More stories

  • in

    Trump attempted to contact witness speaking to January 6 committee

    Trump attempted to contact witness speaking to January 6 committeeLiz Cheney, Republican vice-chair of committee, says ‘we will take any efforts to influence witness testimony very seriously’ Donald Trump attempted to contact one of the witnesses who has been speaking to the House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, the panel said Tuesday.Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the panel, delivered the revelation at the conclusion of the committee’s seventh public hearing on the Capitol attack.According to Cheney, Trump tried to call the unnamed witness after the committee’s sixth hearing last month. The witness, who has not yet been publicly revealed as a participant in the committee’s investigation, declined the call.Instead, the witness informed their lawyer about Trump’s attempt to contact them. The lawyer then informed the January 6 committee about the call, and investigators passed the information along to the justice department.“Let me say one more time: we will take any efforts to influence witness testimony very seriously,” Cheney said.If the justice department gathers evidence indicating that Trump was attempting to influence witness testimony in the January 6 investigation, prosecutors could pursue criminal charges against the former president.This is not the first time that the issue of witness intimidation has been raised in connection to the select committee’s work. At the committee’s sixth hearing, Cheney revealed that at least two witnesses said they had been contacted by Trump allies urging them to stay loyal to the former president when speaking to investigators.One witness told the committee: “What they said to me is, as long as I continue to be a team player, they know that I’m on the right team. I’m doing the right thing, I’m protecting who I need to protect. … They have reminded me a couple of times that Trump does read transcripts and just to keep that in mind as I proceed through my depositions and interviews with the committee.”Cheney said the evidence of possible witness intimidation “raises significant concern”, and she promised that the committee would investigate the matter further.“I think most Americans know that attempting to influence witnesses to testify untruthfully presents very serious concerns,” Cheney said last month. “We will be discussing these issues as a committee, carefully considering our next steps.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    January 6 hearings: Trump tried to contact witness, Cheney says – live

