House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump formally subpoenaed by January 6 committee

      by

      Donald Trump formally subpoenaed by January 6 committeeFormer US president will be compelled to provide accounting under oath about his potential foreknowledge of the Capitol attack The House January 6 select committee has formally transmitted a subpoena to Donald Trump, compelling the former president to provide an accounting under oath about his potential foreknowledge of the Capitol attack and his broader efforts to overturn the 2020 election.Steve Bannon given four months in prison for contempt of CongressRead moreThe subpoena made sweeping requests for documents and testimony, dramatically raising the stakes in the highly charged congressional investigation and setting the stage for a constitutionally consequential legal battle that could ultimately go before the supreme court.“Because of your central role in each element,” the panel’s chairman, Bennie Thompson, and vice-chair, Liz Cheney, wrote, “the select committee unanimously directed the issuance of a subpoena seeking your testimony and relevant documents in your possession on these and related topics.”Most notably, the committee demanded that Trump turn over records of all January 6-related calls and texts sent or received, any communications with members of Congress, as well as communications with the far-right Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, extremist groups that stormed the Capitol.The expansive subpoena ordered Trump to produce documents by 4 November and testify on 14 November about interactions with key advisers who have asserted their fifth amendment right against self-incrimination, including the political operatives Roger Stone and Michael Flynn.“You were at the center of the first and only effort by any US president to overturn an election and obstruct the peaceful transfer of power,” the panel’s leaders wrote in making the case to subpoena Trump. “The evidence demonstrates that you knew this activity was illegal.”The subpoena also sought materials that appeared destined to be scrutinised as part of an obstruction investigation conducted by the select committee.One of the document requests, for instance, was for records about Trump’s efforts to contact witnesses and their lawyers.The documents request was specifically drafted to cover materials Trump would be able to turn over. The subpoena added: “The attached schedule is narrowly focused on records in your custody and control that you are uniquely positioned to provide to the select committee.”Thompson transmitted the subpoena after investigators spent days drafting the order and attorneys for the select committee contacted multiple lawyers working for Trump to ascertain who was authorized to accept its service.“We do not take this action lightly,” the subpoena said, noting the historical significance of the moment. But, the subpoena added, this was not the first time that a former president had been subpoenaed – and multiple former presidents have testified to Congress.Whether Trump will testify remains unclear. Though he has retained the Dhillon Law Group to handle matters relating to the subpoena, the final decision about his cooperation will be based to a large degree on his own instincts, sources close to the former president suggested.The driving factor pushing Trump to want to testify has centered around a reflexive belief that he can convince investigators that their own inquiry is a witch-hunt and that he should be exonerated over January 6, the sources said.Trump has previously expressed an eagerness to appear before the select committee and “get his pound of flesh” as long as he can appear live, the sources said – a thought he reiterated to close aides last week after the panel voted to issue the subpoena.But Trump also appears to have become more attuned to the pitfalls of testifying in ongoing investigations, with lawyers warning him about mounting legal issues in criminal inquiries brought by the US justice department and a civil lawsuit brought by the New York attorney general.The former president invoked his fifth-amendment right against self-incrimination more than 400 times in a deposition with the office of the New York attorney general before the office filed a giant fraud lawsuit against him, three of his children and senior Trump Organization executives.Trump also ultimately took the advice of his lawyers during the special counsel investigation into ties between his 2016 campaign and Russia, submitting only written responses to investigators despite initially telling advisers he wanted to testify to clear his name.That recent caution has come with the realization that Trump could open himself up to legal peril should he testify under oath, given his penchant for misrepresenting or outright lying about events of any nature – which is a crime before Congress.Any falsehoods from Trump would almost certainly be caught by the select committee. The subpoena letter said the panel intended to have the questioning conduct by attorneys, many of whom are top former justice department lawyers or federal and national security prosecutors.The former president’s testimony and transcript would almost certainly be reviewed by the justice department as part of its criminal probe into various efforts to overturn the 2020 election, which the select committee has alleged was centrally orchestrated by Trump.But the move to subpoena Trump comes with inherent risks for the panel itself. If it were to allow Trump for instance to testify live, they would be faced with a witness who might self-incriminate, but could also use proceedings to repeat lies about the 2020 