US Politics

Republican George Santos faces campaign finance complaintControversial newly elected congressman who appears to have made up most of his résumé is subject of FEC complaint The newly sworn-in Republican congressman George Santos, whose campaign résumé has been shown to be largely made-up, is the subject of a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission.In Santos’s district, reactions to brazen lies remain mixed: ‘I might let him slide’Read moreThe complaint concerning the New York representative was filed with the FEC on Monday by the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), a non-partisan watchdog group.Santos won his seat, which covers parts of Long Island and Queens, in November.He has since been the subject of relentless scrutiny, exposing claims about his education, business career and family background, including claims to be descended from Holocaust survivors and that his mother’s death was a result of the 9/11 attacks.Santos has admitted “embellishing” his CV. He is under investigation by authorities in New York and in Brazil, in the latter case over alleged use of a stolen chequebook.His Democratic predecessor in the New York seat has called him a “conman” and members of Congress have called for action against him.But Republican leaders have taken no action and after last week’s five-day standoff over Kevin McCarthy’s bid for speaker, Santos – who cast one vote for McCarthy while appearing to make a white supremacist sign – is now a member of the US House of Representatives.In a statement on Monday, the CLC alleged that Santos and his 2022 campaign committee, Devolder-Santos for Congress, “violated federal campaign finance laws by engaging in a straw donor scheme to knowingly and willfully conceal the true sources of $705,000 that Santos purported to loan to his campaign”.The group also said Santos “deliberately report[ed] false disbursement figures on FEC disclosure reports, among many other reporting violations; and illegally us[ed] campaign funds to pay for personal expenses, including rent on a house that Santos lived in during the campaign”.The complaint notes multiple campaign expenditures, widely reported, of $199.99, one cent below the $200 FEC threshold for the provision of receipts.It also notes that Santos has struggled to explain the source of his wealth, and says it is “likely” that after losing an initial run for Congress in 2020, he “and other unknown persons worked out a scheme to surreptitiously – and illegally – funnel money into his 2022 campaign.“The concealed true source behind $705,000 in contributions to Santos’s campaign could be a corporation or foreign national – both of which are categorically barred from contributing to federal candidates – or one or more individuals, who would be precluded from contributing such a large amount, far in excess of [official] contribution limits.”Citing reporting by outlets including the New York Times, the CLC complaint says: “Particularly in light of Santos’s mountain of lies about his life and qualifications for office, the [FEC] should thoroughly investigate what appear to be equally brazen lies about how his campaign raised and spent money.”Santos did not comment, CBS News reporting that he declined several requests.Adav Noti, senior CLC vice-president and legal director, told the same network: “Voters deserve the truth. They have a right to know who is spending to influence their vote and their government and they have a right to know how the candidates competing for their vote are spending those funds.“George Santos has lied to voters about a lot of things, but while lying about your background might not be illegal, deceiving voters about your campaign’s funding and spending is a serious violation of federal law.”TopicsRepublicansUS politicsUS political financingnewsReuse this content More

Ex-secretary of state George Shultz was besotted by Theranos fraudster Holmes, book saysHe was either ‘corrupt’, ‘in love’ or had ‘completely lost’ his mental edge, says grandson who blew whistle on Holmes’s scheme Former US secretary of state George Shultz’s support for Elizabeth Holmes and her fraudulent blood testing company, Theranos, which devastated his family and caused a bitter feud with his grandson, receives fresh scrutiny in a biography published on Tuesday.Year of the tech grifter: will Silicon Valley ever learn from its mistakes? Read moreShultz was Ronald Reagan’s top diplomat at the end of the cold war. Before that, he was secretary of the treasury and secretary of labor under Richard Nixon. He is now the subject of In the Nation’s Service, written by Philip Taubman, a former New York Times reporter.Shultz joined the Theranos board of directors in 2011.Taubman recounts how Shultz – then in his 90s and with no biomedical expertise – was impressed by Holmes’s startup and its promise to revolutionise blood testing. He helped the young entrepreneur form a board of directors and raise money from heavyweight investors including Rupert Murdoch.“Shultz repeatedly told friends that Holmes was brilliant,” Taubman writes. “Over time, his associates grew alarmed, fearing that his enthusiasm was colored by personal affection for Holmes. He talked by phone with her almost every day and invited her to join Shultz family Christmas dinners. She encouraged his attention by leaning in close to him when they were seated together on sofas.”Dismissing scepticism regarding Holmes’s claim to have come up with a quick and easy blood test that would dramatically simplify healthcare, Shultz encouraged his grandson, Tyler Shultz, to work a summer internship at Theranos and become a full-time employee.But Tyler Shultz came to suspect that Holmes was overselling her technology and took his concerns to the Wall Street Journal. Suspecting the younger Shultz was the whistleblower, Holmes set her lawyers on him and put him under surveillance. Alarmed, Tyler Shultz went to his grandfather for help.Taubman writes: “Instead of hugging his grandson and disowning Holmes, Shultz equivocated. He tried unsuccessfully to mediate between Tyler and Holmes.”When that effort failed, Shultz refused to cut ties with the businesswoman. He told Tyler: “I’m over 90 years old. I’ve seen a lot in my time, I’ve been right almost every time and I know I’m right about this.”Tyler felt betrayed. In a 2020 podcast, Thicker Than Water, he imagined three reasons why his grandfather sided with Holmes.“One is that you were corrupt and have invested so much money in Theranos that you were willing to make ethical compromises in order to see return on your investment. The second is that you are in love with Elizabeth.