US Politics

The battle to unseat Republican congresswoman Elizabeth Cheney from her leadership position in the party is a dispute that goes far beyond simple jockeying for power by politicians.It is instead widely seen as a litmus test for the direction of the Republican party as it grapples with the enduring power of Donald Trump, the former president who remains hugely popular with its base and thus a force to be reckoned with by party leaders.Cheney has emerged as a vocal critic of Trump, especially since the attack on the Capitol on 6 January by Trump supporters. But her price for her outspokenness has been an attempt to oust her from party leadership – and maybe even to lose her congressional seat to a Republican challenger.Who is Liz Cheney?Cheney is a congresswoman from Wyoming and a staunch conservative who is also the daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney – a man who previously occupied the position of “liberal hate figure” before Trump appeared. She is also one of the most senior women in a party with few in top positions.Why does the party want to oust her?Cheney has angered Trump, and by extension his base and other Trump-supporting politicians, by slamming the former president for the attack on the Capitol on 6 January. She also been critical of Trump’s propagating of false claims that the 2020 election that Joe Biden won was somehow carried out fraudulently.So what is happening?Congressional Republicans are meeting to hold a secret ballot to vote on whether to oust Cheney from her leadership position in the House of Representatives, saying she is out of touch with the grassroots of the party. She is also being challenged in her Wyoming congressional seat.What does it mean?Bluntly, Cheney should be untouchable on paper. She’s a high-profile woman in a party that desperately needs them. She’s a true conservative and daughter of a powerful party elder. On policy, she is widely seen as more conservative than the woman many now tip to succeed her, the New York congresswoman Elise Stefanik.But in the post-Trump Republican party none of that seems to matter as much. Policy and networking have fallen prey to one thing: a Trump loyalty test. And with her outspoken criticism of the former president, Cheney has failed that exam spectacularly.What next?If Cheney is ousted – as seems very likely – the few other prominent anti-Trump voices will see it as a chastening moment that will keep their already weak movement even more in the background of Republican politics. It will send a message that to thrive in the next few years in the current incarnation of the party, loyalty to Trump is the be all and end all as the US looks to the 2022 midterm elections and the 2024 presidential contest. More

The US representative Liz Cheney, speaking in the House a day before her expected ouster from a Republican leadership post, chastised her party colleagues for not standing up to the former president Donald Trump and his false claim that the November election was stolen. ’Remaining silent and ignoring the lie emboldens the liar. I will not participate in that,’ she said. 
Cheney, the No 3 Republican in the House of Representatives, was one of 10 Republicans in the House who voted to impeach Trump in January after he delivered a fiery 6 January speech to supporters, many of whom then stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to block certification of his election loss to Joe Biden

Republicans gear up to oust Liz Cheney as punishment for criticizing Trump
Ex-Pentagon chief will defend military’s Capitol riots response to Congress
Republican Joni Ernst accuses party of cancel culture over Liz Cheney ousting More

On the eve of a vote almost certain to remove her from a leadership role in the Republican party, a defiant Liz Cheney embraced her fall from party grace and offered a final appeal to her colleagues: “We must speak the truth.”Republicans are poised to remove Cheney from her House leadership position over her refusal to support Donald Trump’s “big lie” that last year’s election was stolen from him. Cheney, a Wyoming representative who hails from a Republican political dynasty, was one of 10 Republicans who voted to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection” following the deadly 6 January attack on the Capitol.In the weeks since, her assertions that the 2020 elections were valid, and that Trump was wrong to sir up supporters who rioted in his name, have driven a wedge between her and fellow Republicans who remain loyal to the former president.In a speech on the House floor on Tuesday evening, Cheney was steadfast. “I will not sit back and watch in silence while others lead our party down a path that abandons the rule of law and joins the president’s crusade to undermine our democracy,” she said.Wearing a pin replicating George Washington’s battle flag, Cheney justified her positions by referencing her time at the US state department, comparing the Capitol attack to events she’s seen in authoritarian countries.A staunch, lifelong conservative and the daughter of former vice president Dick Cheney, she is almost certain to be replaced on Wednesday as the No 3 House Republican by Elise Stefanik, a New York representative who holds more moderate views on most matters, bar the validity of the last elections.“This is not about policy. This is not about partisanship,” Cheney said. “This is about our duty as Americans.”Critics have said that Cheney’s appeals for a fair democracy sound hypocritical, considering that she voted against the For the People Act to protect voting rights, and against enfranchising Washington, DC residents.Cheney’s fate is a sign of Trump’s enduring grip on the Republican party. Her ouster comes as Arizona Republicans carry through a sham audit of the votes in Maricopa county, Arizona, employing a firm called Cyber Ninjas to investigate conspiracy theories including the false claim that ballots with traces of bamboo were smuggled in from Asia.As part of her swan song on the House floor, Cheney referred to Trump as a “threat” and reiterated: “The election is over. That is the rule of law.” More

