US Politics

McConnell will ‘make Biden a moderate’ if Republicans retake Congress Senate minority leader projects ‘pretty good beating’ for Biden administration in November midterms The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, said on Sunday Republicans will force Joe Biden to govern as a “moderate” if the GOP retakes Congress in November.Liz Cheney disputes report January 6 panel split over Trump criminal referralRead moreSpeaking to Fox News Sunday, McConnell attacked Biden on subjects including reported crime increases in large US cities, the decision to extend a moratorium on repaying student loan debts, and the administration’s attempt to lift a Trump policy that allowed border patrol agents to turn away migrants at the southern border, ostensibly to prevent the spread of coronavirus.“This administration just can’t seem to get their act together,” McConnell said. “I think they’re headed toward a pretty good beating in the fall election.”If that beating were to materialize, giving Republicans control of the Senate and House, McConnell said his party would try to confine Biden to the center of an increasingly polarized political spectrum.“Let me put it this way – Biden ran as a moderate,” McConnell said. “If I’m the majority leader in the Senate, and [House minority leader] Kevin McCarthy is speaker of the House, we’ll make sure Joe Biden is a moderate.”Without delving into specifics, McConnell outlined a broad set of policy priorities, including reducing crime, overhauling education, pursuing cheaper gasoline prices and investing in defense following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.McConnell said Biden’s low poll numbers reflected dissatisfaction with his administration’s response to all those problems.“I like the president personally,” McConnell said. “It’s clear to me personality is not what is driving his unpopularity.”McConnell did not mention – and was not asked about – whether he would seek to block any further Biden nominations to the supreme court, which for now has a 6-3 conservative majority.In a recent interview with Axios, McConnell would not commit to hearings for any potential nominees if he led the Senate at any point before the 2024 presidential election, Republicans’ next opportunity to retake the White House. ‘TV is like a poll’: Trump endorses Dr Oz for Pennsylvania Senate nominationRead moreLast year, he said the GOP would block a Biden supreme court nominee if it controlled the Senate in 2024, an election year. McConnell blocked Barack Obama’s final nominee, Merrick Garland, from even receiving a hearing in 2016, citing that year’s presidential election. In 2020, he oversaw the confirmation of Donald Trump’s third nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, shortly before polling day.McConnell’s comments on Sunday echoed some of the remarks he made in the interview with Axios, when he predicted that Biden would “finally be the moderate he campaigned as” if the Democrats lost their congressional majority in November.The Democrats hold a 12-seat advantage in the House and generally hold a single-vote edge in the 50-50 Senate, where vice-president Kamala Harris can serve as tiebreaker.TopicsUS midterm elections 2022US politicsJoe BidenBiden administrationUS CongressUS SenateUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More

‘TV is like a poll’: Trump endorses Dr Oz for Pennsylvania Senate nominationFormer president enthuses about TV doctor in statement and at rally but many on far right doubt conservative credentials Donald Trump has endorsed Dr Mehmet Oz for the Republican nomination for Senate in Pennsylvania, an expression of support for a fellow TV star which could test the former president’s grip on his party.Senator urges Democrats to ‘scream from the rooftops’ against RepublicansRead moreBeing on TV was “like a poll, that means people like you,” the former president and Celebrity Apprentice star said of Oz, a heart surgeon turned daytime host.Many on the pro-Trump hard right of the Republican party, however, question if Oz is a true conservative.In a statement before a rally in Selma, North Carolina on Saturday night, Trump said: “This is all about winning elections in order to stop the radical left maniacs from destroying our country.“The great commonwealth of Pennsylvania has a tremendous opportunity to Save America by electing the brilliant and well-known Dr Mehmet Oz for the United States Senate.”At his rally, Trump called Oz a “great guy, good man … Harvard-educated, tremendous, tremendous career and they liked him for a long time. That’s like a poll. You know, when you’re in television for 18 years, that’s like a poll, that means people like you.”Trump previously endorsed Sean Parnell, who withdrew after being accused by his wife of abusive behaviour, which he denied. David McCormick, a hedge fund executive, also sought Trump’s backing.The Senate is split 50-50, controlled by the vote of the vice-president, Kamala Harris. Control will be at stake in November. Republicans have indicated they could use the Senate to deny Joe Biden another supreme court pick.The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee sought to portray Trump’s endorsement of Oz as divisive.