ReportWire

Tag: Chuck Schumer

  • 9-year old and TV reporter among 3 dead in shootings near Orlando: CBS News Flash Feb. 23, 2023

    9-year old and TV reporter among 3 dead in shootings near Orlando: CBS News Flash Feb. 23, 2023

    [ad_1]

    9-year old and TV reporter among 3 dead in shootings near Orlando: CBS News Flash Feb. 23, 2023 – CBS News


    Watch CBS News



    Three people — including a child and a TV news reporter — were killed in a series of shootings near Orlando. A suspect is under arrest. A Jan. 6 rioter who threatened Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Chuck Schumer on social media was sentenced to 38 months in prison. And Lady Gaga’s former New York City apartment is up for rent – for $35,000 a month.

    Be the first to know

    Get browser notifications for breaking news, live events, and exclusive reporting.


    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Key senators torn over retirement decisions as party leaders try to fortify 2024 standing | CNN Politics

    Key senators torn over retirement decisions as party leaders try to fortify 2024 standing | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Sen. Joe Manchin, torn over whether to run for reelection, says he’s “given everything I possibly can” over four decades of holding public office. Sen. Jon Tester is close to making his final decision on a 2024 bid and concedes there’s a risk of his seat flipping next year.

    “It’s a commitment,” the Montana Democrat said of another run.

    They’re not the only ones in a tough spot.

    Sen. Bob Casey, a Pennsylvania Democrat, is weighing health considerations after treatment for prostate cancer. Sen. Bernie Sanders, 81, says he’ll make a decision about whether to run for a fourth Senate term in Vermont “at the appropriate time.”

    And Sen. Mitt Romney, a Utah Republican who has gone to battle with former President Donald Trump, says he’ll decide whether to run for a second term by mid-April, sounding ready to take on his party’s MAGA wing if he runs again.

    “People understand that every action has a consequence, and you accept the consequences for the actions that you think are right,” Romney, 75, said of potentially facing a stiff challenge from the right. He then added bullishly: “If I run, I’ll win.”

    As the 2024 landscape begins to take shape, the senators’ decisions about their political futures will dramatically alter the map and hold major ramifications for the makeup of the institution itself.

    For Democrats, the concern is the most acute. They already have a difficult road to maintain their slim 51-49 majority, with 23 seats to defend compared to just 11 for the GOP.

    Plus they’ll have to hold onto Democratic seats in GOP terrain, such as in Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia – not to mention keep their seats in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Nevada. The map provides them with scant pickup opportunities, since Republican incumbents are mostly running in ruby-red states or states that have trended to the GOP, like Florida.

    Then there’s the complicated dance for both parties in Arizona, if Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, now an independent, decides to run again for a seat that would put her up against a Republican and Democrat in a messy, three-way race. For Republicans, fear is growing that the hard-right Kari Lake may mount a bid and put their hopes for a pickup in jeopardy.

    And with few pickup chances, Senate Democrats recognize they’ll have to limit losses – and prevent retirements – in order to cling to power.

    “I’m doing everything I can to help Manchin in West Virginia,” Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer told CNN when asked if he were concerned that the conservative Democrat might hang it up, referring to legislative actions.

    After Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow announced she’d retire, Schumer and his top deputies are hoping to prevent others from following suit, recognizing that an open seat would give Republicans an even better chance of seizing control of the chamber they lost in the 2020 elections. The exception is California, where the 89-year-old Dianne Feinstein announced her retirement this week, something widely expected, as Democrats are expected to keep the seat in their control in the blue state.

    In particular, Democratic leaders are urging Tester and Manchin to run again, knowing full well that finding another Democrat to win in those conservative battlegrounds will be an extremely tall order in 2024.

    “Clearly, it’s important for them to run,” said Sen. Gary Peters, a Michigan Democrat who chairs the Senate Democratic campaign arm, when asked about Tester and Manchin. “I don’t know where they are. I’ve talked to them, but they’re just working through issues, personal issues for themselves as to what they want to do. So we just have to give them time to think that through and I look forward to their answers.”

    Peters acknowledged that his party’s effort to keep the Senate will grow bleaker if either or both men retire.

    “Those are states that are very Republican,” Peters told CNN, referring to Montana and West Virginia. “And I know they can win again, but they’re without question the strongest candidates in those states. It’d be more difficult without them running.”

    Democrats acknowledge they have close to no backup plans in Montana or West Virginia. But they have been heartened by the polls that are being released publicly by Republican groups in those states, showing their numbers have been better than expected – and perhaps encouraging – for the incumbents.

    But neither Manchin nor Tester seem concerned that the seat could turn red if they retire.

    “That’s not my factor,” Manchin said in the interview. “I’m not weighing that because of my, what it might do to the numbers as far as up here. No, I’ve been at this for quite some time. This term being up, there’ll be 42 years I’ve been in public service so I’ve given everything I possibly can.”

    Several Democratic operatives involved in planning for Senate races tell CNN they expect that ultimately, Tester will run and that Casey will as well after his successful surgery this week. Manchin has them more on edge, and they anticipate that’s how they’ll remain for almost a year: the West Virginia filing deadline isn’t until next January.

    That, after all, is what he did in 2018.

    Manchin, a former governor and state legislator who has served in the Senate since 2010, insists he’s not concerned about the prospects that the GOP governor, Jim Justice, is strongly considering a run against him, though Justice would have to escape a difficult primary against Rep. Alex Mooney and potentially the state’s attorney general, Patrick Morrisey, who may run as well. He has acknowledged that Justice would be the toughest candidate to face, though he insists he could still pull off a victory.

    Manchin, 75, just doesn’t know if he wants to do it again as he looks back at the last several years – especially in the 50-50 Senate in the last Congress where he was at the peak of his power in the chamber and played a central role shaping major laws. The question Manchin is weighing: whether he’ll have the same kind of impact with another six years.

    “I make a decision based on if I’ve been able to deliver for the state, have I been able to support the Constitution and the oath I’ve taken, I think I have,” Manchin said, confirming he’s been urged by Biden and Schumer both to run. “Is there more I can do in different, other areas? I don’t know.”

    Tester, who also said Schumer has been urging him to run, conceded that his seat could flip if he bows out.

    “Oh, absolutely there’s a risk of flipping there’s no doubt about that but so are all of them,” Tester said.

    But he contended other Democrats could mount a vigorous challenge for the seat.

    “Actually, we’ve got some really good folks in the wings that can run,” Tester, 66, said before he noted that things have gotten dire for Democrats in recent cycles. “We haven’t had the best of luck the last few cycles in Montana but I think that’s as much self-inflicted as it is the state turning red.”

    But Tester pointed to key positions he holds – chairing a subcommittee on Pentagon spending and running the veterans panel – as he weighs another run.

    “I’m at a point and time where we can get a lot of good things done because of my position on Veterans Affairs and defense chairman but it’s just something where I think you just need to take the time to think over,” he said.

    Yet Democrats could benefit from a potentially divisive GOP primary in Montana – with the possibility of candidacies from two House members, the governor and the state attorney general. That will put the other Montana senator, Republican Steve Daines, to the test as he plans to use his National Republican Senatorial Committee to be more assertive in GOP primaries to root out lackluster general election candidates, though it’s unclear how he would handle his home state.

    In an interview, Daines was noncommittal when asked about one candidate in particular – Rep. Matt Rosendale – a hard-right Republican who lost to Tester in 2018 and is considering running again. He said “it’s early” since candidates have yet to declare and that the field will get “sorted out,” contending the race is “winnable.”

    “These are three red states where the only statewide elected official left that’s a Democrat is a US Senator. That’s Montana, it’s West Virginia, it’s Ohio,” Daines said. “These are going to be spirited races.”

    And after last cycle’s GOP debacle, where several Donald Trump-aligned candidates petered out in the general election and effectively cost them winning the majority, Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell is determined not to allow that to happen again.

    “I just think we need to focus on candidates who can win in the general election,” said Sen. John Cornyn, a Republican from Texas and close McConnell ally. “We had some great primary candidates, but that won’t get the job done. You got to have somebody who can have a broader appeal than just the base. That was one of the most important lessons of this last cycle.”

    Democratic Rep. Ruben Gallego, at left, is challenging Sinema, at right, for her US Senate seat in 2024.

    Senate leaders in both parties see Arizona as the biggest wildcard – depending on what Sinema decides to do and which Republican decides to run.

    Lake, the Trump-aligned Republican who lost one of the nation’s premier governor’s races last fall, recently met with officials at NRSC headquarters – even though many Republicans are nervous about her potential candidacy and one GOP strategist called the potential of a Lake Senate run “disastrous.”

    As she made the rounds in Washington, Daines told CNN that he spoke with Lake.

    “I want to see a candidate who can not only win a primary, but can win a general election,” Daines said when asked about that visit, not commenting on Lake directly.

    Other top Republicans are unnerved about Lake – and her evidence-free claims of widespread election fraud – and are pushing for other candidates to jump into the race.

    “I’ve just said to any of our candidates or potential candidates in 2024, that you got to talk about the future, not the past,” said Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota, the No. 2 Republican. “And I think if you’re building your campaign around the theme of a stolen election, that’s not a winning strategy. We’ve seen that. So if she does decide to do it again, I think she’s gonna have to talk about the things that are on the hearts and minds of American people.”

    Schumer and Democratic leaders, themselves, are in a bind in the state, refusing to say if they’ll back their party’s nominee with Sinema still undecided on a run. The reason: They need Sinema to continue to organize with them in order to maintain their 51-49 majority and are in no mood to alienate her.

    But some Democrats are angry at their leaders for refusing to say if they’ll back their nominee, especially backers of Rep. Ruben Gallego, the party’s leading candidate in the race.

    “At some point, they’re going to have to endorse a Democrat,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a fellow Arizona Democrat who backs Gallego, noting it would be “problematic” if party leaders didn’t dump huge resources to help their party’s nominee win a general election.

    “If they don’t, that would be an insult at many levels,” Grijavla said.

    While some Democrats are nervous that Gallego and Sinema would split the vote and give Republicans a victory, Gallego dismisses the possibility and says only a “strong Democrat” can win.

    “No matter what happens, Kyrsten Sinema is always going to be in third place,” Gallego said. “I also doubt she fully runs.”

    As she’s grown more alienated from her former party, Sinema has grown closer to Republicans, including one – Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – who told CNN she would endorse the senator if she ran again.

    “I absolutely support Sen. Sinema,” Murkowski said, noting she’s also backing Manchin. “She’s not afraid to take on hard things, and I’m gonna be supporting her too.”

    Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan speaks to members of the media at the U.S. Capitol on August 03, 2022 in Washington, DC.

    Even in safe Democratic seats, there’s the potential for a shakeup that could bring more diversity and younger members into the ranks, including in Maryland and Delaware where Sens. Ben Cardin and Tom Carper, respectively, have not made a final decision to run yet.

    Cardin, 79, who hasn’t spent much time fundraising yet, said he would make his decision sometime in the spring, while Carper, 76, said he’d be ready to run but noted that campaigns are “way too long.”

