories to the audience in Waterloo, claiming that the Russian president would not have invaded Ukraine on his watch.
“I said, ‘Vladimir, you and I are friends. We’re good friends. But if you go in, we’re gonna hit real hard’,” Mr Trump said.
“He said ‘no way you would do that, there’s no way’. I said ‘way’,” drawing a laugh from the crowd as he appeared to mimic a line from the 1992 Mike Myers comedy Wayne’s World.
Elsewhere, Mr Trump boasted of appointing the three Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v Wade while baselessly accusing Democrats of wanting to “execute” babies.
The former president went after his likely opponent in the 2024 presidential election Joe Biden as “weak”, after his administration said it would resume construction of a wall along sections of the southern border.
“When foreign countries watch all of this they can’t believe it. The stupidity of Afghanistan is one of the reasons that Putin went in (to Ukraine), and that China is so aggressive all of a sudden.”
He also attacked New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is suing the Trump Organization in a civil court trial for fraudulently inflating the values of his properties.
Trump today on Putin and Ukraine when he was president: “I said, Vladimir, you and I are friends. We’re good friends. But if you go in, we’re gonna hit real hard. I can’t tell you what I told him.” pic.twitter.com/dtbJq38mkK— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) October 7, 2023
He described Ms James as “evil”, adding: “She goes after Trump, but she doesn’t go after murderers.”
The GOP presidential primary frontrunner also repeated bogus claims that US taxpayer money had funded Hamas’ deadly attacks in Israel.
“We agreed to free up $6bn, that is an absolute disaster. I would not be at all surprised if part of that tremendous wealth that they just accumulated went into this level of aggression.”
Mr Trump was holding two campaign events in Iowa on Saturday, 100 days before state Republicans will hold the first-in-nation caucuses on 15 January.
His closest rival Ron DeSantis was campaigning in the state on Saturday, while former vice president Mike Pence and former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson also held events. | US Federal Elections |
ATLANTA -- They were blamed for long lines in Los Angeles during California’s 2020 presidential primary, triggered check-in delays in Columbus, Ohio, a few months later and were at the center of former President Donald Trump’s call for supporters to protest in Detroit during last November's midterms.
High-profile problems involving electronic pollbooks have opened the door for those peddling election conspiracies and underscore the critical role the technology plays in whether voting runs smoothly. Russia and Iran already have demonstrated interest in accessing the systems.
Despite their importance and potential vulnerabilities, national standards for the security and reliability of electronic pollbooks do not exist and efforts underway to develop them may not be ready or widely adopted in time for the 2024 presidential election.
“We have a trust issue in elections. The more we can say there are standards that equipment must be tested to, the better,” said Larry Norden, an election security expert with the Brennan Center for Justice. “It’s like a seal of approval that really doesn’t exist right now.”
Poll workers use electronic pollbooks to check in voters. They typically are a tablet or laptop computer that accesses an electronic list of registered voters with names, addresses and precinct information, with some doing so through an internet connection.
Testing standards and a certification program for voting machines have been in effect for years, a process overseen by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission. While compliance is voluntary, most states will use at least some aspect of the federal process to ensure their voting and ballot-counting machines are secure and functioning properly.
But there is a much wider system of technology that supports U.S. elections beyond the devices used to scan and tally votes — from electronic pollbooks to voter registration databases and systems used to report unofficial election results to the public. Their use has been expanding rapidly in recent years.
Nearly one-third of all voting jurisdictions in the U.S. used electronic pollbooks in 2020, compared with about 18% four years earlier, according to data collected by Election Assistance Commission.
The systems come with unique security challenges.
In 2016, Russian hackers scanned state voter registration systems looking for vulnerabilities and even accessed the voter registration database in Illinois, although an investigation later determined no voter data was manipulated. In 2020, Iranian hackers obtained confidential voter data and used it to send misleading emails to voters, seeking to spread misinformation and influence the election.
Experts say the systems could be prime targets again for those seeking to disrupt the voting process and sow chaos around U.S. elections. Gaining access to a voter registration database, for example, could allow someone to delete voters from the rolls. When people show up to vote, they are told they are not on the list.
Although those voters would be allowed to cast a provisional ballot that eventually could count, widespread problems with the voter registration database would trigger questions about a process that already has suffered a loss in public confidence following a sustained campaign by Trump and his allies to discredit the results of the 2020 presidential election. There is no evidence of widespread fraud or manipulation of voting equipment in 2020, backed up by exhaustive reviews in states lost by Trump.
In Detroit last November, a few polling locations had a brief issue checking in voters related to a data error that was quickly identified and resolved. Trump seized on the early reports, calling the situation in Detroit “REALLY BAD” in a social media post and urging people to “Protest, Protest, Protest!”
Unlike voting machines that are not directly connected to the internet, many electronic pollbook systems are connected by design. Some are quite sophisticated.
In counties that have put in place a vote center model, where registered voters can cast a ballot at any polling place, electronic pollbooks must be able to communicate with each other and with a central system. That's to ensure voters are not able to cast ballots at multiple locations or vote in-person after returning a mail ballot.
While that can present significant security challenges, scrutiny for the pollbook systems is not as consistent as with voting machines.
The lack of national standards has left state and local election officials on their own. For the 2020 election, 15 states, including Arizona, Florida and Nevada, did not require any type of electronic pollbook testing or certification, according to federal data.
States and even some counties are often testing their pollbook systems in isolation and results are not routinely shared — an information gap that could be addressed with a national testing program.
"Having that type of knowledge allows them to put compensating controls into place, but they are doing it on an individual basis — state by state, county by county,” said Ryan Macias, an election and security expert who advises federal, state and local officials.
Aware of the risks, many election officials require back-up measures, such as paper copies of voter lists at polling locations. Election officials and experts note that one advantage of national testing standards for voting machines is the ability to assure voters that they have been properly scrutinized.
Two efforts are underway that seek to address the lack of uniform testing standards for electronic pollbooks. The Election Assistance Commission partnered with the nonprofit Center for Internet Security to test pollbooks and other nonvoting machine technology. But the federal agency began working on its pilot testing program in late 2021, about the same time the center announced results of the first phase of its own project.
It’s not clear why the two groups went their separate ways and what will happen next. A spokesman for the center, Jay Billington, said the group is “close to concluding the pilot” and expects to provide an update soon.
Thomas Hicks, chair of the commission, said the agency is making progress on its own pilot program, but that it was unlikely testing standards could be in place before the 2024 election.
“But this is why we move forward," he said. "In 2026, there will be another federal election, and in 2028 another.”
Hicks said he welcomed the work done by the center and thought having more than one testing program could allow states to pick the best option for them.
Experts said having national testing standards would go a long way to reducing costs of the systems and lessen the burden on state and local election officials to navigate security on their own. Companies that make the equipment have expressed support for the effort.
During a November 2021 panel hosted by the commission to discuss its pilot project, representatives from testing laboratories said they had evaluated 76 different pollbooks by about a dozen manufacturers over the past three years. Agency officials noted the stakes were high.
“Real or perceived attacks on our voting systems can threaten voter confidence,” one commissioner, Don Palmer, said during the panel. “So that’s one reason why we think as much testing as possible is a good thing.” | US Federal Elections |
- College affordability is a problem that won't go away.
- With a new semester about to start, most families are worried about how they will pay the tab.
- Ultimately, students and their parents will have to rely on a combination of resources, including loans, to make it work, a new study finds.
College is only getting more expensive.
Tuition and fees have more than doubled in 20 years, reaching $10,940 at four-year, in-state public colleges, on average, in the 2022-23 academic year. At four-year private colleges, it now costs $39,400 annually, according to the College Board, which tracks trends in college pricing and student aid.
When adding in other expenses, the total tab can be more than $70,000 a year for undergraduates at some private colleges or even out-of-state students attending four-year public schools.
With the fall semester just weeks away, 70% of parents are worried about having enough money to cover the cost, according to a recent report by Discover Student Loans, up from 66% last year and 63% in 2021.
Among students, as many as 92% are concerned they won't have sufficient funds, according to a separate survey of over of 9,000 high schoolers and college students by ScholarshipOwl.
Yet few students and their parents pay the advertised price.
As of last year, the amount families actually spent on education costs was $28,026, on average, according to Sallie Mae's annual "How America Pays for College" report — up over 10% from a year earlier.
While parent income and savings cover nearly half of college costs, free money from scholarships and grants accounts for a more than a quarter of the costs and student loans make up most of the rest, the education lender found.
Scholarships are a key source of funding, yet only about 60% of families use them, Sallie Mae found. Those that did received $8,149, on average.
The vast majority of families who didn't use scholarships said it was because they didn't even apply.
This year's incoming freshman class will rely on loans even more in pursuit of a degree at a public college or university, another report shows.
A 2023 high-school graduate could take on as much as $37,300, on average, in student debt to earn a bachelor's degree, according to a NerdWallet analysis of data from the National Center for Education Statistics.
The share of parents taking out federal parent PLUS loans to help cover the costs of their children's college education has also grown, NerdWallet, Discover Student Loans and Sallie Mae all found.
Rick Castellano, a spokesman for Sallie Mae, advises families to start their scholarship search early so they can maximize free money and minimize loans.
"Having a plan does pay off," he said.
But to get any college aid, students must file a Free Application for Federal Student Aid.
The FAFSA serves as the gateway to all federal aid money, including loans, work-study and grants, which are the most desirable kind of assistance.
This year, 71% of families completed the FAFSA, in line with last year, Sallie Mae found.
FAFSA completion can also boost a student's likelihood of going to college and graduating, studies show. | US Federal Policies |
For months, since Joe Biden's age became the pet topic of the corporate media — you know, rather than the openly authoritarian maneuverings of the former occupant of the White House — I have said to anyone who will listen (OK, mostly to my wife, who nods agreeably) that I couldn’t do a quarter of the things that Joe Biden is doing. Honestly, not many of us could.
Not long ago on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” journalist Mike Barnicle defended Biden on the “age issue” in the same way. His comments came after host Joe Scarborough noted that Biden, beyond his normal duties as president, currently has multiple other full-time jobs:working to try to limit the conflict in the Middle East, supporting Ukraine’s war against Russian aggression, trying to stabilize relations with China. (His recent meeting with Xi Jinping reportedly went quite well.)
Here’s what Barnicle had to say about the media’s focus on Biden’s age:
Very few of us, very few in the media, really pay enough attention to the weight that this president carries each and every day. ... Right now, he’s carrying two twin towers of tyranny: one in Donald Trump here domestically and the other Bibi Netanyahu in Israel, who is perhaps the biggest obstacle to a two-state solution that exists today. So, the president has that on his plate. ... He has, every hour of every day, something that comes across his desk. None of us can comprehend the weight of the presidency, every hour of every day.
And as he would tell you if he were here today, it’s amazing how every country in the world looks to the United States for help, for solutions, for just almost anything you can think of. Every single day.
Read every newspaper in the country about President Biden, within the first two paragraphs they’ll point out he’s in his 80s. No kidding. He knows how old he is. You couldn’t do it. I couldn’t do it. Someone 45 years of age couldn’t do what he does every day. But he does it.
Scarborough pointed out that leaders and diplomats around the world admire and trust Biden and say that he fully understands the issues facing their own countries. Scarborough also commented that Biden works hard as president, while Trump notoriously spent most of his days in the White House watching cable TV until noon and often continued viewing even when he bothered to show up in the Oval Office.
Trump entered the presidency with no experience in public service and left it with next to none. He did, however, leave office with two impeachments and box after box of classified documents. One recalls that Rex Tillerson, his first secretary of state, said that getting Trump to pay attention to important issues around the world was always a challenge, partly because he was likely to listen to others and “form a view that had no basis in fact.” (We all know what Tillerson really thought of Trump.)
I understand the hand-wringing about Biden’s age. Didn’t he say he would be a one-term bridge to a better, Trumpless future? (Well, Republicans haven’t given up on their angry cult leader.) Haven’t I considered Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decision to remain on the Supreme Court? Don’t I hear Bill Maher and David Axelrod unhelpfully quailing at the polls and saying that Biden can’t win because people think he’s too old? I have, and it makes me feel deeply anxious (so I stop thinking about it and go for a walk or do some push-ups).
Still, Biden is doing a lot more than I could do, and I suspect (as Barnicle said indignantly) that he's doing a lot more than most of us could do, physically and emotionally, and he’s doing it with something we lack: a deep understanding of the deftness needed in maintaining personal relationships and the give-and-take critical to governing and diplomacy.
Biden has the experience we need in political leadership in general, especially with the Republican Party dead and gone and reduced to playacting “toughness” by elbowing House colleagues and challenging witnesses to fistfights in the Senate. Too many Republicans don’t take their oath of office seriously, and now even have to be reminded they are members of Congress. These seriously unserious people know their ideas are unpopular with the American public, so they seriously unhinged plans for instituting minority rule permanently by any means possible.
We need your help to stay independent
Less than a year from now, Americans face a choice between remaining a democratic republic or morphing into a chaotic, vengeful theocracy, where millions of immigrants will be sent to holding camps before being deported (that’s the stated plan) and where women and people of color and LGBTQ folks and political “enemies” and journalists and authors and critics are targeted by those in power. For all their endless talk about the First Amendment, the MAGA insurrectionist party wants to turn it on its head, by instituting a national “religion” (Christian in name only) and silencing dissent.
Would it be ideal to have someone younger than 80? Sure it would. But that’s not reality — and that imaginary 45-year-old wouldn't have the extensive institutional and foreign policy experience that Joe Biden has.
Would it be ideal to have someone younger than 80? Sure it would. But that’s not reality this time around. And that imaginary 45-year-old wouldn't have the extensive institutional and foreign policy experience that Joe Biden has. The Democratic Party has quite a few truly worthy (and perhaps even charismatic) future candidates for the highest office waiting in the wings, gaining more experience in governing and serving all the citizens in their districts or states, not just the ones who voted for them.
But those candidates will need a liberal democracy in place (i.e., basic rule of law, support for voting rights, willingness to compromise on policies and acceptance of the peaceful transfer of power) for us to find out what they can do to move us forward.
If you think 80 is really old — well, in some cases it is. People sometimes die much younger than that. In the two months since I retired, I’ve lost two close friends. But let’s list just a few older people who are still out there killing it: Paul McCartney is touring again and puts on vigorous three-hour concerts (without breaks). He turned 81 in June. Mick Jagger is still doing that chicken-strut thing he learned from Tina Turner, and celebrated his 80th birthday in July. At 97, Mel Brooks is sharper (and a lot funnier) than you or me. So is the amazing Norman Lear, at 101. Many notable scientists, philosophers, poets, artists and people in other demanding fields function at a high level, mentally and physically, deep into their lives.
Moreover, emotional well-being tends to increase in old age, as personal ambitions drop away and we allow ourselves the time to just be. (These findings do not apply to people who never grow up, by the way.) Biden stays active, eats a good diet, has social intelligence and awareness of others’ needs, has varied interests and solves complex problems daily — those, it seems, are the habits and characteristics of "super agers." He is buoyed by a loving wife and family, because he’s earned that love. (The Beatles would approve.)
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
No matter how any of us may feel about Biden going for a second term at his age, it is beyond my comprehension that anyone could consider Trump, who is only a few years younger, as being more mentally or physically competent. According to his niece Mary Trump and others who know him well, has not been mentally fit for most of his life.
Physically, as a young man Trump claimed he was not fit enough to serve his country, and, by all accounts, his diet continues to be a disaster zone of highly processed food and well-done steaks served with ketchup, sometimes tossed against the wall (speaking once again to his mental state, which seems to be characterized by endless, irrational resentment).
Does Trump have any interest in or curiosity about anything beyond himself (except for a few of his favorite authoritarian leaders)? Has he ever solved a complex problem for the benefit of anyone but himself? He’s teased them endlessly but has never delivered — think those multiple, embarrassing “Infrastructure Weeks”; think “I will get it all done” to bring peace to the Middle East, fobbed off on his embarrassing son-in-law.
Trump has made it crystal clear over many years that he is vengeful and only out for himself. He now threatens those he wants to “root out” like “vermin,” jutting out his chin like his favorite historical Italian dictator and talking like his favorite German one. He also likes to fantasize that he’s a superhero.
I suspect that if it weren't that guy the Republicans seemed determined to put up again, Biden would have determined it was safe to step aside. But it is that guy, who now has two impeachments, 91 felony indictments in four different jurisdictions, findings of liability for sexual assault and business fraud, and a history of telling lies every time he opens his mouth, including persistent whoppers about the 2020 election and about being good at business.
I suspect that if it weren't that guy the Republicans seemed determined to put up again, Biden would have determined it was safe to step aside. But it is that guy.
Liberals and progressives, broadly speaking, tend to be people who believe in reality, in facts. Whether we're delighted about this or not, Joe Biden is running for president again. His leadership, whether you agree with every decision or not, can help us extend the American experiment and bolster democracy, as well as fight for more ways to share our nation’s prosperity and protect its cultural heritage.
The other choice will be a man who is chronologically almost as old and who seems to live in an entirely imaginary version of America in a previous era. He is mentally and emotionally unstable, to say the least, and has no interest and no ability to help anyone other than himself. Oh, and he intends to be a dictator and get revenge on his perceived enemies.
If we lose our democracy because voters tie themselves in knots about Joe Biden's age. that will go down as ageism for the ages. | US Federal Elections |
There has been much handwringing about the retreat of democracy and the rise of authoritarianism in recent years – and for good reason. From the Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, to the former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and the former US president Donald Trump, we have a growing list of authoritarians and would-be autocrats who channel a curious form of rightwing populism. Although they promise to protect ordinary citizens and preserve longstanding national values, they pursue policies that protect the powerful and trash longstanding norms – and leave the rest of us trying to explain their appeal.
While there are many explanations, one that stands out is the growth of inequality, a problem stemming from modern neoliberal capitalism, which can also be linked in many ways to the erosion of democracy. Economic inequality inevitably leads to political inequality, albeit to varying degrees across countries. In a country like the US, which has virtually no constraints on campaign contributions, “one person, one vote” has morphed into “one dollar, one vote”.
This political inequality is self-reinforcing, leading to policies that further entrench economic inequality. Tax policies favour the rich, the education system favours the already privileged, and inadequately designed and enforced antitrust regulation tends to give corporations free rein to amass and exploit market power. Moreover, since the media is dominated by private companies owned by plutocrats like Rupert Murdoch, much of the mainstream discourse tends to entrench the same trends. News consumers thus have long been told that taxing the rich harms economic growth, that inheritance taxes are levies on death, and so forth.
More recently, traditional media controlled by the super-rich have been joined by social media companies controlled by the super-rich, except that the latter are even less constrained in spreading misinformation. Thanks to section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, US-based companies cannot be held liable for third-party content hosted on their platforms – or for most of the other social harms they cause (not least to teenage girls).
In this context of capitalism without accountability, should we be surprised that so many people view the growing concentration of wealth with suspicion, or that they believe the system is rigged? The pervasive feeling that democracy has delivered unfair outcomes has undermined confidence in democracy and led some to conclude that alternative systems might produce better results.
This is an old debate. Seventy-five years ago, many wondered whether democracies could grow as fast as authoritarian regimes. Now, many are asking the same question about which system “delivers” greater fairness. Yet this debate is unfolding in a world where the very wealthy have the tools to shape national and global thinking, sometimes with outright lies (“The election was stolen!” “The voting machines were rigged!” – a falsehood that cost Fox News $787m).
One of the results has been deepening polarisation, which hinders the functioning of democracy – especially in countries such as the US, with its winner-take-all elections. By the time Trump was elected in 2016 with a minority of the popular vote, American politics, which once favoured problem-solving through compromise, had become a bald-faced partisan power struggle, a wrestling match where at least one side seems to believe there should be no rules.
When polarisation becomes so excessive, it will often seem as though the stakes are too high to concede anything. Rather than looking for common ground, those in power will use the means at their disposal to entrench their own positions – as the Republicans have done openly through gerrymandering and measures to suppress voter turnout.
Democracies work best when the perceived stakes are neither too low nor too high (if they are too low, people will feel little need to participate in the democratic process at all). There are design choices that democracies can make to improve the chances of hitting this happy medium. Parliamentary systems, for example, encourage coalition building and often give power to centrists, rather than extremists. Mandatory and ranked-choice voting also have been shown to help in this respect, as does the presence of a committed, protected civil service.
The US has long held itself up as a democratic beacon. Although there has always been hypocrisy – from Ronald Reagan cosying up to Augusto Pinochet, to Joe Biden failing to distance himself from Saudi Arabia or denounce the anti-Muslim bigotry of the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi’s government – the US at least embodied a shared set of political values.
But now, economic and political inequality have grown so extreme that many are rejecting democracy. This is fertile ground for authoritarianism, especially for the kind of rightwing populism that Trump, Bolsonaro and the rest represent. But such leaders have shown that they have none of the answers that discontented voters are seeking. On the contrary, the policies they enact when given power only make matters worse.
Rather than looking elsewhere for alternatives, we need to look inward, at our own system. With the right reforms, democracies can become more inclusive, more responsive to citizens, and less responsive to the corporations and rich individuals who currently hold the purse strings. But salvaging our politics also will require equally dramatic economic reforms. We can begin to enhance the wellbeing of all citizens fairly – and take the wind out of populists’ sails – only when we leave neoliberal capitalism behind and do a much better job at creating the shared prosperity that we acclaim.
Joseph E Stiglitz is a Nobel laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University and a former chief economist of the World Bank. | US Federal Policies |
Whitmer signs Michigan election law overhaul that aims to prevent ‘chaos’
- Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signs sweeping election-related bills
- New laws reform post-election certification process in an attempt to ‘ward off chaos’ seen in 2020
- Other laws expand voter registration, create criminal penalties for intimidating election workers and regulate artificial intelligence ads
LANSING — Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Thursday signed into law a sweeping series of election bills that supporters contend will boost democratic participation and prevent "chaos" in the event of disputed elections.
Among other things, the new laws expand voter registration, criminalize poll worker intimidation, regulate political ads that use artificial intelligence and tighten the election certification process that former President Donald Trump tried to disrupt following his 2020 loss.
“In Michigan, we are proving through our actions that we stand for fundamental American values of freedom and democracy,” Whitmer said in a signing ceremony at the headquarters of the NAACP’s Detroit branch, where she was joined by local leaders and voting rights advocates from across the state.
The new laws are the latest in a series of election reforms from Democrats in Lansing, who this year took full control of state government for the first time in four decades. Whitmer in July signed bills to implement an early voting ballot initiative and earlier this month lifted a long-standing ban on paying to give voters rides to polls.
While Republican leaders did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday, GOP lawmakers almost uniformly opposed the changes, arguing they could compromise election security and increase administrative costs for both the state and for local election clerks.
The new voter registration law, for instance, may necessitate government technology upgrades and requires the state to send opt-out notices to citizens who will now be automatically registered to vote when they apply for a driver's license or Medicaid benefits, or when they’re released from prison.
Michigan already has one of the highest voter registration rates in the country, but sponsoring Rep. Penelope Tsernoglou, D-East Lansing, has called her bills the “next step” toward ensuring “that every citizen has the opportunity to vote.”
Another law Whitmer signed Thursday will allow 16-year-olds to pre-register to vote so that they are prepared to cast a ballot when they are eligible at 18.
“Trust me, we will be letting them know exactly how to exercise their options to vote in every election via voting early or voting in-person on Election Day,” Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a fellow Democrat, said during what she called the “historic” bill-signing ceremony.
Benson also praised a new law that will make it a crime to intimidate or otherwise threaten election workers in an attempt to stop them from performing their duties. Penalties would start at 93 days in jail and up to a $500 fine for a first offense.
"We are here to protect the people who protect democracy," Benson said, arguing the recent escalation of election worker intimidation is the result of "misinformation that has wrongly flowed into our democracy for far too long."