    Hi there, it’s Maanvi Singh – taking over the blog for the next few hours. John Bolton, the former national security advisor, had an interesting reaction to today’s revelations. In response to CNN anchor Jake Tapper’s reflection that “one doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup”, Bolton responded that he disagrees, “as somebody who has helped plan” coups. Jake Tapper: “One doesn’t have to be brilliant to attempt a coup.”John Bolton: “I disagree with that. As somebody who has helped plan coup d’etat, not here, but other places, it takes a lot of work.” pic.twitter.com/REyqh3KtHi— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) July 12, 2022
    After the hearing concluded, Capitol insurrectionist Stephen Ayres approached some of the law enforcement officers who defended the building on January 6 and were present for today’s proceedings.Ayres was seen shaking hands with Aquilino Gonell, a US Capitol Police sergeant who was beaten during the insurrection and can no longer work in law enforcement because of his injuries.But one of the law enforcement officers who spoke to Ayres, former Metropolitan police department officer Michael Fanone, said he was unmoved by the man’s remorse.“That apology doesn’t do shit for me. I hope it does shit for him,” Fanone told the AP.I asked MPD office Fanone if he accepts Ayers apology and he said: “That apology doesn’t do shit for me, I hope it does shit for him.” https://t.co/iEvjkYotDa— Farnoush Amiri (@FarnoushAmiri) July 12, 2022
    In a bizarre, angry and “unhinged” White House meeting on 18 December 2020, outside advisers to Donald Trump screamed insults at presidential aides who were resisting their plan to seize voting machines and name a special counsel in pursuit of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election.The meeting – which the House January 6 committee in its public hearing on Tuesday described as a “heated and profane clash” – was held between those who believed the president should admit he lost the election to Joe Biden, and a group of outsiders referred to by some Trump advisers as “Team Crazy”.They included Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani; the retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser; and a lawyer for his campaign team, Sidney Powell.In testimony to the House January 6 committee played at the hearing, Giuliani said that at the meeting he had called the White House lawyers and aides who disagreed with that plan “a bunch of pussies”.Eric Herschmann, a White House lawyer, said that Flynn “screamed at me that I was a quitter and kept standing up and turning around and screaming at me. I’d sort of had it with him so I yelled back, ‘Either come over or sit your effing ass back down.’”Trump allies ‘screamed’ at aides who resisted seizing voting machines, January 6 panel hearsRead moreCommittee member Jamie Raskin, who co-led today’s hearing with Stephanie Murphy, condemned Donald Trump’s actions on January 6 in his closing statement.“American carnage: that’s Donald Trump’s true legacy. His desire to overthrow the people’s election and seize the presidency, interrupting the counting of electoral college votes for the first time in American history, nearly toppled the constitutional order and brutalized hundreds and hundreds of people,” Raskin said.“The Watergate break-in was like a cub scout meeting compared to this assault on our people and our institutions.”Raskin argued that the most important element of the January 6 hearings is determining what actions can be taken now to prevent similar violence in the future.“The crucial thing is the next step — what this committee, what all of us will do to fortify our democracy against coups, political violence and campaigns to steal elections away from the people,” Raskin said.“We need to defend both our democracy and our freedom with everything we have to declare that this American carnage ends here and now.”In her closing statement, Liz Cheney also shared additional footage from Pat Cipollone’s interview with the committee behind closed doors on Friday.In the clip, Cipollone said that he and a number of other senior White House officials were urging Donald Trump to call off the insurrection on January 6.“I felt it was my obligation to continue to push for that. And others felt it was their obligation as well,” Cipollone said.Asked whether it would have been possible for Trump to make some kind of public statement shortly after the insurrection started to call off the violence, Cipollone said yes, it would have been possible. Trump refused to do so for hours.Cheney noted that Cipollone’s testimony will feature prominently in the committee’s hearing next week, which is expected to focus on Trump’s actions and words as the insurrection unfolded.Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the January 6 committee, said that Donald Trump himself tried to contact one of the witnesses in the investigation.According to Cheney, the witness, who has not yet been publicly revealed as a participant in the committee’s investigation, declined the call.Instead, the witness informed their lawyer about Trump’s attempted call. The lawyer then informed the January 6 committee, who passed the information along to the justice department.“Let me say one more time: we will take any efforts to influence witness testimony very seriously,” Cheney said.Cheney warned at the last hearing that at least two witnesses had been contacted by Trump allies urging them to stay loyal to the former president in their testimony to the committee.Those efforts raise questions about potential witness tampering, which could open Trump and his allies up to criminal charges.Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, said the Capitol insurrectionists had planned “an armed revolution” on January 6.He noted that the insurrectionists set up a gallows for Mike Pence, as the vice-president oversaw the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.