    In Hawaii, Sen. Mazie Hirono said she plans to run again, as did Maine’s Angus King, an independent who caucuses with Democrats.

    “There’s only two ways to run: Scared or unopposed,” King said.

    In more contested states, Nevada’s Jacky Rosen said she is running, as did Ohio’s Sherrod Brown. And in Wisconsin, Sen. Tammy Baldwin said she’d make her announcement about her plans in the spring after upcoming elections in the state.

    In Texas, Sen. Ted Cruz has announced plans to run for a third Senate term, and Democrats are weighing whether to mount a serious effort to try to unseat him in the red state – with a focus on whether Democratic Rep. Colin Allred will try to mount an upset bid against the conservative senator.

    In Michigan, where Stabenow’s retirement is leaving Democrats with an open seat in a swing state, Rep. Elissa Slotkin is eying a run and could get some implicit help from the outgoing senator herself. Stabenow has spoken by phone with several prominent Michigan Democrats, and while some have perceived that as dissuading some weaker candidates from running, a Stabenow spokesperson says she’s just been giving everyone advice on the challenges of running statewide in Michigan and not trying to clear the field.

    Republican recruitment efforts in the state are also up in the air, with a push for newly elected Rep. John James, who has lost two previous bids for the Senate. If he passes, GOP leaders believe other contenders will emerge, potentially former Rep. Peter Meijer and even some current members of the House delegation or local officials.

    While several potential Democratic candidates have decided not to run, other political players in the state remain unsure about Slotkin’s statewide strength and have continued talking privately about finding an alternative.

    Given how much Democrats in the state rely on high turnout in heavily African-American Detroit, finding a candidate who could run strong there has been a major topic in those discussions. Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist, who got his start in Detroit politics is “very seriously thinking about making a run” and is expected to make a decision over the next month, according to a person familiar with his thinking.

    Meanwhile, several Democrats in Michigan tell CNN they have been surprised by outreach they’re getting from “The Good Doctor” actor Hill Harper, whose political experience mostly relates to being Barack Obama’s law school roommate, but who owns a coffee shop in Detroit and has gotten involved with the local business community there. Harper did not return a request for comment.

    Stabenow said she’s not endorsing any candidate in the primary to replace her.

    “What I’m saying to folks is that I want somebody that is strong, effective, who can raise money, who can win,” Stabenow said. “But I’m talking to everybody.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Banning TikTok in the US ‘should be looked at,’ says Schumer | CNN Business

    Banning TikTok in the US ‘should be looked at,’ says Schumer | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Hong Kong
    CNN
     — 

    A proposal to ban TikTok in the United States “should be looked at,” according to US Senator Chuck Schumer.

    “We do know there’s Chinese ownership of the company that owns TikTok. And there are some people in the Commerce Committee that are looking into that right now,” Schumer, the Senate majority leader, told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News in a Sunday interview. “We’ll see where they come out.”

    US lawmakers Marco Rubio, a Republican senator from Florida, and Angus King, an independent from Maine, said Friday they had reintroduced new legislation that aims to ban TikTok from operating in the United States, unless it cut ties to its current owner.

    TikTok is owned by ByteDance, one of the most valuable private companies in China.

    US officials have raised concerns that China could use its laws to pressure TikTok or ByteDance to hand over US user data that could be used for intelligence or disinformation purposes.

    Those worries have prompted the US government to ban TikTok from official devices, and more than half of US states have taken similar measures, according to a CNN analysis.

    TikTok has previously pushed back on the claims, saying it doesn’t share information with the Chinese government, and that a US-based security team decides who can access US user data from China.

    The company did not immediately respond to a new request for comment on Monday morning Asia time.

    TikTok’s Singaporean CEO, Shou Zi Chew, is slated to testify before Congress in March, on topics including TikTok’s privacy and data security practices, its impact on young users and its “relationship to the Chinese Communist Party,” according to a House committee statement.

    The company has previously said that it welcomes “the opportunity to set the record straight about TikTok, ByteDance, and the commitments we are making.”

    “We hope that by sharing details of our comprehensive plans with the full Committee, Congress can take a more deliberative approach to the issues at hand,” the TikTok spokesperson added.

    -— CNN’s Brian Fung contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Schumer says he will push to confirm Biden’s pick for FAA administrator following system outage | CNN Politics

    Schumer says he will push to confirm Biden’s pick for FAA administrator following system outage | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Sunday he would push to confirm President Joe Biden’s pick to lead the Federal Aviation Administration, following a computer system failure that triggered the delay of more than 10,000 flights last week.

    Phillip Washington, Biden’s pick to lead the FAA, has yet to receive a confirmation hearing in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

    “There is no doubt about it: it’s time to clear the runway for President Biden’s choice for FAA Administrator, Phil Washington. With recent events, including airline troubles and last week’s tech problem, this agency needs a leader confirmed by the Senate immediately,” Schumer said in a statement Sunday. “I intend to break this logjam, work to hold a hearing for Mr. Washington, where he can detail his experience and answer questions and then work towards a speedy Senate confirmation.”

    Washington has faced questions about his limited aviation experience and, in September, was named in a search warrant issued as part of a political corruption investigation in Los Angeles. But Schumer’s Sunday announcement appears to show he’s prepared to push past those issues.

    If confirmed, Washington would be the first Black permanent administrator of the agency. He is currently the CEO of Denver International Airport – the third-busiest airport in the world. Washington previously held leadership roles a municipal transit organizations, including in Denver and Los Angeles, focused on bus and rail lines.

    Because his nomination wasn’t acted upon during the last Congress, Biden faced a choice this year of whether to resubmit his name for consideration or identify a new nominee.

    Biden renominated Washington earlier this month, signaling the administration’s continued support for him.

    The FAA has been without a permanent administrator since March, when former President Donald Trump’s appointee, Stephen Dickson, stepped down midway through his five-year term.

    The agency is facing increased scrutiny after it was forced to ground thousands of flights starting Wednesday when air traffic control officials opted to shutdown the central database for all NOTAMs (Notice to Air Missions) nationwide after they found a corrupt file in the system. That plan and the outage led to massive flight delays and the first nationwide stop of air traffic in more than 20 years.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Don Lemon Gets Testy With Chuck Schumer Over Comment On Biden Docs Coverage

    Don Lemon Gets Testy With Chuck Schumer Over Comment On Biden Docs Coverage

    [ad_1]

    CNN host Don Lemon went after Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) for indicating that the network wanted to “buzz around” about President Joe Biden’s classified documents case. (You can watch Lemon’s response below.)

    The heated moment came toward the end of a week marked by reports of classified document discoveries at Biden’s home and in an office he used, in a matter that has sparked a special counsel investigation.

    Lawyers found more documents during another search of his home library, the White House said on Saturday. While the White House had previously announced that Biden’s personal lawyers found one document there on Wednesday, a White House lawyer said he found additional pages when there on Thursday, resulting in six total pages from the library.

    Lemon fired back at Schumer on Friday’s “CNN This Morning” program, telling him that the handling of classified material by the president is “serious stuff.”

    “It’s not just, hold on, it’s not just us buzzing around — you’re the Democratic head of the Senate,” said Lemon after Schumer remarked that all the hosts want to do is “buzz around” on the case.

    “This is a really important issue. It’s not just buzzing around. This is serious stuff.”

    Schumer said prosecutors will get to the bottom of the matter and suggested that if there wasn’t a special counsel there’d be a “different thing to say” on the situation.

    “I think we should have a special prosecutor on each,” said Schumer regarding both Biden’s case and former President Donald Trump’s case involving classified materials at Mar-a-Lago.

    “I don’t mind [that] you’re asking these questions, but my view is I’m not going to say anything. Let the special prosecutors do their job,” the Senate Democratic leader said.

    CNN’s Poppy Harlow later asked the Democrat what he would like to see the White House do in regard to it initially addressing documents discovered in November and not those discovered in December, a finding that was made public after the White House’s acknowledgment.

    You can watch Harlow’s question to Schumer and his response around the 0:53 mark in the video below.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Leaders talk next-gen jobs | Long Island Business News

    Leaders talk next-gen jobs | Long Island Business News

    [ad_1]

    Clean energy and water. High-tech innovation. Next-generation jobs, thanks to investments in science and technology.

    These are some of the big priorities elected officials and leaders presented to the business community during Long Island Association’s 2023 State of the Region on Friday. Held at the Crest Hollow Country Club in Woodbury, the event drew more than 1,100 people.

    The region is benefitting from federal, state and local dollars, officials said.

    “Long Island is going to be the capital for offshore wind, not just in New York but the whole country,” U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer told the crowd.

    The Senate majority leader said innovations such as offshore wind would fuel new companies and “new frontier jobs,” and that federal bills provided money for training  for these jobs.

    “Once we have these windmills installed, the price [for energy] isn’t going to go up and down the way we have suffered through in the last few years, and the way it has been through our history,” he said.

    He also said that the CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden in August, “is the largest down payment in a long time” in technology and innovation.

    And with the region’s high tech research centers, including Cold Spring Harbor Lab and Brookhaven National Laboratory and Stony Brook University and others, “Long Island can be a center of chip-related research and production,” with the centers in the region already “cutting edge in the world,” and poised for growth.

    He said the same levels of opportunities were present in medical science, including at Northwell Health.

    In Suffolk County, the Midway Crossing Ronkonkoma – accessible by highway, rail and air – would fuel innovation, with Northwell Health and Applied DNA already committed to building there, said Suffolk County Executive Steve Bellone said,

    Right now, there is a “unique, once in a generation” level of “cooperation and coordination that I’ve never seen in a project of this significance,” Bellone said, referring to efforts by labor, business, academia and elected officials. “They’re putting politics aside. They made the decision that Long Island’s future is more important.

    And he said, protecting the environment and water quality is a “bipartisan commitment” that has public support, he said.

    Schumer said there was money to provide “real sewage systems in places that don’t have them” and that would prevent aquifer contamination and protect surrounding bays and waters, including Long Island Sound.

    “What happens on the federal, state, and local levels of government impact us here on Long Island, and that’s why the LIA will continue to play its role as a primary advocate for our region’s economic advancement and successful business community,” said LIA President and CEO Matt Cohen.

    Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, addressed the group by video. He was unable to attend the State of the Region breakfast “due to a family obligation” that was scheduled earlier last week, “but due to airline cancellations had to be postponed and couldn’t be changed,” Cohen said.

    In the video, he said would present a plan for the redevelopment of the Nassau County Hub.

    Schumer said the region has to do more about housing, allowing the private sector to more affordably build “a lot more housing.”

    Cohen said the LIA would pursue “economic development opportunities to address challenges like our high cost of living, developing more affordable housing options, expanding our commercial tax base through helping grow businesses, and retaining young professionals to keep Long Island vibrant and sustainable.”

    Cohen pointed out that the LIA has long-supported fostering “a clean energy economy. He said that “South Fork Wind is projected to power Long Island homes by the end of this year and other are in the pipeline to serve our region.”

