House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      GameStop hearing live: Robinhood CEO and others in trading saga testify before Congress

      by

      Key events

      Show

      3.59pm EST15:59
      Tenev admits Robinhood did not have the collateral to back the huge increase in trade

      3.31pm EST15:31
      Are Robinhood users better off than the average investor?

      2.44pm EST14:44
      Tenev addresses the suicide of a former customer

      1.42pm EST13:42
      ​Tenev defends decision to freeze buying of GameStop

      1.04pm EST13:04
      Reddit CEO and Reddit user involved in r/WallStreetBets forum testify

      12.12pm EST12:12
      House committee hears testimony from those involved in trading controversy

      Live feed

      Show

      4.19pm EST16:19

      Representative questions whether it is reckless to gamify investment
      Cindy Axne of Iowa targeted Tenev with questions about the Robinhood app’s design and the consequences of gamifying trade. She asked who truly stands to benefit from the rise of Robinhood, which Tenev has repeatedly asserted aims to “democratize” investment.
      “Your clients are not your customer – the users are the product, your customer is sitting next to you – it’s companies like Citadel securities that stand to make a fortune on retail order flow,” Axne said.
      Axne noted that Robinhood incentivizes inviting friends to the app and gamification of trading, “adding gaming elements that look like gambling.”

      Updated
      at 4.45pm EST

      4.08pm EST16:08

      Robinhood took from its customers to boost its own business model, lawmaker alleges
      Michael San Nicolas of Guam, a Democrat, congratulated the small investors who orchestrated the short squeeze: “Robinhood made that possible,” he said.
      But he also questioned Tenev about the $3bn shortage, and where the money borrowed to cover it came from. Tenev said he got $3bn from venture capitalists, which San Nicolas argued means Robinhood materially benefited from the shareholders.
      San Nicolas said Robinhood’s Silicon Valley ethos of “move fast and break things” led it to value scale over anything else.
      “That’s where I have a serious concern,” he said. “Your business model causes you to take extraordinary risks, and you took from customers to protect your position. That is very, very troubling.”

      Updated
      at 4.20pm EST

      3.59pm EST15:59

      Tenev admits Robinhood did not have the collateral to back the huge increase in trade

      Vlad Tenev admitted during questioning on Thursday that Robinhood halted buying on the platform because it did not have the funds to back the huge influx of trading in the Reddit frenzy.
      Robinhood is required to place a deposit using its own funds at a clearinghouse to cover risks until trades are settled between a buyer and seller. On 28 January, the company was informed by its clearing house, NSCC, that it had a deposit deficit of approximately $3bn – up from $124m just days before.
      Anthony Gonzalez, a Republican from Ohio, asked if Robinhood indeed had that $3bn of collateral at the time.
      “At that moment, we would not have been able to post the $3bn of collateral,” Tenev said.
      Gonzalez said that proves Robinhood was “unprepared to protect his constituents and customers from non-consensual liquidation” and “barely avoided disaster”.
      “In a sense, I love your company,” Gonzalez said. “At the same time, I believe a vulnerability was clearly exposed.”

      Updated
      at 4.23pm EST

      3.36pm EST15:36

      Reddit CEO is asked if financial advice on the forum can be trusted
      Steve Huffman, CEO of Reddit, conceded in questioning on Thursday that users on the forum responsible for the GameStop buy-up are an “eccentric” bunch but that they did not breach any of the platform’s terms of service.
      He said financial advice on Reddit, in fact, is better than what is seen on TV because each post has been vetted by its voting process, which requires endorsement by hundreds and even thousands of users before it is widely visible. Huffman:

      On Reddit you’re seeing retail investors who are giving authentic advice based on their knowledge, and you would not call into question positions they may hold before they talk about it on television.

      3.31pm EST15:31

      Are Robinhood users better off than the average investor?

      One issue that has come up repeatedly in today’s hearing is what Robinhood has to offer consumers, besides ease of entry into the investment space.
      Lawmakers’ questioning has offered a rare look into the profit model of Robinhood and just how much customers have made and lost on the app.
      Jim Himes, a Democratic representative of Connecticut, asked Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev whether customers would make more if they had bought a low-cost S&P 500 index fund rather than individual stocks on Robinhood’s app.
      Tenev said that Robinhood customers have made $35bn in profits, but is unwilling to say what rate of return that represents. Himes said that number means little without more context.

      Updated
      at 3.46pm EST

      2.53pm EST14:53

      Did Reddit’s coordinated buying represent market manipulation? Expert says no
      The meteoric rise of GameStop stocks was fueled largely by a frenzy on Reddit community r/WallStreetBets. Arkansas Republican Representative French Hill asked Thursday whether that constituted “market manipulation” – artificially impacting the price of a security or otherwise influencing the market for personal gain.
      Keith Gill, who is also speaking on Thursday’s panel, has been sued in a class action lawsuit accusing him of exaggerated claims and misrepresented posts as part of his role on Reddit in kicking off the GameStop market frenzy, which personally netted him more than $30m.
      “I think there’s little evidence at this time that there’s any false or deceptive conduct taking place,” said Jennifer Schulp, director of financial regulations studies at the Cato Institute speaking on the forum.
      She did say due to the anonymous nature of Reddit it is possible there is some “deceptive behavior” that could not readily be determined. Other have argued that Robinhood’s freezing of GameStop stocks in response to the buy-up itself represented market manipulation.

