House of Representatives

Subterms

    More stories

    • 238 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      TikTok may be on borrowed time in the US, but it still holds a Trump card | John Naughton

      by

      Last week, the US House of Representatives, a dysfunctional body that hitherto could not agree on anything, suddenly converged on a common project: a bipartisan bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese owner, ByteDance, to sell the app to an owner of another nationality, or else face a ban in the US, TikTok’s largest market.American legislators’ concerns about the social media app have been simmering for years, mostly focused on worries that the Chinese government could compel ByteDance (and therefore TikTok) to hand over data on TikTok users or manipulate content on the platform. A year ago, Christopher Wray, the director of the FBI, told Congress that TikTok “is a tool that is ultimately within the control of the Chinese government – and it, to me, it screams out with national security concerns”.These fears were amplified by the raging popularity of TikTok among US users. It has upwards of 170 million of them and their addiction to it has bothered Mark Zuckerberg and his empire for the very good reason that TikTok is the only other social media game in town. Six of the world’s 10 most downloaded apps last year were owned by Meta, Facebook’s parent. But TikTok, beat all of them except Instagram to the top spot.TikTok is ferociously addictive, at least for people under 30. What bothers Meta most is that TikTok extracts far more granular data from its users than any other platform. “The average session lasts 11 minutes,” writes blogger Scott Galloway, “and the video length is around 25 seconds. That’s 26 ‘episodes’ per session, with each episode generating multiple microsignals: whether you scrolled past a video, paused it, rewatched it, liked it, commented on it, shared it, and followed the creator, plus how long you watched before moving on. That’s hundreds of signals. Sweet crude like the world has never seen, ready to be algorithmically refined into rocket fuel.”To date, public discourse about the platform has been pretty incoherent – as one critic pointed out: “From policymakers completely talking past each other to the media falling into false binaries when discussing TikTok and a possible ban, too many narratives on the issue have been contradictory, full of logical leaps, or incredibly reductive.” But two main themes stand out from the hubbub. One is that TikTok gathers incredibly detailed personal data on its users (data that may find its way to the platform’s Chinese parent); the other is that it may be a propaganda tool for the Chinese Communist party (CCP).The first is plausible but overegged. As the Economist puts it: “If Chinese spies want to find out about Americans, the country’s lax data protection laws allow them to buy such information from third parties.” The second proposition – that TikTok may be an efficient conduit for propaganda and misinformation – looks spot-on, though. After all, about a third of under-30s in the US regularly get news on TikTok and a recent study has found grounds for thinking that the platform already systematically promotes or demotes content on the basis of whether it is respectively aligned with or opposed to the interests of the CCP.And here’s where the question of what happens to TikTok takes on geopolitical and domestic political dimensions. On the former, it’s highly likely that the prospect of TikTok separating from ByteDance and thereby slipping out of the control of the CCP does not appeal to Beijing. So this congressional bill (which passed overwhelmingly in a floor vote on Wednesday) looks like bad news.On the other hand, there was some good news last week for Beijing. First, Donald Trump became the Republican party’s nominee for the presidency. And second, he announced that he was against the bill. “If you get rid of TikTok,” he posted on his Truth Social platform, “Facebook and Zuckerschmuck will double their business. I don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a true Enemy of the People!”For those who appreciate hypocrisy, this was a collector’s item. Is this not the same Trump who in 2020 tried (but failed) to get rid of TikTok? What lies behind this change of heart? Who can say: trying to read what is loosely called Trump’s mind is a fool’s errand. Still, it was interesting to learn that recently Trump reportedly had a “cordial” meeting in his Mar-a-Lago lair with a guy called Jeff Yass. Who’s he? Oh, just someone whose business happens to have a $30bn-plus stake in ByteDance. Sometimes you couldn’t make this stuff up.What I’ve been readingMatter of InterestViewing the Ob-scene is David Hering’s terrific review of Jonathan Glazer’s great movie The Zone of Interest.Machine learningRead Of Top-Notch Algorithms and Zoned-Out Humans, a sobering essay by Tim Harford about the downsides of becoming dependent on smart machines.Science fiction Superconductivity Scandal: The Inside Story of a Scientific Deception in a Rising Star’s Physics Lab recounts a gripping investigation by Nature magazine’s news team. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      TikTok Bill’s Progress Slows in the Senate

      by

      Legislation to force TikTok’s Chinese owner to sell the app or have it banned in the United States sailed through the House, but the Senate has no plans to move hastily.After a bill that would force TikTok’s Chinese parent company to sell the app or face a nationwide ban sailed through the House at breakneck speed this week, its progress has slowed in the Senate.Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader who determines what legislation gets a vote, has not decided whether to bring the bill to the floor, his spokesman said. Senators — some of whom have their own versions of bills targeting TikTok — will need to be convinced. Other legislation on the runway could be prioritized. And the process of taking the House bill and potentially rewriting it to suit the Senate could be time consuming.Many in the Senate are keeping their cards close to their vest about what they would do on the TikTok measure, even as they said they recognized the House had sent a powerful signal with its vote on the bill, which passed 352 to 65. The legislation mandates that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, sell its stake in the app within six months or face a ban.“The lesson of the House vote is that this issue is capable of igniting almost spontaneously in the support that it has,” Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said in an interview on Friday. He said that there could be adjustments made to the bill but that there was bipartisan support to wrest the app from Chinese ownership.The slowdown in the Senate means that TikTok is likely to face weeks or even months of uncertainty about its fate in the United States. That could result in continued lobbying, alongside maneuvering by the White House, the Chinese government and ByteDance. It is also likely to prompt potential talks about deals — whether real or imagined — while the uncertainty of losing access to the app will hang over the heads of TikTok creators and its 170 million U.S. users.“Almost everything will slow down in the Senate,” said Nu Wexler, a former Senate aide who worked for Google, Twitter and Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram. “They’ll need some time to either massage egos or build consensus.”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

    • 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