House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      The Midterms Look Very Different if You’re Not a Democrat or a Republican

      by

      Ross Douthat, a Times Opinion columnist, hosted an online conversation with Liel Leibovitz, an editor at large for Tablet magazine, and Stephanie Slade, a senior editor at Reason magazine, to discuss how they and other “politically homeless” Americans are thinking about the midterm elections.Ross Douthat: Thanks to you both for serving as representatives of the important part of America that feels legitimately torn between the political parties. Liel, in December of 2021 you wrote an essay about what you called “the Turn,” meaning the feeling of no longer being at home on the political left, of being alienated from the Democratic Party by everything from Covid-era school closures to doctrinaire progressivism.Where does “the Turn” carry you when it comes to electoral politics, facing the (arguably) binary choices of the midterm elections?Liel Leibovitz: Nowhere good, I’m afraid. I’m an immigrant, so I have no real tribal or longstanding loyalties. I came to this country, like so many other immigrants, because I care deeply about two things — freedom of religion and individual liberties. And both parties are messing up when it comes to these two fundamental pillars of American life, from cheering on law enforcement spying on Muslim Americans in the wake of 9/11 to cheering on social media networks for curbing free speech. “The Turn” leads me away from both Democrats and Republicans.Douthat: Stephanie, you’re a libertarian, part of a faction that’s always been somewhat alienated from both parties, despite (usually) having a somewhat stronger connection to the right. This is not, I think it’s fair to say, a particularly libertarian moment in either coalition. What kind of Election Day outcomes are you actually rooting for?Stephanie Slade: This is tough. As someone motivated by a desire for much less government than we currently have, I’m always going to be nervous about the prospect of a Congress that’s willing to rubber-stamp the whims of a president (or vice versa). So I’m an instinctive fan of divided power. But that preference is running smack up against the almost unimaginable abhorrence I feel toward some of the Republicans who would have to win in order for the G.O.P. to retake the Senate.Douthat: Liel, as someone whose relationship to the left and the Democrats has become much more complicated in recent years, what do you see when you look at the Republican alternative?Leibovitz: Sadly, the same thing I see when I look at the Democrats. I see a party too enmeshed in very bad ideas and too interested in power rather than principle. I see a party only too happy to cheer on big government to curtail individual liberties and to let tech oligopolies govern many corners of our lives. The only point of light is how many outliers both these parties seem to be producing these days, which tells me that the left-right dichotomy is truly turning meaningless.Douthat: But political parties are always more interested in power rather than principle, right? And a lot of people look at the current landscape and say, “Sure, there are problems in both parties, but the stakes are just too high not to choose a side.” Especially among liberals, there’s a strong current of frustration with cross-pressured voters. How do you respond to people who can’t understand why you aren’t fully on their side?Slade: Those seeking power certainly want people to feel like the stakes are too high not to go along with their demands. Yes, there are militant partisans on both sides who consider it traitorous of me not to be with them 100 percent. At the same time, there’s a distinction worth keeping in mind between where party activists are and where the average Republican or Democratic voter is. Most Americans are not so wedded to their red-blue identities.Leibovitz: The most corrosive and dispiriting thing is how zero-sum our political conversation has gotten. I look at the Democratic Party and see a lot of energy I love — particularly the old Bernie Sanders spirit, before it was consumed by the apparatus. I look at the Republican Party and see people like Ted Cruz, who are very good at kicking up against some of the party’s worst ideas. There’s hope here and energy, just not if you keep on seeing this game as red versus blue.Douthat: Let me pause there, Liel. What bad ideas do you think Cruz is kicking against?Leibovitz: He represents a kind of energy that doesn’t necessarily gravitate toward the orthodoxies of giving huge corporations the freedom to do as they please. He’s rooted in an understanding of America that balks at the notion that we now have a blob of government-corporate interests dictating every aspect of our lives and that everything — from our medical system to our entertainment — is uniform.Douthat: This is a good example of the gap between how political professionals see things and how individuals see things. There’s no place for the Bernie-Cruz sympathizer in normal political typologies! But you see in polls right now not just Georgians who might back Brian Kemp for governor in Georgia and Raphael Warnock for senator but also Arizonans who might vote for Mark Kelly and Kari Lake — a stranger combination.Stephanie, what do you think about this ticket-splitting impulse?Slade: Some of this isn’t new. Political scientists and pollsters have long observed that people don’t love the idea of any one side having too much power at once. In that, I can’t blame them.Leibovitz: I agree. But it’s still so interesting to me that some of these splits seem just so outlandish, like the number of people who voted for Barack Obama in 2012 and then in 2016 for Donald Trump. That’s telling us that something truly interesting, namely that these tired labels — Democrat, Republican — don’t really mean anything anymore.Slade: We insiders always want to believe that voters are operating from a sort of consistent philosophical blueprint. But we’re seeing a lot more frustration-based voting, backlash voting. This can be fine, in the sense that there’s plenty in our world to be frustrated about, but my fear is that it can tip over into a politics thoroughly motivated by hatreds. And that is scary.Douthat: Right. For instance, in the realm of pundits, there’s an assumption that Republican candidates should be