US Politics

Exclusive: January 6 panel considering Trump referral to justice department for obstruction of CongressSubcommittee recommended Trump could also be referred for conspiracy to defraud the United States, sources say The House January 6 select committee is considering a criminal referral to the justice department against Donald Trump for obstruction of an official proceeding of Congress and conspiracy to defraud the United States on the recommendation of a special subcommittee, according to sources familiar with the matter.The recommendations on the former president – made by the subcommittee examining referrals – were based on renewed examinations of the evidence that indicated Trump’s attempts to impede the certification of the 2020 election results amounted to potential crimes.The select committee could pursue additional criminal referrals for Trump and others, given the subcommittee raised the obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud statutes among a range of options, including insurrection, and discussions about referrals continued on Thursday, said the sources.The referrals could also largely be symbolic since Congress has no ability to compel prosecutions by the justice department, which has increasingly ramped up its own investigations into Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and subpoenaed top aides to appear before federal grand juries.The recommendations presage a moment of high political drama next Monday, when the full panel will vote publicly to adopt its final report and formally decide on making referrals, and increase pressure on the attorney general, Merrick Garland, to seek charges over January 6.Trump could be referred for obstruction of an official proceeding, the subcommittee is said to have concluded, because he attempted to impede the certification and did so with a “consciousness of wrongdoing” – as the panel has previously interpreted the intent threshold.The former president was seen to have met the elements of the offense since he relentlessly pressured Mike Pence to refuse to count electoral college votes for Joe Biden, despite knowing he had lost the election and had been told the plan was illegal.Trump could also be referred for conspiracy to defraud the United States, the subcommittee suggested, arguing the former president violated the statute that prohibits entering into an agreement to obstruct a lawful function of government by dishonest means.The conspiracy charge was seen to be broadly applicable because Trump’s agreement with key lawyers – and potentially even the rioters – did not need to be overt, while the plan to have Pence reject Biden slates of electors with Trump slates that did not exist was deceitful.The discussions about referring Trump for obstruction of an official proceeding and conspiracy to defraud appeared to build upon the major win for the panel in May, when a federal judge found that Trump and the lawyer John Eastman likely engaged in felonies in trying to subvert the 2020 election.In the ruling, US district court judge David Carter in California ruled that Trump and Eastman had concocted a “coup in search of a legal theory” and ordered Eastman to turn over his most sensitive emails to the investigation, citing the crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege.The emails later showed that Eastman had admitted that he knew that having Pence interrupt the January 6 certification was illegal – and yet urged Pence’s counsel Greg Jacob that the then-vice president should move ahead with the plot anyway.The panel may not adopt all of the options presented by the subcommittee – it also suggested civil referrals to the House ethics committee for GOP congressmen and the disbarment of some Trump lawyers, among a number of options, though a witness tampering referral for Trump is no longer under consideration.But members on the select committee have resolved to suggest criminal and civil charges to some degree, and any referral letters would be accompanied by supporting evidence not dissimilar to prosecution memorandums that are routinely drawn up by the justice department, one of the sources said.A spokesman for the select committee declined to comment.Regardless of how the panel proceeds against Trump, the intention to make criminal referrals against the former president has been practically an open secret for months as its members have used the issue of potential criminality to reinforce the seriousness of Trump’s conduct.The recommendations from the subcommittee – led by congressman Jamie Raskin and comprised of vice-chair Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff and Zoe Lofgren, all members with a legal background – follow internal discussions for nearly a year that Trump committed crimes in seeking to nullify his defeat.Even before the select committee filed its civil suit to Carter, Cheney read aloud parts of the the obstruction statute at a public business meeting last December. And then throughout public hearings in the summer, the panel detailed their findings like prosecutors, treating the public like a jury at trial.If the members decide to move forward with criminal referrals against Trump in particular – essentially a letter informing the justice department they uncovered evidence of