ReportWire

Category: Politics

Politics & Political News | ReportWire publishes the latest breaking U.S. and world news, trending topics and developing stories from around globe.

  • Trump-appointed judge blocks parts of Indiana ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth | CNN Politics

    Trump-appointed judge blocks parts of Indiana ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A Trump-appointed judge in Indiana has blocked parts of a state law banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth from going into effect next month.

    The law, known as SEA 480, which Indiana’s Republican-controlled legislature passed earlier this year, prohibits physicians from providing minors with treatments such as puberty blocking medication, hormone therapy and surgery intended to help transition genders.

    But US District Court Judge James Patrick Hanlon, who was appointed to the bench by President Donald Trump in 2018, issued a preliminary injunction Friday that blocks the ban on most of those treatments. His order does, however, allow the prohibition on gender reassignment surgeries for minors to take effect on July 1, as planned.

    “Because Plaintiffs have some likelihood of success on the merits of constitutional claims, a preliminary injunction is in the public interest,” Hanlon said in a 34-page opinion. “While the State has a strong interest in enforcing democratically enacted laws, that interest decreases as Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claims increases.”

    “And for the reasons above, Plaintiffs risk suffering irreparable harm absent an injunction,” Hanlon continued.

    The decision comes after the American Civil Liberties Union sued to stop the law from going into effect on behalf of four transgender youth and their families, a physician and a health care clinic, shortly after Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb signed the measure in early April.

    “Today’s victory is a testament to the trans youth of Indiana, their families, and their allies, who never gave up the fight to protect access to gender- affirming care and who will continue to defend the right of all trans people to be their authentic selves, free from discrimination,” Kevin Falk, the legal director for the ACLU of Indiana, said in a statement following the preliminary injunction. “We won’t rest until this unconstitutional law is struck down for good.”

    The governor’s office declined to comment on the judge’s decision.

    Transgender youths’ access to gender-affirming care – medically necessary, evidence-based care that uses a multidisciplinary approach to help a person transition from the gender they were designated at birth to the gender by which they want to be known – has become a flashpoint in red states across the country.

    Some Republicans have expressed concern over long-term outcomes and whether children should be able to make such consequential decisions, even with parental consent. In contrast, major medical associations say such care is clinically appropriate for children and adults with gender dysphoria – a psychological distress that may result when a person’s gender identity and sex assigned at birth do not align, according to the American Psychiatric Association.

    Lawmakers in more than a dozen states have moved this year to restrict gender-affirming care for minors.

    But similar to Indiana, judges in several states have blocked some of those laws from going into effect, including in Missouri, Alabama, Arkansas and more recently in Florida.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats push abortion rights bills in the Senate ahead of Dobbs anniversary | CNN Politics

    Democrats push abortion rights bills in the Senate ahead of Dobbs anniversary | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Senate Democrats intend to mark the anniversary of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade by pushing a collection of abortion rights messaging bills.

    Ahead of the anniversary on Saturday, Senate Democrats will ask for “unanimous consent” on legislation which would seek to expand abortion access for women in the US. The procedural step allows any single senator to ask for a vote on a bill, but any one senator can object and the bill fails. It is a quick way to force a vote on an issue, but it won’t force every senator to go on the record, meaning Democrats and Republicans who may be facing a tough election in 2024 won’t be forced to take a vote.

    All of the requests are expected to fail.

    The effort is being led by Sen. Patty Murray, a member of Democratic leadership from Washington state.

    “Senate Democrats will force Republicans to go on the record once again, and explain to the American people why they refuse to codify our right to contraception, why they refuse to let women travel across state lines for lifesaving health care – as we fight to get the votes we need to restore Roe, it’s imperative that we make plain to the country just how extreme and dangerous Republicans’ anti-abortion agenda is,” Murray said in a statement.

    Abortion politics have also recently been in the spotlight in the Senate as Sen. Tommy Tuberville, an Alabama Republican, has placed a hold on confirming more than 250 military promotions over a Pentagon policy created after the Dobbs decision, which allows servicemembers to access time off and reimbursement for travel costs if they have to cross state lines to access reproductive care.

    In the 2022 midterms, abortion was a crucial motivator for many voters, as CNN exit polls showed that 46% of people said that abortion was the most important issue to their vote. Abortion is also likely to be a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign, as administration officials highlight what Democrats have done to protect access to abortion.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Texas Senate votes to bar Sen. Angela Paxton from voting in husband’s impeachment trial | CNN Politics

    Texas Senate votes to bar Sen. Angela Paxton from voting in husband’s impeachment trial | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    State Sen. Angela Paxton, the wife of embattled Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, will no longer be allowed to vote in her husband’s upcoming impeachment proceedings as a result of new rules the state Senate approved Wednesday night.

    The Dallas-area Republican state senator had previously vowed to “carry out (her) duties” and not recuse herself from voting in her husband’s upcoming impeachment trial.

    But following delays and closed-door negotiations, the state Senate adopted new rules ahead of Ken Paxton’s September 5 impeachment trial, which now include barring the spouses of members who are the subject of impeachment proceedings from voting.

    “A member of the court who is the spouse of a party to the court of impeachment is considered to have a conflict pursuant to… the Texas Constitution,” the resolution states. While the rules do allow Sen. Paxton to be present at the impeachment trial, the new rule states that, “such member of the court shall not be eligible to vote on any matter, motion, or question, or participate in closed sessions or deliberations.”

    The rules were passed by a vote of 25-3. There was no public debate prior to the vote, and the names of the senators who voted against the resolution were not immediately available.

    Angela Paxton said in a statement Thursday that she had voted against the impeachment rules. “These same rules prohibit me from saying more about the proceedings,” she said, stressing that she will still strive to be a voice for her district.

    Tony Buzbee, an attorney representing Ken Paxton, called the impeachment trial a “sham” in a statement Thursday after the Texas Senate announced the impeachment trial rules.

    “Now that the Senate has adopted the rules, we look forward to proving every count of this sham impeachment is baseless,” Buzbee said.

    Rusty Hardin and Dick DeGuerin, the attorneys chosen to prosecute the impeachment trial, said in a statement Thursday that the rules will provide “a fair trial for both sides.”

    Despite the lack of a unanimous vote, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, serving as president of the Senate as the vote was taken, said he considered the Republican-controlled chamber to be “united” in other ways. “You’re united to take an oath so that justice prevails, that everyone will do their job to the utmost fairness,” said Patrick.

    In a separate resolution, the Texas Senate demanded Paxton appear in-person to answer the impeachment charges.

    Ken Paxton was impeached by the Texas House of Representatives last month for alleged misconduct, including allegations that he used his office to favor the interests of a prominent donor. He has denied the allegations. Under the Texas Constitution, Paxton is suspended from office while the matter is pending but would be reinstated if acquitted by the Senate.

    CNN previously reported that he is also facing an FBI investigation for abuse of office and that Justice Department prosecutors in Washington, DC, took over a corruption investigation into Paxton. He is also under indictment for securities fraud in a separate, unrelated case. Paxton has denied all charges and allegations.

    CLARIFICATION: This story has been updated to more accurately explain the new rule that affects the possible involvement of a spouse of a subject of an impeachment trial. The story also has been updated with additional reaction.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Impeachment push set to take center stage in House, bringing new chapter for GOP | CNN Politics

    Impeachment push set to take center stage in House, bringing new chapter for GOP | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    House Republicans are preparing to let the push for potential impeachment proceedings dominate their agenda over the next few months, as Speaker Kevin McCarthy faces growing pressure from an increasingly restive right flank eager to take aim at President Joe Biden and his Cabinet.

    The increased focus on impeachment — with Biden’s attorney general and homeland security secretary the highest on the GOP’s list — underscores how Republicans are quickly shifting their focus to red-meat issues that could fire up their base, even as some in their conference are nervous about voter backlash over the more aggressive approach.

    Between July and September, Republicans are slated to hear high-profile testimony from a trio of Biden Cabinet officials who have been top impeachment targets on the right: Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and Attorney General Merrick Garland.

    Just this week, a new focus emerged for McCarthy when he announced that Republicans are prepared to open an impeachment inquiry into Garland if an IRS whistleblower’s claim about alleged meddling in the Hunter Biden case holds up, an idea that has been heavily promoted by the far-right bloc of his conference.