assessed based on how all-in they are for election conspiracy theories and that swing voters should recoil from the conspiracists. That seems to be happening in Pennsylvania, where the more conspiratorial Republican, Doug Mastriano, seems to be doing worse in his governor’s race than Dr. Oz is in the Senate campaign. But in Arizona, Lake is the more conspiratorial candidate, and she appears to be a stronger candidate than Blake Masters is in the Senate race.Which suggests that swing voters are often using a different compass than the political class.Leibovitz: Let me inject a very big dose of — dare I say it? — hope here. Yes, there’s a lot of hate and a lot of fear going on. But if you look at these volatile patterns you’re describing, you’re seeing something else, which is a yearning for a real vision. Voters are gravitating toward candidates who are telling them coherent stories that make sense. To the political classes, these stories sometimes sound conspiratorial or crazy or way removed from the Beltway reality. But to normal Americans, they resonate.Douthat: Or, Stephanie, are they just swinging back and forth based on the price of gas, and all larger narratives are pundit impositions on more basic pocketbook impulses?Slade: Yeah, I’m a little more split on this. Economic fundamentals matter a lot, as do structural factors (like that the president’s party usually does poorly in midterms, irrespective of everything else).Douthat: But then do you, as an unusually well-informed, cross-pressured American, feel electing Republicans in the House or Senate will help with the economic situation, with inflation?Slade: It’s a debate among libertarians whether divided government is actually a good thing. Or is the one thing the two parties can agree on that they should spend ever more money? I don’t have a ton of hope that a Republican-controlled House or Senate will do much good. On the other hand, the sheer economic insanity of the Biden years — amounting to approving more than $4 trillion of new borrowing, to say nothing of the unconstitutional eviction moratorium and student loan forgiveness — is mind-boggling to me, so almost anything that could put the brakes on some of this stuff seems worth trying.Douthat: Spoken like a swing voter. Liel, you aren’t a libertarian, but your particular profile — Jewish immigrant writer put off by progressive extremism — does resemble an earlier cross-pressured group, the original 1970s neoconservatives. Over time, a lot of neoconservatives ended up comfortably on the right (at least until recently) because they felt welcomed by the optimism of Ronald Reagan’s presidency.Do you think that the toxic side of the G.O.P. is a permanent obstacle to completing a similar move rightward for people alienated by progressivism?Leibovitz: Not to get too biblical, but I view Trump less as a person and more as a plague, a reminder from above to mend our ways, or else. And many voters mortified by the sharp left turn of the Democratic Party are feeling, like me, politically homeless right now.But politically homeless is not politically hopeless. The way out for us isn’t by focusing on which of these two broken homes is better but on which ideas we still hold dear. And here I agree with Stephanie. Stopping the economic insanity — from rampant spending to stopping oil production and driving up gas prices to giving giant corporations a free pass — is key. So is curbing the notion that it’s OK to believe that the government can decide that some categories, like race or gender or sexual orientation, make a person a member of a protected class and that it’s OK for the government to adjudicate which of these classes is more worthy of protection.Douthat: Let’s end by getting specific. Irrespective of party, is there a candidate on the ballot this fall who you are especially eager to see win and one that you are especially eager to see lose?Leibovitz: I’m a New Yorker, so anyone who helped turn this state — and my beloved hometown — into the teetering mess it is right now deserves to go. Lee Zeldin seems like the sort of out-of-left-field candidate who can be transformative, especially considering the tremendous damage done by the progressives in the state.Douthat: OK, you’ve given me a Republican candidate you want to see win, is there one you’d like to see fail?Leibovitz: I know Pennsylvania is a very important battleground state, and the Democrats have put forth a person who appears ill equipped for this responsibility, but it’s very, very hard to take a Dr. Oz candidacy seriously.Slade: I spend a lot of my time following the rising illiberal conservative movement, variously known as national conservatives, postliberals, the New Right and so on. What distinguishes them is their desire not just to acquire government power but to wield it to destroy their enemies. That goes against everything I believe and everything I believe America stands for. The person running for office right now who seems most representative of that view is J.D. Vance, who once told a reporter that “our people hate the right people.” I would like to see that sentiment lose soundly in November, wherever it’s on the ballot. (Not that I’m saying I think it actually will lose in Ohio.)Douthat: No predictions here, just preferences. Is there someone you really want to win?Slade: Like a good libertarian, can I say I wish they could all lose?Douthat: Not really, because my last question bestows on both of you a very unlibertarian power. You are each the only swing voter in America, and you get to choose the world of 2023: a Democratic-controlled Congress, a Republican-controlled Congress or the wild card, Republicans taking one house but not the other. How do you use this power?Leibovitz: Mets fan here, so wild card is an apt metaphor: Take the split, watch them both lose in comical and heartbreaking ways and pray for a better team next election.Slade: If forced to decide, I’d split the baby, then split the baby again: Republicans take the House, Democrats hold the Senate.Douthat: A Solomonic conclusion, indeed. Thanks so much to you both.Ross Douthat is a Times columnist. Liel Leibovitz is an editor at large for Tablet magazine and a host of its weekly culture podcast, “Unorthodox,” and daily Talmud podcast, “Take One.” Stephanie Slade (@sladesr) is a senior editor at Reason magazine.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

