House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      IRS failed to conduct timely mandatory audits of Trump’s taxes while president

      by

      IRS failed to conduct timely mandatory audits of Trump’s taxes while presidentInternal Revenue Service only began audit after prompting from Congress in 2019, House ways and means committee indicates US tax authorities failed to audit Donald Trump for two years while he was in the White House, Democratic lawmakers said, despite a program that makes tax review of sitting presidents compulsory.House committee votes to release Trump’s tax returns to the publicRead moreThe claim, in a report issued by Democrats on the House ways and means committee voting to release six years of Trump’s tax returns, raises questions over statements made by Trump and members of his administration that he could not release his tax returns, a convention for aspiring and sitting presidents, because he was undergoing an Internal Revenue Service audit.The new report suggests US tax authorities only began to audit Trump’s 2016 tax filings in 2019, more than two years into his presidency. The audit, a requirement dating back to the Nixon administration, came only after Democrats took control of the House and requested Trump’s tax information.“This a major failure of the IRS under the prior administration and certainly not what we had hoped to find,” said Richard Neal, the Democratic ways and means chairman.Nancy Pelosi, the outgoing House speaker, praised the committee’s work. She said it revealed an “urgent need” for legislation to ensure accountability and transparency during the audit of a sitting president’s tax returns, “not only in the case of President Trump, but for any president”.Despite a six-year, cat-and-mouse dispute over Trump’s taxes, an issue that reached the supreme court, the committee made no suggestion that Trump sought to lean on the IRS or discourage it from reviewing his paperwork.“What happened?” Steven Rosenthal, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told the Associated Press. “If it was not resolved, the IRS stalled. If it was resolved in Trump’s favor, then maybe the IRS rolled over and played dead. That’s what we have to find out.”The 29-page report, which found that the audit process was “dormant at best”, was published hours after the committee voted to release Trump’s returns, which are now being examined.Democrats argue that transparency and the rule of law are at stake. Republicans maintain that the release of Trump’s records sets a dangerous precedent.“Over our objections in opposition, Democrats have unleashed a dangerous new political weapon that overturns decades of privacy protections,” said Kevin Brady, the top Republican on the ways and means committee.“The era of political targeting, and of Congress’s enemies list, is back and every American, every American taxpayer, who may get on the wrong side of the majority in Congress is now at risk.”Trump has had a bad week. On Monday, the bipartisan January 6 committee voted to make a criminal referral to the justice department for Trump’s role in inciting the Capitol attack and attempting to overturn the election. The referral is not binding on prosecutors, who are conducting their own investigation.Earlier this month, the Trump Organization was convicted on tax fraud charges related to helping senior executives dodge income taxes on perks. The Manhattan district attorney, Alvin Bragg, has said Trump and his business are still under investigation.Trump’s tax records amount to thousands of pages and may take days to be made public as the committee works to redacted sensitive details.Trump made up audit excuse for not releasing tax returns on the fly, new book saysRead morePublication may not answer the question of why Trump fought vigorously not to release his returns.The New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman has reported that Trump simply made up his audit claim while on his campaign plane in 2016. The same paper found that Trump was facing an audit potentially tied to a $72.9m tax refund arising from $700m in losses he claimed in 2009 and that he had rolled over those losses to collect tax benefits on income for the subsequent nine years.The dispute over Trump’s tax returns speaks to a larger fight over the IRS. Democrats argue it is ill-equipped to audit high-income, complex tax returns, and instead targets filers in lower-income brackets.Democrats on the House ways and means committee are proposing legislation to beef up the IRS and to require a report no later three months from the filing of any president’s tax returns.Republicans plan to cut recent increases in funding to the IRS when they take the House majority in January.TopicsDonald TrumpHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsUS taxationnewsReuse this content More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      What Really Saved the Democrats This Year?