      Updated
      at 3.32pm EST

      2.44pm EST14:44

      Tenev addresses the suicide of a former customer

      Robinhood chief executive officer Vlad Tenev addressed in the hearing on Thursday the suicide of a 20-year-old man that was tied to the trading platform.
      The family of Alex Kearns is currently suing Robinhood in a California court after the newbie trader took his own life believing he owed $730,000 due to a glitch on the app, a year before the Reddit investing frenzy that caused many to gain or lose huge sums of money in a very short time.
      His death led to former SEC chair Jay Clayton and current lawmakers calling for better legislation to prevent such losses from happening in the future.
      In Thursday’s hearing, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver II of Missouri asked Tenev to explain how someone with no experience could invest such a potentially devastating amount of money in such a short time. Tenev again cited Robinhood’s mission of “democratizing finance for all”. His full response below:

      The passing of Mr. Kearns was deeply troubling to me, and to the entire company. We have taken a series of very aggressive steps to make our products safer for our customers, including adding additional education, as well as strengthening and tightening the requirements for getting options and bettering our customer support line. It was a tragedy and we went into immediate action to make sure that we are not just the most accessible option for trading for our customers but the safest as well.

      Updated
      at 3.33pm EST

      1.57pm EST13:57

      Everyone is shouting
      Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat from California, had some pointed questioning for Citadel owner Ken Griffin regarding how the average trader on Robinhood is treated compared to more wealthy Wall Street traders and larger firms.
      He asked about payment for order flow – a controversial practice in which stock brokers get a kickback for essentially selling the ability to execute trades. This allows some larger customers to avoid paying higher transaction fees. Sherman said it is a means for hiding the true costs of trading.
      Griffin kept attempting to skirt the question: “Congressman, I believe that’s an excellent question – the execution quality that we can provide as measured by terms of price improvement is heavily related or correlated to the size of the order we receive.”
      “Everybody I’ve talked to in this industry says when you’re a broker being paid for order flow, you get a worse execution,” Sherman replied, referencing the dealing in which Robinhood is paid for its customers’ trades by market-makers like Citadel.
      Finra fined Robinhood $1.25 million in December 2019 for this practice, saying it sent customer trading orders to broker-dealers without guaranteeing the best price.
      Griffin defended the payment for order flow practice, saying “it has allowed the American retail investor to have the lowest execution cost they’ve ever had in the history of US financial markets”.
      Sherman also repeatedly asked if the average Robinhood customer gets the same deals and prices as larger firms like Fidelity.
      “Is the Robinhood customer getting the same price as the Fidelity customer?” Sherman asked Griffin.
      Griffin wouldn’t say, talking around the answer and explaining that it can’t be determined “because the Robinhood community tends to be smaller in quantity” before getting cut off again.
      “You’re evading questions by making up other questions,” Sherman shouted. “You are doing a great job of wasting my time. If you want to filibuster you should run for the Senate.”

      Updated
      at 2.28pm EST

      1.42pm EST13:42

      ​Tenev defends decision to freeze buying of GameStop

      Tenev, Robinhood’s CEO, said customers would have been very angry if it had prevented them from selling off GameStop shares.
      During the Reddit-fueled meltdown, Robinhood banned the purchase of GameStop buying, but not selling. Many have speculated this was done at the behest of hedge funds who stood to lose millions from the buy-up, which Tenev disputed.
      “Preventing customers from selling is a very difficult and painful experience where customers are unable to access their money,” Tenev said. “We don’t want to impose that type of experience on our customers unless we have no other choice.”

      Updated
      at 3.24pm EST

      1.34pm EST13:34

      Lawmakers roast Robinhood CEO
      In addition to comments from Waters, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev faced intense criticism from other lawmakers.
      Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, accused Tenev of recklessly handling customers’ money.
      “You reserve the right to make up the rules as you go along,” she said.
      “I’m sorry for what happened,” Tenev replied. “I’m not going to say that Robinhood did everything perfect.”

      Updated
      at 1.47pm EST

      1.10pm EST13:10

      Chairwoman Maxine Waters is reclaiming her time
      Maxine Waters, the chairwoman of the House committee on financial services, took a stern tone with executives involved in the hearing on Thursday.

      manny
      (@mannyfidel)
      Maxine Waters: yes or noRobinhood CEO: pic.twitter.com/3oDUwsdD7P

      February 18, 2021

      She frequently interrupted Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev, demanding he actually answer the questions she was posing as he meandered around the point. Waters stated “yes or no, answer the question” a minimum of ten times in the first hour of the hearing.

      Emily Stewart
      (@EmilyStewartM)
      Maxine Waters to the Robinhood CEO: “I don’t have time, I just need a yes or no answer.” Tattoo it on my arm.

      February 18, 2021

      Updated
      at 1.16pm EST

      1.04pm EST13:04

      Reddit CEO and Reddit user involved in r/WallStreetBets forum testify

      Reddit CEO Steve Huffman explained in his opening statement how Reddit moderation works, what the r/WallStreetsBets community is, and how Reddit dealt with the January stock buy-up.
      He said WallStreetBets is a “real community” with real users.
      He added that Reddit’s content policy prohibits “hate, harassment, bullying and illegal activity” and that threats or harassment of Plotkin and others were removed.
      “A few weeks ago, we saw the power of community in general and of this community in particular when the traders of WallStreetBets banded together at first to seize an investment opportunity not usually accessible to retail investors, but later more broadly to defend all retail investors against the criticism of the financial establishment,” Huffman said.
      Later, a member of that community testified. Reddit user “Roaring Kitty”, real name Keith Gill, started his opening statement by telling lawmakers “I am not a cat”.
      He stressed that he is simply an individual talking about this investment choices, not making suggestions for investments in any official or professional capacity. The goal of his posts, and of the Reddit community, was to make trading more understandable and accessible to the average person.
      “It’s alarming how little we know about the inner workings of the market,” Gill said.