election that led to the Capitol attack.The select committee might also face a difficult choice of how to proceed should Trump simply ignore the subpoena, claiming the justice department’s internal legal opinions for instance indicate that presidents and former presidents have absolute immunity from testifying to Congress.Investigators would then have to decide whether to seek judicial enforcement of the subpoena, though such an effort would likely take months – time that the select committee does not have, given it will almost certainly be disbanded at the end of the current Congress in January 2023.Should the panel instead simply move to hold Trump in contempt of Congress for defying the subpoena – his former strategist Steve Bannon was sentenced Friday to jail for his recalcitrance – it remains unclear whether the justice department would prosecute such a referral.TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackHouse of RepresentativesUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 75 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Why Republicans Are Winning Swing Voters

      by

      Rachelle Bonja and Patricia Willens and Marion Lozano and Listen and follow The DailyApple Podcasts | Spotify | StitcherAfter a summer of news that favored Democrats and with just two weeks until the midterms, a major new poll from The Times has found that swing voters are suddenly turning to the Republicans.The Times’s Nate Cohn explains what is behind the trend and what it could mean for Election Day.On today’s episodeNate Cohn, the chief political analyst for The New York Times.Mail-in ballots in Phoenix. Polling suggests that Republicans enter the final weeks of the contest for control of Congress with a narrow but distinct advantage.Rebecca Noble for The New York TimesBackground readingAccording to the Times/Siena College poll, American voters see democracy in peril, but saving it isn’t a priority.Despite Democrats’ focus on abortion rights, disapproval of President Biden seems to be hurting his party.There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.Nate Cohn contributed reporting.The Daily is made by Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Dave Shaw, Sydney Harper, Robert Jimison, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Anita Badejo, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Chelsea Daniel, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Sofia Milan, Ben Calhoun and Susan Lee.Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Cliff Levy, Lauren Jackson, Julia Simon, Mahima Chablani, Desiree Ibekwe, Wendy Dorr, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello and Nell Gallogly. More

    • 238 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden to release 15m barrels from strategic reserve in effort to tamp down gas prices – as it happened

      by

      Here’s a quick summary of what happened today:
      Joe Biden announced the release of 15m barrels of petroleum from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a move he says will keep gas prices down. Biden pushed back on criticism that the timing of the announcement, which confirmed plans to release barrels from the reserve, was politically motivated by the looming midterms.
      John Fetterman, a key Democratic candidate in the US senate race in Pennsylvania, released a detailed doctor’s report that said he is fit to work and fully serve in office following a stroke in May. This was the first official medical report from Fetterman since June.
      At a speech at a conservative think tank, Mike Pence criticized the Republican party for straying from its values and said the party should be cautious of developing an isolationist mindset, particularly regarding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
      A district court judge said that emails from Donald Trump’s attorney, John Eastman – a key architect in his plan to overthrow the 2020 election – should be released to the House special committee investigating the insurrection. The judge said emails from Eastman prove Trump signed legal documents that contained information on election fraud that he knew was false.
      We’ll be closing the blog for today, but we will be back tomorrow with more live politics updates. A US district court judge said that Donald Trump signed legal documents that contained evidence of election fraud that he knew was false, Politico is reporting. Based on emails from Trump attorney John Eastman, “President Trump knew that the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong but continued to tout those numbers, both in court and to the public,” wrote district court judge David Carter in an opinion. The opinion said that Eastman’s emails need to be turned over to the House select committee investigating the insurrection. Eastman refused to turn over their emails, citing attorney-client privilege. Carter wrote that while most of the emails may remain private, “the Court finds that these four documents are sufficiently related to and in furtherance of the obstruction crime”.A majority of Americans believe Donald Trump should testify over his involvement in the January 6 insurrection on the US Capitol, according to a Monmouth University poll released today. Six out of 10 Americans polled said that Trump should have to testify before the House committee investigating the attack. Unsurprisingly, Democrats and Republicans were split on whether Trump should have to testify, with 89% of Democrats saying he should and 67% of Republicans saying he shouldn’t. Most independents, 61%, said that he should have to testify, and only 34% said he should not have to appear at all. The American people: “We feel bad for the country, but this would be tremendous content.”60% of Americans want Trump to testify before the Jan. 6 committee, according to a new Monmouth poll; 77% say it should be public if he does. https://t.co/RBXB6IMo40 pic.twitter.com/WATj0owRcO— Kevin Robillard 🇺🇸 (@Robillard) October 19, 2022