    McCarthy’s comments then set off fresh momentum. He appeared side by side with House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan on Fox News Wednesday night to reaffirm his position. And on Thursday, Jordan, along with House Oversight Chair James Comer and House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith requested transcribed interviews with Department of Justice, FBI and IRS officials involved in the Hunter Biden case, including US Attorney David Weiss, the Trump-appointed attorney who oversaw the criminal investigation. Garland has rejected claims that the Justice Department improperly interfered in the probe.

    The moves come amid pressure on House GOP leaders and committee chairmen to launch official impeachment proceedings – potentially on Biden himself. House Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green said he is conducting a “five phase” investigation into Mayorkas over problems at the southern border that could culminate in an impeachment recommendation to the House Judiciary Committee, which Green expects to finish by this September. His committee is also expected to include a review of Biden’s handling of the border as part of that impeachment probe.

    “We’re looking at all the things that they’re failing to do,” Green told CNN. “There’s not going to be that much of a change other than we’ll dig into the actual actions of the president in conjunction with what’s happened.”

    With patience on the right wearing out, one hardline GOP member, Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado, tried to force a snap floor vote last week on impeaching Biden, though Republican leaders rebuffed the effort and referred the matter to relevant committees instead.

    “We’ve been investigating this failure at the southern border now for a little while … and now the House has asked us to add the president’s actions into this,” Green said. “And we’ll dig into that too.”

    Conservative firebrand Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, who has introduced a slew of impeachment articles against Biden and various Cabinet members, has also signaled she intends to force floor votes on her resolutions, meaning the issue is sure to take center stage for the House GOP in the weeks and months ahead.

    “I’ve talked to everyone here until I’m blue in the face for a long time about impeachment,” Greene told CNN.

    It all represents a new chapter for the nascent House Republican majority – and particularly for McCarthy, who has up until this point been reluctant to lean into impeachment proceedings, instead insisting that his committee chairs focus on gathering evidence and holding hearings before going down that route. And he has instead tried to channel his conference’s focus on messaging bills like energy and immigration.

    Many in McCarthy’s conference are uncertain about the new focus.

    “Impeachment should be treated in the serious matter it deserves,” said Rep. Don Bacon, who represents a Nebraska swing district and said he would review the facts before deciding how to proceed with any impeachment proceedings. “We’ve lowered the bar over the last four years, and it’s not healthy.”

    After facing backlash from conservatives for cutting a debt limit deal with Biden and as the clock ticks toward the 2024 elections, McCarthy has started to warm up to the idea of impeaching a member of Biden’s Cabinet – whether it be Garland or Mayorkas or both, according to multiple sources familiar with this thinking. The move could win over some on his right flank.

    McCarthy has also faced pressure behind closed doors as members like Greene have met with him to personally make their case for why the House GOP should launch impeachment proceedings.

    And McCarthy will need every ounce of conservative support he can get as he heads into spending season, where he may be forced to ultimately compromise with Democrats once again and fall short of the demands from the far right.

    “I think what the House is going to do, we’re going to continue to investigate. We’re going to continue to follow this chain of evidence,” Rep. Byron Donalds, a member of the hardliner House Freedom Caucus, told CNN after the IRS whistleblower testimony was revealed. “I think the evidence is leading us to clear issues of obstruction of Justice at the Department of Justice. And with the White House.”

    Impeaching a Cabinet official has only happened once in US history when William Belknap, the secretary of war, was impeached by the House before being acquitted by the Senate in 1876. But some in the GOP view the idea of charging a Cabinet member with committing a high crime or misdemeanor as an easier sell than impeaching Biden himself.

    Yet McCarthy would still have some serious work to do in wrangling the votes for impeachment, with some moderate and vulnerable House Republicans still concerned about the optics of the politically contentious move, which would be dead on arrival in the Democrat-controlled Senate. Some of those Republican holdouts serve on the House Judiciary Committee, whose panel would be responsible for launching any official impeachment proceedings.

    “I don’t know why we have members on Judiciary that can’t vote for impeachment,” Greene told CNN.

    In the meantime, committees are expected to plug away with their investigative work. The House Oversight panel intends to conduct transcribed interviews with witnesses in the investigations into Biden’s mishandling of classified material and potential Biden family influence peddling, an Oversight Committee aide told CNN, while Weiss faces a deadline of next week to hand over documents related to the Hunter Biden probe.

    And in addition to taking aim at Biden, some key Republicans are pushing the House to take up a symbolic effort to clear Trump’s name, in just another example of how Republicans are using their power to run defense for Trump. Last week, Greene and House GOP Conference Chair Elise Stefanik introduced a pair of resolutions to expunge both of Trump’s impeachments – something McCarthy also said he supports.

    “It is past time to expunge Democrats’ sham smear against not only President Trump’s name, but against millions of patriots across the country,” Stefanik said in a statement.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • States have been on a tax-cutting spree, but revenues are now weakening | CNN Politics

    States have been on a tax-cutting spree, but revenues are now weakening | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Fueled by surging revenues, states have been slashing taxes for individuals and businesses for the past three years.

    But the party is expected to come to an end in the coming fiscal year, which started on Saturday in 46 states. Revenue is projected to decline by 0.7% in fiscal 2024, based on forecasts used in governors’ budgets, after an estimated 0.3% dip this fiscal year, according to a recently released National Association of State Budget Officers survey.

    This reversal comes after double-digit percentage increases for the prior two fiscal years. It reflects the impact of slower economic growth, a weaker stock market and a slew of recent tax cuts.

    Some 25 states have cut individual income tax rates since 2021, according to the right-leaning Tax Foundation. This includes 22 states that reduced their top marginal rates.

    “Most states are viewing tax reform and relief as a chance to, first and foremost, return some of their excess revenue to taxpayers, but to also do that in a way that is simultaneously improving the structure of their tax cuts and make it more conducive to long-term economic growth,” said Katherine Loughead, senior policy analyst at the foundation.

    States are also seeking to make themselves more attractive to business investment, as well as to remote and traditional workers, she continued.

    In 2023 alone, at least eight states approved rate reductions, according to the Tax Foundation. Arkansas, for instance, is trimming its top individual income tax rate to 4.7%, retroactive to January 1, after reducing it from 5.5% to 4.9% last year.

    Likewise, Montana lawmakers approved deepening cuts enacted in 2021. Starting in 2024, the top marginal income tax rate will be 5.9%, instead of 6.5% as originally planned. It was 6.9% in 2021.

    In addition, previously scheduled or triggered income tax rate reductions took effect this year in Arizona, Idaho, Iowa, Missouri and North Carolina, as well as for interest and dividend income in New Hampshire, according to the Tax Foundation.

    Aside from individual income tax cuts, states have also lowered the levies on purchases and for businesses over the past three years. Two states cut sales tax rates, while 13 reduced corporate income tax rates and others made additional tax changes that benefited companies.

    In 2023, Nebraska and Utah adopted corporate income tax rate reductions. The former will phase down its top rate to 3.99% in 2027, accelerating an earlier law’s timetable. If fully implemented as planned, Nebraska will slash its top marginal corporate income tax rate nearly in half over six years, according to the Tax Foundation.

    Utah also further reduced its corporate income tax rate to 4.65%, retroactive to January 1. A law passed last year had cut it to 4.85% for 2022, down from 4.95%.

    The tax cuts, along with stock market declines and the shaky economy, have taken their toll on states’ revenues, however.

    State tax revenue fell in 37 states, after adjusting for inflation, between July 2022 and May 2023, according to Lucy Dadayan, principal research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Some 19 states saw declines before taking inflation into account.

    Revenue dropped nearly 12% over the period on an inflation-adjusted basis. All major sources of revenue – personal income, sales and corporate income taxes – declined, though the extent varies widely by state and source. Individual income taxes were the weakest, plummeting more than 22%.

    States are in trouble, though there won’t be an immediate crisis, she said. Much depends on factors that remain unknown, such as whether the nation will fall into a recession or whether states will face natural disasters.

    The robust revenue of recent years was “artificially boosted” by federal Covid-19 pandemic relief funds and the strong stock market in 2021, she said.

    “We knew this is temporary,” Dadayan said. “It would have been better if the states wouldn’t jump and do tax cuts and be more cautious.”