“The Republican Senate primary in Pennsylvania was already nasty, expensive and brutal,” said a spokesperson, Patrick Burgwinkle. “Now Trump’s endorsement will only intensify this intra-party fight, just like it has in GOP Senate primaries across the country – leaving their ultimate nominee badly damaged and out of step with the voters who will decide the general election.”Oz has been accused of being out of step with Pennsylvania voters not least because he entered the race after living two decades in New Jersey. His entry to politics also brought renewed attention on his TV career, which began on Oprah Winfrey’s show.In 2014, Oz told senators some products he promoted, including a “miracle” green coffee bean extract, lacked “scientific muster”. The following year, a group of prominent doctors accused Oz of displaying “an egregious lack of integrity” and promoting “quack treatments”.Politically speaking, prominent pro-Trump figures have said Oz is not a conservative.The former White House adviser Steve Bannon said: “How does Dr Oz, probably the most anti-Maga guy, and you got Fox non-stop pimping this guy out and Newsmax pimping this guy out, and that’s what it is – how does Dr Oz, from New Jersey, [Turkish president Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan’s buddy, floating in from Jersey, how does he become a factor in a Senate race in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania?”The Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell, has clashed with Trump, who has sought to oust him. Appearing on Fox News Sunday, the Kentucky senator was asked about Trump’s Oz endorsement.“We’ve got a good choice of candidates and I think we’ve been a good position to win that race regardless of who the nominee is,” McConnell said. “I guess we’ll find in the next few weeks how much this endorsement made a difference”.In his statement, Trump said Oz was especially popular with women because of his work in daytime TV and could do well in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Democratic-leaning cities. The former president also mentioned his own controversial appearance on Oz’s show in the 2016 campaign, when Trump showed partial results of a physical.White House tells Dr Oz and Herschel Walker to resign from fitness councilRead moreTrump said: “He even said that I was in extraordinary health, which made me like him even more (although he also said I should lose a couple of pounds!)”Trump, who appointed Oz to a White House advisory role, also presented him as anti-abortion, “very strong on crime, the border, election fraud, our great military and our vets, tax cuts” and gun rights.Oz said: “President Trump wisely endorsed me because I’m a conservative who will stand up to Joe Biden and the woke left.”Polling shows Oz and McCormick evenly matched. The winner is likely to face the Democrat John Fetterman, currently lieutenant governor, in the November election.Speaking to Politico, a “person close to Trump … noted a phrase that Trump has often repeated when talking about Oz: ‘He’s been on TV in people’s bedrooms and living rooms for years.’”TopicsUS midterm elections 2022Donald TrumpRepublicansPennsylvaniaUS politicsUS SenateUS CongressnewsReuse this content More

Biden needs to start going after large corporations if he wants to win againRobert ReichWorking Americans – many of whom voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 – are being shafted. Biden needs to deliver for them now or risk losing As America slouches toward the midterm elections, you need an economic message that celebrates your accomplishments to date – job creation and higher wages – yet also takes aim at the major abuses of economic power that remain in the system, fueling inflation and widening inequality.You should put these 10 indisputable facts center stage:1. Corporate profits are at a 70-year high. Yet corporations are raising their prices.2. They are not raising prices because of the increasing costs of supplies and components and of labor – which are real but expected when an economy goes suddenly from a pandemically induced deep freeze due to meeting the soaring demands of consumers who are emerging from the pandemic. Corporations enjoying record profits in a healthy competitive economy would absorb these costs.3. Instead, they’re passing these costs on to consumers in the form of higher prices. In many cases they’re raising prices higher than those cost increases, using the cover of inflation to increase their profit margins even more.4. They’re doing so because they face little or no competition. If markets were competitive, companies would keep their prices down to prevent competitors from grabbing away customers. As the White House National Economic Council put it in a December report: “Businesses that face meaningful competition can’t [maintain high profit margins and pass on higher costs to consumers], because they would lose business to a competitor that did not hike its margins.”5. Since the 1980s, two-thirds of all American industries have become more concentrated. This concentration gives corporations the power to raise prices because it makes it easy for them to informally coordinate price increases with the handful of other companies in their same industry – without risking the possibility of losing customers, who have no other choice.6. Corporations are using these near-record profits to boost share prices by buying back a record amount of their own shares of stock. (Buybacks reduce