Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Senate candidate Herschel Walker brandishes 'police badge' in Georgia debate – video

      by

      The Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker addressed his past claims about being a law enforcement officer by producing what he said was a police badge. The former college football and NFL star, who is endorsed by Donald Trump, was accused of ‘pretending to be a police officer’ by his rival, Democratic senator Raphael Warnock, during a debate on Friday. Saying ‘I have to respond to that,’ Walker produced his badge. Walker has never been a trained law enforcement officer, though he has law enforcement endorsements 

      Herschel Walker denies abortion ban support and brandishes ‘police badge’ in Georgia debate More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Peter Thiel’s midterm bet: the billionaire seeking to disrupt America’s democracy

      by

      AnalysisPeter Thiel’s midterm bet: the billionaire seeking to disrupt America’s democracyAndrew Gumbel in Los AngelesRe-energized this election cycle, the tech entrepreneur joins other mega-donors apparently out to undercut the political system Peter Thiel is far from the first billionaire who has wielded his fortune to try to influence the course of American politics. But in an election year when democracy itself is said to be on the ballot, he stands out for assailing a longstanding governing system that he has described as “deranged” and in urgent need of “course correction”.The German-born investor and tech entrepreneur, a Silicon Valley “disrupter” who helped found PayPal alongside Elon Musk and made his fortune as one of the earliest investors in Facebook, has catapulted himself into the top ranks of the mega-donor class by pouring close to $30m into this year’s midterm elections.Democracy, poisoned: America’s elections are being attacked at every levelRead moreHe’s not merely favoring one party over another, but is supporting candidates who deny the legitimacy of Joe Biden’s election as president and have, in their different ways, called for the pillars of the American establishment to be toppled entirely.Thiel’s priorities this midterm cycle have partly aligned with those of Donald Trump, with whom he has had an on-again, off-again relationship since writing him a $1.25m check during the 2016 presidential campaign.Thiel, like Trump, has made it his business to end the careers of what he calls “the traitorous 10”, Republican House members who voted to impeach Trump in the wake of the January 6 insurrection. Four of these members opted not to run for re-election at all, and four more, including Liz Cheney, the vice-chair of the House committee investigating January 6, went down in the primaries.But there are also signs that Thiel is thinking around and beyond the former president. The lion’s share of his largesse – $28m and counting – has been directed towards two business proteges who, with his help, have established themselves as gadfly rightwing darlings: JD Vance, the best-selling author of the blue-collar memoir Hillbilly Elegy, who is running for Senate in Ohio, and Blake Masters, a self-styled “anti-progressive” and anti-globalist who is running for Senate in Arizona.Over the past decade, ever since the supreme court dramatically loosened the rules of political campaign giving in its Citizens United decision, Thiel has placed sizable bets on candidates who are not only conservative but have sought to challenge longstanding institutional traditions and break the Republican party’s own norms: Senator Ted Cruz in Texas and Senator Josh Hawley in Missouri as well as Trump himself.Masters, who has campaigned on the notion that “psychopaths are running the country right now” and spoken approvingly of the anti-establishment philosophy of the 1990s Unabomber, and Vance, a frequent speaker on the university circuit during his book tour days who now says “universities are the enemy”, fit the same mould. They and Thiel all have ties to a branch of the New Right known as NatCon, whose adherents believe, broadly, that the establishment needs to be torn down, much as Thiel and his fellow Silicon Valley disrupters believed two decades ago that the future lay in destroying longstanding business models and practices.Thiel himself opined as far back as 2009 that he no longer believed democracy to be compatible with freedom and expressed “little hope that voting will make things better”. While a member of Trump’s presidential transition team in 2016, he flashed his institution-busting instincts by proposing that a leading climate change skeptic, William Happer, be appointed as White House science adviser. He also pushed for a libertarian bitcoin entrepreneur who did not believe in drug trials to head up the Food and Drug Administration.Conservatives could soon be swiping right on Peter Thiel-backed dating appRead moreSuch proposals were too much even by Trump’s iconoclastic standards. Steve Bannon, Trump’s ultra-right campaign manager and political strategist, told a Thiel biographer: “Peter’s idea of disrupting government is out there.”Thiel did not respond to a request for an interview, and his representatives did not respond to multiple invitations to comment.Masters and Vance also did not respond to inquiries.Democracy under attack: the mega-donorsThiel sat out the 2020 election but appears to have been re-energized by the Covid-19 pandemic, Trump’s claims of a stolen presidential election and the January 6 insurrection. Addressing a NatCon convention this time last year, he denounced the “incredible derangement of various forms of thought, political life, scientific life and the sense-making machinery generally in this country”.Liberal democracy, in his view, had turned the United States government into a dissent-squashing Ministry of Truth working toward a “homogenizing, brain-dead, one-world state” – a problem to which only rightwing nationalism could provide an “all-important corrective”.