Democrats

Subterms

    More stories

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Republican media blitz aims to discredit Capitol attack hearings

      by

      Republican media blitz aims to discredit Capitol attack hearingsTrump loyalists to flood airwaves with claims inquiry lacks legitimacy, indicating their concern, pundits say Republican politicians are preparing a media onslaught to deflect, discredit and delegitimise Thursday’s opening hearing of the House of Representatives panel investigating the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol.While major TV networks broadcast the first session live in prime time, Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News will stick with its usual show, Tucker Carlson Tonight, which has long pushed Donald Trump’s talking points.Trump loyalists are expected to flood the airwaves with claims that the January 6 select committee lacks credibility and Democrats are out of touch with more pressing concerns such as inflation, crime, border security and baby formula shortages.Elise Stefanik, chair of the House Republican Conference, told reporters on Capitol Hill on Wednesday: “They are scrambling to change the headlines, praying that the nation will focus on their partisan witch-hunt instead of our pocketbooks. It will not work.”In what amounted to an attempt at a prebuttal, Stefanik described the January 6 committee as “unconstitutional” and “illegitimate” and designed to “punish” the House speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opponents. She criticised its decision to hire James Goldston, the former president of ABC News, to help make its presentation compelling.“This further solidifies what we have known from day one: this committee is not about seeking the truth – it’s a smear campaign against President Donald Trump, against Republican members of Congress, and against Trump voters across this country.”The comments set the template for Republican counter-programming on conservative media such as Fox News, Newsmax, the One America News Network, Steve Bannon’s “War Room” podcast and other outlets that will seek to portray the hearings as a sinister show trial in which Trump supporters are the victims.Congress’s January hearings aim to be TV spectacular that ‘blows the roof off’Read moreJim Jordan, the top Republican on the House judiciary committee, wrote on the Federalist website: “The committee’s real goal, and what it hopes to achieve with its unprecedented subpoenas and its bright-light hearings, is a repudiation of conservatism and all those who hold conservative values.”For their part, Democrats hope that the hearings will cut through a crowded news agenda much more successfully than the former special counsel Robert Mueller’s turgid testimony about Trump’s ties to Russia. After an investigation entailing more than 100 subpoenas, 1,000 interviews and 100,000 documents, they are likely to characterise the riot as not a spontaneous gathering but part of a broader conspiracy.Congressman Jamie Raskin, a Democrat on the committee, promised in April: “The hearings will tell a story that will really blow the roof off the House. Because it is a story of the most heinous and dastardly political offence ever organised by a president and his followers and his entourage in the history of the United States.”Trump, whose “big lie” falsely claims that he won the 2020 election, was impeached by the House for his role in encouraging the assault on democracy. Dozens of the insurrectionists have been brought to justice, many having been convicted or pleading guilty to serious crimes.But Republicans, who previously rejected an independent September 11-style bipartisan commission, have sought to downplay the attack and deny the legitimacy of the committee, alleging that it is driven by political motivations to abolish the electoral college and prevent Trump’s re-election.They complain that Jordan of Ohio and his colleague Jim Banks of Indiana were barred from taking part by Pelosi. Democrats say the pair were disqualified because they backed Trump’s efforts to overturn the election and sought to block any investigation.Banks said at a press conference on Wednesday: “Speaker Pelosi blocked us because she’s afraid of what a real investigation would uncover.” Along with seven Democrats, the committee does have two Republicans but both are staunch Trump critics: Liz Cheney of Wyoming, daughter of the former vice-president Dick Cheney, and Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, who is not seeking re-election. Both were censured by the Republican party in February.Kinzinger responded to Fox News’s lack of planned coverage by tweeting: “If you work for @FoxNews and want to maintain your credibility as a journalist, now is a good time to speak out, or quit. Enough is enough.”News coverage of the hearings will be relegated from Fox News to its sister channel, Fox Business Network, which has much lower ratings. Carlson, who will go head to head with the hearing at 8pm on Thursday, has claimed the insurrection “barely rates as a footnote” and described the committee as “wholly illegitimate”. US networks to air January 6 hearings – but Fox News sticks with Tucker CarlsonRead moreTara Setmayer, a former Republican communications director on Capitol Hill turned Trump critic, said: “The Republican party and rightwing media is no longer interested in telling the truth, which is why they’re avoiding showing the hearings.“Democrats need to consistently hammer home to the American people the importance of what they’re doing and let the facts speak for themselves and not be distracted by the kabuki theatre that Republicans will try to put on to distract from the truth.”Setmayer added: “The truth is s so damning for the Republican party and they know it. We’re hearing about everything else because they know they can’t stand on the merits of the other side. That’s why we’re hearing about caravans and crime and all of the hot-button cultural issues that fuel the Republican party and get their people riled up instead of the truth of January 6. They can’t handle it.”Having sought to downplay the deadly insurrection for 17 months, Republicans know the sheer magnitude of Thursday night’s media coverage – aspiring to that of the Watergate hearings that dominated the national conversation in the 1970s – will make it difficult to ignore. It is possible that Trump himself will be stung into speaking out and denouncing the proceedings.Charlie Sykes, founder and editor-at-large of the Bulwark website and author of How the Right Lost Its Mind, said: “There’s going to be a full-court press to delegitimise the hearings, to throw up as much smoke and dust as possible, which is interesting to me. The conventional wisdom is that these hearings are not likely to move a lot of votes or change the midterm elections but Donald Trump and the Republicans are certainly acting as if they pose a threat. Otherwise, why would they be mobilising like this?“Obviously they see the hearings as somewhat dangerous. From Trump’s point of view, what he is most concerned about is the fact that it’s going to be on primetime television. He’s a television guy and he understands the power of this and I’m guessing the fact that they’ve hired a guy who’s a documentary maker really got his attention down at Mar-a-Lago.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS CongressRepublicansDemocratsUS politicsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Uvalde survivor, 11, tells House hearing she smeared herself with friend’s blood