crimes – they would be creating a roadmap for a prosecution put together by the select committee’s top lawyers.The select committee’s investigation has been principally driven by color-coded teams of investigative lawyers, many of whom have previously worked as federal prosecutors, conducting more than 1,000 witness interviews and reviewing documents and communications from Trump’s confidantes.Still, the justice department has no obligation to take up any criminal referrals and, at this stage, could have a better perspective about the strength of criminal charges as it escalates its own January 6 inquiries with an investigative arsenal far more potent than possessed by Congress.In recent months, an increasing number of top Trump advisors and election officials in states where Trump tried to nullify his defeat have been subpoenaed to testify before an increasing number of federal grand juries in Washington hearing evidence about events connected to the Capitol attack.The recent subpoenas to election officials have demanded any and all communications involving Trump and the Trump campaign from June 2020 to January 2021, as part of the investigations into Trump’s so-called fake electors scheme, according to two subpoenas reviewed by the Guardian.TopicsDonald TrumpJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Conservative donors pour ‘dark money’ into case that could upend US voting lawGroups submitting amicus briefs to supreme court case in support of Republican lawmakers received $90m in anonymous donations Conservative donors poured tens of millions of dollars of anonymous “dark money” into groups supporting Republican lawmakers in a supreme court case that could upend American election law.The donors backed several groups that have filed supreme court amicus briefs in support of North Carolina legislators in Moore v Harper, according to a recent analysis. They are pushing for a ruling that would take ultimate decisions about voting rights and congressional gerrymandering away from state courts and hand those powers to state legislatures, of which Republicans now control the majority.Could the US supreme court give state legislatures unchecked election powers? Read moreEight conservative groups that submitted amicus briefs in the supreme court case have received close to $90m from dark money donors since 2016, according to Accountable.US, a liberal leaning watchdog group that tracks government corruption.Several of these conservative bastions are also champions of restrictive voting laws.Conservatives want the supreme court to adopt the independent state legislature theory, a once fringe idea now promoted by a coterie of conservative groups that filed amicus briefs, including the Honest Elections Project, the Claremont Institute, and the Public Interest Legal Foundation. The groups boast strong ties to rightwing lawyers Leonard Leo, John Eastman and Cleta Mitchell respectively. Eastman and Mitchell were allies in Donald Trump’s baseless crusade to overturn the 2020 election.Sparked by a North Carolina gerrymandering fight, Moore v Harper has attracted strong opposition from many liberal and some conservative legal experts, who call it a partisan attack on voting rights by prominent conservative groups. Opponents of the case say they’re using a discredited legal theory to boost GOP political fortunes in coming elections.The leading dark money financier of the conservative groups that filed amicus briefs was DonorsTrust, which contributed a whopping $70.5m, Accountable data shows.Other top dark money donors to groups that filed amicus briefs include the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation and America First Works, which, respectively, gave $6.1m and $4.8m to outfits that supported the independent state legislature theory. The long time conservative Bradley Foundation boasts Mitchell on its board, while the non-profit America First Works has been allied with Trump since its founding in 2016 under another name.The dark money routed to some of these groups took circuitous routes. For instance, America First Works gave $4.8m to DonorsTrust that was earmarked for the Honest Elections Project, according to Accountable.The Honest Elections Project, which has been a leading advocate for tougher voting laws in recent years, was founded by Leo, a legendary fundraiser, lawyer and co-chairman of the powerful Federalist Society. Leo was instrumental in advising Trump on his three conservative supreme court nominees.DonorsTrust, known as the ATM of the right, has been very generous with other projects Leo has helped spearhead. In 2021, for example, Leo’s 85 Fund – a dark money conduit for conservative legal campaigns and other priorities – received its largest single grant of $17.1m from DonorsTrust, which doled out close to $190m that year.US supreme court hears case that could radically reshape electionsRead moreCritics of the right’s drive to push the independent state legislature theory note the strong influence of well-financed conservative groups along with several like-minded justices.