“We’re close to a Toto moment, a little dog pulling aside the curtain on the holy of holies only to find there’s nobody there,” he told the crowd. “We always think of democracy as a good thing. But … where do you shift from the wisdom of crowds to the madness of crowds? When does it become a mob, a racket, a totalitarian lie?”Such views might be easy to write off as the eccentricities of a wealthy man but for the money that Thiel has spent buying influence and supporting like-minded candidates – thanks in large part to a campaign financing system that, while still capping contributions to individual campaigns, allows unlimited funding of nominally outside groups and political action committees.Campaign finance experts see Thiel as a symptom of a much broader problem: a political environment in which a small group of mega-donors are growing ever bolder in the size of the checks they write and the erosion of any nominal firewall between the war chests run by candidates and the funds controlled by outside groups dedicated to their success.America’s billionaire class is funding anti-democratic forces | Robert ReichRead more“It does seem to be getting worse,” said Chisun Lee, an expert on campaign finance who directs the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government program at New York University. “Outside spending in this federal midterm cycle is more than double the last midterm cycle. Since Citizens United, just 12 mega-donors, eight of them billionaires, have paid one dollar out of every 13 spent in federal elections. And now we’re seeing a troubling new trend … that some mega-donors are sponsoring campaigns that attack the fundamentals of democracy itself.”Thiel’s spending has been dwarfed this year by at least three other mega-donors – Soros ($128m to the Democrats), shipping products tycoon Richard Uihlein ($53m to Republicans) and hedge fund manager Kenneth Griffin ($50m to Republicans). And Thiel has some way to go to match the consistent giving, cycle after cycle, of the Koch brothers or Sheldon Adelson, the late Las Vegas casino magnate.Many experts also believe the attack on democracy began long before it became as explicit as Thiel has made it, because the whole point of funneling large amounts of money into the political system is to sway policy away from the will of the majority to the narrow interests of the donors and their friends.This ability to control the policy agenda drives spending even more than the desire to see specific candidates win, says the Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, whose 2011 book Republic, Lost offers an enduringly devastating analysis of the relationship between money and political influence. And the spending is likely only to increase.“You’re going to see much, much bigger individual contributions and an acceleration of contributions to Super Pacs [like the ones established to support Vance and Masters],” Lessig said. “The candidates and the Super Pacs can’t coordinate on spending, but that doesn’t mean they can’t coordinate on the fundraising. Since the Super Pacs are outspending candidates by orders of magnitude, it’s all a dance to flush money into Super Pacs … They basically call the shots, and politicians can’t get anything through that they oppose.”Less than a month from election day, both Vance and Masters are trailing their Democratic opponents in the polls (Vance by less than Masters). But, Lessig says, it would be wrong to conclude Thiel – or any of the other mega-donors – are wasting their money.“If you’re a candidate and you know $10m is going to come in against you on a particular issue,” he said, “you are going to bend to avoid the effect of that money, whether or not it’s going to decide the race … If you’re someone who would otherwise be a strong climate activist, but you know that if you mention a carbon tax, a million dollars will drop from some anti-carbon tax Super Pac, you won’t talk about it.”Thiel’s bid to overthrow the system, in other words, goes well beyond his ability to determine which party controls the Senate next year. The money will solidify the notion that the country is being run by psychopaths, at least among a hard core of Republican voters, analysts warn, and will further harden the ideological battle lines that have split the country in two and made common ground ever harder to find. It also brings the extreme opinions of NatCon further into the mainstream, making it easier for radical Republican candidates to run and win in future races, they say.“We are at a crisis point here, not so much because the ideas are hard to defeat but we don’t have a context in which to defeat them,” Lessig said. “The fact that the same number of people believe the election was stolen as believed it on 6 January is a profound indictment of the information ecology in America.”The Brennan Center believes there are ways of improving the system, at least at the state and local level, and points to efforts in both red and blue states to close certain loopholes and introduce public financing models to rein in the influence of the mega-donors. Lee said she would also like to see federal legislation to build a meaningful firewall between campaign funds and Super Pacs.“The legislation exists,” she said, “and it would be a constitutional improvement even under [the] Citizens United [ruling]. All we need is the political will to act.”TopicsPeter ThielUS midterm elections 2022RepublicansDonald TrumpUS politicsUS political financinganalysisReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Unchecked review: how Trump dodged two impeachments … and the January 6 committee?

