US Capitol attack

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s raising of $250m for fund that ‘did not exist’ suggests possible fraud

      by

      Trump’s raising of $250m for fund that ‘did not exist’ suggests possible fraud‘The big lie was also the big rip-off,’ says Democrat Zoe Lofgren after January 6 panel appears to make case for fundraising fraud The House select committee investigating the January 6 Capitol attack appeared to make the case at its second hearing that Donald Trump and his campaign engaged in potential fundraising fraud, raising $250m for a Trump “election defense fund” that did not actually exist.Like Napoleon at Elba, Donald Trump plots his revenge and return | Lloyd GreenRead moreThe hearing, led by Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, also showed that Trump and the campaign raised millions for thefund and then funneled the money to, among other destinations, the Trump business properties as well as Trump’s own Save America political action committee.In showing that Trump deceived donors into contributing money to the election defense fund – based on claims about a stolen election that his top advisers told him were nonsense – the panel suggested Trump engaged in potential fraud as well as other violations of federal law.The select committee said through filings and other evidence, it found the Trump campaign raised $100m in the first week after the election and overall raised about $250m as it asked donors to help fundraise legal challenges to the results.But the “Official Election Defense Fund”, as it was billed on fundraising emails that were repeatedly sent up until 30 minutes before the Capitol attack, did not formally exist, according to Trump campaign aides Hannah Allred and Gary Coby, who testified to the panel.“The big lie was also a big ripoff,” Lofgren said of the deception at the hearing, later telling CNN: “He intentionally misled his donors, asked them to donate to a fund that didn’t exist and used the money raised for something other than what it said.”The Trump campaign was able to fundraise through to January 6 since Trump continued frivolous election litigation past the so-called safe harbor deadline, which is generally accepted as the date by which state-level election challenges – like recounts – must be completed.The select committee doubled down on establishing Trump’s criminal or corrupt intent in seeking to overturn the 2020 election results by showing he could not have reasonably believed he had defeated Biden when some of his most senior advisers told him otherwise.Trump was told by every credible adviser, from former attorney general Bill Barr to former Trump campaign chair Bill Stepien to former Trump White House lawyer Eric Herschmann to former Fox News political editor Chris Stirewalt, that the election was not stolen.The admissions by Trump’s top officials are significant as they could put federal prosecutors one step closer to being able to charge Trump with obstructing an official proceeding or defrauding the United States on the basis of election fraud claims he knew were false.The select committee in short made the case that if Trump is ever charged, he could not use the defense that he acted in potential criminal ways because he earnestly believed there was election fraud because he was told otherwise – the doctrine of “wilful blindness”.At the second hearing, the select committee also revealed a new piece of information: that Trump falsely declared victory on election night at the White House at the insistence of his attorney Rudy Giuliani, and against the advice of every other presidential adviser.The former president had infamously claimed on election night that “frankly, we did win this election” even though no winner had yet been announced, as a number of the most closely contested states were still counting millions of mail-in ballots.How Trump came to falsely declare victory on election night was not exactly clear, until the select committee on Tuesday played a video of the top Trump White House aide Jason Miller testifying that Giuliani recommended to Trump they just pretend that they had won.“They’re stealing it from us,” Giuliani told the then president when he found him at the White House, according to Miller, who also testified that the former New York mayor seemed drunk. “Where do all the votes come from? We need to go say that we won.”TopicsDonald TrumpUS Capitol attackUS politicsJan 6 hearingsnewsReuse this content More

    • 200 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats voice concerns over Biden’s Saudi trip: ‘Their values are not ours’ – as it happened