    What’s more, New York State has allocated $350 million to “new state economic development funds being invested in our region, some of which has already been awarded to Northwell’s Feinstein Institutes, Long Island University, Farmingdale State College, and Stony Brook University with Brookhaven National Lab.”

    But, he said, that “we also need to ensure the Long Island region gets an equitable share of funding and attention from all levels of government. We have sent much more to DC and Albany every year than we get back and it’s time we change that.”

    [ad_2]

    Adina Genn

    Source link

  • Big Tech And Its Congressional Allies Kill Most — But Not All — Antitrust Legislation

    Big Tech And Its Congressional Allies Kill Most — But Not All — Antitrust Legislation

    [ad_1]

    The two biggest antitrust bills in more than 50 years are dead after they were not included in year-end congressional spending legislation released Tuesday, angering anti-monopolists who believe Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) killed the best chance for this Congress to meaningfully limit corporate power.

    While a pair of smaller provisions in the omnibus will help antitrust advocates take on the nation’s largest tech companies in the future, the death of the Open App Markets Act and the American Innovation and Choice Online Act — both of which had the necessary support to pass the Senate, advocates insist — amounts to a massive win for Big Tech’s well-funded lobbying and influence machine.

    Antitrust advocates blame Schumer for promising Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) a vote on her American Innovation and Choice Online Act, postponing action for nearly a year, and then finally failing to deliver on his pledge by excluding it from the omnibus spending bill.

    “Schumer has erased much of the goodwill he formed with the tech startup ecosystem during the net neutrality debates. He spent a full year running interference for the most powerful companies in the world and repeating the myth that this broadly bipartisan legislation ‘didn’t have the votes,’” Luther Lowe, the senior vice president for public policy at Yelp, told HuffPost.

    “Thanks to him, Europe will lead the global rule-making for the internet indefinitely, and European consumers are enjoying better protections than U.S. consumers.”

    The European Union adopted far-reaching antitrust legislation in March, against the wishes of Big Tech companies. The new law included provisions that died on the vine in the U.S. Senate, such as rules barring companies like Apple and Google from requiring smartphone owners to use their respective app stores for digital purchases.

    David Segal, a co-founder of liberal advocacy organization Demand Progress, suggested that the demise of the antitrust bills could lead progressives to doubt future promises from Schumer, who worked throughout the past two years to keep the left satisfied on issues like student debt cancellation.

    “Unfortunately, Schumer’s behavior made it clear that he was never serious about keeping this commitment,” Segal said. “Activists should be even warier of commitments he purports to make going forward.”

    “They had bipartisan support and would’ve helped rein in an industry that in too many areas is out of control.”

    – Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)

    At least one prominent antitrust advocate withheld criticism and praised the omnibus legislation’s smaller wins. One measure allows state attorneys general to keep antitrust cases in the state where they’re filed, which should prevent Big Tech from working to combine cases in a way that slow-walks the eventual decisions.

    Another provision increases the filing fees that companies pay to antitrust agencies like the Federal Trade Commission when they merge, giving those regulators a funding boost.

    “Big Tech, Big Ag and Big Pharma spent extraordinary sums in an unprecedented effort to keep Congress from delivering on antitrust reform and undermine the ability of state and federal enforcers to uphold the law — and they lost,” said Sarah Miller, the executive director of the antitrust-focused American Economic Liberties Project. She noted that the filing fee hike would be the first congressional action to strengthen antitrust enforcement since 1976.

    Even that provision, however, is weaker than it could be. The increased filing fees won’t go into effect for another two years, giving corporations time to kill them and depriving antitrust advocates in President Joe Biden’s administration — including FTC Chair Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter, the assistant attorney general for antitrust enforcement at the Justice Department — of resources as they battle Google and Apple.

    “Including Merger Filing Fees is an important step forward for Lina Khan and Jonathan Kanter’s ability to crack down on monopolies and fight for consumers – but the unnecessary two-year delay means we must hold onto the White House in 2024 to ensure this funding is used to enforce our antitrust laws,” said Emma Lydon, the managing director of the progressive group P Street.

    Other antitrust proponents had more mixed reactions, expressing disappointment in Democratic leaders in Congress without dismissing the new funding for enforcement.

    Segal argued that the new revenue would help Khan and Kanter continue to “push the bounds within the existing jurisprudence in order to ensure that antimonopoly policy works for everyday people and our broader economy.”

    Lowe also acknowledged that the additional funding was a positive sign, noting that the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division will now get specific appropriations in congressional funding.

    “I don’t see how as a Big Tech CEO you feel great about the broader trends across the globe in terms of greater enforcement of anticompetitive behavior,” he said.

    Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who proposed full-on breakups of major tech companies during her 2020 presidential run, avoided directly criticizing the majority leader but made clear that she thought the antitrust bills deserved stand-alone votes from the omnibus legislation.

    “The ones that were omitted should’ve been included. We should’ve voted on them over the past several months,” Warren told HuffPost. “They had bipartisan support and would’ve helped rein in an industry that in too many areas is out of control.”

    Warren was unsure about the effectiveness of the antitrust provisions that did survive. “We’re still reading the fine print,” she said. “The devil’s in the details.”

    The pair of bipartisan bills that Schumer effectively killed would have provided Khan, Kanter and other antitrust enforcement officials with additional tools to curb the abuses of Big Tech.

    Klobuchar’s American Innovation and Choice Online Act would have barred major platforms, such as Google and Amazon, from providing preferential treatment to their own products. The bill — which was backed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee — advanced out of committee on a 16-6 vote in January.

    Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), left, and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) pushed for passage of more meaningful antitrust legislation.

    The Open App Markets Act, introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), would have prohibited companies like Apple and Google from engaging in restrictive contracts with app developers that, among other things, prevent them from selling their apps in competitors’ stores. That bill had even greater bipartisan support, advancing out of committee on a 20-2 vote in February.

    However, a person familiar with the negotiations said Friday that the legislation was dead at the behest of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.)— an assertion viewed skeptically by progressives wary of Schumer. McConnell’s office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

    The powerful tech platforms Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon — sometimes identified collectively by the acronym GAFA — argue that such bills restrict the organic growth that has enabled the United States to become a world leader in technological innovation. They compare Amazon giving preference to its own branded merchandise with supermarkets giving prominent placement to generic store brand goods alongside other products.

    But anti-monopolists maintain that the opposite is true, contending that the kind of innovation seen in Silicon Valley during the 1980s and ’90s would likely not be possible today amid the barriers to competition that tech giants have erected to protect their profit streams.

    For example, they point to Meta’s Facebook co-opting the original features of newer platforms like Snapchat and acquiring would-be competitors like Instagram and WhatsApp. Meanwhile, Amazon’s preferential treatment of its own products, they say, goes far beyond what supermarkets do — both because of the leverage that Amazon has over sellers on its platform and the information it culls from sellers in the interest of undercutting them. (Amazon’s particular tactics were the focus of an influential paper by Khan as a student at Yale Law School.)

    “These guys are gatekeepers in the economy,” said Lowe, whose company, Yelp, has spent years battling what it sees as Google’s abuses. “They have a special ability to distort the entire market place and bend it to their own ends.”

    As much as Schumer has courted those on the left in recent years, they’ve long been suspicious of his intentions around Big Tech companies. The businesses are a major source of campaign funding, and the electorally conscious Schumer would be wary of losing access to their cash or having the money turned against vulnerable Democratic incumbents.

    In July, antitrust advocates aired a television ad targeting Schumer on cable channels in Washington, backed by a relatively small buy that further underscored the forces they were up against. The Big Four tech companies, or groups they fund, had spent $120 million on television ads attacking the proposed antitrust legislation and $95 million lobbying against it.

    Arthur Delaney contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Kyrsten Sinema’s potential 2024 run creates anxiety in Senate Democratic ranks | CNN Politics

    Kyrsten Sinema’s potential 2024 run creates anxiety in Senate Democratic ranks | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Sen. Kyrsten Sinema’s surprise decision to become an independent has Democratic leaders struggling to answer a basic question: How should they deal with her if she runs for reelection in Arizona?

    In interviews with top party leaders and rank-and-file members on Monday, Democrats were sidestepping the sensitive question and handling the politically fraught situation delicately, knowing that a misstep could backfire and have serious ramifications for their party.

    “When they call me for advice, I’ll give it in confidence,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, the chamber’s No. 2 Democrat, told CNN when asked if party leaders should stay out of the race.

    Durbin added: “I plan to stay out of Arizona politics.”

    If Sinema runs for a second term but party leaders put their muscle behind a Democratic candidate instead, the electorate could splinter in the purple state and help Republicans win back a critical seat. Plus, backing a Democrat in the race could risk alienating Sinema whose decision to continue to align with her former party on her committee assignments essentially solidifies their 51-49 majority.

    But if they get behind Sinema or stay neutral in the race, as they’ve done with other independents who caucus with them, they would infuriate progressives eager to knock off the moderate Sinema over her refusal to gut the Senate filibuster and approve many of their priorities over the last two years.

    And no matter how they handle the mercurial senator, they could be left with a messy, three-way race in 2024 at a time when they will be battling to defend 23 seats compared to 11 for the GOP – all of which has caused anxiety in the Democratic ranks.

    For now, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and his top deputies said they are in a wait-and-see mode, planning to see how the field forms and whether Sinema will indeed run as an independent in the 2024 cycle. Then, they said, they will begin to make some critical decisions.

    “When she says she’s gonna run, you come back to me,” Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state and a member of her party’s leadership, told reporters.

    But already, the field appears to be taking shape.

    Rep. Ruben Gallego, a member of the Arizona House delegation, told CNN that “We’re already putting the team together,” and he’d make a decision about a run sometime next year. He said he would soon reach out to Schumer and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee – and he dismissed the possibility that Sinema could win as a third-party candidate or that a Republican could pull off a victory in a three-way race. He contended that a Sinema candidacy “assures a Democrat wins.”

    “They could do what they want,” Gallego said when asked about party leaders’ decision on how to handle the race. “But it’s going be a waste of money to try to prop up a third-party candidate because it’s just not going to happen. Not in Arizona.”

    But Gallego could have a challenge in the primary – potentially from Democratic Rep. Greg Stanton, who won reelection in his swing district in the fall.

    Stanton told CNN on Monday he is “taking a serious look” at the race.

    “My focus until recently has been winning my 2022 frontline reelection,” Stanton said. “Sen. Sinema’s recent decision to leave the Democratic Party has no bearing on my thinking.”

    But it’s a decision that has Republicans and Democrats alike weighing what comes next.

    Sen. Gary Peters, the current chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, plans to step aside from that post in the 2024 cycle, and no new senator has announced plans to take that position as of yet.

    “At this moment, I’m really happy to say that’s the job of the next DSCC chair to make that determination,” the Michigan Democrat said when asked how the party committee should handle an independent run, given that it typically backs Democratic incumbents.

    Sinema, who has a sizable war chest with nearly $8 million in cash, has not tipped her hand about whether she will run again, though many suspect she left the party in order to spare herself a grueling primary fight in 2024.

