House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Joe Biden announces $3.3bn for infrastructure projects in visit to key swing state Wisconsin – live

      by

      “I’m here to announce the first-of-its-kind investment: $3.3bn and 132 projects in 42 states,” Biden said in response to cheers.“And in the process, delivering environmental justice by reconnecting disadvantaged communities and neighborhoods with new opportunities,” he added.Bernie Sanders is set to introduce legislation to enact a 32-hour week with no loss in pay. On Wednesday, Sanders, chair of the Senate committee on health, education, labor and pensions, said that he will introduce legislation that will establish a standard of 32-hour workweek in the US.In a statement on his legislation, Sanders said, “Moving to a 32-hour workweek with no loss of pay is not a radical idea… The financial gains from the major advancements in artificial intelligence, automation, and new technology must benefit the working class, not just corporate CEOs and wealthy stockholders on Wall Street.”“It is time to reduce the stress level in our country and allow Americans to enjoy a better quality of life,” he added.Joe Biden delivered a speech in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, during which he announced $3bn in infrastructure investments in local communities across the country.Opening his speech, the president said: “The story of Bronzeville here in Milwaukee is one we see all across the country. Our interstate highway system laid out in the ’50s was a groundbreaking connection [of] our nation’s coast-to-coast … But instead of connecting communities, it divided them. These highways actually tore them apart,” referring to Black communities and other communities of color that were separated as a result of the highway constructions.“Along with redlining, they disconnected entire communities from opportunities. Sometimes, in an effort to reinforce segregation … More than 100 years ago, Bronzeville was the home of a thriving hub of Black culture and commerce … Sadly too many communities across America face the loss of wealth, prosperity and possibilities that still reverberate today,” said Biden, adding that his latest infrastructure project is set to deliver “environmental justice by reconnecting disadvantaged communities and neighborhoods with new opportunities”.“We’re going to ensure that good-paying construction jobs created in this project go to members of the community,” Biden continued.In Milwaukee specifically, Biden’s initiative will see $36m be put towards the 6th Street Complete Streets Project, which will reconnect communities along more than 2.5 miles of the 6th street corridor. The project will also help provide wider sidewalks for children walking to school, safe bike lanes, dedicated bus lanes for faster transit and green infrastructure, the White House announced.Other projects are set to take place in Atlanta, Georgia; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Portland, Oregon, among other towns and cities in the US.“Today, we’re making decisions that will transform your lives decades to come and we’re doing it all across America,” said Biden.He went on to take jabs at Donald Trump, saying: “My predecessor … failed at the most basic duty any president owes the American people … the duty to care.”“We’re going to ensure that good-paying construction jobs created in this project go to members of the community,” Biden said.“We’re making sure the construction materials of this project are made in America,” he added.“I’m here to announce the first-of-its-kind investment: $3.3bn and 132 projects in 42 states,” Biden said in response to cheers.“And in the process, delivering environmental justice by reconnecting disadvantaged communities and neighborhoods with new opportunities,” he added.Joe Biden has started speaking in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where he is set to announce billions of dollars in new infrastructure projects for local communities across the country.We will bring you the latest updates.Alabama’s Republican senator Katie Britt has responded to news outlets fact-checking her State of the Union rebuttal in which she used the story of a woman who was sex-trafficked as a child.Speaking to Texas senator Ted Cruz, Britt said: “Unbelievable!” before going on to accuse news outlets of wanting to “silence a conservative woman for speaking out on this topic”.She added: “They don’t want to bring light and help the women who are actually being trafficked.”During her State of the Union rebuttal – which was widely criticized by Republicans and Democrats alike, Britt appeared to imply that Karla Jacinto Romero, an anti-trafficking activist, was sex-trafficked in the US during Joe Biden’s presidency. However, Romero was actually trafficked in Mexico from 2004 to 2008 when George W Bush was president.Britt also claimed that Jacinto was trafficked by drug cartels; however, Jacinto said that she was trafficked by a pimp who was operating separately.Following the spotlight that was cast on to Jacinto Romero as a result of Britt’s speech, Jacinto told CNN: “I think she should first take into account what really happens before telling a story of that magnitude.”