    Still, revenues in fiscal 2023 are coming in stronger than initially expected. The current estimates are outperforming earlier forecasts by 6.5%, according to the National Association of State Budget Officers. Most states have also built up big reserves in their rainy day funds in recent years.

    Whether states will continue cutting taxes in the coming fiscal year will depend on what happens with revenues.

    “A lot of states have done what they can already,” Loughead said. “They will continue to look at how revenues come in and how the rates measure up. If they still are experiencing strong surpluses, I do think they might tweak those rates down even more.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Republican lawmaker calls TikTok ‘an immediate threat’ and calls for app to be banned | CNN Politics

    Republican lawmaker calls TikTok ‘an immediate threat’ and calls for app to be banned | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    Republican Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington said Sunday that TikTok represents “an immediate threat” from China and called for the short-form video app to be banned in the US.

    The chairwoman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that Congress should pass a data privacy law and ban TikTok in the US after the company’s CEO Shou Chew testified in front of her committee on Thursday.

    McMorris Rodgers said Chew’s testimony “made clear” that TikTok is a threat to the US.

    “What the hearing made clear to me was that TikTok should be banned in the United States of America to address the immediate threat and we also need a national data privacy law,” McMorris Rodgers told CNN’s Jake Tapper.

    The Republican lawmaker cited TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, being connected to China as evidence of the national security risk.

    While many nations have imposed bans on official government devices out of national security concerns, there is currently no public evidence the Chinese government has spied on people through TikTok.

    The company told CNN in a statement, “The best way to address concerns about national security is with the transparent US-based protection of US user data and systems with robust third-party monitoring, vetting and verification, which we are already implementing.”

    On Sunday, McMorris Rodgers responded to criticism from TikTok users, many of whom mocked lawmakers for their lack of familiarity with the app and questioned why Congress would spend time regulating social media. She noted the rare bipartisan agreement on the national security risks the app presents.

    “I would say there is an immediate threat via TikTok from the Chinese Communist Party. That is the reason that I believe we need to ban TikTok immediately. It is a national security threat,” McMorris Rodgers said. “It united Republicans and Democrats on the committee as to the urgent need for us to take action.”

    Democratic Sen. Mark Warner, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee, also shared concerns over the app’s connection to China on Sunday.

    “At the end of the day, TikTok is owned by a Chinese company, ByteDance, and by Chinese law, that company has to be willing to turn over data to the Communist Party or, one of my bigger fears, we have 150 million Americans on TikTok, average of about 90 minutes a day, and how that channel could be used for propaganda purposes or disinformation by the Communist Party,” Warner said in an interview with CBS News.

    McMorris Rodgers also emphasized the need to pass a national data privacy law to restrict all social media platforms from collecting user data, including those based in the US.

    “We need to take action whether it’s TikTok, big tech or other data brokers to restrict the amount of data that they’re collecting to begin with,” she said.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden administration threatens veto on House GOP-led energy bill | CNN Politics

    Biden administration threatens veto on House GOP-led energy bill | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The Biden administration issued its latest veto threat Monday, this one targeting a GOP-led bill aimed at energy costs that the House is expected to take up this week.

    The bill, dubbed “The Lower Energy Costs Act,” includes changes to the energy permitting process and boosts domestic energy production, according to the GOP-led House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. But the White House argues it will “raise costs” for consumers and that the bill “would take us backward.”

    “This Administration is making unprecedented progress in protecting America’s energy security and reducing energy costs for Americans – in their homes and at the pump. H.R. 1 would do just the opposite, replacing pro-consumer policies with a thinly veiled license to pollute. It would raise costs for American families by repealing household energy rebates and rolling back historic investments to increase access to cost-lowering clean energy technologies,” the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement of administration policy Monday.

    It continued, “Instead of protecting American consumers, it would pad oil and gas company profits – already at record levels – and undercut our public health and environment. The Administration strongly opposes this bill.”

    The statement went on to highlight the administration’s “dramatic progress” toward reducing energy costs and securing supply chains, noting that “both oil and natural gas production in the United States are projected to reach record highs this year.”

    It continued, “If presented to the President in its current form, he would veto it.”

    The energy package is a top priority for House Republicans and was introduced by House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana, along with Energy and Commerce Committee Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman of Arkansas, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Sam Graves of Missouri.

    In a statement, Scalise responded to the veto threat by criticizing the administration’s handling of energy and utility costs that have gone up during the Biden administration.

    “Voters gave House Republicans the majority to reverse this insanity and make energy affordable again, and that’s exactly what the Lower Energy Costs Act does,” Scalise said in the statement. “We will pass the bill this week, and urge the Senate and President Biden to work with us to make America energy independent again and provide the much-needed relief that hardworking desperately need.”

    It is unclear if the bill has a path toward passage in the Democratic-controlled Senate. If it passes both chambers, it would then require a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate to override Biden’s veto.

    Biden signed his first veto earlier this month on a bill to overturn a retirement investment rule. Biden has promised to veto legislation passed by the GOP-controlled House that he disagrees with, Monday’s veto threat marking the latest signal of the changed political order since Republicans won the chamber in the 2022 midterm elections.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump asks courts to throw out evidence and disqualify DA in Georgia probe of 2020 election aftermath | CNN Politics

    Trump asks courts to throw out evidence and disqualify DA in Georgia probe of 2020 election aftermath | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Donald Trump is seeking a new court order to essentially neutralize the Fulton County investigation into the former president’s conduct after he lost the 2020 election, as potential indictments loom in Georgia.

    Trump’s lawyers filed petitions this week attempting to throw out the evidence collected last year by a special grand jury, banning prosecutors from presenting that material to a newly empaneled grand jury that has charging powers, and disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis from any related proceedings.

    Lawyers for Trump say letting the investigation proceed would lead to “a violation of his fundamental constitutional rights” while he “seeks his Party’s nomination for the Presidency of the United States.”

    Trump’s lawyers filed the separate petitions with the Fulton County Superior Court as well as the Georgia Supreme Court, asking them to intervene with the ongoing grand jury process.

    Willis, an elected Democrat, has indicated that final charging decisions could come as soon as next month.

    Throughout the probe, Willis used a “special purpose grand jury” to hear evidence from 75 witnesses including Trump advisers, his former attorneys, White House aides and Georgia officials. But Trump’s lawyers argued that these special grand juries are themselves unconstitutional.

    “A regular Fulton County grand jury could return an indictment any day that will have been based on a report and predicate investigative process that were wholly without authority,” Trump’s lawyers argued in their filing.

    “It is one thing to indict a ham sandwich. To indict the mustard-stained napkin that it once sat on is quite another,” the lawyers wrote.

    The former president has previously attempted – without success – to shut down the state-level investigation in Georgia, which has zeroed in on his efforts to overturn the results there in 2020.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Key Senate Dems want Supreme Court funding tied to an ethics code for justices | CNN Politics

    Key Senate Dems want Supreme Court funding tied to an ethics code for justices | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Key Senate Democrats are calling for next year’s funding for the Supreme Court to be conditioned on the creation of an ethics code for the justices.

    Sen. Chris Van Hollen, a Maryland Democrat who leads the appropriations subcommittee charged with writing the annual funding bill for the judiciary, has expressed support for the idea, but doing so will ultimately need the backing of GOP lawmakers, and the top Republican on the subcommittee is signaling opposition to the proposal.

    Van Hollen is weighing in as 15 other members of the Democratic caucus – including Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat who chairs the Senate Judiciary subcommittee that oversees the federal bench – are proposing language to be attached to next year’s funding bill that would require the Supreme Court to adopt more transparent processes for recusals and for investigating ethics allegations lodged against the justices.

    They did so in a new letter, obtained by CNN, to Van Hollen and Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty, who is the top Republican on the appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the judiciary.

    “It is unacceptable that the Supreme Court has exempted itself from the accountability that applies to all other members of our federal courts, and I believe Congress should act to remedy this problem,” Van Hollen said in a statement shared with CNN Monday. His comments were first reported by The Washington Post.

    Democrats’ interest in leveraging the funding Congress appropriates to the high court is the latest volley in the debate over whether a stronger code of conduct is needed at the Supreme Court, which is not beholden to many of the ethics procedures imposed on lower court judges.

    Van Hollen noted that including an ethics code requirement in the annual appropriations bill will require bipartisan support given the current make-up of Congress, but said he didn’t “see any reason why ensuring that the Supreme Court establish a code of ethics should be a partisan issue.”