“The ISLT [independent state legislature theory] has been fueled by several conservative justices’ dissents, and other statements, coupled with amicus briefs and public arguments supporting the theory from think tanks, litigation shops, and partisan political organizations,” Thomas Wolf, the deputy director of the democracy program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the Guardian.Two key Democrats in Congress, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Hank Johnson, submitted an amicus brief arguing forcefully against the independent state legislature theory, highlighting the role of conservative groups funded by dark money who have supported voter suppression efforts.“Many of the petitioners’ amici actually attempted to undermine the 2020 election by relying on this theory,” Whitehouse and Johnson wrote. “Other amici share connections with groups and individuals who played a role in those attempts. Still others are presently engaged in voter-suppression and election-subversion efforts.“Rarely has such a noxious assemblage of amici appeared before this court, and their secrecy about their funders and connections does this court a grave disservice,” they added.The high stakes for democracy behind Moore v Harper and other recent supreme court cases involving dark money funded groups trouble Whitehouse, he said.In tandem with Johnson, Whitehouse has introduced legislation that would require amicus filers to disclose funders who donated $100,000, or more than 3% of their gross revenues.In an interview, Whitehouse said his proposed bill coincides with other efforts he has made to have the supreme court change its reporting rules for amicus filers backed by dark money.“I’ve been pushing the supreme court to update their reporting requirements,” he said about the dark money behind several high-stakes cases, but to date the court has “shown no interest”.The independent state legislature theory played a key role in Trump’s failed crusade to get states to invalidate the 2020 election results and was the handiwork of Eastman, who filed the amicus brief for the Claremont Institute, a conservative California based thinktank, that made a similar argument.Eastman’s involvement with Trump’s baseless drive to overturn the 2020 election results, which included promoting an alternative elector scheme to block Congress certifying Joe Biden’s as president, could lead the January 6 panel investigating the Capitol insurrection to file a criminal referral to the justice department for him, as well as Trump and others, according to a recent CNN report.On a related legal front, Eastman’s refusal to turn over 101 documents to the House panel led federal judge David Carter to rule this year that there was substantial evidence Eastman had conspired with Trump to block Congress from certifying the 2020 election results. The “illegality of the plan was obvious”, Carter wrote.Just how much the amicus briefs from Claremont and other conservative outfits backed by dark money will influence the supreme court’s ruling on the independent state legislature theory is hard to discern.Oral arguments in Moore v Harper were heard by the supreme court on 7 December. The court’s three liberal-leaning justices expressed their strong opposition to North Carolina lawmakers’ position, and some conservative justices including Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh also indicated their skepticism about some maximalist versions of the theory.Billions in ‘dark money’ is influencing US politics. We need disclosure laws | David Sirota and Joel WarnerRead moreThe genesis of the Moore v Harper case was a ruling by the North Carolina state supreme court in early 2022 that invalidated districts drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature on the grounds they were an “egregious and intentional partisan gerrymander”, unfairly favoring the GOP.North Carolina legislator Timothy Moore appealed the state supreme court ruling, and a voter named Rebecca Harper was a named plaintiff in a challenge to the state’s gerrymandered maps.Significantly, North Carolina is one of six states where state courts have ruled in recent years that partisan redistricting plans for Congress violated state constitutions.Moore v Harper has also sparked significant legal blowback from some prominent lawyers with conservative pedigrees including J Michael Luttig, a former appeals court judge who is a co-counsel for litigants opposing the independent state legislature theory.“This case swarms with amicus briefs supporting petitioners that elide a salient fact: the doctrine they encourage this Court to adopt – the ‘independent state legislature’ theory – is one of the fringe legal theories deployed in a failed legal plot to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election,” Whitehouse and Johnson wrote in their brief.TopicsUS supreme courtThe fight for democracyUS political financingUS politicsRepublicansLaw (US)North CarolinanewsReuse this content More

More ways to listen

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

RSS Feed

Download

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email

As 2022 draws to a close, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Simon Rosenberg and Sarah Longwell about their predictions for how US politics will shake out in 2023. Can the Democrats capitalise on a weary electorate, can the Republicans finally get rid of the spectre of Donald Trump, and who will announce their intention to run in 2024?

