Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Deny, attack, reverse – Trump has perfected the art of inverted victimhood | Sidney Blumenthal

      by

      Time after time, with predictable regularity, never missing a beat, Donald Trump proclaims his innocence. He always denies that he has done anything wrong. The charge does not matter. He is blameless. But this is only the beginning of the pattern. Then, he attacks his accusers, or anyone involved in bringing him to account, usually of committing the identical offense of which he stands accused.But it is not enough for him to lash out. Then, he declares himself to be the victim. Whatever it is, he is falsely accused. But his self-dramatization as the wounded sufferer is only half his story: he insists that whoever has accused him is in fact the offender. He emerges triumphant, the martyr, the truth-teller, courageously unmasking the real villain. J’accuse!Trump’s pattern is textbook manipulation – literally. It has a precise name given to it after decades of academic research. Jennifer Freyd, now professor emerita of psychology at the University of Oregon, developed the theory over her career studying sexual assault, trauma and institutional betrayal. She named the process by which the perpetrator seeks to avoid accountability Darvo – a strategy with the elements of denial, attack, and reversal of victim and offender.“I named the idea in the 1990s,” Freyd told me. “People can deny an accusation without resorting to Darvo. Why not just say, ‘I’m disturbed by what you’re saying, it doesn’t comport with what I remember, these are important issues, I want to understand.’ You can stick to a firm denial without being a victim. But the viciousness of the attack is intended to be silencing.”Freyd observes: “The people who use Darvo are different from the people who don’t … It’s a red flag.”Trump’s behavior in the E Jean Carroll case has been a classic exhibit. The defamation case was brought after Trump said she was “totally lying”, explaining that “she’s not my type”, about her description of his sexual assault of her in a book and a New York magazine article. He issued a formal statement from the White House on 19 July 2019: “If anyone has information that the Democratic Party is working with Ms Carroll or New York magazine, please notify us as soon as possible. The world should know what’s really going on. It is a disgrace, and people should pay dearly for such false accusations.”All the elements of Darvo, his familiar pattern, were present in his deflection. He denied the incident occurred: “I’ve never met this person in my life.” He attacked her: “Shame on those who make up false stories of assault to try to get publicity for themselves or sell a book or carry out a political agenda.” And he turned the tables to make himself the victim and her the aggressor deserving of punishment: “People should pay dearly for such false accusations.”In the first defamation trial in 2023, Judge Lewis Kaplan declared that based on the jury’s deliberations Trump had defamed her and committed rape. “… Mr Trump ‘raped’ her as many people commonly understand the word ‘rape’,” he stated. “Indeed, as the evidence at trial recounted below makes clear, the jury found that Mr Trump in fact did exactly that.”The jury awarded Carroll $5m. Trump appeared on CNN the day after the judgment to call the decision “fake news” and her a “whack job”. She amended her defamation lawsuit.During the second trial, Trump inevitably repeated this pattern. First, he denied the accusation. “She said that I did something to her that never took place,” he testified in a deposition. “There was no anything.” Then, he attacked her: “I know nothing about this nutjob.” Then, he made himself her victim: “She’s accusing me of rape, a woman that I have no idea who she is.” Then, he called her “sick, mentally sick” and labeled her attorney Roberta Kaplan “a political operative”. They had connived for ulterior motives to hurt him.Then, he lied about an interview she had given, to claim that – even if he never knew her and the event never took place – she said she enjoyed being sexually assaulted by him. “She actually indicated that she loved it. Okay? She loved it until commercial break,” Trump said. “In fact, I think she said it was sexy, didn’t she? She said it was very sexy to be raped. Didn’t she say that?”In the second defamation trial, the jury delivered a judgment of $83.3m in damages against Trump.There’s a method to Trump’s madness. The madness is the method – and the method is the madness. It’s more than his malignant narcissism. It’s more than his relentless lying. Conscious or unconscious, it is his invariable reflexive response to the danger of being held responsible for his misdeeds and crimes. Its roots lie in the model of his brutish father. Upon that foundation he added the vicious counsel of Roy Cohn to attack anyone suing him in order to raise the personal cost for his victims, drain them of resources and delay the courts.But Trump’s instinctive reliance on Darvo goes beyond the mean-spirited tactics he learned from Cohn. Those lessons settled long ago into his pathology, becoming something more pervasive, systematic and fundamental, defining Trump’s behavior in every area of his life. The pattern is written all over Trump’s rap sheet of adjudicated and alleged sexual violence. Dozens of women have come forward by name to accuse him of assault and rape. His malicious insults of women are legion.He responds to all of his accusers using the Darvo playbook. “Every woman lied when they came forward to hurt my campaign,” he said in 2016. “Total fabrication. The events never happened. Never. All of these liars will be sued after the election is over.” Again, he was the victim, they were the aggressors. He threatened them in order to silence them.Though Trump ranks among the greatest living specimens of misogyny, his Darvo blame-casting extends to foes of any gender in every one of his conflicts. Trump’s syndrome has become the core of his politics. Just as he is the Maga icon, even exalted as a god, his derangement is the golden calf for his followers. They worship by