“So no matter how many times she lies to you, no matter how many patients she injures and no matter how badly she harms your family, you will put her above everything else. The last possibility is that you have completely lost your mental edge and despite an abundance of data showing that she was a criminal, you somehow are incapable of connecting these very, very big dots.”Taubman also suggests motives: financial gain, as Shultz’s holdings in Theranos stock soared before Holmes fell to disgrace, peaking at $50m; or personal loyalty to Holmes, just as Shultz showed to Richard Nixon during the Watergate crisis and Reagan during the Iran-contra affair.The author writes: “Shultz’s performance left his family broken. Saddened friends and associates attributed the conduct to his advanced age.”In 2018, Holmes was indicted on charges involving defrauding investors and deceiving patients and doctors. Last year, she was sentenced to more than 11 years in prison, made a symbol of Silicon Valley ambition that veered into deceit.Shultz sought to heal the rift with his grandson, stating that he had “made me proud” and shown “great moral character”. Tyler Shultz said his grandfather never apologised but their relationship “started to heal”. Taubman notes that the Holmes issue “remained unfinished business” when Shultz died in 2021, at the age of 100.The biography was written over 10 years and draws on exclusive access to Shultz’s papers. It explores his involvement in the summits between Reagan and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that ended the cold war, the Iran-contra affair and Internal Revenue Service investigations into Nixon’s “enemies”.TopicsBooksTheranosUS politicsRepublicansUS crimenewsReuse this content More

House Republicans move to defang ethics office investigating its membersIncoming majority also created new special subcommittee to investigate justice department and intelligence agencies House Republicans moved to pre-emptively kill any investigations against its members as it curtailed the power of an independent ethics office just as it was weighing whether to open inquiries into lawmakers who defied subpoenas issued by the House January 6 select committee last year.Fears over lax security in Republican-controlled House two years after Capitol attackRead moreThe incoming Republican majority also paved the way for a new special subcommittee with a wide mandate to investigate the US justice department and intelligence agencies, which could include reviewing the criminal probes into Donald Trump and a Republican congressman caught up in the Capitol attack inquiry.The measures took effect as House Republicans narrowly passed the new rules package that included the changes for the next Congress, 220-213, setting the stage for politically charged fights with the Biden administration over access to classified materials and details of criminal investigations.Seeking to protect itself, the rules package first undercut the ability of the office of congressional ethics (OCE) to function, with changes that struck at its principal vulnerabilities to defang its investigative powers for at least the next two years, according to sources familiar with its operation.The changes to the OCE are twofold: reintroducing term limits for members of the bipartisan board, which would force out three of four Democratic-appointed members, and restricting its ability to hire professional staff in the first 30 days of the new congressional session.The issue with the changes, the Guardian previously reported, is that the OCE requires board approval to open new investigations, while new hires are typically approved by the board. The term limits would mean Democrats need to find new board members, which can take months – far longer than the 30 day hiring period.In essence, the changes mean that by the time the OCE has a board, it may have run out of time to hire staff, leaving it with one counsel to do possible investigations into the new House speaker Kevin McCarthy and other Republican lawmakers who defied January 6 select committee subpoenas.There would also only be that one counsel to investigate Republican congressman George Santos, who lied about his past during his election campaign; the OCE has the power to retrospectively examine violations of federal election law that arise during congressional election campaigns.Once an OCE investigation is complete, the body can refer the matter to the full House ethics committee, which conducts its own inquiry. Crucially, however, even if the ethics committee dismisses a case, it is required to release the full OCE report, creating a deterrent for lawmakers.Meanwhile, as House Republicans moved to shield themselves from potential ethics investigations, they expanded their own investigative ability through the adoption of the rules package that allows for the creation of the special subcommittee to probe the justice department and intelligence agencies.The text of the resolution creating the subcommittee – scheduled for a vote on Tuesday – on “the weaponization of the federal government” authorizes it to investigate any part of the federal government, including “ongoing criminal investigations”, which Republicans have indicated could extend to probes against Trump.The subcommittee will have subpoena power and receive materials provided to the House intelligence committee, meaning if the intelligence community were to ever give a briefing on the classified documents the FBI seized from Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort, the panel would obtain that, too.And while the subcommittee will have its own chairman, it remains part of the House judiciary committee led by Jim Jordan, who maintains the ability to issue subpoenas on behalf of the panel and ultimately inherit all of its materials whenever it is dissolved, according to the resolution text.Whether Jordan and the special subcommittee will ever receive materials from the justice department about active criminal investigations in practice remains unclear.The department has long refused to provide to Congress confidential grand jury material, information that could compromise criminal investigations, and deliberative communications such as internal prosecution memos because of the risk of political interference in charging decisions.As the department explained in a letter to the House rules committee chair John Linder in 2000, its position has also been upheld by the supreme court in Nixon v United States (1974) that recognized making such materials public could have an improper “chilling effect”.Particularly with respect to cases involving Trump, current and former officials said the current justice department would likely adopt the same position as the Linder letter, which concluded: “The Department’s longstanding policy is to decline to provide congressional committees with access to open law enforcement files.”TopicsHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansUS politicsJanuary 6 hearingsnewsReuse this content More