    A spokesperson for Hagerty said that an ethics code is a “policy question that is separate from the funding levels for Supreme Court operations and security.”

    “Moreover, Senator Hagerty strongly believes in preserving the independence of the Judicial Branch from political interference intended to force the Court to change its rulings or policies,” the spokesperson said in a statement Monday evening. “Threats to hold the personal security of the justices and their families hostage in exchange for favored policies are no different from court-packing proposals or protests outside the homes of Justices.”

    Some Republicans in the House have indicated openness in the past to pushing for an ethics code for the justices, but congressional GOP leaders have defended conservative justices in the face of claims that they had run afoul of ethical norms.

    The new letter from the Democrats pointed to recent reports that have raised questions about potential conflicts-of-interests issues with the political activities of Justice Clarence Thomas’ spouse, and about an alleged well-financed, secret campaign seeking to influence the high court’s conservatives.

    “The Supreme Court has the tools and authority it needs to develop and implement these changes, including adopting a code of conduct, creating fairer and more transparent recusal rules, and setting up procedures – based on longstanding procedures in the lower courts – to receive and investigate complaints of judicial misconduct,” the letter said. “The only obstacle keeping the Court from adopting these reforms is the Court’s own unwillingness to see them through.”

    They argued that the annual funding bill should withhold $10 million of the Supreme Court’s funding unless the justices adopted an ethics code. The Supreme Court is asking for nearly $151 million in the coming appropriations process for 2024.

    The ethics language the new letter is proposing for the annual appropriations legislation would create more concrete standards for when a justice must disqualify him or herself from a case, as well as a system “for receiving and investigating complaints alleging violations of such public code of ethics or other misconduct by justices of the Court.”

    Currently, justices decide for themselves whether they must recuse themselves from a case. It is unclear what procedures, if any, the Supreme Court uses to review ethics allegations brought against the justices.

    In the past, Chief Justice John Roberts has written that the justices have taken the steps necessary to maintain transparency and the public’s trust.

    “I have complete confidence in the capability of my colleagues to determine when recusal is warranted,” he wrote in a 2011 year-end report. His 2021 report stressed the need for the judicial branch to have “institutional independence,” while implying that the federal bench could be trusted to police itself without the interference of Congress.

    With the Democrats’ new letter to the appropriators, the senators countered that “Congress has broad authority to compel the Supreme Court to institute these reforms, which would join other requirements already legislatively mandated.”

    “And Congress’s appropriations power is one tool for achieving these changes,” the Democrats’ letter said, while citing DC Circuit cases where judges – including Republican appointees – asserted that Congress could use the power of the purse to pressure the Executive Branch to make certain changes.

    The Supreme Court’s press office did not immediately respond to CNN’s inquiry about the funding bill proposal.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden elevates CIA director to Cabinet, a symbolic nod to central role | CNN Politics

    Biden elevates CIA director to Cabinet, a symbolic nod to central role | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    President Joe Biden is elevating CIA Director Bill Burns to his Cabinet, a symbolic measure that nonetheless represents the major role he has played in national security amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

    “Under his leadership, the CIA is delivering a clear-eyed, long-term approach to our nation’s top national security challenges – from tackling Russia’s brutal aggression against Ukraine, to managing responsible competition with the People’s Republic of China, to addressing the opportunities and risks of emerging technology,” Biden wrote in a statement.

    “Bill has always given me clear, straightforward analysis that prioritizes the safety and security of the American people, reflecting the integral role the CIA plays in our national security decision-making at this critical time,” he said.

    The CIA has been central in the administration’s strategy toward Russia during the invasion of Ukraine, including downgrading and releasing intelligence surrounding the invasion in the leadup to the conflict last year.

    Burns has traveled to Ukraine and Moscow, along with other nations, as part of the administration’s approach to the war.

    The role of CIA director has been in and out of presidential cabinets over the past several years. Former President Donald Trump’s CIA directors – Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel – were Cabinet-level posts, but Biden chose not to include the post in his Cabinet when taking office.

    “The President’s announcement today recognizes the essential contributions to national security the Central Intelligence Agency makes every day, and reflects his confidence in our work,” Burns said in a statement. “I am honored to serve in this role, representing the tremendous work of our intelligence officers. It is also an honor to serve alongside our exceptional intelligence community colleagues, under the leadership of DNI Avril Haines.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Key lawmakers granted access to Biden, Trump and Pence classified documents | CNN Politics

    Key lawmakers granted access to Biden, Trump and Pence classified documents | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Top lawmakers on Capitol Hill who oversee the intelligence community finally have been granted the ability to look over the classified documents found improperly in the homes of President Joe Biden, former President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence, three sources familiar with the matter tell CNN, ending a months-long standoff between Congress and the administration.

    The members of the “Gang of Eight”, which includes the House and Senate leaders from each party as well as the chairs and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, are privy to the most sensitive classified information. They began to get the documents last week.

    A source familiar with the process tells CNN the Gang of Eight began getting access to Biden, Pence and Trump’s classified documents “in a rolling production” last week. The Biden administration is giving the group access to the documents “in tranches” and not all at once, according to the source.

    For several months, leaders of the intelligence committees have been pushing for more information about the kinds of documents found, offering harsh criticism for the lack of information they received early on.

    The argument from top lawmakers on the Senate Intelligence Committee has been that they needed to understand the contents and extent of the documents found at each residence in part to understand the potential damage that could be unfurled if the documents had fallen into the wrong hands and if proper mitigation protocols had been followed.

    In January, Intelligence Chairman Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, and Vice Chairman Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida, blasted the administration for the lack of transparency over the documents and what they were.

    “We simply want to know what was this information,” Rubio said at the time. “What (were) these materials that they had? So that we can make an honest assessment when they provide us a risk assessment, of whether or not they’ve taken the proper mitigation if any was necessary.”

    Warner, in recent weeks, had an at-times heated phone conversation with Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco on the lack of congressional access to the classified documents found in the possession of Biden, Trump and Pence, two sources familiar with the call tell CNN.

    Warner and Rubio have applied considerable public pressure on the DOJ to grant access to the documents.

    Republican Rep. James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, told Fox News Tuesday morning, “it is very disappointing that it has taken the government this long to allow the Gang of Eight to have access” to the classified documents.

    Punchbowl was first to report that that administration has begun giving the Gang of Eight access to the documents.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe testifies to grand jury in January 6 probe | CNN Politics

    Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe testifies to grand jury in January 6 probe | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Former Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe testified before a federal grand jury Thursday in Washington, DC, as part of the special counsel’s criminal probe into the aftermath of the 2020 election.

    Former President Donald Trump had sought to block testimony from Ratcliffe and other top officials from his administration, but courts have rejected his executive privilege claims.

    The investigation led by special counsel Jack Smith has focused on January 6, 2021, and other efforts to overturn the presidential election.

    Ratcliffe is likely of interest to investigators because he personally told Trump and his allies that there was no evidence of foreign election interference or widespread fraud.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What comes next after the Supreme Court blocked — for now — restrictions on abortion pills | CNN Politics

    What comes next after the Supreme Court blocked — for now — restrictions on abortion pills | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    The abortion rights community and its allies in the Biden administration secured a striking victory from the conservative Supreme Court with an order Friday night that stopped restrictions on medication abortion drugs from taking effect.

    The Supreme Court’s brief, unsigned order came in an emergency dispute over lower court rulings that would have curtailed access to the drug, mifepristone. At the request of the Justice Department and a mifepristone manufacter, the high court placed a hold – known as a stay – on the lower court rulings while the appeals process plays out.

    Only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito publicly indicated their dissent from the Supreme Court’s move.

    Here’s what to know about the Supreme Court’s move.

    The Supreme Court handed a win to the defenders of the medication abortion drugs by pausing lower court rulings that would have disrupted access to the drug as a result from a lawsuit from anti-abortion doctors seeking to wipe away the US Food and Drug Administration’s two-decade old approval of mifepristone.

    That means FDA’s current regulatory scheme around the drug remains in place, ensuring that access to medication abortion – in the states where it is legal – is maintained at least for the next couple weeks, and likely longer.

    Friday’s order is the latest dramatic twist in the lawsuit that was filed in November. The legal volleying ramped up two weeks ago, when US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump – issued a ruling that would have a halted the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug.