    “I’m just not worried about folks who may not like this approach,” Sinema told CNN on Thursday. “What I am worried about is continuing to do what’s right for my state. And there are folks who certainly don’t like my approach, we hear about it a lot. But the proof is in the pudding.”

    On Monday, Sinema made a brief appearance on the Senate floor, casting a vote for a Biden judicial nominee before she headed out and ignored reporters’ questions.

    But in the halls of the Capitol, the two sides were assessing how her move could scramble the 2024 map.

    “It’s going to be a competitive state in 2024,” said Sen. Steve Daines, a Montana Republican who will chair the National Republican Senatorial Committee in the coming cycle.

    Republicans are hopeful that the progressive push to oust Sinema will only bolster their chances to take the seat.

    Indeed, Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, attacked Sinema as a “corporate Democrat” who “helped sabotage” the Biden agenda.

    On Monday, he wouldn’t say if he believes Democratic leaders should try to knock her off in 2024.

    “I think that decision rests with the people of Arizona,” Sanders said Monday.

    A like-minded liberal, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, also punted on the question.

    “I am just not focused on that,” Warren said. “I am focused on what we need to do in the next two weeks. That’s my responsibility.”

    For the last two years, Sinema has been a complicated and polarizing figure for Democrats. The newly independent senator has helped clinch victories for the Biden administration on a major infrastructure package, prescription drug pricing, same-sex marriage legislation and the first gun violence law in a generation. But she also rebuffed Democratic efforts to raise tax rates on corporations and individuals – and she, along with Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, stood their ground against Democratic efforts to gut the filibuster and pass a voting rights bill, saying the 60-vote threshold is essential to preserving the rights of the minority to shape legislation.

    Like Sinema, party leaders are now watching Manchin closely as he weighs whether to run in 2024. On Monday, he would not ruling out joining Sinema and spurning his Democratic Party label and becoming an independent.

    “I’ll look at all of these things,” Manchin told CNN. “I’ve always looked at all those things, but I have no intention of doing anything right now. Whether I do something later, I can’t tell you what the future is going to bring.”

    In private meetings, Schumer has been careful not to criticize Sinema, according to senators who have spoken to him. In the White House and Schumer statements Friday, both praised Sinema’s record in the Senate and made clear they’d continue to work with her. It’s a message several senior Democrats also echoed on Monday.

    Sen. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, a member of party leadership, said she and Sinema have worked together on mental health provisions central to the gun legislation, among other issues.

    And when asked if she will get behind Sinema, Stabenow wouldn’t say.

    “That’s something that that you know I’m sure will be talked about down the road.”

    “That’s a call for somebody else,” Sen. Jon Tester, a Montana Democrat, added when asked about the party backing Sinema in 2024.

    Even Sen. Mark Kelly, the newly reelected Arizona Democrat, steered clear of the sensitive topic on Monday.

    “I worked very closely with Sen. Sinema – two years now to get stuff done,” Kelly said. “The DSCC, and what that they do over there, is outside my area of expertise.”

    Kelly would not say he would support her if she ran.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Sinema leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an independent | CNN Politics

    Sinema leaving the Democratic Party and registering as an independent | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Arizona Sen. Kyrsten Sinema is leaving the Democratic Party and registering as a political independent, she told CNN’s Jake Tapper in an exclusive TV interview.

    “I’ve registered as an Arizona independent. I know some people might be a little bit surprised by this, but actually, I think it makes a lot of sense,” Sinema said in a Thursday interview with Tapper in her Senate office.

    “I’ve never fit neatly into any party box. I’ve never really tried. I don’t want to,” she added. “Removing myself from the partisan structure – not only is it true to who I am and how I operate, I also think it’ll provide a place of belonging for many folks across the state and the country, who also are tired of the partisanship.”

    Sinema’s move away from the Democratic Party is unlikely to change the power balance in the next Senate. Democrats will have a narrow 51-49 majority that includes two independents who caucus with them: Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Angus King of Maine.

    While Sanders and King formally caucus with Democrats, Sinema declined to explicitly say that she would do the same. She did note, however, that she expects to keep her committee assignments – a signal that she doesn’t plan to upend the Senate composition, since Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer controls committee rosters for Democrats.

    “When I come to work each day, it’ll be the same,” Sinema said. “I’m going to still come to work and hopefully serve on the same committees I’ve been serving on and continue to work well with my colleagues at both political parties.”

    But Sinema’s decision to become a political independent makes official what’s long been an independent streak for the Arizona senator, who began her political career as a member of the Green Party before being elected as a Democrat to the US House in 2012 and US Senate in 2018. Sinema has prided herself on being a thorn in the side of Democratic leaders, and her new nonpartisan affiliation will further free her to embrace an against-the-grain status in the Senate, though it raises new questions about how she – and Senate Democrats – will approach her reelection in 2024 with liberals already mulling a challenge.

    Sinema wrote an op-ed in the Arizona Republic released Friday explaining her decision, noting that her approach in the Senate has “upset partisans in both parties.”

    “When politicians are more focused on denying the opposition party a victory than they are on improving Americans’ lives, the people who lose are everyday Americans,” Sinema wrote.

    “That’s why I have joined the growing numbers of Arizonans who reject party politics by declaring my independence from the broken partisan system in Washington.”

    Sinema is up for reelection in 2024 and liberals in Arizona are already floating potential challengers, including Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego, who said earlier this year that some Democratic senators have urged him to run against Sinema.

    “Unfortunately, Senator Sinema is once again putting her own interests ahead of getting things done for Arizonans,” Gallego said in a statement following Sinema’s announcement.

    Sinema declined to address questions about her reelection bid in the interview with Tapper, saying that simply isn’t her focus right now.

    She also brushed aside criticism she may face for the decision to leave the Democratic Party.

    “I’m just not worried about folks who may not like this approach,” Sinema said. “What I am worried about is continuing to do what’s right for my state. And there are folks who certainly don’t like my approach, we hear about it a lot. But the proof is in the pudding.”

    White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre called Sinema a “key partner” following her decision and said the White House has “every reason to expect that we will continue to work successfully with her.”

    Sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that Sinema gave the White House a heads up that she was leaving the Democratic Party. Schumer said in a statement he also was aware of Sinema’s bombshell announcement ahead of Friday morning.

    “She asked me to keep her committee assignments and I agreed,” Schumer said. “Kyrsten is independent; that’s how she’s always been. I believe she’s a good and effective Senator and am looking forward to a productive session in the new Democratic majority Senate.”

    Schumer also outlined how he did not expect Sinema’s decision to impact Democrats’ plans for next year, saying in his statement, “We will maintain our new majority on committees, exercise our subpoena power, and be able to clear nominees without discharge votes.”

    The Biden White House is offering a muted reaction Friday morning and insisting that they expect to continue having a productive working relationship with the senator.

    One White House official tells CNN that the move “doesn’t change much” other than Sinema’s own reelection calculations.

    “We’ve worked with her effectively on a lot of major legislation from CHIPS to the bipartisan infrastructure law,” the official said. The White House, for now, has “every reason to expect that will continue,” they added.

    Sinema has long been the source of a complex convergence of possibility, frustration and confusion inside the White House.

    “Rubik’s cube, I guess?” was how one former senior White House official described the Arizona senator who has played a central role in President Joe Biden’s largest legislative wins and also some of his biggest agenda disappointments.

    There was no major push to get Sinema to change her mind, a White House official said, noting that it wouldn’t have made a difference.

    “Nothing about the last two years indicates a major effort would’ve made helped – the exact opposite actually,” a White House official said.

    The most urgent near-term effort was to quietly find out what it meant for their newly expanded Senate majority, officials said.

    While there were still clear details to figure out about process, “I think people exhaled when we had a better understanding of what she meant,” one source familiar with the discussion said.

    Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota told “CNN This Morning” that “Senator Sinema has always had an independent streak,” adding that “I don’t believe this is going to shake things up quite like everyone thinks.”

    She added, “Senator Sinema has been an independent in all intents and purposes.”

    Sinema and West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin have infuriated liberals at various points over the past two years, standing in the way of Biden’s agenda at a time when Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House.

    Sinema and Manchin used their sway in the current 50-50 Senate – where any single Democrat could derail a bill – to influence a host of legislation, especially the massive $3.5 trillion Build Back Better bill that Biden proposed last year. Sinema’s objections to increasing the corporate tax rate during the initial round of negotiations over the legislation last year particularly rankled liberals.

    While Sinema was blindsided by the surprise deal that Manchin cut with Schumer in July on major health care and energy legislation, she ultimately backed the smaller spending package that Biden signed into law before the election.

    Both Manchin and Sinema also opposed changes to the Senate’s filibuster rules despite pressure from their Senate colleagues and Biden to change them. After a vote against filibuster changes in January, the Arizona Democratic Party’s executive board censured Sinema.

    Sinema has been in the middle of several significant bipartisan bills that were passed since Biden took office. She pointed to that record as evidence that her approach has been an effective one.

    “I’ve been honored to lead historic efforts, from infrastructure, to gun violence prevention, to protecting religious liberty and helping LGBT families feel secure, to the CHIPs and science bill to the work we’ve done on veterans’ issues,” she told CNN. “The list is really long. And so I think that the results speak for themselves. It’s OK if some people aren’t comfortable with that approach.”

    Sinema’s announcement comes just days after Democratic Sen. Raphael Warnock won reelection in Georgia, securing Democrats a 51st Senate seat that frees them from reliance on Vice President Kamala Harris’ tiebreaking vote.

    Sinema declined to address questions about whether she would support Biden for president in 2024, and she also said she’s not thinking about whether a strong third party should emerge in the US.

    This story has been updated with additional developments.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Teehee! ;)

    Teehee! 😉

    [ad_1]

    Truth be told, I’ve never really felt like I fit the mold of the Democratic Party. As a proud senator of Arizona, I’ve always voted for what I think is right, whether my high-powered colleagues agree with me or not. That’s why, today, I—Kyrsten Sinema—am proud to announce that I have made the decision to leave the…

    Read more…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democrats predict an ‘extremely busy’ lame duck. Here’s what’s on the agenda | CNN Politics

    Democrats predict an ‘extremely busy’ lame duck. Here’s what’s on the agenda | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    A packed legislative to-do list awaits Congress when it returns to session after the midterms – and Democrats, who currently control both chambers, will face a ticking clock to enact key priorities if Republicans win back the House or manage to flip the Senate in the upcoming elections.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has predicted an “extremely busy” lame duck session – the period of time after the midterms and before a new Congress begins in January.

    “We still have much to do and many important bills to consider,” Schumer said in remarks on the Senate floor at the end of September. “Members should be prepared for an extremely, underline extremely, busy agenda in the last two months of this Congress.”

    The jam-packed agenda for the lame-duck session includes: Funding the government to avert a shutdown before the end of the calendar year, passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, the annual must-pass legislation that sets the policy agenda and authorizes funding for the Department of Defense, as well as a vote in the Senate to protect same-sex marriage and the potential consideration of other key pieces of legislation.