      by

      In the Democratic Party, despite its better-than-expected showing in the 2022 midterm elections, internecine combat has been playing out in disputes over the party’s nominees and the policies they propose. At the nuts-and-bolts level of candidate selection, the debate has become intensely emotional and increasingly hostile.Strategists in the progressive wing of the party call centrists “corporate sellouts.” Centrists, in turn, accuse progressives of alienating voters by promoting an extremist cultural and law enforcement agenda.I asked Liam Kerr, co-founder of the centrist Welcome PAC, for his views on state of the intraparty debate. He emailed back:Far-left political science deniers refuse to accept the fact that moderate candidates still outperform those at the extremes. While there may be fewer swing voters now, the closeness of elections maximizes their importance. All the data points to moderate outperformance — from political science research to election results to common sense.Take the Dec. 16 analysis of the 2022 election by another centrist group, Third Way, “Comparing the Performance of Mainstream v. Far-Left Democrats in the House”: “Far-left groups like Sanders-style Our Revolution and AOC’s Justice Democrats constantly argue that the more left the candidate, the better chance of winning, saying their candidates will energize base voters and deliver victory,” Lanae Erickson, Lucas Holtz and Maya Jones of Third Way wrote.In an effort to test the claim of progressive groups, they note, “We conducted case studies analyzing districts with comparable partisan leans and demographically similar makeups to discern how Democratic congressional candidates endorsed by the center-left New Democrat Action Fund (NewDems) performed in the 2022 midterm elections versus those endorsed by far-left organizations.”Their results:In total, NewDems flipped seven seats from red to blue, picked up two critical wins in new seats, and helped elect 18 new members to Congress in the 2022 midterm elections. The NewDems Fund has now flipped 42 seats from red to blue since 2018, while Our Revolution and Justice Democrats have not managed to flip a single Republican-held seat over the last three cycles.I asked Joseph Geevarghese, the executive director of Our Revolution, if the organization had flipped any House seats from red to blue. He replied by email:This was not the goal of Our Revolution. Our Revolution’s goal in the 2022 elections was to push the Democratic Caucus in a progressive direction, and we succeeded with nine new members joining the ranks of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.In part because of Our Revolution’s support, he continued:The Congressional Progressive Caucus is growing by nine newly elected members, all of whom were endorsed by Our Revolution. That includes: Summer Lee, Greg Casar, Delia Ramirez, Maxwell Frost, Becca Balint, Andrea Salinas, Jasmine Crockett, Jonathan Jackson, and Val Hoyle. Our Revolution’s success didn’t include just those running for Congress. Our Revolution’s success expanded to local races including St. Louis Board of Alderman President-elect Megan Green, whose victory creates a blue island in a state that is a sea of red.Waleed Shahid, communications director for Justice Democrats, emailed in response to a similar inquiry of mine that his group does not focus on shifting seats from red to blue: “We haven’t run really races in those areas. We’ve been focused on blue seats where the incumbent is corporate-backed and out of touch with their district.”Instead, Shahid wrote: “After the 2022 election cycle, the Congressional Progressive Caucus stated the incoming membership is the largest in its history at 103 members. The top three leaders are also all Justice Democrats: Rep. Pramila Jayapal as chair; Rep. Ilhan Omar as deputy chair; and Rep.-elect Greg Casar as whip.”In addition, Shahid argued, “Progressives have a lot to do with Democrats’ ambitious agenda under President Biden. Our work at Justice Democrats engaging in competitive primaries, win or lose, has been a big part of it — moving Democratic incumbents on key issues.”If, Shahid contended, “you think of politicians as balloons tied to the rock of public opinion, then progressives have substantially moved the rock,” adding thatmoderates have shifted in turn. John Fetterman and Raphael Warnock are not the same kind of Third Way moderates that might have run in purple states in the pre-Trump era. They embrace reproductive rights, bold climate action, a $15 minimum wage, eliminating the filibuster, student debt cancellation, and immigrant rights — things many moderates ran away from in the Obama era. The center of the party has shifted closer to the base and away from the consensus among Washington and Wall Street donors.While this debate may appear arcane, the dispute involves two different visions of the Democratic Party, one of a governing party guided by the principles of consensus and restraint, the other of a party that represents insurgent, marginalized constituencies and consistently challenges the establishment.Adam Green, co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, was adamant in his criticism of Third Way, declaring in an email: “Every cycle, Third Way cooks the books with a false accounting of how races were run and won.”Green continued:The truth is: In swing seat after swing seat, Democrats won by running on economic populist positions that have long been supported by progressives and opposed by corporate Democrats — such as protecting and expanding Social Security benefits and fighting the pharmaceutical companies and Wall Street banks that fund Third Way. If there was one thing that caused Democrats to unnecessarily lose races this year, it was corporate Democrats like Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema and Josh Gottheimer blocking the president’s economic agenda for a year so that the impact of things like lower-price prescriptions were not felt by voters in time for the election.Green objected to Third Way’s comparison of the results of the New Democrat Coalition PAC, which has official standing with the House, with the result of such outside groups as Justice Democrats and Our Revolution.If, however, the endorsees of the New Democrat Coalition are compared with the endorsees of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the New Democrat Coalition PAC candidates flipped a total of 42 seats from red to blue, 32 in 2018, three in 2020 and seven in 2022, while the candidates endorsed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus flipped a total of eight over the three cycles, all in 2018, according to officials of both groups. The Progressive Caucus and the New Democrat Coalition have roughly equal numbers of members.Joe Dinkin, of the Working Families Party, dismissed the Third Way study as the “conclusions of the corporate flank of the Democratic Party” that have been subject to “very little scrutiny.”In the newly elected Congress, Dinkin wrote:This will be the most progressive Democratic caucus in memory, if not ever. 16 of the new 34 Democratic members of Congress were backed by the Congressional Progressive Caucus PAC. The Congressional Progressive Caucus will have 103 members, or roughly 48 percent of the entirety of the Democratic caucus — a roughly 50 percent increase over the last decade.Dinkin continued:Centrist incumbents saw some significant losses. Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Sean Patrick Maloney, a leading moderate, decided after redistricting to run in the bluer NY-17 over his former NY-18, a tougher district which included most of his former constituents, even though it meant leaving the incumbent Democrat in NY-17 without a district. Maloney lost that bluer seat. The Democrat who ran in NY-18, the redder seat SPM abandoned, was Pat Ryan — he won, and won with crucial support from the Working Families Party. Several other incumbent moderates lost their seats too, like former Republican and Blue Dog Tom O’Halleran.The intraparty debate boils down to a choice between two goals.If the objective is strengthening the left in the Democratic House Caucus, the way to achieve that goal is to nominate the most progressive candidate running in the primary. On that score, the size of the Congressional Progressive Caucus has grown, since its founding in 1991, to 103 members (as noted above). Overall, the composition of the Democratic electorate continues to shift to the left as have the votes of House Democrats, albeit slightly.If winning more seats is the top priority, the preponderance of evidence suggests that nominating moderate, centrist candidates in districts where Republicans have a chance of winning is the more effective strategy, with the caveat that a contemporary moderate is substantially more liberal than the moderate of two decades ago.Most — though by no means all — scholarly work supports the view that moderate candidates in competitive districts are more likely to win.Zachary F. Peskowitz, a political scientist at Emory, argued in an email:Candidates who are ideologically aligned with their constituencies will win more votes, on average, than relatively extreme candidates. If your goal is to win majorities in the House and the Senate, nominating moderate candidates in the most competitive districts and states — where the majority will be determined — is the best way to do it. If, instead, your goal is to push elite discourse in a liberal direction and are less concerned about immediately winning a governing majority, then nominating extremist candidates is a reasonable approach.Contrary to the argument that a more progressive candidate can mobilize base voters, Peskowitz argued that “nominating extremist candidates might increase turnout, but not enough to compensate for ceding moderates’ votes to your opponent. Moreover, there is a risk that an extremist will also mobilize the opposition to turn out to vote.”In sum, Peskowitz wrote:Progressive-aligned candidates who won the primaries in competitive districts or states did not fare well in the general election. Mandela Barnes lost the Wisconsin Senate contest to incumbent Ron Johnson and ran behind Wisconsin’s other statewide Democratic nominees. Josh Riley lost New York’s 19th Congressional District and Jamie McLeod-Skinner, the only progressive Democrat who successfully dethroned a Democratic incumbent in this cycle’s primaries, lost Oregon’s 5th Congressional District. Summer Lee in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District was the one example of a progressive endorsed non-incumbent who won a seat that wasn’t a Democratic lock. Moderate Democratic candidates, such as Abigail Spanberger and Haley Stevens, performed strongly, holding on to seats in challenging districts.Andrew B. Hall, a political scientist at Stanford, has examined the debate over moderate-versus-progressive candidates extensively, including in a 2018 paper with Daniel M. Thompson, a political scientist at U.C.L.A., “Who Punishes Extremist Nominees? Candidate Ideology and Turning Out the Base in U.S. Elections.”Hall and Thompson write: “We find that extremist nominees — as measured by the mix of campaign contributions they receive — suffer electorally, largely because they decrease their party’s share of turnout in the general election, skewing the electorate towards their opponent’s party.”“Turnout,” they add, “appears to be the dominant force in determining election outcomes, but it advantages ideologically moderate candidates because extremists appear to activate the opposing party’s base more than their own.”Hall and Thompson compared general election results from 2006 to 2014 in House races that involved close primary contests between a moderate and a more extreme candidate. They found that instead of lifting turnout, there were “strong, negative effects of extremist nominees on their party’s share of turnout in the general election.” Extremist nominees, they observed, “depress their party’s share of turnout in the general election, on average.”Hall and Thompson conclude that it is moderates who have a turnout advantage in general elections. They make two points.First, “We have found consistent evidence that extremist nominees do poorly in general elections in large part because they skew turnout in the general election away from their own party and in favor of the opposing party.”And second, “Much of moderate candidates’ success may actually be due to the turnout of partisan voters, rather than to swing voters who switch sides. In fact, our regression discontinuity estimates are consistent with the possibility that the bulk of the vote-share penalty to extremist nominees is the result of changes in partisan turnout.”An earlier study, from 2010, “Securing the Base: Electoral Competition Under Variable Turnout,” by Michael Peress, a political scientist at Stony Brook University, produced similar results: “My results indicate that the candidates can best compete by adopting centrist positions. While a candidate can increase turnout among his supporters by moving away from the center, many moderate voters will defect to his opponent.”Matt Grossmann, a political scientist at Michigan State University, agreed that “moderate candidates perform better in general elections,” but, he added, “that advantage is declining as baseline partisanship drives most results regardless of candidates. Because we have national partisan parity, small candidate advantages can still be important.”The moderation factor, Grossman wrote by email, “was more pronounced on the Republican side because Republicans ran more extreme candidates and those candidates had less experience. There continues to be no evidence in either party that extreme candidates mobilize their side more than they mobilize the other side or turn off swing voters.”The Democratic strategist Ruy Teixeira, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a longtime critic of the Democrats’ progressive wing, contends in a recent essay, “Ten Reasons Why Democrats Should Become More Moderate,” that adoption of an extreme progressive stance is not only “dead wrong,” but also that “Democrats need to fully and finally reject it if they hope to break the current electoral stalemate in their favor.”In the 2022 election, Teixeira writes,the reason why Democrats did relatively well was support from independents and Republican leaning or supporting crossover voters — not base voters mobilized by progressivism. These independents and crossover voters were motivated to support Democrats where they did because many Democrats in key races were perceived as being more moderate than their extremist Republican opponents.According to Teixeira:As the Democratic Party has moved to the left over the last four years, they have actually done worse among their base voters. They’ve lost a good chunk of their support among nonwhite voters, especially Hispanics, and among young voters. Since 2018, Democratic support is down 18 margin points among young (18-29 year old) voters, 20 points among nonwhites and 23 points among nonwhite working class (noncollege) voters. These voters are overwhelmingly moderate to conservative in orientation and they’re just not buying what the Democrats are selling.Teixeira’s final point:Democrats shouldn’t be afraid to embrace patriotism and dissociate themselves from those who insist America is a benighted, racist nation and always has been. Large majorities of Americans, while they have no objection to looking at both the bad and good of American history, reject such a one-sided, negative characterization. That includes many voters whose support Democrats desperately need but who are now drifting away from them.A postelection analysis conducted by officials of Impact Research, the firm that polls for President Biden, provides further support for a moderate strategy by emphasizing the crucial importance in the 2022 contest of winning support from independent voters.In their Dec. 7 study, “How Democrats Prevented a Red Wave,” John Anzalone, founder of Impact, and Matt Hogan, a partner, wrote:That Democrats’ win over independents was critical since Republicans appear to have bested them in turnout based on both finalized geographic data and exit polls. The latter found that Republicans had a 3- to 4-point advantage in party ID and that each party won about 95 percent of their own partisans. It was therefore Democrats’ performance with independents, not turnout, that helped prevent a red wave.A key factor in Democrats’ ability to win over independents, according to Anzalone and Hogan,was that these voters wanted more bipartisanship and felt Democratic candidates were more likely to deliver it. By an 11-point margin (53 percent to 42 percent), voters preferred a candidate who would “work in a bipartisan manner and compromise” over one who would “stay true to their beliefs.” Among independents, the preference for bipartisanship more than doubled to 24 points. Democrats benefited from this desire by winning the voters who preferred a bipartisan approach by a 30-point margin.As a practical matter, the debate between proponents of moderation and proponents of progressivism may be less of a dilemma for the Democratic Party than an ongoing process in which the party, its voters and its elected officials move leftward, often turbulently. At the same time, the Democratic Party has a storied history of cannibalizing its own — and Republicans are catching up quickly. It is getting harder to see a peaceable and productive resolution between the two parties or inside them.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Release of House January 6 report expected to pile more pressure on Trump – live

