House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      House panel to scrutinize conspiracy theories that led to Capitol attack

      by

      House panel to scrutinize conspiracy theories that led to Capitol attackHouse committee’s second hearing on Monday will focus on ‘the lies that convinced those men and others to storm the Capitol’ The House select committee investigating the January 6 insurrection in 2021 will reconvene Monday to scrutinize the conspiracy theories that led a group of Donald Trump’s supporters to attack the US Capitol.House January 6 panel shows it still has surprises in store in televised hearingRead moreThe Democratic chair of the committee, Mississippi congressman Bennie Thompson, has said the second hearing will focus on “the lies that convinced those men and others to storm the Capitol to try to stop the transfer of power”.“We’re going to take a close look at the first part of Trump’s attack on the rule of law, when he lit the fuse that ultimately resulted in the violence of January 6,” Thompson said on Thursday.The select committee said ahead of the hearing that the panel would focus on how Trump embraced baseless claims of a stolen election starting on election night – when he falsely declared victory over Joe Biden – and seized upon those claims in the weeks that followed.Trump was told repeatedly on election night that he did not have the numbers to win, the panel is expected to say, relying on live witness testimony from former Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien and former Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt.The select committee will then show how Trump embraced election fraud claims despite being told otherwise by top officials, hearing from former US attorney BJay Pak, who resigned when he was told Trump would fire him for not pushing harder that fraud occurred in Georgia.Trump had an obligation to make court challenges if he believed there was fraud, the panel will say, and also accept the decisions of the courts – he lost virtually every case – but he instead chose to attack the “rule of law”.The select committee said it would also show how Trump and the Republican political apparatus used those baseless claims to rake in millions of dollars from unsuspecting Americans in fundraising, and how the Capitol attack was fueled by those claims perpetuated by Trump.The hearing on Monday, which will last around two hours and see select committee member Zoe Lofgren take a lead role in questioning witnesses instead of committee counsel, comes four days after the panel held its first hearing in primetime.At that first session, the select committee featured shocking and at times emotional testimony from key witnesses who have spoken to investigators over the past year as they conducted the first stage of their inquiry behind closed doors in Washington.Members of Trump’s inner circle testified that the former president was repeatedly told his claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election that deprived him of victory over Democrat Joe Biden were entirely baseless, but he continued to spread those lies in the weeks leading up to the insurrection.“I made it clear I did not agree with the idea of saying the election was stolen and putting out this stuff, which I told the president was bullshit,” William Barr, Trump’s former attorney general, told investigators in a clip shared on Thursday.Last week’s hearing laid the groundwork for the committee’s argument that Trump played a central role in the planning of the insurrection and bears personal responsibility for the deadly attack. A mob overran the US Capitol on January 6 last year, the day that Congress was due to officially certify Biden’s win over Trump in the previous Novembers presidential election.The five remaining hearings are expected to build upon that argument, as committee members attempt to present a meticulous case for Trump’s culpability.“On the morning of January 6, President Donald Trump’s intention was to remain president of the United States despite the lawful outcome of the 2020 election and in violation of his constitutional obligation to relinquish power,” Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the committee, said Thursday.“Over multiple months, Donald Trump oversaw and coordinated a sophisticated seven-part plan to overturn the presidential election and prevent the transfer of presidential power. In our hearings, you will see evidence of each element of this plan.”The Monday hearing will provide committee members with another opportunity to convince the country that America’s democracy is facing a threat from those who do not believe in free and fair election. The panel has accused Trump and his associates of having engaged in a “criminal conspiracy” and argues that the former president bears personal responsibility for the deadly attack on the US Capitol.Although Trump was impeached by the House for inciting the insurrection, he was acquitted by the Senate, leaving many of his critics feeling as though he was not held accountable for his actions.If the committee is successful in building its case against Trump, the hearings could deliver a devastating blow to the former president’s hopes of making a political comeback in the 2024 presidential election. But if Americans are unmoved by the committee’s findings, the country faces the specter of another attempted coup, Thompson warned.“Our democracy remains in danger. The conspiracy to thwart the will of the people is not over,” Thompson said on Thursday. “January 6 and the lies that led to insurrection have put two and a half centuries of constitutional democracy at risk. The world is watching what we do here.”Hugo Lowell contributed to this reportTopicsUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesDonald TrumpUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Sarah Palin Leads Primary Race for Alaska’s Special Election

      by

      The top four candidates will advance to an August vote to finish the term of Representative Don Young, who died in March.Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska leads the 48-candidate field in a special primary election for the state’s sole congressional seat, according to a preliminary count of ballots on Sunday.The top four candidates in the race will advance to the special election in August. Ms. Palin has nearly 30 percent of the vote tallied so far; Nick Begich, the scion of an Alaskan political dynasty, has 19.3 percent; Al Gross, a surgeon and commercial fisherman who ran for Senate two years ago, has nearly 12.5 percent; and Mary S. Peltola, a former state legislator, has about 7.5 percent.Ms. Palin and Mr. Begich are Republicans, Mr. Gross is not affiliated with a party, and Ms. Peltola is a Democrat.The special election was prompted by the death in March of Representative Don Young, a Republican who was first elected to the House in 1973. The election is to fill the remainder of Mr. Young’s current term.The special election will be held on Aug. 16, which is also the day of Alaska’s primary contest for the House seat’s 2023-2025 term. So, voters will see some candidates’ names twice on one ballot: once to decide the outcome of the special election and once to pick candidates for the fall’s general election for the full two-year term.For Ms. Palin, the race is a political comeback. As Senator John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential race, Ms. Palin lost to a Democratic ticket that included Joseph R. Biden Jr., and she resigned from the governor’s office, seeking to parlay her newfound profile into work as a well-paid political pundit. Ms. Palin had tapped into a similar anti-establishment, anti-news media vein of the Republican Party that later galvanized Donald J. Trump’s unexpected rise to the White House in 2016.The results announced on Sunday are preliminary and could change over the next few weeks, as more ballots are processed and counted.Alaska is a thinly populated state, with two U.S. senators but only one representative in the House. That small population is spread across an area that is larger than Texas, California and Montana combined, with about 82 percent of communities in the state inaccessible by roads.Counting ballots there can be challenging.Each voter in the state was mailed a ballot, starting on April 27, and the ballots were due back on Saturday. At least three more rounds of preliminary results will be announced by state officials before the results are certified in about two weeks.Alyce McFadden More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Sarah Palin leads in special primary for Alaska’s House seat in comeback bid