Another of the bills Whitmer signed Thursday will attempt to regulate a new frontier of political misinformation. It will require disclaimers on political “deepfakes” and campaign ads created using artificial intelligence. Violators would be subject to fines of between $250 and $1,000.
‘Crazed and debunked legal theories’
The new law governing election certification aligns Michigan with the federal Electoral Count Reform Act, which was introduced in Congress with a handful of GOP co-sponsors and signed last year by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Among other things, the federal law makes clear that the vice president has a “ministerial” duty to count electoral votes that states send to congress, contradicting Trump’s claim that former Vice President Mike Pence could and should have blocked certification of the 2020 presidential election.
The new Michigan law similarly states that partisan election canvassers at both the county and state levels have a "ministerial, clerical, and nondiscretionary duty" to certify results based on results compiled by local clerks.
In 2020, Trump personally called Republicans on the Wayne County Board of Canvassers, who subsequently attempted to rescind their certification votes. Trump also pressured Republican state canvassers, including one who nonetheless voted to certify Biden’s 154,188-vote Michigan victory.
The Michigan measure also speeds up the timeline for completing the post-election canvass and clarifies that only the governor can submit a list of presidential electors to congress. That’s an attempt to limit confusion over alternate or false elector slates like the kind Trump’s campaign organized in 2020, including in Michigan, where several Republicans are now fighting related criminal charges.
The changes will “remove ambiguity and ensure courts are the primary venue for contested elections,” Kevin Johnson, co-founder of the national Election Reformers Network, told lawmakers last month in a legislative hearing.
The law will also give legislative leaders the ability to nominate individuals to fill vacancies on the bipartisan Board of State Canvassers, a task previously reserved for the leaders of each major political party. Sponsoring Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield, has acknowledged that change will minimize the role of Michigan Republican Party Chair Kristina Karamo, a 2020 election denier who refused to concede her 14-point loss in the 2022 Secretary of State race.
Under the new law, the Michigan GOP chair will still be able to nominate three candidates the next time a Republican seat is vacated on the four-member board of state canvassers. But GOP leaders in the House and Senate will also be able to nominate one person each, and the governor will then pick from those five.
The Michigan law builds on last year’s federal legislation to “ward off chaos in future elections,” Moss said last month in committee testimony.
Trump’s “lies” in the 2020 election cycle “targeted Detroit,” and his supporters “tried to throw out votes primarily from Black citizens,” Moss added Thursday, drawing applause from NAACP Detroit President Wendell Anthony.
The new laws will create a “clear process, free from illegal obstruction, to certify the 2024 election,” Moss said. “No more crazed and debunked legal theories about how electors can convene, how our electoral college votes are sent to congress, and no more fake slates.”
See what new members are saying about why they donated to Bridge Michigan:
- “In order for this information to be accurate and unbiased it must be underwritten by its readers, not by special interests.” - Larry S.
- “Not many other media sources report on the topics Bridge does.” - Susan B.
- “Your journalism is outstanding and rare these days.” - Mark S.
If you want to ensure the future of nonpartisan, nonprofit Michigan journalism, please become a member today. You, too, will be asked why you donated and maybe we'll feature your quote next time! | US Federal Elections |
Having spent much of his Senate term as a lonely Republican foil to Donald Trump and his allies, Mitt Romney is now using what remains of his time in the chamber to go on the offense. In Romney: A Reckoning, an upcoming biography by McKay Coppins, the junior senator from Utah can be read attacking Ron DeSantis, Mitch McConnell, and a host of other current and former congressional colleagues. But he reserved some of his most biting criticism for a trio of conservative media heavyweights.
According to an excerpt seen by CNN, Romney writes that Sean Hannity was at one point overcome with jealousy toward Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host who spent several years atop the cable news ratings hierarchy. “I can only imagine that Sean is consumed with Tucker Carlson being ahead of him, and his everyday effort is to find ways to reclaim the throne as the most watched,” Romney reportedly told Coppins. The senator goes on to suggest that Hannity has tried to ape Carlson’s style, writing, “He’s in the same vein as Tucker. Just not as effective as Tucker—Tucker’s smart.”
For his part, Hannity no longer has to contend with Carlson’s dominance. Carlson was fired by the network in April and now airs an independent show on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter. Hannity, meanwhile, responded to Romney’s remarks by mocking his loss to Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential race. “It’s very clear losing the presidency has turned Mitt into a small, angry, and very bitter man. It’s sad to see,” the host told CNN through a spokesperson.
Romney’s relationship with the Fox host apparently came to a head in 2019, when Hannity described the Utah lawmaker on-air as a “weak, sanctimonious Washington swamp politician,” likely in response to the senator’s criticisms of Trump leading up to his first impeachment trial. According to the book, Romney then called Hannity up, which led to a less-than-reconciliatory conversation: The host reportedly accused Romney of only seeking “praise on MSNBC” and demanded to know why Romney wasn’t better informed on Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine.
Hannity and Carlson aren’t the only Fox affiliates to get a mention in the book. Per Coppins, Romney considered Lou Dobbs, a former Fox Business host, “a moron” and Fox his “enabler” after seeing one of Dobbs’s anti-immigrant segments, leading him to describe Fox as a “serious problem.” (Fox canceled Dobbs’s show in 2021, a decision that was reportedly related to the host’s conspiracy theories about the 2020 election and the voting-machine companies that helped facilitate it.)
While Romney has made known his hope for the GOP to move on from Trump, he isn’t exactly a fan of the former president’s most formidable challenger in the 2024 Republican primary. According to The New York Times, Romney said that Florida governor Ron DeSantis had “no warmth at all” and shared some of the “odious qualities” found in Trump, including his obsession with culture-war battles. Still, Romney reportedly said supporting DeSantis would be a “no-brainer” if that meant stopping Trump, even if DeSantis “looks like he’s got a toothache” every time he has to glad-hand with voters.
The Utah senator’s unfiltered takes on his fellow Republicans have been spilling out in the days ahead of the book’s publication, with Politico’s Playbook providing a rundown of jabs at the likes of Newt Gingrich (“A smug know-it-all, smarmy, and too pleased with himself”), Mike Huckabee (“huckster,” a “caricature of a for-profit preacher”), and Rick Santorum (“Sanctimonious, severe, and strange”), among others.
Romney, 76, announced last month that he would not be seeking another term in the Senate. “At the end of another term, I’d be in my mid-80s. Frankly, it’s time for a new generation of leaders,” he said in a video statement shared on X. “They’re the ones that need to make the decisions that will shape the world they will be living in.” | US Congress |
The Senate passed a bill late Thursday evening to suspend the nation’s debt limit through January 1, 2025, averting a first-ever US default just days ahead of the deadline.
The House earlier this week already passed the measure, which can now be sent to President Joe Biden to be signed into law. Biden, just moments after the Senate passed the debt limit bill, praised Congress for its efforts and said in a statement, “I look forward to signing this bill into law as soon as possible.” The president will deliver an address to the nation on Friday on averting default.
Suspending the debt limit through 2025 takes the threat of default off table until after the presidential election. In addition to addressing the debt limit, the bill caps non-defense spending, expands work requirements for some food stamp recipients and claws back some Covid-19 relief funds, among other policy provisions. The Senate voted 63 to 36 to pass the bill.
The timeframe to pass the bill through Congress was extremely tight with little room for error, putting enormous pressure on leadership in both parties as the threat of default loomed.
To get the bill over the finish line, lawmakers raced the clock to prevent a default ahead of June 5, the date the Treasury Department warned it will no longer be able to pay all of the nation’s obligations in full and on time – a scenario that could trigger global economic catastrophe.
The bipartisan debt limit deal was struck between the White House and House Republicans – the culmination of long days and late nights of contentious negotiations that at times looked like they might break down and fall apart entirely.
The debt limit bill faced backlash from both the far left and the far right, but ultimately won support from a significant number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer touted Democrats’ role in the debt ceiling agreement after the Senate passed the bill.
“We may be a little tired, but we did it,” Schumer said. “So we’re very, very happy. Default was the giant sword hanging over America’s head, but because of the good work of President Biden, as well as Democrats in the House and Democrats in the Senate, we are not defaulting.”
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell issued a statement on the passage of the debt ceiling agreement, saying that “an important step toward fiscal sanity will finally become law.”
The measure passed the House by a wide margin – 314 to 117 – on Wednesday.
More details of what’s in the bill
In addition to addressing the debt limit, the bill includes a wide range of provisions.
The legislation will rescind roughly $28 billion in unobligated funds from the Covid-19 relief packages that Congress passed to respond to the pandemic, according to the House GOP.
It will retain $5 billion in funding to accelerate the development of Covid-19 vaccines and treatments, and funding for vaccines and treatments for the uninsured, according to a White House source.
The package will also tighten the current work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, primarily by adjusting the work participation rate credits that states can receive for reducing their caseloads.
Work requirements will not be introduced in Medicaid, which House Republicans had called for in their debt ceiling bill.
Under the package, borrowers will have to begin paying back their student loans at the end of the summer, as the Biden administration has already announced, according to a source familiar. The pause has been in effect since the Covid-19 pandemic began.
The package also includes new measures in the National Environmental Policy Act aimed at boosting the coordination, predictability and certainty associated with federal agency decision making, according to the White House source.
It will designate a single lead agency, charged with developing a single environmental review document, and also will require agencies to complete environmental reviews in one year, or two years for the most environmentally complex projects.
This story and headline have been updated with additional developments.
CNN’s Manu Raju, Lauren Fox, Morgan Rimmer, Haley Talbot and Tami Luhby contributed to this report. | US Federal Policies |
Jim Jordan is on track to lose a second ballot to secure the House Speakership, with over a dozen Republicans (and counting) voting against him on Wednesday. Jordan can only afford to lose four caucus members if he wants to win the gavel.
House Republicans appear wholly incapable of bringing forth a resolution to the leadership crisis that has brought Congress to a standstill since the ouster of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy earlier this month. The House only has 30 days left to resolve the budgetary disputes amongst the GOP that brought the government to the verge of a shutdown in late September and has remained unable to address the ongoing military and humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza.
Supporters for Jordan have leveled an intense pressure campaign against the 20 Republicans who refused to back the Ohio representative in Tuesday’s vote. Politico reported that the wife of Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) even received a series of anonymous text messages threatening her husband’s political career if he did not “step up and be a leader and help the Republican Party.”
“Your husband will not hold any political office ever again,” one text message read.
On Sunday, Axios obtained an email from a producer for Fox Host Sean Hannity, who frequently hosts Jordan on his program, that had been sent to Republican House members opposing his nomination. “Hannity would like to know why during a war breaking out between Israel and Hamas, with the war in Ukraine, with the wide open borders, with a budget that’s unfinished why would Rep XXX be against Rep Jim Jordan for speaker? Please let us know when Rep XXXX plans on opening The People’s House so work can be done,” the email read.
One lawmaker told The Washington Post that Hannity had contacted them directly to lobby on Jordan’s behalf.
The pressure campaign hasn’t worked, and Jordan’s stumbles once again throw the speakership race into uncertainty.
Editor’s picks
According to Punchbowl News, Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio) plans to file a resolution empowering current Speaker Pro Tem Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) to temporarily fill the position. McHenry, a longtime ally of McCarthy, was selected by the ousted speaker to oversee the election of his successor — a largely ceremonial role.
On Tuesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries did not commit to supporting a bid to empower McHenry but told reporters that “respect for Patrick McHenry. I think he is respected on our side of the aisle.”
Trending
“There are a whole host of other Republicans who are respected on our side of the aisle. Jim Jordan is not one of them,” Jeffries added
Jordan himself has indicated that he would not support the resolution. “I think we should get a Republican Speaker. I got 90 percent of the Republicans in the conference supporting me,” he told reporters. Unfortunately for Jordan, he needs more than 90 percent. McCarthy had the support of all but eight members of the conference. Jordan remains ever further from away gaining the gavel than McCarthy was from keeping it. | US Congress |
Past is prologue.
It was October 2015. An unseasonably warm, autumnal light bathed a corridor near the Hall of Columns on the first floor of the Capitol.
It was mid-afternoon. But the well-trafficked hall was surprisingly empty when I encountered a lawmaker who was a friend and occasional ally of then-House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif.
Then-House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, unexpectedly announced his retirement just a few days before. McCarthy was poised to assume the speakership. But there were already rumblings that the McCarthy lacked the votes. McCarthy was bleeding support from fellow Republicans.
A McCarthy aide confided to Fox that his boss’s absolute ceiling in the Speaker vote was 219 votes — barely the House majority. The California Republican had just suggested on Fox that House GOPers set up a special committee to investigate Benghazi solely to inhibit the presidential ambitions of Hillary Clinton. Some Republicans — especially those on the fare right who wanted to oust Boehner — were searching for a reason to ditch McCarthy.
The lawmaker and I chatted quietly about McCarthy’s prospects and parted ways.
But a moment later, the lawmaker returned to add something to our conversation.
"I think Kevin will win," confided the member about McCarthy’s prospects for the speakership. "But I don’t think he’ll be there long."
"How long?" I inquired.
"I’ll give him about six months," answered the lawmaker/soothsayer.
It may have been 2023 and not 2015, but you could have made some money had you taken the over on McCarthy’s tenure as speaker of the House.
Over the years, congressional observers often dinged McCarthy for his lack of prowess as a vote counter. That was a knock on McCarthy when he served as House Majority Whip in 2011. It was the case recently when McCarthy tried in vain to get the votes for the House to begin debating the annual defense spending bill. Such was the case when the House rejected McCarthy’s gambit last Friday to approve an interim spending measure with border security attached. McCarthy’s status with the House Republican Conference was on display in January when the House voted repeatedly for speaker — without electing a winner.
But McCarthy may have been a better vote counter than people gave him credit for.
McCarthy eventually became speaker in January. After drama of the highest order, McCarthy managed to wrangle enough votes on a GOP abortion bill, a GOP-only debt ceiling bill, a bipartisan debt ceiling package, the Republican defense appropriations bill, and yes, the stopgap bill to avert a government shutdown last weekend.
The speaker referred to the latter maneuver as a "gamble."
McCarthy has also known where the votes lie when it comes to his leadership aspirations.
McCarthy jolted the Capitol in October 2015 when he abruptly dropped his candidacy for speaker as the Republican Conference was huddled in a hearing room, poised to tap him as their nominee on the floor. McCarthy knew he lacked the votes.
McCarthy understood it would be a challenge to secure the votes to become speaker last November after voters delivered Republicans a scant four-seat majority. That was well short of the robust 40 to 50 seat majority McCarthy forecast. And even though it took 15 tallies in January and was the longest election for speaker in 164 years, McCarthy finally nailed down the votes for speaker.
On Tuesday morning, hours before his own GOP colleagues evicted him from the speaker’s suite, McCarthy seemed to know where the votes were headed.
When asked early Tuesday, McCarthy said he was confident he would "hold on" by nightfall. Yours truly followed up with the former speaker live on Fox around 2 p.m. just off the floor as he walked to the chamber. The House was voting on whether or not to kill the effort by Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., to extract McCarthy from the speakership.
"Do you stand by the idea that you’re going to be speaker of the House tonight?" I asked.
"Yes," answered McCarthy. "Look, I’m an optimist because I think there’s no point of being anything else."
I followed up.
"I know you don’t like hypothetical questions. But if this goes to a speaker vote eventually, will you continue to stand for speaker, vote after vote?" I inquired.
"Talk to me later. We’ll see what happens," said McCarthy.
That non-answer answered everything.
"That doesn’t sound like you’ll run in a new speaker’s race," I said to McCarthy as he walked away.
He didn’t reply.
McCarthy forecast his fate Tuesday morning. After a huddle of the House Republican Conference, the former speaker accurately noted that "if five Republicans vote against me, I’m out."
It’s about the math. Eight Republicans supported removing McCarthy Tuesday afternoon. But despite McCarthy’s morning confidence, he seemingly knew how the vote would unfold.
"I knew they would make the motion on me," said McCarthy Tuesday evening. "It didn’t make one bit of difference. I’m very comfortable with that decision."
McCarthy knew the math. He knew where the votes were. And he apparently knew his speakership was over.
But in reality, this was where McCarthy’s speakership was going, dating all the way back to 2015 after Boehner quit.
"Wasn’t this kind of always inevitable?" I asked, noting the narrow Republican majority.
Republicans lacked a vote cushion that may have protected McCarthy.
"You knew it was always a possibility. So that was fine," said McCarthy.
McCarthy almost never got to this point.
Late on the night of Jan. 6, 2023, the House had completed its 14th consecutive roll call vote without electing a speaker. The plan was for the House to adjourn for a few days and allow Republicans to regroup. The House was about to adopt the motion to adjourn. Most lawmakers suspected that McCarthy was toast if the House broke for the weekend. Time was not on his side. McCarthy’s chances of becoming speaker would only calcify as members went home for a couple of days. There would likely be a push to draft someone else to run the place.
But suddenly there was a deal. McCarthy struck an accord with Gaetz on the floor. Republicans by the dozen flooded into the well of the chamber to switch their vote from yea to nay, preventing the House for adjourning. The House remained in session. The body then turned to its 15th vote for speaker, electing McCarthy after the witching hour on Jan. 7.
McCarthy finally had the votes to become speaker, more than seven years since his last aborted attempt.
This week’s outcome may have been inescapable for McCarthy.
There were rambunctious Republicans hell-bent on blocking him from the speakership in 2015. There was a different flavor of Republicans who delayed his election to the speakership in January. And McCarthy finally burned through all available political petrol this week. His bid for the speakership ran on fumes for eight years.
McCarthy made it to the gas station. But there was no more fuel.
McCarthy finally clasped the gavel. But not for long.
This was the fate McCarthy’s oracle prophesied on that sunny afternoon in the Hall of Columns at the Capitol eight autumns ago. This was McCarthy’s kismet. And if McCarthy was ever going to be speaker, that destiny was seemingly guaranteed years ago. | US Congress |
An 11-year-old girl was taken into custody and handcuffed outside her home in central Florida on Wednesday after reporting in detail the fake abduction of "her 14-year-old friend," authorities said.
The girl, who faces felony and misdemeanor charges, later told law enforcement that a YouTube challenge inspired her to carry out the 911 hoax, which she thought "would be funny," according to the Volusia County Sheriff's Office.
She had said her friend was kidnapped by an armed man driving a white van, authorities said, but when deputies and officers from multiple police departments were deployed, along with an aviation crew, to search for the vehicle, "no van was found."
Authorities say the girl continued to text law enforcement with updates about the fake kidnapping over the next hour and a half. Those updates included "a description of the male suspect and that he had a gun," according to the sheriff's office. She is charged with making a false police report involving the use of a firearm in a violent manner, which is a felony, and misuse of 911, which is a misdemeanor.
Sheriff's deputies arrested the girl outside of her family's home in Port Orange, just a few miles south of Daytona Beach. Deputies identified the property by tracking the child's cellphone, which she had used to send a text message to 911 earlier that morning reporting that "her 14-year-old friend had been abducted and she was following in a blue Jeep," the Volusia County Sheriff's Office said in a statement shared to Facebook.
The sheriff's office also posted body camera video footage of the arrest to its Facebook page. In the footage, four uniformed officers surround the girl in the yard outside of her family's home while she stands handcuffed in the driveway, with her face blurred. The girl sounds upset as she says, "I'm not going to do this again." An officer tells her, "This is going to be an opportunity for you to turn this into a learning experience."
The girl was processed following her arrest at the county's family resource center before ultimately being transferred to the Volusia Regional Juvenile Detention Center.
"This kind of prank activity is dangerous – we're going to investigate every incident but today it wasted valuable resources that might have helped someone else who legitimately needed our help," Volusia County Sheriff Mike Chitwood said in a statement.
The sheriff's office said it plans to host five upcoming community forums over the next month "to help parents protect their kids from Internet dangers." The first one is scheduled for Monday.
Fraudulent 911 calls placed by teenagers and young adults arein the U.S., the Associated Press reported in March, citing federal investigators. These hoaxes and their link to online networking platforms have gained notoriety in recent years, partly in connection with "swatting" — when someone places a false 911 report with the aim of sending a SWAT team to someone else's home as a prank. The video game Call of Duty, which allowed players to meet online and play against one another, became associated with "swatting" after one infamous hoax in 2017.
for more features. | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie predicted on Tuesday that former President Donald Trump, his chief foe in the primary race, will be convicted in one of the four criminal cases he faces.
Christie claimed the reported immunity deal reached between Mark Meadows, Trump's former chief of staff, and the Justice Department last week will likely help prosecutors win their case over allegations the former president allegedly attempted to overturn the 2020 election.
"Everybody's who watching needs to understand from somebody who did this work for seven years, you don't give Mark Meadows immunity unless the evidence he has is unimpeachable," Christie said Tuesday on MSNBC's Morning Joe. "I want Republican voters to understand this, what's going to be happening in March. He's gonna be sitting in a courtroom in Washington, D.C., with Mark Meadows 20 feet away from him saying he committed crimes in front of me on my watch."
"Look, this is a guy who was Velcro to Trump's hip for the entire 2020 campaign and all the post-campaign nonsense," Christie continued. "And so this is deadly. It's done. He's going to be convicted. It's over."
Chris Christie: “You don't give Mark Meadows immunity unless the evidence he has is unimpeachable...This is a guy who was Velcroed to Trump's hip for the entire 2020 campaign and all the post-campaign nonsense. So this is deadly. It's done. He's going to be convicted.” pic.twitter.com/m6HvmEkuOh— Republican Accountability (@AccountableGOP) October 31, 2023
Special counsel Jack Smith charged Trump with four felonies in August, including conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding. Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis charged Trump and 17 other co-defendants over similar alleged efforts to overturn the state's 2020 election results.
Judge Tanya Chutkan set the trial date for the 2020 election interference case for March 4, 2024, right in the thick of the primary contest season and one day before the all-important Super Tuesday, in which the most number of states will hold their primaries or caucuses. Chutkan reinstated a gag order on Trump on Sunday, barring him from attacking witnesses, prosecutors, and court staff.
Christie, however, claimed that Trump wouldn't be able to delay the trial despite running for president a third time. "I don't think you can delay it," he said. "I don't have the impression that this district court judge in Washington is amenable to delay."
"She has not given much at this point into the defense claims for delay," Christie continued before referencing a separate criminal case Smith brought against Trump for allegedly mishandling classified documents when he left office. "And I think that's why Jack Smith indicted this case with just Trump, right, because you don't have multiple defendants. This is it. He has six unindicted co-conspirators not because he doesn't think they committed crimes but because he learned from the documents case."
Trump faces 91 indictments across four criminal cases, yet he remains the undisputed leader of the GOP primary race, besting all his rivals often by anywhere from 30 to 60 percentage points. Christie, once a Trump-friendly Republican, has become his chief critic among the 2024 GOP pack, frequently slamming him. | US Federal Elections |
House Republicans are planning a motion to expel Matt Gaetz from the chamber, even as he continues to threaten to expel Kevin McCarthy from the speakership.
The House GOP will move to expel Gaetz if the Ethics Committee finds him guilty, Fox News reported Sunday. Earlier this year, committee investigators reopened a probe into the Florida Republican for allegations of sexual misconduct, illegal drug use, and other wrongdoings.
Gaetz’s repeated threats to move to vacate McCarthy is apparently the straw that broke the camel’s back. “No one can stand him at this point,” a House Republican, speaking anonymously, told Fox. “A smart guy without morals.”
Over the past few weeks, Gaetz repeatedly threatened to vacate McCarthy as House speaker unless the federal budget was slashed dramatically. Now that a continuing resolution has been passed to keep the government open, Gaetz has once again renewed this threat (although it remains to be seen if he’ll follow through or just keep holding it over McCarthy’s head).