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

The Guardian and Observer charity appeal for 2022 is the cost of living crisis, and you can donate here Send your questions and feedback to [email protected] Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More

Senate passes $858bn defense bill that rescinds army Covid vaccine mandateDemocrats agreed to Republican demands to scrap vaccination requirement for service members to win support for the bill A bill to rescind the Covid-19 vaccine mandate for members of the US military and provide nearly $858bn for national defense passed the Senate on Thursday and now goes to President Joe Biden to be signed into law.The bill provides for about $45bn more for defense programs than Biden requested and roughly 10% more than last year’s bill as lawmakers look to account for inflation and boost the nation’s military competitiveness with China and Russia. It includes a 4.6% pay raise for servicemembers and the defense department’s civilian workforce.Petraeus: US would destroy Russia’s troops if Putin uses nuclear weapons in UkraineRead moreThe Senate passed the defense policy bill by a vote of 83-11. The measure also received broad bipartisan support in the House last week.To win GOP support for the 4,408-page bill, Democrats agreed to Republican demands to scrap the requirement for service members to get a Covid-19 vaccination. The bill directs Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin to rescind his August 2021 memorandum imposing the mandate.Before approving the measure, the Senate voted down a couple of efforts to amend it, including a proposal from West Virginia senator Joe Manchin, to speed the permitting process for energy projects. The effort had drawn fierce opposition from some environmental advocacy groups who worried it would accelerate fossil fuel projects such as gas pipelines and limit the public’s input on such projects.Manchin, who chairs the Senate energy committee, secured a commitment from Biden and Democratic leaders last summer to support the permitting package in return for his support of a landmark law to curb climate change.Machin’s legislation sets deadlines for completion of National Environmental Policy Act reviews for major energy and natural resource projects. It would require courts to consider litigation involving energy project permits on an expedited basis. It also directs federal agencies to permit the completion of a natural gas pipeline in his home state and Virginia “without further administrative or judicial delay or impediment”.“We’re on the verge of doing something unbelievable, but let me tell you, most of it will be for naught. Because without permitting reform, the United States of America is more litigious than any nation on earth,” Manchin told colleagues.Biden voiced his support for Manchin’s legislation a few hours before Thursday’s vote. He said far too many projects face delays and described Manchin’s amendment “as a way to cut Americans’ energy bills, promote US energy security and boost our ability to get energy projects built and connected to the grid”.Not only did some environmental advocacy groups bash Manchin’s proposal, but so did many Republicans. Minority leader Mitch McConnell said it didn’t go far enough, calling it “reform in name only”.The amendment fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage, 47-47.An amendment from senators Ron Johnson and Ted Cruz, also went down to defeat. It would have allowed for the reinstatement of those service members discharged for failing to obey an order to receive the Covid-19 vaccine and compensate them for any pay and benefits lost as a result of the separation.“People serving our military are the finest among us. Over 8,000 were terminated because they refused to get this experimental vaccine, and so I’m urging all of my colleagues to support Senator Cruz’s and my amendment,” Johnson said.But opponents worried about the precedent of rewarding members of the military who disobeyed an order. Rhode Island senator Jack Reed, the Democratic chairman of the Senate armed services committee, said orders are not suggestions, they are commands.“What message do we send if we pass this bill? It is a very dangerous one,” Reed said. “What we’re telling soldiers is, ‘if you disagree, don’t follow the order, and then just lobby Congress, and they’ll come along and they’ll restore your rank, or restore your benefits, or restore everything.’”The amendment failed, with 40 senators supporting it and 54 opposing it.The defense bill sets policy and provides a roadmap for future investments. Lawmakers will have to follow up with spending bills to bring many provisions to reality. It’s one of the final bills Congress is expected to approve before adjourning, so lawmakers were eager to attach their top priorities to it.The directive to rescind the vaccine mandate for service members proved to be among the most controversial provisions, but Democrats agreed to it to allow the bill to advance.As of early this month, about 99% of the active-duty troops in the navy, air force and marine corps had been vaccinated, and 98% of the army. Service members who are not vaccinated are not allowed to deploy, particularly sailors or marines on ships. There may be a few exceptions to that, based on religious or other exemptions and the duties of the service member.The vaccination numbers for the guard and reserve are lower, but generally all are more than 90%.TopicsUS politicsUS national securityJoe BidenDemocratsRepublicansReuse this content More