      by

      Uvalde survivor, 11, tells House hearing she smeared herself with friend’s blood Miah Cerrillo recounts at gun violence hearing how she watched as her teacher and friends were shot and acted quickly to save herself01:59An 11-year-old survivor of the elementary school massacre in Uvalde, Texas testified before the House oversight committee on Wednesday, as lawmakers continued to try to reach a compromise on gun control legislation after a series of devastating mass shootings.‘It all happened too fast’: injured Uvalde teacher recounts school shootingRead moreThe House hearing came two weeks after an 18-year-old opened fire at Robb elementary school, killing 19 children and two teachers, and three weeks after 10 people were killed at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York.Miah Cerrillo, a fourth-grader at the Uvalde school, recounted how she watched as her teacher and friends were shot and acted quickly to save herself. Miah covered herself in a friend’s blood and played dead until she was able to reach her teacher’s phone and call police.In her recorded testimony, Miah said she no longer felt safe at school.“Because I don’t want it to happen again,” she said.The slow police response to the Uvalde shooting has been the focus of intense scrutiny and criticism.Miah was joined by other families affected by gun violence, including Felix and Kimberly Rubio, whose daughter Lexi died in Uvalde, and Zeneta Everhart, whose son Zaire Goodman was injured in Buffalo. Ten people were killed there, in a supermarket by another gunman with an AR-15-style rifle.“We don’t want you to think of Lexi as just a number,” Rubio told the committee. “She was intelligent, compassionate and athletic. So today we stand for Lexi, and as her voice we demand action.”Gun control experts and New York mayor Eric Adams also testified at the hearing on the need to restrict access to firearms and, by extension, reduce violent crime.“It is high noon in America, time for every one of us to decide where we stand on the issue of gun violence,” Adams said. “I am here today to ask every one of you, and everyone in this Congress, to stand with me to end gun violence and protect the lives of all Americans.”But the emotional and searing testimony did not stop Republicans on the committee rehashing talking points about why they oppose gun restrictions.“Kneejerk reactions to impose gun control policies that seek to curtail our constitutional right to bear arms are not the answer,” said James Comer, the Republican ranking member.The Democratic chair of the committee, Carolyn Maloney, criticized Republican efforts to deflect attention from the need to reform gun laws.“They have blamed violent video games. They have blamed family values. They have even blamed open doors. They have blamed everything but guns,” Maloney said. “But we know the United States does not have a monopoly on mental illness, video games or any other excuse. What America does have is widespread access to guns.”The House was working on Wednesday to pass gun control proposals which would raise the age requirement to buy semi-automatic weapons from 18 to 21 and enact a federal extreme risk protection order for gun access, known as a “red-flag” law.The House has already passed bills to expand background checks for firearm purchases and increase the time gun sellers must wait for checks to be completed.But all those bills are unlikely to pass the 50-50 Senate, where 60 votes are needed to pass most legislation. A bipartisan group of senators has been negotiating over a potential compromise on gun control, but any legislation that can make it through the Senate will probably be far narrower than proposals approved by the House.Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina, indicated on Tuesday that Democrats’ proposal to raise the age requirement for purchasing semi-automatic weapons was unlikely to be included in the Senate bill.“That can be in the discussion, but right now we’re trying to work on things where we have agreement,” Tillis told CNN. “We’ve got a lot of people in the discussion. We’ve got to get 60 votes.”Despite such disputes, senators have voiced confidence that they can craft a compromise bill. Members of the group met again Wednesday, and John Cornyn, a Republican of Texas, expressed hope that they would soon strike an agreement.“I think it’s reasonable to expect in the next couple weeks, maybe this work period, that that would be – I’m just speaking for myself – an aspirational goal,” Cornyn said. “But obviously, we have 100 senators who are free agents, and they can do anything they want on whatever timetable.”02:08The families whose lives have been forever altered by gun violence came to the House on Wednesday with specific demands.Everhart asked for more schools to teach Black history so children would understand the violent history of white supremacy, given that the Buffalo shooter voiced support for racist conspiracy theories.Rubio also called on lawmakers to ban assault rifles, raise the age requirement to purchase semi-automatic weapons and enact a national “red flag” law.“We understand that for some reason, to some people – to people with money, to people who fund political campaigns – that guns are more important than children. So at this moment, we ask for progress,” Rubio said.“Somewhere out there, there’s a mom listening to our testimony thinking, ‘I can’t even imagine their pain’ – not knowing that our reality will one day be hers unless we act now.”TopicsUS school shootingsTexas school shootingBuffalo shootingUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesUS CongressUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Karen Bass and Rick Caruso head to runoff in Los Angeles mayoral race

