House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Democrats Lose Control of N.Y. Election Maps, as Top Court Rejects Appeal

      by

      The Court of Appeals said Democrats violated the State Constitution and ignored the will of the voters. The judges ordered a court-appointed expert to draw replacements.New York’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that Democratic leaders had violated the State Constitution when they took it upon themselves to draw new congressional and State Senate districts, and ordered that a court-appointed special master draft replacement lines for this year’s critical midterm elections.In a sweeping 32-page ruling, a divided New York State Court of Appeals chided Democrats for ignoring a constitutional amendment adopted by voters in 2014 to curb political influence in the redistricting process. The amendment also created a new outside commission to guide the process.The judges additionally found that the congressional districts designed by Democrats violated an explicit state ban on partisan gerrymandering, undercutting the party’s national campaign to brand itself as the champion of voting rights.Writing for the four-judge majority, Chief Judge Janet DiFiore said that Democratic lawmakers created congressional and State Senate maps in a way that was “procedurally unconstitutional,” and that the congressional map in particular was “drawn with impermissible partisan purpose.”The ruling, which is not subject to appeal, was expected to delay the June 28 party primaries for the congressional and State Senate districts until August, to allow time for new maps to be drawn and for candidates to collect petitions to qualify for the ballot.The verdict delivered a stinging defeat to Democrats in Albany and in Washington and cast this year’s election cycle into deep uncertainty.Party leaders had been hopeful that the Court of Appeals, with all seven judges appointed by Democratic governors, would overturn earlier decisions by a Republican judge in Steuben County and a bipartisan appeals court in Rochester.Instead, the high court issued an even more damning verdict that denied the Democrat-dominated State Legislature a chance to redraw the maps itself. That task, the judges said, should be handled by a politically neutral special master, who would be overseen by a trial court.National Democrats had been counting on the New York congressional maps adopted in February to deliver as many as three new seats this fall and offset redistricting gains by Republicans across the country. Now, with Democratic gains likely to be erased or minimized in New York, Republicans are on track to make modest gains nationally, easing their path to retaking control of the House of Representatives this fall.Democrats were likewise expecting the State Senate maps they adopted in February to help safeguard the party’s supermajority in Albany.What to Know About RedistrictingRedistricting, Explained: Here are some answers to your most pressing questions about the process that is reshaping American politics.Understand Gerrymandering: Can you gerrymander your party to power? Try to draw your own districts in this imaginary state.Killing Competition: The number of competitive districts is dropping, as both parties use redistricting to draw themselves into safe seats.Deepening Divides: As political mapmakers create lopsided new district lines, the already polarized parties are being pulled even farther apart.Wednesday’s decision was a milestone in New York jurisprudence, the first time since the 1960s that the Court of Appeals has struck down district lines approved by lawmakers in their once-in-a-decade redistricting process.But the ruling is part of a growing trend across the nation in which state courts have taken up more active stances against partisan gerrymandering as federal courts have been removed from these battles by the Supreme Court.This year alone, state courts in Ohio, North Carolina, Kansas and Maryland have scrapped plans put in place by lawmakers because they ran afoul of state constitutional language outlawing partisan mapmaking, like that adopted by New York voters in 2014. The courts are widely expected to scrutinize new lines in Florida that overwhelmingly favor Republicans, as well.“States can be the laboratories of redistricting reforms,” said Samuel Wang, the director of the Princeton Gerrymandering Project. “And this just goes to show that if a state court is willing to look carefully to its constitution and laws, it will find principals that can restrict the most extreme partisan acts.”Unlike New York, though, some of those courts have indicated they will allow 2022 elections to take place on tainted maps, potentially putting Democrats at a greater disadvantage nationally.The judges in New York were silent on whether to reschedule primary elections for other contested seats — including for governor, lieutenant governor and the State Assembly — leaving it to a trial court judge, Patrick F. McAllister, and the State Board of Elections to work out the details with “all due haste.” The board said Wednesday evening that it did “not foresee” moving those contests.But the judges appeared to bless the idea of separating them, pointing out that New York has a history of holding bifurcated primaries. They were more explicit in rejecting Democrats’ plea to allow this year’s elections to proceed on tainted lines and fix them later.“We reject this invitation to subject the people of this state to an election conducted pursuant to an unconstitutional reapportionment,” Judge DiFiore wrote in the majority opinion.Justice McAllister has already appointed Jonathan Cervas, a postdoctoral fellow at Carnegie Mellon University, as special master to draw the congressional and State Senate lines by late May.Gov. Kathy Hochul, a Democrat, said Wednesday afternoon that she was reviewing the decision. Michael Murphy, a spokesman for Senate Democrats, said they still “believe in the constitutionality” of their maps and plan to argue their case to the special master.Republicans and several nonpartisan public interest groups lauded the decision.“The will of the people prevailed over the Corrupt Albany Machine in a tremendous victory for democracy, fair elections & the Constitution!” Representative Nicole Malliotakis, a New York City Republican, wrote on Twitter.Ms. Malliotakis’s Staten Island-based district was among several that the Democrats’ congressional map would have made more challenging for Republicans, in her case by adding liberal voters from Park Slope in Brooklyn. The map also created new Democratic pickup opportunities on the eastern end of Long Island and in Central New York, and shored up Democrat-held swing seats in the Hudson Valley, by cramming conservative voters into just a handful of districts.How U.S. Redistricting WorksCard 1 of 8What is redistricting? More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans in Congress give McCarthy standing ovation for defense of leaked audio – as it happened