imitation. His gaslighting about his sexual violence has morphed into the essence of his pseudo-ideology of a debauched party.The Trump Republicans, apologizing for him, twist their arguments into the Darvo template. In the Republican-dominated House of Representatives, the weaponization committee has institutionalized a warped Darvo construct in its projections on the cave wall of conspiracies and enemies. One day, the FBI is the culprit victimizing Trump; the next, Taylor Swift.In case after case, Trump applies the blueprint. His closing statement at his New York fraud trial on 12 January was definitive in his application of the complete features of Darvo. He raced back and forth from denial, to attack, to reversal of victim and offender. “This is a political witch-hunt that was set aside by – should be set aside. We should receive damages for what we’ve gone through, for what they’ve taken this company through.” He was the victim.The one bringing the case, Letitia James, the New York attorney general, was the assailant. “We have a situation where I’m an innocent man,” Trump said. “I’ve been persecuted by somebody running for office … they want to make sure that I don’t win again, that this is partially election interference. But, in particular, the person in the room right now hates Trump and uses Trump to get elected.”Trump, on trial for financial fraud, flipped the narrative. “This is no fraud. This is a fraud on me.” Then, he baited Judge Arthur Engoron. “I know this is boring you.”“One minute, Mr Trump,” said the judge.“You can’t listen for more than one minute,” Trump shot back. “This has been a persecution of somebody that’s done a good job in New York.”“Please control your client,” the judge told Trump’s lawyer.“Your Honor, look, I did nothing wrong,” said Trump. “They should pay me for what we had to go through.”Trump’s harangue in the Manhattan courtroom was just the latest variation on his themes. After the FBI seized boxes of classified documents, including national security secrets, that Trump took to Mar-a-Lago, for which he has been charged with 41 felonies, Trump let loose on 8 August 2022 with a vehement Darvo defense. His “beautiful home” was “under siege” from “FBI agents”, in “an attack from Radical Left Democrats”.Never describing the reason for the seizure of documents, he literally spelled out his technique of sleight-of-hand reversal. “What is the difference between this and Watergate, where operatives broke into the Democrat National Committee? Here, in reverse, Democrats broke into the home of the 45th President of the United States.”This outrage, according to Trump, was the culmination of his mistreatment – at least until the next one. “The political persecution of President Donald J Trump has been going on for years,” he said, speaking of himself in the third person, “with the now fully debunked Russia, Russia, Russia Scam, Impeachment Hoax No 1, Impeachment Hoax No 2, and so much more, it just never ends. It is political targeting at the highest level!” Then, he attacked Hillary Clinton. “Absolutely nothing has happened to hold her accountable.”Trump’s language in his Darvo screed about the documents he had secreted at Mar-a-Lago was a replica of his most historic speech. In his rant on 6 January 2021 to the assembled mob ready to march on the Capitol, he presented himself as the victim in almost exactly the same words.“All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical-left Democrats, which is what they’re doing. And stolen by the fake news media … You don’t concede when there’s theft involved … We will stop the steal.”He turned Mike Pence, his vice-president, into an enemy, mentioning his name seven times. The gallows were already being constructed in front of the Capitol, yet Trump and his mob were the ones being intimidated and silenced. “We will not let them silence your voices.” The media was “the enemy of the people”.In the midst of his recital of the “pure theft” of the election, he managed to find a way to insert a graceless note of misogyny, exactly as he would after the Mar-a-Lago seizure, a non sequitur explicable by the perverse logic of Darvo. “And the only unhappy person in the United States, single most unhappy, is Hillary Clinton.” Then, he told the mob to go “fight” at the Capitol.“Darvo works,” Freyd told me. “There are two ways it works. One is on the victim, who is attacked. Darvo leads to self-blame, which leads to self-silencing. It’s effective in that it increases power over the victim. The other way is that it damages the credibility of the victim. When we introduce Darvo into the experiment, for the participant who doesn’t know about it, blame is reduced on the perpetrator. Darvo hurts the victim more. It tarnishes more the person who is the target of Darvo.”But Freyd also says that her research shows that when people are made aware of the nature of Darvo beforehand, it has a diminished effect. “The one hope is that when they know about it, they are less susceptible to it as a defense.” She concludes: “It would make a difference to identify the strategy and call it out. Normalizing Darvo is colluding and harmful.”Trump’s campaign themes largely consist of his defenses, which are adaptations of Darvo. He denies all the accusations. A majority of Republicans believe he is falsely charged. He attacks a host of enemies from E Jean Carroll to Jack Smith, from the judges to their clerks. He is the victim. They are the offenders. Darvo is his shield of innocence.“Are you thinking of trying to use campaign funds to pay some of the penalties?” a reporter asked Trump after it was disclosed that he had spent $50m in donor money on lawyers’ fees in 2023.“What penalties?” Trump answered.“In the New York fraud case and the defamation case.”“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Trump said. “I mean, that’s been proven as far as I’m concerned.”
      Sidney Blumenthal is a Guardian US columnist. He is a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, has published three books of a projected five-volume political life of Abraham Lincoln: A Self-Made Man, Wrestling With His Angel and All the Powers of Earth More