The House will convene at 5 pm eastern time to vote on a rules package, typically a customary but crucial step for operating the chamber, but which today will serve as yet another barometer of how dysfunctional the new Republican majority will be over the coming two years.The package governs how the House will conduct its business, and would cement many of the procedural giveaways Kevin McCarthy made to win the support of rightwing insurgents who blocked his election for days last week. However, those concessions could spark a revolt among moderates and others unhappy with the deal the speaker made, again raising the possibility of another bout of standoff and legislative paralysis.Much of the debate centers on how the House will handle the massive spending bills Congress must periodically pass to keep the government running. The New York Times has a good rundown of the roots of this intraparty dispute:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The new House Republican majority is proposing to make institutional changes of its own as part of a rules package Speaker Kevin McCarthy negotiated with hard-right rebels in exchange for their support for his job. The handful of Republicans who are forcing the changes, which are scheduled to be considered on Monday, pointed to the rushed approval in December of a roughly $1.7 trillion spending bill to fund the entire government as an example of back-room legislating at its worst.
“What this rules package is designed to do is to stop what we saw happen literally 15 days ago, where the Democrats passed a $1.7 trillion monstrosity of a bill that spent the American taxpayers’ money in all kinds of crazy ways,” Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio, said Sunday on Fox News. He said Republicans would require 72 hours to allow lawmakers to pore over any bill.
Part of the fight over the speakership was about the way Congress works, in particular the unwieldy “omnibus” spending bills that appear to materialize out of nowhere and with only minutes to spare.
But restoring any semblance of order and structure to the consideration of spending bills and other measures will prove to be extremely difficult with conservative Republicans in charge of the House and Democrats controlling the Senate and the White House. The new dynamic is more likely a prescription for shutdown and gridlock. The roots of dysfunction run deep.Congressman Jason Smith, a Republican from Missouri who objected to the certification of the results of the 2020 election, has won the chairmanship of the House ways and means committee.In a statement about his win, Smith pledged as chair to support the Republican plan to slash funding to the IRS or Internal Revenue Service – billions were allocated to the agency last year to go after tax cheats.“Our first step is defunding the $80bn pay increase Democrats gave the IRS to hire 87,000 new agents to target working families. But we are not stopping there,” Smith said in a statement.Doing so would reduce revenues by almost $186bn over 10 years and add more than $114bn to the deficit, according to an evaluation from the Congressional Budget Office.Rep. Jason Smith’s stmt on winning Ways and Means gavel: “It is deeply humbling and an honor to be selected by my colleagues to serve as the next Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.” pic.twitter.com/lpciH9TkbZ— Olivia Beavers (@Olivia_Beavers) January 9, 2023
Nancy Mace, one of the moderate Republicans who had voiced hesitation over the rules package, will vote for it, NBC News reports:MACE will be a YES tonight on rules package but she wanted to make people aware of the flaws in the process W @KyleAlexStewart— Haley Talbot (@haleytalbotnbc) January 9, 2023
In a Sunday interview with CBS News, Mace objected to the way the package had been negotiated:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I like the rules package. It is the most open, fair and fiscally conservative package we’ve had in 30 years. I support it, but what I don’t support is a small number of people trying to get a deal done or deals done for themselves in private, in secret, to get a vote or vote present. I don’t support that … And so I am on the fence right now about the rules package vote tomorrow for that reason.Another aspect of the deal Kevin McCarthy cut with conservative Republicans that made him House speaker was a pledge to allow a single lawmaker to call for a vote to oust him from office.Under the previous Democratic speaker Nancy Pelosi, a motion to vacate could only be made if a majority of a party agreed to it. While lowering the threshold got McCarthy the votes he needed to win the chamber’s leadership, it also raised fears that any lawmaker who disagrees with his policies and tactics would create a crisis by seeking to remove him.CNN surveyed two Republican representatives today about how they think the rule will be used. Here’s what they had to say:Rep. David Joyce on one member being able to force a vote to oust speaker: “So it concerns Kevin more than it concerns me.” Says it should only be used in extreme circumstances and not as a recourse on “everyday policies.”But does the GOP agree on that?”Probably not” pic.twitter.com/gXL7sp7kxM— Manu Raju (@mkraju) January 9, 2023
The House GOP may eventually win cuts to government spending, but first they’re going to try to pass a bill that will add more than $114bn to the budget deficit.The Congressional Budget Office has released its evaluation of the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act, which would strip the Internal Revenue Service of $71bn in funding that was allocated last year in order to crack down on tax cheats. If the funding were withdrawn, revenues would decrease by almost $186bn in the 10 years from 2023, adding to the deficit by more than $114bn.The proposal is up for a vote today, assuming the House Republicans pass their proposed rules package.It took four days and 15 ballots for Republicans to resolve their differences and elect Kevin McCarthy speaker of the House. But he can’t get much done unless the chamber agrees on its rules, and with some GOP lawmakers pledging to oppose the package up for a vote this afternoon, pressure groups have stepped in to make clear there will be consequences if it turns into a standoff.Hours before McCarthy formally was elected, Texas’s Tony Gonzales said he would oppose the rules package, reportedly over McCarthy’s willingness to cut spending to the defense department:I am a NO on the house rules package. Welcome to the 118th Congress.— Tony Gonzales (@TonyGonzales4TX) January 7, 2023