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      House Republicans divided over aid to Ukraine ahead of midterms

      by

      House Republicans divided over aid to Ukraine ahead of midtermsMcCarthy says Congress won’t ‘write a blank cheque’ while another senior Republicans says Ukrainians should ‘get what they need’ The Republican leader in the House of Representatives has said that Congress would not “write a blank cheque to Ukraine” if his party wins next month’s midterm elections, stoking fears in Kyiv that the flow of military equipment could be cut off.However, another senior Republican said that he thought that the Ukrainians should “get what they need”, including longer-range missiles than those the Biden administration has so far been prepared to supply. Analysts say the mixed messages reflect an internal debate between traditional national security conservatives and the Trumpist wing of the party, where pro-Russian sentiment is much stronger.Ukraine says 30% of its power plants destroyed in last eight daysRead moreKevin McCarthy, the House minority leader, told the Punchbowl News website on Tuesday: “I think people are going to be sitting in a recession and they’re not going to write a blank cheque to Ukraine.”“They just won’t do it,” McCarthy added. “It’s not a free blank cheque. And then there’s the things [the Biden administration] is not doing domestically: not doing the border and people begin to weigh that. Ukraine is important, but at the same time it can’t be the only thing they do, and it can’t be a blank cheque.”A few hours later, however, the ranking Republican on the House foreign affairs committee, Michael McCaul, who is likely to run the committee in the event of a Republican win in November, argued that arms supplies to Ukraine should be stepped up.“We’ve got to give them what they need. When we give them what they need, they win,” McCaul said on the Bloomberg television channel. In particular he referred to the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), which has a longer range than the missiles the administration is currently providing.The Biden administration has withheld ATACMS so far for fear that if they were fired into Russian territory it might lead to a sharp escalation that could end up entangling Nato. McCaul argued that the missiles would be useful for striking Russian missile and drone launching sites in Crimea, adding: “Last time I checked, Crimea is occupied illegally by Russians.”McCaul did add a caveat on US spending on Ukrainian aid, however.“I think you’ll see if we get the majority, more oversight and accountability in terms of funding and where the money’s going, and I think the American taxpayer deserves that,” he said.Elisabeth Braw, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, said the difference in tone reflected internal foreign policy tensions.“This is a good illustration of the two factions within the Republican party,” Braw said. “You’ve got the Trumpian side and then the more traditional Republican side, and on the Ukrainian issue, this has been played out in a very clear fashion.”In another example of the internal friction, the Twitter account of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC), which is close to the pro-Russian Hungarian leader, Viktor Orbán, put up a post at the end of September asking when Biden and the Democrats would end the “gift-giving to Ukraine”. The tweet was accompanied by a graphic that mentioned the “official annexation” by Russia of four Ukrainian regions, which it described as “Ukrainian occupied”.The tweet was taken down a few hours later and replaced with another describing the original as an “unapproved” statement and one that “belittled the plight of the innocent Ukrainian people”.Who is Tucker Carlson really ‘rooting for’ in Ukraine? Read moreDonald Trump has a long record of admiration for Vladimir Putin and has suggested that the Ukrainians make a deal with him, highlighting the Kremlin’s nuclear threats.“We must demand the immediate negotiation of a peaceful end to the war in Ukraine or we will end up in world war three,” the former president said at a rally this month. “There will be nothing left of our planet – all because stupid people didn’t have a clue … They don’t understand the power of nuclear.”Far-right Trumpist Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Greene have echoed Moscow talking points, suggesting that the Ukrainian government “only exists because the Obama state department helped to overthrow the previous regime”.Victoria Coates, Trump’s former deputy national security adviser, said that such views were held by only a minority in the party.“There is broad bipartisan support for assistance to Ukraine among the American people, so there will be broad bipartisan support in Congress,” Coates said. But she added: “It has just seemed to many of us on the Republican side that the administration is throwing money at the situation … I think we desperately need congressional oversight of additional funds that are appropriated for this purpose.”Coates, now senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, argued that the negotiations that Trump was calling for would not mean putting pressure on Ukraine to make territorial concessions.She said: “I think we have the advantage right now and he would, I assume, agree with that, and that we should, if we do enter into a negotiation, press hard for terms that are favourable to Kyiv and Washington.”TopicsUS foreign policyRepublicansUkraineHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Unchecked review: how Trump dodged two impeachments … and the January 6 committee?

      by