    • 150 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      Donald Trump’s ‘sex and bribes’ data protection case rejected by UK court

      by

      Donald Trump’s data protection claim for damages over allegations in the “Steele dossier” that he took part in “perverted” sex acts and gave bribes to Russian officials has been dismissed by a high court judge in London.Mrs Justice Steyn agreed with Orbis Business Intelligence, the company founded by the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, who compiled the contentious material, that the case should not go to trial.The ruling issued on Thursday said the court did not “consider or determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of the memoranda” but found that Trump’s claim for damages had been made outside the six-year period of “limitations”.The court ruled that Trump “has no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim for compensation or damages, and no real prospect of successfully obtaining such a remedy”.It added that the “only other remedy claimed was for a compliance order erasing or restricting processing of the memoranda” but that this would be “pointless, and unnecessary, in circumstances where the dossier was freely available on the internet, and the defendant had in any event undertaken to delete the copies it held”.The former US president, who is the frontrunner in the race to be the Republican candidate in this year’s election, had indicated he was willing to give evidence at the high court in the case alleging breach of data protection rights by Orbis Business Intelligence over the 2016 “Steele dossier”.The report, investigating Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential campaign, was compiled by Steele, who previously ran MI6’s Russia desk, and then published by BuzzFeed in 2017.The document included allegations that Trump had hired sex workers to urinate on each other in the presidential suite of a hotel in Moscow, and took part in sex parties in St Petersburg. He denies the claims.Trump’s lawyer, Hugh Tomlinson KC, had told the court his client knew he had the legal responsibility to prove the allegations were false and that he intended “to discharge his burden by giving evidence in this court”.Orbis was successful in arguing that the claim had been brought too late.Trump’s campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, said: “The high court in London has found that there was not even an attempt by Christopher Steele, or his group, to justify or try to prove, which they absolutely cannot, their false and defamatory allegations in the fake ‘dossier’.“The high court also found that there was processing, utilisation, of those false statements. President Trump will continue to fight for the truth and against falsehoods such as ones promulgated by Steele and his cohorts.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida’s new anti-gay bill aims to limit and punish protected free speech

      by

      By day two of Florida’s legislative session, which started last month, lawmakers had introduced nearly 20 anti-gay or anti-trans bills. One such bill, SB 1780, would make accusing someone of being homophobic, transphobic, racist or sexist, even if the accusation is true, equivalent to defamation, and punishable by a fine of at least $35,000. If passed, the bill would severely limit and punish constitutionally protected free speech in the state.Though SB 1780 is not likely to survive past higher courts, its introduction is indicative of a wider conservative strategy to stifle criticism of racist, sexist and homophobic behavior. The bill, critics argue, is being introduced to test the waters and see how far, legally, lawmakers can go until they are able to silence detractors.“That’s the pattern here in Florida,” said Sharon Austin, a professor of political science at the University of Florida. “They introduce a bill that many of us find to be really extreme. When we start to protest, eventually they take out some of the provisions and sort of water it down a little bit, but in the end it ends up getting passed.”Austin notes that similar bills, such as SB 266, which severely limits diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts, and HB7, “the stop woke act”, which regulates how race and race issues can be taught in schools, were ultimately passed after lawmakers made the bills slightly less extreme.Understanding the landscape that legislators in the state are attempting to construct is crucial, said Howard Simon, the executive director of the ACLU of Florida. “This session is probably going to be known as the ‘gay bigotry legislative session’,” he said. “They’re on track to spend the [two-month legislative session] exercising their bigotry and hostility to the gay community in Florida.”During last year’s legislative session, multiple anti-gay bills were introduced, including the infamous “don’t say gay” bill, which has been challenged multiple times since it was signed into law. Florida taxpayers have footed the costs for a number of lawsuits in the last several years, totaling well into the millions.Simon and Austin both argue that by crafting bills that specifically target LGBTQ+ people, DEI efforts and free speech, conservative legislators are trying to push those who do not fit the mold of what they believe Florida should look like out of the state.“Whether you like it or not, if someone wants to accuse you of being racist or sexist or homophobic, they have a right to do that,” said Austin. “It’s protected speech. There are attempts to intimidate and bully educators and individuals by letting them know that if you say something that’s unpopular, that offends conservatives, then we will come after you, then we will punish you.”‘It’s a frightening time’The passage of SB 1780 would have sweeping implications for free speech, as the bill’s restrictions apply to everything from print and television to online social media posts. The bill would not only make it virtually impossible to prove accusations of racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia, but it would also make it so that the victim of discriminatory statements is responsible for damages to the offender. If enough people were charged under the bill, Simon said, it would likely intimidate others from coming forward about discrimination, effectively silencing victims of hate crimes or other forms of bigotry. Austin likens the bill and others like it to McCarthyism.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“That’s the level of paranoia we’re coming to. It’s a frightening time,” she said. “It makes you wonder if we’re going back to … that type of society in which you’re almost afraid to say anything for fear of offending conservatives who are really trying to destroy you if you say something that they don’t like.”SB 1780 also would have implications for journalists: if passed, the bill would remove the ability for reporters to keep sources anonymous. Journalists who report on discrimination would be particularly vulnerable to lawsuits, as the bill stipulates that “a statement by an anonymous source is presumptively false for purposes of a defamation action”. Austin believes that this is a further attempt to control the media.A similar, more sweeping bill, HB 991, explicitly made it easier to sue journalists and passed the civil justice subcommittee last year. Though it died in the judiciary committee, SB 1780 is a second attempt to get the law through.“I have to hope that members of the Florida legislature will have enough sense not to pass this,” Simon said. “But, if it does, I don’t think the courts will have a hard time seeing the unconstitutional restrictions on free speech that are throughout.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump political action committees spent over $50m last year on legal bills

