House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in Elections

      Lawmakers Clash Over Call for Special Panel to Investigate Capitol Assault

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyLawmakers Clash Over Call for Special Panel to Investigate Capitol AssaultThe disputes are reminiscent of the fight surrounding the creation of the independent commission that conducted an inquiry into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.Speaker Nancy Pelosi was an early proponent of a special commission to fully investigate the Sept. 11 attacks and has called for a special panel to scrutinize the Capitol riot.Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesFeb. 25, 2021, 7:12 p.m. ETWASHINGTON — Republicans were leery of the prospect of an independent commission to investigate an assault that had shaken the nation and exposed dangerous threats, fearful that Democrats would use it to unfairly cast blame and a political shadow on them.Congress was already conducting its own inquiry, some of them argued, and another investigation was not needed. The commission could be a distraction at a vulnerable time, prompt the disclosure of national secrets or complicate the prosecution of those responsible.The year was 2001, but the clash 20 years ago over the creation of an independent commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks bears unmistakable parallels to the one that is now raging in Congress over forming a similar panel to look into the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.To most Americans, the idea of a blue-ribbon commission to dig into the causes of the Capitol riot and the security and intelligence failures that led to the seat of government being ransacked would probably seem straightforward. But in recent days, it has become clear that, as in the past, devising the legislative and legal framework for such a panel is fraught with political difficulty, particularly in this case, when members of Congress experienced the attack themselves, and some now blame their colleagues for encouraging it.And this time, given the nature of the breach — an event inspired by President Donald J. Trump’s false claims of a stolen election, which were trumpeted by many Republicans — the findings of a deep investigation could carry heavy political consequences.The tensions intensified this week, when Speaker Nancy Pelosi floated a proposal for the creation of a special panel. Republican leaders denounced her initial plan, which envisioned a commission made up of seven members appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans.Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the minority leader, called her idea “partisan by design,” and compared it unfavorably with the Sept. 11 commission, which was evenly divided. He also predicted that Democrats would use their influence on the panel to focus mainly on violent acts by Mr. Trump’s supporters — who planned and perpetrated the assault — suggesting that its mandate should be broadened to examine left-wing extremists.“If Congress is going to attempt some broader analysis of toxic political violence across this country, then in that case, we cannot have artificial cherry-picking of which terrible behavior does and does not deserve scrutiny,” Mr. McConnell said.Ms. Pelosi fired back on Thursday, saying she was disappointed in Mr. McConnell, who she said had earlier indicated his support for a commission similar to the one established after the Sept. 11 attacks.She accused Republicans of following the lead of Senator Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin, who suggested this week that the pro-Trump mob on Jan. 6 had actually been a mostly peaceful crowd seeded with a few “provocateurs,” including members of a loosely affiliated group of far-left anti-fascism activists, known as “antifa.” (The F.B.I. has said there is no evidence that antifa supporters had participated in the Capitol rampage.)“He was taking a page out of the book of Senator Johnson,” Ms. Pelosi said of Mr. McConnell. She added that the crucial aspect of devising the commission was to determine the scope of its work, dismissing the exact makeup of the panel as an “easily negotiated” detail.“I will do anything to have it be bipartisan,” Ms. Pelosi said.The independent, bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States was eventually formed and lauded for its incisive report published in July 2004. But first, there were myriad obstacles to its creation.“It was hard,” said Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee at the time who backed the independent panel over objections from the George W. Bush administration. He wanted a deeper look even though his own committee had conducted a revealing joint review with its House counterpart. “I thought it needed to be broader,” Mr. Shelby said.Ms. Pelosi, who was the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee at the time, was an early proponent of a special commission to fully investigate the attack. She argued that any congressional review would almost certainly be too narrow and that an inquiry by the same government that had failed to prevent the attack would lack public credibility. Her proposal was rejected by the Republican-led House under pressure from the Bush administration, which feared disclosures of intelligence lapses and other shortcomings that could cost their party politically.Instead, Congress moved ahead with the joint inquiry by the House and Senate intelligence panels, which revealed a failure by the White House to heed warnings about a looming strike on the United States. But even those leading the inquiry believed an independent commission was needed to break free of congressional constraints.“One of the benefits of a subsequent round of hearings is that you can avoid those interferences,” said Bob Graham, a Democratic senator from Florida and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee at the time.Senator Mitch McConnell denounced the initial Democratic proposal for a commission made up of seven members appointed by Democrats and four by Republicans as “partisan by design.”Credit…Stefani Reynolds for The New York TimesSenators Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, and John McCain, Republican of Arizona, responding to calls from the families of those killed on Sept. 11, pushed forward with a proposal for an independent panel. They built on a long tradition of the United States taking such steps after shattering events like the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Kennedy assassination. But the plan encountered stiff resistance from the Bush administration, which finally agreed to its creation in late 2002 after one last round of foot dragging.As the commission began public hearings in the spring of 2003, Ms. Pelosi lamented that it had taken so long but lauded the determination required to make it a reality.“Through the persistence of a member of this commission, former Congressman Tim Roemer, as well as that of Senators McCain and Lieberman, this body was established and has begun its critical work,” she said then.In the case of the Jan. 6 assault, Congress this week began its own set of hearings into what went wrong. Some lawmakers privately suggested that their work could be sufficient and that an independent panel would be redundant. And at his confirmation hearing on Monday to be attorney general, Judge Merrick B. Garland warned that he supported the idea of an independent inquiry only as long as it would not derail the prosecution of any of those charged in the assault.The current Congress is much more polarized than it was in the aftermath of Sept. 11 and the creation of the commission is complicated by the fact that Democrats are highly skeptical of the motives of Republicans. Democrats see some of them as complicit in fueling the attack by spreading falsehoods about the presidential election being stolen and then challenging the electoral vote count on Jan. 6.On Wednesday, Representative Hakeem Jeffries of New York, the No. 5 Democrat, accused top Republicans of not acting in good faith and setting a “bad tone” by joining the unsuccessful effort to overturn the election results.“All of that said, Speaker Pelosi still presented the framework to the Republicans, which then, of course, instead of leading to some kind of good-faith conversation from them, they immediately launched into a partisan political attack,” Mr. Jeffries said.But Republicans have suspicions of their own. Even those who have backed the idea of a commission say they will not accept a proposal they see as giving Democrats the upper hand in determining the course of the commission’s work.“It has to be independent,” said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. “This can’t be the Nancy Pelosi commission.”AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Equality Act: US House passes sweeping LGBTQ+ rights bill