      by

      Sarah Palin leads in special primary for Alaska’s House seat in comeback bidRun by former Republican vice-presidential candidate marks first bid since resigning as governor partway through her term in 2009 Former Alaska governor and Republican ex-vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin leads in early results from Saturday’s special primary for the state’s only US House seat in what could be a remarkable political re-emergence.Voters in the far north-western state are whittling down the list of 48 candidates running for the position that was held for 49 years by the late US Representative Don Young.The early results showed Palin, endorsed by Donald Trump, with 29.8% of the votes counted so far; Republican Nick Begich had 19.3%; independent Al Gross had 12.5%; Democrat Mary Peltola with 7.5%; and Republican Tara Sweeney had 5.3%.A candidate whose name is Santa Claus, a self-described “independent, progressive, democratic socialist”, had 4.5%.In a statement Palin said she was looking forward to “fixing this country by responsibly developing Alaska’s God-given resources” and then expressed rightwing talking points on gun rights, abortion and a desire for a smaller government.The top four vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to an August special election in which ranked choice voting will be used. The winner of the special election will serve the remainder of Young’s term, which ends in January. Young died in March at age 88.This election was unlike any the state has seen, crammed with candidates and conducted primarily by mail. This was the first election, too, under a system approved by voters in 2020 that ends party primaries and uses ranked choice voting in general elections.Saturday marked the first ballot count; state elections officials plan additional counts on Wednesday and Friday, and a final count on 21 June. They have targeted 25 June to certify the race.Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential nominee, released a statement expressing gratitude “to all of my wonderful supporters who voted to make Alaska great again!”The sheer number of candidates left some voters overwhelmed, and many of the candidates themselves faced challenges in setting up a campaign on the fly and trying to leave an impression on voters in a short period of time. The candidate filing deadline was April 1.Palin’s run marks her first bid for elected office since resigning as governor partway through her term in 2009. She was endorsed in this campaign by some national political figures who participated in a “telerally” for her and said Palin would “fight harder than anybody I can think of”, particularly on energy issues.Palin sought to assure voters that she is serious about her bid and committed to Alaska.During the campaign, opponents poked at that. Gross, an orthopedic surgeon who made an unsuccessful run for US Senate in 2020, said Palin “quit on Alaska”. Begich and Sweeney made points of saying they are not quitters.The Associated Press contributed to this reportTopicsSarah PalinHouse of RepresentativesAlaskaUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      Jan. 6 Committee Appears to Lay Out Road Map for Prosecuting Trump

      by

      The first prime-time hearing into the Jan. 6 attack confronted the fundamental question that has haunted Donald J. Trump since he left office: Should he be prosecuted in a criminal court?He had means, motive and opportunity. But did Donald J. Trump commit a crime?A House committee explicitly declared that he did by conspiring to overturn an election. The attorney general, however, has not weighed in. And a jury of his peers may never hear the case.The first prime-time hearing into the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol this past week confronted the fundamental question that has haunted Mr. Trump, the 45th president, ever since he left office: Should he be prosecuted in a criminal court for his relentless efforts to defy the will of the voters and hang on to power?For two hours on Thursday night, the House committee investigating the Capitol attack detailed what it called Mr. Trump’s “illegal” and “unconstitutional” seven-part plan to prevent the transfer of power. The panel invoked the Justice Department, citing charges of seditious conspiracy filed against some of the attackers, and seemed to be laying out a road map for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland to their central target.Several former prosecutors and veteran lawyers said afterward that the hearing offered the makings of a credible criminal case for conspiracy to commit fraud or obstruction of the work of Congress.In presenting her summary of the evidence, Representative Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming and the committee’s vice chairwoman, demonstrated that Mr. Trump was told repeatedly by his own advisers that he had lost the election yet repeatedly lied to the country by claiming it had been stolen. He pressured state and federal officials, members of Congress and even his own vice president to disregard vote tallies in key states. And he encouraged the mob led by extremist groups like the Proud Boys while making no serious effort to stop the attack once it began.“I think the committee, especially Liz Cheney, outlined a powerful criminal case against the former president,” said Neal K. Katyal, a former acting solicitor general under President Barack Obama.“A crime requires two things — a bad act and criminal intent,” Mr. Katyal said. By citing testimony by Mr. Trump’s own attorney general, a lawyer for his campaign and others who told him that he had lost and then documenting his failure to act once supporters stormed the Capitol, Mr. Katyal said, the panel addressed both of those requirements.At the hearing, Representative Liz Cheney demonstrated that Mr. Trump was told repeatedly by his own advisers that he had lost the election.Doug Mills/The New York TimesA congressional hearing, however, is not a court of law, and because there was no one there to defend Mr. Trump, witnesses were not cross-examined and evidence was not tested. The committee offered just a selection of the more than 1,000 interviews it has conducted and the more than 140,000 documents it has collected. But it remains to be seen what contrary or mitigating information may be contained in the vast research it has not released yet.Mr. Trump’s allies have dismissed the hearings as a partisan effort to damage him before the 2024 election when he may run for president again. And legal defenders argued that the facts presented by the panel did not support the conclusions that it drew.Read More on the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsThe Meaning of the Hearings: While the public sessions aren’t going to unite the country, they could significantly affect public opinion.An Unsettling Narrative: During the first hearing, the House panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Donald Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Trump’s Depiction: Former president Donald J. Trump was portrayed as a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power. Liz Cheney: The vice chairwoman of the House committee has been unrepentant in continuing to blame Mr. Trump for stoking the attack on Jan. 6, 2021.