      by

      Donald Trump’s political action committees spent more than $50m on legal fees over the course of 2023, as the former president’s legal troubles intensified in the face of 91 felony counts across four criminal cases.According to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) on Wednesday night, Save America, Trump’s leadership Pac that has shouldered most of the financial burden of his legal battles, entered 2024 with just $5m in cash on hand after spending more than $25m on legal expenses over the last six months of 2023.Another Trump-affiliated group, Make America Great Again, spent another $4m on legal bills over the second half of the year. Earlier filings showed that Save America also spent more than $21m on legal fees during the first six months of last year, bringing Trump’s total 2023 legal bill to more than $50m.As Trump’s legal woes have escalated, his political action committees have been forced to redistribute their financial resources. Filings show that Maga Inc refunded $30m to Save America in the second half of 2023, after already transferring more than $12m to the group earlier in the year. Save America had distributed $60m to Maga Inc back in 2022 to bolster Trump’s campaign efforts, but the group has now reclaimed most of those funds in the face of the former president’s mounting legal fees. After those transactions, Maga Inc reported roughly $23m in cash on hand heading into 2024.The FEC filings show that Trump-affiliated groups distributed payments to lawyers such as John Lauro, Steven Sadow and Chris Kise, all of whom have assisted in the former president’s legal defense. The new reports underscore how much of Trump’s impressive fundraising haul has been diverted away from his presidential campaign and redirected toward his legal battles – a fact that has caught the attention of his opponent in the Republican presidential primary, Nikki Haley.Haley said on X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday: “Another reason Donald Trump won’t debate me … His PAC spent 50 MILLION in campaign dollars on his legal fees. He can’t beat Joe Biden if he’s spending all his time and money on court cases and chaos.”Despite the former president’s mounting legal troubles, the Trump campaign still began 2024 with $33m in cash on hand, but that total fell short of Joe Biden’s re-election campaign. The Biden campaign began 2024 with roughly $46m in the bank, while the Biden victory fund, a joint fundraising committee, reported $37.5m in cash on hand. The Democratic National Committee also reported more than twice as much cash on hand compared with its Republican counterpart, which started 2024 with just $8m in the bank.The figures prompted celebration among Biden campaign officials, who boasted about the president’s superior fundraising on social media.TJ Ducklo, a Biden campaign spokesperson, said in a statement: “While Donald Trump lights money on fire paying the tab on his various expenses, Team Biden-Harris, powered by grassroots donors, is hard at work talking to the voters who will decide this election and building the campaign infrastructure to win in November.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBeyond his legal fees, Trump is dealing with other financial strain, after a New York jury recently awarded $83.3m to E Jean Carroll in her defamation lawsuit. Last year, another jury found Trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming Carroll, awarding her $5m.And Trump’s civil lawsuits will soon be the least of his concerns. Two of his criminal cases are scheduled to go to trial in March, although at least one of those trials is expected to be delayed. Trump’s legal troubles – and their associated fees – will probably only worsen in the months ahead. More

    • 238 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Don’t underestimate Nikki Haley – for starters, just look at how she gets under Trump’s skin | Emma Brockes

      by

      It is a mark of just how low are the expectations one brings to the Republican primary race that Nikki Haley, the last woman standing against Donald Trump, appears impressive as a candidate solely by virtue of not being a lunatic.It reminds me of the lyrics to I’m Still Here, that Stephen Sondheim standard from Follies listing all the terrible things – the Depression, J Edgar and Herbert Hoover, religion and pills – the singer has come through unscathed, only in this case it’s Chris Christie and Ron DeSantis. That leaves Haley, the 52-year-old former governor of South Carolina and one-time US ambassador to the UN, as the only thing standing between us and a Biden/Trump runoff.The odds of a Haley victory over Trump appear vanishingly small after the former president’s early primary wins in Iowa and New Hampshire. Polling numbers support this, as does the unseemly pivot of Trump’s former rivals, most recently DeSantis, to lining up behind him two seconds after he has mocked and belittled them (“Ron DeSanctimonious”).The striking thing about Haley over the last few weeks is how effective she has been in getting under Trump’s skin. This, as we know, is a notoriously hard thing to do if one is invested in maintaining one’s dignity. Michelle Obama’s old adage – “when they go low, we go high” – doesn’t work with Trump, who keeps going lower and lower until the moral high ground is a point of light in the sky so distant it might as well be an alien life form.Haley, unlike her male rivals, has adopted a very particular tone towards the former president that feels connected to her relative youth and also her gender. Historically, women have had a harder time than men of bearing up under Trump’s mockery, given its leering subtext of “I wouldn’t touch her with yours”. Haley, it strikes me, has studied Margaret Thatcher very closely and in fact, along with Hillary Clinton (and former congresswoman Gabby Giffords, and, funnily enough, Joan Jett) cites her as a personal hero. In her public interactions with Trump, she adopts a mode of condescension reminiscent of Thatcher addressing her enemies in the Commons, an arch response, steeped in sarcasm, to the argument that women in politics lack a tone of command. When Trump, recently tweeted: “The people of South Carolina are embarrassed by Nikki Haley!” she replied, simply, “Bless your heart”.Yes, we’re here, at the “oh, bless” level of political discourse. You can disapprove of it, but weirdly, in this instance, it landed, leaving Trump looking vaguely pathetic. The tone Haley has adopted is one of the very few that breaks through and hits him where he hurts, at the level of personal and physical vanity. Since then, she has maintained towards the Republican frontrunner the vibe of a nurse – “Now, then, Mr Trump; have we taken our pills today?” – pandering to an elderly man. “Are we really going to have two 80-year-olds running for the presidency,” she said, then popped up on TV to talk about Trump’s “decline” since 2016, accused him of being part of the “political elite” and had T-shirts printed bearing the legend “Barred. Permanently.” This is a reference to Trump’s post on Truth Social that, “Anybody that makes a ‘Contribution’ to Birdbrain, from this moment forth, will be permanently barred from the Maga camp.” Where Hillary Clinton couldn’t bring herself to do this kind of dumb shit, Haley understands intuitively that, in the case of Trump, you have to fight dumb with dumb. The T-shirts went viral.I’m getting overexcited, I know. It can be easy to forget how low the bar is. Although Haley was sharply critical of Trump after the 6 January insurrection, prior to that her venality was fully on display when she praised Trump (“he was great to work with”) while promoting her 2019 book, With All Due Respect. As Politico recently noted, Trump rewarded her loyalty with the post, “Make sure you order your copy today!” Not great. And, of course, she agreed to serve in Trump’s cabinet in the first place.Nonetheless, the ferociously ambitious daughter of Indian immigrants, whose tenure at the UN was described in a New York Times editorial as “constructive”, and one of the few Trump appointments that didn’t end in disaster, makes Haley highly unusual. As a creature of the modern Republican party, she is still, of course, packing various eccentricities, including my favourite, the charming anecdote she tells about “renaming” her husband when they first met because, as she told him at the time, “You just don’t look like a Bill.” (She started calling him “Michael”, his middle name, which is how he is now universally known.) Weird, yes. But considering the alternatives, I’ll take it.
      Emma Brockes is a Guardian columnist More