      by

      The House has passed the landmark Equality Act, taking LGBTQ+ Americans one step closer to winning legal protection from discrimination.The Equality Act amends the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes in addition to race, religion, sex and national origin.The key civil rights bill passed in a vote of 224 to 216, with three Republicans breaking with their party to joining all Democrats in supporting the legislation. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the evenly divided Senate, where Democrats will need 60 votes to break a filibuster on the legislation.“Without the Equality Act, this nation will never live up to its principles of freedom and equality,” Democratic representative Marie Newman of Illinois, who has a trans daughter, said on the House floor on Wednesday.“I’m voting yes on the Equality Act for Evie Newman, my daughter and the strongest, bravest person I know.”Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people often encounter prejudice in housing, credit, jury service and public spaces, as only 22 states and the District of Columbia prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.State legislatures regularly advance laws that limit local LGBTQ+ protections. Since the start of the year, a dozen states have introduced or passed laws to bar trans girls from participating in girls’ sports leagues.President Joe Biden has already said he would sign the Equality Act if it can make it through the Senate. “Every person should be treated with dignity and respect, and this bill represents a critical step toward ensuring that America lives up to our foundational values of equality and freedom for all,” Biden said in a statement last week.Several Senate Republicans have expressed their opposition, including Mitt Romney of Utah, a former presidential candidate, who said he would oppose the bill unless it added a provision giving “strong religious liberty protections”.However, LGBTQ+ advocates say they are confident the bill will become law because of its popularity among the American public.An estimated 83% of Americans favor laws that would protect LGBTQ+ people against discrimination in jobs, public accommodation and housing, including 68% of Republicans, according to a poll by the Public Religion Research Institute.“In a period of such polarization, where else do you have over 80% of support for a piece of legislation?” said Janson Wu, executive director of advocacy group Glaad. “This should be a ‘no-brainer’ for any legislator regardless of their party.”The House first passed the Equality Act in 2019, but it stalled in the Republican-controlled Senate during the Trump administration, which opposed the bill. The Democrats won control of the Senate in November’s elections.Biden is a vocal supporter of LGBT+ rights, in a clear departure from the Trump administration, which barred trans people from joining the military and issued orders emphasizing the importance of “biological sex” rather than gender identity.Since taking office in January, Biden signed an executive order that federal agencies must not discriminate against LGBT+ people and issued a memorandum aimed at protecting LGBT+ rights worldwide, including potentially through the use of sanctions.LGBTQ+ advocates praised Biden’s use of the executive office but reiterated the need for comprehensive legislation.“We deserve more than temporary measures,” said Erin Uritus, chief executive of Out & Equal Workplace Advocates, in a statement.“Turning the Equality Act into the law of the land is absolutely necessary to cement civil rights protections for LGBTQ Americans.”Reuters contributed to this report More