      by

      The final report of the House January 6 committee that’s been investigating Donald Trump’s insurrection for the last 18 months will drop today. And it’s unlikely to make very palatable reading for the former president.The document, running to more than 1,000 pages, will put flesh on the bones of Trump’s plotting and scheming to stay in power after his 2020 election defeat. Those efforts landed him a referral to the justice department for four criminal charges.And it comes on the heels of Tuesday night’s vote by the House ways and means committee to publicly release up to six years of his tax returns, documents Trump had fought for three years to keep secret.We already knew, including from a series of televised hearings on the January 6 panel this year, many of the details of the insurrection. Trump incited a mob that overran the US Capitol on January 6 2021 seeking to halt the certification of Joe Biden’s victory; tried to manipulate states’ election results in his favor; and attempted to install slates of “fake electors” to reverse Biden’s win in Congress.But what we’ll see today is the deepest of dives into his efforts: the panel interviewed countless witnesses and reviewed thousands of documents and hundreds of hours of video evidence to compile the report and make recommendations.They include referrals to the House ethics committee for four Trump allies in Congress who refused to submit to the panel’s subpoenas to give evidence.We’re expecting the report to feature eight main chapters, detailed below, plus appendices that capture more aspects of the investigation, and findings from all of the select committee’s five investigative teams.We’ll bring you details when it drops.
      Donald Trump’s effort to sow distrust in the results of the election.
      The then-president’s pressure on state governments or legislatures to overturn victories by Joe Biden.
      Trump campaign efforts to send fake, pro-Trump electors to Washington from states won by Biden.
      Trump’s push to deploy the justice department in service of his election scheme.
      The pressure campaign by Trump and his lawyers against then-vice president Mike Pence.
      Trump’s effort to summon supporters to Washington who later fueled the 6 January mob.
      The 187 minutes of chaos during which Trump refused to tell rioters to leave the Capitol.
      An analysis of the attack on the Capitol.
      It’s a hugely significant day in Washington DC, where Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy is visiting Joe Biden, and will address Congress this evening.I hope you’re having a good flight, Volodymyr. I’m thrilled to have you here. Much to discuss. https://t.co/SsRdsAnSDb— President Biden (@POTUS) December 21, 2022
      We’ll be following all the developments in the Guardian’s live Ukraine blog, which you can find here:Russia-Ukraine war live: Zelenskiy heads to US as Putin promises to improve nuclear combat readinessRead moreAmong the revelations to come from Tuesday’s House ways and means committee meeting, which voted to publicly release Donald Trump’s tax returns, was the bombshell that the IRS had failed to failed to conduct mandatory audits on the president during the first two years of his administration.The Associated Press has the details:The US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) failed to pursue mandatory audits of Donald Trump on a timely basis during his presidency, a congressional committee found on Tuesday, raising questions about statements by the former president and members of his administration who claimed he could not release his tax filings because of such ongoing reviews.A report by the Democratic majority on the House ways and means committee indicated the Trump administration may have disregarded an IRS requirement dating to 1977 that mandates audits of a president’s tax filings. The IRS only began to audit Trump’s 2016 tax filings on 3 April 2019, more than two years into his presidency and months after Democrats took the House. That date coincides with Richard Neal, the panel chairman, asking the IRS for information related to Trump’s tax returns.Required IRS audits of former President Donald Trump were delayed, according to a report issued by a Democratic-controlled House committee.A separate report suggested Trump paid a relatively modest share of his income to the federal government. https://t.co/m8y4Z2bJkE— The Associated Press (@AP) December 21, 2022
      There was no suggestion Trump, who has announced a third presidential run, sought to directly influence the IRS or discourage it from reviewing his tax information. But the report found that the audit process was “dormant, at best”.The 29-page report was published hours after the committee voted on party lines to release Trump’s tax returns, raising the potential of additional revelations related to the finances of a businessman who broke political norms by refusing to voluntarily release his returns as he sought the presidency. The vote was the culmination of a years-long fight between Trump and Democrats, from the campaign trail to Congress and the supreme court.Democrats on the ways and means committee argued that transparency and the rule of law were at stake. Republicans said the release would set a dangerous precedent.“This is about the presidency, not the president,” Neal told reporters.Kevin Brady, the panel’s top Republican, said: “Over our objections in opposition, Democrats have unleashed a dangerous new political weapon that overturns decades of privacy protections. The era of political targeting, and of Congress’s enemies list, is back and every American, every American taxpayer, who may get on the wrong side of the majority in Congress is now at risk.”Trump spent much of Tuesday releasing statements unrelated to his tax returns. The IRS did not immediately comment. An accompanying report released by the nonpartisan joint committee on taxation also found repeated faults with the IRS approach to auditing Trump and his companies.IRS agents did not bring in specialists to assess the complicated structure of Trump’s holdings. They also determined limited examination was warranted because Trump hired an accounting firm they assumed would make sure Trump “properly reports all income and deduction items correctly”.Read more:IRS failed to conduct timely mandatory audits of Trump’s taxes while presidentRead moreThe final report of the House January 6 committee that’s been investigating Donald Trump’s insurrection for the last 18 months will drop today. And it’s unlikely to make very palatable reading for the former president.The document, running to more than 1,000 pages, will put flesh on the bones of Trump’s plotting and scheming to stay in power after his 2020 election defeat. Those efforts landed him a referral to the justice department for four criminal charges.And it comes on the heels of Tuesday night’s vote by the House ways and means committee to publicly release up to six years of his tax returns, documents Trump had fought for three years to keep secret.We already knew, including from a series of televised hearings on the January 6 panel this year, many of the details of the insurrection. Trump incited a mob that overran the US Capitol on January 6 2021 seeking to halt the certification of Joe Biden’s victory; tried to manipulate states’ election results in his favor; and attempted to install slates of “fake electors” to reverse Biden’s win in Congress.But what we’ll see today is the deepest of dives into his efforts: the panel interviewed countless witnesses and reviewed thousands of documents and hundreds of hours of video evidence to compile the report and make recommendations.They include referrals to the House ethics committee for four Trump allies in Congress who refused to submit to the panel’s subpoenas to give evidence.We’re expecting the report to feature eight main chapters, detailed below, plus appendices that capture more aspects of the investigation, and findings from all of the select committee’s five investigative teams.We’ll bring you details when it drops.
      Donald Trump’s effort to sow distrust in the results of the election.
      The then-president’s pressure on state governments or legislatures to overturn victories by Joe Biden.
      Trump campaign efforts to send fake, pro-Trump electors to Washington from states won by Biden.
      Trump’s push to deploy the justice department in service of his election scheme.
      The pressure campaign by Trump and his lawyers against then-vice president Mike Pence.
      Trump’s effort to summon supporters to Washington who later fueled the 6 January mob.
      The 187 minutes of chaos during which Trump refused to tell rioters to leave the Capitol.
      An analysis of the attack on the Capitol.
      Good morning US politics blog readers, and welcome to what promises to be a hectic Wednesday. Donald Trump’s not-very-good week rolls into a third day with publication of the final report of the House January 6 committee that’s been investigating his insurrection for the last 18 months.We learned the essentials through a final public meeting and executive summary on Monday, when the bipartisan panel referred the former president for four criminal charges. But the final report, at more than 1,000 pages, will be a much deeper dive into Trump’s scheming to reverse his 2020 election defeat to Joe Biden.We’ll bring you the details when we receive it.Here’s what else we’re watching:
      There’s ongoing fallout from last night’s vote by the House ways and means committee to publicly release six years of Trump’s tax returns.
      Joe Biden and Washington lawmakers are preparing for Wednesday’s historic visit from Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, his first trip outside his country since it was invaded by Russia 10 months ago. Biden meets his counterpart at 2.30pm, followed by a joint press conference.
      Hakeem Jeffries, the incoming Democratic House minority leader, and congresswoman Suzan DelBene, nominee for head of the party’s congressional campaign committee, host a press briefing at 1pm on plans to retake the majority in 2024. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      House committee votes to release Trump’s tax returns to the public