a company’s shares outstanding, pushing its profit-per-share figure higher.) Stock buybacks hit a new record last year. So far this year they’re on track to exceed that record. In the first two months of 2022, S&P 500 companies have disclosed authorizations to buy back $238bn in stock – a record pace, according to Goldman Sachs, which expects $1tn of buybacks this year – an all-time high.Chevron engaged in $1.4bn in stock buybacks and spent $500m more on shareholder dividends than it did in 2020. This year, the oil giants are planning to buy back at least $22bn more.7. Most American workers have barely had a wage increase in 40 years (adjusted for inflation). Although corporations have recently given out wage increases in response to the post-pandemic surge in demand, these wage increases have been almost completely eroded by price increases.Corporations are handing out wage increases to attract or keep workers with one hand, and then eliminating those wage increases by raising prices with the other. When corporations are enjoying near-record profits, we would expect corporations to pay the higher wages out of their profits rather than to pass them on to consumers in higher prices. But they are not. The labor market is not “unhealthily” tight, as Jerome Powell asserts; corporations are unhealthily fat. Workers do not have too much power; corporations do.8. As a result of all this, income and wealth are being redistributed upward from average working people (many of whom live from paycheck to paycheck) to CEOs and shareholders, including the wealthiest people in America. Billionaires have become $1.7tn richer during the pandemic. CEO pay (based largely on stock values) is now at a record 350 to 1 ratio relative to median pay.9. Wealthy Americas are now paying a lower tax rate than the working class. Some are paying no taxes at all.10. Big corporations have accumulated a substantial amount of political power, with which they’ve beaten back lower drug prices, prevented higher corporate taxes, and amassed unprecedented corporate welfare.In short, although the American economy is rebounding nicely from recession, the growing imbalance of economic power is bad for most Americans and for the economy as a whole. It must be addressed through (a) tougher antitrust enforcement, (b) a temporary windfall profits tax, (c) higher taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, (d) a ban on corporate buybacks, (e) stronger unions, and (f) campaign finance reform to get big money out of politics.You have a critical opportunity to reframe the national conversation as it should be framed – around these worsening abuses of economic power by large corporations and the super-rich. Republicans have left themselves vulnerable because they have no response to this. They believe their “culture wars” will distract the public from what’s going on.This is not and should not be a partisan issue. Average working Americans – many of whom voted for Trump in 2016 and 2020 – are being shafted.
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
TopicsDemocratsOpinionUS politicscommentReuse this content More

Is Trump in his sights? Garland under pressure to charge ex-presidentTrump’s legal jeopardy about the January 6 insurrection is growing but experts say attorney general must move carefully The attorney general, Merrick Garland, is facing more political pressure to move faster and expand the US Department of Justice’s investigation into the January 6 Capitol attack and charge Donald Trump and some of his former top aides.With mounting evidence from the January 6 House panel, court rulings and news reports that Trump engaged in a criminal conspiracy in his aggressive drive to thwart Joe Biden’s election win in 2020, Garland and his staff face an almost unique decision: whether to charge a former US president.Ex-justice officials caution, however, that while there’s growing evidence of criminal conduct by Trump to obstruct Congress from certifying Biden’s win on January 6 and defraud the government, building a strong case to prove Trump’s corrupt intent – a necessary element to convict him – probably requires more evidence and time.In an important speech in January this year, Garland said he would hold “all January 6 perpetrators, at any level” accountable, if they were present at the Capitol that day or not, who were responsible for this “assault on our democracy”, which suggested to some ex-prosecutors that Trump and some allies were in his sights.But rising pressures on Garland to move faster with a clearer focus on Trump and his top allies have come from Democrats on the House panel investigating the Capitol attack.Those concerns were underscored this past week when the House sent a criminal referral to the justice department charging contempt of Congress by two Trump aides, trade adviser Peter Navarro and communications chief Dan Scavino, who refused to cooperate after being subpoenaed.“We are upholding our responsibility, the Department of Justice must do the same,” panel member Adam Schiff said. Likewise, Congresswoman Elaine Luria urged Garland to “do your job so we can do ours.”About four months ago, the House sent a criminal contempt of Congress referral to the justice department for the former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows, but so far he has not been indicted.Some former top DoJ officials and prosecutors, however, say Garland is moving correctly and expeditiously in pursuing all criminal conduct to overturn Biden’s election in its sprawling January 6 inquiry.