      It is unclear whether Trump will testify before the House committee, which concluded its public hearings which it says proves Trump’s involvement in the attack by voting to subpoena Trump. A formal subpoena will likely be issued this week. Trump’s public response so far has been a rambling letter addressed to representative Bennie Thompson, who chairs the special committee. Sources close to Trump said last week that he is considering testifying in front of the committee. The committee said they do not expect to make criminal referrals to the department of justice, though they have laid out their findings to help federal investigators.A group of four members of Joe Biden’s Covid advisory board just published an op-ed in the New York Times saying that there needs to be more work to address the pandemic.“We are deeply dismayed by what has been left undone,” the group, which includes Ezekial Emanuel, David Michaels, Rick Bright and Michael Osterholm, wrote. “There were many opportunities that would have permanently improved American health and the public health system. They have not yet been pursued.”“There is no question other health crises lie ahead. We need to assess the opportunities squandered or missed in the Covid pandemic and seize them now.”The group wrote that rapid, low-cost at-home-testing could be used to detect multiple infections at once. But there is no comprehensive reporting system for individuals to submit their at-home test results to public health agencies, “rendering a broad swath of infections across the country invisible to officials trying to slow their spread.”The writers note that much of the blame for inaction can be put on the lack of funding from Congress, but “not all [are] attributable to financial limitations”.They write that one big missed opportunity was one to enhance indoor air quality, particularly in schools. They recommend improving national indoor air quality standards, with focuses on schools, nursing homes, assisted-living facilities, jails and prisons and other high-risk settings.Better data collection, more paid sick leave, stronger vaccine outreach and better domestic production of medical supplies were also needed during the pandemic, they wrote.“The list could go on and on, including the poor response to long Covid.”In a speech at conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, Mike Pence criticized the direction of the Republican party saying, “I think we need to chart a course that doesn’t veer off too far in either direction.” “Our movement cannot forsake the foundational commitment that we have to security, to limited government, to liberty and to life,” Pence said. “But nor can we allow our movement to be led astray by the siren song of unprincipled populism that’s unmoored from our oldest traditions and most cherished values.” Pence seemed to criticize the “America First” mindset, particularly in the midst of Russia invasion of Ukraine. “As Russia continues its unconscionable war of aggression to Ukraine, I believe that conservatives must make ti clear that Putin must stop and Putin will pay,” he said. “There can be no room in the conservative movement for apologists to Putin. There is only room in this movement for champions of freedom.” Pence at Heritage Foundation making an impassioned plea to continue to help Ukraine. There are those in the movement that “would have us disengage with the wider world,” he says. “But appeasement has never worked.”— Caitlin Huey-Burns (@CHueyBurns) October 19, 2022
      Opposition to isolationist ideals has not stopped Pence from endorsing candidates who have ultimately voiced opposition to involvement in the conflict, including Blake Masters, who is running for an Arizona US senate seat and called the war a “European problem”.Mehmet Oz, who is running as the Republican candidate in a key senate race, responded to today’s announcement from his opponent, John Fetterman, that a doctor clear Fetterman to work after a stroke in May. “That’s good news that John Fetterman’s doctor gave him a clean bill of health… Now that he is apparently healthy, he can debate for 90 minutes, start taking live questions from voters and reporters, and do a second debate now too,” a campaign spokesperson said. Oz senior comms adviser Rachel Tripp responds: “That’s good news that John Fetterman’s doctor gave him a clean bill of health…now that he apparently is healthy, he can debate for 90 minutes, start taking live questions from voters and reporters, and do a second debate now too.”— Sahil Kapur (@sahilkapur) October 19, 2022