      by

      US politics liveRepublicansRepublicans in Congress give McCarthy standing ovation for defense of leaked audio – as it happened
      Kevin McCarthy defends recorded conversations with party leaders about Capitol attack
      US-Russia prisoner swap frees former marine
      Russia-Ukraine war – follow live updates
      Sign up to receive First Thing – our daily briefing by email
       Updated 1h agoRichard LuscombeWed 27 Apr 2022 16.11 EDTFirst published on Wed 27 Apr 2022 09.19 EDT Show key events onlyLive feedShow key events onlyFrom More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      McCarthy faces House Republican caucus following revelations in leaked audio – live

      by

      US politics liveRepublicansMcCarthy faces House Republican caucus following revelations in leaked audio – live
      McCarthy accused Republicans of ‘putting people in jeopardy’ after Capitol attack
      US-Russia prisoner swap frees former marine
      Russia-Ukraine war – follow live updates
      Sign up to receive First Thing – our daily briefing by email
      LIVE Updated 8m agoRichard LuscombeWed 27 Apr 2022 11.14 EDTFirst published on Wed 27 Apr 2022 09.19 EDT Show key events onlyLive feedShow key events onlyFrom More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      McCarthy accused Republicans of ‘putting people in jeopardy’ after Capitol attack

      by

      McCarthy accused Republicans of ‘putting people in jeopardy’ after Capitol attackLeaked recording shows senior House Republican said Florida congressman Matt Gaetz and others put Americans at risk Kevin McCarthy, the senior Republican in the House of Representatives, privately accused one of his colleagues of “putting people in jeopardy” in the wake of the January 6 insurrection, according to a leaked audio recording.In a phone call with Republican leaders on 10 January 2021, McCarthy said that Matt Gaetz, a Florida congressman and ardent Trump supporter, was putting Americans at risk with his comments after the assault on the US Capitol that left five people dead.The New York Times obtained a recording of the call, in which McCarthy and Republicans including Steve Scalise, the No 2 House Republican, discussed an interview Gaetz had given where he attacked GOP members who had criticized Trump.“He’s putting people in jeopardy,” McCarthy said of Gaetz.“And he doesn’t need to be doing this. We saw what people would do in the Capitol, you know, and these people came prepared with rope, with everything else.”In the days after the insurrection McCarthy strongly criticized Trump, saying: “The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters.” Since then McCarthy has defended Trump’s actions, suggesting Trump was unaware that the riot was taking place.In the 10 January call McCarthy also called out Mo Brooks, a congressman from Alabama who at a rally before Trump supporters attacked the Capitol said: “Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass.”“You think the president deserves to be impeached for his comments?” McCarthy asked those on the call. “That’s almost something that goes further than what the president said.”Discussing the statements and actions of some Republicans, McCarthy said: “Our members have got to start paying attention to what they say, too, and you can’t put up with that type of shit.”Lauren Boebert, a congresswoman from Colorado, and Barry Moore from Alabama, were among the other GOP members named in the call. Boebert has been a staunch defender of Trump’s actions that day.“Tension is too high, the country is too crazy, I do not want to look back and think we caused something or we missed something and someone got hurt,” McCarthy said in the call.TopicsRepublicansUS Capitol attackUS politicsHouse of RepresentativesDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      New Details Underscore House G.O.P. Role in Jan. 6 Planning