“When people (including many lawyers) criticize the DoJ for not more clearly centering the January 6 investigation on Trump, they are expressing impatience rather than a clear understanding of the trajectory of the investigation,” the former justice inspector general Michael Bromwich told the Guardian.“DoJ is methodically building the case from the bottom up. It is almost surely the most complex criminal investigation in the nation’s history, involving the most prosecutors, the most investigators, the most digital evidence – and the most defendants,” he added.Bromwich added that “people view the scores of ongoing criminal prosecutions of participants in the January 6 insurrection as somehow separate from the investigation of Trump. They are not. He is the subject of the investigation at the top of the pyramid. People need to carefully watch what is happening, not react based on their impatience.”The department’s investigation is the biggest one ever. More than 750 people have been charged so far with federal crimes, and about 250 have pleaded guilty.Still, concerns about the pace of the investigation – and why charges have not been filed against Trump – have been spurred in part by a few revelations over the last couple of months.Last month, for instance, federal judge David Carter in a crucial court ruling involving a central Trump legal adviser, John Eastman, stated that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law in his weeks-long drive to stop Biden from taking office.“Dr Eastman and President Trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action unprecedented in American history,” Carter wrote in a civil case which resulted in an order for Eastman to release more than 100 emails he had withheld from the House panel.Similarly, the January 6 select committee made a 61-page court filing on 2 March that implicated Trump in a “criminal conspiracy” to block Congress from certifying Biden’s win.On another legal front that could implicate Trump and some top allies, the deputy attorney general, Lisa Monaco, revealed in January that the DoJ was starting a criminal investigation into a sprawling scheme – reportedly spearheaded by Trump’s ex-lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Trump campaign aides – to replace legitimate electors for Biden with false ones pledged to Trump in seven states that Biden won.Further, the Washington Post reported late last month that the DoJ had begun looking into the funding and organizing of the January 6 “Save America” rally in Washington involving some Trump allies. Trump repeated his false claims at the rally that the election was stolen.“We won this election, and we won it by a landslide,” Trump falsely told the cheering crowd. “You don’t concede, when there’s theft involved,” he said, urging the large crowd to “fight like hell”, shortly before the Capitol attack by hundreds of his supporters that led to 140 injured police and several deaths.A Trump spokesperson, Taylor Budowich, has called the House January 6 inquiry a “circus of partisanship”. And Budowich attacked Judge Carter’s ruling as “absurd and baseless”, noting that Carter was a “Clinton-appointed judge in California”.Dennis Aftergut, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that recent actions by the House January 6 panel and by the DoJ, along with court opinions, have notably increased legal threats to Trump. “Anyone would need ice in their veins not to feel the heat when all three branches of the federal government are breathing down your neck,” he said.On the issue of whether Trump may be indicted, Donald Ayer, who served as deputy attorney general in the George HW Bush administration, said “the critical question should be whether there is adequate proof of wrongful intent.” Citing Carter’s ruling that Trump “more likely than not” broke the law, Ayer said that “the evidence of such intent has recently become a lot stronger.”Nonetheless, Ayer and Aftergut stress Garland has to juggle competing priorities lest he politicize his department, while being extra careful to ensure any charges he may bring against Trump will stand up in court.“Garland’s between the rock of defending one justice department ideal and the hard place of protecting another. On one hand, no person is above the law. On the other hand, the department needs to avoid, as much as possible consistent with the first ideal, appearing political,” Aftergut said.“There’s nothing easy about the position Garland’s in,” Aftergut added. “The safest course, before considering a prosecution of a former president, would be to demand considerably more evidence of guilt than you’d require in any other case.”Ayer added: “Garland is right not to be discussing the specifics of whether and how Trump may be indicted,” a stance Garland has adopted to protect the DoJ’s credibility as not political. At the same time, Ayer suggested that Garland “should spend more time talking to the country about impartial justice and the idea that no person is above the law”.There are clear risks in moving too fast to appease critics.