      by

      House committee votes to release Trump’s tax returns to the publicAs a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump broke decades of precedent by refusing to release his tax forms to the public A powerful congressional committee on Tuesday voted to publicly release Donald Trump’s tax returns in a move that is sure to ignite a political row as well as anger among some privacy experts in America.The Democratic-controlled House ways and means committee decided to release the documents, which the former US president has long tried to shield, after several hours of debate.The New York Times previously released extensive chunks of Trump’s tax returns which showed how the real estate mogul and reality TV star had suffered serious losses and engaged in extensive tax avoidance.The decision by the panel comes after a long battle that ultimately resulted in the supreme court clearing the way last month for the treasury department to send the returns to Congress. The committee received six years of tax returns for Trump and some of his businesses.As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump broke decades of precedent by refusing to release his tax forms to the public. He bragged during a presidential debate that year that he was “smart” because he paid no federal taxes and later claimed he wouldn’t personally benefit from the 2017 tax cuts he signed into law that favored people with extreme wealth, asking Americans to simply take him at his word.Tax records would have been a useful metric for judging his success in business. The image of a savvy businessman was key to a political brand honed during his years as a tabloid magnet and star of The Apprentice television show. They also could reveal any financial obligations – including foreign debts – that could influence how he governed.But Americans were largely in the dark about Trump’s relationship with the IRS until October 2018 and September 2020, when The New York Times published two separate series based on leaked tax records.The Pulitzer Prize-winning 2018 articles showed how Trump received a modern equivalent of at least $413m from his father’s real estate holdings, with much of that money coming from what the Times called “tax dodges” in the 1990s.Trump sued the Times and his niece, Mary Trump, in 2021 for providing the records to the newspaper. In November, Mary Trump asked an appeals court to overturn a judge’s decision to reject her claims that her uncle and two of his siblings defrauded her of millions of dollars in a 2001 family settlement.The 2020 articles showed that Trump paid just $750 in federal income taxes in 2017 and 2018. Trump paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the past 15 years because he generally lost more money than he made.Details about Trump’s income from foreign operations and debt levels were also contained in the tax filings, which the former president derided as “fake news”.The Manhattan district attorney’s office also obtained copies of Trump’s tax records in February 2021 after after a protracted legal fight that included two trips to the supreme court.The office, then led by District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr, had subpoenaed Trump’s accounting firm in 2019, seeking access to eight years of Trump’s tax returns and related documents.The DA’s office issued the subpoena after Trump’s former personal lawyer Michael Cohen told Congress that Trump had misled tax officials, insurers and business associates about the value of his assets. Those allegations are the subject of a fraud lawsuit that New York attorney general Letitia James filed against Trump and his company in September.Trump’s longtime accountant, Donald Bender, testified at the Trump Organization’s recent criminal trial that Trump reported losses on his tax returns every year for a decade, including nearly $700m in 2009 and $200m in 2010.The Trump Organization was convicted earlier this month on tax fraud charges for helping some executives dodge taxes on company-paid perks such as apartments and luxury cars.Republicans, meanwhile, have railed against the potential release, arguing that it would set a dangerous precedent.Trump has argued there is little to be gleaned from the tax returns even as he has fought to keep them private. “You can’t learn much from tax returns, but it is illegal to release them if they are not yours!” he complained on his social media network last weekend.Congressman Kevin Brady of Texas, the ways and means committee’s Republican leader, has accused Democrats on the committee of “unleashing a dangerous new political weapon that reaches far beyond President Trump, and jeopardizes the privacy of every American”.The Associated Press contributed to this reportTopicsDonald TrumpUS politicsUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      What’s In (and Not In) the $1.7 Trillion Spending Bill

      by

      A big boost for the military, more aid for Ukraine, a preference for the lobster industry over whales and an overhaul of the Electoral Count Act are among the provisions in the 4,155-page bill lawmakers expect to pass this week.WASHINGTON — Billions of dollars in emergency aid to war-torn Ukraine and communities ravaged by natural disasters. A bipartisan proposal to overhaul the archaic law at the heart of former President Donald J. Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election. And a divisive oceanic policy that will change federal protections for whales in an effort to protect the lobster industry in Maine.In compiling the roughly $1.7 trillion catchall spending package that will keep the government open through September, lawmakers inserted several new funding and legislative proposals to ensure their priorities and policies become law before the end of the year.It includes funding that will guarantee the enactment of policies first authorized in bipartisan legislation approved earlier in this Congress, including money for innovation hubs established in the semiconductor manufacturing law and projects in the infrastructure law. The package also includes a round of earmarks, rebranded as community project funding, that allow lawmakers to redirect funds to specific projects in their states and districts.Here is a look at some of the provisions that would go into effect if enacted.Military spending is the big winner.The Defense Department would see an extraordinary surge in spending when adding its regular 2023 fiscal year budget together with additional funds being allocated to help respond to the war in Ukraine.All together, half of the $1.7 trillion in funding included in the package goes to defense, or a total of $858 billion. It comes after lawmakers bucked a request from President Biden and approved a substantial increase in the annual defense policy bill passed this month.The 2023 budget just for the Defense Department would total $797.6 billion in discretionary spending — a 10 percent increase over last year’s budget — representing an extra $69.3 billion in funds for the Pentagon, which is $36.1 billion above the president’s budget request.Sprinkled throughout the spending bill are hundreds of high-ticket add-ons that Congress wants to make to the president’s original Defense Department budget, such as an additional $17.2 billion for procurement that the Pentagon can largely distribute to military contractors to buy new ships, airplanes, missile systems and other equipment. The overall Pentagon procurement budget with these additional funds would be $162 billion.One of the biggest chunks of that extra money is for shipbuilding — an extra $4 billion that brings the Navy’s overall shipbuilding budget to $31.96 billion. That will allow it to buy 11 new ships, including three guided missile destroyers and two attack submarines.But that is just the start. There is $8.5 billion to buy 61 F-35 fighter jets made by Lockheed Martin and another $2.5 billion to buy 15 of Boeing’s new aerial refueling planes known as KC-46 tankers.There is also an extra $27.9 billion to help cover Defense Department costs associated with the war in Ukraine, as part of an emergency aid package to the country. That includes an extra $11.88 billion to replenish U.S. stocks of equipment sent to Ukraine — money that again will largely be used to purchase products from military contractors. That supplemental appropriation also includes $9 billion to assist Ukraine with training, equipment and weapons, as well as an extra $6.98 billion to cover U.S. military operations in Europe.— Eric Lipton and John IsmayMaking it easier (for some) to save for retirement.The package also includes a collection of new rules aimed at helping Americans save for retirement. The bill would require employers to automatically enroll eligible employees in their 401(k) and 403(b) plans, setting aside at least 3 percent, but no more than 10 percent, of their paychecks. Contributions would be increased by one percentage point each year thereafter, until it reaches at least 10 percent (but not more than 15 percent). But this applies only to new employer-provided plans that are started in 2025 and later — existing plans are exempt.Another provision would help lower- and middle-income earners saving for retirement by making changes to an existing tax credit, called the saver’s credit, now available only to those who owe taxes. In its new form, it would amount to a matching contribution, from the federal government, deposited into taxpayers’ retirement accounts.People struggling with student debt would also receive a new perk: Employees making student debt payments would qualify for employer matching contributions in their workplace retirement plan, even if they were not making plan contributions of their own.What to Know About Congress’s Lame-Duck SessionCard 1 of 5A productive stretch. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      House committee convenes to vote on releasing Trump’s tax returns – live

