US Politics

Republican says comment Garland should be executed was ‘facetious’Carl Paladino, a Republican candidate for Congress in New York, recently caused controversy when he praised Adolf Hitler A Republican candidate for Congress in New York said he was “being facetious” when, in the same interview, he said the US attorney general, Merrick Garland, should be executed for authorising the FBI search at Mar-a-Lago, Donald Trump’s Florida home.The candidate, Carl Paladino, recently caused controversy when he praised Adolf Hitler, as “the kind of leader we need today”.Paladino made his remark about the attorney general in an interview with the far-right site Breitbart. Paladino said: “So we have a couple of unelected people who are running our government, in an administration of people like Garland, who should be not only impeached, he probably should be executed.“The guy is just lost. He’s a lost soul. He’s trying to get an image, and his image, his methodology is just terrible. To raid the home of a former president is just – people are scratching their heads and they’re saying, ‘What is wrong with this guy?’”Asked to explain his “executed” remark, Paladino said: “I’m just being facetious. The man should be removed from office.”The FBI and Department of Justice have faced violent threats since agents searched Mar-a-Lago for classified White House records, under the Espionage Act.In Ohio, a man who said on social media federal agents should be killed was shot dead after trying to get inside an FBI office with a semiautomatic rifle.Paladino, a real-estate developer, has courted controversy before.As the Republican nominee for governor of New York in 2010, he was criticised for forwarding emails containing racist jokes and pornography.He also said children were being “brainwashed” to make them think being gay was equivalent to being heterosexual.In 2016, he told a newspaper he hoped Barack Obama would die from mad cow disease and said Michelle Obama should “return to being a male” and be sent to live with a gorilla in a cave.The following year, Paladino was removed from Buffalo’s school board. He contended the Obama comments were the reason for his removal.This year, Paladino shared a Facebook post suggesting a racist mass shooting in Buffalo was part of a conspiracy to take away guns. The same month, he apologised for saying Hitler was “the kind of leader we need today”, supposedly because of his ability to rally crowds.In a close primary fight with Nick Langworthy, a state Republican politician, Paladino has been endorsed by Elise Stefanik, the No 3 Republican in the US House and a prominent Trump supporter.When Paladino praised Hitler, Stefanik said she “condemn[ed] any statement, but don’t take it out of context”.The justice department did not immediately comment on Paladino’s remarks about Garland.TopicsUS politicsRepublicansUS CongressMerrick GarlandNew YorknewsReuse this content More

Biden to host ‘United We Stand’ summit to address hate-fueled US gun violenceGathering in September at the White House intends to bring together Democrats and Republicans to seek solutions Joe Biden will host a White House summit next month aimed at combating hate-fueled violence.The White House announced on Friday that Biden will host the United We Stand Summit on 15 September, seeking to highlight the “corrosive effects” of violence on public safety and democracy.Advocates pushed Biden to hold the event after 10 Black people were killed at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, in May, aiming as well to address hate-driven violence in cities including El Paso, Texas, Pittsburgh and Oak Creek, Wisconsin.“As President Biden said in Buffalo after the horrific mass shooting earlier this year, in the battle for the soul of our nation, ‘We must all enlist in this great cause of America,’” the press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, said in a statement.“The United We Stand Summit will present an important opportunity for Americans of all races, religions, regions, political affiliations, and walks of life to take up that cause together.”Biden will deliver a keynote speech at the gathering, which the White House says will include civil rights groups, faith leaders, business executives, law enforcement, gun violence prevention advocates, former members of violent hate groups, the victims of extremist violence and cultural figures.The White House emphasized that it intends to bring together Democrats and Republicans, as well as leaders on the federal, state and local levels.Biden has frequently cited a 2017 white supremacist protest in Charlottesville, Virginia, for bringing him out of political retirement to challenge Donald Trump in 2020. He promised in that campaign to work to bridge political and social divides and to promote national unity.Sindy Benavides, chief executive of League of United Latin American Citizens, said the genesis of the summit came after the Buffalo massacre, as her organization, the Anti-Defamation League, the National Action Network and other groups wanted to press the Biden administration to more directly tackle extremist threats.“As civil rights organizations, social justice organizations, we fight every day against this, and we wanted to make sure to acknowledge that government needs to have a leading role in addressing rightwing extremism,” she said.The White House did not outline the line-up of speakers or participants. It also would not preview any policy announcements. Officials noted Biden last year signed the Covid-19 Hate Crimes Act and released the first National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.Benavides said the summit would help the country address hate-inspired violence but also said she hoped for “long-term solutions” to emerge.“What’s important to us is addressing mental health, gun control reform, addressing misinformation, disinformation and malinformation,” she said.“We want policy makers to focus on common sense solutions so we don’t see this type of violence in our communities. And we want to see the implementation of policies that reduce violence.”TopicsUS gun controlJoe BidenUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