“Garland must make his decisions based on the law in relation to the facts,” the former federal prosecutor Michael Zeldin said. “The more politicians endeavor to pressure Garland to act, it runs the risk that any decision Garland makes will be seen as politically motivated rather than based on purely legal considerations.”That seems to fit with Garland’s approach. In his 5 January speech this year, Garland emphasized, “we follow the physical evidence. We follow the digital evidence. We follow the money. But most important, we follow the facts – not an agenda or an assumption. The facts tell us where to go next.”And, if there is enough evidence, following the rules could end up with Trump getting charged.“DoJ will never announce that it is investigating Trump and his inner circle. Such an announcement would violate DoJ policy to neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation,” said Barbara McQuade, a professor from practice at the University of Michigan Law School and a former attorney for the eastern district in Michigan.Garland, McQuade added, “is avoiding the mistake FBI director Jim Comey made in investigating Hillary Clinton, for which Comey was properly criticized”, referring to two status reports about the investigation made in the months before the 2016 election.Ultimately, McQuade said that Garland’s “biggest challenge will be proving that Trump had corrupt intent or intent to defraud, both of which would require proving that he knew his fraud claims were false. It can be very difficult to prove what was in someone’s mind, but it is not impossible.”TopicsMerrick GarlandUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

Psaki swaps White House for MSNBC as politics-to-TV pipeline chugs along Summer switch to cable news likely to sharpen perception in America that both sides are just really in it for the moneyThe routine trafficking of political personnel in America to the nation’s television networks hit a road bump last week after staffers at NBC News complained about White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s rumor-as-fact plans to join the liberal news outlet MSNBC when she leaves her West Wing post this summer.The clumsily handled move, previewed in a leak to Axios, triggered anger among journalists who said they feared Psaki’s hiring would “taint” the NBC brand and reinforce the impression, already well-established in opinion polls, that the news business in the US works hand-in-glove with political factions.Capitol attack investigators zero in on far-right Oath Keepers and Proud BoysRead moreThe Psaki saga is hardly new. If the deal goes through, Psaki will join a long line of White House staff who have moved to media roles. In January, Symone Sanders, a former adviser and senior spokesperson for Kamala Harris, signed a deal with MSNBC to host a show.But the deals are unexceptional to either side of the political divide. Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany joined Fox News last year; Sean Spicer has his own show on Newsmax; and CBS News hired Mick Mulvaney as a paid on-air contributor – also triggering an internal revolt that even prompted late-night host Stephen Colbert to condemn it on his show.The anger is easy to explain. The pipeline between politics and lucrative gigs in the media in America is one that appears to sully the public view of both professions, creating a feeling that both sides are really in it for the money. It also encourages a sense that politics in the US is seen by the media in the same veins as sports – where hiring ex-players as commentators is common – where winning races is everything and actual policy means very little.“The pipeline from the White House to news organizations makes it more difficult for news organizations to have sufficient distance or be perceived to be credibly scrutinizing government,” said Ryan Thomas, an associate professor in the Missouri School of Journalism.“Partisans argue that people won’t care or won’t notice, but it is wrong irrespective of awareness. It’s like they are moving from formal to informal public relations apparatus that is unhealthy in its own terms, irrespective of its potential effects on press accountability.”Psaki’s hire comes at a time of press frustration that Joe Biden has given just eight open-access press conferences during his term, leading to an impression of scripted, artificial performances. Psaki’s tour of duty, transposed to a cable news with a more generous salary, is likely to increase perceptions that political spin and news coverage at cable news networks are so close as to be indistinguishable.The outgoing press secretary has said that she is undergoing “rigorous ethics training” as it relates “to future employment” before her move, adding that she hoped the press corps “would judge me for my record and how I treat you and I try to answer questions from everybody across the board”.Yet the transfer of Psaki to MSNBC seemed so natural that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) went so far as to launch a fundraiser. “She’s fought to restore trust in the free press after the Trump administration’s horrific attacks on the media,” it said in a statement. “And now, she’s planning to join MSNBC’s intrepid team of journalists to hold dangerous, far-right Republicans accountable.”Journalism ethics professors express concern that this type of high-profile hiring to a high-profile cable news network, publicized while Psaki is still in a political role, risks becoming the default image for what the public holds as standard practice for journalism at large.