That’s prompted conservative group FreedomWorks to make this threat:If Tony’s a ‘NO’ on the House Rules Package he should not be welcomed into the 119th Congress. #ampFW #HouseofRepresentatives https://t.co/X2tGxa3FqO— FreedomWorks (@FreedomWorks) January 9, 2023
As with the speaker vote, the package will need 218 votes to pass, and all 212 Democrats are likely to oppose it. That means the GOP can only lose six votes – and they’re already down one.The White House has accused Republicans of wanting to “defund the military” as the new House majority makes clear that across-the-board spending cuts will be a major part of their agenda in the upcoming Congress.Here’s what White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates is telling the media, according to USA Today:The White House slams possible defense cuts that Republicans’ speaker deal could produce. “This push to defund our military in the name of politics is senseless and out of line with our national security needs,” @AndrewJBates46 says. “There is bipartisan opposition ..”— Joey Garrison (@joeygarrison) January 9, 2023
It’s almost certain that Republicans will use the House’s powers of investigation to go after Hunter Biden, in a bid to cast his father’s presidency as corrupt. And while there are indeed unanswered questions Hunter Biden’s foreign business entanglements, the Guardian’s David Smith reports that the strategy is not without risks for the GOP:When Borat – alias British actor Sacha Baron Cohen – told risque jokes about Donald Trump and antisemitism at last month’s Kennedy Center Honors in Washington, Joe Biden was not the only one laughing in a red velvet-lined balcony.Sitting behind the US president was Hunter Biden wearing black tie and broad smile that mirrored those of his father.The image captured the intimacy between the men but also the sometimes awkward status of Hunter as both private citizen and privileged son of a president. It is a dichotomy likely to come under a harsh public glare this year as congressional Republicans set about making Hunter a household name and staple of the news cycle.‘It’s going to be dirty’: Republicans gear up for attack on Hunter BidenRead moreEven some Republicans regard the idea of the GOP-controlled House impeaching homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas over the Biden administration’s muddled and increasingly harsh handling of the US-Mexico border as ridiculous.Outgoing Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson (who will be succeeded by one of Donald Trump’s old press secretaries, Sarah Huckabee Sanders when she’s sworn in tomorrow, becoming the first female governor of the state), shot down any suggestion, on Fox Business this morning, that impeaching Mayorkas is a good plan.As Axios reminds us, new House Speaker Kevin McCarthy last November threatened to launch an “impeachment inquiry” into Mayorkas over his handling of border policy – if he does not resign.Mayorkas has dismissed the idea of him quitting, of course.Hutchinson told Fox that “impeachment proceedings should not be based upon policy…it should be based on wrongdoing.“And so whenever there’s failed policy, let’s investigate and have hearings on that and try to change that policy. That, to me, should be the approach of the Republican Congress,” he added.US president Joe Biden visited the border yesterday for the first time as president, spending a few hours in El Paso, Texas, which has been the scene of some misery of late with an increase in irregular crossings of the border and migrants having nowhere to stay, amid freezing temperatures.Biden did not meet with any asylum seekers during his visit.Biden’s ‘carrot and stick’ approach to deter migrants met with angerRead moreWhite House chief of staff Ron Klain has rung alarm bells via Twitter on what Republicans in the House might try to do as they try to force deep national spending cuts.Here’s Klain after Florida Republican representative Michael Waltz went on Fox.They are going to try to cut Social Security and Medicare. It could not be clearer. https://t.co/h1cXaa6iwa— Ronald Klain (@WHCOS) January 9, 2023
Earlier, Waltz told Fox: “We have to get spending under control.”But amid discussions about defense spending cuts, he added that that was not his primary target and he was not going to press for cuts “on the backs of our troops.”He added: “We can work on reprioritizing defense spending but that’s nibbling around the margins. If you really want to talk about spending, it’s the entitlements program – that’s 70% of the entire budget … if you want to talk about big reforms, I look forward to hearing that from those folks who are pushing towards a balanced budget.”Social security is the federal US social insurance program consisting of retirement, disability and survivor benefits, while Medicare is chiefly the government health insurance program for those 65 and older.The Washington Post warned in a piece at the weekend that: House Republicans are set to steer the country toward a series of fiscal showdowns as they look to force the White House to agree to massive spending cuts, threatening a return to the political brinkmanship that once nearly crippled the economy and almost plunged the US government into default.In a Guardian interview before he retired, Kentucky Democrat John Yarmuth told our Chris Stein last month that the Republican party is now so extreme it could cause the world’s largest economy to default on its debt for the first time ever in its quest to extract concessions from the Biden administration.Republicans could cause US to default on its debt, top Democrat warnsRead moreIt’s a lively day in Washington, even though Joe Biden is on trip to Mexico City, where he’ll meet with the leaders of Mexico and Canada for talks.On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, it’s new House speaker McCarthy’s first day of business with the gavel in his grasp after his epic struggle to get the votes to put him in that position as last Friday turned over into the early minutes of Saturday.Here’s where things stand:
US president Joe Biden, Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and Mexico’s president Andrés Manuel López Obrador have issued a joint statement condemning yesterday’s attack on Brazil’s congress and presidential palace by supporters of Jair Bolsonaro.