    Democrats are still limited in what they can achieve, however, given their narrow majorities in both chambers. With a 50-50 partisan split in the Senate, Democrats lack the votes to overcome the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold – and do not have the votes to abolish the filibuster. As a result, major priorities for liberal voters – like the passage of legislation protecting access to abortion after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade – will still remain out of reach for the party for the foreseeable future.

    Government funding is the most pressing priority that lawmakers will confront during the lame duck. The current deadline for the expiration of funding is December 16 after the House and Senate passed an extension to avert a shutdown at the end of September.

    Since the funding bill is viewed as must-pass legislation it will likely become a magnet for other priorities that lawmakers may try to tack on to ride along with it. It’s possible that further aid for Ukraine could come up as Ukraine continues to counter Russia’s invasion of the country. While that funding has bipartisan support, some conservatives are balking at the pricey contributions to Ukraine and may scrutinize more closely additional requests from the administration, a dynamic that is dividing Republicans on this key issue.

    Democrats also want more funding for pandemic response, but Republicans have pushed back on that request.

    One issue that may come up during the government funding effort is money for the Department of Justice investigation into the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

    A House Democratic aide told CNN that final fiscal year 2023 funding levels have yet to be determined. Justice Department needs and resources are part of this ongoing conversation, but under the leadership of Rep. Matt Cartwright, chairman of the House Appropriations subcommittee on commerce, justice, science, and related agencies, the House bill included $34 million that would allow DOJ to fund these prosecutions without reducing their efforts in other areas.

    House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro told CNN in a statement, “I look forward to working with my colleagues on the House and Senate appropriations committees and passing a final 2023 spending package by the December 16th deadline.”

    Meanwhile, the Senate has begun work on the NDAA, and is expected to pass the massive piece of legislation during the lame duck. Consideration of the wide-ranging bill could spark debate and a push for amendments over a variety of topics.

    Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa has called for punishing OPEC for its production cut by passing legislation that would hold foreign oil producers accountable for colluding to fix prices – and the senator has said he believes the measure can pass as an amendment to the NDAA. The legislation would clear the way for the Justice Department to sue Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations for antitrust violations.

    Senate Democrats will also continue confirming judges to the federal bench nominated by President Joe Biden, a key priority for the party.

    A Senate vote to protect same-sex marriage is also on tap for the lame-duck session. In mid-September, the chamber punted on a vote until after the November midterm elections as negotiators asked for more time to lock down support – a move that could make it more likely the bill will ultimately pass the chamber.

    The bipartisan group of senators working on the bill said in a statement at the time, “We’ve asked Leader Schumer for additional time and we appreciate he has agreed. We are confident that when our legislation comes to the Senate floor for a vote, we will have the bipartisan support to pass the bill.” The bill would need at least 10 Republican votes to overcome a filibuster.

    Schumer has vowed to hold a vote on the bill, but the exact timing has not yet been locked in. Democrats have pushed for the vote after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, sparking fears that the court could take aim at same-sex marriage in the future.

    The Senate could take up legislation during the lame duck in response to the January 6, 2021, attack by a mob of pro-Trump supporters attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

    Over the summer, a bipartisan group of senators reached a deal to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election. The proposal would still need, however, to be approved by both chambers. Notably, the Senate proposal has the backing of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican.

    “I strongly support the modest changes that our colleagues in the working group have fleshed out after literally months of detailed discussions,” McConnell said at the end of September. “I’ll proudly support the legislation, provided that nothing more than technical changes are made to its current form.”

    If the bill passes the Senate, it would also need to clear the House, which in September, passed its own version of legislation to make it harder to overturn a certified presidential election in the future by proposing changes to the Electoral Count Act.

    Passing a bill to to restrict lawmakers from trading stocks is a priority for a number of moderate House Democrats – who may continue to push for the issue to be taken up during the lame duck, though whether there will be a vote is still to be determined and other pressing must-pass items like government funding could crowd out the issue. The House did not vote on a proposal prior to the midterm elections.

    “It’s a complicated issue, as you can imagine, as a new rule for members they have to follow, and their families as I understand, so I think it deserves careful study to make sure if we do something, we do it right,” House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told CNN last month.

    Meanwhile, it’s not yet clear when exactly the nation will run up against the debt limit and it appears unlikely for now that Congress will act to resolve the issue during the lame-duck session, especially as other must-pass bills compete for floor time. But political battle lines are already being drawn and maneuvering is underway in Washington over the contentious and high-stakes issue.

    A group of House Democrats recently sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Schumer calling for legislation to “permanently undo the threat posed by the debt limit” during the post-election lame-duck session. The letter, led by Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle, was signed by several prominent House Democrats, including Caucus Chair Hakeem Jeffries of New York.

    Biden on Friday gave a window into how he’s preparing for a looming political showdown over the debt ceiling, stating unequivocally that he will not relent to Republican lawmakers threatening to send the nation into default if he doesn’t meet their demands, but adding that he doesn’t support efforts from within his own party to abolish the debt limit entirely.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The Inside Story of the GOP on January 6

    The Inside Story of the GOP on January 6

    [ad_1]

    Mitch McConnell froze when a Capitol Police officer rushed into the Senate chamber carrying a semiautomatic weapon. The majority leader had been so engrossed in the Electoral College debate happening before him that he hadn’t realized anything was amiss—until pandemonium erupted.

    Mere moments before, Mike Pence’s Secret Service detail had subtly entered the room and beckoned the vice president away from the dais where he was overseeing proceedings, a rarity for agents who usually loitered outside the doors. A hum spread through the chamber as staff shut down the debate, whispering to senators that “protesters are in the building.”

    “This is a security situation,” a security officer said into the microphone on the dais. “We’re asking that everyone remain in the chamber. It’s the safest place.”

    Suddenly, armed guards were racing to McConnell, hurriedly escorting him out of the room. With no access to a cellphone or television—neither was allowed in the Senate—McConnell had no idea what was happening, but he certainly had a guess. During a brief break in the January 6 Electoral College proceedings, he had caught a few televised snippets of Donald Trump’s speech at the Ellipse. The outgoing president, who had been spewing falsehoods that the election had been stolen from him, was spinning up his supporters, encouraging the thousands who had come to Washington to take their protest to the Capitol.

    Earlier that afternoon, McConnell had once again implored his GOP colleagues to stand down in objecting to the Electoral College. From a lectern in the Senate chamber, he noted that there was no proof of fraud on the level Trump was alleging. And he argued that “if this election were overturned by mere allegations from the losing side, our democracy would enter a death spiral.”

    Outside, unbeknownst to McConnell, at least 10,000 Trump supporters were besieging the Capitol. Agitators had broken through a series of flimsy bike racks marking the Capitol’s outer perimeter and begun scaling the sides of the Capitol building, chanting, “We want Trump! We want Trump!”

    Capitol Police tried to push them back with riot shields, dispensing tear gas into the crowd. But they were quickly overwhelmed by the swelling mob, which turned their flagpoles—bearing a mix of Confederate, American, Trump, and “Don’t Tread on Me” banners—into makeshift lances and spears.

    McConnell’s detail whisked him down to the Capitol basement and through the snakelike tunnels that weaved through the complex. As his staff updated him on the unraveling situation, officers hurried him away to an underground parking garage and shoved him in a car to get him off the property. As McConnell’s SUV pulled away from the Capitol grounds, his aides pulled up pictures and videos on their phones to show their boss the chaos outside.

    Read: America is running out of time

    McConnell was dumbfounded. For the first time in more than two centuries, the Capitol was under siege.

    In a small private room off the side of the Senate chamber, Pence was refusing to evacuate. Despite the rioters coursing through the hallways outside, when his Secret Service detail told him it was time, he said no. A few minutes later, Secret Service agents tried again. Once again, Pence refused. “The last thing I want is for these people to see a motorcade fleeing the scene,” he said. “That is not an image we want. I’m not leaving.”

    As Pence resisted his Capitol evacuation on January 6, Trump continued to taunt him on Twitter. “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify,” he wrote. “USA demands the truth!”

    Two minutes later, Pence’s Secret Service agents stopped giving him a say in the matter. Pointing to the glass panels on the chamber door, they told the vice president they could not protect him or his family there.

    “We need to go!” a Secret Service agent said.

    The officers managed to get Pence as far as the basement garage of the Capitol before the vice president began protesting his evacuation again. His security detail implored him to at least sit inside the armed limousine they had standing by. Again, Pence adamantly refused.

    Standing in the parking garage, Pence turned to his longtime chief of staff, Marc Short, to devise a plan. Trump, by design or by circumstance, wasn’t responding to the chaos unfolding above their heads inside the Capitol. Someone needed to act presidentially and end this madness.

    “Get Kevin McCarthy on the phone,” Pence instructed. Short pulled up his cell and pressed the call button.

    McCarthy, for his part, was on the phone with Trump. He screamed into the receiver at the president as his detail spirited him away from the Capitol, where protesters had overrun his office. Bombs had been discovered at the Republican and Democratic National Committees, the House minority leader told Trump. Someone had been shot.

    “You’ve got to tell these people to stop,” he said.

    Trump wasn’t interested. “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,” he replied blithely.

    When Trump told McCarthy that the rioters must “like Trump more than you do,” the GOP leader fumed. How many times had he bent over backwards to protect the president? How many times had he buried his head in the sand when he knew the president’s actions were wrong? Trump owed him—and all House Republicans—an intervention to stop the attack. Their lives were on the line.

    “Who the fuck do you think you’re talking to?” McCarthy yelled. Trump told McCarthy that antifa was behind the violence, not his own supporters. McCarthy was aghast.

    “They’re your people,” McCarthy said, noting that Trump supporters were at that very moment climbing through his office window. “Call them off!”

    As his car sped away from the Capitol, McCarthy tried to come up with a plan. He called the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, begging him to get to the White House and make Trump put an end to the violence. McCarthy began to think about trying to reach Trump via television. Maybe if he took to the networks, he could break through by calling the president out publicly.

    Before McCarthy could do anything, his phone rang. It was Pence. McCarthy told the vice president what Trump had just said to him.

    This is the story of Republican leaders’ rude awakening on January 6, as they realized that despite their past loyalty to Trump, their party leader would do nothing to save them. GOP leaders had spent four years defending Trump through an impeachment and an endless stream of scandals. But on the day they needed him most, the president did nothing to help even his loyal rank and file escape violence.

    Although Republicans have since rallied behind the former president, that day, the chasm between GOP leaders and Trump could not have been wider. From their lockdown off campus, in a series of previously unreported meetings, McConnell and other GOP leaders would turn to their Democratic counterparts for assistance in browbeating the Pentagon to move the National Guard to send armed troops to the Hill. Together, the bipartisan leaders of Congress, agreed in their conviction that Trump was stonewalling if not outright maneuvering against them, joined forces to do what the president would not: Save the Capitol.

    At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, Trump sat in a dining room abutting the Oval Office, watching television coverage of his devotees storming the Capitol. Multiple aides were rushing in and out, begging him to make a public statement calling for peace. “This is out of control,” Pence’s national security adviser, Keith Kellogg, told Trump, imploring him to send a white flag via Twitter. His daughter Ivanka also kept running in and out of the room, pleading with her father to call off the riot. “Let it go,” she pleaded with her dad, referring to the election.