“There’s a trickle-down effect from the irresponsibility of cable news organizations to local news journalists who get tarred with the same brush,” Thomas said.Americans of opposing political parties are sharply divided on how much they trust the news reported by national media organizations, according to new research.A YouGov/Economist poll published last week found that while Americans are more likely to trust than distrust many prominent news sources, there are few organizations that are trusted by more than a small proportion of Americans on both sides of the political aisle.At the top of the list was the Weather Channel at 52%, followed by the BBC (39%), the national public broadcaster PBS (41%), and the Wall Street Journal (37%). At the bottom of the list, in descending order, came CNN, OAN, MSNBC, Fox News and Breitbart.A Gallup poll published last October found that trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately and fairly had edged down to 36%, making last year’s reading the second lowest on record. Only 7% of those polled said they had “a great deal” of trust and confidence in newspapers, television and radio news reporting. Thirty-four per cent said they had “none at all”.The issue of reporting bias, never far from the lips of ideological adversaries, comes as cable news ratings has experienced sharp post-Trump declines that helped expose arrangements that had long been in place but never fully acknowledged. One was the information pipeline between CNN’s Jeff Zucker, his top colleague Allison Gollust, and CNN anchor Chris Cuomo and his brother Andrew. The exposure of Chris Cuomo’s advice to his brother during the sexual harassment scandal that brought the New York governor down eventually helped cost the younger sibling his job, too.But it does not seem like media executives are learning the lessons of fraught ties and allegiances between their top hosts and the political establishment. According to the news outlet Puck, CNN and MSNBC programming executives were in Washington early in the year, courting potential on-air talent to fill holes in primetime slots exposed by the exit of Cuomo and soon-to-exit MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, whose support for Democratic causes is worn openly.One of the potential talents, of course, was Psaki who, Puck opined, had “achieved veritable celebrity status for her daily press briefings”.Wooing Psaki, Thomas said, presents an ethical issue that Psaki was negotiating a new job while determining access to reporters or responding to questions from staff at her future employer.In the longer term, he said, are questions over professional distance between political institutions and news organizations. “These press conferences are a performance of scrutiny rather than actual scrutiny. They become an audition process for a cable news gig,” he said.Not only does the rotation of seats damage the material ability of the press to hold government to account, he adds, but also raises issues of access. “The White House press corps is pretty addicted to access, so they’re easily tamed and shy away from asking tougher questions,” Thomas added.TopicsUS politicsUS television industryMSNBCTelevision industryTV newsJoe BidennewsReuse this content More

Senator urges Democrats to ‘scream from the rooftops’ against RepublicansBrian Schatz from Hawaii, who denounced Josh Hawley on the Senate floor over Ukraine, tells own side to make more noise Democrats need to make more noise when taking on Republicans, a US senator said, after angry remarks on the Senate floor in which he denounced the Missouri senator Josh Hawley for delaying Pentagon appointments and voting against aid to Ukraine, among other flashpoints.‘Smoking rifle’: Trump Jr texted Meadows strategies to overturn election – reportRead more“Democrats need to make more noise,” Brian Schatz, from Hawaii, told the Washington Post. “We have to scream from the rooftops, because this is a battle for the free world now.”Schatz made waves with his Senate remarks on Thursday. His immediate subject was Hawley’s decision to place holds on Biden nominees including one for a senior Pentagon position.“He is damaging the Department of Defense,” Schatz said. “We have senior DoD leaders, we have the armed services committee coming to us and saying, ‘I don’t know what to tell him. I don’t know how to satisfy him, but he is blocking the staffing of the senior leadership at the Department of Defense’”.Referring to a famous picture of Hawley at the Capitol on the day of the 6 January 2021 attack, which the senator has used for fundraising efforts, Schatz said: “This comes from a guy who raised his fist in solidarity with the insurrectionists”.Then he returned to his theme.“This comes from a guy who before the Russian invasion suggested that maybe it would be wise for [Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy] to make a few concessions about Ukraine and their willingness to join Nato.