The special grand jury in Georgia has concluded its examination of Donald Trump’s alleged election meddling in the state, where he made efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 election win. There are further stages to go through before prosecutor Fani Willis decides whether to indict Trump on criminal charges.
House Republican leadership apparently does not want a repeat of last week’s dysfunction in the chamber, when it took 15 rounds of voting over four days to elect a speaker. They’re now racing to make sure moderate GOP lawmakers lend their vote on a crucial package of rules for governing the House.
The House will convene at 5pm eastern time to vote on the rules package, typically a customary but crucial step for operating the chamber, with votes due after that.
Should the rule package pass, the new Republican House majority will be able to get down to business, and their first priority will be undoing part of one of Joe Biden’s biggest legislative achievements.They’ve scheduled an initial vote later today on the Family and Small Business Taxpayer Protection Act, which would rescind almost all of the new funding to the Internal Revenue Service tax authority provided by last year’s Inflation Reduction Act. The IRS has been underfunded for years, and the money was intended to help the agency modernize and better crack down on tax cheats. The GOP opposed the Inflation Reduction Act, and tried to stoke outrage by telling voters the money would be used to hire tens of thousands or armed IRS agents – which mostly turned out not to be true.Whether or not this passes, expect more legislation of this sort aimed at undoing the legacy of Biden’s two years of united government.Election meddling has consequences, and for proof of that, look no further than the now-concluded special grand jury investigation into what Donald Trump and his allies were up to in Georgia in the wake of the 2020 election.It’s unclear if Trump himself could face charges based on what the jurors determine, but they’ve already informed several of his allies they are targets of its investigation. These include Rudy Giuliani, one of his most prominent attorneys, as well as Georgia Republican party chair David Shafer and state senator Brandon Beach. It’s far from the only investigation into Trump, or his campaign to stop Joe Biden from taking office. The justice department is investigating that as well as the violent insurrection on January 6, and both cases have been handed to special prosecutor Jack Smith. Smith is also expected to decided whether to bring charges against Trump and others over the government secrets discovered at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort.There are reasons to believe the special grand jury investigation in Georgia is the most immediate threat Trump is facing. Here’s more from the Guardian’s Chris McGreal as to why that might be:Of all the legal threats Trump is facing, is this the one that could take him down?Read more More

House adopts new rules Democrats decry as a ‘ransom note to America’Partisan lines divided the vote on rules, with no Democrats voting for them and only one Republican voting against The Republican-led US House of Representatives on Monday adopted a package of internal rules that give rightwing hardliners more leverage over the chamber’s newly elected Republican speaker, Kevin McCarthy.Lawmakers voted 220-213 for the legislation, with only one Republican voting against. All 212 Democrats voted against the rules package, saying it was full of concessions to the right wing of the Republican party. After chaotic week, McCarthy faces new battle as House votes on rules packageRead moreThe rules package, which will govern House operations over the next two years, represented an early test of McCarthy’s ability to keep his caucus together, after he suffered the humiliation of 14 failed ballots last week at the hands of 20 hardliners before finally being elected speaker on Saturday.The legislation includes key concessions that hardliners sought and McCarthy agreed to in his quest for the speaker’s gavel. The changes include allowing a single lawmaker to call for his removal at any time. Other changes would place new restrictions on federal spending, potentially limiting McCarthy’s ability to negotiate government funding packages with President Joe Biden, whose fellow Democrats control the Senate.Democrats denounced the legislation as a rules package for “Maga extremists” that would favor wealthy corporations over workers, undermine congressional ethics standards and lead to further restrictions on abortion services. “These rules are not a serious attempt at governing. They’re essentially a ransom note to America from the extreme right,” Representative Jim McGovern said.McCarthy was hard at work on Capitol Hill on Monday prior to the House going into session trying to head off any such revolt and ensure a smooth passage for the rules package later in the day. He can only afford to lose a handful votes from his party in the House to avoid defeat on any measure.A clutch of establishment Republicans had indicated on Sunday they might withhold their support for the new rules package unless more details of McCarthy’s concessions made to the right are revealed, such as promising chairmanships of powerful committees that longer-established and more moderate members have been eyeing.Pressure groups on Monday stepped in to make clear there will be consequences if the first vote of McCarthy’s speakership turns into a standoff.On Friday, hours before McCarthy formally was elected to the speakership, Texas’s Tony Gonzales said he would oppose the rules package, reportedly over McCarthy’s willingness to cut spending to the defense department.That prompted the conservative group FreedomWorks on Monday to signal that Gonzales should be frozen out if he rebels.If Tony’s a ‘NO’ on the House Rules Package he should not be welcomed into the 119th Congress. #ampFW #HouseofRepresentatives https://t.co/X2tGxa3FqO— FreedomWorks (@FreedomWorks) January 9, 2023