McCarthy told CNN on Sunday that he thought Gaetz’s animosity towards him was personal. “I’ll survive. You know, this is personal with Matt,” McCarthy said “He’s more interested in securing TV interviews than doing something.”
“So be it, bring it on. Let’s get over with it and let’s start governing.”
McCarthy also told Fox on Monday that he thought Gaetz’s anger had ramped up because McCarthy refused to step in and block the Ethics Committee investigation.
The feud between Gaetz and McCarthy has grown incredibly heated in recent weeks. In mid-September, McCarthy snapped at Gaetz during a closed-door party meeting, and told him to put up or shut up. | US Congress |
Donald Trump's argument that he holds "absolute immunity" from criminal prosecution as a former president falls apart in the face of nearly all of American history, special counsel Jack Smith argued Thursday per Politico. In a 54-page filing pointedly refuting Trump's sprawling efforts to impede the federal criminal case alleging he conspired to overturn the 2020 election results, Smith's team referenced the prosecution of Aaron Burr, Richard Nixon's pardon, the civil lawsuit against Bill Clinton and Trump's own remarks on his 2021 impeachment trial for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6 insurrection. In another part of the filing, prosecutors called out Trump lawyers' attempts to "draw a parallel between his fraudulent efforts to overturn the results of an election that he lost and the likes of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address and George Washington’s Farewell Address,” writing, “these things are not alike.”
In each example, the Constitution and its upholders affirmed that former presidents can be prosecuted for actions they take in office, prosecutors said. “The implications of the defendant’s unbounded immunity theory are startling,” prosecutor James Pearce and other members of Smith’s team argued. “It would grant absolute immunity from criminal prosecution to a president who accepts a bribe in exchange for a lucrative government contract for a family member; a president who instructs his FBI Director to plant incriminating evidence on a political enemy; a president who orders the National Guard to murder his most prominent critics; or a president who sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary.”
Trump's attorneys argued earlier this month that he simply can't be prosecuted for efforts to subvert the election results because they pertained to his official duty as president to safeguard federal elections. But prosecutors countered Thursday that his efforts fell outside of his job responsibilities and were inherently political, adding that the assertion defies the Constitution as the document anticipates former presidents' prosecution for crimes that may occur while in office. The parties' dispute marks the first substantive clash over the legal framework that will define Trump's prosecution in this case. | US Federal Policies |
Biden turned 81 on Monday, and numerous polls show that most people have reservations about his age and that of former President Donald Trump, Biden's likely Republican opponent in the 2024 general election.
Pressed on this polling during Monday's White House press briefing, Jean-Pierre told reporters that the administration's "perspective is that it's not about age; it's about the president's experience."
"The proof is in the pudding, right? The president has used his experience to pass more bipartisan legislation in recent time than any other president. That's just the fact. That is something that we have seen this president do, and that's because of his experience," she continued. "He's been able to manage multiple, multiple foreign policy challenges. He's been able to do that. That's because of his experience."
Jean-Pierre claimed that the public should "judge him by what he's done, not by his numbers" before noting that Biden is "the first president ever that's been able to go to an active war zone without our military, you know, controlling what's happening on the ground."
"Look, I would put the president's stamina, presence, wisdom, ability to get this done on behalf of the American people against anyone, anyone, any day of the week," she concluded.
You can watch Monday's briefing in full below. | US Federal Elections |
Sen. Mitt Romney Says He Would Vote For ‘Virtually’ Anybody Other Than Trump or Ramaswamy
Romney, smiling, said he'd even be 'happy' to support 'a number of' the Democrats in the presidential race
In a recent sit down interview, Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, flat out declared that he has no intention of casting a ballot for former President Donald Trump.
He's also not going to cast his ballot for Vivek Ramaswamy.
"Anybody. You know, I'd be happy to support virtually any one of the Republicans" other than Trump, Romney said, adding: "Maybe not Vivek."
But "the others that are running are acceptable to me and I'd be happy to vote for them," Romney told "Person to Person's" Norah O'Donnell when asked which candidates he "liked" in the GOP field.
Romney, smiling, said that he would also be "happy" to support a "number of" the Democrats who have entered the 2024 presidential race, though did not name names.
"It would be an upgrade from, in my opinion, Donald Trump, and perhaps also Joe Biden," Romney said.
- Romney Says He Will Not Seek Reelection
- Oprah Suggested Unity Ticket With Mitt Romney in 2020: Report
- Here’s Who Could Replace Mitt Romney in the Senate
- Romney in Book: Republicans Didn’t Impeach Trump Because They Feared ‘Political Violence’
- Two-Time Trump Impeachment Supporter Mitt Romney Can’t See Biden Trial Happening
- Sen. Mitt Romney Loves His Hot Dogs: ‘Best Meat There Is, Without Question’
But the Utah senator, who announced earlier this year that he will not be seeking re-election, also said he finds President Biden "charming" and "engaging" in the "places" where they agree and in "most places" he disagrees with the president.
He added, however, that he believes Biden has made some "terrible" decisions.
In 2020, Romney revealed that he did not vote for Trump in the former president's re-election bid, and has since been a longtime critic of the former president.
He also voted in favor of Trump's impeachment.
- University of Texas Yanks Out Campus Message Boulders After Israel-Palestine CommentsPolitics
- Voting Machine Problem Raises Concerns in Skittish Pennsylvania for 2024: ReportPolitics
- Ramaswamy Calls for Tucker Carlson-Hosted GOP Debate on Elon Musk’s XPolitics
- Trump Aiming to Upstage Foe Nikki Haley By Attending Football Game at Her Alma MaterPolitics
- Sandy Hook Families Back 2 Ways Out of Bankruptcy for Alex Jones: Pay Up Damages or LiquidatePolitics
- Support From Outside Groups Could Dwindle for Scandal-Plagued MenendezPolitics
- Florida Abortion Rights Activists Hope to Use Momentum From Ohio Ballot VictoryPolitics
- Prosecute Leftist Protestors Like Jan. 6 Rioters, GOP DemandsPolitics
- Trump Surrogate Roger Stone Calls DeSantis’ Wife ‘C’ Word for Mentioning Her Kids on Campaign TrailPolitics
- Self-Described ‘Mary Magdalene of Congress’ Santos Expects to Be Booted From House: ReportPolitics
- Prosecutors Call for 97-Month Sentence for Jan. 6 Rioter Who Showed Off Cop’s Blood on His HandsPolitics
- Joe Biden Is About to Dive Into ‘Democracy Reawakening’ at His Bedside TablePolitics | US Federal Elections |
Former President Donald Trump never stops talking. He has an unusual habit of saying whatever is on his mind, no matter how factually inaccurate, off-color, or otherwise counterproductive. This has endeared him to a certain portion of Americans and largely alienated everyone else. Now Trumpworld is still claiming that the Justice Department is somehow violating Trump’s First Amendment rights by indicting him this week for conspiring to overthrow the 2020 election.
“This is an attack on free speech and political advocacy,” John Lauro, one of Trump’s lawyers, told CNN earlier this week. “And there’s nothing that’s more protected under the First Amendment than political speech.” Rudy Giuliani waved around a copy of the indictment on Newsmax and said that “this one will be your legacy, violating the right of free speech of an American citizen,” referring to special counsel Jack Smith. “President Trump had every right under the First Amendment to correctly raise concerns about election integrity in 2020,” claimed New York Representative Elise Stefanik, a leading House Republican.
In the indictment on Tuesday, federal prosecutors made clear that they were distinguishing between protected First Amendment activities and criminal conduct. “The Defendant had a right, like every American, to speak publicly about the election and even to claim, falsely, that there had been outcome-determinative fraud during the election and that he had won,” the indictment said in its third paragraph. “He was also entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits challenging ballots and procedures.”
“Indeed, in many cases, the Defendant did pursue these methods of contesting the election results,” the indictment continued. “His efforts to change the outcome in any state through recounts, audits, or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful. Shortly after election day, the Defendant also pursued unlawful means of discounting legitimate votes and subverting the election results.” These latter actions are what have earned Trump four charges for conspiring to defraud the United States and prevent people’s votes from counting.
To call the president’s defenders’ legal theories spurious would be an understatement. Trumpworld’s unbounded view of free speech, if applied consistently, would eliminate most state and federal crimes. After all, perjury is speech. (That did not stop independent counsel Ken Starr from investigating Bill Clinton for it or the House for impeaching him over it.) Bribery is speech. Many types of fraud are speech. Insider trading is speech. Identity theft is speech. Forging checks is speech. Telling state secrets to foreign governments is speech. The First Amendment makes it impossible for prosecutors to charge Americans with things like lèse-majesté, blasphemy, heresy, and making bomb threats. It also narrows the government’s ability to prosecute speech unless in direct furtherance of a crime. It is not a license for anarchy.
I am not the only person to make this point. Former Attorney General Bill Barr, who consistently advanced Trump’s legal interests while serving in his administration before he stepped aside after the 2020 election, noted during a CNN appearance this week that the free speech defense didn’t hold water. “As the indictment says, they’re not attacking his First Amendment rights,” he explained. “He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie. He can tell people that the election was stolen when he knew better. But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy.”
Earlier this week, I mentioned the emerging free speech defense only in passing because it wasn’t worth mentioning alongside actual legal arguments. That’s in no small part because the free speech claims made by Trump’s defenders are not an actual legal or philosophical stance. None of the people advocating it truly want it to be applied consistently. They simply want Donald Trump to be acquitted for organizing a coup attempt. They know that most Americans both oppose coup attempts and do not think kindly of people who try to carry them out. But Trump’s defenders also know that those same Americans love the First Amendment, and so they have often tried to cover his misdeeds behind its broad protections. They now hope a few potential D.C. jurors might be receptive to this line of reasoning.
This is not a novel tactic on their part. Perhaps the most salient instance came two years ago when Trump was impeached for incitement to insurrection. His defense team during his Senate trial argued that Trump’s address on the Ellipse shortly before the attack on the Capitol, as well as his other statements encouraging supporters to come to D.C., were protected by the First Amendment. “The attempt of the House to transmute Mr. Trump’s speech—core free speech under the First Amendment—into an impeachable offense cannot be supported, and convicting him would violate the very Constitution the Senate swears to uphold,” they claimed. The American legal community, including some of the foremost First Amendment scholars in the country, strongly disagreed.
I doubt the free speech claim was a serious factor in Republicans’ decision to acquit him; personal and partisan considerations likely trumped everything else. But it may have affected special counsel Jack Smith’s strategy in this case. If anything, he and his fellow prosecutors appear to have avoided charging Trump for potential crimes that could raise more legitimate First Amendment questions. The House January 6 committee, for example, had recommended that the former president be charged under 18 U.S.C. 2384. That provision makes it a crime whenever someone “incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto.”
While Trump’s moral culpability for the attack on the Capitol is obvious, his criminal culpability for inciting an insurrection is less straightforward. “It would have faced some potentially tricky First Amendment issues, to the extent it would have relied on Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on Jan. 6 to allege that he incited the riot,” Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor, wrote earlier this week. “I believe those issues could be overcome, but the free speech battles over that charge would have been time-consuming and distracting because the speech could be easily characterized as a political rally.”
If Trump and his allies were particularly zealous advocates of free speech in general, their invocation of the First Amendment here might be slightly harder to dismiss out of hand. But they are not. Trump himself has often mused about “opening up” libel laws so Americans can more easily sue each other for defamation, which would help wealthy and well-connected figures like himself suppress their critics by threatening them with lawsuits. He also pressured social media companies for what he described as suppressing conservative voices, essentially trying to tell them what they were allowed to host on their own services.
The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer has described post-Trump conservatism’s approach to free speech as “the right to post.” Under the guise of preventing censorship, which is distasteful to the American mind, conservative lawmakers and judges have sought to compel companies like Facebook and Twitter into hosting political speech against their will. Right-wing businessman Elon Musk claimed he was a “free-speech absolutist” when purchasing Twitter last year; in practice, that has meant boosting right-wing influencers whom he likes while suppressing everyone else. This is constitutionally valid but philosophically bankrupt. For these nouveau First Amendment champions, Serwer observed, “free speech is when they can say what they want, and when you can say what they want.”
Even the most fervent good-faith defenders of free speech recognize that there are clear limits to it. January 6 was one of them. Trump’s supposed “political advocacy” was not an idle inquiry into election results or ballot-counting methods. It was a direct effort to overthrow American democracy and invalidate the electoral voices of a clear majority of Americans. One of his co-conspirators even mused about using the Insurrection Act of 1807 to violently suppress any subsequent protests. The First Amendment protects all sorts of sins. Organizing a coup d’état is not one of them. | US Political Corruption |
The federal budget deficit—the difference between government spending and revenues—increased from 5.4% of GDP in FY 2022 to 6.3% of GDP in FY 2023. Adjusting for the effects of President Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, which boosted the deficit in FY 2022 when it was announced and decreased it in FY 2023 when it was ruled unconstitutional, the increase was significantly larger—from 3.9% of GDP last fiscal year to 7.5% in 2023.
Why did the deficit increase so much?
As shown in the table below, a decline in revenues explains most of the increase. Revenues were extraordinarily robust in FY 2022—reaching 19.4% of GDP compared to the 2018-2019 (pre-pandemic and post-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act) average of 16.3% of GDP. Most of the strength was in individual income taxes—likely reflecting robust capital gains realizations because of the strong stock market, as well as lags in the adjustments of income tax brackets for inflation (which temporarily pushed people into higher tax brackets).
Revenues in FY 2023 were 16.5% of GDP—a bit above the 2018-2019 average. Revenues were depressed by several one-time or temporary factors. First, the IRS delayed both corporate and individual income tax filing deadlines for Californians affected by severe winter storms to November 2023 (which falls in FY 2024), lowering revenues in FY 2023 by about 0.3% of GDP. Second, refunds from the pandemic-era Employee Retention Tax Credit (which ended in 2021) surged in FY 2023 as businesses submitted amended returns, also lowering revenues by about 0.3% of GDP (relative to roughly 0.15% in FY 2022). Finally, high interest rates reduced Federal Reserve profits, causing the Fed’s remittances to the Treasury to fall from 0.4% of GDP in FY 2022 to about 0. Without these special factors, and assuming average Fed remittances, receipts would have been about 17.4% of GDP—less than in FY 2022, but still strong relative to recent history.
Spending excluding interest was just a touch higher as a share of GDP in FY 2023 than in FY 2022. Spending on the major mandatory programs—Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—rose by 0.3% of GDP. Reductions in spending on pandemic programs (the enhanced Child Tax Credit, Coronavirus Relief, and the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund) were largely offset by one-time spending increases by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and by low spectrum auction receipts (which are counted as negative spending). Higher interest rates pushed up the cost of debt service, increasing total outlays by 0.5% of GDP in FY 2023 relative to FY 2022.
What happened to the federal debt in FY 2023?
Despite the 7.5% of GDP adjusted deficit, the debt to GDP ratio rose only 1.6 percentage points from FY 2022 to FY 2023—from 96% to 97.6%. The intuition for this much smaller increase is as follows: High inflation raises the government’s borrowing costs—which boosts interest payments and the deficit as a share of GDP—but, because not all the government’s debt rolls over each year, high inflation boosts nominal GDP growth more. The change in the debt to GDP ratio is approximately equal to the primary deficit (revenues less non-interest spending) as a share of GDP less last year’s debt to GDP ratio multiplied by the difference between the government’s borrowing rate and the growth rate of GDP. So, by boosting GDP growth more than it boosts interest rates, an increase in inflation lowers the rise in the debt to GDP ratio, despite increasing the deficit.
How do the deficit outlook and debt outlook compare to pre-pandemic projections?
In January 2020, the CBO projected that the deficit would be 4.5% of GDP in FY 2023. The actual deficit was about 3% of GDP higher. However, the bulk of that difference is accounted for by pandemic-era programs, one-time outlays, and temporarily lower revenues. As of May 2023, CBO was projecting that deficits from 2024 through 2030 would be 0.9% of GDP higher on average than they had projected in January 2020. The increase is largely accounted for by higher interest payments on the debt accumulated during the pandemic, as higher projected discretionary spending is largely offset by lower than projected mandatory spending and stronger revenues.
What does the recent run-up in interest rates mean for the federal debt?
Interest rates have increased sharply in recent months. On November 20, 2023, the interest rate on 10-year inflation-protected Treasuries was 2.1%—up from 1.6% in January 2023, but down from the 2.5% observed just three weeks earlier. It is hard to know exactly what caused this surge in interest rates—and therefore hard to know whether it will persist. But if it does—and if it is not accompanied by higher productivity—it will make stabilizing the debt to GDP ratio more difficult.
When interest rates are below the growth rate of the economy—as they were for most years since 2010—the government can run small primary deficits (non-interest spending less revenues) without increasing the debt to GDP ratio. If interest rates are higher than economic growth, the government must run a surplus to keep the debt to GDP ratio from rising. High interest rates mean that a given set of tax and spending policies will lead to a steeper rise in debt to GDP and, also, that larger spending cuts (or revenue increases) will be needed to stabilize the debt to GDP ratio for any given level of the debt and deficit.
It’s possible that higher interest rates will be accompanied by (or are potentially the result of) higher productivity growth—perhaps from the adoption of artificial intelligence. Higher productivity growth has two effects. First, it lowers the primary deficit (revenues less non-interest spending) because revenues rise and spending falls as a share of GDP when productivity increases. Second, higher productivity growth boosts GDP, lowering any given level of debt relative to GDP.
This graph shows a rough estimate of the effects of a 0.5 percentage point persistent increase in interest rates alone (about the difference between the inflation-adjusted rate that prevailed on November 20 and what CBO expected last May for 2025)—as well as the combined effects of that increase in interest rates combined with an increase in productivity only half as large (0.25 percentage point). Without an increase in productivity, the higher interest rates increase the debt to GDP ratio in 2053 from 180% in the baseline to 195%.1 But increases in productivity are quite powerful—even an increase in productivity growth of 0.25 percentage point is enough to more than offset the effects of the higher interest rates, bringing the debt to GDP ratio in 2053 down to 163% of GDP.
The recent increase in the deficit doesn’t fundamentally change the fiscal outlook for the U.S. Much of the increase is caused by temporary or one-off factors that have been offset in debt to GDP by inflation and strong growth. Persistently high interest rates, however, could exacerbate fiscal sustainability challenges unless accompanied by higher productivity growth.
-
Acknowledgements and disclosures
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.
-
Footnotes
- In estimating this trajectory, we haven’t accounted for any macroeconomic feedback effects of higher interest rates on GDP growth. However, these effects would likely be fairly small, judging from CBO’s July 2023 analysis of a bigger rise in interest rates. | US Federal Policies |
Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics
newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.
Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.
Steve Peoples, Associated Press
Steve Peoples, Associated Press
Leave your feedback
NEW YORK (AP) — The end of Labor Day weekend would typically mark the start of a furious sprint to the Iowa caucuses as candidates battle for their party’s presidential nomination. But as the 2024 campaign comes into greater focus, the usual frenzy is yielding to a sense of inevitability.
READ MORE: Trump boasts strong support among Republicans. The general election could be a different story
Among Republicans, Donald Trump is dominating the primary field, outpacing rivals with resumes as governors, diplomats and entrepreneurs that would normally prove compelling. The former president’s strength comes despite — or perhaps because of — multiple criminal indictments that threaten to overshadow any serious debate about the future of the country. And for now, the tens of millions of dollars that Republican rivals are pouring into the race are doing little to diminish Trump’s stature, fueling concerns among his GOP critics who fear the primary is essentially over before it begins.
As one troubled front-runner tightens his grip on the Republican nomination, President Joe Biden is on a glide path to victory on the Democratic side. The 80-year-old incumbent is facing only token opposition for the Democratic nomination despite concerns about his age and performance from many within his own party.
Whether voters like it or not, a Trump-Biden rematch may be on the horizon, raising the prospect of a deeply uncertain election season that only intensifies the nation’s political divide. Already, Trump is skipping his party’s presidential debates and his court appearances are sometimes drawing more attention than his campaign stops. And Biden has barely begun to campaign as he grapples with questions about his age and his son’s legal challenges.
“I just can’t imagine things markedly changing. So, it appears that past is prologue,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in an interview, praising Biden’s record of achievement while warning his party against underestimating Trump’s political strength.
Newsom said concerns about Biden’s age “are fair game and the White House knows it.”
”But if age equals results,” he went on, “I’m looking forward to his 85th birthday.”
On the Republican side, dread is building among some donors and party leaders who hoped conservative voters would move past Trump given the the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol he inspired and his serious legal challenges.
“A Trump-Biden rematch would be a disaster for the country. I’m very depressed about it,” said Bobbie Kilberg, a prominent Republican donor who is supporting former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. She said it’s “scary” that so many voters in her party continue to support the former president. ”I refuse to believe that Trump is our inevitable nominee.”
There is time for the 2024 landscape to shift.
Four months remain before the first votes are cast in the Iowa caucuses and the general election is more than a year away. And recent history has plenty of examples of overlooked and seemingly overmatched candidates who proved the conventional wisdom wrong. Both Trump and Biden are among them.
There are also significant variables.
Abortion continues to scramble elections — even in GOP strongholds like Kansas, Kentucky and Ohio — as voters reject Republican efforts to restrict access to the procedure. A greater backlash is possible as the courts review access to a commonly used abortion pill.
And Trump is facing 91 felony charges in criminal proceedings unfolding in Washington, New York, Miami and Atlanta. They involve everything from his handling of classified information to his efforts to overturn the 2020 election to orchestrating hush money payments to a porn actor.
The former president could be a convicted felon before the general election is decided next November. Still, party leaders — including most of his Republican primary opponents — have vowed to support him even if convicted. And nothing in the Constitution bars felons from assuming the presidency.
Leaders in both parties are willing to overlook liabilities.
Young Democrats of America President Quentin Wathum-Ocama concedes that young voters aren’t necessarily enthusiastic about a Trump-Biden rematch, but he hopes that Trump’s polarizing candidacy will give Democrats the energy Biden cannot.
“Yes, people want a younger generation of politicians. We’ve always talked about Joe Biden as — even he’s said — as a transitional figure in our political life,” Wathum-Ocama said. ”As much as we’re seeing folks, for whatever reason, may not be excited or whatever, to me, it comes back to democracy is on the line.”
With virtually no exceptions, Democratic officials in Congress and in key states are publicly rallying behind Biden’s reelection.
Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, Biden’s strongest challenger in the 2020 Democratic primary, endorsed Biden’s reelection bid hours after it was announced this spring. Biden enlisted other would-be rivals for his national advisory board. The group includes Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif.; Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Newsom in California.
Republicans have delighted in suggesting that Newsom plans to launch a primary challenge against Biden, something the California governor has repeatedly ruled out. That’s even as Newsom teases the possibility of a high-profile debate against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is among Trump’s top Republican challengers.
READ MORE: U.S. grapples with rising threats of political violence as 2024 election looms
Meanwhile, in a show of confidence, the Trump campaign has already begun to pivot toward a general election matchup against Biden.
His team says he currently plans to skip all Republican presidential debates, sensing few consequences for skipping the first one last month. DeSantis, once thought to be a potent threat, has struggled to live up to expectations.
Trump’s relationships across the party and his expansive political machine have made it extremely difficult for others to break through.
“The president benefits from having led the party for the last eight years,” said Brian Jack, Trump’s political director.