“Unless there’s more evidence to come that we don’t know about, I don’t see a criminal case against the former president,” said Robert W. Ray, a former independent counsel who investigated President Bill Clinton and later served as a defense lawyer for Mr. Trump at his first Senate impeachment trial.“Whatever the Proud Boys had in mind when they stormed the Capitol, I don’t see how you’d be able to prove that Trump knew that that was the purpose of the conspiracy,” Mr. Ray added. “Whether or not he ‘lit the fuse’ that caused that to happen, the government would have to prove he knowingly joined that conspiracy with that objective.”Beyond the legal requirements of making a criminal case, the prospect of prosecuting a former president also would entail far deeper considerations and broader consequences. Criminal charges against Mr. Trump brought by the administration of the man who defeated him would further inflame an already polarized country. It would consume national attention for months or longer and potentially set a precedent for less meritorious cases against future presidents by successors of the opposite party.“That’s a hill that no federal prosecutor has tried to climb, prosecuting a former president,” said John Q. Barrett, a former associate independent counsel in the Iran-contra investigation. “It’s very fraught,” he said. “It’s a massive undertaking as an investigation, as a trial, as a national saga and trauma.” But he added that accountability was important and that “the threat to the continuity of our government is about as grave as it gets.”All of which is almost certainly going through the mind of Mr. Garland, a mild-mannered, highly deliberative former federal appeals court judge who has largely kept mum about his thinking. A Justice Department spokesman said Mr. Garland watched the hearing but would not elaborate.Democrats have attacked the attorney general for not already prosecuting Mr. Trump, even though a federal judge opined in March in a related civil case that the former president and a lawyer who advised him had most likely broken the law by trying to overturn the election. Mr. Garland has resisted the pressure. While he has called the investigation into the Jan. 6 attack the most urgent work in the history of his department, he has refused to forecast where the inquiry will go as investigators continue evaluating evidence.“We are not avoiding cases that are political or cases that are controversial or sensitive,” he told NPR in March. “What we are avoiding is making decisions on a political basis, on a partisan basis.”Democrats have attacked Attorney General Merrick B. Garland for not already prosecuting Mr. Trump, deeming it a miscarriage of justice.Sarah Silbiger for The New York TimesMany officials and rank-and-file prosecutors scattered throughout the 115,000-person Justice Department have long believed that Mr. Trump acted corruptly, particularly in pressuring their own department to parrot his baseless claims of election fraud, according to several people involved in such conversations who were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.But some career employees expressed fear that as the hearings continued, they would raise expectations for a prosecution that may not be met.The committee “was good at making the case that Donald Trump’s actions were completely horrific and that he deserves to be held accountable for them,” said Matthew Miller, a former Justice Department spokesman during the Obama administration. “But an open-and-shut case on television is different from proving someone violated a criminal statute.”With public attention fixated on Mr. Trump, the Justice Department’s work has proceeded along three tracks: charge the people who attacked the Capitol; piece together larger conspiracies, including sedition, involving some of the assailants; and identify possible crimes that took place before the assault.In the 17 months since the attack, more than 840 defendants from nearly all 50 states have been arrested. Of those, about 250 have been charged with assaulting, resisting or impeding the police, and members of two far-right groups have been charged with seditious conspiracy, a rare accusation that represents the most serious criminal charges brought in the department’s sprawling investigation.Prosecutors are scrutinizing the plan by Mr. Trump’s allies to create alternate slates of pro-Trump electors to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in key swing states, with a federal grand jury issuing subpoenas to people involved. That investigation brings federal prosecutors closer to Mr. Trump’s inner circle than any other inquiry. Mr. Trump also faces the threat of prosecution by a local Georgia prosecutor investigating his efforts to overturn the state’s vote.No sitting or former president has ever been put on trial. Aaron Burr was charged with treason after leaving office as vice president in a highly politicized case directed from the White House by President Thomas Jefferson, but he was acquitted after a sensational trial. Ulysses S. Grant, while president, was arrested for speeding in his horse and buggy. Spiro T. Agnew resigned as vice president as part of a plea bargain in a corruption case.The closest a former president came to indictment was after Richard M. Nixon resigned in the Watergate scandal in 1974, but his successor, Gerald R. Ford, short-circuited the investigation by preemptively pardoning him, reasoning that the country had to move on. Mr. Clinton, to avoid perjury charges after leaving office, agreed on his last full day in the White House to a deal with Mr. Ray in which he admitted giving false testimony under oath about his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky, temporarily surrendered his law license and paid a $25,000 fine.Should the Justice Department indict Mr. Trump, a trial would be vastly different from House hearings in ways that affect the scope and pace of any inquiry. Investigators would have to scour thousands of hours of video footage and the full contents of devices and online accounts they have accessed for evidence bolstering their case, as well as anything that a defense lawyer could use to knock it down. Federal prosecutors would probably also have to convince appeals court judges and a majority of Supreme Court justices of the validity of their case.For all of the pressure that the House committee has put on the Justice Department to act, it has resisted sharing information. In April, the department asked the committee for transcripts of witness interviews, but the panel has not agreed to turn over the documents because its work is continuing.Although critics have faulted Mr. Garland, attorneys general do not generally drive the day-to-day work of investigations. Mr. Garland is briefed nearly every day on the inquiry’s progress, but it is being led by Matthew M. Graves, the U.S. attorney in Washington, who is working with national security and criminal division officials. Lisa O. Monaco, the deputy attorney general, broadly oversees the investigation.“Whether fair or not, Garland’s tenure will be defined by whether or not he indicts Trump,” Mr. Miller said. “The Justice Department may not indict Trump. Prosecutors may not believe they have the evidence to secure a conviction. But that will now be interpreted as a choice by Garland, not as a reality that was forced upon him by the facts of the investigation.” More