      by

      Democrats in the Senate are raising their eyebrows at Biden’s decision to travel to Saudi Arabia, objecting to the country’s human rights record and worrying the visit won’t meaningfully lower gas prices.As Oregon’s Ron Wyden told Manu Raju of CNN:Dem pushback this morning on Biden’s decision to meet with MBS. “I don’t see any evidence that the Saudis are going to significantly lower gasoline prices,” Ron Wyden said.On the other hand, I see their horrendous human rights record.”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 14, 2022
      Here’s Maryland’s Ben Cardin, who referenced the murder of Jamal Khashoggi:Asked about WH sidestepping queries yesterday on responsibility for Khashoggi murder, Cardin told us: “I hope they’ll be very clear in the conversation. America’s strength is in our values.”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 14, 2022
      Kaitlan Collins, also of CNN, heard this from Illinois’s Dick Durbin:’I have mixed feelings on this and if the President called me, I would say, ‘Mr. President, you can’t trust these people. Their standards are not our standards, their values are not ours,'” Sen. Dick Durbin says about President Biden’s upcoming trip to Saudi Arabia.— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 14, 2022
      Congress was at the center of the action today, where the January 6 committee announced the surprise postponement of its Wednesday hearing. Meanwhile, the top Senate Republican said he would support the gun control compromise reached with Democrats, while the House voted to approve a bill to improve security around the supreme court, sending it to the president’s desk.Other top stories today:
      President Joe Biden made official his plans to visit Saudi Arabia, which is widely seen as a bid to increase oil supply and lower gas prices at home. Several Democrats have expressed disapproval over the visit, citing the kingdom’s human rights record.
      The president meanwhile traveled to in Philadelphia to address a convention of the AFL-CIO trade union federation, in which he defended his economic record and attacked Republican policies.
      A top Biden ally in the Senate proposed levying a windfall tax on oil companies as Democrats try to convince voters corporate greed is fueling record-high gas prices.
      An investigation by the Capitol Police determined a Republican House representative did not give Trump supporters a tour of the building the day before the January 6 attack.
      It’s about to get really hot in America. The National Weather Service is advising more than 100 million people to stay indoors due to high humidity and temperatures.
      The US politics live blog will return on Wednesday, with the supreme court set to announce more decisions at 10am ET.The Republican Party is launching a nine-day “election integrity” tour throughout Wisconsin, less than two months before the battleground state’s primary elections. The tour, which begins Wednesday, will start in La Crosse, Wisconsin and go through Wisconsin’s most liberal cities, including the state’s capital, Madison. Planned events will include an appearance from conservative former state Supreme Court judge Daniel Kelly. The tour has already received pushback from those who say it is meant to spread lies that the 2020 election was fraudulent ahead of the primaries and November’s midterm election. Republicans have argued that the roundtable events are meant to recruit poll workers, voting deputies, and other election day staff as well as connect campaign staff with volunteers. The Capitol Police have determined that a Republican House representative did not give a tour to Trump supporters the day before the January 6 attack.CNN reports that the investigation into Barry Loudermilk of Georgia was requested by the chair and vice chair of the House committee investigating the insurrection, over allegations he was seen hosting visitors on 5 January, 2021.“There is no evidence that Representative Loudermilk entered the U.S. Capitol with this group on January 5, 2021,” Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger wrote to the top Republican on the House Administration Committee. “We train our officers on being alert for people conducting surveillance or reconnaissance, and we do not consider any of the activities we observed as suspicious.”Following the attack on the Capitol, several Democrats accused their Republican colleagues of granting tours to people who went on to storm the building as Congress was meeting to certify Joe Biden’s election win.According to CNN:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} Manger said the video shows Loudermilk with “a group of approximately 12 people which later grew to 15 people” walking through the Capitol office buildings on January 5. It also states that the group of visitors did not “appear in any tunnels that would lead them to the US Capitol.”
      House Republicans suggested they may release video they believe exonerates Loudermilk of any insinuation that he led a so-called “reconnaissance” tour the night before the January 6 riot.
      The House select committee declined to comment on Manger’s letter.
      The letter the committee sent to Loudermilk last month indicated the panel has reviewed evidence that “directly contradicts” previous claims by Republican lawmakers who said security footage from the days before January 6 shows there were “no tours, no large groups, no one with MAGA hats on” at the US Capitol complex.
      “Based on our review of evidence in the Select Committee’s possession, we believe you have information regarding a tour you led through parts of the Capitol complex on January 5, 2021,” Chairman Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, and Vice Chairwoman Liz Cheney, a Republican from Wyoming, wrote at the time.The House has passed a measure to increase security for the supreme court, sending it to the president’s desk for his signature.A vote was requested and postponed on S. 4160 – Supreme Court Police Parity Act of 2022. https://t.co/CcET8jSBAI— House Press Gallery (@HouseDailyPress) June 14, 2022
      The Senate had unanimously approved the measure back in May, but the House delayed its passage. Republicans in the Senate began attacking Democrats over their failure to pass the measure following last week’s arrest of a man who is charged with planning to kill justice Brett Kavanaugh.Senate approves beefed-up security for US supreme court after abortion leakRead moreVice-president Kamala Harris is meeting with attorneys and activists ahead of a widely expected supreme court decision that could weaken or overturn nationwide abortion rights.VP Harris meeting with legal experts and activist on pending SCOTUS decision on Roe: “I do believe that overturning Roe could clear the way for challenges to other fundamental rights” Named women’s data privacy, IVF, contraception, gay and trans rights pic.twitter.com/qNZnyUEiqo— Jordan Fabian (@Jordanfabian) June 14, 2022
      CNN reports that Harris has been encouraged by people outside the Biden administration to lead the charge against any supreme court decision restricting abortion, as a way to better connect with voters. The network quoted an unnamed official as saying Harris’s “goals really have been around ensuring that people in this country have an understanding of what is at stake here.”The supreme court will issue another batch of decisions on Wednesday beginning at 10 am eastern time, though it’s unknown if that will include the abortion case.The Senate’s top Republican Mitch McConnell said he will support the compromise measure on gun control reached with Democrats over the weekend.The two parties have seldom found agreement on gun control legislation, and McConnell’s endorsement sends a positive signal that the proposal will win enough votes from his party to pass the evenly divided Senate.“If it leads to a piece of legislation, I intend to support it,” McConnell said at a press conference. “I think it’s progress for the country, and I think the bipartisan group has done the best they can to get total support.”While the bill hasn’t been written yet, it doesn’t go as far as many Democrats would like, such as by raising the age to buy an assault weapon to 21 from 18. Many of its provisions focus on improving mental health, as well as offering states money to implement programs intended to stop mass shootings such as those in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, New York.US senators reach bipartisan gun control deal after recent mass shootings Read moreOne of Biden’s Senate allies has an idea for lowering gas prices: levy new taxes on oil companies’ profits.Bloomberg reports that Democratic senator Ron Wyden will propose putting a 21 percent tax on petroleum companies with profit margins above 10 percent. The idea comes after the average gas price crossed the $5 a gallon level, which the White House has increasingly looked to blame on forces beyond its control, particularly the disruptions to global markets caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Progressive Democrats have meanwhile sought to convince voters that profit-seeking corporations are to blame for the overall spike in inflation Americans are feeling, and last week, Biden took aim at Exxon Mobil, saying the oil giant “made more money than God this year.Wyden’s proposal, which has yet to be released publicly, would however need the approval of all 50 Democrats to make it through the Senate, and tweaks to the tax code were among the contentious issues the party couldn’t reach an agreement on during last year’s unsuccessful attempt to pass Build Back better. From the article:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Taxing excessive oil company profits is one of many policy ideas under consideration in the White House, two administration officials said. Yet internally, aides remain concerned such a tax could hurt ongoing efforts to boost the supply of oil.
      If combined with a gasoline rebate, a windfall profits tax would both deter supply and encourage fuel demand, said Kevin Book, managing director of research firm ClearView Energy Partners LLC. “It is the opposite of balancing the market.”
      An idea out of Treasury to place a cap on the price of Russian oil, alongside European allies, has gained far more traction inside the administration.
      Wyden’s plan would also impose a 25% stock buyback tax for oil and gas companies that repurchase their own shares, Wyden spokeswoman Ashley Schapitl confirmed. Both levies apply to oil and gas companies with at least $1 billion in revenue and would expire at the end of 2025, according to the people briefed on the plan.