      Unchecked review: how Trump dodged two impeachments … and the January 6 committee? Rachael Bade and Karoun Demirjian’s account of how the Democrats failed to oust Trump is timely – and worryingOn Thursday, the House January 6 committee voted unanimously to issue a subpoena to Donald Trump. He has indicated he is considering testifying but surely the likelihood of him doing so under oath is nil. He lacks all incentive to appear. The committee’s long-term existence is doubtful.Trump a narcissist and a ‘dick’, ex-ambassador Sondland says in new bookRead moreIn their joint account of Trump’s two impeachments, Rachael Bade of Politico and Karoun Demirjian of the Washington Post suggest the US is exhausted by the pandemic and perpetual investigation. The quest for “Capitol riot accountability became an afterthought to … other crises”, they write.Trump lost to Joe Biden by more than 7m votes nationally but only by the thinnest of margins in the battleground states. Trump is on the ballot this November, even if his name does not appear. The Republicans are primed to take the House and possibly the Senate.In other words, Trump’s future rests with the courts and the electorate, not Congress. For all the committee’s efforts, Trump remains either hero or villain depending on demographics, habits and preferences. Political identification is an extension of self.Against this dystopian backdrop, Bade and Demirjian deliver a granular examination of both Trump impeachments and the work of the January 6 committee. Their joint effort is a stinging indictment of what they see as Republican cravenness and Democratic ineptitude.The former allowed Trump to evade consequences, the latter failed to master the levers of power. The authors are alarmed but their words are measured. They worry about what might be next.“Even if they did not intend to, the Democrats’ efforts to oust Trump created a paradigm for hostile presidents to ignore subpoenas and buck [Capitol] Hill oversight,” Bade and Demirjian write.They also posit that “a party with congressional supermajorities may one day oust a president with no evidence at all”. Said differently, the impeachment process will become wholly debased, a cudgel to be deployed as the US careens through its cold civil war. House Republicans have raised the possibility of a Biden impeachment already.As is to be expected, Unchecked is well-sourced and noted. The book records the give-and-take between congressional leaders and members, at the same time helping the reader understand how the US reached this point.During the first impeachment, the authors capture Mitch McConnell as he rallies his Republican Senate troops. His pitch centers on power. He depicts impeachment over Ukraine as a smokescreen for the Democrats’ ambition to take the chamber.“This is not about this president,” McConnell said. “It’s not about anything he’s been accused of doing,” Rather, “it has always been about 3 November 2020. It’s about flipping the Senate.”McConnell loathed Trump but understood their fates could not be separated. If McConnell were pitted against Trump in a Republican popularity contest, the Kentuckian would be squashed. He lacked Trump’s appeal and was overtly linked to the donor base. Banker’s shirts do not signal “man of the people”. For McConnell, populism was an acquired taste, if that. He could fake it, to a point. But in the Senate, he held sway.At the same time, there was the reality of Trump’s approaches to Ukraine. As much as Trump lawyers argued there was no quid pro quo, in private, Senate Republicans weren’t buying it.Before the first impeachment trial, Ted Cruz of Texas met Trump’s team. He argued it was irrelevant whether their client engaged in a quid pro quo. Rather, the issue was one of intent. If uprooting foreign corruption motivated the contemplated transaction, that would be legally permissible. Cruz failed to persuade the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone. As the action shifted to the Senate, Trump’s lawyers angered Republican jurors. Alan Dershowitz equated presidential power to that of a king unchecked by parliament. “If the president does something which he believes will help get him elected, in the public interest”, that would be fine.Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of Republican leadership, was not amused. He demanded that Dershowitz be fired. The next day, the Harvard professor was gone.As for the Democrats, they failed to internalize that their audience was the Republican Senate. With Trump in the White House, Adam Schiff enjoyed a meteoric rise among Democratic House colleagues. But he left Senate Republicans unmoved. In the end, they were yawning.Fast forward to the second impeachment. Here, Bade and Demirjian depict Kevin McCarthy in all his oleaginous glory. The House minority leader devolves from someone who confronted Trump to an out-and-out sycophant.On January 6, McCarthy lambasted Trump over the riot. Within weeks, the man who would replace Nancy Pelosi as speaker traveled to Mar-a-Lago with hat in hand. He too realized that it was Trump’s party now.At its core, removing a president is about politics. For impeachment to succeed, it must transcend raw partisanship, a reality Pelosi expressed early on. Richard Nixon resigned because congressional allies would no longer protect him. The Watergate tapes were the smoking gun.Confidence Man: The Making of Trump and the Breaking of America review – the vain sadist and his ‘shrink’Read moreNow, with or without a criminal referral by the January 6 committee, justice department investigations of Trump are in full swing. On Friday, the Washington Post reported that a federal judge ordered Mike Pence to testify before a grand jury, and that earlier in the week the US Court of Appeals refused to block Marc Short, Pence’s chief of staff, from doing the same.But that is not the end of the story. Inflation continues, interest rates on home mortgages have shot above 7%, and Biden’s relationship to basic facts appears situational at best.With cost-of-living outstripping take-home pay, the saliency of abortion and the supreme court Dobbs decision diminishes. The Democrats also appear out of step on crime. In the midterms, shouting that democracy and the constitution hang in the balance will not be enough. Culture will always matter. Whether the Democrats can figure this out remains to be seen.
      Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump is published in the US by HarperCollins
      TopicsBooksDonald TrumpTrump administrationTrump impeachment (2019)Trump impeachment (2021)US politicsUS Capitol attackreviewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      FBI was reportedly warned agents were ‘sympathetic’ to Capitol rioters – as it happened