    • 138 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Enough is enough’: thousands rally across US in gun control protests

      by

      ‘Enough is enough’: thousands rally across US in gun control protestsThe March for Our Lives rallies come after mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, New York

      New Yorkers join march for gun reform
      01:59Rallies for gun reform were held in Washington, New York, other US cities and around the world on Saturday, seeking to increase pressure on Congress to act following a spate of mass shootings.‘Caring and giving’: funeral for Uvalde victim held amid gun law protestsRead moreIn Washington, the son of an 86-year-old victim in the Buffalo supermarket shooting said: “Enough is enough. We will not go quietly into the night.”The March for Our Lives rallies came less than a month after 10 people were killed in the racist attack in Buffalo, New York and 19 children and two teachers were killed at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.Other mass shootings, widely defined as shootings in which four people or more excluding the shooter are hurt or killed, have also helped put the issue center-stage.March for Our Lives was formed in 2018 after a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida, in which 14 students and three adults were killed. Organisers estimated a million people, mostly young, joined protests then.The group helped force Republicans in Florida to enact reforms including raising the age to buy long guns, including AR-15-style rifles, from 18 to 21; enacting a three-day gap between purchase and access; allowing trained school staff to carry guns; and putting $400m into mental health services and school security.Florida lawmakers also approved a “red flag law” that can deny firearms to individuals believed to pose a danger to themselves or others.Organisers on Saturday were focusing on smaller marches at more locations. The DC protest was expected to draw 50,000. The 2018 march filled downtown Washington with more than 200,000 people.By noon on Saturday, thousands had gathered around the Washington Monument. Protestors held signs demanding justice for the victims of Uvalde and Buffalo. Speakers included activists, family members of those killed and shooting survivors.Garnell Whitfield, son of Ruth Whitfield, an 86-year-old killed in Buffalo, told the crowd he and his family were “still in a state of shock”. When she was killed, Ruth Whitfield was buying groceries after visiting her husband at a nursing home.Happening now: March for our Lives in Buffalo #MarchForOurLivesJune11 pic.twitter.com/QHPtmTzbor— Gabriel Elizondo (@elizondogabriel) June 11, 2022
      “We are being naive to think that it couldn’t happen to us,” Garnell Whitfield said. “Enough is enough. We will not go quietly into the night as victims. We hear a lot about prayer, and prayer is wonderful and we thank you for your prayers. But prayer is not a noun, it’s a verb. It’s an action. You pray, then you get up and you work.”The parents of Joaquin Oliver, a 17-year-old killed in the Parkland shooting, wore shirts bearing a picture of their son.“I was hoping to avoid attending a march like this ever again,” Manuel Oliver said, standing next to his wife, Patricia. “Our elected officials betrayed us and have avoided the responsibility to end gun violence.”The crowd heard from two founders of March for Our Lives, David Hogg and X Gonzalez, both Parkland survivors.“All Americans have a right to not be shot, a right to safety,” Hogg said. “Nowhere in the constitution is unrestricted access to weapons of war a guaranteed right.“We’ve seen the damage AR-15s do. When we look at the innocent children of Uvalde, tiny coffins horrify us. Tiny coffins filled with small, mutilated and decapitated bodies. That should fill us with rage and demands for change.”Hogg emphasized state and local gun legislation passed since 2018. He noted a red flag law that saw a court-ordered disarming of an individual who sent his mother a death threat. He encouraged the crowd to bring the issue of gun control to the polls.“If our government can’t do anything to stop 19 kids from being killed and slaughtered in their own school and decapitated, it’s time to change who is in government,” Hogg said.Gonzalez gave an impassioned rebuke to Congress.“I’ve spent these past four years doing my best to keep my rage in check. To keep my profanity at a minimum so everyone can understand and appreciate the arguments I’m trying to make, but I have reached my fucking limit. We are being murdered. Cursing will not rob us of our innocence.“You say that children are the future, and you never listen to what we say once we’re old enough to disagree with you, you decaying degenerates. You really want to protect children, pass some fucking gun laws.”Gonzalez said Congress had started treating mass shootings as a “fact of life”, like natural disasters. She criticized politicians for their relationships with gun lobbyists, saying: “We saw you cash those fucking checks. We as children did the heavy lifting for you. Act your age, not your shoe-size, Congress. You ought to be ashamed.”Yolanda King, who spoke at the 2018 March for Our Lives rally when she was nine, spoke of hope for action after Uvalde and Buffalo. Now 14, she evoked her grandfather, Martin Luther King Jr.“My grandfather was taken from the world by gun violence. Six years after his death, his mother, my great-grandmother, was killed in church during Sunday service. We have all been touched by tragedy, we have all been lifted up by hope.“Today we’re telling Congress, we’re telling the gun lobby and we’re telling the world this time is different. This time is different because we’ve had enough. We’ve had enough of having more guns than people here in America. Together, we can carve that stone of love and hope out of that mountain of death and despair. Together we can build a gun-free world for all people.Dozens of other rallies saw protesters call for stronger legislation. In Buffalo, hundreds protested outside the supermarket where the shooting happened. The group held a moment of silence and chanted “Not one more”.March for Our Lives has called for an assault weapons ban, universal background checks for gun purchases and a national licensing system.The US House has passed bills that would raise the age limit to buy semi-automatic weapons and establish a federal “red flag” law. But previous such initiatives have stalled or been watered down in the Senate. The new marches were to take place a day after senators left Washington without reaching agreement in guns talks.On Saturday, Joe Biden tweeted his support.“I join them by repeating my call to Congress: do something,” the president said, adding that Congress must ban assault weapons, strengthen background checks, pass red flag laws and repeal gun manufacturers’ immunity to liability.“We can’t fail the American people again,” the president wrote. More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      El comité sobre el ataque al Capitolio muestra a Trump como un aspirante a autócrata