      Wyden also proposes to eliminate an accounting benefit, known as last-in first-out, or LIFO, that can deliver tax breaks for oil and gas companies with at least $1 billion in revenue starting in 2023.There’s been another sentence handed down over the January 6 attack, this time of a former city councilmember in West Virginia.Eric Barber was sentenced to 45 days in jail for entering the Capitol during the insurrection, as well as a seven-day suspended sentence for stealing a charging station belonging to C-SPAN, West Virginia’s MetroNews reported. The former city councilmember in Parkersburg, West Virginia, also received 24 months of federal probation.“You’re too old and you’re too accomplished and you’re too smart to get involved in nonsense like this,” federal judge Christopher Cooper said during the Thursday sentencing. “This is not about the First Amendment. You are free to express your views. You’re free to support any political candidate or positions or issues that you want. I encourage that. But enough of this nonsense, OK?”According to MetroNews:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Barber, 43, was being sentenced today in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after pleading guilty to two misdemeanors.
      One is a count of parading, demonstrating or picketing in a Capitol Building. The other is theft, an accusation that Barber stole a charging station belonging to a C-SPAN employee.
      He has to pay $500 restitution as his share of damage to the Capitol that day, and he has to pay back C-SPAN a little less than $60 for the charger that he took home.
      Barber was not accused of violence that day, but prosecutors noted that he wore a Kevlar helmet and went to Washington, D.C. to “go punch a Antifa terrorist in the face,” referring to the loosely-knit antifascist activists sometimes accused of violence themselves.
      Prosecutors underscored that Barber entered the Capitol as sirens blared and broken glass was apparent, entering not only the areas that are commonly open to the public but also entering a restricted hallway outside House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office. Prosecutors said Barber wound up in that hallway twice — the second time after being told to leave. Barber said he was lost.
      But Barber and his public defense attorney emphasized that he had expressed remorse about what happened that day to local media, to investigators, to Congress’s January 6th Committee and to the judge.
      Judge Cooper took note of all those factors.
      “It’s troubling that you still seem to have a mindset of ‘There’s a bully out there. I need to prime for the fight.’ You did not go for self-defense, but you went with the helmet, ready to punch somebody or affirmatively engage in violence,” Cooper said.Barber sentencing memo began with a particularly direct quote.Strongest lede I’ve seen yet in a Jan. 6 defendant’s sentencing memo. pic.twitter.com/3Es2hM4Bpl— Ryan J. Reilly (@ryanjreilly) June 8, 2022
      There is still a lot of buzz about the House panel investigating the January 6, 2021 insurrection by extremist supporters of Donald Trump, as reports spill out about disagreements over whether to refer Trump for criminal prosecution or just lay out the evidence and let others deduce, etc, as well as today’s abrupt postponement of Hearing No. 3.Most of these tweets speak for themselves.Committee needs to keep on track. No more referral talk in public. Keep to the schedule. There has been unity and absence of grandstanding so far. They must keep it that way.— Jennifer ‘I stand with Ukraine’ Rubin 🇺🇦🇺🇦 (@JRubinBlogger) June 14, 2022
      Larry Tribe.“You do not get to arm-twist officials or send the mob to the Capitol because you really, really think you won.”https://t.co/4xtlAfrYf5— Laurence Tribe (@tribelaw) June 14, 2022
      George Conway, cheeky.A Twitter contest—let’s see who can come up with the best answer for:𝘘. 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘥𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘬 𝘙𝘶𝘥𝘺𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘸 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘭𝘣?— George Conway🌻 (@gtconway3d) June 14, 2022
      Conway on ZimmerExcellent thread. 🪡 🧵 https://t.co/scpfcj4SR8— George Conway🌻 (@gtconway3d) June 14, 2022
      Scuitto on TrumpAs you watch the #January6thHearings remember the principal source of disinformation in the 2016 election was foreign. In 2020, it was the sitting US president. And his lies succeeded in convincing a majority of GOP voters the election was stolen.— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 14, 2022
      Much of today’s action has occurred in Congress, where the January 6 committee announced the surprise postponement of its Wednesday hearing. The Senate still doesn’t have the bill text of its gun control compromise to vote on, but the House is moving forward with the vote on a a bill to increase security for the supreme court, which the upper chamber has already approved.Here’s what else is going on:
      President Joe Biden has made official his plans to visit Saudi Arabia, which is widely seen as a bid to increase oil supply and lower gas prices at home. Several Democrats have expressed disapproval over the visit, citing the kingdom’s human rights record.
      The president was meanwhile in Philadelphia to address a convention of the AFL-CIO trade union federation, in which he defended his economic record and attacked Republican policies.
      The votes of Republicans in the Senate will be crucial to passing the gun control bill, and more of the party’s senators offered their thoughts on the legislation.
      It’s about to get really hot in America. The National Weather Service is advising more than 100 million people to stay indoors due to high humidity and temperatures.
      Republicans will be crucial in determining whether the bipartisan gun control proposal makes it through the Senate, and more lawmakers are reacting to the deal reached over the weekend.“I think the framework is very encouraging,” GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski just told me of the guns package. Says she’s eager to see the details but sounds very positive about it. She was not one of the 10 Republicans who signed onto the framework. Bill text still needs to be drafted— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 14, 2022
      Thune, No. 2 Republican, uncertain whether he would back Senate’s guns package. While he noted there have been some successes, there are “real concerns about due process” with how states adopt red flag laws.“Those are things that are going to have to be addressed,” he told me— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 14, 2022
      But Bill Cassidy, R who backs framework, said the bill would mandate due process in red flag laws. “You can argue that some state red flag laws do not have due process. we mandate it. So I think as people become acquainted with that, Republicans will like that,” he told us— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 14, 2022
      “Federal government, we don’t need to be pushing red flag laws,” Tommy Tuberville told me when asked about the guns package. “The states, if the states want to get involved in it, they need to get involved in it.” Plan would incentivize states to enact red flag laws.— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 14, 2022
      Asked him how to take away guns from mentally ill. He said: “Well let’s look at what they’ve got proposed. I haven’t looked at all of it. But let’s look…and see if they’ve got anything in there to prohibit mentally ill patients from having guns, anybody that’s having problems”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 14, 2022
      Democrats are expected to back the proposal even though it doesn’t do all of what they want, such as raising the age to purchase an assault rifle to 21 from 18. To avoid a filibuster, at least 10 Republicans in the Senate will need to vote for the bill, which also must clear the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives.Biden has used his speech at the AFL-CIO convention in Philadelphia to promote his handling of the economy make a pitch for keeping Democrats in office.As CBS News’s Ed O’Keefe reports:TODAY: @POTUS Biden addresses a @AFLCIO convention in Philly to tout US economic strength: low unemployment rates, states and cities being buoyed by American Rescue Plan and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. White House says he’ll reiterate fighting inflation “is his top priority.”— Ed O’Keefe (@edokeefe) June 14, 2022
      Also expect some election year contrasts: Biden/Dems would “ask the wealthy to pay their fair share” while @SenRickScott and “Congressional Republicans” would “put Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid on the chopping block every five years.”— Ed O’Keefe (@edokeefe) June 14, 2022
      A new election-year clarion call of sorts from @POTUS Biden in his @AFLCIO speech: “America still has a choice to make. A choice between a government by the few, for the few. Or a government for all of us, democracy for all of us, an economy where all of us have a fair shot.”— Ed O’Keefe (@edokeefe) June 14, 2022
      The president also took special notice of a Republican proposal to make all federal legislation expire after five years, asking, “How well are you going to sleep at night knowing that every five years, Ted Cruz and the other ultra-MAGA Republicans are going to vote on whether you have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid?”Democrats in the Senate are raising their eyebrows at Biden’s decision to travel to Saudi Arabia, objecting to the country’s human rights record and worrying the visit won’t meaningfully lower gas prices.As Oregon’s Ron Wyden told Manu Raju of CNN:Dem pushback this morning on Biden’s decision to meet with MBS. “I don’t see any evidence that the Saudis are going to significantly lower gasoline prices,” Ron Wyden said.On the other hand, I see their horrendous human rights record.”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 14, 2022
      Here’s Maryland’s Ben Cardin, who referenced the murder of Jamal Khashoggi:Asked about WH sidestepping queries yesterday on responsibility for Khashoggi murder, Cardin told us: “I hope they’ll be very clear in the conversation. America’s strength is in our values.”— Manu Raju (@mkraju) June 14, 2022
      Kaitlan Collins, also of CNN, heard this from Illinois’s Dick Durbin:’I have mixed feelings on this and if the President called me, I would say, ‘Mr. President, you can’t trust these people. Their standards are not our standards, their values are not ours,'” Sen. Dick Durbin says about President Biden’s upcoming trip to Saudi Arabia.— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) June 14, 2022 More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      More than 100 Republican primary winners support Trump’s baseless election claim