      Oz and other Republicans have been using Fetterman’s stroke as an attack against him, saying that he is unfit to be in office. Fetterman’s campaign, on the other hand, has carefully been talking about his stroke as a way to gain empathy from voters. At a rally in Wallingford, Pennsylvania, Fetterman asked the audience if they or a loved one had ever dealt with a serious health issue, and nearly every hand went up. Until the doctor’s report that was released, the last official medical update from Fetterman’s campaign on his health was released in June. At his press conference moments ago announcing the release of petroleum from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, Joe Biden was asked to comment on criticism that he was making the announcement for political reasons ahead of the midterms.“I’ve been doing this for how many months now? It’s not politically motivated at all. Its motivation is to make sure that I continue to push on what I’ve been pushing on. And that is making sure there’s enough oil being pumped by the companies so that we have the ability to produce enough gas that we need here at home,” Biden said. “The problem is these guys were asleep. I don’t know where they’ve been.’”Joe Biden spoke on the release of 15m barrels of petroleum from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a move to seemingly signal to voters ahead of the midterms the White House’s efforts to tamper gas prices. Biden announced earlier this year that the energy department will be released 180m barrels from the strategic reserve this year. The 15m barrels announced today will complete the 180m barrels promised by the White House. The administration says the release will add 500,000 barrels per day of supply to the market in December. In a speech, Biden pointed to the war in Ukraine as the main reason for increasing gas prices and said that he “acted decisively” over the summer, and gas prices in turn have dropped $1.50 per gallon since their peak over the summer. “That’s progress, but they’re not falling fast enough,” Biden said. Gas prices are felt in almost every family in this country. It squeezes family budgets when the price of gas goes up, and other expenses get cut. That’s why I’ve been doing everything in my power to reduce gas prices.” “With my announcement today, we’re going to continue to stabilize markets and decrease the price at a time when the actions of other countries have caused such volatility.” Biden said that he has instructed his team to look into further releases from the reserve in the months ahead if needed. He also defended his administration against “myths” that he has slowed gas production.“Quite the opposite. We’re producing 12m barrels of oil per day. And by the end of the year, we will be producing 1m barrels a day – more than the day in which I took office.” Biden also said that the administration will repurchase crude oil from the strategic reserve once prices fall to $67 to $72 a barrel, incentivizing production for the future, and called on oil and gas companies to pass lower energy costs to consumers.Donald Trump in 2021 asked a group of people whether a Jewish documentary filmmaker was “a good Jewish character”, according to a video of the former president that was released as part of footage that was subpoenaed by the House special committee investigating the January 6 insurrection, the New York Times reports. The interaction was recorded by documentary filmmaker Alex Holder at an event at Trump’s New Jersey golf club in May 2021. Trump, speaking to several people, was responding to a woman’s comment about “Jews who didn’t vote for you”. Trump reportedly started talking about how he signed an executive order in 2019 that recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, yet he still polled low with Jewish voters in the US. “In Israel, I’m at like 94 percent, but I got 27, 28 percent [in the US],” Trump said at the time. “In Israel, I’m the most popular. With Orthodox, I’m the most popular.” Trump points to Holder, who is Jewish, “is this a good Jewish character right here?” At the end of the clip, before it cuts off, Trump asks, “You Persian? Very smart. Be careful, they’re very good salesmen.” News of the clip comes on the heels of a post Trump made on his social media platform Truth Social in which he lamented the lack of Jewish support for him despite his pro-Israel policies. “No president has done more for Israel than I have. Somewhat surprisingly, however, our wonderful Evangelicals are far more appreciative of this than the people of Jewish faith, especially those living gin the US,” he wrote. “US Jews have to get their act together and appreciate what they have in Israel – before it is too late!”The Guardian’s voting rights reporter Sam Levine writes: Georgia has seen an “astounding” increase in turnout through the first two days of in person early voting, the state’s top election official said on Wednesday.Early voting began on Monday in the state, where there are closely watched gubernatorial and senate races. 268,050 people voted in person during the first two days. At the same point in the 2020 presidential election, 266,403 had voted in person. That differential is notable because presidential elections usually have higher turnout than midterms. At the same point in the 2018 midterms, 147,289 people had voted in person.Georgia has been at the center of high-stakes battles over voting access and this is the first general a new law with sweeping new voting restrictions is in effect. The law shortens the window in which voters can request a mail-in ballot and places new identification requirements on both the mail-in ballot application and ballot itself. Stacey Abrams, the gubernatorial candidate for governor, as well as voting rights groups are encouraging voters to cast their ballots as early as possible to avoid any issues.Republicans in the past have pointed to surging turnout to push back on accusations of voter suppression. But voting advocates say that is misleading and does not take into account the increased obstacles voters face in getting to the polls, even if they are able to navigate them successfully.John Fetterman’s primary care physician said the Democratic senate candidate for Pennsylvania has no restrictions “and can work full duty in public office” following a stroke in May. Fetterman’s campaign released a detailed medical report today based on an examination that took place on Friday. His doctor, Clifford Chen, said that Fetterman’s strength was normal and has no