    The dispute landed at the Supreme Court’s doorstep after the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in last week, and paused the parts of Kacsmaryk’s ruling that would have suspended the approval while leaving undisturbed Kacsmaryk’s move to also halt the FDA’s subsequent efforts to make the drug easier obtain.

    Had the Supreme Court not intervened in the way that the Biden administration had asked, the 5th Circuit’s order would have put in place restrictions on how the abortion drug could be used. Those limits would have shortened the gestational period that the drug is available, and would have required patients to obtain the drugs in-person from their provider and make two other clinical visits as part of the protocol.

    There is much still to play out in the litigation and Friday’s Supreme Court order is unlikely to be the justices’ final word on the FDA’s approach to regulating the drug.

    The case now travels back to the 5th Circuit, which has set an expedited briefing schedule to give a fuller review of Kacsmaryk’s ruling. A three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit will hold a hearing on May 17 and issue another decision sometime after. (There is no deadline for the 5th Circuit to rule.)

    The majority of judges on the 5th Circuit are conservative, but it is unknown who the three judges will be. Notably the three judges who will hear that step of the appeal will likely be different from those that issued the appellate order last week.

    The Supreme Court’s Friday order maintains the status quo around the drug’s regulations until that 5th Circuit process plays out and until the justices have another chance to weigh in on how it handled the case.

    He created the abortion pill in the 1980s. Hear what surprises him most about current debate

    The Supreme Court did not show its cards in the order it issued Friday night.

    While Justices Thomas and Alito made their dissents public, it is not otherwise clear how the justices voted or what the exact vote count was. The support of five justices is required for the court to grant a stay.

    Only Alito wrote additionally to explain his dissent, and stressed he was not expressing any views on the merits of whether the FDA broke the law in how it’s approached mifepristone.

    Instead, he aired grievances about how the Supreme Court’s conservative majority has been criticized for handling the emergency disputes – on its so-called shadow docket – in the past. He also cast doubt on the claims by the government and the manufacturer that the 5th Circuit order would have caused mass disruption to access to the drug.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Judge denies Trump’s motion for mistrial in battery case | CNN Politics

    Judge denies Trump’s motion for mistrial in battery case | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A federal judge overseeing a civil battery and defamation trial involving Donald Trump has denied the former president’s motion for a mistrial.

    Cross-examination of E. Jean Carroll, the columnist who sued Trump, resumed Monday morning.

    Trump had argued that Judge Lewis Kaplan had made “pervasive unfair and prejudicial rulings” against him. In a letter filed overnight Monday, Trump attorney Joe Tacopina said alternatively he would ask Kaplan to “correct the record for each and every instance in which the Court has mischaracterized the facts of this case to the jury” or provide him greater leeway in cross examining Carroll.

    “Here, despite the fact trial testimony has been underway for only two days, the proceedings are already replete with numerous examples of Defendant’s unfair treatment by the Court, most of which has been witnessed by the Jury,” the letter said.

    Carroll sued Trump, alleging he raped her in the Bergdorf Goodman department store in the mid-1990s and then defamed her when he denied her claim, said she wasn’t his type and suggested she made up the story to boost sales of her book. Trump has denied any wrongdoing.

    Among the issues raised by Tacopina are the judge’s ruling restricting Tacopina from asking Carroll additional questions about any efforts Carroll made to try to obtain security camera footage from the department store, “expressing a corroborative view” that there was no one on the sixth floor of the department store at the time of the alleged assault, and calling certain lines of the defense attorney’s questioning “argumentative” in front of the jury.

    It would be unusual for the judge to declare a mistrial based on his own statements during a trial.

    During cross-examination on Monday, Tacopina sought to suggest that Carroll was not scarred by the alleged assault.

    Carroll testified that she continued to shop at Bergdorf Goodman, and Trump’s lawyer showed receipts indicating that Carroll spent more than $13,000 at the department store during 23 shopping trips between 2001 and 2018.

    “I made that clear that Bergdorf’s is not a place that I’m afraid to enter,” Carroll testified.

    She also agreed that she was a “fan” of the “The Apprentice” starring Trump and enjoyed watching the competition between aspiring businesspeople.

    Tacopina showed her a post on her Facebook page from August 6, 2012, in which Carroll wrote: “Would you have sex with Donald Trump for $17,000 (even if you could a) give the money to charity b) close your eyes? and he’s not allowed to speak?)”

    “You joked around about having sex with Donald Trump for money in this Facebook post, correct?” Tacopina asked Carroll.

    She responded that yes, she did.

    Trump’s attorney also reviewed a series of columns Carroll has written recommending that her readers report sexual abuse and other harassment to the police.

    Carroll acknowledged the advice she’d given readers to report allegations including rape to the police and explained why she didn’t call the police for herself.

    “I would never call the police for something I was ashamed of,” Carroll said. “I was ashamed of what happen. I thought it was my fault, I would never, never, never go to the police ever.”

    Tacopina also read excerpts from Carroll’s book and asked her why she didn’t sue former CBS executive Les Moonves after he denied her allegations that he sexually assaulted her in an elevator.

    “He didn’t call me names,” Carroll said. “He didn’t grind my face through the mud like Donald Trump did.”

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • IRS whistleblower’s attorneys meet with congressional investigators on Hunter Biden probe | CNN Politics

    IRS whistleblower’s attorneys meet with congressional investigators on Hunter Biden probe | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Attorneys for an IRS whistleblower who allege there is political interference at the Justice Department in the Hunter Biden criminal investigation met with congressional investigators Friday to lay the groundwork for what their client hopes to share with Congress, according to sources familiar with the matter.

    The attorneys privately offered investigators from the Democratic-led Senate Finance Committee and Republican-led House Ways and Means Committee a glimpse into the information their client could share with Congress, the sources said. Such a disclosure is a typical early step in whistleblower cases involving sensitive tax information.

    A Republican aide with the Ways and Means Committee said they anticipate an in-person interview with the whistleblower in the near future.

    The whistleblower alleges that Delaware US Attorney David Weiss’ ability to bring charges in the case is being thwarted by political appointees. That would contradict promises by Attorney General Merrick Garland in congressional testimony that Weiss, a Donald Trump appointee, has full authority to make final decisions on whether to prosecute President Joe Biden’s son.

    “The process is proceeding on a bipartisan basis with Ranking Member [Mike] Crapo’s staff,” said Ryan Carey, a spokesman for Senate Finance Chair Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat.

    Last month, Mark Lytle, an attorney for the whistleblower, wrote to a handful of House and Senate committee leaders expressing his client’s interest in making “protected whistleblower disclosures to Congress.”

    Lytle said his client, an unnamed IRS criminal supervisory special agent, “has been overseeing the ongoing and sensitive investigation of a high-profile, controversial subject,” which a source has confirmed was Hunter Biden.

    Federal prosecutors have spent years, spanning three attorneys general, investigating Hunter Biden and have weighed bringing charges against him for alleged tax crimes and a false statement, CNN has previously reported. So far, no charges have been filed. Hunter Biden has denied wrongdoing.

    The president affirmed his support for his son in an interview that aired Friday on MSNBC, adding that the Justice Department’s investigation would not affect his presidency.

    “First of all, my son has done nothing wrong. I trust him. I have faith in him,” Joe Biden told Stephanie Ruhle. “It impacts my presidency by making me feel proud of him.”

    The IRS whistleblower claimed to have information that “contradicts sworn testimony to Congress by a senior political appointee,” according to the letter from his attorney. That senior political appointee was Garland, people familiar with the matter previously told CNN.

    Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in March, Garland said: “I have pledged not to interfere with that investigation, and I have carried through on my pledge.”

    At the March hearing, Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley asked Garland whether Weiss has had to seek the cooperation of US attorneys in the District of Columbia or California to bring the Hunter Biden case. The question was based on information Grassley’s investigators have received on possible obstacles Weiss may face to bring the tax charges, a person briefed on the matter said. That’s because Hunter Biden lives in southern California and the tax documents at issue were prepared in Washington, DC, making those the two jurisdictions where a prosecution could be brought.

    Garland responded to the question by saying he hasn’t heard of Weiss having any obstacles in bringing a case.