      by

      A court filing and newly disclosed text messages provide additional evidence of how closely some fervent pro-Trump lawmakers worked with the White House on efforts to overturn the election.WASHINGTON — It was less than two weeks before President Donald J. Trump’s staunchest allies in Congress would have what they saw as their last chance to overturn the 2020 election, and Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, was growing anxious.“Time continues to count down,” he wrote in a text message to Mark Meadows, then the White House chief of staff, adding: “11 days to 1/6 and 25 days to inauguration. We gotta get going!”It has been clear for more than a year that ultraconservative members of Congress were deeply involved in attempts to keep Mr. Trump in power: They joined baseless lawsuits, spread the lie of widespread election fraud and were among the 147 Republicans who voted on Jan. 6, 2021, against certifying President Biden’s victory in at least one state.But in a court filing and in text messages obtained by CNN, new pieces of evidence have emerged in recent days fleshing out the degree of their involvement with the Trump White House in strategy sessions, at least one of which included discussions about encouraging Mr. Trump’s supporters to march to the Capitol on Jan. 6, despite warnings of potential violence. Some continued to push to try to keep Mr. Trump in office even after a mob of his supporters attacked the complex.“In our private chat with only Members, several are saying the only way to save our Republic is for Trump to call for Marshall law,” Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican of Georgia, wrote to Mr. Meadows on Jan. 17, 2021, misspelling the word “martial.” The revelations underscore how integrated Mr. Trump’s most fervent allies in Congress were into the effort to overturn the election on several fronts, including a scheme to appoint pro-Trump electors from states won by Mr. Biden — even after they were told such a plan was unlawful — and how they strategized to pressure their fellow lawmakers to go along.The fake electors scheme, the question of how demonstrators at Mr. Trump’s rally on the Ellipse on Jan. 6 were directed toward the Capitol and the plotting in the White House and on Capitol Hill about the potential for Vice President Mike Pence to block or delay certification of the results are at the heart not just of the inquiry by the House select committee on Jan. 6 but also of an expanding criminal inquiry by the Justice Department.“If there was a level of coordination that was designed not just to exercise First Amendment rights, but to interfere with Congress, as it certified the electoral count, then we’re in a whole different universe,” said Joyce Vance, a law professor at the University of Alabama and a former U.S. attorney. “There’s a difference between assembling and protesting, and trying to interfere with the smooth transfer of power.”Cassidy Hutchinson, a former aide to Mr. Meadows, told the House committee that she recalled at least 11 members of Congress who were involved in discussions with White House officials about overturning the election, including plans to pressure Mr. Pence to throw out electoral votes from states won by Mr. Biden.She said members of Congress involved in the discussions at various points included Mr. Perry; Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio; Representatives Andy Biggs, Paul Gosar and Debbie Lesko of Arizona; Representative Mo Brooks of Alabama; Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida; Representative Jody Hice and Ms. Greene of Georgia; Representative Louie Gohmert of Texas; and Representative Lauren Boebert of Colorado.