      by

      Karen Bass and Rick Caruso head to runoff in Los Angeles mayoral raceCandidates head to November rematch after neither one secures enough votes to win outright in primary The congresswoman Karen Bass and the billionaire real estate developer Rick Caruso will head to a November rematch in their bids to become the next mayor of Los Angeles, after neither candidate secured enough votes to win outright in Tuesday’s primary.An early tally of mail-in ballots showed Caruso with 41% and Bass with 38% of the vote, meaning both candidates failed to clear the 50% threshold needed to win outright. The Associated Press called the race as a runoff late on Tuesday evening.As the top two vote-getters, they will advance to the general election in a contest whose outcome is likely to have major consequences for Los Angeles’s approach to policing, crime and the growing humanitarian crisis of homelessness across southern California.San Francisco recalls DA Chesa Boudin in blow to criminal justice reformRead moreWhile the non-partisan mayoral primary began with a field of a dozen candidates, it quickly became a contest between the two frontrunners: Bass, a former progressive community activist in South Central Los Angeles who had risen to become the chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, and Caruso, a luxury mall developer and former Republican who Forbes ranks No 261 on the list of the richest people in the US. The mayoral candidates and their outside backers and critics poured more than $50m into campaign spending during the primary race, a stunning figure in a campaign whose central issue has been what to do about the more than 41,000 unhoused people living in Los Angeles.Homelessness is a crisis along the entire west coast, but many voters and politicians in Los Angeles say it has reached a state of emergency. As of 2020, an estimated 40% of all unhoused people in California, and 20% of all unhoused people living outside in the US, lived in Los Angeles county. As rent and housing prices have continued to rise, the presence of people living in cars, RVs, and in tents on the street and in public parks has prompted fierce debates about the failures of city officials to resolve a growing humanitarian crisis.Caruso, who has an estimated net worth of $4bn, poured more than $38m of his own fortune into his campaign through early June, with a pledge to “clean up” Los Angeles. He was backed by celebrity endorsements from his neighbor, the actor Gwyneth Paltrow; Bill Bratton, the police chief who championed “broken windows” policing; the rapper Snoop Dog; and the entrepreneurs Kim Kardashian and Elon Musk.His omnipresent political advertising across Los Angeles won him enough votes to advance to the general election as the more conservative, pro-police alternative to Bass, a California Democrat who was considered as a potential vice-presidential pick for Joe Biden.At his election night party at the Grove, one of his shopping malls, Caruso said the voters supporting him were sending a clear message: “We are not helpless in the face of our problems. We will not allow the city to decline,” the Los Angeles Times reported.At Bass’s election party, with her grandson and other family members by her side, the congresswoman told supporters, “We are in a fight for the soul of our city, and we are going to win,” the Times reported.Caruso ran a campaign focused on crime and disorder, pledging to strengthen and expand the city’s police department by hiring 1,500 additional officers. He drew scrutiny on a number of fronts, including his suggestion to arrest unhoused people who refuse to move to a city-provided shelter bed, his record of political donations to Republican candidates who have opposed abortion rights, and the fact that he only registered as a Democrat shortly before entering the mayoral race (he was previously a political independent, and before that, a Republican).Bass, who first rose to prominence as an advocate for public health approaches to addiction and crime during the crack epidemic in the 80s and 90s, has said that she decided to run for mayor in part because of her concerns that voters’ frustrations over homelessness and high-profile property crimes might lead to the same kind of punitive, damaging policies that California politicians and voters endorsed during the 1990s.Street activist, congresswoman – mayor? Karen Bass reaches for LA’s top jobRead moreBass has highlighted the dangers of criminalizing poverty, even as she has pledged to put an end to unhoused people living in public spaces across the city. She has said she supports small increases to the city’s police force and a focus on devoting more police resources to solving the city’s homicides.As Caruso faces off with Bass in the general election, it’s unlikely that Bass will fully match his spending, but progressive Hollywood donors are expected to pour a substantial amount of money into her campaign, as well.“If Rick Caruso was willing to spend $30m in the primary, why wouldn’t he spend the same amount for the general?” the political scientist Fernando Guerra said.Bass “will not meet or beat what Rick Caruso spends”, but her campaign and her liberal Democratic allies will spend enough “that she will be competitive in terms of getting her message out”, Guerra added.To break national records for a self-financed mayoral campaign, Caruso would have to outspend the New York billionaire Michael Bloomberg, who spent $109m on his campaign to win a third term as New York City’s mayor in 2009. Bloomberg spent $74m in 2001 and $85m in 2005 on his earlier mayoral bids; he burned through a reported $1bn on a short-lived run for president in 2020.The mayor’s race took place alongside other closely watched political contests in California on Tuesday. In San Francisco, the city’s progressive district attorney, Chesa Boudin, was recalled by voters in a blow to criminal justice reform.TopicsLos AngelesUS politicsCaliforniaDemocratsRepublicansnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Uvalde native Matthew McConaughey says ‘real change can happen’ on gun reform – as it happened