    “The US attorney in Delaware has been advised that he has full authority to make those kinds of referrals that you’re talking about or to bring cases in other jurisdictions if he feels that it’s necessary, and I will assure that if he does that he will be able to do that,” Garland said. “If he needs to bring a case in another jurisdiction, he will have my full authority to do that.”

    Justice Department regulations provide for Weiss to get permission from the attorney general to seek to bring a case in a jurisdiction outside of Delaware. A person briefed on the matter said Garland has ensured Weiss has the authority to do so.

    Spokespersons for the Justice Department and the US attorneys in Delaware, California’s Central District, and Washington, DC, declined to comment.

    This story has been updated with additional information.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Here’s how the 14th Amendment factors into the debt ceiling debate | CNN Politics

    Here’s how the 14th Amendment factors into the debt ceiling debate | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    As the stalemate over addressing the debt ceiling continues and the threat of default looms larger, President Joe Biden has resurfaced the controversial idea of using the 14th Amendment as a way to lift the borrowing cap without Congress.

    How could a 145-year-old change to the US Constitution that gave citizenship to former slaves serve as a path out of the debt ceiling drama? Government officials and legal authorities are divided over whether it does.

    Some experts, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard Law School, point to Section 4 of the amendment as the basis of their argument that the president has the authority to order the nation’s debts be paid regardless of the debt limit Congress put in place more than 100 years ago.

    “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned,” reads the section, which refers to the debt incurred by the Union to fight the Civil War.

    Lawmakers who crafted the amendment are very strongly saying that once the US borrows money, it has to pay it back, said Garrett Epps, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oregon. The section was designed to remove debt payments from potential post-war partisan bickering between the North and South, but it also applies to the wide divide between Democrats and Republicans today.

    “The federal government is required to pay the debt on time in full,” said Epps, who has long supported using this option in the event Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling.

    Were Biden to invoke the 14th Amendment to allow Treasury to borrow above the debt ceiling to pay the nation’s obligations, it would almost certainly prompt a constitutional crisis and swift legal action. The president acknowledged as much, saying that he doesn’t think it would solve the current problem.

    “I’ll be very blunt with you, when we get by this, I’m thinking about taking a look at, months down the road, as to see whether what the court would say about whether or not it does work,” Biden said Tuesday after meeting with congressional leaders about the impasse.

    Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, who has warned lawmakers that the government may default on its obligations as soon as June 1, also poured cold water on the idea.

    “There would clearly be litigation around that. It’s not a short-run solution,” Yellen said at a news conference Thursday when asked about the 14th Amendment. “It’s legally questionable whether or not that’s a viable strategy.”

    She declined to rank where invoking the 14th Amendment would fall in the list of options if Congress failed to act.

    “There are choices to be made, if we got into that situation,” she said. “But as you think about each possible thing that we could do, the answer is there is no good alternative that will save us from catastrophe. The only reasonable thing is to raise the debt ceiling and to avoid the dreadful consequences that will come if we have to make those choices.”

    Prior administrations also considered invoking the 14th Amendment but deemed it unworkable. They never had to pursue it since Congress always acted in time.

    Doing so, however, would not avoid calling into question the safety of US Treasury securities and would put the nation at risk, former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, who served in the Obama administration, said at a Council on Foreign Relations event last month.

    “It was not meant to be a broad grant of power,” he said. “Whether you could come up with a theory that you could convince a court was legitimate, I think it’s just a risky thing to do.”

    Invoking the 14th Amendment would also open the door to potential abuse of presidential power by allowing the executive branch to circumvent Congress, said Philip Wallach, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute. And it could forever end the ability of lawmakers to negotiate with the president over the debt ceiling.

    “Every time you take these actions that empower the president at the expense of Congress and at the expense of the political process, you need to ask yourself, am I going to be happy about the consequences of this the next time, when the other side’s party is sitting in the White House?” Wallach said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Biden judicial nominee, under fire for school sexual assault case, withdraws after Democrats balk | CNN Politics

    Biden judicial nominee, under fire for school sexual assault case, withdraws after Democrats balk | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Embattled judicial nominee Michael Delaney has asked President Joe Biden to withdraw his nomination for a prestigious appeals court, according to a letter obtained by CNN.

    Delaney, a former attorney general of New Hampshire, had attracted the opposition of Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans and skepticism from the committee’s Democrats for a case where he represented an elite boarding school that was sued by a student who was sexually assaulted on its campus.

    The withdrawal comes as Biden’s push to confirm new judicial nominees has slowed this year.

    In his first two years in office, Biden broke records with his pace of judicial confirmations – an effort that rested on Democratic senators being unified behind his choices for the federal bench because of the Senate’s 50-50 split last term. Delaney is the first Biden judicial nominee to run into this level of public resistance from members from the president’s own party.

    Delaney was not asked by the White House to withdraw his nomination, according to a source familiar with the matter.

    The move comes after the Judiciary Committee failed to move his nomination forward for the second week in a row despite having full attendance and a Democratic majority with the return of California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

    Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin said the votes for Delaney weren’t there.

    “President Biden put forward a deeply qualified nominee, with a long and distinguished career in public service,” White House spokesperson Andrew Bates said. “The White House will consult with New Hampshire’s Senators to identify a new nominee. The President looks forward to working with Democrats and Republicans to build on his historic record of nominating and confirming men and women who are dedicated to the rule of law and who continue to break barriers by representing the diversity of our country.”

    The boarding school case was ultimately settled under confidential terms, but Delaney came under fire during the confirmation proceedings for how he approached a request by the school that the victim only be allowed to proceed in the lawsuit anonymously if she and her legal team met certain terms.

    The victim, Chessy Prout, decided to come forward publicly after the school filed its response to her request that she be allowed to keep her identity secret. Her family has played a prominent role in lobbying against Delaney’s confirmation. Some progressive organizations, as well as groups for sexual assault survivors, also raised concerns about the nomination.

    At a fiery committee confirmation hearing in February, Delaney defended how he handled the case – arguing that how he approached the victim’s request for anonymity was in line with the relevant case law at the time – and touted his work with victims of crimes as a former prosecutor.

    Delaney also attracted scrutiny from the left for an abortion case, when he was the deputy attorney general for New Hampshire, where his office defended in court a state law requiring that minors who are seeking an abortion inform their parents.

    New Hampshire’s Senate delegation has been engaged in an aggressive effort to secure Delaney’s confirmation. The vacancy for the seat on the 1st Circuit – a Boston-based appeals that covers New England – was open for almost a year before the nomination of Delaney was announced, and the Prout family says they raised their issues with Delaney to the administration long before his nomination was announced.

    “We are encouraged survivors have been taken into account by the judiciary committee,” Chessy Prout’s father, Alexander Prout, told CNN Thursday, adding that his family’s organization, I Have the Right To, would continue to work on passing bipartisan legislation to address the sexual assault of minors.

    “We have just been overwhelmed with thinking that it really mattered to be persistent and to keep telling our story to the senators and their staffers,” Susan Prout, Chessy Prout’s mother, said.

    In his letter, Delaney told the president that he was “honored” to have been nominated and that he was “deeply indebted to Senators Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan for their continued support of my pending nomination before the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

    The New Hampshire senators – who were involved in the nomination because the vacancy was for an appellate seat tied to their state – said in a joint statement Thursday that they supported Delaney’s nomination.

    “We know personally his strong character and commitment to justice, and he earned the support of New Hampshire and national leaders, from the former Director of the Office on Violence Against Women under President Obama to New Hampshire Supreme Court justices appointed by members of both parties,” Hassan and Shaheen said. “We disagree with the criticism that has been leveled against him, and we are disappointed that it got in the way of confirming a highly qualified individual.”

    Feinstein’s several-week absence from the Senate had slowed the Democrats’ confirmation machine to a certain extent, though they were able to advance nominees that had bipartisan support while she was away.

    Since her return restored the Democrats’ tie-breaking vote on the Judiciary Committee, they moved forward with several more nominees, but Delaney was not getting support.

    Additionally, some nominees appear stalled due to the lack of support from their home state senators. Democrats are observing a Senate tradition that requires a district court nominee to receive from their home state senators. The so-called “blue slip” – a physical sheet of blue paper – shows the nominee has those senators’ support. Some liberal court advocacy groups have called on Democrats to abandon the tradition for district court nominees, after it was ended for circuit court vacancies under former President Donald Trump when Republicans controlled the Senate.