“They felt that he had the authority to — pardon me if my phrasing isn’t correct on this, but — send votes back to the states or the electors back to the states,” Ms. Hutchinson testified, adding that they had appeared to embrace a plan promoted by the conservative lawyer John Eastman that members of both parties have likened to a blueprint for a coup.Ms. Hutchinson said that Mr. Perry, Mr. Gaetz and Mr. Gohmert were present when White House lawyers told the group that the plan to use so-called alternative electors was not “legally sound,” but that Mr. Meadows allowed it to move forward nonetheless.Cassidy Hutchinson, left, a former aide to Mark Meadows, has testified to the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack.Jonathan Ernst/ReutersText messages show that Mr. Biggs embraced the plan early on, writing to Mr. Meadows on Nov. 6 that while it was “highly controversial, it can’t be much more controversial than the lunacy that were sitting out there now.”Mr. Jordan continued to push the strategy to the end, sending a message to Mr. Meadows on Jan. 5: “Vice President Mike Pence, as President of the Senate, should call out all electoral votes that he believes are unconstitutional as no electoral votes at all.”Mr. Jordan has criticized the Jan. 6 committee for publishing only a partial version of this text that did not make clear he was forwarding the legal advice of a conservative lawyer.Ms. Hutchinson also testified that in one discussion, Mr. Perry, who now leads the right-wing House Freedom Caucus, endorsed the idea of encouraging supporters to march to the Capitol, and that no one on the call objected to the proposal. She made clear that the members of Congress were “inclined to go with White House guidance” about directing a crowd to the Capitol.Ms. Hutchinson testified that in one discussion, Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, endorsed the idea of encouraging supporters to march to the Capitol.Oliver Contreras for The New York TimesSome Republican members of Congress agreed to speak at rallies outside the building meant to further encourage the disruption of the peaceful transition of power.Mr. Brooks and Mr. Biggs — both members of the Freedom Caucus — were scheduled to speak on Jan. 6 at a rally planned for the east side of the Capitol by the prominent Stop the Steal organizer Ali Alexander, according to a permit application. The application, dated Dec. 21, 2020, noted that “the MOC” — or members of Congress — “have been confirmed.”Less than 10 days later, according to an addendum to the permit application, Mr. Alexander filed an expanded list of speakers that included more far-right members of Congress, among them Mr. Gosar, Ms. Boebert and Ms. Greene, who formally took office on Jan. 3, 2021. None of these speakers actually appeared at the event, which was never held because of the violence that erupted at the Capitol.Mr. Brooks, however, did appear at a public event on Jan. 6, speaking at Mr. Trump’s event at the Ellipse near the White House with body armor underneath his black and yellow jacket.“Today is the day American patriots start taking down names and kicking ass,” Mr. Brooks told a huge crowd of Mr. Trump’s supporters, adding, “Are you willing to do what it takes to fight for America?”Representative Mo Brooks, Republican of Alabama, appeared at President Donald J. Trump’s rally on the Ellipse on Jan. 6.Jacquelyn Martin/Associated PressConservative members of Congress also amplified Mr. Trump’s efforts to fight the election results, echoing his aggressive posture on social media and in television interviews.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 3McCarthy’s outrage. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden’s message drowned out by beat of the Republican culture-war drum