      by

      More than 100 Republican primary winners support Trump’s baseless election claimAt least 108 primary victors in races across several states have won after repeating false claims originated by the former president More than 100 Republican primary winners support Donald Trump’s false claim that the 2020 election was stolen from him.At least 108 primary victors in races across several states have won after repeating claims originated by Trump that electoral fraudsters denied his winning the 2020 election after rigging the race in favor of Joe Biden, according to new analysis from the Washington Post.Those who questioned the 2020 election results won primary races for seats in the House of Representatives, US Senate seats, state gubernatorial mansions, and other high-profile positions.A large amount of primary winners also campaigned on improving electoral security, but they offered no evidence that current practices in that sector are compromised.“These officeholders are so important,” said Joanna Lydgate, founder and CEO of States United Democracy Center, a nonprofit promoting free and fair elections, to the Post. “They are going to be the ones on whose backs our democracy survives or doesn’t.”Excluding primaries from 7 June, eight US Senate candidates, 86 candidates for the House of Representatives, five gubernatorial candidates, four candidates for state attorney general and one for secretary of state have all won while promoting Trump’s 2020 election denialism.Among primary winners who have publicly questioned the results of the 2020 election, many either participated in the January 6 attack on the Capitol or have attempted to reframe that day’s events.JR Majewski, the GOP primary winner for the Ohio congressional district, attended the US Capitol riots and is a proponent of the QAnon baseless internet conspiracy theory, which outlandishly posits that Trump is secretly locked in combat with a cabal of leftist pedophiles.He has also claimed that the 2020 election was fraudulent and has called for Republican states to secede from the US.In Pennsylvania’s gubernatorial race, primary winner Doug Mastriano was also at the US Capitol on January 6 and helped bus in supporters. Mastriano has suggested that state legislators should appoint their own electors – ignoring the results of a democratic vote – and hired 2020 election denier Jenna Ellis as apart of his campaign.Besides newcomers, incumbents who previously voted to overturn the 2020 election results also won their primaries, Politico reported.In California, Representative Doug LaMalfa of California’s first district and minority leader Kevin McCarthy both finished atop their primary races.Similarly, Representative Trent Kelly of Mississippi and Representative Matt Rosendale of Montana, who both voted to overturn the 2020 electoral results, had successful primaries, winning with an overwhelming majority of the vote.The primary results demonstrate a startling trend of mainstream Republican voters embracing election denialism and other ideals once thought to be on the fringes of political discourse.Propagation of the false 2020 election fraud claims comes as the House continues investigating the Capitol insurrection, with evidence emerging that Trump was informed via top aides that the election fraud theories were “baseless”.TopicsUS politicsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpnewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      January 6 committee postpones Wednesday’s hearing for technical reasons – live