      by

      Unchecked review: how Trump dodged two impeachments … and the January 6 committee? Rachael Bade and Karoun Demirjian’s account of how the Democrats failed to oust Trump is timely – and worryingOn Thursday, the House January 6 committee voted unanimously to issue a subpoena to Donald Trump. He has indicated he is considering testifying but surely the likelihood of him doing so under oath is nil. He lacks all incentive to appear. The committee’s long-term existence is doubtful.Trump a narcissist and a ‘dick’, ex-ambassador Sondland says in new bookRead moreIn their joint account of Trump’s two impeachments, Rachael Bade of Politico and Karoun Demirjian of the Washington Post suggest the US is exhausted by the pandemic and perpetual investigation. The quest for “Capitol riot accountability became an afterthought to … other crises”, they write.Trump lost to Joe Biden by more than 7m votes nationally but only by the thinnest of margins in the battleground states. Trump is on the ballot this November, even if his name does not appear. The Republicans are primed to take the House and possibly the Senate.In other words, Trump’s future rests with the courts and the electorate, not Congress. For all the committee’s efforts, Trump remains either hero or villain depending on demographics, habits and preferences. Political identification is an extension of self.Against this dystopian backdrop, Bade and Demirjian deliver a granular examination of both Trump impeachments and the work of the January 6 committee. Their joint effort is a stinging indictment of what they see as Republican cravenness and Democratic ineptitude.The former allowed Trump to evade consequences, the latter failed to master the levers of power. The authors are alarmed but their words are measured. They worry about what might be next.“Even if they did not intend to, the Democrats’ efforts to oust Trump created a paradigm for hostile presidents to ignore subpoenas and buck [Capitol] Hill oversight,” Bade and Demirjian write.They also posit that “a party with congressional supermajorities may one day oust a president with no evidence at all”. Said differently, the impeachment process will become wholly debased, a cudgel to be deployed as the US careens through its cold civil war. House Republicans have raised the possibility of a Biden impeachment already.As is to be expected, Unchecked is well-sourced and noted. The book records the give-and-take between congressional leaders and members, at the same time helping the reader understand how the US reached this point.During the first impeachment, the authors capture Mitch McConnell as he rallies his Republican Senate troops. His pitch centers on power. He depicts impeachment over Ukraine as a smokescreen for the Democrats’ ambition to take the chamber.“This is not about this president,” McConnell said. “It’s not about anything he’s been accused of doing,” Rather, “it has always been about 3 November 2020. It’s about flipping the Senate.”McConnell loathed Trump but understood their fates could not be separated. If McConnell were pitted against Trump in a Republican popularity contest, the Kentuckian would be squashed. He lacked Trump’s appeal and was overtly linked to the donor base. Banker’s shirts do not signal “man of the people”. For McConnell, populism was an acquired taste, if that. He could fake it, to a point. But in the Senate, he held sway.At the same time, there was the reality of Trump’s approaches to Ukraine. As much as Trump lawyers argued there was no quid pro quo, in private, Senate Republicans weren’t buying it.Before the first impeachment trial, Ted Cruz of Texas met Trump’s team. He argued it was irrelevant whether their client engaged in a quid pro quo. Rather, the issue was one of intent. If uprooting foreign corruption motivated the contemplated transaction, that would be legally permissible. Cruz failed to persuade the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone. As the action shifted to the Senate, Trump’s lawyers angered Republican jurors. Alan Dershowitz equated presidential power to that of a king unchecked by parliament. “If the president does something which he believes will help get him elected, in the public interest”, that would be fine.Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of Republican leadership, was not amused. He demanded that Dershowitz be fired. The next day, the Harvard professor was gone.As for the Democrats, they failed to internalize that their audience was the Republican Senate. With Trump in the White House, Adam Schiff enjoyed a meteoric rise among Democratic House colleagues. But he left Senate Republicans unmoved. In the end, they were yawning.Fast forward to the second impeachment. Here, Bade and Demirjian depict Kevin McCarthy in all his oleaginous glory. The House minority leader devolves from someone who confronted Trump to an out-and-out sycophant.On January 6, McCarthy lambasted Trump over the riot. Within weeks, the man who would replace Nancy Pelosi as speaker traveled to Mar-a-Lago with hat in hand. He too realized that it was Trump’s party now.At its core, removing a president is about politics. For impeachment to succeed, it must transcend raw partisanship, a reality Pelosi expressed early on. Richard Nixon resigned because congressional allies would no longer protect him. The Watergate tapes were the smoking gun.Confidence Man: The Making of Trump and the Breaking of America review – the vain sadist and his ‘shrink’Read moreNow, with or without a criminal referral by the January 6 committee, justice department investigations of Trump are in full swing. On Friday, the Washington Post reported that a federal judge ordered Mike Pence to testify before a grand jury, and that earlier in the week the US Court of Appeals refused to block Marc Short, Pence’s chief of staff, from doing the same.But that is not the end of the story. Inflation continues, interest rates on home mortgages have shot above 7%, and Biden’s relationship to basic facts appears situational at best.With cost-of-living outstripping take-home pay, the saliency of abortion and the supreme court Dobbs decision diminishes. The Democrats also appear out of step on crime. In the midterms, shouting that democracy and the constitution hang in the balance will not be enough. Culture will always matter. Whether the Democrats can figure this out remains to be seen.
      Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump is published in the US by HarperCollins
      TopicsBooksDonald TrumpTrump administrationTrump impeachment (2019)Trump impeachment (2021)US politicsUS Capitol attackreviewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Herschel Walker denies abortion ban support and brandishes ‘police badge’ in Georgia debate