      by

      Joe Biden’s message drowned out by beat of the Republican culture-war drumDemocrats struggle to tell a good-news story, raising fears of midterm losses in November The interruption was unplanned but Joe Biden immediately knew this was no ordinary heckler. “I agree!” he told a babbling baby as the audience laughed. “I agree completely. By the way, kids are allowed to do anything they want when I speak so don’t worry about it.”It was a welcome note of light relief during a speech that could not be described as blockbuster television. Beside a blue sign that said “Building a Better America”, perched on a white boat at the New Hampshire Port Authority in Portsmouth, the US president was last week trying to gin up enthusiasm about infrastructure investment and supply chains.Biden’s choice of state was telling: Democratic senator Maggie Hassan faces New Hampshire voters in November as she seeks a second term in elections that will decide the control of Congress. And not for the first time, there are fears the Democrats have a messaging problem.The party does have a story to tell about the creation of 7.9 million jobs – more over his first 14 months in office than any president in history – along with progress against the coronavirus pandemic, the passage of a $1tn bipartisan infrastructure law, diverse judicial appointments and leading the Nato alliance against Russia’s Vladimir Putin.But opinion polls suggest this could be overwhelmed by Republicans’ characteristically blunt and visceral campaign targeting 40-year high inflation, rising crime, immigration at the Mexico border and “culture wars” over abortion, transgender rights and how race is taught in schools.“Hearts beats charts,” said John Zogby, an author and pollster. “Very simply, look at the Democrats who’ve won the presidency: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden. Contrast the obvious empathy and real-life stories with Michael Dukakis, Al Gore, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton.“It’s the ability to tell a story that relates to all Americans. All of which is to suggest that Republicans will tell stories that matter and Democrats will show statistics.”The stakes this time could hardly be higher: the Senate is currently split 50-50, while Democrats can afford to lose only three seats in the House of Representatives if they want to retain control. Given the headwinds typically faced by the president’s party in midterms, Republicans believe both chambers are within their grasp.Such an outcome could turn Biden into a lame-duck president, able to do little more than issue executive orders and veto legislation, while empowering congressional Republicans to launch investigations into his son, Hunter Biden, and other foes while paving the way for the return of the former president, Donald Trump.The polls look bleak for Democrats. Last month, NBC News found that 46% of registered voters prefer a Republican-controlled Congress while 44% want Democrats in charge – the first time Republicans have led in this survey since September 2014.Inflation fears dominate, according to online focus groups run last week by Navigator Research with swing voters in Nevada, North Carolina and Wisconsin. They found that presenting economic facts “only modestly moves the needle” and pervasive inflation concerns outweigh job creation.A North Carolina woman who took part said of the economy: “So you can tell me it’s doing great but if I’m struggling to buy groceries and gas and will be out of a job in two months, that to me is saying no, it’s not really doing that great.”Biden has attempted to shift blame for rising fuel costs to “Putin’s price hike” but with limited success. His public approval rating stands at 43%, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, with disapproval of his job performance at 51%.Democrats’ four most-endangered Senate incumbents – Hassan of New Hampshire, Mark Kelly of Arizona, Raphael Warnock of Georgia and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada – duly seem to be distancing themselves from the president, for example by visiting the southern border and criticising his plan to lift a pandemic-era restriction there known as Title 42.Biden, touring the country and refocusing on domestic concerns after two months dominated by Ukraine, wants to convince voters that investing in roads and bridges is a major accomplishment after years of unfulfilled promises from his predecessor. But most of the benefits will not be felt for years and even the word “infrastructure” tends to land with a thud.There are further worries that the Democratic base, including many voters of colour, will stay at home on election day, disenchanted by the party’s failure to get gun safety, police reform and voting rights legislation through Congress. Biden no longer uses the phrase “Build Back Better” and is struggling to salvage parts of that plan to address the climate crisis.Henry Olsen, a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center thinktank in Washington, said: “The difficulty that Democrats have is that a message that would energise the base is not one that resonates with the centre. The swing voter doesn’t prioritise voting rights, climate change, big expansion of spending. They want much more pedestrian things and Democrats have not yet figured out how to have a narrative that combines both.”Biden launches $6bn effort to save America’s distressed nuclear plantsRead moreRepublicans have the luxury of opposition, Olsen added. “When you don’t have the power to be for anything, it’s easier to be against something and that’s what you’re going to see: Biden inflation, Biden weakness, Biden liberalism, Biden socialism.