“Someone using my story and distorting it for political purposes is not fair at all,” Jacinto Romero added.Pennsylvania’s Democratic senator John Fetterman has issued his response to the latest TikTok bill, saying that the legislation does not seek to ban the popular social media app.Writing on Twitter/X, Fetterman said:“Let me be very clear: this legislation to restrict TikTok does NOT ban the app. It separates ties to the Chinese Communist party and prevents them from accessing the data of Americans – especially our kids.”He went on to urge Senate Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer to put the bill on the Senate floor soon.Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi said the new bill that seeks to have ByteDance divest TikTok “is not an attempt to ban” the popular social media platform.Speaking on the House floor this morning, Pelosi said:
      This is not an attempt to ban TikTok. It’s an attempt to make TikTok better. Tic-tac-toe – a winner.
      Some Senate Democrats have publicly opposed the TikTok bill, which faces an uncertain fate in the Senate, citing freedom of speech concerns, and suggested measures that would address concerns of foreign influence across social media without targeting TikTok specifically.Senator Elizabeth Warren said:
      We need curbs on social media, but we need those curbs to apply across the board.
      The Democratic senator Mark Warner, who proposed a separate bill last year to give the White House new powers over TikTok, said he had “some concerns about the constitutionality of an approach that names specific companies”, but will take “a close look at this bill”.Authors of the bill have argued it does not constitute a ban, as it gives ByteDance the opportunity to sell TikTok and avoid being blocked in the US.Representative Mike Gallagher, the Republican chairman of the House select China committee, and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, the panel’s top Democrat, introduced legislation to address national security concerns posed by Chinese ownership of the app. “TikTok could live on and people could do whatever they want on it provided there is that separation,” Gallagher said, urging US ByteDance investors to support a sale.
      It is not a ban – think of this as a surgery designed to remove the tumor and thereby save the patient in the process.
      No Labels, the centrist group planning a third-party presidential bid, will announce a nominating committee on Thursday to select a presidential candidate in the coming weeks, its co-chair Joseph Lieberman said.Lieberman, who is expected to be part of the committee, told the Washington Post that it will also be charged with making sure that the selected nominee has a path to victory in the 2024 election. He said:
      We are going to do a final determination that at least at this point we have met all of our standards, and we are not going to be a spoiler and that we are not going to re-elect Trump and that we actually have a chance to win.
      He added that stopping Trump from being re-elected is “a goal even greater than restoring bipartisanship to Washington”.No Labels delegates on Friday voted in favor of moving forward to field a presidential candidate in the 2024 election after months of weighing the launch of a so-called “unity ticket”.The White House said it is “glad” to see a bill move forward that would require the TikTok owner ByteDance to sell the social media platform or face a total ban in the US.Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters that the White House “will look to the Senate to take swift action” on the bill, adding that it “welcomes ongoing efforts to address the threats posed by certain technology services operating in the United States”.The bill would not ban apps like TikTok, she said, but it would “ensure that ownership of these apps wouldn’t be in the hands of those who can exploit us or do us harm”.She added that the White House will support the bill “in a technical way”, in order to make sure it is on the “strongest possible footing”.Independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr will announce his running mate on 26 March, his campaign announced.The New York Jets quarterback Aaron Rodgers and the former pro wrestler and Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura are at the top of Kennedy’s list of potential running mates, the New York Times reported.Kennedy told the paper he was speaking to Rodgers – a fellow conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccine campaigner – “pretty continuously” and had been in touch with Ventura since being introduced by him at an event in Arizona last month.In Kennedy’s search for a running mate, those who have turned him down include Rand Paul, a Republican senator from Kentucky; Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii; and Andrew Yang, a tech entrepreneur who failed in runs for the Democratic presidential nomination and for the mayoralty of New York City.A group of congressional Democrats including the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and armed services veterans urged the current Republican speaker, Mike Johnson, to “lead, follow or get out of the way” of more military support for Ukraine in its war against Russian invaders.“In the military, we have a great expression,” Mikie Sherrill, a House Democrat from New Jersey and a former navy helicopter pilot, told reporters on Capitol Hill.
      ‘Lead, follow or get out of the way.’ That is exactly what our speaker has to do.
      Last month, Senate Democrats and Republicans passed a $95bn foreign aid package covering Ukraine, Taiwan and Israel.The Democrats who spoke on Wednesday faced vocal competition from protesters with Code Pink: Women for Peace, opposing funding for Israel in its war on Gaza. On Ukraine policy, though, House Republicans have proved more obstructive than Medea Benjamin, the Code Pink co-founder, was able to be at the Capitol.Under the direction of Donald Trump, the presumptive presidential nominee who openly favors Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, Johnson has shown no sign of bringing the Senate package up for a vote. The Hungarian prime minister, Viktor Orbán, recently emerged from meeting Trump to say that if Trump is re-elected, he will not give “a penny” to Ukraine.Joe Biden is expected to formally open his Wisconsin campaign headquarters when he visits Milwaukee this afternoon. He’s en route now.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre will talk to reporters and answer questions aboard Air Force One on the way.The Republican party will hold its convention in Milwaukee this July as it prepares to officially declare Trump its nominee to face Biden at the ballot this November.Wisconsin is crucial to Biden’s re-election ambitions. He very narrowly won the state in 2020 in his domination of the upper midwest against the former president.Then there was an almighty, surreal battle as Trump set his political dogs on the trail of overturning the result, with a variety of plots. All failed and last December, a group of Republican fake electors in Wisconsin acknowledged that Biden won the presidency and agreed they would not serve in the electoral college in 2024 as part of a settlement agreement in a civil lawsuit.Joe Biden is on his way to his second swing state of the week when he visits Wisconsin this afternoon, two days after showing up in New Hampshire to tout his election agenda and just hours after unofficially becoming the Democratic party’s nominee for president in the 2024 election.The current US president and his predecessor, Donald Trump, won primary elections in Georgia, Mississippi and Washington state on Tuesday night, solidifying a rematch in November that a majority of voters aren’t looking forward to.They won’t be officially anointed until their respective party conventions this summer, but both have now amassed enough delegates during the primary season to be unassailable as the nominees.Biden, his vice-president Kamala Harris and cabinet members are fanning out across the country after Biden’s handily energetic State of the Union address last week, with swing states and districts very much in mind.With today’s latest poll numbers showing that many voters are disgruntled and open to persuasion this election (though maybe the hard work will be persuading them to vote at all, not to switch allegiance), Biden and Trump have their work cut out.The Associated Press notes that the last presidential election featuring a rematch came in 1956, when Republican president Dwight Eisenhower again defeated the Democratic opponent he had beaten four years prior, Adlai Stevenson. More