How a top US business lobby promised climate action – but worked to block efforts Business Roundtable aims to weaken efforts that would enable investors to hold companies accountable for their climate promisesThree years ago today, in a statement that would be described as “historic”, “monumental” and “revolutionary”, America’s most powerful and politically connected corporations promised to “protect the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses”.The “Statement on the Purpose of a Corporation” came from the Business Roundtable, an influential Washington DC lobbying group whose 200-plus members include the chief executives of some of the world’s biggest companies, including Apple, Pepsi, Walmart and Google.Today, on the statement’s third anniversary, the Business Roundtable and its member CEOs continue to issue earnest statements about the climate crisis. But the organization is also working diligently – and spending liberally – to weaken efforts that would enable investors to hold companies accountable for their climate promises.An analysis by the Guardian found the lobby group has worked hard to protect a status quo in which corporations:
Generate goodwill and positive PR by publishing bold climate goals, with little fear of being held accountable or legally liable for achieving those goals.
Can choose to selectively disclose certain parts of their carbon footprint, or none at all.
Are not required to reveal the greenhouse gas emissions generated throughout their supply chains – which, for most companies, make up the majority of their emissions.
Make high-profile pledges to fight climate change, while paying to maintain memberships in the Business Roundtable and other trade associations that spend millions of dollars to lobby governments against meaningful climate action.
In public the Business Roundtable’s leaders are still committed to change. Doug McMillon, the CEO of Walmart and previous chair of the Business Roundtable, has called the climate crisis “one of the greatest challenges facing the planet today”. In a statement on the group’s website, Mary Barra, the CEO of GM and the Roundtable’s current chair, declared that “we must act” to tackle climate change. “Meeting the scope of this challenge will require collective global action – business and government,” Barra said.The challenge “isn’t the lack of business commitment” said Johnson Controls CEO George Oliver in a video published by the Business Roundtable in January. “What we need is to be aligned with the public sector to make sure that we’ve got the proper policies in place that will enable us to do what we do so well.”Yet when the US government has tried to put the “proper policies” in place, the Business Roundtable has worked to undermine those efforts.In 2021, the organization spent millions of dollars to stop the Biden administration’s Build Back Better agenda, which included significant efforts to reduce carbon emissions and promote clean energy.And this year, after the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a long-anticipated rule that would require publicly held companies to disclose their carbon emissions and the risks that climate change poses to their business models, the Business Roundtable declared its opposition to central aspects of the SEC proposal, including provisions that experts say are vital for the rule to give investors comparable and consistent information about corporations’ climate risks.Before releasing the proposed rules in March, the SEC had asked the public what such rules might look like. In its response, the Business Roundtable acknowledged that “climate challenges are creating growing risks in many parts of the economy” and deemed it “appropriate” for the SEC to regulate climate disclosures.The group noted that the present system of corporate climate reporting, in which some companies issue voluntary climate-related disclosures, has proven inadequate. “There are many conflicting demands on companies to provide disclosures under different frameworks, which is unnecessarily costly and time-consuming for companies,” the Business Roundtable’s comments read.But when the SEC shifted from requesting voluntary input to proposing mandatory requirements for climate disclosures, the organization appeared to change its tune. In a 17-page letter, the CEO lobby announced its opposition to the proposal and asked the commission to “revise and repropose the rule.”In an email to the Guardian, the Business Roundtable denied that its perspective had changed. “[Business Roundtable] members are committed to combating climate change and are supportive of a rulemaking. Our goal is for a pragmatic, attainable, and successful rule,” the group said. “Our members believe it is worth the extra time on the front end to repropose the rule.”Since April 2021, according to meeting memoranda published by the SEC, the Business Roundtable has met at least three times with the SEC about climate disclosures. (GM’s Barra, the chair of the Business Roundtable, also met separately with SEC