Support Provided By:
Learn more
Economy
Aug 15 | US Federal Elections |
On a Tuesday afternoon in late April, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene walks into the seventh-floor congressional office belonging to Representative Matt Gaetz, settles into a high-backed black leather chair, and fits a pair of headphones over her blonde hair. The taping is about to begin for the 38th episode of Gaetz’s “Firebrand” podcast, and Greene is the high-wattage guest star. Greene has come straight from Dulles Airport, so Gaetz takes a minute to catch her up on today’s topics before the recording starts. There is much to discuss: the latest Anthony Fauci-related controversy; Greene’s trip to the U.S.-Mexico border; the five hours Greene recently spent testifying before a Georgia administrative judge that she should not be deemed an insurrectionist and tossed off the congressional ballot. “And then, of course, I’m going to go into our favorite subject,” Gaetz tells his colleague. “How the Republican Party is being led, and how it should be led.” “Oh boy,” Greene chuckles. “I just got here from the airport! And Matt’s like, let’s start ’er off, and let’s torch the news cycle.” Torching the news cycle is what Gaetz and Greene love to do. They are constantly in the headlines for their attention-getting antics, outrages and feuds. The pair have defended the Jan. 6 rioters, promoted countless conspiracy theories, hobnobbed with white nationalists and picked fights with colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Their own Republican colleagues have called them “unserious,” clowns, bigots, and worse. The humorist Dave Barry called them “Trump’s inner circle of trusted wack jobs.” Gaetz and Greene have been cannily building their leverage in Congress Shuran Huang for TIME Gaetz and Greene are the ringleaders of the GOP’s most hard-core, pro-Trump congressional faction. The MAGA Squad, as you might call them, is not a formal caucus, but its numbers are growing—despite the impending departure of one prominent member, Rep. Madison Cawthorn, who lost his North Carolina primary after scandals ranging from insider-trading allegations to lewd videos. The group includes freshmen members like Lauren Boebert, who accused a Muslim colleague of being a member of the “Jihad Squad,” as well as longer-serving representatives like Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, who pushed Trump’s Department of Justice to throw out electoral votes after the 2020 election, and Paul Gosar of Arizona, who has extensive ties to white nationalists and once posted an animated video showing him murdering Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with a sword. There’s Representative Andy Biggs of Arizona, who allegedly helped plan the Jan. 6 rally that preceded the Capitol riot, and Mo Brooks of Alabama, who spoke at the rally. Several members have been subpoenaed by the Jan. 6 Committee, which is also investigating Representative Barry Loudermilk for leading what some have called a “reconnaissance” tour of the closed Capitol on Jan. 5, 2021. There have long been rabble-rousing right-wingers in Congress, but this group makes the Freedom Caucus seem tame. To Republicans trying to convince voters to hand them power this November by seeming sensible, sober and interested in governing, they’re a constant headache and distraction. The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has described Greene’s “loony lies and conspiracy theories” as a “cancer for the Republican Party.” Not that the MAGA Squad care what the GOP Establishment thinks: Back before Twitter permanently banned her for spreading Covid misinformation, Greene shared a tweet calling Kevin McCarthy—the leader of her own party in the House—a “feckless c-nt.” Democrats and many Republicans deride the group as gadflies, irrelevant to the serious business of lawmaking. But in fact, the MAGA Squad has been cannily building leverage and clout in the halls of Congress. Now, with the primary season in full swing across the country, they’re looking to pad their numbers, recruiting like-minded firebrands in red districts, endorsing and campaigning for fellow insurgents in intra-party contests, and even, in some cases, campaigning against their own colleagues. (Gaetz boasts that a rally he headlined last year for Harriet Hageman, a primary opponent of Representative Liz Cheney, was at that time “the largest political event in Wyoming history without a rodeo element.”) Most political observers expect Republicans to win the House in November, putting McCarthy in line to be the next Speaker. But to win that position, McCarthy will need the backing of 218 of his colleagues. There are currently 208 Republicans in the chamber, and election handicappers project the party will win another 15 to 20 seats. Depending on how many they gain, McCarthy is likely to need the support of even some of the party’s most extreme members. “At this point, not knowing the size of the potential majority, leadership is about keeping all the frogs in the wheelbarrow, even if some of the frogs are pretty ugly,” says a former GOP leadership aide who estimates there are about a dozen members of the “real cray cray.” Particularly if the majority is a narrow one, the MAGA Squad will have ample leverage—and McCarthy has been acting like he knows it. For a time, McCarthy made a feeble effort to rein in his party’s nut jobs and conspiracy theorists. Now he seems more eager to curry favor with them. Last year, he condemned Greene for comparing mask mandates to the Holocaust; more recently, when Greene was kicked off Twitter, he issued a fiery statement in her defense. When the New York Times released audio recordings of McCarthy privately condemning Trump and expressing alarm at the rhetoric of Gaetz, Greene and Boebert in the aftermath of Jan. 6, the House Republican leader rushed to make amends with his members. (McCarthy’s office declined to comment on the record for this story.) The MAGA Squad has spent the past year building their power, and now they’re preparing to wield it. If McCarthy—or any other Republican—wants to be Speaker, he’s going to have to go through them. And he’s not getting their votes without meeting their demands, which could include things like prosecuting Fauci, ousting Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, or even impeaching President Biden. The purpose, they say, isn’t amassing power for themselves. It’s shaping the agenda—and reshaping what the Republican Party stands for. Greene and Gaetz make small talk as his staffers set up the livestream on Rumble, a conservative-friendly social-media site. “On two Sunday shows, they had a big discussion of how irrelevant we are,” Gaetz confides to Greene, who sits next to him at a long table surrounded by klieg lights. On the wall of the cramped congressional-office-turned-podcast studio, there’s a black-and-white poster for S.J. “Jerry” Gaetz, the congressman’s grandfather, that dubs him “North Dakota’s Most Progressive Mayor.” In a glass display case, there’s a handwritten note from President Trump, scribbled in Sharpie on an article about Gaetz defending himself against a federal sex-trafficking probe involving the transportation of a 17-year-old across state lines. “Matt, This is Great,” Trump wrote. “Keep fighting – You will WIN!” More from TIME A note from Trump is prominently displayed in Gaetz's congressional office Shuran Huang for TIME Gaetz believes his podcast to be Congress’s first-ever live-streamed simulcast, and sees it as an example of the innovative ways he’s working to get his message out. “They had to mention us by name to talk about how irrelevant we are,” Gaetz continues gleefully. “They love talking about the irrelevant people on the Sunday shows.” As Greene cackles at the irony, three-two-one the recording begins, and Gaetz introduces his guest, “the unbeatable, unstoppable Marjorie Taylor Greene.” Gaetz plays the Sunday-show clips. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, GOP political operative Karl Rove had dismissed the idea that McCarthy faced significant internal opposition. “There may be a few dissidents of the sort of Matt Gaetz-Marjorie Taylor Greene wing of the party, which seems to consist of basically two people,” Rove sniffed, mispronouncing the former’s name as “gites” instead of “gates.” Gaetz turns to Greene to get her take on this statement. “I want to tell you about Karl Rove,” she says, her syrupy Southern accent suddenly clipped and serious. “Karl Rove’s wing of the party is the failure part of our party.” It was this wing of the GOP, she says, that “led us into never-ending foreign wars,” needlessly killing American troops and leaving others to struggle with injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder and drug addiction. “Their wing of the party has led us to this massive debt the American people are in,” Greene says. “Their wing of the party sent our jobs overseas. Their wing of the party is the complete failure that exists here in this town, Matt, and nobody cares what Karl Rove has to say. Everyone cares about what you have to say. People care about what I have to say. People care about what Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States, has to say.” Read More: On the Campaign Trail With Marjorie Taylor Greene. She’s not finished. “So Karl Rove can go kiss my ass, because I could care less what he has to say about any of us,” she says, drumming the table in agitation. “He’s dead wrong. He’s disconnected. And shame on Fox News for constantly having him on there.” “I do not believe that there is a single Republican running in a single primary in America that would rather stand on stage with Karl Rove or Chris Christie than Marjorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz,” Gaetz responds. “There might be more of them inside the Beltway of Washington, D.C. But there’s more of them that are like us that are going to be voting in these primaries that run from now through September.” Greene waves signs with supporters outside a voting center in Dallas, Ga. Andrew Hetherington for TIME Of all the things she’s done in her 18 months in Congress, Marjorie Taylor Greene is proudest of having thoroughly irritated her colleagues—Republicans and Democrats alike. “A lot of people beat me up and say, ‘Oh, she doesn’t even have committees,’” Greene tells me. “There’s so many ways to be effective, even if you’re not on a committee.” In February 2021, Greene was stripped of her committee assignments—just two weeks after she received them—after some of her old comments advocating political violence surfaced. In one 2019 Facebook video, Greene accused Speaker Nancy Pelosi of treason, which she described as “a crime punishable by death.” The House voted to remove Greene from the budget and education committees by a vote of 230 to 199, with 11 Republicans joining the Democrats in condemnation. But if they thought that would stop her, they were wrong. Much of the House’s business is mundane—dozens of uncontroversial bills that can be passed on a voice vote if no member objects. Realizing this, Greene decided she would park herself on the House floor and object to every one, forcing each of the 435 members to show up and take a position, yea or nay. “I think at first everybody thought, oh, she’s just mad, she’s got nothing else to do, so she’s pitching a fit,” Greene, who rarely speaks to the national mainstream media, tells me during a recent campaign swing through her Georgia district. A voice vote only takes an instant, but a recorded vote is held open for at least 15 minutes. “Everyone had to stop what they’re doing,” she says, with evident satisfaction. “They would have to leave whatever meeting they had, committee hearing they had, lunch meeting they had, fundraising calls they were doing, all because I would ask for a recorded vote. So it was an annoyance, and it slowed everything down.” Greene would sit there, hour after hour, making her objections. In March 2021, she knocked 13 bills off the schedule in a single week. Some never came back. Others turned out not to have the votes to pass. A first-term backbencher in the House minority was single-handedly derailing multiple bills the Democratic majority wanted to approve. The incensed majority leader, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, complained to McCarthy, according to Greene. “He demanded to know, is she going to keep doing this?” she says. “And basically [McCarthy] said, ‘We can’t control her—we can’t make her stop. I think she’s going to keep doing it.’ And I did keep doing it. And then all of a sudden it was Republicans who started getting mad.” (McCarthy’s office did not dispute Greene’s account of his conversation with Hoyer. In a press conference last year, he said “every member has a right” to make such procedural motions.) According to Greene, some of her GOP colleagues told her she was forcing them to take positions on tricky issues they’d rather avoid. “And I thought, you know, that even makes me want to come in harder,” she recalls. “Because, to me, why would any member of Congress be afraid for anyone to know how I vote? So I doubled down and kept doing it.” A number of her right-wing colleagues have now joined Greene in her floor objections. In May, a fellow House Republican complained to CNN that the tactic was “screwing all of us,” while the Democratic Chairman of the Rules Committee, Jim McGovern, compared the gambit to children throwing tantrums. “It’s clear Kevin McCarthy has no control over his members,” McGovern fumed. By Greene’s count, she has personally forced 39 recorded votes, and together with her allies has forced more than 500. It’s a sunny day in Northwest Georgia as Greene and I talk in the back of her campaign SUV, which is stocked with energy drinks, Advil and—Greene’s favorite—peanut M&Ms. She’s campaigning in advance of the May 24 primary, which she will soon win easily. Greene may not be popular in Washington, but she’s very popular here. The primary pitted her against five Republican challengers, all of whom campaigned on behaving less divisively. One was backed by the D.C. GOP establishment, with support from numerous national political-action committees and even some of Greene’s congressional colleagues. (Donors included Senators Bill Cassidy and Mitt Romney.) Greene went on to take 70% of the primary vote, winning by a 50-point margin. At campaign stops, the 48-year-old mother of three and former construction executive is mobbed by fans sporting Let’s Go Brandon T-shirts, InfoWars paraphernalia, and Impeach Biden stickers. At a diner in Rockmart, a small town near the Alabama border, a man with a cane and a big white beard shows up wearing a gray shirt with a picture of Greene shouldering an assault rifle and the words, “The GREENE New Deal.” She laughs and gives him a hug. Constituents tell her they’re worried the next election might be stolen, as they believe the last one was. They ask why the military can’t be deployed to expel “illegal aliens.” They want to know why Democrats don’t seem to believe in God. Supporters of Marjorie Taylor Greene at campaign events in her district before the May 24 primary Andrew Hetherington for TIME “Anything I can do for you?” she asks a man in a booth wearing a Second Amendment trucker cap. “Just keep doin’ what you’re doin’,” he says. “Give ‘em hell.” Greene isn’t just a celebrity here. She and Gaetz drew hundreds of supporters on a joint “America First” tour last summer that made stops from Iowa to Arizona. A June Morning Consult/POLITICO poll found three-quarters of American voters have heard of Greene, nearly matching McCarthy’s 87% name recognition. Greene has raised nearly $10 million during her term, making her one of the conference’s top fundraisers. The Ohio Senate candidate J.D. Vance cited Greene’s endorsement as one of the most important factors in his recent primary victory, along with Trump’s and Tucker Carlson’s. Liberals and the media may pity or despise the constituents who thrill to Greene’s provocations, but in a democracy, they are as deserving of representation as anyone else, and in Greene, they see the closest thing they’ve had to a real voice in Congress. This is the source of her power, and her colleagues in Washington know it. Before she ran for Congress in 2020, Greene was just your average Q-curious Christian mom, posting conspiracy theories on Facebook and cheering Trump against his many haters, from the “Nazi” George Soros to the “Islamic invasion” of Muslim elected officials. Some national Republicans shunned her candidacy—the House GOP’s No. 2, Steve Scalise, backed her primary opponent, though McCarthy was neutral—but Trump embraced her, tweeting that she was “a future Republican Star.” Greene, who says she still talks to Trump regularly, repaid the favor before she even took office. On Dec. 31, 2020, she texted Trump’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, to let him know she had arrived in DC and would “like to meet with Rudy Giuliani again” to “get organized for the 6th,” according to messages Meadows provided to the Jan. 6 select committee that were obtained by CNN. On Jan. 6, she and Gaetz were planning to spearhead an objection to the certification of Michigan’s electoral votes when violence broke out instead. “Please tell the President to calm people,” she texted Meadows. “This isn’t the way to solve anything.” The next morning, she wrote, “Absolutely no excuse and I fully denounce all of it, but after shut downs all year and a stolen election, people are saying that they have no other choice.” Meadows replied, “Thanks Marjorie.” By Jan. 17, three days before Biden’s inauguration, she still hadn’t given up. “In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall (sic) law,” she told Meadows. “I don’t know on those things. I just wanted you to tell him. They stole this election. We all know. They will destroy our country next. Please tell him to declassify as much as possible so we can go after Biden and anyone else!” (Greene has refused to comment on the texts, saying she doesn’t trust CNN and can’t confirm they are authentic.) Today, her view is that while Jan. 6 was a horrible riot, it’s hypocritical of Democrats to focus on it while ignoring the riots that occurred across the country in the summer of 2020. “I was upset for weeks after [Jan. 6]. I was really shocked,” she tells me. “And then, what happened afterwards, we all get blamed for it. And that is still hurtful to this day—hurtful even more now, because now I’m being thrown in the news as supposedly one of the people that caused it.” In our interview, Greene declined to criticize McCarthy for the leaked tapes, ascribing the harsh words to a tense time long past. “I think we were all saying negative things about each other” at that time, she says. “There was a lot of confusion.” She would like to see the caucus run differently in some ways, “but I’m not going to go on a full bashing-Kevin-McCarthy tirade,” she says. “Kind of like I wouldn’t take my kids and fuss at them out in public. I would take them and we would talk about it privately.” But Greene is forthright about the fact that she expects to have some leverage over McCarthy if he seeks the Speakership, and she intends to make the most of it. Whoever wants to be the next Speaker, Greene tells me, is going to have to earn her backing—and that of her allies. “I would say my support is very important,” she says. “I think I may have some influence. Probably, if margins are narrow, it would be a strategic key.” What will she demand? Greene doesn’t want to show her hand completely, but says she’s in the process of formulating a policy agenda she calls “American Revival.“ The package of bills, which Greene hopes to unveil before the election, is likely to include her proposals to rein in social media platforms, bolster border security and eliminate Fauci’s position. “I want to see a plan, and I want to know the person is going to stick to it,” she says of whoever solicits her vote for Speaker. She would like to see the GOP majority impeach Biden, for one thing, and pass a federal abortion ban for another. “If everyone says they’re pro-life, we should end abortion,” she tells me. In speeches to constituents, she advocates firing Fauci, investigating Hunter Biden, and impeaching Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas along with the President. She and Gaetz have argued that a Republican House should focus on investigating and exposing Democratic malfeasance rather than passing partisan “messaging” bills that will never become law. What she definitely doesn’t want to see is a repeat of the Paul Ryan years, which she terms “weak leadership.” “I mean, Paul Ryan didn’t repeal Obamacare,” she says. (When Ryan was Speaker in 2017, the House did in fact pass a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, but it failed in the Senate.) “They didn’t fund and build the wall. And when every Republican there called themselves pro-life, they didn’t do anything about abortion, but they actually funded Planned Parenthood.” “To me,” she adds, “that’s a complete failure on three fundamental issues.” For all the harsh rhetoric, Greene says she’s been trying to dial it back and become more of a team player as she’s gained experience in Congress. “I’ve learned a lot. I’ve definitely made mistakes,” she says. I ask what comes to mind. “Maybe attacking at times when I didn’t need to, when I could have tried talking to them first, but I attacked publicly,” she says. “Kevin McCarthy is one. I’ve attacked other colleagues for their votes.” Then again, she reflects, “I’m not saying I won’t ever do it again. I probably will.” One of Matt Gaetz’s favorite mementos is a photo with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the liberal congresswoman from New York and national political celebrity. In the picture, they’re dressed in their congressional garb, standing with big smiles on either side of Father Patrick Conroy, a Jesuit priest and House chaplain, who had asked them to pose for his 2019 Christmas card. (Greene, for her part, recently accused the Catholic Church of being “controlled by Satan” for its work assisting migrants.) “Peace on Earth, Good Will to All!” it says in red script beneath the photo. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Matt Gaetz pose alongside former House Chaplain Father Patrick Conroy for Conroy's 2019 Christmas card Shuran Huang for TIME But that was two impeachments and an insurrection ago. Gaetz used to have cordial relationships with some Democrats, finding common ground on issues like antitrust and drug policy. (Once, he and Ocasio-Cortez even teamed up on a failed amendment to promote research of psychedelics.) But few Democrats will even talk to him anymore, he explains mournfully. “It was the populist right and populist left against the neoconservative middle,” Gaetz says. “But all of that functionally ended after Jan. 6.” All the policy affinity in the world, it seems, was no match for one little attempted coup. Gaetz’s brown hair rises from his forehead in a magnificently gelled wave. “Ever since Dave Brat lost, this has been the best hair in Congress,” he boasts, referring to a former Republican representative from Virginia. He’s fascinated by Ocasio-Cortez and her allies in the left-wing Squad, who he sees as role models for the mastery of asymmetric power. “I have studied carefully the tactics of the Squad, and many are admirable,” he tells me in one of our interviews. “I am very impressed at the ability of a very small number of people to shape the policy goals of the conference. That’s what I want to do.” Read More: Matt Gaetz Wants To Make Trumpism the New Normal. It’s not just the votes the Squad commands, but their ability to use social media, grassroots fundraising and clout with the Democratic base to pressure congressional leadership. Gaetz points to a July 2021 episode in which Democratic Representative Cori Bush of Missouri protested the expiration of the federal eviction moratorium: “Is not one of the greatest flexes of the 117th Congress Cori Bush sleeping on the steps of the Capitol and getting the Biden Administration, in a matter of, like, 48 hours, to totally reverse their position?” he says. “I obviously don’t share the policy goals of Congresswoman Bush, but there’s a freshman congresswoman who, by virtue of a pretty compelling direct action, got the Biden Administration to straight-up flip.” Gaetz considers himself different from other members of Congress. He travels widely, campaigning for other members and candidates, but has held just one fundraiser in the past four years. He doesn’t take money from political action committees—neither corporate PACs nor those associated with advocacy organizations like the National Rifle Association. (Like Greene, Gaetz represents a safe Republican district, Florida’s 1st, which covers the state’s Western Panhandle.) And he prides himself on taking unconventional stands for a Republican. During his time in the Florida legislature, he wrote and passed the state’s laws legalizing gay adoption and medical marijuana. In 2020 he defied Trump to vote with Democrats to limit presidential war powers in Iran, earning a public scolding from McCarthy and Lou Dobbs on Fox News. Gaetz has no interest in running for a leadership position or giving C-SPAN speeches to an empty chamber. “Members of Congress are often actors who are reading out lines and participating in scenes that are produced, directed and written by others,” he says. “They don’t have agency. And often the people who are writing the scripts and producing the plays are donors and lobbyists.” A few days after the Times published its recording of McCarthy privately telling colleagues in the wake of the Jan. 6 breach that he planned to urge Trump to resign—something he had denied having said just the day before—the paper released another recording from the same time period, in which McCarthy, on a phone call with GOP leadership, singled out Gaetz and accused him of “putting people in jeopardy” by publicly referring to Cheney as “anti-Trump.” In that recording, McCarthy also expressed a wish that members like Boebert, Greene, Brooks and Barry Moore of Alabama might lose their Twitter accounts. He said he had consulted with the FBI and planned to tell Gaetz, “This is serious s–t, cut this out.” Gaetz tells me that McCarthy did subsequently call him, but the conversation went rather differently. “He calls me and says, ‘When you’re talking about other members, I would prefer you not use their names, okay?'” Gaetz recalls. “And I said, ‘When they stop using Trump’s name, I’ll stop using theirs.’ And he said, ‘Well, I asked,’ and I said, ‘Well, agree to disagree.’ The entire call lasted less than 30 seconds.” The interaction, Gaetz says, felt more like a box-checking exercise than a tongue-lashing. Upon the tapes’ release, Gaetz publicly called McCarthy “weak” and said his comments were “sniveling” and “not worthy of leadership.” On May 28, when Trump held an anti-Cheney rally in Wyoming, McCarthy sent a video message that the crowd roundly jeered. “I see conditions that are unfavorable to a successful speakership when, at a Donald Trump rally, the leader of the Republican conference was booed on a monitor and likely would have been booed off the stage,” Gaetz tells me. (Gaetz was scheduled to appear at the rally, but his flight was canceled. When he appeared on the monitor, the crowd cheered.) Before the Times tapes, Gaetz tells me, “I don’t think McCarthy would have been booed at a Trump rally. After he talked s–t about me, the boos rained down, and I got a standing ovation.” Gaetz is recruiting and endorsing like-minded candidates to join him in the next Congress Shuran Huang for TIME In a normal world, McCarthy’s duplicity might disturb the members he purports to lead. But the bulk of the Republican caucus responded with a shrug—a weird equanimity that only makes sense in the twisted Washington logic of mutual self-preservation, the same peculiar docility with which most GOP politicians accepted Trump’s constant humiliations. McCarthy and Trump both said they had mended fences with no hard feelings. (Trump recently endorsed McCarthy for reelection, but has yet to back him for Speaker.) When McCarthy walked into the caucus meeting immediately following the tapes’ release, he was greeted with a standing ovation and announced, according to Gaetz, that he planned to “lean in” to the controversy, whatever that means. (McCarthy’s office did not dispute Gaetz’s description of his remarks.) Even Gaetz says he hasn’t ruled out voting for McCarthy for Speaker. He says he wasn’t particularly shocked by the revelation that the leader had lied. “Truth is not really part of the covenant between Republican leadership and the membership,” he says. “It is a covenant based on money. Kevin McCarthy is the most elite fundraiser in the history of the Republican caucus. He is the LeBron James of lobbyist and PAC fundraising. And that is his covenant with the conference.” It would be silly, in his view, to be surprised by McCarthy’s deceptions. “I mean, John Boehner lied to us constantly. Paul Ryan lied to us constantly. What, we thought we were going to get the great truth-teller next?” How much power Gaetz and his allies have in the next Congress depends, of course, on how the midterms turn out. He has endorsed and campaigned for numerous House candidates, including Anna Paulina Luna and Anthony Sabatini, both running for open seats in Florida; Joe Kent, a primary challenger to Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington state, who voted to impeach Trump; and Bo Hines, who won his North Carolina primary in May. Most have been endorsed by Trump. Some face McCarthy-backed primary opponents. “I need backup,” Gaetz says. “If I don’t get a bunch of folks through these primaries and into this expected Republican majority—if [the new GOP members] are all just here to cash the lobbyist checks, shuttle the PAC money to leadership and earn their frivolous attaboys along the way—I don’t have much of a fighting force.” Gaetz says no one has asked for his vote for Speaker, but his ideal candidate would be Representative Jim Jordan, the veteran Ohio right-winger who passionately defended Trump during the first impeachment, and who Gaetz calls “the spiritual and intellectual leader of this conference.” “Where Jim goes, the conference goes,” Gaetz adds. “I don’t even remember who holds which austere titles that append to what corner offices and expanded staff budgets, but they are the followers. Jim Jordan, Marjorie Taylor Greene, myself—we are the leaders.” Jordan has said he supports McCarthy for Speaker and has no plans to run. Then again, anything can happen: McCarthy was in line to become Speaker when Boehner stepped down in 2015, only to be derailed in part by rumors of an affair, and have Ryan take the job instead. “Paul Ryan was for Kevin McCarthy last time Kevin ran for Speaker,” Gaetz says cheekily. “I think one of the first steps to becoming Speaker is initially supporting Kevin McCarthy.” But Gaetz, Greene and their fellow travelers argue it would be a mistake to see them merely as a thorn in McCarthy’s side. In fact, these days, they’re pretty pleased with him. When Greene was kicked off her committees, she demanded McCarthy promise to retaliate by removing some Democrats from committees once Republicans take the majority. He immediately agreed. When Gaetz proposed that the prospective Republican majority focus every House committee on oversight of the Biden Administration, McCarthy soon began touting the same idea—in practically the same words. When McCarthy made a recent trip to the southern border, Greene was among the members invited to tag along. “I frankly have more animosity and disappointment with Kevin McCarthy for enabling her than Marjorie Taylor Greene herself,” says a GOP congressional aide. “She’s accruing power and forcing leadership to be subservient to her. She knows really well how to wield power.” Why vote against a man you’ve already got wrapped around your little finger? “The critique of McCarthy is not that he has ignored us, or pretended like we don’t exist,” Gaetz adds with a broad grin. “In fact, he’s highly responsive to us.” The MAGA Squad: They’re here. They’re weird. And pretty soon, they may be in control of the GOP Congress—if they aren’t already. With reporting by Mariah Espada and Julia Zorthian Write to Molly Ball at [email protected]. | US Congress |
An armed man was killed by police officers Monday morning after he fired at least twice inside the Duncanville Fieldhouse during a youth summer camp, officials said.During a news conference, Duncanville Assistant Chief of Police Matthew Stogner said officers responded within minutes of the call for help. No children, camp staff members, counselors or police officers were hurt. Here’s what we know so far:The fieldhouse was hosting a summer campMore than 250 children between the ages of 4 and 14 were at the field house for a summer camp.Naomi Rodgers, a camp counselor, told KXAS-TV (NBC5) that she was working with about 40 children and they were about to play a game when they heard the gunshot at about 8:43 a.m.“We had to move them all across the room because the building is glass and we had to find a safe space,” Rodgers told NBC5. “The shooter actually came to our door ... and he said if we didn’t let him see who he wanted to see he was going to shoot the place up.”Children were reunited with their parents Monday with the help of Duncanville ISD and DeSoto and Cedar Hill police departments, Stogner said.The gunman fired at least twice inside the buildingPolice said the man entered the field house through the main lobby doors with a handgun. He exchanged words with a camp staff member and fired one round, prompting calls to police.Camp counselors and staff members then moved the children into a safe area and began locking doors, according to Stogner. The gunman attempted to enter one classroom but was not able to get inside because the door was locked, Stogner said. He shot at the classroom door, where there were children inside, he said.The gunman then moved into the gymnasium and was gunned down by police, Stogner said.Police responded within minutesStogner said the first call for help came in at 8:43 a.m., and police were on the fieldhouse grounds by 8:45 a.m. He said officers at the department recently took part in active shooter training and “did exactly what they were trained to do.”The incident comes nearly three weeks after the massacre in Uvalde, where a gunman killed 21 people, including 19 children, at Robb Elementary School before he was killed by authorities.Law enforcement in Uvalde has come under fire for its response to the shooting. According to a timeline from the head of the Texas Department of Public Safety, one hour and 20 minutes elapsed between the first call to 911 and police finally confronting the shooter, who had fired at least 142 rounds in the school.“We obviously understand what took place south of us,” Stogner said. “I can only talk about how we responded here and we did an exceptional job.”The Texas Department of Public Safety will investigateThe man’s name was not released Monday, and a motive has not been determined.Stogner said because the shooting involved police officers, the department has asked that the investigation be led by the Texas Department of Public Safety. More details will be released after an investigation, the department said Monday evening.Nataly Keomoungkhoun, Engagement/Breaking News reporter. Nataly is the lead writer on Curious Texas and a breaking news reporter. She is a D-FW native with a B.A. in emerging media and communication from the University of Texas at Dallas and an M.S. in journalism from the University of Southern California. [email protected] @natalykeo | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
Women have more to worry about than men from a coming wave of automation and artificial intelligence that could replace almost a third of hours worked across the US economy.