US National Archives releases more than 12,000 documents on JFK assassinationDocuments disclosed after Joe Biden issued an executive order authorizing them to be made available to the public The US National Archives on Thursday released thousands of documents related to the 1963 assassination of then President John F Kennedy shortly after Joe Biden issued an executive order authorizing the release that also kept hundreds of other sensitive records secret.Sixty years ago, true statecraft avoided a nuclear war. We need that again over Ukraine | Jonathan SteeleRead moreThe release of 12,879 documents was not expected to include any new bombshells or change the conclusion reached by the commission led by chief justice Earl Warren that Lee Harvey Oswald, a former Marine and communist activist who had lived in the Soviet Union, acted alone. However, the latest cache will be useful for historians focusing on the events around the assassination.Kennedy was shot and killed while riding in his motorcade through Dallas on 22 November 1963, at the age of 46.Thousands of books, articles, TV shows and films have explored the idea that Kennedy’s assassination was the result of an elaborate conspiracy. None have produced conclusive proof that Oswald – who was fatally shot by nightclub owner Jack Ruby two days after killing Kennedy – worked with anyone else, although they retain a powerful cultural currency.There were initial concerns that Ruby might have had some connection to Oswald. But a newly released September 1964 memo to the presidential commission investigating the assassination said “the Central Intelligence Agency has no indication that Ruby and Lee Harvey Oswald ever knew each other, were associated, or might have been connected in any manner”.Congress in 1992 had ordered that all remaining sealed files pertaining to the investigation into Kennedy’s death should be fully opened to the public through the National Archives in 25 years, by 26 October 2017, except for those the president authorized for further withholding.In 2017, then President Donald Trump released a cache of records, but decided to release the remaining documents on a rolling basis.All of the remaining JFK files were originally supposed to have been released in October 2021. Biden postponed that planned release, citing delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and announced they would be instead disclosed in two batches: one on 15 December 2021, and another by 15 December 2022, after undergoing an intensive one-year review.With Thursday’s release, 95% of the documents in the CIA’s JFK assassination records collection will have been released in their entirety, a CIA spokesperson said in a statement, and no documents will remain redacted or withheld in full after an “intensive one-year review” of all previously unreleased information.In a memorandum on Thursday, Biden said that until 1 May 2023, the National Archives and relevant agencies “shall jointly review the remaining redactions in the records that had not been publicly disclosed”. After that review, “any information withheld from public disclosure that agencies do not recommend for continued postponement” will be released by 30 June 2023.TopicsJohn F KennedyUS politicsBiden administrationnewsReuse this content More

Family of Uvalde victim urge Congress for tougher gun laws: ‘When is enough enough?’Sister of victim and pediatrician testify during congressional hearing on the mass school shooting at Robb elementary More

‘When is enough enough?’ asked Faith Mata, whose sister, Tess, was murdered at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas on 24 May along with 18 other students. Addressing a House judiciary subcommittee on crime, terrorism and homeland security in Washington, Mata gave moving testimony on the impact her sister’s death had on her family, calling on Congress to change gun laws to prevent an incident like the Uvalde shooting happening again More

Nancy Pelosi has given what she suggests will be her final press conference as House speaker, telling reporters this is “maybe the last time I see you in this way”.She’s been reflecting on some of the successes of her tenure, and paying tribute to Joe Biden and Barack Obama for most of them, from the passing of the Affordable Care Act to this week’s signing of the same-sex Respect for Marriage Act.Pelosi said she was “proud” to have her signature below Biden’s on that law:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}He has been a remarkable president. He has a record that is so outstanding, and for such a short period of time as well.
People compare him to Lyndon Johnson, to Franklin Roosevelt, but I’d remind you all that Roosevelt had 319 Democrats in the House, President Biden 222, whatever it is, and even fewer now.She went on to list many of the items of legislation she was most proud of, under Biden’s leadership:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Passing the American rescue plan, getting vaccines at arms, money in pockets, children back to school and people safely back to work, the bipartisan infrastructure law, building roads, bridges, ports and water systems…
Bringing people together, not projects that divide communities but bringing people together, and this such a source of pride, putting justice and equity front and center.Of her regrets, the inability to pass comprehensive gun reform saddened her, she said. Speaking one day after the 10th anniversary of the Sandy Hook shooting that killed 20 elementary school children and six adults, she said:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}We won’t relent until the job is done, until we can have background checks, and have banned assault weapons.Pelosi doesn’t leave office until early next month, and didn’t rule out speaking with the media again, particularly if there’s a resolution to threat of a government shutdown. The speaker says she’s optimistic that a “bipartisan, bicameral” omnibus spending deal will pass next week to keep the government funded for a year.We’re closing our politics blog now. Thanks for joining us. So far there’s no sign of a deal in the Senate over a stopgap funding agreement that would keep the government running. The House passed the measure last night.Here’s what we’ve been following:
Nancy Pelosi praised Joe Biden and Barack Obama as she reflected on their legislative accomplishments during her time a House speaker. Pelosi, who steps down next month, gave what could be her last press conference in the job.