coordination deficits. He also noted that he “spoke intelligently without cognitive deficits”.Fetterman continues to show symptoms of auditory processing disorder (trouble understanding certain spoken words) but “his communication is significantly improved compared to his first visit, assisted by speech therapy, which he has attended on a regular basis since the stroke.” Currently the lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, Fetterman is in a heated election for an open Senate seat against celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz, who is running as a Trump-endorsed Republican. Fetterman’s campaign celebrated the doctor’s report on Wednesday. “Bad news for Dr. Oz, who has been rooting hard against my recovery: I’m doing great + remain fully ready to serve,” Fetterman tweeted. Bad news for Dr. Oz, who has been rooting hard against my recovery: I’m doing great + remain fully ready to serveSo grateful to all of you who’ve stood with me. I’ll be fighting for each and every one of you in D.C. ❤️ https://t.co/RMUCsGpOpG— John Fetterman (@JohnFetterman) October 19, 2022
      Polls have shown Fetterman with a slight lead over Oz, though Oz has been narrowing the gap over the last week as the GOP has been hitting voters hard with messaging about Democrats and the economy.The Texas state government is sending DNA and fingerprint identification kits to parents with kids in kindergarten through eight grade in case of an emergency. The law that established the kit distribution was passed in 2021 and was meant to “help locate and return a missing or trafficked child”, though the timing of the kits’ distribution has reminded parents of the Uvalde shooting, where 19 children and two adults were killed. In the aftermath of the shooting, parents were asked for DNA samples of their children to help medical examiners identify the victims. AR-15s, the type of gun that was used in the shooting, is a powerful weapon that can leave victims unrecognizable. Brett Cross, the father of a student who was killed in Uvalde, tweeted of the kits: “Yeah! Awesome! Let’s identify kids after they’ve been murdered instead of fixing issues that could ultimately prevent them from being murdered. It’s like wiping your ass before you take a shit.” Yeah! Awesome! Let’s identify kids after they’ve been murdered instead of fixing issues that could ultimately prevent them from being murdered. It’s like wiping your ass before you take a shit. https://t.co/1V3i1lIfTc— Brett Cross (@BCross052422) October 18, 2022
      Kits have started to be distributed this week. Parents are not obligated to send in DNA samples, though schools are obligated to inform parents about the kits.House speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview published today that Democrats need “to message [inflation] better in the next three weeks ahead” but ultimately expressed optimism over the election.“Inflation’s an issue, but it’s global,” she said. “What’s [Republicans’] plan? They ain’t go nothing.”.@PunchbowlNews AM: Our wide-ranging interview with @SpeakerPelosi. Here’s Pelosi on inflation: “We’ll have to message on it better.”Much more here: https://t.co/lhCIUjCrLg pic.twitter.com/AcbALvTV4K— Punchbowl News (@PunchbowlNews) October 19, 2022
      Pelosi also said that the key for Democrats will be turnout. “We know the public is with us. But it’s about turnout. So I’m excited. We’ve outraised them, except for their big, dark money, which is endless.”When asked whether she’s worried about House minority leader Kevin McCarthy becoming speaker after the elections, Pelosi said: “We’re going to win this election so I don’t even entertain that notion. But it should be of concern to the Republicans.”Polls are showing a more uncertain future for Democrats, who have been slammed by Republicans over the economy and inflation over the last few weeks. A recent CBS News/YouGov survey found Democrats were two points behind Republicans on the congressional ballot.Democrats are using these next three weeks to try to electrify their base, sending out some of their prominent members to stump for candidates and encourage voters to head to the polls. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is heading west to speak to young voters at the University of California Irvine this Sunday. Irvine is in US representative Katie Porter’s swing district. .@AOC is heading to UC Irvine this Sunday to rally young voters: pic.twitter.com/nVXJMgx3Xc— Nicholas Wu (@nicholaswu12) October 18, 2022
      Meanwhile senator Bernie Sanders is heading to eight states for at least 19 events over the next two weeks, including California, Nevada, Texas and Florida. “It’s about energizing our base and increasing voter turnout up and down the ballot,” Sanders told the New York Times. “I am a little bit concerned [about] energy level for young people, working-class people… And I want to see what I can do about that.” Last week, Barack Obama’s team announced that the former president will be heading to Milkwaukee to rally for Mandela Barnes, who is looking to unseat Republican incumbent Ron Johnson in a seat that Democrats see as vulnerable.Herschel Walker, the Republican candidate in a heated Georgia senate race against Democrat Raphael Warnock, is planning to hand out fake law enforcement badges that say “I’m with Herschel” as part of his campaign. During a debate with Warnock last week, Walker held up an honorary deputy sheriff’s badge after Warnock attacked him on his claims of being a law enforcement officer. Walker has never been a trained officer, though he has received the endorsement of law enforcement groups. In the debate, the moderator told Walker that props are not allowed on the debate stage.“Let’s talk about the truth,” Walker said while holding his honorary badge. Sen. Raphael Warnock (D): “One thing I have not done — I have never pretended to be a police officer, and I’ve never threatened a shootout with the police.”In response, Herschel Walker (R) pulled out a prop badge: “I am work with many police officers.” pic.twitter.com/Wyh6oYD9zB— Heartland Signal (@HeartlandSignal) October 14, 2022