    Even Trump’s son Donald Jr., who had urged Trump’s followers to “fight” at the rally that morning, had been alarmed by the chaotic scene at the Capitol. From the airport, before he departed town, he had tweeted, “This is wrong and not who we are. Be peaceful.” He also texted White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, imploring him to get his dad to stop the violence.

    “He’s got to condemn this shit ASAP,” he texted. “We need an Oval Office address. He has to lead now. It has gone too far and gotten out of hand.”

    Don Jr. wasn’t the only one appealing to Meadows. Fox News personalities such as Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity begged the White House chief of staff to get the president to call off the crowds. Down the hall, Meadows’s staff warned him that Trump’s supporters “are going to kill people.”

    Shortly after 2:30 p.m., Trump begrudgingly issued a tweet calling on his supporters to “please support our Capitol Police and Law Enforcement.” As far as Trump was concerned, the riot was Congress’s problem, he told his aides. It was their job to defend the Capitol, he said, not his. Perversely, the riot had actually buoyed Trump’s hopes that he might be able to strong-arm his way to overturning the election. When the chaos started to unfold, he began calling his GOP allies in Congress—not to check on their well-being, but to make sure they didn’t lose their nerve about objecting to the election results.

    Across the Capitol campus, in a large Senate conference room guarded by cops, tensions were reaching a boiling point. The typically even-keeled Mitt Romney was lambasting Josh Hawley, blaming him for triggering the riot by endorsing Trump’s outlandish election objections. Lindsey Graham, Trump’s closest ally in the chamber, flew into a fit of rage at the “yahoos” who had invaded the Hill and screamed at the Senate sergeant-at-arms, who was hiding in the safe room with them.

    “What the hell are you doing here? Go take back the Senate!” Graham barked at the chamber’s top security official. “You’ve got guns … Use them!”

    Graham only grew angrier upon hearing a rumor that started circulating among Trump allies in the room: that the president was refusing to send in troops to help secure the Capitol. From their lockdown, he tried to call Trump to get clarity. When the president didn’t answer, Graham phoned Ivanka, asking her whether her dad was intentionally keeping the National Guard from responding to the crisis. He couldn’t see any other reason it was taking so long for reinforcements to arrive.

    Ivanka assured Graham that this wasn’t the case, but Graham was still furious at Trump’s nonchalant response to hundreds of his followers laying waste to the Capitol. He pressed Ivanka to get her dad to do more. He then called Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, and threatened that Republicans would forcibly remove Trump from office using the Twenty-Fifth Amendment if the president continued to do nothing. Lisa Murkowski was equally shaken as she waited out the violence. The Alaska Republican had been in her private hideaway office in the Senate basement when the riot had begun. All of a sudden, she had heard someone stumbling into the bathroom next to her office and heaving into the toilet. Peeking outside, she saw a bathroom door open and a police officer washing his face in the sink.

    “Can I help you?” she asked, surprised. “Are you okay?”

    The officer had paused and looked up at her, his eyes red and swollen nearly shut from what appeared to be tear gas.

    “No, I’m okay,” he said almost frantically, racing out of the bathroom. “No, I’ve got to get out there. They need my help.”

    As she waited out the violence, hoping the marauders wouldn’t find her, Murkowski could still hear the police officer’s retching, playing like a track on repeat, over and over in her head.

    A couple of miles away, at a military installation along the Anacostia River, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were trying to figure out what was going on with the National Guard. The speaker and the minority leader had been evacuated to Fort McNair, along with the other most senior lawmakers in Congress from both parties. Since the moment they’d arrived, they had turned their holding room into a command center for their desperate operation to save the Capitol.

    Sitting around a large break room with a leather couch so worn that it was held together with red duct tape, Pelosi and Schumer tried to make sense of the unfolding situation. Pelosi had been ushered away so quickly that she’d left her cellphone on the House chamber dais. Schumer had his antiquated flip phone out and was calling his rank-and-file members and aides, asking for updates. Every few minutes, their Capitol security details hovering in the hall would race into the room with a bit of news. Lawmakers in both chambers had been led to secret holding rooms in the congressional office buildings, though there was no telling if the mob would follow and find them. There were reports that some of the rioters were armed. And a group of Pelosi’s aides had barricaded themselves in a conference room, hiding under a table as rioters yelled, “Where’s Nancy?” and tried to kick down the doors. One of Steny Hoyer’s top aides was calling him frantically, insisting that the leaders clear the Capitol.

    A large projection screen had been lowered and tuned to CNN. The leaders gaped as, for the first time, they took in the full scene outside the Capitol. It looked like a war zone—with Congress on the losing side. Outnumbered cops clashed with protesters. Rioters were breaking down doors and shattering windows. Police were getting sprayed with tear gas.

    “This is all Trump’s fault!” Hoyer cried out helplessly, to no one in particular. Pelosi agreed. The man who started all of this, she reminded them grimly, still had control of the nation’s nuclear codes.

    “I can’t believe this,” she said indignantly. “Have you ever seen anything like this?”

    Elsewhere in D.C., the head of the National Guard had put armed troops on buses as soon as the Capitol Police chief alerted him to the riot underway at the Capitol. But he had still not received required orders from the Pentagon to deploy them. Troops in Virginia and Maryland were ready to move, the Democratic leaders were hearing—yet they too had not received the green light.

    At 3:19 p.m., just over an hour after the Capitol was breached, the Democratic leaders connected via phone with top Pentagon brass and demanded answers. Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy insisted that his superior, Acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller, had already approved mobilization of armed National Guard units. But seven minutes later, the besieged House sergeant-at-arms told them the opposite: He was still hearing from D.C. Guard leaders that no such order had been given.

    Hoyer was getting a similar message from Larry Hogan, the governor of Maryland, who had 1,000 National Guard troops on standby, ready to move. In a frantic phone call, Hoyer tried to explain to Hogan that the Pentagon had given those troops permission to mobilize—the top Army brass had just told Schumer so. But Hogan protested.

    “Steny, I’m telling you, I don’t care what Chuck says,” the governor said. “I’ve been told by the Department of Defense that we don’t have authorization.”

    The Democratic leaders looked at one another, alarmed. What the hell was really going on? They asked each other the unthinkable: Could the problem be Trump? Was it possible that the president of the United States was telling the military to stand down—or worse, helping to orchestrate the attack?

    Down the hall, Kevin McCarthy was working other channels. Pacing the conference room where GOP leaders were sequestered at Fort McNair, he screamed at Dan Scavino, a top White House aide who often handled Trump’s Twitter account. The tweet Trump had put out around 2:30 p.m. calling for calm was not good enough, McCarthy insisted. They had to do more to stop the violence.

    “Trump has got to say: ‘This has to stop,’” McCarthy growled into the phone. “He’s the only one who can do it!”

    In the GOP room, McConnell; his No. 2, John Thune; House Minority Whip Steve Scalise; and other GOP lawmakers were also on the phones trying to figure out what was happening. It was clear that McCarthy’s appeals to Trump were falling flat. They would need to find a way to work around the president—the man they had collectively defended for four years—if they wanted to get the National Guard to the Capitol.

    The GOP leaders, however, could not figure out who was in charge. They kept returning to basic questions: Who had the authority to order in the troops? Was it the Army secretary? Was it the acting defense secretary? Did they need Trump’s approval?

    Since he had arrived at Fort McNair, McCarthy had ordered his aides to get him on as many television networks as possible. He kept darting in and out of the room to take their calls, hoping Trump would be watching one of the channels he was speaking on.

    “This is so un-American,” McCarthy said in a Fox News appearance at 3:05 p.m., attempting to shame Trump into acting. “I could not be sadder or more disappointed with the way our country looks at this very moment.”

    At one point between television hits, McCarthy announced to the room that he had finally won a concession from the White House: Trump, after much begging, had begrudgingly agreed to record a video calling for calm. The news, however, was not particularly reassuring to the Republicans in the room. The president was entirely unpredictable. Would such a video help—or make it worse? they asked each other. And what of the Guard?

    Off in the corner, Scalise was scrolling through Twitter on his iPad, looking at images of the  Capitol. One photo in particular made him stop short: a rioter rappelling down the wall of the Senate chamber and onto the rostrum where Mike Pence had been presiding. Scalise held his device out so McConnell could see.

    “Look, they’re in the Senate chamber,” he said.

    McConnell’s face paled.

    Since the evacuation, McConnell had been torn between feelings of disbelief and irrepressible anger toward Trump for fomenting the assault. The Capitol had been his home for decades. The members and the staff who worked there might as well have been his family. Yet the president had put them all in mortal danger. McConnell’s aides had been texting his chief of staff, who had accompanied him to Fort McNair, about the situation at the Capitol as it grew more precarious. Rioters were banging on their office doors, claiming to be Capitol Police officers to try to gain entry. Others were scaling the scaffolding outside their windows, trying to peer inside. In the hallway outside their barricaded doors, staffers could hear a woman praying loudly that “the evil of Congress be brought to an end.”

    McConnell knew that his aides had been coordinating with Schumer’s office from their lockdown, working their Rolodexes to summon help from the federal agencies. They had been calling and sending cellphone pictures of the chaos to anyone and everyone they knew at the Pentagon and Justice Department. They’d even roused former Attorney General Bill Barr and his chief of staff to use internal channels.

    “We are so overrun, we are locked in the leader’s suite,” McConnell’s counsel Andrew Ferguson had whispered to Barr’s former chief from his hiding place, keeping his voice down so as not to be heard by rioters. “We need help. If you don’t start sending men, people might die.”

    McConnell knew that appealing to Trump directly would be a waste of time. He hadn’t spoken with the president since December 15, the day McConnell publicly congratulated Joe Biden for winning the election. Trump had called him afterward in a rage, hurling insults and expletives. “The problem you have is the Electoral College is the final word,” McConnell had told him calmly. “It’s over.”

    McConnell didn’t bother calling Trump again. Even on the morning of January 6, he purposefully ignored a phone call from the president, believing he could no longer be reasoned with. So when the Capitol came under attack, McConnell focused on getting in touch with military leaders, leaving it to his chief of staff to communicate with Meadows to enlist the White House’s help to quell the riot—if they would help at all.

    An FBI SWAT team had arrived at the Capitol campus just as the leaders of Congress were being escorted into Fort McNair. But McConnell knew they would need more manpower to stop the rampage. It was why he called the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, to implore him to help dispatch the Guard. But as far as McConnell could tell, the Guard still wasn’t moving.

    As the duty officers at Fort McNair tried in vain to hook up a television so the Republicans could watch the latest scenes of destruction at the Capitol, McConnell huddled with his staff around a telephone, trying to reach the Pentagon. “I have the majority leader on the line,” McConnell’s aide announced, trying to connect her boss with Acting Defense Secretary Miller. They were promptly put on hold, infuriating GOP lawmakers in the room who couldn’t understand why the Pentagon was dodging their inquiries.