The South Carolina moderate Republican Nancy Mace on Monday said she was “on the fence”.Speaking to CBS News on Sunday, Mace said of the fringe members who almost sank McCarthy’s speakership bid last week: “My question really is today: what backroom deals did they try to cut, and did they get those?”She added: “We don’t know what they got, we haven’t seen it. We don’t have any idea what … gentleman’s handshakes were made. And it does give me a little bit of heartburn because that’s not what we ran on.”The package itself was published on Friday evening, and includes a measure to allow a single member to force a “motion to vacate” the speakership, already weakening McCarthy’s position, and a key demand of the holdout conservatives.It also includes reinstating a provision to allow lawmakers to propose amendments to appropriations bills, adds a 72-hour window for members to read bills before they vote, and a commitment to vote on legislation on term limits for members of Congress.TopicsKevin McCarthyHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Brazil capital attack complicates US relationship with BolsonaroThe former Brazilian president has taken up residence in Florida, and some Democrats are calling for his visa to be revoked The future of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, who flew to Florida in his last days in office, is emerging as a potential diplomatic issue between Brazil and the US amid calls for his expulsion for inciting insurrection.Bolsonaro has distanced himself from the mob which stormed government buildings in the capital, Brasília, on Sunday, denying accusations from his successor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, that he had encouraged the rioters from the US.‘They were in ecstasy’: how Bolsonaro mob’s orgy of violence rocked BrasíliaRead moreLeading Democrats have called for Bolsonaro’s visa to be revoked, so that he would not be allowed to use Florida as a base for destabilising Lula’s government.“Bolsonaro should not be in Florida,” Joaquín Castro, a Democratic congressman, told CNN. “The United States should not be a refuge for this authoritarian who has inspired domestic terrorism in Brazil. He should be sent back to Brazil.”Joe Biden issued a joint statement on Monday with the Mexican president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, and Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, condemning “the January 8 attacks on Brazil’s democracy and on the peaceful transfer of power”.“We stand with Brazil as it safeguards its democratic institutions. Our governments support the free will of the people of Brazil,” the statement said, adding that the three leaders looked forward to working with President Lula.The US national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, told journalists on Monday that there had been no contact between the administration and Bolsonaro, and the US had yet to receive any requests from the Brazilian government related to the former president.“Of course, if we did receive such requests, we treat them the way we always do. We treat them seriously,” Sullivan said.Democrats are concerned that Florida, run by a hardline Republican governor and presidential contender, Ron DeSantis, is increasingly becoming a hotbed for far-right putschists. Recent attempted coups in Haiti and Venezuela have been plotted from there and the state has become the permanent home of Donald Trump, a close Bolsonaro ally who continues his refusal to acknowledge his own election defeat in 2020, at his Mar-a-Lago resort.The Washington insurrection by Trump supporters on 6 January 2021 is widely seen as a model for the Brasília attacks, and a top Trump aide, Steve Bannon, has been linked to the Bolsonaro family, spreading false claims on social media alleging that last year’s Brazilian presidential election was rigged and referring to the Brazilian rioters as “freedom fighters”.“There’s a kind of hotbed of far-right communities there, that are clearly building on each other,” said a US congressional aide familiar with discussions on the unfolding situation in Brazil. “Governor DeSantis and former president Trump’s presence at Mar-a-Lago have both made Florida a place where these things seem to happen, so I wouldn’t be surprised if any of the planning for this had happened in Florida.”Republicans, including Trumpists, have largely stayed silent on the Brasília riot, with the exception of a Pennsylvania congressman, Brian Fitzpatrick, a member of the House foreign affairs committee, who condemned the violent attempt to stop the peaceful transfer of power. Fitzpatrick said on Twitter he looked forward to working with Lula.Bolsonaro is reported to be staying in Kissimmee, near Orlando’s Disney World, in the vacation home of a retired Brazilian martial arts star, José Aldo, part of a resort condominium near a busy highway. On Monday he was reported to have been admitted to hospital, complaining of “severe abdominal pains”.Bolsonaro arrived in Florida on 30 December when he was still president, in which case he could have entered on an A-1 visa reserved for foreign leaders. The state department said on Monday it could not comment on individual cases, but said in general if a foreign official entered the US on an A-1 visa and then ceased to be engaged on official business, it would be the responsibility of that official to leave within 30 days, or be subject to removal by the Department of Homeland Security.The Brazilian government inquiry into the Brasília insurrection is also likely to focus on the role of Anderson Torres, Bolsonaro’s justice minister who was in charge of security in Brasília, who was also in Orlando over the weekend. Torres, who was fired on Sunday, claimed to be there on a family holiday and to have had no contact with Bolsonaro.If Brazil’s supreme court issued an arrest warrant for Bolsonaro and he then refuses to return to Brazil to give himself up, Brazil could issue an Interpol red notice prompting his arrest by US federal agents. Bolsonaro could then try to fight extradition and seek asylum in US courts, potentially triggering a prolonged legal battle.TopicsJair BolsonaroFloridaBrazilUS politicsAmericasLuiz Inácio Lula da SilvaInterpolnewsReuse this content More