“They will try to paint the Democratic party as a whole with its left wing but, by and large, they will attack Biden and the Democratic party as out of touch and producing bad results for the average American on the things they care most about: crime, immigration and the economy. This is one of, if not the most, favourable environment for an out party that I’ve seen in my lifetime.”Indeed, Republicans are exuding confidence despite still being in thrall to a former president who incited a deadly insurrection and despite offering no policy agenda. Florida senator Rick Scott, the chairman of the national Republican senatorial committee, published his own 11-point plan that includes forcing poorer Americans who do not currently pay income tax to do so, but it was swiftly disowned by minority leader Mitch McConnell.Instead, Republicansare filling the vacuum by assailing rising prices at the petrol pump and at the supermarket (“Bidenflation”), increasing crime rates in major cities and Biden’s reversal of Trump-era policies on immigration. US authorities arrested 210,000 migrants attempting to cross the southern border in March, the highest monthly total in two decades.The party has also reverted to its playbook of social and cultural hot-button topics, railing against a caricature of “critical race theory” (CRT) in schools and pushing state legislation to restrict abortions and ban transgender children from sport. It casts itself as a champion of “parental rights” while portraying Democrats as “woke” socialists bent on controlling lives’ and “cancelling” dissent.Addressing the conservative Heritage Foundation thinktank in Washington last month, Scott warned:“We survived the war of 1812, world war one, world war two, Korea, Vietnam and the cold war. But now, today, we face the greatest danger we have ever faced: the militant left wing in our country has become the enemy within.”Come election season, Democrats are often accused of bringing a power-point presentation to a bar brawl: trying to explain policies in intellectual paragraphs while Republicans spin slogans ready-made for car bumper stickers. But this time some Democrats say they are ready to take the fight to their opponents.Congressman Eric Swalwell of California has just launched the Remedy political action committee, which turns Scott’s message on its head by contending that American democracy is “under attack from within” and promising to “hold accountable those who choose party over country”.Swalwell said: “At the end of the day, elections are about A or B. It’s about drawing a contrast and we can just make it as simple as chaos or competency. When it comes to transitions of power, do you want violence or voting? When it comes to the character of who runs the country, do you want indecency or integrity?”“When [pro-Trump members of Congress] Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene proudly declare that they’re not the fringe, they’re the base of the party, we’re going to make sure every voter knows that. That’s what they’re going to get if they give Republicans the keys to the country.”One dilemma for Democrats is how much time they should spend harking back to Trump, reminding voters of the existential threat that his party still poses to democracy, versus a positive forward-looking vision that encompasses bread-and-butter concerns.Swalwell acknowledges that Democrats must identify with the pain that people are feeling from inflation while also offering solutions. He points to last month’s example of the House passing a bill to limit the cost of insulin to $35 a month (Americans currently pay around five to eight times more than Canadians). Some 193 Republicans opposed the bill while just 12 voted in favour.Swalwell said: “We’re going to make them own walking away from solutions that would help people. Their plan for the economy is that 100 million people will pay more in taxes: that’s Rick Scott’s rescue plan that they’re running on. As people pay more already at the checkout stand, Rick Scott would have most Americans pay more in taxes.“It’s going to be about choices and, if we have the resources to tell America what the choices are, we’re going to win. Right now I see the punditry betting against us but I don’t see our supporters betting against us because, when you look at Democratic versus Republican fundraising quarter after quarter, we’re beating them. There’s no fatigue in our base. They get it.”The four embattled Senate Democrats – Cortez Masto, Hassan, Kelly and Warnock – outraised their Republican opponents in the first quarter of this year, boosting hopes that supporters will remain energised. Trump’s determination to insert himself into dozens of races with risky endorsements, campaign rallies and his “big lie” of a stolen election could also galvanise Democrats and independents.Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican national committee, predicts that Republicans will pick up 30 to 35 seats in the House but Democrats might just hold the Senate. He said: “The Republicans’ main message is going to be Democrats can’t run the country. ‘I give you the economy. I give you culture. I give you crime.’ And the Democrats’ message is, ‘Can we get back to you in a moment?’ That sums up the 2022 election.”He added: “Republicans don’t have to run on anything substantive; all they have to do is say, ‘gee, look how screwed up these guys are.’ You’re going to see Republicans run a culture war-based strategy that drives the fear and loathing that white suburban families, particularly women, have over things that are not even relevant to their children’s lives, like CRT. And Democrats will be sitting there pissed off at all the wrong stuff.”TopicsUS midterm elections 2022The ObserverJoe BidenDemocratsRepublicansUS CongressHouse of RepresentativesUS SenatenewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Overcoming Trumpery review: recipes for reform Republicans will never allow