    • 163 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      House votes to force TikTok owner ByteDance to divest or face US ban

      by

      The House of Representatives passed a bill on Wednesday that would require the TikTok owner ByteDance to sell the social media platform or face a total ban in the United States.The vote was a landslide, with 352 Congress members voting in favor and only 65 against. The bill, which was fast-tracked to a vote after being unanimously approved by a committee last week, gives China-based ByteDance 165 days to divest from TikTok. If it did not, app stores including the Apple App store and Google Play would be legally barred from hosting TikTok or providing web hosting services to ByteDance-controlled applications.The vote in the House represents the most concrete threat to TikTok in an ongoing political battle over allegations the China-based company could collect sensitive user data and politically censor content. TikTok has repeatedly stated it has not and would not share US user data with the Chinese government.Despite those arguments, TikTok faced an attempted ban by Donald Trump in 2020 and a state-level ban passed in Montana in 2023. Courts blocked both of those bans on grounds of first amendment violations, and Trump has since reversed his stance, now opposing a ban on TikTok.The treasury-led Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) in March 2023 demanded ByteDance sell their TikTok shares or face the possibility of the app being banned, Reuters reported, but no action has been taken.The bill’s future is less certain in the Senate. Some Senate Democrats have publicly opposed the bill, citing freedom of speech concerns, and suggested measures that would address concerns of foreign influence across social media without targeting TikTok specifically. “We need curbs on social media, but we need those curbs to apply across the board,” Senator Elizabeth Warren said.The Democratic senator Mark Warner, who proposed a separate bill last year to give the White House new powers over TikTok, said he had “some concerns about the constitutionality of an approach that names specific companies”, but will take “a close look at this bill”.The White House has backed the legislation, with the press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, saying the administration wants “to see this bill get done so it can get to the president’s desk”.Authors of the bill have argued it does not constitute a ban, as it gives ByteDance the opportunity to sell TikTok and avoid being blocked in the US. Representative Mike Gallagher, the Republican chairman of the House select China committee, and Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi, the panel’s top Democrat, introduced legislation to address national security concerns posed by Chinese ownership of the app.“TikTok could live on and people could do whatever they want on it provided there is that separation,” Gallagher said, urging US ByteDance investors to support a sale. “It is not a ban – think of this as a surgery designed to remove the tumor and thereby save the patient in the process.”TikTok, which has 170 million users in the US, has argued otherwise, stating that it is not clear if China would approve any sale, or that it could be divested in six months.“This legislation has a predetermined outcome: a total ban of TikTok in the United States,” the company said after the committee vote. “The government is attempting to strip 170 million Americans of their constitutional right to free expression. This will damage millions of businesses, deny artists an audience, and destroy the livelihoods of countless creators across the country.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionFollowing the committee’s passage of the bill, staffers complained that TikTok supporters had flooded Congress with phone calls, after the app pushed out a notification urging users to oppose the legislation.“Why are Members of Congress complaining about hearing from their constituents? Respectfully, isn’t that their job?” TikTok said on X.Although the bill was written with TikTok in mind, it is possible other China-owned platforms could be affected, including US operations of Tencent’s WeChat, which Trump also sought to ban in 2020. Gallagher said he would not speculate on what other impacts the bill could have, but said “going forward we can debate what companies fall” under the bill.Reuters contributed to this report More

    • 175 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      House Passes Bill to Force TikTok Sale From Chinese Owner or Ban the App

      by

      The legislation received wide bipartisan support, with both Republicans and Democrats showing an eagerness to appear tough on China.The House on Wednesday passed a bill with broad bipartisan support that would force TikTok’s Chinese owner to sell the hugely popular video app or be banned in the United States. The move escalates a showdown between Beijing and Washington over the control of technologies that could affect national security, free speech and the social media industry.Republican leaders fast-tracked the bill through the House with limited debate, and it passed on a lopsided vote of 352-65, reflecting widespread backing for legislation that would take direct aim at China in an election year. The action came despite TikTok’s efforts to mobilize its 170 million U.S. users against the measure, and amid the Biden administration’s push to persuade lawmakers that Chinese ownership of the platform poses grave national security risks to the United States.The result was a bipartisan coalition behind the measure that included Republicans, who defied former President Donald J. Trump in supporting it, and Democrats, who also fell in line behind a bill that President Biden has said he would sign.The bill faces a difficult road to passage in the Senate, where Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the majority leader, has been noncommittal about bringing it to the floor for a vote and where some lawmakers have vowed to fight it.TikTok has been under threat since 2020, with lawmakers increasingly arguing that Beijing’s relationship with TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, raises national security risks. The bill is aimed at getting ByteDance to sell TikTok to non-Chinese owners within six months. The president would sign off on the sale if it resolved national security concerns. If that sale did not happen, the app would be banned.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Ken Buck Cuts Short House Term, Leaving Republicans Down Yet Another Member