    Biden in recent months has had some success in putting forward nominees that had the support of Republican senators from their home states.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How GOP attacks on ‘wokeism’ helped lead the Pentagon to abandon its effort to combat extremism in the military | CNN Politics

    How GOP attacks on ‘wokeism’ helped lead the Pentagon to abandon its effort to combat extremism in the military | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    An early Biden administration initiative to root out extremism in the military was designed to identify people like Jack Teixeira, the 21-year-old Air National Guardsman with a long-history of violent and racist behavior now accused of perpetrating one of the biggest leaks of classified documents in modern history.

    But more than two years after the Countering Extremism Working Group was formed inside the Pentagon, the effort has vanished virtually without a trace.

    As the Pentagon grapples with the aftermath of the leak, the working group’s stated objectives look eerily prescient, and, in some cases, tailor-made to zero-in on the sort of anti-government, White supremacist behavior and views espoused by Teixeira.

    CNN interviews with multiple sources familiar with the working group reveal that the Pentagon largely abandoned the effort to combat extremism in its ranks, as senior officials folded under political pressure from Republicans who lashed out at the initiative as an example of so-called wokeism in the military.

    Of the six recommendations the working group made at the end of 2021, only one has begun to be implemented across the Defense Department, a Pentagon spokesperson told reporters on May 18.

    The working group’s since-departed leader, a Black combat veteran named Bishop Garrison, came under withering attack in 2021 by GOP lawmakers and right-wing media personalities, including one Fox News host who described him as a “MAGA purge man” for criticizing former President Donald Trump in a tweet prior to assuming the extremism adviser role at the Pentagon.

    Though senior officials, including Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, privately and publicly backed Garrison for a few months, multiple sources tell CNN the sustained GOP criticism eventually eroded internal support for him.

    As a result, Garrison and his work were quietly pushed aside, several current and former defense officials said.

    “He was deemed to be a distraction,” one defense official said. “He was one of the early casualties in the war on ‘woke.’”

    As Garrison became a lightning rod for Republican criticism, ultimately making him “politically toxic,” the official said, it became easier for the Defense Department to turn its efforts elsewhere in the summer of 2021, with the looming withdrawal from Afghanistan and more focus on the handling of sexual assault.

    Senior Pentagon leaders were also concerned that Garrison might open them up to additional criticism from Republicans on Capitol Hill and stymie their efforts to get congressional support for other priorities like combating sexual assault in the military and addressing suicide rates among service members, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter.

    Another reason the working group failed was that its task was nearly impossible to implement, sources told CNN. The Pentagon has long struggled with how not only to define extremist activity but also how to police it without violating the rights of troops.

    Though the definition of extremist activity was updated as a result of the working group, sources told CNN it has had no measurable impact. For all of the ceremony around its release, one defense official described the new definition as a “zero-ripple pebble in the pond.”

    Said another official of the difficulty in trying to define extremist activity, “It’s like saying something is bad, but not being able to say what’s bad in the first place.”

    An independent study of extremist activity across the entire US military was supposed to have been finished last June by the Institute for Defense Analysis, a national security research non-profit. But there is no evidence the study ever happened or that any report was ever released. The IDA referred all questions about the study to the Defense Department, which declined to comment on its status.

    Kris Goldsmith, Army veteran and CEO of Task Force Butler, a non-profit focused on combating extremism in the military, said the way top Defense officials view the issue of extremism is “paralyzing.”

    “They’re making themselves completely ineffective,” Goldsmith said, telling CNN: “I don’t recognize any difference today from two years ago in the way that extremism is treated in the military.”

    According to a Defense Department inspector general report, there were 146 allegations of extremist or supremacist activity across the military in the previous fiscal year, exactly half of which was in the Army.

    In February 2021, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin tapped Garrison to oversee the effort to better define the scope of the extremist problem in the ranks and ensure that troops know what behaviors are not acceptable.

    Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin holds a media briefing at the Pentagon on October 27, 2022 in Arlington, Virginia.

    A former West Point cadet who served two tours in Iraq with the US Army, Garrison had worked for the Biden-Harris transition team and was viewed internally as a natural pick for the job of rooting out extremism in the military. In his new role, Garrison reported directly to Austin.

    In an April 9, 2021 press release, Austin officially announced the creation of the Countering Extremism Working Group and announced it would be led by Garrison. Among its objectives were updating the military’s definition of extremism, standardizing screening questionnaires to solicit specific information about current or previous extremist behavior and commission an independent study on extremist behavior within the entire force.

    Before the end of the month however, it became clear that Garrison had his work cut out for him. In a congressional hearing on April 20, two four-star military commanders testified that the US military did not have problems with extremism in its ranks.

    The next day, speaking at seminar on White supremacist violence, Garrison pushed back on that testimony and contradicted the military commanders. “It would be remiss if we didn’t admit that there is a problem with extremist behavior in the military. That is to say that one extremist is one too many,” Garrison told a Center for American Progress think tank seminar.

    Garrison quickly drew Republican criticism as GOP lawmakers and right-wing media personalities seized on tweets he had previously sent criticizing then-President Trump.

    In May, then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson described Garrison as a “lunatic” for a 2019 tweet calling Trump a “racist.”

    GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, a staunch Trump ally, claimed during a House Armed Services Committee hearing that month he was “deeply troubled” by a tweet Garrison wrote in January 2020, as Trump’s impeachment trial was underway, which read: “Calls for civility, rather than shouting down falsehoods and misinformation, shall be the death of this nation.”

    Days later, 30 Republican members of the House signed a letter complaining of “creeping left-wing extremism” in the military, citing a report from a conservative media that singled out Garrison’s tweets.

    Austin’s public support for Garrison appeared to evaporate later that summer and multiple sources told CNN his work also had also become deprioritized inside the Pentagon by that time.

    The working group ultimately produced a final report in December 2021 that outlined the military’s new definition of extremism and provided several recommendations for how to better identify such behavior among servicemen.

    But the new definition and its roadmap of potential consequences has largely fallen flat, according to two defense officials who spoke with CNN.

    “When it was announced, it was not really major,” said another source familiar with the matter.

    For his part, Garrison strongly defends his work at the Pentagon, calling the working group “historic.”

    This image made from video provided by WCVB-TV, shows Jack Teixeira, in T-shirt and shorts, being taken into custody by armed tactical agents in April in Dighton, Massachusetts.

    “While past defense leaders dealt with a variety of topics prominent in societal discourse over the years, none took on extremist activity and its potential corrosive effect on the cohesion of the Total Force in this manner,” Garrison said in a statement to CNN.

    In light of the alleged leaks from Teixeira, Garrison further defended the importance of his work in rooting out extremist behavior.

    “Individuals that engage in this behavior make the department less safe internal and make its external work more difficult. That’s true whether their actions are of a violent nature or damage the trust in DoD as an institution like Airman First Class Jack Teixeira’s classified leaks. The department should be vocal about the productive policies it had out in place while acknowledging it can and should do more.”

    Even if they had been better implemented, it’s unclear whether the working group’s recommendations would have prevented Teixeira’s alleged leaks. One of the officials who spoke to CNN said at the least, they “may have prevented other Teixeiras.”

    And given all the red flags in Teixeira’s past that went unheeded, the lack of follow through looks damning in hindsight.

    The Defense Department only learned about the leak on April 6, four months after prosecutors say Teixeira began posting the documents on Discord.

    Teixeira also allegedly asked another user for advice on how to carry out a shooting “in a crowded urban or suburban environment,” demonstrating again the type of online behavior that qualifies as extremist under the working group’s updated definition.

    “Teixeira is a great example of how the Department of Defense has failed to figure out how to root out extremists,” said Goldsmith.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • ‘Peril to our democracy’: Chilling lines from the judge who sentenced the Oath Keepers’ leader | CNN Politics

    ‘Peril to our democracy’: Chilling lines from the judge who sentenced the Oath Keepers’ leader | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Judge Amit Mehta on Thursday handed down an 18-year prison sentence for the leader of the Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes, for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election that ended with the violent attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    Before announcing the sentence, however, Mehta, a nominee of former President Barack Obama, delivered a chilling address to Rhodes about the impact of his seditious conspiracy crimes on American democracy.