    Around 3:40 p.m., an hour and a half after the breach occurred, McConnell’s patience gave out. He stormed out of the room and crossed the hall to find Pelosi, Schumer, and Hoyer. “What are you hearing?” McConnell asked his Democratic counterparts as the other GOP leaders followed him into the room. “Do you know what the holdup is with the Guard?”

    They didn’t know any more than he did. At a loss, Pelosi and Schumer had just signed off on a joint statement demanding that Trump call for an end to the violence. Everyone knew it was little more than a gesture. It was time to bring the combined weight of all four congressional leaders to bear on the administration.

    “Get Miller on the phone,” someone barked.

    As aides worked to set up the call, the Republicans who had just entered the room stared at the CNN footage on the projector screen. It was the first time they’d witnessed the enormity of the scenes at the Capitol on anything larger than their phone or tablet screens. The footage rolling in was shocking: Rioters, having ransacked the building, were now taking selfies and cheering. They were stealing historic artifacts as keepsakes; one even carried away the speaker’s lectern, waving with glee at the camera. On one end of the Capitol, protesters were storming the Senate chamber and rummaging through senators’ desks. On the other, insurrectionists were doing the same in Pelosi’s office.

    “That’s my desk!” one Pelosi aide blurted out when an image of a man sitting in her chair with his feet propped up by her computer flashed on the screen. “They’re going through my desk!”

    Hoyer, still furious, started lecturing Scalise that the riot was the GOP’s fault for enabling Trump.

    “This isn’t the time for that,” Scalise retorted. “Right now, we need to get the chamber back, secured and open.”

    McConnell, Schumer, and the other lawmakers, meanwhile, stood by awaiting the call. Amid the chaos of the afternoon, two special elections in Georgia had been officially called for the Democratic candidates. That meant Schumer’s party would be taking control of all of Washington—and he would soon be taking McConnell’s job. McConnell had already congratulated Schumer on his forthcoming promotion.

    A few minutes later, huddled around a cellphone, the leaders jointly excoriated Miller for his snail-like response to what had all the markings of a coup at the Capitol. It was perhaps the first time since Trump took office that the congressional leaders had presented such a united front. Why hadn’t troops been sent in already? they demanded to know. Where was the National Guard?

    “Tell POTUS to tweet, ‘Everyone should leave,’” Schumer insisted, yelling into the device over speakerphone.

    “Get help in ASAP,” McConnell said firmly. “We want the Capitol back.”

    Miller stammered that Pentagon leaders needed to formulate a “plan” before they moved troops.

    “Look, we’re trying,” Miller said. “We’re looking at how to do this.”

    His vague answer did not suffice. There was no time to waste, the leaders insisted, as they pressed him to say how soon armed troops would arrive. After demurring several times, Miller finally gave them a partial answer: It could take four hours to get the National Guard to the Capitol, and up until midnight until the building could be cleared.

    At that, Schumer lost it.

    “If the Pentagon were under attack, it wouldn’t take you four hours to formulate a plan!” he roared. “We need help now!”

    Scalise pressed Miller to tell them how many troops they could expect to arrive. When again the secretary declined to answer, Pelosi exploded.

    “Mr. Secretary, Steve Scalise just asked you a question, and you’re not answering it,” she said. “What’s the answer to that question?”

    But Miller simply dodged again, murmuring that they were trying their best.

    That the most powerful nation in the world didn’t have a plan in place to protect its own Capitol from attack was unthinkable to the leaders. And the fact that Miller was refusing to give clear answers appalled them. There was only one other person in Washington who might have more sway than they did. Hanging up on Miller, they reached out to their last hope: It was time to call Pence.

    In the parking garage in the basement of the Capitol, Pence listened as the congressional leaders beseeched him to help dispatch troops to the Capitol. As vice president, he had no authority to assume Trump’s powers as commander in chief and give orders to the secretary of defense. But he couldn’t understand why the Guard wasn’t already on its way. Something had to be done.

    “I’m going to get off this call and call them, then call you right back,” Pence told the lawmakers, hanging up to dial Miller and Milley.

    Next to him, Pence’s brother, Greg, and his chief of staff, Marc Short, were still seething at how cavalierly Trump had abandoned them. They had read the president’s most recent Twitter attack against Pence on their phones in the Senate basement, fuming that in the heat of the riot, the president had chosen to stir up more vitriol about the vice president instead of calling to check on him. Trump’s conspiratorial advisers were also emailing Pence’s team, telling them that the riot was their fault for not helping overturn the election. It was outrageous.

    The vice president, however, didn’t have time to dwell on the slights. When they’d first arrived in the garage, he had phoned McCarthy and McConnell, then Schumer and Pelosi, to make sure they all were safe. He didn’t bother dialing Trump. Short, however, angrily called Meadows to tell the White House that they were okay. And in case he or anyone else was wondering, Short added, “we are all planning to go back to the Capitol to certify the election tonight.”

    Meadows didn’t object. “That’s probably best,” he replied.

    At the White House, aides were gradually giving up hope that the president would do anything useful to restore order at the Capitol, though by mid-afternoon, the pressure on Trump to act was relentless. Republican lawmakers; longtime Trump allies, including Barr and former Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney; and conservative influencers such as Ann Coulter reamed him publicly. Even former President George W. Bush had issued a reprimand. Trump ignored all of them.

    As they worked the phones, Pence’s staff heard that a high-level meeting had been convened at the White House to discuss the chain of command and how to get the National Guard moving. The fact that the administration could not figure out who was in charge as the Capitol was overrun was beyond alarming—though, in the estimation of Pence and his team, Trump at any point could have picked up the phone and forced the Pentagon to move faster. That he hadn’t, they all agreed, spoke volumes. And because of that—and the Hill leaders’ desperation—Pence knew it was time for him to step up.

    At 4:08 p.m., Pence called the acting defense secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Mustering his most commanding tone, he gave an order that was technically not his to issue.

    “Clear the Capitol,” he said. “Get troops here. Get them here now.”

    Back in lockdown at Fort McNair, McConnell was issuing orders of his own.

    “We are going back tonight,” he insisted to Pence and Pentagon officials on a 4:45 p.m. phone call with Hill leaders. “The thugs won’t win.”

    The vice president’s order to the military seemed to have finally snapped things into place. Pence had let congressional leaders know that armed Guard troops were on the way. It would take another half hour for them to arrive.

    McConnell had always delighted in good political combat. But when the votes were in, he believed in accepting outcomes with dignity. There was no dignity in what had happened that day—only embarrassment for the Republican Party. And McConnell was just that: embarrassed. Trump didn’t even have the decency to be sorry. That afternoon, as congressional leaders joined forces across party lines to get reinforcements to the Capitol, the president had been egging on his supporters.

    “These are the things and events that happen when a sacred land-slide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long,” Trump wrote on Twitter. “Remember this day forever!”

    Even in the video he released calling for “peace,” Trump praised his followers for revolting against a “fraudulent election,” calling them “very special” and adding, “We love you.”

    It was too much for McConnell to stomach. After the senator had spent four years trying to accommodate the president’s demands, Trump had threatened his Capitol, and McConnell was finally done with him. Congress had to certify Biden as the next president, and they had to do it that night, in prime time, he insisted. The whole country had to know that Trump had lost, and that his gambit to cling to power had failed.

    There was one major impediment to McConnell’s plan. Capitol Police were saying the building would not be secure enough to welcome lawmakers back that night. They had to sweep the chamber for bombs and ensure that no straggling rioters were hiding in a bathroom—and there was no way to do that quickly. Defense officials had even suggested busing lawmakers to Fort McNair to certify the election that night from the military base.

    To McConnell, waiting until morning was entirely out of the question. He knew that the vice president and other leaders had his back. They were just as adamant as he was that Trump’s flunkies would not push Congress out of its own Capitol. Pence had even offered the Capitol Police his own K-9 unit to help sweep the building faster.

    Given the sensitivity of the discussion, the congressional leaders had gathered in a smaller space down the hall, away from the probing eyes and ears of aides and other lawmakers who had joined them at Fort McNair. Within minutes, Pelosi had lit into the military brass, accusing them of ignoring the blaring warning signs of coming violence in the days before the attack.

    “Were you without knowledge of the susceptibility of our national security here?” Pelosi demanded of Miller, her patience dwindling.

    “We assessed it would be a rough day,” Miller said. “No idea it would be like this.”

    For a brief, resolute moment on January 6, the GOP’s leaders were prepared to do whatever they needed to do to bring Trump to heel. Pence acted that day to restore peace. Party affiliation made no difference to Republican leaders as they worked with Pelosi and Schumer to save their rank and file.

    But these flashes of defiance were fleeting. Mere days later, when Democrats moved to impeach Trump for inciting the riot, Republicans balked. Both McCarthy and McConnell voted against impeachment, and Pence, whose aides had steamed about Trump while in hiding, barred his staff from testifying at Trump’s second trial. In the months since, GOP leaders have done their utmost to bury the truth of what happened that day—leaving Republican voters with the distinct impression that Trump and his followers did nothing wrong. Meanwhile, as the country contends with the protracted consequences of their whiplash, Trump is plotting a return to the White House.


    This article has been adapted from Rachael Bade and Karoun Dimirijan’s new book, Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump.

    [ad_2]

    Rachael Bade

    Source link

  • Feinstein’s return prompts renewed scrutiny over her fitness for office | CNN Politics

    Feinstein’s return prompts renewed scrutiny over her fitness for office | CNN Politics

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Just a week after her return to the United States Senate after a roughly three month absence, questions continue to swirl around Sen. Dianne Feinstein and her mental capacity to serve in the world’s greatest deliberative body.

    The 89-year-old Democrat had been recovering from shingles at home in California, and had been absent from the Hill since February.

    Her long-awaited return on May 10 not only meant that the Senate Democratic Caucus would be at full attendance – since both Feinstein and Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman had been absent for much of the spring – but that the one-seat margin Democrats held on the powerful Judiciary Committee would be reconstituted to help advance President Joe Biden’s judicial nominations.

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer greeted the frail Feinstein personally upon her return, when she was wheeled into the Capitol for a vote accompanied by staff on and off the floor. Schumer said Feinstein was “exactly where she wants to be, ready to do the things she loves the most – serving the people of California.” First elected to the Senate in 1992, she is the longest-serving woman senator in US history.

    But questions quickly sprang up on whether Feinstein, though present, would really be able to resume her demanding job. In a statement released by her office last week, Feinstein said that she is still “experiencing some side effects” from shingles and her doctors have advised her to “work a lighter schedule” as she returned to the Senate. During her arrival at the Capitol for votes, she appeared confused and was heard asking staff, “Where am I going?”

    And in an interaction with reporters Tuesday, as reported by the Los Angeles Times and Slate, Feinstein appeared confused by questions about her absence, saying, “I haven’t been gone. I’ve been here, I’ve been voting. Please, either know or don’t know.” It is not clear if Feinstein was referring to just the past week since her return or referring to the past several months while she was recovering at home.