      by

      The Colorado Republican, who announced his retirement last fall, said he would leave Congress at the end of next week, further shrinking his party’s already minuscule majority.Representative Ken Buck, Republican of Colorado, announced on Tuesday that he would leave Congress at the end of next week, cutting short his final term in office in a move that will further shrink his party’s already tiny majority.The decision, which caught House Republican leaders by surprise, is the latest in a long string of losses for Speaker Mike Johnson and his party, who will control just 218 out of the chamber’s 435 seats after Mr. Buck departs.In a brief statement, Mr. Buck, a veteran conservative, thanked his constituents and said he hoped to remain involved in the political process while also getting to spend “more time in Colorado with my family.”Last year Mr. Buck said he would retire at the end of this term, citing his party’s election denialism and the refusal by many Republicans to condemn the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the Capitol. His plans were seen as unlikely to affect the ultimate balance of power in the House, given that Republicans would be all but certain to hold his solidly conservative district in eastern Colorado.And losing Mr. Buck, who has broken with his party on some major issues — including the recent impeachment of Alejandro N. Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary — was not exactly seen as costing the party a loyal vote.But Mr. Buck’s decision to leave months before the end of his term on March 22, the same day as the deadline for Congress to pass a package of spending bills to avoid a partial government shutdown, creates yet another headache for House Republicans who have lurched from chaos to crisis for more than a year, leaving them with even less of a cushion to wield their small majority.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in Elections

      Poised and Precise, Hur Enters Fray Over Special Counsel’s Report on Biden

      by

      Robert K. Hur defended himself in the unhurried, forceful cadence of a veteran prosecutor, delivering his responses in a flat, matter-of-fact tone.The former special counsel Robert K. Hur, denounced by Democrats for his unsparing description of President Biden’s memory lapses, had one of his own during his testimony on Tuesday before the House Judiciary Committee.Representative James R. Comer, a Kentucky Republican, made passing reference to Dana A. Remus, a Democratic lawyer who had served as White House counsel under Mr. Biden from January 2021 to July 2022.Mr. Hur crinkled an eyebrow and corrected him: No, he said, she occupied that post under President Obama.The misstep was an isolated moment in an otherwise poised and precise appearance by Mr. Hur, 51, who was testifying about his report on the investigation into Mr. Biden’s handling of classified documents.Mr. Hur, a Trump-era Justice Department official known among former colleagues for keeping a cool head in high-stress, high-stakes situations, incited a furor after describing the president as a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” A transcript of his five-hour interview with Mr. Biden, released just before his appearance, raised questions about that characterization.Before his work as special counsel, Mr. Hur, a graduate of Stanford Law School who clerked for Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, was best known for his 11-month stint as the top aide to the deputy attorney general, Rod Rosenstein, in 2017 and 2018. It was a time of extraordinary upheaval, when Mr. Rosenstein oversaw the installment of a special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, to investigate President Donald J. Trump’s dealings with Russia. Both men lived under the constant threat of being fired by Mr. Trump, who saw the appointment as a personal betrayal.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Five key takeaways from the House hearing on Robert Hur’s Biden report