    • 175 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      House passes US bill to expand child tax credit and revive business tax breaks

      by

      The House accomplished something unusual Wednesday in passing, with broad, bipartisan support, a roughly $79bn tax cut package that would enhance the child tax credit for millions of lower-income families and boost three tax breaks for business, a combination that gives lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle coveted policy wins.Prospects for the measure becoming law are uncertain with the Senate still having to take it up, but for a House that has struggled to get bills of consequence over the finish line, the tax legislation could represent a rare breakthrough. The bill passed by a vote of 357-70.Speaker Mike Johnson threw his support behind the bill on Wednesday morning. He spent part of the previous day meeting with GOP lawmakers who were concerned about particular features of the bill, namely the expanded child tax credit. Some were also unhappy that it failed to address the $10,000 cap on the total amount of property taxes or state or local taxes that consumers can deduct on their federal returns. Raising the cap is a top priority of lawmakers from the Republican members of the New York congressional delegation, whose victories in 2022 helped the GOP take the majority.Johnson committed to moving a bill that addresses the cap, but there is no bill text yet and legislation would have to move through the House rules committee, which leaves the timing very much in flux. Athina Lawson, a spokesperson for Johnson, said the speaker and the chairman of the House ways and means committee, Republican representative Jason Smith, agreed to work with lawmakers to “find a path forward”.Johnson also emphasized the importance of the bill moving through the House ways and means committee before coming to the full House for a vote, saying it was a good example of how Congress is supposed to work.House Republicans were anxious to restore full, immediate deductions that businesses can take for the purchase of new equipment and machinery, and for domestic research and development expenses. They argue such investments grow the economy and incentivize American companies to keep their manufacturing facilities and operations in the United States. The bill also provides businesses more flexibility in determining how much borrowing can be deducted.“Each of these policies will help American businesses grow, create jobs and sharpen their competitive advantage against China,” Smith said as debate began on the House floor.Democrats focused on boosting the child tax credit. The tax credit is $2,000 per child, but not all of that is refundable. The bill would incrementally raise the amount of the credit available as a refund, increasing it to $1,800 for 2023 tax returns, $1,900 for the following year and $2,000 for 2025 tax returns. The bill also adjusts the topline credit amount to temporarily grow at the rate of inflation.Households benefitting as a result of the changes in the child tax credit would see an average tax cut of $680 in the first year, according to estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.Democrats pushed to restore the more generous tax credit they passed in 2021 in Joe Biden’s first year in office with payments occurring on a monthly basis. The credit was $3,600 annually for children under age six and $3,000 for children ages six to 17. But most lawmakers were willing to take what gains they could get through the compromise bill.“You know, I’ve been told that a half a loaf is better than none,” said Democratic Danny Davis. “This isn’t even half a loaf, but I’m going to vote for it because our families and businesses need help.”“What’s in front of us tonight is pretty simple,” said Representative Richard Neal. “Sixteen million children will benefit from the improvement to the child tax credit. That’s a fact.”But for some Democrats, it wasn’t enough.“This bill provides billions of dollars in tax relief for the wealthy, pennies for the poor,” said Representative Rosa DeLauro. “Big corporations are richer than ever. There is no even split.”And for some Republicans, it was too much. The chief critics of the expanded child tax credit likened it to “welfare”.“What is a refundable tax credit? It’s welfare by a different name. We’re going to give cash payments, checks, to people who don’t even pay taxes,” said Representative Thomas Massie.Representative Drew Ferguson, chafed at that characterization, saying “we all believe on this side of the aisle that you should work in order to receive federal benefits. That is something that this bill does.”While there were complaints about the tax bill from some of the most conservative and liberal members of the House, a significant majority from each party voted for it. Proponents are hoping the strong show of support will stir action in the Senate.The bill keeps a threshold of a household having $2,500 in income to be eligible for refundable child tax credit payments.The bill also would enhance a tax credit for the construction or rehabilitation of rental housing targeted to lower-income households, adding an estimated 200,000 housing units around the country. That was a key priority of lawmakers from states with acute housing shortages and soaring prices. And it would ensure victims of certain natural disasters and the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment don’t get hit with a big tax bill for payments they received as compensation for their losses. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Mike Johnson says he does not believe Senate talks would ‘stop the border catastrophe’ – live