      by

      Herschel Walker denies abortion ban support and brandishes ‘police badge’ in Georgia debateRepublican spars with Democratic senator Raphael Warnock in one-off contest in vital midterms race The Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker, a staunch anti-abortion politician accused by a former girlfriend of encouraging and paying for her abortion in 2009, used his only debate against the Democratic senator Raphael Warnock on Friday to deny his previous support for an outright national abortion ban.The former college football and NFL star, who is endorsed by Donald Trump, was asked about his support for “a complete ban on a national level”. He said the moderator misstated his position. That contradicted statements made repeatedly on the campaign trail, including in July when Walker said it was “a problem” that no national ban existed.Walker also answered an attack from Warnock about his past claims about being a law enforcement officer by producing what he said was a police badge.Woman tells New York Times that Herschel Walker urged her to have second abortionRead moreWarnock said: “You can support police officers as I’ve done … while at the same time holding police officers, like all professions, accountable. One thing I have not done, I’ve never pretended to be a police officer. And I’ve never, I’ve never threatened a shootout with the police.”Saying “I have to respond to that”, Walker produced his badge.Walker has never been a trained law enforcement officer, though he has law enforcement endorsements.As Walker brandished his badge, the debate moderator said: “Mr Walker, Mr Walker – excuse me, Mr Walker. I need to let you know, Mr Walker, you are very well aware of the rules tonight. And you have a prop that is not allowed. Sir, I asked you to put that prop away.”Walker did not do so immediately.The moderator said: “Excuse me, sir. You’re very well aware of the rules, aren’t you?”Walker said: “Well, let’s talk about the truth.”Walker’s apparent battle with the truth over abortion has become a theme of the midterm elections. On Friday, he said his position was the same as Georgia’s state law, a so-called heartbeat bill that bans abortion at six weeks, before many women know they are pregnant. That law went into effect this year after the US supreme court overturned the right to abortion.The heated exchange on abortion was one of many that highlighted stark differences between Warnock and Walker. Warnock did not directly bring up the allegation about Walker paying for an abortion, leaving moderators to elicit a flat denial. Walker blasted Warnock for being a Baptist pastor who supports abortion rights.“Instead of aborting those babies, why aren’t you baptizing those babies?” he said.Warnock said “God gave us a choice and I respect the right of women to make a decision”, adding that Walker “wants to arrogate more power to politicians than God has”.Warnock and his fellow Democrat Jon Ossoff won their Senate seats in a January 2021 special election, two months after Joe Biden beat Trump in Georgia by fewer than 12,000 votes. It was the first time in two decades Democrats won federal elections in the state, raising questions about whether Warnock can win again as Biden’s popularity falls.In-person voting begins on Monday. The outcome will help determine control of the Senate, currently split 50-50.Republicans throw support behind Herschel Walker after abortion denialRead moreOnstage, Walker claimed Warnock was a Biden puppet, saying the election was about what they “had done to you and your family” in an inflationary economy. Warnock said the election was about “who is ready to represent Georgia”.Walker blamed Warnock and Biden for inflation but offered little when asked what he would do to fix it. Walker said the first step was “getting back” to energy independence rather than depending “on our enemies”. The US had never been free from fossil fuel imports, some from countries such as Russia.Warnock highlighted Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, focusing on provisions he sponsored capping insulin and other healthcare costs, the extension of the child tax credit and infrastructure provisions he shepherded with Republicans. He offered few specifics about further steps.Warnock declined to say if Biden, nearing 80, should seek re-election in 2024. Walker deviated from Trump by saying Biden won legitimately in 2020. But he said he would support Trump if he ran in 2024. Both Walker and Warnock said they would accept the outcome of their election.Both men discussed their personal lives. Recent reporting by the Daily Beast disclosed records of an abortion receipt and personal check from Walker to a woman who said he paid for her abortion. Walker’s denials have continued even after the woman identified herself as the mother of one of his four children. Walker acknowledged three children publicly for the first time only after Beast reporting.Other reports have detailed how Walker has exaggerated academic achievements, business success and philanthropic activities, as well as accusations he threatened the life of his ex-wife beyond details acknowledged in a 2008 memoir. In perhaps his most effective debate move, Warnock alluded to such stories.“We will see time and time again tonight, as we’ve always seen, that my opponent has a problem with the truth,” said Warnock.Dismissing reports that a foundation tied to Ebenezer Baptist Church, where he is senior pastor, had evicted tenants from real-estate holdings, Warnock said Walker was trying to “sully the name of Martin Luther King’s church”.Walker pointed to his memoir, in which he detailed a diagnosis of dissociative personality disorder. Walker said he had “been transparent” and “continue[d] to get help if I need help, but I don’t need any help. I’m doing well. I’m ready to lead today.”Walker declined three debates typical in Georgia campaigns. The Savannah debate did not include the libertarian Chase Oliver, who did not meet a polling threshold. Warnock will meet Oliver in a Sunday debate sponsored by the Atlanta Press Club. Walker will be represented by an empty podium.TopicsUS midterm elections 2022GeorgiaUS politicsUS CongressUS SenateRepublicansDemocratsnewsReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      FBI was reportedly warned agents were ‘sympathetic’ to Capitol rioters – as it happened