      by

      The daily White House press briefing has started, and at the podium is actor and Uvalde native Matthew McConaughey, who is making his pitch for gun control.McConaughey said he’d spent the past week in his home town and was now in Washington to share stories of the victims and their families in hopes of swaying lawmakers skeptical of gun control legislation.“While we honor and acknowledge the victims, we need to recognize that this time seems that something is different,” McConaughey said, speaking from behind the White House podium. “There’s a sense that perhaps there’s a viable path forward. Responsible parties in this debate seem to at least be committed to sitting down and having a real conversation about a new and improved path forward.”“I’m here today in hopes of applying what energy, reason and passion that I have and to try to turn this moment into a reality. Because as I said, this moment is different. We are in a window of opportunity right now that we have not been in before. A window where it seems like real change. Real change can happen,” he continued.You can tune into the full briefing here.That’s it from us today. Here’s how the day unfolded in Washington, as voters in several states head to the polls:
      Primaries are being held in California, Iowa, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico and South Dakota to choose candidates for the upcoming midterm elections in November. At the local level, voters in San Francisco are weighing whether to oust District Attorney Chesa Boudin amid rising concerns about crime and homelessness in the city.
      Actor Matthew McConaughey appeared at the White House press briefing to urge lawmakers to strengthen gun laws. McConaughey, who was born in Uvalde, recounted his experiences meeting with families who lost children in the massacre at Robb Elementary school last month. He told reporters, “We are in a window of opportunity right now that we have not been in before — a window where it seems like real change, real change can happen.”
      The Senate judiciary committee held a hearing on domestic terrorism in response to the racist shooting in Buffalo last month. Among those who testified was Garnell Whitfield Jr, whose mother was killed in the Buffalo attack. Whitfield said at the hearing, “I ask every one of you to imagine the faces of your mothers, as you look at mine and ask yourself, is there nothing that we can do? Is there nothing that you personally are willing to do to stop the cancer of white supremacy?”
      Joe Biden met with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy to discuss negotiations over a compromise gun-control bill. After the meeting, Murphy said he was optimistic about the progress being made in talks with his Republican colleagues. “I am encouraged by the discussions that we have had with Republicans over the course of the last week and a half,” Murphy told reporters on Capitol Hill. “Every day we get closer to an agreement, not further away.”
      Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer and House speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a memorial service for the victims of gun violence on the National Mall. At the memorial, Pelosi condemned Republicans for opposing gun-control legislation in the wake of tragedies like the Uvalde massacre and the shooting in Buffalo. She said, “Understand this: your political survival is nothing compared to the survival of our children.”
      The blog will be back tomorrow with more coverage of the Senate’s gun-control negotiations and the January 6 committee’s upcoming hearing. See you then.Further up the west coast, my colleague Hallie Golden has an article out today about how a recent study found the terrifying tsunami threat to the Pacific Northwest from the Cascadia fault may be even more scary than originally known:Scientists have long predicted a giant 9.0-magnitude earthquake that reverberates out from the Pacific north-west’s Cascadia fault and quickly triggers colossal waves barreling to shore.But what if these predictions were missing an important piece of information – one that, in certain scenarios, could tell an even more extreme story?A new study, published last month in the peer-reviewed journal Earth-Science Reviews, points toward such a missing piece. Researchers revealed a previously unknown relationship between the severity of a tsunami triggered by an earthquake and something known as “the outer wedge”, the area between the main earthquake fault and the seafloor.A mega-tsunami in the Pacific north-west? It could be worse than predicted, study saysRead moreThus far, Californians don’t seem particularly stoked on this election. While every registered voter was mailed a ballot, only 15% of them were returned early as of Monday evening, the Los Angeles Times reports.The piece chalks the lack of enthusiasm up to a variety of factors unique to the Golden State, including voters’ weariness following last year’s failed recall of Governor Gavin Newsom, the lack of high-profile races and the fact that the polls aren’t viewed as an opportunity to weigh in on the ever-controversial Donald Trump and his allies. From the piece:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} Election experts say the lackluster participation by Californians stems from a dearth of excitement over this year’s contests, which largely lack competitive races at the top of the ticket. It’s a stark contrast with some parts of the nation, where voter turnout is exceeding expectations.
      “It’s a boring election,” said Paul Mitchell, vice president of PDI. “It’s clear from what we’re seeing that we’re going to have a low-turnout election despite the fact the state has made it easier than ever to vote.”
      The Democratic consultant predicts primary turnout is likely to be under 30%. “Nothing puts this in better contrast than looking at Georgia right now: They’re doing everything they can, it seems, to make it harder to vote, yet they are having record turnout because voters there feel the future of the country is at stake.”
      Georgia’s May 24 primary came after a GOP-backed law imposed new voting requirements and restrictions.
      Some predicted that a leaked Supreme Court draft decision eliminating federal protection for abortion access as well as a spate of high-profile mass shootings could motivate voters. But in California, this does not appear to be the case.
      California’s early returns are a major drop off from the same period in September’s gubernatorial recall election, when nearly 38% of voters had voted as of election eve. Some 22% of voters had cast ballots at the same point before the last midterm primary election, in 2018, when ballots were not mailed to all California voters.Polls are open in California until 8pm.Meanwhile in California, polls are open in the state’s primary election, where voters will decide among a slew of candidates. Particularly closely watched will be the mayor’s race in Los Angeles and the petition to recall the prosecutor in San Francisco. The Guardian’s Lois Beckett dove into these issues and what they portend for politics in the country’s most-populous state.High stakes primary races taking place on Tuesday in California are expected to have major consequences for police reform, incarceration, and the state’s growing homelessness crisis.The most closely watched race is the mayor’s contest in Los Angeles, where voters are deciding between a tough-on-crime real estate developer, Rick Caruso, who has already poured nearly $40m of his own fortune into his primary campaign, and the former community organizer and Democratic congresswoman Karen Bass. In San Francisco, the city’s progressive prosecutor, Chesa Boudin, is facing a recall election that could have a major impact on movements for criminal justice reform across the US.High-stakes California races will decide LA mayor and San Francisco recall Read moreDemocratic Senator Chris Murphy, who is taking a leading role in crafting a compromise gun-control bill, said lawmakers are making progress in their negotiations.Speaking at a press conference on Capitol Hill, Murphy said this felt like “a moment where doing nothing is simply not an option,” in the wake of the massacre at Robb Elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.“I am encouraged by the discussions that we have had with Republicans over the course of the last week and a half,” Murphy told reporters. “Every day we get closer to an agreement, not further away.”Sen. Chris Murphy: “I am encouraged by the discussions that we have had with Republicans over the course of the last week and a half. Every day we get closer to an agreement, not further away.” pic.twitter.com/aR6wUHsjU1— CSPAN (@cspan) June 7, 2022
      Murphy acknowledged that a compromise bill would not encompass all of the gun-control proposals he would like to see enacted, but he emphasized the importance of reaching an agreement with his Republican colleagues.“The American people are looking for progress right now. They’re looking for action,” Murphy said. “And my hope is, in the coming days, we’ll be able to come together in a way that gets us 60-plus votes.”Noting that he is the father of a fourth-grader, Murphy expressed hope that Americans could soon live in a country where their children do not have to go through drills to prepare for a tragedy like the one seen in Uvalde.McConaughey is telling the story of slain 10-year-old Alithia Ramirez, describing how, due to the wounds inflicted on her by the AR-15 style weapon used in the Uvalde shooting, she was identified by the green Converse sneakers she wore to school that day.“Counselors are going to be needed in Uvalde for a long time. Counselors are needed,” McConaughey said. “I was told by many that takes a good year before people even understand what to do next … A lifetime is not going to heal those wounds.”“This gun responsibility issue is one that we agree on more than we don’t,” he continued. “But this should be a non-partisan issue. This should not be a partisan issue. There is not a Democratic or Republican value in one single act of the issue.”After wrapping up his speech, McConaughey left the room.The daily White House press briefing has started, and at the podium is actor and Uvalde native Matthew McConaughey, who is making his pitch for gun control.McConaughey said he’d spent the past week in his home town and was now in Washington to share stories of the victims and their families in hopes of swaying lawmakers skeptical of gun control legislation.“While we honor and acknowledge the victims, we need to recognize that this time seems that something is different,” McConaughey said, speaking from behind the White House podium. “There’s a sense that perhaps there’s a viable path forward. Responsible parties in this debate seem to at least be committed to sitting down and having a real conversation about a new and improved path forward.”“I’m here today in hopes of applying what energy, reason and passion that I have and to try to turn this moment into a reality. Because as I said, this moment is different. We are in a window of opportunity right now that we have not been in before. A window where it seems like real change. Real change can happen,” he continued.You can tune into the full briefing here.A package of legislation addressing gun violence will be introduced tomorrow in the House, its speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday:House update: Pelosi says gun package coming to the floor tomorrow: “Tomorrow, our Democratic Majority will bring the Protecting Our Kids Act to the Floor, under the leadership of Judiciary Chair Jerry Nadler”— Jordain Carney (@jordainc) June 7, 2022
      It’s unclear if this proposal is related to the ongoing negotiations in the Senate, where Democrats and Republicans are trying to reach a bipartisan compromise that can clear the 60-vote bar needed for passage.Actor Matthew McConaughey will appear at the White House press briefing this afternoon, which is expected to begin at any moment.McConaughey was born in Uvalde, Texas, and he has voiced ardent support for strengthening America’s gun laws in the wake of the massacre at Robb Elementary school.In an op-ed published Monday, McConaughey wrote, “I believe that responsible, law-abiding Americans have a Second Amendment right, enshrined by our founders, to bear arms. I also believe we have a cultural obligation to take steps toward slowing down the senseless killing of our children.”In addition to his appearance at the White House, McConaughey met earlier today with House speaker Nancy Pelosi to discuss the ongoing negotiations over gun-control legislation.“After the recent tragedy in his hometown of Uvalde, we agreed on the need for urgent action to save lives — especially for the children,” Pelosi said on Twitter.Today, I had the privilege of welcoming @McConaughey to the US Capitol to discuss Congress’ efforts on gun violence prevention legislation. After the recent tragedy in his hometown of Uvalde, we agreed on the need for urgent action to save lives — especially for the children. pic.twitter.com/8eVpVDLUhJ— Nancy Pelosi (@SpeakerPelosi) June 7, 2022
      The shooters in both Uvalde and Buffalo used an AR-15 style rifle, which many Democrats have said they would love to ban nationwide, while Republican have been more hesitant. CNN reporter Manu Raju has today been going around the Capitol asking Republican senators what people need AR-15s for.Here’s Missouri Senator Josh Hawley’s views:CNN’s @mkraju: “Why do people need [AR-15s]?”Sen. Hawley (R-MO): “That’s used for sporting events, for sporting activities all the time.”@mkraju: “People misuse them obviously.”Hawley: “People misuse handguns all the time. I think this [Uvalde] kid had a handgun as well.” pic.twitter.com/D9771zukF9— The Recount (@therecount) June 7, 2022
      And in this clip, John Thune of South Dakota and Texas’s John Cornyn, who has been negotiating with Democrat Chris Murphy on a potential gun deal, weigh in:Thune tells me on AR-15s: “In my state, they use them to shoot prairie dogs and other types of varmint”Cornyn: “You’re talking about a constitutional right to keep and bear arms — people who are law-abiding citizens are in good mental health and aren’t a threat to the public” pic.twitter.com/AffMpM7tQR— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 7, 2022
      It’s worth pointing out that the AR-15 was not always available to American gun owners. The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban specifically prohibited the Colt AR-15 and some similar weapons, though that measure lapsed in 2004. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearings

      by

      Capitol attack panel to unveil new evidence against Trump at public hearings Committee intends to reveal previously secret White House records, photos and videos to prove how Trump broke the lawThe House select committee investigating the Capitol attack will unveil new evidence at Watergate-style public hearings next week showing Donald Trump and top aides acted with corrupt intent to stop Joe Biden’s certification, according to sources close to the inquiry.The panel intends to use the hearings as its principal method of revealing potential crimes by Trump as he sought to overturn the 2020 election results, the sources said, in what could be a treacherous legal and political moment for the former president.Schiff: DoJ decision not to indict Trump ex-aides Meadows and Scavino a ‘grave disappointment’Read moreAs the justice department mounts parallel investigations into the Capitol attack, the select committee is hoping that the previously unseen evidence will leave an indelible mark on the American public about the extent to which Trump went in trying to return himself to the Oval Office.“They’re important for setting a record for posterity, but they’re also important for jolting the American public into realizing what a direct threat we had coming from the highest levels of government to illegitimately install a president who lost,” Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and emeritus scholar at the conservative thinktank the American Enterprise Institute, said of the hearings.The panel’s ambitions for the hearings are twofold, the sources said: presenting the basis for alleging Trump broke the law and placing the Capitol attack in a broader context of efforts to overturn the election, with the ex-president’s involvement as the central thread.At their heart, the hearings are about distilling thousands of communications between top Trump White House aides and operatives outside the administration and the Trump campaign into a compelling narrative of events about the events of 6 January, the sources said.In order to tell that story, the sources said, the select committee intends to have its senior investigative counsels reveal previously secret White House records, photos and videos that will be presented, in real time, to starkly illustrate the live witness testimony.On Thursday night, at the inaugural hearing at 8pm, the panel’s chairman Bennie Thompson and the vice chair Liz Cheney are likely to make opening arguments, outline a roadmap for the hearings, and give an overview of the events of 6 January, and the preceding weeks.The panel is likely to focus on broad themes for the following four hearings, such as how Trump used false claims of voter fraud to undermine the 2020 election and future races, and how he tried to use fake electors to deceive Congress into returning him to office.House investigators are also likely to focus on how Trump directly pivoted to the 6 January congressional certification – and not the December deadlines for states to certify their electors – as an inflection point, and how his actions led straight to militia and far-right groups’ covert maneuverings.The panel is then likely to reserve its most explosive revelations for the final hearing in prime time, where select committee members Adam Kinzinger and Elaine Luria are expected to run through Trump’s actions and inactions as the 6 January attack unfolded.The list of witnesses has not yet been finalised, the sources said, but it is expected to include top aides to former vice-president Mike Pence, aides to Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows, and people with direct knowledge of militia group activities on 6 January.From a legal perspective, the panel has already alleged in court filings that Trump and his external legal advisor, John Eastman, violated multiple federal laws to overturn the 2020 election outcome, including obstruction of Congress and defrauding the United States.The select committee hopes that by revealing new evidence in hearings, the sources said, it can convince beyond a reasonable doubt the American public and potentially the justice department that the former president violated laws to reverse his 2020 election defeat.Among the highlights of the already-public evidence include the revelation that Eastman, Trump’s external legal adviser, admitted to Pence’s counsel, Greg Jacob, that his scheme to obstruct Congress on 6 January was unlawful, but pressed ahead with it anyway.The internal White House schedule for 6 January that the select committee obtained through the National Archives, meanwhile, showed that Trump would have known he had no plans to march with the crowd to the Capitol when he falsely promised that at the Ellipse rally.House investigators are in many ways making their case to the American public, the sources said, since it is not certain whether the panel will make criminal referrals to federal prosecutors, given they’re not binding on the justice department, which has the sole authority to file charges.But that quest will come with its own challenges, and the panel’s greatest difficulty is perhaps not so much whether they can show wrongdoing by Trump and his top advisers, but whether it can get Republican and independent voters to care.The repeated delays in holding the hearings have meant House investigators were able to finish most of the evidence-gathering they intended to conduct (the committee initially anticipated holding them sometime in “the spring, then in April, then in May, and now in June).Committee counsel recently told one witness who had been assisting the investigation for months that it didn’t expect to ask for any more assistance, according to two sources familiar with the inquiry. “We are pretty much done,” the counsel told that particular witness.But the consequence of the decision to delay the start of public hearings, and the constant drip of news from the investigation, is that it might have driven some “6 January fatigue” – which Trump’s allies on Capitol Hill are intent on weaponising to defend Trump.The former president’s most ardent defenders in Congress and top Republicans led by the House minority leader Kevin McCarthy are planning aggressive counter-programming to the public hearings that slam the panel as partisan, according to party aides.The Republican National Committee has also circulated a one-page memo of talking points, Vox earlier reported, requesting that Trump surrogates attack the investigation as “rigged” – even though multiple federal courts have ruled the inquiry is fully legitimate.Overcoming counter-programming to cut through to Republican and independent voters could pose a challenge, the panel’s members have privately discussed. After all, the sources said, the panel is not trying to convince Democrats of Trump’s role in the Capitol attack.The prospect of collective public exhaustion over 6 January-related news, with each new revelation seemingly more shocking than the last, appears to have also pressed the select committee to cut its June hearings schedule from eight hearings to now six.According to a draft schedule reviewed by the Guardian and first reported last week, the panel anticipates holding just the first and final hearings – on 9 June and 23 June – in prime time at 8pm. The other four – on the 13th, 15th, 16th and 21st – will be at 10am.Still, the target audience for the select committee is not Republicans but swing voters, Ornstein said. “I don’t have any expectation that Republicans who believe the election was stolen will change their minds. But it’s about the other voters and whether it will jolt the Democratic base into understanding what the stakes are.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Significant’ consequences if lawmakers fail to act on gun control, Democrat warns