That’s one of the takeaways from a new report by the research arm of consultants McKinsey & Co. that examines US labor-market trends through the end of 2030.
It calculated that women are 1.5 times more likely to need to move into a new occupation than men during that period. The reason: They’re over-represented in the industries with lower-wage jobs the report reckons will be most impacted by automation, including office support and customer service. Blacks and Hispanics will also be adversely affected as demand for food and production workers shrinks.
In all, the McKinsey Global Institute said that at least 12 million workers in the US will need to change occupations by the end of 2030. Some of that turnover will stem from the drive for net-zero emissions, which will disrupt millions of jobs.
What’s concerning, said Institute director Kweilin Ellingrud, is that the churn will be concentrated among low-wage workers. They’re up to 14 times more likely to need to change occupations than those in the highest-wage positions, and most will need additional skills to do so successfully.
White-collar workers – everything from lawyers and teachers to financial advisers and architects — will be among those most affected by the spread of generative artificial intelligence such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, according to the report. But McKinsey argued that will largely result in changes in how those jobs are carried out, rather than in the destruction of huge swathes of positions.
It “probably won’t be that kind of catastrophic thing,” institute partner Michael Chui said. But “it is going to change almost every job.”
Some 3.5 million positions could be wiped out as the US seeks to end emissions of greenhouse gases, with workers in oil and gas production and automotive manufacturing taking the hit, according to the report.
But McKinsey argued that will be more than offset – to the tune of about 700,000 jobs — by gains stemming from the build-up of renewable energy, primarily though capital investments in new plants, charging stations and the like.
The energy transition, coupled with stepped-up government spending on infrastructure, will increase demand for construction workers who are already in short supply. McKinsey sees construction employment growing 12% from 2022 through 2030.
If the reshuffling of jobs in coming years is handled correctly, it could result in a huge increase in US productivity and prosperity, according to the institute. In what Ellingrud admitted was a “pretty optimistic” scenario, the report posits an eventual rise in annual productivity growth to 3% to 4%. It’s about 1% now.
To get there, though, “the US will need workforce development on a far larger scale,” McKinsey said. | US Federal Policies |
Like 9/11, Jan. 6 needs no year attached to convey its dark place in American history. On that Wednesday afternoon, 64 days after Election Day 2020, a mob of supporters of President Donald J. Trump assaulted the Capitol, resulting in what Vice President Mike Pence had refused to do: disrupting the ceremonial certification of the electoral votes confirming that Joseph R. Biden Jr. would be the next president of the United States. But Jan. 6 has also become a somewhat misleading shorthand for something bigger: a monthslong campaign by Mr. Trump and his allies to subvert American democracy and cling to power by reversing an election. Over the past year and a half, much has come to light about how they went about it, embracing one tactic after another in a way that led a federal judge to conclude that elements of it likely amounted to a criminal conspiracy. The story so far has been pieced together through the prosecutions of rioters, the early stages of a broader Justice Department investigation, the work of the House select committee examining the attack and its origins, and the work of journalists. At its heart is a grievance-filled, insecure president, unable to face the fact of his defeat, working with a cabal of loyalists in and out of government to pursue an evolving plan that unfolded in successive chapters, each in effect taking aim at a pillar of democracy. There was a failed legal strategy that clogged the courts with fantastical conspiracy theories. It was followed by a plot to twist the Justice Department into backing Mr. Trump’s repeated lie that the election had been rigged and stolen from him, and consideration of proposals that he direct the military or the Homeland Security Department to seize voting machines. Those were followed by a strong-armed attempt to subvert the Electoral College process and bludgeon Mr. Pence into taking part, all leading to the violent effort to keep Congress from formally affirming Mr. Trump’s loss on Jan. 6. Taken as a whole, the narrative that has emerged — elements of which the House select committee on Jan. 6 will begin setting out on Thursday evening in the first of a series of hearings — is as chilling as it is audacious. Listen to This Article This story is part of an ongoing examination by The Times of challenges to democratic norms in the United States and around the world. Read more from our Democracy Challenged coverage. For years, Mr. Trump had railed against contests in which he failed, disliked the outcome or feared he might be defeated. He objected nearly two decades ago to the results of the Emmys and falsely claimed that President Barack Obama had not won the popular vote. He asserted that Senator Ted Cruz “stole” a primary victory from him in Iowa in 2016 and predicted, before he defeated Hillary Clinton that year to win the presidency, that the general election would be “rigged.” In the months leading up to the 2020 election, trailing in the polls, he again predicted that he would be cheated out of a victory, and refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. But what might once have been seen as political bluster or a character defect metastasized in Mr. Trump’s case into a grave test of American democracy, what the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol now calls “the Big Lie” — a sprawling undertaking that extended from the West Wing to the far-right fringe and culminated with a violent mob laying siege to Congress. Mr. Trump encouraged the lie in its various forms, indulging in increasingly outlandish fictions, spreading disinformation about the election results and encouraging his followers to challenge the vote at every step — in the courts, at state houses and in the streets. As his legal defeats stacked up, he became more vitriolic in his condemnations of Republicans who failed to support his false claims of having been the true victor in the election, and he lavished praise on those who parroted his accusations. Mr. Trump’s simple lie found an eager audience in a broader movement fueled by hard-right groups who believe the United States, with its increasing racial and ethnic diversity, is being stolen from them. The message of a stolen election was not entirely new. For years, allies of Mr. Trump had promoted the false “Stop The Steal” narrative that elections were being stolen in districts across the country, particularly in cities with large numbers of Black and Latino voters that are typically won by Democrats. In 2016, an organization called Stop The Steal, affiliated with the political operative Roger Stone, encouraged Trump supporters to swarm city voting locations in search of fraud, sparking alarm about voter intimidation. That narrative gained steam months before the 2020 election when some of Mr. Trump’s staunchest allies raised doubts about the security of mail-in ballots — an option that grew more popular during the pandemic — and began to spread claims that China or other nations would interfere in the election, to Mr. Trump’s detriment. After Mr. Trump lost, the “Stop the Steal” narrative became a self-fulfilling prophecy and then a movement, promoted by a cast of lawyers, provocateurs, ideologues and others with an interest in keeping him in power — including some who had received, or would benefit from, a presidential pardon. Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, under federal investigation for his pro-Trump activities in Ukraine, was perhaps the biggest promoter of the lie, traveling around the country to hold hearings and collect dubious affidavits about how the election was purportedly stolen. But Mr. Giuliani had plenty of help. President Donald J. Trump at a 2020 campaign rally. He and his team began sowing seeds of doubt about the legitimacy of the vote well before Election Day. Doug Mills/The New York Times Among those who emerged as the biggest promoters of the lie were the lawyers Sidney Powell and L. Lin Wood, against whom a federal judge has ordered sanctions; the former national security adviser Michael Flynn, who was pardoned by Mr. Trump weeks after the election after twice pleading guilty to lying to the F.B.I.; Patrick Byrne, the former Overstock chief executive; the MyPillow executive Mike Lindell; a retired Army colonel named Phil Waldron; and Ron Watkins, the administrator of the online message board 8kun, who played a major role in spreading the baseless QAnon conspiracy theory, whose adherents believe that top Democrats worship Satan and run a child-trafficking ring. At Mr. Wood’s estate in South Carolina, and at offices and hotels in the Washington area — including the Willard Intercontinental and the Trump International hotels — assorted Trump allies met to plan strategies to overturn the election. Their strategies relied on a range of conspiracy theories: that fraud had been perpetrated by dead voters in Philadelphia and election workers in Georgia; that defense contractors in Italy had used satellites to flip votes; that the former Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez, who died in 2013, was somehow involved. Some were especially tangled and outlandish, but would play an outsize role in the effort to convince not just the courts but also the American public that the election was tainted. In August 2020, before a single presidential vote was cast, Mr. Waldron, an information warfare expert with a longstanding interest in China’s purported involvement in election interference, developed a relationship with a Texas cybersecurity firm, Allied Security Operations. Mr. Waldron has claimed that Allied had just discovered that the Chinese Communist Party had developed a way to flip votes on American tabulation machines, particularly those built by Dominion Voting Systems. Those allegations about Dominion became the centerpiece for four federal lawsuits, laced with conspiracy theories, that Ms. Powell filed in late November and early December 2020, seeking to reverse election results. But as Mr. Trump worked to overturn the election, he was told repeatedly — including by his own Justice Department — that his various claims were false. In the chaotic postelection period, a hotline Mr. Trump’s legal team set up for fraud allegations was flooded with unverified claims. A Postal Service truck driver from Pennsylvania asserted without evidence that his 18-wheeler had been filled with phony ballots. Republican voters in Arizona complained that some ballots had not been counted because they were marked with Sharpie pens that could not be read by voting machines. Mr. Trump appeared to be aware of many of these reports, and spoke about them often with aides and officials, raising various theories about voting fraud even as they debunked them one by one. Members of a local militia group and other Trump supporters at a “Stop the Steal” rally at the Pennsylvania State Capitol days after the election. Victor J. Blue for The New York Times “When you gave him a very direct answer on one of them, he wouldn’t fight us on it,” recalled Richard P. Donoghue, a former top Justice Department official, in an interview with the House committee. “But he would move to another allegation.” Mr. Donoghue recalled, for instance, telling Mr. Trump that Justice Department investigators had looked into, and ultimately discounted, a claim that election officials in Atlanta had wheeled a suitcase of phony ballots into their counting room on Election Day. Mr. Trump abruptly switched subjects and asked about “double voting” and “dead people” voting, then moved on to a claim about how, he said, “Indians are getting paid” to vote on Native American reservations. The Trump team’s first stop would be the courts. Mr. Trump made no secret of his plan to wage a legal battle in his bid to hold on to the White House. Two days before Election Day, he stood in front of reporters at a North Carolina airport and declared that as soon as the election was over, “We’re going in with our lawyers.” For the next six weeks or so, the lawyers did go in — again and again and then again — filing suits challenging the voting results. The relentless attacks took place in city courts, county courts and federal courts in key swing states from Georgia to Nevada. More than 60 lawsuits were ultimately filed by an army of lawyers, some employed by Mr. Trump’s Republican allies, others working directly for the Trump campaign. All of this unfolded as several people close to Mr. Trump were telling him that he had been soundly — and legally — defeated. According to testimony provided to the House committee by Jason Miller, a senior campaign adviser, a campaign data expert informed Mr. Trump “in pretty blunt terms” shortly after the election that he was going to lose. A week or so later, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, part of the Department of Homeland Security, announced that there was no evidence of fraud in the election. That finding was backed up by Attorney General William P. Barr, who alerted Mr. Trump privately in November and acknowledged publicly on Dec. 1 that the Justice Department had not found any evidence of fraud “on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” In the end, Mr. Trump’s legal scorecard was abysmal. He won only one case, on a minor technical point affecting a small batch of votes in Pennsylvania. Using the courts was Mr. Trump’s first, and in a way his most conventional, method of trying to stave off defeat. While the wide-ranging effort was a failure, it did accomplish something that eventually assisted him: The sheer scope and number of cases helped to sow doubts about the vote-counting process and to keep alive the falsehood that the election had been rigged. As early as August 2020, Mr. Trump turned to a well-known Republican lawyer named Cleta Mitchell to assemble an election litigation team, according to recent court papers. After the election, a team of lawyers that was led by Mr. Giuliani and included Sidney Powell and Jenna Ellis oversaw the basic strategy being used to manage the far-flung cases handled by local lawyers in courts across the country. Rudolph W. Giuliani, a longtime Trump ally, led a team overseeing the strategy for the more than 60 cases being handled by local lawyers across the country. Erin Schaff/The New York Times The cases fell into three broad categories. The first were suits alleging what could be called traditional voting fraud. In Michigan, for instance, claims were made that poll workers had altered the dates on absentee ballots. In Georgia, accusations arose that phony ballots had been sent to counting stations after hours. In Arizona, in what some of Mr. Trump’s allies would come to call “SharpieGate,” Republicans complained that dozens, maybe even hundreds, of ballots had not been counted because voters had been told to fill them out with felt-tipped Sharpies instead of ballpoint pens. A second batch of lawsuits focused on highly technical procedural issues related to changes made to the voting process during the coronavirus pandemic. Many of these suits raised questions about arcane matters like the deadlines by which mail-in voters had to submit materials confirming their identities or about the legitimacy of ballot drop boxes. Often, they hinged on complex arguments about the scope of state lawmakers’ power to establish election rules. Some of the lawsuits focused on questions about mail-in ballots, which had grown more popular during the pandemic. Gabriella Angotti-Jones for The New York Times The third batch focused on a bizarre and baseless conspiracy theory that Chinese software companies, Swiss bankers, Venezuelan officials and the liberal financier George Soros had joined forces to hack into Dominion voting machines in a secret plot to flip votes away from Mr. Trump. Filed in the Democratic strongholds of Detroit, Atlanta, Phoenix and Milwaukee, these suits became known collectively as the Krakens — a reference by Ms. Powell to a mythological, havoc-wreaking sea beast. Even before the suits were filed, officials inside Mr. Trump’s campaign looked into some of the claims about Dominion and found that they had no merit. Eventually, the Kraken cases were laughed out of court. Still, despite their outlandish content, the lawsuits played a role in subsequent events. Mr. Trump even mentioned the Dominion conspiracy theory several times in his Jan. 2, 2021, phone call with Georgia’s secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, whom he asked to “find 11,780” votes to help him win the state. (That call is now the subject of a criminal investigation in Georgia.) After scores of cases were rejected — often with scathing words from judges — the State of Texas tried a Hail Mary, filing an unusual request directly to the U.S. Supreme Court that challenged election procedures in four key swing states: Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. The Texas lawsuit asked the court to block those states from casting their electoral votes for Mr. Biden and to shift the selection of electors to the states’ Republican legislatures. That would have effectively handed Mr. Trump the election and required the justices to throw out millions of votes. The Supreme Court — in the hands of a conservative majority bolstered by three Trump appointees — rebuffed the effort in a brief unsigned order, saying Texas lacked standing to pursue the case. With the courts closing off as an avenue to keep Mr. Trump in power, he and his allies moved on to a series of largely ad hoc but stunningly anti-democratic efforts to reverse the election outcome. It was Dec. 17, 2020, three days after electors in state capitols across the country cast their votes in the Electoral College to formally confirm that Mr. Biden had been elected the 46th president of the United States. Under ordinary circumstances, that would have been accepted as the end of the election. But appearing on Newsmax, the conservative news channel, Mr. Flynn, the onetime national security adviser, had other ideas. Mr. Trump, he said, “could immediately on his order seize every single” voting machine in the country. “He could also order, within the swing states, if he wanted to, he could take military capabilities and he could place them in those states and basically rerun an election in each of those states,” said Mr. Flynn, whose pardon for lying to F.B.I. agents investigating his ties to Russia had been issued less than a month earlier. “It’s not unprecedented,” he said, adding that while he was not advocating the use of martial law, it had been used dozens of times in American history. A day later, Mr. Flynn was in the Oval Office, pressing his case directly to the president — an extraordinary episode that underscores how Mr. Trump was willing to at least consider steps associated with autocracies. Throughout Mr. Trump’s presidency, informal advisers and allies used their television appearances to try to bring his attention to outlandish claims and influence how he used his power. Often, a group of aides inside the White House worked to keep him from pursuing those ideas. But as Mr. Trump listened less and less to his staff, he proved receptive to the ideas put forth by Mr. Flynn. On the evening of Dec. 18, 2020, Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell and others joined Mr. Trump in the Oval Office, armed with draft executive orders that they wanted him to sign — based in part on the baseless conspiracy theories about voting machine fraud promoted by Mr. Waldron. What ensued was among the most heated clashes of Mr. Trump’s presidency, one in which he weighed the viability of employing his commander-in-chief powers to baldly political ends: his own survival in office. For hours, first in the Oval Office and later in the White House residence, Mr. Trump openly entertained ideas from the fringes of politics, even as appalled White House aides maneuvered furiously to try to head off a decision to act on them. It was typical of the chaos of the Trump-era West Wing that the meeting took place only through a kind of subterfuge. A young aide to Peter Navarro, a Trump adviser who was particularly aggressive in promoting efforts to keep the president in power, went around senior West Wing officials to sneak Mr. Flynn, Ms. Powell and others onto the White House grounds. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s first national security adviser, said on television that the president “could immediately on his order seize every single” voting machine in the country. Dustin Franz/Getty Images As Ms. Powell and the others walked into the Oval Office, Eric Herschmann, a top White House lawyer in the final year of the administration, wondered aloud, “How the hell did Sidney get in the building?” On one side in the meeting were Ms. Powell and Mr. Flynn, who complained in front of White House staff members, including Mr. Herschmann, that they were failing to fight hard enough for Mr. Trump. Ms. Powell and Mr. Flynn, asserting that foreign adversaries including Iran, China and Venezuela had used Dominion voting machines to flip votes for Mr. Biden, said the president should use his authority to defend the country to seize the machines, preserve them as evidence and rerun the election. On the other side were staff members including Mr. Herschmann, who initially took the lead in pushing back against Ms. Powell and Mr. Flynn and then called out for West Wing aides to have the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, join them. The meeting became so contentious that some people left in tears of frustration, after shouting in the face of demands pressed for hours by the outside supporters, recalled two people with knowledge of the proceedings. The showdown came at a time when similar ideas were swirling among the president’s allies. The House committee has heard witness testimony that, in the lead-up to and in the days after that moment, there were discussions in the White House about Mr. Trump asking about invoking martial law or the Insurrection Act, which would allow him to use active-duty troops for a specific purpose, according to a person familiar with the committee’s work. Mr. Flynn and the lawyer Sidney Powell came to the Oval Office in December 2020 armed with a draft executive order for Mr. Trump to sign. Doug Mills/The New York Times Mr. Giuliani was among those arguing against Mr. Flynn and Ms. Powell in the meeting. Though he had become the face of Mr. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, he was wary of their plan. After initially listening in on the meeting by phone, Mr. Giuliani went to the White House, where he told Ms. Powell that Mr. Trump had no basis to use the military. Yet around the time of the meeting, at Mr. Trump’s direction, Mr. Giuliani called the Homeland Security Department to ask whether a civilian agency could serve the same purpose in seizing the machines. The prospect was dismissed by Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II, the acting deputy secretary, but Mr. Trump continued to ask about it in the days that followed. In the end, the draft executive orders that Ms. Powell had brought to Mr. Trump went unsigned. But the president and his allies had still more — and more disturbing — ideas in mind for keeping power. At 3 p.m. on Sunday, Jan. 3, 2021, Jeffrey Clark, the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil division and an expert in environmental law, strode into the conference room of his boss, the acting attorney general, Jeffrey A. Rosen, who had taken over weeks earlier from Mr. Barr. Mr. Clark was there with some remarkable but by that point not entirely surprising news for Mr. Rosen: Mr. Trump had offered Mr. Clark the job of running the Justice Department, effective that day. Mr. Rosen, according to an account he gave the Senate Judiciary Committee, could stay on as the No. 2 if he wished. Mr. Rosen replied that he was not about to be fired by a subordinate and said he would take the matter directly to Mr. Trump. The maneuvering for control of the Justice Department was a closely held secret at that point, but it underscored the lengths to which Mr. Trump was willing to go to forestall his defeat. Over the span of several weeks, a battle raged among camps inside the administration and among allies of Mr. Trump over who would lead the Justice Department at a moment when it was under intense pressure from Mr. Trump to do more to investigate and validate his wide-ranging and unsupported claims that he had been robbed of re-election by fraud. And over a few tense days, Mr. Trump brought to a head a plan that would have pushed aside Mr. Rosen, who had refused the president’s entreaties, in favor of Mr. Clark, a loyalist who was eagerly promoting steps including having the Justice Department send Georgia officials a letter stating that voter fraud allegations could invalidate the state’s Electoral College results — a message with no basis. Mr. Barr had earlier dismissed allegations of widespread fraud, but Mr. Trump was not about to give up. He and his allies, including a band of Republican House members and several conservative lawyers, contacted Justice Department leaders nearly every day leading up to Jan. 6, sometimes multiple times a day, with demands for fraud investigations and other steps to overturn the election. Representative Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, for instance, worked with Mr. Clark to try to persuade Georgia officials to withdraw the state’s results. Others pushed the department to bring the fight to the Supreme Court. The pressure campaign ramped up on Dec. 14, the day Mr. Trump announced that the department’s then-No. 2 official, Mr. Rosen, would replace Mr. Barr. An aide to Mr. Trump emailed Mr. Rosen talking points about voter fraud in Michigan and problems with Dominion Voting Systems machines, the first of many fraud conspiracy theories that Mr. Rosen and his team would examine and debunk. The next day in the Oval Office, Mr. Trump pressed Mr. Rosen to appoint a special counsel to investigate Dominion’s voting machines and other issues. He wanted the department to support lawsuits that sought to overturn the election. Mr. Rosen rebuffed the requests, as he would for the next 19 days, reiterating Mr. Barr’s statement that there was no widespread fraud. Mr. Trump said that the Justice Department was not fighting hard enough for him. Mr. Rosen and other department officials hoped that the facts would eventually persuade Mr. Trump to acknowledge his loss. They had no idea that Mr. Perry had secretly introduced the president to Mr. Clark as the Justice Department ally he had longed for, one who would put the department to work disputing the election results. Inklings of deeper trouble came on Dec. 27, when Mr. Rosen and his top deputy, Mr. Donoghue, told Mr. Trump that no evidence supported the lawsuits he had filed in an attempt to overturn the election. Reports of corruption in swing states had not been borne out. Attorney General William P. Barr said publicly in December 2020 that he had “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.” Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times Mr. Trump countered that the department could “just say that the election was corrupt,” and leave the rest to him “and the R. Congressmen,” according to notes from the call. Mr. Donoghue testified that the “R” referred to Republicans, some of whom were already working to undermine public faith in the election. Giving a hint of his intentions, Mr. Trump said that “people tell me Jeff Clark is great, I should put him in,” Mr. Donoghue later testified. That day, Mr. Perry also called Mr. Donoghue to tell him that Mr. Clark could “do something” about the president’s claims. During tense conversations with Mr. Clark, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue learned that he was working on a plan with Mr. Trump’s allies to overturn the Georgia results. He asked Mr. Rosen to send the proposed letter falsely informing Georgia state officials that a federal investigation could invalidate the state’s results. Mr. Rosen refused. At the White House, the president’s chief of staff, Mark Meadows, briefed Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue on a conspiracy theory known as Italygate, which baselessly claimed that people in Italy had used military technology to remotely tamper with voting machines in the United States. By New Year’s Eve, Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue had grown deeply concerned. They had rebuffed outlandish demands to lobby the Supreme Court, appoint special counsels and give credence to wild conspiracy theories. But they struggled to handle Mr. Clark, who wanted a department official to falsely say at a news conference that fraud inquiries had cast doubt on the election result. Mr. Rosen and Mr. Donoghue forbade him to talk to Mr. Trump. On Jan. 2, Mr. Clark revealed that he had secretly conducted a witness interview in connection with an already-disproved election fraud allegation. And he raised the prospect with Mr. Rosen that Mr. Trump could install him as acting attorney general, but he offered a deal: He would decline any such offer if Mr. Rosen would send the sham letter to Georgia state officials. Mr. Donoghue shut down the plan. Mr. Clark then secretly spoke with Mr. Trump, in defiance of orders. On Jan. 3, he informed Mr. Rosen that the president intended to replace him with Mr. Clark. Unwilling to be pushed out without a fight, Mr. Rosen worked with Mr. Cipollone, the White House counsel and an ally, to convene a meeting with Mr. Trump for that evening, a Sunday. Before going to the White House, Mr. Donoghue hosted a conference call with the department’s top seven or eight leaders, laying out Mr. Clark’s machinations and Mr. Rosen’s upcoming fight for his job. Should Mr. Rosen be fired, he asked, what would the group do? Shocked, the officials unanimously agreed to resign en masse if Mr. Rosen was forced out. Their plan brought to mind the Nixon era’s so-called Saturday Night Massacre, when Attorney General Elliot L. Richardson and his deputy resigned rather than carry out the president’s order to fire the special prosecutor investigating him. The showdown that played out at the White House that evening was extraordinary even by the standards of the Trump administration. Mr. Trump opened the Oval Office meeting around 6 p.m. with a blunt statement: “One thing we know is you, Rosen, aren’t going to do anything to overturn the election,” Mr. Trump said, according to Mr. Rosen’s later testimony. Justice Department officials unanimously agreed to resign en masse if Jeffrey A. Rosen, the acting attorney general, was forced out. Pool photo by Yuri Gripas Mr. Cipollone called Mr. Clark’s plan to send the proposed letter to Georgia a “murder-suicide pact,” participants in the meeting later testified. The officials warned that firing Mr. Rosen would spark a mass resignation, and that Mr. Clark would lead a depopulated agency. In a heated moment, Mr. Donoghue said that Mr. Clark “wouldn’t even know how to find his way” to the F.B.I. director’s office and was “not even competent to serve as the attorney general,” he later told investigators. When Mr. Clark protested, Mr. Donoghue told investigators that he snapped. “You’re an environmental lawyer,” he recounted saying to Mr. Clark. “How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.” Only in the final stages of the roughly three-hour meeting did Mr. Trump relent. The plan to install Mr. Clark atop the Justice Department was shelved, and the letter to Georgia officials was never sent. But Mr. Trump was still not ready to let go of his election fraud claims. He said that he would fire the U.S. attorney in Atlanta, who quit upon hearing about the threat. Soon after the end of the Oval Office meeting, Mr. Donoghue recounted to Senate investigators, Mr. Trump alerted him to a report that a Department of Homeland Security agent had found a truck filled with shredded ballots near Atlanta. The Justice Department, the F.B.I. and the Homeland Security Department later concluded that the only ballots to have been destroyed were from previous elections, and had been cleared out to make room for storage of the 2020 ballots. Thwarted in his attempt to execute a hostile takeover of the Justice Department, Mr. Trump and his team still had another strategy to turn to. On Nov. 5, 2020, as his father waited for key states to finish counting their votes, Donald Trump Jr. relayed over text message a series of suggestions to Mr. Meadows, the White House chief of staff, for how President Trump could stay in power. One message referred to Jan. 6, 2021, when the vice president would oversee the congressional certification of the Electoral College votes — typically a routine process. The message described the date as a last-ditch option, one that would be meaningful only if the Trump forces could engineer a situation in which neither Mr. Trump nor Mr. Biden, the election’s winner, was found to have amassed enough electoral votes to win and the race was sent to the House of Representatives to decide. That plan had been pushed by Mr. Trump’s informal adviser Stephen K. Bannon, and a person familiar with the younger Mr. Trump’s text message identified Mr. Bannon as being the source of the information. This tactic would involve two strands: pressing Mr. Pence to agree to flout the Constitution on the critical date of Jan. 6, and creating at least the appearance that there were alternate slates of pro-Trump electors from swing states that had clearly been won by Mr. Biden. The electors plan is now under scrutiny by federal prosecutors. Between Nov. 5 and Jan. 6, Mr. Pence was subjected to an intense pressure campaign from a range of Mr. Trump’s associates outside the government, including John Eastman, a lawyer working with the president, and from Mr. Trump himself. During that time, Mr. Pence had his counsel research what his powers were with regard to Jan. 6, and then, over time, made clear to Mr. Trump that he did not believe he had the authority that the president insisted he did. But before Mr. Pence gaveled in the proceedings on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6, the Trump forces would need to promote the notion in state legislatures that there should be legitimate slates of alternate electors ready to swing the election in Mr. Trump’s favor should Mr. Biden’s victories there be called into question. The plan to replace legitimate electors for Mr. Biden with alternate electors for Mr. Trump ramped up just days after the election when the pro-Trump lawyer Cleta Mitchell emailed Mr. Eastman, a former clerk for Justice Clarence Thomas, to assign him the task of producing a memo to create a legal framework to challenge the electoral certification in Congress. “Why couldn’t state legislatures reclaim tha | US Political Corruption |
By Annabelle LiangBusiness reporterImage source, Getty ImagesMajor tampon manufacturers in the United States have pledged to make more of the sanitary products to address shortages in the country.One firm told the BBC the pandemic had caused staff shortages at its plants.Social media users have been posting about their experiences as they struggle to find sanitary products.One Reddit user said they visited eight stores to find tampons with a cardboard applicator, before deciding to buy them online "at a noticeable mark-up".It comes as the war in Ukraine is making the raw materials used in sanitary products more costly.The shortage is also adding to concerns that supply chain disruptions could further push up prices for essential goods around the world.A spokesperson for Edgewell Personal Care, which makes Playtex and o.b. tampons, said that its stocks have been "impacted due to extensive workforce shortages caused by two separate Omicron surges in the US and Canada in late 2021 and early 2022, respectively"."We have been operating our manufacturing facilities around the clock to build back inventory and anticipate returning to normal levels in the coming weeks," the spokesperson added.Meanwhile, Procter & Gamble (P&G), the maker of the Tampax tampon brand, said in a statement that it was "working hard to ramp up production"."We can assure you this is a temporary situation," said the company, which sells around 4.5bn boxes of tampons globally each year. P&G's chief financial officer, Andre Schulten, said at a recent earnings call that it has been "costly and highly volatile" to acquire raw materials such as cotton and plastic for tampons."It is so important at this point for people to buy only what they need. I am not a supply chain expert but we know that some of the shortages we all experienced early in the pandemic were due to hoarding," Elise Joy, the co-founder and executive director of US charity Girls Helping Girls Period, said."Menstrual products are not a luxury item, and if we all take or buy what we need it will go a long way to making sure more people can get basic supplies," she added.A spokesperson for the US pharmacy chain Walgreens told the BBC that it was "experiencing some temporary brand-specific tampon shortage in certain geographies". "While we will continue to have products at shelf and online, it may only be in specific brands while we navigate the supply disruption," the spokesperson added.You may also be interested in:Media caption, Teenage girls have been turning to the internet to learn about periods | US Federal Policies |
Thank you to everyone who wrote in last month to confirm that, indeed, only journalists care what happens to Twitter. As Elon Musk’s bizarre dance between buying the company and trash-talking it into oblivion continues, it’s a healthy reminder for us not to get too obsessed—though now that he may be getting access to the complete fire hose of Twitter users’ data, you might worry about what he’s going to do with it. Here’s the update.We Do Know How to Beat a Pandemic—Some of Us, AnywayIt’s Pride month in the US, and so it makes me proud, as the first queer editor-in-chief of WIRED, to present Maryn McKenna’s new story on an event that made plain the resilience of the LGBTQ community: the Covid-19 outbreak last July in Provincetown, Massachusetts.You might remember it (if you remember anything from a year ago in pandemic time) as the moment you learned the phrase “breakthrough infection.” Tens of thousands of people, mostly gay men, flooded the streets and filled the nightclubs over the July 4 weekend, and although most were vaccinated, Covid ripped through the town, ultimately infecting some 1,100 people.At the time, the outbreak seemed like a cautionary tale, and there were subtle echoes of the stigmatization of gay men in the wake of HIV/AIDS. But as Maryn’s reporting shows, it’s now clear this was actually a success story. The Provincetown wave could have led to hundreds of thousands of additional cases. Instead it fizzled. Though Delta ravaged the US that summer, genetic analysis showed that almost none of the infections were descended from Provincetown. Officials were able to track and contain the outbreak thanks to two things: Massachusetts’ unusually good public health and medical research infrastructure, and the gay community’s hard-learned habits of being transparent about infectious disease. As a specialist at the Centers for Disease Control told Maryn, “It was amazing. Other CDC folks will tell you: It was unlike any other group they’ve dealt with in terms of getting information.”Here’s the thing, though: As hopeful a story as Provincetown is, if anything it merely underlines how hard it is to control Covid without those unusual circumstances. Indeed, as we’ve been reporting, the US’s ability to track and ward off future waves of the virus is diminishing, not improving, as funding shrinks and testing data becomes patchier. In the ongoing evolutionary war between humans and SARS-CoV-2, the virus is winning, at least in the sense that it has begun to evolve much faster than we can keep up. We’ve pretty much embraced living with it and accepted that we’ll keep on catching it. It’s true that the disease hasn’t been getting more deadly with successive subvariants of Omicron, but there’s still no guarantee that trend will continue. As our strategies for living with this disease evolve alongside the virus, what public health measures, if any, do you want to see stay in place? What lessons do you worry the US, and the world, aren't learning? Let me know what you think in the comments below. | US Federal Policies |
Attorney General Merrick Garland speaks at a news conference to announce actions to enhance the Biden administration’s environmental justice efforts, Thursday, May 5, 2022, at the Department of Justice in Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky) Last week Attorney General Merrick Garland, prompted by a question from a reporter, pledged to protect Supreme Court justices and their families. “This kind of behavior is obviously, we will not tolerate it,” Garland said. “Last month I met with the Marshal of the [Supreme] Court, I convened a meeting with her, as well as the deputy director of the FBI, the director of the [U.S.] Marshals Service and with our own law enforcement, our own prosecutors to ensure every degree of protection available is possible.” But with the final Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision looming and increased violence since a draft of the opinion was leaked in May, Garland isn’t enforcing federal law. Title 18, Section 1507 of the U.S. Code, on picketing or parading, states: “Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” Despite the likely illegality of protesters picketing the homes of federal judges, Garland allows it to continue. In the aftermath of an alleged plot to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, raucous activists are still descending on homes. “Protesters typically appear two evenings a week, on Wednesdays and Saturdays, and come in the evening at around 7 p.m. — when many of the local residents are putting their children to bed, a task made difficult when loud protesters are marching up and down the street,” Fox News Digital reports. With tolerance from the Department of Justice (DOJ), pro-abortion rights activists aren’t stopping at the justices. They’re threatening to show up outside their children’s schools and at their churches. Neighbors are being harassed as the Justice Department stands by, complicit in the behavior. “The pro-abortion group ‘Ruth Sent Us’ suggested targeting the children of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett with protests against the court’s leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,” a National Review writer states. “The group tweeted an infographic with the name of Barrett’s church. It also identified the school Barrett’s children attend, and encouraged protesters to ‘voice your anger’ by demonstrating there.” This is a dereliction of duty, and one Americans should expect Garland would take more seriously given his work as a federal judge. Further, Garland is undermining the rule of law by refusing to fully investigate and prosecute several violent attacks against pro-life crisis pregnancy centers over the past five weeks. “Attacks against crisis pregnancy centers, some of them faith-based, have risen steadily since the leak of a draft opinion in the case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization,” the Washington Examiner reports. “A Washington Examiner review identified recent incidents of arson, vandalism, or both at at least 13 anti-abortion centers across the country.” The reason for Garland’s refusal to enforce the law by prosecuting illegal intimidation of justices and those allegedly attacking pro-life pregnancy centers is simple. By looking the other way, President Biden’s DOJ appears to be fine with terrorizing the court, perhaps in the hope it will push justices to change their minds on the Dobbs case. This itself is an attack on the judiciary, but to some progressives, the ends seem to justify the means. To them it’s worth it, even if people get hurt or if institutions such as the Supreme Court are damaged in the process. The White House has not only refused to condemn this kind of behavior thoroughly and forcefully; it has encouraged activists to continue their “protesting.” Regardless, Garland has a duty to put an end to the harassment of Supreme Court justices at their homes and attacks on pro-life crisis pregnancy centers before someone gets hurt. Certainly, he should do so before someone gets killed. Pavlich is the editor for Townhall.com and a Fox News contributor. | SCOTUS |
Judge In Trump Special-Master Review Assigned To New DOJ Criminal Case
It wasn’t clear if Cannon will remain permanently assigned to the case. The assignment was reported earlier by ABC News.
(Bloomberg) -- A federal judge in Florida who handled Donald Trump’s dispute last fall with the Justice Department over classified documents found at his home appears to have been initially assigned to the former president’s new criminal case, according to a person familiar with the matter.
US District Judge Aileen Cannon’s name is on the summons that Trump’s lawyers received Thursday instructing him to make his first appearance at a Florida courthouse next week to face a criminal indictment over handling of those documents, said the person, who asked for anonymity to discuss confidential information.
It wasn’t clear if Cannon will remain permanently assigned to the case. The assignment was reported earlier by ABC News.
Read more: Trump-Appointed Judge Courts Controversy With Mar-a-Lago Order
It also wasn’t immediately clear if Cannon was randomly assigned to the new criminal case — which is how federal courts typically handle the process — or if she’d been tapped because of her role presiding over the earlier civil litigation related to the classified documents investigation. Litigants can designate cases as “related” and seek to have them assigned to the same judge, but that usually happens between similar types of proceedings — keeping civil matters or criminal matters together, but not overlapping.
Cannon, who sits in the Fort Pierce division of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, was nominated by Trump to the bench and confirmed in November 2020. A former federal prosecutor, her resume also featured some of the conservative-leaning credentials that were hallmarks of Trump’s judicial nominees. Those included membership in the Federalist Society — a conservative lawyers’ group — a clerkship for a Republican-nominated federal appeals judge, and the support of her Republican home state senators.
District court judges tend to have fewer opportunities than their appellate colleagues for ideological distinctions to make a difference in their rulings, but legal pundits had expressed surprise at her rulings when Trump filed a civil lawsuit last year contesting the seizure of materials from his Mar-a-Lago estate.
In September, Cannon granted Trump’s request to temporarily block federal investigators from using documents with classified markings seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in a criminal investigation. She named US District Court Judge Raymond J. Dearie as special master to review all 11,000 documents that were taken.
The 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals twice reversed her. Appellate panels first carved out materials with classified markings from her injunction and the special master review, meaning prosecutors could resume using those even as the fight over the remaining documents was active. In December, the appeals court overturned her ruling altogether, ending the special master review and freeing the Justice Department to resume using all of the documents to build a criminal case.
Those reversals prompted speculation among commentators that the judge could be subject to a recusal motion by the Justice Department; the bar is typically high for parties to force a judge to step aside if they don’t choose to do so on their own. The docket for the criminal case against Trump is under seal, so any activity related to the judicial assignment isn’t public yet.
Trump was notified by his lawyers Thursday that he has been indicted by a grand jury in Miami federal court in connection with the documents in a first for a former president. He’s due to make his first court appearance on June 13.
Read More: Trump Charged Over Secret Records in a First for an Ex-President
(Updated with additional information about Judge Cannon’s background)
More stories like this are available on bloomberg.com
©2023 Bloomberg L.P. | US Circuit and Appeals Courts |
Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.On August 31, 1977, Rosario Robles walked her five children to Bonner Elementary School in Tyler, Texas. Rosario and her husband, Jose, had immigrated to the United States from Mexico five years earlier and settled in the “rose city” southeast of Dallas, where Jose found work at a local pipe factory and the family bought a house. But never before on the first day of school had Rosario been asked to present proof of legal residency for their children—American passports, for instance, or birth certificates issued by US hospitals. When she couldn’t, the school’s principal denied the children admission, even driving them home in his own car.
Also in Tyler, Humberto Alvarez, a Mexican-born father of four children enrolled in Douglas Elementary School, was told that the Tyler Independent School District would charge undocumented students an annual tuition fee of $1,000 per student, or the equivalent of roughly $5,000 today. Alvarez, who had left his home country in 1974 and started working at a meatpacking plant in Tyler, couldn’t afford the fee, so the requirement effectively excluded his children from the school system. Basically, the statute allowed for different school districts and schools to implement different policies. These new policies came in the wake of the Texas legislature voting to amend the Education Code with a section, known as 21.031, that withheld state funds from public school districts for the education of children who had not been “legally admitted” into the country. The statute allowed districts to deny enrollment to foreign-born children without legal status, or to charge them tuition. Other school districts in Texas, including the state’s largest district of Houston, implemented similar practices. In Tyler, the school district board of trustees justified the policy as a way to “prevent the potential drain on local educational funds should Tyler become a haven for illegal aliens.” Jim Plyler, the superintendent of Tyler schools at the time, referred to the children as a “burden,” even though only about 60 of the 16,000 enrolled students lacked legal status.
In September 1977, the Robles, the Alvarez, and two other families filed a class-action lawsuit against Plyler arguing the Texas statute violated their constitutional rights. The plaintiffs had been living in Tyler for anywhere between three and 13 years in mixed-status households, where their US-born children who were citizens weren’t barred from school, unlike their Mexican-born siblings. The families were represented by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a national Latino legal civil rights organization. As University of Houston Law professor Michael A. Olivas (who died in April 2022) wrote in his 2012 book, No Undocumented Child Left Behind: Plyler v. Doe and the Education of Undocumented Schoolchildren, MALDEF’s national director of education litigation, Peter Roos, and the group’s president, Vilma Martinez, considered the case to be the “Mexican American Brown v. Board of Education.”
The group of plaintiffs inspired sympathy: Undocumented children who weren’t responsible for their parents’ decision to migrate, with parents who worked. They also had an ally in William Wayne Justice, a federal judge who was both revered and reviled in rural Texas for his liberal views and for having ordered desegregation in Tyler schools in 1970. On September 14, 1978, Judge Justice ruled that the state’s reasoning that the statute would relieve the school district from a financial burden and regulate immigration was irrational and a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.
By 1980, most districts in the state had implemented practices excluding undocumented immigrants. In July 1980, a federal judge in Houston deciding on the combined cases arrived at a similar conclusion as Judge Justice. The two parallel lawsuits moved separately through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court’s rulings, before being consolidated as Plyler v. Doe, which the Supreme Court heard on December 1, 1981. On June 15, 1982, in a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the students and established that all children without reference to their immigration status have the constitutional right to a public K–12 education. “By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our nation,” Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote in the majority opinion. “It is difficult to understand precisely what the state hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime. It is thus clear that whatever savings might be achieved by denying these children an education, they are wholly insubstantial in light of the costs involved to these children, the state, and the nation.”
Peter Schey, the president and executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law Foundation in Los Angeles, had been the lead counsel in the consolidated statewide class-action lawsuit and went on to argue the case before the Supreme Court, sharing time with MALDEF’s Peter Roos. When news about the 1982 Supreme Court decision broke, he was on a trip to Nicaragua to document human rights abuses committed by the Contras, a US-backed rebel group opposing the Sandinista socialist government. Listening to BBC News on the radio with his delegation as they sat around a campfire when the broadcaster announced the historic decision by the Supreme Court, Schey jumped up screaming, “We won! We won!”