      by

      A top FBI official was warned that a large number of bureau employees were sympathetic to Capitol rioters who threatened the lives of law makers. NBC News reported that Paul Abbate, number two at the FBI, was warned about agents within the bureau showing sympathy to 6 January participants.The email, sent from an unnamed person, read: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}There’s no good way to say it, so I’ll just be direct: from my first-hand and second-hand information from conversations since January 6th there is, at best, a sizable percentage of the employee population that felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the Capitol… Several also lamented that the only reason this violent activity is getting more attention is because of ‘political correctness.The email also added that several agents felt that the Capitol riots were no different than racial justice protests that happened in summer 2020. Abbate responded to the email with: “Thank you [redacted] for sharing everything below.”The FBI declined to comment on the email, reported NBC. Washington continues to feel the aftershocks from yesterday’s January 6 committee hearing, and its vote to send a subpoena to Donald Trump. The congressional panel claims he was the singular figure responsible for the attack on the Capitol – but the summons is more of statement than an actual legal strategy. Nonetheless, it’s possible the former president may actually appear before the lawmakers. Reports indicate he would be open to doing so, but Trump has not publicly weighed in, yet.Here’s what happened today:
      The FBI’s No 2 waswarned that a number of its agents were sympathetic to the January 6 rioters. It’s unclear what impact that has had on the investigation into the attack.
      A new book argues that Democratic leaders missed an opportunity to get some Republicans onboard when they first impeached Trump in 2019, setting the stage for him to try to overturn the election the following year.
      Top lawmakers scrambled for help from the department of defense, the governor of Virginia and other parties after the Capitol was overrun on January 6, according to gripping footage shown at the congressional inquiry yesterday.
      The January 6 committee is investigating communications between a Secret Service agent and members of the Oath Keepers militia group, some of whom are currently on trial for seditious conspiracy charges in Washington.
      Congress may finally repeal the authorizations justifying American involvement in the Gulf war and the invasion of Iraq.
      A Democratic member of the January 6 committee said it will continue to wait for a response from Donald Trump to the subpoena it approved yesterday, which could compel his testimony before the panel investigating the Capitol attack.In a tweet, Adam Schiff rejected a letter Trump had sent to the committee’s chair that attacked its work and reiterated a number of baseless theories about alleged fraudulent conduct in the 2020 election:Trump’s unsworn “statement” about the work of @January6thCmte is not a substitute for testimony under oath.We await a serious response from the former president.Seven previous presidents have honored their responsibility to appear before Congress. Trump should do the same.— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) October 14, 2022
      Trump has not said if he will honor the subpoena, though reports have emerged that he is open to speaking to lawmakers. Should he choose to fight it, it’s unlikely the court battle would be resolved before the committee’s mandate runs out at the end of the year.Trump and his allies’ attempts to interfere with the election in Georgia is the subject of yet another investigation ensnaring the ex-president, and CNN reports one of his operatives has testified as part of the inquiry.Last week, Scott Hall spoke for more than three hours to a special grand jury empaneled by district attorney Fani Willis in Fulton county, Georgia to investigate the meddling campaign, CNN said. While it’s not known what he told the jurors, Hall, a Republican poll watcher in Fulton county, was part of a group who may have improperly accessed voter information in another county.Here’s more from CNN:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}On January 7, 2021, the day after the attack on the US Capitol, Hall and others connected to Trump lawyer Sidney Powell spent hours inside a restricted area of the Coffee County elections office, where they set up computers near election equipment and appeared to access voting data.
      Willis’s criminal investigation recently expanded to include the breach of voting systems in the deeply-red Coffee County by operatives working for Powell.
      Hall did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
      According to court documents obtained by CNN, Hall’s role investigating supposed voter fraud in Georgia is also referenced in a November 2020 email that the head of Trump’s election day operations in Georgia received from the state’s Republican Party Chairman.
      “Scott Hall has been looking into the election on behalf of the President at the request of David Bossie. I know him,” David Shafer, the Georgia Republican Party chairman wrote on November 20, 2020, to Robert Sinners, the head of Trump’s Georgia election day operations.
      Shafer, who was among the 16 individuals who served as a fake Trump elector in Georgia, has been informed he is a target in the Fulton County DA’s criminal investigation.Trump has broadcast plans to run for president again in 2024 practically since leaving the White House last year, and many fear he would steamroll his opponents in the primaries to win the GOP nomination, as he did in 2016.But unlike the campaign that delivered his shock victory over Democrat Hillary Clinton six years ago, Trump is a known quantity by now, and some Republicans think he’s simply unelectable, no matter how popular he may be among a segment of the party. Republican former speaker of the house Paul Ryan made that very argument yesterday in an interview for the Teneo Insights Series:VIDEO: Former Speaker Paul Ryan says former President Donald Trump won’t be the Republican nominee in 2024, when the RNC gathers in Milwaukee: “We all know he’s much more likely to lose the White House than anybody else running for president on our side of the aisle.” pic.twitter.com/JCE2TsHu7A— Jason Calvi (@JasonCalvi) October 14, 2022
      The January 6 committee made clear in its hearing yesterday that it continued to have reservations about the Secret Service’s candor with its investigation.The agency tasked with protecting the president and other top officials has been under scrutiny ever since it was revealed it permanently deleted all of agents’ text messages from around the time of the insurrection, citing a pre-planned technology upgrade.MSNBC has a good rundown of the lawmakers’ comments about the Secret Service:Today, there was pushback, of sorts, from a spokesman for the agency, Politico reports:Some pushback from the Secret Service to yesterday’s 1/6 hearing and allegations witnesses weren’t forthcoming. Spox says they’re continuing to cooperate with the committee More on @politicongress: https://t.co/G4pTLfxAaT pic.twitter.com/yEbjvdSRB9— Nicholas Wu (@nicholaswu12) October 14, 2022
      Speaking of books, former vice-president Mike Pence will release a memoir about his time serving under Donald Trump on 15 November.The New York Times has obtained the book’s description included on its jacket, which pretty much lines up with what is known about his relationship with the former president:A day after the J6 hearing went over again the danger Pence was in that day, the jacket copy from his upcoming book is revealed. Includes this bit: pic.twitter.com/TiHtZOgVTD— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) October 14, 2022
      In August, Vermont’s Democratic senator Patrick Leahy – the most senior lawmaker in all of Congress – published a memoir reflecting on his decades in Washington politics.That included the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, which he opposed. Longtime Washington journalist Garrett M. Graff read Leahy’s book and noted that the senator’s opposition to the invasion had won the attention of some mysterious, like-minded individuals who sought the senator out:1) In the midst of the Iraq War debate, Leahy was one of the few Senators pushing back against the Bush admin race to war and the threats of WMDs. He’d been reading the classified intel that the Bush admin was providing to Congress and had real doubts that it justified war….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      2) The Sunday after he read the intel, he was out walking with his wife in his McLean neighborhood when “two fit joggers trailed behind us. They stopped and asked what I thought of the intelligence briefings I’d been getting.”…— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      3) The joggers asked Leahy if the briefers had showed him “File Eight”? Leahy writes, “It was obvious from the look on my face that I had not seen such a file. They suggested I should and that I might find it interesting.”….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      4) Leahy went back to the intel officers at the Capitol SCIF and requested “File Eight,” and it contradicted what the Bush administration was saying publicly about the WMDs….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      5) A few days later, Leahy and his wife are out walking in the neighborhood again and the same two joggers pass by, stop, and say, basically, “We heard you read Five Eight. Isn’t it interesting? Now you should ask for File Twelve” ….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      6) [[Leahy explained to me when I asked him about this incident this month that “File Eight” and “File Twelve” are pseudonyms for specific secret codeword names the joggers told him to ask for.]] ….— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      7) The next day, Leahy again goes to the Capitol SCIF and asks for “File Twelve.” It again contradicts what VP Cheney was saying publicly. Leahy decides to vote against the war based on these secret reports and tips…— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      8) I asked @senatorleahy about this incident when I interviewed him at @bearpondbooks earlier this month, if he knew the joggers ever, and he said, “You don’t understand—I didn’t *want* to know who they were.” …— Garrett M. Graff (@vermontgmg) October 14, 2022