      by

      Según el comité que investiga el ataque al Capitolio del 6 de enero, Donald Trump llevó a cabo una conspiración en siete partes para anular una elección democrática libre y justa.Es muy probable que en los 246 años de historia de Estados Unidos nunca se haya hecho una acusación más comprometedora contra un presidente estadounidense que la presentada el jueves por la noche en una sala de audiencias cavernosa del Congreso, donde el futuro de la democracia parecía estar en juego.A otros mandatarios se les ha acusado de actuar mal, incluso de cometer delitos e infracciones, pero el caso en contra de Donald Trump formulado por la comisión bipartidista de la Cámara de Representantes que investiga el ataque al Capitolio del 6 de enero de 2021 no solo describe a un presidente deshonesto, sino a un aspirante a autócrata dispuesto a violar la Constitución para aferrarse al poder a toda costa.Como lo describió la comisión durante su audiencia televisada, a la hora de mayor audiencia, Trump ejecutó una conspiración en siete partes para anular una elección democrática libre y justa. Según el panel, le mintió al pueblo estadounidense, ignoró todas las pruebas que refutaban sus falsas denuncias de fraude, presionó a los funcionarios estatales y federales para que anularan los resultados de las elecciones que favorecían a su contrincante, alentó a una turba violenta a atacar el Capitolio e incluso señaló su apoyo a la ejecución de su propio vicepresidente.“El 6 de enero fue la culminación de un intento de golpe de Estado, un intento descarado, como dijo uno de los alborotadores poco después del 6 de enero, de derrocar al gobierno”, dijo el representante demócrata por Misisipi, Bennie Thompson, presidente de la comisión especial. “La violencia no fue un accidente. Representa la última oportunidad de Trump, la más desesperada, para detener la transferencia de poder”.Representatives Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi, and Liz Cheney, Republican of Wyoming, led the first hearing on the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, which included testimony from a Capitol police officer and a documentary filmmaker.Kenny Holston for The New York TimesLas palabras de los propios asesores y personajes nombrados por Trump fueron las más incriminatorias. Se proyectaron en video en una pantalla gigante sobre el estrado de la comisión y se transmitieron a una audiencia de televisión nacional. Se pudo ver cómo su propio fiscal general le dijo a Trump que sus denuncias de una elección falsa eran “patrañas”. Su abogado de campaña testificó que no había suficientes pruebas de fraude para cambiar el resultado. Hasta su propia hija, Ivanka Trump, reconoció haber aceptado la conclusión de que la elección no fue robada, como su padre seguía afirmando.Read More on the Jan. 6 House Committee HearingsThe Meaning of the Hearings: While the public sessions aren’t going to unite the country, they could significantly affect public opinion.An Unsettling Narrative: During the first hearing, the House panel presented a gripping story with a sprawling cast of characters, but only three main players: Donald Trump, the Proud Boys and a Capitol Police officer.Trump’s Depiction: Former president Donald J. Trump was portrayed as a would-be autocrat willing to shred the Constitution to hang onto power. Liz Cheney: The vice chairwoman of the House committee has been unrepentant in continuing to blame Mr. Trump for stoking the attack on Jan. 6, 2021.Buena parte de las pruebas fueron presentadas por la principal figura republicana en la comisión, la representante por Wyoming Liz Cheney, quien ha sido condenada al ostracismo por Trump y por buena parte de su partido por condenar una y otra vez las acciones del entonces presidente después de la elección. Cheney planteó con firmeza el caso y luego se dirigió a sus compañeros republicanos que han optado por apoyar a su derrotado expresidente y justificar sus acciones.“A mis colegas republicanos que defienden lo indefendible les digo: llegará el día en el que Donald Trump se haya ido, pero el deshonor de ustedes permanecerá”, declaró.Muchos de los detalles ya se habían dado a conocer y muchas interrogantes sobre las acciones de Trump quedaron sin respuesta por ahora, pero Cheney resumió los hallazgos de la comisión de una forma implacable y acusadora.Un grupo de personas en Washington que se reunió para ver la audiencia, escuchaba a la representante Liz Cheney, republicana por Wyoming.Shuran Huang para The New York TimesAlgunas de las nuevas revelaciones y las confirmaciones de las noticias recientes fueron suficientes para provocar exclamaciones de asombro en el recinto y, tal vez, en las salas de todo el país. Se informó que luego de que se le dijo que la multitud del 6 de enero coreaba “Cuelguen a Mike Pence”, el vicepresidente que desafió las presiones del presidente para bloquear la transferencia de poder, Trump respondió: “Quizá nuestros seguidores tengan la idea correcta”. Mike Pence, agregó, “se lo merece”.Cheney, vicepresidenta del panel, informó que en la víspera del ataque del 6 de enero, miembros del propio gabinete de Trump hablaron de invocar la Vigésima Quinta Enmienda para destituir al entonces presidente del cargo. Reveló que el representante por Pensilvania Scott Perry y “otros congresistas republicanos” que habían participado en el intento de anular la elección buscaron obtener indultos de Trump durante sus últimos días en el cargo.Cheney reprodujo un video en el que se veía a Jared Kushner, yerno del exmandatario y asesor principal que después de la elección se ausentó en lugar de enfrentar a los teóricos de la conspiración que incitaban a Trump, desechar con displicencia las amenazas de Pat A. Cipollone, consejero de la Casa Blanca, y otros abogados de presentar su renuncia en señal de protesta. “Me pareció que solo eran lloriqueos, para ser sincero”, declaró Kushner.También la vicepresidenta del comité señaló que mientras Pence tomó medidas reiteradas para buscar asistencia y detener a la turba el 6 de enero, el presidente no hizo tal esfuerzo. En cambio, su jefe de gabinete de la Casa Blanca, Mark Meadows, trató de convencer al general Mark A. Milley, presidente del Estado Mayor Conjunto, de fingir que Trump estaba activamente involucrado.“Dijo: ‘Tenemos que eliminar el relato de que el vicepresidente está tomando todas las decisiones’”, dijo el general Milley en un testimonio grabado en video. “‘Necesitamos imponer la versión de que el presidente todavía está a cargo, y que las cosas están firmes o estables’, o palabras en ese sentido. Inmediatamente interpreté eso como política, política, política”.Trump no tuvo aliados en la comisión de nueve integrantes de la Cámara de Representantes y él y sus seguidores rechazaron el trabajo del panel con el argumento de que es un intento partidista para desprestigiarlo. En Fox News, que optó por no transmitir la audiencia, Sean Hannity se esmeraba por cambiar el tema y atacó a la comisión por no centrarse en las violaciones de seguridad del Capitolio, de las que culpa principalmente a la presidenta de la Cámara de Representantes, Nancy Pelosi, aunque el senador por Kentucky Mitch McConnell, entonces líder de la mayoría republicana, compartía con ella el control del edificio en ese momento.Antes de la audiencia, Trump trató una vez más de reescribir la historia al presentar el ataque al Capitolio como una manifestación legítima de agravio público contra unas elecciones robadas. “El 6 de enero no fue solo una protesta, sino que representó el mayor movimiento en la historia de nuestro país para hacer a Estados Unidos grandioso de nuevo”, escribió en su nuevo sitio de redes sociales.El panel reprodujo un video de Ivanka Trump, la hija de Trump y exasesora de la Casa Blanca, testificando a puerta cerrada.Kenny Holston para The New York TimesTrump no es el primer presidente que ha sido señalado por mala conducta, infracción de la ley o incluso violación de la Constitución. Andrew Johnson y Bill Clinton fueron acusados ​​por la Cámara de Representantes, aunque absueltos por el Senado. John Tyler se puso del lado de la Confederación durante la Guerra de Secesión. Richard M. Nixon renunció bajo amenaza de juicio político por abusar de su poder para encubrir actividades corruptas de campaña. Warren G. Harding tuvo el escándalo del Teapot Dome y Ronald Reagan el caso Irán-Contras.Pero los delitos alegados en la mayoría de esos casos palidecen en comparación con las acusaciones contra Trump, y aunque Tyler se puso en contra del país que una vez dirigió, murió antes de que pudiera rendir cuentas. Nixon enfrentó audiencias durante Watergate no muy diferentes a las que comenzaron el jueves por la noche y estuvo involucrado en otros escándalos más allá del robo que finalmente derivó en su salida. Pero la deshonestidad flagrante y la incitación a la violencia expuestas el jueves eclipsaron incluso sus fechorías, según diversos académicos.Trump, por supuesto, ya fue impugnado en dos ocasiones y absuelto otras dos, la segunda por su involucramiento en el ataque del 6 de enero. Pero, aun así, el caso en su contra ahora es mucho más amplio y expansivo, después de que la comisión llevó a cabo unas 1000 entrevistas y obtuvo más de 100.000 páginas de documentos.Lo que el comité intentaba demostrar era que no se trataba de un presidente con preocupaciones razonables sobre el fraude o una protesta que se salió de control. En cambio, el panel estaba tratando de obtener las pruebas de que Trump formó parte de una conspiración criminal contra la democracia; que sabía que no había un fraude generalizado porque su propio entorno se lo dijo, que, de manera intencional, convocó a una turba para que detuviera la entrega del poder a Joseph R. Biden Jr. y se quedó cruzado de brazos sin hacer casi nada cuando el ataque comenzó.Aún no sabemos si el panel puede cambiar las opiniones públicas sobre esos acontecimientos, pero muchos estrategas y analistas políticos piensan que es poco probable. Con medios más fragmentados y una sociedad más polarizada, la mayoría de los estadounidenses ya tienen una opinión sobre el 6 de enero y solo escuchan a quienes la comparten.Sin embargo, había otro espectador de las audiencias, el fiscal general Merrick B. Garland. Si la comisión estaba exponiendo lo que consideraba una acusación formal contra el expresidente, parecía estar invitando al Departamento de Justicia a seguir el caso de verdad con un gran jurado y en un tribunal de justicia.Al adelantar la historia que se contará en las próximas semanas, Cheney casi le escribió el guion a Garland. La representante dijo: “Van a escuchar sobre complots para cometer conspiración sediciosa el 6 de enero, un delito definido en nuestras leyes como conspirar para derrocar, destituir o destruir por la fuerza el gobierno de Estados Unidos u oponerse por la fuerza a la autoridad del mismo”.Pero si Garland no está de acuerdo y las audiencias de este mes resultan ser el único juicio al que se enfrente Trump por sus esfuerzos para anular las elecciones, Cheney y sus compañeros de la comisión estaban decididos a asegurarse de que, al menos, sea condenado por el jurado de la historia.Peter Baker es el corresponsal jefe de la Casa Blanca y ha cubierto a los últimos cinco presidentes para el Times y The Washington Post. También es autor de seis libros, el más reciente The Man Who Ran Washington: The Life and Times of James A. Baker III. @peterbakernyt • Facebook More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ocasio-Cortez Turns a New York Brawl into a National Democratic Proxy Battle