      by

      A top FBI official was warned that a large number of bureau employees were sympathetic to Capitol rioters who threatened the lives of law makers. NBC News reported that Paul Abbate, number two at the FBI, was warned about agents within the bureau showing sympathy to 6 January participants.The email, sent from an unnamed person, read: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}There’s no good way to say it, so I’ll just be direct: from my first-hand and second-hand information from conversations since January 6th there is, at best, a sizable percentage of the employee population that felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the Capitol… Several also lamented that the only reason this violent activity is getting more attention is because of ‘political correctness.The email also added that several agents felt that the Capitol riots were no different than racial justice protests that happened in summer 2020. Abbate responded to the email with: “Thank you [redacted] for sharing everything below.”The FBI declined to comment on the email, reported NBC. Washington continues to feel the aftershocks from yesterday’s January 6 committee hearing, and its vote to send a subpoena to Donald Trump. The congressional panel claims he was the singular figure responsible for the attack on the Capitol – but the summons is more of statement than an actual legal strategy. Nonetheless, it’s possible the former president may actually appear before the lawmakers. Reports indicate he would be open to doing so, but Trump has not publicly weighed in, yet.Here’s what happened today:
      The FBI’s No 2 waswarned that a number of its agents were sympathetic to the January 6 rioters. It’s unclear what impact that has had on the investigation into the attack.
      A new book argues that Democratic leaders missed an opportunity to get some Republicans onboard when they first impeached Trump in 2019, setting the stage for him to try to overturn the election the following year.
      Top lawmakers scrambled for help from the department of defense, the governor of Virginia and other parties after the Capitol was overrun on January 6, according to gripping footage shown at the congressional inquiry yesterday.
      The January 6 committee is investigating communications between a Secret Service agent and members of the Oath Keepers militia group, some of whom are currently on trial for seditious conspiracy charges in Washington.
      Congress may finally repeal the authorizations justifying American involvement in the Gulf war and the invasion of Iraq.
      A Democratic member of the January 6 committee said it will continue to wait for a response from Donald Trump to the subpoena it approved yesterday, which could compel his testimony before the panel investigating the Capitol attack.In a tweet, Adam Schiff rejected a letter Trump had sent to the committee’s chair that attacked its work and reiterated a number of baseless theories about alleged fraudulent conduct in the 2020 election:Trump’s unsworn “statement” about the work of @January6thCmte is not a substitute for testimony under oath.We await a serious response from the former president.Seven previous presidents have honored their responsibility to appear before Congress. Trump should do the same.— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) October 14, 2022
      Trump has not said if he will honor the subpoena, though reports have emerged that he is open to speaking to lawmakers. Should he choose to fight it, it’s unlikely the court battle would be resolved before the committee’s mandate runs out at the end of the year.Trump and his allies’ attempts to interfere with the election in Georgia is the subject of yet another investigation ensnaring the ex-president, and CNN reports one of his operatives has testified as part of the inquiry.Last week, Scott Hall spoke for more than three hours to a special grand jury empaneled by district attorney Fani Willis in Fulton county, Georgia to investigate the meddling campaign, CNN said. While it’s not known what he told the jurors, Hall, a Republican poll watcher in Fulton county, was part of a group who may have improperly accessed voter information in another county.Here’s more from CNN:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}On January 7, 2021, the day after the attack on the US Capitol, Hall and others connected to Trump lawyer Sidney Powell spent hours inside a restricted area of the Coffee County elections office, where they set up computers near election equipment and appeared to access voting data.
      Willis’s criminal investigation recently expanded to include the breach of voting systems in the deeply-red Coffee County by operatives working for Powell.
      Hall did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
      According to court documents obtained by CNN, Hall’s role investigating supposed voter fraud in Georgia is also referenced in a November 2020 email that the head of Trump’s election day operations in Georgia received from the state’s Republican Party Chairman.
      “Scott Hall has been looking into the election on behalf of the President at the request of David Bossie. I know him,” David Shafer, the Georgia Republican Party chairman wrote on November 20, 2020, to Robert Sinners, the head of Trump’s Georgia election day operations.
      Shafer, who was among the 16 individuals who served as a fake Trump elector in Georgia, has been informed he is a target in the Fulton County DA’s criminal investigation.Trump has broadcast plans to run for president again in 2024 practically since leaving the White House last year, and many fear he would steamroll his opponents in the primaries to win the GOP nomination, as he did in 2016.But unlike the campaign that delivered his shock victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton six years ago, Trump is a known quantity by now, and some Republicans think he’s simply unelectable, no matter how popular he may be among a segment of the party. Republican former speaker of the house Paul Ryan made that very argument yesterday in an interview for the Teneo Insights Series:VIDEO: Former Speaker Paul Ryan says former President Donald Trump won’t be the Republican nominee in 2024, when the RNC gathers in Milwaukee: “We all know he’s much more likely to lose the White House than anybody else running for president on our side of the aisle.” pic.twitter.com/JCE2TsHu7A— Jason Calvi (@JasonCalvi) October 14, 2022
      The January 6 committee made clear in its hearing yesterday that it continued to have reservations about the Secret Service’s candor with its investigation.The agency tasked with protecting the president and other top officials has been under scrutiny ever since it was revealed it permanently deleted all of agents’ text messages from around the time of the insurrection, citing a pre-planned technology upgrade.MSNBC has a good rundown of the lawmakers’ comments about the Secret Service:Today, there was pushback, of sorts, from a spokesman for the agency, Politico reports:Some pushback from the Secret Service to yesterday’s 1/6 hearing and allegations witnesses weren’t forthcoming. Spox says they’re continuing to cooperate with the committee More on @politicongress: https://t.co/G4pTLfxAaT pic.twitter.com/yEbjvdSRB9— Nicholas Wu (@nicholaswu12) October 14, 2022
      Speaking of books, former vice-president Mike Pence will release a memoir about his time serving under Donald Trump on 15 November.The New York Times has obtained the book’s description included on its jacket, which pretty much lines up with what is known about his relationship with the former president:A day after the J6 hearing went over again the danger Pence was in that day, the jacket copy from his upcoming book is revealed. Includes this bit: pic.twitter.com/TiHtZOgVTD— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 14, 2022
      In August, Vermont’s Democratic senator Patrick Leahy – the most senior lawmaker in all of Congress – published a memoir reflecting on his decades in Washington politics.That included the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which he opposed. Longtime Washington journalist Garrett M. Graff read Leahy’s book and noted that the senator’s opposition to the invasion had won the attention of some mysterious, like-minded individuals who sought the senator out:1) In the midst of the Iraq War debate, Leahy was one of the few Senators pushing back against the Bush admin race to war and the threats of WMDs. He’d been reading the classified intel that the Bush admin was providing to Congress and had real doubts that it justified war….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      2) The Sunday after he read the intel, he was out walking with his wife in his McLean neighborhood when “two fit joggers trailed behind us. They stopped and asked what I thought of the intelligence briefings I’d been getting.”…— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      3) The joggers asked Leahy if the briefers had showed him “File Eight”? Leahy writes, “It was obvious from the look on my face that I had not seen such a file. They suggested I should and that I might find it interesting.”….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      4) Leahy went back to the intel officers at the Capitol SCIF and requested “File Eight,” and it contradicted what the Bush administration was saying publicly about the WMDs….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      5) A few days later, Leahy and his wife are out walking in the neighborhood again and the same two joggers pass by, stop, and say, basically, “We heard you read Five Eight. Isn’t it interesting? Now you should ask for File Twelve” ….