      by

      A decision on the public release of Donald Trump’s tax returns is imminent after a key congressional panel came to order on Tuesday afternoon for a vote.Richard Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House ways and means committee, immediately ordered the hearing into “executive session”, which means the room was cleared for the hearing to proceed in private.But the panel voted unanimously to approve a motion by Republican ranking member Kevin Brady of Texas for “the entirety of today’s executive transcript” later be made public, presumably subject to redactions of any sensitive information the panel feels shouldn’t be available.Neal is updating members now on developments since the supreme court ruled last month to clear the delivery of the six years of Trump’s returns from the treasury department.That decision ended a three-year fight by the former president to shield many of his closest financial secrets.The committee’s vote is not expected until later this afternoon, but many analysts expect it to be a formality that the panel will release at least some of the information. What is unclear is what form that release might take.Neal would not give details to reporters before today’s meeting, offering instead only a statement:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Nearly four years ago, the ways and means committee set out to fulfill our legislative and oversight responsibilities, and evaluate the Internal Revenue Service’s mandatory audit program.
      As affirmed by the supreme court, the law was on our side, and on Tuesday, I will update the members of the Committee.Given that Democrats have been fighting so hard to get it, and their majority in the House is in its final days, it’s reasonable to assume we’ll see something soon.Some analysts expect to see an executive summary of the returns, while others say the full documents attached to a committee report are likely.Of course, both could still happen. A vote this afternoon for any kind of public release would be another blow for the former president, who was referred to the justice department on Monday on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection over his 2020 election defeat.As we reported earlier this month, the House committee first requested Trump’s returns in 2019. Trump, who on 15 November began his third consecutive run for the presidency, dragged the issue through the court system.It was long customary, though not required, for major party presidential candidates to release their tax records. Trump was the first such candidate in four decades not to do so.We don’t know what’s being said during this afternoon’s private session of the House ways and means committee discussing releasing Donald Trump’s tax returns. But we do know that Republican Kevin Brady, the ranking member from Texas, is not thrilled at the prospect.He spoke with reporters shortly before the meeting convened, complaining that releasing the documents publicly would give politicians the “power to embarrass, harass, or destroy Americans through disclosure of their tax returns”.“No party in Congress should have that power. No individuals in Congress should have that power,” Brady says.Kevin Brady (R-TX) warns that releasing Trump’s tax returns could lead to the release of tax returns of Supreme Court Justices pic.twitter.com/ggwOPFKvFj— Acyn (@Acyn) December 20, 2022
      The House January committee that on Monday referred Donald Trump for criminal charges has been “extensively cooperating” with the justice department’s own investigation, according to a new report.Punchbowl said Tuesday afternoon that the bipartisan committee began sending documents and transcripts of witness testimony last week after receiving a request from the justice department’s special prosecutor Jack Smith.Punchbowl says it has reviewed Smith’s letter, sent on 5 December, asking for the entirety of the panel’s materials from its 18-month probe. The committee held its final meeting on Monday, issuing four criminal referrals for Trump over his efforts to reverse his 2020 defeat to Joe Biden, and is expected to release its final report on Wednesday.Representatives of the committee declined to comment, Punchbowl says, but the development would be a reversal of its previous position. Politico reported in June there was “tension” between the justice department and committee members after the panel refused to hand over its evidence.Committee chair Bennie Thompson, a Mississippi Democrat, said at the time he thought the move would be “premature”.Punchbowl says most of the evidence handed over in the last week “is in relation to former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and John Eastman, the Trump lawyer at the center of the ‘fake electors’ scheme’.”Eastman was also referred for criminal prosecution by the panel.Additionally, Punchbowl says, the panel has transmitted all of Meadows’ text messages and related evidence, and transcripts of interviews with several witnesses related to the fake electors scheme, and “the efforts by Trump and his allies to pressure states to overturn their election results, specifically in Georgia”.The House panel interviewed more than 1,000 witnesses and reviewed over a million documents during its inquiry.Read more:What has the January 6 House panel done so far – and what’s next?Read moreA decision on the public release of Donald Trump’s tax returns is imminent after a key congressional panel came to order on Tuesday afternoon for a vote.Richard Neal, the Massachusetts Democrat who chairs the House ways and means committee, immediately ordered the hearing into “executive session”, which means the room was cleared for the hearing to proceed in private.But the panel voted unanimously to approve a motion by Republican ranking member Kevin Brady of Texas for “the entirety of today’s executive transcript” later be made public, presumably subject to redactions of any sensitive information the panel feels shouldn’t be available.Neal is updating members now on developments since the supreme court ruled last month to clear the delivery of the six years of Trump’s returns from the treasury department.That decision ended a three-year fight by the former president to shield many of his closest financial secrets.The committee’s vote is not expected until later this afternoon, but many analysts expect it to be a formality that the panel will release at least some of the information. What is unclear is what form that release might take.Neal would not give details to reporters before today’s meeting, offering instead only a statement:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Nearly four years ago, the ways and means committee set out to fulfill our legislative and oversight responsibilities, and evaluate the Internal Revenue Service’s mandatory audit program.
      As affirmed by the supreme court, the law was on our side, and on Tuesday, I will update the members of the Committee.Given that Democrats have been fighting so hard to get it, and their majority in the House is in its final days, it’s reasonable to assume we’ll see something soon.Some analysts expect to see an executive summary of the returns, while others say the full documents attached to a committee report are likely.Of course, both could still happen. A vote this afternoon for any kind of public release would be another blow for the former president, who was referred to the justice department on Monday on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection over his 2020 election defeat.As we reported earlier this month, the House committee first requested Trump’s returns in 2019. Trump, who on 15 November began his third consecutive run for the presidency, dragged the issue through the court system.It was long customary, though not required, for major party presidential candidates to release their tax records. Trump was the first such candidate in four decades not to do so.Here’s a look at the overhaul of the Electoral Count Act that’s incorporated within the bipartisan $1.7tn omnibus government spending bill, courtesy of the Associated Press, which says it’s the the most significant policy response so far to Donald Trump’s insurrection.Led by Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine, and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, along with members of the House January 6 panel, the legislation was added to the massive year-end spending bill unveiled early Tuesday, and which will be voted on this week.The bill would amend the 19th century law that governs, along with the Constitution, how states and Congress certify electors and declare presidential election winners, ensuring that the popular vote from each state is protected from manipulation and that Congress does not arbitrarily decide presidential elections when it meets to count the votes every four years.Here’s what it would do:
      Clarify the vice-president’s role. Trump and his supporters falsely insisted vice-president Mike Pence could intervene and refuse to certify Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 election. The bill confirms the vice-president’s purely ceremonial role presiding over the certification every January 6 after a presidential election, and that the VP has no power to determine the results of the election.
      Make it more difficult to object. Under current law, just one member of the Senate and one member of the House need to lodge an objection to automatically trigger votes in both chambers on whether to overturn or discard a state’s presidential election results. The bill would significantly raise that threshold, requiring a fifth of each chamber to object before votes would be held.
      No fake electors. The bill would ensure that there is only one slate of electors, a response to Trump allies’ unsuccessful efforts to create alternate, illegitimate slates of Trump electors in states that Biden narrowly won in 2020. Each state’s governor would be required to submit the electors, which are sent under a formal process to Congress and opened at the rostrum during the joint session. Congress could not accept a slate submitted by a different official, so there could not be competing lists of electors from one state.
      Catastrophic events. The legislation would revise language in current law that wasn’t used during the 2020 election, but which lawmakers think could be abused. Presently, state legislatures can override the popular vote in their states by calling a “failed election,” but the term is not defined under the law. The bill says a state could only move its presidential election day if there are “extraordinary and catastrophic” events, such as natural disasters, that necessitate that.