      by

      ‘Significant’ consequences if lawmakers fail to act on gun control, Democrat warnsSenator Chris Murphy says measures passed in Florida after Parkland shooting could attract Republican support The Democratic senator leading his party’s push for stronger gun laws said on Sunday he believed measures passed in Florida following the 2018 high school shooting in Parkland could attract Republican support and provide a workable template for action in Congress.Chris Murphy of Connecticut, speaking on CNN’s State of the Union, said he was optimistic that recent mass shootings in Buffalo, New York, and Uvalde, Texas, could finally prompt enough bipartisan support for legislation that has previously proven elusive.But he also warned of “significant” consequences if lawmakers failed to act.“I’m more confident than ever that we’re gonna get there,” Murphy said. “But I’m also more anxious about failure this time around.“In Connecticut last week I’ve never seen the look in parents’ faces that I did. It was just a deep, deep fear for our children. And also a fear that things in our country are so fundamentally broken that you can’t put politics aside to guarantee the one thing that matters most to adults: the safety of their children.”Murphy added: “The possibility of success is better than ever before. But I think the consequences of failure for our entire democracy are more significant than ever.”Florida, a Republican-controlled state, acted swiftly after the murders of 17 students and staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in February 2018, passing red flag laws and raising the age requirement for buying, but not owning, firearms from 18 to 21, among other steps. The Parkland gunman was 19.In his address to the nation last week, Joe Biden called for a federal ban on semi-automatic weapons, and raising the age requirement if that couldn’t be done.Murphy acknowledged the Florida actions and said “there is interest in taking a look at that age range, 18 to 21” during bipartisan discussions about possible legislation, led on the Republican side by Texas senator John Cornyn.“Right now we’re trying to discover what can get to 60 votes [in the Senate],” Murphy said.“But I think the template for Florida is the right one, which is some significant amount of investment in school safety and some modest but impactful changes in gun laws. That’s the kind of package we’re putting together right now.“As Senator Cornyn said, there is interest in looking at that age range … and doing what is necessary to make sure that we aren’t giving weapons to anybody that has, during their younger years, a mental health history, a juvenile record.“Often those juvenile records aren’t accessible when they walk into the store buying as an adult. So we’re having a conversation about that specific population, 18 to 21 and how to make sure that only the right people, law abiding citizens, are getting their hands on weapons.”With a handful of exceptions, Republican politicians have remained resolutely opposed to any kind of gun reforms, despite polls showing overwhelming public support for “common sense” measures including red flag laws and expanded background checks.In an appearance on Fox News Sunday, Republican House minority whip Steve Scalise, who was shot by a gunman in a 2017 attack during practice for the congressional baseball game, attempted to paint soaring gun crime in the US as solely a mental health issue.“We are not focusing on the root cause of the problem,” Scalise said.“The immediate visceral reaction of Democrats in Washington is to go after the rights of gun owners in America. We need to be focused more on stopping things before they happen.”Murphy said he hoped the negotiations, which have been ongoing during the Senate’s Memorial Day recess, will lead to a vote that could finally pass the chamber.“This time we have far more Republicans,” he said. “We don’t need to have competing proposals on the Senate floor. We need one proposal that can get 60 to 70 votes from both parties.”Democratic senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said on CBS’ Face the Nation he hoped any proposal would include an expansion of background checks, at least for commercial sales of guns.“We all agree violent criminals and deranged, dangerously mentally ill people shouldn’t have firearms,” he said, noting that lawmakers “not engaged on this in the past” have been involved now in negotiations.TopicsUS gun controlUS politicsDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Can televised hearings bring the truth about January 6 to the US public?