      Updated
      at 3.25pm EST

      12.48pm EST12:48

      Melvin Capital CEO Gabriel Plotkin claims the company was not looking for a bailout
      Gabriel Plotkin, CEO of one of the hedge funds hit by the coordinated Reddit trades, claims Melvin did not coordinate or ask for Robinhood’s ban on trading.
      The GameStop frenzy targeted hedge funds like Melvin with huge short positions in GameStop, which had bet the share price would fall and stood to cash in when it did so. After the Reddit-fueled surge, the fund lost 53% in January. It reportedly received a $2bn+ capital infusion from Citadel as its losses grew.
      “To be sure, Melvin was managing through a difficult time, but we always had margin excess and we were not seeking a cash infusion,” Plotkin said.
      He says he was the subject of antisemitic and threatening posts on Reddit surrounding the markets incident.
      “I want to make clear at the outset that Melvin Capital played absolutely no role in those trading platforms’ decisions,” said Plotkin. “In fact, Melvin closed out all of its positions in GameStop days before platforms put those limitations in place.”

      Updated
      at 1.16pm EST

      12.38pm EST12:38

      Citadel owner Ken Griffin: we had ‘no role’ in Robinhood’s decision to restrict certain stocks
      Ken Griffin is the billionaire owner of hedge fund Citadel and high-speed trading firm Citadel Securities, which works with Robinhood.
      He said in testimony on Thursday that the firm provided securities to meet investors’ needs during the unprecedented surge of trading of GameStop stocks, but had “no role” in the decision made by Robinhood to restrict trading of those stocks.
      The incident “reflects the competence of our firm’s ability to deliver in all market conditions”, he said.

      12.33pm EST12:33

      Opening statements: Robinhood, Citadel, and Melvin Capital CEOs
      We are off running with some opening statements from the biggest players in the Reddit-fueled stock market meltdown.
      First, Robinhood CEO Vlad Tenev spoke about how he came to found Robinhood, talking of his childhood in Bulgaria, where the financial system was “on the verge of collapse”. Tenev said he wanted to give more people access to financial systems.
      “We created Robin Hood to economically empower all Americans by opening mutual markets to them,” he said.
      He referenced just how much money has been created by Robinhood investments, saying “the total value of our customers’ assets on Robinhood exceeds the net amount of money they have deposited with us, over $35bn”.
      Next, Citadel CEO Kenneth Griffin and Melvin Capital CEO Gabriel Plotkin will speak.

      Updated
      at 1.13pm EST

      12.12pm EST12:12

      House committee hears testimony from those involved in trading controversy

      Executives from the investing site Robinhood, the social media site Reddit, and other tech companies are testifying on Thursday in the first public hearing in an investigation into a recent public trading meltdown orchestrated on social media.
      The House financial services committee will hear testimony from parties involved in the recent trading in GameStop, AMC cinemas and other companies whose share values soared to astronomical levels as small investors piled into the stocks.
      We’ll follow the hearing live throughout the day – stay tuned.

      Updated
      at 12.19pm EST More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      GameStop: US lawmakers to quiz key players from Robinhood, Reddit and finance

      by

      Frenzied trading in the shares of GameStop and other companies will be the subject of what is expected to be a fiery hearing in Congress on Thursday, when US politicians get their first chance to quiz executives from the trading app Robinhood, Reddit and other players in the saga.The House financial services committee will hold a hearing at noon in a first step to untangling the furore surrounding trading in GameStop, AMC cinemas and other companies whose share values soared to astronomical levels as small investors piled into the stocks.The hearing, titled Game Stopped? Who Wins and Loses When Short Sellers, Social Media, and Retail Investors Collide, is expected to be fractious.Shares in GameStop, a troubled video games chain store, soared 1,600% in January, as an army of small investors, many using the trading app Robinhood, appeared to have bet that Wall Street hedge funds had overplayed their hand when betting the stock price would collapse – a practice known as short-selling.Spurred on by meme-toting members of the Reddit forum WallStreetBets, investors kept buying the shares, driving up the price and triggering huge losses for some hedge funds.Robinhood briefly suspended trading in GameStop and other hot stocks at the end of January and sparked allegations that the hedge funds and others may have pushed Robinhood and other trading platforms to stop the rout.The news managed to – briefly – unite Washington’s deeply divided political elite. Both the rightwing senator Ted Cruz and the progressive representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez attacked Robinhood’s decision to halt trading in GameStop by small investors.Ocasio-Cortez sits on the bipartisan financial services committee.Among those testifying are:Robinhood’s CEO, Vlad Tenev.
      Reddit’s CEO, Steve Huffman.
      Gabe Plotkin, founder of the Melvin Capital Management hedge fund, which was forced into a rescue after retail traders crushed its bets against GameStop.
      Ken Griffin, billionaire CEO of Citadel, an investment firm that executes Robinhood clients’ trades and also helped to bail out Melvin.
      Keith Gill, a trader variously known online as Roaring Kitty and DeepFuckingValue and a longtime GameStop booster.
      The hearing marks the first time the major players in the GameStop controversy have all been forced to publicly reckon with the anger the episode provoked among small investors and across the political spectrum.Gregg Gelzinis, associate director for economic policy at the Center for American Progress, said: “The GameStop drama raised quite a few public policy questions but first it’s important for members of Congress to understand how events played out.”Gelzinis said there were still questions about the timeline of events. More broadly, he said, GameStop had highlighted many crucial issues for regulators, including the role and regulation of hedge funds, whether or how Wall Street is using social media to drive investment strategy, the “gamification” of investing by trading apps and the economic incentives at play for the trading platforms.“What would have happened if Robinhood had failed? What would have been the knock-on effects for financial markets?” he asked. “These are huge investor protection questions.“I saw someone on Twitter describe it as a Rorschach test for financial regulators,” he added.The hearing will not be the last inquiry that the executives at the center of the controversy will face. Federal prosecutors have begun an investigation, according to the Wall Street Journal, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US’s top financial watchdog, is reportedly combing through social media posts for signs of potential fraud.In the meantime, evidence has emerged that small investors were not the largest buyers of GameStop and other hot companies. According to an analysis by JP Morgan, institutional investors may have been behind much of the dramatic rise in the share price.“Although retail buying was portrayed as the main driver of the extreme price rally experienced by some stocks, the actual picture may be much more nuanced,” Peng Cheng, a JP Morgan analyst, told clients in a note.Gelzinis said Thursday’s hearing was likely to raise as many new questions as it answered but was a necessary first step to understanding the seismic changes in investing that GameStop highlighted.“This is only the start of the story,” he said. “It’s clear this is not just a clearcut small investor versus Wall Street story. It’s a fairly messy picture but hopefully by the end we can paint a clearer picture and draw up some public policy conclusions from it.” More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Don’t Care for This Impeachment? Wait Until Next Year