chair Gary Gensler.)In the first half of this year, the group spent more than $9.1m lobbying the federal government directly, according to reports compiled by Open Secrets. In its public disclosures, the Roundtable reported lobbying Congress, the White House and the SEC about the climate disclosure proposal. (In an email, the Business Roundtable said it “met with the SEC to directly communicate our concerns” and “shared our point of view with members of Congress and administration officials.”)Despite asking for a new, and thus delayed, proposal, the organization’s own members continue to assure the public that they see the climate crisis as an urgent challenge. “We’re out of time,” Cummins CEO and Business Roundtable member Tom Linebarger said in the organization’s January climate video. “We’re getting ready, to get ready, to get ready to do things. And the problem is that we have to move now.”But “now”, it seems, does not mean now.One provision the Business Roundtable has rejected as “unworkable” is a requirement for companies to measure and report the greenhouse gas emissions generated by suppliers and customers throughout their supply chains, or what are known as “Scope 3” emissions. The provision would apply only to companies that have published emissions targets that include Scope 3, or for which supply-chain emissions are considered “material”.Scope 3 includes all greenhouse gas emissions that companies neither generate directly (Scope 1) nor purchase for their own energy needs (Scope 2), which means everything from the raw materials that go into creating a product to the transportation that delivers that product to a consumer.For most companies, Scope 3 emissions represent the majority of their carbon output. As Addisu Lashitew, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, has pointed out, more than three-quarters of Amazon’s 2021 emissions were considered Scope 3.Diagram showing Scope 3 emissions are everything indirectly related to productionThe Business Roundtable supports mandating Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions disclosures, and many companies already report them, in part because these direct emissions are easier to calculate and easier to reduce (sometimes through the purchase of dubious carbon “offsets”).Perhaps more importantly, however, because most firms’ emissions are primarily Scope 3, limiting their reporting to Scopes 1 and 2 makes them appear greener.In its comments to the SEC, the Business Roundtable called the proposal to require companies to measure and report Scope 3 emissions “overly burdensome” because “many companies still have limited systems in place to identify and disclose Scope 3 emissions” and some aspects of reporting value-chain emissions “remain[] challenging”.But “if you don’t have Scope 3 as a requirement, then what you have effectively done is cut out most of the emissions from the top-emitting industries,” Allison Herren Lee, the former acting chair and commissioner of the SEC, told the Guardian. “With emissions arguably being the most important item of disclosure for investors, how is a rule without Scope 3 going to achieve what investors need?”“There is an inherent degree of uncertainty in some of the data the proposal would require companies to disclose, and much of it is largely outside their control,” the Business Roundtable said in an email.A number of experts familiar with the SEC’s climate disclosure rulemaking acknowledged that tracking and reporting Scope 3 emissions could indeed be difficult for some companies, or at least more difficult than not doing so.But they suggested that the more fundamental question was not whether complying with the SEC’s rules would be more difficult than doing nothing, but rather if doing so would provide investors with information that they have requested and that would help them make more informed investment decisions.This argument would appear to align with the stated position of the Business Roundtable, which has repeatedly expressed its support for “market-based” efforts to address climate change, a view it reiterated in its comments to the SEC.“Information is the lifeblood of the capital markets, and capital markets are a central institution of a capitalist market economy,” George S Georgiev, a professor at Emory University and an expert on securities law, told the Guardian. “Climate-related financial information is demanded by investors, not by environmentalists.”Moreover, “there is no unanimity that Scope 3 reporting is problematic”, Georgiev said, noting that Apple, whose CEO, Tim Cook, sits on the Business Roundtable’s board of directors, is among the companies that have endorsed the SEC’s Scope 3 requirement. Apple’s existing reporting “attest[s] to the feasibility of reasonably modeling, measuring, and reporting on all three scopes of emissions, including scope 3 emissions,” the company told the Commission.In its comments, the Business Roundtable said that its member companies had already set a “high bar…for voluntary ESG [environmental, social and governance] disclosures,” and that a voluntary approach to climate reporting was already “providing more valuable information for investors”.But many investors, analysts, academics, voters and experts – even companies themselves – disagree. “There is near-universal agreement among scholars that voluntary disclosure rules alone are not sufficient,” Emory’s Georgiev said. “The same logic applies to climate rules.”