      There’s an interesting take on the bipartisan Senate agreement of a $1.7tn government spending bill from Politicus USA, which says the deal has taken away an opportunity for House Republicans to hold Joe Biden hostage.The article suggests the House GOP was keen to provoke a crisis over the spending bill, hoping for a government shutdown that would allow them to flex their economic muscles when they take the majority next month.But with a deal now, which would likely pass the House in the waning days of the Democratic majority, their next chance to cause mischief over spending will be at least a year away, Politicus says.”Any hopes that House Republicans had of provoking a government shutdown and an economic crisis when they took back the majority vanished with the bipartisan government funding bill.”https://t.co/zQuk8mXf9K via @politicususa— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) December 20, 2022
      And that, it asserts, “means that any drama caused by House Republicans will spill into the 2024 election year”.“House Republicans were targeting 2023 because they wanted to make a big publicity-getting splash with their new majority while having enough time for any potential government shutdown backlash to blow over,” Politicus reporter Jason Easley writes.“If House Republicans try to shut down the government next year at this time, they will be doing so with the ticking 2024 election clock hanging over their heads.”You can read the article here.There appears to have been a falling out between Marjorie Taylor-Greene and Lauren Boebert, two of the most obstreperous Republican extremists in the House of Representatives.Once seemingly joined at the hip in their devotion to Donald Trump and the former president’s Maga (make America great again) movement, their split seems to be over House minority leader Kevin McCarthy’s quest for the Speaker’s gavel, which Greene has been warming to, and Boebert remains steadfastly against.A tweet by Georgia congresswoman Greene on Monday accused Boebert, of Colorado, of engaging in petty feuding, while also taking a dig at her narrow margin of re-election last month, Business Insider reports.I’ve supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. President Trump has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. Kevin McCarthy has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. She just barely came through by 500 votes.1/3 pic.twitter.com/89r5jw9j0t— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) December 19, 2022
      “I’ve supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. President Trump has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. Kevin McCarthy has supported and donated to Lauren Boebert. She just barely came through by 500 votes,” Greene wrote.“She gladly takes our $$$ but when she’s been asked: Lauren refuses to endorse President Trump, she refuses to support Kevin McCarthy, and she childishly threw me under the bus for a cheap sound bite.”Greene’s ire was stoked by a video showing Boebert with Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk at its AmericaFest event, according to the article.Kirk asked Boebert and another “Never Kevin” antagonist Matt Gaetz, the Florida congressman, what they thought of Greene’s endorsement of McCarthy.Gaetz said he wasn’t a fan, while Boebert’s answer was directed at Greene: “I’ve been aligned with Marjorie and accused of believing a lot of the things that she believes in,” she said.“I don’t believe in this, just like I don’t believe in Russian space lasers, Jewish space lasers and all of this.”In 2021, Greene infamously declared a belief that space lasers controlled by Jewish politicians were responsible for wildfires in California.So far, Boebert hasn’t responded to Green’s Twitter attack.It’s lunchtime, and an opportunity to look at where we stand on a busy Tuesday in US politics. The House ways and means committee will meet shortly to discuss and vote on releasing Donald Trump’s tax returns to the public.Here’s what else we’ve been looking at:
      The fallout continues from Monday’s bombshell criminal referral by the House January 6 panel of former President Trump on charges including insurrection. Some Republicans don’t seem to be happy.
      Long-serving Democratic senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont delivered an emotional farewell speech to the chamber, condemning the January 6 Capitol riot as an assault on democracy, and calling on colleagues to return to a more civil age of bipartisanship.
      Details have emerged of the $1.7tn omnibus government spending package agreed by congressional leaders in Tuesday’s early hours. The bill includes more financial aid for Ukraine, more visas for Afghans who helped the US, and banning the TikTok app on government devices.
      Please stick with us for the afternoon session. The long-serving Democratic senator Patrick Leahy has delivered an emotional farewell speech on the Senate floor, including an ill-disguised dig at Donald Trump and a call for a return to the bipartisan collaboration of another era.Leahy, 82, the Senate president pro tempore, is standing down after 48 years in the chamber, a tenure than began with the Watergate scandal and concludes in a highly partisan era in which he said the scoring “of political points have reduced debate oratory to bumper sticker slogans”:.css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}When I arrived here, bipartisan cooperation was the norm, not the exception.
      Make no mistake, the Senate of yesterday was far from perfect. [But] the Senate I entered had one remarkable, redeeming quality. The overwhelming majority of senators of both parties believed they were here to do a job.
      Bills had nothing to do with whether a senator was a Democrat or a Republican. Each one of them understood that to do our jobs, the right way, we had to work together. And we did.In a look back at his political career, Leahy did not mention Trump’s name. But it was clear that the January 6 Capitol riot incited by the former president was a defining moment..css-cumn2r{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I began my time in the Senate in the aftermath of a constitutional crisis. We faced the nation broken by the Watergate scandal, the resignation of President Nixon and an endless war in Vietnam.
      And as I leave in a few days, the nation is coping with strains and challenges of other kinds. Of very real threats to the whole concept of a working democracy, the sanctity of our Constitution, our elections and the strength of the rule of law.
      Another thing I could never imagine as that young law student sitting up there in the gallery is that one day this chamber itself, and the Capitol, would be stormed by a lawless and violent mob.Leahy spoke for 30 minutes and was given a standing ovation at the conclusion.In his own tribute, Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said Leahy was “an institution all of his own”, and that this period of history in the chamber would come to be known as “the Leahy era”.Another provision within the $1.7tn government spending package is one to grant 4,000 more visas for Afghans who worked with the US during its 20-year occupation of Afghanistan, along with an extension of the special immigrant visa (SIV) program until 2024, Reuters reports.SIVs are available to many Afghans who aided US forces as interpreters and translators, as well as in other roles, and who fear reprisals by the Taliban, the Islamist militant group that swiftly seized the country following the US withdrawal in August 2021.Thousands have come to the US under the program, but an estimated 60,000 remain in the country, delayed by a complicated vetting process.The program’s inclusion in the omnibus means it will not expire next year, which was a risk after it was not extended in the annual National Defense Authorization Act passed this month.“This is about upholding the vow we made to the brave individuals who risked their lives and the safety of their families for the US mission,” Democratic New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen, who advocated for the measure, said in a statement.A measure to ban TikTok from most government devices is included in the $1.7tn spending package unveiled by congressional leaders on Tuesday.The bill requires the Biden administration to prohibit most uses of the Chinese-owned social media app, or any other created by its owner, ByteDance Ltd, according to the Associated Press.The requirements would apply to the executive branch with exemptions for national security, law enforcement and research purposes and don’t appear to cover Congress, where only a handful of lawmakers maintain TikTok accounts.TikTok is the second-most popular domain in the world but there has been concern in Washington that Beijing would use legal and regulatory power to seize American user data, or try to push pro-China narratives or misinformation.Separately, the Senate voted last week on a bill that would achieve the same goal. A number of states have already banned TikTok from official devices.A rare “firehouse primary” is taking place in Virginia today to find a Democratic nominee fill a House seat vacated by the death last month of veteran congressman Donald McEachin.The vote is unusual because it’s organized by a political party rather than the state’s office of elections. Party members will gather at a variety of locations, but no actual firehouses, to canvass and choose a candidate to run in February’s special election.Republicans in Virginia’s 4th congressional district employed a similar method on Saturday to pick their nominee, Leon Benjamin.Virginia Democrats will choose a nominee for the special election to fill the term of the late Rep. Donald McEachin, who died in November just weeks after winning reelection.https://t.co/wHxo5Vzl9b— CNN (@CNN) December 20, 2022
      The favorite for the Democratic nod is state senator Jennifer McClellan, who lost in a primary for Virginia governor earlier this year. McClellan, who is endorsed by Nancy Pelosi, would be the first Black congresswoman from Virginia.McEachin won re-election easily in November, and the seat is a Democratic stronghold, so unlikely to have any effect on the narrow majority Republicans will hold when they assume control of the House next month.It’s also worth a look at how events could unfold now that Donald Trump has been referred to the justice department over his insurrection. Hugo Lowell reports:The House January 6 select committee outlined criminal referrals against Donald Trump for charges that experts believe the justice department could definitely pursue should it move forward with prosecuting the former US president over his efforts to stop the congressional certification of the 2020 election.The panel voted at its final public session on Monday to recommend prosecution for Trump for four possible crimes: obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the US, conspiracy to make a false statement and incitement of insurrection.The criminal referrals are largely symbolic since Congress has no ability to compel the justice department to seek charges, and federal prosecutors for months have been running their own parallel investigation into the Capitol attack and Trump’s efforts to overturn his defeat.But the referrals, which provided an analysis of the possible criminal conduct and supporting evidence not dissimilar to internal prosecution memos produced by the department prior to indictments, included several statutes that the new special counsel is almost certain to consider, according to two former US attorneys.Dec. 19, 2020: Trump tweets about wild protest on Jan. 6 Dec. 19, 2022: Trump referred to DOJ for inciting insurrection— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) December 20, 2022