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentLatest UpdatesTrump AcquittedHow Senators VotedSeven Republicans Vote to ConvictAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyPolitical MemoDon’t Care for This Impeachment? Wait Until Next YearLeaders of both political parties suggest that impeachments, Electoral College standoffs and Supreme Court nomination blockades may become frequent fights in American politics.Representative Jamie Raskin, center, and other House impeachment managers spoke on Saturday after the Senate voted to acquit former President Donald Trump at his second impeachment trial.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesFeb. 16, 2021Updated 4:17 a.m. ETWASHINGTON — The second season of impeachment had ended less than a day earlier, but Republicans were already talking about next season. It sounded ominous.“I don’t know how Kamala Harris doesn’t get impeached if the Republicans take over the House,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said Sunday morning on Fox News.Mr. Graham seemed to be suggesting that the vice president might be punished because she had expressed support for a bail fund for Black Lives Matter protesters in Minnesota last summer. “She actually bailed out rioters,” Mr. Graham charged. That statement was false, but his threat was plain: Republicans can impeach, too.In recent days, former President Donald J. Trump’s defenders have darkly accused Democrats of opening a “Pandora’s box” of partisan retribution — leading to a kind of anything-goes future in politics, where impeachments get volleyed back and forth between the two parties like a tennis match, depending on which side controls Congress. “Partisan impeachments will become commonplace,” said Bruce L. Castor Jr., one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, as he argued the former president’s case before the Senate on Tuesday.There’s an element of plausibility here, given the hyperpartisan fervor that’s gripped American politics. But in the ensuing environment, Republicans seem to be saying that even the most outlandish accusations against a president — such as those hurled at President Biden by Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican of Georgia in her first days in Congress — should be treated the same as what Democrats impeached Mr. Trump over.In a broader sense, officials of both parties have suggested that regular impeachments may just become one of several regular features of a new and bitter normal in our politics. Previously rare or unthinkable measures could simply start happening all the timeDemocrats argue that, in fact, Republicans have opened several Pandora’s boxes in recent years. They have taken unprecedented actions, led by Mr. Trump, that have abused certain norms to a degree that has destabilized a set of once-reliable government traditions. Senate Republicans’ blockade of President Barack Obama’s nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016, for instance, cast doubt on any future president’s ability to fill a Supreme Court vacancy when the opposing party controlled the Senate.By refusing to concede an election he clearly lost, and then maintaining repeatedly it had been stolen from him, Mr. Trump shattered what had been an undisturbed American custom ensuring a peaceful transfer of power between administrations.Mr. Trump’s false claims have persuaded a majority of Republican voters that Mr. Biden had not been legitimately elected, and led 147 Republican members of the House and the Senate to vote against the Jan. 6 certification of Electoral College votes. This level of support to overturn the election result raises the prospect of whether the once-pro forma exercise of certification might now devolve every four years into a heated partisan spectacle — or, worse, riots.Two of former President Trump’s impeachment lawyers, Michael van der Veen and Bruce Castor, spoke on Saturday after the trial concluded.Credit…Alyssa Schukar for The New York TimesIt was the deadly assault on the Capitol, of course, that set into motion Mr. Trump’s second impeachment proceeding. His lawyers attributed the rebuke not to their client’s actions on Jan. 6 but rather to his opponents’ irrational “hatred of President Trump.” They implied impeachment was a vindictive and frivolous maneuver.Democrats bristle at such notions — that they have overused and thus cheapened the power of impeachment, a tool that has been employed only four times in 244 years, but twice in the last 14 months. They agreed that impeachment should be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, but argued that Mr. Trump had engaged in an extraordinary degree of dereliction.“Look, there’s a reason there’s been two impeachments of the same man,” said Senator Robert P. Casey Jr., Democrat of Pennsylvania, in an interview Friday, on the eve of the final vote. “Trump has engaged in conduct that presidents of either party would never engage in.”It’s not like anything about this has been fun, he added. “The last thing I wanted to do these last five days is sit there and listen to this hour after hour instead of working on a full range of issues,” he said.Mr. Casey and others suggest that the Republican Party is now dominated by a former president who has convinced much of the party that any opposition to them is driven by “bad, sick and corrupt people” and should be met with extreme tactics.“The expectation from our base is for retribution,” said former Representative Tom Rooney, a Republican of Florida who did not seek re-election in 2018, in part to escape the extreme partisanship that has overtaken Congress. When asked if his former Republican colleagues would move to impeach Mr. Biden next year if they won back the House, even for something minor, Mr. Rooney rated the prospect as “absolutely possible.”“It might not necessarily be what some of those guys want to do, but it might be what the base expects,” he said. “People want Armageddon.”Let the healing begin!Or not. For as much as Impeachment II ended on Saturday with a significant number of Republican senators (seven) voting to convict Mr. Trump — and was accompanied by tough statements from some who voted not guilty, including the Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell — other defenders of the former president turned their focus to a bitter future of impeachment roulette.Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, suggested on Friday that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton might start looking around for a good impeachment lawyer (because, really, what would partisan Armageddon be without the Clintons?).Mr. Rubio framed his statement around a somewhat tortured rhetorical question: “Is it not true that under this new precedent, a future House facing partisan pressure to ‘lock her up’ could impeach a former secretary of state and a future Senate forced to put her on trial and potentially disqualify from future office?”It was not exactly clear whether Mr. Rubio was criticizing Mr. Trump for whipping up his supporters into a frenzy that led to irrational demands to imprison Mrs. Clinton, or whether he was accusing Democrats of acting irrationally themselves by impeaching Mr. Trump a second time in two years.What was evident, however, was that Mr. Rubio was assuming the worst intentions by the opposition — and the feeling appears extremely mutual. Cable and social media chatter have been awash in bleak scenarios.“If Republicans take Congress, they could not only impeach Biden and/or Harris,” Jon Favreau, a speechwriter for President Obama, tweeted on Sunday, “they could potentially succeed in overturning the results of the 2024 election.”Not everyone believes partisanship has reached the point where Election Day will now merely become the start of a two-month brawl every four years that will build to a potentially ugly climax in January.“I don’t think we’re there yet,” said Brendan Buck, a Republican media strategist and former top leadership aide to two former Republican speakers of the House, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and John A. Boehner of Ohio. He said that many House Republicans wound up voting against Mr. Biden’s Electoral College certification only because they knew it would not pass. If the result was more in doubt, he contended, they would have voted to certify.Trump supporters climbed the walls of the Capitol on Jan. 6.Credit…Jason Andrew for The New York TimesStill, Mr. Buck allowed that the current political and media environment rewarded behavior by lawmakers — and candidates — that is extreme or even unheard-of. “We’re in an era where you need to make loud noises and break things in order to get attention,” he said. “It doesn’t matter what you’re breaking — as long as you’re creating conflict and appeasing your party, anything goes.”Mr. Trump himself is the exemplar of anything goes, both in terms of how effective and destructive the approach can be, said Adam Jentleson, who was a deputy chief of staff to former Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and author of “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy,” a new book about legislative leadership dynamics.Mr. Jentleson said Republicans had abandoned any coherent policy goals in lieu of pursuing a “negative partisanship” agenda — which he defines as “doing simply whatever will terrorize your opponents the most.” In essence, Trumpism.This shows no signs of abating anytime soon. “That’s clearly what Republicans will continue to run on,” Mr. Jentleson said. “And that includes impeaching whoever is in power on the other side.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Jamie Raskin derides 'explosive and deranged' tactics of Trump lawyers