      by

      The former special counsel Robert Hur, who investigated Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents, testified before a House committee on Tuesday in an often contentious hearing that found the witness on the receiving end of criticism from both Democrats and Republicans.Here were the key takeaways from the House judiciary committee hearing:Hur defended his assessment of Biden’s memoryIn his report, which was released last month, Hur concluded that no criminal charges were warranted against Biden. While stating that Biden had “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice-presidency when he was a private citizen”, Hur assessed that a jury would probably view him as “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” and thus would be unable to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.After the report’s release, Democrats celebrated Hur’s recommendation against criminal charges, but they accused the special counsel of overstepping the bounds of his assignment by offering such a stinging opinion on Biden’s memory. Hur directly confronted that criticism in his opening statement on Tuesday.“My task was to determine whether the president retained or disclosed national defense information ‘willfully’. That means knowingly and with the intent to do something the law forbids. I could not make that determination without assessing the president’s state of mind,” Hur said. “My assessment in the report about the relevance of the president’s memory was necessary and accurate and fair.”When Republican members of the committee attempted to press Hur on whether he found Biden to be “senile”, he said, “I did not. That conclusion does not appear in my report.”Hur asserted his impartiality even as he refused to rule out a potential role in a Trump administrationDemocrats on the committee accused Hur of directly inserting himself into the 2024 election by knowingly writing a report meant to paint a damning portrait of Biden, even as the special counsel simultaneously concluded that the president should not be charged.“You cannot tell me you’re so naive as to think your words would not have created a political firestorm,” said the Democratic congressman Adam Schiff of California. “You were not born yesterday. You understood exactly what you were doing.”Hur rejected that characterization, telling Schiff: “Politics played no part whatsoever in my investigative steps.”And yet, when Hur was directly asked whether he would rule out taking a position in the Trump administration if the former president wins the election in November, the special counsel would not do so.“I’m not here to speak about what may or may not happen in the future,” Hur said.Republicans complained of a double standard of justice, citing Trump’s indictment in Florida, but Democrats noted key differences in the two casesRepublicans argued that Hur had made a special exception for Biden to avoid charging a sitting president, and they disparagingly compared the case to Trump’s indictment for mishandling classified information after leaving the White House.Matt Gaetz, a hard-right Republican congressman of Florida, mocked the special counsel’s reasoning for not recommending charges against Biden as the “senile cooperator theory”.“Biden and Trump should have been treated equally. They weren’t. And that is the double standard that I think a lot of Americans are concerned about,” Gaetz said.Democrats fiercely pushed back against that argument, noting that Trump was accused of repeatedly refusing to turn over classified documents after federal authorities requested their return.“What kind of man bungles not one, but dozens of opportunities to avoid criminal liability? What must that say about his mental state?” asked Congressman Jerry Nadler, the top Democratic member on the judiciary committee.Nadler added, “House Republicans may be desperate to convince America that white conservative men are on the losing end of a two-tiered justice system – a theory that appeals to the Maga crowd but has no basis in reality.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHur said Biden was not “exonerated” even though no charges were filed against the presidentIn her questioning of Hur, the Democratic congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, zeroed in on the special counsel’s conclusion that no charges should be brought against Biden.“You exonerated him,” Jayapal said.Hur interjected to say, “I did not exonerate him. That word does not appear in the report.”Although the word “exonerate” does not appear in Hur’s report, the first paragraph of the document reads, “We conclude that no criminal charges are warranted in this matter. We would reach the same conclusion even if Department of Justice policy did not foreclose criminal charges against a sitting president.”Transcripts painted a more nuanced picture of Biden’s conversations with HurDemocrats on the House judiciary committee released the transcripts of Biden’s interviews with Hur, and they somewhat clash with how the two have portrayed their conversations.For example, in his report, Hur wrote that Biden “did not remember, even within several years, when his son Beau died”.The comment infuriated Biden, who said at a fiery press conference held after the report’s release, “How in the hell dare he raise that? Frankly, when I was asked the question, I thought to myself, it wasn’t any of their damn business.”But the report reveals that Hur did not in fact inquire about the date of Beau Biden’s death. Hur was actually asking about where Biden kept certain documents after leaving the White House in January 2017, and the president invoked his son’s death as a reference point in the conversation.“And so what was happening, though – what month did Beau die? Oh, God, May 30,” Biden said.Biden did not specify which year his son died, prompting an aide to remind him that it was 2015. “Was it 2015 he had died?” Biden asked, and the aide confirmed it was.Other exchanges outlined in the transcripts raise questions about Hur’s assessment of Biden’s “poor memory”. Although the president frequently fumbled as he recounted the exact sequence of events related to the transfer of documents, Biden also offered detailed explanations and reminiscences of events in the past.At one point, Biden was so exact in the description of his Wilmington home that Hur joked, “We have some photographs to show you, but you have – appear to have a photographic understanding and recall of the house.”The Guardian’s Léonie Chao-Fong contributed to this report More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Special counsel says he was doing his job when he criticized Biden’s memory