“This comes from a guy who just about a month ago voted against Ukraine aid. He’s [now] saying it’s going too slow. He voted no. He voted no on Ukraine aid. And now he has the gall to say it’s going too slow.”Hawley has said he will lift his holds if the secretary of defense, Lloyd Austin, resigns over the US withdrawal from Afghanistan.Calling that “the final insult”, Schatz said: “That’s not a serious request. People used to come to me during the Trump administration all the time. ‘Do you think Trump should resign? Do you think [former secretary of state Rex] Tillerson should resign?’ That’s stupid.“Of course I think all the people I disagree with should quit their jobs and be replaced with people I love. Of course I think they should all resign. That’s not how this world works. That is not a reasonable request from a United States senator, that until the secretary of defense quits his job, I’m going to block all of his nominees. That’s preposterous.”In February, Hawley tied his holds – which can be overcome, if slowly, via Senate procedure – to Biden’s alleged failure to stop the Russian invasion of Ukraine.“If you think that Vladimir Putin and the other dictators around this world weren’t emboldened by this administration’s weakness,” he said, “by their utter failure in Afghanistan, then you’ve got another thing coming.”In his remarks, Schatz returned to Ukraine, pointing out that Hawley was among Republicans who in Trump’s first impeachment voted to acquit him for withholding military aid to Kyiv in an attempt to extract political dirt on the Bidens.“So spare me the new solidarity with the Ukrainians and with the free world because this man’s record is exactly the opposite,” Schatz said.The senator was speaking in a midterm elections year, seven months out from polling day and with Republicans favoured to retake the House and maybe the Senate. Speaking to the Post, he said he wanted voters to notice his attack on Hawley.“The central selling proposition for a lot of moderate voters was that they could put Biden in place and then stop worrying about politics,” Schatz said, adding that despite this, noise from “the Maga movement continues to grow”.“Voters who pay a normal amount of attention to our politics take their cues from elected officials as to how outrageous something is,” Schatz said.“If we don’t seem particularly perturbed”, he added, situations like Hawley’s obstruction may come to seem like “no big deal”.TopicsDemocratsRepublicansUS CongressUS SenateUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

Kentucky and Idaho measures severely restricting abortions are haltedMeasures’ constitutionality brought into question amid flurry of abortion restrictions passed in US states

Opinion: these are the final days of US reproductive freedom
Two measures that severely restrict abortions were halted on Friday, one by Kentucky’s governor and a second by Idaho’s supreme court.In Kentucky, Democratic governor Andy Beshear vetoed a Republican-priority bill on Friday that would ban abortions in the state after 15 weeks of pregnancy and regulate the dispensing of abortion pills.Mail-order abortion pills become next US reproductive rights battlegroundRead moreThe governor raised doubts about the constitutionality of the proposed legislation and criticized it for not including exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. Kentucky law currently bans abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.Idaho’s supreme court delivered a late decision Friday afternoon halting a law – modeled after a similar abortion ban in Texas – that would allow family members of an aborted fetus to sue doctors who perform a procedure after six weeks of pregnancy for a minimum of $20,000.Chief justice Richard Bevan said in court documents that the court stayed the law, which was scheduled to go into effect on 22 April, to give state attorneys more time to address a legal challenge from Planned Parenthood. State attorneys have until 28 April to address the lawsuit.In a statement, Rebecca Gibron, interim chief executive of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawaii, Alaska, Indiana and Kentucky, said: “Patients across Idaho can breathe a sigh of relief tonight”. Gibron said abortions can continue in Idaho’s three Planned Parenthood locations.While Idaho’s governor Brad Little signed the ban into law 23 March, he said he had reservations about the civilian enforcement measures of the ban, saying that it could prove itself to be “unconstitutional and unwise”. If deemed constitutional, Little said that states “hostile” to the first and second amendments could use similar methods against religious freedom and gun rights.The block on Idaho’s law could be temporary. If the court allows it to pass, it would be just the latest of a slate of Republican-led states that have passed abortion restrictions over the last three years. Abortion bans have been seen across several states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Montana, Texas and Alabama. Most recently, Oklahoma lawmakers passed a bill this week that makes performing an abortion a felony punishable by 10 years in prison and with a $100,000 fine.Meanwhile, state lawmakers in Kentucky will have a chance to override the governor’s veto when they reconvene next week for the final two days of this year’s 60-day legislative session. The abortion measure won overwhelming support in the Republica-dominated legislature.Kentucky’s proposed 15-week ban is modeled after a Mississippi law under review by the US supreme court in a case that could dramatically limit abortion rights. By taking the pre-emptive action, the bill’s supporters say that Kentucky’s stricter ban would be in place if the Mississippi law is upheld.Republicans have already sharply criticized Beshear’s veto on the legislature’s abortion ban, with state GOP spokesperson Sean Southard saying on Friday that the governor’s veto was “the latest action in his ideological war on the conservative values held by Kentuckians”. The bill will probably surface as an issue again next year when Beshear runs for a second term in Republican-trending Kentucky.Beshear condemned the bill for failing to exclude pregnancies caused by rape or incest.