With less than six weeks to New York’s mayoral primaries, two candidates have left themselves electorally vulnerable for vastly underestimating the median cost of buying a home or apartment in Brooklyn.“In Brooklyn, huh? I don’t know for sure. I would guess it is around $100,000,” Shaun Donovan, the housing and urban development secretary under Barack Obama and housing commissioner under the former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg, told the New York Times.Donovan’s press secretary said later in a statement to the Hill that Donovan “misinterpreted the question and made a mistake”.In the same set of endorsement-seeking interviews, Ray McGuire, a wealthy former Citigroup executive, guessed that the median sales price was “somewhere in the $80,000 to $90,000 range, if not higher”.McGuire later said: “I messed up when accounting for the cost of housing in Brooklyn. I am human.”The tech entrepreneur and 2020 presidential candidate Andrew Yang guessed correctly, while two other candidates, Maya Wiley and the former NYC financial comptroller Scott Stringer, both guessed over $1m, with Wiley suggesting $1.8m.Brooklyn’s median sales price is $900,000.The housing-cost guesstimate game comes as voters in the city begin to engage with the choice of who will replace Mayor Bill de Blasio, who is stepping down after serving two terms.This week, two of New York’s media outlets offered their endorsements – the New York Times picking the former sanitation department chief Kathryn Garcia, and the New York Post picking the former police officer Eric Adams.Donovan and McGuire’s wild underestimation of housing costs, particularly in a borough where average individual income is about $32,000 and has, in parts, seen an affordable housing crisis develop as a result of rapid gentrification, was widely mocked on social media and by progressives.“How could people running for mayor of the city not know this? Because most people want power, but few want responsibility,” the podcast host Ashley C Ford posted on Twitter.Chi Ossé, a 22-year-old progressive candidate running for city council in the Bed-Stuy section of Brooklyn, told the Guardian that the answers “proved that these wealthy men are out of touch with the majority of the population of New York City”.“This is a city of the working class – tenants, immigrants, people who are in touch with what’s going on. When it comes to leadership, we need people who understand where the majority is coming from.”For many progressives, Dianne Morales, a former executive with Phipps Neighborhood, an affordable housing developer, has emerged as a favorite to replace De Blasio. In her interview with the Times editorial board, Morales came relatively close to guessing correctly.“Oh, my gosh. The median sales price of a home or apartment. I don’t know, half a million.” More

House Democrats plan on Wednesday to unveil a $2.1bn supplemental bill to enhance security at the Capitol that will propose creating a quick reaction force to guard against future threats in the wake of the Capitol attack, according to sources familiar with the matter.The proposed bill will also include the construction of a retractable fencing system around the Capitol, the sources said.Rose DeLauro, chair of the House appropriations committee, is expected to unveil the proposal to House Democrats on a caucus call on Wednesday, amid growing calls urging the adoption of recommendations made by a taskforce in the wake of the 6 January insurrection in which a pro-Trump mob ransacked the Capitol.No lawmakers were injured during the attack, but several, such as Senator Mitt Romney and former vice-president Mike Pence had only a narrow escape from attackers looking for them. Meanwhile, nearly 140 officers suffered injuries and one, Brian Sicknick, later died after being assaulted.The proposed bill largely tracks recommendations made by retired Army Lt Gen Russel Honoré, who was appointed by the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to examine security shortcomings, as well as critical flaws identified by the US Capitol police inspector general, the sources said.In the report released to House Democratic leaders last month, Honoré made a series of recommendations, including hiring more than 800 US Capitol police officers, the construction of mobile fencing around the Capitol, and an overhaul of the US Capitol police board.“We are trying to take into consideration understanding what happened, how do we account for that and what we need to do to prevent this from happening again,” DeLauro said of the taskforce recommendations after its release last month.The proposed bill, which could be brought to the House floor as early as next week, will also include a provision to reimburse the national guard deployed around the Capitol. The national guard and other security measures post-6 January is costing nearly $2m a week.Its prospects are still uncertain on Capitol Hill, with House Democrats largely going ahead with the security review alone and Republicans yet to indicate what measures, if any, they are willing to embrace.Lawmakers in both parties largely agree on the need for enhanced security but some – Republicans in particular – have been agitating to scale back the barriers encircling the area and troops patrolling the grounds despite lingering threats.“While there may be some worthy recommendations forthcoming, Gen Honoré’s notorious partisan bias calls into question the rationality of appointing him to lead this important security review,” Kevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, said of the taskforce in March.“It also raises the unacceptable possibility that the speaker desired a certain result: turning the Capitol into a fortress.”The issue has exposed the divide between members of Congress who want the Capitol to return to a sense of normalcy, and the concerns of US Capitol police and a raft of law enforcement agencies tasked with their protection. More