      The first referral for obstruction of an official proceeding, legal experts said, appeared to be the most likely charge that federal prosecutors might consider with respect to charging Trump over his attempts to delay the 6 January certification of Joe Biden’s election win.The panel said that Trump appeared to meet the elements of the offense – “corruptly” seeking to “impede any official proceeding” – when he pressured his vice-president, Mike Pence, to refuse to count electoral college votes for Biden when he had been told that the plan was illegal.While Trump’s efforts to get Pence to stop the certification alone was sufficient for a charge, the panel added, Trump could be prosecuted for trying to create fake electoral college slates since they were done ultimately as cover for Pence to decertify Biden votes.The second referral for conspiracy to defraud was another possible charge that is likely to be considered by federal prosecutors, the experts said, since it does not need to be connected to an underlying crime besides impairing a lawful government function through dishonest means.Partly overlapping with the first referral, the panel suggested Trump could be charged with conspiracy because his attempts to stop the 6 January certification were done “dishonestly” – as the plot to get Pence to decertify election wins for Biden were “manifestly (and admittedly) illegal”.While the justice department has previously looked at the conspiracy to defraud statute, most recently by Robert Mueller, whether it would make a case against Trump is less clear given that the supreme court has interpreted the statute more narrowly to deal with money, rather than public corruption.Read the full story:Donald Trump: how will prosecutors pursue the House panel’s charges?Read moreThe fallout from Monday’s historic referral of Donald Trump on criminal charges including insurrection continues. My colleague Kira Lerner takes a look at some of the reaction:Democrats in Congress on Monday praised the House January 6 select committee for referring former president Donald Trump to the justice department for violating at least four criminal statutes, while Republicans called the committee’s work a “political stunt”.In its last public meeting, the committee chose to refer Trump for charges on obstruction of an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement, and assisting, aiding or comforting an insurrection. Though the unprecedented criminal referrals are largely symbolic as the justice department will decide whether to prosecute Trump, they will give the justice department a road map should it choose to proceed.The committee also referred four House Republicans – understood to be Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, Scott Perry and Andy Biggs – to the House ethics committee for failure to comply with subpoenas. And John Eastman, Trump’s attorney, was also referred for prosecution.Republicans called the investigation a “witch hunt” and played down the criminal allegations concerning the riots that led to at least five deaths.Russell Dye, a spokesperson for Representative Jim Jordan, a Trump ally from Ohio, called the referrals “just another partisan and political stunt”, in a statement to the Guardian, adding that the committee “failed to respond to Mr Jordan’s numerous letters and concerns surrounding the politicization and legitimacy of the committee’s work”.Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Georgia Republican and far-right conspiracy theorist, shared screenshots of polling of Republican primary voters, claiming the “real reason” for the criminal referrals is because committee members think Trump will be unbeatable in his run for president in 2024. She likened the United States to a communist country where people steal elections and then “weaponize the government against their political enemies and the people who support them”.Representative Troy Nehls, a Republican from Texas, retweeted a Fox News contributor who said that the committee is illegitimate. He also called it a “partisan witch hunt”, and said that “the American people are sick of it”.Read the full story:Democrats praise January 6 panel’s work as Republicans call it ‘witch hunt’Read moreIt was a late night for congressional leaders negotiating a long-term government spending package, an agreement coming in the early hours Tuesday on a $1.7tn deal.Senators are discussing the deal today. According to the Associated Press, the package includes another large round of aid to Ukraine, a nearly 10% boost in defense spending, and roughly $40bn to assist communities across the country recovering from drought, hurricanes and other natural disasters.The bill, which runs for 4,155 pages, includes about $772.5bn for non-defense discretionary programs, and $858bn in defense funding and would last through the end of the fiscal year in September.Lawmakers are racing to complete passage before a midnight Friday deadline, or face the prospect of a partial government shutdown going into the Christmas holiday.The package includes about $45bn emergency assistance to Ukraine as it battles Russia’s invasion, according to Democratic Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, chair of the Senate appropriations committee. It would be the biggest US infusion of assistance yet. Previous rounds of military, economic and humanitarian assistance have totaled about $68bn.The legislation also includes historic revisions to federal election law that aim to prevent any future presidents or presidential candidates from trying to overturn an election. The bipartisan overhaul of the Electoral Count Act is in direct response to former president Donald Trump’s efforts to convince Republican lawmakers and then-vice president Mike Pence to object to the certification of Joe Biden’s 2020 victory.Support from at least 10 Republican senators will be needed for the agreement to pass and head for consideration by the House. And that is not a guarantee.“We still haven’t seen a single page of the bill… and they’re expecting us to pass it by the end of this week. It’s insane,” Florida Republican senator Rick Scott said in a tweet.We still haven’t seen a single page of the Pelosi-Schumer spending bill, and they’re expecting us to pass it by the end of this week. It’s insane. Congress should NEVER spend YOUR MONEY on a bill we haven’t read.— Rick Scott (@SenRickScott) December 20, 2022
      If Monday was a day of reckoning for Donald Trump in Congress, Tuesday is likely to be another when a House committee meets this afternoon to vote on whether to release six years of his tax returns to the public.A Supreme Court ruling last month cleared the treasury department to hand the documents to the ways and means committee, ending a three-year fight by the former president to shield many of his closest financial secrets.The committee is almost certain to vote later this afternoon to release at least some of the information, although when, and in what form, is still uncertain. But given that Democrats have been fighting so hard to get it, and their majority in the House is in its final days, it’s reasonable to assume we’ll see something soon.House Ways and Means Committee meets this afternoon and will go into closed session to discuss Trump’s tax returns that were turned over to Congress after years of court battles. With a few days left in their majority, Ds – led by Chairman Neal – need to decide how to handle them— Manu Raju (@mkraju) December 20, 2022
      A big question for panel chair Richard Neal, a Massachussetts Democrat, is how far to go with the documents. Some analysts expect to see an executive summary of the returns, while others say the full documents attached to a committee report are likely.Of course, both could still happen. A vote this afternoon for any kind of public release would be another blow for the former president, who was referred to the justice department on Monday on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection over his 2020 election defeat. As we reported earlier this month, the House committee first requested Trump’s returns in 2019. Trump, who on 15 November began his third consecutive run for the presidency, dragged the issue through the court system.It was long customary, though not required, for major party presidential candidates to release their tax records. Trump was the first such candidate in four decades not to do so.Read more:US supreme court allows Congress to view Trump’s tax returnsRead moreGood morning US politics blog readers! It’s another day of peril for Donald Trump on Capitol Hill as a House committee meets this afternoon to vote on whether to release six years of the former president’s tax returns to the public.It’s a reasonable bet Trump didn’t wake in good spirits anyway after Monday’s referral to the justice department on four criminal charges relating to his insurrection, and today’s meeting of the ways and means committee is unlikely to lighten his mood.He’s spent years trying to shield his tax returns, and Democrats in Congress could blow that up in the waning days of their majority. But it’s unclear when, or in what form, we would see those returns in the event of a yes vote.Here’s what else we’re watching today:
      The Senate will discuss funding to keep the government running, not quite a week after the last time. But today they’re talking about a $1.7tn spending package agreed in the early hours that will avert a shutdown for at least another year.
      Voters are at the polls in Virginia to elect a Democratic nominee to fill the unexpired term of congressman Donald McEachin, who died of cancer last month after winning re-election.
      Joe Biden has a quiet day planned, with no events on his public schedule. As things stand, no briefing from White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre is scheduled either, but things could change.
      Please stick with us. We’ve a lot coming up today, including more analysis of the historic criminal referral for former President Trump. More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      US House to decide whether to release details of Trump’s tax returns