    The federal judges in Washington, DC, who work just blocks from the US Capitol, have served as a conscience of democracy since January 6. They have rejected defenses that downplay the seriousness of the Capitol attack, spoken out about future dangers to the peaceful transfer of power and – while they have criticized former President Donald Trump – reminded defendants they are responsible for their actions.

    Here are some of the powerful lines from the judge on Thursday:

    “I dare say, Mr. Rhodes – and I never have said this to anyone I have sentenced – you pose an ongoing threat and peril to our democracy and the fabric of this country,” Mehta said.

    “I dare say we all now hold our collective breaths when an election is approaching. Will we have another January 6 again? That remains to be seen.”

    The judge, refuting claims Rhodes made during a 20-minute rant earlier in the day, added: “You are not a political prisoner, Mr. Rhodes. That is not why you are here. It is not because of your beliefs. It is not because Joe Biden is the president right now.”

    The sentence is the first handed down in over a decade for seditious conspiracy and Mehta said he wanted to explain the offense to the public. He did not mince words.

    “A seditious conspiracy, when you take those two concepts and put it together, is among the most serious crimes an American can commit. It is an offense against the government to use force. It is an offense against the people of our country,” the judge said.

    “It is a series of acts in which you and others committed to use force, including potentially with weapons, against the government of the United States as it transitioned from one president to another. And what was the motive? You didn’t like the new guy.”

    “Let me be clear about one thing to you, Mr. Rhodes, and anybody who else that is listening. In this country we don’t paint with a broad brush, and shame on you if you do. Just because somebody supports the former president, it doesn’t mean they are a White supremacist, a White nationalist. It just means they voted for the other guy.”

    “What we absolutely cannot have is a group of citizens who – because they did not like the outcome of an election, who did not believe the law was followed as it should be – foment revolution.”

    Mehta echoed these warnings later Thursday, when addressing a second Oath Keepers defendant, Kelly Meggs.

    “You don’t take to the streets with rifles,” he said. “You don’t hope that the president invokes the insurrection act so you can start a war in the streets… You don’t rush into the US Capitol with the hope to stop the electoral vote count.”

    “It is astonishing to me how average Americans somehow transformed into criminals in the weeks before and on January 6,” the judge said.

    Mehta said Rhodes, 58, has expressed no remorse and continues to be a threat.

    “It would be one thing, Mr. Rhodes, if after January 6 you had looked at what happened that day and said … that was not a good day for our democracy. But you celebrated it, you thought it was a good thing,” the judge said.

    “Even as you have been incarcerated you have continued to allude to violence as an acceptable means to address grievances.”

    “Nothing has changed, Mr. Rhodes, nothing has changed. And the reality is as you sit here today and as we heard you speak, the moment you are released you will be prepared to take up arms against our government. And not because you are a political prisoner, not because of the 2020 election, because you think this is a valid way to address grievances.”

    “American democracy doesn’t work, Mr. Rhodes, if when you think the Constitution has not been complied with it puts you in a bad place, because from what I’m hearing, when you think you are in a bad place, the rest of us are too. We are all the objects of your plans to – and your willingness to – engage in violence.”

    Mehta granted a Justice Department request to enhance the potential sentence against Rhodes, ruling that his actions amounted to domestic terrorism.

    “He was the one giving the orders,” Mehta said. “He was the one organizing the teams that day. He was the reason they were in fact in Washington, DC. Oath Keepers wouldn’t have been there but for Stewart Rhodes, I don’t think anyone contends otherwise. He was the one who gave the order to go, and they went.”

    During the sentencing hearing of Meggs, who was also convicted of seditious conspiracy, the judge again pegged Rhodes as the ringleader.

    “It is in part because of Mr. Rhodes, frankly, that Mr. Meggs is sitting here today.”

    On Wednesday, several police officers and congressional staffers who were at the Capitol on January 6 testified about their experiences, injuries and the aftermath. Mehta said their bravery and actions are also an important legacy of the attack, as officers put their bodies on the line.

    “The other enduring legacy is what we saw yesterday,” the judge said. “It is the heroism of police officers and those working in Congress … to protect democracy as we know it. That is what they are doing.”

    Before he was sentenced, Rhodes addressed the court for 20 minutes about the charges against him, repeating falsehoods about 2020 election fraud, claiming he was a political prisoner and expressing his desire to continue fighting.

    “It’s not simply a conspiracy theory or a false narrative about fraud. It’s about the Constitution,” Rhodes said, later shouting: “I am not able to drop that under my oath. I am not able to ignore the Constitution.”

    The judge had none of that, and compared Rhodes’ comments to the heroism of police officers and others protecting the Capitol: “We want to talk about keeping oaths? There is nobody more emblematic of keeping their oaths, Mr. Rhodes.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Top US officials have ‘candid and productive discussions’ in Beijing amid ongoing tensions | CNN Politics

    Top US officials have ‘candid and productive discussions’ in Beijing amid ongoing tensions | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Senior American and Chinese officials had “candid” and “productive” discussions on Monday in China, according to read-outs from both Washington and Beijing, as the two countries grapple with how to maintain communication amid intense friction.

    Top US State Department and National Security Council officials met with Chinese officials in Beijing on Monday “as part of ongoing efforts to maintain open lines of communication and build on recent high-level diplomacy between the two countries,” according to a readout from the US State Department.

    The trip by Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Daniel Kritenbrink and NSC Senior Director for China and Taiwan Affairs Sarah Beran to the Chinese capital comes as the Biden administration works to navigate its complicated relationship with Beijing.

    There have been a number of exchanges as the United States works to rectify normal channels of communications amid ongoing tensions between the two nations, including two military-related incidents in the past week.

    According to the readout from the State Department, Kritenbrink and Beran, accompanied by US Ambassador to China Nicholas Burns, met with Ministry of Foreign Affairs Executive Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu and Director General of the North American and Oceanian Affairs Department Yang Tao. They also “met with members of the U.S. Embassy community.”

    “The two sides exchanged views on the bilateral relationship, cross-Strait issues, channels of communication, and other matters. U.S. officials made clear that the United States would compete vigorously and stand up for U.S. interests and values,” the readout said.

    China’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday said the two sides had “candid, constructive, and productive communication on improving China-US relations” and “properly managing differences” in line with the consensus reached by Chinese leader Xi Jinping and US President Joe Biden, who met on the sidelines of the G20 in Bali in November.

    China also clarified its “solemn position” on Taiwan and other major issues of principle, according to its readout, which added that the two sides agreed to continue communication.

    The self-governing democracy of Taiwan has become a key source of tension between the two countries. China’s ruling Communist Party claims the island as its own, despite never having controlled it and has not ruled out using force to take it.

    On Saturday, US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin warned that a conflict in the Taiwan Strait would be “devastating” and affect the global economy “in ways we cannot imagine,” while underlining US support for the island democracy and the importance of deterrence.

    State Department principal deputy spokesperson Vedant Patel said Monday that other bilateral issues discussed in Monday’s meeting included climate change, precursor chemicals from China that are used in fentanyl production, human rights, and wrongfully detained American citizens. There are three Americans publicly known to be wrongfully detained in China: Mark Swidan, Kai Li and David Lin.

    Patel did not say if the meeting in Beijing yielded progress on rescheduling Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s own visit to the Chinese capital, which was postponed after the spy balloon incident earlier this year. Instead, Patel reiterated that the department hoped to schedule the trip “when conditions allow.”

    US officials have emphasized their desire to maintain open channels of communication with China as a means to prevent the “competitive” relationship from veering into conflict. China rebuffed a formal meeting of Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Chinese Defense Minister Li Shangfu while they were both in Singapore, though the two ministers shook hands and “spoke briefly,” the Pentagon said.

    “The most dangerous thing is not to communicate and as a result, to have a misunderstanding, a miscommunication,” Blinken said at a press availability in Sweden last week after the US asserted that a Chinese fighter jet conducted an “unnecessarily aggressive maneuver” during an intercept of a US spy plane in international airspace.

    On Sunday, the US accused a Chinese warship of cutting in front of an American vessel that was taking part in a joint exercise with the Canadian navy in the Taiwan Strait, forcing the American vessel to slow down to avoid a collision. The Chinese defense minister accused the US of “provocation.”

    John Kirby of the US National Security Council on Monday attributed the incidents to an “increasing level of aggressiveness” by China’s military.

    [ad_2]

    Source link