Republican Florida governor Ron DeSantis indicated he was ready to sign the nation’s most restrictive abortion law, a Texas-style “heartbeat ban” that outlaws the procedure as soon as a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around the sixth week of pregnancy.
The House voted 233-191 to allow Puerto Rico to hold a vote on becoming the 51st state, a largely symbolic measure because the Puerto Rico Status Act is unlikely to get a hearing in the Senate.
Joe Biden said he’ll be heading to sub-Saharan Africa soon. He was speaking at the conclusion of a summit with African leaders in which he pledged hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure, technology and free elections.
First lady Jill Biden says she’s “all in” on her husband running again for the presidency in 2024, according to a report from CNN that says her position is a “tidal shift” from her reluctant feelings of just three months ago.
Two conspirators convicted of terrorism last month in a plot to kidnap Michigan’s governor Gretchen Whitmer were sentenced to prison sentences of 12 and 10 years respectively. A third convict is yet to be sentenced.
The state department has announced a new round of sanctions against a number of Russian oligarchs, government officials and their families for enabling president Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.
An extreme “heartbeat” abortion ban looks to be coming to Florida after Republican governor Ron DeSantis announced his willingness Thursday to sign such a law.“I’m willing to sign great life legislation. That’s what I’ve always said I would do,” DeSantis said at a press conference in Fort Lauderdale, reported by the Florida Phoenix.A heartbeat ban outlaws an abortion once the presence of a fetal heartbeat is detected, usually around the sixth week of pregnancy.A version of the law, the nation’s most restrictive abortion legislation, took effect in Texas in 2021 after the Supreme Court, which had yet to overturn federal abortion protections, declined to block it.Rightwinger DeSantis is seen as a likely contender for the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, and leads in several recent polls of party members.Despite passing a raft of culture war legislation during his first term of office, including a 15-week abortion ban, DeSantis largely avoided the issue during campaigning ahead of his landslide reelection as Florida’s governor last month.The Republican supermajority in the Florida legislature means Democrats would be unable to block any new abortion law.Free-spirited Arizona senator Kyrsten Sinema raised eyebrows last week when she announced she was leaving the Democratic party to sit as an independent. Now, it seems, she’s also become an independent trader.An extraordinary article published Thursday by Slate outs the enigmatic Sinema as a prolific seller of goods, especially shoes and clothes, on Facebook Marketplace, enough to rise to the level of a “side hustle”, the magazine says.Reporter Christina Cauterucci said she exchanged Facebook messages with the politician over the potential purchase of a pair of worn-only-once Badgley Mischka heels ($65, “in perfect condition”).Digging deeper, she found also for sale: a $215 cycling ensemble, a $25 trucker hat, and a $150 stainless steel watch with a silicone strap. Within the past six weeks, Cauterucci says, Sinema has “offloaded” a $150 fitness tracker ring, an $80 cycling jersey, and a $500 bicycle travel case. Longer ago, there were listings on Facebook for “several dozen personal items”, including a $100 pair of sunglasses (“Just too big for my tiny head!!”), two $50 puffer jackets, three $75 pairs of high-heeled boots, a $75 cycling bib, a $60 Lululemon raincoat, several mesh tanks at $55 a pop ($20 off the current retail price), and multiple bikinis, priced between $60 and $70, that ranged from “never worn” to “in great condition”.Slate is cautious and won’t state outright that it’s definitely Sinema who’s been selling off her worldly goods. “Would a sitting senator respond within seconds on a weekday morning to a message about her used heels?” Cauterucci wonders.“Would it be worth her time to photograph a pair of old shoes, write a sales listing, field inquiries from potential buyers, and arrange pickup logistics – all for just $65?”But as if to answer its own questions, Slate points out that it’s Sinema’s name on the Facebook Marketplace listing, it’s her in the profile photo, the seller’s biography says she lives in Phoenix, and she shares one mutual Facebook friend with the reporter who works for the Democratic party.The clincher, perhaps: The 4.5in, rhinestone-studded stilettoes “look as if they would fit pretty well in Sinema’s wardrobe”.It’s possible we’ll never know. According to Slate, Sinema’s staff would not confirm or deny the Facebook Marketplace account was hers, and did not respond to fact-checking queries.Here’s a video clip from Nancy Pelosi’s