“I mean, people died that day,” Van Tatenhove said. “This could have been the spark that started a new civil war, and no one would have won there.”Capitol insurrectionist Stephen Ayres said his life has changed significantly since January 6. He lost his job and had to sell his house, in addition to pleading guilty to a federal charge.“It changed my life — not for the good. Definitely not for the better,” Ayres said. Asked how he feels when he sees Donald Trump continuing to peddle lies about widespread fraud in the 2020 election, Ayres said, “It makes me mad because I was hanging on every word.”Stephen Ayres, who participated in the Capitol insurrection and has pleaded guilty to one federal charge of disorderly conduct inside a restricted building, said he closely followed Donald Trump’s lies about the 2020 election over social media.Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the January 6 committee, asked Ayres whether it would have made a difference to him if he knew that Trump had no evidence of widespread fraud in the election.“Oh, definitely,” Ayres said. “Who knows? I may not have come down here then.” Ayres said Trump had gotten “everybody riled up” by telling his supporters to come to Washington on January 6, as Congress certified Joe Biden’s victory in the election.“We basically just followed what he said,” Ayres said.Asked when he decided to leave the Capitol on January 6, Ayres said he departed after seeing Trump’s tweet asking his supporters to leave the building. “Basically, when President Trump put his tweet out, we literally left right after that come out,” Ayres said. He added that he might have left before then if Trump had sent his tweet earlier.Jason Van Tatenhove, a former spokesperson for the far-right extremist group Oath Keepers, said he decided to leave the organization after he heard members suggest that the Holocaust wasn’t real. (That is, of course, a baseless lie.)“I can tell you that they may not like to call themselves a militia, but they are. They’re a violent militia,” Van Tatenhove told the January 6 committee.The Oath Keepers were one of several violent militia groups that helped orchestrate the violence on January 6, alongside the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters.Brad Parscale, a former senior campaign adviser to Donald Trump, said he felt “guilty” about helping him win election in the days after the Capitol insurrection.Parscale described Trump as “a sitting president asking for civil war,” in reference to his efforts to disrupt the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory.Responding to Parscale’s text message, fellow Trump adviser Katrina Pierson said, “You did what you felt right at the time and therefore it was right.”Parscale responded, “Yeah, but a woman is dead.” He later added, “If I was Trump and I knew my rhetoric killed someone.”Pierson replied, “It wasn’t the rhetoric.”“Katrina,” Parscale said. “Yes it was.”The committee identified 10 Republican House members who attended a White House meeting on December 21 to discuss options for overturning the results of the 2020 election.According to the committee, those members were:
    Brian Babin
    Andy Biggs
    Matt Gaetz
    Louie Gohmert
    Paul Gosar
    Andy Harris
    Jody Hice
    Jim Jordan
    Scott Perry
    Marjorie Taylor Greene (then a congresswoman-elect)
    In his closed-door testimony before the January 6 committee, Pat Cipollone, Donald Trump’s former White House counsel, applauded the actions of Vice-President Mike Pence on that violent day.Despite intense pressure from Trump and some of his allies, Pence refused to go along with the then-president’s plans to interfere with the congressional certification of Joe Biden’s victory.After the Capitol attack, Pence returned to the Senate chamber on January 6 to finish the certification process, clearing the way for Biden to take the oath of office.“I think the vice-president did the right thing. I think he did the courageous thing,” Cipollone told investigators on Friday.“I think he did a great service to this country. And I think I suggested to somebody that he should be given the Presidential Medal of Freedom for his actions.”Committee member Stephanie Murphy shared a draft tweet written by Donald Trump encouraging his supporters to march to the Capitol on January 6.“I will be making a Big Speech at 10AM on January 6th at the Ellipse (South of the White House),” the draft tweet says. “Please arrive early, massive crowds expected. March to the Capitol after. Stop the Steal!!”The draft tweet, obtained by the committee from the National Archives, was undated, but it was stamped with the words “president has seen”.”PRESIDENT HAS SEEN”@January6thCmte obtained drafted, unsent tweet. pic.twitter.com/yYg3sKFv96— CSPAN (@cspan) July 12, 2022
    Murphy said, “The evidence confirms that this was not a spontaneous call to action, but rather a deliberate strategy decided upon in advance by the president.”The committee also showed messages from some of the January 6 rally organizers indicating that they knew of the plans to march to the Capitol but kept them quiet.Rally organizer Kylie Kremer said in one message that Trump was just going to call for the march to the Capitol “unexpectedly”. The January 6 hearing resumed after a short break, and committee member Jamie Raskin shared additional information about collaboration between far-right extremist groups in the weeks leading up to the Capitol attack.Raskin displayed a Facebook post written by Oath Keepers leader Kelly Meggs on 19 December, the same day that Donald Trump sent a tweet encouraging his supporters to come to Washington on January 6 for a “wild” event.In the post, Meggs said he had organized an “alliance” between the Oath Keepers and two other far-right militia groups, the Three Percenters and the Proud Boys.“We have decided to work together and shut this shit down,” Meggs said in the post.Raskin said the committee had obtained phone records showing that Meggs spoke with Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio for several minutes later that afternoon.“The very next day, the Proud Boys got to work,” Raskin said. More