      by

      Way back in 2020, a plank of Joe Biden’s successful presidential campaign was restoring bipartisanship in Congress. If all goes well for the president this week, he may soon have the chance to sign the types of compromise legislation he promised Americans.Chief among these would be the gun control measure senators negotiated over the weekend, which looks like it can get the 10 Republican votes needed to overcome a filibuster by others in the party opposed to the legislation, and which the Senate majority leader has said will be put up for consideration as soon as possible.More immediately, the House could today vote to increase security for the supreme court after a man was arrested on charges of trying to kill justice Brett Kavanaugh, ahead of the court’s expected rulings that could curb abortion and expand gun rights. The bill has already passed the Senate unanimously.Biden’s supporters would also point to the Republican votes for last year’s infrastructure overhaul as a sign of his success in uniting the parties around issues affecting all Americans. But it’s worth pointing out the massive American Rescue Plan spending bill won no Republican support, nor did Build Back Better, the president’s marquee spending plan that ended up floundering because Democrats themselves could not find consensus over it.The White House has confirmed that Joe Biden will meet Saudia Arabia’s crown prince and de-factor ruler Mohammed bin Salman on his visit to the country.“Yes, we can expect the President to see the crown prince as well,” Biden’s press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters on Air Force One.The announcement is significant because relations between the two men have often been frosty. As my colleague Julian Borger reported, Prince Mohammed “reportedly declined to take a call from Joe Biden last month, showing his displeasure at the administration’s restrictions on arms sales; what he saw as its insufficient response to attacks on Saudi Arabia by Houthi forces in Yemen; its publication of a report into the Saudi regime’s 2018 murder of the dissident and Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi; and Biden’s prior refusal to deal in person with the crown prince.”Prince Mohammed may also be banking on a return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2024, whose prior administration was much friendlier with Riyadh.Saudis’ Biden snub suggests crown prince still banking on Trump’s returnRead moreThe postponed January 6 hearing will likely take place next week, committee member Pete Aguilar said.Speaking at a press conference of the House Democratic Caucus Leaders, the California Democrat downplayed the impact of the hearing’s postponement. “The schedule has always been fluid. So we’re going to move forward and have a Thursday hearing and then get ready for hearings next week as well,” he said, predicting the session originally set for Wednesday will “move to likely next week.”He didn’t elaborate on the reasons for the change in schedule, but said, “We just want to make sure that you all have the time and space to digest all the information that we’re putting out there.”The committee’s next hearing is scheduled for Thursday, June 16.Sometime soon, perhaps as soon as tomorrow, the supreme court will hand down a decision that could dismantle or greatly weaken abortion rights codified by Roe v Wade. If that happens, The Guardian’s Poppy Noor reports that prosecutors in a number of states are preparing to act to keep abortion accessible.Michigan’s attorney general, Dana Nessel, never thought she would have an abortion. But after finding herself pregnant with triplets in 2002, she faced an unenviable choice: abort one, or miscarry all three. “I took my doctor’s advice, which I should have been able to do,” she says in a phone interview.Nessel plans to protect that same right for residents of her state if Roe v Wade is overturned this summer, as a leaked supreme court draft opinion indicates is all but certain.If the draft opinion stands, 26 states are likely or certain to ban abortion. In Michigan, a 1931 law would be triggered, making abortion illegal in almost all cases except to save the life of the pregnant person.Nessel says she won’t enforce the ban in Michigan, along with at least a dozen law enforcement officials across the country – a bold statement that sets the US up for a complex legal landscape with different enforcement regimes in different states, and even within them.These officials are likely to face swift backlash from the right, including, in some cases, retaliation from state authorities who will demand they enforce the law as written. But they are determined to press ahead.‘This is not hopeless’: the progressive prosecutors who vow not to enforce abortion bansRead moreAt its hearing yesterday, the January 6 committee built its case that Trump knew his fraud claims were baseless but pushed them anyway, fueling the attack on the Capitol. My colleague Lauren Gambino reports on how the hearing’s revelations may not be enough to dislodge belief in the “Big Lie” from the Republican party.The House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection charged on Monday that Donald Trump “lit the fuse” that fueled the most violent assault on the US Capitol in more than two centuries with his groundless claim that the election was stolen.For those tuned in, the committee meticulously charted the origins and spread of Trump’s “big lie”, tapping a trove of evidence and interviews to show that the former president was told repeatedly that the election had been free and fair and peddled his myths anyway.But in Republican politics and the conservative media ecosystem, Trump’s myth of a stolen election rages on, uncontrolled in the Republican party as it seeks to surge back into power in November’s midterm elections.Despite January 6 panel’s efforts to stamp out Trump’s big lie, the myth rages on Read moreThe January 6 committee has announced the postponement of its hearing scheduled for Wednesday.JUST IN: Jan. 6 committee says hearing on June 15 at 10a ET — Wednesday’s hearing — has been postponed. No explanation at the moment.— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) June 14, 2022
      This was supposed to be hearing #3 where the Jan. 6 committee would show how Trump pressured DOJ to investigate election fraud with former acting AG Rosen, his deputy Donoghue, and former assistant AG Engel as witnesses.— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) June 14, 2022
      Committee member Zoe Lofgren blames technical reasons for the delay.Jan 6 committee member @RepZoeLofgren says on @Morning_Joe that postponement of tomorrow’s hearing on the DOJ done for technical reasons – they have to give the video team time to work, basically— Garrett Haake (@GarrettHaake) June 14, 2022
      It’s official: President Joe Biden will visit Saudi Arabia, a country he once vowed to turn into “a pariah” but which may play a crucial role in lowering US pump prices from their record levels.The visit, which will be coupled with a trip to Israel, comes as Biden’s approval rating slumps due to a wave of inflation caused in part by energy prices that have risen since Russia invaded Ukraine. Saudi Arabia is a major oil producer, and Biden is looking for ways to increase the global oil supply to lower pump prices at home.Biden to visit Saudi Arabia in push to lower oil prices and punish RussiaRead moreThere’s no hint of this dynamic in the White House statement announcing the trip, which focuses on Saudia Arabia chairing the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) regional group.“The President will… travel to Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, which is the current chair of the GCC and the venue for this gathering of nine leaders from across the region, at the invitation of King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud. The President appreciates King Salman’s leadership and his invitation. He looks forward to this important visit to Saudi Arabia, which has been a strategic partner of the United States for nearly eight decades,” press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre wrote.In Israel, Biden “will meet with Israeli leaders to discuss Israel’s security, prosperity, and its increasing integration into the greater region. The President will also visit the West Bank to consult with the Palestinian Authority and to reiterate his strong support for a two-state solution, with equal measures of security, freedom, and opportunity for the Palestinian people,” according to the statement.Biden’s ire towards Riyadh has centered on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi.Way back in 2020, a plank of Joe Biden’s successful presidential campaign was restoring bipartisanship in Congress. If all goes well for the president this week, he may soon have the chance to sign the types of compromise legislation he promised Americans.Chief among these would be the gun control measure senators negotiated over the weekend, which looks like it can get the 10 Republican votes needed to overcome a filibuster by others in the party opposed to the legislation, and which the Senate majority leader has said will be put up for consideration as soon as possible.More immediately, the House could today vote to increase security for the supreme court after a man was arrested on charges of trying to kill justice Brett Kavanaugh, ahead of the court’s expected rulings that could curb abortion and expand gun rights. The bill has already passed the Senate unanimously.Biden’s supporters would also point to the Republican votes for last year’s infrastructure overhaul as a sign of his success in uniting the parties around issues affecting all Americans. But it’s worth pointing out the massive American Rescue Plan spending bill won no Republican support, nor did Build Back Better, the president’s marquee spending plan that ended up floundering because Democrats themselves could not find consensus over it.Good morning, US Politics blog readers. Over the past few days, the January 6 committee has used its hearings to make the case that former president Donald Trump bears responsibility for the attack on the Capitol. But while he’s the most prominent promoter of the baseless claim that the 2020 election was stolen, an analysis published today by the Washington Post shows at least 108 Republicans candidates for statewide office or Congress also share that belief.Here’s what else is going on today:
      Senators are considering a bipartisan gun control compromise announced over the weekend that’s thought to have enough support to pass the evenly divided chamber. The bill has yet to be written, but it would represent Washington’s response to the mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York.
      The House is expected to today approve a bill to increase security for the supreme court following the arrest of a man who was charged with planning to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
      The January 6 committee is taking a break from its hearings today, but will convene again on Wednesday. Expect more reactions today from across Washington to yesterday’s hearing, which focused on Trump’s promotion of fraud claims that his own officials said were baseless.
      Maine, Nevada, North Dakota and South Carolina will be holding primary elections ahead of the 8 November midterms, which will be decisive in determining the course of Washington politics over the next two years.
      The Federal Reserve is beginning its two-day meeting and could decide to make a big interest rate increase to fight the runaway inflation that’s badly damaged Biden’s standing with voters. The central bankers announce their decision Wednesday at 2pm ET. More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in Elections