“Climate is one of the most significant risks facing companies and investors,” said Danielle Fugere, the president and chief counsel of As You Sow, a shareholder advocacy nonprofit. “For companies to say that it is too costly to gather Scope 1 through 3 data, we simply think that it shows signs of weak management.”In a March letter, a group of investors managing nearly $5tn of assets warned that failing to require companies to disclose their Scope 3 emissions would render the SEC rules doubly ineffective: insufficient for addressing the climate emergency, and inadequate for providing investors with useful information, because voluntary figures allow companies to publish only the information that paints them in the best light.“There is a great amount of confusion,” Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, said in a speech last year. “If we are really going to tackle this, if we want to have 100% participation, the easiest way you could do that is having unified standards.” Fink is also a member of the Business Roundtable.In an email, the Roundtable said it was “unlikely” that the proposed Scope 3 disclosure provisions “would result in comparable, investor-useful information”. The group “believes it’s important to have reliable climate risk and emissions data, and our companies are leaders when it comes to transparency.”The group’s objections to the SEC’s Scope 3 requirements are only one aspect of its multi-tiered opposition to the proposed climate disclosure rules. And its opposition to the proposed rules is, similarly, only one example of many in which it has rejected efforts to hold its member companies accountable for their social and environmental pledges.In the three years since the organization released the “purpose of a corporation” statement, a number of studies have shown that Business Roundtable companies have failed to follow through on their “fundamental commitment to all of [their] stakeholders”.One analysis from London Business School and Columbia Business School found that companies whose CEOs signed the 2019 statement subsequently received more federal environmental infractions and had higher carbon emissions than similar firms that did not sign the statement.In another study, two Harvard Law School professors reviewed more than 600 public documents filed by Business Roundtable companies since the statement’s publication. Time and time again, the researchers found that when firms were presented with an opportunity to formalize the pledge in their corporate governance, they declined.In addition, by advocating and lobbying against government action on issues like climate change, the Business Roundtable gives its members space to publicly endorse (and claim credit for endorsing) legislative and regulatory action – such as Apple’s support for mandatory Scope 3 reporting, or Cummins and GM’s support for Build Back Better –all while knowing that the Roundtable will work behind the scenes in opposition.“Some individual companies aren’t going to write in and rage against the proposal because they know that will raise concerns with their investors, so they let some of the trade groups do that work for them,” said Allison Herren Lee, the SEC’s former acting chair and commissioner.In its comments to the SEC, the Business Roundtable urged lawmakers to take the lead on tackling the climate crisis, arguing that “although important, disclosures simply will not solve the problem”.“These are complex issues that need to be solved through the legislative process,” the group wrote.But the Business Roundtable continues to oppose efforts to address the climate emergency through the legislative process. The latest effort to tackle the climate crisis, the Inflation Reduction Act, includes billions of dollars in clean energy tax incentives, paid for in part by making sure corporations pay at least a 15% tax rate on profits. The bill could cut America’s carbon emissions by 40% by 2030.Yet on 6 August, just shy of the third anniversary of the statement in which Business Roundtable CEOs committed to “protect[ing] the environment by embracing sustainable practices across our businesses”, the group declared its opposition to the bill, citing “tax provisions that would undermine American economic growth and competitiveness”.“I’m just so worried that our planet can no longer suffer from us debating and debating and debating,” said Cummins CEO Tom Linebarger, who, like all the CEOs named in this article, signed the 2019 statement. “It’s the existential crisis of our time.”TopicsClimate crisisApplePepsicoGoogleUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