      by

      Mike Johnson reiterated his attack on the Senate’s immigration policy deal, saying that, though its exact provisions have not been released yet, he does not think it would cut down on migrant arrivals to the degree he demands.“Last Friday, President Biden came out in support of the Senate’s deal, which we haven’t seen yet. There is no text yet. But from what we’ve heard, this so-called deal … does not include … these transformational policy changes that are needed to actually stop the border catastrophe,” the House speaker said.He specifically took issue with reports that, under the deal’s proposed terms, the border would be closed once crossings exceeded 5,000 people in a given day:
      Apparently, we’re concocting some sort of deal to allow the president to shut down the border after 5,000 people break the law. Why is it 5,000? If you add that up, that’d be a million more illegals into our country every year before we take remedial measures. It’s madness. We shouldn’t be asking what kind of enforcement authority kicks in at 5,000 illegal crossings a day. The number should be zero.
      “Anything higher than zero is surrendering our border, surrendering our sovereignty and our security,” Johnson said.He has now concluded his remarks.In his first speech on the House floor since winning the speaker’s gavel, Mike Johnson recited familiar rightwing talking points regarding undocumented migrants, while again warning that he did not like what he was hearing about measures under discussion in the Senate to tighten immigration policy. That’s a bad sign for a potential deal Republicans have demanded to support Joe Biden’s request for another round of military assistance to Ukraine, and to Israel. In the Senate, Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer made clear he did not think much of the House GOP’s impeachment of homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, indicating the chamber would acquit him if a trial occurs.Here’s what else happened today:
      Congresswoman Cori Bush demanded an apology from rightwing lawmaker Troy Nehls, who referred to her husband as a “thug”, and Bush as “loud”. Yesterday, Bush acknowledged she was under investigation by the justice department over allegedly misusing federal funds.
      James Biden will appear for an interview with a House committee leading the impeachment inquiry into his brother, the president.
      Nikki Haley says America doesn’t need any more “Grumpy Old Men”.
      Rob Menendez, a Democratic House lawmaker from New Jersey, accused Republicans of kowtowing to “the orange Jesus” with their charges against Mayorkas.
      Taylor Swift is the latest subject of a rightwing conspiracy theory.
      Later this evening, the House is expected to vote on a bipartisan bill that would extend tax credits for low-income families, as well as restore some tax breaks for businesses.It’s unclear if it will pass the House, but the below comment, captured by Semafor, from Republican senator Chuck Grassley is raising eyebrows nonetheless. Asked about the bill’s chances in Congress’s upper chamber, Grassley seems to imply that passing the legislation would be a bad idea, because measures to assist poor families could boost Joe Biden’s re-election chances:It’s unclear how many Republican lawmakers feel the same way, but the sentiment could bode ill for Congress getting any major legislation passed prior to November’s presidential election.A high-profile lawsuit filed by entertainment giant Walt Disney alleging retaliation by Florida governor Ron DeSantis has been dismissed by a federal judge, but the company appears set to file an appeal, Reuters reports:
      A federal judge on Wednesday dismissed Walt Disney’s lawsuit against the Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, and members of a state board for allegedly retaliating after the company criticized state limits on classroom discussion of sexuality, according to a court filing.
      “This is an important case with serious implications for the rule of law and it will not end here,” a Disney spokesperson said.
      “If left unchallenged, this would set a dangerous precedent and give license to states to weaponize their official powers to punish the expression of political viewpoints they disagree with. We are determined to press forward with our case.”
      DeSantis and other defendants had urged Allen Winsor, the US district judge in Tallahassee, Florida, to dismiss the case because Disney could not sue them over constitutionally enacted state laws.
      The dispute began after Disney criticized the classroom discussion ban, dubbed the “don’t say gay” law by opponents. DeSantis began repeatedly attacking what he termed “woke Disney” in public appearances as he geared up for his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, an effort he abandoned earlier this month.
      State lawmakers stripped Disney of its control over the special development district that since 1967 had given the company virtual autonomy around its theme parks, including the Walt Disney World Resort.
      In the latest clash between pro-Palestine protesters and the Biden-Harris campaign, two women claim they were kept out of an event with Kamala Harris because they were wearing hijabs. The campaign says they had disrupted other events. Here’s what we know about the incident, from the Guardian’s Gloria Oladipo:Two women have accused Biden-Harris campaign staffers of Islamophobia, claiming they were profiled and disinvited from a campaign event because they were wearing hijabs.Staff with the campaign have since countered that the women were barred after disrupting other events held by Democratic leaders.The incident was captured on video and shared to X (formerly Twitter) on Tuesday by an account named Nevadans for Palestinian Liberation.The viral video, which has garnered over 2m views, shows an unidentified staffer for the Get the Vote Out event in Las Vegas on Saturday telling the women that they are not allowed to enter the venue.“We are choosing who’s going in and out of the event. I’m sorry,” the staffer said.Off camera, one woman responds: “Why are you choosing us not to go in when we have an invite?”A separate woman, also off camera, says: “You specifically singled us out.”Speaking of Donald Trump, he’s within striking distance of winning the Republican presidential nomination, but his last remaining rival, Nikki Haley, is not giving up.Today, she launched another salvo at one thing the former president and the current president have in common: their advanced age. Joe Biden is 81, Trump is 77, and both are too old for the presidency, Haley argues. She also debuted a meme that will look familiar to those fluent in early 90s cinema:Atlanta-area district attorney Fani Willis, who indicted Donald Trump and 18 others on charges related to trying to overturn Georgia’s election result in 2020, has been subpoenaed to testify regarding her relationship with a prosecutor she hired for the case, ABC News reports.Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for co-defendant Michael Roman, earlier this month accused Willis and Nathan Wade, who she hired to work on the case, of having an improper relationship that resulted in financial gain for both of them. Merchant has asked for Willis to be removed, and the indictment dismissed.Here’s more on what the subpoena means, from ABC News:
      Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, one of her top prosecutors in the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump and 18 others, have been subpoenaed to testify at an upcoming evidentiary hearing set to examine allegations that they were involved in an improper relationship while investigating the former president, according to a new lawsuit filed in Georgia this week.
      The claim that Willis and Wade had been subpoenaed to testify was contained in a copy of the lawsuit, obtained by ABC News, that was filed by the attorney for one of Trump’s co-defendants in the election case, accusing the Fulton county district attorney’s office of “intentionally withholding information”.
      The lawsuit accuses the office of “stonewalling” the attorney, Ashleigh Merchant, in her efforts to obtain records from the office through public information requests.