  • in

    Ex-campaign chief texted ally Trump’s January 6 rhetoric ‘killed someone’

    Ex-campaign chief texted ally Trump’s January 6 rhetoric ‘killed someone’‘A sitting president asking for civil war,’ Brad Parscale told Katrina Pierson, a former campaign spokesperson Donald Trump’s former campaign manager told another close ally that the then president’s rhetoric “killed someone” on 6 January 2021, when a mob of Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol.Trump allies railed at aides in ‘unhinged’ meeting, January 6 committee revealsRead moreBrad Parscale ran Trump’s winning campaign in 2016 and was in place for some of his losing effort in 2020. Katrina Pierson, a former campaign spokesperson, helped organise a rally Trump addressed near the White House on January 6.Texts between the two were displayed by the January 6 committee during a public hearing in Washington on Tuesday.The hearing focused on how after plans to seize voting machines went nowhere, Trump whipped up supporters to march on Congress, by tweet and in his speech at the Ellipse on January 6.The messages between Parscale and Pierson were sent after a Trump supporter, Ashli Babbitt, was shot dead by law enforcement in the US Capitol.Others died as the mob stormed Congress, looking for lawmakers including the then vice-president, Mike Pence, to capture and possibly kill, in an attempt to stop certification of Joe Biden’s election victory.A bipartisan Senate committee linked seven deaths to the riot, including police officers who subsequently killed themselves. Two more police officers killed themselves after the report was released.As presented by Stephanie Murphy, a Florida Democrat on the January 6 committee, Parscale told Pierson: “This is about Trump pushing for uncertainty in our country. A sitting president asking for civil war … I feel guilty for helping him win [in 2016].”Pierson replied: “You did what you felt right at the time and therefore it was right.”Parscale wrote: “Yeah, but a woman is dead.Pierson said: “You do realise this was going to happen.”Parscale said: “Yeah, if I was Trump, and I knew my rhetoric killed someone…”Pierson said: “It wasn’t the rhetoric.”Parscale said: “Katrina. Yes it was.”TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    Trump allies ‘screamed’ at aides who resisted seizing voting machines, January 6 panel hears

    Trump allies ‘screamed’ at aides who resisted seizing voting machines, January 6 panel hears‘Unhinged’ December 2020 meeting saw outside advisers to Trump shouting insults at officials, according to testimony In a bizarre, angry and “unhinged” White House meeting on 18 December 2020, outside advisers to Donald Trump screamed insults at presidential aides who were resisting their plan to seize voting machines and name a special counsel in pursuit of Trump’s attempt to overturn the election.The meeting – which the House January 6 committee in its public hearing on Tuesday described as a “heated and profane clash” – was held between those who believed the president should admit he lost the election to Joe Biden, and a group of outsiders referred to by some Trump advisers as “Team Crazy”.They included Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani; the retired lieutenant general Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security adviser; and a lawyer for his campaign team, Sidney Powell.The committee confirmed a previous Guardian exclusive that Trump verbally agreed to grant Powell a security clearance and make her special counsel with oversight for seizing voting machines.January 6 hearings: ex-White House lawyer says no evidence of widespread election fraud – liveRead moreIn testimony to the House January 6 committee played at the hearing, Giuliani said that at the meeting he had called the White House lawyers and aides who disagreed with that plan “a bunch of pussies”.Eric Herschmann, a White House lawyer, said that Flynn “screamed at me that I was a quitter and kept standing up and turning around and screaming at me. I’d sort of had it with him so I yelled back, ‘Either come over or sit your effing ass back down.’”Herschmann also said: “I think that it got to the point where the screaming was completely, completely out there. When you got – people walk in, it was late at night, it’s been a long day, and what they were proposing I thought was nuts.”Powell, who wanted to be named special counsel, told the committee how the group had gained access to the White House via a junior official and spent “probably no more than 10 or 15 minutes” with Trump before top Trump aides “set a new land speed record” in order to join the meeting.Testimony from Pat Cipollone, Trump’s second White House counsel and a participant in the meeting with Herschmann and Derek Lyons, then White House staff secretary, was played for the first time at the hearing.He said: “I opened the door and walked in. I saw General Flynn. I saw Sidney Powell sitting there. I was not happy those two people were in the Oval Office … first of all, I saw the Overstock person.”That was Patrick Byrne, a Trump ally and former chief executive of Overstock.com.Cipollone said: “The first thing I did, I walked in, I looked at him, I said, ‘Who are you?’ And he told me.“I don’t think any of these people were providing the president with good advice. So I didn’t understand how they had gotten in.”Cipollone said the plan to seize voting machines and appoint a Powell was a “terrible idea for the country”.Referring to William Barr’s prior rejection of claims of electoral fraud in Trump’s loss to Joe Biden, Cipollone said: “There was a real question in my mind, and a real concern, particularly after the attorney general has reached the conclusion that there wasn’t sufficient election fraud to change the outcome of the election, when other people were suggesting that there was, the answer was at some point you have to put up or shut up. That was my view.”Cipollone said he and others had told Flynn, Giuliani, Powell and Byrne to produce evidence for their claims or stop advancing them, and were told they had no evidence to hand.Cipollone added: “To have the federal government seize voting machines, it’s a terrible idea. That’s not how we do things in the United States.Capitol attack panel examines Trump’s ‘spurring of mob’ on January 6Read more“There is a way to contest elections. That happens all the time. But the idea that the federal government come in and seize election machines and all that.”The committee also displayed a text message in which Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to the White House chief of staff Mark Meadows whose previous testimony lit up Washington and led to Cipollone being served with a subpoena, described the 18 December meeting as “unhinged”.The committee also showed a picture Hutchinson took of Meadows escorting Giuliani off White House grounds after the meeting, to “make sure he didn’t wander back to the mansion”.As described by witnesses answering the Maryland Democratic congressman Jamie Raskin, the White House meeting ended without the Trump allies’ wild plans being approved or implemented.But in the early hours of 19 December, Trump sent a tweet encouraging supporters to come to Washington on 6 January 2021, the day Joe Biden’s victory would be certified in Congress.“Be there, will be wild,” Trump wrote.The committee played testimony and archive footage from far-right Trump supporters who planned to answer the call.TopicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