      by

      The architect of Donald Trump’s second impeachment trial has blamed “explosive and deranged” tactics by the former president’s lawyers for obscuring the strength of the case presented by House Democrats.But the lead impeachment manager, Jamie Raskin, said the Democrats’ case appeared nevertheless to convince even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Trump’s guilt in inciting the Capitol riot.Two days after Trump escaped conviction, and as his supporters reveled in the prospect of his return to frontline politics, Raskin also told the Washington Post it was both “good and terrible to watch” McConnell’s post-verdict speech in which he excoriated Trump – but said he had voted to acquit because the trial was unconstitutional.It was telling, Raskin said, that many of the 43 Republicans who voted to acquit “felt the need to hang their hats” on that argument, which was rejected by constitutional scholars and twice by the Senate itself.Not even Trump’s lawyers attempted to defend what Democrats characterized as Trump’s “big lie”: that he won an election he actually lost by more than 7m popular votes and 74 electoral votes.They couldn’t get a summer internship with My Cousin VinnyNor did Trump’s legal team, led by a personal injury lawyer and a former county prosecutor who declined to pursue charges against Bill Cosby, succeed in freeing Trump from blame for the attack on the Capitol, judging by Republican senators’ speeches.Instead, Trump’s lawyers denied a copious and unambiguous record of what the former president said and did, while drawing false parallels between routine political speech and Trump’s coup attempt.In the final vote of the impeachment trial, seven Republicans voted with Democrats to convict Trump – a 53-vote tally 10 short of the total required.In an indication of how the Republican party has diverged from the popular will, almost six in 10 Americans – 58% – believe Trump should have been convicted, according to a new ABC News-Ipsos poll.Raskin and his fellow House managers were widely praised for their work. Their case featured extensive use of video of events at the Capitol on 6 January, when supporters told by Trump to “fight like hell” to overturn his election defeat broke in, some hunting lawmakers to kidnap or kill. Five people died as a direct result of the riot.Raskin took on the lead role despite his son having killed himself in December. He told the Post he “told managers we were going to make a lawyerly case but would not censor the emotion”.There has been criticism among Democrats, after the managers persuaded the Senate to vote to call witnesses but then agreed to avoid that step, which could have lengthened the trial. On Sunday, Raskin said witnesses would not have changed any minds.“These Republicans voted to acquit in the face of this mountain of un-refuted evidence,” he told NBC. “There’s no reasoning with people who basically are acting like members of a religious cult.”The Virgin Islands delegate Stacey Plaskett, also widely praised for her role in the trial, told CNN: “We didn’t need more witnesses, we needed more senators with spines.”[embedded content]More evidence of Trump’s alleged wrongdoing may yet be unearthed. Members of Congress from both parties have called for a bipartisan 9/11-style commission to investigate why government officials and law enforcement failed to stop the attack on the Capitol.Trump lawyers Michael van der Veen, Bruce Castor and David Schoen celebrated their client’s acquittal but faced widespread ridicule for a case built on flimsy arguments about freedom of speech and scattershot whataboutism concerning Democratic attitudes to protests against racism and police brutality.“They couldn’t get a summer internship with My Cousin Vinny,” Raskin told the Post, perhaps a deliberate reference to a bizarre and famously sweaty press conference given in November by another Trump lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, amid the former president’s failed attempts to prove mass fraud in his election defeat by Joe Biden.My Cousin Vinny is an Oscar-winning 1992 comedy about a hapless lawyer played by Joe Pesci. Giuliani said it was his “one of my favorite law movies, because he comes from Brooklyn”.Trump, who comes from Queens, refused to testify in his own defence. Raskin called him “a profile in absolute cowardice” and said: “He betrayed the constitution, the country and his people.“Trump’s followers need to understand he has no loyalty to them … Donald Trump is the past. We need to deal with the future.” More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats defend decision not to call witnesses as tactic under scrutiny