In building his case before the lower courts, Schey brought in expert witnesses such as child psychiatrists who could testify about the harmful impact of school exclusion on the learning progress and development of the students, and criminal justice scholars who warned of a potential increase in juvenile crime if kids were pushed out of the classroom. Two young girls who had been affected by such policies also described their experiences to Judge Woodrow Seals of the Southern District of Texas in Houston, who heard the case. After 24 days, Judge Seals decided in favor of the children, writing, “It is possible to perceive the impact of the creation of a permanent underclass of persons who will live their lives in this country without being able to participate in our society.”
The ruling represented a victory in what had been an uphill battle for Schey and his team, since they were fighting on behalf of 100,000 or more children—a much larger number than had been covered by the earlier Tyler case. “The fact that one could win a case in a very small school district where the impact of enrolling children would be relatively minimal would not answer the question of whether the law was irrational on a statewide level,” Schey says.
The two favorable rulings, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld, were promising, but the fact remained that while the appeals from Texas were pending, the children kept missing out on school. Schey filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court to vacate a stay blocking the immediate enrollment of the children, which the court granted. “It was one of the most important cases I had handled in terms of the impact on thousands and thousands of innocent children,” says Schey. “We were just very lucky. All Texas needed was one more vote and over 100,000 children would have had their lives destroyed.” Despite the split decision, even those who voted in the Supreme Court justices agreed that the Texas statute constituted bad public policy. “Were it our business to set the nation’s social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children—including illegal aliens—of an elementary education,” Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in his dissenting opinion. “However, the Constitution does not constitute us as ‘Platonic Guardians’ nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, ‘wisdom’ or ‘common sense.'” Monolingual Hispanic students raise their hands to answer a question during a class taught in Spanish at Birdwell Elementary School in September 2003 in Tyler, Texas. Mario Villafuerte/Getty
During the 40 years since the Plyler decision, there have been direct and indirect attempts to undermine it, most recently by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, where it all began. In a May interview with the conservative radio program The Joe Pags Show, Abbott said, “Texas already long ago sued the federal government about having to incur the costs of the education program, in a case called Plyler v. Doe and the Supreme Court ruled against us on the issue. I think we will resurrect that case and challenge this issue again, because the expenses are extraordinary. And the times are different than when Plyler v. Doe was issued many decades ago.” Immigrant activists and educators immediately repudiated Abbott’s statement, some characterizing it as nothing more than an empty threat aimed at scoring points with voters. “He was throwing out a political dog whistle to appeal to the extreme right who might believe he would really attempt to implement the policy,” says Thomas Saenz, MALDEF’s president and general counsel. “I don’t really believe that Governor Abbott would ever follow through on his threat to attempt to reverse Plyler. No governor really wants thousands of kids on the street, instead of in school, and any politician who precipitates that occurring is doing so at tremendous risk to their political future.”
The governor may have felt emboldened by the impending overturn of Roe v. Wade by the current Supreme Court conservative supermajority. But unlike the landmark 1974 case that guaranteed the constitutional right to have an abortion, Saenz says, Plyer has actually been codified into federal law by Congress in 1996. “Before you even get to whether the Plyler precedent was correct or not, you have a federal statute that is, in effect, a congressional endorsement of Plyler,” he says. “So they would first have to explain why that statute doesn’t prevent them from violating Plyler even before you get to the Plyler decision behind it. It’s a double barrier that wasn’t present in 1982 and that doesn’t exist in Roe v. Wade.”
Attempts to challenge Plyler abounded over the years but haven’t survived legal challenges. One of the most egregious attempts took place in California in 1994, when then–Republican Gov. Pete Wilson campaigned for reelection on the infamous anti-immigrant Proposition 187, also known as the “Save Our State” initiative (which some political analysts credit with helping turn California blue). Prop. 187 would have barred undocumented immigrants from attending public schools and accessing non-emergency health care. Voters approved the ballot measure by almost 60 percent, but the courts blocked the implementation of most of it largely based on the Plyler precedent.
Two years later, Republican Rep. Elton Gallegly of California introduced an amendment to a series of immigration laws known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which would allow states to deny public education to undocumented students or charge them tuition—a direct attempt to overturn Plyler v. Doe. The Gallegly amendment passed the House, but President Bill Clinton vowed to veto the bill over its inclusion, and the amendment ultimately was withdrawn.
In 2011, Alabama enacted legislation requiring schools to collect information about the legal status of students and report it to the state. The provision was struck down in court, but it was part of a larger strategy to undermine the right of undocumented children to access public education. As one of its authors, Michael Hethmon, an attorney with the Immigration Reform Law Institute, a legal arm of the anti-immigration Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), later admitted to the New Yorker Times, the goal was to force litigation in the hopes of sending the Plyler case back to the Supreme Court so it would be overturned. That same year, Arizona’s Senate President Russell Pearce proposed an unsuccessful measure requiring proof of citizenship for children to enroll in schools and banning undocumented students from attending state universities and community colleges. Pearce, who had been one the architect of some of the country’s toughest anti-immigration laws, was recalled from office in 2011 in large part over his crackdown on immigrants.
During Donald Trump’s presidency, Stephen Miller, his senior adviser and the mastermind behind the president’s draconian anti-immigrant policies, sought to circumvent the 1982 ruling. Miller reportedly pushed White House officials to consider issuing a guidance memo giving states the option to deny undocumented students enrollment in K–12 schools. At the time, a spokesperson for the Department of Education said “the memo wasn’t issued because the Secretary would never consider it.” As recently as late 2021, Bruce Griffey, the Republican state lawmaker in Tennessee who recently called pro-vaccine legislators “medical Nazis” and sponsored a “Don’t Say Gay” bill, introduced legislation to withdraw state funds from public schools for students who are “unlawfully present” in the United States. Saenz estimates his organization receives calls every year about school clerks asking for social security numbers to enroll kids, a clear violation of Plyler. “The fact still is,” he says, “that excluding these kids from school is much more costly to society and to the government than the cost of providing education.”
In the years since, scholars and legal analysts have disagreed on the merits of Plyler and the significance of its legacy. In 1983, Chief Justice John Roberts, then a lawyer for the Reagan administration, strongly criticized the decision, suggesting the Department of Justice should have filed a brief siding with the state of Texas and against the children. When asked about it years later in his 2015 Supreme Court nomination hearing, Chief Justice Roberts evaded questions about whether he had come to agree with the decision and if he considered it to be settled law. “I haven’t looked at the decision in the Plyler v. Doe in 23 years,” he said.
Law professors have argued that because no state other than Texas had a law in the books at the time excluding undocumented students, the decision merely impacted an “outlier statute.” But it’s easy to imagine that had it not it been for this precedent, several other states might have followed Texas’ lead. “The pressure was tremendous,” Roos told NBC News recently. “I was confident in our case, but there was a sense that if we lost, other states would pass laws like Texas. So the outcome could affect millions of kids, and that was a heavy weight on my shoulders.” In his book The Schoolhouse Gate: Public Education, the Supreme Court, and the Battle for the American Mind, Yale law professor Justin Driver writes, “It is difficult to identify many opinions in the Supreme Court’s entire history that have more profound consequences in more vital arenas than Plyler v. Doe’s guarantee that the schoolhouse door cannot be closed to one of modern society’s most marginalized, most vilified groups.”
Olivas, author of No Undocumented Child Left Behind, agreed, writing, “The opinion has single-handedly enabled innumerable children to use education to expand both their minds and their horizons.” Plyer “may be the high-water mark of immigrant rights in the United States and is likely among the most important educational and immigration cases decided in Texas.” In determining that undocumented children could not be punished for their parents’ actions, the Supreme Court decision also created the legal foundation for President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—a program enacted exactly 30 years after the Plyler decision that has granted relief from deportation and work authorization for hundreds of thousands of undocumented young people who came to the United States as children. As Olivas observes, it is a simple causality: “If there were no Plyler, there could be no undocumented college students.”
By holding that undocumented immigrants can assert a claim to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court also created a precedent that has been cited, for instance, in challenges to Trump’s failed attempt to exclude immigrants from the Census. Schey says the case also provides “future protection to vulnerable populations who are discriminated against by a state or the federal government when that population has no responsibility for the status that is the basis for their discrimination.” In 2007, Jim Plyler, the Tyler school district superintendent, told Education Week he was “glad we lost the Hispanic [court case] so that those kids could get educated.”
The Los Angeles Times tracked down the “children of Plyler” for a story in 1994. Most of them had finished high school in the Tyler Independent School District. Years later, they became legal residents or citizens as a result of the 1986 immigration reform legislation that conferred status to millions of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Laura Alvarez, who hadn’t known she had played a role in the case until the newspaper contacted her, worked for years as a teacher’s aide for the same Tyler district that had excluded her years earlier.
“As a result of that decision there’s no question several million children later became permanent residents and then citizens of the United States, have received an education,” says Schey, “and have gone on to become productive members of their communities.”
An alternative scenario in which that wasn’t the case would look more like what Carola Suárez-Orozco, a Harvard Graduate School of Education professor in residence and immigration expert, described a hypothetical trajectory of two siblings, one who was born in Honduras and the other in the United States. One would have no education while the other “would be entitled to attend school as a citizen. The siblings would experience the consequences of a Solomonic decision,” she says, “played out in countless iterations, for a situation they had no role in creating.” | Civil Rights Activism |
CBS Mornings June 13, 2022 / 10:26 AM / CBS News Alleged white supremacists arrested in Idaho 31 alleged white supremacists arrested in Idaho, charged with misdemeanors for conspiracy to riot 02:40 Police in Idaho say they prevented a possible domestic terror attack over the weekend, when 31 men were arrested Saturday allegedly on their way to wreak havoc at a Pride event in the city of Coeur d'Alene.All had traveled from elsewhere, and police believe they're members of a white supremacist group with links to previous violent rallies. When they were found standing in the back of a U-Haul truck, authorities recovered gear including shields, shin guards and a smoke grenade.CBS News senior investigative correspondent Catherine Herridge reports the FBI is assisting local police in its investigation. Police say 31 masked men found riding inside a U-Haul truck in Coeur d'Alene, Ida., had riot gear and a smoke grenade. KREM For now, each of the 31 people arrested faces a misdemeanor conspiracy to riot charge. Coeur d'Alene Police Chief Lee White said, "They came to riot downtown." A witness tipped off police after watching the group load into the back of a U-Haul truck at a hotel, and said they "looked like a little army." White said they appear to be affiliated with the group Patriot Front. Groups that monitor extremist ideology, such as Southern Poverty Law Center, say Patriot Front promotes fascism and the creation of a white ethno-state.It was founded in 2017, after breaking off from a neo-Nazi organization that participated in the Charlottesville, Virginia "Unite the Right" rally.The man convicted on federal hate crime charges for driving his car into a crowd of protesters, killing one of them, was affiliated with that original group.Examining extremism: What's driving white supremacy in the U.S.Cynthia Miller-Idriss, who tracks domestic extremism at the Polarization and Extremism Research & Innovation Lab (PERIL) at American University, told "CBS Mornings" that Patriot Front's members are overwhelmingly young, white men. "They are twisting and manipulating and misusing the idea of patriotism, by promoting a white supremacist version of patriotism," she said. The people arrested Saturday ranged in age from 21 to 36, and were from a dozen different states. None was local to Coeur d'Alene. Mug shots of the men arrested on conspiracy to riot charges, including the alleged leader of Patriot Front, Thomas Rousseau (bottom). Kootenai County Sheriff's Office Herridge asked, "What does the incident in Idaho tell us about the overall threat picture?""We're seeing this broadening out of the targets that people across the supremacist spectrum are choosing to intimidate or harass or harm," Miller-Idriss replied. "It is part of a broader range of anti-democratic and extremist types of events that are happening."New U.S. intelligence report warns domestic terrorism poses "elevated threat"U.S. sees steady rise in violence by white supremacistsIn this case, the apparent target was that Pride event, which organizers say was the largest north Idaho has ever seen.As for the defendants, police say they're scheduled to be arraigned later Monday. They include Patriot Front's alleged leader, Thomas Ryan Rousseau, of Grapevine, Texas. According to White, further charges "might be pending." In: White Nationalism Hate Crime Thanks for reading CBS NEWS. Create your free account or log in for more features. Please enter email address to continue Please enter valid email address to continue | US Crime, Violence, Terrorism & cybercrime |
LIVE UPDATESThe justices voted to overrule the decisions of Roe and Casey.Last Updated: June 24, 2022, 9:10 PM ETThe U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in a much-anticipated ruling Friday in one of its biggest decisions this term.The court voted 5-4, largely along party lines, to overturn Roe and 6-3, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which involved Mississippi's ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy.It appeared that the panel's conservative majority of justices was ready to overturn nearly 50 years of established abortion rights after last month's leaked draft decision indicated as much.The U.S. Marshals Service told ABC News that federal judges and state government officials are “most at risk” following the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.“In light of the increased security concerns stemming from the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe V. Wade, the U.S. Marshals Service continues to assist the Marshal of the Supreme Court with the responsibility of protecting the United State Supreme Court and its facilities,” the statement read.“While we do not comment on specific security measures, we continuously review the security measures in place and take appropriate steps to provide additional protection when it is warranted.”Congress recently passed legislation that would increase security for the Supreme Court justices and their families.-ABC News' Luke BarrPeople in support of abortion rights gathered Friday after the Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade decision, which guaranteed a constitutional right for an abortion.Protests occurred Friday at Federal Plaza in Chicago, Philadelphia's City Hall, Washington Square Park in New York and downtown Boston. More rallies were being planned for Saturday in response to the ruling.About two dozen protesters also gathered outside the private community residence where Justice Clarence Thomas lives in Fairfax, Virginia, with some carrying signs that read "you will never control my body."Dr. Colleen McNicholas, the chief medical officer for Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis region, oversees a clinic in Missouri, which has been immediately shut down by a trigger law, and a clinic in Illinois, which will stay open for the foreseeable future.Already, she has seen the impacts of a clinic that gets shut down -- and the massive demand for one that's still open."Within minutes of the decision, our attorney general invoked that trigger ban, and we had to stop providing abortion care," she said of the Missouri clinic.And in Illinois, she said, "Within minutes, again, we were receiving calls from clinics and other trigger-banned states to say, 'I have patients on the schedule tomorrow. How many can you accommodate in the coming days?'"- ABC News' Cheyenne Haslett and Rachel ScottSoccer star Megan Rapinoe took several minutes during a media appearance ahead of Saturday's match between the U.S. and Colombia to talk about the Supreme Court ruling on Friday."Obviously you can understand from an individual perspective how difficult it is to live in a country where you have a constant, unrelenting, violent tide against you and onslaught as a woman," she said. "And it would be as a gay person and as a non-binary person, as a trans person -- whoever this is going to affect, because it affects a lot more than just women or cis-women. It really does affect us all."She went on to say the ruling will "disproportionately affect poor women, Black women, brown women, immigrants, women in abusive relationships, women who have been raped, women and girls who have been raped by family members," as well as those who "maybe just didn't make the best choice."Rapinoe additionally called on men to speak up about the ruling, saying that is "what, frankly, doing the right thing looks like."Meanwhile, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver and WNBA Commissioner Cathy Engelbert spoke out in support of abortion rights."The NBA and WNBA believe that women should be able to make their own decisions concerning their health and future, and we believe that freedom should be protected," they said in a joint statement. "We will continue to advocate for gender and health equity, including ensuring our employees have access to reproductive health care, regardless of their location." | SCOTUS |
30 min ago"With sorrow": How the court's 3 liberal justices closed their dissentJustices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan issued a dissenting opinion to the Supreme Court's decision that strikes down Roe v. Wade.In their joint opinion, the three justices heavily criticized the majority, closing: “With sorrow — for this Court, but more, for the many millions of American women who have today lost a fundamental constitutional protection—we dissent.” 1 hr 9 min agoPelosi calls Roe ruling "outrageous and heart-wrenching," vows to make it a midterm issueFrom CNN's Annie Grayer (Alex Wong/Getty Images)House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the Supreme Court's "cruel ruling" overturning Roe v. Wade is "outrageous and heart-wrenching." “Today, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has achieved the GOP’s dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions. Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party and their supermajority on the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedom than their mothers," Pelosi said in a statement. Pelosi vowed that Democrats will keep fighting to "enshrine Roe v. Wade into law." “A woman’s fundamental health decisions are her own to make, in consultation with her doctor and her loved ones – not to be dictated by far-right politicians," she said. “This cruel ruling is outrageous and heart-wrenching. But make no mistake: the rights of women and all Americans are on the ballot this November,” her statement continued. 30 min agoSupreme Court's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade is similar to the draft leaked earlier this yearFrom CNN's Tierney Sneed and Ariane de VogueThe final opinion released by the Supreme Court on Friday is strikingly similar to the draft written by Justice Samuel Alito that was leaked earlier this year. It repeats Alito’s scornful language towards the original Roe v. Wade decision that enshrined abortion rights. “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,” both the formal and draft said. “Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.” Like the draft opinion, Alito included a list of cases that also rested on a right to privacy, as Alito asserted that Roe was distinct from those cases. “What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abortion destroys what those decisions call ‘potential life’ and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an ‘unborn human being,’” Alito wrote, in a line that was also present in the draft. So what's new? Alito’s response to the dissent, jointly written by the three liberal justices. The dissent would not have been written at the time that the ultimately leaked draft was circulated around the court. “The dissent is very candid that it cannot show that a constitutional right to abortion has any foundation, let alone a ‘deeply rooted’ one, ‘in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Alito wrote. “The dissent does not identify any pre-Roe authority that supports such a right — no state constitutional provision or statute, no federal or state judicial precedent, not even a scholarly treatise.” In that four-page section, Alito said that the dissent’s failure “engage with this long tradition is devastating to its position.” 38 min agoFormer President Obama criticizes Supreme Court ruling on abortion (Al Drago/Bloomberg/Getty Images)Former President Barack Obama criticized Friday’s ruling by the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, saying the court “not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans.”Read his statement:Former first lady Michelle Obama also issued a statement Friday saying she was “heartbroken” over the Supreme Court’s decision.“I am heartbroken for people around this country who just lost the fundamental right to make informed decisions about their own bodies,” Obama wrote.She wrote that the decision “must be a wake-up call, especially to the young people who will bear its burden.”30 min agoKey lines from the majority opinion: "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion"From CNN's Tierney Sneed and Ariane de VogueThe Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade Friday, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. Here are key lines from the majority opinion: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely — the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”“The dissent argues that we have “abandon[ed]” stare de- cisis, post, at 30, but we have done no such thing, and it is the dissent’s understanding of stare decisis that breaks with tradition.”“We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not pro- hibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.”1 hr 25 min agoNew York "will always be a safe haven for anyone seeking an abortion," state's attorney general pledgesAttorney General Letitia James speaks about protecting abortion access in New York on May 9. (Lev Radin/Pacific Press/LightRocket/Getty Images)New York Attorney General Letitia James has responded to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, a decision that holds that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion.“The Supreme Court's vicious decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is one of the darkest moments in the history of this nation. Make no mistake: While other states strip away the fundamental right to choose, New York will always be a safe haven for anyone seeking an abortion," James tweeted.“I will work tirelessly to ensure our most vulnerable and people from hostile states have access to this lifesaving care. Everyone in this nation deserves the right to make their own decisions about their bodies," she added.30 min agoLarge protests seen outside Supreme Court Anti-abortion protesters gather outside the Supreme Court in Washington, on Friday, June 24. (Jose Luis Magana/AP)Groups of protesters are demonstrating outside the Supreme Court after the court overturned Roe v. Wade. Video footage showed them holding signs and chanting through megaphones. "It's a heartbreaking betrayal of half of the country," former federal prosecutor Jennifer Rodgers said on CNN, choking up a bit while seeing the protesters. "I'm getting — watching the women there — it's emotional."The opinion is the most consequential Supreme Court decision in decades and will transform the landscape of women’s reproductive health in America.Going forward, abortion rights will be determined by states, unless Congress acts.1 hr 30 min agoBiden and senior officials have been preparing for months for Roe v. Wade to be overturnedFrom CNN's Kevin Liptak (Alex Wong/Getty Images)A team of senior White House officials has been preparing for months to respond to a Supreme Court decision stripping nationwide abortion rights.President Biden has been weighing a number of steps to respond to the ruling, but has been constrained by the law and limits on his executive authority.The options have been under examination by lawyers, policy aides and political advisers since a draft opinion leaked in May.But aides have been clear that nothing the President can do would restore the nationwide right to abortion.Among the options the President is considering:Using executive actions and FDA regulatory steps to expand access to medication abortion (pills), a widely used method that could provide access to women in states where abortions become illegal. The FDA has already approved a regulation making it easier to distribute pills by mail.Declaring a public health emergency through the Department of Health and Human Services. This could shield doctors from legal liability if they treat patients in states where they are not licensed (so, for example, a doctor in Texas could travel to New Mexico to work at a clinic there).Ordering the Justice Department to challenge state laws that would criminalize crossing state lines to obtain an abortion.Working through the FCC to warn users of period tracking apps about their privacy and the potential their data could be used to identify early-stage pregnancy.1 hr 36 min agoRoe v. Wade has been struck down. Here's what you need to know about the now-overturned case.The US Supreme Court just overturned Roe v. Wade, holding that there is no longer a federal constitutional right to an abortion. Here's a look at the details of the now-overturned case:Case1971 - The case is filed by Norma McCorvey, known in court documents as Jane Roe, against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, who enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman’s life.DecisionJan. 22, 1973 - The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman the right to an abortion during the entirety of the pregnancy and defined different levels of state interest for regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters.The ruling affected laws in 46 states. Full-text opinions by the justices can be viewed here.Legal Timeline1971 - The Supreme Court agrees to hear the case filed by Roe against Wade, who was enforcing the Texas abortion law that had been declared unconstitutional in an earlier federal district court case. Wade was ignoring the legal ruling and both sides appealed.December 13, 1971 - The case is argued before the US Supreme Court.October 11, 1972 - The case is reargued before the US Supreme Court.January 22, 1973 - The US Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, affirms the legality of a woman’s right to have an abortion under the Fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.June 17, 2003 - McCorvey (Roe) files a motion with the federal district court in Dallas to have the case overturned and asks the court to consider new evidence that abortion hurts women. Included are 1,000 affidavits from women who say they regret their abortions.September 14, 2004 - A three-judge panel of the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans dismisses McCorvey’s motion to have the case overturned, according to the Court’s clerk.May 2, 2022 - In a stunning breach of Supreme Court confidentiality and secrecy, Politico has obtained what it calls a draft of a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that would overturn Roe v. Wade’s holding of a federal constitutional right to an abortion. The opinion in the case is not expected to be published until late June. The court confirms the authenticity of the document on May 3, but stresses it is not the final decision.The PlayersMcCorvey - Texas resident who sought to obtain an abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant mother’s life. McCorvey was pregnant when she became the lead plaintiff in the case. She gave up the baby for adoption.McCorvey has since come forward and spoken against abortion. In 1997, McCorvey started Roe No More, an anti-abortion outreach organization that was dissolved in 2008. McCorvey died on February 18, 2017. In the 2020 documentary “AKA Jane Roe,” prior to her death in 2017, McCorvey told the film’s director that she hadn’t changed her mind about abortion but became an anti-abortion activist because she was being paid.Henry Wade - District attorney of Dallas County from 1951 to 1987. McCorvey sued him because he enforced a law that prohibited abortion, except to save a woman’s life. He died on March 1, 2001.Sarah Weddington - Lawyer for McCorveyLinda Coffee - Lawyer for McCorveyJay Floyd - Argued the case for Texas the first timeRobert C. Flowers - Reargued the case for TexasSupreme Court Justice OpinionsMajority: Harry A. Blackmun (for The Court), William J. Brennan, Lewis F. Powell Jr., Thurgood MarshallConcurring: Warren Burger, William Orville Douglas, Potter StewartDissenting: William H. Rehnquist, Byron White | SCOTUS |