      by

      Can televised hearings bring the truth about January 6 to the US public? The first of eight congressional hearings will start on Thursday but emulating the impact of 1973’s Watergate sessions will be hard in today’s fractured media and political environmentOn Thursday the House committee investigating the January 6 attack on the US Capitol will open the first of eight hearings, marking the turning point when “one of the single most important congressional investigations in history”, as the Republican congresswoman Liz Cheney billed it, will finally go public.It will be the culmination of almost a year of intensive activity that, aside from a succession of leaks, has largely been conducted in private. More than 1,000 people have been called for depositions and interviews to cast light on the events of January 6, 2021, when hundreds of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in answer to Donald Trump’s call to “fight like hell” to prevent Congress certifying Joe Biden’s presidential victory.Ex-Trump adviser Peter Navarro indicted for defying Capitol attack panelRead moreThe committee has collected 125,000 documents, pursued almost 500 leads through its confidential tip line. It has examined text messages between Trump’s closest advisers and family members discussing how to keep the defeated president in power; reviewed memos from conservative lawyers laying out a roadmap to an electoral coup; and listened to recorded conversations in which top Republicans revealed their true feelings about Trump’s actions “inciting people” to attack the heart of US democracy.Now the nine-member committee, Cheney included, have a different – and arguably more difficult – job to do. They must let the American people into their deliberations, share with them key facts and exhibits, grill witnesses in front of them, and through it all begin to build a compelling narrative of how ferociously Trump attempted to subvert the 2020 election – and how close he came to succeeding.“It’s important that we tell the American public, to the best we are able, exactly what happened,” said Zoe Lofgren, a congresswoman from California who is among the seven Democratic members of the committee. “The public need to understand the stakes for our system of government, and we need to devise potential changes in legislation or procedures to protect ourselves in future.”In an interview with the Guardian, Lofgren was hesitant to get into details of the investigation. But asked whether she has been surprised by the breadth and depth of the plot to overturn the 2020 election and the extent to which it was organized, she replied: “The short answer is yes.”Lofgren brings to Thursday’s opening session her deep personal understanding of the dynamic role played by congressional hearings in recent American history. She has had a ringside seat, initially as a staff observer and then as an elected participant, in many of the most significant hearings stretching back to Watergate.At the time of the Watergate hearings in May 1973, when she was still a young law student, Lofgren worked as an intern for Don Edwards, a Democrat on the judiciary committee. She sees similarities between today’s January 6 investigation and the way Nixon’s cover-up of the Watergate break-in was teased out by Congress, starting with inquiries behind closed doors and then bursting out into explosive televised Senate proceedings.“Much of what the judiciary committee did in Watergate – like January 6 – was behind closed doors,” Lofgren said. “I remember various Nixon functionaries being deposed in the committee back rooms.”Once sufficient intelligence was amassed, it was time to let the public in. “Ultimately, you have to let people know what you have found.”The Watergate hearings became a national obsession, with millions of Americans tuning in to ABC, CBS or NBC which scrapped normal scheduling to broadcast the deliberations live. The New York Times called them “the biggest daytime spectacular in years”.There was so much viewer demand that the networks ran replays at night. It was worth it, to experience such spine-tingling moments as the former White House counsel John Dean being asked: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”, or to be present when another assistant, Alexander Butterfield, revealed the existence of the Oval Office tapes.Lofgren does not expect the January 6 hearings to grip the nation to the all-encompassing extent that Watergate did. Times have changed, not least the media.“During Watergate there were three TV channels and that’s how everybody got their news – if Walter Cronkite said it was true, it must be true, right?” Lofgren said. “Today people are getting their information from a multiplicity of sources, and we need to deal with that and make sure we are finding people where they are.”It’s not just how media is consumed that has changed, it’s also how media itself approaches public hearings. During Watergate, TV anchors responded to Nixon’s jibes that they were peddlers of “elitist gossip” – a foreshadow of Trump’s “fake news” – by keeping their commentary to a bare minimum.In today’s universe, by contrast, the January 6 hearings are likely to be subjected to heavy spin that will leave individual Americans with drastically different impressions according to which media bubble they are in.Kathryn Cramer Brownell, associate professor of history at Purdue University, has studied the measured way television handled the Watergate hearings. She said it stands starkly apart from, say, how Robert Mueller’s testimony before the House judiciary committee on his Russia investigation was transmitted to the American people in 2019.“Fox News tried to spin the information as it was coming out of the Mueller proceedings, so people were receiving the information as it was filtered through that instant spin. That can change their understanding,” she said.Brownell has highlighted how the advent of the TV age elevated congressional hearings to another level. Before television, hearings such as those into the Titanic disaster in 1912 or the 1923 Teapot Dome scandal could still command the nation’s attention, but it was the small screen that supercharged them into major political events.By being beamed into millions of Americans’ living rooms, they had the power to turn individual Congress members into superstars. Ironically the beneficiaries included Nixon who came to prominence in the 1948 Red Scare investigation against Alger Hiss; he was followed soon after by Estes Kefauver in the 1950 investigation against organized crime.Oliver North became a bogey figure for progressives and a darling of the right after his appearance in the 1987 Iran-Contra hearings.Hearings also have the reverse power to tear down politicians who go too far, as the Republican senator Joe McCarthy discovered to his cost in his 1954 televised hearings into alleged communist infiltration of the US army. McCarthy’s reign of terror was abruptly brought to a close when the army’s lawyer Joseph Welch challenged him with the now legendary refrain: “Have you no sense of decency?”In the end, congressional hearings are likely only to be as compelling as the matter they are addressing – whether anti-communism, organized crime or presidential misconduct. That should play to the January 6 committee’s advantage: it would be hard to imagine more essential subject material than an assault on democracy itself.“If we believe in the rule of law and democratic norms, then we have to make this effort,” said Jeannie Rhee, a partner in the law firm Paul, Weiss who frequently represents witnesses in congressional hearings. “What we do in this moment, how we proceed – that is imperative.”Rhee led the team investigating Russian cyber and social media interference in the 2016 presidential election within the Mueller investigation. She now represents the attorney general of Washington DC in the prosecution of far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers for their part in the January 6 insurrection.As an immigrant, Rhee said, for her, the upcoming hearings are deeply personal. Her father was a student protester in the 1960s fighting for democratic reforms in South Korea, and it was America’s free and fair elections and peaceful transition of presidential power that led him to relocate their family to the US.“I came to the US with my parents in 1977 and it was my father’s greatest dream to be able to stay here. I remember my mother dressing me up in my Sunday church clothes to pay respects to the nation’s Capitol. I live here now, and my father has passed away. I think about him often in relation to what is unfolding, and whether this is the country he knew.”Rhee sees the challenge facing the January 6 committee as bridging the growing political divide by laying out facts around which most Americans can coalesce. She thinks the best way to conduct the hearings is to let what happened on that fateful day speak for itself.“The less the members talk and the more the witnesses and victims and people who were there tell their own truth, the more powerful that will be,” she said.The job of letting the facts do the talking will be complicated, though, by the fact that the Republican leadership in the House is effectively boycotting the hearings. Kevin McCarthy, the minority leader, decided not to appoint members to the panel after the Democratic speaker, Nancy Pelosi, rejected two of his choices.The two participating Republican members – Cheney and Adam Kinzinger – have both been censured by the Republican National Committee. The official view of the House leadership is that January 6 – which led to the deaths of seven people and injured more than 140 police officers – was “legitimate political discourse”.Many of the most important witnesses around Trump have refused to play ball with the investigation. Steve Bannon, Mark Meadows, Peter Navarro and Dan Scavino have all been held in criminal contempt of Congress for failing to respond to subpoenas, and Bannon and Navarro have been indicted by a federal grand jury (the justice department said on Friday it would not charge Scavino and Meadows).Many other top Republicans have invoked their fifth amendment right to silence in answer to every question they were posed. Those resisting testifying include five members of Congress, McCarthy among them.That’s a sign of how far the canker of political discord has spread within Congress, and how far the Republican party has shifted in a fundamentally anti-democratic direction. Consider by contrast the fact that the lethal Watergate question about what the president knew and when he knew it was asked by a senator from Nixon’s own Republican party, Howard Baker from Tennessee.“Congressional hearings have become increasingly partisan-driven,” said Stanley Brand, a former general counsel to the House who has legally represented numerous people called to testify before Congress spanning decades. “From the Clinton administration, through the Republican House’s investigation of the IRS and Benghazi, political lines are being drawn quicker and harder, and now there’s much more effort put on political point scoring.”Brand, who is representing Scavino in his battle to resist the January 6 committee, thinks that by opting out over the hearings the Republicans have fundamentally changed their nature. “Every party has to decide how much it wants to participate, but I’ve never known a big hearing like this with only one side represented – that’s a major difference.”Secret Service were warned of security risk to Pence day before Capitol attackRead moreBrand, a Democrat, thinks that partisanship is also being displayed by the Democratic leadership. He accuses the January 6 committee of straying well beyond its official remit as laid down by the US supreme court – an oversight role in which Congress informs itself for the purpose of writing legislation.He interprets the committee’s aggressive pursuit of witnesses as an attempt to push the justice department into bringing charges against key Trump individuals. “This committee has acted more like a prosecutorial agency than a legislative agency of any congressional investigation in which I’ve been involved in 50 years,” Brand said.Lofgren disputes the claim. “We’ve made it very clear that we are a legislative committee and the Department of Justice are the prosecutors,” she said.Any consideration of bringing prosecutions after the hearings have concluded, she added, “is beyond our purview”.As she prepares for the momentous start of the public hearings, Lofgren had some tough words for the Republican holdouts. She noted that in Watergate Republican leaders were also initially resistant, disputing claims that Nixon had acted improperly. But as soon as he admitted key details, they changed tack.“The difference with the Republican leadership today is that they know they are lying. It’s pretty clear that some of my Republican colleagues – not all – are willing to lie for power,” Lofgren said.What does she hope the hearings will achieve?“I hope they will tell the complete truth about what happened in a way that can be accepted and understood by the broad spectrum of American society, leading to a reinvigorated love of our democratic republic and system of elections.”That is a tall order.“You know, you don’t get anywhere by thinking small,” she said. “We’ll do the best we can, that’s all we can do, and hope this will be an important moment for America.”TopicsUS Capitol attackUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesRepublicansDemocratsfeaturesReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      John Fetterman admits he ignored heart condition before his stroke: ‘I almost died’