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      6) [[Leahy explained to me when I asked him about this incident this month that “File Eight” and “File Twelve” are pseudonyms for specific secret codeword names the joggers told him to ask for.]] ….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      7) The next day, Leahy again goes to the Capitol SCIF and asks for “File Twelve.” It again contradicts what VP Cheney was saying publicly. Leahy decides to vote against the war based on these secret reports and tips…— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      8) I asked @senatorleahy about this incident when I interviewed him at @bearpondbooks earlier this month, if he knew the joggers ever, and he said, “You don’t understand—I didn’t *want* to know who they were.” …— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      A movement is gathering in the Senate to repeal Congress’ authorizations allowing the United States to attack Iraq.Democratic senator Tim Kaine and Republican senator Todd Young are backing a renewed effort to pass a bill repealing the two Authorizations for Use of Military Force enacted in 2002 and 1991, which gave legal justification for America’s involvement in the Iraq and Gulf wars, respectively. On October 16, 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of military force against the regime of Saddam Hussein.As we mark the 20th anniversary, @TimKaine and I are calling for repeal of the 2002 AUMF, which the United States no longer requires. https://t.co/6zkMPx34o2— Senator Todd Young (@SenToddYoung) October 14, 2022
      The current war authorities are outdated, unnecessary, and could be subject to misuse by future presidents.Our bipartisan legislation will repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs and reinstate Congress’ constitutionally-mandated oversight role of declaring and ending wars.— Senator Todd Young (@SenToddYoung) October 14, 2022
      We owe it to our nation’s service members, military families, and veterans to pass this legislation repealing the 2002 AUMF and formalize the end of the Iraq War.— Senator Todd Young (@SenToddYoung) October 14, 2022
      A similar attempt passed the House last year and had Joe Biden’s support, but ultimately didn’t make it through the Senate. The latest effort is expected to be included in a defense spending bill that will be a top priority when both houses of Congress reconvene next month.Few have embraced the baseless conspiracies about the 2020 election like Donald Trump, and he’s widely expected to run again for the presidency in 2024. The big question is: when will he announce it? Democrats hope he does so before the midterm elections, so they can refocus voters’ attention on all that went on during his administration.Politico reports that the former president is keeping it vague:Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser last night that a ‘24 announcement was coming “very soon” and that people would be “very happy,” per two attendees— Alex Isenstadt (@politicoalex) October 14, 2022
      Meanwhile, Republican senators Tom Cotton and Tim Scott have both taken steps indicating they are contemplating a 2024 run, according to Politico.More than two-thirds of Republicans seeking office this November have cast doubt on the results of the 2020 election, reported the New York Times..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}They include candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, and the state offices of governor, secretary of state and attorney general — many with clear shots to victory, and some without a chance. They are united by at least one issue: They have all expressed doubt about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. And they are the new normal of the Republican Party.
      More than 370 people — a vast majority of Republicans running for these offices in November — have questioned and, at times, outright denied the results of the 2020 election despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, according to a monthslong New York Times investigation. These candidates represent a sentiment that is spreading in the Republican Party, rupturing a bedrock principle of democracy: that voters decide elections and candidates accept results.Read the full article here.Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden released a statement on a Thursday shooting in Raleigh, North Carolina, where five people were killed and two were injured.The suspect, a 15-year old white male, is in custody and in critical condition.From the White house press office:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Jill and I are grieving with the families in Raleigh, North Carolina, whose loved ones were killed and wounded in yet another mass shooting in America. We are thinking of yet another community shaken and shattered as they mourn the loss of friends and neighbors, including an off-duty police officer.As we mourn with the people of Raleigh, we are grateful for the law enforcement and other first responders, including federal law enforcement who were on the scene last night and into this morning. My Administration is working closely with Governor Cooper to assist local authorities in this investigation to the fullest extent needed. Enough. We’ve grieved and prayed with too many families who have had to bear the terrible burden of these mass shootings. Too many families have had spouses, parents, and children taken from them forever. This year, and even in just the five months since Buffalo and Uvalde, there are too many mass shootings across America, including ones that don’t even make the national news.
      For the lives we’ve lost and the lives we can save, I took historic action to stop gun violence in our nation, including signing the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years. But we must do more. We must pass an assault weapons ban. The American people support this commonsense action to get weapons of war off our streets. House Democrats have already passed it. The Senate should do the same. Send it to my desk and I’ll sign it. May God bless our fellow Americans we lost and their families and may He grant the wounded the strength to recover in Raleigh, North Carolina.A top FBI official was warned that a large number of bureau employees were sympathetic to Capitol rioters who threatened the lives of law makers. NBC News reported that Paul Abbate, number two at the FBI, was warned about agents within the bureau showing sympathy to 6 January participants.The email, sent from an unnamed person, read: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}There’s no good way to say it, so I’ll just be direct: from my first-hand and second-hand information from conversations since January 6th there is, at best, a sizable percentage of the employee population that felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the Capitol… Several also lamented that the only reason this violent activity is getting more attention is because of ‘political correctness.The email also added that several agents felt that the Capitol riots were no different than racial justice protests that happened in summer 2020. Abbate responded to the email with: “Thank you [redacted] for sharing everything below.”The FBI declined to comment on the email, reported NBC. Washington continues to feel the aftershocks from yesterday’s January 6 committee hearing, and its vote to send a subpoena to Donald Trump. The congressional panel claims he was the singular figure responsible for the attack on the Capitol – but the summons is more of statement than an actual legal strategy. Nonetheless, it’s possible the former president may actually appear before the lawmakers. Reports indicate he would be open to doing so, but Trump has not publicly weighed in, yet.Here’s what has happened today so far:
      A new book argues that Democratic leaders missed an opportunity to get some Republicans onboard when they first impeached Trump in 2019, setting the stage for him to try to overturn the election the following year.
      Top lawmakers scrambled for help from the department of defense, the governor of Virginia and other parties after the Capitol was overrun on January 6, according to gripping footage shown at the congressional inquiry yesterday.
      The January 6 committee is investigating communications between a Secret Service agent and members of the Oath Keepers militia group, some of whom are currently on trial for seditious conspiracy charges in Washington.
      Many people testified to the January 6 committee. Doing so did not come without costs.Here’s what Alyssa Farah, a former communications director in the Trump White House, said on “The View” about happened after the panel aired her testimony:”When I spoke out: death threats, harassment, I’ve been called a whore … It was young women that stepped up and came forward and gave the facts.”— “The View” co-host and former Trump Communications Director Alyssa Farah details her experience testifying before 1/6 Committee pic.twitter.com/mG2roFTDov— The Recount (@therecount) October 14, 2022
      And here is what she told the committee:”He was looking at the TV and he said, ‘Can you believe I lost to this fucking guy?'”— Former Trump Communications Director Alyssa Farah recalling what she says Trump said to her about a week after the election was called. pic.twitter.com/ckRbuiyYBs— The Recount (@therecount) October 13, 2022
      Did the January 6 committee’s hearings change your mind about what happened that day?Were you surprised by the evidence presented? Or are you wondering what the big deal is?Whatever your answers to these questions, the Guardian’s community team is looking for readers’ input, and has a survey you can fill out at the link below:US residents: share your views of the January 6 hearingsRead more More