      by

      Robert Hur, the justice department special counsel assigned to report on Joe Biden’s possession of classified documents, told Congress he was just doing his job when he shook up the US election campaign by criticizing the president’s apparent inability to recall certain events.In his report released in February, Hur, a Republican former US attorney under Donald Trump, recommended Biden not be charged for possessing classified documents. But he infuriated the president’s Democratic allies by making repeated references to Biden’s age and memory as one reason for not indicting him, saying jurors would see him “as a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory”.“My task was to determine whether the president retained or disclosed national defense information willfully,” Hur said in his opening remarks to the House judiciary committee. “I could not make that determination without assessing the president’s state of mind. For that reason, I had to consider the president’s memory and overall mental state, and how a jury likely would perceive his memory and mental state in a criminal trial.”He defended his comments about Biden’s recollections, saying: “I did not sanitize my explanation. Nor did I disparage the president unfairly. I explained to the attorney general my decision and the reasons for it. That’s what I was required to do.”Republicans are also unhappy with Hur’s finding that Biden should not be charged, arguing it was evidence of double standards at the justice department. A different special counsel, Jack Smith, has indicted Donald Trump for allegedly taking government secrets with him after leaving the White House and, unlike Biden, conspiring to keep them out of the hands of investigators. The justice department also decided last year not to bring charges against Trump’s former vice-president, Mike Pence, after classified documents were found at his home.Both men were appointed by Biden’s attorney general, Merrick Garland, but operate independently, while justice department policy also prohibits the indictment of sitting presidents.The judiciary committee’s chair, Trump ally Jim Jordan, sought to focus public attention on Hur’s conclusion that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed classified materials after his vice presidency”.“Mr Hur produced a 345-page report, but in the end, it boils down to a few key facts. Joe Biden kept classified information. Joe Biden failed to properly secure classified information. And Joe Biden shared classified information with people he wasn’t supposed to,” Jordan said as the hearing began.Jerrold Nadler, the committee’s top Democrat, focused on how the special counsel cleared the president, and noted his cooperation with the investigation.“The Hur report represents the complete and total exoneration of President Biden,” Nadler said.“And how does that record contrast with President Trump, the documents he retained and the criminal charges pending against him in Florida?” Nadler continued, recounting the details of the former president’s alleged hoarding of classified materials at his Mar-a-Lago resort.Trump is facing charges “not because of some vast conspiracy, not because the so-called deep state was out to get him, but because former president Trump was fundamentally incapable of taking advantage of even one of the many, many chances he was given to avoid those charges”, Nadler said.Hur made clear later on that he does not consider his report to be an “exoneration” of the president, saying “that is not a word that I used”.A transcript of Hur’s interview with Biden, which lasted for hours over several days, was released shortly before the hearing began, and shows the president fumbled occasionally with the sequence of events and certain dates, but otherwise was sharp throughout, and also corrected Hur and others when they made errors.The Democratic congressman Adam Schiff seized on Hur’s insistence that he did not “disparage” Biden, saying he did just that by including details of the president’s ability to recalls details in his report.“You chose a general pejorative reference to the president. You understood when you made that decision, didn’t you Mr Hur, that you would ignite a political firestorm with that language, didn’t you?” Schiff asked.“Congressman, politics played no part whatsoever in my investigative steps,” Hur replied, saying he followed justice department policy in writing his report. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      House Republicans’ report contradicts witness account of Trump’s wheel-grab