      by

      Democrats defended their prosecution of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial on Sunday and hinted at the possibility of criminal charges, after failing to convince enough senators the former president was guilty of inciting the deadly Capitol attack.The 57-43 vote for a conviction, which fell short of the two-thirds majority required, was still the biggest bipartisan impeachment vote in US history and amounted to “a complete repudiation” of Trump’s conduct, lead House manager Jamie Raskin insisted. Seven Republicans crossed party lines to vote with every Democratic and independent senator after the five-day trial.But the tactics of Raskin and his team have come under scrutiny, with some Democrats asking if the decision not to seek witness testimony, after senators voted early on the trial’s final day to allow it, was a mistake.Specifically, evidence was not heard from the Washington congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler about a call between Trump and Republican House leader Kevin McCarthy during the 6 January riot showing that the president would not call off his supporters.“Well Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election theft than you are,” Beutler said Trump replied when the House minority leader pleaded for him to recall the mob who overran the Capitol in support of the president’s false claims of a stolen election.On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the question of whether to call witnesses sparked lengthy debate among the House managers, who ultimately agreed to a deal to accept Beutler’s statement as a written record. The decision diverted the likelihood of the trial extending days, if not weeks as both sides deposed witnesses.“I know that people are feeling a lot of angst, and believe that maybe if we had this, the senators would have done what we wanted,” Stacey Plaskett, a congressional delegate from the Virgin Islands and impeachment team member, told CNN’s State of the Union.“We didn’t need more witnesses, we needed more senators with spines. We believe that we proved the case, we proved the elements of the article of impeachment. It’s clear that these individuals were hardened, that they did not want to let the [former] president be convicted, or disqualified.”Raskin concurred.“These Republicans voted to acquit in the face of this mountain of unrefuted evidence,” he told NBC’s Meet the Press. “There’s no reasoning with people who basically are acting like members of a religious cult.”Among the 43 senators to vote to acquit Trump was Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader who nonetheless followed his “not guilty” vote with a fiery and contradictory post-trial speech on the Senate floor, in which he condemned Trump for a “disgraceful dereliction of duty”.“There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day,” McConnell said. “No question about it.”“President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office as an ordinary citizen,” the Kentucky Republican added, raising the prospect of criminal charges for the 45th US president over the riot. “He didn’t get away with anything. Yet.”Neither Raskin nor Madeleine Dean, an impeachment manager who told ABC’s This Week McConnell was “speaking out of two sides of his mouth”, ruled out criminal prosecution for Trump, saying the decision would be up to others.Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland and a frequent Trump critic, went further.“There was yesterday’s vote, but there’s still a number of potential court cases that I think he’s still going to face, in criminal courts and the court of public opinion,” he told CNN. “This is not over and we’re going to decide over the next couple of years what the fate of Donald Trump and the Republican party is.”Prosecutors in Georgia are investigating calls by Trump and an ally, Lindsey Graham, in which state Republican officials were pressured to overturn Biden’s victory.Chris Murphy, a Democratic senator for Connecticut, said Trump’s acquittal proved he was still firmly in charge of the Republican party, and that trial witnesses would not have swayed any more senators.“They weren’t going to get any more Republican votes than they had and I think they made the right decision to move to closing arguments,” he told CNN. “I don’t know that they would have lost votes, I just am pretty confident they were at their high watermark yesterday morning. I know that [among the] Senate Republican caucus, I can’t figure out who their eighth or ninth vote was going to be.“Donald Trump’s going to be in charge of their party for the next four years. As they were deathly afraid of him for the last four years, they are going to continue to be afraid of him for the next four years.”Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana senator who was among the Republican dissidents, expanded on his reasoning for his vote after declaring on Saturday it was simply “because [Trump] is guilty”.“We can see the president for two months after the election promoting that the election was stolen,” he told ABC. “He scheduled the rally for 6 January, just when the transfer of power was to take place. And even after he knew there was violence taking place, he continued to basically sanction the mob being there. And not until later did he actually ask them to leave.”Cassidy said he was unconcerned by a backlash in Louisiana, where the state GOP has censured him and the chair of the Republican caucus warned him not to expect a warm welcome back.“I have the privilege of having the facts before me and being able to spend several days deeply going into those facts,” he said.“As these facts become more and more out there, and folks have a chance to look for themselves, more will move to where I was. People want to trust their leaders, they want people to be held accountable.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      After the Speech: What Trump Did as the Capitol Was Attacked