      by

      Overcoming Trumpery review: recipes for reform Republicans will never allow The depth of Trump’s corruption is familiar but still astonishing when presented in the whole. Alas, his party shares itThe great abuses of power by Richard Nixon’s administration which are remembered collectively as Watergate had one tremendous benefit: they inspired a raft of legislation which significantly strengthened American democracy.The Presidency of Donald Trump review: the first draft of historyRead moreThis new book from the Brookings Institution, subtitled How to Restore Ethics, The Rule of Law and Democracy, recalls those far-away days of a functioning legislative process.The response to Watergate gave us real limits on individual contributions to candidates and political action committees (Federal Election Campaign Act); a truly independent Office of Special Counsel (Ethics in Government Act); inspector generals in every major agency (Inspector General Act); a vastly more effective freedom of information process; and a Sunshine Law which enshrined the novel notion that the government should be “the servant of the people” and “fully accountable to them”.Since then, a steadily more conservative supreme court has eviscerated all the most important campaign finance reforms, most disastrously in 2010 with Citizens United, and in 2013 destroyed the most effective parts of the Voting Rights Act. Congress let the special counsel law lapse, partly because of how Ken Starr abused it when he investigated Bill Clinton.The unraveling of Watergate reforms was one of many factors that set the stage for the most corrupt US government of modern times, that of Donald Trump.Even someone as inured as I am to Trump’s crimes can still be astonished when all the known abuses are catalogued in one volume. What the authors of this book identify as “The Seven Deadly Sins of Trumpery” include “Disdain for Ethics, Assault on the rule of law, Incessant lying and disinformation, Shamelessness” and, of course, “Pursuit of personal and political interest”.The book identifies Trump’s original sin as his refusal to put his businesses in a blind trust, which led to no less than 3,400 conflicts of interest. It didn’t help that the federal conflict of interests statute specifically exempts the president. Under the first president of modern times with no interest in “the legitimacy” or “the appearance of legitimacy of the presidency”, this left practically nothing off limits.The emoluments clause of the constitution forbids every government official accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” but lacks any enforcement mechanism. So a shameless president could be paid off through his hotels by everyone from the Philippines to Kuwait while the Bank of China paid one Trump company an estimated $5.4m. (As a fig leaf, Trump gave the treasury $448,000 from profits made from foreign governments during two years of his presidency, but without any accounting.)Trump even got the federal government to pay him directly, by charging the secret service $32,400 for guest rooms for a visit to Mar-a-Lago plus $17,000 a month for a cottage at his New Jersey golf club.The US Office of Special Counsel catalogued dozens of violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits political activity by federal officials. Miscreants included Peter Navarro, Dan Scavino, Nikki Haley and most persistently Kellyanne Conway. The OSC referred its findings to Trump, who of course did nothing. Conway was gleeful.“Let me know when the jail sentence starts,” she said.There was also the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, addressing the Republican convention from a bluff overlooking Jerusalem during a mission to Israel. In a different category of corruption were the $43,000 soundproof phone booth the EPA administrator Scott Pruitt installed and the $1m the health secretary Tom Price spent on luxury travel. Those two actually resigned.The book is mostly focused on the four-year Trump crimewave. But it is bipartisan enough to spread the blame to Democrats for creating a climate in which no crime seemed too big to go un-prosecuted.Barack Obama’s strict ethics rules enforced by executive orders produced a nearly scandal-free administration. But Claire O Finkelstein and Richard W Painter argue that there was one scandal that established a terrible precedent: the decision not to prosecute anyone at the CIA for illegal torture carried out under George W Bush.This “failure of accountability” was “profoundly corrosive. The decision to ‘look forward, not back’ on torture … damaged the country’s ability to hold government officials to the constraints of the law”.However, the authors are probably a little too optimistic when they argue that a more vigorous stance might have made the Trump administration more eager to prosecute its own law breakers.The authors point out there are two things in the federal government which are even worse than the wholesale violation of ethical codes within the executive branch: the almost total absence of ethical codes within the congressional and judicial branches.The ethics manual for the House says it is “fundamental that a member … may not use his or her official position for personal gain”. But that is “virtually meaningless” became members can take actions on “industries in which they hold company stock”.Dignity in a Digital Age review: a congressman takes big tech to taskRead moreThe Senate exempts itself from ethical concerns with two brilliant words: no member can promote a piece of legislation whose “principal purpose” is “to further only his pecuniary interest”. So as long as legislation also has other purposes, personal profit is no impediment to passage.The authors argue that since the crimes of Watergate pale in comparison to the corruption of Trump, this should be the greatest opportunity for profound reform since the 1970s. But of course there is no chance of any such reform getting through this Congress, because Republicans have no interest in making government honest.Nothing tells us more about the collapse of our democracy than the primary concern of the House and Senate minority leaders, Kevin McCarthy and Mitch McConnell. Their only goal is to avoid any action that would offend the perpetrator or instigator of all these crimes. Instead of forcing him to resign the way Nixon did, these quivering men still pretend Donald Trump is the only man qualified to lead them.
      Overcoming Trumpery is published in the US by Brookings Institution Press
      TopicsBooksDonald TrumpTrump administrationUS politicsUS political financingUS voting rightsUS constitution and civil libertiesreviewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Filing Provides New Details on Trump White House Planning for Jan. 6