      by

      US House Republicans on Monday released a report they said contradicted sensational January 6 committee testimony in which a former aide to Donald Trump described being told that as the attack on Congress unfolded, the then president was so eager to join supporters at the Capitol he tried to grab the wheel of his car.“The testimony of … four White House employees directly contradicts claims made by Cassidy Hutchinson and by the select committee in the final report,” read the report by the House administration subcommittee on oversight, which searched for alleged bias or malpractice in the January 6 investigation.“None of the White House employees corroborated Hutchinson’s sensational story about President Trump lunging for the steering wheel of the Beast,” the report said, referring to the colloquial name for cars that carry the president.“Some witnesses did describe the president’s mood after the speech at the Ellipse. It is highly improbable that the other White House employees would have heard about the president’s mood in the SUV following his speech at the Ellipse, but not heard the sensational story that Hutchinson claims Anthony Ornato, the White House deputy chief of staff for operations, told her after returning to the White House on January 6.”Hutchinson, a former aide to Trump and his final chief of staff, Mark Meadows, testified before the January 6 committee in private and in public.In public, her testimony about Trump’s anger at his inability to overturn his defeat by Joe Biden made her a star witness, compared by some to John Dean, the White House counsel whose testimony sealed Richard Nixon’s fate in the Watergate scandal.In especially memorable testimony, Hutchinson described what she said Ornato told her about Trump’s reaction, after telling supporters to “fight like hell”, to being told he could not go with them to the Capitol, to try to block election certification.According to Hutchinson, Ornato said Trump furiously lunged for the wheel before a secret service agent grabbed his arm and said: “Sir, you need to take your hand off the steering wheel. We’re going back to the West Wing. We’re not going to the Capitol.”Hutchinson said she was told “Trump then used his free hand to lunge towards Bobby Engel [an agent] and when Mr Ornato recounted the story to me, he motioned towards his clavicles”.Questioned by Liz Cheney, an anti-Trump Republican and January 6 committee vice-chair, Hutchinson said Engel did not dispute the account. It was soon reported that Engel did dispute it, and wanted to testify under oath.Among transcripts released on Monday, the unnamed agent who drove Trump said: “The president was insistent on going to the Capitol. It was clear to me he wanted to go to the Capitol.”“He was not screaming at Mr Engel. He was not screaming at me. Certainly his voice was raised, but it did not seem to me that he was irate – [he] certainly … didn’t seem as irritated or agitated as he had on the way to the Ellipse,” the area near the White House where Trump addressed supporters.The driver added: “I did not see him reach. He never grabbed the steering wheel. I didn’t see him, you know, lunge to try to get into the front seat at all. You know, what stood out was the irritation in his voice, more than his physical presence.”The transcript was among those the January 6 committee did not release, citing security concerns. The transcripts were eventually released with redactions.On Monday, the New York Times said former January 6 committee aides said its final report included details of the driver’s interview and no cover-up was attempted.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe final report said: “The committee has now obtained evidence from several sources about a ‘furious interaction’ in the SUV. The vast majority of witnesses who have testified before the select committee about this topic, including multiple members of the secret service, a member of the Metropolitan police, and national security and military officials in the White House, described President Trump’s behavior as ‘irate’, ‘furious’, ‘insistent’, ‘profane’ and ‘heated’.”It also said: “It is difficult to fully reconcile the accounts of several of the witnesses who provided information with what we heard from Engel and Ornato. But the principal factual point here is clear and undisputed: President Trump specifically and repeatedly requested to be taken to the Capitol. He was insistent and angry, and continued to push to travel to the Capitol even after returning to the White House.”On Monday, Barry Loudermilk of Georgia, the Republican select committee chair, said the report showed “firsthand testimony directly contradicts Cassidy Hutchinson’s story and the [January 6] committee’s narrative. Although the committee had this critical information, they still promoted Ms Hutchinson’s third-hand version of events.”Now 27, Hutcinson has released a memoir and become a prominent figure on the anti-Trump right. On Monday, her attorney re-released a letter to Loudermilk first sent in January.“Since Ms Hutchinson changed counsel,” the letter said, referring to her decision to stop using lawyers provided by Trump, “she has and will continue to tell the truth.“While other individuals … would not speak with the select committee, Ms Hutchinson and many other witnesses courageously stepped forward. Yet she now finds herself being questioned by you and your subcommittee regarding her testimony and on matters that may also be the subject of ongoing criminal proceedings against Mr Trump.”Trump, 77, is the presumptive Republican nominee to face Biden again in the fall. He still faces 91 criminal charges, 17 concerning attempted election subversion. Though Trump was impeached for inciting an insurrection, Senate Republicans assured his acquittal.Hutchinson, her lawyer said, would not “succumb to a pressure campaign from those who seek to silence her”. More