      A movement is gathering in the Senate to repeal Congress’ authorizations allowing the United States to attack Iraq.Democratic senator Tim Kaine and Republican senator Todd Young are backing a renewed effort to pass a bill repealing the two Authorizations for Use of Military Force enacted in 2002 and 1991, which gave legal justification for America’s involvement in the Iraq and Gulf wars, respectively. On October 16, 2002, Congress voted to authorize the use of military force against the regime of Saddam Hussein.As we mark the 20th anniversary, @TimKaine and I are calling for repeal of the 2002 AUMF, which the United States no longer requires. https://t.co/6zkMPx34o2— Senator Todd Young (@SenToddYoung) October 14, 2022
      The current war authorities are outdated, unnecessary, and could be subject to misuse by future presidents.Our bipartisan legislation will repeal the 1991 and 2002 AUMFs and reinstate Congress’ constitutionally-mandated oversight role of declaring and ending wars.— Senator Todd Young (@SenToddYoung) October 14, 2022
      We owe it to our nation’s service members, military families, and veterans to pass this legislation repealing the 2002 AUMF and formalize the end of the Iraq War.— Senator Todd Young (@SenToddYoung) October 14, 2022
      A similar attempt passed the House last year and had Joe Biden’s support, but ultimately didn’t make it through the Senate. The latest effort is expected to be included in a defense spending bill that will be a top priority when both houses of Congress reconvene next month.Few have embraced the baseless conspiracies about the 2020 election like Donald Trump, and he’s widely expected to run again for the presidency in 2024. The big question is: when will he announce it? Democrats hope he does so before the midterm elections, so they can refocus voters’ attention on all that went on during his administration.Politico reports that the former president is keeping it vague:Trump said at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser last night that a ‘24 announcement was coming “very soon” and that people would be “very happy,” per two attendees— Alex Isenstadt (@politicoalex) October 14, 2022
      Meanwhile, Republican senators Tom Cotton and Tim Scott have both taken steps indicating they are contemplating a 2024 run, according to Politico.More than two-thirds of Republicans seeking office this November have cast doubt on the results of the 2020 election, reported the New York Times..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}They include candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, and the state offices of governor, secretary of state and attorney general — many with clear shots to victory, and some without a chance. They are united by at least one issue: They have all expressed doubt about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. And they are the new normal of the Republican Party.
      More than 370 people — a vast majority of Republicans running for these offices in November — have questioned and, at times, outright denied the results of the 2020 election despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, according to a monthslong New York Times investigation. These candidates represent a sentiment that is spreading in the Republican Party, rupturing a bedrock principle of democracy: that voters decide elections and candidates accept results.Read the full article here.Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden released a statement on a Thursday shooting in Raleigh, North Carolina, where five people were killed and two were injured.The suspect, a 15-year old white male, is in custody and in critical condition.From the White house press office:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Jill and I are grieving with the families in Raleigh, North Carolina, whose loved ones were killed and wounded in yet another mass shooting in America. We are thinking of yet another community shaken and shattered as they mourn the loss of friends and neighbors, including an off-duty police officer.As we mourn with the people of Raleigh, we are grateful for the law enforcement and other first responders, including federal law enforcement who were on the scene last night and into this morning. My Administration is working closely with Governor Cooper to assist local authorities in this investigation to the fullest extent needed. Enough. We’ve grieved and prayed with too many families who have had to bear the terrible burden of these mass shootings. Too many families have had spouses, parents, and children taken from them forever. This year, and even in just the five months since Buffalo and Uvalde, there are too many mass shootings across America, including ones that don’t even make the national news.
      For the lives we’ve lost and the lives we can save, I took historic action to stop gun violence in our nation, including signing the most significant gun safety law in nearly 30 years. But we must do more. We must pass an assault weapons ban. The American people support this commonsense action to get weapons of war off our streets. House Democrats have already passed it. The Senate should do the same. Send it to my desk and I’ll sign it. May God bless our fellow Americans we lost and their families and may He grant the wounded the strength to recover in Raleigh, North Carolina.A top FBI official was warned that a large number of bureau employees were sympathetic to Capitol rioters who threatened the lives of law makers. NBC News reported that Paul Abbate, number two at the FBI, was warned about agents within the bureau showing sympathy to 6 January participants.The email, sent from an unnamed person, read: .css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}There’s no good way to say it, so I’ll just be direct: from my first-hand and second-hand information from conversations since January 6th there is, at best, a sizable percentage of the employee population that felt sympathetic to the group that stormed the Capitol… Several also lamented that the only reason this violent activity is getting more attention is because of ‘political correctness.The email also added that several agents felt that the Capitol riots were no different than racial justice protests that happened in summer 2020. Abbate responded to the email with: “Thank you [redacted] for sharing everything below.”The FBI declined to comment on the email, reported NBC. Washington continues to feel the aftershocks from yesterday’s January 6 committee hearing, and its vote to send a subpoena to Donald Trump. The congressional panel claims he was the singular figure responsible for the attack on the Capitol – but the summons is more of statement than an actual legal strategy. Nonetheless, it’s possible the former president may actually appear before the lawmakers. Reports indicate he would be open to doing so, but Trump has not publicly weighed in, yet.Here’s what has happened today so far:
      A new book argues that Democratic leaders missed an opportunity to get some Republicans onboard when they first impeached Trump in 2019, setting the stage for him to try to overturn the election the following year.
      Top lawmakers scrambled for help from the department of defense, the governor of Virginia and other parties after the Capitol was overrun on January 6, according to gripping footage shown at the congressional inquiry yesterday.
      The January 6 committee is investigating communications between a Secret Service agent and members of the Oath Keepers militia group, some of whom are currently on trial for seditious conspiracy charges in Washington.
      Many people testified to the January 6 committee. Doing so did not come without costs.Here’s what Alyssa Farah, a former communications director in the Trump White House, said on “The View” about happened after the panel aired her testimony:”When I spoke out: death threats, harassment, I’ve been called a whore … It was young women that stepped up and came forward and gave the facts.”— “The View” co-host and former Trump Communications Director Alyssa Farah details her experience testifying before 1/6 Committee pic.twitter.com/mG2roFTDov— The Recount (@therecount) October 14, 2022
      And here is what she told the committee:”He was looking at the TV and he said, ‘Can you believe I lost to this fucking guy?'”— Former Trump Communications Director Alyssa Farah recalling what she says Trump said to her about a week after the election was called. pic.twitter.com/ckRbuiyYBs— The Recount (@therecount) October 13, 2022
      Did the January 6 committee’s hearings change your mind about what happened that day?Were you surprised by the evidence presented? Or are you wondering what the big deal is?Whatever your answers to these questions, the Guardian’s community team is looking for readers’ input, and has a survey you can fill out at the link below:US residents: share your views of the January 6 hearingsRead more More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Trump reportedly wants to testify before January 6 committee – live