      by

      Testimony disclosed by the House committee investigating the attack showed that Mark Meadows and Freedom Caucus members discussed directing marchers to the Capitol as Congress certified the election results.WASHINGTON — Before the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, Trump White House officials and members of the right-wing House Freedom Caucus strategized about a plan to direct thousands of angry marchers to the building, according to newly released testimony obtained by the House committee investigating the riot and former President Donald J. Trump’s efforts to overturn the election.On a planning call that included Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff; Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer; Representative Jim Jordan, Republican of Ohio; and other Freedom Caucus members, the group discussed the idea of encouraging supporters to march to the Capitol, according to one witness’s account.The idea was endorsed by Representative Scott Perry, Republican of Pennsylvania, who now leads the Freedom Caucus, according to testimony by Cassidy Hutchinson, an aide to Mr. Meadows, and no one on the call spoke out against the idea.“I don’t think there’s a participant on the call that had necessarily discouraged the idea,” Ms. Hutchinson told the committee’s investigators.The nearly two-mile march from the president’s “Stop the Steal” rally at the Ellipse to the Capitol, where parts of the crowd became a violent mob, has become a focus of both the House committee and the Justice Department as they investigate who was responsible for the violence.Mr. Meadows and members of the Freedom Caucus, who were deeply involved in Mr. Trump’s push to overturn the 2020 election, have condemned the violence at the Capitol on Jan. 6 and defended their role in spreading the lie of a stolen election.Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony and other materials disclosed by the committee in a 248-page court filing on Friday added new details and texture to what is publicly known about the discussions in Mr. Trump’s inner circle and among his allies in the weeks preceding the Jan. 6 assault.Read the Jan. 6 Committee’s Filing in Its Lawsuit With Mark MeadowsThe committee alleged that Mark Meadows, the final chief of staff for President Donald J. Trump, was told that an effort to try to overturn the 2020 election using so-called alternate electors were not “legally sound” and that Jan. 6 could turn violent, but he pushed forward with plans to hold a rally in Washington anyway.Read Document 248 pagesThe filing is part of the committee’s effort to seek the dismissal of a lawsuit brought against it by Mr. Meadows. It disclosed testimony that Mr. Meadows was told that plans to try to overturn the 2020 election using so-called alternate electors were not “legally sound” and that the events of Jan. 6 could turn violent. Even so, he pushed forward with the rally that led to the march on the Capitol, according to the filing.The filing also disclosed new details of Mr. Meadows’s involvement in attempts to pressure Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, over Mr. Trump’s loss there.At rallies in Washington in November and December of 2020, Mr. Trump’s supporters did not march to the Capitol and mostly refrained from violence. But on Jan. 6, Mr. Trump encouraged a crowd of thousands to march to the building, telling them: “You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength.” He did so after the White House’s chief of operations had told Mr. Meadows of “intel reports saying that there could potentially be violence on the 6th,” according to the filing.Two rally organizers, Dustin Stockton and his fiancée, Jennifer L. Lawrence, have also provided the committee with evidence that they were concerned that a march to the Capitol on Jan. 6 would mean “possible danger” and that Mr. Stockton’s “urgent concerns” were escalated to Mr. Meadows, according to the committee.In his book, “The Chief’s Chief,” Mr. Meadows said Mr. Trump “ad-libbed a line that no one had seen before” when he told the crowd to march, adding that the president “knew as well as anyone that we wouldn’t organize a trip like that on such short notice.”Ms. Hutchinson’s testimony contradicts those statements.She said Mr. Meadows had said “in casual conversation”: “Oh, we’re going to have this big rally. People are talking about it on social media. They’re going to go up to the Capitol.”Police officers resisted protesters outside the Capitol on Jan. 6.Kenny Holston for The New York TimesA mob of protesters breaching the building.Erin Schaff/The New York TimesAnd, speaking about the planning call involving Mr. Meadows and Freedom Caucus members, a committee investigator asked her whether Mr. Perry supported “the idea of sending people to the Capitol on January the 6th.”“He did,” Ms. Hutchinson replied.A spokesman for Mr. Perry, who has refused to speak to the committee, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.The Justice Department and the committee both have been investigating the question of how the crowd moved from the Ellipse to the Capitol.Committee investigators have, for instance, obtained draft copies of Mr. Trump’s speech. This month, they pressed its author, Stephen Miller, a former top White House adviser, on whether Mr. Trump’s repeated use of the word “we” had been an effort to direct his supporters to join him in moving on the Capitol to stop Congress from certifying his defeat.Rally planners, such as the prominent “Stop the Steal” organizer Ali Alexander, also had a hand in getting people to move from the Ellipse to the Capitol. Mr. Alexander, at the request of aides to Mr. Trump, left the speech before it was over and marched near the head of a crowd that was moving toward the building.Joining Mr. Alexander that day was Alex Jones, the founder of the conspiracy-driven media outlet Infowars, who encouraged the crowd by shouting about 1776.On Wednesday, Mr. Jones revealed that he had recently asked the Justice Department for a deal under which he would grant a formal interview to the government about his role in the events of Jan. 6 in exchange for not being prosecuted.Capitol Riot’s Aftermath: Key DevelopmentsCard 1 of 5Signs of progress. More