      by

      Sean Patrick Maloney is a Democratic Party stalwart who declares himself a “practical, mainstream guy.”Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a political outsider-turned-left-wing star with a powerful social media megaphone.Perhaps no two House Democrats better represent the dueling factions of a party at war with itself — over matters of ideology and institutions, how to amass power and, most of all, how to beat Republicans. Mr. Maloney, who represents a Hudson Valley-area district, is the chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, tasked with protecting incumbents and making him a pillar of the establishment. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who represents the Bronx and Queens, has made it her mission to push that establishment to the left, one endorsement of a liberal challenger at a time.The two forces collided this week when Ms. Ocasio-Cortez handed her endorsement to Mr. Maloney’s primary opponent, Alessandra Biaggi, a left-leaning state senator with a political pedigree. It is often frowned upon for incumbents of the same party to back primary challengers, and it is especially unusual within a state’s delegation. But Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who toppled a Democratic incumbent herself in 2018, has never been one to abide by such rules, and her muscle and fund-raising savvy could be a major factor in the race.The move turned a contest already filled with powerful New Yorkers and divided loyalties into a messy national Democratic proxy battle. There are clear tensions on issues that have divided the moderate and left wings of the party, including public safety, Medicare for All and fund-raising tactics. Driving those disputes are more existential questions, like how to pursue political survival in a climate that appears increasingly catastrophic for the party in power.Representative Sean Patrick Maloney of New York at the Capitol in 2021. Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images“It’s a fight between two Democrats: one is younger and dynamic and wants to make changes quickly,” said former Governor David Paterson, for whom Mr. Maloney once worked and who has remained neutral in the race. By contrast, he said, Mr. Maloney “is now emerging in the leadership of the House, and is thinking more about the entire party and how things will go in November this year.”The fight will play out in New York’s 17th District, which under new boundaries includes parts of wealthy Westchester County, outside New York City, and conservative Hudson Valley hamlets. The district was recently redrawn as part of a redistricting fight that left some Democrats seething at Mr. Maloney. It also left the 17th District more competitive — raising the stakes for a primary fight that may turn on which candidate voters think can hold the seat. Mike Lawler, a state assemblyman, is expected to be the Republican front-runner in the primary on Aug. 23.“We have an incredible opportunity to be able to win against Republicans in November by being bold on our positions for working people,” Ms. Biaggi said in an interview.But that may not happen with an Ocasio-Cortez endorsement, warned Suzanne Berger, the chairwoman of the Westchester County Democratic Committee, who is backing Mr. Maloney.“They misjudged the voters of New York-17 if they think that is helpful to winning in November, which is the main point,” she said. “Republicans will use that endorsement as a weapon in November.”Ms. Ocasio-Cortez declined an interview request. Her spokeswoman, Lauren Hitt, said that the district would be competitive regardless and that “with Roe and gun safety on voters’ minds, Senator Biaggi’s record makes her uniquely positioned to drive out enthusiastic voters in the midterms.”Ms. Biaggi and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez have been political allies since they both rose to prominence by defeating Democratic incumbents in 2018. Ms. Biaggi, 36, is the granddaughter of Mario Biaggi, who was a 10-term congressman from New York. Hillary Clinton, whose Chappaqua home is now in the district, helped lead Ms. Biaggi’s wedding ceremony. Mr. Maloney, 55, has his own Clinton connections. He worked in former President Bill Clinton’s White House as a staff secretary, and he recently marched with Mrs. Clinton in a Memorial Day parade in Chappaqua, according to a photo he posted on Twitter. Spokesmen for the Clintons had no comment on their plans to endorse in the race.Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hugging Alessandra Biaggi in the Bronx on Election Day in 2020.Desiree Rios for The New York TimesMr. Maloney, who calls himself a “pragmatic progressive who gets things done,” is regarded as the favorite in the race, though local party officials say both candidates have work to do in introducing themselves across a newly configured district. Ms. Biaggi, for her part, argued that Mr. Maloney had been too timid on issues like health care — she supports Medicare for All and said that “ideally private insurance would not be part of that.” She casts Mr. Maloney as too close to corporate interests.And, at a moment of overlapping national crises and frequent stalemate on Capitol Hill, where Democrats hold narrow majorities, she suggested that voters were in the mood for candidates who would “fight like hell for them.”When Mr. Maloney first arrived in Congress after flipping a Republican seat in 2012, he was unquestionably more of a centrist. But his allies now dismiss the idea that the congressman — New York’s first openly gay member of Congress who has long fought for L.G.B.T.Q. rights and supported climate proposals backed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez — is a moderate.In an interview, he said he believed “in mainstream policies that can get done right now, on things like protecting our kids from gun violence, protecting reproductive freedom and climate change.” (The Senate has stymied most of those priorities.)He noted several times that he had “nothing but respect” or “tremendous respect” for Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, despite her endorsement of Ms. Biaggi.“I’m an original co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, and we have spoken about that — I speak to her all the time,” he said.But as of Thursday, he confirmed, they had not spoken since she raised the prospect last month that he should step aside as D.C.C.C. chairman, amid a battle over redistricting that threatened to tear the delegation apart. According to people in and around the delegation, who were granted anonymity to discuss private conversations, there have not been efforts to mediate between the two representatives.Ms. Hitt, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s spokeswoman, said that they were “collegial despite their differences.”After the state’s high court struck down a congressional map drawn by Democrats and a new map was announced, Mr. Maloney declared that he would be running not in the redrawn version of his current 18th Congressional District but in the slightly safer 17th District. He lives there — and Ms. Biaggi does not, although she is planning to move to it — but the area is largely represented by Representative Mondaire Jones.State Senator Alessandra Biaggi of New York speaking outside Rikers Island prison last year in support of legislation aimed at reducing the prison population.Juan Arredondo for The New York TimesThe leader of the campaign committee entertaining a challenge to a fellow incumbent drew explosive backlash, and Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, citing a conflict of interest, suggested that Mr. Maloney should step down as chairman should he pursue such a challenge. Ultimately, Mr. Jones decided to run in a different district and a primary was averted, but some members still privately bristle at the episode.Asked about his message to disgruntled colleagues, Mr. Maloney acknowledged that he “could have done things better,” even as he stressed that the district he selected was only marginally safer for Democrats than the alternative.“I also thought there was a way for it to work out and avoid a primary between members and that’s just what we did,” he said.He also promised that, as chairman of the committee, his “heart” and his “focus” would be on protecting the Democratic majority even as he navigated his own race.At the same time, Mr. Maloney noted that he ended a policy that blacklisted consultants or political groups that backed candidates who ran against incumbents. The policy had been a point of contention between left-leaning members and the D.C.C.C.Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has backed several challengers this year — one lost and one narrowly trails in a race that is headed to a recount — much to the annoyance of some Democrats.“New York’s post-redistricting fiasco is a clear demonstration of why a sitting member of Congress should not lead the political arm of the Democratic Party,” said Representative Kathleen Rice of New York. But she also seemed to criticize Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, complaining about “certain members with their own long history of challenging incumbents” who are stirring the pot.“When the stakes are this high, Democrats should be coming together to keep the majority, rather than promoting Dem-on-Dem violence,” she said.Asked about criticism that Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is overly eager to take on her colleagues, Ms. Hitt said that the congresswoman believed that no one was entitled to re-election “by default.”Some nationally prominent House Democrats have rallied around Mr. Maloney, who is close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. The list includes the chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative Joyce Beatty of Ohio, who said in an interview Thursday that she was supporting him.Some of the criticism Mr. Maloney is getting, she noted, comes with the job.“You’re never going to make everybody happy, and you’re judged on victory,” she said.Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, called Mr. Maloney “a hard-working and well-respected member of Congress who has won multiple hotly contested elections,” and expressed confidence that voters “will once again send him back to Washington.”Asked if that was an endorsement, he said only that the comment spoke for itself. But it reflected an unmistakable sign of encouragement from party leadership.The primary is scheduled for August. But for all the drama around the contest, some Democrats in the delegation and beyond are already consumed by bigger problems amid an ever-worsening political climate.“When you’re facing the possibility of a tornado,” said former Representative Steve Israel, a former D.C.C.C. chairman, “the angry breezes don’t really matter.” More

    • 188 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden says forces behind January 6 attack ‘remain at work today’ – as it happened