final press conference, definitely, maybe, as House speaker.Addressing the media on Thursday morning, Pelosi looked back on some of the main policy accomplishments that took place under her tenure, and praised presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden for getting them done.01:00“This may be the last time I see you in this way,” Pelosi said.She said she was particularly proud of the passage of the Affordable Care Act under Obama, which she said brought healthcare to tens of millions previously denied, and this week’s signing of the same-sex Respect for Marriage Act.Pelosi, a Democrat from California, became speaker in 2007. She will retire next month.Kevin McCarthy’s travails as he seeks to become House speaker when Republicans take over the majority in January are well documented, no more so than in this latest take by Politico.The California congressman has been scrambling to attract the 218 votes he needs to take the gavel, and making some pretty unsavory promises to rightwing extremists in his party to get there, if accounts are to be believed.Politico drills down on the fragile political game behind McCarthy’s maneuvering, the pledges he has had to make, and particularly something called the “motion to vacate the chair”, a potentially hazardous procedure in which any House member would be able to force a vote on deposing a sitting speaker.There’s horse trading going on between the pro and anti-McCarthy camps among House Republicans over setting a threshold of votes that would be needed for such a motion in exchange for support.One of McCarthy’s fears is that Democrats could use a motion to vacate in retaliation for his threats to remove prominent opposition congress members Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell and Ilhan Omar from committees.Politico likens the haggling to an episode of the TV gameshow The Price is Right. You can read their report here.In what was largely a symbolic gesture, the House has voted to allow Puerto Rico to decide whether it wants to pursue becoming the 51st state.The Puerto Rico Status Act passed 233-191 in the chamber, requiring the US territory to hold a vote of its residents on three options, statehood, independence or sovereignty in free association with the US.But with little to no time left on the Senate calendar, the measure, hailed by outgoing Democratic House majority leader Steny Hoyer, is unlikely to be heard there, sounding its death knell in this current Congress at least.Statehood for Puerto Rico was supported by the Biden administration. 16 Republicans voted for the bill in a free vote.A joint statement from bipartisan negotiators of the act said: “Many of us disagree on what that future should look like, but we all accept that the decision must belong to the people of Puerto Rico and to them alone. The Puerto Rico Status Act will grant them that choice.”Read more:Statehood or independence? Puerto Rico’s status at forefront of political debateRead moreCharlie Baker, the Republican governor of Massachusetts who will soon step down after choosing not to run for a third term – or for president or any other office as a GOP candidate despite (or perhaps because of) leading a Democratic-dominated state for so long – will be the next president of the NCAA, the largest governing body in US college sports.“The NCAA is confronting complex and significant challenges but I am excited to get to work as the awesome opportunity college athletics provides to so many students is more than worth the challenge,” Baker said on Thursday, about the job he will start in March, replacing Mark Emmert.“And for the fans that faithfully fill stadiums, stands and gyms from coast to coast, I am eager to ensure the competitions we all love to follow are there for generations to come.”As the Associated Press has it, the NCAA has recently been “battered by losses in court and attacks by politicians” and is “going through a sweeping reform, trying to decentralize the way college sports is run”.“College sports leaders, including Emmert, have repeatedly asked for help from Congress to regulate name, image and likeness compensation since the NCAA lifted its ban in 2021 on athletes being paid endorsers. Now the association will be led by a politician for the first time.”Baker, the AP says, “graduated from Harvard, where he played on the junior varsity basketball team. That’s the extent of his personal experience in college sports”.Linda Livingstone, president of Baylor in Texas and chair of the NCAA board, said Baker had “shown a remarkable ability to bridge divides and build bipartisan consensus, taking on complex challenges in innovative and effective ways. These skills and perspective will be invaluable as we work with policymakers to build a sustainable model for the future of college athletics.”Futher reading:Andrew Cooper, from college star to activist: ‘The NCAA does not exist to protect athletes’ Read moreIn something