Grand jury in Georgia’s Trump 2020 election investigation finishes workFulton county district attorney to decide on any indictments after special grand jury heard from dozens of witnesses over six months The special grand jury convened by prosecutors in Atlanta to investigate whether Donald Trump committed crimes in his effort to reverse his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden in Georgia has finished its work.Fulton county superior court judge Robert McBurney, who was overseeing the panel, issued an order on Monday that dissolved the special grand jury, after it completed a final report on its inquiries.The decision whether to seek an indictment from a regular grand jury will be up to the Fulton county district attorney, Fani Willis.🚨By order of Judge Robert McBurney, the Georgia special purpose grand jury investigating 2020 election interference by Trump and his allies is dissolved. The grand jury voted to make its report public. A hearing will be held on Jan. 24 to determine if it will be published. pic.twitter.com/mMBE7b2nEY— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) January 9, 2023
Over the course of about six months, the special grand jury has heard testimony from dozens of witnesses, including numerous close Trump associates and assorted high-ranking Georgia state officials.The case is among several around the country that threaten legal peril for the former president as he seeks a second term in 2024.Special grand juries in Georgia cannot issue indictments but instead can issue a final report recommending actions to be taken.On 3 January 2021, Trump, the then US president, pressured the Georgia secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, in a phone call to “find” enough votes from the state’s electorate to overturn then president-elect Joe Biden’s victory there that Trump had refused to concede.The call was recorded and released and sparked widespread outrage, including calls for a second impeachment. That did not happen but Trump ended up confronted with a historic second impeachment for inciting the insurrection three days later, where his supporters broke into the US Capitol in Washington to try to stop the official congressional certification of Biden winning the presidency from Trump.After news of the call with Raffensberger broke, Bob Bauer, then a senior Biden adviser, said: “We now have irrefutable proof of a president pressuring and threatening an official of his own party to get him to rescind a state’s lawful, certified vote count and fabricate another in its place.”Georgia law says that grand juries are “authorized to recommend to the court the publication of the whole or any part of their general presentments” and that the judge must follow that recommendation. The special grand jury voted to recommend that its report be published.There will be a hearing on 24 January on whether to publish the special grand jury’s report and the district attorney’s office and news outlets will be given a chance to make arguments.Willis opened the investigation in early 2021. Willis is focusing on several different areas: phone calls made to Georgia officials by Trump and his allies; false statements made by Trump associates before Georgia legislative committees; a panel of 16 Republicans who signed a certificate falsely stating that Trump had won the state and that they were the state’s “duly elected and qualified” electors; the abrupt resignation of the federal prosecutor in Atlanta in January 2021; alleged attempts to pressure a Fulton county election worker; and breaches of election equipment in a rural south Georgia county.Lawyers for Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor and Trump attorney, confirmed before he was questioned by the special grand jury in August that they were told he faces possible criminal charges. The 16 Republican fake electors have also been told they are targets of the investigation, according to public court filings.Of all the legal threats Trump is facing, is this the one that could take him down?Read moreTrump and his allies have consistently denied any wrongdoing. The South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, former chief of staff to Trump Mark Meadows and Georgia’s governor, Brian Kemp, also all testified before the grand jury.It is unclear if Trump himself could face charges based on what the jurors determine.It is far from the only investigation into Trump. The Department of Justice is examining election interference that as well as Trump’s role in the Capitol attack, and both cases have been handed to special prosecutor Jack Smith.Smith is also expected to decided whether to bring charges against Trump and others over the government secrets discovered at the former president’s Mar-a-Lago resort.TopicsDonald TrumpGeorgiaUS elections 2020US politicsnewsReuse this content More