      Garland says he is watching January 6 hearings amid pressure to investigate Trump

      by

      Garland says he is watching January 6 hearings amid pressure to investigate TrumpUS attorney general says official guidelines do not prevent him from investigating ex-president The US attorney general said on Monday that he was watching the House January 6 select committee’s hearings, as he faces mounting pressure from congressional Democrats to open a criminal investigation into Donald Trump over his role in the Capitol attack.Merrick Garland also said at a press conference at the justice department’s headquarters in Washington that internal office of legal counsel guidelines did not prevent him from opening an investigation into the former president.“I am watching and I will be watching all the hearings, although I may not be able to watch all of it live,” Garland said shortly after the select committee concluded its second hearing. “I can assure you the January 6 prosecutors are watching all of the hearings, as well.”The attorney general declined to address potential investigations into Trump or other individuals mentioned by the select committee at the hearings, saying that could undermine prosecutors’ work and would be unfair to people under scrutiny who might never be charged.Capitol attack panel members urge DoJ to consider criminal charges for TrumpRead moreBut Garland reiterated earlier promises that the justice department is exploring potential criminal conduct regardless of those people’s level, their positions in the government and proximity to Trump, or whether they were at the Capitol on 6 January 2021.The justice department appears in recent weeks to have expanded its criminal investigation to examine top figures connected to Trump’s efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, including government officials and Republican lawyers and operatives.One grand jury in Washington is investigating the rallies that preceded the Capitol attack and whether any executive or legislative branch officials were involved in trying to obstruct Joe Biden’s election certification, according to a subpoena seen by the Guardian.The justice department also appears to be investigating political operatives close to Trump, according to another grand jury subpoena seen by the Guardian, as well as some Trump lawyers involved in a scheme to send fake Trump electors to Congress.Lisa Monaco, the deputy attorney general, confirmed in January that prosecutors were looking into any criminality in that plan, under which Trump’s lawyers hoped the former vice-president Mike Pence would refuse to certify those states and return Trump to office.The attorney general added some additional insight into the justice department’s decision-making with respect to opening an investigation into Trump, saying that internal guidelines did not prevent him from taking such action if warranted.“There’s nothing within the office of legal counsel that prevents us from doing an investigation,” Garland said. “There’s nothing that’s coming in the way of our investigation … We’re just going to follow the facts wherever they lead.”Garland’s remarks about the office inside the justice department, which issues opinions for the agency that are broadly seen as binding, did not address whether the guidelines preclude charging, not just investigating, a former president.But his careful response reflected the delicate and complicated legal considerations looming over the justice department should it consider whether to investigate and charge Trump over his efforts to reverse his 2020 election defeat to Biden.In court filings and at its hearings, the select committee has been making the case that it believes Trump committed at least two felonies – obstructing a congressional proceeding and defrauding the United States – given evidence it has collected in its 11-month inquiry.The question of whether to pursue a case against Trump has started to prompt serious discussions among senior justice department officials, according to a source familiar with the matter, though there has been no indication that Trump is currently a target of an investigation.Meanwhile, congressman Bennie Thompson, the chairman of the January 6 committee, said on Monday that he did not expect to make a criminal referral against Donald Trump or anyone else over the Capitol attack to the justice department at the conclusion of its investigation.The chairman appeared to indicate the panel would put the evidence of potential crimes by the former president into a final report – currently expected to come in September – and that Garland’s justice department would then have to decide whether to pursue a case.“No,” Thompson said when asked explicitly on Capitol Hill whether the select committee would make a referral against Trump, “that’s not our job. Our job is to look at the facts and circumstances around January 6, what caused it, and make recommendations after the hearings.”The disclosure from Thompson reflects a sense among some of the members on the panel that a criminal referral would make a resulting investigation by the justice department appear political and could undermine a potential case, according to sources close to the inquiry.If the evidence is sufficient for the justice department to consider investigating or charging Trump, the sources said, then the justice department should be able to move ahead with a case regardless of whether the select committee makes a criminal referral.The internal deliberations also come as the select committee has publicly said Trump repeatedly broke the law as he sought to overturn the 2020 election results, but criminal referrals are not binding and the final decision to prosecute rests with the justice department.TopicsJan 6 hearingsMerrick GarlandBiden administrationUS Capitol attackUS CongressUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Despite January 6 panel efforts to stamp out Trump’s big lie the myth rages on