    • 150 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      The Jan. 6 Hearings Are Over. These 3 Things Must Happen Now.

      by

      On Thursday, in what was probably its final public hearing before the election, the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol revealed new details about former President Donald Trump. Those details included Secret Service records documenting his determination to join a mob he knew was armed and headed for violence.The hearings have provided an indispensable record of an attempted coup that failed but that, as Representative Liz Cheney pointed out, threatens to recur. As the committee waits for the (unlikely) testimony of Mr. Trump, the torch now passes to other actors who hold the power to achieve accountability for the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol — and to prevent another one from happening.This task fits into three key areas.Potential DisqualificationThe added proof of Mr. Trump’s involvement in the events of Jan. 6 renews the question of whether elections officials and courts can disqualify him from holding public office under the Constitution. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment provides for the disqualification from office of any person who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against” the United States or who has “given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”The prospect of Mr. Trump being disqualified may sound unlikely, but it is not fanciful — a New Mexico county commissioner who participated in the Jan. 6 insurrection was recently removed on just this basis.On the question of whether Mr. Trump engaged in insurrection, the evidence presented throughout the hearings suggests that he knew the mob was armed when he riled them up on Jan. 6, wanted the magnetometers (metal detectors) to be taken down, expressed a wish to join the mob at the Capitol and then cheered the insurrectionists on while watching the violence on television. It also includes evidence referenced on Thursday that he singled out Vice President Mike Pence in a tweet after knowing of the violence underway.It is also fair to ask whether Mr. Trump’s actions provided “aid and comfort” to insurrectionists. That prospect is reinforced by his failure to act for 187 minutes, despite pleas from advisers, while the mob ran rampant. Indeed, he offered repeated words of support that day to the mob, tweeting, when the mob finally began dispersing, “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long.”For disqualification, voters would start the process by filing petitions to keep Mr. Trump off the ballot; elected officials and courts would then act on them.Disqualification under Section 3 involves several legal and factual challenges. For example, some say it would be better (or even necessary) to have enabling legislation passed by Congress. We strongly disagree, both because that’s not what the Constitution says and because courts have acted without such legislation over a period of more than 150 years. The committee should brush aside any legal misconceptions in its final report.In its report, the committee also should highlight the proof supporting Mr. Trump’s disqualification, scouring its now vast archive of over 1,000 interviews and millions of pages of documents and data to lay out the evidence about Mr. Trump and anyone else who may face consequences under the 14th Amendment (including members of Congress).A Road MapThe report could be modeled after the Watergate Road Map. That document laid out in painstaking detail the evidence of wrongdoing that an investigative body (there, a grand jury) had collected. It consisted of an inventory listing the evidence and then attached pieces of proof — whether it was a document, witness transcript or something else.In that case a grand jury was sending evidence to the House. In this case, it is the House that would be making evidence available to others. But the principle is the same: The committee should compile all the relevant evidence upon which 14th Amendment decision makers can rely.A similar road map may also be helpful to federal and state prosecutors. A formal criminal referral is less essential than laying out the relevant evidence for federal prosecutors to draw upon in their various investigations and for local ones like Fani Willis, the district attorney for Fulton County, Ga.The committee’s evidence on Thursday suggesting potential obstruction of justice by members of the Secret Service and White House staff will also be in the hands of federal prosecutors to resolve. In one of the more notable moments of the hearing, Representative Adam Schiff stated that evidence strongly suggested “certain White House and Secret Service witnesses” had falsely testified that they were not aware of the risk of violence.The committee’s report should also inform another group of regulators: bar officials. This was an attempted coup that utilized not tanks and guns but statutes and regulations, with lawyers playing a central role. Some bar associations have a practice of not opening investigations based on public complaints based on media reports. To break through that barrier, the committee should make formal disciplinary referrals accompanied by presentations of evidence.The American PeopleOne final handoff is perhaps most important of all: to voters. Well over 300 midterm candidates have embraced “the Big Lie” about the 2020 election being stolen. The committee has repeatedly warned of the danger this election-denial movement poses. As Ms. Cheney said on Thursday, “another Jan. 6 could happen again if we do not take necessary action to prevent it.”But the test of the committee’s work and its political impact will not end with the midterms. Some “stop the steal” candidates will win their races, and the postelection season will quickly pivot to the 2024 election.The baton is passing from the committee to others who have the power to take action on its work. That handoff is not only to election officials, prosecutors and judges. It is to all of us. Our democracy may well depend on what we do with it.Norman Eisen served as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment of Donald Trump. Danielle Brian is the executive director of the Project on Government Oversight. E. Danya Perry is a former federal prosecutor and a New York State corruption investigator.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

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump reportedly wants to testify before January 6 committee – live