      by

      There are plenty of instances of former presidents testifying before congress, and in fact, even sitting presidents have done so, according to the US Senate.But such an appearance hasn’t been made in a while. The last former president to answer questions on Capitol Hill was Gerald Ford, who appeared before a Senate subcommittee on the constitution in 1983. He was also the last president in office to testify, during a 1974 House subcommittee hearing about his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon for various charges related to the Watergate scandal.Up until January 6, historians viewed Watergate as perhaps the worst political scandal in American history. But the insurrection at the Capitol may well have eclipsed that – and Trump could follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and appear before lawmakers to discuss his role in it.While sitting and former presidents have testified before Congress in the past, Politico reports that subpoenaing a former commander in chief is far more contentious.In 1953, former president Harry Truman defied a subpoena from the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee. “It is just as important to the independence of the Executive that the actions of the President should not be subjected to questioning by the Congress after he has completed his term of office as that his actions should not be questioned while he is serving as President,” he said in a lengthy speech explaining his refusal to attend.The January 6 committee could, of course, go to court to force Trump to comply, assuming a judge – or more likely judges – agrees. But they simply don’t have the time. Their mandate expires at the end of the year, at the same time as this Congress terms out, and any court challenge would likely take months to resolve.Not all Trump administration scandals involve the former president. Stephanie Kirchgaessner reports a Senate committee leaders wants answers about a real estate property deal involving Jared Kushner, a top aide to the former president:A financial firm that operates billions of dollars in real estate properties around the world is facing new questions from the powerful chairman of the Senate finance committee about whether Qatar was secretly involved in the $1.2bn (£1bn) rescue of a Fifth Avenue property owned by Jared Kushner’s family while Kushner was serving in the White House.Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat who leads the finance committee, has given the chief executive of Toronto-based Brookfield Asset Management until 24 October to answer a series of detailed questions about a 2018 deal in which Brookfield paid Kushner Companies for a 99-year lease on the family’s marquee 666 Fifth Avenue property.When the deal was announced in August 2018, it was seen as the end of a drawn-out saga surrounding the property. The rescue, it was said in media reports, generated enough money for the Kushner family to pay $1.1bn (£970m) of debt on the building and buy out a partner.In a statement on Thursday, Wyden accused Brookfield of stonewalling his committee and refusing to answer questions about the transaction, including whether Brookfield “intentionally misled” the public when it said that “no Qatar-linked entity” had been involved in the deal. In fact, it has since been alleged by Wyden that Brookfield used a Qatari-backed fund – called Brookfield Property Partners – to fund the transaction. At the time of the deal, Wyden said, the Qatari Investment Authority was the fund’s second largest investor.Top senator seeks answers over Qatar link to $1.2bn Kushner property rescueRead moreOne of the most gripping moments of the January 6 committee’s hearing yesterday came when the panel aired footage of congressional leaders scrambling for help after the Capitol was overrun. Here’s what the video showed:New footage of the January 6 riots at the US Capitol shows House speaker Nancy Pelosi calmly trying to take charge of the situation as she sheltered at Fort McNair, two miles south of the Capitol.“There has to be some way,” she told colleagues, “we can maintain the sense that people have that there is some security or some confidence that government can function and that you can elect the president of the United States.”Then an unidentified voice interjected with alarming news: lawmakers on the House floor had begun putting on teargas masks in preparation for a breach. Pelosi asked the woman to repeat what she said.‘Do you believe this?’: New video shows how Nancy Pelosi took charge in Capitol riotRead moreWhile Trump twice escaped conviction by Congress, The Guardian’s Sam Levine finds the evidence laid out by the January 6 committee could form the backbone of a criminal case against the former president:After more than a year of work that consisted of interviewing 1,000-plus witnesses and reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents, the committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol chose a simple message for its final public hearing: Donald Trump was singularly responsible for the attack.Since its first hearing in June, the committee’s work has been aimed at two audiences. One of those has been the broad American public. Tactfully using video, the committee has told a disciplined, clear story of what happened on January 6, and the days leading up to it, filled with jaw-dropping soundbites from Trump’s closest aides.But the committee’s public coda on Thursday appeared more directed at its second audience: an audience of one, the US attorney general, Merrick Garland.Garland will ultimately decide whether to bring criminal charges against Trump over January 6, and the committee’s work, which has run parallel to the justice department’s investigation, has made a public case for bringing charges, attempting to bring along public support for doing so.January 6 panel’s case against Trump lays out roadmap for prosecutionRead moreA new books argues that the way Democrats handled Trump’s first impeachment in 2019 laid the groundwork for the lawless streak he exhibited when he tried to overturn the following year’s elections, Politico reports.In “Unchecked,” written by Politico reporter Rachael Bade and Washington Post reporter Karoun Demirjian, House speaker Nancy Pelosi is shown as being caught between two wings of the Democratic party as it weighs how to respond to Trump’s pressuring of Ukraine’s government to investigate Joe Biden. One group, composed mostly of progressives, wanted a sprawling inquiry into all of the then-president’s alleged misdeeds, while another, made up of Democrats in vulnerable seats, wanted a narrowly tailored investigation into the Ukraine affair that wouldn’t take too long.The latter group won out, but according to the book, Pelosi missed opportunities to wrangle some Republicans into supporting Trump’s impeachment – though the book concedes the effort may well have been a long shot, even if she tried.The Senate ultimately acquitted Trump, and the book finds that decision emboldened Trump to attempt further schemes – like his plot to overturn the 2020 election. Here’s how Politico puts it:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}In the end, one political truism superseded all the others: What happens in January of an election year will be ancient history by the time voters cast ballots. This was especially true in 2020, when the coronavirus pandemic seemed to emerge just as Democrats were licking their wounds from the impeachment trial acquittal.
      Soon after, Trump would begin sowing the seeds of what would become his effort to overturn defeat in the presidential election, and by November, impeachment seemed an asterisk in a year that had become chaotic for many other reasons.
      Ultimately, Democrats took the White House, even though Pelosi’s House majority shrank slightly after 2020. House managers of Trump’s first impeachment have insisted to this day that their existential warnings played a role in voters deeming him unfit for a second term.
      His actions to subvert his 2020 loss, they argue, were evidence that Republicans’ decision to acquit him had left him feeling unchecked.Trump hasn’t yet publicly said if he’d testify before the January 6 committee, as their subpoena compels him to.But his political action committee has today distributed to reporters this letter, dated yesterday and addressed to the committee’s chair. The 14-page epistle is mostly a rehash of his baseless theories that the 2020 election was stolen from him, and a defense of his conduct on January 6. It opens with this line: “THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF 2020 WAS RIGGED AND STOLEN!”It’s unclear if Trump himself wrote it, but based on the prose, it’s difficult not to imagine his voice when reading it. Consider the second sentence:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The same group of Radical Left Democrats who utilized their Majority position in Congress to create the fiction of Russia, Russia, Russia, Impeachment Hoax #1, Impeachment Hoax #2, the $48 Million Mueller Report (which ended in No Collusion!), Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine, the atrocious and illegal Spying on my Campaign, and so much more, are the people who created this Committee of highly partisan political Hacks and Thugs whose sole function is to destroy the lives of many hard-working American Patriots, whose records in life have been unblemished until this point of attempted ruination.There are plenty of instances of former presidents testifying before congress, and in fact, even sitting presidents have done so, according to the US Senate.But such an appearance hasn’t been made in a while. The last former president to answer questions on Capitol Hill was Gerald Ford, who appeared before a Senate subcommittee on the constitution in 1983. He was also the last president in office to testify, during a 1974 House subcommittee hearing about his decision to pardon former president Richard Nixon for various charges related to the Watergate scandal.Up until January 6, historians viewed Watergate as perhaps the worst political scandal in American history. But the insurrection at the Capitol may well have eclipsed that – and Trump could follow in the footsteps of his predecessors and appear before lawmakers to discuss his role in it.Good morning, US politics blog readers. Yesterday’s big news was that the January 6 committee had issued a subpoena to Donald Trump, in an attempt to compel the testimony of a man they say was responsible above all others for the deadly insurrection at the Capitol. You’d be right not to get your hopes up that the former president would honor their summons – he’s stymied various attempts to compel his behavior or hold him accountable over the years with lengthy court challenges, and the congressional subpoena seems like it could meet the same fate. But media outlets including the New York Times and Fox News report that Trump actually would like to speak to lawmakers – assuming he can do so live. We may hear from him today on what course of action he’s decided to take.Here’s a look at what else is happening today:
      Liz Cheney, the Republican vice-chair of the January 6 committee, will talk about defending democracy at Notre Dame University at 2.30pm eastern time.
      Washington’s fury towards Saudi Arabia will be the subject when Democratic representative Ro Khanna, an advocate of cracking down on Riyadh over its backing of the recent Opec+ oil production cut, speaks with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft at 12pm eastern time.
      Joe Biden is continuing his trip out west with a speech in Orange county, California, about “lowering costs for American families” and a stop in Oregon. There, the president will campaign for the state’s Democratic candidate for governor, who appears to be struggling polls. More