Donald Trump’s acting defense secretary during the 6 January Capitol riots plans to tell Congress that he was concerned in the days before the insurrection that sending troops to the building would fan fears of a military coup and could cause a repeat of the deadly Kent State shootings, according to a copy of prepared remarks obtained by the Associated Press.Christopher Miller’s testimony is aimed at defending the Pentagon’s response to the chaos of the day and rebutting broad criticism that military forces were too slow to arrive even as pro-Trump rioters violently breached the building and stormed inside. He casts himself as a deliberate leader who was determined that the military have only limited involvement, a perspective he says was shaped by criticism of the aggressive response to the civil unrest that roiled American cities months earlier, as well as decades-old episodes that ended in violence.The defense department, he will tell members of the House oversight committee on Wednesday, has “an extremely poor record in supporting domestic law enforcement”, including during civil rights and anti-Vietnam war demonstrations in the 1960s and 1970s.“And some 51 years ago, on May 4, 1970, Ohio national guard troops fired at demonstrators at Kent State University and killed four American civilians,” Miller will say, adding, “I was committed to avoiding repeating these scenarios.”He will also deny that Trump, criticized for failing to forcefully condemn the rioters, had any involvement in the defense department’s response and will say that Trump had even suggested that 10,000 troops might be needed for 6 January.Miller, expected to testify alongside the former acting attorney general Jeffrey Rosen and District of Columbia police chief, Robert Contee III, will be the most senior defense department official to participate in congressional hearings on the riots. The sessions have been characterized by finger-pointing by officials across agencies about missed intelligence, poor preparations and an inadequate law enforcement response.The Capitol police have faced criticism for being badly overmatched, the FBI for failing to share with sufficient urgency intelligence suggesting a possible “war” at the Capitol, and the defense department for an hours-long delay in getting support to the complex despite the violent, deadly chaos unfolding on TV.Rosen, for his part, is expected to tell lawmakers that the justice department “took appropriate precautions” ahead of the riot, putting tactical and other elite units on standby after local police reports indicated that 10,000 to 30,000 people were expected at rallies and protests, according to prepared remarks obtained by the AP.Miller’s testimony will amount to the most thorough explanation of Pentagon actions after months of criticism that it took hours for the national guard to arrive.In his remarks, he defends his resistance to a heavy military response as being shaped by public “hysteria” about the possibility of a military coup or concerns that the military might be used to help overturn the election results. Democrats have signaled that they intend to press Miller on why it took so long for the national guard to arrive despite urgent plans for help. Miller will contend that those complaints are unjustified, though he also concedes that the guard was not rushed to the scene – a decision that he maintains was intentional.“This isn’t a video game where you can move forces with a flick of the thumb or a movie that glosses over the logistical challenges and the time required to coordinate and synchronize with the multitude of other entities involved, or with complying with the important legal requirements involved in the use of such forces,“ he will say.Even after the guard was requested, he said he felt compelled to send them “in with a plan to not only succeed but that would spare them unnecessary exposure and spare everyone the consequences of poor planning or execution”.Although the timeline Miller offers in his remarks generally matches up with that provided by other high-ranking leaders, he notably puts himself at odds with William Walker, who as commanding general of the DC national guard testified to what he said were unusual Pentagon restrictions that impeded his response and contributed to a three-hour delay between the time he requested aid and the time it was received. Walker has since become the House sergeant-at-arms, in charge of the chamber’s security.Miller will say that Walker was given “all the authority he needed to fulfill the mission” and that before 6 January he had never expressed any concern about the forces he had at his disposal. Miller said he approved the activation of the guard at 3pm. He said that though that support did not arrive at the Capitol complex until 5.22pm, the coordination, planning and deputizing of personnel by civilian law enforcement all took time.Miller, a Green Beret and retired army colonel, served as a White House counter-terrorism adviser under Trump before being tapped as the acting defense secretary for the final months of the Trump administration. He replaced Mark Esper, who was fired after the election after being seen by Trump as insufficiently loyal.The abrupt appointment raised concerns that Miller was in place to be a Trump loyalist. In his opening statement, though, he will say that he believes Trump “encouraged the protesters” but decline to say if he thinks the president bears responsibility. He recounts a conversation on 5 January when Trump, struck by a crowd of supporters at a rally that day, told him that 10,000 troops would be needed the next day.“The call lasted fewer than 30 seconds and I did not respond substantively, and there was no elaboration. I took his comment to mean that a large force would be required to maintain order the following day,” Miller says in his statement. More