      by

      Despite January 6 panel efforts to stamp out Trump’s big lie the myth rages on Republican party fuels false claim of stolen election as it seeks to surge back into power in November’s midterm elections The House committee investigating the January 6 insurrection charged on Monday that Donald Trump “lit the fuse” that fueled the most violent assault on the US Capitol in more than two centuries with his groundless claim that the election was stolen.For those tuned in, the committee meticulously charted the origins and spread of Trump’s “big lie”, tapping a trove of evidence and interviews to show that the former president was told repeatedly that the election had been free and fair and peddled his myths anyway.But in Republican politics and the conservative media ecosystem, Trump’s myth of a stolen election rages on, uncontrolled in the Republican party as it seeks to surge back into power in November’s midterm elections.Roughly two-thirds of Republicans believe fraud helped Joe Biden win, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released ahead of the first hearing last week. Across the country, Republican election deniers are running for office and the lie is being used as the basis to pass scores of pieces of legislation restricting voting access.The January 6 panel is doing its best to counter that narrative. In a methodical presentation on Monday, the panel charted how the defeated former president kindled false claims of voter fraud as part of a conspiracy to remain in power against the electoral will of the American people.“This morning, we’ll tell the story of how Donald Trump lost an election, and knew he lost an election – and as a result of his loss decided to wage an attack on our democracy,” Congressman Bennie Thompson, chair of the committee and a Democrat from Mississippi, said opening Monday’s hearing.The violence on 6 January, when a mob of loyalist to the president overran the Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying Biden’s victory, was a “direct and predictable result” of lies Trump told, Thompson said.During the hearing, the committee turned to the former president’s inner circle to argue that Trump, defeated and desperate, continued to push baseless claims about election fraud that he had been told repeatedly were false.“He’s become detached from reality if he really believes this stuff,” Bill Bar, the former attorney general, testified to the panel in a clip played during the hearing. “There was never an indication of interest in what the actual facts were,” he added. At one point during the deposition, Barr laughs at the sheer absurdity of the claims, one of which involved a plot orchestrated by the former Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chávez. Chávez died in 2013.Barr said he told the president the claims of fraud were “bullshit”.Trump’s former campaign manager, Bill Stepien, testified to the committee that he knew their path to victory had all-but evaporated and sought to dissuade the then president from declaring victory prematurely. But Trump ignored his pleas for caution and instead heeded the advice of an “apparently inebriated” Rudy Giuliani to claim he won an election when it was increasingly clear he had not.Stepien was expected to appear in person on Monday, but abruptly pulled out because his wife went into labor. The ex-campaign manager, who remains close to Trump, had reportedly been subpoenaed to appear. The committee instead played extended clips from his recorded testimony.In the days that followed, Stepien said two factions developed within the campaign, his team and another led by Giuliani. His team, he said, became known as ‘Team Normal’”.The committee also alleged that Trump had duped his supporters into sending money so that his campaign could keep fighting to overturn the results in court. Some members on the panel have suggested that the revelation Trump misled his donors could perhaps shake their yet-unshakable fealty to the defeated president.“The big lie was also a big rip-off,” said Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat of California, who led the panel’s presentation on Monday.Breaking Trump’s hold on his supporters and the Republican party may be too tall a task for the committee. Even as Stepien helped the committee – and the country – better understand the tumultuous aftermath of the 2020 election, he is working to bring down the panel’s vice-chair, congresswoman Liz Cheney.Stepien serves as an adviser to Harriet Hageman, a Wyoming Republican running a Trump-fueled primary challenge against Cheney. The former president has made defeating Cheney a priority as part of a revenge-campaign against Republicans who defied his efforts to overturn the election results. Cheney’s unflinching pursuit of Trump has made her a pariah in her party – and may yet cost her her political career.Throughout the hearing, the committee sought to disprove Trump’s fictions, in some instances, claim by claim.“Dead people are voting. Indians are getting paid to vote. There’s lots of fraud going on here,” former acting attorney general Richard Donoghue said, recalling the litany of outlandish claims Trump made to him. Donoghue said he told Trump “flat out that much of the information he’s getting is false and/or is not supported by the evidence”.“There were so many of these allegations that when you gave him a very direct answer on one of them, he wouldn’t fight us on it, but he’d move to another allegation,” he said.In another recorded interview with the panel, Eric Herschmann, a White House lawyer, recalled a phone call with John Eastman, one of the president’s lawyers whom a judge has said conspired with Trump to overturn the election.“I said to him, Are you out of your effing mind?” Herschmann recalled. “I said I… only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth for now on: orderly transition.”Among the witnesses on Monday was Chris Stirewalt, a former Fox News Channel political editor who declared on election night that Biden had won Arizona, once a Republican stronghold.Stirewalt told the panel that Trump had no reasonable basis for declaring victory on election night, as the former president did. To win, Trump would have needed the tally in three states to dramatically shift in his favor, the former news editor explained, an outcome so unlikely “you’re better off to play the Powerball”.Presently, the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot are about1 in 292,201,338.Asked who won the 2020 election, Stirewalt replied with the gusto of a broadcaster on election night: “Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr of the great state of Delaware.”“That’s the bottom line,” Thompson replied.But for many, it is not. Across the US, Republicans are running for office fueling the myth of a stolen election and they are likely to pay little heed to the facts and evidence gathered by the committee.In Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano, who was a leader in efforts to overturn the 2020 election in the state and put Trump’s election lies at the heart of his campaign, won the Republican primary for governor. The committee subpoenaed Mastriano over his involvement in planning and organizing the January 6 rally that preceded the Capitol assault.If elected, he would have extraordinary control over the election administration in a critical swing state. On Monday, as the hearing was getting underway in Washington, Mastriano’s campaign announced that it had brought on former Trump campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis, who became the public face of his brazen legal efforts to overturn the presidential elections.In a statement, Ellis vowed – apparently without irony – to help Mastriano “restore integrity to our elections”.TopicsJan 6 hearingsUS Capitol attackDonald TrumpUS politicsanalysisReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      'Bullshit': William Barr dismisses Donald Trump's claims of election fraud – video

      by

      The House select committee investigating the 6 January Capitol attack presented video testimony from some of Donald Trump’s top aides, including ex-attorney general and former Trump loyalist William Barr, who said the former president’s claims of election fraud were baseless. Barr told the committee that Trump had ‘become detached from reality’ and his allegations of election fraud were ‘bogus’, ‘idiotic’ and ‘bullshit’

      Top aides repeatedly told Trump fraud claims were baseless, Jan 6 panel hears
      Jan 6 hearings: follow the second hearing live More

    • 225 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Jan 6 updates: Garland says he’s watching hearings as pressure mounts to charge Trump – as it happened