Something isn't loading properly. Please check back later. What the Fed's latest historic interest rate hike means 01:49 - Source: CNNBusiness Minneapolis CNN — The US economy added 223,000 jobs in December, according to the monthly employment report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, capping a year of extraordinary job growth and marking the second-best year for the labor market in records that go back to 1939. The unemployment rate fell back to a record low of 3.5% from a revised 3.6% in November. Economists were expecting 200,000 job gains for the last month of the year, according to Refinitiv. December’s job total is lower than the downwardly revised 256,000 jobs added in November. Including last month’s gains, which are subject to revision, the economy added about 4.5 million jobs in 2022. That’s the second-highest-ever total, after the 6.7 million jobs added in 2021 — a boomerang from 2020’s 9.3 million job losses. The labor market slowed in 2022, compared to the previous year’s tear. December’s jobs total represents the lowest monthly gains in two years. Those latest gains come following months of jumbo interest rate increases from the Federal Reserve in its attempt to cool off the economy after inflation last year hit its highest level since the 1980s. Those efforts have, so far, remained mostly elusive. That means the Fed is entering 2023 looking for a considerably softer and looser labor market — notably, increased labor participation, a better alignment of job seekers to open positions, and lower levels of wage growth. “This is about the best report one could hope for, given a still very hot US labor market,” said Joe Brusuelas, principal and chief economist for RSM US. Wall Street responded positively to Friday’s jobs data, with the Dow rising by almost 500 points by mid-morning — mostly a reaction to the slower pace of wage growth. Average hourly earnings increased 0.3% over the previous month and 4.6% annually. That’s compared to 0.4% month-on-month growth in November and 4.8% annual growth. The December report showed that the labor force participation rate, an estimation of the active workforce and people looking for work, ticked up to 62.3% from 62.2%. Labor force participation rates have been on a decline — largely due to demographic changes and aging Baby Boomers — since hitting a high of 67.3% in early 2000, and had fallen to 63.3% in the month before the onset of the pandemic. The participation rate has not returned to pre-pandemic levels, vexing economists and the Fed, while also contributing to an imbalance of worker supply and demand. “The labor market is moving in the right direction for the Federal Reserve, according to the December employment report, but is not there yet,” Gus Faucher, senior economist for PNC Financial services said in a statement. “Job growth is slowing to a more sustainable pace, and wage growth is softening as demand in the job market slackens somewhat.” However, with job growth well above pre-pandemic levels, when job gains averaged 164,000 in 2019, and the unemployment rate returning to a 50-year low, there is little indication that there will be enough of a boost in the labor force to help cool off the job market, he said. Some of the largest monthly gains were in industries such as leisure and hospitality, health care, and accommodation and food services, which all were hit hard during the pandemic. There were also notable monthly job losses in technology and interest-rate-sensitive sectors that surged during the pandemic and are now rebalancing as consumers shift spending toward services. Industries such as information, finance and professional and business services, shed jobs between November and December. The losses seen in areas such as professional and business services are likely an effect of the waves of mass layoffs hitting the tech industry, said Ken Kim, a senior economist at KPMG. “We are seeing a little bit of spread to other areas,” he said. In addition to Friday’s strong jobs numbers, several other pieces of jobs data released this week continue to reflect a healthy labor market. Wednesday’s Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) report showed that the number of available jobs remained steady at 10.5 million in November. It also showed that quits, layoffs and hires didn’t really show any major signs of cooling that month. ADP’s private-sector employment report on Thursday also showed a robust labor market, with 235,000 jobs added in the private sector during December, well exceeding expectations of 150,000. And Thursday’s weekly jobless claims fell by 21,000 to 204,000 for the week ending November 26, while continuing claims decreased to 1.69 million from 1.72 million to 1.61 million. —CNN’s Matt Egan contributed to this report. | US Federal Policies |
Conservative Hispanic group lauds court decisionBienvenido, a conservative Hispanic group, said the court's decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision was "correct as both a legal and a moral matter.""Today we join millions of Americans — including the majority of Hispanics who value human life — in celebrating the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling overturning 'Roe' and 'Casey,'" a statement from the group said. "It was always a lie that the Constitution guaranteed the right to kill unborn children and this Court has just exposed this lie for the shameful farce that it always has been," the statement continued. "As we commemorate this historic decision, let us remember these children who were denied the right to live, pray for forgiveness, and give thanks to God." According to Pew Research Center, 60% of Hispanics in 2022 said abortion should be legal. Transgender Law Center denounces Supreme Court decision as "despicable" Tat Bellamy-Walker5m ago / 3:51 PM UTCThe Transgender Law Center, one of the nation's largest transgender rights groups, slammed the court's decision, calling it "despicable" and a "politically-motivated" attack.In a statement, the organization stressed that the majority opinion will have an outsize impact on historically marginalized groups, including Black women, disabled people, migrant women, poor people and individuals living in rural communities.“Today we loudly affirm and pledge our solidarity with all people working for Reproductive Justice in this country,” the group's executive director, Kris Hayashi, said. “Whether it is a right to an abortion, the right to affirming medical care, or the right to learn about your own history in schools, our collective rights to self-determination and bodily autonomy are inexorably entwined.”'God made the decision': Trump praises the ruling overturning RoeFormer President Donald Trump praised the Supreme Court's ruling in a statement to Fox News on Friday, saying that it's "following the Constitution, and giving rights back when they should have been given long ago."Trump was asked if he played a role in the decision because he nominated three of the conservative justices who overturned Roe v. Wade — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett."God made the decision," Trump told Fox. Asked to address any of his supporters who support abortion rights, Trump said, "I think, in the end, this is something that will work out for everybody ... This brings everything back to the states where it has always belonged."Trump had previously supported abortion rights years ago, telling NBC News' "Meet the Press" in 1999 that he was "very pro-choice" at the time.Susan B. Anthony List celebrates overturning of Roe v. WadeThe anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List celebrated news Friday of the Supreme Court overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling, calling it a "historic victory for human rights." Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the group, said in a video message outside the Supreme Court that it was a moment of "great gratitude and resolve." "This Court has just overturned the wrongly decided Roe versus Wade decision. Let those words sink in," she said. "Roe versus Wade is overturned after 50 years of lobbying, building centers of hope to serve pregnant women, on our knees praying, off our knees marching and ensuring the powerful pro-life voice could be heard in our elections. We have arrived at this day, a culminating day of so much and the first day of a bright pro-life future for our nation."She said the decision allows the "will of the people to make its way into the law through our elected officials" and declared that "our best days are ahead."Attorney General Merrick Garland issues statement on Roe v. Wade reversalAttorney General Merrick Garland, who as Barack Obama's 2016 Supreme Court nominee was denied a confirmation vote by then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, vowed to put the full weight of the Department of Justice behind protecting abortion rights."The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision," he said. "This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect — with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means."“The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom. And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans," he added.Mayor Eric Adams says people around the country 'welcome' to access abortion care in New York City New York City Mayor Eric Adams lashed out at the Supreme Court on Friday, saying that "politics came before people at the highest court in the land." "What the court has done today ignores the opinions of the majority of Americans, as it helps states control women’s bodies, their choices, and their freedoms," the Democrat said in a statement, adding that the decision puts lives at risk."There is nothing to call this Supreme Court opinion but an affront to basic human rights and one that aims to shackle women and others in reproductive bondage."Adams sought to reassure New Yorkers, saying that they can still access safe, legal abortions in the city. He also said that people around the country seeking the procedure are "welcome here" to access those services.Massachusetts Gov. Baker signs executive order protecting abortion providersAntonio Planas17m ago / 3:39 PM UTCIn response to the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker, a Republican who is not running for re-election, signed an executive order Friday protecting health care providers performing abortions from losing their licenses or receiving other discipline based on potential charges from out of state, he said in a statement.“Under the executive order, the Commonwealth will not cooperate with extradition requests from other states pursuing criminal charges against individuals who received, assisted with, or performed reproductive health services that are legal in Massachusetts,” the statement said.The order, he said, also prohibits any “Executive Department agencies” from assisting another state’s investigation into a person or entity for receiving or delivering reproductive health care services that are legal in Massachusetts.“This executive order will further preserve that right and protect reproductive health care providers who serve out of state residents. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling overturning Roe v Wade, it is especially important to ensure that Massachusetts providers can continue to provide reproductive health care services without concern that the laws of other states may be used to interfere with those services or sanction them for providing services that are lawful in the Commonwealth,” Baker said.Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito said: “We are proud of the Commonwealth’s history of ensuring access to reproductive health care, and will continue to do so, despite today’s ruling from the Supreme Court.”Michigan Gov. Whitmer says ruling means her state's 1931 law banning abortion takes effect Michigan's Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a statement Friday it was a "sad day for America" and that her state's "antiquated" 1931 law banning abortion without exceptions for rape or incest will take effect. The law also criminalizes doctors and nurses who provide reproductive care, she said. "For now, a Michigan court has put a temporary hold on the law, but that decision is not final and has already been challenged. The 1931 law would punish women and strip away their right to make decisions about their own bodies," Whitmer said. "I want every Michigander to know that I am more determined than ever to protect access to safe, legal abortion."She said she filed a lawsuit in April to urge her state's Supreme Court to determine whether the Michigan Constitution protects the right to an abortion. "We need to clarify that under Michigan law, access to abortion is not only legal, but constitutionally protected," she said. Barack Obama calls Roe v. Wade reversal an attack on millionsTat Bellamy-Walker23m ago / 3:33 PM UTCFormer President Barack Obama said the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade targets the freedom of millions of Americans in the U.S. "Today, the Supreme Court not only reversed nearly 50 years of precedent, it relegated the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues—attacking the essential freedoms of millions of Americans," he wrote in a tweet. He noted that states across the country have already passed bills restricting abortion rights, and pointed people who want to fight against these restrictions toward Planned Parenthood and the United State of Women.In a statement, former first lady Michelle Obama said she was "heartbroken for people around this country who just lost the fundamental right to make informed decisions about their own bodies."Recent NBC News poll showed a majority of people in U.S. didn't want Roe v. Wade overturnedA majority of people in the U.S. — 63 percent — said in a recent NBC News poll in May that they didn't believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned, compared to 30% of people who wanted the abortion rights ruling to be reversed.Additionally, a combined 60% of Americans across the country said abortion should be either always legal (37%) or legal most of the time (23%) — the highest share believing it should be legal on this question, which dates back to 2003. By party, 84 percent of Democrats and 63 percent of Independents want abortion to be legal, versus just 33 percent of Republicans. The poll was conducted after the draft opinion of Alito's Roe opinion leaked.NAACP calls decision 'egregious assault on basic human rights'NAACP General Counsel Janette McCarthy Wallace said in a statement Friday the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade as "marks a significant regression of our country.""As a legal professional, I am horrified by this decision. As a Black woman, I am outraged to my core," Wallace said. "There is no denying the fact that this is a direct attack on all women, and Black women stand to be disproportionately impacted by the court's egregious assault on basic human rights. We must all stand up to have our voices heard in order to protect our nation from the further degradation of civil rights protections we have worked so hard to secure."Separately, Portia White, the NAACP vice president of policy and legislative affairs, said: "This Supreme Court is turning back the clock to a dangerous era where basic constitutional rights only exist for a select few. They've stripped away our right to vote, and now women have lost their right to their own body. What’s next?"White added: "We cannot allow our future to rest in the hands of those determined to crush every bit of it. We need to fight back."Biden to address Supreme Court ruling in remarks at 12:30 p.m. ETPresident Joe Biden will address the Supreme Court's ruling in remarks at approximately 12:30 p.m. ET, according to the White House.The guidance said that Biden will deliver his response in the Cross Hall.Durbin announces Judiciary hearing to explore "grim reality of a post-Roe America"Christopher Cicchiello36m ago / 3:20 PM UTCSenate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., announced that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing next month to "explore the grim reality of a post-Roe America."Durbin, who chairs the committee, made the announcement in a series of tweets in which he vowed to keep "fighting to enshrine into law a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices.” "The Court’s decision to erase the right to an abortion will not only lead to the denial of critical health care services, but also criminal consequences for women & health care providers in states eager to embrace draconian restrictions," Durbin wrote. "We cannot let our children inherit a nation that is less free and more dangerous than the one their parents grew up in."He also urged voters to elect "pro-choice Democrats who will write abortion protections into law" in the midterm elections.LGBTQ rights could be at risk post-Roe, advocates warned before rulingJulie Moreau38m ago / 3:18 PM UTCThe leaked initial draft of the Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade had advocates worried about what the precedent’s reversal could mean for the LGBTQ community’s recently gained rights. Cathryn Oakley, an attorney with the Human Rights Campaign, the country’s largest LGBTQ rights group, stressed that the high court’s decision would have a direct impact on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer people. “The LGBTQ community relies on reproductive health care. LGBTQ people seek and receive abortions, they seek and receive and use contraception,” she said. The willingness of the court to overturn precedent could, some advocates fear, signal that other federally protected rights of minorities may be in jeopardy, such as same-sex marriage, which became the law of the land with the Obergefell v. Hodges case. Read more about what LGBTQ rights advocates warned before Friday's ruling.Virginia Gov. Youngkin says Supreme Court ruling 'rightfully returned power to the people'Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade "has rightfully returned power to the people" and the elected officials of each state. "I’m proud to be a pro-life Governor and plan to take every action I can to protect life," he said in a statement Friday. "The truth is, Virginians want fewer abortions, not more abortions. We can build a bipartisan consensus on protecting the life of unborn children, especially when they begin to feel pain in the womb, and importantly supporting mothers and families who choose life."Youngkin, a Republican, said he has called on several lawmakers, including state Sens. Siobhan Dunnavant and Steve Newman, to help "find areas where we can agree and chart the most successful path forward."The Virginia Assembly is controlled by Republicans and the Senate has a narrow 19-21 Democratic majority. Manchin says he's 'alarmed,' had trusted Gorsuch and Kavanaugh when they said Roe was settled precedentSen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said in a statement that he is "deeply disappointed" by the Supreme Court's decision and "alarmed" that the two Trump-appointed justices that he voted to confirm supported it."I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans," he said.Manchin said he was raised "pro-life" as a Catholic and still maintains that view. "But I have come to accept that my definition of pro-life may not be someone else’s definition of pro-life. I believe that exceptions should be made in instances of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in jeopardy," he said. Manchin said that he supports legislation that would codify Roe v. Wade into federal law, saying, "I am hopeful Democrats and Republicans will come together to put forward a piece of legislation that would do just that."Thomas calls on court to reconsider contraception, same-sex marriage casesJustice Clarence Thomas, concurring with the majority ruling, explicitly called on the Supreme Court to overrule the rulings in Griswold v. Connecticut, which protects the right to contraception; Lawrence v. Texas, the right to same-sex intimacy; and Obergefell v. Hodges, the right to same-sex marriage.“As I have previously explained, 'substantive due process' is an oxymoron that 'lack[s] any basis in the Constitution,'” he wrote.Chief Justice Roberts warns Dobbs ruling goes too farChief Justice John Roberts voted with the other conservative justices to uphold the Mississippi law in today's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling, but urged against going further.“Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis,” he wrote.ACLU slams court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as "shameful"Tat Bellamy-Walker49m ago / 3:07 PM UTCThe American Civil Liberties Union called the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade "shameful."“Second-class status for women has once again become the law because of today’s decision," Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the ACLU, said in a statement. "We can wave away any pretense that this is the United States of America when it comes to the fundamental right to decide when and if to become a parent." Romero warned that the decision will have far-reaching consequences.“The Supreme Court has just plunged this country and itself into a historic crisis, one that will reverberate far beyond the ability to get an abortion."Alito says Constitution 'makes no reference to abortion'Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote in his majority opinion overturning Roe v. Wade that the Constitution "makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision" including the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives," wrote Alito, who then quoted from an opinion written by then-Justice Antonin Scalia from the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case: "The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting."In emotional remarks, Nancy Pelosi denounces Supreme Court, Trump, GOPIn searing and emotional remarks, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi excoriated the Supreme Court for overturning Roe v. Wade and blamed former President Donald Trump and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for laying the groundwork for the decision."Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party and their supermajority on the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedom than their mothers," Pelosi told reporters at a news conference.She described the top court's ruling as "dangerous" and urged people who support abortion rights and access to vote in the November midterm elections."In the Congress, be aware of this, Republicans are plotting a nationwide abortion ban. They cannot be allowed to have a majority in the Congress to do that," Pelosi said.'Today, Life Won,' Pence saysFormer Vice President Mike Pence, who has long been opposed to abortion, celebrated the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, saying "Today, Life Won.""By overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court of the United States has given the American people a new beginning for life and I commend the Justices in the majority for having the courage of their convictions," he wrote in a series of tweets."Now that Roe v. Wade has been consigned to the ash heap of history," he continued, "a new arena in the cause of life has emerged and it is incumbent on all who cherish the sanctity of life to resolve that we will take the defense of the unborn and support for women in crisis pregnancies to every state Capitol in America."He added, "Having been given this second chance for Life, we must not rest and must not relent until the sanctity of life is restored to the center of American law in every state in the land."March for Life president praises decision to overturn Roe v. WadeAntonio Planas56m ago / 3:00 PM UTCMarch for Life President Jeanne Mancini praised the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn an “unpopular and extreme abortion policy on our nation.”March for Life is an annual rally held in the nation’s capital condemning the 1973 decision by the nation’s highest court that legalized abortion nationwide.“Today, the ability to determine whether and when to limit abortion was returned to the American people who have every right to enact laws like Mississippi’s which protect mothers and unborn babies after 15 weeks — when they have fully formed noses, can suck their thumb, and feel pain,” Mancini said in a statement. “We will continue to march until abortion is unthinkable because equality begins in the womb.”In concurrence, Kavanaugh says states can't bar residents from traveling elsewhere for abortionIn a concurrence to the Supreme Court's ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that states cannot block people from traveling to other states to seek an abortion because of the "constitutional right to interstate travel."But many legal observers and political analysts expect that exact issue will be at the center of the next chapter of this fight.'One of the darkest days our country has ever seen,' Schumer saysSenate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said a fundamental right was "stolen" from American women Friday when the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion. He called it "one of the darkest days our country has ever seen." "Millions upon millions of American women are having their rights taken from them by five unelected Justices on the extremist MAGA court," he said in a statement. "These justices, appointed by Republicans and presiding without any accountability, have stolen a fundamental right to have an abortion away from American women in this country. These justices were intentionally appointed by Republicans to overturn Roe v. Wade and every Republican Senator knew this would happen if they voted to confirm these radical justices." Schumer, D-N.Y., condemned Republicans for their "complicit" decision in the ruling, saying it will have "consequences for women and families in this country.""Today’s decision makes crystal clear the contrast as we approach the November elections: elect more MAGA Republicans if you want nationwide abortion bans, the jailing of women and doctors and no exemptions for rape or incest," he continued. "Or, elect more pro-choice Democrats to save Roe and protect a woman’s right to make their own decisions about their body, not politicians."Rep. Dean blasts court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade as 'horrifying'Tat Bellamy-Walker1h ago / 2:50 PM UTCRep. Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., condemned the court's decision."Absolutely horrifying," Dean said. "It's taking us back more than 50 years." She urged people to fight back against the opinion."People need to be out protesting," she said. "Peacefully protesting and voting.” INTERACTIVE: Live in a state set to ban abortions? See how far you’d have to travel for careWithout Roe v. Wade, women and girls seeking an abortion in states where the procedure will be banned will face long treks, often by multiple means of transportation, in order to get care.NBC News analyzed the distance to the nearest open abortion clinic from major cities in 21 states that either have pre-existing or pending state-level abortion bans that will go into effect following the Supreme Court’s ruling Friday to overturn Roe. Women and girls there will have to drive 4 hours on average in order to receive care in bordering states where abortion remains legal.View the graphic here. Mississippi AG: 'Roe v. Wade is finally behind us'Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, a Republican who advocated for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, celebrated what she characterized as a "new era in American history."Pelosi says Supreme Court achieved Republicans' 'dark and extreme goal' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the Supreme Court has "achieved the GOP's dark and extreme goal of ripping away women's right to make their own reproductive health decisions." "Because of Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, the Republican Party and their supermajority on the Supreme Court, American women today have less freedom than their mothers," she wrote in a statement.Pelosi said that congressional Republicans are "plotting a nationwide abortion ban," and vowed that "Democrats will keep fighting ferociously to enshrine Roe v. Wade into law.""This cruel ruling is outrageous and heart-wrenching," she added. "But make no mistake: the rights of women and all Americans are on the ballot this November."Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene celebrates decision overturning RoeMarjorie Taylor Greene, the firebrand Republican congresswoman from Georgia, told reporters Friday that the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade is a "blessing" and an "answered prayer.""I've prayed for this my whole life," Greene said.Democratic PACs say voters must 'fight like hell' this November Two major Democratic political action committees, the Senate Majority PAC and House Majority PAC, criticized the high court in a joint statement Friday for taking away a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. Senate Majority PAC President JB Poersch and House Majority PAC Executive Director Abby Curran Horrell said the ruling "flies in the face of decades of precedent and is a direct assault on the constitutional right to a safe, legal abortion that’s been guaranteed for nearly a half-century."They said that abortion rights will be a top issue in the current midterm elections cycle, saying they "will determine whether Republicans can place cruel new restrictions on reproductive rights, ban abortion nationwide with no exceptions, criminalize abortion providers, and punish women. The stakes of defending our Democratic Senate and House majorities have never been higher.""Come November, we must elect Democrats to the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who will fight like hell to ensure that our constitutional rights are enshrined into law and serve as the last line of defense against Republicans’ extremist attacks on our fundamental freedoms," they said. Planned Parenthood: 'The court has failed us all'Planned Parenthood, one of the leading providers of reproductive health care in the U.S., said in a tweet that the Supreme Court has "failed us all" but added "this is far from over."Key abortion rights group blasts Supreme Court decisionThe Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, excoriated the "anti-abortion ideologues on the U.S. Supreme Court" who overturned Roe v. Wade on Friday."The U.S. Supreme Court has taken the radical step of overturning Roe v. Wade outright, thus unleashing uncertainty and harm onto people asking for nothing more than to exercise their fundamental right to bodily autonomy," Guttmacher Institute President and CEO Dr. Herminia Palacio said."While much has been lost today, the fight is far from over," she added. "The anti-abortion movement is already pushing for a national abortion ban. All of us seeking to defend policies that support bodily autonomy must be ready to meet them with all we have."We must protect abortion rights and access in as many states as possible and achieve federal legislation to ensure that anyone, anywhere who needs an abortion can get one freely and with dignity."House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy says ruling will 'save countless innocent lives'House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., applauded the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade on Friday, saying that the ruling will "save countless innocent lives." "The Supreme Court is right to return the power to protect the unborn to the people’s elected representatives in Congress and the states," he said in a statement.McCarthy added, "In the days and weeks following this decision, we must work to continue to reject extreme policies that seek to allow late-term abortions and taxpayer dollars to fund these elective procedures."The GOP leader also said that "much work remains to protect the most vulnerable among us."Supreme Court overturns Roe v. WadeThe Supreme Court on Friday overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling that guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion in a 6-3 vote, a momentous break from a half-century of rulings on one of the nation’s most controversial issues. About half the states have already indicated they would move to ban the procedure.Supporters of abortion rights were bracing for the loss after an early draft of the opinion was leaked in May, touching off several days of demonstrations in more than two dozen cities. Protesters even showed up outside the homes of some members of the court.Read more here. | SCOTUS |
Subsets and Splits