      Now, Walker’s campaign told NBC News that it has ordered 1,000 imitation badges as part of his campaign. “Herschel Walker has been a friend to law enforcement and has a record of honoring police, said Gail Gitcho, Walker’s campaign strategist. “If Senator Warnock wants to highlight this, then bring it on.”Steve Bannon, the former chief strategist in the Trump White House who is at the forefront of the Republican march toward hard-right populism, is throwing his weight behind a movement to radically rewrite the US constitution.Bannon has devoted recent episodes of his online show the War Room to a well-funded operation which has stealthily gained ground over the past two years. Backed by billionaire donors and corporate interests, it aims to persuade state legislatures to call a constitutional convention in the hope of baking far-right conservative values into the supreme law of the land.The goal is, in essence, to turn the country into a permanent conservative nation irrespective of the will of the American people. The convention would promote policies that would limit the size and scope of the federal government, set ceilings on or even abolish taxes, free corporations from regulations, and impose restrictions on government action in areas such as abortion, guns and immigration.“This is another line of attack strategically,” Bannon told his viewers last month. “You now have a political movement that understands we need to go after the administrative state.”By “administrative state”, Bannon was referring to the involvement of the federal government and Congress in central aspects of modern American life. That includes combating the climate crisis, setting educational standards and fighting health inequities.Mark Meckler, a founder of the Tea Party who now leads one of the largest groups advocating for the tactic, the Convention of States Action (Cosa), spelled out some of the prime objectives on Bannon’s show. “We need to say constitutionally, ‘No, the federal government cannot be involved in education, or healthcare, or energy, or the environment’,” he said.Meckler went on to divulge the anti-democratic nature of the state convention movement when he said a main aim was to prevent progressive policies being advanced through presidential elections. “The problem is, any time the administration swings back to Democrat – or radical progressive, or Marxist which is what they are – we are going to lose the gains. So you do the structural fix.”The “structural fix” involves Republican state legislatures pushing conservative amendments to America’s foundational document. By cementing the policies into the US constitution, they would become largely immune to electoral challenge.Inside Steve Bannon’s ‘disturbing’ quest to radically rewrite the US constitutionRead moreFlorida senator Marco Rubio had an intense debate last night with his opponent, Val Demings, currently a US representative. Demings, who is trying to be Florida’s first Black senator, pushed Rubio on issues ranging from abortion to gun control. Rubio, who is running for a third term, would not confirm whether he would support a federal ban on abortion that has no exceptions for rape on incest but sai, “every bill I have ever sponsored on abortion and every bill I’ve ever voted for has exceptions.” Demings responded by saying, “What we know is that the senator supports no exceptions. He can make his mouth say anything today. He is good at that, by the way. What day is it and what is Marco Rubio saying?” On gun control, Demings asked Rubio, “How long will you watch people being gunned down in first grade, fourth grade, school, college, church, synagogue, grocery store, movie theater, a mall and a nightclub and do nothing,” she asked. Demings is in an uphill battle trying to unseat Rubio in a state that has gone further to the right in recent years. Earlier this month, a poll showed Demings six points behind Rubio.Good morning, and welcome to the politics live blog. Joe Biden is set to announce the release of 15m barrels of gas from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve later today as the administration attempts to tamp down gas prices.The national average for gas prices stands at $3.85 a gallon today, according to AAA, slightly higher than the $3.34 a gallon that was seen this time last year. But it’s still lower than this summer, when gas peaked at over $5 a gallon.The move is Biden’s attempt to mitigate growing concerns over the economy as the midterms approach. Democratic candidates in heated races across the country have been facing attacks from their Republican candidates over inflation, which stood at 8.2% in September. Biden will make the announcement around 1 pm today.Here’s what else we’re watching:
      Donald Trump is heading to DC court today for a deposition in the lawsuit brought by former magazine columnist E Jean Carroll, who accused Trump of sexual assault. Carroll is suing Trump for defamation.
      A Politico/Morning consult poll shows that Republicans may have an edge over Democrats in the midterms due to the economy: 81% say the economy will play a major role in their vote, and 80% said the same about inflation.
      Stay tuned for more live updates. More

    • 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