      In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for the DA’s office said they had not yet been served the lawsuit, and said, “We provided her with all the materials she requested and is entitled to.”
      In a letter sent to Merchant on Friday, provided to ABC News by the DA’s office, the DA’s office pushed back on her allegations that they have failed to meet their obligations, writing they “disagree with your disingenuous implication”.
      The issuing of the subpoenas could set up a high-stakes battle for both Willis and Wade, who have remained virtually silent on the issue but may now have to testify under oath during the televised hearing on 15 February, as Trump and other co-defendants seek to use the allegations to have the two removed from the case and the indictment thrown out.
      Away from domestic politics, the AP is reporting that the US has attributed a drone attack that killed three American troops in Jordan to umbrella group Islamic Resistance in Iraq.James Biden will appear before House Republicans for a private interview next month as lawmakers seek to regain some momentum in their monthslong impeachment inquiry into his brother, Joe Biden, The Associated Press reports.The House Oversight and Accountability Committee announced on Wednesday that the Democratic president’s younger sibling will come to Capitol Hill on February 21. The date was set after months of negotiations between the sides.
      We look forward to his interview,” the committee posted on X, the website formerly known as Twitter.
      James Biden’s interview will take place just days before the president’s son Hunter Biden will be deposed in private by the Republican-run committee, which has been investigating the Biden family’s overseas finances for the past year.Both James and Hunter Biden were subpoenaed by the committee in November. So far, the GOP investigation has failed to uncover evidence directly implicating the president in any wrongdoing.A lawyer for James Biden said at the time that there was no justification for the subpoena because the committee had already reviewed private bank records and transactions between the two brothers. The committee found records of two loans that were made when Joe Biden was not in office or a candidate for president.
      There is nothing more to those transactions, and there is nothing wrong with them. And Jim Biden has never involved his brother in his business dealings,” lawyer Paul Fishman said in a statement in November.
      Joe Biden kicked his re-election campaign into high gear earlier this month. So, too, have protesters upset over his policy towards Israel’s invasion of Gaza, the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington reports:Joe Biden had barely started speaking at a high-profile re-election campaign rally focusing on abortion rights in Virginia last week when the carefully choreographed made-for-TV spectacle exploded into a cacophony of angry yelling.“Genocide Joe!”, a protester holding up a Palestinian flag cried from the back of the hall. “How many kids have you killed in Gaza? How many women have you killed in Gaza?”Biden looked bemused, blinking silently into the cameras. In all, he was to be interrupted at least 13 more times. “This is going to go on for a while,” he said at one point. “They’ve got this planned.”As Biden’s 2024 re-election campaign gets under way, it is becoming increasingly clear that they have indeed got it planned. A decentralized network of pro-Palestinian groups and individuals, including Muslim Americans, Jewish Americans and anti-war organizations, are hounding Biden over his firm support for Israel despite the heavy cost in civilian lives of its war against Hamas.“Our community is going to be active, with actions big or small, until this genocide ends and there’s a permanent ceasefire,” Mohamad Habehh told the Guardian. He was the individual who stood up and shouted: “Genocide Joe!” in Virginia.Habehh said that Biden should expect much more of the same as election year unfolds. “Every event the president does, no matter where it is, not matter what state or city, there will be Americans who stand against his stance on Gaza.”In his first speech on the House floor since winning the speaker’s gavel, Mike Johnson recited familiar rightwing talking points regarding undocumented migrants, while again warning that he did not like what he was hearing about measures under discussion in the Senate to tighten immigration policy. That’s a bad sign for a potential deal Republicans have demanded to support Joe Biden’s request for another round of military assistance to Ukraine, and to Israel. In the Senate, Democratic majority leader Chuck Schumer made clear he did not think much of the House GOP’s impeachment of homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, indicating the chamber would acquit him if a trial occurs.Here’s what else is going on:
      Congresswoman Cori Bush demanded an apology from rightwing lawmaker Troy Nehls, who referred to her husband as a “thug”, and Bush as “loud”. Yesterday, Bush acknowledged she was under investigation by the justice department over allegedly misusing federal funds.
      Rob Menendez, a Democratic House lawmaker from New Jersey, accused Republicans of kowtowing to “the orange Jesus” with their charges against Mayorkas.
      Taylor Swift is the latest subject of a rightwing conspiracy theory.
      Mike Johnson reiterated his attack on the Senate’s immigration policy deal, saying that, though its exact provisions have not been released yet, he does not think it would cut down on migrant arrivals to the degree he demands.“Last Friday, President Biden came out in support of the Senate’s deal, which we haven’t seen yet. There is no text yet. But from what we’ve heard, this so-called deal … does not include … these transformational policy changes that are needed to actually stop the border catastrophe,” the House speaker said.He specifically took issue with reports that, under the deal’s proposed terms, the border would be closed once crossings exceeded 5,000 people in a given day:
      Apparently, we’re concocting some sort of deal to allow the president to shut down the border after 5,000 people break the law. Why is it 5,000? If you add that up, that’d be a million more illegals into our country every year before we take remedial measures. It’s madness. We shouldn’t be asking what kind of enforcement authority kicks in at 5,000 illegal crossings a day. The number should be zero.
      “Anything higher than zero is surrendering our border, surrendering our sovereignty and our security,” Johnson said.He has now concluded his remarks.This speech by Mike Johnson has thus far amounted to a lengthy attack on the Biden administration’s immigration policy, and migrants themselves.The Republican speaker said he had received a letter from former FBI officials warning of “a soft invasion along our southern border”, and said the migrants trying to enter the United States from Mexico “are not huddled masses of families seeking refuge and asylum. These are people coming into our country to do only God knows what and we are allowing it – the Biden administration is allowing it. And we’ve noted that they’re coming from adversarial nations, from terrorist regions. We have no idea what they’re planning.”Speaking out the House floor, Republican speaker Mike Johnson has again signaled he is not happy with the Senate’s immigration policy negotiations.He kicked off his speech decrying the impact of undocumented immigrants on communities nationwide, before describing the Senate talks as focused on “a so-called border security deal”. That’s not a good sign for the prospects of the deal, if one emerges, in the House, and, by extension, aid to Ukraine and Israel.Republican Mike Johnson is set to give his first speech on the floor of the House since becoming speaker, where he is expected to discuss immigration policy.Johnson has criticized the Senate’s bipartisan negotiations on the border, the success of which Republicans have linked to supporting another round of aid for Ukraine’s military.We’ll let you know what Johnson has to say. More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      House Republicans move to impeach homeland security secretary