A majority is a majority, but a rebellion of 40% against an executive pay policy is too large to be pinned solely on those brain-dead fund managers who outsource their thinking to proxy voting agencies.At AstraZeneca some serious institutions, with Aviva Investors and Standard Life Aberdeen to the fore, clearly thought the company was pushing things too far by adding a potential £2m cherry on top of their chief executive, Pascal Soriot’s, already substantial pay package. The rebels had a point.Yes, Soriot is a boardroom superstar thanks to AstraZeneca’s success in supercharging the development and production of the Oxford University vaccine for no profit. Communication with regulators went awry at times, and Soriot himself obviously wasn’t getting his hands dirty in the labs. But the boss, even when operating from Australia, is doing an excellent job of standing up to irritating and ungrateful EU commissioners, which is also part of the pandemic operation. And, amid it all, the company didn’t miss a beat on its day job and had time to spend $39bn buying the rare disease specialist Alexion, which looks a promising deal.Yet exceptional effort in an exceptional year is roughly what one expects from a chief executive on Soriot’s pay package. In the last three years, his incentives have performed wonderfully and he has earned £13m, £15m and £15m, so is firmly established in the £1m-a-month category, which very few chief executives of FTSE 100 companies can say. Even for an international hero, it feels a decent whack.The company’s claim was that “the world drastically changed in the last 12 months, and so did AstraZeneca”, and thus adjustments should be made outside the normal three-yearly cycle for tweaking pay.That argument would have felt stronger if AstraZeneca was not already at the adventurous end by UK standards. Last year, Soriot earned 197 times the median pay among his workforce. And, critically, the new arrangement will take his variable pay – annual bonus plus long-term incentives – to 900% of his £1.33m salary. A few years ago 500% was regarded as high by FTSE 100 standards.That precedent-setting detail helps to explain why the rebellion was so strong. Those fund managers who care about controlling boardroom pay inflation saw the risk of knock-on effects elsewhere. Loyalty to Soriot probably swayed a few doubters and helped AstraZeneca prevail, but the company did not need to pick a fight at this time – it gave Soriot a chunky rise a year ago.Some real pay shockers (think Cineworld) have slipped through in recent months. If the wider message in the AstraZeneca vote is that fund managers are not all asleep, that would be no bad thing.Seatbelts on for more stock market turbulenceLast Friday investors preferred to see a silver lining in a weak set of US unemployment numbers – only 266,000 jobs created in the month of April, against forecasts of 1m. If a lack of new jobs implied no inflationary wage pressures in the US economy, at least the stock market could take a few days off from worrying about rises in interest rates, ran the theory.Inflationary pressures, though, come in many forms, and here is a piece of data that spooked the stock market on Tuesday: China’s producer prices index rose at an annual rate of 6.8% in April, up from 4.4% in March.That is the highest level for three years and a sign, probably, that the boom in prices of raw copper, iron ore and other raw materials is finally feeding through to goods. The FTSE 100 index fell 175 points, or 2.5%, following other stock markets down.The benign view says a flurry of higher prices is almost to be expected as the global economy reopens. In that case, central banks’ mistake would be to move too early and choke off recovery. Yet it is clearly also possible that we could be at the start of a big move on prices, with the next leg delivered by the Biden’s administration’s huge infrastructure programme. If so, the mistake would be to delay rate rises.Do not expect quick or clear answers. Inflation data can give mixed messages for months. Do, though, anticipate more bumpy days for stock markets. Investors’ default assumption is to assume the US Federal Reserve will play nicely and look through the short-term signals. Life could quickly get ugly if there is any deviation from that assumed path. More