      by

      John Fetterman admits he ignored heart condition before his stroke: ‘I almost died’The Pennsylvania lawmaker’s condition is ‘stable’, says his doctor, and he should be able to return to the Senate campaign trail John Fetterman, the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania and Democratic senate nominee, said Friday that he “almost died” after suffering a stroke on 13 May. Fetterman, whose health problems have reportedly prompted concerns about his campaign, also revealed that he had cardiomyopathy, which makes it more difficult for the heart to pump blood throughout the body.In a statement, Fetterman admitted that he had neglected his health. “As my doctor said, I should have taken my health more seriously. The stroke I suffered … didn’t come out of nowhere,” he said in a note, according to CBS News’s Ed O’Keefe.Fetterman provided a timeline of his health issues – and lapses in caring for them – in his statement. “Back in 2017, I had swollen feet and went to the hospital to get checked out,” Fetterman said. “That’s when I learned I had a heart condition. Then, I didn’t follow up.”Can this offbeat tattooed Democrat flip a Pennsylvania Senate seat?Read more“I thought losing weight and exercising would be enough,” Fetterman continued. “Of course it wasn’t.”“I want to emphasize that this was completely preventable. My cardiologist said that if I had continued taking the blood thinners, I never would have had a stroke. I didn’t do what the doctor told me,” Fetterman also said.Fetterman said he wouldn’t make the same mistake again and is following his physicians’ advice to rest and focus on recovery.“It will take some more time to get back on the campaign trail like I was in the lead-up to the primary. It’s frustrating – all the more so because this is my own fault – but bear with me, I need a little more time,” he said. “I’m not quite back to 100% yet, but I’m getting closer every day.”Fetterman also made public a statement from his cardiologist. In 2017, the doctor diagnosed him with atrial fibrillation as well as a “decreased heart pump” – but Fetterman “did not go to any doctor for 5 years”.The doctor said that Fetterman’s present condition was “stable” and that he had a pacemaker-defibrillator, adding, “The prognosis I can give for John’s heart is this: if he takes his medications, eats healthy, and exercises, he’ll be fine.“If he does what I’ve told him, and I do believe that he is taking his recovery and his health very seriously this time, he should be able to campaign and serve in the US Senate without a problem.”Some Democrats previously told NBC News that they worried about Fetterman’s health and felt that his team hadn’t been transparent when he was admitted to hospital several weeks ago. In a report published Thursday on NBC News, an elected Pennsylvania Democrat pointed to the unclear timing of when Fetterman would campaign again, saying “a lot of us Democratic party types are very nervous about it”.“I think people I’ve talked to – myself included – don’t know what to make of it,” a longtime Democratic strategist in Pennsylvania told NBC News. “It’s not like Fetterman has close institutional allies, so Dems are calling around wanting to ask the question, but no clue where to get a sense of how serious it is.”Several hours after Fetterman spoke about his health, David McCormick conceded Pennsylvania’s Republican Senate primary to Dr Mehmet Oz, a celebrity heart surgeon backed by Donald Trump. Oz’s win sets the stage for a general election between him and Fetterman, which could easily turn into one of the US’s most important races, as the victor might determine which party controls the Senate.TopicsUS midterm elections 2022PennsylvaniaUS SenateDemocratsUS politicsReuse this content More