    • 125 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Outrage as Marjorie Taylor Greene displays transphobic sign in Congress

      by

      The Republican extremist Marjorie Taylor Greene attracted widespread condemnation – from transgender groups, Democrats and her own party – after she hung a transphobic sign outside her office in response to fellow congresswoman Marie Newman raising a transgender pride flag.The Georgia congresswoman put up the poster – which read “There are TWO genders: Male & Female. Trust The Science!” – after Newman, whose daughter is transgender and whose office is opposite Greene’s, hung the flag on Wednesday following an impassioned debate on the Equality Act, which Greene tried to block.She has also called the bill “an attack on God’s creation” and refused to refer to Newman’s daughter as female.Despite Greene’s attempts to delay a vote on the legislation, which would extend civil rights protections to LGBTQ people, it is expected to pass in the House, after which it will move on to the Senate, where it could face a filibuster. Joe Biden has said if it passes he will sign it into law.Speaking on the House floor this week, Newman, who represents Illinois, said: “The best time to pass this act was decades ago. The second best time is right now. I’m voting yes on the Equality Act for Evie Newman, my daughter and the strongest, bravest person I know.”After the debate, Newman tweeted a video of herself putting out the flag. She wrote: “Our neighbour, @RepMTG, tried to block the Equality Act because she believes prohibiting discrimination against trans Americans is ‘disgusting, immoral, and evil.’ Thought we’d put up our Transgender flag so she can look at it every time she opens her door.”Greene, who has a history of supporting dangerous conspiracy theories, including QAnon, wrote in response: “Our neighbour, @RepMarieNewman, wants to pass the so-called ‘Equality’ Act to destroy women’s rights and religious freedoms. Thought we’d put up ours so she can look at it every time she opens her door.”The incident was widely condemned, with the Illinois Democrat Sean Casten branding the poster “sickening, pathetic, unimaginably cruel”. He added: “This hate is exactly why the #EqualityAct is necessary”.The Human Rights Campaign, the LGBTQ civil rights organization, said: “Trans kids have a higher risk of attempting suicide because they so often encounter people who deny their humanity. We are sending our love to @RepMarieNewman and her daughter.”Republicans also spoke out against Greene. “This is sad and I’m sorry this happened,” said the Illinois Republican Adam Kinzinger. “Rep Newman’s daughter is transgender, and this video and tweet represents the hate and fame driven politics of self-promotion at all evil costs. This garbage must end.”The conservative CNN commentator SE Cupp said: “Rep. Newman’s daughter is transgender. Public servants of good faith argue policy. Ghouls who believe they’re only representing themselves, not actual people, get personal and nasty.”Speaking today, Newman told CNN: “On this issue yesterday she tried to block the Equality Act and I felt as though she needed to hear from us … I just wanted to make a statement so that she sees LGBTQ+ people.”She added: “She’s welcome to her sign, no one’s buying it and that is not science.” More

    • 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