close to a policy announcement – a scarce feature of a 2024 presidential run that has so far featured little of anything, particularly polling success – Donald Trump has promised to stop government “impeding the lawful speech of American citizens”, should he retake the White House. In a video shared with the New York Post (a Murdoch-owned tabloid though not the source of support it used to be), the former president said: “I will sign an executive order banning any federal department or agency from colluding with any organization, business or person to censor, limit, categorize or impede the lawful speech of American citizens. I will then ban federal money from being used to label domestic speech as mis- or disinformation.”As the Post put it: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The 76-year-old Trump made the pledge as part of a broader ‘free speech’ platform … vowing also to impose a seven-year ban on former FBI and CIA workers handling private-sector US consumer records.Trump said he would fire bureaucrats deemed to have engaged in censorship, “directly or indirectly, whether they are the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Health and Human Services, the FBI, the DOJ, no matter who they are”.He also said: “If any US university is discovered to have engaged in censorship activities or election interferences in the past, such as flagging social media content for removal of blacklisting, those universities should lose federal research dollars and federal student loan support for a period of five years, and maybe more.”Free speech, or a particular rightwing version of it, is of course the much-discussed topic of the day at Twitter, where the site’s new owner, Elon Musk, is dedicated to the concept to the extent of reinstating Trump’s account – though Trump has not yet returned to tweeting.TechScape: I read Elon Musk’s ‘Twitter Files’ so you don’t have toRead moreTrump, the Post reports, thinks this month’s ‘Twitter Files’ releases have “confirmed that a sinister group of Deep State bureaucrats, Silicon Valley tyrants, leftwing activists, and depraved corporate news media have been conspiring to manipulate and silence the American People.”“The censorship cartel must be dismantled and destroyed – and it must happen immediately.”Meanwhile:‘Losing the plot’: Trump mocked after announcing superhero card collectionRead moreWe’ve reached lunchtime on a busy day in US politics, which includes ongoing discussions in the Senate on approving a short-term funding measure to keep the government open for at least another week.We’re hoping to learn more this afternoon.Also happening today:
Nancy Pelosi has been speaking of her “pride” in a number of legislative achievements during what could be her final press conference as House speaker. She paid tribute to Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
Biden says he’ll be heading to sub-Saharan Africa soon on the first visit there of his presidency. He was speaking at the conclusion of a summit with African leaders in which he pledged hundreds of millions of dollars for infrastructure, technology and free elections.
Two conspirators convicted of terrorism last month in a plot to kidnap Michigan’s governor Gretchen Whitmer were sentenced to prison sentences of 12 and 10 years respectively. A third convict is yet to be sentenced.
First lady Jill Biden says she’s “all in” on her husband running again for the presidency in 2024, according to a report from CNN that says her position is a “tidal shift” from her reluctant feelings of just three months ago.
The state department has announced a new round of sanctions against a number of Russian oligarchs, government officials and their families for enabling president Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine.
Joe Biden will soon visit sub-Saharan Africa, he announced on Thursday. It came at the conclusion of a three-day summit with African leaders in which he announced hundreds of millions of dollars in investment in the continent for infrastructure, technology initiatives and supporting free elections.A day earlier, the president said he was “all in” on strengthening US relations with African countries, which was why he had sent many of his top advisers there, including secretary of state Antony Blinken, treasury secretary Janet Yellin and commerce secretary Gina Raimondo.“I’m looking forward to seeing you in your home countries,” Biden told the leaders of 49 African countries on Thursday about what will be the first visit there of his presidency other than a brief stopover in Egypt last month, the Associated Press reported. He did state which countries he will visit or when the trip will happen.Biden on Thursday pledged $165m in US funding to support peaceful, credible elections in Africa next year as his administration looked to underscore the importance of fair voting in countries where it sometimes has been blighted by violence. More