      by

      Joe Biden warned that the forces behind the January 6 attack had not been defeated, and said no one should be able to hold “a dagger at the throat of our democracy.”Speaking in Los Angeles the day after the committee investigating the insurrection held a closely watched hearing, the president said he remained worried about the fallout from the events at the Capitol.“It’s important the American people understand what truly happened, and to understand that the same forces that led January 6 remain at work today,” Biden said. “We’re seeing how the battle for the soul of America has been far from won. But I know together, and I mean this, we can unite and defend this nation, Democrat and Republican, allow no one to place a dagger at the throat of our democracy.”The president said he did not end up watching the hearing, which will continue on Monday.The US politics blog is closing down after a day that saw Washington react to new revelations about what went on during the January 6 attack, while the Biden administration was rocked by inflation numbers that showed prices rising faster than expected last month. Senators are meanwhile still trying to reach an agreement on bipartisan gun control legislation, but no deal was announced.Here’s a rundown of what happened today:
      President Joe Biden said in a speech that the forces behind the Capitol insurrection “remain at work today”.
      The January 6 committee’s decision to broadcast in primetime appears to have paid off, with more than 19 million people having tuned in, a number that’s expected to grow.
      The bad inflation numbers were good news for Republicans, who used them to hammer the Biden administration as midterms that could put them in control of one or both houses of Congress draw ever nearer. The White House meanwhile said it is “doing everything we can” to stop prices from rising.
      The filibuster only frustrates voters, former president Barack Obama said in a speech in which he also shared his opinions on big tech and issues of race in American society today.
      The blog returns on Monday, as does the January 6 committee, which will hold its next hearing at 10 am eastern.A coach for the Washington Commanders football team is going to pay — literally — for his comments casting doubt on the severity of the January 6 insurrection.The team announced Jack Del Rio, an assistant coach who coordinates defense for the team in the nation’s capital, will pay a $100,000 fine after questioning why the protests that followed George Floyd’s death in 2020 didn’t get as much scrutiny as the Capitol attack, which he called a “dust-up”.pic.twitter.com/86bJREVDsq— Washington Commanders (@Commanders) June 10, 2022
      Read more about it here:Washington Commanders coach sorry after calling Capitol attack a ‘dust-up’Read moreThe number of viewers of last night’s January 6 committee hearing has topped 19 million, The New York Times reports, a figure that’s nowhere near what the state of the union address or presidential debates get, but still much more than the average congressional hearing.According to the Times:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}That number will grow in the coming hours, as more networks are tallied and out-of-home viewing is factored in. Nielsen is expected to have a final viewership figure on Friday evening.
      By scheduling a congressional hearing for 8 to 10 p.m., committee members and Democrats were hoping to make the case to the biggest audience possible. ABC, CBS and NBC pre-empted their prime-time programming and went into special-report mode to cover it live.
      Though the Thursday night figure pales next to presidential debates (63 million to 73 million) or this year’s State of the Union address (38 million), it’s still much larger than the audience that would normally watch a daytime congressional hearing. And it’s in the ballpark of television events like a big “Sunday Night Football” game or the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade.The Washington Post has published more details about the activities around the 2020 election of Ginni Thomas, wife of conservative supreme court justice Clarence Thomas.The newspaper’s latest report said she sent 29 Republican state lawmakers in Arizona form emails encouraging them to “choose” their own presidential electors and ignore Joe Biden’s victory in the state.According to the Post:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The message, just days after media organizations called the race for Biden in Arizona and nationwide, urged lawmakers to “stand strong in the face of political and media pressure” and claimed that the responsibility to choose electors was “yours and yours alone.” They had “power to fight back against fraud” and “ensure that a clean slate of Electors is chosen,” the email said.
      Among the lawmakers who received the email was then-Rep. Anthony Kern, a Stop the Steal supporter who lost his reelection bid in November 2020 and then joined U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) and others as a plaintiff in a lawsuit against Vice President Mike Pence, a last-ditch effort to overturn Biden’s victory. Kern was photographed outside the Capitol during the riot on Jan. 6 but has said he did not enter the building, according to local media reports.
      Kern did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday. He is seeking his party’s nomination for a seat in the Arizona state Senate and has been endorsed by former president Donald Trump.
      On Dec. 13, the day before members of the electoral college were slated to cast their votes and seal Biden’s victory, Thomas emailed 22 House members and one senator. “Before you choose your state’s Electors … consider what will happen to the nation we all love if you don’t stand up and lead,” the email said. It linked to a video of a man urging swing-state lawmakers to “put things right” and “not give in to cowardice.”
      Speaker of the House Russell “Rusty” Bowers and Rep. Shawnna Bolick, the two recipients previously identified, told The Post in May that the outreach from Thomas had no bearing on their decisions about how to handle claims of election fraud.
      But the revelation that Ginni Thomas was directly involved in pressing them to override the popular vote — an act that would have been without precedent in the modern era — intensified questions about whether her husband should recuse himself from cases related to the 2020 presidential election and attempts to subvert it. Ginni Thomas’s status as a leading conservative political activist has set her apart from other spouses of Supreme Court justices.Today has been a packed news day, except on one topic: gun control. Senators in Washington are still negotiating over a measure to respond to the recent mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, New York that can win bipartisan support, but have yet to announce a deal.Pressure mounts on Senate to act on gun safety amid Republican resistanceRead moreThe chamber’s top Democrat was as recently as yesterday sounding optimistic about a deal’s prospects, but gun legislation is extremely difficult to find a consensus on in Congress, and previous negotiations have collapsed unexpectedly.In Oregon, things are moving a bit faster. The Associated Press reports that a signature campaign to put an initiative before voters that would tighten down on gun access has seen a surge in interest following the shootings:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}When Raevahnna Richardson spotted a woman standing outside a library in Salem, Oregon, gathering signatures for a gun-safety initiative, she made a beeline to her and added her name.
      “I signed it to keep our kids safe, because something needs to change. I have a kid that’s going to be in first grade this upcoming season, and I don’t want her to have to be scared at school,” Richardson said.
      “To keep our kids safe.” It’s something that so many parents across the United States are worried about after the horrific massacre of 19 children and two teachers in Uvalde, Texas. That mass shooting has given the Oregon ballot initiative huge momentum, with the number of volunteers doubling to 1,200 and signatures increasing exponentially, organizers said.
      With the U.S. Senate unlikely to pass a “red flag” bill and the majority of state legislatures having taken no action on gun safety in recent years, or moving in the opposite direction, activists see voter-driven initiatives as a viable alternative.Monday will also bring testimony from Eugene Goodman, the Capitol police officer who famously confronted rioters on January 6, CNN reports.Goodman’s testimony will come in the federal court trial of rioter Kevin Seefried, who paraded a Confederate flag around the Capitol, not before the hearing of the January 6 committee in Congress.US Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman will testify on Monday against two Jan 6 defendants, one of whom carried a Confederate flag thru the Capitol.Goodman tells me this will be his first public testimony. You’ll remember he deftly steered a mob away from the Senate chamber. pic.twitter.com/ABSTT3WnlL— Kristin Wilson (@kristin__wilson) June 10, 2022
      Want to make this clear here, and also in another tweet: Officer Goodman testifying on Monday in US District Court for DC — in the bench trial for Kevin Seefried and his son.It’s not before the January 6th Committee.— Kristin Wilson (@kristin__wilson) June 10, 2022
      US Capitol police officer Eugene Goodman awarded Congressional Gold MedalRead moreA one-time acting US attorney general and a former Fox News editor are among the guests expected at the upcoming January 6 committee hearings, NBC News reports.Jeffrey Rosen, who took over as attorney general for the final week’s of Donald Trump’s term following William Barr’s resignation from the post, will appear at the committee’s third hearing next Wednesday, alongside Richard Donoghue, a former acting deputy attorney general, and Steve Engel, a former assistant attorney general. According to NBC, the “hearing will offer evidence about Trump’s unsuccessful plan to oust Rosen and replace him with another DOJ official who was more supportive of Trump’s fraud claims.”For the committee’s second hearing on Monday of next week, ex-Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt will be among the guests. He made the decision to call the crucial state of Arizona for Biden in the 2020 election, and said he was subjected to “murderous rage” from Trump supporters for it.Monday and Wednesday’s hearings both begin at 10 am eastern time.Joe Biden warned that the forces behind the January 6 attack had not been defeated, and said no one should be able to hold “a dagger at the throat of our democracy.”Speaking in Los Angeles the day after the committee investigating the insurrection held a closely watched hearing, the president said he remained worried about the fallout from the events at the Capitol.“It’s important the American people understand what truly happened, and to understand that the same forces that led January 6 remain at work today,” Biden said. “We’re seeing how the battle for the soul of America has been far from won. But I know together, and I mean this, we can unite and defend this nation, Democrat and Republican, allow no one to place a dagger at the throat of our democracy.”The president said he did not end up watching the hearing, which will continue on Monday.The new Air Force Ones will probably look like the old Air Force Ones after all. Politico reports that the Biden administration has opted to scrap a paint scheme chosen by Trump during his time in the White House for the next batch of presidential jets due to overheating problems.From their report:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} The darker paint scheme would have required additional modifications to cool some of the components, potentially driving up costs, the Air Force said.