Armed … auditors? The IRS becomes the latest target of GOP misinformationSome Republicans have spread false information about how new funds will be used by IRS, stoking outrage and alarming experts The picture that the top Republican painted was both vivid and terrifying. He warned that additional funding for the Internal Revenue Service would lead to armed auditors banging down front doors to squeeze hard-earned dollars from working Americans.“Are they going to have a strike force that goes in with AK-15s already loaded, ready to shoot some small-business person in Iowa with these?” Senator Chuck Grassley said on Fox News last week.TopicsUS newsAmerica’s dirty divideUS politicsBiden administrationRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

More ways to listen

Apple Podcasts

Google Podcasts

Spotify

RSS Feed

Download

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share via Email

This week, Joan E Greve speaks to the former chair of Republican National Committee Michael Steele about the defeat of Liz Cheney in the Wyoming primary, the state of the GOP after she leaves and why Donald Trump should fear what she does next

How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

Archive: NBC, MSNBC, C-Span Send your questions and feedback to [email protected] Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More

Judge orders DoJ to prepare redacted Trump search affidavit for possible releaseJustice department opposed release of document but Florida federal judge said portions of it ‘could be presumptively unsealed’ The Justice department must redact the affidavit used to obtain the warrant to search Donald Trump’s resort in Florida in such a way not to jeopardise the investigation in case he decides to unseal the document next week, a federal magistrate judge ordered on Thursday.The surprise order from Judge Bruce Reinhart charted a middle ground between the justice department’s motion to oppose unsealing any part of the affidavit, and motions from a coalition of media outlets – and calls from the former president – to release the highly sensitive document.Allen Weisselberg, Trump Organization financial chief, pleads guilty to tax fraudRead moreRuling from the bench, the judge gave the justice department a week to propose redactions to the affidavit, which contains the probable cause used to justify the extraordinary search of Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort over his unauthorized retention of top secret and classified documents.“I’m not prepared to find that the affidavit should be fully sealed,” Reinhart said at a hearing in West Palm Beach.The judge said his decision was driven in part because it was important that the public have as much information as it could, though he conceded that the extensive redactions that are expected from the justice department could render the document essentially meaningless.Reinhart’s ruling came after the justice department disclosed for the first time that the criminal investigation surrounding the FBI’s seizure of classified and top secret documents from Mar-a-Lago – in potential violation of the Espionage Act – was still in its early stages.The justice department, represented in court by Jay Bratt, the chief of the counterintelligence section, argued against the release of any portion of the affidavit, saying it would reveal a roadmap of the investigation and chill cooperation from other witnesses who may come forward.Bratt said a redacted affidavit would show “nothing of substance” since it contained significant grand jury information and investigative techniques.The justice department also drew particular attention to the fact that the court had previously found probable cause of a violation of one of the obstruction statutes – with evidence of the obstruction at Mar-a-Lago – and that unsealing the affidavit could risk further obstruction.But Reinhart said in federal court in Palm Beach, Florida, that he was inclined to release parts of the affidavit. He gave the justice department until next Thursday at 12pm noon to propose redactions. “This is going to be a considered, careful process,” the judge said.Reinhart presided over arguments between the justice department and several media organizations. Trump has said he supports unsealing the affidavit but filed no motion of his own. One of his lawyers, Chrsitina Bobb, nonetheless attended the hearing to watch proceedings on Thursday.The justice department, however, did support unsealing several ancillary documents that would not jeopardise the integrity of the investigation, including the cover sheet to the search warrant application, and the court’s sealing order – which Reinhart agreed to make public.Those unsealed documents offered more detail about the case. Notably, the cover sheet showed the department’s descriptions of potential crimes at Mar-a-Lago: wilfull retention of national defense information, concealment or removal of government records, and obstruction of a federal investigation.In February, the US National Archives confirmed that officials found classified materials in 15 boxes of documents Trump improperly removed from the White House in violation of the 1978 Presidential Records Act. It said it recovered the boxes, and reported its findings to the justice department.The Washington Post reported last week that FBI agents were looking for highly secret documents relating to nuclear weapons during the raid. In a rare public statement, Garland said he had personally authorised the decision to seek the warrant.Trump, who is considering another presidential run in 2024, has sought to politicize the search of Mar-a-Lago, claiming without evidence that it is part of a wider conspiracy by Democrats to prevent him returning to the White House.Numerous senior Republicans raced to echo his