  • in

    US military kills Islamic State leader in Syria airstrike

    US military kills Islamic State leader in Syria airstrikeMaher al-Agal, said to be responsible for developing networks outside Iraq and Syria, was killed in a drone strike The US military killed a leader of the Islamic State on Tuesday in an airstrike in Syria, Joe Biden said.Maher al-Agal, identified by the Pentagon as one of the top five Islamic State leaders and the leader of the Islamic State in Syria, was killed in a drone strike in Jindayris in north-west Syria.“His death in Syria takes a key terrorist off the field and significantly degrades the ability of [the Islamic State] to plan, resource, and conduct their operations in the region,” the president said. “It sends a powerful message to all terrorists who threaten our homeland and our interests around the world. The United States will be relentless in its efforts to bring you to justice.”Suspected Islamist attack frees hundreds of prisoners in NigeriaRead moreUS Central Command said in a news release that an unidentified senior official in the Islamic State was also seriously injured in the strike that killed Agal.The Pentagon said an “initial review” indicated there were no civilian casualties, though it wasn’t possible to immediately confirm that information.Agal was “responsible for aggressively pursuing the development of Isis networks outside … Iraq and Syria”, according to US Central Command.The Islamic State at the height of its power controlled more than 40,000 sq miles stretching from Syria to Iraq and ruled over 8 million people.While the group’s territorial state collapsed in 2019, its leaders have turned to guerrilla tactics and been able to “efficiently restructure themselves organizationally”, according to the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a nonpartisan thinktank.The strike on Agal comes months after the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi, killed himself during a raid of his hideout by American special forces.The Pentagon said Qurayshi blew himself up along with members of his family.TopicsIslamic StateUS militarySyriaUS politicsJoe BidenReuse this content More

  • in

    Liz Cheney: Donald Trump is not an impressionable child – video

    The congresswoman, speaking to the January 6 public committee, says Trump was repeatedly told there was no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. Cheney said Trump ‘cannot escape responsibility by being wilfully blind’. The House select committee began its seventh public hearing on Tuesday, investigating Trump’s involvement in the storming of the US Capitol More

  • in

    Elon Musk hits back at Trump and says ex-president should ‘hang up his hat’