      by

      US House to decide whether to release details of Trump’s tax returnsHouse committee to make decision after January 6 panel referred Donald Trump to the justice department to face criminal charges A Democratic-led US House of Representatives committee on Tuesday is due to decide whether to release details of Donald Trump’s tax returns, after a years-long court fight and just two weeks before their party surrenders power to Republicans.House committee to vote on releasing Trump’s tax returns – liveRead moreThe House ways and means committee is due to examine them behind closed doors at 3pm ET, the day after the House investigation of the January 6 assault on the Capitol by Trump supporters urged the justice department to prosecute the Republican for his role in sparking the riot.Trump, unlike previous presidential candidates, refused to make his tax returns public as he sought to keep secret the details of his wealth and the activities of his real estate company, the Trump Organization, and he fought Democrats’ efforts to get access to them.Candidates are not required by law to release their tax returns, but previous presidential hopefuls of both parties have voluntarily done so for several decades.Trump’s tax returns are still subject to confidentiality restrictions, but Democrats who control the committee could vote to make some details public.Democrats on the ways and means committee have said they need to see those records to assess whether the Internal Revenue Service is properly auditing presidential tax returns, and to gauge whether new legislation is needed. The committee’s chairman, Representative Richard Neal, has not said whether he supports making them public.They have little time to act, as Republicans are due to take control of the committee, along with the full House, in January.Another House committee on Monday asked federal prosecutors to charge Trump with obstruction and insurrection for sparking the deadly Capitol attack. Republicans are expected to dissolve or redirect that panel when they take control of the chamber.Release of any financial details could lead to more unwelcome scrutiny for Trump as he seeks the Republican nomination to run for the White House again in 2024.Trump, who served as president from 2017 to 2021, reported heavy losses from his business enterprises over several years to offset hundreds of millions of dollars in income, according to news media reporting and trial testimony about his finances. That allowed him to pay very little in taxes.The Trump Organization was found guilty on 6 December in New York of carrying out a 15-year criminal scheme to defraud tax authorities. The company faces up to $1.6m in fines, though Trump himself is not personally liable. He has said the case was politically motivated and the company plans to appeal.He also faces a separate fraud suit in New York that accuses him of artificially inflating the value of his assets.During his presidency, he faced persistent questions about conflicts of interest, as foreign dignitaries and Republican Party officials spent money in his luxury hotels. TopicsDonald TrumpHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsJanuary 6 hearingsUS Capitol attacknewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      In Virginia, Democrats Sprint to Select Nominee for Special House Election

      by

      After a congressman’s death last month, Jennifer McClellan, a state senator who lost a bid for governor in 2021, is the front-runner and could become the first Black woman to represent Virginia in Congress.Democrats in Richmond, Va., the state capital, are scrambling to organize a primary election on Tuesday after the death of a congressman just weeks ago, and the race’s front-runner could become the first Black woman to represent Virginia in Congress since the state was founded in 1788.Representative A. Donald McEachin, a Democrat who overwhelmingly won re-election in the midterms last month, died on Nov. 28 at the age of 61, following a yearslong battle with colorectal cancer.Gov. Glenn Youngkin, a Republican, set the special election for Mr. McEachin’s seat for Feb. 21. Because Mr. McEachin’s district leans Democratic — the Fourth Congressional District is a predominantly Black and Latino region that stretches from Richmond into rural counties along the North Carolina border — the winner of Tuesday’s Democratic primary is highly favored to win the special election in February. Mr. McEachin defeated his Republican opponent by 30 points in November.Democrats organized Tuesday’s party-run primary for just one week after the governor’s announcement, a rushed timeline made all the more complicated by holding an election five days before Christmas.“The governor definitely chose the shortest amount of time, which has made us have to put together this nomination contest on the shortest time frame,” said Alexsis Rodgers, chairwoman of the Fourth Congressional District Democratic Committee.A New U.S. Congress Takes ShapeFollowing the 2022 midterm elections, Democrats maintained control of the Senate while Republicans flipped the House.Who Is George Santos?: The G.O.P. congressman-elect from New York says he’s the “embodiment of the American dream.” But his résumé appears to be mostly fiction.McCarthy’s Fraught Speaker Bid: Representative Kevin McCarthy has so far been unable to quash a mini-revolt on the right that threatens to imperil his effort to secure the top House job.The G.O.P.’s Fringe: Three incoming congressmen attended a gala that drew white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, raising questions about the influence of extremists on the new Republican-led House.Kyrsten Sinema: The Arizona senator said that she would leave the Democratic Party and register as an independent, just days after the Democrats secured an expanded majority in the Senate.A front-runner quickly emerged: State Senator Jennifer McClellan, a veteran lawmaker who unsuccessfully ran for governor in 2021. In the first 24 hours of declaring her candidacy, she raised more than $100,000, according to her campaign.Two of the state’s top Black elected officials initially expressed interest, Ms. McClellan and Lamont Bagby, a state delegate. They lead the influential Virginia Legislative Black Caucus — Mr. Bagby is the caucus chair and Ms. McClellan is the vice chair.Last week, however, Mr. Bagby dropped out and endorsed Ms. McClellan. Other Democrats soon followed with endorsements of Ms. McClellan, including all eight members of Virginia’s Democratic congressional delegation, Mr. McEachin’s widow and scores of national Democratic groups.A flag at the U.S. Capitol marked the death of Representative A. Donald McEachin in late November.Leigh Vogel for The New York TimesMs. McClellan, who has run what she called a one-week get-out-the-vote campaign and has knocked on doors with several state leaders, centered her message on her Virginia roots and legislative accomplishments. In an interview on Friday, she said being a Black woman helped shape her policies, particularly on workers’ rights and maternal health.“I bring a new perspective to the office that will help me represent the district and those who have not had a voice, in ways that other candidates cannot,” she said. She listed her noteworthy firsts — she was the first Black woman to hold her State Senate seat and was the first person to serve in the State House of Delegates while pregnant.Democrats in the district will hold a so-called firehouse primary on Tuesday. Named for the polling places where they are typically held, such elections are organized and funded by party representatives rather than local or state election officials. Democratic voters in the primary will be required to sign a pledge stating they will vote for the party’s nominee during the general election.Ms. McClellan’s main Democratic opponent is State Senator Joe Morrissey, a self-described rebel within the party. Mr. Morrissey, a former defense lawyer, was disbarred twice and spent time in jail for aiding the delinquency of a minor in 2014. The minor involved later became his wife. In January 2022, then-Gov. Ralph Northam pardoned Mr. Morrissey for his conviction in the case.Mr. Morrissey has voted against Democratic policies and has signaled his opposition to proposed state policies protecting abortion access. John Fredericks, a prominent Virginia Republican and radio host, cut an ad for Mr. Morrissey and has been encouraging his listeners to vote for him in the Democratic primary.State Senator Joe Morrissey has voted against Democratic priorities and has the support of a prominent Virginia Republican.Daniel Sangjib Min/Richmond Times-Dispatch, via Associated PressHowever, Mr. Morrissey’s criminal justice work in Richmond’s Black communities has earned him support in the district. He has also won against tough odds before. In 2019, he defeated an incumbent Democratic state senator.Representatives for Mr. Morrissey did not respond to requests for comment.During an episode of his radio show on Thursday, Mr. Morrissey railed against Democrats’ handling of the primary, saying that setting the primary election on a weekday instead of the weekend, as well as by placing zero voting locations in his home district, unfairly disadvantaged his supporters.“I don’t care that you don’t like me,” he said, addressing Democrats in the district. “That’s fine. That’s your prerogative. Go vote against me.” He added, “But what you’ve done is you have set back the voting gains that we’ve made for the last 10 years in order to get the person you want.”Other Democrats in the race include Joseph Preston, a former state delegate who served for one year, and Tavorise Marks, a businessman from the area.Virginia Republicans have already elected their nominee for the seat. Leon Benjamin, a pastor and Navy veteran whom Mr. McEachin handily defeated in November, won the Republican nomination on Saturday, in a ranked-choice primary held by the district G.O.P. committee. More