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Trump ImpeachmentTrial HighlightsKey Takeaways From Day 5How Senators VotedTrump AcquittedAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyAfter the Speech: What Trump Did as the Capitol Was AttackedNew evidence emerged in the impeachment trial about what President Donald J. Trump did from roughly 1 to 6 p.m. the day of the Capitol attack. But many questions remain unanswered.President Donald J. Trump at a rally near the White House on Jan. 6, the day of the Capitol siege.Credit…Pete Marovich for The New York TimesMaggie Haberman and Feb. 13, 2021Updated 9:17 p.m. ETThe impeachment trial of former President Donald J. Trump largely focused on his actions leading up to the violent attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6. But there was a crucial period that day of nearly five hours — between the end of Mr. Trump’s speech at the Ellipse urging his supporters to march to the Capitol and a final tweet telling his followers to remember the day forever — that remains critical to his state of mind.Evidence emerged during the trial about what Mr. Trump was doing during those hours, including new details about two phone calls with lawmakers that prosecutors said clearly alerted the president to the mayhem on Capitol Hill. Prosecutors said the new information was clear proof of Mr. Trump’s intent to incite the mob and of his dereliction to stop the violence, even when he knew that the life of Vice President Mike Pence was in danger.Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader who on Saturday voted to acquit Mr. Trump but offered a sweeping endorsement of the prosecutors’ case, backed them up: “There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.”Still, many crucial questions remain unanswered about the president’s actions and mood from roughly 1 to 6 p.m. Jan. 6. Here is what is known so far:Mr. Trump concluded his incendiary speech on the Ellipse at 1:11 p.m. He had repeatedly told the crowd that the election was stolen from him and urged his supporters to march to the Capitol in a last-ditch effort to stop President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory from being certified. Mr. Trump said twice that he would go with them. And days before the march, he had told advisers that he wanted to join his supporters, but aides told him that people in the crowd were armed and that the Secret Service would not be able to protect him.Six minutes later, Mr. Trump’s motorcade began heading back to the White House. He arrived there at 1:19 p.m. as the crowd was making its way up Pennsylvania Avenue and beginning to swarm around the Capitol. Television news footage showed the mob as it moved closer to the doors.At some point, Mr. Trump went to the Oval Office and watched news coverage of a situation that was growing increasingly tense.At 1:34 p.m., Mayor Muriel Bowser of Washington made a formal request for assistance in a phone call with the Army secretary, Ryan D. McCarthy. At 1:49 p.m., as the Capitol Police asked Pentagon officials for help from the National Guard, Mr. Trump tweeted a video of his incendiary rally speech.It was around this time that some of Mr. Trump’s allies publicly called on him to do something. Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey, told ABC News that Mr. Trump needed to say something to stop the rioting.At 2:12 p.m., the same moment that the mob breached the building itself, Mr. Pence — who had defied the president by saying he planned to certify Mr. Biden’s victory — was rushed off the Senate floor. A minute later, the Senate session was recessed. Two minutes after that, at 2:15 p.m., groups of rioters began to chant, “Hang Mike Pence!”Nine minutes later, at 2:24 p.m., Mr. Trump tweeted a broadside at Mr. Pence for moving ahead to certify Mr. Biden’s win: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”At 2:26 p.m., after Mr. Pence had been whisked away, a call was placed from the White House to Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, according to call logs that the senator provided during the impeachment proceedings.The president had made the call, but he was actually looking for Senator Tommy Tuberville, Republican of Alabama. Mr. Lee gave the phone to Mr. Tuberville, who has told reporters that he informed Mr. Trump that Mr. Pence had just been escorted out as the mob got closer to the Senate chamber.“I said, ‘Mr. President, they just took the vice president out, I’ve got to go,’” Mr. Tuberville recounted to Politico.This was a significant new piece of information. House prosecutors used it to argue that Mr. Trump was clearly aware that the vice president was in danger and that he had a callous disregard for Mr. Pence’s safety. On Friday, Mr. Trump’s defense team had insisted that Mr. Trump was not aware of any peril facing Mr. Pence.Back at the White House, advisers were trying to get Mr. Trump to do something, but he rebuffed calls to intercede, including those from people wanting to see the National Guard deployed. The president, several advisers said, was expressing pleasure that the vote to certify Mr. Biden’s win had been delayed and that people were fighting for him.“According to public reports, he watched television happily — happily — as the chaos unfolded,” Mr. McConnell said on Saturday. “He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election. Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger, even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters, the president sent a further tweet attacking his own vice president.”Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a close Republican ally of the president’s, told The Washington Post that he called Ivanka Trump, Mr. Trump’s eldest daughter, to try to get her to reason with her father. Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, also called Ms. Trump to see if she could talk to her father. A short time later, she arrived in the Oval Office, urging Mr. Trump to issue a statement.The White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, hammered at Mr. Trump to understand that he had potential legal exposure for what was taking place.Finally, at 2:38 p.m., Mr. Trump tweeted, “Please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement. They are truly on the side of our Country. Stay peaceful!”A short time later, at 3:13 p.m., Mr. Trump added a note, “I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful. No violence! Remember, WE are the Party of Law & Order – respect the Law and our great men and women in Blue. Thank you!”Ms. Trump quoted her father’s tweet when she sent out her own, telling “American Patriots” to follow the law. She quickly deleted it and replaced it when she faced blowback on Twitter for appearing to praise the rioters as “patriots.”Around 3:30 p.m., Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House Republican leader and another ally of Mr. Trump’s, told CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell that he had spoken that afternoon with Mr. Trump as the Capitol was under siege.“I told him he needed to talk to the nation,” Mr. McCarthy said. “I told him what was happening right then.”The call became heated, according to a Republican congresswoman, Representative Jaime Herrera Beutler of Washington State, who said that Mr. McCarthy told her that Mr. Trump had sided with the mob as the Capitol attack unfolded, suggesting he had made a choice not to stop the violence.In a statement on Friday night that was admitted into evidence in the trial on Saturday, Ms. Herrera Beutler recounted that Mr. McCarthy had a shouting match with Mr. Trump during the call.Mr. McCarthy had told Mr. Trump that his own office windows were being broken into. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” Mr. Trump said, according to a report by CNN that the congresswoman confirmed.“Who do you think you’re talking to?” Mr. McCarthy fired back at one point, CNN reported, including an expletive.Meanwhile, the violence continued. At 4:17 p.m., Mr. Trump posted a video on Twitter of him speaking directly to the camera in the Rose Garden. “I know your pain,” Mr. Trump said. “I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us, it was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side. But you have to go home now.”He added, “We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt.”The violence continued. Well before the Capitol Police announced at 8 p.m. that the building had been secured, Mr. Trump put out a final tweet at 6:01 p.m.: “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. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 88 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      How Democrats Could Have Made Republicans Squirm