    Elon Musk hits back at Trump and says ex-president should ‘hang up his hat’Tesla chief tweets that ex-president should ‘sail into the sunset’ after Trump calls Musk a ‘bullshit artist’ over Twitter bid Stepping up an ongoing verbal clash between the two men, Elon Musk said Donald Trump should “hang up his hat” and is too old to run for the Oval Office in 2024, as a poll shows the former president is losing support among Republican voters.“I don’t hate the man, but it’s time for Trump to hang up his hat & sail into the sunset,” Musk tweeted late Monday, using the same social media platform that he first tried to buy and is now trying to walk away from. The billionaire businessman’s tweet came after Trump, at a public appearance in Alaska last weekend, called Musk a “bullshit artist” over the Twitter sale.Elon Musk may have to complete $44bn Twitter takeover, legal experts sayRead moreMusk further tweeted that Democrats – who hold seven of the nine seats on the congressional committee investigating the deadly January 6 attack on the Capitol by Trump’s supporters – “should also call off the attack”.“Don’t make it so that Trump’s only way to survive is to regain the presidency,” Musk wrote.Trump would be 78 when the 2024 presidential election is held. If he ignores Musk’s suggestion to hang it up and wins, Trump would be 82 at the end of his second presidential term.Musk on Friday filed notice to withdraw his $44bn bid to buy Twitter, after the company agreed in late April to sell to him. He argued that the platform had failed to provide promised information on fake and spam accounts, though many observers have noted that tech stocks have plummeted recently, making the sale price look much higher.It’s unlikely Musk will walk away easily. Twitter said Musk backing out was “invalid and wrongful” and is suing him to enforce a provision in the agreement that may compel him to go through with acquiring the platform, assuming he had the financing for it – which the businessman said in May that he had.Trump spoke up after Friday’s announcement, saying the Tesla and SpaceX chief’s deal with Twitter was “rotten” anyway.The Trump-Musk spat has gone on for a while: Musk said he was contemplating supporting Florida’s governor, Ron DeSantis, as the Republican candidate in the 2024 presidential race.In Alaska, Trump claimed Musk said he’d previously voted for him; Musk has denied it, though he has also criticized Twitter for banning Trump’s account on the platform after the Capitol attack.If Musk did vote for Trump, he isn’t alone in having a change of heart, a recent poll from the New York Times and Siena College found. Nearly half of Republican party primary voters are interested in supporting someone other than Trump in the 2024 election, and 16% even indicated that if he was the GOP nominee they would support president Joe Biden, vote for a protest candidate, abstain from voting or be unsure of what to do, according to the poll.That may not sound like much, but that number among Democrats if Biden were to face Trump was 8%, the poll said.TopicsElon MuskDonald TrumpUS elections 2024US politicsReuse this content More

  • in

    Democrats are certain to lose seats in the midterms. But how many – and why? | Musa al-Gharbi