Biden is throwing migrants under the bus to appease Republican fearmongeringMoustafa BayoumiThe Biden administration criticizes conservatives as anti-immigrant – yet pursues policies not so different from Trump’s Imagine for a moment you are a dissident citizen of Nicaragua. Forced out of bed in the middle of the night and hounded out of your homeland because of your political activities, you have been deprived of all chances to work, let alone live, in the country you’ve always called home. Your opposition to Daniel Ortega’s regime has put your life and your family’s lives in danger. You must find safety immediately.You know that, despite its long history of meddling in your country, the United States also has laws and traditions that enable people in your position to seek asylum. It may be far away, but the US is also the closest country where you believe you can truly feel safe. You must find a way there – any way at all – and it has to be quick.Biden visits border for first time as critics condemn his migrant crackdownRead moreNow, according to new rules just announced by the Biden administration, up to 30,000 Nicaraguans, Cubans and Haitians may soon be able to apply for “humanitarian parole” to the US, expanding a program that had previously been directed solely at Venezuelans. What a relief! you might think, until you discover more about the proposed program, which requires: a valid passport, a plane ticket, the ability and permission to travel to the US by plane, a US-based sponsor, a cell phone that can download a specific app that requires two-factor authentication, and a host of other requirements.This is a program obviously designed to favor those with means and pre-established connections in the US, and it’s hard to imagine it as anything but meaningless for those forced to flee for their lives without money or planning. As Human Rights Watch explains, Biden’s proposed program is “contrary to international refugee law and international human rights law which prohibits discrimination in accessing asylum, including based on financial means”. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has also stated that the new measures are “not in line with international standards”.Yet this problematic humanitarian parole provision is in fact the proverbial carrot of Biden’s proposed border program. The dreaded stick, found in how the administration now plans on processing asylum claims made at the border, is much worse. The opportunity to have your asylum claim heard if you’re a citizen from one of these four countries – all countries with deep legacies of American political interference, it should be pointed out – will now be severely curtailed, according to the proposed rules.For one thing, the administration will require these asylum seekers to request refuge in the first country they cross into, similar to Trump-era “transit ban” policies which led to widespread human rights abuses in countries such as Guatemala and El Salvador.If these asylum seekers somehow make it to the US’s southern border, they must claim asylum at an official port of entry at a previously scheduled time, even though, per US law, “you may apply for asylum regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status”, as the US Citizenship and Immigration Services website states. Those who try to cross the border would also be subject to “expedited removal”, with Mexico accepting 30,000 of them each month, and be subject to a five-year ban from re-entry to the US.The plan also expands the Biden administration’s use of Title 42, a rarely used clause of the 1944 Public Health Services Law that allows the government to take emergency action “to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries.” Through their own anti-immigrant hocus-pocus, the Trump administration conjured Title 42 as a quick and easy way to deport people at the US’s southern border.Though Biden, as recently as last Thursday, has said that he doesn’t “like Title 42,” his administration continues to use the code to prevent people from entering the US. Since March 2020, almost 2.5 million people have been expelled, most of them during the Biden administration. And the new rules will translate into many more expulsions for asylum seekers from these four countries.Democratic Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey got it right. “The Biden administration’s decision to expand Title 42, a disastrous and inhumane relic of the Trump Administration’s racist immigration agenda, is an affront to restoring rule of law at the border,” he said in a statement. “Ultimately, this use of the parole authority is merely an attempt to replace our asylum laws, and thousands of asylum seekers waiting to present their cases will be hurt as a result.”What’s going on here? There’s no question that the current situation presents all kinds of challenges at the border. The US government recorded almost 2.4m encounters with migrants at the border last fiscal year, a record number. Extreme climate events, political corruption, and economic instability all play a role, and the US shares some responsibility in all those arenas. But it’s also clear that Biden feels compelled to get in front of the border issue ahead of Republican fearmongering (hence his visit Sunday to the border).“Immigration is a political issue that extreme Republicans are always going to run on,” the president said. “But now they have a choice: They can keep using immigration to try to score political points or they can help solve the problem.”But, in this terrible move rightward on the issue of border enforcement, Biden has proposed solutions that seem devised more to quell Republican objections (which, let’s face it, can never be mollified) rather than to take humanitarian and legal concerns to heart and turn them into workable policy. The proposed changes are also certain to bring greater chaos, confusion, and misery to the border.I’m all in favor of foregrounding Republican obstructionism when necessary, and Republicans halted Biden’s proposed comprehensive immigration reforms from the moment they were announced, almost two years ago. But Biden can’t accuse his Republican opponents of exploiting immigration and then turn around and lean on their misbegotten policies. Not only is that playing politics with people’s lives, but it’s also playing with fire. If Biden’s proposed rule changes go through, we should worry for all those – Biden included – who are about to get burned.
Moustafa Bayoumi is the author of the award-winning books How Does It Feel to Be a Problem?: Being Young and Arab in America and This Muslim American Life: Dispatches from the War on Terror. He is professor of English at Brooklyn College, City University of New York
TopicsUS politicsOpinionMigrationBiden administrationcommentReuse this content More