allegation of a witch-hunt, attacking Garland and the justice department, and with some rightwing allies and extremists including congress members Marjorie Taylor Greene and Lauren Boebert calling for the FBI to be defunded.The House minority leader, Kevin McCarthy, meanwhile, promised a House inquiry into Garland if Republicans win back control of the chamber in November’s midterm elections, warning the attorney general in a tweet to “preserve your documents and clear your calendar”.Also yesterday, the New York Times reported that the justice department sent a grand jury subpoena to the National Archives in May for all the documents it had supplied to the January 6 House committee, further deepening Trump’s legal peril.And in federal court in New York, Allen Weisselberg, former chief executive officer of the Trump Organisation, pleaded guilty to 15 charges of tax fraud. Trump sat for a deposition in a parallel civil investigation in New York into allegations the company misled lenders and tax authorities about asset values and invoked his fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination more than 400 times.Additionally, the former president faces legal peril in Georgia, where a grand jury is investigating efforts to reverse Biden’s narrow win in the key swing state.TopicsDonald TrumpFloridaUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Rick Scott: don’t apply for IRS jobs because Republicans will defund themRepublican senator also claims in open letter that Democrats plan ‘to defund the actual police and create an IRS super-police force’ The Republican senator Rick Scott has warned Americans not to apply for new positions with the Internal Revenue Service because he says his party will defund them if it takes Congress later this year.Scott, from Florida and head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, also misrepresented the nature of the positions in several ways. He claimed in an open letter that Democrats planned “to defund the actual police and create an IRS super-police force”.That, Scott said, would “not be tolerated by the American people”.But such claims, in response to Democrats’ including funding for new IRS roles in their new domestic spending bill, have been debunked.Referring to spending provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), signed by Joe Biden this week, he wrote: “Democrats in Congress recently passed a bill … which provides $80bn in additional taxpayer money and drastically grows the workforce of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by adding roughly 87,000 new agents.“… This massive expansion of the IRS will make it larger than Pentagon, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Customs and Border Protection and the state department combined.”According to Politifact: “If the IRS hired all 87,000 new employees at once, and no existing employees left the agency, the IRS would still be about 34,000 employees smaller than the Pentagon, state department, FBI and US Customs and Border Protection combined, according to the best available figures.”Scott also claimed: “the IRS is making it very clear that you not only need to be ready to audit and investigate your fellow hardworking Americans, your neighbors and friends, you need to be ready and, to use the IRS’s words, willing, to kill them.”As supposed evidence, he included an ad with his letter to voters that political factcheckers have said is being wildly misrepresented. The job ad, for IRS Criminal Investigation agents (a very specific role within the agency), said applicants must be “willing and able to participate in arrests, execution of search warrants, and other dangerous assignments”.The Associated Press declared of the ad:“A legitimate job ad for special agents within the small law enforcement division of the IRS that works on criminal investigations is being misrepresented online, officials and experts say. The job description does not apply to most potential new employees that the IRS will hire in the coming years. The vast majority of IRS workers are not armed.”Regarding the actual use of the new funds, NBC News reported a memo from Janet Yellen, the treasury secretary, to the IRS commissioner, Charles Rettig, that said the new funding would be used to “enforce the tax laws against high net-worth individuals, large corporations, and complex partnerships who today pay far less than they owe”.Scott is a high net-worth individual. In 1997, his healthcare company reached a $1.7bn settlement of federal charges of fraudulent billing and practices. As reported by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Scott emerged “with $300m in stock, a $5.1m severance and a $950,000-per-year consulting contract for five years”.On Thursday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group, said: “Hmm, we wonder why the richest man in Congress is so opposed to more IRS agents?”Scott also told voters the new IRS positions would not “offer you the long-term job stability you may expect … put another way: this will be a short-term gig.“Republicans will take over the House and Senate in January, and I can promise you that we will immediately do everything in our power to defund this insane and unwarranted expansion of government into the lives of the American people.”Republicans are favoured to prosper in the November midterms, as the opposition usually does in a president’s first term in office. But successes including passage of the Inflation Reduction Act may have increased Democrats’ chances of holding one or both houses of Congress.TopicsRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Liz Cheney releases call to Trump-backed opponent who said she didn’t concedeCheney releases recording of her call to Harriet Hageman, conceding her loss in the Wyoming US House primary on Tuesday More