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }Campaign to Subvert the 2020 ElectionKey TakeawaysTrump’s RoleGeorgia InvestigationExtremist Wing of G.O.P.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storyOpinionSupported byContinue reading the main storyHow Democrats Could Have Made Republicans SquirmG.O.P. lawmakers were unlikely to convict Trump. But a different approach to impeachment would have been more difficult for them to ignore.Mr. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, is a professor and the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. He is the author, most recently, of “The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution.”Feb. 13, 2021, 9:13 p.m. ETRepresentative Jamie Raskin, the lead impeachment manager, with colleagues after the Senate vote.Credit…Erin Schaff/The New York TimesProbably nothing could have moved enough Republican senators to vote to convict former President Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial.But the way the House chose to frame the article of impeachment made the prospect less likely. If the purpose of the proceeding was to produce a conviction and disqualification from future office, as opposed to mere political theater, the House should have crafted a broader and less legalistic set of charges.The sole article of impeachment was for “incitement of insurrection.” It focused on the afternoon of Jan. 6, when then-President Trump addressed an initially peaceful crowd of supporters and egged them on to go to the Capitol and to “fight like hell” against the recognition of an Electoral College victory for his opponent Joe Biden.Presumably, the drafters of the House impeachment resolution chose to frame their charge as incitement because this is an actual crime. The first impeachment of Mr. Trump was criticized (wrongly, in my view) for failing to allege a crime. But it is not necessary for an impeachment to be based on criminal conduct. As Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 65, impeachment proceedings “can never be tied down by such strict rules” as “in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors” in criminal trials. Rather, he said, the target of impeachment proceedings is “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”By charging Mr. Trump with incitement, the House unnecessarily shouldered the burden of proving the elements of that crime. This is not to say that senators may vote to convict only if those elements are proved, but that the terms of the impeachment article invited the defense to respond in the same legalistic terms presented by the House impeachment managers. They tried to broaden the focus during the trial, though not successfully.One element of the crime of incitement is the intent to induce imminent violence. The evidence shows that Mr. Trump was reckless and that violence was a foreseeable consequence of his incendiary speech, but a senator might reasonably conclude that it falls short of proving that he wanted his followers to assault members of Congress or to vandalize the Capitol.Moreover, the terms of the impeachment article opened the door for Mr. Trump’s defense team to play videos in which various Democrats said things that can be construed to encourage violence — a comparison that should be irrelevant but certainly muddied the waters.The House should have crafted its impeachment resolution to avoid a legalistic focus on the former president’s intent. This could have been done by broadening the impeachment article. The charges should have encompassed Mr. Trump’s use of the mob and other tactics to intimidate government officials to void the election results, and his dereliction of duty by failing to try to end the violence in the hours after he returned to the White House from the demonstration at the Ellipse.Whether or not Mr. Trump wanted his followers to commit acts of violence, he certainly wanted them to intimidate Vice President Mike Pence and members of Congress. That was the whole point of their “walk,” as Mr. Trump put it, to the Capitol. The mob was not sent to persuade with reasoning or evidence.Moreover, Mr. Trump’s actions on Jan. 6 were of a piece with attempts — nonviolent but no less wrongful — to intimidate other officials, such as Georgia’s secretary of state, to use their powers to thwart the election results. The Trump campaign had every opportunity to substantiate its claims of massive fraud in court and failed miserably to do so.By focusing the impeachment resolution on the charge of incitement of insurrection, the House made it easier for Mr. Trump’s supporters in the Senate to dismiss these acts of intimidation as irrelevant to the accusation on which they were voting.It should not be necessary to point out that the use of the presidential office to keep power after losing an election is the gravest possible offense against our democratic constitutional order — one that the authors of the Constitution specifically contemplated and sought to prevent. The violence of Jan. 6 was bad, but even if no one at the Capitol had been hurt that day, Mr. Trump’s attempts to mobilize a mob to impede the democratic process was still a high crime or misdemeanor.To make matters worse, Mr. Trump did nothing to stop the violence even when he was aware it was occurring. He did not deploy forces to the Capitol to put down the riot and protect members of Congress. He sent two messages to the rioters, but his appeals for peaceable behavior were tepid, and intermixed with words of support and affection for the rioters.Perhaps most egregious was his tweet that “Mike Pence did not have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution,” at a time when rioters were threatening to hang the vice president. We now know that a senator informed Mr. Trump of the danger to Mr. Pence — but Mr. Trump did not retract his tweet or lift a finger to protect Mr. Pence.This dereliction of his constitutional duty was wholly apart from any incitement and was an impeachable offense in itself. But it was not charged in the article of impeachment.It would be foolish to think that the vote on impeachment would come out differently if the charge had been differently framed. But if House was going to impeach, it should have framed the case to make it as difficult as possible for the Senate to acquit.It is far from clear that Mr. Trump incited the violence of Jan. 6 in a technical legal sense, but it is abundantly clear that he sought to intimidate members of Congress and other officials to block Mr. Biden’s election, and that he failed in his duty to do what he could to end the violence once it started. Those would be ample grounds for conviction, quite apart from whether Mr. Trump committed the crime of incitement.Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge appointed by President George W. Bush, is a professor and the director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School. He is the author, most recently, of “The President Who Would Not Be King: Executive Power Under the Constitution.”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.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More