      For this reason, the White House ultimately chose to scrap the Trump plan.
      “The Trump paint scheme is not being considered because it could drive additional engineering, time and cost,” said the administration official, who asked for anonymity to discuss an internal issue.
      While the White House has not released a mock-up of the new Air Force Ones, which will consist of two modified Boeing 747-8s, it is likely they will revert to the classic JFK-era light blue and white scheme. The new planes aren’t expected to fly until 2026, according to Air Force budget documents.
      The new paint decision is good news for Boeing, which would have had to pay out-of-pocket to fix the heating problem. The company on Friday referred questions on the paint job to the Air Force.President Joe Biden defended his administration’s approach to fighting inflation following this morning’s release of numbers that were much worse than predicted.In a statement, the president directed blame towards Russian leader Vladimir Putin and his invasion of Ukraine, which has caused prices for commodities like oil and food to spike:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} Putin’s Price Hike hit hard in May here and around the world: high gas prices at the pump, energy, and food prices accounted for around half of the monthly price increases, and gas pump prices are up by $2 a gallon in many places since Russian troops began to threaten Ukraine. Even as we continue our work to defend freedom in Ukraine, we must do more—and quickly—to get prices down here in the United States.Biden also made a pitch for action on his own legislative priorities:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} I call on Congress to pass a bill to cut shipping costs this month, and get it to my desk, so we can lower the price of goods. And, I call on Congress to pass legislation to cut costs for families like energy bills and prescription drugs. The deficit has come down more under my watch as President than at any time in history, but if Congress would pass tax reform to make the wealthiest Americans and big corporations pay their fair share, we could reduce this inflationary pressure even more.Much of Congress’s energy right now is dedicated to finding a bipartisan compromise on gun control following a spate of recent mass shootings, and some legislation that appeared to have momentum in recent months has already fallen by the wayside.Michelle Obama is making fresh exhortations to people to “double down” on efforts to protect abortion rights in the US, ahead of an expected final ruling in the next few weeks from the US Supreme Court on a key abortion case out of Mississippi that also directly asks the court to overturn Roe v Wade.“As we prepare for the decision from the supreme court on the fate of Roe v Wade, I know so many of us are anxious and wondering if there’s anything we can do. Let’s be clear: this potential decision would be the culmination of a decades-long strategy to take away a woman’s right to make decisions about her own health,” she wrote on Instagram later on yesterday.She added: “So we’ve got to get to work today. We’ve got to press our elected leaders at every level to pull every lever they can to protect the right to safe, legal abortion – right now. And we’ve got to make sure that everyone we know is voting … in every single election … for decades if that’s what it takes.”Former president Barack Obama and the former first lady had released a joint statement after the leak [of the court’s draft opinion favoring striking down Roe] criticizing the opinion, saying it would “relegate the most intensely personal decision someone can make to the whims of politicians and ideologues,” the Hill reported on Thursday.Michelle Obama continued in her post, in part: “We can’t afford to get cynical or throw our hands up and walk away. We have to double down, get even more organized and join the activists who’ve been doing this work away from the spotlight for so long. And we’ve got to do it not just for ourselves but for the next generation.”US shaken to its core by supreme court draft that would overturn Roe v WadeRead moreThe United States rolled out a raft of actions to support migrants on Friday as president Joe Biden and fellow leaders prepare to issue a joint declaration on migration on the final day of an Americas summit beset by diplomatic squabbling, Reuters reports.The Biden administration pledged hundreds of millions of aid to Venezuelan migrants across the Western Hemisphere, as well as programs to support temporary family-based visas for Cubans and Haitians and ease the hiring of Central American workers on Friday.The announcements are set to accompany a US-led pact dubbed the “Los Angeles Declaration” that aims to create incentives for countries taking in large numbers of migrants and spread responsibility across the region. But some analysts are skeptical there will be many meaningful commitments.The plan caps the Summit of the Americas hosted by Biden in Los Angeles that was designed to reassert US leadership and counter China’s growing economic footprint in the region.However, that message was clouded by a partial boycott by leaders, including Mexico’s president, in protest at Washington’s exclusion of US antagonists Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua from the gathering.At the summit’s opening session on Thursday, leaders from Argentina and tiny Belize took to the podium to rebuke Biden face-to-face over the guest list, underscoring the challenge the global superpower faces in restoring its influence among poorer neighbors.The declaration, due to be presented by Biden and other leaders later on Friday, will call on governments in the region to expand their own temporary worker programs, said a senior US official who previewed the plan.Some countries are unlikely to endorse the migrant declaration, according to a person familiar with the matter. Some Caribbean states would not approve it, an official at the summit said.Today has been dominated by the aftermath of Thursday evening’s January 6 committee hearings, which began building the case that Trump played a major role in orchestrating the assault on the Capitol, while shedding light on the other forces at work in Washington that day.Meanwhile, Republicans have seized on a worryingly high inflation reading to press their case for being in charge.Here’s what else is going on today:
      The January 6 hearing cut through propaganda that’s been spread about the insurrection, said Jamie Raskin, a Democratic lawmaker on the committee.
      Trump responded to his daughter Ivanka Trump’s statement that she never really believed the 2020 election was stolen.
      The bad inflation numbers were good news for Republicans, who used them to hammer the Biden administration as midterms that could put them in control of one or both houses of Congress draw ever nearer.
      The filibuster only frustrates voters, former president Barack Obama said in a speech in which he also shared his opinions on big tech and issues of race in American society today.
      There’s only one group of Americans left who can’t access Covid-19 vaccines: kids under five. Next week, a series of hearings and decisions may offer clarity on when young children will get access to the shots, and give parents nationwide a path back to normalcy.The Associated Press has a look at what to expect:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}On Wednesday, both Moderna and Pfizer will have to convince what’s essentially a science court — advisers to the Food and Drug Administration — that their shots work well in babies, toddlers and preschoolers.
      Kids under 5 are the only group not yet eligible for COVID-19 vaccination in the U.S. If the agency’s advisers endorse one or both shots for them — and the FDA agrees — there’s still another hurdle. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must recommend whether all tots need immunization or just those at high risk from the virus.
      Adding to the complexity, each company is offering different dose sizes and number of shots. And the week won’t even start with the littlest kid debate: Moderna first will ask FDA’s advisers to support its vaccine for older children.
      Only a handful of countries, including China and Cuba, have offered different types of COVID-19 vaccinations to children younger than 5.Former president Barack Obama has taken aim at the filibuster, saying the Senate procedure so frustrates the legislative process that it makes Americans feel like voting is futile.Obama has plenty of experience with the filibuster, which Republicans used repeatedly to block his legislative priorities during his two terms in office, though he did have notable successes such as the landmark Obamacare health care overhaul.From Obama’s speech at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit:Former President Obama hits at Senate filibuster during summit in Copenhagen.He says it had “effectively made it almost impossible for either party … to get anything substantially through the Senate and passed and signed into law … People start wondering, ‘why bother?'” pic.twitter.com/UAgs5sDFdv— The Recount (@therecount) June 10, 2022
      He also discussed race:Former President Obama calls emotions around culture war issues “powerful” and “legitimate.””The original identity politics is racism and sexism and homophobia. That’s nothing if not identity politics. And it’s done a lot more harm than some tweet from an aggrieved liberal.” pic.twitter.com/uOa5E4BilY— The Recount (@therecount) June 10, 2022
      And big tech:Former President Barack Obama:”Technology companies have to accept a degree of democratic oversight and accountability.” pic.twitter.com/9EVrN6E1AP— The Recount (@therecount) June 10, 2022 More