      by

      House Republicans voted along party lines after midnight on Wednesday to move toward impeaching the homeland security secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas, for a “willful and systematic” refusal to enforce immigration laws as border security becomes a top 2024 election issue.In a charge against a cabinet official unseen in nearly 150 years, the homeland security committee debated all day on Tuesday and well into the night before recommending two articles of impeachment against Mayorkas to the full House.The committee Republicans voted in favor, while the Democrats unified against, 18-15.The partisan showdown reflected the Republicans’ efforts to make the Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump’s hardline deportation approach to immigration their own.That approach was mirrored on a second front on Tuesday, as Republicans also lambasted the border deal recently brokered between the Joe Biden White House and a bipartisan group of senators, Democrats and Republicans alike.Mayorkas, in a letter sent to the Republican chair of the House committee on homeland security before the hearing began, dismissed the impeachment process against him as “politically motivated”.“I have been privileged to serve our country for most of my professional life. I have adhered scrupulously and fervently to the oath of office I have taken six times in my public service career,” Mayorkas wrote.“I assure you that your false accusations do not rattle me and do not divert me from the law enforcement and broader public service mission to which I have devoted most of my career and to which I remain devoted.”The Republican chair of the committee, Mark Green of Tennessee, criticized Mayorkas’s letter as an inadequate response to concerns about the situation at the US-Mexican border, where arrests for illegal crossings have reached record highs.“This 11th-hour response demonstrates the lack of seriousness with which Secretary Mayorkas views his responsibilities,” Green said. “We cannot allow this man to remain in office any longer. The time for accountability is now.”Democrats retorted that Republicans were making a farce out of the impeachment process by rushing to oust a cabinet official without showing any wrongdoing. House Republicans have presented no clear evidence that Mayorkas committed high crimes and misdemeanors, which is the requirement for impeachment. Their resolution accuses the cabinet secretary of refusing to comply with the law and breaching public trust.“We’re here based on two completely fabricated, unsupported and never-used-before articles of impeachment,” said the Democratic congressman Dan Goldman. “This is completely debasing and demeaning the impeachment clause of the United States constitution, and it is a gross, gross injustice to the credibility of this institution.”Now that the Republican-controlled committee has advanced the resolution, the House speaker, the Republican Mike Johnson of Louisiana, has indicated that the full chamber will vote on impeaching Mayorkas in the coming days. Even if the resolution passes the House, it will certainly fail in the Senate, where Democrats hold a majority.To demonstrate his scorn over the proceedings, the ranking Democrat on the committee, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, introduced several procedural motions to delay the progress of the hearing.Thompson accused Republicans of attempting to impeach Mayorkas to boost the political prospects of Trump.“If House Republicans were serious about improving conditions along the border, they would provide the department the funding necessary to do so. They have not,” Thompson said. “They don’t want progress. They don’t want solutions. They want a political issue. And most of all, they want to please their disgraced former president.”Meanwhile, as the House moves forward with impeaching Mayorkas, Trump has called on Republicans to sink the border deal. Johnson has said that the proposal, a bipartisan arrangement that would grant Joe Biden the authority to shut down the border between ports of entry when attempted crossings increase to a certain level, would be “dead on arrival” in the House.Johnson is expected to address the House on Wednesday. At a press conference on Tuesday, he dismissed claims that Republicans were doing Trump’s bidding as “absurd” and insisted they were focused on addressing the situation at the border.“Our duty is to do right by the American people, to protect the people. The first and most important job of the federal government is to protect its citizens. We’re not doing that under President Biden,” Johnson said. “Our majority is small. We only have it in one chamber, but we’re trying to use every ounce of leverage that we have to make sure that this issue is addressed.”The White House attacked Johnson for flip-flopping, noting that the speaker previously called on members of both parties to “come together and address the broken border”.“Today, Speaker Johnson claimed he believes action should be taken to secure the border,” said the White House spokesperson Andrew Bates. “That’s exactly what President Biden and Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are doing. Speaker Johnson should join them.” More