      by

      Attorney General Merrick Garland said he and his prosecutors are watching the hearings of the January 6 committee as the justice department faces pressure to bring charges against former president Donald Trump.NEW: AG Merrick Garland says he’s watching the Jan. 6 committee hearings, adding “I can assure you the January 6 prosecutors are watching the hearings as well”— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) June 13, 2022
      Some of the lawmakers on the committee have called for Garland to levy criminal charges against Trump. The former president is at the center of an array of investigations, including an inquiry into his business practices in New York. He will testify under oath in that probe on 15 July, along with his daughter Ivanka Trump and son Donald Trump Jr.Donald Trump to testify in New York investigation into his business practicesRead moreGarland answered reporters questions during a DoJ press conference about gun trafficking.The January 6 committee’s second public hearing was today’s main story, as it aired testimony from several of Donald Trump’s top advisors, all of whom said they told the former president there was no fraud in the 2020 election that would change the result of his loss to Joe Biden.Nonetheless, Trump pressed on with making the claims, which the committee said fueled the violence at the Capitol.Here’s what else happened today:
      Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer said the chamber will vote on a bipartisan gun control bill as soon as it’s written. The compromise measure doesn’t go as far as Democrats would like, but represents the best chance to pass legislation at the federal level in response to the mass shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvalde, Texas.
      The supreme court released five opinions that dealt with a number of aspects of federal law, though none of the verdicts were in any of the major cases touching on abortion, gun rights or other hot-button issues.
      Attorney General Merrick Garland said he is watching the hearings of the January 6 committee, as the justice department comes under pressure to bring charges against Trump.
      Separately, Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, who was hailed for leading rioters away from the senate chamber, testified in the criminal trial of two men facing charges in the attack.
      The blog is wrapping up for the day and will return on Tuesday morning around 9am ET. For updates on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, please tune into our global live blog on the war, here.At the White House daily media briefing, press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre has reiterated in response to a question that Joe Biden is going to leave the topic of whether Donald Trump will be prosecuted over the January 6 hearing “up to the Department of Justice”.The White House wants “Americans to watch” the January 6 hearings, the second of which occurred this morning, “and remember the horrors of one of the darkest days in our history” but the US president will stay away from commenting on related prosecutions.He chose US attorney general Merrick Garland “because of his loyalty to the law”, Jean-Pierre said, and also “to restore the independence and integrity of the Department of Justice.”That’s a dig at how the DoJ was regarded by Democrats as an extension of Donald Trump’s White House and under his sway instead of staying independent.Meanwhile in New York, an ongoing sell off on Wall Street has pushed the S&P 500 into a bear market, meaning a loss of 20 percent from its most recent high.The stock market’s health and wider economy’s health are generally regarded as two different things, but the S&P 500’s nearly four percent loss in today’s trading is fueled in part by concerns that the United State’s decades-high inflation rate will cause a recession. It’s also more bad news for Joe Biden and his economic policies, overshadowing more positive developments such as the drop in unemployment on his watch.From the Associated Press:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The S&P 500 dropped 3.8% in the first chance for investors to trade after getting the weekend to reflect on the stunning news that inflation is getting worse, not better. The Dow Jones was down 879 points, or 2.8%, at 30,513, as of 11.08am ET, and the Nasdaq composite was 4.5% lower.
      The center of Wall Street’s focus was again on the Federal Reserve, which is scrambling to get inflation under control. Its main method is to raise interest rates in order to slow the economy, a blunt tool that risks a recession if used too aggressively.
      Some traders are even speculating the Fed on Wednesday may raise its key short-term interest rate by three-quarters of a percentage point. That’s triple the usual amount and something the Fed hasn’t done since 1994. Traders now see a 34% probability of such a mega-hike, up from just 3% a week ago, according to CME Group.
      No one thinks the Fed will stop there, with markets bracing for a continued series of bigger-than-usual hikes. Those would come on top of some already discouraging signals about the economy and corporate profits, including a record-low preliminary reading on consumer sentiment that was soured by high gasoline prices.S&P 500 sinks into bear-market territory as recession fears pound US stocksRead moreSenate majority leader Chuck Schumer said he’ll bring a recent bipartisan gun control bill to a vote on the chamber’s floor as soon as it’s written.“I will put this bill on the floor as soon as possible, once the text of the final agreement is finalized so the Senate can act quickly to make gun safety reform a reality,” Schumer said in a speech in the Senate. “Yesterday’s agreement does not have everything Democrats wanted but it nevertheless represents the most significant reform to gun safety laws that we have seen in decades.”Democratic and and Republican lawmakers have been trying to find a common ground on the highly controversial topic of gun control following a recent spate of mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas and Buffalo, New York.Attorney General Merrick Garland said he and his prosecutors are watching the hearings of the January 6 committee as the justice department faces pressure to bring charges against former president Donald Trump.NEW: AG Merrick Garland says he’s watching the Jan. 6 committee hearings, adding “I can assure you the January 6 prosecutors are watching the hearings as well”— Hugo Lowell (@hugolowell) June 13, 2022
      Some of the lawmakers on the committee have called for Garland to levy criminal charges against Trump. The former president is at the center of an array of investigations, including an inquiry into his business practices in New York. He will testify under oath in that probe on 15 July, along with his daughter Ivanka Trump and son Donald Trump Jr.Donald Trump to testify in New York investigation into his business practicesRead moreGarland answered reporters questions during a DoJ press conference about gun trafficking.Rudy Giuliani, the former New York mayor who was one of Trump’s top attorneys near the end of his term, has denied he was drunk on election night in 2020.Giuliani’s attorney says Giuliani was not drunk on election night. “Giuliani denies all falsehoods by the angry and misguided Ms Cheney,” Robert Costello tells CNN. https://t.co/lsOdoaOgvv— Kara Scannell (@KaraScannell) June 13, 2022
      While the latest report of Giuliani being drunk in public came from today’s hearing of the January 6 committee, such claims are not new.White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre will soon start her daily briefing to reporters, and there’s a chance she’ll be asked about this story from The New York Times.The piece asks a provocative question: given his low approval ratings, among other issues, should Biden not run in 2024? The president says he will stand again, but the article features a trickle of Democratic voices questioning the wisdom of that idea, or even outright telling him not to.As the Times reported:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}As the challenges facing the nation mount and fatigued base voters show low enthusiasm, Democrats in union meetings, the back rooms of Capitol Hill and party gatherings from coast to coast are quietly worrying about Mr. Biden’s leadership, his age and his capability to take the fight to former President Donald J. Trump a second time.
      Interviews with nearly 50 Democratic officials, from county leaders to members of Congress, as well as with disappointed voters who backed Mr. Biden in 2020, reveal a party alarmed about Republicans’ rising strength and extraordinarily pessimistic about an immediate path forward.
      “To say our country was on the right track would flagrantly depart from reality,” said Steve Simeonidis, a Democratic National Committee member from Miami. Mr. Biden, he said, “should announce his intent not to seek re-election in ’24 right after the midterms.”Democratic stalwart Howard Dean has perhaps the sharpest criticism in the piece, though it’s not aimed at Biden alone:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Howard Dean, the 73-year-old former Vermont governor and Democratic National Committee chairman who ran for president in 2004, has long called for a younger generation of leaders in their 30s and 40s to rise in the party. He said he had voted for Pete Buttigieg, 40, in the 2020 primary after trying to talk Senator Chris Murphy, 48, of Connecticut into running.
      “The generation after me is just a complete trash heap,” Mr. Dean said.The United States is indeed led by elderly people these days, as Axios reports in a closer look at the subject that’s fittingly titled “American gerontocracy”:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Diversity and technology are making the workplace, home life and culture unrecognizable for many older leaders. That can leave geriatric leadership of government out of step with everyday life in America — and disconnected from the voters who give them power.
      Washington is run by Biden, 79 … House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, 82 … Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a comparatively youthful 71 … and Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, age 80.
      Dr. Anthony Fauci, running the U.S. pandemic response, is 81.Separate from the January 6 committee hearing, Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman was in a federal courtroom describing how one of two defendants facing charges over the attacked jabbed him with a Confederate battle flag.Goodman is one of the most prominent defenders of the Capitol that day, credited with diverting the mob away from the Senate chamber and appearing in a well-known photo.He was testifying at the trial of Kevin Seefried and his adult son Hunter Seefried, whom the Associated Press reported face charges including a felony count of obstruction of an official proceeding. According to the AP:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Goodman recalled seeing Kevin Seefried standing alone in an archway and telling him to leave. Instead, Seefried cursed at him and jabbed at the officer with the base end of the flagpole three or four times, Goodman said.
      “He was very angry. Screaming. Talking loudly,” Goodman said. “Complete opposite of pleasant.”
      U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden is hearing testimony without a jury for the Seefrieds’ bench trial, which started Monday. The Seefrieds waived their right to a jury trial, which means McFadden will decide their cases.Today has been dominated by the latest revelations from the January 6 Committee, which aired testimony from a number of former officials in Donald Trump’s campaign and White House, all of whom told the president the same thing: the 2020 election was not stolen. Nonetheless, Trump pressed on with making the claims, which the committee said fueled the violence at the Capitol.Here’s what else happened today:
      The supreme court released five opinions that dealt with a number of aspects of federal law, though none of the verdicts were in any of the major cases touching on abortion, gun rights or other hot-button issues.
      The senate reached a compromise on gun rights legislation that can hopefully win enough support from both Democrats and Republicans to pass the evenly divided chamber. Further negotiations on the bill are expected in the days to come.
      Lawmakers on the January 6 committee continued their calls for the justice department to bring criminal charges against Trump, saying the evidence they uncovered justifies the move.
      Separately, Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman, who was hailed for leading rioters away from the senate chamber, testified in the criminal trial of two men facing charges in the attack.
      The US Supreme Court has ruled against immigrants who are seeking their release from long periods of detention while they fight deportation orders, the Associated Press writes.In two cases decided on Monday morning, the court said that the immigrants, who fear persecution if sent back to their native countries, have no right under a federal law to a bond hearing at which they could argue for their freedom no matter how long they are held.The nine justices also ruled 6-3 to limit the immigrants ability to band together in court, an outcome that Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote:.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Will leave many vulnerable non-citizens unable to protect their rights.”In recent years, the high court has taken an increasingly limited view of immigrants’ access to the federal court system under immigration measures enacted in the 1990s and 2000s..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;} For a while, it seemed like the court was going to push back a bit. In extreme cases, it would interpret a statute to allow for as much judicial review as possible. Clearly now, the court is no longer willing to do that,”said Nicole Hallet, director of the immigrants rights clinic at the University of Chicago law school.The immigrants who sued for a bond hearing are facing being detained for many months, even years, before their cases are resolved.The court ruled in the cases of people from Mexico and El Salvador who persuaded Homeland Security officials that their fears are credible, entitling them to further review.Their lawyers argued that they should have a hearing before an immigration judge to determine if they should be released. The main factors are whether people would pose a danger or are likely to flee if set free.Sotomayor wrote the court’s opinion in one case involving Antonio Arteaga-Martinez, who had previously been deported to Mexico. He was taken into custody four years ago, and won release while his case wound through the federal courts. His hearing on whether he can remain in the United States is scheduled for 2023.But Sotomayor wrote that the provision of immigration law that applies to people like Arteaga-Martinez simply doesn’t require the government to hold a bond hearing.The court, however, left open the issue of the immigrants’ ability to argue that the Constitution does not permit such indefinite detention without a hearing.Justice Samuel Alito wrote the court’s opinion holding that federal judges can only rule in the case of the immigrants before them, not a class of similarly situated people.Sotomayor dissented from that decision, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.She wrote that the ability to join together in a class was especially important for people who have no right to a lawyer and “are disproportionately unlikely to be familiar with the U.S. legal system or fluent in the English language.”The cases are Johnson v Arteaga-Martinez, 19-896, and Garland v Aleman Gonzalez, 20-322.The US Supreme Court issued five opinions this morning, just around the time the January 6 hearing was getting underway. None of them was one of the four big cases being mostly closely watched, on abortion, gun rights, rules on emissions affecting climate change and an immigration issue affecting undocumented people crossing the US-Mexico border in order to claim asylum in the United States, known as Remain in Mexico.In one of the most significant opinions of the day, the nine-judge court ruled that Native Americans prosecuted in certain tribal courts can also be prosecuted based on the same incident in federal court, which can result in longer sentences, the Associated Press writes.The 6-3 ruling is in keeping with an earlier ruling from the 1970s that said the same about a more widely used type of tribal court.The case before the justices involved a Navajo Nation member, Merle Denezpi, accused of rape. He served nearly five months in jail after being charged with assault and battery in what is called a Court of Indian Offenses, a court that deals exclusively with alleged Native American offenders.Under federal law Courts of Indian Offenses can only impose sentences of generally up to a year. Denezpi was later prosecuted in federal court and sentenced to 30 years in prison. He said the Constitution’s “Double Jeopardy” clause should have barred the second prosecution.But the justices disagreed..css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Denezpi’s single act led to separate prosecutions for violations of a tribal ordinance and a federal statute. Because the Tribe and the Federal Government are distinct sovereigns, those offenses are not the same. Denezpi’s second prosecution therefore did not offend the Double Jeopardy Clause,” the court decided.Amy Coney Barrett, the ultra conservative leaning associated justice confirmed in the dying days of the Trump administration, wrote the opinion for the majority.The Biden administration had argued for that result as had several states, which said barring federal prosecutions in similar cases could allow defendants to escape harsh sentences.In a dissent, Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the case involved the same “defendant, same crime, same prosecuting authority” and said the majority’s reasoning was “at odds with the text and original meaning of the Constitution.” The conservative Gorsuch was joined in dissent by two of the court’s three liberal justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Elena Kagan.The case before the justices involves a tribal court system that has become increasingly rare over the last century.Courts of Indian Offenses were created in the late 1800s during a period when the federal government’s policy toward Native Americans was to encourage assimilation. Judges and generally prosecutors are appointed by federal officials.The January 6 committee has ended the day’s testimony by taking viewers back to the scene of the attack and showing how the people who broke in to the Capitol were believers in a conspiracy that many of Trump’s top officials told him was bogus.“I know exactly what’s going on right now. Fake election!” a rioter said in video aired by the committee. The hearing closed with the jarring words of Eric Herschmann, a White House lawyer, who recalled a phone call with John Eastman, another of the president’s lawyers whom a judge has said conspired with Trump to overturn the election. “I said to him, Are you out of your effing mind?” Herschmann recalled. “I said I… only want to hear two words coming out of your mouth for now on: orderly transition.”Before the hearing ended, the committee’s senior investigative counsel Amanda Wick outlined one possible motivation for why Trump stuck with the fraud claims: they were a money-making opportunity.“As the select committee has demonstrated, the Trump campaign knew these claims of voter fraud were false, yet they continue to barrage small dollar donors with emails encouraging them to donate to something called Official Election Defense Fund. The select committee discovered no such fund existed,” she said.Wick goes on to say much of the $250 million raised for the supposed effort was funneled into a political action committee that made donations to pro-Trump organizations, as well as confidantes like his chief of staff Mark Meadows. The barrage of fundraising emails to supporters “continued through January 6, even as President Trump spoke on the ellipse. Thirty minutes after the last fundraising email was sent, the Capitol was breached,” Wick said.The committee said to expect more testimony from Herschmann in the future. It reconvenes on Wednesday at 10 am.The second panel of witnesses for the day has been dismissed, after Lofgren went through the many court rulings against Trump’s claims of fraud.“The rejection of {resident Trump’s litigation efforts was overwhelming. Twenty two federal judges appointed by Republican presidents, including 10 appointed by President Trump himself and at least 24 elected or appointed Republican state judges dismissed the president’s claims,” Lofgren said, noting that 11 lawyers have been referred for disciplinary proceedings due to “due to bad faith and baseless efforts” to undermine the election.Prior to their dismissal, the committee heard from Benjamin Ginsberg, whom Lofgren called, “the most preeminent Republican election lawyer in recent history.” “In no instance did a court find that the charges of fraud were real,” Ginsberg said. He also rejected arguments pushed by the Trump campaign that they didn’t get a fair hearing, noting that of 62 lawsuits filed by the campaign, 61 were dismissed, and the one upheld didn’t affect the outcome. More