    Democrats are certain to lose seats in the midterms. But how many – and why?Musa al-GharbiThe outcome seems certain. How we get there is the question In the Abrahamic religions, there is a profound mystery in how to reconcile belief in free will with faith in divine providence. Similar mysteries lie at the heart of political science.For instance, over the past 45 years, every time there has been a change of party in the White House, the opposing party won the governorship of Virginia a year later.Over the past 45 years, the governorship of Virginia has moved countercyclically to the White House. pic.twitter.com/n5YMJCRzXE— Musa al-Gharbi (@Musa_alGharbi) July 11, 2022
    2021 was no exception. Democrat Joe Biden took the White House, Republican Glenn Youngkin became governor of Virginia. In media circles this outcome was widely described as a ‘shock.’ Given the electoral pattern over the past several decades, it shouldn’t have been.How Elise Stefanik rose from moderate Republican to Maga starRead moreThe outcome of that race was chalked up to debates over “critical race theory” in K-12 schools, among other things. While those narratives may not be wrong exactly, the historical pattern over nearly the last half-century suggests that even if these specific issues had not been salient, some other controversy would have risen to the fore, and the outcome for Democrats would have been roughly the same.Similar patterns hold at the national level. For instance, every time there is a change of party in the White House, the new incumbent party loses seats in the House of Representatives during the subsequent midterm elections. Here, we can go all the way back to the creation of the Democratic and Republican two-party system, and there are only two exceptions to the rule:From the foundation of the @TheDemocrats v. @GOP two-party rivalry, whenever there has been a change of party in the White House, the incumbent party virtually always loses seats in the House of Representatives during their inaugural midterms. pic.twitter.com/H8myMjWcDS— Musa al-Gharbi (@Musa_alGharbi) July 11, 2022
    Following the outbreak of the Great Depression, which FDR had been elected to fix, his party actually gained seats in the House and Senate. Likewise, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, with its unprecedented ‘rally around the flag’ effect in full bloom, George W Bush’s party gained seats in the House and held their ground in the Senate.In every other instance, the newly-elected party lost seats. It didn’t matter which party was in the White House. It didn’t matter if the economy was up or down or if there was war or peace. It didn’t matter if the president was popular or unpopular or what the big topics of contention were. All of that was immaterial to the basic outcome: the incumbent party experienced a net loss in the House regardless.The magnitude of those losses varied. At the low end, three seats changed hands. At the high end, 125.The pathways to those losses varied too: different demographics shifted in different cycles, apparently for different reasons. Different seats changed hands, driven by a wide range of factors. Yet, the net losses occurred like clockwork. The mean loss was 41 seats. The median loss was 26. The modal loss was between 10 and 20 seats.A majority in the House of Representatives requires 218 seats. Democrats currently have 220. Assuming all seats get filled by the end of this cycle, should Democrats lose more than 2 seats net in the upcoming elections, they will lose their majority in the House. Put another way, Democrats would have to outperform the Lincoln and Kennedy administrations in retaining their seats if they want to keep the chamber.It seems highly unlikely that they will be able to pull off such a feat. Joe Biden’s net favorability rating is lower than any president on record. Even most Democrats want Biden to retire when his term is over rather than seeking reelection. But it’s not just the president. In the generic ballot, the Democratic Party is also underwater. Democrats saw a slight boost after the supreme court overturned Roe v Wade, but the gains seem to have levelled off, and it’s unclear whether the small bump will sustain over the next four months. But even if it did, again, Democrats would still be net-negative going into the midterms.It is no wonder that both formal modeling and prediction markets put Republicans as the likely winners of the House by a ratio of nearly 9:1. The Senate is more of a toss-up. There’s a real chance for Democrats to hold that chamber, although it seems like that will be a steep climb too.If and when Democrats see significant losses in 2022, critics will certainly chalk them up to rising inflation, growing concerns about crime, Biden’s failure to pass most of his Build Back Better proposal, his lack of action on gun control or abortion, his reneging on campaign promises to broadly erase student loan debt, missteps related to Covid or foreign policy, his administration (and the Democrats more broadly) leaning too heavily into “identity politics”, a failure to appropriately leverage the January 6 committee findings against the Republicans, and more.While these narratives may not be exactly wrong, again, it is likely that the party would have seen losses even if Biden had passed Build Back Better, waived student debt, abstained from ‘woke’ identity politics, and so on. Something else would have worked against the party instead – including, perhaps, their own accomplishments.Although perceptions of being ineffective can lead to disillusionment, it can also be a liability if an administration is perceived as too effective. If a party rapidly passes a bunch of major legislation or otherwise implements dramatic changes, this often leads to even bigger blowback at the ballot box as Americans try to pump the brakes.There seems to be a sweet spot of tangible accomplishments that an administration can point to, promises fulfilled on issues that voters prioritize most – where the change is not perceived as too dramatic, or as too many changes happening too fast. Hitting that sweet spot while avoiding self-sabotage can help minimize losses. But it’s generally difficult to discern exactly where that sweet spot is. And again, even for administrations that really seem to get it right, they still see net losses in the House during their inaugural midterms, just smaller losses.As far as how the likely losses will come about in 2022:Independent and moderate voters aligned themselves with the Democrats to an unprecedented degree in 2020, playing a pivotal role in Biden’s victory. These voters have shifted dramatically towards Republicans since.Democrats have been seeing consistent attrition of non-white voters over the past decade. Polling and surveys suggest that these trends are likely to continue among Black, Hispanic and Asian voters.Democrats also saw significant declines in vote share among younger voters (18-29) in 2020 as compared to 2018. This alienation among young voters seems like it may persist or grow through the midterms as well – although recent supreme court rulings may blunt this a little.Democratic losses with working-class voters seem likely to continue apace.In the aftermath of the race, there will be all sorts of stories told about why these voters shifted to the right. Some of those stories may have a lot of truth to them. Many others will be nonsense. But even compelling narratives about the election should be taken with a grain of salt. Again, if these particular groups didn’t shift towards the GOP, other voters would likely have shifted instead. That is, even if they’d retained these voters, the outcome of the midterms may not have changed much.Losses are pretty much a guarantee for a party’s inaugural midterms. It doesn’t matter who is in charge or what they do, they will still lose seats in the House. How big the losses are, among whom, and why – which specific seats change hands, in which districts – these all remain to be determined by the specifics of the cycle. The broad outcome seems fixed, how we get there is not. In this, political science and theology seem to converge.
    Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F Lazarsfeld fellow in sociology at Columbia University. His book We Have Never Been Woke: Social Justice Discourse, Inequality and the Rise of a New Elite is forthcoming with Princeton University Press. He is a Guardian US columnist
    TopicsUS politicsOpinionDemocratsJoe BidencommentReuse this content More