“Rape and incest are violent crimes,” the governor said in his veto message on Friday. “Victims of these crimes should have options, not be further scarred through a process that exposes them to more harm from their rapists or that treats them like offenders themselves.”The governor said the bill would make it harder for girls under 18 to end a pregnancy without notifying both parents. As an example, he said that a girl impregnated by her father would have to notify him of her intent to get an abortion.Beshear, a former state attorney general, also said the bill was “likely unconstitutional”, noting that the US supreme court struck down similar laws elsewhere. He pointed to provisions in the Kentucky bill requiring doctors performing nonsurgical procedures to maintain hospital admitting privileges in “geographical proximity” to where the procedures are performed.“The supreme court has ruled such requirements unconstitutional as it makes it impossible for women, including a child who is a victim of rape or incest, to obtain a procedure in certain areas of the state,” the governor said.TopicsAbortionKentuckyUS politicsDemocratsRepublicansUS healthcareUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More

Proud Boys member pleads guilty to role in US Capitol attackCharles Donohoe will co-operate, giving prosecutors a boost in pursuit of high-ranking members of the far-right group

Trump Jr texted Meadows strategies to overturn election
A member of the far-right Proud Boys group has pleaded guilty to conspiring to attack the US Capitol in a bid to stop Congress certifying Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election, giving prosecutors a win in their pursuit of high-ranking members.Capitol attack investigators zero in on far-right Oath Keepers and Proud BoysRead moreAs part of an agreement with prosecutors that will require him to cooperate against co-defendants, Charles Donohoe, 34, pleaded guilty on Friday in US district court in Washington to charges of conspiring to obstruct an official proceeding and assaulting Capitol police.The North Carolina native could face up to 28 years in prison. However, citing federal sentencing guidelines, prosecutors estimated in court records he would serve six or seven years.The judge, Timothy Kelly, did not immediately set a sentencing date. Five co-defendants, including well-known group members Enrique Tarrio and Dominic Pezzola, are tentatively scheduled to go to trial in May.In December, Matthew Greene of New York became the first Proud Boys member to admit to a role in the plot to attack the Capitol, as part of a deal with prosecutors. Greene also agreed to cooperate with authorities.According to prosecutors, on 6 January, Donohoe was among at least 100 Proud Boys who marched from the “Save America” rally near the White House to the Capitol in hope of derailing Congress’ certification of Biden’s victory over Donald Trump.Donohoe held a high rank in the group. In the days leading up to the rally, he, Tarrio and others used encrypted messaging apps to discuss organizing a “Ministry of Self Defense” that would invade the Capitol.After arriving at the building, Donohoe threw two water bottles at and pushed past a line of police officers who tried to stop the mob, prosecutors wrote in a summary of the case that Donohoe endorsed.Donohoe took a picture of Pezzola holding a riot shield just outside the Capitol, bragging in a message to other members of the militia: “Got a riot shield.”The group made it inside after Pezzola allegedly broke a window, prompting Donohoe to send other messages boasting, “We stormed the capitol unarmed” and “took it over unarmed” because “the people are … done”.Proud Boys leader arrested on US Capitol attack conspiracy chargeRead moreA bipartisan Senate report connected seven deaths to the riot, which temporarily slowed certification of Biden’s win as lawmakers fled. About 140 police officers were injured.Authorities have charged more than 800 people in connection with the attack, with one particularly high-profile case filed in federal court in Washington taking aim at Donohoe, Tarrio – who was not at the Capitol on 6 January – Pezzola and three other Proud Boys members.Donohoe has been held in federal detention since his arrest in March last year. Tarrio, Pezzola, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl have pleaded not guilty and for now intend to go to trial, beginning 18 May.All six defendants are also named in a pending federal lawsuit from the District of Columbia which demands damages from the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers, another far-right group, over the Capitol attack.TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsThe far rightnewsReuse this content More