      by

      There are plenty of instances of former presidents testifying before congress, and in fact, even sitting presidents have done so, according to the US Senate.But such an appearance hasn’t been made in a while. The last former president to answer questions on Capitol Hill was Gerald Ford, who appeared before a Senate subcommittee on the constitution in 1983. He was also the last president in office to testify, during a 1974 House subcommittee hearing about his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon for various charges related to the Watergate scandal.Up until January 6, historians viewed Watergate as perhaps the worst political scandal in American history. But the insurrection at the Capitol may well have eclipsed that – and Trump could follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and appear before lawmakers to discuss his role in it.While sitting and former presidents have testified before Congress in the past, Politico reports that subpoenaing a former commander in chief is far more contentious.In 1953, former president Harry Truman defied a subpoena from the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee. “It is just as important to the independence of the Executive that the actions of the President should not be subjected to questioning by the Congress after he has completed his term of office as that his actions should not be questioned while he is serving as President,” he said in a lengthy speech explaining his refusal to attend.The January 6 committee could, of course, go to court to force Trump to comply, assuming a judge – or more likely judges – agrees. But they simply don’t have the time. Their mandate expires at the end of the year, at the same time as this Congress terms out, and any court challenge would likely take months to resolve.Not all Trump administration scandals involve the former president. Stephanie Kirchgaessner reports a Senate committee leaders wants answers about a real estate property deal involving Jared Kushner, a top aide to the former president:A financial firm that operates billions of dollars in real estate properties around the world is facing new questions from the powerful chairman of the Senate finance committee about whether Qatar was secretly involved in the $1.2bn (£1bn) rescue of a Fifth Avenue property owned by Jared Kushner’s family while Kushner was serving in the White House.Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat who leads the finance committee, has given the chief executive of Toronto-based Brookfield Asset Management until 24 October to answer a series of detailed questions about a 2018 deal in which Brookfield paid Kushner Companies for a 99-year lease on the family’s marquee 666 Fifth Avenue property.When the deal was announced in August 2018, it was seen as the end of a drawn-out saga surrounding the property. The rescue, it was said in media reports, generated enough money for the Kushner family to pay $1.1bn (£970m) of debt on the building and buy out a partner.In a statement on Thursday, Wyden accused Brookfield of stonewalling his committee and refusing to answer questions about the transaction, including whether Brookfield “intentionally misled” the public when it said that “no Qatar-linked entity” had been involved in the deal. In fact, it has since been alleged by Wyden that Brookfield used a Qatari-backed fund – called Brookfield Property Partners – to fund the transaction. At the time of the deal, Wyden said, the Qatari Investment Authority was the fund’s second largest investor.Top senator seeks answers over Qatar link to $1.2bn Kushner property rescueRead moreOne of the most gripping moments of the January 6 committee’s hearing yesterday came when the panel aired footage of congressional leaders scrambling for help after the Capitol was overrun. Here’s what the video showed:New footage of the January 6 riots at the US Capitol shows House speaker Nancy Pelosi calmly trying to take charge of the situation as she sheltered at Fort McNair, two miles south of the Capitol.“There has to be some way,” she told colleagues, “we can maintain the sense that people have that there is some security or some confidence that government can function and that you can elect the president of the United States.”Then an unidentified voice interjected with alarming news: lawmakers on the House floor had begun putting on teargas masks in preparation for a breach. Pelosi asked the woman to repeat what she said.‘Do you believe this?’: New video shows how Nancy Pelosi took charge in Capitol riotRead moreWhile Trump twice escaped conviction by Congress, The Guardian’s Sam Levine finds the evidence laid out by the January 6 committee could form the backbone of a criminal case against the former president:After more than a year of work that consisted of interviewing 1,000-plus witnesses and reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents, the committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol chose a simple message for its final public hearing: Donald Trump was singularly responsible for the attack.Since its first hearing in June, the committee’s work has been aimed at two audiences. One of those has been the broad American public. Tactfully using video, the committee has told a disciplined, clear story of what happened on January 6, and the days leading up to it, filled with jaw-dropping soundbites from Trump’s closest aides.But the committee’s public coda on Thursday appeared more directed at its second audience: an audience of one, the US attorney general, Merrick Garland.Garland will ultimately decide whether to bring criminal charges against Trump over January 6, and the committee’s work, which has run parallel to the justice department’s investigation, has made a public case for bringing charges, attempting to bring along public support for doing so.January 6 panel’s case against Trump lays out roadmap for prosecutionRead moreA new books argues that the way Democrats handled Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 laid the groundwork for the lawless streak he exhibited when he tried to overturn the following year’s elections, Politico reports.In “Unchecked,” written by Politico reporter Rachael Bade and Washington Post reporter Karoun Demirjian, House speaker Nancy Pelosi is shown as being caught between two wings of the Democratic party as it weighs how to respond to Trump’s pressuring of Ukraine’s government to investigate Joe Biden. One group, composed mostly of progressives, wanted a sprawling inquiry into all of the then-president’s alleged misdeeds, while another, made up of Democrats in vulnerable seats, wanted a narrowly tailored investigation into the Ukraine affair that wouldn’t take too long.The latter group won out, but according to the book, Pelosi missed opportunities to wrangle some Republicans into supporting Trump’s impeachment – though the book concedes the effort may well have been a long shot, even if she tried.The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump, and the book finds that decision emboldened Trump to attempt further schemes – like his plot to overturn the 2020 election. Here’s how Politico puts it:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In the end, one political truism superseded all the others: What happens in January of an election year will be ancient history by the time voters cast ballots. This was especially true in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic seemed to emerge just as Democrats were licking their wounds from the impeachment trial acquittal.
      Soon after, Trump would begin sowing the seeds of what would become his effort to overturn defeat in the presidential election, and by November, impeachment seemed an asterisk in a year that had become chaotic for many other reasons.
      Ultimately, Democrats took the White House, even though Pelosi’s House majority shrank slightly after 2020. House managers of Trump’s first impeachment have insisted to this day that their existential warnings played a role in voters deeming him unfit for a second term.
      His actions to subvert his 2020 loss, they argue, were evidence that Republicans’ decision to acquit him had left him feeling unchecked.Trump hasn’t yet publicly said if he’d testify before the January 6 committee, as their subpoena compels him to.But his political action committee has today distributed to reporters this letter, dated yesterday and addressed to the committee’s chair. The 14-page epistle is mostly a rehash of his baseless theories that the 2020 election was stolen from him, and a defense of his conduct on January 6. It opens with this line: “THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2020 WAS RIGGED AND STOLEN!”It’s unclear if Trump himself wrote it, but based on the prose, it’s difficult not to imagine his voice when reading it. Consider the second sentence:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The same group of Radical Left Democrats who utilized their Majority position in Congress to create the fiction of Russia, Russia, Russia, Impeachment Hoax #1, Impeachment Hoax #2, the $48 Million Mueller Report (which ended in No Collusion!), Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, the atrocious and illegal Spying on my Campaign, and so much more, are the people who created this Committee of highly partisan political Hacks and Thugs whose sole function is to destroy the lives of many hard-working American Patriots, whose records in life have been unblemished until this point of attempted ruination.There are plenty of instances of former presidents testifying before congress, and in fact, even sitting presidents have done so, according to the US Senate.But such an appearance hasn’t been made in a while. The last former president to answer questions on Capitol Hill was Gerald Ford, who appeared before a Senate subcommittee on the constitution in 1983. He was also the last president in office to testify, during a 1974 House subcommittee hearing about his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon for various charges related to the Watergate scandal.Up until January 6, historians viewed Watergate as perhaps the worst political scandal in American history. But the insurrection at the Capitol may well have eclipsed that – and Trump could follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and appear before lawmakers to discuss his role in it.Good morning, US politics blog readers. Yesterday’s big news was that the January 6 committee had issued a subpoena to Donald Trump, in an attempt to compel the testimony of a man they say was responsible above all others for the deadly insurrection at the Capitol. You’d be right not to get your hopes up that the former president would honor their summons – he’s stymied various attempts to compel his behavior or hold him accountable over the years with lengthy court challenges, and the congressional subpoena seems like it could meet the same fate. But media outlets including the New York Times and Fox News report that Trump actually would like to speak to lawmakers – assuming he can do so live. We may hear from him today on what course of action he’s decided to take.Here’s a look at what else is happening today:
      Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the January 6 committee, will talk about defending democracy at Notre Dame University at 2.30pm eastern time.
      Washington’s fury towards Saudi Arabia will be the subject when Democratic representative Ro Khanna, an advocate of cracking down on Riyadh over its backing of the recent Opec+ oil production cut, speaks with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft at 12pm eastern time.
      Joe Biden is continuing his trip out west with a speech in Orange county, California, about “lowering costs for American families” and a stop in Oregon. There, the president will campaign for the state’s Democratic candidate for governor, who appears to be struggling polls. More

    • 200 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      These Republicans Questioned the 2020 Election — and Most Are Still Doing It. Many Will Win.

      by

      Hundreds of Republican midterm candidates have questioned or spread misinformation about the 2020 election. Hundreds of Republican midterm candidates have questioned or spread misinformation about the 2020 election. Together they represent a growing consensus in the Republican Party, and a potential threat to American democracy. Together they represent a growing consensus in the Republican Party, […] More