    Feinstein’s office was asked for comment but indicated the senator did not have one at this time.

    Fellow Democrats remain unwilling to discuss Feinstein’s ability to serve, saying only they are glad to have a colleague back in the chamber.

    “I’m happy she’s returned, and that’s all I’m going to say about it,” Hawaii Sen. Mazie Hirono told CNN.

    Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, who replaced Feinstein as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “We certainly hope” that Feinstein will be able to serve the remainder of her term in the chamber, but demurred when asked if he is confident that she can serve.

    “I can’t be the judge of that. But I will tell you that she has to make that decision for herself and her family as to going forward, but we’re happy to have her back,” he said. “We’re monitoring her medical condition almost on a daily basis. Our staff is in touch with her staff.”

    The top Republican on the panel, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, said of Feinstein, “She’s a dear friend. As a friend, you can see she’s hurting.”

    Other Republicans echoed that sentiment, wishing Feinstein well, but reluctant to weigh in on her mental acuity.

    “I have a lot of respect for Dianne Feinstein. She’s been great to work with. She’s a great committee member,” North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis told CNN’s Manu Raju, but said that “I haven’t had the chance to speak with her, so I couldn’t really comment on it.”

    “If you just take a look at anybody that spent ten months with a chronic case of shingles, that has a huge impact, I don’t care how old you are, but again I just haven’t spoken with her,” he said.

    Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn said that he is “not qualified to render a diagnosis,” but criticized some Democrats for calling on her to resign.

    “That seems a little harsh to me. I think that decision ought to be made by Senator Feinstein,” he said.

    Questions about a Senator’s health, and whispers about their fitness to serve, are not new. In the past decades, the median age of the Senate has ticked increasingly upward, with the 118th Congress median age at 65.3 years, according to the Pew Research Center.

    The current Senate has multiple members in their eighties, including Feinstein, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley. Another 41 Senators are at least sixty-seven years old, the official retirement age in the United States.

    In recent years, there have been prolonged absences by members of the Senate, notably Arizona Sen. John McCain, who battled brain cancer and was absent from the Senate almost eight months, but never faced calls from his colleagues to resign his seat.

    The late Mississippi Sen. Thad Cochran was also out for several weeks with lingering health issues in the fall of 2017, and faced questions about his metal fitness, appearing frail and pale when he returned. The then-chairman of the influential Senate Appropriations Committee, told reporters that he was fit to serve, and said at the time that he planned to run again in 2020, saying “it’s up to the people to decide. I think I am.”

    But the 79-year old Republican needed to be guided by staffers to a “Senators Only” elevator to find his way to the Senate floor. Cochran resigned from the Senate the following March.

    “I regret my health has become an ongoing challenge,” Cochran said in a statement announcing the end of a four-decade long career in the Senate. “I intend to fulfill my responsibilities and commitments to the people of Mississippi and the Senate through the completion of the 2018 appropriations cycle, after which I will formally retire from the U.S. Senate.”

    It is unclear if Feinstein will be given the same gentle off ramp afforded to her colleagues.

    On November 2020, Feinstein relented to pressure from other Democrats to give up the chair of the Judiciary Committee. In November 2022, under similar pressure, she announced that she would not want to serve as the Senate Pro Tempore, a high-ranking constitutional position granted to the longest-serving member of the Senate majority. Feinstein also announced the following February that she would not run for re-election in 2024. Her February 16, 2023 votes on the Senate floor would prove to be her last ones for months.

    Criticisms for Feinstein’s long absence started in earnest in April when fellow California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna tweeted, “it’s time for @SenFeinstein to resign. We need to put the country ahead of personal loyalty.” Feinstein’s office pushed back on the criticism, arguing that there had not been a significant delay in advancing and confirming judicial nominees.

    After Fetterman and McConnell – who was injured in a fall and spent nearly two weeks in a rehabilitation facility – returned to the Senate, but Feinstein did not, it prompted more questions about the impasse created by her absence and Feinstein asked Schumer to temporarily replace her on the Judiciary Committee. Schumer proposed that Maryland Sen. Ben Cardin take her spot, but Senate Republicans blocked the effort, saying the move would allow judicial nominees they opposed to advance.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The US Senate is working to get up to speed on AI basics ahead of any legislation | CNN Business

    The US Senate is working to get up to speed on AI basics ahead of any legislation | CNN Business

    [ad_1]


    Washington
    CNN
     — 

    The US Senate is inching forward on a plan to regulate artificial intelligence, after months of seeing how ChatGPT and similar tools stand to supercharge — or disrupt— wide swaths of society.

    But despite outlining broad contours of the plan, senators are still likely months away from introducing a comprehensive bill setting guardrails for the industry, let alone passing legislation and getting it signed into law. The deliberate pace of progress contrasts with the blistering speed with which companies and organizations have embraced generative AI, and the flood of investment into the industry.

    The Senate’s plan calls for briefing lawmakers on the basic facts of artificial intelligence over the summer, before beginning to consider legislation in the following months, even as some senators have begun to pitch proposals.

    The efforts reflect how, despite urgent calls by civil society groups and industry for guardrails on the technology, many lawmakers are still getting up to speed.

    To help educate members, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer on Tuesday announced a series of three senators-only information sessions to take place in the coming weeks.

    The closed-door briefings will cover topics ranging from AI’s current capabilities and competition in AI development to how US national security and defense agencies are already putting the technology to use. The latter session, Schumer said, will be the first-ever classified senators’ briefing on AI.

    “The Senate must deepen our expertise in this pressing topic,” Schumer wrote in a letter to colleagues announcing the briefings. “AI is already changing our world, and experts have repeatedly told us that it will have a profound impact on everything from our national security to our classrooms to our workforce, including potentially significant job displacement.”

    Schumer had earlier kicked off a high-level push for AI legislation in April, when he proposed shaping any eventual bill around four principles promoting transparency and democratic values.

    The information sessions are expected to wrap up by the time Congress breaks for August recess, according to South Dakota Republican Sen. Mike Rounds, one of three other senators Schumer has tapped to lead on a comprehensive AI bill.

    By that point, Rounds told reporters Wednesday on the sidelines of a Washington conference, there may be “lots of different ideas floating” but not necessarily a bill to speak of.

    Schumer, Rounds and the other leading lawmakers on the AI working group — New Mexico Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich and Indiana Republican Sen. Todd Young — haven’t settled on how to coordinate various legislative proposals yet.

    Options include forming a select committee to craft a comprehensive AI bill, or “splitting out and having lots of different committees come up with different pieces of legislation,” Rounds said.

    The AI hype has produced high-profile hearings and scattershot policy proposals. Last month, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee, wowing lawmakers by asking for regulation and by giving a technical demonstration to enthralled members of the House the evening before.

    Sen. Michael Bennet has introduced legislation to create a new federal agency with authority to regulate AI, for example. And on Wednesday, Sen. Josh Hawley unveiled his own framework for AI legislation that called for letting Americans sue companies for harms created by AI models.

    Rounds told reporters Schumer has not set a timeframe for coming up with AI legislation, adding that the current goal is to allow ideas to “melt for a while.”

    But he predicted that with AI’s expected impact on many agencies and industries, it would be impossible not to foresee a wide-ranging and open legislative process reflecting input from many sources, akin to how the Senate crafts the annual spending package known as the National Defense Authorization Act.

    “You bring in all of these ideas, and then you very quietly start to meld this bill together, kind of behind the scenes in a way,” he said. “You go through a committee process in which you deliver a bill that says this could pass, and then you allow other members to come in and offer their amendments to it as well. That has worked well year-in and year-out for the NDAA.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Schumer outlines plan for how Senate will regulate AI | CNN Business

    Schumer outlines plan for how Senate will regulate AI | CNN Business

    [ad_1]



    CNN
     — 

    Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer announced a broad, open-ended plan for regulating artificial intelligence on Wednesday, describing AI as an unprecedented challenge for Congress that effectively has policymakers “starting from scratch.”

    The plan, Schumer said at a speech in Washington, will begin with at least nine panels to identify and discuss the hardest questions that regulations on AI will have to answer, including how to protect workers, national security and copyright and to defend against “doomsday scenarios.” The panels will be composed of experts from industry, academia and civil society, with the first sessions taking place in September, Schumer said.

    The Senate will then turn to committee chairs and other vocal lawmakers on AI legislation to develop bills reflecting the panel discussions, Schumer added, arguing that the resulting US solution could leapfrog existing regulatory proposals from around the world.

    “If we can put this together in a very serious way, I think the rest of the world will follow and we can set the direction of how we ought to go in AI, because I don’t think any of the existing proposals have captured that imagination,” Schumer said, reflecting on other recent proposals such as the European Union’s draft AI Act, which last week was approved by the European Parliament.

    The speech represents Schumer’s most definitive remarks to date on a problem that has dogged Congress for months amid the wide embrace of tools such as ChatGPT: How to catch up, or get ahead, on policymaking for a technology that is already in the hands of millions of people and evolving rapidly.

    In the wake of ChatGPT’s viral success, Silicon Valley has raced to develop and deploy a new crop of generative AI tools that can produce images and writing almost instantly, with the potential to change how people work, shop and interact with each other. But these same tools have also raised concerns for their potential to make factual errors, spread misinformation and perpetuate biases, among other issues.

    In contrast to the fast pace of AI advancements, Schumer has stressed the importance of a deliberate approach, focusing on getting lawmakers acquainted with the basic facts of the technology and the issues it raises before seeking to legislate. He and three other colleagues began last week by convening the first in a series of closed-door briefings on AI for senators that is expected to run through the summer.

    In his remarks Wednesday, Schumer appeared to acknowledge criticism of his pace.

    “I know many of you have spent months calling on us to act,” he said. “I hear you. I hear you loud and clear.”

    But he described AI as a novel issue for which Congress lacks a guide.

    “It’s not like labor, or healthcare, or defense, where Congress has had a long history we can work off of,” he said. “Experts aren’t even sure which questions policymakers should be asking. In many ways, we’re starting from scratch.”

    Schumer described his plan as laying “a foundation for AI policy” that will do “years of work in a matter of months.”

    To guide that process, Schumer expanded on a set of principles he first announced in April. Formally unveiling the framework on Wednesday, Schumer said any legislation on AI should be geared toward facilitating innovation before addressing risks to national security or democratic governance.

    “Innovation first,” Schumer said, “but with security, accountability, [democratic] foundations and explainability.”

    The last two pillars of his framework, Schumer said, may be among the most important, as unrestricted artificial intelligence could undermine electoral processes or make it impossible to critically evaluate an AI’s claims.

    Schumer’s remarks were restrained in calling for any specific proposals. At one point, he acknowledged that a consensus may even emerge that recommends against major government intervention on the technology.

    But he was clear on one point: “We do — we do — need to require companies to develop a system where in simple and understandable terms users understand why the system produced a particular answer, and where that answer came from.”

    The Senate may still be a long way off from unveiling any comprehensive proposal, however. Schumer predicted that the process is likely to take longer than weeks but shorter than years.

    “Months would be the proper timeline,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link