    • 175 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      The January 6 panel makes it clear: American democracy needs accountability | Lloyd Green

      by

      The January 6 panel makes it clear: American democracy needs accountabilityLloyd GreenSlavery and civil war tested us 160 years ago. Again, we are being tested. Midterms are less than a month away Thursday’s House select committee was one like no other. Shortly after 1pm, Liz Cheney, the daughter of a vice-president and Republican grandees, warned that the US, as a constitutional republic, was in danger. Two-and-a-half hours later, seven Democrats and two Republicans unanimously voted to subpoena Donald Trump. In all likelihood, he will never appear. Regardless, history had again been made.“Why would Americans assume that our constitution and institutions of our Republic are invulnerable to another attack?” Cheney pondered.The real story of January 6 isn’t what Trump did – it’s what he didn’t | Moira DoneganRead moreTrump yearned to be a modern-day Caesar. He knew that he had lost the election, yet he persevered.White House staffer Alyssa Farah Griffin testified that a week after the election Trump blurted out, “Can you believe I lost to this effing guy?” After his defeat in the supreme court, a wrath-filled Trump remained unbowed.Cassidy Hutchinson, a White House aide and a deputy to Mark Meadows, said that he was “just raging”. Trump seethed, futilely grasping for a way out.“I don’t want people to know we lost, Mark,” he told Meadows, his chief of staff and Hutchinson’s boss. “This is embarrassing.”“Trump had a premeditated plan to declare that the election was fraudulent and stolen before election day,” Cheney said. This is not stuff of democracies, but of banana republics and strongmen.Right-wing stalwarts were there for Trump, offering aid and comfort along the way. “Let’s get right to the violence,” Roger Stone, the veteran Trump-hand, chuckled.Steve Bannon briefed Chinese associates over Trump’s election denial strategy. “And what Trump is going to do is just declare victory, right?” Bannon semi-asked, semi-stated.“He’s gonna declare victory, but that doesn’t mean he’s the winner, he’s just going to say he’s the winner.” Bannon later received a presidential pardon. He will be sentenced later this month for his contempt of Congress conviction and faces fraud charges in New York.Peter Navarro, another White House official, concocted the infamous “Green Bay Sweep”. His trial for contempt of Congress kicks off shortly. It’s a rogues’ gallery.Tom Fitton of the well-funded Judicial Watch helped script Trump’s defiance. In a 31 October 2020 email, he urged Trump to declare himself the winner. “We had an election today– – and I won,” Fitton’s email read. Fitton clamored for mass disenfranchisement too.His memo called for Trump to demand that only votes “counted by the election day deadline” be tallied. This time it went way beyond stripping minorities of their vote – a traditional but unstated Judicial Watch goal. Now he was gunning for urban moms and dads too, the bedrock of the Republican party of yesteryear.More broadly, the Republican party’s sedition wing has plenty of allies who wear suits and ties. Ginni Thomas and John Eastman, Justice Thomas’s wife and clerk, respectively, were definitely not alone. It’s not just about folks in camouflage.The armed mob had embraced Trump, and he loved them back. “I don’t care that they effing had weapons,” he muttered on January 6, according to Hutchinson. If blood were to be spilled and the constitution shredded, so be it. It was about clinging to power without legal justification.Documentary evidence presented by the committee revealed that some members of the Secret Service acted like modern-day praetorians, acting oblivious to threats posed by Trump’s supporters to the certification of the election.“Their plan is to kill people,” one message read. “Please please take this tip seriously and investigate further.” Members of the Secret Service knew that a storm was brewing but turned a blind eye. Their loyalty ran to Trump the man, not the office he occupied.“The vast weight of evidence presented so far has shown us that the central cause of January 6th was one man, Donald Trump,” Cheney made clear.Amid the hearing, the supreme court rejected Trump’s efforts to tamp down on the justice department’s investigation of his mishandling of presidential documents and classified records. Mar-a-Lago now looks ever more like a prison of the ex-game show host’s making, a custom-built gilded cage complete with gold leaf and dining room. Or a set of The Apprentice.After the 1787 constitutional convention, Benjamin Franklin observed that the US was a republic if we could “keep it”. Slavery and civil war tested us 160 years ago. Again, we are being tested. Midterms are less than a month away.
      Lloyd Green is a regular freelance contributor and served in the Department of Justice from 1990 to 1992
      TopicsUS Capitol attackOpinionUS politicsJanuary 6 hearingsDonald TrumpLiz CheneyDemocratsRepublicanscommentReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Why Nevada will prove crucial in November: Politics Weekly America – podcast

      by

      More ways to listen

      Apple Podcasts

      Google Podcasts

      Spotify

      RSS Feed

      Download

      Share on Facebook

      Share on Twitter

      Share via Email

      There is a source of worry for the Democrats coming from the west of the country – Nevada. A state previously considered pretty blue is showing some signs of turning red, and Republicans are hoping to pounce.
      This week, Jonathan Freedland speaks to Jon Ralston of the Nevada Independent about why Nevada could prove fatal to the Democrats if it flips red in November

      How to listen to podcasts: everything you need to know

      Archive: CSPAN, NBC, Fox News Listen to Jonathan speaking to Jon Ronson about how Alex Jones became the conspiracy theorist he is today Buy your tickets to the Guardian’s Politics Weekly America Live event at 8pm GMT on 2 November Send your questions and feedback to podcasts@theguardian.com Help support the Guardian by going to theguardian.com/supportpodcasts More